A REPLY TO THE CATHOLICK GENTLEMANS ANSWER TO The most materiall parts of the Booke of SCHISME Whereto is annexed An Account of H. T. his Appendix to his Manual of Controversies concerning the Abbot of Bangors Answer to Augustine By H. HAMMOND D. D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1654. A REPLY TO The Catholick Gentlemans Answer to the Book of SCHISME The Introduction Nū 1 THe Letter from the Catholick Gentleman which undertakes to have answered the most materiall parts of the Book of Schisme is said to expect some account from me And I shall give it if not quite with the same brevity yet directly in the same method which he hath chosen attending him as he shall please to lead not by resuming the whole matter againe but by reflecting on those few passages which he hath thought good to take notice of and freeing them from all though the lightest exceptions which he hath made to them Num. 2 Upon this account I shall say very little to his Prooem in these words SIR You have been pleased to send me Doctor Hammonds Booke of Schisme or a Defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists as also your Letters wherein you lay commands on me to read it and thereupon to give you my opinion truly Sir both the one and the other could never have come to me in better season for having heard from some of my friends in England a good while since of another Book written by Doctor Ferne to the same purpose as also one lately come out of the Bishop of Derries and of this which you have sent me I was wondring what those who call themselves of the Church of England could say to defend themselves from Schisme but now through your favour of letting me see this of Doctor Hammonds I am freed from my bondage and satisfied in supposition that the most can adde little to what hath been upon that subject of Schisme said by him whom you stile Wise and Learned and well may he be so but here he hath failed as all men must that take in hand to defend a bad cause which I thinke to make appeare to you or any indifferent judge and which I will doe rather upon some observations of severall passages in his book than consideration of the whole which I will leave for some other who hath more leisure In the meane time I must say with the Poet speaking of some Lawyers in his time Fur es ait Pedio Pedius quid Crimina raris Librat in Antithetis The Roman Catholick sayes to Doctor Hammond You are an Heretick you are a Schismatick and Doctor Hammond replies good English some Criticismes much Greek with many citations out of antiquity indifferent to both parts of the question Num. 3 I shall not here need solemnly to aveit the good words bestowed on me because 1. if they had been meant in earnest they have yet no influence on the matter in hand As unlearned a Man as I and as learned as he which is by some characters thought to be the Author of this Answer may agree in this common fate that as one is not able to defend a bad cause so the other hath not in any eminent manner betrayed a good 2. because 't is evident that it was designe and artifice to bestow the good words on me that so he might get himselfe the easier taske And therefore the onely thing that is here necessary for me to tell the Reader by way of Prooeme is that since the publishing this tract of Schisme that most excellent discourse on the same subject written by the Bishop of Derry hath truly made that former care of mine very unnecessary and so should in all reason have been undertaken and answered by this Catholick Gentleman if he had really designed to satisfie conscience in this question And should it be believed by him what here he saith in the Title page that he hath answered the most materiall parts of Doctor Hammonds Book of Schisme yet I can assure him he is so much mistaken in his supposall that there can little be added by any to what hath been said by him that he is in all justice to undeceive the Reader and make him amends by giving him not a slight but punctuall answer to every part of that Bishops Booke before he thinke he may safely charge the Church of England with Schisme as still he adventures to doe Num. 4 Having said this I shall make no kinde of Reply to the rest of his Prooeme but proceed immediately to his first and onely exception wherein the first Chapter is concerned CHAP. I Of the cause of Schisme being left out of this debate Sect. I. No cause able to justifie Schisme Every voluntary Division a Schisme whatsoever the motive were Master Knot 's Testimony Num. 1 HIs words are these But to draw neere your satisfaction His first Chapter is for the body of it common to both parts yet I cannot omit one strange piece of Logick at the end of the first Chapter Sect. 9. where he concludeth that the occasion or motive of Schisme is not to be considered but onely the fact of Schisme Of which position I can see no connexion to any praemises going before and it selfe is a pure contradiction for not a Division but a causlesse division is a Schisme and how a Division can be shewed to be unreasonable and causelesse without examining the occasions and motives I doe not understand nor with his favour I thinke he himselfe Num. 2 What want of Logick there is in that conclusion of the first Chapter which extorted this animadversion from the Romanist and what store of that faculty somewhat necessary to the managing of a controversie we are to expect from him will soon be discernible by the view of that place which is accused by him where having praemised the criminousnesse and weight of Schisme and unexcusablenesse of all that upon what provocation soever breake the unity of the Church I conclude that he that shall really be guilty of it and the fact wherein that guilt consists proved against him will no way be able to defend himselfe by pleading the cause or motive to his Schisme there being no such cause imaginable which can justifie this fact of his as both out of Irenaeus and Saint Augustine had been newly vouched Upon which my resolution there was as to me seemed but necessary to divolve the Whole debate into this one quaere whether we of the Church of England were de facto guilty of this crime were Schismaticks or no concluding that if we were there were nothing to be said in excuse of us Num. 3 From this view of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rational importance of that Section 1. It is evident what the Romanist professeth not to be able to see what is the connexion of my position to the praemises foregoing viz. this no cause can excuse the
insuing sections Yet against them altogether he casts one stone before he will part in those words Num. 2 Vpon this wisely laid ground he would perswade us followed the division of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome but bringing not one word of Antiquity proving this to have been the cause yet is he so certain of it that he will finde a colonie of Iewes even in England for fear S. Peter should have touched a Gentile and yet he cites S. Prosper that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome Num. 3 What force there is in any part of this suggestion I shall not here need to set down at large There be three branches of it 1. That I bring not a word of antiquity to prove what I say that this the cause of the divisions of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome 2. That I will finde a Colonie of Iewes in England 3. That I cite Prosper that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome Num. 4 For the first I desire the Reader to review what is already said in the Tract of Schism c. 4. from § 8. to § 20. and I shall much wonder if he return of this Gentleman's minde that there is not one word there brought out of Antiquity to confirm what I say The short is It is there manifested from Antiquity that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul that there were two Churches there one of Iewish the other of Gentile Christians that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops Euodius and Ignatius by which means some appearing difficulties in antient writers are explained Num. 5 To what is there said I shall instead of repeating adde thus much more Of Suidas's words will be easily turned to in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the reign of Claudius Caesar Peter the Apostle ordained Euodius Bishop at Antioch Of Ignatius the Author of the Constitutions is expresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius was ordained Bishop there by S. Paul Now seeing in those Acts of Ignatius which are put together by Simeon Metaphrastes Ignatius is said to succeed Euodius as Euodius succeeded Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Anonymus antient writer of the Acts of Ignatius which remains unprinted hath the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius succeeded Euodius and seeing this ordination of Ignatius is also said by Theodores and by Felix III. Bishop of Rome to have been done by the hand of Saint Peter This seeming difference is removed by Ioannes Malela Antiochenus who thus sets down the whole matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the great Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happened to die and Ignatius who was as was said first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there received the Bishoprick that I suppose must now be of the Iewish Province also over which Euodius had been in his life time S. Peter ordaining and enthroning him And so that is become most clear which S. Chrysostome said of this Ignatius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the hands of the blessed Apostles in the plural first of Paul then of Peter had been laid on Ignatius Num. 6 The other part which concerned Rome * was so cleared by the words of Epiphanius who saith of Peter and Paul both that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles and Bishops at Rome and so many other evidences produced to the same purpose from the inscription on their tombs by Gaius contemporary to Pope Zephyrinus by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth by Prosper by the seals of the Popes and so again by the Ecclesiastick story that makes Clemens S. Peters Deacon and successor in the Bishoprick and Paul's that sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter Num. 7 Whilst in the mean other Churches are * instanced in particularly the Churches of Asia wherein S. Paul and S. Iohn had all the command and S. Peter had nothing to doe whether in planting or governing them which alone is sufficient to carry the whole matter against S. Peter's universal Pastorship and no word is by this Gentleman replied to that so considerable a part of my probation Onely instead of it a farre more compendious way that of the scornfull or fastidious scossing at my wisely laid ground as he pleaseth to call it and adding that I bring not one word of Antiquity c. Num. 8 As to the second branch of his suggestion that I will finde a colonie of Iewes in England that is no where said by me Onely thus that upon supposition if the saying of Simeon Metaphrastes speaking of S. Peter's preaching and ordaining Bishops in England Neronis 12 should be thought to have truth in it it must be extended no farther than the Iewes which might at that time be dispersed there Num. 9 Where as my conclusion from that supposition is founded in the analogie that as where S. Paul and S. Peter met in any plantation they divided their Province c. so in reason it ought to be where S. Peter and Simon Zelotes or Ioseph of Arimathea met in like manner so all that of the Iewes in England I there affirm is onely this that it was possible they that were dispersed in so many regions might be some of them dispersed in Britannie which how improbable soever it may appear at that time is sure as probable as that S. Peter preached and ordained Bishops in Britannie and in consequence to that onely it was that I made the supposition of the possibility of it knowing it the affirmation of our Antiquaries that Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes 't is possible also that Simeon Metaphrastes might mistake Simon Peter for him and then that matter is at an end planted the faith in this Island Num. 10 As for his last suggestion that I cite Saint Prosper that both S Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome I desire the truth of it may be considered by the words which I cite from him In ipsa Hierusalem Iacobus Ioannes apud Ephesum Andreas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Roma Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unamque posteris tradentes ex dominicâ pactione sacrârunt James at Jerusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest through all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the Nations What Nations were these sure of Jewes as well as Gentiles else Jerusalem could not be any part of them no nor John's converts at Ephesus for they were Iewes and therefore this Gentleman did not doe well to substitute the word Gentiles for Nations and yet could not without doing so have made this exception to my words Num. 11 And so much for exceptions to my first evidence against the Vniversal Pastorship of Saint
called Patriarchs was no injury to the Patriarch of Antioch saith Theod Balsamon himself Patriarch of Antioch in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the identity of the honour And accordingly in the Councels the Archbishop of Constantinople under that title is placed before the Patriarch of Antioch yea and of Alexandria who yet by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine and holy writings i. e. the Canons by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions of the Fathers was styled Pope saith Balsamon And therefore for Justiniana also this was sufficient It was made a Primacy and then it matters not though it were not styled a Patriarchy The exemption from Rome and all other forreign power is all I pretend this city had and of that there can be no question whatsoever title belonged to it Num. 11 Thirdly this Gentleman's saying that the Bishop of Constantinople had the title of Patriarch in his own city would make one believe that he had it not elsewhere which yet it is notorious that he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he and the Archbishop of Jerusalem were publickly called Patriarchs saith Balsamon and he renders the reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the five Patriarchs of which number they were two held the place of the head of the body to wit of the holy Churches of God But whatsoever the title were it is still sure enough it had the power and dignity of a Patriarchate first by custome then by Canons of two General Councels Constantinople and Chalcedon for I suppose the setting it next and equal to Rome and before Antioch and Alexandria will amount to this also by that very Novell of Justinian where the privileges are conferred on Justiniana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Archbishop of new Rome Constantinople hath the next place after the Apostolical See of old Rome and the precedence of honour before all others And so much for the Exceptions to the fift Chapter CHAP. VI. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the sixt Chapter Sect. I. The plea for the Popes power from the conversion of England Of acquiring of right by two titles Num. 1 THE plea from plantation which was considered in the sixt Chapter he now proceeds to in these words Num. 2 In his sixt Chapter he examineth another title peculiar to England viz that our Nation was converted by mission from Rome and this is totally beside the question for no man is so stupid as to pretend S. Peter or the Church of Rome to have power over the Vniversal Church because his successors converted England But some pretend a special title of gratitude the violation of which aggravateth the sin of schismatizing from the Church of Rome in our nation yet no man as farre as I can understand thinks this latter obligation of so high a nature as that for no occasion or never so great cause it may not be dispensed with but onely presse it then when the benefit is slighted or by colourable arguments to the contrary unworthily avoided And yet this Doctor quite mistaking the Question frameth an argument as full of words as empty of matter affirming there cannot be two successive titles to possession of the same thing telling us that he who claimeth a reward as of his own labour and travel must disclaim a donation c. if any passed before and that if a King have right by descent he cannot claim any thing by conquest by which you may see his understanding the Law is not much more than his understanding of our principles Num. 3 What this Gentleman here premiseth that this plea from the Conversion of this nation by mission from Rome is not used by the Romanist to prove us schismaticks I have no reason to confute but shall from thence suppose that that sixt Chapter might have been spared out of that little Treatise and our Church competently justified by the precedent Chapters And then all that I shall need added is First that I hope what was by me added superfluously above the necessities of our cause will not destroy what was before said pertinently and then as I shall onely have lost my pains and there is no farther hurt done so it must needs be very unnecessary for this Gentleman to adapt any farther answers to that sixt Chapter when he hath once adjudged all that is there said to be totally beside the Question Num. 4 Secondly That if others had been as prudent as this Gentleman I had certainly spared that Chapter It being no interest of mine to invent pleas for the Romanist and although as this Gentleman hath pleased to set it it be a competent stupidity and that which I never thought any Romanist guilty of to make the conversion of England a plea to power over the Vniversal Church yet England and not the Vniversal Church being the subject of our Question there is not quite so much stupidity in it to plead the Popes power over England from the supposed Conversion of England And certainly I did not dream that some Romanists have thus pleaded but as I said before if this Gentleman will not insist on it neither shall I farther importune him about it Num. 5 For that of gratitude which he now mentions onely as an aggravation of the sin of schismatizing which that we are guilty of he acknowledges must be proved by some other means I yeild to the force of it that it might justly adde a weight to the obligation which formerly lay upon us supposing any such there were but cannot lay an obligation to obedience where before it was not due much lesse were it due unto another All the benefits that can be heaped on me by any man that gives me not my being cannot oblige or engage my subjection to him without the intervenience of my own consent if I am perfectly free to choose my Sovereign and without the consent of my former Sovereign if I have any Num. 6 So that the whole Question must be whether by any original right the Bishop of Rome had power over this Kingdome and so whether by that our obedience was due to him for if it were then this gratitude was not the tenure but that other and if it were not then neither of the titles are in force against us not the first which hath no beeing nor the second which whatsoever it be obligeth not to obedience Num. 7 This I thought was apparent by the instance of the several claims to a Kingdome by descent and by conquest the one of which if it stood as the title supersedeth the other he that holds by inheritance cannot be properly said to hold by conquest even when it is true that he hath conquered also For in that case when the right heir being forced to make use of his sword to give him possession is successfull and victorious in it all that his sword doth is to give him possession not to give him right for that he had before by inheritance Num. 8
Elizabeths reformation To which head of discourse it is not amisse to adde the resolution of Cudsemius the Jesuite de desper Calvini causà cap. 11. that the English Nation are not Hereticks because they remain in a perpetual succession of Bishops Num. 4 Which being the onely thing that in that Sect. 16. I purposed to conclude from Mr. Masons worke and the Records by him produced it lyes not on me to prove that they which ordained those Queen Eilzabeth-Bishops gave them order to preach the Doctrine they after did or to examine the truth of his suggestion that this is the true meaning and effect of Mission It may suffice that they which consecrated them gave them the same power which themselves derived by succession from the Apostles and that was sufficient to authorize them to preach all Apostolical doctrine and if they preacht any other let it appeare and I shall never justifie their preaching But that is not attempted here and therefore I have herein no farther matter that exacts reply from me Num. 5 For as to his parting blow which he cannot omit in reply to Sect 20. certainly it hath little impression on my discourse in that place which doth not inquire what is unlawful or criminous Universally for then sure I should have acknowledged that the bringing in Turcisme or violating fundamental points of Religion had been such but peculiarly and precisely this what is Schisme in that one notion of Schisme as that is a voluntary separation from our Ecclesiastical Superiours of which that we are not or cannot be guilty when we act in perfect concord compliance and subordination to all those to whom the right of superiority legally belonged is I suppose so manifest that it can need no farther proof Num. 6 As for any such act of lawful Superiors in bringing in Turcisme or violating fundamental points I should not be apt to style that Schisme any more than I would call perjury lying or incest simple fornication it being in the first part of the instance Apostasie and total defection from Christ which I hope is a little more than denying the Popes Vniversal Pastorship or Infallibility of the Church in which consists his grand species of Schisme and in the second Heresie and the grossest sort of Schisme together that of departing from the unity of the Faith which being by me Chap. 8. distinctly handled as a second species of schisme all that I need here say to this Gentleman's exception is that I indevoured to speak as distinctly and not as confusedly as I could and therefore did not mix things that were distant and therefore did not speak of that second kinde of schisme at the same time when I proposed to speak of the first onely and upon this account onely said nothing to it in that Chapter And I hope this was but my duty to doe agreeably to all rules of method and so that he might very well have spared that animadversion which he saith he could not end without noting CHAP. VIII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the eighth Chapter Sect. I. The Division of Schisme An Answer to many Questions about Schism A retortion Num. 1 IN proceeding to the view of Chap. 8. this Gentleman without any cause is pleased to change the division of the second sort of schisme there handled into another which it seems was more sutable to his understanding and then to make two light skirmishes against the discourse of that Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his 8th Chapter as farre as I understand he divideth Schisme into formal that is breach of unity and material that is breach of Doctrine or Customes in which the Church was united the former he brancheth into subordination to the Pope of which enough hath been said and breach of the way provided by Christ for maintaining the unity of faith the which he puts in many subordinations without any effect For let us ask if inferior Clergie-men dissent from their own Bishops but not from their Metropolitan in matter of faith is it Schisme he will answer No If a Metropolitan dissent from his Primate but agree with the rest of the Patriarchs is it schisme I think he must say No If a Patriarch dissent from the first but agree with the rest is it schisme No If a Nation or a Bishop dissent from the rest of the General Councel is it schism still I believe he will answer No Where then is schisme provided against or where truly is there any subordination in Faith if none of these are subject and bound to their Superiors or Vniversals in matters of faith Num. 3 What my division there is will be obvious enough to any man's understanding In the third Chap the foundation had been laid in the opposition betwixt Schisme and Ecclesiastical Vnity and as the unity was the conserving all due relations whether of subordination or equality wherein each member of Christ's Church is concerned one toward another so there were two prime branches of schisme the one against the subordination which Christ setled in his Church the second against the mutual charity which he left as his Legacy among Christians And the former of these being discussed at large in order to the present debate in the 8. Chapter the method led me to the latter of them to consider Schisme as it is an offence against the mutual unity Peace and Charity which Christ left and prescribed among Christians And that I might be sure not to streighten the bounds of this sort of Schism or omit any thing that can by any rule of discourse be placed in the borders or confines of it by the meanes either to lay charge on us or render our Vindication the clearer I distributed it into as many parts as in my opinion the matter could by any be thought to beare i. e. into three species 1. A breach in the Doctrines or Traditions together with the institutions of Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church whether in government or observances 2. An offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical 3. The want of that Charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian The first of these againe subdivided and considered 1. in the grosse as it is a departing from the rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding unity of Doctrine c. 2. in particular the asserting of any particular doctrine contrary to Christ's and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment Num. 4 The Scheme being thus laid as regular and as comprehensive as I could devise 1. here is not one word said to expresse any cause of dislike or exception to it and yet 2. it is quite laid aside and another of formal and material Schisme c. substituted instead of it upon what temptation or designe save onely a willingnesse to gaine somewhat by the shuffle and confusion more than the distinctnesse of discourse could yeild him I cannot divine Num. 5 As it is I yet discern not
Schismatick therefore the examination of the cause is unnecessary whatsoever can be pretended on that head is not worth the producing or heeding in this matter Num. 4 2. 'T is as evident how farre the position it selfe is removed from being a contradiction which yet the Romanists Logick hath pronounced to be a pure one A pure contradiction is in our Logick est and non est It is a Schisme and It is not a Schisme It is causlesse and it is not causlesse and the like But certainly my concluding that no cause can justifie a Schisme or if the Schisme be proved t is in vain to plead that we had cause for it containes no such contradictory enuntiations He that should say that a Seditious person or a Rebell is worthy of death whatsoever cause it were that incited him to that villanie doth neither affirme the Rebell to be no Rebell nor the cause he pretends to be no cause onely he saith indeed that whatsoever the cause be 't is incompetent to justifie so foule a fact Num. 5 3. The proofe which he addes to conclude this position to be a pure contradiction is very farre from proving it The proof is this for saith he not a division but a causelesse division is a Schisme But this hath been shewed to have no truth in it because Division and Schisme being exactly the same one a Latine the other a Greek word every Division is and must necessarily be in him who is guilty of it a Schisme and if a voluntary Division a criminous Schisme whatsoever were the motive or cause of it by Division or Schisme understanding as I declare my selfe to doe a spontaneous receding or dividing from the unity of the Church not being cut off or driven from it Num. 6 Lastly what he addes as a consectary of his proof that he doth not understand how a Division can be shewed unreasonable and causelesse without examining the occasions and motives he may now if he please without much difficulty comprehend viz. by considering that no cause or reason how weighty soever is sufficient to justifie a division For as long as this is either proved or granted the conclusion will be indubitable without examining of the motives that the Division is unreasonable and causelesse Let it once be granted or proved by the known Lawes of a Nation that every act of Sedition is a transgression of Law criminous and punishable whatsoever the motive be that incited it and then there will need no more than conviction of the fact to conclude that fact unreasonable That which is in it selfe so culpable and inexcusable that no reason whatsoever can be able to justifie it is ready for the sentence of condemnation without farther processe when 't is reasonably resolved that no reason can excuse such a fact what reason can there be to lose time in examining reasons This is the very case in hand as 't is apparent to any that will but view the place and 't is not much for my incouragement in this taske that the Gentleman to whom I must reply was willing to think this so deep a riddle so much above common understandings Num. 7 I shall here only adde that what was thus said was not in reason to provoke the Romanist being a concession that cut me off from many visible advantages and so deserved his reward much better than rebuke and being thus early and unexpectedly fallen under his short displeasure by my indeavour to oblige him I have yet a shield which promiseth me security from the continuance of it I meane not the evidence of the truth affirmed by me for that is not an amulet alwaies to be depended on when it is against interest to acknowledge it but the suffrage of his owne great Champion Master Knot who hath directly affirm'd what I affirmed and therefore I may be allowed not to understand how this should be so unintelligible citing it out of Saint Augustine That there is no just necessity to divide unity And that it is not possible that any man have just cause to separate Infideli unmasked cap. 7. num 5. And so it is as manifest that this part of the first Chapter is common to both as the former of which he affirmes it the conclusion in all reason being involved in the same condition which belonged to the Praemises and it was onely my ill luck or his willingnesse to finde fault that it was not formerly apprehended to be so CHAP. II. Concerning Heresie Excommunication Infallibility Sect. I. Of passing slightly over the difference betwixt Heresie and Schisme Nū 1 THe exceptions to the second Chapter are three the first concerning Heresie the second concerning Excommunication the third concerning Master Knots concession which ushers in a Discourse of Infallibility Num. 2 The former in these words He slightly passeth over the distinction of Heresie and Schism as if he would not have it understood that all Heresie is Schisme though some Schisme be no Heresie Num. 3 What is here called the slight passing over the distinction of Heresie and Schisme is one piece of injustice in him and the cause to which it is affixt my unwillingnesse that it should be understood that all Heresie is Schisme will soon appear to be another Num. 4 For the first It is evident that in that Sect. 3. of Chap. 2. I do not at all consider the distinction of Heresie and Schisme nor could without absolute interruption and disturbance of the discourse in hand direct transgression of all rules of method say any thing to that subject in that place The thing that I there manifest is the difference betwixt Excommunication and Schisme and sure that is not Heresie and Schisme unlesse Excommunication be Heresie and so the punishment of the Sin be the Sin it selfe between the passive and the active or reciprocal division or separation and all that I say in that Section which can relate to Heresie is that where the offence for which a man is excommunicated is Heresie and not Schisme there it is evident that his Excommunication which still is his punishment and not his sinne the cause of it also being not Schisme but somewhat else Heresie or the like cannot be the guilt of Schisme in him that is so punished Num. 5 Now it is evident that I cannot be said to passe over that slightly which I doe not speak to at all and to which I had no occasion to speake and consequently that I was no way lyable to this exception Num. 6 And that being said the second part of the same exception that of the ground on which I doe this must needs be as causlesse as the former For 1. 't is certaine that my thoughts or wishes or designes are not things which can duely fall under this objecters cognizance he cannot upon any sure grounds divine or affirme what I aimed at in such or such a slight passage and 2. 't is yet more certaine that no collection can justly
be deceived and there I acknowledge infallibility upon this ground whether of nature or of grace of common dictate or of religion that it is impossible for God to lie to deceive or to be deceived But that the whole Canon of Scripture as it is delivered to us by the Laodicean Councel is the Word of God though I fully believe this also and have not the least doubt to any part of it yet I account not my self infallible in this belief nor can any Church that affirms the same unlesse they are otherwise priviledged by God be infallible in affirming it nor any that believes that Church be infallible in their belief And as that priviledge is not yet proved by any donation of Gods to belong to any Church particularly to the Roman so till it be proved and proved infallibly it can be no competent medium to induce any new act of Infallible belief the want of which may denominate us either hereticks or schismaticks Num. 40 In the mean time this is certain that I that doe not pretend to believe any thing infallibly in this matter not so much as that the Church is not infallible must yet be acknowledged to believe her fallible or else I could not by this Gentleman be adjudged a scismatick for so believing And then this supposeth that I may believe what in his opinion I believe untruly that sure is that I may believe what I doe not believe infallibly The matter is visible I cannot think fit to inlarge on it Num. 41 One thing onely I must farther take notice of the ground which he here had on which he founds his exception against the solidity of my discourse calling it my great evidence that we that doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certain suppositions that follow there Num. 42 The matter in that place Chap. II. Sect. 12. lies thus In examining the nature of schisme I have occasion to mention one not reall but fiction of case Suppose first that our Ancestors had criminously separated from the Church of Rome and suppose secondly that we their posterity repented and desired to reform their sin and to be reunited to them yet supposing thirdly that they should require to our reunion any condition which were unlawfull for us to perform in this conjuncture I say we could not justly be charged for continuing that separation Num. 43 This fiction of case I could not think had any weak part in it for as it supposed that on one side which I knew a Romanist would not grant viz that they should require any condition unlawfull for us to perform so it supposed on the other side that which we can no way grant viz that our Ancestors criminously separated But this I knew was ordinary to be done in fictions of cases Suppositio non ponit is the acknowledged rule my supposing either of these was not the taking them for granted And yet after all this I foresaw that objection that the Romanist who acknowledges not any such hard condition required to our reconciliation will conceive this an impossible case And to this I answered that we that acknowledge not their Church to be infallible may be allowed to make a supposition meaning as before a fiction of case which is founded in the possibility of her inserting some error in her confessions and making the acknowledgment of it the indispensable condition of her communion What I have offended herein I cannot imagine for 1. I onely set a fiction of case doe not take their infallibility for a thing confestly false nor in that place so much as dispute against it Only I say that which was sufficiently known before I said it that their Infallibity is not acknowledged by us and so that her inserting some error in her Confessions is to us i. e. in our opinion a thing possible and so for disputation sake supposable in the same manner as I suppose that which I am known not to believe and if this Gentleman be thus severe I shall despair to approve my discourses to him Num. 44 Secondly that I make it my great evidence is not with any appearance of reason suggested by him It comes in meerly as an incidentall last branch the least necessary most unconsiderable of any and that which might have been spared then or left out now without any weakning of or disturbing the discourse Num. 45 Thirdly Whereas he adds that I proceed to make certain suppositions that follow there this is still of the same strein I make but one supposition viz in case she make any unlawfull act the indispensable condition of her Communion And that one certainly is not in the plurall more or indefinitely certain suppositions Num. 46 That I put this one case as possible and then proceeded to consider what were by the principles acknowledged by all particularly by Mr. Knot to be done in that one case was agreeable to the strictest laws of discourse which I have met with And if in compliance with this Gentleman I must deny my self such liberties and yet yeild him so much greater on the other side If I must at the beginning of a defense of the Church of England be required to grant the Church of Rome infallible i. e. to yeild not onely that she speaks all truth but also that it is impossible she should speak any thing but truth whom yet by entring on this theme I undertake to contradict and to prove injurious in censuring us for Schismaticks this were as I have said an hard task indeed The very same as if I were required to begin a duell by presenting and delivering up all weapons into the enemies hand to plead a cause and introduce my defense by confessing my self guilty of all that the plaintiffe doth or can have the confidence to charge upon me Num. 47 And if these be the conditions of a dispute these will questionlesse be hard whatsoever the conditions of our reunion be conceived to be and moreover this Gentleman will be as infallible as his Church and then 't is pity he should lavish out medicines that is so secured by charms that he should defend his cause by reasons which hath this one so much cheaper expedient to answer a whole book in one period Num. 48 And so much for his Animadversions on this second Chapter which are no excellent presage of that which we are to expect in the insuing CHAP. III. Exceptions to the third Chapter answered Sect. I. The Division of Schisme justified Of Schisme against the authority of Councells Of Vnanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches Num. 1 THe exceptions against the third Chap are reducible to 4 heads The first about the insufficiency of the division of Schisme in these words Num. 2 In his third Chapter what is chiefly to be noted to our purpose is that his division is insufficient for he maketh Schism to be only against Monarchicall power or against fraternall
that lie between us And so still I discern not wherein our humility can be judged to fail by those with whom I now dispute being content that it should by others be judged excessive CHAP. IX An Answer to the Exceptions made to the ninth Chapter Sect. I. The hinderances of Communion imputable to the Romanist not to us Siquis Ecclesiam non audierit one of our grounds What is meant by Ecclesia Num. 1 THE Exceptions to this Chapter are not very great whether we respect their weight or number yet upon the same account that the former have been our exercise these may for a while detain us also Num. 2 In his 9th Chap saith he he pretendeth the Roman Catholick Church is cause of this division because they desire communion and cannot be admitted but under the belief and practice of things contrary to their consciences of which two propositions if the second be not proved the first is vain and is as if a subject should plead he is unjustly outlawed because he doth not desire it Now to prove the latter he assumeth that the Protestant is ready to contest his Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by what he means by that I know not for that they will convince their Negatives by any ground a good Christian ought to be concluded by I see nothing lesse What then will they contest it by all grounds a good orthodox Christian ought to be concluded by If they answer in the Affirmative we shall ask them whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of their grounds and if they say no we shall clearly disprove their Major but then their defence is if any ground or rule of it self firm and good speaketh nothing clearly of a point in question they will contest that point by those grounds and is not this a goodly excuse Num. 3 The designe of Chap 9. of the Treatise of Schisme is to vindicate us from all guilt of schisme as that signifies offence against external peace and communion Ecclesiastical and it being certain that we exclude none from our Communion that acknowledge the foundation and that we desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external communion with all members of all other Christian Churches the result is visible that the hinderances that obstruct this freedome are wholly imputable to the Romanist such are their excommunicating us and imposing conditions on their communion such as we cannot admit of without sin or scandal acting contrary to conscience or making an unsound confession Num. 4 To this all that is answered is that unlesse this second be proved viz that such conditions are by them imposed on their communion the first that of our desire of Communion is vain And to this I make no doubt to yeild for if we may with a good conscience be admitted to their Communion and yet wilfully withdraw our selves from it then I confesse there is no place for this plea of ours But for the contesting of this there was not then neither will there now be any place without descending to the severals in difference between us which was beyond the designe either of those or these Papers and therefore for that all that can be said is that we are ready to maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by And because it is here askt whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of those grounds I answer without question it is and so is every other affirmation of Christ or the Apostles however made known to us to be such And I cannot sufficiently admire why when it is known to all Romanists that we are ready to be judged by Scripture and when it is certain that siquis Ecclesiam non audierit are the words of scripture he should suppose as here he doth that we will say No i. e. that we will refuse to be tried or concluded by that Num. 5 Here I must suppose that by Ecclesiam he understands the Roman which he calls Catholick Church but then this interpretation or understanding of his is one thing and those words of Christ are another for they belonging to the Church indefinitely under which any man that hath offended is regularly placed doe to a member of the particular Roman Church signifie that as to an English man the Church wherein he lives and that is not the Roman or the Vniversal Church of God and that is more than the Roman Num. 6 And so by acknowledging that ground of scripture we are no way obliged to believe all that that particular Church of Rome to which we owe no obedience and are as ready to contest that by the same means also exacts of us Num. 7 As for our contesting any point by that ground or rule which speaketh nothing clearly of it I gave him no occasion to make any such objection against us and withall have said what was sufficient to it Chap. 8. Sect. 3. n. 7. and so need not here farther attend to it CHAP. X. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the tenth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists want of charity wherein it consists Num. 1 IN his view of Chap 10. he takes notice of two charges by us brought in against them 1. judging 2. despising their brethren but contents himself with a very brief reply and that onely to one of them Thus Num. 2 In his 10th Chap he saith we judge them and despise them as to the first I have often wondred and doe now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we presse it upon them out of love and kindnesse to keep them from the harm that according to our belief may come upon them but since they deny they are Schismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought untill we have cause to believe them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed judgment against them Num. 3 The want of charity with which we charge the Romanist in this matter is not their warning us of our danger which may reasonably be interpreted love and kindness and care to keep us from harm and if they erre in admonishing when there is no need of it there is nothing still but charity in this but it is their casting us out of their Communion on this score that we consent not to all their Dictates that we withdraw our obedience from those who without right usurped it over us their anathematizing and damning us and being no way perswadable to withdraw these sanguinary Censures unlesse we will change or dissemble our beliefs and as there cannot be charity in this any thing that can tend to the mending of any for how can it be deemed any act of reformation in any to forsake his present perswasions whilst he is