be made from my doing that slightly which I did not meddle with at all But then 3. to remove all scruple or possible occasion of jealousie in this matter 't is the designe of Chapter 8. the method then leading to it under a second sort of Schisme to consider the departure from the Vnity of the Faith which being but a periphrasis of Heresie is consequently the defining all Heresie is Schisme and so the profest avowing of that which he suspected me unwilling to have understood And so still there is not the least appearance of justice in this suggestion Sect. II. Excommunication how it differs from Schisme Wilfull continuance under censures is Schisme The Bishop of Rome is not our Lawfull Governour The severe conditions of their Communion Num. 1 HIs second exception is perfectly of the same making with the former thus Num. 2 Againe saith he treating of Excommunication he easily slideth over this part that wilfull continuance in a just Excommunication maketh Schisme Num. 3 Here againe 't is evident that I treat not of Excommunication nor have any occasion fitly to treat of it farther than to shew that Schisme being a voluntary separation the word in no propriety pertaines to that act of the Governour of the Church whereby he separates or cuts off any by way of Censures Certainly he that is put to death by Sentence of Law cannot be judged a Felo de se one that hath voluntarily put himselfe out of the number of the living or be liable to those forfeitures which by the Law belong to such He that is banished out of the Kingdome cannot be guilty of the breach of that Statute which forbids all Subjects going out of it nor be punisht justly for that which is his suffering not his deed his punishment not his delinquency Num. 4 As for his wilfull continuance under just Censures the wilfulnesse of that certainly makes him culpable and the continuance in Excommunication being also continuance in separation from the Church which is Schisme whensoever it is voluntary I make no doubt of the consequence that such wilfull continuance in Excommunication be it just or unjust is actuall Schism supposing as the word wilfull must suppose that this continuance is wholly imputable to the will of the Excommunicate i. e. that if he will submit to that which is lawfull for him to submit to he may be absolved and freed from it Num. 5 If this were it that he would have had more explicitely affirmed then I answer that as there I had no occasion to speak to it so now upon his slightest demand I make no scruple to give him my full sense of it that he which being cast into prison for just cause may upon his Petition and promise of Reformation be released or if the cause were unjust may yet without doing any thing any way unlawfull regaine his Liberty from thenceforth becomes not the Magistrates but his owne Prisoner and is guilty of all the damage be it disease famishing death it selfe which is consequent to his imprisonment And the analogie holds directly in Excommunication He that continues under the Censures of his Ecclesiastical Ruler when he might fairely obtaine absolution from them is by himselfe sentenced to the continuance of this punishment as by the Governor of the Church to the beginning of it But then all this while this is not the condition of our Church in respect of the Church of Rome they being not our Lawful Superiors indued with jurisdiction over us and for other communion such as alone can be maintained or broken among fellow-brethren or Christians it is carefully maintained by us as farre as it is lawfully maintainable Num. 6 And both these being there evidenced in that and the insuing Chapters I did not warily or purposely abstaine from because I had nothing that suggested to me any opportunity of saying any thing more to this purpose The severe conditions which are by the Romanists required of us to render us capable of their communion subscription of error or profession against Conscience make it impertinent to propose or discusse either of these two questions 1. Whether we lye under a just excommunication 2. Whether if we did we would wilfully continue under it or consequently whether we be now guilty of Schisme in this notion Sect. III. Mr. Knots concession and conclusion The power of a fallible Church to require beliefe Of Antiquity Possession Perswasion of Infallibility Motives for Vnion Vncertainty of the Protestants reasons The grand Heresie and Schisme of not believing Rome infallible Beliefe sufficient without infallibility Fictions of Cases Num. 1 THe third exception inlargeth to some length in these words Num. 2 What he calls Master Knots concession I take to be the publike profession of the Roman or Catholike Church and that nature it selfe teacheth all rationall men that any Congregation that can lye and knoweth not whether it doth lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to binde any particular to believe what shee saith neither can any man of understanding have an obligation to believe what shee teacheth farther than agrees with the rules of his own reason Out of which it followeth that the Roman Churches binding of men to a profession of Faith which the Protestants and other haereticall multitudes have likewise usurped if shee be infallible is evidently gentle charitable right and necessary as contrariwise in any other Church or Congregation which pretends not to infallibility the same is unjust tyrannical and a selfe-condemnation to the binders so that the state of the question will be this whether the Catholick or Roman Church be infallible or no for shee pretendeth not to binde any man to tenets or beliefs upon any other ground or title By this you may perceive much of his discourse to be not onely superfluous and unnecessary but also contrary to himselfe for he laboureth to perswade that the Protestant may be certaine of some truth against which the Roman Catholick Church bindeth to profession of error which is as much as to say as he who pretendeth to have no infallible rule by which to governe his Doctrine shall be supposed to be infallible and he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule shall be supposed to be fallible at most because fallible objections are brought against him now then consider what a meek and humble Son of the Church ought to doe when of the one side is the Authority of Antiquity and Possession such Antiquity and Possession without dispute or contradictions from the adversary as no King can shew for his Crowne and much lesse any other person or persons for any other thing the perswasion of infallibility all the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for Motives of Vnion on the other side uncertaine reasons of a few men pretending to learning every day contradicted by incomparable numbers of men Wise and Learned and those few men confessing those reason and themselves uncertaine fallible and subject to
to give Lawes and those Lawes oblige Subjects to obedience and yet that Prince never be imagined infallible in making Lawes And natural reason cannot conclude it impossible that a Church should have a proportionable power given it by God to binde belief c. Num. 12 As for the Catholick or Roman Church 1. that is a misprision the Catholick is not the single Roman Church nor the Roman the Catholick 2. There no where appears any such definition either of the Catholick i. e. Vniversall Church of God or particularly of the Roman Church no act of Councell representative of that Church no known affirmation of that diffused body under the Bishop of Rome's Pastorage that all authority to oblige belief is founded in Infallibility 3. If any such definition did appear it could no way be foundation of belief to us who doe not believe that Church or any definition thereof as such to be infallible Num. 13 2. If we shall but distinguish and limit the termes 1. what is meant by can lie 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no 3. By power to binde 4 By belief as every of these have a latitude of signification and may be easily mistaken till they are duly limited It will then soon appear that there is no unlimited truth in that which he saith is the whole Churches affirmation nor prejudice to our pretensions from that limited truth which shall be found in it Num. 14 1. The phrase can lie may denote no more than such a possibility of erring as yet is joyned neither with actuall error nor with any principle whether of deficiency on one side nor of malignity on the other which shall be sure to betray it into error Thus that particular Church that is at the present in the right in all matters of faith and hath before it the Scripture to guide it in all its decisions together with the traditions and doctrines of the antient and Primitive Church and having skill in all those knowledges which are usefull to fetch out the true meaning of Scripture and ability to inquire into the antient path and to compare her self with all other considerable parts of the Vniversall Church and then is diligent and faithfull to make use of all these succours and in uprightness of heart seeks the truth and applies it self to God in humble and ardent and continuall prayer for his guidance to lead into all truth This Church I say is yet fallible may affirm and teach false i. e. this is naturally possible that it may but it is not strongly probable that it will as long as it is thus assisted and disposed to make use of these assistances and means of true defining Num. 15 2. That Churches knowledge whether it define truly or no in any proposition may signifie no more than a full perswasion or belief cui non subest dubium wherein they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is the very truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum which is unerrable or infallible in strictness of speech it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Num. 16 3. By power to binde may be meant no more than authority derived to them from the Apostles of Christ to make decisions when difficulties arise to prescribe rules for ceremonies or government such as shall oblige inferiors to due observance and obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his precept to obey the rulers set over us in the Church which we may doe without thinking them simply or by any promise of God inerrable or infallible as the obedience which is due to civil Magistrates which supposes in them a power of binding subjects to obey doth yet no way suppose or imply them uncapable of erring and sinning and giving unreasonable commands and such as wherein it is unlawfull to yeild obedience to them Num. 17 Beside this there may farther be meant by it a generall obligation that lies on all men to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed to them such as the disbelieving or doubting of it shall be in them inseparable from obstinacy and this obligation is again the greater when that which is thus convincingly proposed is proposed by our superiors from whose mouth it is regular to seek and receive Gods will Num. 18 Lastly Believing may signifie not an implicite irrational blinde but a well-grounded rationall explicite belief of that which as the truth of God is duely proposed to us or again where there is not that degree of manifestation yet a consent to that which is proposed as most probable on the grounds afforded to judge by or when the person is not competent to search grounds a bare yeilding to the judgment of superiours and deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to their own judgment a believing so farre as not to disbelieve And this again may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the Rulers and Governors of it without deeming them inerrable or infallible Num. 19 Nay where the proposition defined is such that every member of that Church cannot without violence to his understanding yeild any such degree of belief unto it yet he that believes it not may behave himself peaceably and reverently either duely representing his grounds why he cannot consent to it or if his subscription or consent be neither formally nor interpretatively required of him quietly enjoy his contrary opinion And this may tend as much to the peace and unity of a Church as the perswasion of the inerrability thereof can be supposed to doe Num. 20 By this view of the latitude of these terms and the limitations they are capable of it is now not so difficult to discern in what sense the proposition under consideration is false and in what sense it is true and by us acknowledged to be so Num. 21 A congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions c. and to require inferiors so farre to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions Num. 22 But for any absolute infallible belief or consent that no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Num. 23 By this it appears in the next place in what sense it is true which in the following words is suggested of Protestants that they binde men to a Profession of Faith and how injustly it is added that supposing them not to be infallibe it is unjust tyrannical and self-condemnation to the binders The contrary whereto is most evident understanding the obligation with that temper and the infallibity in that notion wherein it is evident we understand
from coming to this contestation is not to gain any advantage by his guilt but adversus eum lis habetur pro contestato he shall be lookt on as if the suit had been actually contested against him See Bartolus in l. si eum § qui injuriarum in fi ff si quis caut Num. 32 But as to the Canon Law which in all reason the Catholick is to own in this question it is known that it admitteth not any the longest prescription without the bonae fidei possessio he that came by any thing dishonestly is for ever obliged to restitution and for the judging of that allows of many waies of probation from the nature of the thing the course we have taken in this present debate and from other probable indications and where the appearances are equal on both sides the Law though it be wont to judge most favourably doth yet incline to question the honesty of coming to the possession and to presume the dishonesty upon this account because mala fides dishonesty is presumed industriously to contrive its own secrecie and to lie hid in those recesses from which at a distance of time it is not easily fetcht out So Felinus in C. ult de praescript per leg ult C. unde vi And in a word it is the affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii possessione the presumption is strong that the possession was not honestly come by when it appears to have been antiently in the other hands and the way of conveyance from one to the other is not discernible See Panormit and Felinus in c. si diligenti X de prescript Menochius arbit quaest Casu 225. n. 4. and others referred to by the learned Grotiâ—â— in Consil Jurid super iis quae Nassavii p. 36. c. But I have no need of these nicer disquisitions Num. 33 As for the perswasion of infallibility meaning as they must their own perswasion of it that can have no influence upon us who are sure that we are not so perswaded unless the grounds on which their perswasion is founded be so convincingly represented to us that it must be our prejudice or other vitious defect or affection in us that we are not in the like manner perswaded of it But on this we are known to insist and never yet have had any such grounds offered to us As may in some measure appear by the view of that Controversie as it lies visible in the Book intituled The view of Infallibility Num. 34 As for the uncertainty of the reasons on the Protestants side by uncertainty meaning fallibility and the potest subesse falsum whilest yet we are without doubting verily perswaded that our reasons have force in them that cannot make it possible for us to believe what we doe not believe or lawfull upon any the fairest intuition to professe contrary to our belief I believe that Henry VIII was King of this Nation and the reasons on which I believe it are the testimonies of meer men and so fallible yet the bare fallibility of those testimonies cannot infuse into me any doubt of the truth of them hath no force to shake that but humane belief and while I thus believe I am sure it were wilfull sin in me though for the greatest and most pretious acquisitions in my view to professe I doe not believe it The like must be said of any other perswasion of mine denied by the Romanists and the denying whereof is part of the condition required of me to make me capable of communion with them Num. 35 But it is not now time to insist on this both because here is nothing produced against it and because here follows a much higher undertaking which swallows up all these inferior differences between us viz that not to acknowledge the Church that must be the Roman Church to be infallible is the great crime of schime and heresie in capite and more than all that I hold distinct from the Romanists Num. 36 This I acknowledge was not foreseen in the Tract of Schisme and may serve for the una litura the one answer to remove all that is there said For if our grand Fundamental schisme and heresie be all summed up in this one comprehensive guilt our not acknowledging the Church of Rome to be infallible then it was and still is impertinent to discourse on any other subject but that one of Infallibility for if that be gained by them to belong to their Church I am sure we are concluded Schismaticks and till it be gained I am sure there is no reason to suppose it Num. 37 But then as this is a compendious way of answering the Tract of Schism and I wonder after he had said this he could think it seasonable to proceed to make exceptions to any other particulars this one great mistake of the Question being discovered made all other more minute considerations unnecessary as he that hath sprung a mine to blow up the whole Fort need not set wispes of straw to severall corners to burn it so it falls out a little unluckily that this doth not supersede but onely remove this Gentleman's labour it being now as necessary that he should defend his hypothesis of the Church of Romes Infallibility against all that is formerly said by me on that subject as now it was to make this Answer to the Book of Schism and till that be done or attempted to be done there is nothing left for me to reply to in this matter Num. 38 For as to his bare affirmations that the not acknowledging their Infallibility takes away all belief and ground of belief turns all into uncertainty c. nay submitteth to Atheisme and all sorts of miscreancy It is sure but a mistake or misunderstanding as of some other things so particularly of the nature of belief For beside that I may have other grounds of belief than the affirmations of the Roman Church the authority of Scripture for the severalls contained in it and the Testimony of the universal Primitive that sure is more than of the present Roman Church to assure me that what we take for Scripture is Scripture and to derive Apostolical traditions to me and so I may believe enough without ever knowing that the Roman Church defines any thing de fide but much more without acknowledging the truth of all she defines and yet much more without acknowledging her inerrable and infallible Beside this I say it is evident that belief is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of belief such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and perswasion and where that is actually induced there is belief though there be no pretense of infallibility in the argument nor opinion of it in him that is perswaded by it Num. 39 That all that God hath said is true I believe by a belief or perswasion cui non potest subesse falsum wherein I cannot
be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor and of the People as body and flock and consequently their Church is gone But we account our selves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependent upon Princes or inherited from Augustus or Nero but from Peter and Paul and so shall stand and continue whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree when they according to their doctrines and arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same authority that set them up and as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end so is this with this difference that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better but this is a counterfeit tyranical one to punish a better As concerning the Doctors prayer for Peace and Communion all good people will joyne with him if he produce Fructus dignos poenitentiae especially i he acknowledge the infallibility of the Church and supremacy of the Pope the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books the latter is expressed in the Councel of Florence in these words viz. we define that the Holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the world and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and head of the whole Church and the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in Saint Peter from Christ a full power to feed direct and governe the Catholike Church So farre the Councel Without obeying this the Doctor is a Schismatick and without confessing the other an Heretick but let him joyne with us in these all the rest will follow Num. 3 I shall not here repeat my complaint if it were indeed such and not rather a bare proposing of a last foreseen objection against us knowing how little compassion any sufferings of ours may expect to receive from this Gentleman I shall onely joyne issue with his tenders of proof that our Church hath now no subsistence but yet before I doe so take notice of one part of his arguing viz. that the Catholike hath or is undoubtedly perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church Where certainly the fallacie is very visible and sufficient to supersede if he shall advert to it his undoubted perswasion For what promise of eternity can this Gentleman here reflect on undoubtedly that of the Church of Christ indefinitely that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Mat. 16. 18. Num. 4 What is the full importance of that phrase is elsewhere largely shewed and need not be here any farther repeated than that the promise infallibly belongs not to any particular Church of any one denomination but to the whole body Christ will preserve to himselfe a Church in this world as long as this world lasteth in despight of all the malice cunning or force of men and devills Num. 5 Now that this is no security or promise of eternity to any particular Church whether of Rome or England any more than of Thyatira or Laodicea which contrary to any such promise is threatned to be Spued out Rev. 3. 16. is in it self most evident because the destroying any one particular Church is reconcileable with Christs preserving some other as the Species of mankinde is preserved though the Gentleman and I should be supposed to perish and because the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Church which is there the subject of the discourse is not the Romanist or in that sense the Catholike his Church as is here suggested but the Church of Christ built upon the foundation of the Apostles of which Simon is there said to be one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e stone or foundation-stone so as he was of other Churches beside that of Rome and so as others were of other Churches which he never came neere and even of this of Rome Saint Paul as well as he Num. 6 From hence therefore by force of this promise which as truly belongs to every Church as it doth to Rome but indeed belongs to no particular but to the Christian Church to conclude that the Church of Rome is eternall is a first ungrounded perswasion in this Gentleman the very same as to conclude a particular is an universal or that the destruction of one part is the utter dissolution of the whole and the proof from experience of 16. ages which is here added is a strange way of argumentation such as that Methusalem might have used the very day before his death to prove that he should never dye and the very same that Heathen Rome did use at the time of their approaching destruction calling her selfe Vrbem aeternam the eternali City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rome the Heaven-City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rome a Goddesse which accordingly had by Adrian a Temple erected to it and the Emperors thereof and the very name of the place worshipt as a deity More Deae nomenque loci seu numen adorant and all this upon this one score that it had stood and prospered so long Num. 7 The like may be affirmed of the Church of the Jewes built upon a promise which had more of peculiarity to the seed of Abraham than this of Mat. 16. can be imagined to have to the Church of Rome and yet that Church was destroyed and nothing more contributed to the provocation and merit of that destruction than their owne confidence of being unperishable The best admonition in this respect is that of the Apostle Be ye not high minded but feare and if God spared not the Natural branches take heed also lest he spare not you and this Gentleman cannot be ignorant what Church it was that was then capable of this exhortation And the very making this matter of argument and in this respect not of purity but of duration exalting the Romanist's Church above all other Churches in these words none other can compare with him as it is one character which determines the speech to the particular Church of Rome for else how can he speak of others and affirme that they cannot compare so it is no very humble or consequently Christian expression in this Gentleman Num. 8 What he addes out of Master Hooker and applies as the judgement of that learned man concerning the Church of England yeilds us these farther observations 1. That in all reason this Gentleman must in his former words speak of his Church of Rome as that is a particular Church for else how can he after his Church name another Church meaning this of England of which saith he Mr. Hooker speaks and that will conclude the evident falsity of his assumption that by Christ's promise eternity belonged to it for that it cannot doe to any particular Church because the Vniversal may be preserved when that is destroyed and the promise being made indefinitely to the Church may be performed in any part of it Num. 9 Secondly That a
error certainly without a bias of interest or prejudice it is impossible for him to leave the Church if he be in it or not returne if he be out of it for if infallibility be the ground of the Churches power to command beliefe as shee pretends no other no time no separation within memory of History can justifie a continuance out of the Church You may please to consider then how solid this Doctors discourse is who telleth us for his great evidence that we saith he who doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certaine suppositions that follow there The question is whether a Protestant be a Schismatick because a Protestant and he will prove he is not a Schismatick because he goeth consequently to Protestant that is Schismatical grounds I pray you reflect that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schisme and Heresie in Capite and more than for all the rest he holds distinct from us for this principle taketh away all beliefe and all ground of beliefe and turneth it into uncertainty and weather-cock opinion putteth us into the condition to be circumferri omni vento Doctrinae submitteth us to Atheisme and all sort of miscreancy let him not then over-leap the question but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatick and an Heretick too or let him acknowledge he is both Num. 3 This discourse thus inlarged to the consideration of fallibility and infallibility in a Church is certainly a digression in this place and taking the occasion from some words of mine Sect. 6. of a concession of Master Knots it is a little necessary to recount what concession that was and the use that I there made of it that so it may appeare whether there were any thing blameable in my procedure Num. 4 The subject I was upon Sect. 5. was the undoubted lawfulnesse of being and continuing excluded from any such Church the conditions of whose communion containe Sin in them To this head of discourse I mentioned a concession of Master Knots that it is perfectly unlawful to dissemble aequivocate or lye in matters of Faith and this as a confirmation of my then present assertion that when I am not permitted by the Romanists to have external communion with them unlesse I doe thus dissemble equivocate and lye affirme my selfe to believe what I doe not believe I may lawfully continue thus excluded from their communion But then I could not justly conceale what Master Knot there added as his conclusion from hence together with the acknowledged unlawfulnesse of forsaking the externall communion of Gods visible Church that therefore the Church of Rome is infallible because otherwise men might forsake her communion Num. 5 Here indeed I thought it very strange that this conclusion should be thus deduced from such praemisses that it should be deemed lawful to separate from a Church for every error or for no more but being subject to error being fallible though it were actually guilty of no errour which I conceived to be the same in effect as to affirme it lawfull to forsake the communion of all but Saints and Angels and God in Heaven because all others were peccable and fallible But yet I thought not fit to goe farther out of my way to presse the unreasonablenesse of it but contented my selfe with that which was for my present turne his confession that it was lawful to separate or continue in separation from the Church of Christ in case we could not without lying c. be permitted to communicate with it Num. 6 This being the whole businesse as it lyes visible to any in that 5. and 6. Sect. Let us now see what a confusion is made to gaine some small advantage from hence or excuse for a long digression Num. 7 First it is the conclusion viz. that any Congregation that can lye c. cannot have power to binde any to believe what shee saith which he saith is called by me Master Knots concession But this is a great mistake I never lookt on this as his concession never called it by that title but as a conclusion that he made a strange shift to deduce from another concession Num. 8 A concession this Gentleman should in reason have understood to be somewhat which the Adversary yeilds and which the disputer gaines advantage by his yeilding it such was his assertion that all lying and dissembling was unlawful and that rather than that should be admitted it were lawful to forsake the external communion of the Church of Christ And that and nothing but that was by me cited as his concession Num. 9 Secondly That conclusion it self that the Congregation that is fallible cannot have power to binde to believe is not so much as considered by me in that place or else where I said not one word against it which might provoke this objector to take it up and confirme it neither was it in the least needfull or pertinent to the matter then in hand to enter into the consideration of it All that was by me taken notice of and that but in passing was the consequence or coherence betwixt the praemisses and that conclusion which naturally inferred a third thing that it was in Mr. Knots opinion lawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church which I thought by the way would be sure to excuse us though we should be granted to have forsaken and continued wilfully in Separation from the Roman Church if it might but appeare that either that were guilty of any one error or lyable to fal into any one And this being intirely all that was there said by me there is no reason I should so far attend this Gentleman in his digression as to consider what here he proceeds to say upon his new-sprung subject of discourse very distant from that of Schisme to which I indeavoured to adhere having elsewhere pursued at large the Romanists other hypothesis concerning their Churches Infallibility Num. 10 Were it not thus remote from our matter in hand and perfectly unnecessary to the defence of our Church from Schisme I might discover farther many infirme parts in this procedure I shall but briefly touch on some of them Num. 11 1. For the truth of that proposition that a Congregation that can lye i. e. a Church that is fallible and knoweth not i. e. hath no infallible certainty whether it lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to binde any to believe what shesaith I may certainly affirme 1. That this is no infallible truth being no where affirmed by any infallible speaker or deduced from any infallible principle For as to the Scripture it is not pretended to be affirmed by that and for Natural Reason that cannot be an infallible Judge in this matter of defining what power may be or is by God given to a Church without defining it infallible A Prince may no doubt be impowered by God
it For what injustice or tyranny c. can it be in any lawful superior having defined what verily he believes to be the truth of God and no way doubts of his having deduced it rightly from the Scripture but yet knows that he as a man is fallible and that it is possible he may have some way failed in this as in any other his most circumspect action what injustice I say can it be authoritatively to direct this definition to those who are committed to his charge and expect their due submission to it meaning by submission what I have here exprest to mean by it Num. 24 So again it appears of the Roman Church how far it is from gentle or charitable in them to bind men to profess as matter of faith whatsoever is by that Church defined upon this one account that the Church is infallible can't erre when this very thing that it is infallible is not at all made probable much lesse infallibly deduced from any reason or testimony that is infallible Num. 25 Next then when he saith that the state of the question will be this whether the Roman Church be infallible or no I am not sure I know what question he means whether the main Question on which the Tract of Schisme was written i. e. whether the Church of England be schismaticall or no or whether the particular question which this Gentlemans haste hath framed to himself in this place Whether a fallible Church may have power to binde any to believe what she saith But I suppose by some indications that the latter is it and then as from hence I learn what he means by infallible a Church that cannot possibly erre all whose definitions are such quibus nequit subesse falsum so untill this be proved of that Church I must be allowed to speak like one who think not my self obliged to the belief of it and being sure of this that a Protestant is or may be verily perswaded of some truth against which the Roman Church bindeth to profession of error meaning by verily perswaded such a certainty only cui non subest dubium he hath no doubt nor reason to induce doubting of it I cannot imagine how that part of my discourse wherein I have supposed or asserted this can be either superfluous unnecessary or whatever other weakness it be guilty of contrary to my self For certainly I that think I am fallible may yet verily believe without all doubt the truth of many propositions which if I should affirm my self not to believe I must doubtlesse lie and then sin by Mr. Knot 's former concession And 't is as certain on the other side that he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule may yet foully mistake both in that generall originall and in many other particular derivative pretensions His supposed infallibility if it be not rightly supposed and till it be proved it will not be so will be so farre from an amulet to keep him safe from all error that it is the likeliest way to deliver him up to it as the premature perswasion of his particular election may be the ingulsing any through security and presumption in the most certain ruine Num. 26 In the processe of this discourse he is pleased to mention four advantages of the Roman Church above any other Antiquity possession perswasion of Infallibility the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for motives of union and nothing but uncertain reasons on the other side which saith he must make it impossible for any without interest or prejudice to leave the Church if he be in it or not return if he be out of it Num. 27 To this imaginary setting of the scales between them and us and particularly to the fourth advantage pretended to the pledges that Christ left for motives of union it is sufficient to reply in generall that for us which have not voluntarily separated but are by them violently removed from communion with them and cannot be admitted to reunion but upon conditions which without dissembling and lying we cannot undergoe it is in vain to speak of motives or obligations to return to their communion We that are bound as much as in us lies to have peace with all men must not admit any known or wilfull sin in order to that most desirable end And this one thing as alone it is pertinent to the matter in hand that of schisme so it is necessarily the concluding of this controversie We that are not permitted to return and so we are if the conditions of our return be so incumbred as to include sin cannot with any justice or equity be charged for not returning Num. 28 Against this here is nothing said any farther than the bare mention of the three other advantages on their side And none of these are of any force to perswade our return upon such conditions as these much lesse to exact it as duty from us Num. 29 By Antiquity and Possession as here they are spoken of I am apt to suppose he means not antiquity of the Roman Church or the present doctrines and therefore I shall not speak of them but the antiquity of our communion with them if he mean a Possession in the belief of the Popes Vniversall Pastorship I shall have occasion to speak of that hereafter And if this be granted as for fraternall communion and such as is due from one sister Church to another it is willingly granted then this will divolve the blame on those who are guilty of this breach who have cast us out and permit us no way of returning with a good conscience And so this is little for the Romanists advantage Num. 30 But if in stead of fraternall communion it be subjection to the Roman See that is by his words claimed and pretended to by possession then as we willingly grant to that See all that the antient Canons allowed to it and so cannot in that respect offend against Antiquity so what contrary to those Canons they have at any time assumed and unlawfully possest themselves of can no way be pretended to be their right or they to be bonae fidei possessores true or fair possessors of it which qualification and condition is yet absolutely necessary to found their plea from possession and which alone can bear any proportion with that which Kings can shew for their crowns or proprietaries for their inheritances Num. 31 Of this head of possession or prescription it were easie to adde much more by considering that claim and title by the known rules whether of the Canon or Civil Law The Civil Law which is generally more favourable to Prescription doth yet acknowledge many waies of interrupting it as by calling it into question and that is sufficiently done in some cases per solam conventionem by citing or summoning the possessor and when contestatio litis the entring a suit is actually required yet still he that appears to have caused the impediment and kept it
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
charity which is very much besides the principles of those Protestants who pretend so much to the authority of Councels me thinks he should have remembred there might be schisme against conciliatory authority whether this be called so when the Councell actually sitteth or in the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches so that the Doctor supposing he concluded against the Pope hath not concluded himself no schismatick being separated form the Catholick world And again in the next page by way of recollection or second thoughts thus But I must not forget here what I omitted to insert before that in his division of Schisme he omitteth the Principall if not indeed and in the use of the word by the Antients the onely schism which is when one breaketh from the whole Church of God for though a breach made from the immediate superior or a particular Church may in some sort and in our ordinary manner of speaking be called a schisme yet that by wich one breaketh away from the communion of the whole Church is properly and in a higher sense called Schisme and is that out of which the present question proceedeth whereas other divisions as long as both parts remain in communion with the Vniversall Church are not properly schismes but with a diminutive particle so that in this division he left out that part which appertained to the question Num. 3 My division of schism is that which I could not conceive subject to the exceptions of any rationall man of what perswasions soever schism being a breach of unity and communion as many sorts as were conceivable of unity and communion so many and no more I set down of schisme some as breaches of the subordination which Christ setled in his Church others of mutuall charity which he left among his Disciples Num. 4 For is it not evident that all men in the world are either our superiors or inferiors or our equals and can I break communion with any as long as being an inferior I live regularly under all my superiors and brotherly with all my equals There is certainly no place of doubt in this When therefore in his second period here set down he mentions it as the principall and in the Antients use of the word the onely Schism when one breaketh from the whole Church of God It is strange he should think that man was not comprised in either member of my division when certainly he is guilty of both For how can he separate from the whole Church unlesse he separate both from his superiors and his equals too And if he separate from both then questionlesse he separates from one and from more than one of them Num. 5 Was it possible for any care more sollicitously to have prevented this exception than that which by me was used when among the branches of equality with which every one is obliged to preserve unity and communion I reckoned up not only the believers of the same Congregation c. but the severall communities of Christian men from Parishes and Dioeceses to climes of the whole Christian world Chap. 3. § 5. And indeed it is a great piece of austerity that when I have indevoured to prove that we of the Church of England have not voluntarily separated and that onely is the crime of Schism from any one particular Church and no one of those proofs is invalidated nor as yet so much as excepted against it should yet be thought seasonable to reply that we have broken off from the whole Church of God Num. 6 Is not that whole made up of these severals as a body of limbs the universal of particulars And can the hand be broken off from the whole body when it is not broken off but remains in perfect union with every part of the body If the arm be broken from the body the hand which remains united to the arm may yet be separate from the whole body because by being fastned to the arm 't is united but to one and not to all the members of the body But an union to all the members of the body supposes a separation from no one part that remains in the body and sure that must be an union with the whole body which is nothing else but all the members together Num. 7 And so as his second thoughts were effects not remedies of his forgetfulness the very same which he had mentioned before under the style of separation from the Catholick world so certainly they were again effects of his inobservance that his principall sort of schisme separation from the whole Church was comprehended by me under this style separation from the severall communities of the whole Christian world Num. 8 As to the former branch of his exception that in my division of schisme into that which is against Monarchical I said and when he recites my words he should doe so too paternal power and that which is against fraternall charity I omit to mention the authority of Councels It is evidently a causlesse suggestion For 1. if Councels as he saith have any authority that will certainly be reducible to paternal power And if they have none any farther than by way of counsell and advice that will directly fall under the head of fraternall charity Num. 9 Secondly If by Councels he mean Provinciall Councels it is evident that the power which severally belongs to the Bishops of each Province is united in that of a Provinciall Councell where all the Diocesan Bishops are assembled and the despising of that is an offence under the first sort of schisme a breach of the subordination to the Bishop yea and the Metropolitan too who presides in the Provinciall Councell Num. 10 So again if he mean Nationall Councells the power of the Bishops of all the Provinces there assembled divolves upon this assembly compounded of all of them the despising thereof is the despising of these Ecclesiasticall superiours of the whole nation and culpable and schismaticall upon that account Num. 11 As for Oecumenicall or Generall Councells if they be truly such the power of all the Bishops of all the Provinces in all Christian nations divolves upon that and so cannot be despised without despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiasticall superiors Bishops Metropolitans Primates or Patriarchs and therefore this sort of schisme could not be deemed to be omitted where all those other branches of which it is made up were so particularly handled Num. 12 That any more speciall consideration was not taken of Generall Councells in that discourse the account beside that which is now given is more than intimated in that Tract of Schism pag. 60. first because they were remedies of schisme and extraordinary not any standing Judicatures to which our constant subordination and subjection was required 2. Because these were such as without which the Church continued for the first 300 years and so could not belong to a generall discourse which spake of all the certain and ordinary and constant sorts
of schisme and such as all times were capable of and inlarged not to those other of accidentall emergencies 3. Because they are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled Num. 13 As for those that are already past and are on due grounds to be acknowledged truly Oecumenicall the communion which is possible to be had or broken with them is that of compliance with or recession from their definitions and our innocence in that respect is avowed p. 160. as the congregating of the like when possible and probable toward the end is recommended p. 158. as a supply when there should be need of extraordinary remedies Num. 14 Lastly If none of this had been done or if this had not been undertaken so solemnly and formally as some other supposed branches of schism were in that Tract yet the account of that is visible to any because the principal sort of schisme charged by the Romanist on the Church of England is that of casting out the Bishop of Rome not contemning the authority of Councels and therefore I was in reason to apply my discourse most largely and particularly to that head to which their objections not my own choice directed me So evidently contrary to the notoriety of the fact is this complaint of this Gentleman that my division of schism was insufficient and that I took no notice of this as he pleases to call it conciliatory authority Num. 15 That to make his suggestion seem more probable he advisedly chose to change the tearms of my division from that which was against Paternal to that which is against Monarchical power upon this apprehension that Paternal power would visibly include that of the Fathers in Councel assembled as well as in several but Monarchical power could not so fitly bear it I shall not enter into his secrets to divine This I am sure of that the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches cannot with any propriety as by him it is be defined a branch of Conciliatory authority for certainly the Churches dispersed are not met together the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dispersion of the Jewes differed much from the Councel assembled at Jerusalem and the Christian Church at this day is without question no Oecumenical Councel Num. 16 And then what authority scattered members can have which never legally command or exercise authority but when they are in conjunction I shall not here make stay to demonstrate whatsoever there is of this nature will most properly be comprised under the head of communion or unity Fraternal and the schisme which is a transgression of that being at large handled also Chap. 8. 9 10. there was no insufficiency in any justice to be charged on this division Sect. II. Of the extent of the Roman Province The Bishops of Italy distinct from those that belong to Rome The Ecclesiastical distributions agreeable with the Civil Ruffinus vindicated Num. 1 THe second charge on this Chapter is about the extent of the Roman Patriarchie in these words Num. 2 In this Chap he telleth us many things some true some not so but all either common to us both or not appertaining to the controversie untill he concludes that certainly the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it self to all Italy and this he does out of a word in Ruffinus which he supposeth to be taken in a speciall propriety of law whereas indeed that author's knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such belief especially learned men saying the contrary Num. 3 The place to which this exception belongs is not set down by this Gentleman but by annexing the testimony out of Ruffinus I discern it to be that of pag. 52. where speaking of the Picenum suburbicarium and Annonarium I say the former belonged to the Praefecture of Rome the latter with the seven Provinces in the broader part of Italy belonged to the Diocese as it was antiently called of Italy of which Milan was the Metropolis Num. 4 This being the affirmation which he excepteth against I did not nor yet doe make any question of vindicating and defending it against any objection Num. 5 That learned men say the contrary is here suggested in the close but as there is not one learned man named nor testimony produced which therefore amounts no higher than the bare opinion or affirmation of this one Gentleman without any one reason or authority to support it so when any such learned mens names and testimonies shall be produced it will be easie to shew that there is very little of their learning exprest in so saying Num. 6 On the other side I had pag. 50. in the margent referred to some testimonies whereon my assertion was founded viz those which manifestly distinguisht the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy which could not have had truth in them if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy Num. 7 Such was that of Eusebius distinctly mentioning the Bishops of the Cities of Italy and the Bishops that belong to the City of the Romans The testimony out of the Edict of the Emperor Aurelian in the controversie betwixt Paulus Samosatenus and Domnus where it is decreed that the house about which they contended should be delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those to whom the Bishops through Italy and the City of the Romans should decree it Num. 8 The like was that of the Councel of Sardice set down in Athanasius in the title of their Epistle to the Alexandrians Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Synod by God's grace assembled at Sardice from Rome and Spain France Italy c. Num. 9 So in Athanasius's declaration of his own affairs and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreement of many Bishops with him he specifies who and how many they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were more than four hundred both from great Rome and from all Italy and from Calabria c. Where the Bishops of the Roman Province are distinguisht from the Bishops of Italy as those again from the Bishops of Calabria c. Num. 10 So among the names prefixt to the first Councel of Arles we have ex provinciâ Italiae civitate Mediclanensi c. ex urbe Româ quos Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ civitate Portuensi c. of the Province of Italy from the city of Milan c. from the city of Rome those Whom Bishop Sylvester sent of the Province of Rome from the City of Porta c. such and such were assembled at that Councel where again the matter is clear as to the distinction of those Provinces of Rome and Italy the former under the presidency of the Bishop of Rome the later of the Bishop of Milan Num. 11 By
it were to us to stand with the Romanist in full authority Num. 8 Thirdly This being in perfect concord with the decree of Gratian is in the aforesaid body of their Canon law approved and set out by Pope Gregory XIII annext to that decree of Gratian Distinct 99. C. 1. Num. 9 And fourthly whereas this Gentleman saith that as soon as occasion serves I will tell you this Epistle of Anacletus is of no authority I must say 1. that I have no where that I remember ever said so 2. That this Gentleman cannot without divining tell me now what I shall doe hereafter 3. That occasion not yet requiring it of me but Anacletus affirming what I affirm I have no temptation to doe so and so as yet he can have no pretence to make use of this subterfuge 4. That there are things called argumenta ad homines arguments that may binde him who acknowledges the authority from which they are drawn though they conclude not him that allows not those authorities and such is this of Anacletus his Epistle to a Romanist Num. 10 And by the same Logick that he can inferre that Anacletus's authority was unduely produced by me who as he but thinks will not stand to Anacletus's authority I may sure conclude that Anacletus's authority was duly produced by me because against him who I have reason to presume must stand to Anacletus's authority Num. 11 A third testimony of the same nature I shall now adde which must again have force with a Romanist that of Anicetus ad Episcopos Galliae which follows there in the Corpus Juris Canonici Primarum civitatum Episcopos Apostoli successores Apostolorum regulariter Patriarchas Primates esse constituerunt The Apostles and their successors regularly appointed that the Bishops of the Prime Cities should be Primates and Patriarchs And till somewhat be produced to the contrary as 't is sure here is nothing offered by this Gentleman this may at the present suffice in this place Sect. IV. The supreme Ecclesiasticall power of Patriarchs The power of convoking Councells a prerogative of Supremacy That the Bishop of Rome is not over Patriarchs Proofs from the Councells and Canons Apostolick and the Corpus Juris and Pope Gregorys arguing Num. 1 THe last exception concerns the supreme Power of Patriarchs or the no superiority of any Ecclesiasticall power over them Thus. Num. 2 Then he saith there was no power over the Patriarchs his proof is because the Emperour used his secular authority in gathering of Councels concluding that because the Pope did not gather general Councels therefore he had no authority over the Universal Church which how unconsequent that is I leave to your judgment Num. 3 That there was no supreme power in the Bishop of Rome nor in any other above that of Primates and Patriarchs but onely that of the Emperour in the whole Christian world as of every soveraign Prince in his dominions I thought sufficiently proved by this that the power of convoking Councels did not belong to the Bishop of Rome but to the Prince in every nation and the Emperour in the whole world And I deemed this a sufficient proof not because there are no other branches of a supreme authority imaginable or which are claimed by the Bishop of Rome save onely this but I. because this of convoking Councels is certainly one such prerogative of the supreme power inseparable from it and he that hath not that hath not the supreme power as in any nation some prerogatives there are which alwaies are annext to the Imperial Majesty and wherever any one of them truely is there is the supreme power and 't is treason for any but the supreme to assume any one of them and one of that number is calling of national Assemblies And secondly because the Bishop of Rome doth as avowedly challenge this power of convoking General Councels as any other I could have named or insisted on And truely that was the onely reason why I specified in this because this of all others is most eminent in it self most characteristical of the supreme power and most challenged by the Bishop of Rome and most due to him in case he be the Vniversal Pastor Num. 4 And then where there be several branches of a power all resident in the same subject inseparably from the absence of one to collect the absence of all I must still think a solid way of probation and cannot discern the infirm part or inconsequence of it If I could it would be no difficult matter to repair it and supply the imperfectnesse of the proof by what is put together in the Corpus Juris Canonici even now cited Decret par 1. dist 99. c. 3 4 5. Num. 5 The thing that I had to prove was that there was not antiently any summum genus any supreme either of or over Patriarchs beside the Prince or Emperour To this as farre as concerns the negative part that the Bishop of Rome is not this summum genus I now cite from that third Chap. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum vel summus sacerdos The Bishop of the first seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or supreme Priest And this testified out of the African Councel Can 6. where the very words are recited with this addition of aut aliquid hujusmodi he is not to be called by any other title of the same kinde sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus but onely Bishop of the first See and there were three such at that time those named in the Nicene Canon Alexandria Rome Antioch as is sufficiently known Num. 6 And that he may see the practice of the Church was perfectly concordant with that definition I referre this Gentleman to the Milevitan Councell cap. 22. where speaking of appeals from their Bishops the rule is non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum They must appeal to none but the African Councels or the Primates of their own Provinces Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur But if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine forreign judicature they are not to be admitted to communion by any within Africa And indeed the same had been before defined by the first Nicene Councel Num. 7 c. 5. where the sentence pronounced against any by the Bishops in each Province was to stand good according to the Canon I suppose the 12 Apostolick which pronounces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others And accordingly in the Synodical Epistle of the African Councel to Pope Caelestine which is in the Book of Canons of the Roman Church and in the Greek collection of the Canons of the African Church we finde these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We intreat you the style of one Church to another that for
the future you will not easily admit those who have come to you from hence and that you will not receive to your communion those who are excommunicate by us seeing the Councell of Nice hath thus defined as you may easily discern Num. 8 By all which put together by the African out of the Nicene and by the Nicene out of the Apostolick Canon it is evident that the Bishop of Rome hath not power to absolve any person excommunicate by any Bishop of another Province and that 't is unlawfull for any such to make appeal to him which certainly will conclude against every the most inferior branch of his pretended authority over the Vniversal Church Num. 9 If this be not enough then adde the 34 Apostolick Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops of every nation must know him that is the first among them i. e. their Primate and account him as their head Which sure inferres that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely head of all Bishops The same is afterward transcribed by the 9 Canon of Antioch Num. 10 But to return to their Corpus Juris so again Decret par 1. dist 99. c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The Pope of Rome is not to be called Vniversal Bishop citing the Epistle of Pope Pelagius II. Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur quia si unus Patriarcha unversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur No Patriarch must ever use the title of Vniversal for if one be called universal Patriarch the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest And more to the same purpose the very thing that I was here to prove Num. 11 So again Ch. 5. out of the Epistle of Pope Gregory to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria where refusing the title of Vniversalis Papa Vniversal Pope or Father or Patriarch and calling it superbae appellaetionis verbum a proud title he addes si enim Vniversalem me Papam vestra Sanctit as dicit negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur Vniversum If the Patriarch of Alexandria call the Pope universal Father he doth thereby deny himself to be that which he affirms the Pope to be universally The meaning is clear If the Pope be universal Patriarch then is he Patriarch of Aegypt for sure that is a part of the Vniverse and then as there cannot be two supremes so the Bishop of Alexandria cannot be Patriarch of Aegypt which yet from S. Mark 's time was generally resolved to belong to him and the words of the Nicene Canon are expresse to it that according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original Primitive customes the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. seeing this is also customary with the Bishop of Rome of Antioch c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the privileges should be preserved to the Churches Num. 12 All which arguing of that Pope yea and that great Councel were perfectly unconcluding inconsequent as mine was said to be if the Bishop of Rome or any other had power over Patriarchs or authority over the universal Church which here this Gentleman is pleased to affirm and so sure must think Gregory more than fallible when he thus protested and disputed the contrary Num. 13 How much higher than this the same Gregory ascended in expressing his detestation of that title is sufficiently known from his Epistle to Mauritius the Emperor In regist 1. 4. Ep 30. I shall not here trouble him with the recitation of it Num. 14 What is after these passages set down in their body of the Law shews indeed that the Popes continued not alwaies of this minde Neither was I of opinion that they did the story being known to all how Boniface III. with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal jurisdiction of the Church of Rome see Paul Diac de Gest is Romanorum l. 18. which yet is an argument that till then it had no foundation Num. 15 Whether there were antiently any such higher than Patriarchs and whether now there ought to be was the question before me and both those I must think concluded by what I have here set down as farre as relates to any true i. e. original right from any appointment of â—hrist or title of succession to S. Peter Num. 16 Much more might be easily added to this head if it were not evident that this is much more than was necessary to be replied to a bare suggestion without any specifying what that power is which may belong to the Pope over the Vniversal Church though convoking of Councels did not belong to him and without any offer of proof that any such did really belong to him CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the fourth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists pretensions founded in S. Peters universal Pastership Of Possession without debating of Right What Power the Pope was possest of here Num. 1 IN the fourth Chap his objections begin to grow to some height they are reducible to three heads the first is by way of Preface a charge of a very considerable default in the whole discourse that I remember not what matters I handle the other two are refutations of the two evidences I use to disprove the Popes claim of universal Trimacie from Christ's donation to S. Peter The first of the three is set down in these words Num. 2 In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Christ his donation S. Peter had a Trimacie ever the Church where not to reflect upon his curious division I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles when he thinketh the Catholick ought to prove that his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie for it being granted that in England the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacie the proof that it was just belongeth not to us more than to any King who received his Kingdome from his Ancestors time out of minde to prove his pretension to the Crown just for quiet possession of it self is a proof untill the contrary be convinced as who should rebell against such a King were a Rebell untill he shewed sufficient cause for quitting obedience with this difference that obedience to a King may be prescription or bargain be made unnecessary but if Christ hath commanded obedience to his Church no length of years nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience so that the charge of proving the Pope to have no such authority from Christ lieth upon the Protestants now as freshly as the first day of the breach and will doe so untill the very last Num. 3 My method in the beginning of Chap 4. is visibly this The Church of England being by the Romanist charged of schism in departing from the obedience of the Bishop of Rome and this upon pretense that
greatnesse from the Imperial dignity of the city never thought himself injured by this way of setting down his title Sect. V. Of the Canon of Ephesus The power of Metropolitans of Primates The case of the Archbishop of Cyprus no peculiar case The deduction thence against the Popes Vniversal Pastorship Of the Popes tenure by the institution of Christ Num. 1 THE next exception concerns the Canon of the Councel of Ephesus thus Num. 2 As for the Canon of Ephesus touching the Archbishop of Cyprus it plainly sheweth that the Metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarchs seeing this case of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case the reason given doth shew that the superiority of Patriarchs was by custome received from their Ancestors contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed however it is still nothing to the purpose because the authority which we say belongs to the Pope is neither Patriarchal nor derived from any institution or custome of the Church but from the institution of Christ Num. 3 This Canon of Ephesus saith he plainly shews that Metropolitans were subordinate to Patriarchs seeing this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case To this I see not how any pretensions of ours oblige me to make any return yet because it may be subject to some mistake for want of explicating I shall clear that whole matter by these three Propositions Num. 4 First that the controversie which occasioned that Canon was this Whether the Bishop of Constance Metropolitan of the Province of Cyprus was to be ordained by the Patriarch of Antioch or without seeking abroad by his own Synod the Bishops of Cyprus Thus is the state of the question set down in the Councels Tom. 2. p. 670. at the beginning of the 7 Action Discussa est controversia inter Rheginum Episcopum Constantiae Cypri Johannem Antiochenum qui sibi Cyprias Ecclesias subdere moliebatur The controversie was discussed between Rheginus Bishop of Constance of Cyprus and John of Antioch who endevoured to bring the Cypriotes Churches into subjection to himself Num. 5 Secondly that the antient custome had been favourable to Rheginus his pretension and so the claim of Antioch is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing innovated against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which by the example or president would concern the liberty of all Churches Cod Can Eccl Un 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 6 Thirdly that the Councel defined on the Cypriots side that according to the Canous and antient custome the Bishops of Cyprus should retein their previlege inviolable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordaining their Bishops within and by themselves and consequently that it was an act of assuming and invasion in the Bishop of Antioch to claim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make any Ordinations within Cyprus And what was thus adjudged in the case of the Cypriots was by that Councel in the same Canon thought fit to be extended in like manner to all other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same shall be observed also through all Dioceses and Provinces every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him i. e. under his predecessors power And so there is no truth in what is here suggested that this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case It certainly by the expresse words of the Canon belonged to all other Metropolitans and their Provinces over all the world that neither Bishop of Antioch nor of Rome was to meddle with any ordinations except in their own particular Provinces but the Synod of the Bishops of each Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make the ordinations of their Bishops by themselves Num. 7 What he adds of the superiority of Patriarchs by custome received from their Ancestors First that the reason given in that Ephesine Canon doth shew it Secondly that it is contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed Thirdly that it is still nothing to the purpose in hand of the authority of the Pope hath not that I can discern any truth in any part of it For as to the first whatsoever superiority Patriarchs be acknowledged to have there is no word of mention concerning it in that Canon neither was there any occasion to define any thing of it It was the Synod and Bishops of Cyprus their right that was invaded and of that onely that Canon speaks devolving it to original custome and Canons and so for all other Metropolitans But that is not the superiority of Patriarchs Secondly for my affirmation certainly it was never such as could be deemed contrary either to that Ephesine Canon about ordination of their Metropolitans or that due superiority which by Canons or customes doth belong to Primates or Patriarchs what this is I have often set down and need not again repeat it Num. 8 Lastly for the application of this Canon to the present affair of the Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome thus much is evident First that all Provinces every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were concluded by this Canon that they should ordain their Bishops within themselves and then I pray how can the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of ordaining all belong to the Bishop of Rome and ordination and jurisdiction going together how can he have the Vniversal Jurisdiction or which is all one the Vniversal Pastorship Num. 9 Secondly if the Pope his authority be not Patriarchal as this Gentleman here saith then till he hath proved that it is more than Patriarchal and answered all that is said to the contrary in that Tract of Schisme that which is by the Ephesiue Canon judged in order to the Patriarch of Antioch will also conclude him Num. 10 And thirdly that which is held by the institution of Christ being certainly derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning must needs be included in the words of this Canon which requires that all should remain as by custome immemorial from the beginning it had been to which therefore we appeal and inquire whether Cyprus was not as Independent from Rome at that time as from Antioch if not how any such dependance at that time appears or how is it imaginable there should be any such when all Provinces every where were to be ruled and ordered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their own Synod and Bishops Num. 11 As for the tenure by which the Pope is now in the close of this Paragraph clearly said to stand not from any institution or custome of the Church but from the institution of Christ First this is more than ever this Gentleman would acknowledge before telling us p. 14. that who understands the Principles of the Catholick faith knows they relie not onely upon such places of Scripture as Thou art Peter and Feed my sheep From whence I thought my self obliged to conclude they relied not onely on Christ his institution for that I suppose must
Independent authorities over other Churches such as was by Justinian conferred on Justiniana Prima and Carthage by Valentinian on Ravenna without any subordination to or dependence on any other particularly on the See of Rome Num. 7 Can any thing be more prejudicial to the Vniversall Pastorship of Rome than this Can Rome be Pastor of those who have no dependance on her or can that be Vniversal from which some particulars are exempt Num. 8 This made it but necessary for this Gentleman to undertake two things in the following words that I neither understand the question nor prove what I would for if I shall yet appear to judge aright of the question even as it is by this Gentleman brought back to that which had been debated in the former Chapters whether the Bishop of Rome be Vniversal Pastor by Christs donation to Saint Peter and if I have really proved that it is in the power of Emperours and Princes to constitute and remove Patriarchies It will certainly follow that I have done all that I undertook to doe evinced the matter of the question and shewd that it is in the power of Princes to exempt some Churches from the Popes dominion and so superseded the Vniversality of his Pastorship Num. 9 As for the validity of my proofes that must be judged by the view of the Answers applyed to them 1. that I produce onely the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannicall towards the Church To this I answer 1. that the word onely excluding all others the proposition can have no truth in it it being evident that I produce many other acts of the same Imperial power as the Reader may finde by casting his eye on the place the latter part of that 6. Chap and this Gentleman himselfe shall be my witnesse who saith of me he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian which though it be not a recitation of all that are by me added yet is sufficient to tefie the contrary to what the onely had affirmed Num. 10 Secondly The character that is given that Emperour whose act I first produced that he is accounted Tyrannicall towards the Church will I suppose signifie but this that he that did any thing derogatory to the Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome is by this prejudged from yeilding us any competent testimony in this dispute which is in effect that this Gentleman is in the right and all that is or shall or can be brought against him must signifie nothing which sure is not the way of answering arguments but adhering to conclusions without weighing what is or can be brought against them Num. 11 Thirdly For that particular act and the Emperor which is thus censured It is Justinian that great and famous Emperour his making the Bishop of Justiniana Prima the head of all Daciae c. of which this Gentleman had past a very different judgement when it came under his view in the former Chapter Num. 12 There his answer was the Emperour exempted it not from the Popes subjection pag 15. and yet now when the very same passage comes in his way againe he hath forgotten himselfe and the Emperour that just now had as great care of the Popes spiritual power as of his owne civill is in a moment become Tyrannicall towards the Church I desire one of these answers being thus engaged may make good the contest against the other Num. 13 But then 4. whatsoever can be said of that Emperor in other respects 't is certaine that this erecting of Justiniana was no act of tyranny against the Church but the very thing that is authorised by the 17 Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon which is one of those that the Pope at his consecration solemnly vows to observe and all the Ordinances made in them for that resolves that if any City be built or restored by the Kings power the Ecclesiastical order must follow the Political 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Scholiast the Imperial decrees concerning that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the dignity of an Episcopal or Metropolitical See And the same againe in the same words was decreed by the 6. Council in Trullo Can. 38. from whence certainly Balsamon's conclusion is irrefragable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is lawfull and so sure not Tyrannical for a Prince to take away or remove the privileges of the Church of any City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine as he shall please concerning the Privileges of Bishops Num. 14 His second answer is that I doe not say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an Actor in the businesse To which I answer that when I have made it appear to be the act of the Emperour and that by the Canons of Councels it was acknowledged fully lawfull for the Emperour and so for other Princes to doe so I need neither inquire whether the consent of Bishops or of the Pope himself were added to it such formalities of consent may be had or omitted without any disturbance to or influence on the matter Num. 15 His third answer is applied to that Act of Valentinian which made Ravenna a Patriarchate and first he calls the Decree of that Emperour an Apocryphall decree 2. He saith that it was giving to the Bishop privileges purely Ecclesiastical reproving me for making him a Patriarch For the first I answer that as I never thought it any piece of the Canon of Scripture by which Valentinian did this or any more than a Rescript of an Emperour which if such is certainly sufficient to expresse it an Imperial Act so the authorities for this may rescue it from farther question for though it were not Baronius's interest to believe it and so it is by him suspected of forgery An. 432. n. 93. yet even he acknowledgeth it to be very antient and owned by several Writers n. 92. and afterwards when the same authorities which are produced for this Hier Rubeus and the Records of Ravenna seem to favour his grand design i. e. make for Rome he can then very fairly make use of them though it be but a narration of a vision An. 433. n. 24. But I need not lay more weight on this than the Apocryphal as he calls it Decree will be able to support this is no singular president many examples there are of the like which are there mentioned in the Tract of Schisme Num. 16 For the second Patriarchal power Ravenna had without any dependance on the Bishop of Rome and I pretend no more for the Bishop of Canterbury and therein also shall bate bim the title of Patriarch What he adds by way of observation on the whole matter 1. that generally the Bishops consents were praedemanded or praeordered as in the Councel of Chalcedon Can. 17. Secondly that what the Emperours did they did by the power given them by the Church will
matter still divolves as it did in the tract of Schisme to that one question whether the Bishop of Rome had at that time any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and must be decided as there it is by the view of Evidences whether that pretended from Peters Vniversal Pastorship or that from Augustines planting Christianity here or that from the voluntary conâ—ession of some Kings and each of them is so disproved there that till some competent answer be rendered to those particulars which certainly is not yet done by this Gentleman who onely here tells us the manner how he relyes on each of these and the possession they had of the beliefe that the Pope was head of the Vniversal Church 't is perfectly unnecessary farther to consider what is here added onely to inflame passions but not to satisfie Conscience to exasperate not to argue Num. 9 For what if moderate Protestants should truly curse the day c. or in a more Christian dialect expresse their dislike to the great Sacrilege and some other enormities which were committed in that Princes reigne what prejudice will this be to any lawful exercise of that regal power 'T is certaine that all the Acts of a bad Prince are not invalid or null and much more evident still that he that hath not offended in assuming the power which really belongs to him may by being denyed that be inraged and laid open to importune Temptations and if he be not a through Christian constant and masterly fall and that foulely under those temptations And if Henry VIII did so still this is very extrinsecall to the present inquiry whether he as King had power to remove a Patriarchy and by that to remove all forraigne jurisdiction or authority out of this Church Num. 10 All that remaines in this Section farther to be spoken to is the possession that is here pleaded not in the power it selfe if it were that hath formerly been spoken to but in the beliefe that the Pope as successor to S. Peter is head and Governour of the Vniversal Church This beliefe saith he they have been in possession of ever since the Conversion of our English Ancestors till King Henry and for this beside his own bare affirmation he brings no other proofe than one testimony of Naâ—ier on the Revelation confessing that the Church of Rome hath borne a sway over the Christian world above 1200. yeares Num. 11 And 1. for this kinde of Possession possession in the beliefe of any thing any farther than that which is believed is true and that appeare some other way than by our having so long believed it certainly this is no matter of any deep consideration to us If it still appeare to be true upon grounds of reason those grounds are the considerable and not the beliefe And if the grounds be discovered to be fallacious and the contrary to be more reasonable to be believed then sure this hath but the advantage of an Antient error and the older it is the fitter not to be longer continued in it must be immediately deposited And against this or instead of doing thus to talke of possession is unnatural and irrational the same plea that may serve for any sinne that hath had the luck to get the first hold in us the same that would certainly have held for all the Idolatry of the Heathens when Christ came into the world And he that hath long lived in obscurity and misery he and his Ancestors for many years together and were now offered an advancement out of that sad condition would he ever be so unkinde to himselfe as to refuse that offer upon this one account because it is the turning him out of a possession This prescribing for Error and prescribing for Sin and prescribing for Misery are in effect the same equally unnatural and irrational supposing it to be truly Error and Sinne and Misery which we treat of Num. 13 But then secondly waving this and applying our selves to the particular before us how doth it appeare that the Romanist hath been in possession in this beliefe so long as he pretends He here brings but one Testimony to confirme it that of Napier But for this testimony the answer is easie that the affirmations or confessions of such as Napier was and is by this Gentleman acknowledged to be in their arguing against the credit of Antiquity or to make good other hypotheses of theirs are of as little authority with us as I suppose they will be with them when they are contrary to their pretensions or interests Secondly that the Popes bearing a sway over the Christian world is not interpretable to signifie his Vniversal Pastorship The Bishop of the Prime imperial See may justly be very considerable and so beare a sway but it follows not thence that his ordinary jurisdiction hath been thus extended to the whole Christian world Num. 14 Nay thirdly the contrary to this hath been sufficiently evidenced Chap 4. and 5. both as concernes Saint Peter himselfe and the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter and till those evidences are refuted the affirmation of Napier being so imperfect and infirme both in respect of the testifier and the matter of the testimony will be very unfit to bear sway with any rational man Num. 15 And so the whole weight of this argument prest with so much confidence is resolved into the bare authority of the Speaker this Gentleman who saith it that ever since the conversion of the English Nation the Romanists have had possession of this beliefe that the Pope as successor to Saint Peter is Governour of the Vniversal Church Num. 16 And that I may apply some answer yet more particularly to this I shall premise one thing that if indeed this were granted which is suggested it would not be of any great force toward the inducing of this conclusion that the Pope really was and is Vniversal Pastor For supposing the Pope to have assumed that authority at the time of Augustine the Monke his coming into England and making his plantation and supposing him to have preacht this to King Ethelbert and the rest of his Proselites with the same gravity and confidence that he used in imparting all the Doctrines of Christian Faith in the same manner as Xaverius the Apostle of the Indics imparted to them two Gospels the one of Christ the other of Saint Peter I shall not doubt but upon these grounds it would be very consequent that all that willingly imbraced the preaching of Augustine and had no other Doctrine to compare it with or examine it by should probably receive this branch of beliefe and so all others from and after them that insisted firmely and punctually on Augustine's way and thus 't is possible the possession of that belief might be continued till the dayes of Hen. VIII Num. 17 But then this is no proofe that what in this particular Augustine
contained in that Crede acknowledging that it did forbid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference as well as contrariety pag. 644. b and even for such a bare explication they counted not that lawfull for any but the Fathers convened in O Ecumenical Synods citing it from Aquinas 2a 2 ae qu 1 ar 10. and adding that he spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of any Creed whatsoever which was common to the whole Church Num. 6 And accordingly there followes out of the Epistle of Celestine to Nestorius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The beliefe delivered by the Apostles requires neither addition nor diminution Num. 7 In all which how they are concerned who impose so many new articles of beliefe upon their owne Churches and upon all that desire Communion with them I leave to each Romanist to consider ann shall onely adde the words of the Catechism taken out of the workes of Costerus Petrus de Soto and others and set out by command of the Archbishop of Triers resp ad 2. qu. Neque ulla unquam ex titit haresis quae non hoc symbolo damnari potuerit There was never any Heresie which might not be condemned by the Apostles Creed It were well we might be allowed the benefit of this tryal Num. 8 And now having given this pledge of my readinesse to answer his questions though I discern not any obligation arising from my former discourse to lye upon me yet I shall not be so nice or sparing of my paines as to deny him a clear account also of his subsequent demands but shall speak as loud as he would wish and tell him first to the first demand that as to those few heads I spoke of I can blessed be God shew him Churches enough which have not betrayed the trust deposited The Church of England even now under the saddest persecution hath not been tempted to betray that trust the Church of Rome through all the Prosperity and Splendor and Grandeur which it hath long injoyed and which the Historian tells us acrioribus stimulis animum explorant hath as yet held out thus farre I meane hath retainnd those few head◠and in that respect is not accused by us to have betrayed that trust I wish it were as blamelesse in all things else particularly in that wherein our present debate is most concerned in imposing new Articles of Faith on all Christians and her own infallibility for the first of them Num. 9 The same I can as freely affirm of all other National Churches that I know of confining my discourse still to the small yet in the Apostles opinions sufficient number of heads of special force to the planting of Christian life through the world Num. 10 And so as this Gentleman is much disappointed in his expectation that I should not be able to name any Church that hath not betrayed the trust deposited so I must professe to him I think it as reasonable that they that agree in believing and conserving those few pretious heads of truth designed to so glorious an end as is the peopling a world with a peculiar colonie of inhabitants all uniformly zealous of good workes should all joyne hands and hearts to adde that superstructure to the foundation pure immaculate Elevated Heroical i. e. Christian practice to the untainted beliefe of these few things Num. 11 And then how much blame by force of that Canon of Ephesus most justly belongs unto them that make it their great interest to quarrel divide from and anathematize all others who cannot believe all other things which they chance to believe though they know they agree with them in all that the Apostles thus thought necessary to be agreed in indeed how contrary this is and destructive to this superstructure of which Charity in one principall ingredient and so to the designe of laying the foundation though not to the foundation it selfe I shall leave this Gentleman and every sober Christian to consider and if he judge not as I doe yet I shall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 number it among the prodigies of the age or indeed thinke stranger of it than I have long done of the great distance betwixt Reason and Passion in the same sort of creatures Man and God knowes too oft in the same Individual creature the same Man and Christian Num. 12 Having gone thus farre in ready obedience to this Gentlemans lightest intimation of his pleasure in satisfaction to his first demand I shall in the same humour proceed without all reserve to the next doubting as little as he but that these few things all justice must allow our discourse to he coherent and so to adhere to the same subject with which we began have been preserved in each Church by Tradition and then to the third that there is no place of doubt concerning the fact and so of question whether they have or no and if by thus speaking aloud to every of his demands I render my selfe subject to as much jealousie as I say Grotius was I shall not accuse him as my tempter but onely support and comfort my self that I have retained as much innocence as I alwaies thought Grotius had done and by declaring my meaning thus clearly and professing that I mean no whit more than I say I see no place for jealousie remaining to any Num. 13 If to believe the Apostles Creed to be conveyed down to us by tradition in every national Church from the Apostles time to this be any heresie I am visibly guilty of it and need not have my words put upon the rack as Grotius's have been to extort a more explicite confession from them Sect. III. Submission without opinion of infallibility The appeal to the Fathers of the first 300 years and the four General Conncels to what it belongs The silence of the first times no advantage to the Romanist Two Questions of Additaments to Faith The way of debating each of them Num. 1 HIS last exception to this Chapter is to our profession of humility and temper which it seems those of our religion must not be permitted to assume to themselves and which I was no farther so insolent to assume than as it is observable in the peculiarity of the frame of the Church of England's Reformation Thus Num. 2 I cannot but admire indeed the great temper he professeth men of his religion have in choosing of Doctrines to wit their submission to the three first Ages and the four first Councels but I confesse it is a humility I understand not first to professe they know not whether their teachers say true or no that is that they are fallible and then to hold under pain of damnation what they say Another piece of their humility is in submitting to ages where very few witnesses can be found in regard of the rarity of the Authors and the little occasion they had to speak of present controversies A third note of humility is that whereas the fourth Councel was held about the midst of
the fift Age these lovers of truth will stand to it but not to the fourth Age precedent or that very Age in which it was held so humble they are to submit to any authority that toucheth not the questions in present controversie but where doe they finde Christ's Church shall be judge in three Ages and fail in the fourth or that the Councels in the fift Age shall be sound but not the Fathers Num. 3 It is very hard it seems to please this Gentleman Our humility is one while by him censured as really too great another while the want of it is our crime and we equally to be scoffed at on both accounts Num. 4 It is a criminous excesse of humility forsooth to submit to those of whom we first professe not to know that they are infallible But as long as we doe verily believe they doe actually affirm truth why may we not submit to them though we know not that they are infallible For certainly I may submit to my natural or civil parent in this manner obey him in all his commands supposing as now I doe that none of his commands are by me apprehended to be unlawful as none of these Councels definitions as by us believed to be contrary to the Word and Will of God though yet I neither account him inerrable nor impeccable But of this I have spoken already Chap I. Sect. 3. Num. 5 What he adds of holding under pain of damnation what they say is in this place an insertion of this Gentleman's no word being said of it in that section to which his words are confronted and having elsewhere spoken to that I abstain from adding more at this time Num. 6 In the next place it seems our humility is too scanty for when I have submitted to be judged by the scriptures the consent of the first 300 years or the four General Councels whether we have departed from the Apostolical doctrines or traditions this saith he is submitting to Ages where very few witnesses can be found c. But I desire it may be remembred what there I speak of for perhaps this Gentleman's haste hath not permitted him to advert to it the contesting or innocence in this that we of the Church of England have not departed from the Apostolick doctrine and traditions And for this whether could the appeal more properly be directed than to the scriptures the Conservatorie of the Apostles written doctrine and the three first Centuries the conservatorie of their traditions It being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernible among them Num. 7 For let the witnesses of those times the authors that remain to us be never so few yet unlesse by some of their hands we be directed what the Apostles delivered to them how can we know what was delivered It being all one in this respect not to be as not to appear Tradition even Apostolical being no more than an empty name unlesse we suppose our selves able to avouch some competent testifiers of the Tradition Num. 8 And if to these two I have added the four General Councels because they were held against the great disturbers of the unity of the Faith and they maintained the true faith by these two special weapons the Scriptures and Tradition testified by the first Writers and our Church hath taken in their Creedâ— into our Liturgies and their definitions into our Articles of religion and so I have by that appeal so farre testified our non departure from the Faith I hope there is no offence in this no degree of defect in our humility Num. 9 As for the little occasion these first had to speak of the present controversies that sure cannot be objected against our procedure any more than the paucity of the Authors could for if the Romanist doe but grant this one thing it will be found a real prejudice to his pretensions if which was the point in hand the question be whether the Church of England have departed from the unity of the Apostolick Faith denied any Apostâ—lick Doctrine or Tradition Num. 10 For in this Controversie how shall it be proved that we have departed unlesse that Doctrine or Tradition being specified what it is it be evidenced also that it was delivered by the Apostles and how can that be evidenced but by those which within some competent distance of their time affirm that from them and how can they be pretended to affirm that if it be granted of them that they had no occasion to speak of it and so are utterly silent in it Num. 11 To his last note of humility i. e. the next expression of his scoptical humor there can be no need of applying any answer it being no where intimated in that Treatise that we are not ready to stand to the fourth Age or that wherein the fourth Councel was held All that was said was that the three first Ages and the four General Councels were competent witnesses of the Apostolical doctrines and traditions and I desire any man to name any other that were more competent to this purpose i. e. to testifie what the Apostles taught It being certain that whosoever doth not by inspiration tell us any thing of that kinde must assume to tell it from them and as evident that all those things that even now were spoken of which the Apostles resolved on as heads of special force to form religion and Christian life were by this means conveyed to us Num. 12 Mean while other matters there are which we look on as additaments to the doctrines of Faith and so are the subject of a double question 1. whether they be parts of that faith which was once or at once delivered to the saints 2. whether not appearing to be so there be any other just reason to believe though but by an humane Faith that they have any truth in them Num. 13 Now of these two questions as the resolution of the former depends upon those Ages which alone can conveigh Tradition to the succeeding and so still for that we referre our selves to the former Vmpirage so of the second I did not then because I had not occasion to speak in that place Num. 14 And if my answer be required now I shall readily give it that in matters of this nature the Opinions of the Fathers of the Church in the most flourishing Ages of it wherein their writings are most voluminous and their Learning in Theologie most venerable are with us of great weight and consideration we doe and shall upon all occasions demonstrate our selves to allow them as full an authority pay as great and true a reverence to their judgments indevour as uniformly to conform our selves to the declarations of their sense as any sober Romanists are by us discerned to doe or as it can be their interest to doe in respect of the controversies
man and was much cried up for so doing the British still adhering to their way and answering him that absque consensu licentiâ suorum without consent and licence of their whether Rulers of Church or whatsoever other superiors also their Metropolitan I suppose which cannot be thought to have been with them at this being certainly none of the seven Bishops which are affirmed to have been present at the later convention they could not forsake their antient customes Fourthly that upon proposall it was agreed that they should have a second meeting at which were present seven British Bishops which other Writers expresse to have been the Bishop of Hereford Landaff Bangor S. Assaph Worcester Paternensis Morganensis and many other learned men especially de nobilissimo eorum Monasterio quod vocatur lingua Anglorum Bancornaburg cui tempore illo Dinooth Abbas praefuisse narratur of the famous Monasterie of Bangor of which Dinooth was Abbot at that time Fifthly that before they went to this Meeting they were advised by a religious person whose directions they asked to observe diligently the behaviour of Augustine when they came whether he were meek and lowly in heart a mark by which they might know whether he had taken Christ's yoke upon him and consequently whether it were the yoke of Christ which he now desired to impose upon them and upon Augustine's fitting still upon his stool or seat and never rising up with any civility or humility at their approach they were so displeased saith Bede that they contradicted all the proposals that he made to them Sixthly that upon his making three Propositions to them concerning Easter Baptisme and preaching to the English and promising to bear with them in all other differences of which sort said he there were many wherein their practice was contrary consuetudini nostrae imò Vniversalis Ecclesiae to the custome of the Roman yea the Vniversal Church they answered nihil horum se facturos nec illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros that they would not comply with him in any of them nor acknowledge him for their Archbishop Upon which follows that rough sanguinarie answer of Augustine's quod si pacem cum fratribus accipere nollent bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi that if they would not accept of peace with brethren they should have warre from enemies and as it follows in very plain language per Anglorum manuâ— ultienem mortis essent passuri the hands of the English should act a bloody revenge upon them Which it seems soon after followed and fell in an eminent manner on the Monks of Bangor of which order there were at that time above two thousand who lived all by the labour of their own hands For saith he King Edilfred of Northumberland coming with a great Army to Câ—erleon made his first onset on their Priests who were assembled by themselves to fast and pray for their brethren as Moses holding up his hands in prayer whilest Josua held up his in sighting and upon no other provocation taken notice of by the Historian but this that they fought against him with their prayers contra nos pugnant qui adversus noâ— in precaâ—iâ—s ibus prosequuntur he first set upon them killed 1â—00 of them and then destroyed the whole Army Sicque compieâ—um est praesagium sancti Pontificis Augustini and so the presage of the holy Bishop St. Augustine was fulfiâ—led upon them These particulars of the story I have thus puctually set down in obedience to the rebuke of this Author who p. 412. chargeth it upon Sir Hen Spelman and those others that borrow out of him as a want of wilingness to see the truth of fidelity to comâ—nicate it to others that they have chosen to reflect on that testimonie which he is pleased to call upstart and which appeared not till within these 15 years and not upon that true antiquity which having indured the shock of almost a 1000 years Sir Henry had a little before transcribed out of Bede wherein saith he every one may read first that miracle in giving sight to the blinde man then that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Augustine which in his opinion more than sufficiently prove that S. Augustine sent by the Pope came in the name of God from a lawfull authority and that his demands of conformity to the Church of Rome in the points specified were good and to be yeilded to by the Britains In this matter I might now fitly inlarge and examine the force of this two-fold argument that of the miraculous cure and that of the predicted vengeance and offer many things to consideration concerning each head For the former 1. the no great credit that hath been given to the relations of Bede on this head of miracles of which his Story is so richly furnished together with the great deceit that such pretensions have been experimented to subject men to Secondly the confession of Bede that the Britaine 's were unwilling to yeild to this tryall of their cause and accordingly when he saith that the blinde man being offered to the Priests of the Britaines he received no cure or benefit by them he doth not so much as pretend that the Britaine 's attempted to doe the miracle and failed in it but leaves us to resolve that they wholly waved this tryall Thirdly that if the miracle were granted to be a true miracle and a testimony of Gods asserting the doctrines then contested between them yet this would not be any concludent testimonie for the Pope's Supremacy but onely for those things which were then the matter of the question the time of the observation of Easter the rites of Baptisme accustomed in the Roman Church and at the most some such like traditions wherein the British custome varied from that of Rome for this was the forme of the proposed tryall quae sequenda traditio quibus sit viis ad ingressum regni illius properandum what tradition was to be followed in the celebration of Easter that which the Britains had received and retained from their first conversion imputed to an Apostle or Apostolical person Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea or that which the Romans deduced from S. Peter by what waies they were to hasten to entrance into that Kingdome referring I suppose to the rites of baptisme the second head of debate between them And in both these as also in refusing to joyn with Augustine in the common work of preaching to the Gentiles it may easily be granted by us that the truth was on the Romanists side and not on the Britains without yeâ—lding a supremacie of the Church of Rome over the British Churches Fourthly that the Britains by Bede's confession acknowledged themselves convinced by that miracle that the way of righteousness which Augustine preached was the true way yet added that they could not renounce their antient customes without the consent and licence of their own superiors which evidently confines aud determines the
not convinced of any error in them and surely the bare damning of us is not any such matter of conviction so there is a double uncharitableness 1. of being angry without cause and expressing that anger in very ill language of which that of Heretick and Schismatick is the mildest and each of those causlesse too if they be affixt to any particular man much more to a whole Church before either of them be sufficiently proved against us For certainly as the Romanist's judgment concerning us if it be false may yet be but error not malice by which this Gentleman here justifies himself from want of charity so our opinions and perswasions of the erroneousness of their doctrines and sinfulness of their practices if possibly they be not true also are still as justly and equitably capable of the same excuse that they are involuntary errors and then by their own rule cannot justly fall under such their rigid censures which belong to none but voluntary offenders Num. 4 Secondly the indevouring to insnare and pervert fearful or feeble minds using these terrors as the Lyon doth his roaring to intimidate the prey and make it not rationally but astonishtly fall down before them And as the offering due grounds of conviction to him that is in error may justly be deemed charity so this tender of nothing but frights without offer of such grounds of conviction is but leading men into temptation to sin against conscience to dissimulation c. and so the hating the brother in the heart Lev. 19. the more than suffering sin upon him Num. 5 To these might be not unseasonably added a farther consideration which hath carried weight with the Fathers of the Church in all times that seeing the Censures of the Church were left there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for edification not for destruction and are onely designed to charitative ends must never be used to any other purpose therefore when obedience it utterly cast off the band be it of subordination or co-ordination so broken that the issuing out of Censures cannot expect to compose but onely to widen the breach not to mollifie but exasperate there Christian prudence is to indevour by milder waies what severity is not likely to effect and so the thunderbolts to be laid up till there may be some probability of doing good by them Num. 6 But this is not the case as it really lies betwixt Rome and us save onely as à majori it may be accommodated to us we have cast off neither obedience to any to whom it was due nor charity to those who have least to us nor truth to the utmost of our understandings and yet we must be cast out and anathematized and after all that condemned as wilful schismaticks i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dividers and condemners of our selves because we quietly submit to that fate which will cost us too dear the wounding and disquiet of our conscience to qualifie our selves for a capacity of getting out of it Num. 7 What he adds of their highest tribunal the Churches voice which hath passed this judgment against us belongs I suppose to those Bishops of Rome which have sent out their Bulls against us and therefore I must in reason adde that those are principally guilty of this schisme and so their successors principally obliged to retract and reform the sin of it and after them all others in the order and measure that they have partaked in this guilt with them Num. 8 And there can be no greater charity than to beseech all in the bowels of Christ to return to the practice of that charity which hath too long been exiled from among Christian Professors CHAP. XI An Answer to the Exceptions made to the last Chapter Sect. I. Of the present state of the Church of England The Catholicks promise for eternity to his Church Roma aeterna Particular Churches perishable Mr. Hooker's prediction of the Church The power of the secular Magistrate to remove Bishops Sees not to make Bishops The Councel of Florence concerning the Popes supremacy c. Marcus's opinion of it Joseph Methonens his answer briefly examined Num. 1 THE last part of this Gentleman's indevour is to perswade men that the Church of England is not onely persecuted but destroyed and of that he means to make his advantage to fetch in Proselytes being out of his great charity very sensible of their estate unwilling they should sit any longer in the vault or charnel house to communicate with shades when they are invited to a fairer sunshine in a vital and very flourishing society Thus then he begins his reply to the 11th Chapter Num. 2 In the last Chapter he complaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the losse of their Church and arguing with their disciples in this sort Communion in some Church even externally is necessary but you cannot now communicate with your late Church for that hath no subsistence therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholick who hath or undoubtedly is perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages in which none other can compare with him and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst and most prudent persons confessedly that ever was among them to be a building likely to last but 80 years and to be now torn up by the roots and this done by the same means by which it was setled I say if this Catholick believe his eyes he is at least to be excused and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained yet let him remember how inconsequent this is to what be hath said before for ask him how it doth remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters among them for his defense against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it will follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and unbishoped by another secular authority if it be said the Parliament that pulled them down had not the three bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up but it will be replied that though they are pulled down yet are they still Bishops viz the character remains upon them Alas what is their Character if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doctor makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops and Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the laity and so no character can
very small matter will serve turne with this Gentleman to support a con lusion which he hath a mind to inferre otherwise Master Hookers Testimony had never been produced to this matter The words of that truly most learned and prudent person are to be found in his fifth Book Num. 79. in the Conclusion The subject of that whole Paragraph beginning pag. 424. is of Oblations Foundations Endowments Tithes all intended for the perpetuity of Religion which was in his opinion sure to be frustrated by alienation of Church livings and this being largely handled by him throughout that Paragraph at length he observes 1. what waste Covetousnesse had made in the Church by such Commutations as were proportionable to Glaucus's change giving the Church flanel for Gold and 2. how Religion it self was made a Sollicitor and perswader of Sacrilege signifying that to give to God is error and to take it away againe Reformation of error concluding in these words By these or the like suggestions received with all joy and with like sedulity practised in certain parts of the Christian world they have brought to passe that as David doth say of Man so it is in danger to be verified concerning the whole Religion and service of God the time thereof may peradventure fall out to be threescore and ten yeers or if strength doe serve unto fourescore what followeth is likely to be small joy for them whosoever they be that behold it Thus have the best things been overthrowne not so much by puissance and might of a versaries as through defect of Councel in them that should have upheld and defended the same Num. 10 This is the first importance of that place which the Gentleman hath so disguised in his abbreviation Mr. Hooker foretells what a destructive influence Sacrilege may have on the whole Religion and Service of God observes in certain parts of the Christian world without naming any that sacrilegious suggestions are received with all joy and putting these two together presageth sad events to the whole Religion and service of God within threescore and ten or fourescore yeares and from hence this Gentleman concludes it Master Hooker's judgement that the Church of England was a building likely to last but fourescore yeares Num. 11 In what mode and figure this conclusion is thus made from the premisses he leaves us to divine who have not sagacity enough to discern it The conclusion to all mens understanding will most regularly follow thus that the Church of England was so constituted that all the enemies thereof on either side were never likely to destroy it by arguments and consequent'y that the most probable way remaining to Satan to accomplish his designe was by sacrilegious violations to impoverish and subdue the maintainers of it which as he foresaw very likely to come to passe within the age of a man so it would be no joyfull sight when it should come he was not so unkinde to any part of the Church of God as to be willing to live to see it Num. 12 And if this Gentleman's inclinations have qualified him for the receiving pleasure or joy in such a spectacle I shall as little envy him the prosperity which hath thus petrified his bowels as he shall think fit to envy me the honour of being a member of the purest being withall the most persecuted Church Num. 13 Thirdly That these words of Mr. Hooker thus pitifully distorted are the onely proof he hath for his assertion that this Church of ours hath now no subsistence and that it is now torn up by the roots A way of arguing very conformable to his characters of a true Church of which external glory and prosperity must never misse to be one but very unlike the image of Christ the head to which his Church the body may be allowed to hold some proportion of conformity for of him we can give no livelier pourtraiture than as we finde him crucified between two thieves whilst the souldiers divide his garments though they were not over-sumptuous and cast lots who shall have his vesture Num. 14 What next follows is an answer to a supposed objection of ours and that is a farther evidence of what I said that Mr. Hooker's distorted speech is the onely proof of his proposition The objection is that our Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained and to this objection he will make some answer from our own principles of which he supposeth this to be one that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters and saith without any regrets that this is my defence against the Bishop of Rome Num. 15 Many replies might be made to take off all appearance of force from this answer As 1. that this to which the answer is accommodated is not my objection The truth is I took not on me the objectors part in that place but evidenced it by clear demonstration that if twenty years agoe the Church of England was a Church it must needs be so now being the very same that then it was except these bands as the Apostle once said who I hope did not cease to be an Apostle by being imprisoned And when I mentioned the Church of Englands being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained together with multitudes rightly baptized which sure are all the necessary ingredients in constituting a visible Church I added none of which have fallen off from their profession and then foreseeing the onely possible objection to inferre the Church guilty of schisme I answered that by remembring the Primitive persecutions and night-meetings and the very manner of the Romanists serving God in this Kingdome for these many years Num. 16 And all this is pulled off from the clue and fumbled together into an objection of mine supposed to be made against that which the Romanist without either tender of proof or reason had crudely affirmed But truly I may be believed that I meant not that affirmation so much respect as to offer objection against it And then that is one speedy way of concluding this matter Num. 17 But then secondly for that saying of mine on which he will form his answer to this imaginary objection 't is certain I never said any such thing as is here suggested That the supreme Magistrate hath power to erect and translate Patriarchates and the like I had affirmed indeed i. e. to make that a Patriarchal See which had not formerly been such so to ennoble a town or city that according to the Canons of the Church it should become an Episcopal or Archiepiscopal or Chief or Patriarchal See and my meaning is evident and not possible to be mistaken by any that understands the Language and adverts to what he reads Num. 18 But sure I never said that the secular authority hath power to make Bishops and Presbyters and there is no question but this Gentleman knows if he hath read what he answers that in the Tract of Schisme
I never said it Num. 19 So again it is of daily practice in this Church as in all others for the supreme power to change as that signifies to remove Bishops from one See to another and so for every lay-Patron in the same sense to change Presbyters But what is that to the making of Bishops or Presbyters did ever King or lay-Patron pretend to that This is too visible to need insisting on Num. 20 Thirdly when he saith there was as much authority to pull down Bishops and Presbyters in this nation as to set them up I might demand 1. Whether he hath any reason to pretend that Presbyters are now pulled down in this nation for this is by him supposed who inquires by what authority they are pulled down 2. Whether he can either upon mine or his own principles assume with any colour of truth that none had any hand in setting up the Bishops in this Kingdome but those whom here he affirms to have consented to the pulling them down and consequently affirm that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up 3. Whether it have any truth in it whether he speak of what was done in Parliament in King Henry's or King Edward's or Queen Elizabeth's daies that the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation 4. What he hath said to make it in the least degree probable that the Bishops and Presbyters mission of preaching and teaching is extinguished among us any more than it was in the Primitive Church when the Emperour was not favourable to the profession and when the Jewes called it heresie And lastly whether if no one of these can with any degree of verity be answered in the affirmative this be not very immoderate liberty which this Gentleman hath given himself in affirming or supposing all these and then adding that our portion is to be lookt for with the Jewish Synagogue as one so the other to have an end not considering that he hath as little skill in revealing secrets as even now in interpreting Mr. Hooker's prophecy that he cannot yet tell what God hath within his veil decreed concerning our Church and which may yet make the greatest speed to follow the Synagogue's fate they which are cast down but not destroyed or they which to say no worse stand by and rejoice at it Num. 21 The Treatise of Schisme concludes with a Prayer for Peace and Communion and for the matter of it we have his seeming confession that all good people will joyne in it But even in such a Prayer wherein all good people will joyne this Gentleman will not joyne with me but upon such termes which I shall not undertake to qualifie me for his favour I meane not the fructus dignos poenitentiae such as John Baptist would prescribe but the penances of this severer confessor to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in his notion of the Church Supremacy of the Pope c. Num. 22 And all that I shall need to reply is to beseech him that he will then without joyning with me pray in secret what I began to him and endeavour so to qualifie himselfe with charity and other graces which may wing his prayers unto that holy place where all humble Christians supplications daily meet and then I shall againe pray God that I may be found in the number of those that so I may be secured to meet and joyne with him at that common throne of grace Num. 23 He is pleased to shut up all with an expression of the Councel of Florence to the businesse of the Popes supremacy To this I might reply that this definition is there visibly subscribed as the act of the Bishop of Rome Eugeni Pp. IV. who was a liberall carver and definer for himselfe as may be seen in that very page where the words cited will be found both by the Seale of his Pontificate there imprest Saint Peter on the left hand Saint Paul on the right and Eugenius Pp. IV. under it and by the last part of the date in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ninth year of our Pontificate which though I shall suppose to be the mode the Pope to pronounce the definition of the Councel yet this was much varied from the old form and the Councel being dated at Florence in the year of our Lord 1439. so near Rome and so farre from the first times where more simplicity and just distribution of rights might be expected this might be a competent answer to this testimony and a vindicating my self from all schisme or heresie that my want of the obedience or confession which he requires might fix on me Num. 24 But I shall for this once choose somewhat the longer way and transcribe part of Marcus the Metropolitan of Ephesus his answer wherein he expresseth his opinion and others of that definition of the Councel as it lies in the Apologie of Joseph Methonensis for that Councel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We also account the Pope as one of the Patriarchs But these doe with great gravity pronounce him Vicar of Christ and Father and Teacher of all Christians and this both to them and us is matter of some wonder how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with so much gravity they could thus pronounce what had so little of truth in it Num. 25 And it is worth recounting here what for the justifying of that definition Joseph Methonensis was able to reply there to that Bishop and that reply thought worthy to be inserted into the Acts of the Councel 1. That he doth not say that the Pope is two or three but onely one of the Patriarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having praeeminence among those of the same Order with him Num. 26 For this he hath 1. Chrysostome's authority in his 17 Homilie on the Acts where he saith that among the seven there was one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one above the rest and the seven there were the seven Deacons and the same praeeminence that Stephen then had over them and all the rest of the world we shall not deny the Bishop of Rome especially if as it follows there he have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more grace than all the other Bishops and will acknowledge as it is there also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same ordination of him and all other Bishops Num. 27 Secondly the saying of Christ that He that heareth you heareth me and the common maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that every Bishop is the successor of Christ But then how came the Bishop of Rome to impropriate that title to be the onely one that all are obliged to hear when as he confesses there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was said in common to them all Num. 28 Thirdly the words of Theodorus Studita one by the way that had been imprisoned for opposing the Bishop of Constantinople and who did not communicate with that Church see Zonaras tom 3. p. 9.