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
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
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
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
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
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 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
I cannot be required to prove any more than this that it is as reasonable for me to affirm it of Antioch upon the title of succession as for him to assume it of Rome upon the same title Num. 11 From Christ there is nothing that will fix it at Rome rather than at Antioch and in the Law of Nations concerning inheritances nothing is or can be applied to this purpose It must needs be then from the free act of S. Peter's will whatsoever is pretended to And in respect of that 't is sure as reasonable to believe that he which planted a Church and placed a Bishop first in one after in another city should delegate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double portion the greater dignity and privileges to the former as to the latter If the right of Primogeniture be no right in this matter yet sure the younger sister hath neither law nor custome that the inheritance should belong to her Num. 12 And for his own reason here offered that it cannot belong to the Elder that is no reason For S. Peter might doe as Christ did make an assignation of power in his life time fix it by promise yet not devest himself of it till his death And if S. Peter had done so if at his planting a Bishop at Antioch on consideration that in that city they were first called Christians he had decreed that after his own death that Bishop should succeed to all that authority which he had received from Christ with power to communicate it to any I shall ask this Gentleman whether he might not have done it without either devesting himself whilst he lived or making two heads to one body or whether his bare dying at Rome would have invalidated any such former act of his in case he had done so If it would there must then be more owing to his death than to his life to his martyrdome than to his preaching or ordaining of Bishops that this privilege belongs to Rome And then again Jerusalem where Christ himself died will by that title of his blood shed there have a more unquestionable right than that city where Peter did but faintly transcribe that copie which had in a more eminent manner been set him by Christ Num. 13 Lastly if by this argument of Rome's being the place where Peter died the supremacy had belonged to that See precisely or peculiarly how could it be transferred to Avenion as we know it was and there continued for some time But I shall no longer insist on such fiction of case as this if that had been which never was what then would certainly have followed whether if S. Peter had been Vniversal Pastor it must eo ipso be concluded that his successour of Rome and not at Antioch was such after him when it hath been rendred evident in the former Chapter that S. Peter had no such supremacy Sect. III. The Act of the Councell of Chalcedon of the ground of Rome's precedence The safety of the Church reconcileable with removing the chief See Of the Bishop of Constantinople being ashamed of that act No tumult in the Councell The story of it Num. 1 THe next dislike is to my deriving the original of that precedence which belongs to Rome as the Councel of Chalcedon had derived it Thus Num. 2 Then he tells you that the dignity or precedence of the Bishop of Rome is surely much more fitly deduced by the Councel of Chalcedon from this that Rome was then the Imperial city or ordinary residence of the Emperour a very wise judgment that the quality upon which the unity that is the safety of the Church Vniversal relies should be planted upon a bottome fallible and subject to fail but the resolution was so shamefull that the very Patriarch was ashamed and imputed it to his ambitious clergie who how tumultuary and unruly they were is to be seen in the Acts of the Councel Num. 3 Here two objections are made to the wisdome of that Act or judgment of that Councel and I that foresaw it would be thus rejected by him and from thence observed how little Councels are considered by them when they define not as they would have them and therefore laid no more weight on that Canon than the Romanists very rejecting it allowed me might now spare the pains of defending the judgment of that Councel Yet it is so easie to return answer in few words to his two objections that I shall not decline doing it Num. 4 To the first that the precedence of Rome which there I speak of being a Primacy onely of dignity and order and not of Power is no such quality on which the unity and safety of the Church relies For how can that be concerned what Bishop sits uppermost gives the first or last suffrage in a Councel This Gentleman thinks of a supremacy of power when he thus speaks but that he cannot but know is denied by us to be placed in any one Bishop and therefore must not imagine me to assigne the original of that to which I deny a being And it matters not though he say I am injurious in denying it for besides that that is petitio principii on his side to say so t is also certain that the question now betwixt us in this Paragraph is not whether I am just in denying that supremacy but whether it be more than a Primacy of order which I divolve to this original Num. 5 Nay if I had spoken of the supremacy it self and fixed it on a bottome so farre fallible as that it might be removed by the change of Empires from one city to another if it were but resolved that the supreme Ecclesiastical power and so the fountain of unity should follow the Imperial seat I see not why the safety of the Church might not by this means be provided for Num. 6 Let it but be judged of in little first as it is easily supposeable Suppose the Church of England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay for argument's sake suppose there were no other Church but that of England and suppose there were a supremacy in one Bishop in him whosoever were the Bishop of that city where the royal throne were placed and suppose that that were for the present removed to Yorke and so that the Bishop of Yorke were the supreme Bishop and by that means the unity and safety of the Church competently provided for I shall then demand in case the royall seat should be removed to Winchester could there be any question but the supreme Episcopal See would be removed so too and might not all appeals be made from thenceforth to Winchester and the safety of the Church be as well provided for by this way as by it's being fixt unmoveably at Yorke Num. 7 The Primacy we know hath oft thus been removed and never more inconvenience come of it than by S. Peter's See being removed to Avenion And if any supremacy belonged to any succession of Bishops over
that lie between us And so still I discern not wherein our humility can be judged to fail by those with whom I now dispute being content that it should by others be judged excessive CHAP. IX An Answer to the Exceptions made to the ninth Chapter Sect. I. The hinderances of Communion imputable to the Romanist not to us Siquis Ecclesiam non audierit one of our grounds What is meant by Ecclesia Num. 1 THE Exceptions to this Chapter are not very great whether we respect their weight or number yet upon the same account that the former have been our exercise these may for a while detain us also Num. 2 In his 9th Chap saith he he pretendeth the Roman Catholick Church is cause of this division because they desire communion and cannot be admitted but under the belief and practice of things contrary to their consciences of which two propositions if the second be not proved the first is vain and is as if a subject should plead he is unjustly outlawed because he doth not desire it Now to prove the latter he assumeth that the Protestant is ready to contest his Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by what he means by that I know not for that they will convince their Negatives by any ground a good Christian ought to be concluded by I see nothing lesse What then will they contest it by all grounds a good orthodox Christian ought to be concluded by If they answer in the Affirmative we shall ask them whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of their grounds and if they say no we shall clearly disprove their Major but then their defence is if any ground or rule of it self firm and good speaketh nothing clearly of a point in question they will contest that point by those grounds and is not this a goodly excuse Num. 3 The designe of Chap 9. of the Treatise of Schisme is to vindicate us from all guilt of schisme as that signifies offence against external peace and communion Ecclesiastical and it being certain that we exclude none from our Communion that acknowledge the foundation and that we desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external communion with all members of all other Christian Churches the result is visible that the hinderances that obstruct this freedome are wholly imputable to the Romanist such are their excommunicating us and imposing conditions on their communion such as we cannot admit of without sin or scandal acting contrary to conscience or making an unsound confession Num. 4 To this all that is answered is that unlesse this second be proved viz that such conditions are by them imposed on their communion the first that of our desire of Communion is vain And to this I make no doubt to yeild for if we may with a good conscience be admitted to their Communion and yet wilfully withdraw our selves from it then I confesse there is no place for this plea of ours But for the contesting of this there was not then neither will there now be any place without descending to the severals in difference between us which was beyond the designe either of those or these Papers and therefore for that all that can be said is that we are ready to maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by And because it is here askt whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of those grounds I answer without question it is and so is every other affirmation of Christ or the Apostles however made known to us to be such And I cannot sufficiently admire why when it is known to all Romanists that we are ready to be judged by Scripture and when it is certain that siquis Ecclesiam non audierit are the words of scripture he should suppose as here he doth that we will say No i. e. that we will refuse to be tried or concluded by that Num. 5 Here I must suppose that by Ecclesiam he understands the Roman which he calls Catholick Church but then this interpretation or understanding of his is one thing and those words of Christ are another for they belonging to the Church indefinitely under which any man that hath offended is regularly placed doe to a member of the particular Roman Church signifie that as to an English man the Church wherein he lives and that is not the Roman or the Vniversal Church of God and that is more than the Roman Num. 6 And so by acknowledging that ground of scripture we are no way obliged to believe all that that particular Church of Rome to which we owe no obedience and are as ready to contest that by the same means also exacts of us Num. 7 As for our contesting any point by that ground or rule which speaketh nothing clearly of it I gave him no occasion to make any such objection against us and withall have said what was sufficient to it Chap. 8. Sect. 3. n. 7. and so need not here farther attend to it CHAP. X. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the tenth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists want of charity wherein it consists Num. 1 IN his view of Chap 10. he takes notice of two charges by us brought in against them 1. judging 2. despising their brethren but contents himself with a very brief reply and that onely to one of them Thus Num. 2 In his 10th Chap he saith we judge them and despise them as to the first I have often wondred and doe now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we presse it upon them out of love and kindnesse to keep them from the harm that according to our belief may come upon them but since they deny they are Schismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought untill we have cause to believe them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed judgment against them Num. 3 The want of charity with which we charge the Romanist in this matter is not their warning us of our danger which may reasonably be interpreted love and kindness and care to keep us from harm and if they erre in admonishing when there is no need of it there is nothing still but charity in this but it is their casting us out of their Communion on this score that we consent not to all their Dictates that we withdraw our obedience from those who without right usurped it over us their anathematizing and damning us and being no way perswadable to withdraw these sanguinary Censures unlesse we will change or dissemble our beliefs and as there cannot be charity in this any thing that can tend to the mending of any for how can it be deemed any act of reformation in any to forsake his present perswasions whilst he is
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
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
102. to the Emperor Michael that if he doubted of or disbelieved any thing that had been there resolved he should command a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declaration or explication to be sent him from old Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how from of old and from the beginning it had been delivered by tradition of Fathers adding that that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the uppermost of the Churches of God of which Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first that sate Bishop there unto whom Christ said Thou art Peter c. But all this still amounts to no more but that Rome was the prime Apostolick See that might very probably explicate a difficulty to the Emperour by telling what had been from time to time delivered and believed in that Church Num. 29 Fourthly the words of the same Theodorus Studita again in his Epistle to Naucraticus which speaks of some that had broken off themselves from the body of Christ from the chief See in which Christ placed the Keyes of that faith against which the gates of hell the mouthes of hereticks had not should not prevail But then still supposing his testimonie were authentick this is no more but that they which divided from the true doctrine which he supposed to be at Rome did in his opinion break off themselves from the body of Christ that Rome again was the prime See that it had the Keyes of knowledge and faith intrusted to it by Christ at the Apostles founding a Church there but this not exclusively to other Churches which doubtlesse had those Keyes as well as she that the faith of Christ should never be utterly destroyed by hereticks Num. 30 Fifthly the words of Arcadius a Bishop in the third Councel that of Ephesus proposing that the words of Coelestine the Pope who was to be named with all reverence Bishop of the Apostolicall See should be read that they might see what care he had of all Churches and why might not the like be said of any other truly Christian Bishop And so the like speech again of Cyrill of Alexandria that the letter of Coelestine the most holy Bishop of the holy Apostolick Church a title which belonged and was ordinarily given to other Sees beside that of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be read with due honour or respect but sure that doth not prove his supreme power over all the Churches of God Num. 31 Lastly the words of the Emperor's letter called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a divine letter in the Councel of Chalcedon that the most blessed Bishop of the city of Rome to whom antiquity hath given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 priesthood over all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have a place and power to judge of faith and of Priests from whence he roundly concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Seeing then he hath power to judge of Faith and Priests he is justly defined by the Councel of Florence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the teacher of all Christians Num. 32 This being the last and most probable and indeed onely Testimonie to justifie with any colour of reason the definition of that Councel it is not amisse to consider it a little and with that to conclude also the debate with this Gentleman as Joseph Methonensis there did with the Bishop of Ephesus And if we turn to the Acts of the Councel of Chalcedon we shall soon discern the full weight of it Num. 33 There in the first part num 25. we shall finde this Letter styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent by Valentinian the Emperour to Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would command a Synod to be called in the parts of Italy This then was the subject of the Letter and this the occasion A second Synod had lately been held at Ephesus in which the heresie of Eutyches had received some assistance Upon this Pope Leo and his Synod of Bishops met at Rome writes earnestly to the Emperor Valentinian that he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a General Councel to be called in the parts of Italy that may remove and mollifie all offences The same he again proposes to the Emperour Theodosius there desiring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a special Councel to be convened in the parts of Italy Hereupon soon follows a letter of Valentinian to Theodosius to the same purpose in condescension to Leo's request and in it those very words recited by Joseph Methonensis in defence of the Councel of Florence to no other sense but this that such a Councel might be convened in Italy to review and reform what had been done amisse in that second Councel of Ephesus Num. 34 This therefore is the meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may have a place and power that some place may be assigned him and the Bishops to meet in Councel that he may have power or faculty or Commission to sit not he by himself but he and the Bishops in Councel and when they sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge of faith and Priests as in all Councels it is done to define what is the true faith opposed by hereticks and what persons Bishops or others are fit to be censured for any thing done or taught by them Num. 35 This is the plain and onely importance of the place to which all the rest of the Epistle accords that an Vniversal Councel should be called in Italy wherein the Pope was doubtlesse to preside and he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all other Bishops also being convened from the whole world should consider and define what the true faith required And so this is a faire testimonie to prove that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ the Father and teacher of all Christians The Conclusion Num. 1 I Am now come to the close of this Gentleman's Answer in these words Thus Sir you have my sense of Doctor Hammond's Book in all the particulars which I think to the purpose my time nor the brevity fit for a Letter not permitting I should be more methodical and doe rest Your friend and humble servant B. P. Bruxels the 30 March 1654. Num. 2 Here he is pleased largely enough to assume the office of an Aristarchus and to involve under no light censure of impertinency at the least the farre greatest part of that Treatise of Schisme for certainly that which he hath not offered any Answer to is such and yet he here undertakes to have given his sense in all the particulars which he thinks to the purpose which must conclude it his opinion that all other particulars are not to the purpose This indeed is a performance somewhat above the promise of the title page which obliged him to an Answer of the most material parts of that Treatise And it were very easie to shew that there is no degree of truth in either of these that on the contrary he hath not offered any word of Reply to the most material