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.
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
A REPLY TO THE CATHOLICK GENTLEMANS ANSWER TO The most materiall parts of the Booke of SCHISME Whereto is annexed An Account of H. T. his Appendix to his Manual of Controversies concerning the Abbot of Bangors Answer to Augustine By H. HAMMOND D. D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1654. A REPLY TO The Catholick Gentlemans Answer to the Book of SCHISME The Introduction Nū 1 THe Letter from the Catholick Gentleman which undertakes to have answered the most materiall parts of the Book of Schisme is said to expect some account from me And I shall give it if not quite with the same brevity yet directly in the same method which he hath chosen attending him as he shall please to lead not by resuming the whole matter againe but by reflecting on those few passages which he hath thought good to take notice of and freeing them from all though the lightest exceptions which he hath made to them Num. 2 Upon this account I shall say very little to his Prooem in these words SIR You have been pleased to send me Doctor Hammonds Booke of Schisme or a Defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists as also your Letters wherein you lay commands on me to read it and thereupon to give you my opinion truly Sir both the one and the other could never have come to me in better season for having heard from some of my friends in England a good while since of another Book written by Doctor Ferne to the same purpose as also one lately come out of the Bishop of Derries and of this which you have sent me I was wondring what those who call themselves of the Church of England could say to defend themselves from Schisme but now through your favour of letting me see this of Doctor Hammonds I am freed from my bondage and satisfied in supposition that the most can adde little to what hath been upon that subject of Schisme said by him whom you stile Wise and Learned and well may he be so but here he hath failed as all men must that take in hand to defend a bad cause which I thinke to make appeare to you or any indifferent judge and which I will doe rather upon some observations of severall passages in his book than consideration of the whole which I will leave for some other who hath more leisure In the meane time I must say with the Poet speaking of some Lawyers in his time Fur es ait Pedio Pedius quid Crimina raris Librat in Antithetis The Roman Catholick sayes to Doctor Hammond You are an Heretick you are a Schismatick and Doctor Hammond replies good English some Criticismes much Greek with many citations out of antiquity indifferent to both parts of the question Num. 3 I shall not here need solemnly to aveit the good words bestowed on me because 1. if they had been meant in earnest they have yet no influence on the matter in hand As unlearned a Man as I and as learned as he which is by some characters thought to be the Author of this Answer may agree in this common fate that as one is not able to defend a bad cause so the other hath not in any eminent manner betrayed a good 2. because 't is evident that it was designe and artifice to bestow the good words on me that so he might get himselfe the easier taske And therefore the onely thing that is here necessary for me to tell the Reader by way of Prooeme is that since the publishing this tract of Schisme that most excellent discourse on the same subject written by the Bishop of Derry hath truly made that former care of mine very unnecessary and so should in all reason have been undertaken and answered by this Catholick Gentleman if he had really designed to satisfie conscience in this question And should it be believed by him what here he saith in the Title page that he hath answered the most materiall parts of Doctor Hammonds Book of Schisme yet I can assure him he is so much mistaken in his supposall that there can little be added by any to what hath been said by him that he is in all justice to undeceive the Reader and make him amends by giving him not a slight but punctuall answer to every part of that Bishops Booke before he thinke he may safely charge the Church of England with Schisme as still he adventures to doe Num. 4 Having said this I shall make no kinde of Reply to the rest of his Prooeme but proceed immediately to his first and onely exception wherein the first Chapter is concerned CHAP. I Of the cause of Schisme being left out of this debate Sect. I. No cause able to justifie Schisme Every voluntary Division a Schisme whatsoever the motive were Master Knot 's Testimony Num. 1 HIs words are these But to draw neere your satisfaction His first Chapter is for the body of it common to both parts yet I cannot omit one strange piece of Logick at the end of the first Chapter Sect. 9. where he concludeth that the occasion or motive of Schisme is not to be considered but onely the fact of Schisme Of which position I can see no connexion to any praemises going before and it selfe is a pure contradiction for not a Division but a causlesse division is a Schisme and how a Division can be shewed to be unreasonable and causelesse without examining the occasions and motives I doe not understand nor with his favour I thinke he himselfe Num. 2 What want of Logick there is in that conclusion of the first Chapter which extorted this animadversion from the Romanist and what store of that faculty somewhat necessary to the managing of a controversie we are to expect from him will soon be discernible by the view of that place which is accused by him where having praemised the criminousnesse and weight of Schisme and unexcusablenesse of all that upon what provocation soever breake the unity of the Church I conclude that he that shall really be guilty of it and the fact wherein that guilt consists proved against him will no way be able to defend himselfe by pleading the cause or motive to his Schisme there being no such cause imaginable which can justifie this fact of his as both out of Irenaeus and Saint Augustine had been newly vouched Upon which my resolution there was as to me seemed but necessary to divolve the Whole debate into this one quaere whether we of the Church of England were de facto guilty of this crime were Schismaticks or no concluding that if we were there were nothing to be said in excuse of us Num. 3 From this view of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rational importance of that Section 1. It is evident what the Romanist professeth not to be able to see what is the connexion of my position to the praemises foregoing viz. this no cause can excuse the
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 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
second Argument Sect. V. Of the Gentiles being S. Paul's Province peculiarly Num. 1 HIs fourth exception is to my producing the words of scripture Gal. 2. 7 9. to the proof of my position Thus Num. 2 But he goes on telling us that the Gentiles exclusively to the circumcision were the lot of S. Paul by S. Peter's own confession his words are for the uncircumcision or Gentiles they were not S. Peter 's Province but peculiarly S. Paul 's c. but look on the place and you shall finde no word of exclusion as pec'iarly is and whereon lieth the whole question so that the Doctors evidence is his own word against the main torrent of scripture on the other side Num. 3 How truly it is suggested that the torrent of the scripture is against me hath already been made manifest in the foregoing sections where the contrary appearances by this Gentleman produced as they are farre enough from a main torrent or from the common force of such or but even of an ordinary stream carrying the whole businesse before them so they are severally examined and allowed as farre as they have any force in them and found perfectly reconcileable with our pretensions Num. 4 And so likewise it hath already been cleared in what sense this Apostle of the Gentiles so styled by himself and so by agreement betwixt the Apostles acknowledged by S. Peter was so peculiarly or exclusively to the Iewes Num. 5 As for his argument drawn onely from hence that in the text to the Galatians there is no word of exclusion that sure is of little force If there were any agreement and division and several assignation of Provinces it must follow that what was said to be one mans Province is his so as it is not the others and so peculiarly and so as farre as that agreement holds exclusively his As in the estate first held in common and then after by agreement divided it hath appeared so evidently that I need adde no more to that matter Sect. VI. Of S. Peter's withdrawing from the Gentile-communion Of the Gentile diet The prudence of S. Peter's action Num. 1 HIs fift Exception concerns an incidental passage about S. Peter and is an actio injuriarum Num. 2 Again saith he see how he wrongs S. Peter and his Iewish Proselytes where he saies he withdrew from all communion with the Gentile Christians Whereas the text expresseth no more than that he withdrew from eating with them that is keeping the Gentile diet Num. 3 What wrong I have done S. Peter and his Gentile Proselytes I am yet to learn nor am I sure that I know wherein this Gentleman placeth the supposed injury But I think it most probable to consist in this that I say he withdrew from all communion with the gentile Christians whereas he conceives that he withdrew onely from keeping the gentile diet Num. 4 But 1. let me demand of this Gentleman what he means by Gentile diet I suppose using those sorts of meats which were by the Jewish law forbidden And if that be acknowledged of S. Peter that he would not thus eat with the Gentiles lest he should seem to offend against the Jewish law then by the same reason he must certainly be supposed to abstain from other communion with them because it was equally against the Iewish law that a Iew should converse with a Gentile as the woman of Samaria tells Christ when he spake to her but to draw him some water Ioh. 4. 9. How said she dost thou being a Iew ask me to drink and it was but water none of the interdicted Gentile diet being a woman of Samaria and either she or the Evangelist renders the reason in as comprehensive termes as mine were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Iewes have no dealings with the Samaritanes and accordingly v. 27. the disciples marvelled that he talked with the woman And therefore certainly Peter did abstain from all those other waies of converse and communion with the Gentiles which the Iewes thought as unlawfull as eating of the Gentile diet or else he failed of the end of his action which is evident what it was a fear of scandalizing his countreymen and from thence a shew of compliance with them lest he should be thought by those that came from Ierusalem to forsake the Iudaical law Num. 5 That the very Preaching to a Gentile which was the loosest degree of communion was according to the Iewish principles as unlawfull as eating any unclean meat using the Gentile diet is plain by Peter's provision Act. 10. 12. where the one is represented by the other and had he not received that vision which made it lawful to him to eat all kinde of meats he acknowledgeth that he durst not have adventured to come to one of another nation v. 28. affirming in as plain words as could be that it was an unlawful thing for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one of another nation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which certainly includes all communion and not onely that of the Genile diet Thus unhappy is this Gentleman continually in his objections Num. 6 It were here obvious and easie to shew the opinion of the Antients of the prudence and to kinde of uncharitableness of S. Peters action which would farther evidence how farre I am from wronging S. Peter or his Proselytes in affirming what I affirm of them But the present objection doth not make that necessary I referre the Reader for it to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretation or Comments of S. Chrysostome who sets it down exactly not as a quarrel but as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an act of prudent managery a wise ordering designed by him and S. Paul as most likely to reduce the Iewes from their errors when he that did thus much to comply with them not for fear of persecution from them but for fear of averting them from Christianity and was herein seemingly opposed by S. Paul the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 11. being not to be rendred he was to be blamed in Paul's opinion but he was blamed by the Gentile Christians made no manner of reply in defense of that compliance with the Iewes and so yeilded that S. Paul was in the right and not the Iudaizers This interpretation of Chrysostome is followed by the Greek Commentators and taken up by Ierome but disliked by Augustine in his Epistles to Ierome and therefore I lay not weight upon it nor have my pretensions any need of it Sect. VII The two plantations of Gentile and Iewish Christians at Antioch Euodius and Ignatius The differences of the Antients about them reconciled The two Bishops at Rome Iewes in England Simon Zelotes Gentium Ecclesia the Church of Iewes as well as Gentiles Num. 1 HAving gained so little by the several steps of his exceptions and the position remaining still firm against all I have lesse reason to suspect what is built upon this foundation in the
the twelve Apostles also And so considering what I had already done my self and what others had done much more largely there remained little appearance of force in those texts which might suggest to me a more diligent survey of them And all these together if not two of them alone were a competent reason of passing lightly over them in that fift Chapter where I was ingaged in a new stage i. e. of not returning afresh and loco non suo to a yet larger consideration of them Num. 8 I should now from this notice of his displeasure indevour to pacifie him by reforming my former omission and enter upon a yet more solemn survey of these two texts but that I see him already resolved not to trust his cause to the support which those texts can afford him telling me in the close that he relies not onely on such places of Scripture and if I should dwell longer upon them I should be thought impertinent and again reprehended as forgetting what matter I handle And therefore till he please to tell me how farre he relies on them and shew me that I have not yet removed them from being a foundation so farre to be relied on I shall spare mine own and the Readers pains and flatter my self that I have said much more to invalidate any conclusion which he shall inferre to his advantage from these two places than he hath yet said in my hearing to confirm his pretensions from both or either of them Sect. II. The Bishop of Antioch's title from succession to S. Peter equal to the Bishops of Rome Peter formed a Church there His dying at Rome no argument Num. 1 AFter his velitation he now proceeds to the weightier impression excepting first to an argument taken from the Primogeniture of Antioch Thus Num. 2 Next he urgeth that if the succession to S. Peter were the base of the Popes supremacy Antioch should be the chief See because S. Peter sat there wherein to omit his first and second question whereof the first is untrue I answer to the third negatively that the constituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch before at Rome did conferre no privilege extraordinary on that Church and the reason is clearly deduced out of his second Quaere because it was before Rome for he could not give any such authority but by divesting himself since there cannot be two heads to one body and therefore this authority and privilege of S. Peter can rest and be no where but where he died Num. 3 In this matter I must first premise what I had warned the Reader of in that 5 Chap. § 2. that what I there produced against the power of the Bishop of Rome under the notion of successour to S. Peter was perfectly ex abundanti more than needed the whole matter being sufficiently concluded in the former Chapter which concerned S. Peter's person and had shewed that S. Peter himself had no Vniversal Pastorship belonging to him or supremacy over any other Apostle from whence it was evidently consequent that to his successour as such no such power pertained Num. 4 This being premised I did not pretend that what should then follow should proceed with that evidence as to demonstrate again what was so sufficiently cleared already Onely to those whose curiosity was not satisfied when their reason was I proposed some considerations which pretended to no more than this that beside that Peter had no supremacy there were also other defects in the Bishop of Rome's tenure particularly this that he did no more succeed S. Peter than the Bishop of Antioch did nay that S. Peter having left a successour Bishop at Antioch before he did at Rome the Bishop of Antioch had in a manner the Primogeniture and by that as good if not a better title to praeeminence as any the Bishop of Rome had upon that tenure of succession from S. Peter Num. 5 Now to this part of discourse which pretended but to probability there can lie no exception unlesse it appear either to be untrue in any part or in the whole lesse probable than what is offered by the Romanist for the other side And this is now to be examined Num. 6 And 1. saith he the first question is untrue But he is so reserved as not to expresse his reason for so saying I shall therefore give my reasons to the contrary 1. because a question cannot be untrue all truth and falshood being in affirmations and negations and asking a question or proposing a thing to consideration whether it be so or no is neither of those in answering not in asking of questions Num. 7 Secondly Because this question being resolved into an affirmation viz that Peter as truely planted a Church at Antioch and left a successour Bishop there as he is or can be supposed to have done at Rome it relies on the uncontradicted Testification of antient writers Num. 8 By planting a Church I mean not that he was the first that preacht the Gospel at Antioch though Leo the Great seems to affirm it in Antiochenà Ecclesiâ primùm praedicante beato Apostolo Petro Christianum nomen exortum est Ep 53. and from thence pleads the right of precedence to belong to that Church in paternae constitutionis ordine perseveret against Anatholius Bishop of Constantinople for that seems by S. Luke to be attributed to those that were scattered abroad upon the persecution that rose about S. Stephen Act. 11. 19. but his forming them into a Church or regular assembly And that so he did and left Euodius Bishop there and after his death Ignatius the Martyr is elsewhere manifested at large and I shall not repeat it but onely adde one Testimony which I suppose will be authentick with him of Leo the Great Bishop of Rome Ep 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch bidding him be mindfull of that doctrine quam praecipuus Apostolorum omnium beatissimus Petrus per totum mundum quidem uniformi praedicatione sed speciali Magisterio in Antiochenâ Romanâ urbe fundavit Where it is the clear affirmation of that Pope that S. Peter founded the doctrine of Christ first in Antioch then in Rome by a special authority or power or magisterie which he had in those two cities more than in the rest of the world And so I cannot guesse what untruth there could be in that affirmation if it had been such which was but a consideration or question as he calls it Num. 9 Next he saith that S. Peter's constituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch before he did the like at Rome is a proof that he conferred no extraordinary privilege on Antioch and renders the reason for it because he could not doe it without divesting himself and consequently this privilege must rest no where but where he died and consequently at Rome onely because he died there Num. 10 That he left any extraordinary privilege at Antioch I doe not believe any more than he did so at Rome and therefore
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
the whole world and that were never mutable but by the removal of the Emperial seat a certain illustriously visible thing it is not easily discernible how this should more prejudice the safety of the Church than the change of that power from one Bishop that dies to his successour in the same See But this is still much more than needed to have been said Num. 8 As for the Patriarch's I suppose he must mean of Constantinople being ashamed of that resolution of that Councel and imputing it to his ambitious Clergie â— he gives us not any testimony for this onely saith that in the Acts of that Councel may be seen how tumultuary and unruly they were And to that affirmation and that not very pertinent roof of it I have two things to say which indeed the Acts of that Councel and the Epistles both of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and Leo Bishop of Rome may assure us to have truth in them 1. That if by being ashamed be meant retracting or renouncing this resolution of the Councel It then hath no truth in it that the Patriarch was ashamed Num. 9 For â— it is so evident that of all Leo's reprehensions in this matter of the Primacy adjudged him by that Councel Anatolius chose to take no notice and to return no answer that Leo tells the Emperor of it Ep 59. maluit praedictus Antistes meam gratulationem tacere quam suam ambitum publicare and chargeth it upon Anatolius himself that he made no reply to what he had said to him Ad quas cum non rescriberes ipse te à colloquii nostri consortio separâsti by not making any return to my admonitory letters thou hast thy self separated thy self from the communion of our discourse Ep 71. Num. 10 'T is true indeed when Leo charged it upon him as an act of ambition and pride that he had procured that Canon to be made as he doth at large Ep 53. making it an invasion of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch his right setled by the Councel of Nice and so in his Epistle to Martian the Emperour and another to the Empresse Pulcheria Anatolius writing to him upon occasion tells him that the Clergie of the Church of Constantinople and not he brought this matter before the Councel and therefore Leo needed not be so angry with him and complain so sharply against his ambition Num. 11 And this I suppose is it which this Gentleman must referre to if there be the least colour of truth in his suggestion But sure this disclaiming of pride or ambition in what was done regularly according to a long continued custome and the Canon of the Councel of Constantinople is much more the justifying his innocence than the acknowledgment of any fault an act of confidence and assurance no indication either of guilt or shame no disowning the dignity confirmed to him by the Councel Num. 12 Many evidences there are in the story of those times that the Bishop of Constantinople did no way reject this power and dignity which that Councel had confirmed to him T is annext to the Acts of that Councel how he exercised it in an eminent manner on the Patriarch of Alexandria Leo the Emperour having put wholly into his hands the judging of a great affair and quieting a disturbance in that Church see the third part of that Councel of Chalcedon In which matter may be observed that in the Epistle of the Aegyptian Bishops and Clergy of Alexandria in a reâ—itation of the Bishops of the whole world the first place being reserved to Leo the Bishop of Rome the second is given Regiae Constantinopolis Anatolio to Anatolius of Constantinople the Royal seat and then follow Basil of Antioch and Juvenalis of Jerusalem Num. 13 And indeed if it be but remembred 1. That what was done here at Chalcedon was for the main but the reciting and confirming what was done formerly at the Councel of Constantinople a judgment saith Euagrius that this matter was well-ordered already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what the Bishop of Constantinople held by Custome before that Councel also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a custome that had been long in force and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a precedaneous custome c. Secondly that this was done by this Councel if their professions may be believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much to adde any thing to the See of Constantinople as to provide for the quiet of other Metropoles in Asia Pontus and Thracia Thirdly that the Councel attested all this and sent a relation of it to the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perswaded that he being rightly informed would receive and confirm it though his Legates had obstinately opposed it Fourthly That all the objections which the Pope or his Legates had to it were proposed and clearly answered in the Councel that of the contrariety of the Canon to the decree of the Councel of Nice by reading that Decrce and shewing that it was perfectly reconcileable to it That of invading the rights of the Metropoles of Asia Pontus and Thracia by the severall Bishops of those regions being examined by the Emperours proxies whether they consented to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their own will or by any necessity imposed on them and their several cheerful answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I subscribed willingly as in the presence of God and the like To which if we adde the depression of the Bishop of Antioch which Leo objects it is likewise answered by Maximus the Bishop of Antioch his subscription to this Canon Lastly that as this was enacted by Baronius's own confession by 600 Bishops i. e. by the whole Councel not onely by a party of it So the Bishop of Constantinople Anatolius subscribed it in the first place and next after him the Bishop of Antioch there will be no possibility of finding any truth in this Gentleman's affirmation that the Patriarch was ashamed of this judgment of the Councel Num. 14 It is much more reasonable to affirm on the other side that the Pope though not Leo was ashamed of his opposing it for within 30 years after we finde Felix He. of his own accord consenting to his Primacy and acknowledging Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to have power over the Bishops that were under him Ep 1 and Innocent III. confirms it with a solemn constitution ap Antiqua de Privileg that I adde not the establishment of it again by the Councel of Florence sess ult in lit Vnionâ— Num. 15 As for the reason which is here offered to confirm the truth of his affirmation it hath it self no truth in it and so cannot be a reason of the affirmation It is not true for there was no tumult nor unruliness in the Councel onely the Pope's Legates opposed the Canon and made their complaint to the Judges and were heard most regularly in all they
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
That the same right cannot be held by two tenures appears by this because if it might it being evidently possible that those two tenures might be separated and placed in several subjects the inheritance in one the conquest in another it must follow from thence that each of those persons shall have the right which as it is unimaginable speaking of the whole right or propriety in integrum to the whole power for if one have it all the other can have no part of it so if it be applied to a partial right which more than one may have either severally or socially and jointly to the same thing then that is the changing of the Question which spake of the whole right and not onely of some one or more parts or branches of it Num. 9 And therefore as this Gentleman agrees with me in the conclusion that Rome hath no title to our obedience from that of converting us or if it had it could not plead the same from S. Peter 's universal Pastorship so I cannot discern why my way of inferring it was disliked or my ignorance in the Lawes censured for saying that the title of descent is exclusive to that of conquest meaning it not of several parts of which one comes by descent the other by conquest but of the same whole thing of which he that hath the right by descent may by the sword and conquest vindicate his right and acquire quiet possession but cannot be said to acquire his right by those means being supposed to have had it before he made use of them Sect. II. The British Church not converted from Rome Num. 1 HAving granted me my conclusion that our obedience to Rome is not due from the Nation 's conversion by mission from thence he is yet resolved to examine my arguments by which I prove what he grants And there be three things that here he takes notice of The first in these words Num. 2 But to come to some matter His first arguments is that this Island was converted before S. Augustine's time surely he means by the name of Island the Land and Mountains and trees for if he speak of the men what hath the conversion of the former Islanders to doe with the subjection and duty which the Saxons owe. Num. 3 I answer by this Island I mean not the mountains nor trees on one side any more than the present individual persons on the other side but the inhabitants of it indefinitely who have succeeded one another whether British or Saxon by extraction For first of the British it is certain that they were not converted by mission from Rome but were Christians long before S. Augustine's coming hither And Secondly of the Saxons it may be remembred that Augustine did not absolutely introduce Christianity among them here but Luidhardus that came out of France with Ethelred's Wife and was a Bishop here had prepared the way for Augustine See Bede Hist Eccl lib. 1. c. 25 26. And Thirdly if Augustine were the first converter of the Saxons and so that be without farther question granted of him yet that cannot belong to the whole Island the Dominion of Wales being neither of Saxon extraction nor converted from Rome to Christianity And this is the designe of that argument of mine In case there were a duty owing to that See from whence the converter came and in case that were acknowledged to pertain to the Saxons yet still the British part would not be concluded by either of these it being certain that their Ancestors were not comprehended in this number Num. 4 But because this Gentleman waves this title from conversion neither shall I farther insist to disprove it But rather ask why no answer was made to those testimonies which in that place were occasionally vouched to shew that at the time of Augustine's coming into this Island the Christian Church here acknowledged no subjection to Rome or to any other Church to be due from them which certainly is some prejudice to the claim drawn from the Vniversal Pastorship of S. Peter and his successor at Rome Num. 5 To that which is there said for the evidencing this out of the Annals of Gisburne It will not be amisse here to adde what our stories tell us that when the Pelagian heresie which first sprang from Morgan a Britain was by Agricola brought into this Island the Britains unwilling to receive their infusions and yet unable to resist them without assistance from some other Church in this time of need applied not themselves to Rome as in their secular distresses they had accustomed but to their neighbours of France who calling a Councel sent Germanus Altisiodorensis and Lupus to their aid by which means the Catholick Faith was much revived and increased and propagated among them Sect. III. S. Paul's plantations an argument against the Vniversal Pastorship of S. Peter S. Paul's being Bishop of Rome no answer to it Num. 1 THE argument which he next speaks to is that wherein from Paul's having planted some Churches which yet are not subjected to the Chair where S. Paul sate whether Antioch or Rome I conclude against this claim of power from the title of conversion To this he thus speaks Num. 2 His next Argument demandeth whether all that S. Paul converted were obliged to be under him truly if it were to purpose I believe there might be proof that S. Paul expected it but he doth not remember that he told us S. Paul was Bishop of Rome and so it cometh to the same quesion but indeed he quite misseth the matter for no body stateth this for the Popes title but aggravation of the schisme Num. 3 3. To what purpose it is to say there might be proof and yet to produce none I know not This onely I desire to note that if any such proof were produced and without that by the bare pretending that it might be proved S. Peter's universal Pastorship must be disclaimed and consequently all right which derives its original from thence Num. 4 For S. Paul 's labours being more abundant than all the Apostles 't is certain great numbers were converted by him and if all they were to be under S. Paul how can S. Peter be Pastor and Ruler of all it being certain that S. Paul was not subordinate to S. Peter Num. 5 And it is of little force what I am reminded of though sure I never forgot it that S. Paul was Bishop of Rome and so it cometh to the same question For 1. S. Paul being Bishop of the Gentile part of the Roman Christians as S. Peter of the Jewish and those then disparate congregations S. Paul cannot be thought in his converting the Gentiles of other nations to bring in subjects to S. Peter And 2. it is evident that S. Paul was not Bishop of Rome when he placed Timothy over Asia and Titus over Crete and consequently the conversion and establishment of those Churches was not in any reason to
acquire any Dominion to Rome which S. Paul had never seen at that time and which was it self converted after those and that was it which I was proving Num. 6 But he bethinketh himself at last and confesseth that this of conversion is not the Pope's title to England And having done so before why might he not have permitted me to bring undeniable evidences for the proof of it Sect. IV. The concernments of Rome in the Princes power to remove Patriarchates The examples of it Justiniana the Canon of Chalcedon and the 6 t Councel Valentinian making Ravenna a Patriarchate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 1 TO put this whole matter out of controversie viz that the Church of England is not bound to be subject to that Church from which it first received the Faith one head of argument I pitcht on the power of Kings to remove or erect Primacies and Patriarchates which if it have truth in it evidently proves that in case we were once under the See of Rome as our Patriarchate or Prime See supposing that of Vniversal Pastorship disproved before and not reconcileable with this title to England by having converted yet it was in the power of our Kings to remove that from Rome to Canterbury For the proof of this evidences were brought both from the Councel and that OEcumenical of Chalcedon and from the practice of Princes particularly Justinian in an eminent instance and Valentinian and others before the Councel of Chalcedon and many the like examples in the Records of this Kingdome and of others as is shewed at large and the ground of all insisted on the supreme power of Kings in Ecclesiastical affairs and this is done in 16 sections from the 9th to the end of that Chapter Against all which that we may see how true the title of this Gentleman's Book is An Answer to the most material parts c. that which is confronted is contained in these words Num. 2 Thirdly He saith it was in the Emperors power to constitute Patriarchs whether that be so or not it will not be much to our purpose to dispute here onely this I say that he seems neither to understand the question nor proves what he would he understands not the question which hath no dependency on the nature of Patriarchs or terms of gratitude but on the donation of Christ he proves not what he would for he produceth onely the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannical towards the Church without proof and discussion whether it was well or ill done which was requisite to make good his proof neither doth he say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an Actor in the businesse he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian the third for giving of privileges purely Ecclesiastical to the Bishop of Ravenna which out of his liberality he makes a Patriarch but on the whole matter this is to be observed that generally the Bishops consents were praedemanded or praeordered as in the Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. it is ordered that the Church should translate their Bishoprick◠according to the Emperours changing of his City and when the Emperours did it it is said they did it according to the power given them to wit by the Church so that a few examples to the contrary produced in the reigns of head-strong and Tyrannical Princes as the most of those are noted to be under whom they are urged prove nothing and if they did yet cannot they be taken as testimonies when these matters of fact are onely so attributed to Princes as no way to exclude the Church but whatsoever it was it doth not at all appertaine to the question since the Popes authority in the sense he calls him Pope is not properly Patriarchal nor hath any dependency upon or from change of places made by the command of Princes Num. 3 The first thing here answered is that it is not much to the Romanists purpose to dispute whether or no the Emperour hath power to constitute Patriarchs He ought to have added or to translate them from one City to another for that is in that Tract also expresly proved but this I suppose not without reason omitted because the power to erect or constitute supposes and implies the power to translate them And if this be not this Gentleman's interest to dispute I shall then by his good leave suppose it yeilded me and observe what the consequences will be Num. 4 And 1. In case the power of the Pope be a Patriarchal power and no more and that appear to be all that the antient Councils ever allowed it to be then it immediately followes that it is in the power of the Emperour to translate and remove it from that to any other See and in that case what befell Constantinople by way of advancement from the title of an ordinary Suffragan Bishops See it ascended to equal dignity and privileges with Rome it self will in the reverse be the condition of Rome from the first Patriarchal See in the whole world nothing hinders but that it may become the See of the most ordinary Bishop And sure 't will be the Romanists concernment to dispute that principle from which this may possibly be the undeniable conclusion Num. 5 But if as here it seems to be interposed the power of Rome be that of Vniversal Pastorship no way dependant on the nature of Patriarchs or on any other tenure but the donation of Christ to Saint Peter then 1. it must be remembred that after the refuting of any such right from Christs donation in the former Chapters the removal also of this was in all reason to prove of some interest to the Romanist and so it must all the proofes of those Chapters be perfectly answered which yet hath not been done in any degree as this reply to the few answers applyed to those Chapters hath shewed Num. 6 Secondly This adhering thus wholly to this donation of Christ and the Vniversall Pastorship deduced from thence is the direct disclaiming of all the Canonical Privileges belonging to Rome on the score of Patriarchy and so in case that first tenure shall faile it is the degrading of Rome from that dignity which by antient Canon belong'd to it that of the Prime Patriarchy and so cuts the Romanist off from all the advantage he can reape either from the affirmation of Fathers or Councels any farther than they are founded in and referre to Christs donation of Vniversal Pastorship to Saint Peter which whether it will prove to be the interest of this Gentleman I must leave him to judge for himselfe and onely adde in the last place that against him that asserts the Bishop of Romes Vniversal Pastorship upon what title soever this will necessarily be a shrewd prejudice if it be not disputed but yeilded that it is in the power of Princes to erect or translate Patriarchies by Patriarchies understanding as it is evident I doe in that discourse chiefe
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
affirmed was true or that the beliefe of it had possession in the whole Church before Nay the contrary will be most evident that at that very time the British Bishops acknowledged not any such power over them in the Pope or any other as is cited from the Abbate of Bangor cap. 16. Sect. 5. and much more to the same purpose Num. 18 And 't is no newes to remind him out of their owne Canon Law that some of their Popes have disclaimed and that not without great aversation and detestation of the arrogance of it the title of Vniversal Bishop or Pastor and acknowleged it is a very ominous Symptome in any that shall assume it and considering the prejudices that lye against it from the first oecumenical Councils all the Ordinances whereof the Popes at their creations vow to maintaine inviolably and against which to constitute or innovate any thing ne hujus quidem sedis potest authoritas it is not in the power of this See saith Pope Zosimus 25. qu. 1. c. Contra. I may justly conclude that all are obliged to doe the like Num. 19 But then secondly what truth there is in it in thesi that from S. Augustine's plantation to this time of Henry VIII the Romanists have been in possession of this belief of the Popes universal Pastorship must be contested by evidences And 1. For Augustine himself it appears not by the story in Bede that he did at all preach this doctrine to the nation nay as upon Augustine's demand concerning ceremonies Pope Gregory bindes him not to conform all to the Canons or practice of Rome but bids him freely choose that which may most please God wheresoever he findes it sive in Galliaâ—um sive in qualibet Ecclesiâ— whether in France or in any other Church haec quasi in Fasciculum collecta apud Anglorum mentes in consuetudinem deponere make up a Book of such Canons to be observed in England which clearly shews that the Romish Canons were not to be in power in England so when the difference betwixt him and the British Bishops of whom it hath been shewed that they acknowledged not the Pope to have any power over them came to be composed he required compliance and obedience from them but in three things the observation of Easter according to the order of the Church of Rome and the Nicene Canon the Ministration of Baptisme and joyning with him to preach to the English Which is some prejudice to the founding of this belief in Augustine's preaching Num. 20 Nay when Bede comes to speak of Gregory then Pope by way of Encomium at his death the utmost he faith of him is that cùm primùm in toto orbe gereret Pontifieatum conversis jamdudum Ecclesiis praelatus esset c. being Bishop of the Prime Church in the whole world and set over those Churches which had been long since converted and having now taken care to propagate that faith to England he might justly be called our Apostle and say as S. Paul did that if to others he were not an Apostle yet he was to us Num. 21 As for that of Vniversal Pastorship certainly we may take Gregory's own word that no such thing was then thought to belong to him in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria visible among his works and inserted in the body of their Canon Law Nam dixi c. I told you that you were not to write to me or any other in that style and behold in the Preface of that Epistle directed to me who thus prohibited you have set this proud appellation calling me universal Pope or Father which I desire you will doe no more for it is a derogating from you to bestow on another more than reason requires I count it not my honour wherein I know my brethren lose their honour My honour is the honour of the universal Church My honour is that my brethren should enjoy what fully belongs to them so I render fratrum meorum solidus vigor then am I truly honoured when the honour which is due to all is denied to none For if you call me universal Pope you deny that to your self which you attribute all to me And farther tells him with expressions of aversation Absit and recedant that this honour had by a Councel been offered to his Predecessors the Councel of Chalcedon that gave it equally to him and the Bishop of Constantinople which is in effect to give to neither the power or sense but onely the title of it but no one of them would ever use this title This sure iâ— evidence enough that if at that time any such belief of the Vniversal Pastorship of the Pope entred this Nation it must needs be the belief of a known acknowledged falsity and so farre from a bonae fidei possessio Num. 22 After this what possession this belief had among us may be judged by some of those many instances put together by the Bishops in Henry VIII his daies as the premises whereon that King built his conclusion of ejecting that Power which was then usurped by the Pope Num. 23 First a statute that for Ecclesiastical appeals they shall in the last resort lie from the Archbishop to the King so as not to proceed any farther without the Kings assent Num. 24 Secondly that Tunstan Archbishop elect of Yorke asking leave of the King to go to a Councel designed by Calixtus had it granted with this reserve that he should not receive Episcopal benediction from the Pope Num. 25 Thirdly that the Kings of England from time to time had and exercised authority of making lawes in Ecclesiastical matters Eight such Lawes are there recited of Canutus his making the like of King Ethelred Edgar Edmund Aethelstane Ina King of the West Saxons and King Alfred Num. 26 Fourthly that William the Conquerour instituting and indowing the Abbey of Battell gave the Abbat exemption from all jurisdiction of any Bishops aut quarumlibet personarum dominatione from all dominion or rule of any persons whatsoever sicut Ecclesia Christi Cantuariensis in like manner as the Church of Canterbury Which imports two things 1. that the Church of Canterbury had no such Ruler over him but the King and 2. that the Abbat of Battell was by regal power invested with the same privileges Num. 27 But I suppose all these and many the like instances which might be brought derogatory enough to the possession in this belief here pretended will but adde one more to the number of such arguments of which this Gentleman saith that they have fourty times had replies made to them And truly this is a good easie compendious way which as it secures him against all that can be produced so it doth not incourage me to spend time in collecting and producing more and therefore this shall suffice to have added now concerning this matter being apt to flatter my self that these arguments are demonstrative and clear enough
7 I shall onely for conclusion observe that if as he saith the Kingdome were for Religion's sake affected to Queen Mary it could not certainly be skilfull or popular or any way Politick in them that thus desired to strengthen themselves to introduce this change in Religion For whatsoever aid they might hope for either from Lutherans or Calvinists at home or abroad sure they might have hoped for more by the other way if it be true what he affirms of the Kingdome indefinitely that it was affected to Queen Mary's Religion For that other Kingdomes of Europe generally were so at that time there is small question Sect. III. Queen Elizabeth's illegitimacy answered The unpolitickness of her Councels of Reforming Num. 1 NOW follows his exceptions to that part of the story which concern Queen Elizabeth The first by the by Thus Num. 2 Queen Elizabeth being by Act of Parliament recorded a Bastard and so pronounced by two Popes and therefore mistrusting all her Catholick subjects who she feared did adhere to the Queen of Scots title in which she was then likely to be supported by the King of France her husband was by the advice of men partly infected with Calvinisme or Lutheranisme partly ambitious of making their fortunes cast upon that desperate counsel of changing religion desperate I say for see amongst what a number of rocks she was in consequence of that Counsel forced to sail witness her adhering to the rebels of all her neighbour Kings so provoking them thereby as if the French King had not been taken out of this world and winde and weather fought against the Spanish Armado in all likelihood she had been ruined especially her Catholick subjects being so provoked as they were by most cruell and bloody Laws but this by the by though from hence the Reader may judge of reason of changing religion in her time and what a solid foundation the Church of England hath Num. 3 That Queen Elizabeth was by Act of Parliament recorded a bastard hath no farther truth in it than is of force against Queen Mary also The same Act of Parliament affirming the mariages with Queen Katharine and Anne of Bolen void and their children Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate and so involving them equa'y under the same censure Num. 4 Nay if there were any force in this as this Gentleman by mentioning it is obliged to think there is it must be much more to Queen Maries disadvantage for 't is certain that upon the birth of Queen Elizabeth 't was enacted by Parliament that the marriage with Katharine was null because incestuous and so this with Anne lawfull which certainly it was if the former was incestuous and the resolution of the Vniversities and most learned men not onely in England but at Paris and elsewhere was that it was of such a nature as it could not by the Pope's power be dispensed with being so contrary to the law of God and by the same act Elizabeth is declared heir of the Kingdome in case the King should have no heir male and Oath of Allegiance taken to the King and to his heirs by Anne the mother of Elizabeth And to conclude the subsequent act that decreed the succession and establisht it first in Edward then in Mary then in Elizabeth by which it was that Mary did actually ascend to the throne was equally favourable to both of them Num. 6 And so still if any thing were to be concluded from this Gentleman 's prooemial consideration it still lies more against Queen Mary than against Queen Elizabeth if not in respect of the merit of the cause on which this Gentleman will give me leave to suppose it was that our stories tell us that the Pope had given Cardinal Campeius his Legate a Private Bull much in favour of the King's pretensions but kept it under some restraint till he saw how the Emperour's affairs in Italy would succeed yet in respect of the several declarations against the one and but one onely against the other and that how well founded is easie to discern if this were a place for such disputes Num. 7 But it is not so much lesse for the other Politick considerations that here follow whether the counsel of re-excluding the Papacy and proceeding to a farther Reformation in her Kingdomes were a desperate Counsel or no For if to this Gentleman's arguments I shall grant it were so the conclusion will be onely this that her action was unskilful in secular considerations from which it is no way consequent that it was more than as Prince she had power to doe or impious in the sight of God or that that which being built on so feeble a foundation proved yet competently successfull is by this means conclusible to have been unlawful and null for in that alone can be founded the truth of the suggestion here that we that adhere to her Reformation must be adjudged schismaticks Sect. IV. The Ordination of Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time Mr. Masons Record Introducing of Turcisme Num. 1 WHat remaines on this head of Queen Elizabeth as the narration after this long Prooeme the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after an acknowledged yet at large 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be soone dispatch't It is thus Num. 2 How far Master Mason can justifie the ordination of Queen Elizabeths Bishops I will not now examine but certaine it is that the Record if there be such an one hath a great prejudice of being forged since it lay some fifty years unknowne amongst the Clamors against the flagrant act and no permission given to Gatholikes to examine the ingenuity of it but howsoever it is nothing to our purpose for whatsoever material mission they had by an external consecration those Bishops who are said to have consecrated them are not so much as pretended to have given them order to preach the Dectrine or exercise the Religion they after did which is the true meaning and effect of mission I cannot end without noting in his 24. Parag the foundation upon what he himselfe saies his whole designe relies which is that because the recession from the Roman Church was done by those by whom and to whom onely the power of right belonged legally viz the King and Bishops of this Nation therefore it is no Schisme that is what soever the reason of dividing hath been even to turne Turkes or for violating never so fundamental points of Religion yet it had not been Schisme Num. 3 What Mr. Masons Records are and of how good and unquestionable authority I leave to the view of his Book which sets downe all so particularly and irrefragably that nothing can be more contrary to the Gentlemans interests than the most strict examination of that whole matter in order to the vindicating and justifying this truth that the succession of Bishops and order Ecclesiastical hath been regularly preserved in our Church at that time when alone the Romanist accuseth us for the interruption of it i. e. in Queen
the particular advantages he had in his intuition but suppose them latent and reserved For to his special discovery that he means to make by asking and supposing answers to many questions proportionable to the several links in the subordination the account will be easie enough that as long as any particular Bishop remains in the due subordination to his Canonical superiors so long the departure of any clergie man that is under his jurisdiction from that obedience which Canonically he owes him is in him that is thus guilty of it an act of schisme Num. 6 But then I when instead of departure he puts dissent which may belong to light matters wherein liberty of dissent from Superiors is yeilded to all men or to greater matters without departing from obedience or Communion this is not fairly done this difference having a visible influence on the matter Num. 7 Secondly when of the clergie-man's dissent from his own Bishop he makes me answer that it is not schisme if it be not from his Metropolitan I never gave him my letter of Proxie to doe so But on the other side if the dissent be supposed to be improved into a departure which alone makes schisme I shall not doubt to pronounce it schisme unlesse he have first made his appeal from his Bishop to his Metropolitan and by him and his Councel of Bishops be adjudged to be in the right and then if his Bishop by that judgment be reduced to order he may not he cannot again without schisme depart from him Num. 8 Thirdly when from Primates he ascends to Patriarchs as if that latter had a power superiour to the former and again from the l'atriarchs to the first Patriarch i. e. the Bishop of Rome this he knows hath no place with us who acknowledge no power of any Patriarch above a Primate no supremacie over all in the Bishop of Rome but yet allow them and him proportionably to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if that will content him that Primacie of order which by the antient Canons is allowed them Num. 9 Fourthly whatsoever concerning these several steps from the lowest Clergie man to the first of Patriarchs he phansies to be answered by us and from thence concludes that then schism is no way provided against is visibly much more true of any Romanist For certainly if he dissent not from the Bishop of Rome it must be no schisme in him though he dissent from his own Bishop his own Archbishop Primate and Patriarch and if he doe dissent from him 't is not his consenting with all his inferior Governors that will stand him in stead for his vindication Num. 10 And therefore if what he hath formed against me by his making answer himself to his own questions be found really to conclude as he saith it doth against all subordination 't is now evident who is most blameable for it he doubtlesse that hath divolved all into the Monarchike supremacy of the Pope and permits us not to consider what any other our immediate superiors require of us Num. 11 Lastly what he puts into my mouth by way of answer concerning subordination to a General Councel that if a nation or Bishop dissent from the rest of a General Councel still it is not schisme unlesse as I said there be deceit in substituting the word Dissent for Departure or Recession I shall no way acknowledge the answer which he believes I will make For certainly I acknowledge as much as he or any man the authority of a General Councel against the dissents of a nation much more of a particular Bishop And these were misadventures enough to be noted in one Paragraph Sect. II. The sufficiency of the few heads resolved on by the Apostles The notion of Fundamentals The Canon of Ephesus concerning it The definition of the Councel of Florence Many Churches have not betrayed this trust Christian practice to be super-added The few things preserved by Tradition Num. 1 NExt he proceeds to another part of the discourse of that Chapter concerning the heads resolved on by the Apostles in order to planting Christian life and to that he thus offers his exceptions Num. 2 But saith the Doctor the Apostles resolved upon some few heads of special force and efficacy to the planting of Christian life through the world and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation Truly I doe not know what a Catholick professeth more so that by the word few he meaneth enough to forme a Religion and Christian life and will shew us a Church which hath not betrayed the trust deposited for if there be none what availeth this depositing if there be any cleare it is that it preserved it by Tradition if there be a question whether it hath or no againe I demand to what purpose was the depositing so that if the Doctor would speak aloud I doubt he would be subject to as much jealousie as he saith Grotius was Num. 3 That what I affirme as he confesseth conformably to the Catholikes profession may be as full and explicite as he can desire I doubt not to expresse my meaning to be that the few heads that the Apostles resolved on were sufficient both for number and efficacy or in Athanasius his language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient for the averting all impiety and establishment of all piety in Christ And for his satisfaction therein I referre him to the Treatise of Fundamentals printed since that of Schisme of which the onely designe was to insist on this as the grand notion of Fundamentals such as were by the Apostles and Christ himselfe deemed most proper and effectual to plant Christian life in a world of Jewes and Gentiles and briefly to set downe and enumerate all those that the Apostles thought thus necessary Num. 4 To which I shall now adde one observation that this sufficiency of the foundation by them laid and somewhat explained on occasion of Heretical opposers by the Councel of Nice c. was such that the Ephesine Councel following that of Nice 106. yeares made a decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that it should not be lawfull for any man to produce write 〈◊〉 compose any beliefe beside that which was establisht by the Fathers at Nice and that they which should dare to compose or offer any such to any that would from Gentilisme Judaisme or whatever Heresie convert to the ackcowledgment of the truth if they were Bishops should be deposed from their Bishopricks if Laymen anathematised c. Can. 7. Num. 5 And this authority being prest by the Greeks to the Latines in the Council of Florence and that with this smart expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man will accuse the Faith that which those Fathers had profest or charge it of imperfection unlesse he be mad Concil l. 7. p. 642. A. The Latines answer is but this that that Canon did not forbid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another explication agreeable to the truth
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
the Pope And this is generally the result of other Authors narrations of this matter So Balaeus speaking of that convention Dinotus omnium primuâ— graviter docte de non approbandà apud eos Romanorum authoritate disputabat Dinoth in the first place gravely and learnedly disputed against the Authority of the Bishops of Rome among them adding Fortiter praeterea tuebatur Menevensis Archiepiscopi in Ecclesiarum suarum rebus ratam jurisdictionem that he moreover strongly and couragiously defended the validity of the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of S. Davids the same that in the Abbots answer is called the Bishop of Caerleon in the affairs of his own churches So Geffrey of Monmouth Edelbertus Rex Kantiorum ut vidit Britones dedignantes subjectionem Augustino facere Northumbrorum cateros Saxonum regulos instimulavit ut collecto grandi exercitu in civitatem Bangor Abbatem Dinoth caeteros clericos qui eos spreverunt perditum irent King Ethelbert seeing the Britains disdain to yeild their subjection to Augustine stirred up the King of Northumberland and other Saxon Kings to gather a great army against the city Bangor to destory Dinoth the Abbot and the other Clerks of that Monasterie who had scorned Augustine and the Saxons So Sigebert in Anno 602. Augustinus habita Synodo cum Britonum Scotorum Episcopis quâ sacerdotes Monachos invenit adversarios aequitatis Augustine had a meeting with the British and Scotish Bishops and there found an opposition from the Priests and Monks and terrified them by prediction of a calamity that should fall on them Other evidences to the same purpose are set down in the Collection of the Anglicane Councels and Mr. Whelock's Notes on his edition of the Saxon Bede p. 115. if there could now remain any question of it And that this was discerned by the Author of this Appendix if it had been for his Interest to have taken notice of it is evident by his mention of the miracle and divine vengeance as of proofs that Augustine was in the right against these refusers who yet continued saith he still refractory to his proposals And this was all I concluded from the Abbot's answer and this stands firm in this Romanist's own confession though the words of the Abbot's answer had not been preserved to us And therefore being now wholly unconcerned in the validity of this testimony and so secured from all danger of being bribed by interests to judge more favourably of it than the matter requires I shall now proceed calmly to consider whether there be that clearness and evidence in this Author's arguments for the invalidating this testimony which he assures us we shall finde in them His first argument is negative from the not least scrap of Antiquity so much as pretended to prove that the Cambrian i. e. Welch lines cited were the Abbot of Bangor's answer to Augustine upon the occasion specified nor that the renouned Dinoth was that Abbot nor that the old Manuser whence Sir Henry Spel extracts the testimony was copied out of any more antient What other proof from antiquity should be expected from Sir Henry Spelman to give authority to these lines than what readily offers it self in this matter I doe not understand That the British particularly those of Bangor and yet more peculiarly Dinoth the famous Abbot of that Monasterie disputed against Augustine's pretensions for the authority of the Bishop of Rome and asserted their own subjection to their Metropolitane hath already appeared to be the affirmation of those who are most competent witnesses of it and the Manuscript passage in Welch and English which Sir H. Spel had transcribed from Mr. Moston's Copie and directs the Reader to Sir Cotton's Library to satisfie himself in that matter is directly agreeable to this for the matter of it and so gave that very judicious Knight just reason both to set some value on it himself and to communicate it to others as that which might gratifie their curiosity and approve it self by its own light to any judicious Reader to be if not the very words of that Abbot's answer yet the sense and substance of it and whether of these it should be judged to be it matters not Had the contents of this Testimony been any way contrary to other undoubted records of those times or indeed any disparate new relation that had not formerly been taken notice of and was now to owe the whole credit and support to this Testimonie some reason there might have been for an Aristarchus to proceed with more caution than here was used and to yeild nothing to bare groundlesse conjectures and the Romanist hath as much reason as any man to lay this to heart to act with this caution in other Testimonies but when the matter is agreed on among the Antients and an old record offers it self to our view in perfect concord with that which we had formerly all reason to believe and onely affirms that more legibly and distinctly which was in substance before but not so punctually delivered to us I cannot think the severest Critick supposing him unconcerned and impartial without any hypothesis of his own to be defended or tended by him would have any aversion or dislike to a testimony thus produced though for some circumstances of it such as are here mentioned the producer have nothing of authority to back his own conjectures This one thing I am sure is most unjust not to give credit to a Manuscript that it is what it pretends to be unlesse I have some expresse affirmation of Antiquity concerning that particular Manuscript should such rules of severity be now imposed on the presse the Vatican must never bring forth more rarities the wealth of all the Archives in the world must lie dead like a Miser's treasure no one volume being able to testifie for the veracity of its neighbour or if it were it self must also bring its voucher along with it and so on in infinitum or else it would not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a competent testification in this matter and when it is remembred that all which is now made publick by the help of Printing lay once in single Manuscripts and those multipliable onely by transcribing and neither the originals nor Copies any other way testified to be what they pretended to be than as these Cambrian lines are delivered to us by Sir Henry I hope this will be deemed a competent proof that this first argument is not so clearly demonstrative as was promised Another branch there is of this first argument in these words And certainly if his Manuscript be no elder than the interlined English he hath grossly wronged himself and his Reader by honouring it with the style of Antient For as every one sees the English is purely modern and cannot be so old by many years as Henry the Eighthâ—s cashiering the Pope's authority and arrogating the supremacy in Ecclesiasticall matters to himself for maintenance whereof
he as successor of S. Peter hath a supremacy over all the Churches in the world I undertake to examine the truth of two branches of this suggestion one whether Saint Peter had this universal Supremacy given him by Christ the second whether this power if supposed to be instated on Saint Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome The former of these I examined in that Chapter And I must now discern if I can how I have failed in any particle of my undertaking Num. 4 First saith he will not reflect on my curious division And I that know there was no curiosity in any division of mine but on the other side such perspicuity as was agreeable to a desire and indevour to set down the whole matter of debate between us as distinctly and intelligibly as I could that the Reader might be sure to judge whether I answered their charge or no I have no reason in the least to suspect the fitnesse and usefulnesse of my division nor consequently to be impertinently sollicitous in reflecting on it Num. 5 That which he saith he cannot omit I shall make haste to consider with him viz my great mistake in thinking the Catholick ought to prove his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie Num. 6 To this I answer 1. that there is no manner of foundation or pretense for this exception here For I no where say the least word toward this purpose of requiring the Romanist to prove his pretensions or to prove them by this medium Onely I take it for granted that he doth actually produce arguments to inferre the Pope's universal Primacie and that Christ's donation to S. Peter is one of those arguments And that I was not herein mistaken I shall instead of a larger deduction of evidences from all sorts of Romish writers make my appeal to the objecter himself in several places of this little tract particularly p. 20. where he hath these words we relie on the first as the foundation and corner-stone of the whole building And what that first is appears by the words immediately precedent that the pretensions for the Pope's supremacy in England must be founded as successor to S. Peter in the universal Pastorship of the Church so including England as a member thereof From whence in stead of recriminating and retorting on him the charge of the ill memory I shall onely make this undeniable inference that I was not mistaken in thinking that the Romanist doth actually found his pretensions in the universal Pastorship of Saint Peter and consequently If I prove that to fail I have removed that which in his own style is the foundation and corner stone of his whole building Num. 7 But then 2. because he here pretends that it belongs not to a Romanist to prove his pretension just but that it sufficeth that he hath the possession I desire to propose these three things to his consideration 1. By demanding whether at this time or for these 100 years the Pope hath had the possession of the obedience of this nation I suppose he will say he hath not And if so then by the force of his own argument that possession and all the arguments deducible from thence are now lost to him the prescription being now on our side as before on theirs and there is nothing left him to plead but the original right on his side against the violence of the succeeding possession And if he come to the pleading of the right then that is the very method that I proposed and so did not offend or forget my self in so doing Num. 8 Secondly Concerning their possession before Henry VIII his daies I shall demand how long they had it and how they acquired it If he will not at all think fit to answer this question in either part then I confesse he hath made an end of the dispute and by refusing to give account of the right he had to his possession he will leave every man to catch and hold what he can and then to imitate him and give no account to any how he came by it which as it is an unchristian method every man being obliged to clear his actions from manifest charges of injustice and violence so again 't is an evil lesson against himself and unlesse we will confesse our selves Schismaticks in casting off their obedience 't is impossible for him ever to prove us such this kinde of schism which now we speak of being by all acknowledged to be a separation from our lawfull superiors and no way being imaginable to prove the Pope to be such to this nation without offering some proof to the point of right as well as adhering to his possession Num. 9 To which purpose it is farther observable 1. That even in secular things it is not every possession that gives a right but 1. either the bonae fidci possessio a possession honestly come by or the unjustnesse of whose original is not contested or made to appear And 2. whatsoever privilege by humane laws belongs to prescription yet in divine or Ecclesiasticall matters prescription can be of no force against truth of right and so this Gentleman seems to acknowledge here extending the force of possession no farther than till sufficient cause be shewed to the contrary 3. That though whilst I am in possession I need not be bound to prove my right yet when I am out of possession there is not beside absolute force any way possible to recover a possession but this of contesting and evidencing the right of it and that 't is evident is the present case Num. 10 But if he shall think fit to answer the question in either part of it then by the answer to the first part of it he must be forced to set down the original of it and by answer to the second the right of that original and so he hath been fain to doe as elsewhere so in this very paragraph where he speaks of Christ's commanding obedience to his Church I suppose he must mean the Church of Rome and that is again the very method in which I proposed to debate and consider this matter Num. 11 Thirdly For the power of which the Pope was possest in this Kingdome either it was no more than an Ecclesiastical Primacie such as by the antient Canons belongs to a Primate or Patriarch over Metropolitans and Bishops or else it was a supreme power over the King himself whether in Spiritual or also in Temporal affairs Num. 12 If it pretend onely to be the former of these then the power of Kings to erect or translate Primacies or Patriarchates which is insisted on and evidenced in the Tract of Schisme c 6. § 9. was sufficient then to justifie what here was done no possession being pleadable against the King to restrain or exclude this exercise of his power and so now to free us from schisme by this Gentleman's rule this act of the Kings in translating the Primacie being sufficient cause for quitting