be deceived and there I acknowledge infallibility upon this ground whether of nature or of grace of common dictate or of religion that it is impossible for God to lie to deceive or to be deceived But that the whole Canon of Scripture as it is delivered to us by the Laodicean Councel is the Word of God though I fully believe this also and have not the least doubt to any part of it yet I account not my self infallible in this belief nor can any Church that affirms the same unlesse they are otherwise priviledged by God be infallible in affirming it nor any that believes that Church be infallible in their belief And as that priviledge is not yet proved by any donation of Gods to belong to any Church particularly to the Roman so till it be proved and proved infallibly it can be no competent medium to induce any new act of Infallible belief the want of which may denominate us either hereticks or schismaticks Num. 40 In the mean time this is certain that I that doe not pretend to believe any thing infallibly in this matter not so much as that the Church is not infallible must yet be acknowledged to believe her fallible or else I could not by this Gentleman be adjudged a scismatick for so believing And then this supposeth that I may believe what in his opinion I believe untruly that sure is that I may believe what I doe not believe infallibly The matter is visible I cannot think fit to inlarge on it Num. 41 One thing onely I must farther take notice of the ground which he here had on which he founds his exception against the solidity of my discourse calling it my great evidence that we that doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certain suppositions that follow there Num. 42 The matter in that place Chap. II. Sect. 12. lies thus In examining the nature of schisme I have occasion to mention one not reall but fiction of case Suppose first that our Ancestors had criminously separated from the Church of Rome and suppose secondly that we their posterity repented and desired to reform their sin and to be reunited to them yet supposing thirdly that they should require to our reunion any condition which were unlawfull for us to perform in this conjuncture I say we could not justly be charged for continuing that separation Num. 43 This fiction of case I could not think had any weak part in it for as it supposed that on one side which I knew a Romanist would not grant viz that they should require any condition unlawfull for us to perform so it supposed on the other side that which we can no way grant viz that our Ancestors criminously separated But this I knew was ordinary to be done in fictions of cases Suppositio non ponit is the acknowledged rule my supposing either of these was not the taking them for granted And yet after all this I foresaw that objection that the Romanist who acknowledges not any such hard condition required to our reconciliation will conceive this an impossible case And to this I answered that we that acknowledge not their Church to be infallible may be allowed to make a supposition meaning as before a fiction of case which is founded in the possibility of her inserting some error in her confessions and making the acknowledgment of it the indispensable condition of her communion What I have offended herein I cannot imagine for 1. I onely set a fiction of case doe not take their infallibility for a thing confestly false nor in that place so much as dispute against it Only I say that which was sufficiently known before I said it that their Infallibity is not acknowledged by us and so that her inserting some error in her Confessions is to us i. e. in our opinion a thing possible and so for disputation sake supposable in the same manner as I suppose that which I am known not to believe and if this Gentleman be thus severe I shall despair to approve my discourses to him Num. 44 Secondly that I make it my great evidence is not with any appearance of reason suggested by him It comes in meerly as an incidentall last branch the least necessary most unconsiderable of any and that which might have been spared then or left out now without any weakning of or disturbing the discourse Num. 45 Thirdly Whereas he adds that I proceed to make certain suppositions that follow there this is still of the same strein I make but one supposition viz in case she make any unlawfull act the indispensable condition of her Communion And that one certainly is not in the plurall more or indefinitely certain suppositions Num. 46 That I put this one case as possible and then proceeded to consider what were by the principles acknowledged by all particularly by Mr. Knot to be done in that one case was agreeable to the strictest laws of discourse which I have met with And if in compliance with this Gentleman I must deny my self such liberties and yet yeild him so much greater on the other side If I must at the beginning of a defense of the Church of England be required to grant the Church of Rome infallible i. e. to yeild not onely that she speaks all truth but also that it is impossible she should speak any thing but truth whom yet by entring on this theme I undertake to contradict and to prove injurious in censuring us for Schismaticks this were as I have said an hard task indeed The very same as if I were required to begin a duell by presenting and delivering up all weapons into the enemies hand to plead a cause and introduce my defense by confessing my self guilty of all that the plaintiffe doth or can have the confidence to charge upon me Num. 47 And if these be the conditions of a dispute these will questionlesse be hard whatsoever the conditions of our reunion be conceived to be and moreover this Gentleman will be as infallible as his Church and then 't is pity he should lavish out medicines that is so secured by charms that he should defend his cause by reasons which hath this one so much cheaper expedient to answer a whole book in one period Num. 48 And so much for his Animadversions on this second Chapter which are no excellent presage of that which we are to expect in the insuing CHAP. III. Exceptions to the third Chapter answered Sect. I. The Division of Schisme justified Of Schisme against the authority of Councells Of Vnanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches Num. 1 THe exceptions against the third Chap are reducible to 4 heads The first about the insufficiency of the division of Schisme in these words Num. 2 In his third Chapter what is chiefly to be noted to our purpose is that his division is insufficient for he maketh Schism to be only against Monarchicall power or against fraternall
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
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
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
soon appear to bring him little advantage For Num. 17 1. The Bishop's I suppose he means the Bishop of Rome his consent was not asked One part of the story is that when the Bishop of Ravenna being fain to flie to the Bishop of Rome for support against the Longobards submitted himself to him the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured thereby And 2. it is not truly said that it was praeordered and the Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon cannot be brought to that purpose this act of Valentinians dated Anno 432. being 19 years before the Councel of Chalcedon which was assembled Anno 451. and so sure not praeordained by that which was subsequent And indeed the Canon of that Councel mentioning Cities and Churches in the plural which had been before their Session made Metropoles by several Kings is a clear evidence that there were other such beside that of Ravenna and Balsamon expresseth them by the name of Madyta and Abydus c. Num. 18 Thirdly If this be acknowledged an act of Councel confirming the lawfulness of what the Emperours had thus done and decreeing as clearly the Councel of Chalcedon and that other in Trullo did that generally it should be thus that as the Prince made an ordinary City a Metropolis the Church of that City should be a Metropolitical Church then still this is the fuller evidence that it was lawfull for Princes thus to doe and that as oft as they did such changes in the Churches followed for sure a King was not obliged to ask the Churches leave to repair or build a city Num. 19 Lastly What out of Balsamon was cited by me that what the Emperors did in this matter they did according to the power that was given them was it seems either an occasion of stumbling to this Gentleman or an excuse of it For from hence he concludes that this power was given them by the Church This if it be true is the thing that I would demand and so farre from answering mine instance for if the Church have given Princes this power then they may freely and lawfully make use of it and Justinian's doing so could be no tyrannical act against the Church But let us view Balsamon's words They are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such definitions are made by Kings according to the power given them from above That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from above sometimes signifies in respect of time sometimes also in respect of place In the first respect it signifies from of old and is oft joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and if it be so taken here as Gentianus Hervetus interprets it olim it must then signifie that this power was yeilded to Kings either by the Apostles or by the Primitive Canons of the Church and if it were thus given them by the Church then sure they might justly challenge and exercise it freely But in the second sense it is as certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies from above i. e. from heaven so Joh. 19. 11. Christ tells Pilate thou couldst have no power over me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlesse it were given thee from above i. e. sure from heaven from God by whom Kings reign and have their power and so it very frequently signifies in the Scripture And if that be the the meaning then this Gentleman sees how well he hath inferred his conclusion from this passage Num. 20 By all this it already appears what truth there is in this suggestion that the examples produced are but few and those of tyrannical Princes and no way excluding the Church just as much and no more as was in the premisses which induced it and those being discovered already it is superfluous to make repetitions so soon in this place Num. 21 In the close he thinks sit to retire again to his old fortresse that the Popes power is not Patriarchal and so that he is still safe from all that hath been said on that head But it hath now appeared that if any other be made a Patriarch or Primate or whatever the style be a Bishop without any dependence on the Pope this is a prejudice sufficient to his Vniversal Pastorship and other disadvantages he is rather in reason to expect by disclaiming the Patriarchal authority which the Canons have allowed him than hope to gain any thing by contemning his inheritance CHAP. VII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the seventh Chapter Sect. I. King Henry's desire of Reconciliation to Rome The sacriledge c. no argument against Regal power to remove Patriarchies Possession in the belief of the Popes supremacy Prescribing for errour Napier's testimony Possession if granted from Augustine's coming into England no argument of truth Confessions of Popes Augustine required it not Pope Gregory's testimony Many evidences that this belief was not received after Augustine's time Num. 1 WHat in the next place is replied to that part of Chapter 7. which concerned Henry VIII his act of ejecting the Power of the Pope will be full matter for a first section of this Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his seventh Chapter he intends a justification of the breach whereof as he doth not teach the infamous occasion and how to his dying day the same King desired to be reconciled as also that it was but the coming two daies short of a Post to Rome which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made as may be seen in my Lord of Cherbery's Book fol. 368. and that the moderate Protestants curse the day wherein it was made so the very naming of Hen. VIII is enough to confute all his discourse one of the darlings of his daughter having given him such a character as hath stamped him for England's Nero to future posterity and as it was said of Nero in respect of Christian religion so might it be of him respecting the unity of the Church viz it must be a great good that he began to persecute and abolish and as for the Acts passed in the Vniversities Convocation or Parliament let the blood shed by that Tyrant bear witnesse what voluntary and free Acts they were especially those two upon his Seneca and Burrhus Bishop Fisher and the Chancellor More that he might want nothing of being throughly paraâ—eld to Nero. But methinks the Doctor differs not much in this seeming tacitly to grant the Bishops were forced awed by that noted sword in a slender thread the praemunire which did hang over their heads though in the conclusion of that Sect he saies we ought to judge charitably viz that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgment and saith That if what was determined were falsly determined by the King and Bishops then the voluntary and free doing it will not justifie and if it were not then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was
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
this it might have appeared to this Gentleman if as he pleased to mention the much Greek in his Preface so he had been at leisure to consider the importance of it that beside the testimony which he will call a word of Ruffinus I had made use of other waies of proof that the presidency of the Bishop of Rome I suppose that he must mean by the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it self to all Italy Num. 12 Again after the testimony of Ruffinus I mentioned another evidence from the proportioning Ecclesiastical jurisdictions to the Temporal of the Lieutenants This may appear in thesi by the words of Origen of which I shall now because I did not there take notice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is fit that the Prefect of the Church of each City should correspond to the Governour of those which are in the City And that so it was appears by the second Canon of the Councel of Constantinople where the jurisdictions of the Bishops are still proportioned to the condition of the Cities where they were the Bishop of Alexandria to have power over all Aegypt the Metropolis whereof was Alexandria and so in the rest And this is in the Tract of Schism largely deduced and cleared also p. 54 55 c. and need not be here again repeated And so here was more again than the word of Ruffinus for what I said Num. 13 Lastly that for which Ruffinus was cited being but this that the Bishop of Rome was authorized by the Nicene Canon to take care of the suburbicarian regions I could not sure be mistaken in thinking that he took the word suburbicarian in such a propriety I say not of law but of common language as will conclude the Picenum suburbicarium to belong to the Roman Prefecture as the Annonarium did to the Diocese of Italy Num. 14 And certainly Ruffinus that lived so neer after the Councel of Nice and that in Italy a Presbyter of Aquileia knew how that was distributed in his time better than this Gentleman at this distance can pretend to doe may also be allowed to know so much of Grammar as to expresse his own sense in a Paraphrase of that Nicene Canon Num. 15 In a matter so clear I shall adde no more but the words of a most excellent person Jac Leschasserius in his Consultatio ad Claris Venet Ruffino bellum indicunt scriptores Romani hujus temporis c. The Romanists of this time are displeased with Ruffinus not knowing what Churches they were which the Nicene Canon understands to be under the first and ordinary power of the Pope Whereas Ruffinus understood it of the Churches of the suburbicarian Provinces and regions which are four the first the Roman with the bounds of the Prefecture of the City and three other with which that is incompast All Campania Picenum suburbicarium and Tuscia suburbicaria of which there is frequent mention in the Notitiae of the Roman Empire And of this the same Authour hath written a learned Tract And so here is a distinct testimony of a very learned man and this is a sufficient answer to his bare indefinite affirmation that learned men say the contrary Sect. III. The identity of the office of Primates and Patriarchs the authorities of Gratian and Anacletus and Anicetus Num. 1 THe third charge wherein this third Chapter is concerned remains about the identity of the office of Primates and Pâ—triarchs in these words Num. 2 Then he telleth you that the office of Primates and Patriarchs was the same onely authorising that affirmation from an Epistle of Anacletus the which as soon as occasion serveth he will tell you is of no authority but fictitious Num. 3 What I said of Primates and Patriarchs that though the Patriarchs had the precedence in Councels the deference in respect of place yet the power and jurisdiction of Primates was as great as of Patriarchs and the office the same I thought had sufficiently been evidenced to the Romanist p. 58. For as one manifest indication of it was there mentioned viz that in Authors the very titles are confounded witness Justinian who commonly gives Primates the name of Patriarchs of the Dioceses so the reference to those two authorities so acknowledged and owned by the Romanists the Epistle of Anacletus and the Decree of Gratian seemed to me to put it out of all question Num. 4 For in the body of their Canon Law corrected and set out by Pope Gregory XIII as Gratian's decree makes up the first and principall part so in that par 1. distinct 99. we have these words De Primatibus autem quaeritur quem gradum in Ecclesiâ tenuerint an in aliquo à Patriarchis differant The question is made concerning Primates what degree they have in the Church and whether in any thing they differ from Patriarchs And the answer is Primates Patriarchae diversorum sunt nominum sed ejusdem officii Primates and Patriarchs are of different names but of the same office Num. 5 What could have been said more punctually and expresly to the business in hand What more authentick and dilucid testimony could have been produced to any Romanist with whom I had to doe And 't is a little strange that this Gentleman should say that I onely authorize my affirmation from an Epistle of Anacletus and then either he or some Supervisor for him put in as a marginal note He urgeth Gratian too When 1. if I urged Gratian I did not urge Anacletus onely and 2. it is evident I did urge Gratian as punctually as Anacletus and 3. Gratian's words are so expresse as nothing can be more and 4. Gratian's authority with them is as great as any could have been produced and 5. there is not one word offered to avoid the force of Gratian's testimony as to that other of Anacletus there is which argues that this Gentleman was concluded by Gratian yet would not consent to the proposition unanswerably inferred from him And this may suffice to be noted concerning that testimony Num. 6 Then for Anacletus 1. his words are these Provinciarum divisio ab Apostolis est renovata The division of Provinces was renued by the Apostles Et in capite Provinciarum Patriarchas vel Primates qui unam formam tenent licèt diversa sint nomine leges divinae Ecclesiasticae poni esse jusserunt ad quos Episcopi si necesse fuerit confugerent eosque appellarent And in the head of the Province Patriarchs or Primates who hold the same form are of the same nature though they be divers names are placed by divine and Ecclesiasticall laws so that to them the Bishops when 't is needfull may resort and make their appeals This testimony again as punctuall to the purpose as could have been devised Num. 7 And then secondly this being by the Romanists received as a Decretall Epistle of that Pope and antient Bishop of Rome was in reason whatsoever
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
of that Councel Num. 7 And therefore according to that saying of S. Hierome put into their Canon Law si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe if authority be looked for the whole world is more than the one city of Rome it is the resolution of Almain merito Concilium Chalcedonense Leoni resistenti praevaluisse that the Councel of Chalcedon did well in standing out against Pope Leo and did justly prevail against him Num. 8 This amulet it seems had not virtue to stand him in so much stead as Baronius is pleased to phansie setting out the power and greatness of Pope Leo by this that he did alone cassate what this Councel had decreed by the suffrages of 600 Bishops Which how well it consists with his former affirmation that this Canon was spurious and clandestine and stollen in by Anatolius I shall not here examine 'T is sure if the Popes authority were so soveraign the act needed not have been made spurious first to qualifie it for the cassation But this of the power or superiority of a Pope over an OEcumenical Councel is a question not so necessary here to be debated unlesse what this Gentleman was pleased to mention of the privilege of supreme Magistracy had been indevoured some way to be proved by him Num. 9 Next he quarrels my saying that Antioch was equall to Rome and that Constantinople desired but the same privileges and this he saith is against the very nature of the story Num. 10 That Antioch had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome so farre as to the dignity of a Patriarchate c. allowing to Rome the Primacy of order and dignity I thought was competently concluded from the Pope's pretensions against that Canon of Chalcedon making it an invasion of the rights of Antioch and as derogatory to that as to Rome And so still it seems to me For if Antioch had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome how could Constantinople's aspiring to equal privileges with Rome be as derogatory to Antioch as to Rome But I need not this help from Leo's argument the thing asserted by me is not denied that I know of by any Romanist viz that Antioch had the dignity of a Patriarchate for that is all that I expresse my self to mean by Antioch's having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome and I that maintain as this Gentleman truely saith I doe that all Patriarchs are equal in respect of Power differing onely in order or precedence cannot be imagined to mean any thing else by it Num. 11 So again that Constantinople desired no more but the privileges of a Patriarch and that that is the meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges is by me said in opposition to acquiring any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches and this instead of being contrary to the nature of the story is directly agreeable to the whole course of it and to the expresse words of the Canon which defines that as the city of Constantinople was honoured with the Empire and Senate and injoyed equal privileges with old Imperial Rome so the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be exalted to the same height with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the next place after it adding that the Metropolitans and none else of Asia Pontus and Thraeia c. should be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople the Bishops of each of those Provinces being left to be ordained by their respective Metropolitans This is so plain that there can be no need of farther proof of it Num. 12 And for this Gentleman's objection by way of Question that Constantinople being then a Patriarchy if that made it equal with Rome for what did it pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer 1. that Constantinople being by custome and by Act of the Councel held in that city a Patriachate already it sought not to acquire any new advantage or increase by this Canon of Chalcedon but onely to continue what already it had Num. 13 This again appears by the story where that Canon of Constantinople was produced and read as the foundation on which this new Canon was built and so by the expresse words in the beginning of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. following constantly the definitions of the Holy Fathers and knowing the Canon newly read of the 150 Bishops assembled in the reign of the Emperour Theodosius at the Imperial city Constantinople or new Rome And agreeably Euagrius sets down the story that in this Councel of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was thought just or determined that the Constantinopolitan See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was rightly and duly placed next after Rome Num. 14 And when this Gentleman assumes that if this were so the neither Rome it self and lesse Antioch had cause to complain I shall most willingly joyn with him in it being no way obliged by my pretensions to justifie the Pope or his Legates dislike to that Canon And for Antioch I am sure enough that the Bishop thereof Maximus though he had received an Epistle from the Pope to exasperate and perswade him to stand upon his right did very readily subscribe it setting his name and consent next after the Bishop of Constantinople as hath formerly been set down out of the story Num. 15 And if Antioch did so who was the loser by it if precedence signifie any thing I confesse I can render no cause unlesse it be the Pompejúsve parem impatience of any equal why the Bishop of Rome who lost not so much as precedence by this advancement or confirmation of dignity to the Bishop of Constantinople should be so obstinately and implacably offended at it Num. 16 Thus have I answered every attempt and tittle of exception offered by this Gentleman in this matter and have now leisure to complain that the one thing that I desired to be taken notice of from this Canon is not so much as considered or at all replied to by him viz that the Dignity that old Rome had by antient Canons in oyed was given it upon this account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Rome was the Imperial seat which as it is the proof of my whole pretension that the Pope was not Vniversal Pastor upon title of his succession from S. Peter for if whatsoever he had the Councels gave it him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Canon and gave it him as Bishop of the Imperial See then sure 't was no inheritance from S. Peter so it was truely observed out of the story of the Councel of Chalcedon and may be seen both in the Legate's complaint to the Judges and in the Epistles of Leo to the Emperour Martianus the Empresse Pulcheria Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch and his instructions to his Legates that he never made any exception to that branch of the Canon that thus derived the original of his
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
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