that lie between us And so still I discern not wherein our humility can be judged to fail by those with whom I now dispute being content that it should by others be judged excessive CHAP. IX An Answer to the Exceptions made to the ninth Chapter Sect. I. The hinderances of Communion imputable to the Romanist not to us Siquis Ecclesiam non audierit one of our grounds What is meant by Ecclesia Num. 1 THE Exceptions to this Chapter are not very great whether we respect their weight or number yet upon the same account that the former have been our exercise these may for a while detain us also Num. 2 In his 9th Chap saith he he pretendeth the Roman Catholick Church is cause of this division because they desire communion and cannot be admitted but under the belief and practice of things contrary to their consciences of which two propositions if the second be not proved the first is vain and is as if a subject should plead he is unjustly outlawed because he doth not desire it Now to prove the latter he assumeth that the Protestant is ready to contest his Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by what he means by that I know not for that they will convince their Negatives by any ground a good Christian ought to be concluded by I see nothing lesse What then will they contest it by all grounds a good orthodox Christian ought to be concluded by If they answer in the Affirmative we shall ask them whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of their grounds and if they say no we shall clearly disprove their Major but then their defence is if any ground or rule of it self firm and good speaketh nothing clearly of a point in question they will contest that point by those grounds and is not this a goodly excuse Num. 3 The designe of Chap 9. of the Treatise of Schisme is to vindicate us from all guilt of schisme as that signifies offence against external peace and communion Ecclesiastical and it being certain that we exclude none from our Communion that acknowledge the foundation and that we desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external communion with all members of all other Christian Churches the result is visible that the hinderances that obstruct this freedome are wholly imputable to the Romanist such are their excommunicating us and imposing conditions on their communion such as we cannot admit of without sin or scandal acting contrary to conscience or making an unsound confession Num. 4 To this all that is answered is that unlesse this second be proved viz that such conditions are by them imposed on their communion the first that of our desire of Communion is vain And to this I make no doubt to yeild for if we may with a good conscience be admitted to their Communion and yet wilfully withdraw our selves from it then I confesse there is no place for this plea of ours But for the contesting of this there was not then neither will there now be any place without descending to the severals in difference between us which was beyond the designe either of those or these Papers and therefore for that all that can be said is that we are ready to maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by And because it is here askt whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of those grounds I answer without question it is and so is every other affirmation of Christ or the Apostles however made known to us to be such And I cannot sufficiently admire why when it is known to all Romanists that we are ready to be judged by Scripture and when it is certain that siquis Ecclesiam non audierit are the words of scripture he should suppose as here he doth that we will say No i. e. that we will refuse to be tried or concluded by that Num. 5 Here I must suppose that by Ecclesiam he understands the Roman which he calls Catholick Church but then this interpretation or understanding of his is one thing and those words of Christ are another for they belonging to the Church indefinitely under which any man that hath offended is regularly placed doe to a member of the particular Roman Church signifie that as to an English man the Church wherein he lives and that is not the Roman or the Vniversal Church of God and that is more than the Roman Num. 6 And so by acknowledging that ground of scripture we are no way obliged to believe all that that particular Church of Rome to which we owe no obedience and are as ready to contest that by the same means also exacts of us Num. 7 As for our contesting any point by that ground or rule which speaketh nothing clearly of it I gave him no occasion to make any such objection against us and withall have said what was sufficient to it Chap. 8. Sect. 3. n. 7. and so need not here farther attend to it CHAP. X. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the tenth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists want of charity wherein it consists Num. 1 IN his view of Chap 10. he takes notice of two charges by us brought in against them 1. judging 2. despising their brethren but contents himself with a very brief reply and that onely to one of them Thus Num. 2 In his 10th Chap he saith we judge them and despise them as to the first I have often wondred and doe now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we presse it upon them out of love and kindnesse to keep them from the harm that according to our belief may come upon them but since they deny they are Schismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought untill we have cause to believe them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed judgment against them Num. 3 The want of charity with which we charge the Romanist in this matter is not their warning us of our danger which may reasonably be interpreted love and kindness and care to keep us from harm and if they erre in admonishing when there is no need of it there is nothing still but charity in this but it is their casting us out of their Communion on this score that we consent not to all their Dictates that we withdraw our obedience from those who without right usurped it over us their anathematizing and damning us and being no way perswadable to withdraw these sanguinary Censures unlesse we will change or dissemble our beliefs and as there cannot be charity in this any thing that can tend to the mending of any for how can it be deemed any act of reformation in any to forsake his present perswasions whilst he is
not convinced of any error in them and surely the bare damning of us is not any such matter of conviction so there is a double uncharitableness 1. of being angry without cause and expressing that anger in very ill language of which that of Heretick and Schismatick is the mildest and each of those causlesse too if they be affixt to any particular man much more to a whole Church before either of them be sufficiently proved against us For certainly as the Romanist's judgment concerning us if it be false may yet be but error not malice by which this Gentleman here justifies himself from want of charity so our opinions and perswasions of the erroneousness of their doctrines and sinfulness of their practices if possibly they be not true also are still as justly and equitably capable of the same excuse that they are involuntary errors and then by their own rule cannot justly fall under such their rigid censures which belong to none but voluntary offenders Num. 4 Secondly the indevouring to insnare and pervert fearful or feeble minds using these terrors as the Lyon doth his roaring to intimidate the prey and make it not rationally but astonishtly fall down before them And as the offering due grounds of conviction to him that is in error may justly be deemed charity so this tender of nothing but frights without offer of such grounds of conviction is but leading men into temptation to sin against conscience to dissimulation c. and so the hating the brother in the heart Lev. 19. the more than suffering sin upon him Num. 5 To these might be not unseasonably added a farther consideration which hath carried weight with the Fathers of the Church in all times that seeing the Censures of the Church were left there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for edification not for destruction and are onely designed to charitative ends must never be used to any other purpose therefore when obedience it utterly cast off the band be it of subordination or co-ordination so broken that the issuing out of Censures cannot expect to compose but onely to widen the breach not to mollifie but exasperate there Christian prudence is to indevour by milder waies what severity is not likely to effect and so the thunderbolts to be laid up till there may be some probability of doing good by them Num. 6 But this is not the case as it really lies betwixt Rome and us save onely as à majori it may be accommodated to us we have cast off neither obedience to any to whom it was due nor charity to those who have least to us nor truth to the utmost of our understandings and yet we must be cast out and anathematized and after all that condemned as wilful schismaticks i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dividers and condemners of our selves because we quietly submit to that fate which will cost us too dear the wounding and disquiet of our conscience to qualifie our selves for a capacity of getting out of it Num. 7 What he adds of their highest tribunal the Churches voice which hath passed this judgment against us belongs I suppose to those Bishops of Rome which have sent out their Bulls against us and therefore I must in reason adde that those are principally guilty of this schisme and so their successors principally obliged to retract and reform the sin of it and after them all others in the order and measure that they have partaked in this guilt with them Num. 8 And there can be no greater charity than to beseech all in the bowels of Christ to return to the practice of that charity which hath too long been exiled from among Christian Professors CHAP. XI An Answer to the Exceptions made to the last Chapter Sect. I. Of the present state of the Church of England The Catholicks promise for eternity to his Church Roma aeterna Particular Churches perishable Mr. Hooker's prediction of the Church The power of the secular Magistrate to remove Bishops Sees not to make Bishops The Councel of Florence concerning the Popes supremacy c. Marcus's opinion of it Joseph Methonens his answer briefly examined Num. 1 THE last part of this Gentleman's indevour is to perswade men that the Church of England is not onely persecuted but destroyed and of that he means to make his advantage to fetch in Proselytes being out of his great charity very sensible of their estate unwilling they should sit any longer in the vault or charnel house to communicate with shades when they are invited to a fairer sunshine in a vital and very flourishing society Thus then he begins his reply to the 11th Chapter Num. 2 In the last Chapter he complaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the losse of their Church and arguing with their disciples in this sort Communion in some Church even externally is necessary but you cannot now communicate with your late Church for that hath no subsistence therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholick who hath or undoubtedly is perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages in which none other can compare with him and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst and most prudent persons confessedly that ever was among them to be a building likely to last but 80 years and to be now torn up by the roots and this done by the same means by which it was setled I say if this Catholick believe his eyes he is at least to be excused and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained yet let him remember how inconsequent this is to what be hath said before for ask him how it doth remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters among them for his defense against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it will follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and unbishoped by another secular authority if it be said the Parliament that pulled them down had not the three bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up but it will be replied that though they are pulled down yet are they still Bishops viz the character remains upon them Alas what is their Character if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doctor makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops and Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the laity and so no character can
be made from my doing that slightly which I did not meddle with at all But then 3. to remove all scruple or possible occasion of jealousie in this matter 't is the designe of Chapter 8. the method then leading to it under a second sort of Schisme to consider the departure from the Vnity of the Faith which being but a periphrasis of Heresie is consequently the defining all Heresie is Schisme and so the profest avowing of that which he suspected me unwilling to have understood And so still there is not the least appearance of justice in this suggestion Sect. II. Excommunication how it differs from Schisme Wilfull continuance under censures is Schisme The Bishop of Rome is not our Lawfull Governour The severe conditions of their Communion Num. 1 HIs second exception is perfectly of the same making with the former thus Num. 2 Againe saith he treating of Excommunication he easily slideth over this part that wilfull continuance in a just Excommunication maketh Schisme Num. 3 Here againe 't is evident that I treat not of Excommunication nor have any occasion fitly to treat of it farther than to shew that Schisme being a voluntary separation the word in no propriety pertaines to that act of the Governour of the Church whereby he separates or cuts off any by way of Censures Certainly he that is put to death by Sentence of Law cannot be judged a Felo de se one that hath voluntarily put himselfe out of the number of the living or be liable to those forfeitures which by the Law belong to such He that is banished out of the Kingdome cannot be guilty of the breach of that Statute which forbids all Subjects going out of it nor be punisht justly for that which is his suffering not his deed his punishment not his delinquency Num. 4 As for his wilfull continuance under just Censures the wilfulnesse of that certainly makes him culpable and the continuance in Excommunication being also continuance in separation from the Church which is Schisme whensoever it is voluntary I make no doubt of the consequence that such wilfull continuance in Excommunication be it just or unjust is actuall Schism supposing as the word wilfull must suppose that this continuance is wholly imputable to the will of the Excommunicate i. e. that if he will submit to that which is lawfull for him to submit to he may be absolved and freed from it Num. 5 If this were it that he would have had more explicitely affirmed then I answer that as there I had no occasion to speak to it so now upon his slightest demand I make no scruple to give him my full sense of it that he which being cast into prison for just cause may upon his Petition and promise of Reformation be released or if the cause were unjust may yet without doing any thing any way unlawfull regaine his Liberty from thenceforth becomes not the Magistrates but his owne Prisoner and is guilty of all the damage be it disease famishing death it selfe which is consequent to his imprisonment And the analogie holds directly in Excommunication He that continues under the Censures of his Ecclesiastical Ruler when he might fairely obtaine absolution from them is by himselfe sentenced to the continuance of this punishment as by the Governor of the Church to the beginning of it But then all this while this is not the condition of our Church in respect of the Church of Rome they being not our Lawful Superiors indued with jurisdiction over us and for other communion such as alone can be maintained or broken among fellow-brethren or Christians it is carefully maintained by us as farre as it is lawfully maintainable Num. 6 And both these being there evidenced in that and the insuing Chapters I did not warily or purposely abstaine from because I had nothing that suggested to me any opportunity of saying any thing more to this purpose The severe conditions which are by the Romanists required of us to render us capable of their communion subscription of error or profession against Conscience make it impertinent to propose or discusse either of these two questions 1. Whether we lye under a just excommunication 2. Whether if we did we would wilfully continue under it or consequently whether we be now guilty of Schisme in this notion Sect. III. Mr. Knots concession and conclusion The power of a fallible Church to require beliefe Of Antiquity Possession Perswasion of Infallibility Motives for Vnion Vncertainty of the Protestants reasons The grand Heresie and Schisme of not believing Rome infallible Beliefe sufficient without infallibility Fictions of Cases Num. 1 THe third exception inlargeth to some length in these words Num. 2 What he calls Master Knots concession I take to be the publike profession of the Roman or Catholike Church and that nature it selfe teacheth all rationall men that any Congregation that can lye and knoweth not whether it doth lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to binde any particular to believe what shee saith neither can any man of understanding have an obligation to believe what shee teacheth farther than agrees with the rules of his own reason Out of which it followeth that the Roman Churches binding of men to a profession of Faith which the Protestants and other haereticall multitudes have likewise usurped if shee be infallible is evidently gentle charitable right and necessary as contrariwise in any other Church or Congregation which pretends not to infallibility the same is unjust tyrannical and a selfe-condemnation to the binders so that the state of the question will be this whether the Catholick or Roman Church be infallible or no for shee pretendeth not to binde any man to tenets or beliefs upon any other ground or title By this you may perceive much of his discourse to be not onely superfluous and unnecessary but also contrary to himselfe for he laboureth to perswade that the Protestant may be certaine of some truth against which the Roman Catholick Church bindeth to profession of error which is as much as to say as he who pretendeth to have no infallible rule by which to governe his Doctrine shall be supposed to be infallible and he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule shall be supposed to be fallible at most because fallible objections are brought against him now then consider what a meek and humble Son of the Church ought to doe when of the one side is the Authority of Antiquity and Possession such Antiquity and Possession without dispute or contradictions from the adversary as no King can shew for his Crowne and much lesse any other person or persons for any other thing the perswasion of infallibility all the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for Motives of Vnion on the other side uncertaine reasons of a few men pretending to learning every day contradicted by incomparable numbers of men Wise and Learned and those few men confessing those reason and themselves uncertaine fallible and subject to
to give Lawes and those Lawes oblige Subjects to obedience and yet that Prince never be imagined infallible in making Lawes And natural reason cannot conclude it impossible that a Church should have a proportionable power given it by God to binde belief c. Num. 12 As for the Catholick or Roman Church 1. that is a misprision the Catholick is not the single Roman Church nor the Roman the Catholick 2. There no where appears any such definition either of the Catholick i. e. Vniversall Church of God or particularly of the Roman Church no act of Councell representative of that Church no known affirmation of that diffused body under the Bishop of Rome's Pastorage that all authority to oblige belief is founded in Infallibility 3. If any such definition did appear it could no way be foundation of belief to us who doe not believe that Church or any definition thereof as such to be infallible Num. 13 2. If we shall but distinguish and limit the termes 1. what is meant by can lie 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no 3. By power to binde 4 By belief as every of these have a latitude of signification and may be easily mistaken till they are duly limited It will then soon appear that there is no unlimited truth in that which he saith is the whole Churches affirmation nor prejudice to our pretensions from that limited truth which shall be found in it Num. 14 1. The phrase can lie may denote no more than such a possibility of erring as yet is joyned neither with actuall error nor with any principle whether of deficiency on one side nor of malignity on the other which shall be sure to betray it into error Thus that particular Church that is at the present in the right in all matters of faith and hath before it the Scripture to guide it in all its decisions together with the traditions and doctrines of the antient and Primitive Church and having skill in all those knowledges which are usefull to fetch out the true meaning of Scripture and ability to inquire into the antient path and to compare her self with all other considerable parts of the Vniversall Church and then is diligent and faithfull to make use of all these succours and in uprightness of heart seeks the truth and applies it self to God in humble and ardent and continuall prayer for his guidance to lead into all truth This Church I say is yet fallible may affirm and teach false i. e. this is naturally possible that it may but it is not strongly probable that it will as long as it is thus assisted and disposed to make use of these assistances and means of true defining Num. 15 2. That Churches knowledge whether it define truly or no in any proposition may signifie no more than a full perswasion or belief cui non subest dubium wherein they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is the very truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum which is unerrable or infallible in strictness of speech it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Num. 16 3. By power to binde may be meant no more than authority derived to them from the Apostles of Christ to make decisions when difficulties arise to prescribe rules for ceremonies or government such as shall oblige inferiors to due observance and obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his precept to obey the rulers set over us in the Church which we may doe without thinking them simply or by any promise of God inerrable or infallible as the obedience which is due to civil Magistrates which supposes in them a power of binding subjects to obey doth yet no way suppose or imply them uncapable of erring and sinning and giving unreasonable commands and such as wherein it is unlawfull to yeild obedience to them Num. 17 Beside this there may farther be meant by it a generall obligation that lies on all men to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed to them such as the disbelieving or doubting of it shall be in them inseparable from obstinacy and this obligation is again the greater when that which is thus convincingly proposed is proposed by our superiors from whose mouth it is regular to seek and receive Gods will Num. 18 Lastly Believing may signifie not an implicite irrational blinde but a well-grounded rationall explicite belief of that which as the truth of God is duely proposed to us or again where there is not that degree of manifestation yet a consent to that which is proposed as most probable on the grounds afforded to judge by or when the person is not competent to search grounds a bare yeilding to the judgment of superiours and deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to their own judgment a believing so farre as not to disbelieve And this again may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the Rulers and Governors of it without deeming them inerrable or infallible Num. 19 Nay where the proposition defined is such that every member of that Church cannot without violence to his understanding yeild any such degree of belief unto it yet he that believes it not may behave himself peaceably and reverently either duely representing his grounds why he cannot consent to it or if his subscription or consent be neither formally nor interpretatively required of him quietly enjoy his contrary opinion And this may tend as much to the peace and unity of a Church as the perswasion of the inerrability thereof can be supposed to doe Num. 20 By this view of the latitude of these terms and the limitations they are capable of it is now not so difficult to discern in what sense the proposition under consideration is false and in what sense it is true and by us acknowledged to be so Num. 21 A congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions c. and to require inferiors so farre to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions Num. 22 But for any absolute infallible belief or consent that no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Num. 23 By this it appears in the next place in what sense it is true which in the following words is suggested of Protestants that they binde men to a Profession of Faith and how injustly it is added that supposing them not to be infallibe it is unjust tyrannical and self-condemnation to the binders The contrary whereto is most evident understanding the obligation with that temper and the infallibity in that notion wherein it is evident we understand
charity which is very much besides the principles of those Protestants who pretend so much to the authority of Councels me thinks he should have remembred there might be schisme against conciliatory authority whether this be called so when the Councell actually sitteth or in the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches so that the Doctor supposing he concluded against the Pope hath not concluded himself no schismatick being separated form the Catholick world And again in the next page by way of recollection or second thoughts thus But I must not forget here what I omitted to insert before that in his division of Schisme he omitteth the Principall if not indeed and in the use of the word by the Antients the onely schism which is when one breaketh from the whole Church of God for though a breach made from the immediate superior or a particular Church may in some sort and in our ordinary manner of speaking be called a schisme yet that by wich one breaketh away from the communion of the whole Church is properly and in a higher sense called Schisme and is that out of which the present question proceedeth whereas other divisions as long as both parts remain in communion with the Vniversall Church are not properly schismes but with a diminutive particle so that in this division he left out that part which appertained to the question Num. 3 My division of schism is that which I could not conceive subject to the exceptions of any rationall man of what perswasions soever schism being a breach of unity and communion as many sorts as were conceivable of unity and communion so many and no more I set down of schisme some as breaches of the subordination which Christ setled in his Church others of mutuall charity which he left among his Disciples Num. 4 For is it not evident that all men in the world are either our superiors or inferiors or our equals and can I break communion with any as long as being an inferior I live regularly under all my superiors and brotherly with all my equals There is certainly no place of doubt in this When therefore in his second period here set down he mentions it as the principall and in the Antients use of the word the onely Schism when one breaketh from the whole Church of God It is strange he should think that man was not comprised in either member of my division when certainly he is guilty of both For how can he separate from the whole Church unlesse he separate both from his superiors and his equals too And if he separate from both then questionlesse he separates from one and from more than one of them Num. 5 Was it possible for any care more sollicitously to have prevented this exception than that which by me was used when among the branches of equality with which every one is obliged to preserve unity and communion I reckoned up not only the believers of the same Congregation c. but the severall communities of Christian men from Parishes and Dioeceses to climes of the whole Christian world Chap. 3. § 5. And indeed it is a great piece of austerity that when I have indevoured to prove that we of the Church of England have not voluntarily separated and that onely is the crime of Schism from any one particular Church and no one of those proofs is invalidated nor as yet so much as excepted against it should yet be thought seasonable to reply that we have broken off from the whole Church of God Num. 6 Is not that whole made up of these severals as a body of limbs the universal of particulars And can the hand be broken off from the whole body when it is not broken off but remains in perfect union with every part of the body If the arm be broken from the body the hand which remains united to the arm may yet be separate from the whole body because by being fastned to the arm 't is united but to one and not to all the members of the body But an union to all the members of the body supposes a separation from no one part that remains in the body and sure that must be an union with the whole body which is nothing else but all the members together Num. 7 And so as his second thoughts were effects not remedies of his forgetfulness the very same which he had mentioned before under the style of separation from the Catholick world so certainly they were again effects of his inobservance that his principall sort of schisme separation from the whole Church was comprehended by me under this style separation from the severall communities of the whole Christian world Num. 8 As to the former branch of his exception that in my division of schisme into that which is against Monarchical I said and when he recites my words he should doe so too paternal power and that which is against fraternall charity I omit to mention the authority of Councels It is evidently a causlesse suggestion For 1. if Councels as he saith have any authority that will certainly be reducible to paternal power And if they have none any farther than by way of counsell and advice that will directly fall under the head of fraternall charity Num. 9 Secondly If by Councels he mean Provinciall Councels it is evident that the power which severally belongs to the Bishops of each Province is united in that of a Provinciall Councell where all the Diocesan Bishops are assembled and the despising of that is an offence under the first sort of schisme a breach of the subordination to the Bishop yea and the Metropolitan too who presides in the Provinciall Councell Num. 10 So again if he mean Nationall Councells the power of the Bishops of all the Provinces there assembled divolves upon this assembly compounded of all of them the despising thereof is the despising of these Ecclesiasticall superiours of the whole nation and culpable and schismaticall upon that account Num. 11 As for Oecumenicall or Generall Councells if they be truly such the power of all the Bishops of all the Provinces in all Christian nations divolves upon that and so cannot be despised without despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiasticall superiors Bishops Metropolitans Primates or Patriarchs and therefore this sort of schisme could not be deemed to be omitted where all those other branches of which it is made up were so particularly handled Num. 12 That any more speciall consideration was not taken of Generall Councells in that discourse the account beside that which is now given is more than intimated in that Tract of Schism pag. 60. first because they were remedies of schisme and extraordinary not any standing Judicatures to which our constant subordination and subjection was required 2. Because these were such as without which the Church continued for the first 300 years and so could not belong to a generall discourse which spake of all the certain and ordinary and constant sorts
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
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
Peter Sect. VIII No promise of Keyes to S. Peter which was not made and performed to all the Apostles Joh. 20. 21. the completion of the promise Mat. 16. 19. Pasce oves Joh. 21. an exhortation not commission Num. 1 THe second sort of Exceptions follows those against my evidence drawn from the power of the Keyes which I say and prove both from Scripture and expresse testimonies of the Fathers that it was given equally to all the Apostles And his exceptions begin thus Num. 2 A second evidence he bringeth from the donation of the Keyes which he saith were given equally to the Apostles Mat. 28. yet confesseth the Keyes were especially promised to S. Peter Mat. 16. but performed onely in common Mat. 28. which though they may be both true yet is absurdly said for who acknowledgeth a special promise should have found out a special performance which is done Joh. 21. Num. 3 This exception being not to the matter of what I say but to the absurdnesse of the expression to which censure I must suppose every thing liable which is contrary to his pretensions and yet proved so manifestly that it cannot be denied by him I shall briefly evidence how commodious and proper the expression was Num. 4 And 1. whereas he sets it down as my confession that the Keyes were especially promised to S. Peter this is not with truth suggested My words are This power Mat. 16. 19. is promised to S. Peter But the especially is an interpolation of this Gentleman's to prepare my words for his exceptions for which otherwise they were no way qualified Num. 5 All that can be fetcht from any words of mine toward this sense is that in the next Section I foresaw and so mentioned an objection from Christ's making this promise to him peculiarly and yet even that is not to him especially but to him particularly or singly I will give unto thee c. To this as to an objection I presently made reply that the repetition of that promise Mat. 18. 18. to all the Apostles indefinitely and without any peculiarity of restriction I say to you in the plural and Whatsoever ye shall binde c. will take away all appearance from this objection Num. 6 And so it will from this Gentleman's exception also For if what was at one time promised to S. Peter singly was so soon after promised to all the Apostles indefinitely what absurdity is there in seeking no other performance of this promise than that which was at once afforded to all the Apostles together in the descent of the Holy Ghost when the fire that represented that Spirit divided and sat upon every one of them and they were all filled with the holy Ghost and no shew of peculiarity or mark of especiall eminence to S Peter in all this Num. 7 As suppose a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one and to morrow should make the like promise to eleven more that one being in their company and then upon a set day some weeks after should send 12 Commissions sealed to those 12 one for each of them I wonder who would doubt of the exact performance of this promise to that first or seek for any more special performance of it Num. 8 But this Gentleman having phansied a special promise as that is with him somewhat more than a particular promise for otherwise a common performance might have served the turn it being certain that an Vniversal contains every particular under it must needs have a special performance and that Ioh. 21. I suppose in those words of Christ to S. Peter Feed my sheep and Feed my lambs thrice repeated Num. 9 But for this 1. I cannot acknowledge that it hath any particular reference to the words of the promise Mat. 16. 19. The promise was I will give thee the Keyes and Whatsoever thou shalt binde And sure the direct completion of this as farre as could be expected from Christ personally whilst he was here on earth is that of Ioh. 20. 21. where as the sending or commissionating is answerable to giving the Keyes the insigne of the OEconomus so remitting and retaining of sins is all one with the binding and loosing Num. 10 As for that which is after this Chap. 21. It is I. by that very position of it but 2. more by the occasion and yet more 3. by the matter of the words prejudged from being any more than an exhortation to discharge that duty for which in the former Chap he with the rest of the twelve had received his commission and so is still as farre from being a speciall performance as that of Matth. 16. had been from a special promise Num. 11 The Pasce oves Feed my sheep and lambs thrice repeated was certainly a direction to him how he might approve his love to that Master and Saviour whom he had thrice renounced testifie it now to be a sincere constant love such as would cast out all fear of danger through which formerly he had fallen by an eminent diligence in discharge of that Pastoral office which was intrusted to him but 't was not so much as an intimation that his diligence would be actually greater than all others for sure S. Paul said truth that he laboured more abundantly than they all of whom S. Peter was one but rather that he that after such professions had fallen so foully had the more need now of having this proof of his love inculcated and prest lest he should fail again much lesse is it a sealing any power or authority to him above that which before had been conferred on him and with him on those others also Num. 12 And nothing being here offered to prove that there was any more of energie or special commission in these words but onely the thing crudely affirmed by naming Ioh. 21. there is no need of making any farther answer a bare deniall is a proportionable return to an unproved affirmation Num. 13 Onely this I shall adde that 't is certain that S. Peter thus underslood the reiteration of Christ's question as a reproach of his three denialls The Text saith Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time Lovest thou me Which sure he would not have been if he had looked on it as an introduction to so great a preferment as it must be if the supremacy and Vniversal Pastorship of the Church were by those words conferred on him Sect. IX Of the peculiarity of the power given to S. Peter Num. 1 TO this head of discourse about the power of the Keyes follows a second Exception in these words Num. 2 Again he would perswade the world that the Catholick Church holdeth none had the Keyes but S. Peter calling it a peculiarity and inclosure of S. Peter as if the other Apostles had them not which is a calumnie Num. 3 How far I have been in this matter from calumniating the whole Catholick Church or any one member of it will appear by
this brief review of what is there said It is this The power of the Keyes is promised S. Peter Mat. 16. but to him that from hence i. e. from the promising it to him singly in that place pretends this donative and consequent power as a peculiarity and inclosure of Peter's two considerations are there offered and thought sufficient to supersede any such conclusion Num. 4 Here certainly a bare supposition will not be the accusing or consequently accusing falsly i. e. calumniating of any If no man say this besides my losing my pains in superseding such a but possible conclusion there is no other harm done Onely I shall demand Is that promise of the Keyes to Saint Peter Mat. 16. made use of by a Romanist to prove Christ's promise of some special power to S. Peter which was not promised to the other Apostles If this Gentleman answer No then 1. I must inferre that this Gentleman is no Romanist because in this very page he mentions the first words of this text Tues Petrus as one of the two most considerable texts of Scripture fit to be alledged for S. Peter's supremacy 2. I shall conclude from this his present supposed negation together with his own words in the last Paragraph that the words of Christ Ioh. 21. Feed my sheep c. were not the instating of any power on S. Peter which was not common also to the rest of the Apostles for those words Ioh. 21. were saith he a special performance answerable to that promise of the Keyes to Peter Mat. 16. as a special promise and consequently if there were nothing in that promise peculiar to S. Peter there was nothing in that performance peculiar to him And so neither he nor any Romanist must henceforth conclude any thing for S. Peter from either of those particular addresses of Christ to him Mat. 16. or Ioh. 21. which they will not equally yeild from thence to all the other Apostles And then that will more compendiously perform what I by a greater circuit of considerations indevoured to doe i. e. supersede all the Romanists conclusions from one or both these places for certainly if they pretend not to inferre somewhat for S. Peter which is not by them equally granted to all the rest of the Apostles all that those texts will be able to doe is to confute the Presbyterie not to establish the Papacie no more being from hence deducible for the Bishop of Rome the successor of one Apostle than for the severall other Bishops successours of the other Apostles Num. 5 But if upon the sight of these consequences he shall now say that in this of Mat. 16. 19. there is any thing be it never so little so as to be capable of the phrase a special promise ensured upon S. Peter which was not elsewhere promised also to the other Apostles I shall then conclude that it seems I have not calumniated him or the Church which he defends in saying that they make this power a peculiarity and inclosure of Saint Peter for so it must be if it belong to him and not to others Num. 6 And 't is not sufficient to say that the power of the Keyes was common to him with the other Apostles but yet some other special power was there reserved to S. Peter For of that specialty whatsoever it is my present Dilemma proceeds and desires to be informed whether any Romanist conclude it from that text of Mat. 16. and if he doe not then the inconveniences will presse him which I have here mentioned If he doe then I shall now conclude anew not that the Catholick Church but that this Catholick Gentleman holds that which he will not be able to prove because there is not the least minute portion of power promised to him in that 16 Chap which is not elsewhere promised to all the Apostles Peter is called a stone on which the Church shall be built and to Peter the Keyes are promised and the twelve Apostles are in like manner and all equally twelve foundation-stones of the same building and the Keyes are equally promised to all them And this being there proved at large § 21. and the probations extended not onely to the power of the Keyes but after to the compellation of Tues Petrus and they will be extensible to all the most diminutive imaginary fractions of either of those powers I shall farther conclude that whatsoever he shall now return to this Dilemma will equally secure me from having calumniated either him or the Church maintained by him Sect. X. Sitting on twelve Thrones Mat. 19. Num. 1 HIs third Exception to this Chap is to another interpretation of mine which it seems hath not the luck to approve it self to him Thus Num. 2 I cannot passe without noting another odde interpretation of Scripture in his 20 Sect. out of Mat. 19. speaking of the twelve Thrones at the day of Judgment he explicates to rule or preside in the Church Num. 3 I doe acknowledge to understand the twelve Thrones Mat. 19. of the Apostles ruling and presiding in the Church and S. Augustine long before so understood it and if Christ's sitting on the throne of his glory may be the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be rendred in the regeneration or in the resurrection meaning thereby Christ's resurrection and ascension to the throne of his glory there will then be no difficulty so to understand it that when Christ was gone to heaven these should succeed him in the government of his Church on earth and so as the Phylarchae ruled and judged the severall tribes of Israel exercise judicature binde and loose excommunicate and absolve in the Church no one having the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any more than of order among them Num. 4 But this Gentleman gives no reason for preferring any other interpretation onely calls mine an odde one And when I have replied first that this place comes in ex abundanti onely as it is being thus interpreted in concord with that other of Mat. 16. 18. and therefore secondly it is not an odde one and thirdly the cause in hand will stand as firm though this interpretation should be found to have no truth in it fourthly that my interpretation is reconcileable with his and therefore his if granted will not be exclusive of mine they that shall judge the world hereafter may for some time have presided in the Church and so also judged here fifthly that this place and the grounds of this interpretation are elsewhere insisted on at large I shall need adde no more to this single dislike of his in this place Sect. XI The equivalence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twelve foundation-stones Num. 1 HE concludes with some shew of dislike of what I had said to the vulgar place of Tues Petrus Thus Num. 2 His quibling about the word is so light a thing as it is not worth consideration the sense being plain that
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
Elizabeths reformation To which head of discourse it is not amisse to adde the resolution of Cudsemius the Jesuite de desper Calvini causà cap. 11. that the English Nation are not Hereticks because they remain in a perpetual succession of Bishops Num. 4 Which being the onely thing that in that Sect. 16. I purposed to conclude from Mr. Masons worke and the Records by him produced it lyes not on me to prove that they which ordained those Queen Eilzabeth-Bishops gave them order to preach the Doctrine they after did or to examine the truth of his suggestion that this is the true meaning and effect of Mission It may suffice that they which consecrated them gave them the same power which themselves derived by succession from the Apostles and that was sufficient to authorize them to preach all Apostolical doctrine and if they preacht any other let it appeare and I shall never justifie their preaching But that is not attempted here and therefore I have herein no farther matter that exacts reply from me Num. 5 For as to his parting blow which he cannot omit in reply to Sect 20. certainly it hath little impression on my discourse in that place which doth not inquire what is unlawful or criminous Universally for then sure I should have acknowledged that the bringing in Turcisme or violating fundamental points of Religion had been such but peculiarly and precisely this what is Schisme in that one notion of Schisme as that is a voluntary separation from our Ecclesiastical Superiours of which that we are not or cannot be guilty when we act in perfect concord compliance and subordination to all those to whom the right of superiority legally belonged is I suppose so manifest that it can need no farther proof Num. 6 As for any such act of lawful Superiors in bringing in Turcisme or violating fundamental points I should not be apt to style that Schisme any more than I would call perjury lying or incest simple fornication it being in the first part of the instance Apostasie and total defection from Christ which I hope is a little more than denying the Popes Vniversal Pastorship or Infallibility of the Church in which consists his grand species of Schisme and in the second Heresie and the grossest sort of Schisme together that of departing from the unity of the Faith which being by me Chap. 8. distinctly handled as a second species of schisme all that I need here say to this Gentleman's exception is that I indevoured to speak as distinctly and not as confusedly as I could and therefore did not mix things that were distant and therefore did not speak of that second kinde of schisme at the same time when I proposed to speak of the first onely and upon this account onely said nothing to it in that Chapter And I hope this was but my duty to doe agreeably to all rules of method and so that he might very well have spared that animadversion which he saith he could not end without noting CHAP. VIII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the eighth Chapter Sect. I. The Division of Schisme An Answer to many Questions about Schism A retortion Num. 1 IN proceeding to the view of Chap. 8. this Gentleman without any cause is pleased to change the division of the second sort of schisme there handled into another which it seems was more sutable to his understanding and then to make two light skirmishes against the discourse of that Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his 8th Chapter as farre as I understand he divideth Schisme into formal that is breach of unity and material that is breach of Doctrine or Customes in which the Church was united the former he brancheth into subordination to the Pope of which enough hath been said and breach of the way provided by Christ for maintaining the unity of faith the which he puts in many subordinations without any effect For let us ask if inferior Clergie-men dissent from their own Bishops but not from their Metropolitan in matter of faith is it Schisme he will answer No If a Metropolitan dissent from his Primate but agree with the rest of the Patriarchs is it schisme I think he must say No If a Patriarch dissent from the first but agree with the rest is it schisme No If a Nation or a Bishop dissent from the rest of the General Councel is it schism still I believe he will answer No Where then is schisme provided against or where truly is there any subordination in Faith if none of these are subject and bound to their Superiors or Vniversals in matters of faith Num. 3 What my division there is will be obvious enough to any man's understanding In the third Chap the foundation had been laid in the opposition betwixt Schisme and Ecclesiastical Vnity and as the unity was the conserving all due relations whether of subordination or equality wherein each member of Christ's Church is concerned one toward another so there were two prime branches of schisme the one against the subordination which Christ setled in his Church the second against the mutual charity which he left as his Legacy among Christians And the former of these being discussed at large in order to the present debate in the 8. Chapter the method led me to the latter of them to consider Schisme as it is an offence against the mutual unity Peace and Charity which Christ left and prescribed among Christians And that I might be sure not to streighten the bounds of this sort of Schism or omit any thing that can by any rule of discourse be placed in the borders or confines of it by the meanes either to lay charge on us or render our Vindication the clearer I distributed it into as many parts as in my opinion the matter could by any be thought to beare i. e. into three species 1. A breach in the Doctrines or Traditions together with the institutions of Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church whether in government or observances 2. An offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical 3. The want of that Charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian The first of these againe subdivided and considered 1. in the grosse as it is a departing from the rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding unity of Doctrine c. 2. in particular the asserting of any particular doctrine contrary to Christ's and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment Num. 4 The Scheme being thus laid as regular and as comprehensive as I could devise 1. here is not one word said to expresse any cause of dislike or exception to it and yet 2. it is quite laid aside and another of formal and material Schisme c. substituted instead of it upon what temptation or designe save onely a willingnesse to gaine somewhat by the shuffle and confusion more than the distinctnesse of discourse could yeild him I cannot divine Num. 5 As it is I yet discern not
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