error certainly without a bias of interest or prejudice it is impossible for him to leave the Church if he be in it or not returne if he be out of it for if infallibility be the ground of the Churches power to command beliefe as shee pretends no other no time no separation within memory of History can justifie a continuance out of the Church You may please to consider then how solid this Doctors discourse is who telleth us for his great evidence that we saith he who doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certaine suppositions that follow there The question is whether a Protestant be a Schismatick because a Protestant and he will prove he is not a Schismatick because he goeth consequently to Protestant that is Schismatical grounds I pray you reflect that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schisme and Heresie in Capite and more than for all the rest he holds distinct from us for this principle taketh away all beliefe and all ground of beliefe and turneth it into uncertainty and weather-cock opinion putteth us into the condition to be circumferri omni vento Doctrinae submitteth us to Atheisme and all sort of miscreancy let him not then over-leap the question but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatick and an Heretick too or let him acknowledge he is both Num. 3 This discourse thus inlarged to the consideration of fallibility and infallibility in a Church is certainly a digression in this place and taking the occasion from some words of mine Sect. 6. of a concession of Master Knots it is a little necessary to recount what concession that was and the use that I there made of it that so it may appeare whether there were any thing blameable in my procedure Num. 4 The subject I was upon Sect. 5. was the undoubted lawfulnesse of being and continuing excluded from any such Church the conditions of whose communion containe Sin in them To this head of discourse I mentioned a concession of Master Knots that it is perfectly unlawful to dissemble aequivocate or lye in matters of Faith and this as a confirmation of my then present assertion that when I am not permitted by the Romanists to have external communion with them unlesse I doe thus dissemble equivocate and lye affirme my selfe to believe what I doe not believe I may lawfully continue thus excluded from their communion But then I could not justly conceale what Master Knot there added as his conclusion from hence together with the acknowledged unlawfulnesse of forsaking the externall communion of Gods visible Church that therefore the Church of Rome is infallible because otherwise men might forsake her communion Num. 5 Here indeed I thought it very strange that this conclusion should be thus deduced from such praemisses that it should be deemed lawful to separate from a Church for every error or for no more but being subject to error being fallible though it were actually guilty of no errour which I conceived to be the same in effect as to affirme it lawfull to forsake the communion of all but Saints and Angels and God in Heaven because all others were peccable and fallible But yet I thought not fit to goe farther out of my way to presse the unreasonablenesse of it but contented my selfe with that which was for my present turne his confession that it was lawful to separate or continue in separation from the Church of Christ in case we could not without lying c. be permitted to communicate with it Num. 6 This being the whole businesse as it lyes visible to any in that 5. and 6. Sect. Let us now see what a confusion is made to gaine some small advantage from hence or excuse for a long digression Num. 7 First it is the conclusion viz. that any Congregation that can lye c. cannot have power to binde any to believe what shee saith which he saith is called by me Master Knots concession But this is a great mistake I never lookt on this as his concession never called it by that title but as a conclusion that he made a strange shift to deduce from another concession Num. 8 A concession this Gentleman should in reason have understood to be somewhat which the Adversary yeilds and which the disputer gaines advantage by his yeilding it such was his assertion that all lying and dissembling was unlawful and that rather than that should be admitted it were lawful to forsake the external communion of the Church of Christ And that and nothing but that was by me cited as his concession Num. 9 Secondly That conclusion it self that the Congregation that is fallible cannot have power to binde to believe is not so much as considered by me in that place or else where I said not one word against it which might provoke this objector to take it up and confirme it neither was it in the least needfull or pertinent to the matter then in hand to enter into the consideration of it All that was by me taken notice of and that but in passing was the consequence or coherence betwixt the praemisses and that conclusion which naturally inferred a third thing that it was in Mr. Knots opinion lawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church which I thought by the way would be sure to excuse us though we should be granted to have forsaken and continued wilfully in Separation from the Roman Church if it might but appeare that either that were guilty of any one error or lyable to fal into any one And this being intirely all that was there said by me there is no reason I should so far attend this Gentleman in his digression as to consider what here he proceeds to say upon his new-sprung subject of discourse very distant from that of Schisme to which I indeavoured to adhere having elsewhere pursued at large the Romanists other hypothesis concerning their Churches Infallibility Num. 10 Were it not thus remote from our matter in hand and perfectly unnecessary to the defence of our Church from Schisme I might discover farther many infirme parts in this procedure I shall but briefly touch on some of them Num. 11 1. For the truth of that proposition that a Congregation that can lye i. e. a Church that is fallible and knoweth not i. e. hath no infallible certainty whether it lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to binde any to believe what shesaith I may certainly affirme 1. That this is no infallible truth being no where affirmed by any infallible speaker or deduced from any infallible principle For as to the Scripture it is not pretended to be affirmed by that and for Natural Reason that cannot be an infallible Judge in this matter of defining what power may be or is by God given to a Church without defining it infallible A Prince may no doubt be impowered by God
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
it For what injustice or tyranny c. can it be in any lawful superior having defined what verily he believes to be the truth of God and no way doubts of his having deduced it rightly from the Scripture but yet knows that he as a man is fallible and that it is possible he may have some way failed in this as in any other his most circumspect action what injustice I say can it be authoritatively to direct this definition to those who are committed to his charge and expect their due submission to it meaning by submission what I have here exprest to mean by it Num. 24 So again it appears of the Roman Church how far it is from gentle or charitable in them to bind men to profess as matter of faith whatsoever is by that Church defined upon this one account that the Church is infallible can't erre when this very thing that it is infallible is not at all made probable much lesse infallibly deduced from any reason or testimony that is infallible Num. 25 Next then when he saith that the state of the question will be this whether the Roman Church be infallible or no I am not sure I know what question he means whether the main Question on which the Tract of Schisme was written i. e. whether the Church of England be schismaticall or no or whether the particular question which this Gentlemans haste hath framed to himself in this place Whether a fallible Church may have power to binde any to believe what she saith But I suppose by some indications that the latter is it and then as from hence I learn what he means by infallible a Church that cannot possibly erre all whose definitions are such quibus nequit subesse falsum so untill this be proved of that Church I must be allowed to speak like one who think not my self obliged to the belief of it and being sure of this that a Protestant is or may be verily perswaded of some truth against which the Roman Church bindeth to profession of error meaning by verily perswaded such a certainty only cui non subest dubium he hath no doubt nor reason to induce doubting of it I cannot imagine how that part of my discourse wherein I have supposed or asserted this can be either superfluous unnecessary or whatever other weakness it be guilty of contrary to my self For certainly I that think I am fallible may yet verily believe without all doubt the truth of many propositions which if I should affirm my self not to believe I must doubtlesse lie and then sin by Mr. Knot 's former concession And 't is as certain on the other side that he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule may yet foully mistake both in that generall originall and in many other particular derivative pretensions His supposed infallibility if it be not rightly supposed and till it be proved it will not be so will be so farre from an amulet to keep him safe from all error that it is the likeliest way to deliver him up to it as the premature perswasion of his particular election may be the ingulsing any through security and presumption in the most certain ruine Num. 26 In the processe of this discourse he is pleased to mention four advantages of the Roman Church above any other Antiquity possession perswasion of Infallibility the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for motives of union and nothing but uncertain reasons on the other side which saith he must make it impossible for any without interest or prejudice to leave the Church if he be in it or not return if he be out of it Num. 27 To this imaginary setting of the scales between them and us and particularly to the fourth advantage pretended to the pledges that Christ left for motives of union it is sufficient to reply in generall that for us which have not voluntarily separated but are by them violently removed from communion with them and cannot be admitted to reunion but upon conditions which without dissembling and lying we cannot undergoe it is in vain to speak of motives or obligations to return to their communion We that are bound as much as in us lies to have peace with all men must not admit any known or wilfull sin in order to that most desirable end And this one thing as alone it is pertinent to the matter in hand that of schisme so it is necessarily the concluding of this controversie We that are not permitted to return and so we are if the conditions of our return be so incumbred as to include sin cannot with any justice or equity be charged for not returning Num. 28 Against this here is nothing said any farther than the bare mention of the three other advantages on their side And none of these are of any force to perswade our return upon such conditions as these much lesse to exact it as duty from us Num. 29 By Antiquity and Possession as here they are spoken of I am apt to suppose he means not antiquity of the Roman Church or the present doctrines and therefore I shall not speak of them but the antiquity of our communion with them if he mean a Possession in the belief of the Popes Vniversall Pastorship I shall have occasion to speak of that hereafter And if this be granted as for fraternall communion and such as is due from one sister Church to another it is willingly granted then this will divolve the blame on those who are guilty of this breach who have cast us out and permit us no way of returning with a good conscience And so this is little for the Romanists advantage Num. 30 But if in stead of fraternall communion it be subjection to the Roman See that is by his words claimed and pretended to by possession then as we willingly grant to that See all that the antient Canons allowed to it and so cannot in that respect offend against Antiquity so what contrary to those Canons they have at any time assumed and unlawfully possest themselves of can no way be pretended to be their right or they to be bonae fidei possessores true or fair possessors of it which qualification and condition is yet absolutely necessary to found their plea from possession and which alone can bear any proportion with that which Kings can shew for their crowns or proprietaries for their inheritances Num. 31 Of this head of possession or prescription it were easie to adde much more by considering that claim and title by the known rules whether of the Canon or Civil Law The Civil Law which is generally more favourable to Prescription doth yet acknowledge many waies of interrupting it as by calling it into question and that is sufficiently done in some cases per solam conventionem by citing or summoning the possessor and when contestatio litis the entring a suit is actually required yet still he that appears to have caused the impediment and kept it
from coming to this contestation is not to gain any advantage by his guilt but adversus eum lis habetur pro contestato he shall be lookt on as if the suit had been actually contested against him See Bartolus in l. si eum § qui injuriarum in fi ff si quis caut Num. 32 But as to the Canon Law which in all reason the Catholick is to own in this question it is known that it admitteth not any the longest prescription without the bonae fidei possessio he that came by any thing dishonestly is for ever obliged to restitution and for the judging of that allows of many waies of probation from the nature of the thing the course we have taken in this present debate and from other probable indications and where the appearances are equal on both sides the Law though it be wont to judge most favourably doth yet incline to question the honesty of coming to the possession and to presume the dishonesty upon this account because mala fides dishonesty is presumed industriously to contrive its own secrecie and to lie hid in those recesses from which at a distance of time it is not easily fetcht out So Felinus in C. ult de praescript per leg ult C. unde vi And in a word it is the affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii possessione the presumption is strong that the possession was not honestly come by when it appears to have been antiently in the other hands and the way of conveyance from one to the other is not discernible See Panormit and Felinus in c. si diligenti X de prescript Menochius arbit quaest Casu 225. n. 4. and others referred to by the learned Grotiâ—â— in Consil Jurid super iis quae Nassavii p. 36. c. But I have no need of these nicer disquisitions Num. 33 As for the perswasion of infallibility meaning as they must their own perswasion of it that can have no influence upon us who are sure that we are not so perswaded unless the grounds on which their perswasion is founded be so convincingly represented to us that it must be our prejudice or other vitious defect or affection in us that we are not in the like manner perswaded of it But on this we are known to insist and never yet have had any such grounds offered to us As may in some measure appear by the view of that Controversie as it lies visible in the Book intituled The view of Infallibility Num. 34 As for the uncertainty of the reasons on the Protestants side by uncertainty meaning fallibility and the potest subesse falsum whilest yet we are without doubting verily perswaded that our reasons have force in them that cannot make it possible for us to believe what we doe not believe or lawfull upon any the fairest intuition to professe contrary to our belief I believe that Henry VIII was King of this Nation and the reasons on which I believe it are the testimonies of meer men and so fallible yet the bare fallibility of those testimonies cannot infuse into me any doubt of the truth of them hath no force to shake that but humane belief and while I thus believe I am sure it were wilfull sin in me though for the greatest and most pretious acquisitions in my view to professe I doe not believe it The like must be said of any other perswasion of mine denied by the Romanists and the denying whereof is part of the condition required of me to make me capable of communion with them Num. 35 But it is not now time to insist on this both because here is nothing produced against it and because here follows a much higher undertaking which swallows up all these inferior differences between us viz that not to acknowledge the Church that must be the Roman Church to be infallible is the great crime of schime and heresie in capite and more than all that I hold distinct from the Romanists Num. 36 This I acknowledge was not foreseen in the Tract of Schisme and may serve for the una litura the one answer to remove all that is there said For if our grand Fundamental schisme and heresie be all summed up in this one comprehensive guilt our not acknowledging the Church of Rome to be infallible then it was and still is impertinent to discourse on any other subject but that one of Infallibility for if that be gained by them to belong to their Church I am sure we are concluded Schismaticks and till it be gained I am sure there is no reason to suppose it Num. 37 But then as this is a compendious way of answering the Tract of Schism and I wonder after he had said this he could think it seasonable to proceed to make exceptions to any other particulars this one great mistake of the Question being discovered made all other more minute considerations unnecessary as he that hath sprung a mine to blow up the whole Fort need not set wispes of straw to severall corners to burn it so it falls out a little unluckily that this doth not supersede but onely remove this Gentleman's labour it being now as necessary that he should defend his hypothesis of the Church of Romes Infallibility against all that is formerly said by me on that subject as now it was to make this Answer to the Book of Schism and till that be done or attempted to be done there is nothing left for me to reply to in this matter Num. 38 For as to his bare affirmations that the not acknowledging their Infallibility takes away all belief and ground of belief turns all into uncertainty c. nay submitteth to Atheisme and all sorts of miscreancy It is sure but a mistake or misunderstanding as of some other things so particularly of the nature of belief For beside that I may have other grounds of belief than the affirmations of the Roman Church the authority of Scripture for the severalls contained in it and the Testimony of the universal Primitive that sure is more than of the present Roman Church to assure me that what we take for Scripture is Scripture and to derive Apostolical traditions to me and so I may believe enough without ever knowing that the Roman Church defines any thing de fide but much more without acknowledging the truth of all she defines and yet much more without acknowledging her inerrable and infallible Beside this I say it is evident that belief is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of belief such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and perswasion and where that is actually induced there is belief though there be no pretense of infallibility in the argument nor opinion of it in him that is perswaded by it Num. 39 That all that God hath said is true I believe by a belief or perswasion cui non potest subesse falsum wherein I cannot
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
not convinced of any error in them and surely the bare damning of us is not any such matter of conviction so there is a double uncharitableness 1. of being angry without cause and expressing that anger in very ill language of which that of Heretick and Schismatick is the mildest and each of those causlesse too if they be affixt to any particular man much more to a whole Church before either of them be sufficiently proved against us For certainly as the Romanist's judgment concerning us if it be false may yet be but error not malice by which this Gentleman here justifies himself from want of charity so our opinions and perswasions of the erroneousness of their doctrines and sinfulness of their practices if possibly they be not true also are still as justly and equitably capable of the same excuse that they are involuntary errors and then by their own rule cannot justly fall under such their rigid censures which belong to none but voluntary offenders Num. 4 Secondly the indevouring to insnare and pervert fearful or feeble minds using these terrors as the Lyon doth his roaring to intimidate the prey and make it not rationally but astonishtly fall down before them And as the offering due grounds of conviction to him that is in error may justly be deemed charity so this tender of nothing but frights without offer of such grounds of conviction is but leading men into temptation to sin against conscience to dissimulation c. and so the hating the brother in the heart Lev. 19. the more than suffering sin upon him Num. 5 To these might be not unseasonably added a farther consideration which hath carried weight with the Fathers of the Church in all times that seeing the Censures of the Church were left there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for edification not for destruction and are onely designed to charitative ends must never be used to any other purpose therefore when obedience it utterly cast off the band be it of subordination or co-ordination so broken that the issuing out of Censures cannot expect to compose but onely to widen the breach not to mollifie but exasperate there Christian prudence is to indevour by milder waies what severity is not likely to effect and so the thunderbolts to be laid up till there may be some probability of doing good by them Num. 6 But this is not the case as it really lies betwixt Rome and us save onely as à majori it may be accommodated to us we have cast off neither obedience to any to whom it was due nor charity to those who have least to us nor truth to the utmost of our understandings and yet we must be cast out and anathematized and after all that condemned as wilful schismaticks i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dividers and condemners of our selves because we quietly submit to that fate which will cost us too dear the wounding and disquiet of our conscience to qualifie our selves for a capacity of getting out of it Num. 7 What he adds of their highest tribunal the Churches voice which hath passed this judgment against us belongs I suppose to those Bishops of Rome which have sent out their Bulls against us and therefore I must in reason adde that those are principally guilty of this schisme and so their successors principally obliged to retract and reform the sin of it and after them all others in the order and measure that they have partaked in this guilt with them Num. 8 And there can be no greater charity than to beseech all in the bowels of Christ to return to the practice of that charity which hath too long been exiled from among Christian Professors CHAP. XI An Answer to the Exceptions made to the last Chapter Sect. I. Of the present state of the Church of England The Catholicks promise for eternity to his Church Roma aeterna Particular Churches perishable Mr. Hooker's prediction of the Church The power of the secular Magistrate to remove Bishops Sees not to make Bishops The Councel of Florence concerning the Popes supremacy c. Marcus's opinion of it Joseph Methonens his answer briefly examined Num. 1 THE last part of this Gentleman's indevour is to perswade men that the Church of England is not onely persecuted but destroyed and of that he means to make his advantage to fetch in Proselytes being out of his great charity very sensible of their estate unwilling they should sit any longer in the vault or charnel house to communicate with shades when they are invited to a fairer sunshine in a vital and very flourishing society Thus then he begins his reply to the 11th Chapter Num. 2 In the last Chapter he complaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the losse of their Church and arguing with their disciples in this sort Communion in some Church even externally is necessary but you cannot now communicate with your late Church for that hath no subsistence therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholick who hath or undoubtedly is perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages in which none other can compare with him and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst and most prudent persons confessedly that ever was among them to be a building likely to last but 80 years and to be now torn up by the roots and this done by the same means by which it was setled I say if this Catholick believe his eyes he is at least to be excused and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained yet let him remember how inconsequent this is to what be hath said before for ask him how it doth remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters among them for his defense against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it will follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and unbishoped by another secular authority if it be said the Parliament that pulled them down had not the three bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up but it will be replied that though they are pulled down yet are they still Bishops viz the character remains upon them Alas what is their Character if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doctor makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops and Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the laity and so no character can
be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor and of the People as body and flock and consequently their Church is gone But we account our selves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependent upon Princes or inherited from Augustus or Nero but from Peter and Paul and so shall stand and continue whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree when they according to their doctrines and arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same authority that set them up and as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end so is this with this difference that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better but this is a counterfeit tyranical one to punish a better As concerning the Doctors prayer for Peace and Communion all good people will joyne with him if he produce Fructus dignos poenitentiae especially i he acknowledge the infallibility of the Church and supremacy of the Pope the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books the latter is expressed in the Councel of Florence in these words viz. we define that the Holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the world and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and head of the whole Church and the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in Saint Peter from Christ a full power to feed direct and governe the Catholike Church So farre the Councel Without obeying this the Doctor is a Schismatick and without confessing the other an Heretick but let him joyne with us in these all the rest will follow Num. 3 I shall not here repeat my complaint if it were indeed such and not rather a bare proposing of a last foreseen objection against us knowing how little compassion any sufferings of ours may expect to receive from this Gentleman I shall onely joyne issue with his tenders of proof that our Church hath now no subsistence but yet before I doe so take notice of one part of his arguing viz. that the Catholike hath or is undoubtedly perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church Where certainly the fallacie is very visible and sufficient to supersede if he shall advert to it his undoubted perswasion For what promise of eternity can this Gentleman here reflect on undoubtedly that of the Church of Christ indefinitely that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Mat. 16. 18. Num. 4 What is the full importance of that phrase is elsewhere largely shewed and need not be here any farther repeated than that the promise infallibly belongs not to any particular Church of any one denomination but to the whole body Christ will preserve to himselfe a Church in this world as long as this world lasteth in despight of all the malice cunning or force of men and devills Num. 5 Now that this is no security or promise of eternity to any particular Church whether of Rome or England any more than of Thyatira or Laodicea which contrary to any such promise is threatned to be Spued out Rev. 3. 16. is in it self most evident because the destroying any one particular Church is reconcileable with Christs preserving some other as the Species of mankinde is preserved though the Gentleman and I should be supposed to perish and because the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Church which is there the subject of the discourse is not the Romanist or in that sense the Catholike his Church as is here suggested but the Church of Christ built upon the foundation of the Apostles of which Simon is there said to be one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e stone or foundation-stone so as he was of other Churches beside that of Rome and so as others were of other Churches which he never came neere and even of this of Rome Saint Paul as well as he Num. 6 From hence therefore by force of this promise which as truly belongs to every Church as it doth to Rome but indeed belongs to no particular but to the Christian Church to conclude that the Church of Rome is eternall is a first ungrounded perswasion in this Gentleman the very same as to conclude a particular is an universal or that the destruction of one part is the utter dissolution of the whole and the proof from experience of 16. ages which is here added is a strange way of argumentation such as that Methusalem might have used the very day before his death to prove that he should never dye and the very same that Heathen Rome did use at the time of their approaching destruction calling her selfe Vrbem aeternam the eternali City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rome the Heaven-City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rome a Goddesse which accordingly had by Adrian a Temple erected to it and the Emperors thereof and the very name of the place worshipt as a deity More Deae nomenque loci seu numen adorant and all this upon this one score that it had stood and prospered so long Num. 7 The like may be affirmed of the Church of the Jewes built upon a promise which had more of peculiarity to the seed of Abraham than this of Mat. 16. can be imagined to have to the Church of Rome and yet that Church was destroyed and nothing more contributed to the provocation and merit of that destruction than their owne confidence of being unperishable The best admonition in this respect is that of the Apostle Be ye not high minded but feare and if God spared not the Natural branches take heed also lest he spare not you and this Gentleman cannot be ignorant what Church it was that was then capable of this exhortation And the very making this matter of argument and in this respect not of purity but of duration exalting the Romanist's Church above all other Churches in these words none other can compare with him as it is one character which determines the speech to the particular Church of Rome for else how can he speak of others and affirme that they cannot compare so it is no very humble or consequently Christian expression in this Gentleman Num. 8 What he addes out of Master Hooker and applies as the judgement of that learned man concerning the Church of England yeilds us these farther observations 1. That in all reason this Gentleman must in his former words speak of his Church of Rome as that is a particular Church for else how can he after his Church name another Church meaning this of England of which saith he Mr. Hooker speaks and that will conclude the evident falsity of his assumption that by Christ's promise eternity belonged to it for that it cannot doe to any particular Church because the Vniversal may be preserved when that is destroyed and the promise being made indefinitely to the Church may be performed in any part of it Num. 9 Secondly That a
man and was much cried up for so doing the British still adhering to their way and answering him that absque consensu licentiâ suorum without consent and licence of their whether Rulers of Church or whatsoever other superiors also their Metropolitan I suppose which cannot be thought to have been with them at this being certainly none of the seven Bishops which are affirmed to have been present at the later convention they could not forsake their antient customes Fourthly that upon proposall it was agreed that they should have a second meeting at which were present seven British Bishops which other Writers expresse to have been the Bishop of Hereford Landaff Bangor S. Assaph Worcester Paternensis Morganensis and many other learned men especially de nobilissimo eorum Monasterio quod vocatur lingua Anglorum Bancornaburg cui tempore illo Dinooth Abbas praefuisse narratur of the famous Monasterie of Bangor of which Dinooth was Abbot at that time Fifthly that before they went to this Meeting they were advised by a religious person whose directions they asked to observe diligently the behaviour of Augustine when they came whether he were meek and lowly in heart a mark by which they might know whether he had taken Christ's yoke upon him and consequently whether it were the yoke of Christ which he now desired to impose upon them and upon Augustine's fitting still upon his stool or seat and never rising up with any civility or humility at their approach they were so displeased saith Bede that they contradicted all the proposals that he made to them Sixthly that upon his making three Propositions to them concerning Easter Baptisme and preaching to the English and promising to bear with them in all other differences of which sort said he there were many wherein their practice was contrary consuetudini nostrae imò Vniversalis Ecclesiae to the custome of the Roman yea the Vniversal Church they answered nihil horum se facturos nec illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros that they would not comply with him in any of them nor acknowledge him for their Archbishop Upon which follows that rough sanguinarie answer of Augustine's quod si pacem cum fratribus accipere nollent bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi that if they would not accept of peace with brethren they should have warre from enemies and as it follows in very plain language per Anglorum manuâ— ultienem mortis essent passuri the hands of the English should act a bloody revenge upon them Which it seems soon after followed and fell in an eminent manner on the Monks of Bangor of which order there were at that time above two thousand who lived all by the labour of their own hands For saith he King Edilfred of Northumberland coming with a great Army to Câ—erleon made his first onset on their Priests who were assembled by themselves to fast and pray for their brethren as Moses holding up his hands in prayer whilest Josua held up his in sighting and upon no other provocation taken notice of by the Historian but this that they fought against him with their prayers contra nos pugnant qui adversus noâ— in precaâ—iâ—s ibus prosequuntur he first set upon them killed 1â—00 of them and then destroyed the whole Army Sicque compieâ—um est praesagium sancti Pontificis Augustini and so the presage of the holy Bishop St. Augustine was fulfiâ—led upon them These particulars of the story I have thus puctually set down in obedience to the rebuke of this Author who p. 412. chargeth it upon Sir Hen Spelman and those others that borrow out of him as a want of wilingness to see the truth of fidelity to comâ—nicate it to others that they have chosen to reflect on that testimonie which he is pleased to call upstart and which appeared not till within these 15 years and not upon that true antiquity which having indured the shock of almost a 1000 years Sir Henry had a little before transcribed out of Bede wherein saith he every one may read first that miracle in giving sight to the blinde man then that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Augustine which in his opinion more than sufficiently prove that S. Augustine sent by the Pope came in the name of God from a lawfull authority and that his demands of conformity to the Church of Rome in the points specified were good and to be yeilded to by the Britains In this matter I might now fitly inlarge and examine the force of this two-fold argument that of the miraculous cure and that of the predicted vengeance and offer many things to consideration concerning each head For the former 1. the no great credit that hath been given to the relations of Bede on this head of miracles of which his Story is so richly furnished together with the great deceit that such pretensions have been experimented to subject men to Secondly the confession of Bede that the Britaine 's were unwilling to yeild to this tryall of their cause and accordingly when he saith that the blinde man being offered to the Priests of the Britaines he received no cure or benefit by them he doth not so much as pretend that the Britaine 's attempted to doe the miracle and failed in it but leaves us to resolve that they wholly waved this tryall Thirdly that if the miracle were granted to be a true miracle and a testimony of Gods asserting the doctrines then contested between them yet this would not be any concludent testimonie for the Pope's Supremacy but onely for those things which were then the matter of the question the time of the observation of Easter the rites of Baptisme accustomed in the Roman Church and at the most some such like traditions wherein the British custome varied from that of Rome for this was the forme of the proposed tryall quae sequenda traditio quibus sit viis ad ingressum regni illius properandum what tradition was to be followed in the celebration of Easter that which the Britains had received and retained from their first conversion imputed to an Apostle or Apostolical person Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea or that which the Romans deduced from S. Peter by what waies they were to hasten to entrance into that Kingdome referring I suppose to the rites of baptisme the second head of debate between them And in both these as also in refusing to joyn with Augustine in the common work of preaching to the Gentiles it may easily be granted by us that the truth was on the Romanists side and not on the Britains without yeâ—lding a supremacie of the Church of Rome over the British Churches Fourthly that the Britains by Bede's confession acknowledged themselves convinced by that miracle that the way of righteousness which Augustine preached was the true way yet added that they could not renounce their antient customes without the consent and licence of their own superiors which evidently confines aud determines the