soon appear to bring him little advantage For Num. 17 1. The Bishop's I suppose he means the Bishop of Rome his consent was not asked One part of the story is that when the Bishop of Ravenna being fain to flie to the Bishop of Rome for support against the Longobards submitted himself to him the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured thereby And 2. it is not truly said that it was praeordered and the Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon cannot be brought to that purpose this act of Valentinians dated Anno 432. being 19 years before the Councel of Chalcedon which was assembled Anno 451. and so sure not praeordained by that which was subsequent And indeed the Canon of that Councel mentioning Cities and Churches in the plural which had been before their Session made Metropoles by several Kings is a clear evidence that there were other such beside that of Ravenna and Balsamon expresseth them by the name of Madyta and Abydus c. Num. 18 Thirdly If this be acknowledged an act of Councel confirming the lawfulness of what the Emperours had thus done and decreeing as clearly the Councel of Chalcedon and that other in Trullo did that generally it should be thus that as the Prince made an ordinary City a Metropolis the Church of that City should be a Metropolitical Church then still this is the fuller evidence that it was lawfull for Princes thus to doe and that as oft as they did such changes in the Churches followed for sure a King was not obliged to ask the Churches leave to repair or build a city Num. 19 Lastly What out of Balsamon was cited by me that what the Emperors did in this matter they did according to the power that was given them was it seems either an occasion of stumbling to this Gentleman or an excuse of it For from hence he concludes that this power was given them by the Church This if it be true is the thing that I would demand and so farre from answering mine instance for if the Church have given Princes this power then they may freely and lawfully make use of it and Justinian's doing so could be no tyrannical act against the Church But let us view Balsamon's words They are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such definitions are made by Kings according to the power given them from above That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from above sometimes signifies in respect of time sometimes also in respect of place In the first respect it signifies from of old and is oft joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and if it be so taken here as Gentianus Hervetus interprets it olim it must then signifie that this power was yeilded to Kings either by the Apostles or by the Primitive Canons of the Church and if it were thus given them by the Church then sure they might justly challenge and exercise it freely But in the second sense it is as certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies from above i. e. from heaven so Joh. 19. 11. Christ tells Pilate thou couldst have no power over me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlesse it were given thee from above i. e. sure from heaven from God by whom Kings reign and have their power and so it very frequently signifies in the Scripture And if that be the the meaning then this Gentleman sees how well he hath inferred his conclusion from this passage Num. 20 By all this it already appears what truth there is in this suggestion that the examples produced are but few and those of tyrannical Princes and no way excluding the Church just as much and no more as was in the premisses which induced it and those being discovered already it is superfluous to make repetitions so soon in this place Num. 21 In the close he thinks sit to retire again to his old fortresse that the Popes power is not Patriarchal and so that he is still safe from all that hath been said on that head But it hath now appeared that if any other be made a Patriarch or Primate or whatever the style be a Bishop without any dependence on the Pope this is a prejudice sufficient to his Vniversal Pastorship and other disadvantages he is rather in reason to expect by disclaiming the Patriarchal authority which the Canons have allowed him than hope to gain any thing by contemning his inheritance CHAP. VII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the seventh Chapter Sect. I. King Henry's desire of Reconciliation to Rome The sacriledge c. no argument against Regal power to remove Patriarchies Possession in the belief of the Popes supremacy Prescribing for errour Napier's testimony Possession if granted from Augustine's coming into England no argument of truth Confessions of Popes Augustine required it not Pope Gregory's testimony Many evidences that this belief was not received after Augustine's time Num. 1 WHat in the next place is replied to that part of Chapter 7. which concerned Henry VIII his act of ejecting the Power of the Pope will be full matter for a first section of this Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his seventh Chapter he intends a justification of the breach whereof as he doth not teach the infamous occasion and how to his dying day the same King desired to be reconciled as also that it was but the coming two daies short of a Post to Rome which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made as may be seen in my Lord of Cherbery's Book fol. 368. and that the moderate Protestants curse the day wherein it was made so the very naming of Hen. VIII is enough to confute all his discourse one of the darlings of his daughter having given him such a character as hath stamped him for England's Nero to future posterity and as it was said of Nero in respect of Christian religion so might it be of him respecting the unity of the Church viz it must be a great good that he began to persecute and abolish and as for the Acts passed in the Vniversities Convocation or Parliament let the blood shed by that Tyrant bear witnesse what voluntary and free Acts they were especially those two upon his Seneca and Burrhus Bishop Fisher and the Chancellor More that he might want nothing of being throughly paraâ—eld to Nero. But methinks the Doctor differs not much in this seeming tacitly to grant the Bishops were forced awed by that noted sword in a slender thread the praemunire which did hang over their heads though in the conclusion of that Sect he saies we ought to judge charitably viz that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgment and saith That if what was determined were falsly determined by the King and Bishops then the voluntary and free doing it will not justifie and if it were not then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was
the 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
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
called Patriarchs was no injury to the Patriarch of Antioch saith Theod Balsamon himself Patriarch of Antioch in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the identity of the honour And accordingly in the Councels the Archbishop of Constantinople under that title is placed before the Patriarch of Antioch yea and of Alexandria who yet by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine and holy writings i. e. the Canons by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions of the Fathers was styled Pope saith Balsamon And therefore for Justiniana also this was sufficient It was made a Primacy and then it matters not though it were not styled a Patriarchy The exemption from Rome and all other forreign power is all I pretend this city had and of that there can be no question whatsoever title belonged to it Num. 11 Thirdly this Gentleman's saying that the Bishop of Constantinople had the title of Patriarch in his own city would make one believe that he had it not elsewhere which yet it is notorious that he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he and the Archbishop of Jerusalem were publickly called Patriarchs saith Balsamon and he renders the reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the five Patriarchs of which number they were two held the place of the head of the body to wit of the holy Churches of God But whatsoever the title were it is still sure enough it had the power and dignity of a Patriarchate first by custome then by Canons of two General Councels Constantinople and Chalcedon for I suppose the setting it next and equal to Rome and before Antioch and Alexandria will amount to this also by that very Novell of Justinian where the privileges are conferred on Justiniana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Archbishop of new Rome Constantinople hath the next place after the Apostolical See of old Rome and the precedence of honour before all others And so much for the Exceptions to the fift Chapter CHAP. VI. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the sixt Chapter Sect. I. The plea for the Popes power from the conversion of England Of acquiring of right by two titles Num. 1 THE plea from plantation which was considered in the sixt Chapter he now proceeds to in these words Num. 2 In his sixt Chapter he examineth another title peculiar to England viz that our Nation was converted by mission from Rome and this is totally beside the question for no man is so stupid as to pretend S. Peter or the Church of Rome to have power over the Vniversal Church because his successors converted England But some pretend a special title of gratitude the violation of which aggravateth the sin of schismatizing from the Church of Rome in our nation yet no man as farre as I can understand thinks this latter obligation of so high a nature as that for no occasion or never so great cause it may not be dispensed with but onely presse it then when the benefit is slighted or by colourable arguments to the contrary unworthily avoided And yet this Doctor quite mistaking the Question frameth an argument as full of words as empty of matter affirming there cannot be two successive titles to possession of the same thing telling us that he who claimeth a reward as of his own labour and travel must disclaim a donation c. if any passed before and that if a King have right by descent he cannot claim any thing by conquest by which you may see his understanding the Law is not much more than his understanding of our principles Num. 3 What this Gentleman here premiseth that this plea from the Conversion of this nation by mission from Rome is not used by the Romanist to prove us schismaticks I have no reason to confute but shall from thence suppose that that sixt Chapter might have been spared out of that little Treatise and our Church competently justified by the precedent Chapters And then all that I shall need added is First that I hope what was by me added superfluously above the necessities of our cause will not destroy what was before said pertinently and then as I shall onely have lost my pains and there is no farther hurt done so it must needs be very unnecessary for this Gentleman to adapt any farther answers to that sixt Chapter when he hath once adjudged all that is there said to be totally beside the Question Num. 4 Secondly That if others had been as prudent as this Gentleman I had certainly spared that Chapter It being no interest of mine to invent pleas for the Romanist and although as this Gentleman hath pleased to set it it be a competent stupidity and that which I never thought any Romanist guilty of to make the conversion of England a plea to power over the Vniversal Church yet England and not the Vniversal Church being the subject of our Question there is not quite so much stupidity in it to plead the Popes power over England from the supposed Conversion of England And certainly I did not dream that some Romanists have thus pleaded but as I said before if this Gentleman will not insist on it neither shall I farther importune him about it Num. 5 For that of gratitude which he now mentions onely as an aggravation of the sin of schismatizing which that we are guilty of he acknowledges must be proved by some other means I yeild to the force of it that it might justly adde a weight to the obligation which formerly lay upon us supposing any such there were but cannot lay an obligation to obedience where before it was not due much lesse were it due unto another All the benefits that can be heaped on me by any man that gives me not my being cannot oblige or engage my subjection to him without the intervenience of my own consent if I am perfectly free to choose my Sovereign and without the consent of my former Sovereign if I have any Num. 6 So that the whole Question must be whether by any original right the Bishop of Rome had power over this Kingdome and so whether by that our obedience was due to him for if it were then this gratitude was not the tenure but that other and if it were not then neither of the titles are in force against us not the first which hath no beeing nor the second which whatsoever it be obligeth not to obedience Num. 7 This I thought was apparent by the instance of the several claims to a Kingdome by descent and by conquest the one of which if it stood as the title supersedeth the other he that holds by inheritance cannot be properly said to hold by conquest even when it is true that he hath conquered also For in that case when the right heir being forced to make use of his sword to give him possession is successfull and victorious in it all that his sword doth is to give him possession not to give him right for that he had before by inheritance Num. 8
affirmed was true or that the beliefe of it had possession in the whole Church before Nay the contrary will be most evident that at that very time the British Bishops acknowledged not any such power over them in the Pope or any other as is cited from the Abbate of Bangor cap. 16. Sect. 5. and much more to the same purpose Num. 18 And 't is no newes to remind him out of their owne Canon Law that some of their Popes have disclaimed and that not without great aversation and detestation of the arrogance of it the title of Vniversal Bishop or Pastor and acknowleged it is a very ominous Symptome in any that shall assume it and considering the prejudices that lye against it from the first oecumenical Councils all the Ordinances whereof the Popes at their creations vow to maintaine inviolably and against which to constitute or innovate any thing ne hujus quidem sedis potest authoritas it is not in the power of this See saith Pope Zosimus 25. qu. 1. c. Contra. I may justly conclude that all are obliged to doe the like Num. 19 But then secondly what truth there is in it in thesi that from S. Augustine's plantation to this time of Henry VIII the Romanists have been in possession of this belief of the Popes universal Pastorship must be contested by evidences And 1. For Augustine himself it appears not by the story in Bede that he did at all preach this doctrine to the nation nay as upon Augustine's demand concerning ceremonies Pope Gregory bindes him not to conform all to the Canons or practice of Rome but bids him freely choose that which may most please God wheresoever he findes it sive in Galliaâ—um sive in qualibet Ecclesiâ— whether in France or in any other Church haec quasi in Fasciculum collecta apud Anglorum mentes in consuetudinem deponere make up a Book of such Canons to be observed in England which clearly shews that the Romish Canons were not to be in power in England so when the difference betwixt him and the British Bishops of whom it hath been shewed that they acknowledged not the Pope to have any power over them came to be composed he required compliance and obedience from them but in three things the observation of Easter according to the order of the Church of Rome and the Nicene Canon the Ministration of Baptisme and joyning with him to preach to the English Which is some prejudice to the founding of this belief in Augustine's preaching Num. 20 Nay when Bede comes to speak of Gregory then Pope by way of Encomium at his death the utmost he faith of him is that cùm primùm in toto orbe gereret Pontifieatum conversis jamdudum Ecclesiis praelatus esset c. being Bishop of the Prime Church in the whole world and set over those Churches which had been long since converted and having now taken care to propagate that faith to England he might justly be called our Apostle and say as S. Paul did that if to others he were not an Apostle yet he was to us Num. 21 As for that of Vniversal Pastorship certainly we may take Gregory's own word that no such thing was then thought to belong to him in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria visible among his works and inserted in the body of their Canon Law Nam dixi c. I told you that you were not to write to me or any other in that style and behold in the Preface of that Epistle directed to me who thus prohibited you have set this proud appellation calling me universal Pope or Father which I desire you will doe no more for it is a derogating from you to bestow on another more than reason requires I count it not my honour wherein I know my brethren lose their honour My honour is the honour of the universal Church My honour is that my brethren should enjoy what fully belongs to them so I render fratrum meorum solidus vigor then am I truly honoured when the honour which is due to all is denied to none For if you call me universal Pope you deny that to your self which you attribute all to me And farther tells him with expressions of aversation Absit and recedant that this honour had by a Councel been offered to his Predecessors the Councel of Chalcedon that gave it equally to him and the Bishop of Constantinople which is in effect to give to neither the power or sense but onely the title of it but no one of them would ever use this title This sure iâ— evidence enough that if at that time any such belief of the Vniversal Pastorship of the Pope entred this Nation it must needs be the belief of a known acknowledged falsity and so farre from a bonae fidei possessio Num. 22 After this what possession this belief had among us may be judged by some of those many instances put together by the Bishops in Henry VIII his daies as the premises whereon that King built his conclusion of ejecting that Power which was then usurped by the Pope Num. 23 First a statute that for Ecclesiastical appeals they shall in the last resort lie from the Archbishop to the King so as not to proceed any farther without the Kings assent Num. 24 Secondly that Tunstan Archbishop elect of Yorke asking leave of the King to go to a Councel designed by Calixtus had it granted with this reserve that he should not receive Episcopal benediction from the Pope Num. 25 Thirdly that the Kings of England from time to time had and exercised authority of making lawes in Ecclesiastical matters Eight such Lawes are there recited of Canutus his making the like of King Ethelred Edgar Edmund Aethelstane Ina King of the West Saxons and King Alfred Num. 26 Fourthly that William the Conquerour instituting and indowing the Abbey of Battell gave the Abbat exemption from all jurisdiction of any Bishops aut quarumlibet personarum dominatione from all dominion or rule of any persons whatsoever sicut Ecclesia Christi Cantuariensis in like manner as the Church of Canterbury Which imports two things 1. that the Church of Canterbury had no such Ruler over him but the King and 2. that the Abbat of Battell was by regal power invested with the same privileges Num. 27 But I suppose all these and many the like instances which might be brought derogatory enough to the possession in this belief here pretended will but adde one more to the number of such arguments of which this Gentleman saith that they have fourty times had replies made to them And truly this is a good easie compendious way which as it secures him against all that can be produced so it doth not incourage me to spend time in collecting and producing more and therefore this shall suffice to have added now concerning this matter being apt to flatter my self that these arguments are demonstrative and clear enough
to men of common sense to disprove and so to overthrow this Possession Sect. II. Queen Mary's retaining the Supremacy Power of refusing Legates unreconcileable with the Popes Supremacy Num. 1 THE next Paragraph is an account of a passage cited by me from the story of Queen Mary Thus Num. 2 Queen Mary's titular retaining of the Supremacy untill she could dispose the disordered hearts of her subjects to get it peaceably revoked is no authority for the Doctor she never pretending it to be lawfully done but that she could not doe otherwise no more is her refusing of a Legate which in all Catholick times and countries hath been practiced and thought lawfull Num. 3 What civil or secular motives they were which kept that Queen so long from rejecting the title of supreme in her own Kingdome I shall not need to inquire If it were no unpardonable sin in her to continue the title and exercise of that power which was incompetible with the Pope's universal Pastorship then why should it be so hainous in her Father to assume it Her never pretending that it was lawfully done signifies very little as long as she pretends not the contrary that it was unlawfull The truth may well lie in the middle that she thought it lawful to retain it yet lawful also to bestow it on the Bishop of Rome and upon the strength of the former perswasion my charity obligeth me to think that she did the former and in force of the latter it is possible also that she did the latter though possible too that she did it upon reason of state the validity of her mother's mariage and consequently her legitimation depending upon the acknowledgment of the Pope's absolute power in this Nation Num. 4 But the truth is her opinion or practice is of no more force one way than the other and therefore was taken in as a supernumerary observation and not such as on that alone to found any grand argument Num. 5 As for the power of refusing a Legate from the Pope I cannot discern how that is reconcileable with the Popes pretensions to supreme power in this Kingdome Can it be lawfull for any Province to refuse a Procurator or Praetor or Proconsul sent solemnly commissionated by the Lawfull Prince Was it lawfull for the tenants or dressers of the vineyard to deny entrance to the King's son or but servant Is not this a derogation to supreme power and domination If this be practiced and counted lawful in all Catholick times and Countreys this is to me an indication that in no time or countrey there hath been possession of this belief that the Pope is the supreme Pastor of all for sure if he were his Legate which is his image might in power of the original require admission and he that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus sent and commissionated by him must by S. Peter's precept be allowed obedience from all his subjects and so from that Queen if such she were and such she must be so farre as he had the supremacy Num. 6 So again when Cardinal Petou was sent to be Bishop of Sarisbury the denying him that Bishoprick was a check to the Pope's absolute supremacy but of that this Gentleman was in prudence to take no notice Sect. III. King Edward his Reformation The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Northumberland his Treason no prejudice to the Reformation under that King Num. 1 HIs next exception is to the passages concerning King Edward VI. Henry's immediate successor Thus Num. 2 King Edward a childe of nine years old fell into the hands of wicked and ambitious traytors who knowing the Kingdome affected for religion sake to Queen Mary to cut off her succession and introduce their own thought sit to strengthen their faction which beside what they might hope from abroad consisted of many Lutherans and Calvinists at home those two sects having by opportunity of that rupture in Henry VIII his time spread and nest led themselves in many parts of England Num. 3 What is here said hath little of truth in it and as little of argument if it were truth That the youth of the Prince can be no foundation of argument against the Legality of what was done by the Duke of Somerset his uncle the Protector in his nonage was sufficiently shewed before and might be exemplified through all times and places That this Protector should at this time when the young King legally fell into his hands be styled a wicked ambitious Traytor hath not any degree of truth in it the crime for which he afterward lost his life being farre from any disloyalty to his Sovereign Num. 4 As for the Duke of Northumberland who obtained the King's consent to settle the inheritance on Jane Grey and accordingly after the King's death proclaimed her Queen and suffered as a traytor for so doing all that I shall need to say is this 1. that this act of his how trayterous soever cannot justifie what is here said that the King at nine years old fell into the hands of traytors for that one Duke cannot truly be called traytors in the plural and the King at that age did not fall into his hands but into the hands of Edward Seymour Duke of Somerset under whom the six Articles and other acts of severity against the Protestants were called in and the Acts against the Papal authority confirmed the Romish Masse abrogated the Bible translated and published in the English tongue the Liturgie reformed and the publick offices performed in English the sacrament of the Lord's Supper administred in both kindes c. And so whatsoever was afterward done were it never so trayterously by the Duke of Northumberland could have no influence on this change and is therefore very impertinently here inserted after the manner of the Orator not the historian to raise passions inflame dislkes and aversions in the Reader and not to give him any exact view of the truth of the story Num. 5 Secondly that the designe of the Duke of Northumberland not succeeding but costing him so dear the losse of his own life and hers whom he set up to be Queen and the succession regularly descending on Queen Mary there can be no reasonable account given why this treason of that Duke should here be proposed as the one considerable it being evident in the story that all things were composed to the full satisfaction of Queen Mary and just as they should have been in case that trayterous attempt had never been made by that Duke Num. 6 To which I might adde that this treason of his was founded on that very act which in the next paragraph this Gentleman thinks fit to vouch as authentick and if it were so that could be no treason in that Duke viz the Act whereby Mary as well as Elizabeth were adjudged illegitimate and so uncapable of the succession But these are considerations very extrinsecal and remote from the matter as it lies here in the contest between us Num.
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