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
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
to give Lawes and those Lawes oblige Subjects to obedience and yet that Prince never be imagined infallible in making Lawes And natural reason cannot conclude it impossible that a Church should have a proportionable power given it by God to binde belief c. Num. 12 As for the Catholick or Roman Church 1. that is a misprision the Catholick is not the single Roman Church nor the Roman the Catholick 2. There no where appears any such definition either of the Catholick i. e. Vniversall Church of God or particularly of the Roman Church no act of Councell representative of that Church no known affirmation of that diffused body under the Bishop of Rome's Pastorage that all authority to oblige belief is founded in Infallibility 3. If any such definition did appear it could no way be foundation of belief to us who doe not believe that Church or any definition thereof as such to be infallible Num. 13 2. If we shall but distinguish and limit the termes 1. what is meant by can lie 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no 3. By power to binde 4 By belief as every of these have a latitude of signification and may be easily mistaken till they are duly limited It will then soon appear that there is no unlimited truth in that which he saith is the whole Churches affirmation nor prejudice to our pretensions from that limited truth which shall be found in it Num. 14 1. The phrase can lie may denote no more than such a possibility of erring as yet is joyned neither with actuall error nor with any principle whether of deficiency on one side nor of malignity on the other which shall be sure to betray it into error Thus that particular Church that is at the present in the right in all matters of faith and hath before it the Scripture to guide it in all its decisions together with the traditions and doctrines of the antient and Primitive Church and having skill in all those knowledges which are usefull to fetch out the true meaning of Scripture and ability to inquire into the antient path and to compare her self with all other considerable parts of the Vniversall Church and then is diligent and faithfull to make use of all these succours and in uprightness of heart seeks the truth and applies it self to God in humble and ardent and continuall prayer for his guidance to lead into all truth This Church I say is yet fallible may affirm and teach false i. e. this is naturally possible that it may but it is not strongly probable that it will as long as it is thus assisted and disposed to make use of these assistances and means of true defining Num. 15 2. That Churches knowledge whether it define truly or no in any proposition may signifie no more than a full perswasion or belief cui non subest dubium wherein they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is the very truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum which is unerrable or infallible in strictness of speech it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Num. 16 3. By power to binde may be meant no more than authority derived to them from the Apostles of Christ to make decisions when difficulties arise to prescribe rules for ceremonies or government such as shall oblige inferiors to due observance and obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his precept to obey the rulers set over us in the Church which we may doe without thinking them simply or by any promise of God inerrable or infallible as the obedience which is due to civil Magistrates which supposes in them a power of binding subjects to obey doth yet no way suppose or imply them uncapable of erring and sinning and giving unreasonable commands and such as wherein it is unlawfull to yeild obedience to them Num. 17 Beside this there may farther be meant by it a generall obligation that lies on all men to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed to them such as the disbelieving or doubting of it shall be in them inseparable from obstinacy and this obligation is again the greater when that which is thus convincingly proposed is proposed by our superiors from whose mouth it is regular to seek and receive Gods will Num. 18 Lastly Believing may signifie not an implicite irrational blinde but a well-grounded rationall explicite belief of that which as the truth of God is duely proposed to us or again where there is not that degree of manifestation yet a consent to that which is proposed as most probable on the grounds afforded to judge by or when the person is not competent to search grounds a bare yeilding to the judgment of superiours and deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to their own judgment a believing so farre as not to disbelieve And this again may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the Rulers and Governors of it without deeming them inerrable or infallible Num. 19 Nay where the proposition defined is such that every member of that Church cannot without violence to his understanding yeild any such degree of belief unto it yet he that believes it not may behave himself peaceably and reverently either duely representing his grounds why he cannot consent to it or if his subscription or consent be neither formally nor interpretatively required of him quietly enjoy his contrary opinion And this may tend as much to the peace and unity of a Church as the perswasion of the inerrability thereof can be supposed to doe Num. 20 By this view of the latitude of these terms and the limitations they are capable of it is now not so difficult to discern in what sense the proposition under consideration is false and in what sense it is true and by us acknowledged to be so Num. 21 A congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions c. and to require inferiors so farre to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions Num. 22 But for any absolute infallible belief or consent that no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Num. 23 By this it appears in the next place in what sense it is true which in the following words is suggested of Protestants that they binde men to a Profession of Faith and how injustly it is added that supposing them not to be infallibe it is unjust tyrannical and self-condemnation to the binders The contrary whereto is most evident understanding the obligation with that temper and the infallibity in that notion wherein it is evident we understand
acquire any Dominion to Rome which S. Paul had never seen at that time and which was it self converted after those and that was it which I was proving Num. 6 But he bethinketh himself at last and confesseth that this of conversion is not the Pope's title to England And having done so before why might he not have permitted me to bring undeniable evidences for the proof of it Sect. IV. The concernments of Rome in the Princes power to remove Patriarchates The examples of it Justiniana the Canon of Chalcedon and the 6 t Councel Valentinian making Ravenna a Patriarchate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 1 TO put this whole matter out of controversie viz that the Church of England is not bound to be subject to that Church from which it first received the Faith one head of argument I pitcht on the power of Kings to remove or erect Primacies and Patriarchates which if it have truth in it evidently proves that in case we were once under the See of Rome as our Patriarchate or Prime See supposing that of Vniversal Pastorship disproved before and not reconcileable with this title to England by having converted yet it was in the power of our Kings to remove that from Rome to Canterbury For the proof of this evidences were brought both from the Councel and that OEcumenical of Chalcedon and from the practice of Princes particularly Justinian in an eminent instance and Valentinian and others before the Councel of Chalcedon and many the like examples in the Records of this Kingdome and of others as is shewed at large and the ground of all insisted on the supreme power of Kings in Ecclesiastical affairs and this is done in 16 sections from the 9th to the end of that Chapter Against all which that we may see how true the title of this Gentleman's Book is An Answer to the most material parts c. that which is confronted is contained in these words Num. 2 Thirdly He saith it was in the Emperors power to constitute Patriarchs whether that be so or not it will not be much to our purpose to dispute here onely this I say that he seems neither to understand the question nor proves what he would he understands not the question which hath no dependency on the nature of Patriarchs or terms of gratitude but on the donation of Christ he proves not what he would for he produceth onely the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannical towards the Church without proof and discussion whether it was well or ill done which was requisite to make good his proof neither doth he say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an Actor in the businesse he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian the third for giving of privileges purely Ecclesiastical to the Bishop of Ravenna which out of his liberality he makes a Patriarch but on the whole matter this is to be observed that generally the Bishops consents were praedemanded or praeordered as in the Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. it is ordered that the Church should translate their Bishoprick◠according to the Emperours changing of his City and when the Emperours did it it is said they did it according to the power given them to wit by the Church so that a few examples to the contrary produced in the reigns of head-strong and Tyrannical Princes as the most of those are noted to be under whom they are urged prove nothing and if they did yet cannot they be taken as testimonies when these matters of fact are onely so attributed to Princes as no way to exclude the Church but whatsoever it was it doth not at all appertaine to the question since the Popes authority in the sense he calls him Pope is not properly Patriarchal nor hath any dependency upon or from change of places made by the command of Princes Num. 3 The first thing here answered is that it is not much to the Romanists purpose to dispute whether or no the Emperour hath power to constitute Patriarchs He ought to have added or to translate them from one City to another for that is in that Tract also expresly proved but this I suppose not without reason omitted because the power to erect or constitute supposes and implies the power to translate them And if this be not this Gentleman's interest to dispute I shall then by his good leave suppose it yeilded me and observe what the consequences will be Num. 4 And 1. In case the power of the Pope be a Patriarchal power and no more and that appear to be all that the antient Councils ever allowed it to be then it immediately followes that it is in the power of the Emperour to translate and remove it from that to any other See and in that case what befell Constantinople by way of advancement from the title of an ordinary Suffragan Bishops See it ascended to equal dignity and privileges with Rome it self will in the reverse be the condition of Rome from the first Patriarchal See in the whole world nothing hinders but that it may become the See of the most ordinary Bishop And sure 't will be the Romanists concernment to dispute that principle from which this may possibly be the undeniable conclusion Num. 5 But if as here it seems to be interposed the power of Rome be that of Vniversal Pastorship no way dependant on the nature of Patriarchs or on any other tenure but the donation of Christ to Saint Peter then 1. it must be remembred that after the refuting of any such right from Christs donation in the former Chapters the removal also of this was in all reason to prove of some interest to the Romanist and so it must all the proofes of those Chapters be perfectly answered which yet hath not been done in any degree as this reply to the few answers applyed to those Chapters hath shewed Num. 6 Secondly This adhering thus wholly to this donation of Christ and the Vniversall Pastorship deduced from thence is the direct disclaiming of all the Canonical Privileges belonging to Rome on the score of Patriarchy and so in case that first tenure shall faile it is the degrading of Rome from that dignity which by antient Canon belong'd to it that of the Prime Patriarchy and so cuts the Romanist off from all the advantage he can reape either from the affirmation of Fathers or Councels any farther than they are founded in and referre to Christs donation of Vniversal Pastorship to Saint Peter which whether it will prove to be the interest of this Gentleman I must leave him to judge for himselfe and onely adde in the last place that against him that asserts the Bishop of Romes Vniversal Pastorship upon what title soever this will necessarily be a shrewd prejudice if it be not disputed but yeilded that it is in the power of Princes to erect or translate Patriarchies by Patriarchies understanding as it is evident I doe in that discourse chiefe
soon appear to bring him little advantage For Num. 17 1. The Bishop's I suppose he means the Bishop of Rome his consent was not asked One part of the story is that when the Bishop of Ravenna being fain to flie to the Bishop of Rome for support against the Longobards submitted himself to him the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured thereby And 2. it is not truly said that it was praeordered and the Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon cannot be brought to that purpose this act of Valentinians dated Anno 432. being 19 years before the Councel of Chalcedon which was assembled Anno 451. and so sure not praeordained by that which was subsequent And indeed the Canon of that Councel mentioning Cities and Churches in the plural which had been before their Session made Metropoles by several Kings is a clear evidence that there were other such beside that of Ravenna and Balsamon expresseth them by the name of Madyta and Abydus c. Num. 18 Thirdly If this be acknowledged an act of Councel confirming the lawfulness of what the Emperours had thus done and decreeing as clearly the Councel of Chalcedon and that other in Trullo did that generally it should be thus that as the Prince made an ordinary City a Metropolis the Church of that City should be a Metropolitical Church then still this is the fuller evidence that it was lawfull for Princes thus to doe and that as oft as they did such changes in the Churches followed for sure a King was not obliged to ask the Churches leave to repair or build a city Num. 19 Lastly What out of Balsamon was cited by me that what the Emperors did in this matter they did according to the power that was given them was it seems either an occasion of stumbling to this Gentleman or an excuse of it For from hence he concludes that this power was given them by the Church This if it be true is the thing that I would demand and so farre from answering mine instance for if the Church have given Princes this power then they may freely and lawfully make use of it and Justinian's doing so could be no tyrannical act against the Church But let us view Balsamon's words They are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such definitions are made by Kings according to the power given them from above That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from above sometimes signifies in respect of time sometimes also in respect of place In the first respect it signifies from of old and is oft joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and if it be so taken here as Gentianus Hervetus interprets it olim it must then signifie that this power was yeilded to Kings either by the Apostles or by the Primitive Canons of the Church and if it were thus given them by the Church then sure they might justly challenge and exercise it freely But in the second sense it is as certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies from above i. e. from heaven so Joh. 19. 11. Christ tells Pilate thou couldst have no power over me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlesse it were given thee from above i. e. sure from heaven from God by whom Kings reign and have their power and so it very frequently signifies in the Scripture And if that be the the meaning then this Gentleman sees how well he hath inferred his conclusion from this passage Num. 20 By all this it already appears what truth there is in this suggestion that the examples produced are but few and those of tyrannical Princes and no way excluding the Church just as much and no more as was in the premisses which induced it and those being discovered already it is superfluous to make repetitions so soon in this place Num. 21 In the close he thinks sit to retire again to his old fortresse that the Popes power is not Patriarchal and so that he is still safe from all that hath been said on that head But it hath now appeared that if any other be made a Patriarch or Primate or whatever the style be a Bishop without any dependence on the Pope this is a prejudice sufficient to his Vniversal Pastorship and other disadvantages he is rather in reason to expect by disclaiming the Patriarchal authority which the Canons have allowed him than hope to gain any thing by contemning his inheritance CHAP. VII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the seventh Chapter Sect. I. King Henry's desire of Reconciliation to Rome The sacriledge c. no argument against Regal power to remove Patriarchies Possession in the belief of the Popes supremacy Prescribing for errour Napier's testimony Possession if granted from Augustine's coming into England no argument of truth Confessions of Popes Augustine required it not Pope Gregory's testimony Many evidences that this belief was not received after Augustine's time Num. 1 WHat in the next place is replied to that part of Chapter 7. which concerned Henry VIII his act of ejecting the Power of the Pope will be full matter for a first section of this Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his seventh Chapter he intends a justification of the breach whereof as he doth not teach the infamous occasion and how to his dying day the same King desired to be reconciled as also that it was but the coming two daies short of a Post to Rome which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made as may be seen in my Lord of Cherbery's Book fol. 368. and that the moderate Protestants curse the day wherein it was made so the very naming of Hen. VIII is enough to confute all his discourse one of the darlings of his daughter having given him such a character as hath stamped him for England's Nero to future posterity and as it was said of Nero in respect of Christian religion so might it be of him respecting the unity of the Church viz it must be a great good that he began to persecute and abolish and as for the Acts passed in the Vniversities Convocation or Parliament let the blood shed by that Tyrant bear witnesse what voluntary and free Acts they were especially those two upon his Seneca and Burrhus Bishop Fisher and the Chancellor More that he might want nothing of being throughly paraâ—eld to Nero. But methinks the Doctor differs not much in this seeming tacitly to grant the Bishops were forced awed by that noted sword in a slender thread the praemunire which did hang over their heads though in the conclusion of that Sect he saies we ought to judge charitably viz that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgment and saith That if what was determined were falsly determined by the King and Bishops then the voluntary and free doing it will not justifie and if it were not then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was
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
I never said it Num. 19 So again it is of daily practice in this Church as in all others for the supreme power to change as that signifies to remove Bishops from one See to another and so for every lay-Patron in the same sense to change Presbyters But what is that to the making of Bishops or Presbyters did ever King or lay-Patron pretend to that This is too visible to need insisting on Num. 20 Thirdly when he saith there was as much authority to pull down Bishops and Presbyters in this nation as to set them up I might demand 1. Whether he hath any reason to pretend that Presbyters are now pulled down in this nation for this is by him supposed who inquires by what authority they are pulled down 2. Whether he can either upon mine or his own principles assume with any colour of truth that none had any hand in setting up the Bishops in this Kingdome but those whom here he affirms to have consented to the pulling them down and consequently affirm that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up 3. Whether it have any truth in it whether he speak of what was done in Parliament in King Henry's or King Edward's or Queen Elizabeth's daies that the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation 4. What he hath said to make it in the least degree probable that the Bishops and Presbyters mission of preaching and teaching is extinguished among us any more than it was in the Primitive Church when the Emperour was not favourable to the profession and when the Jewes called it heresie And lastly whether if no one of these can with any degree of verity be answered in the affirmative this be not very immoderate liberty which this Gentleman hath given himself in affirming or supposing all these and then adding that our portion is to be lookt for with the Jewish Synagogue as one so the other to have an end not considering that he hath as little skill in revealing secrets as even now in interpreting Mr. Hooker's prophecy that he cannot yet tell what God hath within his veil decreed concerning our Church and which may yet make the greatest speed to follow the Synagogue's fate they which are cast down but not destroyed or they which to say no worse stand by and rejoice at it Num. 21 The Treatise of Schisme concludes with a Prayer for Peace and Communion and for the matter of it we have his seeming confession that all good people will joyne in it But even in such a Prayer wherein all good people will joyne this Gentleman will not joyne with me but upon such termes which I shall not undertake to qualifie me for his favour I meane not the fructus dignos poenitentiae such as John Baptist would prescribe but the penances of this severer confessor to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in his notion of the Church Supremacy of the Pope c. Num. 22 And all that I shall need to reply is to beseech him that he will then without joyning with me pray in secret what I began to him and endeavour so to qualifie himselfe with charity and other graces which may wing his prayers unto that holy place where all humble Christians supplications daily meet and then I shall againe pray God that I may be found in the number of those that so I may be secured to meet and joyne with him at that common throne of grace Num. 23 He is pleased to shut up all with an expression of the Councel of Florence to the businesse of the Popes supremacy To this I might reply that this definition is there visibly subscribed as the act of the Bishop of Rome Eugeni Pp. IV. who was a liberall carver and definer for himselfe as may be seen in that very page where the words cited will be found both by the Seale of his Pontificate there imprest Saint Peter on the left hand Saint Paul on the right and Eugenius Pp. IV. under it and by the last part of the date in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ninth year of our Pontificate which though I shall suppose to be the mode the Pope to pronounce the definition of the Councel yet this was much varied from the old form and the Councel being dated at Florence in the year of our Lord 1439. so near Rome and so farre from the first times where more simplicity and just distribution of rights might be expected this might be a competent answer to this testimony and a vindicating my self from all schisme or heresie that my want of the obedience or confession which he requires might fix on me Num. 24 But I shall for this once choose somewhat the longer way and transcribe part of Marcus the Metropolitan of Ephesus his answer wherein he expresseth his opinion and others of that definition of the Councel as it lies in the Apologie of Joseph Methonensis for that Councel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We also account the Pope as one of the Patriarchs But these doe with great gravity pronounce him Vicar of Christ and Father and Teacher of all Christians and this both to them and us is matter of some wonder how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with so much gravity they could thus pronounce what had so little of truth in it Num. 25 And it is worth recounting here what for the justifying of that definition Joseph Methonensis was able to reply there to that Bishop and that reply thought worthy to be inserted into the Acts of the Councel 1. That he doth not say that the Pope is two or three but onely one of the Patriarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having praeeminence among those of the same Order with him Num. 26 For this he hath 1. Chrysostome's authority in his 17 Homilie on the Acts where he saith that among the seven there was one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one above the rest and the seven there were the seven Deacons and the same praeeminence that Stephen then had over them and all the rest of the world we shall not deny the Bishop of Rome especially if as it follows there he have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more grace than all the other Bishops and will acknowledge as it is there also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same ordination of him and all other Bishops Num. 27 Secondly the saying of Christ that He that heareth you heareth me and the common maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that every Bishop is the successor of Christ But then how came the Bishop of Rome to impropriate that title to be the onely one that all are obliged to hear when as he confesses there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was said in common to them all Num. 28 Thirdly the words of Theodorus Studita one by the way that had been imprisoned for opposing the Bishop of Constantinople and who did not communicate with that Church see Zonaras tom 3. p. 9.