sound and orthodox And this was the second way of defending Honorius viz. that he did not err in faith at all and this way is taken by Petavius and others and was the way intended by Petrus de Marcâ as appears by the account given of his design by Baluzius which was first to prove by most evident arguments that the Acts of the Council were never corrupted by the Greeks against the opinion before mentioned and next that he was truly condemned by the Council but not for heresy but only for negligence and remissness I think there needs nothing to shew the weakness of this but barely reading the Anathema of the Council against him which is not for bare negligence but for confirming the wicked doctrines of Sergius And I am apt to think that learned person saw the weakness of his design too much to go on with it and Baronius and Bellarmin saw well enough that whosoever was there Anathematized it was upon the account of heresy that he was so and therefore Baronius would make men believe the Anathema belonged to Theodorus and not to Honorius Petavius thinks that Honorius was deceived but it was only by his simplicity and weakness not understanding the Controversy aright So of old Iohn 4. and Maximus in his dispute with Pyrrhus defended Honorius that he spake indeed of one Will but that say they was to be understood only of one Will in his humane nature Which as Combesis saith is a more pious than solid defence of him and would as well serve for Sergius and Cyrus for Heraclius his Ecthesis and Constans his Type as Honorius his letter For who ever will peruse them will find they all proceed on the same argument that there could not be two wills in Christ but one must be contrary to the other But that which I insist on is this that it is certain the Council approved by the Pope did condemn him for heresy I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned or not if he was then the Pope must be guilty and so not infallible if not than the Council must be according to Bellarmin guilty of intolerable impudence and errour but in either case there was no infallibility in the Guides of the Church which could require our internal assent to what they declared But another defence is yet beâ—ind which is that though the Pope did erre yet it was in his private Capacity and not as Head of the Church But when doth he act as Head of the Church if not when he is consulted about important matters of faith as this was then supposed to be by two Patriarchs and when the Church was divided about them and there upon solemnly delivers his opinion This is then a meer subterfuge when men have nothing else to say I conclude therefore this Instance of Honorius with the ingenuous confession of Mr. White that things are so clear in the cause of Honorius that it is unworthy any grave Divine to pawn his own honour and that of Divinity too in sowing together Fig-leaves to palliate it Thus far I have shewn that those who pretend the most to be infallible Guides of the Church have opposed and condemned each other from whence it necessarily follows that no absolute submission is due to them unless we can be obliged to believe contradictions I might pursue this much further and draw down the History of these contradictions to each other through the following Ages of the Church wherein Bishops have been against Bishops Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Church against Church especially after the breach between the Eastern and Greek Churches the Greek and the Roman and the Roman and those of the Reformation But a man who is bound to rely only on the Authority of his Guides must suppose them to be agreed and in case of difference among them he must first choose his Religion and by that his Guide 9. In the present divided State of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgement in the choice of his Church and those Guides he is to submit to Unless a man will say that every one is bound to yield himself absolutely to the Guidance of that Church which he lives in whether Eastern or Greek Roman or Protestant which I suppose N. O. will never yield to for a reason he knows because then no Revolter from us could be justified The true State then of the present case concerning the Guides of the Catholick Church is this that it hath been now for many Ages rent and torn into several distinct Communions every one of which Communions hath particular Guides over it who pretend it to be the duty of men to live in subjection to them because every Church doth suppose it self to be in the right now the Question proposed is whether it be not fitter for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholick Church than to trust my own judgement I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were Agreed for I should think it arrogance and presumption in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholick Church in such a case but that is far from ours for we find the Christian World divided into very different Communions The Eastern Churches are still as numerous though not so prosperous as the Roman the extent of the Greek Church alone is very great but besides that there are two other distinct Churches in those parts who break off Communion with the Greek on the Account of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the latter sort especially are very far spread in those parts from Armenia to the Abyssine Empire In the time of Iacobus de Vitriaco he saith these two Churches were said to be more numerous than the Greek and the Latin and Bellonius in these later times assures us that the rites of the Greek Church do yet extend farther than the Latin What then makes these Churches to be left out in our Enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church Are these such inconsiderable parts of the Body that no regard is to be had to them I believe upon a strict examination notwithstanding the reproach of heresy and Schism which those of the Church of Rome cast upon all but themselves they will be sound much more souâ—d parts of the Catholick Church than the Roman Church is Five great Bodies or Communions of Christians are at this day in the World 1. The most Eastern Christians commonly called Nestorians whether justly or no I shall not now examine these are spread over the most Eastern parts and all live in subjection to the Patriarch of Muzal 2. The Iacobites who are dispersed through Mesopotamia Armenia Aegypt and the Abyssine Empire and live under several Patriarchs of
their own 3. The Greek Church of which besides the Moscovites are to be reckoned the Melchites or Suriani and the Georgians for though their language be different they all agree in Doctrine 4. The Roman Church taking under it all in the Eastern parts who have submitted to the Bishop of Rome 5. The Protestant Churches who have cast off subjection to the Pope and Reformed the corruptions they charge the Church of Rome with Now of these 5. parts 4. of them are all agreed that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church but they are all under their own proper Guides W ch they do not Question will direct them in the right way to Heaven Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church and so exclude 4. parts of 5. out of a capacity of Salvation and challenge Infallibility as belonging to the Guides of it alone In this case the Arrogance of the pretence the uncharitableness of rejecting so mighty a number of Christians from the possibility of Salvation are sufficient to make any Man not yield up his Faith at the first demand but to consider a while whether there be no other Churches or Guides in those Churches when he finds so many and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp pride and uncharitableness and all opposing those arrogant pretences of Authority and Infallibility in it what reason can he have supposing that he is to submit to any Guides that he must submit only to those of the Roman Church Why not as well to those of the Eastern Greek or Protestant Churches If any one goes about to assign a reason by charging them with heresy or Schism he unavoidably makes him Judge of some of the greatest difficulties in Religion before he can submit to his Infallible Guides He must know what Nestorianism Eutychianism Monothelism mean how they came to be heresies whether the Churches accused be justly charged with them He must understand all the subtilties of Personalitie subsistence Hypostatical Union whether the Union of two natures in Christ be substantial natural or accidental whether it be enough to say that the Divine and humane are one by inhabitation or one by consent or one by Communion of operation or one by Communion of dignity and honour all which the Nestorians acknowledged only denying the union of two natures to make one Person supposing a man be come to this he must then be satisfied that the present Eastern Christians do hold the Doctrine of the old Nesiorians for they acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man and that the B. Virgin may be called the Mother of the Son of God or the Mother of the Word but they stick only at calling her the Mother of God Then for the other Churches which are charged with Eâ—tychianism he must understand the exact difference between nature and Person for if there cannot be two natures without two Persons then either the Nestorians were in the right who asserted two Persons or the Eytychians who denyed two natures but this being granted he must be satisfied that those called Iacobites are Eutychians although they disown Eutyches and follow Dioscorus asserting that there were two natures before the Union and but one after and that Dioscorus was rightly condemned in the Council of Chalceâ—on but supposing they are willing to leave the dispute of two natures on condition that the humane nature be only made the Instrument of the Divine in its operations whether they are justly charged with heresy in so doing All these things a Man must fully be satisfied in before he can pronounce those Churches guilty of heresy and so not to be followe But supposing those Churches be rejected why must the Greek which embraces all the Councils which determined those subtle controversies Here comes the mystery of the procession of the Holy Ghost to be examined whether from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son but supposing this to be yielded why may he not joyn with those Churches which agree with the Church of Rome in all those points as the Protestant Churches do Here a Man must examine the notes of the Church and enquire whether they be true notes whether they agree only to the Roman Church And one of the greatest of those notes being consent with the Primitive Church a Man that would be well satisfied must go through all the disputes between us and the Church of Rome and by that time he is well settled in them he will see little use and less necessity of an Infallible Guide So that a Man who would satisfy himself in this divided State of the Christian Church what particular Communion he ought to embrace and what Guides he must follow must do all that for the preventing of which an Infallible Guide is said to be necessary i.e. he must not only exercise his own judgment in particular controversies but must proceed according to it and joyn with that Church which upon Enquiry he judges to be the Best 10. A prudent submission is due to the Guides of that Church with which a person lives in Communion Having shewed that absolute submission is not due all that can be left is a submission within due bounds which is that I call a prudent submission And those bounds are these following 1. Not to submit to all those who challenge the Authority of Guides over us though pretending to never so much Power and Infallibility When N. O. would perswade me to submit my understanding to the Infallible Guides of the Church He must think me a very easy man to yield till I be satisfied first that God hath appointed such to be my Guides and in the next place that he hath promised Infallibility to them And that is the true State of the Controversy between us and those of the Church of Rome in this matter they tell us we are bound to submit to the Guides of the Church we desire to know whom they mean by these Guides and at last we understand them to be the Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Here we demur and own no Authority the Bishop of Rome hath over us we assert that we have all the Rights of a Patriachal Church within our selves that we owe no account to the Bishop of Rome of what we believe or practise it is no Article of our Creed that God hath made him Iudge either of the quick or the dead We have Guides of our Church among our selves who have as clear a succession and as good a title as the Bishops of any Church in the world To these who are our Lawful Guides we promise a due obedience and are blame worthy if we give it not but for the Bishop and Clergy of Rome we own none to them let them challenge it with never so much confidence and arrogant pretences to Infallibility So that
Government that those who adhered to the Religion of the Roman Church yet agreed to the rejecting that Authority which he challenged in England Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the Breach between the two Churches Afterwards when it was thus agreed that the Bishop of Rome had no such Authority as he challenged what should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of it self For the Popes Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a Free Church having the Power of Government within it self And what method of proceeding could be more reasonable in this case than by the advice of the Governours of the Church and by the concurrence of civil Authority to publish such Rules and Articles according to which Religion was to be professed and the worship of God setled in England And this is that which N. O. calls refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the world was all the Authority then extant shut up in the Popes Breast was there no due power of Governing left because his unjust power was cast off and that first by Bishops who in other things adhered to the Roman Church But they proceeded farther and altered many things in Religion against the Consent of the more Vniversal Church It is plain since our Church was declared to be Free they had a Liberty of enquiring and determining things fittest to be believed and practised this then could not be her fault But in those things they decreed they went contrary to the consent of the Vniversal Church Here we are now come to the merits of the cause and we have from the beginning of the Reformation defended that we rejected nothing but innovations and Reformed nothing but Abuses But the Church thought otherwise of them What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be tryed by The truly Catholick Church of all Ages That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England But the plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England and no wonder for the Church of England was against the Church of Rome but we know of no Fault we are guilty of therein nor any obligation of submission to the Commands of that Church And N. O. doth not say that we opposed the whole Church but the more Vniversal Church i. e. I suppose the greater number of Persons at that time But doth he undertake to make this good that the greater number of Christians then in the world did oppose the Church of England How doth he know that the Eastern Armenian Abyssin and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against us No that is not his meaning but by the more Vniversal Church he fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome And that we did oppose the Doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome we deny not but we utterly deny that to be the Catholick Church or that we opposed any lawful Authority in denying submission to it But according to the Canons of the Church we are to obey in any dissent or division of the Clergy the Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy What he means by this I do not well understand either it must be the Authority of the Pope and Councils of the Roman Church or a General Council of all the Catholick Church For the first we owe no obedience to them for the second there was no such thing then in the world and therefore could not be opposed And for the Canons of the Catholick Councils before the breaches of Christendom no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome since the Rules of the Fathers have been turned into the Royalties of S. Peter We are no Enemies to the ancient Patriarchal Government of the Christian Church and are far more for preserving the Dignity of it than the Roman Church can be For we should think it a happy State of the Christian Church if all the Patriarchs did enjoy their ancient power and priviledges and all Christendom would consent to a truly Free and General Council which we look on as the best expedient on earth for composing the differences of the Christian World if it might be had But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of titular Patriarchs but real Servants and Pensionaries of the Popes with combinations of interested parties instead of General Councils with the pleasure of Popes instead of ancient Canons Let them reduce the ancient Government of the Church within its due bounds let the Bishop of Rome content himself with the priviledges he then enâ—oyed let debates be free and Bishops assemble with an equal proportion out of all Churches of Christendom and if we then oppose so generâ—l a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world But since the State of Christendom hath been so much divided that a truly General Council is next to an impossible thing the Church must be Reformed by its parts and every Free Church enjoying the Rights of a Patriarchal See hath according to the Canons of the Church a sufficient power to Reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained By this we may see how very feeble this charge is of destroying all Church-Authority by refusing submission to the Roman Hierarchy and how very pityful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Anti-christian which we allow as Prudent and Christian. But of the difference of these two case I have spoken already 4. But yet N. O. saith my principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresie or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence Therefore my Principles are destâ—â—ctive to all Church-Authority To which I answer 1. That the design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of Faith and not the means of suppressing heresies If I had laid down the Foundations of Peace and left all Persons to their own judgements without any regard to Authority this might have been justly objected against me but according to this way it might have been objected to Aristotle that he was an Enemy to civil Government because he doth not lay down the Rules of it in his Logick or that Hippocrates favoured the Chymists and Mountebanks because he saith not a word of the Colledge of Physitians If I had said any thing about the Authority of particular Churches or the ways of suppressing Sects then how insultingly had I been asked What is all this to the Foundations of Faith Excellent Protestant principles of Faith They begin now to resolve faith into the Authority of