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
man and was much cried up for so doing the British still adhering to their way and answering him that absque consensu licentiâ suorum without consent and licence of their whether Rulers of Church or whatsoever other superiors also their Metropolitan I suppose which cannot be thought to have been with them at this being certainly none of the seven Bishops which are affirmed to have been present at the later convention they could not forsake their antient customes Fourthly that upon proposall it was agreed that they should have a second meeting at which were present seven British Bishops which other Writers expresse to have been the Bishop of Hereford Landaff Bangor S. Assaph Worcester Paternensis Morganensis and many other learned men especially de nobilissimo eorum Monasterio quod vocatur lingua Anglorum Bancornaburg cui tempore illo Dinooth Abbas praefuisse narratur of the famous Monasterie of Bangor of which Dinooth was Abbot at that time Fifthly that before they went to this Meeting they were advised by a religious person whose directions they asked to observe diligently the behaviour of Augustine when they came whether he were meek and lowly in heart a mark by which they might know whether he had taken Christ's yoke upon him and consequently whether it were the yoke of Christ which he now desired to impose upon them and upon Augustine's fitting still upon his stool or seat and never rising up with any civility or humility at their approach they were so displeased saith Bede that they contradicted all the proposals that he made to them Sixthly that upon his making three Propositions to them concerning Easter Baptisme and preaching to the English and promising to bear with them in all other differences of which sort said he there were many wherein their practice was contrary consuetudini nostrae imò Vniversalis Ecclesiae to the custome of the Roman yea the Vniversal Church they answered nihil horum se facturos nec illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros that they would not comply with him in any of them nor acknowledge him for their Archbishop Upon which follows that rough sanguinarie answer of Augustine's quod si pacem cum fratribus accipere nollent bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi that if they would not accept of peace with brethren they should have warre from enemies and as it follows in very plain language per Anglorum manuâ— ultienem mortis essent passuri the hands of the English should act a bloody revenge upon them Which it seems soon after followed and fell in an eminent manner on the Monks of Bangor of which order there were at that time above two thousand who lived all by the labour of their own hands For saith he King Edilfred of Northumberland coming with a great Army to Câ—erleon made his first onset on their Priests who were assembled by themselves to fast and pray for their brethren as Moses holding up his hands in prayer whilest Josua held up his in sighting and upon no other provocation taken notice of by the Historian but this that they fought against him with their prayers contra nos pugnant qui adversus noâ— in precaâ—iâ—s ibus prosequuntur he first set upon them killed 1â—00 of them and then destroyed the whole Army Sicque compieâ—um est praesagium sancti Pontificis Augustini and so the presage of the holy Bishop St. Augustine was fulfiâ—led upon them These particulars of the story I have thus puctually set down in obedience to the rebuke of this Author who p. 412. chargeth it upon Sir Hen Spelman and those others that borrow out of him as a want of wilingness to see the truth of fidelity to comâ—nicate it to others that they have chosen to reflect on that testimonie which he is pleased to call upstart and which appeared not till within these 15 years and not upon that true antiquity which having indured the shock of almost a 1000 years Sir Henry had a little before transcribed out of Bede wherein saith he every one may read first that miracle in giving sight to the blinde man then that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Augustine which in his opinion more than sufficiently prove that S. Augustine sent by the Pope came in the name of God from a lawfull authority and that his demands of conformity to the Church of Rome in the points specified were good and to be yeilded to by the Britains In this matter I might now fitly inlarge and examine the force of this two-fold argument that of the miraculous cure and that of the predicted vengeance and offer many things to consideration concerning each head For the former 1. the no great credit that hath been given to the relations of Bede on this head of miracles of which his Story is so richly furnished together with the great deceit that such pretensions have been experimented to subject men to Secondly the confession of Bede that the Britaine 's were unwilling to yeild to this tryall of their cause and accordingly when he saith that the blinde man being offered to the Priests of the Britaines he received no cure or benefit by them he doth not so much as pretend that the Britaine 's attempted to doe the miracle and failed in it but leaves us to resolve that they wholly waved this tryall Thirdly that if the miracle were granted to be a true miracle and a testimony of Gods asserting the doctrines then contested between them yet this would not be any concludent testimonie for the Pope's Supremacy but onely for those things which were then the matter of the question the time of the observation of Easter the rites of Baptisme accustomed in the Roman Church and at the most some such like traditions wherein the British custome varied from that of Rome for this was the forme of the proposed tryall quae sequenda traditio quibus sit viis ad ingressum regni illius properandum what tradition was to be followed in the celebration of Easter that which the Britains had received and retained from their first conversion imputed to an Apostle or Apostolical person Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea or that which the Romans deduced from S. Peter by what waies they were to hasten to entrance into that Kingdome referring I suppose to the rites of baptisme the second head of debate between them And in both these as also in refusing to joyn with Augustine in the common work of preaching to the Gentiles it may easily be granted by us that the truth was on the Romanists side and not on the Britains without yeâ—lding a supremacie of the Church of Rome over the British Churches Fourthly that the Britains by Bede's confession acknowledged themselves convinced by that miracle that the way of righteousness which Augustine preached was the true way yet added that they could not renounce their antient customes without the consent and licence of their own superiors which evidently confines aud determines the
the whole world and that were never mutable but by the removal of the Emperial seat a certain illustriously visible thing it is not easily discernible how this should more prejudice the safety of the Church than the change of that power from one Bishop that dies to his successour in the same See But this is still much more than needed to have been said Num. 8 As for the Patriarch's I suppose he must mean of Constantinople being ashamed of that resolution of that Councel and imputing it to his ambitious Clergie â— he gives us not any testimony for this onely saith that in the Acts of that Councel may be seen how tumultuary and unruly they were And to that affirmation and that not very pertinent roof of it I have two things to say which indeed the Acts of that Councel and the Epistles both of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and Leo Bishop of Rome may assure us to have truth in them 1. That if by being ashamed be meant retracting or renouncing this resolution of the Councel It then hath no truth in it that the Patriarch was ashamed Num. 9 For â— it is so evident that of all Leo's reprehensions in this matter of the Primacy adjudged him by that Councel Anatolius chose to take no notice and to return no answer that Leo tells the Emperor of it Ep 59. maluit praedictus Antistes meam gratulationem tacere quam suam ambitum publicare and chargeth it upon Anatolius himself that he made no reply to what he had said to him Ad quas cum non rescriberes ipse te à colloquii nostri consortio separâsti by not making any return to my admonitory letters thou hast thy self separated thy self from the communion of our discourse Ep 71. Num. 10 'T is true indeed when Leo charged it upon him as an act of ambition and pride that he had procured that Canon to be made as he doth at large Ep 53. making it an invasion of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch his right setled by the Councel of Nice and so in his Epistle to Martian the Emperour and another to the Empresse Pulcheria Anatolius writing to him upon occasion tells him that the Clergie of the Church of Constantinople and not he brought this matter before the Councel and therefore Leo needed not be so angry with him and complain so sharply against his ambition Num. 11 And this I suppose is it which this Gentleman must referre to if there be the least colour of truth in his suggestion But sure this disclaiming of pride or ambition in what was done regularly according to a long continued custome and the Canon of the Councel of Constantinople is much more the justifying his innocence than the acknowledgment of any fault an act of confidence and assurance no indication either of guilt or shame no disowning the dignity confirmed to him by the Councel Num. 12 Many evidences there are in the story of those times that the Bishop of Constantinople did no way reject this power and dignity which that Councel had confirmed to him T is annext to the Acts of that Councel how he exercised it in an eminent manner on the Patriarch of Alexandria Leo the Emperour having put wholly into his hands the judging of a great affair and quieting a disturbance in that Church see the third part of that Councel of Chalcedon In which matter may be observed that in the Epistle of the Aegyptian Bishops and Clergy of Alexandria in a reâ—itation of the Bishops of the whole world the first place being reserved to Leo the Bishop of Rome the second is given Regiae Constantinopolis Anatolio to Anatolius of Constantinople the Royal seat and then follow Basil of Antioch and Juvenalis of Jerusalem Num. 13 And indeed if it be but remembred 1. That what was done here at Chalcedon was for the main but the reciting and confirming what was done formerly at the Councel of Constantinople a judgment saith Euagrius that this matter was well-ordered already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what the Bishop of Constantinople held by Custome before that Councel also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a custome that had been long in force and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a precedaneous custome c. Secondly that this was done by this Councel if their professions may be believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much to adde any thing to the See of Constantinople as to provide for the quiet of other Metropoles in Asia Pontus and Thracia Thirdly that the Councel attested all this and sent a relation of it to the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perswaded that he being rightly informed would receive and confirm it though his Legates had obstinately opposed it Fourthly That all the objections which the Pope or his Legates had to it were proposed and clearly answered in the Councel that of the contrariety of the Canon to the decree of the Councel of Nice by reading that Decrce and shewing that it was perfectly reconcileable to it That of invading the rights of the Metropoles of Asia Pontus and Thracia by the severall Bishops of those regions being examined by the Emperours proxies whether they consented to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their own will or by any necessity imposed on them and their several cheerful answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I subscribed willingly as in the presence of God and the like To which if we adde the depression of the Bishop of Antioch which Leo objects it is likewise answered by Maximus the Bishop of Antioch his subscription to this Canon Lastly that as this was enacted by Baronius's own confession by 600 Bishops i. e. by the whole Councel not onely by a party of it So the Bishop of Constantinople Anatolius subscribed it in the first place and next after him the Bishop of Antioch there will be no possibility of finding any truth in this Gentleman's affirmation that the Patriarch was ashamed of this judgment of the Councel Num. 14 It is much more reasonable to affirm on the other side that the Pope though not Leo was ashamed of his opposing it for within 30 years after we finde Felix He. of his own accord consenting to his Primacy and acknowledging Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to have power over the Bishops that were under him Ep 1 and Innocent III. confirms it with a solemn constitution ap Antiqua de Privileg that I adde not the establishment of it again by the Councel of Florence sess ult in lit Vnionâ— Num. 15 As for the reason which is here offered to confirm the truth of his affirmation it hath it self no truth in it and so cannot be a reason of the affirmation It is not true for there was no tumult nor unruliness in the Councel onely the Pope's Legates opposed the Canon and made their complaint to the Judges and were heard most regularly in all they
Elizabeths reformation To which head of discourse it is not amisse to adde the resolution of Cudsemius the Jesuite de desper Calvini causà cap. 11. that the English Nation are not Hereticks because they remain in a perpetual succession of Bishops Num. 4 Which being the onely thing that in that Sect. 16. I purposed to conclude from Mr. Masons worke and the Records by him produced it lyes not on me to prove that they which ordained those Queen Eilzabeth-Bishops gave them order to preach the Doctrine they after did or to examine the truth of his suggestion that this is the true meaning and effect of Mission It may suffice that they which consecrated them gave them the same power which themselves derived by succession from the Apostles and that was sufficient to authorize them to preach all Apostolical doctrine and if they preacht any other let it appeare and I shall never justifie their preaching But that is not attempted here and therefore I have herein no farther matter that exacts reply from me Num. 5 For as to his parting blow which he cannot omit in reply to Sect 20. certainly it hath little impression on my discourse in that place which doth not inquire what is unlawful or criminous Universally for then sure I should have acknowledged that the bringing in Turcisme or violating fundamental points of Religion had been such but peculiarly and precisely this what is Schisme in that one notion of Schisme as that is a voluntary separation from our Ecclesiastical Superiours of which that we are not or cannot be guilty when we act in perfect concord compliance and subordination to all those to whom the right of superiority legally belonged is I suppose so manifest that it can need no farther proof Num. 6 As for any such act of lawful Superiors in bringing in Turcisme or violating fundamental points I should not be apt to style that Schisme any more than I would call perjury lying or incest simple fornication it being in the first part of the instance Apostasie and total defection from Christ which I hope is a little more than denying the Popes Vniversal Pastorship or Infallibility of the Church in which consists his grand species of Schisme and in the second Heresie and the grossest sort of Schisme together that of departing from the unity of the Faith which being by me Chap. 8. distinctly handled as a second species of schisme all that I need here say to this Gentleman's exception is that I indevoured to speak as distinctly and not as confusedly as I could and therefore did not mix things that were distant and therefore did not speak of that second kinde of schisme at the same time when I proposed to speak of the first onely and upon this account onely said nothing to it in that Chapter And I hope this was but my duty to doe agreeably to all rules of method and so that he might very well have spared that animadversion which he saith he could not end without noting CHAP. VIII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the eighth Chapter Sect. I. The Division of Schisme An Answer to many Questions about Schism A retortion Num. 1 IN proceeding to the view of Chap. 8. this Gentleman without any cause is pleased to change the division of the second sort of schisme there handled into another which it seems was more sutable to his understanding and then to make two light skirmishes against the discourse of that Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his 8th Chapter as farre as I understand he divideth Schisme into formal that is breach of unity and material that is breach of Doctrine or Customes in which the Church was united the former he brancheth into subordination to the Pope of which enough hath been said and breach of the way provided by Christ for maintaining the unity of faith the which he puts in many subordinations without any effect For let us ask if inferior Clergie-men dissent from their own Bishops but not from their Metropolitan in matter of faith is it Schisme he will answer No If a Metropolitan dissent from his Primate but agree with the rest of the Patriarchs is it schisme I think he must say No If a Patriarch dissent from the first but agree with the rest is it schisme No If a Nation or a Bishop dissent from the rest of the General Councel is it schism still I believe he will answer No Where then is schisme provided against or where truly is there any subordination in Faith if none of these are subject and bound to their Superiors or Vniversals in matters of faith Num. 3 What my division there is will be obvious enough to any man's understanding In the third Chap the foundation had been laid in the opposition betwixt Schisme and Ecclesiastical Vnity and as the unity was the conserving all due relations whether of subordination or equality wherein each member of Christ's Church is concerned one toward another so there were two prime branches of schisme the one against the subordination which Christ setled in his Church the second against the mutual charity which he left as his Legacy among Christians And the former of these being discussed at large in order to the present debate in the 8. Chapter the method led me to the latter of them to consider Schisme as it is an offence against the mutual unity Peace and Charity which Christ left and prescribed among Christians And that I might be sure not to streighten the bounds of this sort of Schism or omit any thing that can by any rule of discourse be placed in the borders or confines of it by the meanes either to lay charge on us or render our Vindication the clearer I distributed it into as many parts as in my opinion the matter could by any be thought to beare i. e. into three species 1. A breach in the Doctrines or Traditions together with the institutions of Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church whether in government or observances 2. An offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical 3. The want of that Charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian The first of these againe subdivided and considered 1. in the grosse as it is a departing from the rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding unity of Doctrine c. 2. in particular the asserting of any particular doctrine contrary to Christ's and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment Num. 4 The Scheme being thus laid as regular and as comprehensive as I could devise 1. here is not one word said to expresse any cause of dislike or exception to it and yet 2. it is quite laid aside and another of formal and material Schisme c. substituted instead of it upon what temptation or designe save onely a willingnesse to gaine somewhat by the shuffle and confusion more than the distinctnesse of discourse could yeild him I cannot divine Num. 5 As it is I yet discern not