7 I shall onely for conclusion observe that if as he saith the Kingdome were for Religion's sake affected to Queen Mary it could not certainly be skilfull or popular or any way Politick in them that thus desired to strengthen themselves to introduce this change in Religion For whatsoever aid they might hope for either from Lutherans or Calvinists at home or abroad sure they might have hoped for more by the other way if it be true what he affirms of the Kingdome indefinitely that it was affected to Queen Mary's Religion For that other Kingdomes of Europe generally were so at that time there is small question Sect. III. Queen Elizabeth's illegitimacy answered The unpolitickness of her Councels of Reforming Num. 1 NOW follows his exceptions to that part of the story which concern Queen Elizabeth The first by the by Thus Num. 2 Queen Elizabeth being by Act of Parliament recorded a Bastard and so pronounced by two Popes and therefore mistrusting all her Catholick subjects who she feared did adhere to the Queen of Scots title in which she was then likely to be supported by the King of France her husband was by the advice of men partly infected with Calvinisme or Lutheranisme partly ambitious of making their fortunes cast upon that desperate counsel of changing religion desperate I say for see amongst what a number of rocks she was in consequence of that Counsel forced to sail witness her adhering to the rebels of all her neighbour Kings so provoking them thereby as if the French King had not been taken out of this world and winde and weather fought against the Spanish Armado in all likelihood she had been ruined especially her Catholick subjects being so provoked as they were by most cruell and bloody Laws but this by the by though from hence the Reader may judge of reason of changing religion in her time and what a solid foundation the Church of England hath Num. 3 That Queen Elizabeth was by Act of Parliament recorded a bastard hath no farther truth in it than is of force against Queen Mary also The same Act of Parliament affirming the mariages with Queen Katharine and Anne of Bolen void and their children Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate and so involving them equa'y under the same censure Num. 4 Nay if there were any force in this as this Gentleman by mentioning it is obliged to think there is it must be much more to Queen Maries disadvantage for 't is certain that upon the birth of Queen Elizabeth 't was enacted by Parliament that the marriage with Katharine was null because incestuous and so this with Anne lawfull which certainly it was if the former was incestuous and the resolution of the Vniversities and most learned men not onely in England but at Paris and elsewhere was that it was of such a nature as it could not by the Pope's power be dispensed with being so contrary to the law of God and by the same act Elizabeth is declared heir of the Kingdome in case the King should have no heir male and Oath of Allegiance taken to the King and to his heirs by Anne the mother of Elizabeth And to conclude the subsequent act that decreed the succession and establisht it first in Edward then in Mary then in Elizabeth by which it was that Mary did actually ascend to the throne was equally favourable to both of them Num. 6 And so still if any thing were to be concluded from this Gentleman 's prooemial consideration it still lies more against Queen Mary than against Queen Elizabeth if not in respect of the merit of the cause on which this Gentleman will give me leave to suppose it was that our stories tell us that the Pope had given Cardinal Campeius his Legate a Private Bull much in favour of the King's pretensions but kept it under some restraint till he saw how the Emperour's affairs in Italy would succeed yet in respect of the several declarations against the one and but one onely against the other and that how well founded is easie to discern if this were a place for such disputes Num. 7 But it is not so much lesse for the other Politick considerations that here follow whether the counsel of re-excluding the Papacy and proceeding to a farther Reformation in her Kingdomes were a desperate Counsel or no For if to this Gentleman's arguments I shall grant it were so the conclusion will be onely this that her action was unskilful in secular considerations from which it is no way consequent that it was more than as Prince she had power to doe or impious in the sight of God or that that which being built on so feeble a foundation proved yet competently successfull is by this means conclusible to have been unlawful and null for in that alone can be founded the truth of the suggestion here that we that adhere to her Reformation must be adjudged schismaticks Sect. IV. The Ordination of Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time Mr. Masons Record Introducing of Turcisme Num. 1 WHat remaines on this head of Queen Elizabeth as the narration after this long Prooeme the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after an acknowledged yet at large 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be soone dispatch't It is thus Num. 2 How far Master Mason can justifie the ordination of Queen Elizabeths Bishops I will not now examine but certaine it is that the Record if there be such an one hath a great prejudice of being forged since it lay some fifty years unknowne amongst the Clamors against the flagrant act and no permission given to Gatholikes to examine the ingenuity of it but howsoever it is nothing to our purpose for whatsoever material mission they had by an external consecration those Bishops who are said to have consecrated them are not so much as pretended to have given them order to preach the Dectrine or exercise the Religion they after did which is the true meaning and effect of mission I cannot end without noting in his 24. Parag the foundation upon what he himselfe saies his whole designe relies which is that because the recession from the Roman Church was done by those by whom and to whom onely the power of right belonged legally viz the King and Bishops of this Nation therefore it is no Schisme that is what soever the reason of dividing hath been even to turne Turkes or for violating never so fundamental points of Religion yet it had not been Schisme Num. 3 What Mr. Masons Records are and of how good and unquestionable authority I leave to the view of his Book which sets downe all so particularly and irrefragably that nothing can be more contrary to the Gentlemans interests than the most strict examination of that whole matter in order to the vindicating and justifying this truth that the succession of Bishops and order Ecclesiastical hath been regularly preserved in our Church at that time when alone the Romanist accuseth us for the interruption of it i. e. in Queen
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-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
of schisme and such as all times were capable of and inlarged not to those other of accidentall emergencies 3. Because they are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled Num. 13 As for those that are already past and are on due grounds to be acknowledged truly Oecumenicall the communion which is possible to be had or broken with them is that of compliance with or recession from their definitions and our innocence in that respect is avowed p. 160. as the congregating of the like when possible and probable toward the end is recommended p. 158. as a supply when there should be need of extraordinary remedies Num. 14 Lastly If none of this had been done or if this had not been undertaken so solemnly and formally as some other supposed branches of schism were in that Tract yet the account of that is visible to any because the principal sort of schisme charged by the Romanist on the Church of England is that of casting out the Bishop of Rome not contemning the authority of Councels and therefore I was in reason to apply my discourse most largely and particularly to that head to which their objections not my own choice directed me So evidently contrary to the notoriety of the fact is this complaint of this Gentleman that my division of schism was insufficient and that I took no notice of this as he pleases to call it conciliatory authority Num. 15 That to make his suggestion seem more probable he advisedly chose to change the tearms of my division from that which was against Paternal to that which is against Monarchical power upon this apprehension that Paternal power would visibly include that of the Fathers in Councel assembled as well as in several but Monarchical power could not so fitly bear it I shall not enter into his secrets to divine This I am sure of that the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches cannot with any propriety as by him it is be defined a branch of Conciliatory authority for certainly the Churches dispersed are not met together the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dispersion of the Jewes differed much from the Councel assembled at Jerusalem and the Christian Church at this day is without question no Oecumenical Councel Num. 16 And then what authority scattered members can have which never legally command or exercise authority but when they are in conjunction I shall not here make stay to demonstrate whatsoever there is of this nature will most properly be comprised under the head of communion or unity Fraternal and the schisme which is a transgression of that being at large handled also Chap. 8. 9 10. there was no insufficiency in any justice to be charged on this division Sect. II. Of the extent of the Roman Province The Bishops of Italy distinct from those that belong to Rome The Ecclesiastical distributions agreeable with the Civil Ruffinus vindicated Num. 1 THe second charge on this Chapter is about the extent of the Roman Patriarchie in these words Num. 2 In this Chap he telleth us many things some true some not so but all either common to us both or not appertaining to the controversie untill he concludes that certainly the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it self to all Italy and this he does out of a word in Ruffinus which he supposeth to be taken in a speciall propriety of law whereas indeed that author's knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such belief especially learned men saying the contrary Num. 3 The place to which this exception belongs is not set down by this Gentleman but by annexing the testimony out of Ruffinus I discern it to be that of pag. 52. where speaking of the Picenum suburbicarium and Annonarium I say the former belonged to the Praefecture of Rome the latter with the seven Provinces in the broader part of Italy belonged to the Diocese as it was antiently called of Italy of which Milan was the Metropolis Num. 4 This being the affirmation which he excepteth against I did not nor yet doe make any question of vindicating and defending it against any objection Num. 5 That learned men say the contrary is here suggested in the close but as there is not one learned man named nor testimony produced which therefore amounts no higher than the bare opinion or affirmation of this one Gentleman without any one reason or authority to support it so when any such learned mens names and testimonies shall be produced it will be easie to shew that there is very little of their learning exprest in so saying Num. 6 On the other side I had pag. 50. in the margent referred to some testimonies whereon my assertion was founded viz those which manifestly distinguisht the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy which could not have had truth in them if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy Num. 7 Such was that of Eusebius distinctly mentioning the Bishops of the Cities of Italy and the Bishops that belong to the City of the Romans The testimony out of the Edict of the Emperor Aurelian in the controversie betwixt Paulus Samosatenus and Domnus where it is decreed that the house about which they contended should be delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those to whom the Bishops through Italy and the City of the Romans should decree it Num. 8 The like was that of the Councel of Sardice set down in Athanasius in the title of their Epistle to the Alexandrians Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Synod by God's grace assembled at Sardice from Rome and Spain France Italy c. Num. 9 So in Athanasius's declaration of his own affairs and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreement of many Bishops with him he specifies who and how many they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were more than four hundred both from great Rome and from all Italy and from Calabria c. Where the Bishops of the Roman Province are distinguisht from the Bishops of Italy as those again from the Bishops of Calabria c. Num. 10 So among the names prefixt to the first Councel of Arles we have ex provinciâ Italiae civitate Mediclanensi c. ex urbe Româ quos Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ civitate Portuensi c. of the Province of Italy from the city of Milan c. from the city of Rome those Whom Bishop Sylvester sent of the Province of Rome from the City of Porta c. such and such were assembled at that Councel where again the matter is clear as to the distinction of those Provinces of Rome and Italy the former under the presidency of the Bishop of Rome the later of the Bishop of Milan Num. 11 By
the future you will not easily admit those who have come to you from hence and that you will not receive to your communion those who are excommunicate by us seeing the Councell of Nice hath thus defined as you may easily discern Num. 8 By all which put together by the African out of the Nicene and by the Nicene out of the Apostolick Canon it is evident that the Bishop of Rome hath not power to absolve any person excommunicate by any Bishop of another Province and that 't is unlawfull for any such to make appeal to him which certainly will conclude against every the most inferior branch of his pretended authority over the Vniversal Church Num. 9 If this be not enough then adde the 34 Apostolick Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops of every nation must know him that is the first among them i. e. their Primate and account him as their head Which sure inferres that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely head of all Bishops The same is afterward transcribed by the 9 Canon of Antioch Num. 10 But to return to their Corpus Juris so again Decret par 1. dist 99. c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The Pope of Rome is not to be called Vniversal Bishop citing the Epistle of Pope Pelagius II. Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur quia si unus Patriarcha unversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur No Patriarch must ever use the title of Vniversal for if one be called universal Patriarch the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest And more to the same purpose the very thing that I was here to prove Num. 11 So again Ch. 5. out of the Epistle of Pope Gregory to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria where refusing the title of Vniversalis Papa Vniversal Pope or Father or Patriarch and calling it superbae appellaetionis verbum a proud title he addes si enim Vniversalem me Papam vestra Sanctit as dicit negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur Vniversum If the Patriarch of Alexandria call the Pope universal Father he doth thereby deny himself to be that which he affirms the Pope to be universally The meaning is clear If the Pope be universal Patriarch then is he Patriarch of Aegypt for sure that is a part of the Vniverse and then as there cannot be two supremes so the Bishop of Alexandria cannot be Patriarch of Aegypt which yet from S. Mark 's time was generally resolved to belong to him and the words of the Nicene Canon are expresse to it that according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original Primitive customes the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. seeing this is also customary with the Bishop of Rome of Antioch c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the privileges should be preserved to the Churches Num. 12 All which arguing of that Pope yea and that great Councel were perfectly unconcluding inconsequent as mine was said to be if the Bishop of Rome or any other had power over Patriarchs or authority over the universal Church which here this Gentleman is pleased to affirm and so sure must think Gregory more than fallible when he thus protested and disputed the contrary Num. 13 How much higher than this the same Gregory ascended in expressing his detestation of that title is sufficiently known from his Epistle to Mauritius the Emperor In regist 1. 4. Ep 30. I shall not here trouble him with the recitation of it Num. 14 What is after these passages set down in their body of the Law shews indeed that the Popes continued not alwaies of this minde Neither was I of opinion that they did the story being known to all how Boniface III. with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal jurisdiction of the Church of Rome see Paul Diac de Gest is Romanorum l. 18. which yet is an argument that till then it had no foundation Num. 15 Whether there were antiently any such higher than Patriarchs and whether now there ought to be was the question before me and both those I must think concluded by what I have here set down as farre as relates to any true i. e. original right from any appointment of â—hrist or title of succession to S. Peter Num. 16 Much more might be easily added to this head if it were not evident that this is much more than was necessary to be replied to a bare suggestion without any specifying what that power is which may belong to the Pope over the Vniversal Church though convoking of Councels did not belong to him and without any offer of proof that any such did really belong to him CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the fourth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists pretensions founded in S. Peters universal Pastership Of Possession without debating of Right What Power the Pope was possest of here Num. 1 IN the fourth Chap his objections begin to grow to some height they are reducible to three heads the first is by way of Preface a charge of a very considerable default in the whole discourse that I remember not what matters I handle the other two are refutations of the two evidences I use to disprove the Popes claim of universal Trimacie from Christ's donation to S. Peter The first of the three is set down in these words Num. 2 In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Christ his donation S. Peter had a Trimacie ever the Church where not to reflect upon his curious division I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles when he thinketh the Catholick ought to prove that his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie for it being granted that in England the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacie the proof that it was just belongeth not to us more than to any King who received his Kingdome from his Ancestors time out of minde to prove his pretension to the Crown just for quiet possession of it self is a proof untill the contrary be convinced as who should rebell against such a King were a Rebell untill he shewed sufficient cause for quitting obedience with this difference that obedience to a King may be prescription or bargain be made unnecessary but if Christ hath commanded obedience to his Church no length of years nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience so that the charge of proving the Pope to have no such authority from Christ lieth upon the Protestants now as freshly as the first day of the breach and will doe so untill the very last Num. 3 My method in the beginning of Chap 4. is visibly this The Church of England being by the Romanist charged of schism in departing from the obedience of the Bishop of Rome and this upon pretense that
he as successor of S. Peter hath a supremacy over all the Churches in the world I undertake to examine the truth of two branches of this suggestion one whether Saint Peter had this universal Supremacy given him by Christ the second whether this power if supposed to be instated on Saint Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome The former of these I examined in that Chapter And I must now discern if I can how I have failed in any particle of my undertaking Num. 4 First saith he will not reflect on my curious division And I that know there was no curiosity in any division of mine but on the other side such perspicuity as was agreeable to a desire and indevour to set down the whole matter of debate between us as distinctly and intelligibly as I could that the Reader might be sure to judge whether I answered their charge or no I have no reason in the least to suspect the fitnesse and usefulnesse of my division nor consequently to be impertinently sollicitous in reflecting on it Num. 5 That which he saith he cannot omit I shall make haste to consider with him viz my great mistake in thinking the Catholick ought to prove his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie Num. 6 To this I answer 1. that there is no manner of foundation or pretense for this exception here For I no where say the least word toward this purpose of requiring the Romanist to prove his pretensions or to prove them by this medium Onely I take it for granted that he doth actually produce arguments to inferre the Pope's universal Primacie and that Christ's donation to S. Peter is one of those arguments And that I was not herein mistaken I shall instead of a larger deduction of evidences from all sorts of Romish writers make my appeal to the objecter himself in several places of this little tract particularly p. 20. where he hath these words we relie on the first as the foundation and corner-stone of the whole building And what that first is appears by the words immediately precedent that the pretensions for the Pope's supremacy in England must be founded as successor to S. Peter in the universal Pastorship of the Church so including England as a member thereof From whence in stead of recriminating and retorting on him the charge of the ill memory I shall onely make this undeniable inference that I was not mistaken in thinking that the Romanist doth actually found his pretensions in the universal Pastorship of Saint Peter and consequently If I prove that to fail I have removed that which in his own style is the foundation and corner stone of his whole building Num. 7 But then 2. because he here pretends that it belongs not to a Romanist to prove his pretension just but that it sufficeth that he hath the possession I desire to propose these three things to his consideration 1. By demanding whether at this time or for these 100 years the Pope hath had the possession of the obedience of this nation I suppose he will say he hath not And if so then by the force of his own argument that possession and all the arguments deducible from thence are now lost to him the prescription being now on our side as before on theirs and there is nothing left him to plead but the original right on his side against the violence of the succeeding possession And if he come to the pleading of the right then that is the very method that I proposed and so did not offend or forget my self in so doing Num. 8 Secondly Concerning their possession before Henry VIII his daies I shall demand how long they had it and how they acquired it If he will not at all think fit to answer this question in either part then I confesse he hath made an end of the dispute and by refusing to give account of the right he had to his possession he will leave every man to catch and hold what he can and then to imitate him and give no account to any how he came by it which as it is an unchristian method every man being obliged to clear his actions from manifest charges of injustice and violence so again 't is an evil lesson against himself and unlesse we will confesse our selves Schismaticks in casting off their obedience 't is impossible for him ever to prove us such this kinde of schism which now we speak of being by all acknowledged to be a separation from our lawfull superiors and no way being imaginable to prove the Pope to be such to this nation without offering some proof to the point of right as well as adhering to his possession Num. 9 To which purpose it is farther observable 1. That even in secular things it is not every possession that gives a right but 1. either the bonae fidci possessio a possession honestly come by or the unjustnesse of whose original is not contested or made to appear And 2. whatsoever privilege by humane laws belongs to prescription yet in divine or Ecclesiasticall matters prescription can be of no force against truth of right and so this Gentleman seems to acknowledge here extending the force of possession no farther than till sufficient cause be shewed to the contrary 3. That though whilst I am in possession I need not be bound to prove my right yet when I am out of possession there is not beside absolute force any way possible to recover a possession but this of contesting and evidencing the right of it and that 't is evident is the present case Num. 10 But if he shall think fit to answer the question in either part of it then by the answer to the first part of it he must be forced to set down the original of it and by answer to the second the right of that original and so he hath been fain to doe as elsewhere so in this very paragraph where he speaks of Christ's commanding obedience to his Church I suppose he must mean the Church of Rome and that is again the very method in which I proposed to debate and consider this matter Num. 11 Thirdly For the power of which the Pope was possest in this Kingdome either it was no more than an Ecclesiastical Primacie such as by the antient Canons belongs to a Primate or Patriarch over Metropolitans and Bishops or else it was a supreme power over the King himself whether in Spiritual or also in Temporal affairs Num. 12 If it pretend onely to be the former of these then the power of Kings to erect or translate Primacies or Patriarchates which is insisted on and evidenced in the Tract of Schisme c 6. § 9. was sufficient then to justifie what here was done no possession being pleadable against the King to restrain or exclude this exercise of his power and so now to free us from schisme by this Gentleman's rule this act of the Kings in translating the Primacie being sufficient cause for quitting
insuing sections Yet against them altogether he casts one stone before he will part in those words Num. 2 Vpon this wisely laid ground he would perswade us followed the division of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome but bringing not one word of Antiquity proving this to have been the cause yet is he so certain of it that he will finde a colonie of Iewes even in England for fear S. Peter should have touched a Gentile and yet he cites S. Prosper that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome Num. 3 What force there is in any part of this suggestion I shall not here need to set down at large There be three branches of it 1. That I bring not a word of antiquity to prove what I say that this the cause of the divisions of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome 2. That I will finde a Colonie of Iewes in England 3. That I cite Prosper that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome Num. 4 For the first I desire the Reader to review what is already said in the Tract of Schism c. 4. from § 8. to § 20. and I shall much wonder if he return of this Gentleman's minde that there is not one word there brought out of Antiquity to confirm what I say The short is It is there manifested from Antiquity that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul that there were two Churches there one of Iewish the other of Gentile Christians that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops Euodius and Ignatius by which means some appearing difficulties in antient writers are explained Num. 5 To what is there said I shall instead of repeating adde thus much more Of Suidas's words will be easily turned to in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the reign of Claudius Caesar Peter the Apostle ordained Euodius Bishop at Antioch Of Ignatius the Author of the Constitutions is expresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius was ordained Bishop there by S. Paul Now seeing in those Acts of Ignatius which are put together by Simeon Metaphrastes Ignatius is said to succeed Euodius as Euodius succeeded Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Anonymus antient writer of the Acts of Ignatius which remains unprinted hath the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius succeeded Euodius and seeing this ordination of Ignatius is also said by Theodores and by Felix III. Bishop of Rome to have been done by the hand of Saint Peter This seeming difference is removed by Ioannes Malela Antiochenus who thus sets down the whole matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the great Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happened to die and Ignatius who was as was said first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there received the Bishoprick that I suppose must now be of the Iewish Province also over which Euodius had been in his life time S. Peter ordaining and enthroning him And so that is become most clear which S. Chrysostome said of this Ignatius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the hands of the blessed Apostles in the plural first of Paul then of Peter had been laid on Ignatius Num. 6 The other part which concerned Rome * was so cleared by the words of Epiphanius who saith of Peter and Paul both that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles and Bishops at Rome and so many other evidences produced to the same purpose from the inscription on their tombs by Gaius contemporary to Pope Zephyrinus by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth by Prosper by the seals of the Popes and so again by the Ecclesiastick story that makes Clemens S. Peters Deacon and successor in the Bishoprick and Paul's that sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter Num. 7 Whilst in the mean other Churches are * instanced in particularly the Churches of Asia wherein S. Paul and S. Iohn had all the command and S. Peter had nothing to doe whether in planting or governing them which alone is sufficient to carry the whole matter against S. Peter's universal Pastorship and no word is by this Gentleman replied to that so considerable a part of my probation Onely instead of it a farre more compendious way that of the scornfull or fastidious scossing at my wisely laid ground as he pleaseth to call it and adding that I bring not one word of Antiquity c. Num. 8 As to the second branch of his suggestion that I will finde a colonie of Iewes in England that is no where said by me Onely thus that upon supposition if the saying of Simeon Metaphrastes speaking of S. Peter's preaching and ordaining Bishops in England Neronis 12 should be thought to have truth in it it must be extended no farther than the Iewes which might at that time be dispersed there Num. 9 Where as my conclusion from that supposition is founded in the analogie that as where S. Paul and S. Peter met in any plantation they divided their Province c. so in reason it ought to be where S. Peter and Simon Zelotes or Ioseph of Arimathea met in like manner so all that of the Iewes in England I there affirm is onely this that it was possible they that were dispersed in so many regions might be some of them dispersed in Britannie which how improbable soever it may appear at that time is sure as probable as that S. Peter preached and ordained Bishops in Britannie and in consequence to that onely it was that I made the supposition of the possibility of it knowing it the affirmation of our Antiquaries that Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes 't is possible also that Simeon Metaphrastes might mistake Simon Peter for him and then that matter is at an end planted the faith in this Island Num. 10 As for his last suggestion that I cite Saint Prosper that both S Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome I desire the truth of it may be considered by the words which I cite from him In ipsa Hierusalem Iacobus Ioannes apud Ephesum Andreas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Roma Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unamque posteris tradentes ex dominicâ pactione sacrârunt James at Jerusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest through all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the Nations What Nations were these sure of Jewes as well as Gentiles else Jerusalem could not be any part of them no nor John's converts at Ephesus for they were Iewes and therefore this Gentleman did not doe well to substitute the word Gentiles for Nations and yet could not without doing so have made this exception to my words Num. 11 And so much for exceptions to my first evidence against the Vniversal Pastorship of Saint
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
greatnesse from the Imperial dignity of the city never thought himself injured by this way of setting down his title Sect. V. Of the Canon of Ephesus The power of Metropolitans of Primates The case of the Archbishop of Cyprus no peculiar case The deduction thence against the Popes Vniversal Pastorship Of the Popes tenure by the institution of Christ Num. 1 THE next exception concerns the Canon of the Councel of Ephesus thus Num. 2 As for the Canon of Ephesus touching the Archbishop of Cyprus it plainly sheweth that the Metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarchs seeing this case of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case the reason given doth shew that the superiority of Patriarchs was by custome received from their Ancestors contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed however it is still nothing to the purpose because the authority which we say belongs to the Pope is neither Patriarchal nor derived from any institution or custome of the Church but from the institution of Christ Num. 3 This Canon of Ephesus saith he plainly shews that Metropolitans were subordinate to Patriarchs seeing this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case To this I see not how any pretensions of ours oblige me to make any return yet because it may be subject to some mistake for want of explicating I shall clear that whole matter by these three Propositions Num. 4 First that the controversie which occasioned that Canon was this Whether the Bishop of Constance Metropolitan of the Province of Cyprus was to be ordained by the Patriarch of Antioch or without seeking abroad by his own Synod the Bishops of Cyprus Thus is the state of the question set down in the Councels Tom. 2. p. 670. at the beginning of the 7 Action Discussa est controversia inter Rheginum Episcopum Constantiae Cypri Johannem Antiochenum qui sibi Cyprias Ecclesias subdere moliebatur The controversie was discussed between Rheginus Bishop of Constance of Cyprus and John of Antioch who endevoured to bring the Cypriotes Churches into subjection to himself Num. 5 Secondly that the antient custome had been favourable to Rheginus his pretension and so the claim of Antioch is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing innovated against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which by the example or president would concern the liberty of all Churches Cod Can Eccl Un 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 6 Thirdly that the Councel defined on the Cypriots side that according to the Canous and antient custome the Bishops of Cyprus should retein their previlege inviolable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordaining their Bishops within and by themselves and consequently that it was an act of assuming and invasion in the Bishop of Antioch to claim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make any Ordinations within Cyprus And what was thus adjudged in the case of the Cypriots was by that Councel in the same Canon thought fit to be extended in like manner to all other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same shall be observed also through all Dioceses and Provinces every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him i. e. under his predecessors power And so there is no truth in what is here suggested that this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case It certainly by the expresse words of the Canon belonged to all other Metropolitans and their Provinces over all the world that neither Bishop of Antioch nor of Rome was to meddle with any ordinations except in their own particular Provinces but the Synod of the Bishops of each Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make the ordinations of their Bishops by themselves Num. 7 What he adds of the superiority of Patriarchs by custome received from their Ancestors First that the reason given in that Ephesine Canon doth shew it Secondly that it is contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed Thirdly that it is still nothing to the purpose in hand of the authority of the Pope hath not that I can discern any truth in any part of it For as to the first whatsoever superiority Patriarchs be acknowledged to have there is no word of mention concerning it in that Canon neither was there any occasion to define any thing of it It was the Synod and Bishops of Cyprus their right that was invaded and of that onely that Canon speaks devolving it to original custome and Canons and so for all other Metropolitans But that is not the superiority of Patriarchs Secondly for my affirmation certainly it was never such as could be deemed contrary either to that Ephesine Canon about ordination of their Metropolitans or that due superiority which by Canons or customes doth belong to Primates or Patriarchs what this is I have often set down and need not again repeat it Num. 8 Lastly for the application of this Canon to the present affair of the Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome thus much is evident First that all Provinces every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were concluded by this Canon that they should ordain their Bishops within themselves and then I pray how can the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of ordaining all belong to the Bishop of Rome and ordination and jurisdiction going together how can he have the Vniversal Jurisdiction or which is all one the Vniversal Pastorship Num. 9 Secondly if the Pope his authority be not Patriarchal as this Gentleman here saith then till he hath proved that it is more than Patriarchal and answered all that is said to the contrary in that Tract of Schisme that which is by the Ephesiue Canon judged in order to the Patriarch of Antioch will also conclude him Num. 10 And thirdly that which is held by the institution of Christ being certainly derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning must needs be included in the words of this Canon which requires that all should remain as by custome immemorial from the beginning it had been to which therefore we appeal and inquire whether Cyprus was not as Independent from Rome at that time as from Antioch if not how any such dependance at that time appears or how is it imaginable there should be any such when all Provinces every where were to be ruled and ordered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their own Synod and Bishops Num. 11 As for the tenure by which the Pope is now in the close of this Paragraph clearly said to stand not from any institution or custome of the Church but from the institution of Christ First this is more than ever this Gentleman would acknowledge before telling us p. 14. that who understands the Principles of the Catholick faith knows they relie not onely upon such places of Scripture as Thou art Peter and Feed my sheep From whence I thought my self obliged to conclude they relied not onely on Christ his institution for that I suppose must
be set down in some and if in any sure in those Scriptures And in another place that I forget my self when I think a Catholick ought to prove that the hope hath an Vniversal Primacie referring all to his Possession whereas in case he pretend to hold by the institution of Christ as here he saith certainly he is obliged to produce that institution and that is to prove his pretension Num. 12 But then secondly that there is indeed any such thing that the Pope holds by Institution of Christ is still the thing denied by us and the contrary I think demonstrated in the former chapter and all the places producible for it answered and so it must not be here begged or assumed without any word added for the proof of it Sect. VI. The exemption of Justiniana prima The several exceptions against this instance answered Num. 1 HIS next Paragraph pretends to be answer to the evidence brought from the example of Justiniana prima which was by the Emperour made independent from any other Ecclesiastical power His answer is this Num. 2 Then he goes on with two examples in which he would perswade us that Justiniana prima and Carthage were made exempt cities by the Emperour and seeth not that his own instance giveth the answer for as in the temporal donation he doth not exempt them from his own subjection so neither from the Popes in spiritual nor as much as giveth them the style of Patriarchs though the Bishop of Constantinople in his own city ordinarily had it Num. 3 That Justiniana prima was by Justinian exempted from all others and so from the Bishop of Rome his Iurisdiction and so Carthage also being invested with the same privileges I thought sufficiently proved by the plain words of the constitution that for any differences that should befall in that Province the Archbishop of that new erection from time to time should decide them finally nec ad alium quendam eatur and they should go to no other for decision or by way of appeal and so in the Novell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he shall have under his own jurisdiction the Bishops of Dacia c. which what is it but a perfect exemption and independency Num. 4 The same appears also by the other part of the constitution that concerning ordination of that Archbishop It was as was said to be done by his own Synod of Metropolitans To which agrees that of the Novell 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He must be ordained by his own Synod Num. 5 To this the answer given here and given saith he by my own instance is no more than this that as in the temporal donation he doth not exempt them from his own subjection so neither from the Popes in spiritual But sure there is no force in this comparison For the not exempting him in temporal things from his own power doth no way conclude a non-exemption from the Pope When Henry VIII removed the Papal power out of this nation no man thinks he divested himself of the regal the Archbishop of Canterbury was made Independent and exempt from the Bishop of Rome but remained still subordinate to the King So in like manner Iustinian might doe make Instiniana a Primacy and yet leave the Bishop and his whole Province in the same subjection to the Emperour that before it had been And as this is very possible so if it were not the plain truth of the fact that must be made appear by the story or by the investiture Num. 6 In that there is no sound of any word for the exempting that Bishop from the Imperial subjection and so we cannot imagine without any ground that there was any such thing but for Ecclesiastical judicature and ordination they are both distinctly specified that he and his Metropolitans should have them within themselves without fetching them abroad from any other and so by that the Bishop of Rome is explicitly excluded from having any thing to doe there Num. 7 This farther appears not onely by the matter of fact for after the first Archbishop was ordained by Pope Vigilius his successors were constantly ordained by their own Metropolitans and not by the Bishop of Rome but also by farther expresse words in the Novell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Provinces subject to him he shall hold the place of the Apostolical seat of Rome i. e. doe all within those Provinces that the Bishop of Rome was wont to doe before this Primacy was erected and this it seems by direct consent of Vigilius then Pope as there it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to what was defined by the Holy Father Vigilius Num. 8 Which words if they be conceived to denote no more than a deputation from the Pope by which this power was held and so be made use of as an argument to inferre his continued dependence on the See of Rome that will be found to be a mistake the whole investiture giving the Archbishop there an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a perfect freedome and absolutenesse to be head within his Province independent from all others And should it by any other way appear that Vigilius who ordained the first Bishop there as 't is sure he must be ordained by some body and none fitter for it than the Bishop of old Rome did farther give him a deputation as I see it affirmed but not by this Gentleman both of Vigilius and after him of Gregory yet certainly this was but a formality without any farther effect or influence on the investiture the privileges of that See came to it meerly by the Act of the Emperour and that Act was entred a Part of the Imperial Law to which the supposed addition of the Pope's deputation can be no prejudice And secondly the Bishop of Carthage which by that Constitution is invested with the very same privileges by the Emperour is not pretended to have received any such deputation from the Pope and yet by virtue of the Emperours act was freed from all former dependence and injoyed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the privilege of a Metropolitan in the same manner as Iustiniana did Num. 9 What this Gentleman adds that the Emperour gave not so much as the style of Patriarch to the Bishop of Iustiniana though the Bishop of Constantinople in his own city ordinarily had it will soon appear to signifie nothing For first the power not the title is that we speak of and that may be had in plenitude without the name the Archbishop of Cyprus was by the Councel of Ephesus adjudged to have all power within himself so as to go neither to Antioch nor to Rome for it and yet was not raised to any higher title than that of Archbishop Num. 10 Secondly I suppose Primate and Patriarch to be perfectly all one as to matter of power and dignity that the Archbishop of Constantinople and Hierusalem so styled in the antient Canons were yet ordinarily
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
to men of common sense to disprove and so to overthrow this Possession Sect. II. Queen Mary's retaining the Supremacy Power of refusing Legates unreconcileable with the Popes Supremacy Num. 1 THE next Paragraph is an account of a passage cited by me from the story of Queen Mary Thus Num. 2 Queen Mary's titular retaining of the Supremacy untill she could dispose the disordered hearts of her subjects to get it peaceably revoked is no authority for the Doctor she never pretending it to be lawfully done but that she could not doe otherwise no more is her refusing of a Legate which in all Catholick times and countries hath been practiced and thought lawfull Num. 3 What civil or secular motives they were which kept that Queen so long from rejecting the title of supreme in her own Kingdome I shall not need to inquire If it were no unpardonable sin in her to continue the title and exercise of that power which was incompetible with the Pope's universal Pastorship then why should it be so hainous in her Father to assume it Her never pretending that it was lawfully done signifies very little as long as she pretends not the contrary that it was unlawfull The truth may well lie in the middle that she thought it lawful to retain it yet lawful also to bestow it on the Bishop of Rome and upon the strength of the former perswasion my charity obligeth me to think that she did the former and in force of the latter it is possible also that she did the latter though possible too that she did it upon reason of state the validity of her mother's mariage and consequently her legitimation depending upon the acknowledgment of the Pope's absolute power in this Nation Num. 4 But the truth is her opinion or practice is of no more force one way than the other and therefore was taken in as a supernumerary observation and not such as on that alone to found any grand argument Num. 5 As for the power of refusing a Legate from the Pope I cannot discern how that is reconcileable with the Popes pretensions to supreme power in this Kingdome Can it be lawfull for any Province to refuse a Procurator or Praetor or Proconsul sent solemnly commissionated by the Lawfull Prince Was it lawfull for the tenants or dressers of the vineyard to deny entrance to the King's son or but servant Is not this a derogation to supreme power and domination If this be practiced and counted lawful in all Catholick times and Countreys this is to me an indication that in no time or countrey there hath been possession of this belief that the Pope is the supreme Pastor of all for sure if he were his Legate which is his image might in power of the original require admission and he that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus sent and commissionated by him must by S. Peter's precept be allowed obedience from all his subjects and so from that Queen if such she were and such she must be so farre as he had the supremacy Num. 6 So again when Cardinal Petou was sent to be Bishop of Sarisbury the denying him that Bishoprick was a check to the Pope's absolute supremacy but of that this Gentleman was in prudence to take no notice Sect. III. King Edward his Reformation The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Northumberland his Treason no prejudice to the Reformation under that King Num. 1 HIs next exception is to the passages concerning King Edward VI. Henry's immediate successor Thus Num. 2 King Edward a childe of nine years old fell into the hands of wicked and ambitious traytors who knowing the Kingdome affected for religion sake to Queen Mary to cut off her succession and introduce their own thought sit to strengthen their faction which beside what they might hope from abroad consisted of many Lutherans and Calvinists at home those two sects having by opportunity of that rupture in Henry VIII his time spread and nest led themselves in many parts of England Num. 3 What is here said hath little of truth in it and as little of argument if it were truth That the youth of the Prince can be no foundation of argument against the Legality of what was done by the Duke of Somerset his uncle the Protector in his nonage was sufficiently shewed before and might be exemplified through all times and places That this Protector should at this time when the young King legally fell into his hands be styled a wicked ambitious Traytor hath not any degree of truth in it the crime for which he afterward lost his life being farre from any disloyalty to his Sovereign Num. 4 As for the Duke of Northumberland who obtained the King's consent to settle the inheritance on Jane Grey and accordingly after the King's death proclaimed her Queen and suffered as a traytor for so doing all that I shall need to say is this 1. that this act of his how trayterous soever cannot justifie what is here said that the King at nine years old fell into the hands of traytors for that one Duke cannot truly be called traytors in the plural and the King at that age did not fall into his hands but into the hands of Edward Seymour Duke of Somerset under whom the six Articles and other acts of severity against the Protestants were called in and the Acts against the Papal authority confirmed the Romish Masse abrogated the Bible translated and published in the English tongue the Liturgie reformed and the publick offices performed in English the sacrament of the Lord's Supper administred in both kindes c. And so whatsoever was afterward done were it never so trayterously by the Duke of Northumberland could have no influence on this change and is therefore very impertinently here inserted after the manner of the Orator not the historian to raise passions inflame dislkes and aversions in the Reader and not to give him any exact view of the truth of the story Num. 5 Secondly that the designe of the Duke of Northumberland not succeeding but costing him so dear the losse of his own life and hers whom he set up to be Queen and the succession regularly descending on Queen Mary there can be no reasonable account given why this treason of that Duke should here be proposed as the one considerable it being evident in the story that all things were composed to the full satisfaction of Queen Mary and just as they should have been in case that trayterous attempt had never been made by that Duke Num. 6 To which I might adde that this treason of his was founded on that very act which in the next paragraph this Gentleman thinks fit to vouch as authentick and if it were so that could be no treason in that Duke viz the Act whereby Mary as well as Elizabeth were adjudged illegitimate and so uncapable of the succession But these are considerations very extrinsecal and remote from the matter as it lies here in the contest between us Num.
very small matter will serve turne with this Gentleman to support a con lusion which he hath a mind to inferre otherwise Master Hookers Testimony had never been produced to this matter The words of that truly most learned and prudent person are to be found in his fifth Book Num. 79. in the Conclusion The subject of that whole Paragraph beginning pag. 424. is of Oblations Foundations Endowments Tithes all intended for the perpetuity of Religion which was in his opinion sure to be frustrated by alienation of Church livings and this being largely handled by him throughout that Paragraph at length he observes 1. what waste Covetousnesse had made in the Church by such Commutations as were proportionable to Glaucus's change giving the Church flanel for Gold and 2. how Religion it self was made a Sollicitor and perswader of Sacrilege signifying that to give to God is error and to take it away againe Reformation of error concluding in these words By these or the like suggestions received with all joy and with like sedulity practised in certain parts of the Christian world they have brought to passe that as David doth say of Man so it is in danger to be verified concerning the whole Religion and service of God the time thereof may peradventure fall out to be threescore and ten yeers or if strength doe serve unto fourescore what followeth is likely to be small joy for them whosoever they be that behold it Thus have the best things been overthrowne not so much by puissance and might of a versaries as through defect of Councel in them that should have upheld and defended the same Num. 10 This is the first importance of that place which the Gentleman hath so disguised in his abbreviation Mr. Hooker foretells what a destructive influence Sacrilege may have on the whole Religion and Service of God observes in certain parts of the Christian world without naming any that sacrilegious suggestions are received with all joy and putting these two together presageth sad events to the whole Religion and service of God within threescore and ten or fourescore yeares and from hence this Gentleman concludes it Master Hooker's judgement that the Church of England was a building likely to last but fourescore yeares Num. 11 In what mode and figure this conclusion is thus made from the premisses he leaves us to divine who have not sagacity enough to discern it The conclusion to all mens understanding will most regularly follow thus that the Church of England was so constituted that all the enemies thereof on either side were never likely to destroy it by arguments and consequent'y that the most probable way remaining to Satan to accomplish his designe was by sacrilegious violations to impoverish and subdue the maintainers of it which as he foresaw very likely to come to passe within the age of a man so it would be no joyfull sight when it should come he was not so unkinde to any part of the Church of God as to be willing to live to see it Num. 12 And if this Gentleman's inclinations have qualified him for the receiving pleasure or joy in such a spectacle I shall as little envy him the prosperity which hath thus petrified his bowels as he shall think fit to envy me the honour of being a member of the purest being withall the most persecuted Church Num. 13 Thirdly That these words of Mr. Hooker thus pitifully distorted are the onely proof he hath for his assertion that this Church of ours hath now no subsistence and that it is now torn up by the roots A way of arguing very conformable to his characters of a true Church of which external glory and prosperity must never misse to be one but very unlike the image of Christ the head to which his Church the body may be allowed to hold some proportion of conformity for of him we can give no livelier pourtraiture than as we finde him crucified between two thieves whilst the souldiers divide his garments though they were not over-sumptuous and cast lots who shall have his vesture Num. 14 What next follows is an answer to a supposed objection of ours and that is a farther evidence of what I said that Mr. Hooker's distorted speech is the onely proof of his proposition The objection is that our Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained and to this objection he will make some answer from our own principles of which he supposeth this to be one that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters and saith without any regrets that this is my defence against the Bishop of Rome Num. 15 Many replies might be made to take off all appearance of force from this answer As 1. that this to which the answer is accommodated is not my objection The truth is I took not on me the objectors part in that place but evidenced it by clear demonstration that if twenty years agoe the Church of England was a Church it must needs be so now being the very same that then it was except these bands as the Apostle once said who I hope did not cease to be an Apostle by being imprisoned And when I mentioned the Church of Englands being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained together with multitudes rightly baptized which sure are all the necessary ingredients in constituting a visible Church I added none of which have fallen off from their profession and then foreseeing the onely possible objection to inferre the Church guilty of schisme I answered that by remembring the Primitive persecutions and night-meetings and the very manner of the Romanists serving God in this Kingdome for these many years Num. 16 And all this is pulled off from the clue and fumbled together into an objection of mine supposed to be made against that which the Romanist without either tender of proof or reason had crudely affirmed But truly I may be believed that I meant not that affirmation so much respect as to offer objection against it And then that is one speedy way of concluding this matter Num. 17 But then secondly for that saying of mine on which he will form his answer to this imaginary objection 't is certain I never said any such thing as is here suggested That the supreme Magistrate hath power to erect and translate Patriarchates and the like I had affirmed indeed i. e. to make that a Patriarchal See which had not formerly been such so to ennoble a town or city that according to the Canons of the Church it should become an Episcopal or Archiepiscopal or Chief or Patriarchal See and my meaning is evident and not possible to be mistaken by any that understands the Language and adverts to what he reads Num. 18 But sure I never said that the secular authority hath power to make Bishops and Presbyters and there is no question but this Gentleman knows if he hath read what he answers that in the Tract of Schisme
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.