error certainly without a bias of interest or prejudice it is impossible for him to leave the Church if he be in it or not returne if he be out of it for if infallibility be the ground of the Churches power to command beliefe as shee pretends no other no time no separation within memory of History can justifie a continuance out of the Church You may please to consider then how solid this Doctors discourse is who telleth us for his great evidence that we saith he who doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certaine suppositions that follow there The question is whether a Protestant be a Schismatick because a Protestant and he will prove he is not a Schismatick because he goeth consequently to Protestant that is Schismatical grounds I pray you reflect that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schisme and Heresie in Capite and more than for all the rest he holds distinct from us for this principle taketh away all beliefe and all ground of beliefe and turneth it into uncertainty and weather-cock opinion putteth us into the condition to be circumferri omni vento Doctrinae submitteth us to Atheisme and all sort of miscreancy let him not then over-leap the question but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatick and an Heretick too or let him acknowledge he is both Num. 3 This discourse thus inlarged to the consideration of fallibility and infallibility in a Church is certainly a digression in this place and taking the occasion from some words of mine Sect. 6. of a concession of Master Knots it is a little necessary to recount what concession that was and the use that I there made of it that so it may appeare whether there were any thing blameable in my procedure Num. 4 The subject I was upon Sect. 5. was the undoubted lawfulnesse of being and continuing excluded from any such Church the conditions of whose communion containe Sin in them To this head of discourse I mentioned a concession of Master Knots that it is perfectly unlawful to dissemble aequivocate or lye in matters of Faith and this as a confirmation of my then present assertion that when I am not permitted by the Romanists to have external communion with them unlesse I doe thus dissemble equivocate and lye affirme my selfe to believe what I doe not believe I may lawfully continue thus excluded from their communion But then I could not justly conceale what Master Knot there added as his conclusion from hence together with the acknowledged unlawfulnesse of forsaking the externall communion of Gods visible Church that therefore the Church of Rome is infallible because otherwise men might forsake her communion Num. 5 Here indeed I thought it very strange that this conclusion should be thus deduced from such praemisses that it should be deemed lawful to separate from a Church for every error or for no more but being subject to error being fallible though it were actually guilty of no errour which I conceived to be the same in effect as to affirme it lawfull to forsake the communion of all but Saints and Angels and God in Heaven because all others were peccable and fallible But yet I thought not fit to goe farther out of my way to presse the unreasonablenesse of it but contented my selfe with that which was for my present turne his confession that it was lawful to separate or continue in separation from the Church of Christ in case we could not without lying c. be permitted to communicate with it Num. 6 This being the whole businesse as it lyes visible to any in that 5. and 6. Sect. Let us now see what a confusion is made to gaine some small advantage from hence or excuse for a long digression Num. 7 First it is the conclusion viz. that any Congregation that can lye c. cannot have power to binde any to believe what shee saith which he saith is called by me Master Knots concession But this is a great mistake I never lookt on this as his concession never called it by that title but as a conclusion that he made a strange shift to deduce from another concession Num. 8 A concession this Gentleman should in reason have understood to be somewhat which the Adversary yeilds and which the disputer gaines advantage by his yeilding it such was his assertion that all lying and dissembling was unlawful and that rather than that should be admitted it were lawful to forsake the external communion of the Church of Christ And that and nothing but that was by me cited as his concession Num. 9 Secondly That conclusion it self that the Congregation that is fallible cannot have power to binde to believe is not so much as considered by me in that place or else where I said not one word against it which might provoke this objector to take it up and confirme it neither was it in the least needfull or pertinent to the matter then in hand to enter into the consideration of it All that was by me taken notice of and that but in passing was the consequence or coherence betwixt the praemisses and that conclusion which naturally inferred a third thing that it was in Mr. Knots opinion lawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church which I thought by the way would be sure to excuse us though we should be granted to have forsaken and continued wilfully in Separation from the Roman Church if it might but appeare that either that were guilty of any one error or lyable to fal into any one And this being intirely all that was there said by me there is no reason I should so far attend this Gentleman in his digression as to consider what here he proceeds to say upon his new-sprung subject of discourse very distant from that of Schisme to which I indeavoured to adhere having elsewhere pursued at large the Romanists other hypothesis concerning their Churches Infallibility Num. 10 Were it not thus remote from our matter in hand and perfectly unnecessary to the defence of our Church from Schisme I might discover farther many infirme parts in this procedure I shall but briefly touch on some of them Num. 11 1. For the truth of that proposition that a Congregation that can lye i. e. a Church that is fallible and knoweth not i. e. hath no infallible certainty whether it lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to binde any to believe what shesaith I may certainly affirme 1. That this is no infallible truth being no where affirmed by any infallible speaker or deduced from any infallible principle For as to the Scripture it is not pretended to be affirmed by that and for Natural Reason that cannot be an infallible Judge in this matter of defining what power may be or is by God given to a Church without defining it infallible A Prince may no doubt be impowered by God
from coming to this contestation is not to gain any advantage by his guilt but adversus eum lis habetur pro contestato he shall be lookt on as if the suit had been actually contested against him See Bartolus in l. si eum § qui injuriarum in fi ff si quis caut Num. 32 But as to the Canon Law which in all reason the Catholick is to own in this question it is known that it admitteth not any the longest prescription without the bonae fidei possessio he that came by any thing dishonestly is for ever obliged to restitution and for the judging of that allows of many waies of probation from the nature of the thing the course we have taken in this present debate and from other probable indications and where the appearances are equal on both sides the Law though it be wont to judge most favourably doth yet incline to question the honesty of coming to the possession and to presume the dishonesty upon this account because mala fides dishonesty is presumed industriously to contrive its own secrecie and to lie hid in those recesses from which at a distance of time it is not easily fetcht out So Felinus in C. ult de praescript per leg ult C. unde vi And in a word it is the affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii possessione the presumption is strong that the possession was not honestly come by when it appears to have been antiently in the other hands and the way of conveyance from one to the other is not discernible See Panormit and Felinus in c. si diligenti X de prescript Menochius arbit quaest Casu 225. n. 4. and others referred to by the learned Grotiâ—â— in Consil Jurid super iis quae Nassavii p. 36. c. But I have no need of these nicer disquisitions Num. 33 As for the perswasion of infallibility meaning as they must their own perswasion of it that can have no influence upon us who are sure that we are not so perswaded unless the grounds on which their perswasion is founded be so convincingly represented to us that it must be our prejudice or other vitious defect or affection in us that we are not in the like manner perswaded of it But on this we are known to insist and never yet have had any such grounds offered to us As may in some measure appear by the view of that Controversie as it lies visible in the Book intituled The view of Infallibility Num. 34 As for the uncertainty of the reasons on the Protestants side by uncertainty meaning fallibility and the potest subesse falsum whilest yet we are without doubting verily perswaded that our reasons have force in them that cannot make it possible for us to believe what we doe not believe or lawfull upon any the fairest intuition to professe contrary to our belief I believe that Henry VIII was King of this Nation and the reasons on which I believe it are the testimonies of meer men and so fallible yet the bare fallibility of those testimonies cannot infuse into me any doubt of the truth of them hath no force to shake that but humane belief and while I thus believe I am sure it were wilfull sin in me though for the greatest and most pretious acquisitions in my view to professe I doe not believe it The like must be said of any other perswasion of mine denied by the Romanists and the denying whereof is part of the condition required of me to make me capable of communion with them Num. 35 But it is not now time to insist on this both because here is nothing produced against it and because here follows a much higher undertaking which swallows up all these inferior differences between us viz that not to acknowledge the Church that must be the Roman Church to be infallible is the great crime of schime and heresie in capite and more than all that I hold distinct from the Romanists Num. 36 This I acknowledge was not foreseen in the Tract of Schisme and may serve for the una litura the one answer to remove all that is there said For if our grand Fundamental schisme and heresie be all summed up in this one comprehensive guilt our not acknowledging the Church of Rome to be infallible then it was and still is impertinent to discourse on any other subject but that one of Infallibility for if that be gained by them to belong to their Church I am sure we are concluded Schismaticks and till it be gained I am sure there is no reason to suppose it Num. 37 But then as this is a compendious way of answering the Tract of Schism and I wonder after he had said this he could think it seasonable to proceed to make exceptions to any other particulars this one great mistake of the Question being discovered made all other more minute considerations unnecessary as he that hath sprung a mine to blow up the whole Fort need not set wispes of straw to severall corners to burn it so it falls out a little unluckily that this doth not supersede but onely remove this Gentleman's labour it being now as necessary that he should defend his hypothesis of the Church of Romes Infallibility against all that is formerly said by me on that subject as now it was to make this Answer to the Book of Schism and till that be done or attempted to be done there is nothing left for me to reply to in this matter Num. 38 For as to his bare affirmations that the not acknowledging their Infallibility takes away all belief and ground of belief turns all into uncertainty c. nay submitteth to Atheisme and all sorts of miscreancy It is sure but a mistake or misunderstanding as of some other things so particularly of the nature of belief For beside that I may have other grounds of belief than the affirmations of the Roman Church the authority of Scripture for the severalls contained in it and the Testimony of the universal Primitive that sure is more than of the present Roman Church to assure me that what we take for Scripture is Scripture and to derive Apostolical traditions to me and so I may believe enough without ever knowing that the Roman Church defines any thing de fide but much more without acknowledging the truth of all she defines and yet much more without acknowledging her inerrable and infallible Beside this I say it is evident that belief is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of belief such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and perswasion and where that is actually induced there is belief though there be no pretense of infallibility in the argument nor opinion of it in him that is perswaded by it Num. 39 That all that God hath said is true I believe by a belief or perswasion cui non potest subesse falsum wherein I cannot
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
it For what injustice or tyranny c. can it be in any lawful superior having defined what verily he believes to be the truth of God and no way doubts of his having deduced it rightly from the Scripture but yet knows that he as a man is fallible and that it is possible he may have some way failed in this as in any other his most circumspect action what injustice I say can it be authoritatively to direct this definition to those who are committed to his charge and expect their due submission to it meaning by submission what I have here exprest to mean by it Num. 24 So again it appears of the Roman Church how far it is from gentle or charitable in them to bind men to profess as matter of faith whatsoever is by that Church defined upon this one account that the Church is infallible can't erre when this very thing that it is infallible is not at all made probable much lesse infallibly deduced from any reason or testimony that is infallible Num. 25 Next then when he saith that the state of the question will be this whether the Roman Church be infallible or no I am not sure I know what question he means whether the main Question on which the Tract of Schisme was written i. e. whether the Church of England be schismaticall or no or whether the particular question which this Gentlemans haste hath framed to himself in this place Whether a fallible Church may have power to binde any to believe what she saith But I suppose by some indications that the latter is it and then as from hence I learn what he means by infallible a Church that cannot possibly erre all whose definitions are such quibus nequit subesse falsum so untill this be proved of that Church I must be allowed to speak like one who think not my self obliged to the belief of it and being sure of this that a Protestant is or may be verily perswaded of some truth against which the Roman Church bindeth to profession of error meaning by verily perswaded such a certainty only cui non subest dubium he hath no doubt nor reason to induce doubting of it I cannot imagine how that part of my discourse wherein I have supposed or asserted this can be either superfluous unnecessary or whatever other weakness it be guilty of contrary to my self For certainly I that think I am fallible may yet verily believe without all doubt the truth of many propositions which if I should affirm my self not to believe I must doubtlesse lie and then sin by Mr. Knot 's former concession And 't is as certain on the other side that he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule may yet foully mistake both in that generall originall and in many other particular derivative pretensions His supposed infallibility if it be not rightly supposed and till it be proved it will not be so will be so farre from an amulet to keep him safe from all error that it is the likeliest way to deliver him up to it as the premature perswasion of his particular election may be the ingulsing any through security and presumption in the most certain ruine Num. 26 In the processe of this discourse he is pleased to mention four advantages of the Roman Church above any other Antiquity possession perswasion of Infallibility the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for motives of union and nothing but uncertain reasons on the other side which saith he must make it impossible for any without interest or prejudice to leave the Church if he be in it or not return if he be out of it Num. 27 To this imaginary setting of the scales between them and us and particularly to the fourth advantage pretended to the pledges that Christ left for motives of union it is sufficient to reply in generall that for us which have not voluntarily separated but are by them violently removed from communion with them and cannot be admitted to reunion but upon conditions which without dissembling and lying we cannot undergoe it is in vain to speak of motives or obligations to return to their communion We that are bound as much as in us lies to have peace with all men must not admit any known or wilfull sin in order to that most desirable end And this one thing as alone it is pertinent to the matter in hand that of schisme so it is necessarily the concluding of this controversie We that are not permitted to return and so we are if the conditions of our return be so incumbred as to include sin cannot with any justice or equity be charged for not returning Num. 28 Against this here is nothing said any farther than the bare mention of the three other advantages on their side And none of these are of any force to perswade our return upon such conditions as these much lesse to exact it as duty from us Num. 29 By Antiquity and Possession as here they are spoken of I am apt to suppose he means not antiquity of the Roman Church or the present doctrines and therefore I shall not speak of them but the antiquity of our communion with them if he mean a Possession in the belief of the Popes Vniversall Pastorship I shall have occasion to speak of that hereafter And if this be granted as for fraternall communion and such as is due from one sister Church to another it is willingly granted then this will divolve the blame on those who are guilty of this breach who have cast us out and permit us no way of returning with a good conscience And so this is little for the Romanists advantage Num. 30 But if in stead of fraternall communion it be subjection to the Roman See that is by his words claimed and pretended to by possession then as we willingly grant to that See all that the antient Canons allowed to it and so cannot in that respect offend against Antiquity so what contrary to those Canons they have at any time assumed and unlawfully possest themselves of can no way be pretended to be their right or they to be bonae fidei possessores true or fair possessors of it which qualification and condition is yet absolutely necessary to found their plea from possession and which alone can bear any proportion with that which Kings can shew for their crowns or proprietaries for their inheritances Num. 31 Of this head of possession or prescription it were easie to adde much more by considering that claim and title by the known rules whether of the Canon or Civil Law The Civil Law which is generally more favourable to Prescription doth yet acknowledge many waies of interrupting it as by calling it into question and that is sufficiently done in some cases per solam conventionem by citing or summoning the possessor and when contestatio litis the entring a suit is actually required yet still he that appears to have caused the impediment and kept it
be made from my doing that slightly which I did not meddle with at all But then 3. to remove all scruple or possible occasion of jealousie in this matter 't is the designe of Chapter 8. the method then leading to it under a second sort of Schisme to consider the departure from the Vnity of the Faith which being but a periphrasis of Heresie is consequently the defining all Heresie is Schisme and so the profest avowing of that which he suspected me unwilling to have understood And so still there is not the least appearance of justice in this suggestion Sect. II. Excommunication how it differs from Schisme Wilfull continuance under censures is Schisme The Bishop of Rome is not our Lawfull Governour The severe conditions of their Communion Num. 1 HIs second exception is perfectly of the same making with the former thus Num. 2 Againe saith he treating of Excommunication he easily slideth over this part that wilfull continuance in a just Excommunication maketh Schisme Num. 3 Here againe 't is evident that I treat not of Excommunication nor have any occasion fitly to treat of it farther than to shew that Schisme being a voluntary separation the word in no propriety pertaines to that act of the Governour of the Church whereby he separates or cuts off any by way of Censures Certainly he that is put to death by Sentence of Law cannot be judged a Felo de se one that hath voluntarily put himselfe out of the number of the living or be liable to those forfeitures which by the Law belong to such He that is banished out of the Kingdome cannot be guilty of the breach of that Statute which forbids all Subjects going out of it nor be punisht justly for that which is his suffering not his deed his punishment not his delinquency Num. 4 As for his wilfull continuance under just Censures the wilfulnesse of that certainly makes him culpable and the continuance in Excommunication being also continuance in separation from the Church which is Schisme whensoever it is voluntary I make no doubt of the consequence that such wilfull continuance in Excommunication be it just or unjust is actuall Schism supposing as the word wilfull must suppose that this continuance is wholly imputable to the will of the Excommunicate i. e. that if he will submit to that which is lawfull for him to submit to he may be absolved and freed from it Num. 5 If this were it that he would have had more explicitely affirmed then I answer that as there I had no occasion to speak to it so now upon his slightest demand I make no scruple to give him my full sense of it that he which being cast into prison for just cause may upon his Petition and promise of Reformation be released or if the cause were unjust may yet without doing any thing any way unlawfull regaine his Liberty from thenceforth becomes not the Magistrates but his owne Prisoner and is guilty of all the damage be it disease famishing death it selfe which is consequent to his imprisonment And the analogie holds directly in Excommunication He that continues under the Censures of his Ecclesiastical Ruler when he might fairely obtaine absolution from them is by himselfe sentenced to the continuance of this punishment as by the Governor of the Church to the beginning of it But then all this while this is not the condition of our Church in respect of the Church of Rome they being not our Lawful Superiors indued with jurisdiction over us and for other communion such as alone can be maintained or broken among fellow-brethren or Christians it is carefully maintained by us as farre as it is lawfully maintainable Num. 6 And both these being there evidenced in that and the insuing Chapters I did not warily or purposely abstaine from because I had nothing that suggested to me any opportunity of saying any thing more to this purpose The severe conditions which are by the Romanists required of us to render us capable of their communion subscription of error or profession against Conscience make it impertinent to propose or discusse either of these two questions 1. Whether we lye under a just excommunication 2. Whether if we did we would wilfully continue under it or consequently whether we be now guilty of Schisme in this notion Sect. III. Mr. Knots concession and conclusion The power of a fallible Church to require beliefe Of Antiquity Possession Perswasion of Infallibility Motives for Vnion Vncertainty of the Protestants reasons The grand Heresie and Schisme of not believing Rome infallible Beliefe sufficient without infallibility Fictions of Cases Num. 1 THe third exception inlargeth to some length in these words Num. 2 What he calls Master Knots concession I take to be the publike profession of the Roman or Catholike Church and that nature it selfe teacheth all rationall men that any Congregation that can lye and knoweth not whether it doth lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to binde any particular to believe what shee saith neither can any man of understanding have an obligation to believe what shee teacheth farther than agrees with the rules of his own reason Out of which it followeth that the Roman Churches binding of men to a profession of Faith which the Protestants and other haereticall multitudes have likewise usurped if shee be infallible is evidently gentle charitable right and necessary as contrariwise in any other Church or Congregation which pretends not to infallibility the same is unjust tyrannical and a selfe-condemnation to the binders so that the state of the question will be this whether the Catholick or Roman Church be infallible or no for shee pretendeth not to binde any man to tenets or beliefs upon any other ground or title By this you may perceive much of his discourse to be not onely superfluous and unnecessary but also contrary to himselfe for he laboureth to perswade that the Protestant may be certaine of some truth against which the Roman Catholick Church bindeth to profession of error which is as much as to say as he who pretendeth to have no infallible rule by which to governe his Doctrine shall be supposed to be infallible and he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule shall be supposed to be fallible at most because fallible objections are brought against him now then consider what a meek and humble Son of the Church ought to doe when of the one side is the Authority of Antiquity and Possession such Antiquity and Possession without dispute or contradictions from the adversary as no King can shew for his Crowne and much lesse any other person or persons for any other thing the perswasion of infallibility all the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for Motives of Vnion on the other side uncertaine reasons of a few men pretending to learning every day contradicted by incomparable numbers of men Wise and Learned and those few men confessing those reason and themselves uncertaine fallible and subject to
be deceived and there I acknowledge infallibility upon this ground whether of nature or of grace of common dictate or of religion that it is impossible for God to lie to deceive or to be deceived But that the whole Canon of Scripture as it is delivered to us by the Laodicean Councel is the Word of God though I fully believe this also and have not the least doubt to any part of it yet I account not my self infallible in this belief nor can any Church that affirms the same unlesse they are otherwise priviledged by God be infallible in affirming it nor any that believes that Church be infallible in their belief And as that priviledge is not yet proved by any donation of Gods to belong to any Church particularly to the Roman so till it be proved and proved infallibly it can be no competent medium to induce any new act of Infallible belief the want of which may denominate us either hereticks or schismaticks Num. 40 In the mean time this is certain that I that doe not pretend to believe any thing infallibly in this matter not so much as that the Church is not infallible must yet be acknowledged to believe her fallible or else I could not by this Gentleman be adjudged a scismatick for so believing And then this supposeth that I may believe what in his opinion I believe untruly that sure is that I may believe what I doe not believe infallibly The matter is visible I cannot think fit to inlarge on it Num. 41 One thing onely I must farther take notice of the ground which he here had on which he founds his exception against the solidity of my discourse calling it my great evidence that we that doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certain suppositions that follow there Num. 42 The matter in that place Chap. II. Sect. 12. lies thus In examining the nature of schisme I have occasion to mention one not reall but fiction of case Suppose first that our Ancestors had criminously separated from the Church of Rome and suppose secondly that we their posterity repented and desired to reform their sin and to be reunited to them yet supposing thirdly that they should require to our reunion any condition which were unlawfull for us to perform in this conjuncture I say we could not justly be charged for continuing that separation Num. 43 This fiction of case I could not think had any weak part in it for as it supposed that on one side which I knew a Romanist would not grant viz that they should require any condition unlawfull for us to perform so it supposed on the other side that which we can no way grant viz that our Ancestors criminously separated But this I knew was ordinary to be done in fictions of cases Suppositio non ponit is the acknowledged rule my supposing either of these was not the taking them for granted And yet after all this I foresaw that objection that the Romanist who acknowledges not any such hard condition required to our reconciliation will conceive this an impossible case And to this I answered that we that acknowledge not their Church to be infallible may be allowed to make a supposition meaning as before a fiction of case which is founded in the possibility of her inserting some error in her confessions and making the acknowledgment of it the indispensable condition of her communion What I have offended herein I cannot imagine for 1. I onely set a fiction of case doe not take their infallibility for a thing confestly false nor in that place so much as dispute against it Only I say that which was sufficiently known before I said it that their Infallibity is not acknowledged by us and so that her inserting some error in her Confessions is to us i. e. in our opinion a thing possible and so for disputation sake supposable in the same manner as I suppose that which I am known not to believe and if this Gentleman be thus severe I shall despair to approve my discourses to him Num. 44 Secondly that I make it my great evidence is not with any appearance of reason suggested by him It comes in meerly as an incidentall last branch the least necessary most unconsiderable of any and that which might have been spared then or left out now without any weakning of or disturbing the discourse Num. 45 Thirdly Whereas he adds that I proceed to make certain suppositions that follow there this is still of the same strein I make but one supposition viz in case she make any unlawfull act the indispensable condition of her Communion And that one certainly is not in the plurall more or indefinitely certain suppositions Num. 46 That I put this one case as possible and then proceeded to consider what were by the principles acknowledged by all particularly by Mr. Knot to be done in that one case was agreeable to the strictest laws of discourse which I have met with And if in compliance with this Gentleman I must deny my self such liberties and yet yeild him so much greater on the other side If I must at the beginning of a defense of the Church of England be required to grant the Church of Rome infallible i. e. to yeild not onely that she speaks all truth but also that it is impossible she should speak any thing but truth whom yet by entring on this theme I undertake to contradict and to prove injurious in censuring us for Schismaticks this were as I have said an hard task indeed The very same as if I were required to begin a duell by presenting and delivering up all weapons into the enemies hand to plead a cause and introduce my defense by confessing my self guilty of all that the plaintiffe doth or can have the confidence to charge upon me Num. 47 And if these be the conditions of a dispute these will questionlesse be hard whatsoever the conditions of our reunion be conceived to be and moreover this Gentleman will be as infallible as his Church and then 't is pity he should lavish out medicines that is so secured by charms that he should defend his cause by reasons which hath this one so much cheaper expedient to answer a whole book in one period Num. 48 And so much for his Animadversions on this second Chapter which are no excellent presage of that which we are to expect in the insuing CHAP. III. Exceptions to the third Chapter answered Sect. I. The Division of Schisme justified Of Schisme against the authority of Councells Of Vnanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches Num. 1 THe exceptions against the third Chap are reducible to 4 heads The first about the insufficiency of the division of Schisme in these words Num. 2 In his third Chapter what is chiefly to be noted to our purpose is that his division is insufficient for he maketh Schism to be only against Monarchicall power or against fraternall
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
acquire any Dominion to Rome which S. Paul had never seen at that time and which was it self converted after those and that was it which I was proving Num. 6 But he bethinketh himself at last and confesseth that this of conversion is not the Pope's title to England And having done so before why might he not have permitted me to bring undeniable evidences for the proof of it Sect. IV. The concernments of Rome in the Princes power to remove Patriarchates The examples of it Justiniana the Canon of Chalcedon and the 6 t Councel Valentinian making Ravenna a Patriarchate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 1 TO put this whole matter out of controversie viz that the Church of England is not bound to be subject to that Church from which it first received the Faith one head of argument I pitcht on the power of Kings to remove or erect Primacies and Patriarchates which if it have truth in it evidently proves that in case we were once under the See of Rome as our Patriarchate or Prime See supposing that of Vniversal Pastorship disproved before and not reconcileable with this title to England by having converted yet it was in the power of our Kings to remove that from Rome to Canterbury For the proof of this evidences were brought both from the Councel and that OEcumenical of Chalcedon and from the practice of Princes particularly Justinian in an eminent instance and Valentinian and others before the Councel of Chalcedon and many the like examples in the Records of this Kingdome and of others as is shewed at large and the ground of all insisted on the supreme power of Kings in Ecclesiastical affairs and this is done in 16 sections from the 9th to the end of that Chapter Against all which that we may see how true the title of this Gentleman's Book is An Answer to the most material parts c. that which is confronted is contained in these words Num. 2 Thirdly He saith it was in the Emperors power to constitute Patriarchs whether that be so or not it will not be much to our purpose to dispute here onely this I say that he seems neither to understand the question nor proves what he would he understands not the question which hath no dependency on the nature of Patriarchs or terms of gratitude but on the donation of Christ he proves not what he would for he produceth onely the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannical towards the Church without proof and discussion whether it was well or ill done which was requisite to make good his proof neither doth he say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an Actor in the businesse he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian the third for giving of privileges purely Ecclesiastical to the Bishop of Ravenna which out of his liberality he makes a Patriarch but on the whole matter this is to be observed that generally the Bishops consents were praedemanded or praeordered as in the Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. it is ordered that the Church should translate their Bishoprick◠according to the Emperours changing of his City and when the Emperours did it it is said they did it according to the power given them to wit by the Church so that a few examples to the contrary produced in the reigns of head-strong and Tyrannical Princes as the most of those are noted to be under whom they are urged prove nothing and if they did yet cannot they be taken as testimonies when these matters of fact are onely so attributed to Princes as no way to exclude the Church but whatsoever it was it doth not at all appertaine to the question since the Popes authority in the sense he calls him Pope is not properly Patriarchal nor hath any dependency upon or from change of places made by the command of Princes Num. 3 The first thing here answered is that it is not much to the Romanists purpose to dispute whether or no the Emperour hath power to constitute Patriarchs He ought to have added or to translate them from one City to another for that is in that Tract also expresly proved but this I suppose not without reason omitted because the power to erect or constitute supposes and implies the power to translate them And if this be not this Gentleman's interest to dispute I shall then by his good leave suppose it yeilded me and observe what the consequences will be Num. 4 And 1. In case the power of the Pope be a Patriarchal power and no more and that appear to be all that the antient Councils ever allowed it to be then it immediately followes that it is in the power of the Emperour to translate and remove it from that to any other See and in that case what befell Constantinople by way of advancement from the title of an ordinary Suffragan Bishops See it ascended to equal dignity and privileges with Rome it self will in the reverse be the condition of Rome from the first Patriarchal See in the whole world nothing hinders but that it may become the See of the most ordinary Bishop And sure 't will be the Romanists concernment to dispute that principle from which this may possibly be the undeniable conclusion Num. 5 But if as here it seems to be interposed the power of Rome be that of Vniversal Pastorship no way dependant on the nature of Patriarchs or on any other tenure but the donation of Christ to Saint Peter then 1. it must be remembred that after the refuting of any such right from Christs donation in the former Chapters the removal also of this was in all reason to prove of some interest to the Romanist and so it must all the proofes of those Chapters be perfectly answered which yet hath not been done in any degree as this reply to the few answers applyed to those Chapters hath shewed Num. 6 Secondly This adhering thus wholly to this donation of Christ and the Vniversall Pastorship deduced from thence is the direct disclaiming of all the Canonical Privileges belonging to Rome on the score of Patriarchy and so in case that first tenure shall faile it is the degrading of Rome from that dignity which by antient Canon belong'd to it that of the Prime Patriarchy and so cuts the Romanist off from all the advantage he can reape either from the affirmation of Fathers or Councels any farther than they are founded in and referre to Christs donation of Vniversal Pastorship to Saint Peter which whether it will prove to be the interest of this Gentleman I must leave him to judge for himselfe and onely adde in the last place that against him that asserts the Bishop of Romes Vniversal Pastorship upon what title soever this will necessarily be a shrewd prejudice if it be not disputed but yeilded that it is in the power of Princes to erect or translate Patriarchies by Patriarchies understanding as it is evident I doe in that discourse chiefe
Independent authorities over other Churches such as was by Justinian conferred on Justiniana Prima and Carthage by Valentinian on Ravenna without any subordination to or dependence on any other particularly on the See of Rome Num. 7 Can any thing be more prejudicial to the Vniversall Pastorship of Rome than this Can Rome be Pastor of those who have no dependance on her or can that be Vniversal from which some particulars are exempt Num. 8 This made it but necessary for this Gentleman to undertake two things in the following words that I neither understand the question nor prove what I would for if I shall yet appear to judge aright of the question even as it is by this Gentleman brought back to that which had been debated in the former Chapters whether the Bishop of Rome be Vniversal Pastor by Christs donation to Saint Peter and if I have really proved that it is in the power of Emperours and Princes to constitute and remove Patriarchies It will certainly follow that I have done all that I undertook to doe evinced the matter of the question and shewd that it is in the power of Princes to exempt some Churches from the Popes dominion and so superseded the Vniversality of his Pastorship Num. 9 As for the validity of my proofes that must be judged by the view of the Answers applyed to them 1. that I produce onely the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannicall towards the Church To this I answer 1. that the word onely excluding all others the proposition can have no truth in it it being evident that I produce many other acts of the same Imperial power as the Reader may finde by casting his eye on the place the latter part of that 6. Chap and this Gentleman himselfe shall be my witnesse who saith of me he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian which though it be not a recitation of all that are by me added yet is sufficient to tefie the contrary to what the onely had affirmed Num. 10 Secondly The character that is given that Emperour whose act I first produced that he is accounted Tyrannicall towards the Church will I suppose signifie but this that he that did any thing derogatory to the Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome is by this prejudged from yeilding us any competent testimony in this dispute which is in effect that this Gentleman is in the right and all that is or shall or can be brought against him must signifie nothing which sure is not the way of answering arguments but adhering to conclusions without weighing what is or can be brought against them Num. 11 Thirdly For that particular act and the Emperor which is thus censured It is Justinian that great and famous Emperour his making the Bishop of Justiniana Prima the head of all Daciae c. of which this Gentleman had past a very different judgement when it came under his view in the former Chapter Num. 12 There his answer was the Emperour exempted it not from the Popes subjection pag 15. and yet now when the very same passage comes in his way againe he hath forgotten himselfe and the Emperour that just now had as great care of the Popes spiritual power as of his owne civill is in a moment become Tyrannicall towards the Church I desire one of these answers being thus engaged may make good the contest against the other Num. 13 But then 4. whatsoever can be said of that Emperor in other respects 't is certaine that this erecting of Justiniana was no act of tyranny against the Church but the very thing that is authorised by the 17 Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon which is one of those that the Pope at his consecration solemnly vows to observe and all the Ordinances made in them for that resolves that if any City be built or restored by the Kings power the Ecclesiastical order must follow the Political 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Scholiast the Imperial decrees concerning that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the dignity of an Episcopal or Metropolitical See And the same againe in the same words was decreed by the 6. Council in Trullo Can. 38. from whence certainly Balsamon's conclusion is irrefragable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is lawfull and so sure not Tyrannical for a Prince to take away or remove the privileges of the Church of any City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine as he shall please concerning the Privileges of Bishops Num. 14 His second answer is that I doe not say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an Actor in the businesse To which I answer that when I have made it appear to be the act of the Emperour and that by the Canons of Councels it was acknowledged fully lawfull for the Emperour and so for other Princes to doe so I need neither inquire whether the consent of Bishops or of the Pope himself were added to it such formalities of consent may be had or omitted without any disturbance to or influence on the matter Num. 15 His third answer is applied to that Act of Valentinian which made Ravenna a Patriarchate and first he calls the Decree of that Emperour an Apocryphall decree 2. He saith that it was giving to the Bishop privileges purely Ecclesiastical reproving me for making him a Patriarch For the first I answer that as I never thought it any piece of the Canon of Scripture by which Valentinian did this or any more than a Rescript of an Emperour which if such is certainly sufficient to expresse it an Imperial Act so the authorities for this may rescue it from farther question for though it were not Baronius's interest to believe it and so it is by him suspected of forgery An. 432. n. 93. yet even he acknowledgeth it to be very antient and owned by several Writers n. 92. and afterwards when the same authorities which are produced for this Hier Rubeus and the Records of Ravenna seem to favour his grand design i. e. make for Rome he can then very fairly make use of them though it be but a narration of a vision An. 433. n. 24. But I need not lay more weight on this than the Apocryphal as he calls it Decree will be able to support this is no singular president many examples there are of the like which are there mentioned in the Tract of Schisme Num. 16 For the second Patriarchal power Ravenna had without any dependance on the Bishop of Rome and I pretend no more for the Bishop of Canterbury and therein also shall bate bim the title of Patriarch What he adds by way of observation on the whole matter 1. that generally the Bishops consents were praedemanded or praeordered as in the Councel of Chalcedon Can. 17. Secondly that what the Emperours did they did by the power given them by the Church will
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
contained in that Crede acknowledging that it did forbid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference as well as contrariety pag. 644. b and even for such a bare explication they counted not that lawfull for any but the Fathers convened in O Ecumenical Synods citing it from Aquinas 2a 2 ae qu 1 ar 10. and adding that he spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of any Creed whatsoever which was common to the whole Church Num. 6 And accordingly there followes out of the Epistle of Celestine to Nestorius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The beliefe delivered by the Apostles requires neither addition nor diminution Num. 7 In all which how they are concerned who impose so many new articles of beliefe upon their owne Churches and upon all that desire Communion with them I leave to each Romanist to consider ann shall onely adde the words of the Catechism taken out of the workes of Costerus Petrus de Soto and others and set out by command of the Archbishop of Triers resp ad 2. qu. Neque ulla unquam ex titit haresis quae non hoc symbolo damnari potuerit There was never any Heresie which might not be condemned by the Apostles Creed It were well we might be allowed the benefit of this tryal Num. 8 And now having given this pledge of my readinesse to answer his questions though I discern not any obligation arising from my former discourse to lye upon me yet I shall not be so nice or sparing of my paines as to deny him a clear account also of his subsequent demands but shall speak as loud as he would wish and tell him first to the first demand that as to those few heads I spoke of I can blessed be God shew him Churches enough which have not betrayed the trust deposited The Church of England even now under the saddest persecution hath not been tempted to betray that trust the Church of Rome through all the Prosperity and Splendor and Grandeur which it hath long injoyed and which the Historian tells us acrioribus stimulis animum explorant hath as yet held out thus farre I meane hath retainnd those few head◠and in that respect is not accused by us to have betrayed that trust I wish it were as blamelesse in all things else particularly in that wherein our present debate is most concerned in imposing new Articles of Faith on all Christians and her own infallibility for the first of them Num. 9 The same I can as freely affirm of all other National Churches that I know of confining my discourse still to the small yet in the Apostles opinions sufficient number of heads of special force to the planting of Christian life through the world Num. 10 And so as this Gentleman is much disappointed in his expectation that I should not be able to name any Church that hath not betrayed the trust deposited so I must professe to him I think it as reasonable that they that agree in believing and conserving those few pretious heads of truth designed to so glorious an end as is the peopling a world with a peculiar colonie of inhabitants all uniformly zealous of good workes should all joyne hands and hearts to adde that superstructure to the foundation pure immaculate Elevated Heroical i. e. Christian practice to the untainted beliefe of these few things Num. 11 And then how much blame by force of that Canon of Ephesus most justly belongs unto them that make it their great interest to quarrel divide from and anathematize all others who cannot believe all other things which they chance to believe though they know they agree with them in all that the Apostles thus thought necessary to be agreed in indeed how contrary this is and destructive to this superstructure of which Charity in one principall ingredient and so to the designe of laying the foundation though not to the foundation it selfe I shall leave this Gentleman and every sober Christian to consider and if he judge not as I doe yet I shall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 number it among the prodigies of the age or indeed thinke stranger of it than I have long done of the great distance betwixt Reason and Passion in the same sort of creatures Man and God knowes too oft in the same Individual creature the same Man and Christian Num. 12 Having gone thus farre in ready obedience to this Gentlemans lightest intimation of his pleasure in satisfaction to his first demand I shall in the same humour proceed without all reserve to the next doubting as little as he but that these few things all justice must allow our discourse to he coherent and so to adhere to the same subject with which we began have been preserved in each Church by Tradition and then to the third that there is no place of doubt concerning the fact and so of question whether they have or no and if by thus speaking aloud to every of his demands I render my selfe subject to as much jealousie as I say Grotius was I shall not accuse him as my tempter but onely support and comfort my self that I have retained as much innocence as I alwaies thought Grotius had done and by declaring my meaning thus clearly and professing that I mean no whit more than I say I see no place for jealousie remaining to any Num. 13 If to believe the Apostles Creed to be conveyed down to us by tradition in every national Church from the Apostles time to this be any heresie I am visibly guilty of it and need not have my words put upon the rack as Grotius's have been to extort a more explicite confession from them Sect. III. Submission without opinion of infallibility The appeal to the Fathers of the first 300 years and the four General Conncels to what it belongs The silence of the first times no advantage to the Romanist Two Questions of Additaments to Faith The way of debating each of them Num. 1 HIS last exception to this Chapter is to our profession of humility and temper which it seems those of our religion must not be permitted to assume to themselves and which I was no farther so insolent to assume than as it is observable in the peculiarity of the frame of the Church of England's Reformation Thus Num. 2 I cannot but admire indeed the great temper he professeth men of his religion have in choosing of Doctrines to wit their submission to the three first Ages and the four first Councels but I confesse it is a humility I understand not first to professe they know not whether their teachers say true or no that is that they are fallible and then to hold under pain of damnation what they say Another piece of their humility is in submitting to ages where very few witnesses can be found in regard of the rarity of the Authors and the little occasion they had to speak of present controversies A third note of humility is that whereas the fourth Councel was held about the midst of
the fift Age these lovers of truth will stand to it but not to the fourth Age precedent or that very Age in which it was held so humble they are to submit to any authority that toucheth not the questions in present controversie but where doe they finde Christ's Church shall be judge in three Ages and fail in the fourth or that the Councels in the fift Age shall be sound but not the Fathers Num. 3 It is very hard it seems to please this Gentleman Our humility is one while by him censured as really too great another while the want of it is our crime and we equally to be scoffed at on both accounts Num. 4 It is a criminous excesse of humility forsooth to submit to those of whom we first professe not to know that they are infallible But as long as we doe verily believe they doe actually affirm truth why may we not submit to them though we know not that they are infallible For certainly I may submit to my natural or civil parent in this manner obey him in all his commands supposing as now I doe that none of his commands are by me apprehended to be unlawful as none of these Councels definitions as by us believed to be contrary to the Word and Will of God though yet I neither account him inerrable nor impeccable But of this I have spoken already Chap I. Sect. 3. Num. 5 What he adds of holding under pain of damnation what they say is in this place an insertion of this Gentleman's no word being said of it in that section to which his words are confronted and having elsewhere spoken to that I abstain from adding more at this time Num. 6 In the next place it seems our humility is too scanty for when I have submitted to be judged by the scriptures the consent of the first 300 years or the four General Councels whether we have departed from the Apostolical doctrines or traditions this saith he is submitting to Ages where very few witnesses can be found c. But I desire it may be remembred what there I speak of for perhaps this Gentleman's haste hath not permitted him to advert to it the contesting or innocence in this that we of the Church of England have not departed from the Apostolick doctrine and traditions And for this whether could the appeal more properly be directed than to the scriptures the Conservatorie of the Apostles written doctrine and the three first Centuries the conservatorie of their traditions It being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernible among them Num. 7 For let the witnesses of those times the authors that remain to us be never so few yet unlesse by some of their hands we be directed what the Apostles delivered to them how can we know what was delivered It being all one in this respect not to be as not to appear Tradition even Apostolical being no more than an empty name unlesse we suppose our selves able to avouch some competent testifiers of the Tradition Num. 8 And if to these two I have added the four General Councels because they were held against the great disturbers of the unity of the Faith and they maintained the true faith by these two special weapons the Scriptures and Tradition testified by the first Writers and our Church hath taken in their Creedâ— into our Liturgies and their definitions into our Articles of religion and so I have by that appeal so farre testified our non departure from the Faith I hope there is no offence in this no degree of defect in our humility Num. 9 As for the little occasion these first had to speak of the present controversies that sure cannot be objected against our procedure any more than the paucity of the Authors could for if the Romanist doe but grant this one thing it will be found a real prejudice to his pretensions if which was the point in hand the question be whether the Church of England have departed from the unity of the Apostolick Faith denied any Apostâ—lick Doctrine or Tradition Num. 10 For in this Controversie how shall it be proved that we have departed unlesse that Doctrine or Tradition being specified what it is it be evidenced also that it was delivered by the Apostles and how can that be evidenced but by those which within some competent distance of their time affirm that from them and how can they be pretended to affirm that if it be granted of them that they had no occasion to speak of it and so are utterly silent in it Num. 11 To his last note of humility i. e. the next expression of his scoptical humor there can be no need of applying any answer it being no where intimated in that Treatise that we are not ready to stand to the fourth Age or that wherein the fourth Councel was held All that was said was that the three first Ages and the four General Councels were competent witnesses of the Apostolical doctrines and traditions and I desire any man to name any other that were more competent to this purpose i. e. to testifie what the Apostles taught It being certain that whosoever doth not by inspiration tell us any thing of that kinde must assume to tell it from them and as evident that all those things that even now were spoken of which the Apostles resolved on as heads of special force to form religion and Christian life were by this means conveyed to us Num. 12 Mean while other matters there are which we look on as additaments to the doctrines of Faith and so are the subject of a double question 1. whether they be parts of that faith which was once or at once delivered to the saints 2. whether not appearing to be so there be any other just reason to believe though but by an humane Faith that they have any truth in them Num. 13 Now of these two questions as the resolution of the former depends upon those Ages which alone can conveigh Tradition to the succeeding and so still for that we referre our selves to the former Vmpirage so of the second I did not then because I had not occasion to speak in that place Num. 14 And if my answer be required now I shall readily give it that in matters of this nature the Opinions of the Fathers of the Church in the most flourishing Ages of it wherein their writings are most voluminous and their Learning in Theologie most venerable are with us of great weight and consideration we doe and shall upon all occasions demonstrate our selves to allow them as full an authority pay as great and true a reverence to their judgments indevour as uniformly to conform our selves to the declarations of their sense as any sober Romanists are by us discerned to doe or as it can be their interest to doe in respect of the controversies
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