it were to us to stand with the Romanist in full authority Num. 8 Thirdly This being in perfect concord with the decree of Gratian is in the aforesaid body of their Canon law approved and set out by Pope Gregory XIII annext to that decree of Gratian Distinct 99. C. 1. Num. 9 And fourthly whereas this Gentleman saith that as soon as occasion serves I will tell you this Epistle of Anacletus is of no authority I must say 1. that I have no where that I remember ever said so 2. That this Gentleman cannot without divining tell me now what I shall doe hereafter 3. That occasion not yet requiring it of me but Anacletus affirming what I affirm I have no temptation to doe so and so as yet he can have no pretence to make use of this subterfuge 4. That there are things called argumenta ad homines arguments that may binde him who acknowledges the authority from which they are drawn though they conclude not him that allows not those authorities and such is this of Anacletus his Epistle to a Romanist Num. 10 And by the same Logick that he can inferre that Anacletus's authority was unduely produced by me who as he but thinks will not stand to Anacletus's authority I may sure conclude that Anacletus's authority was duly produced by me because against him who I have reason to presume must stand to Anacletus's authority Num. 11 A third testimony of the same nature I shall now adde which must again have force with a Romanist that of Anicetus ad Episcopos Galliae which follows there in the Corpus Juris Canonici Primarum civitatum Episcopos Apostoli successores Apostolorum regulariter Patriarchas Primates esse constituerunt The Apostles and their successors regularly appointed that the Bishops of the Prime Cities should be Primates and Patriarchs And till somewhat be produced to the contrary as 't is sure here is nothing offered by this Gentleman this may at the present suffice in this place Sect. IV. The supreme Ecclesiasticall power of Patriarchs The power of convoking Councells a prerogative of Supremacy That the Bishop of Rome is not over Patriarchs Proofs from the Councells and Canons Apostolick and the Corpus Juris and Pope Gregorys arguing Num. 1 THe last exception concerns the supreme Power of Patriarchs or the no superiority of any Ecclesiasticall power over them Thus. Num. 2 Then he saith there was no power over the Patriarchs his proof is because the Emperour used his secular authority in gathering of Councels concluding that because the Pope did not gather general Councels therefore he had no authority over the Universal Church which how unconsequent that is I leave to your judgment Num. 3 That there was no supreme power in the Bishop of Rome nor in any other above that of Primates and Patriarchs but onely that of the Emperour in the whole Christian world as of every soveraign Prince in his dominions I thought sufficiently proved by this that the power of convoking Councels did not belong to the Bishop of Rome but to the Prince in every nation and the Emperour in the whole world And I deemed this a sufficient proof not because there are no other branches of a supreme authority imaginable or which are claimed by the Bishop of Rome save onely this but I. because this of convoking Councels is certainly one such prerogative of the supreme power inseparable from it and he that hath not that hath not the supreme power as in any nation some prerogatives there are which alwaies are annext to the Imperial Majesty and wherever any one of them truely is there is the supreme power and 't is treason for any but the supreme to assume any one of them and one of that number is calling of national Assemblies And secondly because the Bishop of Rome doth as avowedly challenge this power of convoking General Councels as any other I could have named or insisted on And truely that was the onely reason why I specified in this because this of all others is most eminent in it self most characteristical of the supreme power and most challenged by the Bishop of Rome and most due to him in case he be the Vniversal Pastor Num. 4 And then where there be several branches of a power all resident in the same subject inseparably from the absence of one to collect the absence of all I must still think a solid way of probation and cannot discern the infirm part or inconsequence of it If I could it would be no difficult matter to repair it and supply the imperfectnesse of the proof by what is put together in the Corpus Juris Canonici even now cited Decret par 1. dist 99. c. 3 4 5. Num. 5 The thing that I had to prove was that there was not antiently any summum genus any supreme either of or over Patriarchs beside the Prince or Emperour To this as farre as concerns the negative part that the Bishop of Rome is not this summum genus I now cite from that third Chap. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum vel summus sacerdos The Bishop of the first seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or supreme Priest And this testified out of the African Councel Can 6. where the very words are recited with this addition of aut aliquid hujusmodi he is not to be called by any other title of the same kinde sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus but onely Bishop of the first See and there were three such at that time those named in the Nicene Canon Alexandria Rome Antioch as is sufficiently known Num. 6 And that he may see the practice of the Church was perfectly concordant with that definition I referre this Gentleman to the Milevitan Councell cap. 22. where speaking of appeals from their Bishops the rule is non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum They must appeal to none but the African Councels or the Primates of their own Provinces Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur But if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine forreign judicature they are not to be admitted to communion by any within Africa And indeed the same had been before defined by the first Nicene Councel Num. 7 c. 5. where the sentence pronounced against any by the Bishops in each Province was to stand good according to the Canon I suppose the 12 Apostolick which pronounces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others And accordingly in the Synodical Epistle of the African Councel to Pope Caelestine which is in the Book of Canons of the Roman Church and in the Greek collection of the Canons of the African Church we finde these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We intreat you the style of one Church to another that for
man and was much cried up for so doing the British still adhering to their way and answering him that absque consensu licentiâ suorum without consent and licence of their whether Rulers of Church or whatsoever other superiors also their Metropolitan I suppose which cannot be thought to have been with them at this being certainly none of the seven Bishops which are affirmed to have been present at the later convention they could not forsake their antient customes Fourthly that upon proposall it was agreed that they should have a second meeting at which were present seven British Bishops which other Writers expresse to have been the Bishop of Hereford Landaff Bangor S. Assaph Worcester Paternensis Morganensis and many other learned men especially de nobilissimo eorum Monasterio quod vocatur lingua Anglorum Bancornaburg cui tempore illo Dinooth Abbas praefuisse narratur of the famous Monasterie of Bangor of which Dinooth was Abbot at that time Fifthly that before they went to this Meeting they were advised by a religious person whose directions they asked to observe diligently the behaviour of Augustine when they came whether he were meek and lowly in heart a mark by which they might know whether he had taken Christ's yoke upon him and consequently whether it were the yoke of Christ which he now desired to impose upon them and upon Augustine's fitting still upon his stool or seat and never rising up with any civility or humility at their approach they were so displeased saith Bede that they contradicted all the proposals that he made to them Sixthly that upon his making three Propositions to them concerning Easter Baptisme and preaching to the English and promising to bear with them in all other differences of which sort said he there were many wherein their practice was contrary consuetudini nostrae imò Vniversalis Ecclesiae to the custome of the Roman yea the Vniversal Church they answered nihil horum se facturos nec illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros that they would not comply with him in any of them nor acknowledge him for their Archbishop Upon which follows that rough sanguinarie answer of Augustine's quod si pacem cum fratribus accipere nollent bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi that if they would not accept of peace with brethren they should have warre from enemies and as it follows in very plain language per Anglorum manuâ— ultienem mortis essent passuri the hands of the English should act a bloody revenge upon them Which it seems soon after followed and fell in an eminent manner on the Monks of Bangor of which order there were at that time above two thousand who lived all by the labour of their own hands For saith he King Edilfred of Northumberland coming with a great Army to Câ—erleon made his first onset on their Priests who were assembled by themselves to fast and pray for their brethren as Moses holding up his hands in prayer whilest Josua held up his in sighting and upon no other provocation taken notice of by the Historian but this that they fought against him with their prayers contra nos pugnant qui adversus noâ— in precaâ—iâ—s ibus prosequuntur he first set upon them killed 1â—00 of them and then destroyed the whole Army Sicque compieâ—um est praesagium sancti Pontificis Augustini and so the presage of the holy Bishop St. Augustine was fulfiâ—led upon them These particulars of the story I have thus puctually set down in obedience to the rebuke of this Author who p. 412. chargeth it upon Sir Hen Spelman and those others that borrow out of him as a want of wilingness to see the truth of fidelity to comâ—nicate it to others that they have chosen to reflect on that testimonie which he is pleased to call upstart and which appeared not till within these 15 years and not upon that true antiquity which having indured the shock of almost a 1000 years Sir Henry had a little before transcribed out of Bede wherein saith he every one may read first that miracle in giving sight to the blinde man then that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Augustine which in his opinion more than sufficiently prove that S. Augustine sent by the Pope came in the name of God from a lawfull authority and that his demands of conformity to the Church of Rome in the points specified were good and to be yeilded to by the Britains In this matter I might now fitly inlarge and examine the force of this two-fold argument that of the miraculous cure and that of the predicted vengeance and offer many things to consideration concerning each head For the former 1. the no great credit that hath been given to the relations of Bede on this head of miracles of which his Story is so richly furnished together with the great deceit that such pretensions have been experimented to subject men to Secondly the confession of Bede that the Britaine 's were unwilling to yeild to this tryall of their cause and accordingly when he saith that the blinde man being offered to the Priests of the Britaines he received no cure or benefit by them he doth not so much as pretend that the Britaine 's attempted to doe the miracle and failed in it but leaves us to resolve that they wholly waved this tryall Thirdly that if the miracle were granted to be a true miracle and a testimony of Gods asserting the doctrines then contested between them yet this would not be any concludent testimonie for the Pope's Supremacy but onely for those things which were then the matter of the question the time of the observation of Easter the rites of Baptisme accustomed in the Roman Church and at the most some such like traditions wherein the British custome varied from that of Rome for this was the forme of the proposed tryall quae sequenda traditio quibus sit viis ad ingressum regni illius properandum what tradition was to be followed in the celebration of Easter that which the Britains had received and retained from their first conversion imputed to an Apostle or Apostolical person Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea or that which the Romans deduced from S. Peter by what waies they were to hasten to entrance into that Kingdome referring I suppose to the rites of baptisme the second head of debate between them And in both these as also in refusing to joyn with Augustine in the common work of preaching to the Gentiles it may easily be granted by us that the truth was on the Romanists side and not on the Britains without yeâ—lding a supremacie of the Church of Rome over the British Churches Fourthly that the Britains by Bede's confession acknowledged themselves convinced by that miracle that the way of righteousness which Augustine preached was the true way yet added that they could not renounce their antient customes without the consent and licence of their own superiors which evidently confines aud determines the
I cannot be required to prove any more than this that it is as reasonable for me to affirm it of Antioch upon the title of succession as for him to assume it of Rome upon the same title Num. 11 From Christ there is nothing that will fix it at Rome rather than at Antioch and in the Law of Nations concerning inheritances nothing is or can be applied to this purpose It must needs be then from the free act of S. Peter's will whatsoever is pretended to And in respect of that 't is sure as reasonable to believe that he which planted a Church and placed a Bishop first in one after in another city should delegate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double portion the greater dignity and privileges to the former as to the latter If the right of Primogeniture be no right in this matter yet sure the younger sister hath neither law nor custome that the inheritance should belong to her Num. 12 And for his own reason here offered that it cannot belong to the Elder that is no reason For S. Peter might doe as Christ did make an assignation of power in his life time fix it by promise yet not devest himself of it till his death And if S. Peter had done so if at his planting a Bishop at Antioch on consideration that in that city they were first called Christians he had decreed that after his own death that Bishop should succeed to all that authority which he had received from Christ with power to communicate it to any I shall ask this Gentleman whether he might not have done it without either devesting himself whilst he lived or making two heads to one body or whether his bare dying at Rome would have invalidated any such former act of his in case he had done so If it would there must then be more owing to his death than to his life to his martyrdome than to his preaching or ordaining of Bishops that this privilege belongs to Rome And then again Jerusalem where Christ himself died will by that title of his blood shed there have a more unquestionable right than that city where Peter did but faintly transcribe that copie which had in a more eminent manner been set him by Christ Num. 13 Lastly if by this argument of Rome's being the place where Peter died the supremacy had belonged to that See precisely or peculiarly how could it be transferred to Avenion as we know it was and there continued for some time But I shall no longer insist on such fiction of case as this if that had been which never was what then would certainly have followed whether if S. Peter had been Vniversal Pastor it must eo ipso be concluded that his successour of Rome and not at Antioch was such after him when it hath been rendred evident in the former Chapter that S. Peter had no such supremacy Sect. III. The Act of the Councell of Chalcedon of the ground of Rome's precedence The safety of the Church reconcileable with removing the chief See Of the Bishop of Constantinople being ashamed of that act No tumult in the Councell The story of it Num. 1 THe next dislike is to my deriving the original of that precedence which belongs to Rome as the Councel of Chalcedon had derived it Thus Num. 2 Then he tells you that the dignity or precedence of the Bishop of Rome is surely much more fitly deduced by the Councel of Chalcedon from this that Rome was then the Imperial city or ordinary residence of the Emperour a very wise judgment that the quality upon which the unity that is the safety of the Church Vniversal relies should be planted upon a bottome fallible and subject to fail but the resolution was so shamefull that the very Patriarch was ashamed and imputed it to his ambitious clergie who how tumultuary and unruly they were is to be seen in the Acts of the Councel Num. 3 Here two objections are made to the wisdome of that Act or judgment of that Councel and I that foresaw it would be thus rejected by him and from thence observed how little Councels are considered by them when they define not as they would have them and therefore laid no more weight on that Canon than the Romanists very rejecting it allowed me might now spare the pains of defending the judgment of that Councel Yet it is so easie to return answer in few words to his two objections that I shall not decline doing it Num. 4 To the first that the precedence of Rome which there I speak of being a Primacy onely of dignity and order and not of Power is no such quality on which the unity and safety of the Church relies For how can that be concerned what Bishop sits uppermost gives the first or last suffrage in a Councel This Gentleman thinks of a supremacy of power when he thus speaks but that he cannot but know is denied by us to be placed in any one Bishop and therefore must not imagine me to assigne the original of that to which I deny a being And it matters not though he say I am injurious in denying it for besides that that is petitio principii on his side to say so t is also certain that the question now betwixt us in this Paragraph is not whether I am just in denying that supremacy but whether it be more than a Primacy of order which I divolve to this original Num. 5 Nay if I had spoken of the supremacy it self and fixed it on a bottome so farre fallible as that it might be removed by the change of Empires from one city to another if it were but resolved that the supreme Ecclesiastical power and so the fountain of unity should follow the Imperial seat I see not why the safety of the Church might not by this means be provided for Num. 6 Let it but be judged of in little first as it is easily supposeable Suppose the Church of England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay for argument's sake suppose there were no other Church but that of England and suppose there were a supremacy in one Bishop in him whosoever were the Bishop of that city where the royal throne were placed and suppose that that were for the present removed to Yorke and so that the Bishop of Yorke were the supreme Bishop and by that means the unity and safety of the Church competently provided for I shall then demand in case the royall seat should be removed to Winchester could there be any question but the supreme Episcopal See would be removed so too and might not all appeals be made from thenceforth to Winchester and the safety of the Church be as well provided for by this way as by it's being fixt unmoveably at Yorke Num. 7 The Primacy we know hath oft thus been removed and never more inconvenience come of it than by S. Peter's See being removed to Avenion And if any supremacy belonged to any succession of Bishops over
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
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
of schisme and such as all times were capable of and inlarged not to those other of accidentall emergencies 3. Because they are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled Num. 13 As for those that are already past and are on due grounds to be acknowledged truly Oecumenicall the communion which is possible to be had or broken with them is that of compliance with or recession from their definitions and our innocence in that respect is avowed p. 160. as the congregating of the like when possible and probable toward the end is recommended p. 158. as a supply when there should be need of extraordinary remedies Num. 14 Lastly If none of this had been done or if this had not been undertaken so solemnly and formally as some other supposed branches of schism were in that Tract yet the account of that is visible to any because the principal sort of schisme charged by the Romanist on the Church of England is that of casting out the Bishop of Rome not contemning the authority of Councels and therefore I was in reason to apply my discourse most largely and particularly to that head to which their objections not my own choice directed me So evidently contrary to the notoriety of the fact is this complaint of this Gentleman that my division of schism was insufficient and that I took no notice of this as he pleases to call it conciliatory authority Num. 15 That to make his suggestion seem more probable he advisedly chose to change the tearms of my division from that which was against Paternal to that which is against Monarchical power upon this apprehension that Paternal power would visibly include that of the Fathers in Councel assembled as well as in several but Monarchical power could not so fitly bear it I shall not enter into his secrets to divine This I am sure of that the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches cannot with any propriety as by him it is be defined a branch of Conciliatory authority for certainly the Churches dispersed are not met together the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dispersion of the Jewes differed much from the Councel assembled at Jerusalem and the Christian Church at this day is without question no Oecumenical Councel Num. 16 And then what authority scattered members can have which never legally command or exercise authority but when they are in conjunction I shall not here make stay to demonstrate whatsoever there is of this nature will most properly be comprised under the head of communion or unity Fraternal and the schisme which is a transgression of that being at large handled also Chap. 8. 9 10. there was no insufficiency in any justice to be charged on this division Sect. II. Of the extent of the Roman Province The Bishops of Italy distinct from those that belong to Rome The Ecclesiastical distributions agreeable with the Civil Ruffinus vindicated Num. 1 THe second charge on this Chapter is about the extent of the Roman Patriarchie in these words Num. 2 In this Chap he telleth us many things some true some not so but all either common to us both or not appertaining to the controversie untill he concludes that certainly the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it self to all Italy and this he does out of a word in Ruffinus which he supposeth to be taken in a speciall propriety of law whereas indeed that author's knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such belief especially learned men saying the contrary Num. 3 The place to which this exception belongs is not set down by this Gentleman but by annexing the testimony out of Ruffinus I discern it to be that of pag. 52. where speaking of the Picenum suburbicarium and Annonarium I say the former belonged to the Praefecture of Rome the latter with the seven Provinces in the broader part of Italy belonged to the Diocese as it was antiently called of Italy of which Milan was the Metropolis Num. 4 This being the affirmation which he excepteth against I did not nor yet doe make any question of vindicating and defending it against any objection Num. 5 That learned men say the contrary is here suggested in the close but as there is not one learned man named nor testimony produced which therefore amounts no higher than the bare opinion or affirmation of this one Gentleman without any one reason or authority to support it so when any such learned mens names and testimonies shall be produced it will be easie to shew that there is very little of their learning exprest in so saying Num. 6 On the other side I had pag. 50. in the margent referred to some testimonies whereon my assertion was founded viz those which manifestly distinguisht the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy which could not have had truth in them if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy Num. 7 Such was that of Eusebius distinctly mentioning the Bishops of the Cities of Italy and the Bishops that belong to the City of the Romans The testimony out of the Edict of the Emperor Aurelian in the controversie betwixt Paulus Samosatenus and Domnus where it is decreed that the house about which they contended should be delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those to whom the Bishops through Italy and the City of the Romans should decree it Num. 8 The like was that of the Councel of Sardice set down in Athanasius in the title of their Epistle to the Alexandrians Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Synod by God's grace assembled at Sardice from Rome and Spain France Italy c. Num. 9 So in Athanasius's declaration of his own affairs and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreement of many Bishops with him he specifies who and how many they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were more than four hundred both from great Rome and from all Italy and from Calabria c. Where the Bishops of the Roman Province are distinguisht from the Bishops of Italy as those again from the Bishops of Calabria c. Num. 10 So among the names prefixt to the first Councel of Arles we have ex provinciâ Italiae civitate Mediclanensi c. ex urbe Româ quos Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ civitate Portuensi c. of the Province of Italy from the city of Milan c. from the city of Rome those Whom Bishop Sylvester sent of the Province of Rome from the City of Porta c. such and such were assembled at that Councel where again the matter is clear as to the distinction of those Provinces of Rome and Italy the former under the presidency of the Bishop of Rome the later of the Bishop of Milan Num. 11 By
of that Councel Num. 7 And therefore according to that saying of S. Hierome put into their Canon Law si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe if authority be looked for the whole world is more than the one city of Rome it is the resolution of Almain merito Concilium Chalcedonense Leoni resistenti praevaluisse that the Councel of Chalcedon did well in standing out against Pope Leo and did justly prevail against him Num. 8 This amulet it seems had not virtue to stand him in so much stead as Baronius is pleased to phansie setting out the power and greatness of Pope Leo by this that he did alone cassate what this Councel had decreed by the suffrages of 600 Bishops Which how well it consists with his former affirmation that this Canon was spurious and clandestine and stollen in by Anatolius I shall not here examine 'T is sure if the Popes authority were so soveraign the act needed not have been made spurious first to qualifie it for the cassation But this of the power or superiority of a Pope over an OEcumenical Councel is a question not so necessary here to be debated unlesse what this Gentleman was pleased to mention of the privilege of supreme Magistracy had been indevoured some way to be proved by him Num. 9 Next he quarrels my saying that Antioch was equall to Rome and that Constantinople desired but the same privileges and this he saith is against the very nature of the story Num. 10 That Antioch had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome so farre as to the dignity of a Patriarchate c. allowing to Rome the Primacy of order and dignity I thought was competently concluded from the Pope's pretensions against that Canon of Chalcedon making it an invasion of the rights of Antioch and as derogatory to that as to Rome And so still it seems to me For if Antioch had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome how could Constantinople's aspiring to equal privileges with Rome be as derogatory to Antioch as to Rome But I need not this help from Leo's argument the thing asserted by me is not denied that I know of by any Romanist viz that Antioch had the dignity of a Patriarchate for that is all that I expresse my self to mean by Antioch's having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome and I that maintain as this Gentleman truely saith I doe that all Patriarchs are equal in respect of Power differing onely in order or precedence cannot be imagined to mean any thing else by it Num. 11 So again that Constantinople desired no more but the privileges of a Patriarch and that that is the meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges is by me said in opposition to acquiring any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches and this instead of being contrary to the nature of the story is directly agreeable to the whole course of it and to the expresse words of the Canon which defines that as the city of Constantinople was honoured with the Empire and Senate and injoyed equal privileges with old Imperial Rome so the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be exalted to the same height with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the next place after it adding that the Metropolitans and none else of Asia Pontus and Thraeia c. should be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople the Bishops of each of those Provinces being left to be ordained by their respective Metropolitans This is so plain that there can be no need of farther proof of it Num. 12 And for this Gentleman's objection by way of Question that Constantinople being then a Patriarchy if that made it equal with Rome for what did it pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer 1. that Constantinople being by custome and by Act of the Councel held in that city a Patriachate already it sought not to acquire any new advantage or increase by this Canon of Chalcedon but onely to continue what already it had Num. 13 This again appears by the story where that Canon of Constantinople was produced and read as the foundation on which this new Canon was built and so by the expresse words in the beginning of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. following constantly the definitions of the Holy Fathers and knowing the Canon newly read of the 150 Bishops assembled in the reign of the Emperour Theodosius at the Imperial city Constantinople or new Rome And agreeably Euagrius sets down the story that in this Councel of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was thought just or determined that the Constantinopolitan See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was rightly and duly placed next after Rome Num. 14 And when this Gentleman assumes that if this were so the neither Rome it self and lesse Antioch had cause to complain I shall most willingly joyn with him in it being no way obliged by my pretensions to justifie the Pope or his Legates dislike to that Canon And for Antioch I am sure enough that the Bishop thereof Maximus though he had received an Epistle from the Pope to exasperate and perswade him to stand upon his right did very readily subscribe it setting his name and consent next after the Bishop of Constantinople as hath formerly been set down out of the story Num. 15 And if Antioch did so who was the loser by it if precedence signifie any thing I confesse I can render no cause unlesse it be the Pompejúsve parem impatience of any equal why the Bishop of Rome who lost not so much as precedence by this advancement or confirmation of dignity to the Bishop of Constantinople should be so obstinately and implacably offended at it Num. 16 Thus have I answered every attempt and tittle of exception offered by this Gentleman in this matter and have now leisure to complain that the one thing that I desired to be taken notice of from this Canon is not so much as considered or at all replied to by him viz that the Dignity that old Rome had by antient Canons in oyed was given it upon this account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Rome was the Imperial seat which as it is the proof of my whole pretension that the Pope was not Vniversal Pastor upon title of his succession from S. Peter for if whatsoever he had the Councels gave it him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Canon and gave it him as Bishop of the Imperial See then sure 't was no inheritance from S. Peter so it was truely observed out of the story of the Councel of Chalcedon and may be seen both in the Legate's complaint to the Judges and in the Epistles of Leo to the Emperour Martianus the Empresse Pulcheria Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch and his instructions to his Legates that he never made any exception to that branch of the Canon that thus derived the original of his
soon appear to bring him little advantage For Num. 17 1. The Bishop's I suppose he means the Bishop of Rome his consent was not asked One part of the story is that when the Bishop of Ravenna being fain to flie to the Bishop of Rome for support against the Longobards submitted himself to him the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured thereby And 2. it is not truly said that it was praeordered and the Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon cannot be brought to that purpose this act of Valentinians dated Anno 432. being 19 years before the Councel of Chalcedon which was assembled Anno 451. and so sure not praeordained by that which was subsequent And indeed the Canon of that Councel mentioning Cities and Churches in the plural which had been before their Session made Metropoles by several Kings is a clear evidence that there were other such beside that of Ravenna and Balsamon expresseth them by the name of Madyta and Abydus c. Num. 18 Thirdly If this be acknowledged an act of Councel confirming the lawfulness of what the Emperours had thus done and decreeing as clearly the Councel of Chalcedon and that other in Trullo did that generally it should be thus that as the Prince made an ordinary City a Metropolis the Church of that City should be a Metropolitical Church then still this is the fuller evidence that it was lawfull for Princes thus to doe and that as oft as they did such changes in the Churches followed for sure a King was not obliged to ask the Churches leave to repair or build a city Num. 19 Lastly What out of Balsamon was cited by me that what the Emperors did in this matter they did according to the power that was given them was it seems either an occasion of stumbling to this Gentleman or an excuse of it For from hence he concludes that this power was given them by the Church This if it be true is the thing that I would demand and so farre from answering mine instance for if the Church have given Princes this power then they may freely and lawfully make use of it and Justinian's doing so could be no tyrannical act against the Church But let us view Balsamon's words They are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such definitions are made by Kings according to the power given them from above That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from above sometimes signifies in respect of time sometimes also in respect of place In the first respect it signifies from of old and is oft joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and if it be so taken here as Gentianus Hervetus interprets it olim it must then signifie that this power was yeilded to Kings either by the Apostles or by the Primitive Canons of the Church and if it were thus given them by the Church then sure they might justly challenge and exercise it freely But in the second sense it is as certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies from above i. e. from heaven so Joh. 19. 11. Christ tells Pilate thou couldst have no power over me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlesse it were given thee from above i. e. sure from heaven from God by whom Kings reign and have their power and so it very frequently signifies in the Scripture And if that be the the meaning then this Gentleman sees how well he hath inferred his conclusion from this passage Num. 20 By all this it already appears what truth there is in this suggestion that the examples produced are but few and those of tyrannical Princes and no way excluding the Church just as much and no more as was in the premisses which induced it and those being discovered already it is superfluous to make repetitions so soon in this place Num. 21 In the close he thinks sit to retire again to his old fortresse that the Popes power is not Patriarchal and so that he is still safe from all that hath been said on that head But it hath now appeared that if any other be made a Patriarch or Primate or whatever the style be a Bishop without any dependence on the Pope this is a prejudice sufficient to his Vniversal Pastorship and other disadvantages he is rather in reason to expect by disclaiming the Patriarchal authority which the Canons have allowed him than hope to gain any thing by contemning his inheritance CHAP. VII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the seventh Chapter Sect. I. King Henry's desire of Reconciliation to Rome The sacriledge c. no argument against Regal power to remove Patriarchies Possession in the belief of the Popes supremacy Prescribing for errour Napier's testimony Possession if granted from Augustine's coming into England no argument of truth Confessions of Popes Augustine required it not Pope Gregory's testimony Many evidences that this belief was not received after Augustine's time Num. 1 WHat in the next place is replied to that part of Chapter 7. which concerned Henry VIII his act of ejecting the Power of the Pope will be full matter for a first section of this Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his seventh Chapter he intends a justification of the breach whereof as he doth not teach the infamous occasion and how to his dying day the same King desired to be reconciled as also that it was but the coming two daies short of a Post to Rome which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made as may be seen in my Lord of Cherbery's Book fol. 368. and that the moderate Protestants curse the day wherein it was made so the very naming of Hen. VIII is enough to confute all his discourse one of the darlings of his daughter having given him such a character as hath stamped him for England's Nero to future posterity and as it was said of Nero in respect of Christian religion so might it be of him respecting the unity of the Church viz it must be a great good that he began to persecute and abolish and as for the Acts passed in the Vniversities Convocation or Parliament let the blood shed by that Tyrant bear witnesse what voluntary and free Acts they were especially those two upon his Seneca and Burrhus Bishop Fisher and the Chancellor More that he might want nothing of being throughly paraâ—eld to Nero. But methinks the Doctor differs not much in this seeming tacitly to grant the Bishops were forced awed by that noted sword in a slender thread the praemunire which did hang over their heads though in the conclusion of that Sect he saies we ought to judge charitably viz that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgment and saith That if what was determined were falsly determined by the King and Bishops then the voluntary and free doing it will not justifie and if it were not then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was
to men of common sense to disprove and so to overthrow this Possession Sect. II. Queen Mary's retaining the Supremacy Power of refusing Legates unreconcileable with the Popes Supremacy Num. 1 THE next Paragraph is an account of a passage cited by me from the story of Queen Mary Thus Num. 2 Queen Mary's titular retaining of the Supremacy untill she could dispose the disordered hearts of her subjects to get it peaceably revoked is no authority for the Doctor she never pretending it to be lawfully done but that she could not doe otherwise no more is her refusing of a Legate which in all Catholick times and countries hath been practiced and thought lawfull Num. 3 What civil or secular motives they were which kept that Queen so long from rejecting the title of supreme in her own Kingdome I shall not need to inquire If it were no unpardonable sin in her to continue the title and exercise of that power which was incompetible with the Pope's universal Pastorship then why should it be so hainous in her Father to assume it Her never pretending that it was lawfully done signifies very little as long as she pretends not the contrary that it was unlawfull The truth may well lie in the middle that she thought it lawful to retain it yet lawful also to bestow it on the Bishop of Rome and upon the strength of the former perswasion my charity obligeth me to think that she did the former and in force of the latter it is possible also that she did the latter though possible too that she did it upon reason of state the validity of her mother's mariage and consequently her legitimation depending upon the acknowledgment of the Pope's absolute power in this Nation Num. 4 But the truth is her opinion or practice is of no more force one way than the other and therefore was taken in as a supernumerary observation and not such as on that alone to found any grand argument Num. 5 As for the power of refusing a Legate from the Pope I cannot discern how that is reconcileable with the Popes pretensions to supreme power in this Kingdome Can it be lawfull for any Province to refuse a Procurator or Praetor or Proconsul sent solemnly commissionated by the Lawfull Prince Was it lawfull for the tenants or dressers of the vineyard to deny entrance to the King's son or but servant Is not this a derogation to supreme power and domination If this be practiced and counted lawful in all Catholick times and Countreys this is to me an indication that in no time or countrey there hath been possession of this belief that the Pope is the supreme Pastor of all for sure if he were his Legate which is his image might in power of the original require admission and he that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus sent and commissionated by him must by S. Peter's precept be allowed obedience from all his subjects and so from that Queen if such she were and such she must be so farre as he had the supremacy Num. 6 So again when Cardinal Petou was sent to be Bishop of Sarisbury the denying him that Bishoprick was a check to the Pope's absolute supremacy but of that this Gentleman was in prudence to take no notice Sect. III. King Edward his Reformation The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Northumberland his Treason no prejudice to the Reformation under that King Num. 1 HIs next exception is to the passages concerning King Edward VI. Henry's immediate successor Thus Num. 2 King Edward a childe of nine years old fell into the hands of wicked and ambitious traytors who knowing the Kingdome affected for religion sake to Queen Mary to cut off her succession and introduce their own thought sit to strengthen their faction which beside what they might hope from abroad consisted of many Lutherans and Calvinists at home those two sects having by opportunity of that rupture in Henry VIII his time spread and nest led themselves in many parts of England Num. 3 What is here said hath little of truth in it and as little of argument if it were truth That the youth of the Prince can be no foundation of argument against the Legality of what was done by the Duke of Somerset his uncle the Protector in his nonage was sufficiently shewed before and might be exemplified through all times and places That this Protector should at this time when the young King legally fell into his hands be styled a wicked ambitious Traytor hath not any degree of truth in it the crime for which he afterward lost his life being farre from any disloyalty to his Sovereign Num. 4 As for the Duke of Northumberland who obtained the King's consent to settle the inheritance on Jane Grey and accordingly after the King's death proclaimed her Queen and suffered as a traytor for so doing all that I shall need to say is this 1. that this act of his how trayterous soever cannot justifie what is here said that the King at nine years old fell into the hands of traytors for that one Duke cannot truly be called traytors in the plural and the King at that age did not fall into his hands but into the hands of Edward Seymour Duke of Somerset under whom the six Articles and other acts of severity against the Protestants were called in and the Acts against the Papal authority confirmed the Romish Masse abrogated the Bible translated and published in the English tongue the Liturgie reformed and the publick offices performed in English the sacrament of the Lord's Supper administred in both kindes c. And so whatsoever was afterward done were it never so trayterously by the Duke of Northumberland could have no influence on this change and is therefore very impertinently here inserted after the manner of the Orator not the historian to raise passions inflame dislkes and aversions in the Reader and not to give him any exact view of the truth of the story Num. 5 Secondly that the designe of the Duke of Northumberland not succeeding but costing him so dear the losse of his own life and hers whom he set up to be Queen and the succession regularly descending on Queen Mary there can be no reasonable account given why this treason of that Duke should here be proposed as the one considerable it being evident in the story that all things were composed to the full satisfaction of Queen Mary and just as they should have been in case that trayterous attempt had never been made by that Duke Num. 6 To which I might adde that this treason of his was founded on that very act which in the next paragraph this Gentleman thinks fit to vouch as authentick and if it were so that could be no treason in that Duke viz the Act whereby Mary as well as Elizabeth were adjudged illegitimate and so uncapable of the succession But these are considerations very extrinsecal and remote from the matter as it lies here in the contest between us Num.
very small matter will serve turne with this Gentleman to support a con lusion which he hath a mind to inferre otherwise Master Hookers Testimony had never been produced to this matter The words of that truly most learned and prudent person are to be found in his fifth Book Num. 79. in the Conclusion The subject of that whole Paragraph beginning pag. 424. is of Oblations Foundations Endowments Tithes all intended for the perpetuity of Religion which was in his opinion sure to be frustrated by alienation of Church livings and this being largely handled by him throughout that Paragraph at length he observes 1. what waste Covetousnesse had made in the Church by such Commutations as were proportionable to Glaucus's change giving the Church flanel for Gold and 2. how Religion it self was made a Sollicitor and perswader of Sacrilege signifying that to give to God is error and to take it away againe Reformation of error concluding in these words By these or the like suggestions received with all joy and with like sedulity practised in certain parts of the Christian world they have brought to passe that as David doth say of Man so it is in danger to be verified concerning the whole Religion and service of God the time thereof may peradventure fall out to be threescore and ten yeers or if strength doe serve unto fourescore what followeth is likely to be small joy for them whosoever they be that behold it Thus have the best things been overthrowne not so much by puissance and might of a versaries as through defect of Councel in them that should have upheld and defended the same Num. 10 This is the first importance of that place which the Gentleman hath so disguised in his abbreviation Mr. Hooker foretells what a destructive influence Sacrilege may have on the whole Religion and Service of God observes in certain parts of the Christian world without naming any that sacrilegious suggestions are received with all joy and putting these two together presageth sad events to the whole Religion and service of God within threescore and ten or fourescore yeares and from hence this Gentleman concludes it Master Hooker's judgement that the Church of England was a building likely to last but fourescore yeares Num. 11 In what mode and figure this conclusion is thus made from the premisses he leaves us to divine who have not sagacity enough to discern it The conclusion to all mens understanding will most regularly follow thus that the Church of England was so constituted that all the enemies thereof on either side were never likely to destroy it by arguments and consequent'y that the most probable way remaining to Satan to accomplish his designe was by sacrilegious violations to impoverish and subdue the maintainers of it which as he foresaw very likely to come to passe within the age of a man so it would be no joyfull sight when it should come he was not so unkinde to any part of the Church of God as to be willing to live to see it Num. 12 And if this Gentleman's inclinations have qualified him for the receiving pleasure or joy in such a spectacle I shall as little envy him the prosperity which hath thus petrified his bowels as he shall think fit to envy me the honour of being a member of the purest being withall the most persecuted Church Num. 13 Thirdly That these words of Mr. Hooker thus pitifully distorted are the onely proof he hath for his assertion that this Church of ours hath now no subsistence and that it is now torn up by the roots A way of arguing very conformable to his characters of a true Church of which external glory and prosperity must never misse to be one but very unlike the image of Christ the head to which his Church the body may be allowed to hold some proportion of conformity for of him we can give no livelier pourtraiture than as we finde him crucified between two thieves whilst the souldiers divide his garments though they were not over-sumptuous and cast lots who shall have his vesture Num. 14 What next follows is an answer to a supposed objection of ours and that is a farther evidence of what I said that Mr. Hooker's distorted speech is the onely proof of his proposition The objection is that our Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained and to this objection he will make some answer from our own principles of which he supposeth this to be one that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters and saith without any regrets that this is my defence against the Bishop of Rome Num. 15 Many replies might be made to take off all appearance of force from this answer As 1. that this to which the answer is accommodated is not my objection The truth is I took not on me the objectors part in that place but evidenced it by clear demonstration that if twenty years agoe the Church of England was a Church it must needs be so now being the very same that then it was except these bands as the Apostle once said who I hope did not cease to be an Apostle by being imprisoned And when I mentioned the Church of Englands being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained together with multitudes rightly baptized which sure are all the necessary ingredients in constituting a visible Church I added none of which have fallen off from their profession and then foreseeing the onely possible objection to inferre the Church guilty of schisme I answered that by remembring the Primitive persecutions and night-meetings and the very manner of the Romanists serving God in this Kingdome for these many years Num. 16 And all this is pulled off from the clue and fumbled together into an objection of mine supposed to be made against that which the Romanist without either tender of proof or reason had crudely affirmed But truly I may be believed that I meant not that affirmation so much respect as to offer objection against it And then that is one speedy way of concluding this matter Num. 17 But then secondly for that saying of mine on which he will form his answer to this imaginary objection 't is certain I never said any such thing as is here suggested That the supreme Magistrate hath power to erect and translate Patriarchates and the like I had affirmed indeed i. e. to make that a Patriarchal See which had not formerly been such so to ennoble a town or city that according to the Canons of the Church it should become an Episcopal or Archiepiscopal or Chief or Patriarchal See and my meaning is evident and not possible to be mistaken by any that understands the Language and adverts to what he reads Num. 18 But sure I never said that the secular authority hath power to make Bishops and Presbyters and there is no question but this Gentleman knows if he hath read what he answers that in the Tract of Schisme
the Pope And this is generally the result of other Authors narrations of this matter So Balaeus speaking of that convention Dinotus omnium primuâ— graviter docte de non approbandà apud eos Romanorum authoritate disputabat Dinoth in the first place gravely and learnedly disputed against the Authority of the Bishops of Rome among them adding Fortiter praeterea tuebatur Menevensis Archiepiscopi in Ecclesiarum suarum rebus ratam jurisdictionem that he moreover strongly and couragiously defended the validity of the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of S. Davids the same that in the Abbots answer is called the Bishop of Caerleon in the affairs of his own churches So Geffrey of Monmouth Edelbertus Rex Kantiorum ut vidit Britones dedignantes subjectionem Augustino facere Northumbrorum cateros Saxonum regulos instimulavit ut collecto grandi exercitu in civitatem Bangor Abbatem Dinoth caeteros clericos qui eos spreverunt perditum irent King Ethelbert seeing the Britains disdain to yeild their subjection to Augustine stirred up the King of Northumberland and other Saxon Kings to gather a great army against the city Bangor to destory Dinoth the Abbot and the other Clerks of that Monasterie who had scorned Augustine and the Saxons So Sigebert in Anno 602. Augustinus habita Synodo cum Britonum Scotorum Episcopis quâ sacerdotes Monachos invenit adversarios aequitatis Augustine had a meeting with the British and Scotish Bishops and there found an opposition from the Priests and Monks and terrified them by prediction of a calamity that should fall on them Other evidences to the same purpose are set down in the Collection of the Anglicane Councels and Mr. Whelock's Notes on his edition of the Saxon Bede p. 115. if there could now remain any question of it And that this was discerned by the Author of this Appendix if it had been for his Interest to have taken notice of it is evident by his mention of the miracle and divine vengeance as of proofs that Augustine was in the right against these refusers who yet continued saith he still refractory to his proposals And this was all I concluded from the Abbot's answer and this stands firm in this Romanist's own confession though the words of the Abbot's answer had not been preserved to us And therefore being now wholly unconcerned in the validity of this testimony and so secured from all danger of being bribed by interests to judge more favourably of it than the matter requires I shall now proceed calmly to consider whether there be that clearness and evidence in this Author's arguments for the invalidating this testimony which he assures us we shall finde in them His first argument is negative from the not least scrap of Antiquity so much as pretended to prove that the Cambrian i. e. Welch lines cited were the Abbot of Bangor's answer to Augustine upon the occasion specified nor that the renouned Dinoth was that Abbot nor that the old Manuser whence Sir Henry Spel extracts the testimony was copied out of any more antient What other proof from antiquity should be expected from Sir Henry Spelman to give authority to these lines than what readily offers it self in this matter I doe not understand That the British particularly those of Bangor and yet more peculiarly Dinoth the famous Abbot of that Monasterie disputed against Augustine's pretensions for the authority of the Bishop of Rome and asserted their own subjection to their Metropolitane hath already appeared to be the affirmation of those who are most competent witnesses of it and the Manuscript passage in Welch and English which Sir H. Spel had transcribed from Mr. Moston's Copie and directs the Reader to Sir Cotton's Library to satisfie himself in that matter is directly agreeable to this for the matter of it and so gave that very judicious Knight just reason both to set some value on it himself and to communicate it to others as that which might gratifie their curiosity and approve it self by its own light to any judicious Reader to be if not the very words of that Abbot's answer yet the sense and substance of it and whether of these it should be judged to be it matters not Had the contents of this Testimony been any way contrary to other undoubted records of those times or indeed any disparate new relation that had not formerly been taken notice of and was now to owe the whole credit and support to this Testimonie some reason there might have been for an Aristarchus to proceed with more caution than here was used and to yeild nothing to bare groundlesse conjectures and the Romanist hath as much reason as any man to lay this to heart to act with this caution in other Testimonies but when the matter is agreed on among the Antients and an old record offers it self to our view in perfect concord with that which we had formerly all reason to believe and onely affirms that more legibly and distinctly which was in substance before but not so punctually delivered to us I cannot think the severest Critick supposing him unconcerned and impartial without any hypothesis of his own to be defended or tended by him would have any aversion or dislike to a testimony thus produced though for some circumstances of it such as are here mentioned the producer have nothing of authority to back his own conjectures This one thing I am sure is most unjust not to give credit to a Manuscript that it is what it pretends to be unlesse I have some expresse affirmation of Antiquity concerning that particular Manuscript should such rules of severity be now imposed on the presse the Vatican must never bring forth more rarities the wealth of all the Archives in the world must lie dead like a Miser's treasure no one volume being able to testifie for the veracity of its neighbour or if it were it self must also bring its voucher along with it and so on in infinitum or else it would not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a competent testification in this matter and when it is remembred that all which is now made publick by the help of Printing lay once in single Manuscripts and those multipliable onely by transcribing and neither the originals nor Copies any other way testified to be what they pretended to be than as these Cambrian lines are delivered to us by Sir Henry I hope this will be deemed a competent proof that this first argument is not so clearly demonstrative as was promised Another branch there is of this first argument in these words And certainly if his Manuscript be no elder than the interlined English he hath grossly wronged himself and his Reader by honouring it with the style of Antient For as every one sees the English is purely modern and cannot be so old by many years as Henry the Eighthâ—s cashiering the Pope's authority and arrogating the supremacy in Ecclesiasticall matters to himself for maintenance whereof