this brief review of what is there said It is this The power of the Keyes is promised S. Peter Mat. 16. but to him that from hence i. e. from the promising it to him singly in that place pretends this donative and consequent power as a peculiarity and inclosure of Peter's two considerations are there offered and thought sufficient to supersede any such conclusion Num. 4 Here certainly a bare supposition will not be the accusing or consequently accusing falsly i. e. calumniating of any If no man say this besides my losing my pains in superseding such a but possible conclusion there is no other harm done Onely I shall demand Is that promise of the Keyes to Saint Peter Mat. 16. made use of by a Romanist to prove Christ's promise of some special power to S. Peter which was not promised to the other Apostles If this Gentleman answer No then 1. I must inferre that this Gentleman is no Romanist because in this very page he mentions the first words of this text Tues Petrus as one of the two most considerable texts of Scripture fit to be alledged for S. Peter's supremacy 2. I shall conclude from this his present supposed negation together with his own words in the last Paragraph that the words of Christ Ioh. 21. Feed my sheep c. were not the instating of any power on S. Peter which was not common also to the rest of the Apostles for those words Ioh. 21. were saith he a special performance answerable to that promise of the Keyes to Peter Mat. 16. as a special promise and consequently if there were nothing in that promise peculiar to S. Peter there was nothing in that performance peculiar to him And so neither he nor any Romanist must henceforth conclude any thing for S. Peter from either of those particular addresses of Christ to him Mat. 16. or Ioh. 21. which they will not equally yeild from thence to all the other Apostles And then that will more compendiously perform what I by a greater circuit of considerations indevoured to doe i. e. supersede all the Romanists conclusions from one or both these places for certainly if they pretend not to inferre somewhat for S. Peter which is not by them equally granted to all the rest of the Apostles all that those texts will be able to doe is to confute the Presbyterie not to establish the Papacie no more being from hence deducible for the Bishop of Rome the successor of one Apostle than for the severall other Bishops successours of the other Apostles Num. 5 But if upon the sight of these consequences he shall now say that in this of Mat. 16. 19. there is any thing be it never so little so as to be capable of the phrase a special promise ensured upon S. Peter which was not elsewhere promised also to the other Apostles I shall then conclude that it seems I have not calumniated him or the Church which he defends in saying that they make this power a peculiarity and inclosure of Saint Peter for so it must be if it belong to him and not to others Num. 6 And 't is not sufficient to say that the power of the Keyes was common to him with the other Apostles but yet some other special power was there reserved to S. Peter For of that specialty whatsoever it is my present Dilemma proceeds and desires to be informed whether any Romanist conclude it from that text of Mat. 16. and if he doe not then the inconveniences will presse him which I have here mentioned If he doe then I shall now conclude anew not that the Catholick Church but that this Catholick Gentleman holds that which he will not be able to prove because there is not the least minute portion of power promised to him in that 16 Chap which is not elsewhere promised to all the Apostles Peter is called a stone on which the Church shall be built and to Peter the Keyes are promised and the twelve Apostles are in like manner and all equally twelve foundation-stones of the same building and the Keyes are equally promised to all them And this being there proved at large § 21. and the probations extended not onely to the power of the Keyes but after to the compellation of Tues Petrus and they will be extensible to all the most diminutive imaginary fractions of either of those powers I shall farther conclude that whatsoever he shall now return to this Dilemma will equally secure me from having calumniated either him or the Church maintained by him Sect. X. Sitting on twelve Thrones Mat. 19. Num. 1 HIs third Exception to this Chap is to another interpretation of mine which it seems hath not the luck to approve it self to him Thus Num. 2 I cannot passe without noting another odde interpretation of Scripture in his 20 Sect. out of Mat. 19. speaking of the twelve Thrones at the day of Judgment he explicates to rule or preside in the Church Num. 3 I doe acknowledge to understand the twelve Thrones Mat. 19. of the Apostles ruling and presiding in the Church and S. Augustine long before so understood it and if Christ's sitting on the throne of his glory may be the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be rendred in the regeneration or in the resurrection meaning thereby Christ's resurrection and ascension to the throne of his glory there will then be no difficulty so to understand it that when Christ was gone to heaven these should succeed him in the government of his Church on earth and so as the Phylarchae ruled and judged the severall tribes of Israel exercise judicature binde and loose excommunicate and absolve in the Church no one having the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any more than of order among them Num. 4 But this Gentleman gives no reason for preferring any other interpretation onely calls mine an odde one And when I have replied first that this place comes in ex abundanti onely as it is being thus interpreted in concord with that other of Mat. 16. 18. and therefore secondly it is not an odde one and thirdly the cause in hand will stand as firm though this interpretation should be found to have no truth in it fourthly that my interpretation is reconcileable with his and therefore his if granted will not be exclusive of mine they that shall judge the world hereafter may for some time have presided in the Church and so also judged here fifthly that this place and the grounds of this interpretation are elsewhere insisted on at large I shall need adde no more to this single dislike of his in this place Sect. XI The equivalence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twelve foundation-stones Num. 1 HE concludes with some shew of dislike of what I had said to the vulgar place of Tues Petrus Thus Num. 2 His quibling about the word is so light a thing as it is not worth consideration the sense being plain that
be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor and of the People as body and flock and consequently their Church is gone But we account our selves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependent upon Princes or inherited from Augustus or Nero but from Peter and Paul and so shall stand and continue whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree when they according to their doctrines and arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same authority that set them up and as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end so is this with this difference that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better but this is a counterfeit tyranical one to punish a better As concerning the Doctors prayer for Peace and Communion all good people will joyne with him if he produce Fructus dignos poenitentiae especially i he acknowledge the infallibility of the Church and supremacy of the Pope the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books the latter is expressed in the Councel of Florence in these words viz. we define that the Holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the world and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and head of the whole Church and the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in Saint Peter from Christ a full power to feed direct and governe the Catholike Church So farre the Councel Without obeying this the Doctor is a Schismatick and without confessing the other an Heretick but let him joyne with us in these all the rest will follow Num. 3 I shall not here repeat my complaint if it were indeed such and not rather a bare proposing of a last foreseen objection against us knowing how little compassion any sufferings of ours may expect to receive from this Gentleman I shall onely joyne issue with his tenders of proof that our Church hath now no subsistence but yet before I doe so take notice of one part of his arguing viz. that the Catholike hath or is undoubtedly perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church Where certainly the fallacie is very visible and sufficient to supersede if he shall advert to it his undoubted perswasion For what promise of eternity can this Gentleman here reflect on undoubtedly that of the Church of Christ indefinitely that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Mat. 16. 18. Num. 4 What is the full importance of that phrase is elsewhere largely shewed and need not be here any farther repeated than that the promise infallibly belongs not to any particular Church of any one denomination but to the whole body Christ will preserve to himselfe a Church in this world as long as this world lasteth in despight of all the malice cunning or force of men and devills Num. 5 Now that this is no security or promise of eternity to any particular Church whether of Rome or England any more than of Thyatira or Laodicea which contrary to any such promise is threatned to be Spued out Rev. 3. 16. is in it self most evident because the destroying any one particular Church is reconcileable with Christs preserving some other as the Species of mankinde is preserved though the Gentleman and I should be supposed to perish and because the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Church which is there the subject of the discourse is not the Romanist or in that sense the Catholike his Church as is here suggested but the Church of Christ built upon the foundation of the Apostles of which Simon is there said to be one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e stone or foundation-stone so as he was of other Churches beside that of Rome and so as others were of other Churches which he never came neere and even of this of Rome Saint Paul as well as he Num. 6 From hence therefore by force of this promise which as truly belongs to every Church as it doth to Rome but indeed belongs to no particular but to the Christian Church to conclude that the Church of Rome is eternall is a first ungrounded perswasion in this Gentleman the very same as to conclude a particular is an universal or that the destruction of one part is the utter dissolution of the whole and the proof from experience of 16. ages which is here added is a strange way of argumentation such as that Methusalem might have used the very day before his death to prove that he should never dye and the very same that Heathen Rome did use at the time of their approaching destruction calling her selfe Vrbem aeternam the eternali City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rome the Heaven-City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rome a Goddesse which accordingly had by Adrian a Temple erected to it and the Emperors thereof and the very name of the place worshipt as a deity More Deae nomenque loci seu numen adorant and all this upon this one score that it had stood and prospered so long Num. 7 The like may be affirmed of the Church of the Jewes built upon a promise which had more of peculiarity to the seed of Abraham than this of Mat. 16. can be imagined to have to the Church of Rome and yet that Church was destroyed and nothing more contributed to the provocation and merit of that destruction than their owne confidence of being unperishable The best admonition in this respect is that of the Apostle Be ye not high minded but feare and if God spared not the Natural branches take heed also lest he spare not you and this Gentleman cannot be ignorant what Church it was that was then capable of this exhortation And the very making this matter of argument and in this respect not of purity but of duration exalting the Romanist's Church above all other Churches in these words none other can compare with him as it is one character which determines the speech to the particular Church of Rome for else how can he speak of others and affirme that they cannot compare so it is no very humble or consequently Christian expression in this Gentleman Num. 8 What he addes out of Master Hooker and applies as the judgement of that learned man concerning the Church of England yeilds us these farther observations 1. That in all reason this Gentleman must in his former words speak of his Church of Rome as that is a particular Church for else how can he after his Church name another Church meaning this of England of which saith he Mr. Hooker speaks and that will conclude the evident falsity of his assumption that by Christ's promise eternity belonged to it for that it cannot doe to any particular Church because the Vniversal may be preserved when that is destroyed and the promise being made indefinitely to the Church may be performed in any part of it Num. 9 Secondly That a
102. to the Emperor Michael that if he doubted of or disbelieved any thing that had been there resolved he should command a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declaration or explication to be sent him from old Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how from of old and from the beginning it had been delivered by tradition of Fathers adding that that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the uppermost of the Churches of God of which Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first that sate Bishop there unto whom Christ said Thou art Peter c. But all this still amounts to no more but that Rome was the prime Apostolick See that might very probably explicate a difficulty to the Emperour by telling what had been from time to time delivered and believed in that Church Num. 29 Fourthly the words of the same Theodorus Studita again in his Epistle to Naucraticus which speaks of some that had broken off themselves from the body of Christ from the chief See in which Christ placed the Keyes of that faith against which the gates of hell the mouthes of hereticks had not should not prevail But then still supposing his testimonie were authentick this is no more but that they which divided from the true doctrine which he supposed to be at Rome did in his opinion break off themselves from the body of Christ that Rome again was the prime See that it had the Keyes of knowledge and faith intrusted to it by Christ at the Apostles founding a Church there but this not exclusively to other Churches which doubtlesse had those Keyes as well as she that the faith of Christ should never be utterly destroyed by hereticks Num. 30 Fifthly the words of Arcadius a Bishop in the third Councel that of Ephesus proposing that the words of Coelestine the Pope who was to be named with all reverence Bishop of the Apostolicall See should be read that they might see what care he had of all Churches and why might not the like be said of any other truly Christian Bishop And so the like speech again of Cyrill of Alexandria that the letter of Coelestine the most holy Bishop of the holy Apostolick Church a title which belonged and was ordinarily given to other Sees beside that of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be read with due honour or respect but sure that doth not prove his supreme power over all the Churches of God Num. 31 Lastly the words of the Emperor's letter called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a divine letter in the Councel of Chalcedon that the most blessed Bishop of the city of Rome to whom antiquity hath given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 priesthood over all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have a place and power to judge of faith and of Priests from whence he roundly concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Seeing then he hath power to judge of Faith and Priests he is justly defined by the Councel of Florence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the teacher of all Christians Num. 32 This being the last and most probable and indeed onely Testimonie to justifie with any colour of reason the definition of that Councel it is not amisse to consider it a little and with that to conclude also the debate with this Gentleman as Joseph Methonensis there did with the Bishop of Ephesus And if we turn to the Acts of the Councel of Chalcedon we shall soon discern the full weight of it Num. 33 There in the first part num 25. we shall finde this Letter styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent by Valentinian the Emperour to Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would command a Synod to be called in the parts of Italy This then was the subject of the Letter and this the occasion A second Synod had lately been held at Ephesus in which the heresie of Eutyches had received some assistance Upon this Pope Leo and his Synod of Bishops met at Rome writes earnestly to the Emperor Valentinian that he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a General Councel to be called in the parts of Italy that may remove and mollifie all offences The same he again proposes to the Emperour Theodosius there desiring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a special Councel to be convened in the parts of Italy Hereupon soon follows a letter of Valentinian to Theodosius to the same purpose in condescension to Leo's request and in it those very words recited by Joseph Methonensis in defence of the Councel of Florence to no other sense but this that such a Councel might be convened in Italy to review and reform what had been done amisse in that second Councel of Ephesus Num. 34 This therefore is the meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may have a place and power that some place may be assigned him and the Bishops to meet in Councel that he may have power or faculty or Commission to sit not he by himself but he and the Bishops in Councel and when they sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge of faith and Priests as in all Councels it is done to define what is the true faith opposed by hereticks and what persons Bishops or others are fit to be censured for any thing done or taught by them Num. 35 This is the plain and onely importance of the place to which all the rest of the Epistle accords that an Vniversal Councel should be called in Italy wherein the Pope was doubtlesse to preside and he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all other Bishops also being convened from the whole world should consider and define what the true faith required And so this is a faire testimonie to prove that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ the Father and teacher of all Christians The Conclusion Num. 1 I Am now come to the close of this Gentleman's Answer in these words Thus Sir you have my sense of Doctor Hammond's Book in all the particulars which I think to the purpose my time nor the brevity fit for a Letter not permitting I should be more methodical and doe rest Your friend and humble servant B. P. Bruxels the 30 March 1654. Num. 2 Here he is pleased largely enough to assume the office of an Aristarchus and to involve under no light censure of impertinency at the least the farre greatest part of that Treatise of Schisme for certainly that which he hath not offered any Answer to is such and yet he here undertakes to have given his sense in all the particulars which he thinks to the purpose which must conclude it his opinion that all other particulars are not to the purpose This indeed is a performance somewhat above the promise of the title page which obliged him to an Answer of the most material parts of that Treatise And it were very easie to shew that there is no degree of truth in either of these that on the contrary he hath not offered any word of Reply to the most material
the future you will not easily admit those who have come to you from hence and that you will not receive to your communion those who are excommunicate by us seeing the Councell of Nice hath thus defined as you may easily discern Num. 8 By all which put together by the African out of the Nicene and by the Nicene out of the Apostolick Canon it is evident that the Bishop of Rome hath not power to absolve any person excommunicate by any Bishop of another Province and that 't is unlawfull for any such to make appeal to him which certainly will conclude against every the most inferior branch of his pretended authority over the Vniversal Church Num. 9 If this be not enough then adde the 34 Apostolick Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops of every nation must know him that is the first among them i. e. their Primate and account him as their head Which sure inferres that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely head of all Bishops The same is afterward transcribed by the 9 Canon of Antioch Num. 10 But to return to their Corpus Juris so again Decret par 1. dist 99. c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The Pope of Rome is not to be called Vniversal Bishop citing the Epistle of Pope Pelagius II. Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur quia si unus Patriarcha unversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur No Patriarch must ever use the title of Vniversal for if one be called universal Patriarch the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest And more to the same purpose the very thing that I was here to prove Num. 11 So again Ch. 5. out of the Epistle of Pope Gregory to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria where refusing the title of Vniversalis Papa Vniversal Pope or Father or Patriarch and calling it superbae appellaetionis verbum a proud title he addes si enim Vniversalem me Papam vestra Sanctit as dicit negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur Vniversum If the Patriarch of Alexandria call the Pope universal Father he doth thereby deny himself to be that which he affirms the Pope to be universally The meaning is clear If the Pope be universal Patriarch then is he Patriarch of Aegypt for sure that is a part of the Vniverse and then as there cannot be two supremes so the Bishop of Alexandria cannot be Patriarch of Aegypt which yet from S. Mark 's time was generally resolved to belong to him and the words of the Nicene Canon are expresse to it that according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original Primitive customes the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. seeing this is also customary with the Bishop of Rome of Antioch c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the privileges should be preserved to the Churches Num. 12 All which arguing of that Pope yea and that great Councel were perfectly unconcluding inconsequent as mine was said to be if the Bishop of Rome or any other had power over Patriarchs or authority over the universal Church which here this Gentleman is pleased to affirm and so sure must think Gregory more than fallible when he thus protested and disputed the contrary Num. 13 How much higher than this the same Gregory ascended in expressing his detestation of that title is sufficiently known from his Epistle to Mauritius the Emperor In regist 1. 4. Ep 30. I shall not here trouble him with the recitation of it Num. 14 What is after these passages set down in their body of the Law shews indeed that the Popes continued not alwaies of this minde Neither was I of opinion that they did the story being known to all how Boniface III. with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal jurisdiction of the Church of Rome see Paul Diac de Gest is Romanorum l. 18. which yet is an argument that till then it had no foundation Num. 15 Whether there were antiently any such higher than Patriarchs and whether now there ought to be was the question before me and both those I must think concluded by what I have here set down as farre as relates to any true i. e. original right from any appointment of â—hrist or title of succession to S. Peter Num. 16 Much more might be easily added to this head if it were not evident that this is much more than was necessary to be replied to a bare suggestion without any specifying what that power is which may belong to the Pope over the Vniversal Church though convoking of Councels did not belong to him and without any offer of proof that any such did really belong to him CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the fourth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists pretensions founded in S. Peters universal Pastership Of Possession without debating of Right What Power the Pope was possest of here Num. 1 IN the fourth Chap his objections begin to grow to some height they are reducible to three heads the first is by way of Preface a charge of a very considerable default in the whole discourse that I remember not what matters I handle the other two are refutations of the two evidences I use to disprove the Popes claim of universal Trimacie from Christ's donation to S. Peter The first of the three is set down in these words Num. 2 In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Christ his donation S. Peter had a Trimacie ever the Church where not to reflect upon his curious division I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles when he thinketh the Catholick ought to prove that his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie for it being granted that in England the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacie the proof that it was just belongeth not to us more than to any King who received his Kingdome from his Ancestors time out of minde to prove his pretension to the Crown just for quiet possession of it self is a proof untill the contrary be convinced as who should rebell against such a King were a Rebell untill he shewed sufficient cause for quitting obedience with this difference that obedience to a King may be prescription or bargain be made unnecessary but if Christ hath commanded obedience to his Church no length of years nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience so that the charge of proving the Pope to have no such authority from Christ lieth upon the Protestants now as freshly as the first day of the breach and will doe so untill the very last Num. 3 My method in the beginning of Chap 4. is visibly this The Church of England being by the Romanist charged of schism in departing from the obedience of the Bishop of Rome and this upon pretense that
he as successor of S. Peter hath a supremacy over all the Churches in the world I undertake to examine the truth of two branches of this suggestion one whether Saint Peter had this universal Supremacy given him by Christ the second whether this power if supposed to be instated on Saint Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome The former of these I examined in that Chapter And I must now discern if I can how I have failed in any particle of my undertaking Num. 4 First saith he will not reflect on my curious division And I that know there was no curiosity in any division of mine but on the other side such perspicuity as was agreeable to a desire and indevour to set down the whole matter of debate between us as distinctly and intelligibly as I could that the Reader might be sure to judge whether I answered their charge or no I have no reason in the least to suspect the fitnesse and usefulnesse of my division nor consequently to be impertinently sollicitous in reflecting on it Num. 5 That which he saith he cannot omit I shall make haste to consider with him viz my great mistake in thinking the Catholick ought to prove his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie Num. 6 To this I answer 1. that there is no manner of foundation or pretense for this exception here For I no where say the least word toward this purpose of requiring the Romanist to prove his pretensions or to prove them by this medium Onely I take it for granted that he doth actually produce arguments to inferre the Pope's universal Primacie and that Christ's donation to S. Peter is one of those arguments And that I was not herein mistaken I shall instead of a larger deduction of evidences from all sorts of Romish writers make my appeal to the objecter himself in several places of this little tract particularly p. 20. where he hath these words we relie on the first as the foundation and corner-stone of the whole building And what that first is appears by the words immediately precedent that the pretensions for the Pope's supremacy in England must be founded as successor to S. Peter in the universal Pastorship of the Church so including England as a member thereof From whence in stead of recriminating and retorting on him the charge of the ill memory I shall onely make this undeniable inference that I was not mistaken in thinking that the Romanist doth actually found his pretensions in the universal Pastorship of Saint Peter and consequently If I prove that to fail I have removed that which in his own style is the foundation and corner stone of his whole building Num. 7 But then 2. because he here pretends that it belongs not to a Romanist to prove his pretension just but that it sufficeth that he hath the possession I desire to propose these three things to his consideration 1. By demanding whether at this time or for these 100 years the Pope hath had the possession of the obedience of this nation I suppose he will say he hath not And if so then by the force of his own argument that possession and all the arguments deducible from thence are now lost to him the prescription being now on our side as before on theirs and there is nothing left him to plead but the original right on his side against the violence of the succeeding possession And if he come to the pleading of the right then that is the very method that I proposed and so did not offend or forget my self in so doing Num. 8 Secondly Concerning their possession before Henry VIII his daies I shall demand how long they had it and how they acquired it If he will not at all think fit to answer this question in either part then I confesse he hath made an end of the dispute and by refusing to give account of the right he had to his possession he will leave every man to catch and hold what he can and then to imitate him and give no account to any how he came by it which as it is an unchristian method every man being obliged to clear his actions from manifest charges of injustice and violence so again 't is an evil lesson against himself and unlesse we will confesse our selves Schismaticks in casting off their obedience 't is impossible for him ever to prove us such this kinde of schism which now we speak of being by all acknowledged to be a separation from our lawfull superiors and no way being imaginable to prove the Pope to be such to this nation without offering some proof to the point of right as well as adhering to his possession Num. 9 To which purpose it is farther observable 1. That even in secular things it is not every possession that gives a right but 1. either the bonae fidci possessio a possession honestly come by or the unjustnesse of whose original is not contested or made to appear And 2. whatsoever privilege by humane laws belongs to prescription yet in divine or Ecclesiasticall matters prescription can be of no force against truth of right and so this Gentleman seems to acknowledge here extending the force of possession no farther than till sufficient cause be shewed to the contrary 3. That though whilst I am in possession I need not be bound to prove my right yet when I am out of possession there is not beside absolute force any way possible to recover a possession but this of contesting and evidencing the right of it and that 't is evident is the present case Num. 10 But if he shall think fit to answer the question in either part of it then by the answer to the first part of it he must be forced to set down the original of it and by answer to the second the right of that original and so he hath been fain to doe as elsewhere so in this very paragraph where he speaks of Christ's commanding obedience to his Church I suppose he must mean the Church of Rome and that is again the very method in which I proposed to debate and consider this matter Num. 11 Thirdly For the power of which the Pope was possest in this Kingdome either it was no more than an Ecclesiastical Primacie such as by the antient Canons belongs to a Primate or Patriarch over Metropolitans and Bishops or else it was a supreme power over the King himself whether in Spiritual or also in Temporal affairs Num. 12 If it pretend onely to be the former of these then the power of Kings to erect or translate Primacies or Patriarchates which is insisted on and evidenced in the Tract of Schisme c 6. § 9. was sufficient then to justifie what here was done no possession being pleadable against the King to restrain or exclude this exercise of his power and so now to free us from schisme by this Gentleman's rule this act of the Kings in translating the Primacie being sufficient cause for quitting
insuing sections Yet against them altogether he casts one stone before he will part in those words Num. 2 Vpon this wisely laid ground he would perswade us followed the division of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome but bringing not one word of Antiquity proving this to have been the cause yet is he so certain of it that he will finde a colonie of Iewes even in England for fear S. Peter should have touched a Gentile and yet he cites S. Prosper that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome Num. 3 What force there is in any part of this suggestion I shall not here need to set down at large There be three branches of it 1. That I bring not a word of antiquity to prove what I say that this the cause of the divisions of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome 2. That I will finde a Colonie of Iewes in England 3. That I cite Prosper that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome Num. 4 For the first I desire the Reader to review what is already said in the Tract of Schism c. 4. from § 8. to § 20. and I shall much wonder if he return of this Gentleman's minde that there is not one word there brought out of Antiquity to confirm what I say The short is It is there manifested from Antiquity that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul that there were two Churches there one of Iewish the other of Gentile Christians that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops Euodius and Ignatius by which means some appearing difficulties in antient writers are explained Num. 5 To what is there said I shall instead of repeating adde thus much more Of Suidas's words will be easily turned to in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the reign of Claudius Caesar Peter the Apostle ordained Euodius Bishop at Antioch Of Ignatius the Author of the Constitutions is expresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius was ordained Bishop there by S. Paul Now seeing in those Acts of Ignatius which are put together by Simeon Metaphrastes Ignatius is said to succeed Euodius as Euodius succeeded Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Anonymus antient writer of the Acts of Ignatius which remains unprinted hath the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius succeeded Euodius and seeing this ordination of Ignatius is also said by Theodores and by Felix III. Bishop of Rome to have been done by the hand of Saint Peter This seeming difference is removed by Ioannes Malela Antiochenus who thus sets down the whole matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the great Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happened to die and Ignatius who was as was said first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there received the Bishoprick that I suppose must now be of the Iewish Province also over which Euodius had been in his life time S. Peter ordaining and enthroning him And so that is become most clear which S. Chrysostome said of this Ignatius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the hands of the blessed Apostles in the plural first of Paul then of Peter had been laid on Ignatius Num. 6 The other part which concerned Rome * was so cleared by the words of Epiphanius who saith of Peter and Paul both that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles and Bishops at Rome and so many other evidences produced to the same purpose from the inscription on their tombs by Gaius contemporary to Pope Zephyrinus by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth by Prosper by the seals of the Popes and so again by the Ecclesiastick story that makes Clemens S. Peters Deacon and successor in the Bishoprick and Paul's that sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter Num. 7 Whilst in the mean other Churches are * instanced in particularly the Churches of Asia wherein S. Paul and S. Iohn had all the command and S. Peter had nothing to doe whether in planting or governing them which alone is sufficient to carry the whole matter against S. Peter's universal Pastorship and no word is by this Gentleman replied to that so considerable a part of my probation Onely instead of it a farre more compendious way that of the scornfull or fastidious scossing at my wisely laid ground as he pleaseth to call it and adding that I bring not one word of Antiquity c. Num. 8 As to the second branch of his suggestion that I will finde a colonie of Iewes in England that is no where said by me Onely thus that upon supposition if the saying of Simeon Metaphrastes speaking of S. Peter's preaching and ordaining Bishops in England Neronis 12 should be thought to have truth in it it must be extended no farther than the Iewes which might at that time be dispersed there Num. 9 Where as my conclusion from that supposition is founded in the analogie that as where S. Paul and S. Peter met in any plantation they divided their Province c. so in reason it ought to be where S. Peter and Simon Zelotes or Ioseph of Arimathea met in like manner so all that of the Iewes in England I there affirm is onely this that it was possible they that were dispersed in so many regions might be some of them dispersed in Britannie which how improbable soever it may appear at that time is sure as probable as that S. Peter preached and ordained Bishops in Britannie and in consequence to that onely it was that I made the supposition of the possibility of it knowing it the affirmation of our Antiquaries that Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes 't is possible also that Simeon Metaphrastes might mistake Simon Peter for him and then that matter is at an end planted the faith in this Island Num. 10 As for his last suggestion that I cite Saint Prosper that both S Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome I desire the truth of it may be considered by the words which I cite from him In ipsa Hierusalem Iacobus Ioannes apud Ephesum Andreas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Roma Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unamque posteris tradentes ex dominicâ pactione sacrârunt James at Jerusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest through all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the Nations What Nations were these sure of Jewes as well as Gentiles else Jerusalem could not be any part of them no nor John's converts at Ephesus for they were Iewes and therefore this Gentleman did not doe well to substitute the word Gentiles for Nations and yet could not without doing so have made this exception to my words Num. 11 And so much for exceptions to my first evidence against the Vniversal Pastorship of Saint
Peter Sect. VIII No promise of Keyes to S. Peter which was not made and performed to all the Apostles Joh. 20. 21. the completion of the promise Mat. 16. 19. Pasce oves Joh. 21. an exhortation not commission Num. 1 THe second sort of Exceptions follows those against my evidence drawn from the power of the Keyes which I say and prove both from Scripture and expresse testimonies of the Fathers that it was given equally to all the Apostles And his exceptions begin thus Num. 2 A second evidence he bringeth from the donation of the Keyes which he saith were given equally to the Apostles Mat. 28. yet confesseth the Keyes were especially promised to S. Peter Mat. 16. but performed onely in common Mat. 28. which though they may be both true yet is absurdly said for who acknowledgeth a special promise should have found out a special performance which is done Joh. 21. Num. 3 This exception being not to the matter of what I say but to the absurdnesse of the expression to which censure I must suppose every thing liable which is contrary to his pretensions and yet proved so manifestly that it cannot be denied by him I shall briefly evidence how commodious and proper the expression was Num. 4 And 1. whereas he sets it down as my confession that the Keyes were especially promised to S. Peter this is not with truth suggested My words are This power Mat. 16. 19. is promised to S. Peter But the especially is an interpolation of this Gentleman's to prepare my words for his exceptions for which otherwise they were no way qualified Num. 5 All that can be fetcht from any words of mine toward this sense is that in the next Section I foresaw and so mentioned an objection from Christ's making this promise to him peculiarly and yet even that is not to him especially but to him particularly or singly I will give unto thee c. To this as to an objection I presently made reply that the repetition of that promise Mat. 18. 18. to all the Apostles indefinitely and without any peculiarity of restriction I say to you in the plural and Whatsoever ye shall binde c. will take away all appearance from this objection Num. 6 And so it will from this Gentleman's exception also For if what was at one time promised to S. Peter singly was so soon after promised to all the Apostles indefinitely what absurdity is there in seeking no other performance of this promise than that which was at once afforded to all the Apostles together in the descent of the Holy Ghost when the fire that represented that Spirit divided and sat upon every one of them and they were all filled with the holy Ghost and no shew of peculiarity or mark of especiall eminence to S Peter in all this Num. 7 As suppose a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one and to morrow should make the like promise to eleven more that one being in their company and then upon a set day some weeks after should send 12 Commissions sealed to those 12 one for each of them I wonder who would doubt of the exact performance of this promise to that first or seek for any more special performance of it Num. 8 But this Gentleman having phansied a special promise as that is with him somewhat more than a particular promise for otherwise a common performance might have served the turn it being certain that an Vniversal contains every particular under it must needs have a special performance and that Ioh. 21. I suppose in those words of Christ to S. Peter Feed my sheep and Feed my lambs thrice repeated Num. 9 But for this 1. I cannot acknowledge that it hath any particular reference to the words of the promise Mat. 16. 19. The promise was I will give thee the Keyes and Whatsoever thou shalt binde And sure the direct completion of this as farre as could be expected from Christ personally whilst he was here on earth is that of Ioh. 20. 21. where as the sending or commissionating is answerable to giving the Keyes the insigne of the OEconomus so remitting and retaining of sins is all one with the binding and loosing Num. 10 As for that which is after this Chap. 21. It is I. by that very position of it but 2. more by the occasion and yet more 3. by the matter of the words prejudged from being any more than an exhortation to discharge that duty for which in the former Chap he with the rest of the twelve had received his commission and so is still as farre from being a speciall performance as that of Matth. 16. had been from a special promise Num. 11 The Pasce oves Feed my sheep and lambs thrice repeated was certainly a direction to him how he might approve his love to that Master and Saviour whom he had thrice renounced testifie it now to be a sincere constant love such as would cast out all fear of danger through which formerly he had fallen by an eminent diligence in discharge of that Pastoral office which was intrusted to him but 't was not so much as an intimation that his diligence would be actually greater than all others for sure S. Paul said truth that he laboured more abundantly than they all of whom S. Peter was one but rather that he that after such professions had fallen so foully had the more need now of having this proof of his love inculcated and prest lest he should fail again much lesse is it a sealing any power or authority to him above that which before had been conferred on him and with him on those others also Num. 12 And nothing being here offered to prove that there was any more of energie or special commission in these words but onely the thing crudely affirmed by naming Ioh. 21. there is no need of making any farther answer a bare deniall is a proportionable return to an unproved affirmation Num. 13 Onely this I shall adde that 't is certain that S. Peter thus underslood the reiteration of Christ's question as a reproach of his three denialls The Text saith Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time Lovest thou me Which sure he would not have been if he had looked on it as an introduction to so great a preferment as it must be if the supremacy and Vniversal Pastorship of the Church were by those words conferred on him Sect. IX Of the peculiarity of the power given to S. Peter Num. 1 TO this head of discourse about the power of the Keyes follows a second Exception in these words Num. 2 Again he would perswade the world that the Catholick Church holdeth none had the Keyes but S. Peter calling it a peculiarity and inclosure of S. Peter as if the other Apostles had them not which is a calumnie Num. 3 How far I have been in this matter from calumniating the whole Catholick Church or any one member of it will appear by
upon Peter the Church was built specially though not with exclusion of others Num. 3 What I said of the equivalence and perfect identity of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a stone seemed to me particularly usefull to the understanding of the meaning of Christ's speech when he said he would build his Church on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. this stone For not to mention what hath by divers of the Antients been said of that text applying it not to the person of S. Peter but to the faith where of he then had newly made confession I was here willing to grant the Romanist the utmost that he could pretend to viz that the person of Peter was that Petra or stone on which Christ promised to build his Church And why this Gentleman should be so unwilling to be gratified or why the setting down the bare notation of the Greek word should deserve his reproach and be called quibling or levity I professe I can render no reason but his haste which permitted him not to consider either the undeniable truth or his own advantages from what was said Num. 4 The force of my answer lay in another branch of that fourth Section viz that this stone from whence Peter had his name peculiarly relating to a building and so being to be considered as a foundation stone not onely he but all the rest of the Apostles were herein made equall with Peter being all partakers of this common appellation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twelve foundations Apoc. 21. 14. and those by circumstances in that text manifested to have an equal proportion of power and Province assigned to each of them And to this there is nothing here answered by this Gentleman and his unprovoked quarrel at that which was said concerning the nature of the word is an indication that he had nothing more to object to it Num. 5 When therefore he saith that on Peter the Church was built especially I demand what he means by specially If no more than that he was one special person on whom the Church was built then I grant it and reply that so was John and so was Andrew and so was every other of the twelve a special foundation-stone of the Church But if by specially he mean in an extraordinary or more eminent manner than any of the other Apostles Then I answer 1. that Christ's telling him he was a stone on which he would build his Church implies no such matter the other Apostles each of them are by Christ in vision to S. John affirmed to be foundations of this building as well as he 2. That among foundation-stones there is but one that hath any eminence above others and that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief or head-corner-stone and that title belongs not to S. Peter as neither to any other Apostle but onely to Christ himself Ephes 2. 20. And so still nothing belongs to Peter in this matter of being a stone or foundation which doth not equally appear to belong to those others as well as him And so much for the vindicating of the Evidences set down in the fourth Chapter CHAP. V. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the fift Chapter Sect. I. Of slight passing over Pasce oves and Tues Petrus Num. 1 THe first thing he here excepts against is my too slight passing over two which he thinks the most considerable texts to support the supremacie of S. Peter In these words Num. 2 In the fift Chapter he lightly passeth over the two most considerable Texts of Scripture fit to be alledged for S. Peter's supremacie viz Feed my sheep and Thou art Peter because they have no appearance and have been often answered Why no appearance because he and his fellows say so and as if being so often repeated was not as likely to shew the answer was naught as the answering to impeach the obâ—ecter but who understands the principles of Catholick Faith knows that as well for other points of our Faith as for this of S. Peter's supremacy we relie not onely upon such places of Scripture Num. 3 For this of the light passing over those two places of Scripture I think I can give a very reasonable account 1. From his own words p. 10. where he tells me that I am mistaken in thinking that the Catholick ought to prove that the Pope hath an universal Primacy For if he be not obliged to prove it if the right pretended depend wholly upon possession why should not I make haste through those proofs which some have ex abundanti as to him it seems made use of Num. 4 Secondly I did in the simplicity of my heart verily believe what here is recited from me that those two texts had so very little appearance of strength in them and this so often manifested by the variety of answers made to them by our writers that no Romanist would in earnest have laid such weight on them as to require of me a more punctual answer to them than I had before given in the former Chapter There I had evidenced that the whole world was not S. Peter's province but onely one portion of one part of the world the Jewish believers in Antioch and Rome c. the Gentile Christians in those very cities being under S. Paul and the Jewish of other conntreys under other Apostles those of Asia under John c. Num. 5 This to my understanding made it evident that in case Christ's Pasce oves c. Feed my sheep and my lambs were granted to be a form of commission instating of power on him it must yet be restrained to his particular Province so as to leave other his fellow Apostles their Provinces also and not extended to an Vniversal Pastorship Num. 6 But then when this farther consideration was behinde that indeed this of Pasce oves was not the form of commission to S. Peter but that in the former Chapter Joh. 20. 21. as my Father sent me so send I you c. and that to S. Peter in common with the rest of the Apostles and not the least indication of any branch of power appropriated to him on which I have already insisted in this Reply though in that Tract of Schisme I did not think it necessary I hope I may have pardon for not returning to a strict survey of it in that fift Chapter Num. 7 As for that of Tues Petrus that was the very text wherein the donation of the Keyes was promised to S. Peter Mat. 16. 18. and that had particularly been examined in both parts of it both as to the Keyes and the compellation in the fourth Chap and the Keyes promised him manifested by other texts to belong equally to all the other Apostles and so the compellation of stone or which is all one as was there shewed foundation or foundation-stone in the building of the Church bestowed equally upon the rest of
the particular advantages he had in his intuition but suppose them latent and reserved For to his special discovery that he means to make by asking and supposing answers to many questions proportionable to the several links in the subordination the account will be easie enough that as long as any particular Bishop remains in the due subordination to his Canonical superiors so long the departure of any clergie man that is under his jurisdiction from that obedience which Canonically he owes him is in him that is thus guilty of it an act of schisme Num. 6 But then I when instead of departure he puts dissent which may belong to light matters wherein liberty of dissent from Superiors is yeilded to all men or to greater matters without departing from obedience or Communion this is not fairly done this difference having a visible influence on the matter Num. 7 Secondly when of the clergie-man's dissent from his own Bishop he makes me answer that it is not schisme if it be not from his Metropolitan I never gave him my letter of Proxie to doe so But on the other side if the dissent be supposed to be improved into a departure which alone makes schisme I shall not doubt to pronounce it schisme unlesse he have first made his appeal from his Bishop to his Metropolitan and by him and his Councel of Bishops be adjudged to be in the right and then if his Bishop by that judgment be reduced to order he may not he cannot again without schisme depart from him Num. 8 Thirdly when from Primates he ascends to Patriarchs as if that latter had a power superiour to the former and again from the l'atriarchs to the first Patriarch i. e. the Bishop of Rome this he knows hath no place with us who acknowledge no power of any Patriarch above a Primate no supremacie over all in the Bishop of Rome but yet allow them and him proportionably to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if that will content him that Primacie of order which by the antient Canons is allowed them Num. 9 Fourthly whatsoever concerning these several steps from the lowest Clergie man to the first of Patriarchs he phansies to be answered by us and from thence concludes that then schism is no way provided against is visibly much more true of any Romanist For certainly if he dissent not from the Bishop of Rome it must be no schisme in him though he dissent from his own Bishop his own Archbishop Primate and Patriarch and if he doe dissent from him 't is not his consenting with all his inferior Governors that will stand him in stead for his vindication Num. 10 And therefore if what he hath formed against me by his making answer himself to his own questions be found really to conclude as he saith it doth against all subordination 't is now evident who is most blameable for it he doubtlesse that hath divolved all into the Monarchike supremacy of the Pope and permits us not to consider what any other our immediate superiors require of us Num. 11 Lastly what he puts into my mouth by way of answer concerning subordination to a General Councel that if a nation or Bishop dissent from the rest of a General Councel still it is not schisme unlesse as I said there be deceit in substituting the word Dissent for Departure or Recession I shall no way acknowledge the answer which he believes I will make For certainly I acknowledge as much as he or any man the authority of a General Councel against the dissents of a nation much more of a particular Bishop And these were misadventures enough to be noted in one Paragraph Sect. II. The sufficiency of the few heads resolved on by the Apostles The notion of Fundamentals The Canon of Ephesus concerning it The definition of the Councel of Florence Many Churches have not betrayed this trust Christian practice to be super-added The few things preserved by Tradition Num. 1 NExt he proceeds to another part of the discourse of that Chapter concerning the heads resolved on by the Apostles in order to planting Christian life and to that he thus offers his exceptions Num. 2 But saith the Doctor the Apostles resolved upon some few heads of special force and efficacy to the planting of Christian life through the world and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation Truly I doe not know what a Catholick professeth more so that by the word few he meaneth enough to forme a Religion and Christian life and will shew us a Church which hath not betrayed the trust deposited for if there be none what availeth this depositing if there be any cleare it is that it preserved it by Tradition if there be a question whether it hath or no againe I demand to what purpose was the depositing so that if the Doctor would speak aloud I doubt he would be subject to as much jealousie as he saith Grotius was Num. 3 That what I affirme as he confesseth conformably to the Catholikes profession may be as full and explicite as he can desire I doubt not to expresse my meaning to be that the few heads that the Apostles resolved on were sufficient both for number and efficacy or in Athanasius his language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient for the averting all impiety and establishment of all piety in Christ And for his satisfaction therein I referre him to the Treatise of Fundamentals printed since that of Schisme of which the onely designe was to insist on this as the grand notion of Fundamentals such as were by the Apostles and Christ himselfe deemed most proper and effectual to plant Christian life in a world of Jewes and Gentiles and briefly to set downe and enumerate all those that the Apostles thought thus necessary Num. 4 To which I shall now adde one observation that this sufficiency of the foundation by them laid and somewhat explained on occasion of Heretical opposers by the Councel of Nice c. was such that the Ephesine Councel following that of Nice 106. yeares made a decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that it should not be lawfull for any man to produce write 〈◊〉 compose any beliefe beside that which was establisht by the Fathers at Nice and that they which should dare to compose or offer any such to any that would from Gentilisme Judaisme or whatever Heresie convert to the ackcowledgment of the truth if they were Bishops should be deposed from their Bishopricks if Laymen anathematised c. Can. 7. Num. 5 And this authority being prest by the Greeks to the Latines in the Council of Florence and that with this smart expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man will accuse the Faith that which those Fathers had profest or charge it of imperfection unlesse he be mad Concil l. 7. p. 642. A. The Latines answer is but this that that Canon did not forbid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another explication agreeable to the truth
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
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
the twelve Apostles also And so considering what I had already done my self and what others had done much more largely there remained little appearance of force in those texts which might suggest to me a more diligent survey of them And all these together if not two of them alone were a competent reason of passing lightly over them in that fift Chapter where I was ingaged in a new stage i. e. of not returning afresh and loco non suo to a yet larger consideration of them Num. 8 I should now from this notice of his displeasure indevour to pacifie him by reforming my former omission and enter upon a yet more solemn survey of these two texts but that I see him already resolved not to trust his cause to the support which those texts can afford him telling me in the close that he relies not onely on such places of Scripture and if I should dwell longer upon them I should be thought impertinent and again reprehended as forgetting what matter I handle And therefore till he please to tell me how farre he relies on them and shew me that I have not yet removed them from being a foundation so farre to be relied on I shall spare mine own and the Readers pains and flatter my self that I have said much more to invalidate any conclusion which he shall inferre to his advantage from these two places than he hath yet said in my hearing to confirm his pretensions from both or either of them Sect. II. The Bishop of Antioch's title from succession to S. Peter equal to the Bishops of Rome Peter formed a Church there His dying at Rome no argument Num. 1 AFter his velitation he now proceeds to the weightier impression excepting first to an argument taken from the Primogeniture of Antioch Thus Num. 2 Next he urgeth that if the succession to S. Peter were the base of the Popes supremacy Antioch should be the chief See because S. Peter sat there wherein to omit his first and second question whereof the first is untrue I answer to the third negatively that the constituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch before at Rome did conferre no privilege extraordinary on that Church and the reason is clearly deduced out of his second Quaere because it was before Rome for he could not give any such authority but by divesting himself since there cannot be two heads to one body and therefore this authority and privilege of S. Peter can rest and be no where but where he died Num. 3 In this matter I must first premise what I had warned the Reader of in that 5 Chap. § 2. that what I there produced against the power of the Bishop of Rome under the notion of successour to S. Peter was perfectly ex abundanti more than needed the whole matter being sufficiently concluded in the former Chapter which concerned S. Peter's person and had shewed that S. Peter himself had no Vniversal Pastorship belonging to him or supremacy over any other Apostle from whence it was evidently consequent that to his successour as such no such power pertained Num. 4 This being premised I did not pretend that what should then follow should proceed with that evidence as to demonstrate again what was so sufficiently cleared already Onely to those whose curiosity was not satisfied when their reason was I proposed some considerations which pretended to no more than this that beside that Peter had no supremacy there were also other defects in the Bishop of Rome's tenure particularly this that he did no more succeed S. Peter than the Bishop of Antioch did nay that S. Peter having left a successour Bishop at Antioch before he did at Rome the Bishop of Antioch had in a manner the Primogeniture and by that as good if not a better title to praeeminence as any the Bishop of Rome had upon that tenure of succession from S. Peter Num. 5 Now to this part of discourse which pretended but to probability there can lie no exception unlesse it appear either to be untrue in any part or in the whole lesse probable than what is offered by the Romanist for the other side And this is now to be examined Num. 6 And 1. saith he the first question is untrue But he is so reserved as not to expresse his reason for so saying I shall therefore give my reasons to the contrary 1. because a question cannot be untrue all truth and falshood being in affirmations and negations and asking a question or proposing a thing to consideration whether it be so or no is neither of those in answering not in asking of questions Num. 7 Secondly Because this question being resolved into an affirmation viz that Peter as truely planted a Church at Antioch and left a successour Bishop there as he is or can be supposed to have done at Rome it relies on the uncontradicted Testification of antient writers Num. 8 By planting a Church I mean not that he was the first that preacht the Gospel at Antioch though Leo the Great seems to affirm it in Antiochenà Ecclesiâ primùm praedicante beato Apostolo Petro Christianum nomen exortum est Ep 53. and from thence pleads the right of precedence to belong to that Church in paternae constitutionis ordine perseveret against Anatholius Bishop of Constantinople for that seems by S. Luke to be attributed to those that were scattered abroad upon the persecution that rose about S. Stephen Act. 11. 19. but his forming them into a Church or regular assembly And that so he did and left Euodius Bishop there and after his death Ignatius the Martyr is elsewhere manifested at large and I shall not repeat it but onely adde one Testimony which I suppose will be authentick with him of Leo the Great Bishop of Rome Ep 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch bidding him be mindfull of that doctrine quam praecipuus Apostolorum omnium beatissimus Petrus per totum mundum quidem uniformi praedicatione sed speciali Magisterio in Antiochenâ Romanâ urbe fundavit Where it is the clear affirmation of that Pope that S. Peter founded the doctrine of Christ first in Antioch then in Rome by a special authority or power or magisterie which he had in those two cities more than in the rest of the world And so I cannot guesse what untruth there could be in that affirmation if it had been such which was but a consideration or question as he calls it Num. 9 Next he saith that S. Peter's constituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch before he did the like at Rome is a proof that he conferred no extraordinary privilege on Antioch and renders the reason for it because he could not doe it without divesting himself and consequently this privilege must rest no where but where he died and consequently at Rome onely because he died there Num. 10 That he left any extraordinary privilege at Antioch I doe not believe any more than he did so at Rome and therefore
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
greatnesse from the Imperial dignity of the city never thought himself injured by this way of setting down his title Sect. V. Of the Canon of Ephesus The power of Metropolitans of Primates The case of the Archbishop of Cyprus no peculiar case The deduction thence against the Popes Vniversal Pastorship Of the Popes tenure by the institution of Christ Num. 1 THE next exception concerns the Canon of the Councel of Ephesus thus Num. 2 As for the Canon of Ephesus touching the Archbishop of Cyprus it plainly sheweth that the Metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarchs seeing this case of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case the reason given doth shew that the superiority of Patriarchs was by custome received from their Ancestors contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed however it is still nothing to the purpose because the authority which we say belongs to the Pope is neither Patriarchal nor derived from any institution or custome of the Church but from the institution of Christ Num. 3 This Canon of Ephesus saith he plainly shews that Metropolitans were subordinate to Patriarchs seeing this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case To this I see not how any pretensions of ours oblige me to make any return yet because it may be subject to some mistake for want of explicating I shall clear that whole matter by these three Propositions Num. 4 First that the controversie which occasioned that Canon was this Whether the Bishop of Constance Metropolitan of the Province of Cyprus was to be ordained by the Patriarch of Antioch or without seeking abroad by his own Synod the Bishops of Cyprus Thus is the state of the question set down in the Councels Tom. 2. p. 670. at the beginning of the 7 Action Discussa est controversia inter Rheginum Episcopum Constantiae Cypri Johannem Antiochenum qui sibi Cyprias Ecclesias subdere moliebatur The controversie was discussed between Rheginus Bishop of Constance of Cyprus and John of Antioch who endevoured to bring the Cypriotes Churches into subjection to himself Num. 5 Secondly that the antient custome had been favourable to Rheginus his pretension and so the claim of Antioch is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing innovated against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which by the example or president would concern the liberty of all Churches Cod Can Eccl Un 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 6 Thirdly that the Councel defined on the Cypriots side that according to the Canous and antient custome the Bishops of Cyprus should retein their previlege inviolable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordaining their Bishops within and by themselves and consequently that it was an act of assuming and invasion in the Bishop of Antioch to claim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make any Ordinations within Cyprus And what was thus adjudged in the case of the Cypriots was by that Councel in the same Canon thought fit to be extended in like manner to all other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same shall be observed also through all Dioceses and Provinces every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him i. e. under his predecessors power And so there is no truth in what is here suggested that this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case It certainly by the expresse words of the Canon belonged to all other Metropolitans and their Provinces over all the world that neither Bishop of Antioch nor of Rome was to meddle with any ordinations except in their own particular Provinces but the Synod of the Bishops of each Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make the ordinations of their Bishops by themselves Num. 7 What he adds of the superiority of Patriarchs by custome received from their Ancestors First that the reason given in that Ephesine Canon doth shew it Secondly that it is contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed Thirdly that it is still nothing to the purpose in hand of the authority of the Pope hath not that I can discern any truth in any part of it For as to the first whatsoever superiority Patriarchs be acknowledged to have there is no word of mention concerning it in that Canon neither was there any occasion to define any thing of it It was the Synod and Bishops of Cyprus their right that was invaded and of that onely that Canon speaks devolving it to original custome and Canons and so for all other Metropolitans But that is not the superiority of Patriarchs Secondly for my affirmation certainly it was never such as could be deemed contrary either to that Ephesine Canon about ordination of their Metropolitans or that due superiority which by Canons or customes doth belong to Primates or Patriarchs what this is I have often set down and need not again repeat it Num. 8 Lastly for the application of this Canon to the present affair of the Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome thus much is evident First that all Provinces every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were concluded by this Canon that they should ordain their Bishops within themselves and then I pray how can the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of ordaining all belong to the Bishop of Rome and ordination and jurisdiction going together how can he have the Vniversal Jurisdiction or which is all one the Vniversal Pastorship Num. 9 Secondly if the Pope his authority be not Patriarchal as this Gentleman here saith then till he hath proved that it is more than Patriarchal and answered all that is said to the contrary in that Tract of Schisme that which is by the Ephesiue Canon judged in order to the Patriarch of Antioch will also conclude him Num. 10 And thirdly that which is held by the institution of Christ being certainly derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning must needs be included in the words of this Canon which requires that all should remain as by custome immemorial from the beginning it had been to which therefore we appeal and inquire whether Cyprus was not as Independent from Rome at that time as from Antioch if not how any such dependance at that time appears or how is it imaginable there should be any such when all Provinces every where were to be ruled and ordered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their own Synod and Bishops Num. 11 As for the tenure by which the Pope is now in the close of this Paragraph clearly said to stand not from any institution or custome of the Church but from the institution of Christ First this is more than ever this Gentleman would acknowledge before telling us p. 14. that who understands the Principles of the Catholick faith knows they relie not onely upon such places of Scripture as Thou art Peter and Feed my sheep From whence I thought my self obliged to conclude they relied not onely on Christ his institution for that I suppose must
That the same right cannot be held by two tenures appears by this because if it might it being evidently possible that those two tenures might be separated and placed in several subjects the inheritance in one the conquest in another it must follow from thence that each of those persons shall have the right which as it is unimaginable speaking of the whole right or propriety in integrum to the whole power for if one have it all the other can have no part of it so if it be applied to a partial right which more than one may have either severally or socially and jointly to the same thing then that is the changing of the Question which spake of the whole right and not onely of some one or more parts or branches of it Num. 9 And therefore as this Gentleman agrees with me in the conclusion that Rome hath no title to our obedience from that of converting us or if it had it could not plead the same from S. Peter 's universal Pastorship so I cannot discern why my way of inferring it was disliked or my ignorance in the Lawes censured for saying that the title of descent is exclusive to that of conquest meaning it not of several parts of which one comes by descent the other by conquest but of the same whole thing of which he that hath the right by descent may by the sword and conquest vindicate his right and acquire quiet possession but cannot be said to acquire his right by those means being supposed to have had it before he made use of them Sect. II. The British Church not converted from Rome Num. 1 HAving granted me my conclusion that our obedience to Rome is not due from the Nation 's conversion by mission from thence he is yet resolved to examine my arguments by which I prove what he grants And there be three things that here he takes notice of The first in these words Num. 2 But to come to some matter His first arguments is that this Island was converted before S. Augustine's time surely he means by the name of Island the Land and Mountains and trees for if he speak of the men what hath the conversion of the former Islanders to doe with the subjection and duty which the Saxons owe. Num. 3 I answer by this Island I mean not the mountains nor trees on one side any more than the present individual persons on the other side but the inhabitants of it indefinitely who have succeeded one another whether British or Saxon by extraction For first of the British it is certain that they were not converted by mission from Rome but were Christians long before S. Augustine's coming hither And Secondly of the Saxons it may be remembred that Augustine did not absolutely introduce Christianity among them here but Luidhardus that came out of France with Ethelred's Wife and was a Bishop here had prepared the way for Augustine See Bede Hist Eccl lib. 1. c. 25 26. And Thirdly if Augustine were the first converter of the Saxons and so that be without farther question granted of him yet that cannot belong to the whole Island the Dominion of Wales being neither of Saxon extraction nor converted from Rome to Christianity And this is the designe of that argument of mine In case there were a duty owing to that See from whence the converter came and in case that were acknowledged to pertain to the Saxons yet still the British part would not be concluded by either of these it being certain that their Ancestors were not comprehended in this number Num. 4 But because this Gentleman waves this title from conversion neither shall I farther insist to disprove it But rather ask why no answer was made to those testimonies which in that place were occasionally vouched to shew that at the time of Augustine's coming into this Island the Christian Church here acknowledged no subjection to Rome or to any other Church to be due from them which certainly is some prejudice to the claim drawn from the Vniversal Pastorship of S. Peter and his successor at Rome Num. 5 To that which is there said for the evidencing this out of the Annals of Gisburne It will not be amisse here to adde what our stories tell us that when the Pelagian heresie which first sprang from Morgan a Britain was by Agricola brought into this Island the Britains unwilling to receive their infusions and yet unable to resist them without assistance from some other Church in this time of need applied not themselves to Rome as in their secular distresses they had accustomed but to their neighbours of France who calling a Councel sent Germanus Altisiodorensis and Lupus to their aid by which means the Catholick Faith was much revived and increased and propagated among them Sect. III. S. Paul's plantations an argument against the Vniversal Pastorship of S. Peter S. Paul's being Bishop of Rome no answer to it Num. 1 THE argument which he next speaks to is that wherein from Paul's having planted some Churches which yet are not subjected to the Chair where S. Paul sate whether Antioch or Rome I conclude against this claim of power from the title of conversion To this he thus speaks Num. 2 His next Argument demandeth whether all that S. Paul converted were obliged to be under him truly if it were to purpose I believe there might be proof that S. Paul expected it but he doth not remember that he told us S. Paul was Bishop of Rome and so it cometh to the same quesion but indeed he quite misseth the matter for no body stateth this for the Popes title but aggravation of the schisme Num. 3 3. To what purpose it is to say there might be proof and yet to produce none I know not This onely I desire to note that if any such proof were produced and without that by the bare pretending that it might be proved S. Peter's universal Pastorship must be disclaimed and consequently all right which derives its original from thence Num. 4 For S. Paul 's labours being more abundant than all the Apostles 't is certain great numbers were converted by him and if all they were to be under S. Paul how can S. Peter be Pastor and Ruler of all it being certain that S. Paul was not subordinate to S. Peter Num. 5 And it is of little force what I am reminded of though sure I never forgot it that S. Paul was Bishop of Rome and so it cometh to the same question For 1. S. Paul being Bishop of the Gentile part of the Roman Christians as S. Peter of the Jewish and those then disparate congregations S. Paul cannot be thought in his converting the Gentiles of other nations to bring in subjects to S. Peter And 2. it is evident that S. Paul was not Bishop of Rome when he placed Timothy over Asia and Titus over Crete and consequently the conversion and establishment of those Churches was not in any reason to
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
matter still divolves as it did in the tract of Schisme to that one question whether the Bishop of Rome had at that time any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and must be decided as there it is by the view of Evidences whether that pretended from Peters Vniversal Pastorship or that from Augustines planting Christianity here or that from the voluntary conâ—ession of some Kings and each of them is so disproved there that till some competent answer be rendered to those particulars which certainly is not yet done by this Gentleman who onely here tells us the manner how he relyes on each of these and the possession they had of the beliefe that the Pope was head of the Vniversal Church 't is perfectly unnecessary farther to consider what is here added onely to inflame passions but not to satisfie Conscience to exasperate not to argue Num. 9 For what if moderate Protestants should truly curse the day c. or in a more Christian dialect expresse their dislike to the great Sacrilege and some other enormities which were committed in that Princes reigne what prejudice will this be to any lawful exercise of that regal power 'T is certaine that all the Acts of a bad Prince are not invalid or null and much more evident still that he that hath not offended in assuming the power which really belongs to him may by being denyed that be inraged and laid open to importune Temptations and if he be not a through Christian constant and masterly fall and that foulely under those temptations And if Henry VIII did so still this is very extrinsecall to the present inquiry whether he as King had power to remove a Patriarchy and by that to remove all forraigne jurisdiction or authority out of this Church Num. 10 All that remaines in this Section farther to be spoken to is the possession that is here pleaded not in the power it selfe if it were that hath formerly been spoken to but in the beliefe that the Pope as successor to S. Peter is head and Governour of the Vniversal Church This beliefe saith he they have been in possession of ever since the Conversion of our English Ancestors till King Henry and for this beside his own bare affirmation he brings no other proofe than one testimony of Naâ—ier on the Revelation confessing that the Church of Rome hath borne a sway over the Christian world above 1200. yeares Num. 11 And 1. for this kinde of Possession possession in the beliefe of any thing any farther than that which is believed is true and that appeare some other way than by our having so long believed it certainly this is no matter of any deep consideration to us If it still appeare to be true upon grounds of reason those grounds are the considerable and not the beliefe And if the grounds be discovered to be fallacious and the contrary to be more reasonable to be believed then sure this hath but the advantage of an Antient error and the older it is the fitter not to be longer continued in it must be immediately deposited And against this or instead of doing thus to talke of possession is unnatural and irrational the same plea that may serve for any sinne that hath had the luck to get the first hold in us the same that would certainly have held for all the Idolatry of the Heathens when Christ came into the world And he that hath long lived in obscurity and misery he and his Ancestors for many years together and were now offered an advancement out of that sad condition would he ever be so unkinde to himselfe as to refuse that offer upon this one account because it is the turning him out of a possession This prescribing for Error and prescribing for Sin and prescribing for Misery are in effect the same equally unnatural and irrational supposing it to be truly Error and Sinne and Misery which we treat of Num. 13 But then secondly waving this and applying our selves to the particular before us how doth it appeare that the Romanist hath been in possession in this beliefe so long as he pretends He here brings but one Testimony to confirme it that of Napier But for this testimony the answer is easie that the affirmations or confessions of such as Napier was and is by this Gentleman acknowledged to be in their arguing against the credit of Antiquity or to make good other hypotheses of theirs are of as little authority with us as I suppose they will be with them when they are contrary to their pretensions or interests Secondly that the Popes bearing a sway over the Christian world is not interpretable to signifie his Vniversal Pastorship The Bishop of the Prime imperial See may justly be very considerable and so beare a sway but it follows not thence that his ordinary jurisdiction hath been thus extended to the whole Christian world Num. 14 Nay thirdly the contrary to this hath been sufficiently evidenced Chap 4. and 5. both as concernes Saint Peter himselfe and the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter and till those evidences are refuted the affirmation of Napier being so imperfect and infirme both in respect of the testifier and the matter of the testimony will be very unfit to bear sway with any rational man Num. 15 And so the whole weight of this argument prest with so much confidence is resolved into the bare authority of the Speaker this Gentleman who saith it that ever since the conversion of the English Nation the Romanists have had possession of this beliefe that the Pope as successor to Saint Peter is Governour of the Vniversal Church Num. 16 And that I may apply some answer yet more particularly to this I shall premise one thing that if indeed this were granted which is suggested it would not be of any great force toward the inducing of this conclusion that the Pope really was and is Vniversal Pastor For supposing the Pope to have assumed that authority at the time of Augustine the Monke his coming into England and making his plantation and supposing him to have preacht this to King Ethelbert and the rest of his Proselites with the same gravity and confidence that he used in imparting all the Doctrines of Christian Faith in the same manner as Xaverius the Apostle of the Indics imparted to them two Gospels the one of Christ the other of Saint Peter I shall not doubt but upon these grounds it would be very consequent that all that willingly imbraced the preaching of Augustine and had no other Doctrine to compare it with or examine it by should probably receive this branch of beliefe and so all others from and after them that insisted firmely and punctually on Augustine's way and thus 't is possible the possession of that belief might be continued till the dayes of Hen. VIII Num. 17 But then this is no proofe that what in this particular Augustine
Elizabeths reformation To which head of discourse it is not amisse to adde the resolution of Cudsemius the Jesuite de desper Calvini causà cap. 11. that the English Nation are not Hereticks because they remain in a perpetual succession of Bishops Num. 4 Which being the onely thing that in that Sect. 16. I purposed to conclude from Mr. Masons worke and the Records by him produced it lyes not on me to prove that they which ordained those Queen Eilzabeth-Bishops gave them order to preach the Doctrine they after did or to examine the truth of his suggestion that this is the true meaning and effect of Mission It may suffice that they which consecrated them gave them the same power which themselves derived by succession from the Apostles and that was sufficient to authorize them to preach all Apostolical doctrine and if they preacht any other let it appeare and I shall never justifie their preaching But that is not attempted here and therefore I have herein no farther matter that exacts reply from me Num. 5 For as to his parting blow which he cannot omit in reply to Sect 20. certainly it hath little impression on my discourse in that place which doth not inquire what is unlawful or criminous Universally for then sure I should have acknowledged that the bringing in Turcisme or violating fundamental points of Religion had been such but peculiarly and precisely this what is Schisme in that one notion of Schisme as that is a voluntary separation from our Ecclesiastical Superiours of which that we are not or cannot be guilty when we act in perfect concord compliance and subordination to all those to whom the right of superiority legally belonged is I suppose so manifest that it can need no farther proof Num. 6 As for any such act of lawful Superiors in bringing in Turcisme or violating fundamental points I should not be apt to style that Schisme any more than I would call perjury lying or incest simple fornication it being in the first part of the instance Apostasie and total defection from Christ which I hope is a little more than denying the Popes Vniversal Pastorship or Infallibility of the Church in which consists his grand species of Schisme and in the second Heresie and the grossest sort of Schisme together that of departing from the unity of the Faith which being by me Chap. 8. distinctly handled as a second species of schisme all that I need here say to this Gentleman's exception is that I indevoured to speak as distinctly and not as confusedly as I could and therefore did not mix things that were distant and therefore did not speak of that second kinde of schisme at the same time when I proposed to speak of the first onely and upon this account onely said nothing to it in that Chapter And I hope this was but my duty to doe agreeably to all rules of method and so that he might very well have spared that animadversion which he saith he could not end without noting CHAP. VIII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the eighth Chapter Sect. I. The Division of Schisme An Answer to many Questions about Schism A retortion Num. 1 IN proceeding to the view of Chap. 8. this Gentleman without any cause is pleased to change the division of the second sort of schisme there handled into another which it seems was more sutable to his understanding and then to make two light skirmishes against the discourse of that Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his 8th Chapter as farre as I understand he divideth Schisme into formal that is breach of unity and material that is breach of Doctrine or Customes in which the Church was united the former he brancheth into subordination to the Pope of which enough hath been said and breach of the way provided by Christ for maintaining the unity of faith the which he puts in many subordinations without any effect For let us ask if inferior Clergie-men dissent from their own Bishops but not from their Metropolitan in matter of faith is it Schisme he will answer No If a Metropolitan dissent from his Primate but agree with the rest of the Patriarchs is it schisme I think he must say No If a Patriarch dissent from the first but agree with the rest is it schisme No If a Nation or a Bishop dissent from the rest of the General Councel is it schism still I believe he will answer No Where then is schisme provided against or where truly is there any subordination in Faith if none of these are subject and bound to their Superiors or Vniversals in matters of faith Num. 3 What my division there is will be obvious enough to any man's understanding In the third Chap the foundation had been laid in the opposition betwixt Schisme and Ecclesiastical Vnity and as the unity was the conserving all due relations whether of subordination or equality wherein each member of Christ's Church is concerned one toward another so there were two prime branches of schisme the one against the subordination which Christ setled in his Church the second against the mutual charity which he left as his Legacy among Christians And the former of these being discussed at large in order to the present debate in the 8. Chapter the method led me to the latter of them to consider Schisme as it is an offence against the mutual unity Peace and Charity which Christ left and prescribed among Christians And that I might be sure not to streighten the bounds of this sort of Schism or omit any thing that can by any rule of discourse be placed in the borders or confines of it by the meanes either to lay charge on us or render our Vindication the clearer I distributed it into as many parts as in my opinion the matter could by any be thought to beare i. e. into three species 1. A breach in the Doctrines or Traditions together with the institutions of Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church whether in government or observances 2. An offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical 3. The want of that Charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian The first of these againe subdivided and considered 1. in the grosse as it is a departing from the rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding unity of Doctrine c. 2. in particular the asserting of any particular doctrine contrary to Christ's and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment Num. 4 The Scheme being thus laid as regular and as comprehensive as I could devise 1. here is not one word said to expresse any cause of dislike or exception to it and yet 2. it is quite laid aside and another of formal and material Schisme c. substituted instead of it upon what temptation or designe save onely a willingnesse to gaine somewhat by the shuffle and confusion more than the distinctnesse of discourse could yeild him I cannot divine Num. 5 As it is I yet discern not
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