the World The Bishops of Rome then lineally descending from St. Peter have the same Pastoral Authority devolv'd on them by Divine Sanction which St. Peter had over the Church they succeeding him in all those prerogatives which are ordinary and belonging to him as Supreme Bishop for the Government of the Church for eadem Antecessoris Successoris ratio in alicujus maneris obeundi ratione so that Pastoral Praefecture which St. Peter was invested in after his Death passed to his Successor by him handed to the next from him transmitted to the following c. and so by a perpetual descendency embalm'd and convey'd to this present Bishop as being Ordinary successive and indefectible and correspondently I find Eusebius in his Catalogue of Roman Bishops having ranked St. Peter in the Van under the Title of Christianorum Pontifex Primus to reckon Linus for the Second and the rest in their order to Sylvester his Synchronist the one and thirtieth Pope from St. Peter this Catalogue was continued by St. Hierom to Damasus the thirty fifth from St. Peter The Popes of Rome then succeeding St. Peter in the Pontificate are Jure Successionis Heirs to the Sacerdotal Power and Dignities which belonged to St. Peter's Sacred Function as he was Pontifex Christianorum it being but rational that those Supreme Pontificial Royalties which St. Peter for the good of the Universal Church was inrob'd in should still reside in his Successors for the keeping all subordinate Pastors in their duty and for the prevention of Schism which will of necessity arise where there is no Coercive Compulsory Power to quash it Thus in the Old Law there was a Sacerdotal Succession of High-Priests and Aaron who was the Head of the Levitical as St. Peter was the Head of the Christian Hierarchy was succeeded by Eleazer and he by Phineas c. and the Authority which Aaron and his Children was invested with died not with 'em but was propagated to the succeding High-Priests CHAP. II. Concerning Schism and whether the Roman or English Church be guilty of it THE next thing you observe and seem to mislike is my skipping over that part of your Papers which treated of Schism I must confess I did decline handling it being unwilling to enter into so large a Field of Matter and so I am still but because you urge and remind me and seem so fond of what you wrote on that Point as to take it ill that I made a Preterition of it I shall now supply what I omitted then for I perceive it is your temper to imagine what I did not answer to be unanswerable It cannot but be as pleasant to hear you declaim against Schism as to have heard Verres inveighing against Theft or the Gracchi against Sedition You are pleas'd to call it Damnable Schism the Epithet was very proper and now look about you and strictly examine whether like David in his Parly with Nathan you have not through anothers side imprudently transfix'd your self by being found guilty of that Crime you have so severely condemn'd in another I perceive you make use of all your Artifice for your compurgation but all is but fucous and elusive your actual Separation having too much evidence to be deny'd and too much atrocity to be defended I shall now as summarily as I can contract what you write on this Subject and then shape my Reply to it Having defin'd Schism to be a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church you divide it into Paternal and Fraternal the former you say is a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governors the latter you term to be a Causless Division of one particular true Church from another then you say your Church is not guilty of Paternal Schism because you perform Obedience to Christ and his Apostles observing all their Rules and Ordinances left in the Scripture then you pay Reverence to the Fathers of the Church and own the Four first General Councils and are willing the differences 'twixt your and other Churches should be decided by their Umperage This you judge sufficient to clear you from Paternal Schism As for Fraternal you very fairly clear your Church of that because you give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and Christians in the World Having as you fancy acquitted your Church you bring in your Indictment against the Church of Rome accusing her as notoriously guilty of Schism in both respects First of Paternal by many Doctrines and Practices contrary to the commands of Christ and his Apostles and of the Antient Church such as are Image-worship Transubstantiation c. Then you say she is guilty of Fraternal Schism by her renouncing Communion with all Churches not in subjecton to her denouncing all damn'd who submit not to her by sending Emissaries into all the World labouring to make a Spiritual Conquest of all other Churches c. These things prove the Church of Rome you say guilty of Schism in both acceptations This is a short abridgment of what you write about Schism which I design to answer as soon as I shall have premis'd something concerning the Nature and Danger of that Sin Schism do's essentially consist in deserting the External Communion of Christs Visible Church 't is a most heinous sin as tending to the destruction of Christ's Mystical Body whose Essence consists in the Union of all its substantial parts its ruine in their Division 't is a cutting Christ's Seamless Garment into Shreds as St. Chrysost affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the bold Souldiers dar'd not to do the Audacious Schismatick performs This sin is of that Malignancy that neither rectitude of Faith nor a Vertuous Life nor Good Works can attone nay Martyrdom it self according to St. Cyprian cannot expiate it Macula ista nec Sanguine abluitur inexpiabilis gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur St. Chrysost says of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is worse August cont Parmen Lib. 2. says Non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis The Devil seeing his Idols demolish'd and his Temples deserted by the planting of Christianity found out this Sin out of black Revenge Excogitavit novam fraudem ut sub ipso nominis Christiani titulo fallat incautos haereses invenit Schismata quibus fidem subverteret veritatem corrumperet scinderet unitatem rapit de ecclesia homines says Cyprian in his Book De Vnit Eccles How lucky this Stratagem has been to him the many Rents and Fractions amongst Christians can attest I shall now examine whether the Roman or the Protestant Church be guilty of this damnable Crime and herein I shall regulate my Discourse according to the Definition you have made of it namely That it is a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church and this being an evident Matter of Fact it will be easie to determine which forsook the External Commuion of the Visible Church That the Church of England in the beginning of the
where your Authors define how many they be but leave them uncertain for their own advantage As to the other branch of the Assertion That your Church is a sound part of the Catholick Church I must beg your Assistance herein to inform me how a particular Church that did voluntarily fall off from the Catholick as yours did and afterward was cut off by Excommunication from it can yet continue to be a sound Member of it this I desire you to clear up to me You must not shuffle with me herein and tell me ye did not fall off from it but from its Errors that 's ridiculous Neither that ye did not fall off from the Catholick but only from the Roman Church that is false for ye then broke Communion from all Visible Orthodox Churches both in the West and East According to my Authors such Churches as yours can be no more Members of the Catholick Church than a dead Bough may be term'd part of that Tree from which 't is separated by Excision The Church is but one and cannot be divided Scindi unitas non potest nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari divulsis laceratione visceribus in frusta discerpi quicquid a matrice discescerit seorsim vivere spirare non potest substantiam salutis amittit Cyp. de Unit. And accordingly St. Austin Epist 48. ad Madurenses Videtis multos praecisos à rudice Christianae societatis c. de solâ figurâ originis sub Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari quas Haereses schismata nominamus But I find when your Party lay claim to be the Catholick Church and would vie for extent and number with the Romanist's then they make their false Musters and spread their wide Lap to several Sects only to acquire a more considerable multitude which when compar'd with one another are indeed found to be so many several Churches distinguish'd not only by Nation and Climate but by Doctrine and Points of Faith Now tho' these be opposite Parties of different Principles yet to enlarge their bounds and to boast of their greatness they rake all those together under the Title of Protestants who have revolted from Rome counting them on their side as if the definition of a Protestant were One that had apostatis'd from the Roman Church and that stands in opposition to it And I find some Protestants to specify as much as Dr. Willet in his Preface to his Synopsis a Protestant is he who professeth the Gospel of Jesus Christ and hath renounc'd the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome And Musculus in locis tit de coenâ I embrace all for Brethren in the Lord however they disagree from or amongst themselves as long as they maintain not the Popish impieties By this Method they patch up an Heterogenial Church consisting of all condemn'd Sects jarring with one another as Eutychians Nestorians Monothelits Sacramentarians Lutherans Calvenists Hugonots Anabaptists with all the numerous Spawn and Increment of fruitful Error this made Dr. Vane very ingenuously to say That the Church hath the property of Heat Congregare Homogenea things of the same kind Disgregare Heterogenea separate things of a different nature casting out of her Communion all sorts of Hereticks but your Church he says hath the property of cold Congregare Heterogenea enfolding under her Name a Miscellany of different Religions rather freezing than uniting them together and accordingly I find Bishop Vsher in a Sermon of his preach'd at Wansted before King James to adopt and matriculate into his Church Greeks Abyssines Aegyptians Jacobites tho' at variance with one another and more at odds with him and tainted with Heresies expresly condemn'd by General Councils For the Aegyptians Aethiopians and Abyssines were cast out of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon as infected with Eutychianism holding but one Will Nature and Operation in Christ much of the same Kidney are the Armenians Jacobites Georgians and Copthites The Christians under the Turk and Persian are tainted with Nestorianism and ejected out of the Church for asserting two Persons in Christ The Grecians Muscovites and Russians according to Athanasius's Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son on whom Mr. Rogers in his Thirty nine Articles is very Decretory This says he discovereth all of them to be Impious Erroneous from the way of Truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecians Russians and Muscovites maintain It was a saying of King James the First That they erring about the Holy Ghost had lost it As for the Doctrines of Lutherans and Calvenists I find them formerly condemn'd in Donatus Aerius Vigilantius Xenias Nevatus c. But now after all this I find that neither Schism nor Heresie according to the Sense of your Party hinders one from being a Member of the Church Thus Dr. Field in his first Book of the Church thinks when he says That the departure of Schismaticks is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God and Luther Serm. de Dominic says That they are frantick who go about to separate the Church from Hereticks This their favourable Opinion of Hereticks and Schismaticks made me imagine they themselves were guilty of both and that they did not exclude them from being Members of the Church lest by that Action they should bar out themselves but how a Schismatick who go's out of the Church or how a Heretick who depraves its Doctrine who has made shipwrack of his Faith and whom we are ordered to shun and avoid can be a Member of the Church I cannot conjecture so I shall keep steddy to St. Hieroms saying contra Lucif Nulla Haeretica Congregatio potest dici Ecclesia Christi Neither can I imagin how Churches opposite one to another disagreeing in weighty points so as not to join in Communion can be said to be Members of the same Catholick Church which is but one Body and has but one Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Name Church is no Name of Separation but of Vnion and Symphony says Chrysost 1 Homil Corinth And accordingly St. Austin told the Donatists who came much nearer to Catholicks than you do If our Communion be the Church of Christ yours is not Christs Church for that is but one whichsoever it be In his first Book against them And St. Cyprian in his Seventy sixth Epistle If the Church were on Novatus his side it was not with Cornelius So careful were they to preserve the Unity of the Church This makes them restrain the Church to a Company of Christians united together obeying their Supreme Pastor outwardly professing the same Faith Communicating with the rest of the Members in Publick Worship and Participation of the Blessed Sacrament Hence Austin in his Forty eighth Epistle to the Donatists tells them Nobiscum estis you are with us in
unnecessary and I may very well wave it as undeserving any notice should be taken of it what I said was this That our Savior asked Peter thrice suitable to his trine denial as St. Austin observ'd Additur trinae negationi trina confessio whether he lov'd him c. This seems not at all amiss or obnoxious to any exception but you had a mind to carp at every thing Now tho' such parvitudes as these are not worth the defending yet because you Cavil at them I shall not desert them as undefensible for I believe I can produce better Authority to maintain them than you can to impugn them Ter me negasti timendo Ter me confitere amando Ambros Psal 90. Enarrat And in his Apol. David Cap. 9. Vt trinae lapsum negationis professio Charitatis toties repetita deleret St. Austin Serm. 50. Secund. Johan Vt trinâ confessione amoris deleret trinum peccatum negationis Theophyl on John 21. gives two Reasons of our Saviors asking thrice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both manifesting what a great care he took of the Faithful and withall by a trine Interrogation and Confession he cures his trine Negation The next that encounters my view is your Quotation out of St. Austin by which I perceive that the drift and scope of your design is to prove the words Pasce Oves meas to be spoken to the Rest as well as to Peter This is the White at which you level the words are these Cum illi dicitur ad omnes dicitur si amas me pasce c. This is all you quote but upon examining the place out of which these words were taken I find the foregoing words to be these Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus huic enim Ecclesiae Claves Regni Caelorum datae sunt cum Petro datae sunt cum ei dicitur omnibus dicitur Pasce Oves meas August de Agone Christianâ Here you are to understand that in his Judgment Peter only of all the Apostles personated the Catholick Church and that the Keys are said to be given to her when they were given to him namely as to its Head Primate and Rector as I have already prov'd out of his Writings In this only Sense I have already fully prov'd that those words which were originally and immediately spoken to Peter are said to be spoken to the Rest they being all Epitomiz'd and compriz'd in him as their Chief In this Acceptation I grant that Pasce Oves meas might be spoken to all the Disciples and in no other aspect Now this do's not at all hinder but that these words were spoken primordially to Peter solely and this is acknowledg'd by St. Austin himself in his Book de Pastoribus where speaking of our Savior Tunc ideo commendavit Oves quia invenit Petrum imo vero in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit multi erant Apostoli uni dicitur Pasce Oves meas And again in the same Book Petro dixerat Pasce Oves meas quid ergo faciemus Cum Petro commendantur Oves non ibi dixit Dominus Ego pascam Oves meas non tu sed Petre Amas me Pasce Oves meas And again Sic certe a Domino ad Beatum Petrum dicitur Petre Amas me ille tu scis Domine quia amo te Et cum tertio fuisset interrogatus trinâ responsione fuisset subsecutus repetitum est a Domino tertiò Pasce Oves meas Your following attempt is to prove those words to be spoken to all Pastors as well as to Peter by your Saying cited out of St. Basil Consequenter omnibus Pastoribus dictum est c. But this your Quotation do's you no Service at all it amounting to no more than what I frankly grant for I do as well as you believe the words to be consequently derivatively extensively spoken to every Pastor all being Figured and Represented in the Supreme Pastor St. Peter as Austin avouches in festo Petri Pauli In uno Petro figurabatur unitas omnium Pastorum sed bonorum Now the most inferior Pastor is as really one as a Bishop tho' his Sheep be not so numerous nor his Fold so large and I grant that these words were in a subordinate secondary Sense spoken not only to the other Apostles but to all lawful Pastors for Peter tho' he were the Chief was not the Sole Pastor Pastor bonus Christus quid Petrus Nonne Pastor bonus Quid Paulus quid caeteri Apostoli quid Beati Episcopi Martyres quid Sanctus Cyprianus nonne omnes Pastores boni non mercenarii as St. August affirms in his 50th Serm. Evang. Johan Neither did he feed the Flock alone but had the Apostles his Coadjutors and Compresbyters whom he exhorts to feed the Flock not the Universal but the Particular one Pascite gregem qui in vobis the Prerogative of feeding the Universal Church including both the Apostles and other Christians being delegated to Peter only as Supreme Pastor of the Church I therefore affirm that the words were principally immediately and initially spoken to him alone but I acknowledge likewise that in a Proportion'd Adequate Sense In quodam Modo they suit and quadrate with all true Pastors For as Salmeron affirms Quod summo Pastori dicitur id suo modo proportione servatâ aliis minoribus Pastoribus dictum est Because they who are called as Fellow-Labourers into part of the Pastoral Function and Solicitude are to exscribe and imitate the Form that Peter used in Feeding Loving Cherishing and Defending his Flock But I shall now come to your Quotation out of St. Basil which I found to be in his Book de Vita solit Cap. 23. and upon my examining it taking in those words which were Introductive to it I discover'd it to be the most destructive and fatal thing to your purpose that was imaginable the previous words which you suppress'd making wholly against you they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a Governor is nothing else but one that represents the person of our Savior and this we are taught by Christ constituting Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself for he says Peter do yon love me more than these Feed my Sheep Here St. Basil do's remarkably affirm what I go about to prove namely That Christ created Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself by vertue of these words But what shall I think of your concealing these Lines Certainly the Action was unworthy and disingenuous especially in you who pretend so much to Truth and Honest dealings and you could herein have no Reverence for the Author or Kindness for me whom by such deeds you cannot pretend to instruct but impose on I do not wonder to see the Fathers so copiously quoted by you now I see 't is your practice to Cull out here and there a Line without perpending its relation either to the foregoing or following Matter
undiscover'd and whoever considers the vast differences amongst those who are in the attire of Christians their various and discrepant Judgments in Doctrinal Points and ritual Ceremonies and with what ardour every Sect endeavours to defend its Opinion and with what acrimony it opposes that of anothers must needs judge it absolutely necessary to purchase so much knowledge as to be able to shield himself from those many impostures which Prestigiators in Religion obtrude on credulous Persons under the livery of saving sound Doctrines This made Theoph. call false Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dicers or Coggers of Dice alluding to St. Paul's Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This setting topping the Die even in Temporals is pernicious enough being able to decoct and ruine the most flourishing Estate but in Eternals it is far more exitial and destructive as much as Spirituals transcend Temporals It will therefore highly concern every one to guard himself from the grand cheat of being impos'd on in matters of Religion and considering there is so much cozenage in the World to be cautious what Articles he admits as Sterling measuring his Faith by a sure Standard which is the Method I design to take in my ensuing Discourse not devoting my self to any Private Persons Opinion or Dictates but steering my course by the unerring Pharos of Antiquity The first Objection you make against my Treatise of St. Peter's Supremacy is That if his Monarchic Power were suppos'd the Bishop of Rome 's Succession in that Dignity could not be inferr'd any more than the Primates of Antioch c. This Opinion of yours I look on as erroneous for those Primates succeeded him not in the full ampltitude of his Power but in that particular Diocess Succession to any in his whole right being only to him who leaves his place either by voluntary Resignation Deposition or natural Death whereas St. Peter tho he was at Antioch for some time yet he invested in the High Priest-hood quitted that place Vivus valensque and with his Person transplanted all the Pontificial Dignities from thence to Rome having upon his departure from Antioch subrogated in his place either Evodius or Ignatius This his removal from thence to Rome is asserted by St. Chrysost in Inscript Act. Apostol 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is one of the Prerogatives of our City of Antioch to have had first the Prince of the Apostles for its Teacher for it was no more than fit that that City in which the name of Christians was first heard should receive the first Shepherd of the Apostles but when we had him for our Teacher we did not keep him all his life-time but we deliver'd him over to the Royal City of Rome This clearly manifests his relinquishing Antioch and his Transmigration to Rome where he settled and fixed his Cathedra and concluded his Life by a most glorious Martyrdom so that the Bishop of Rome who succeeded St. Peter dying there and not the Bishop of Antioch which place he had abandon'd inherits the Pontificate and Prefecture of the Universal Church as being his apparent Heir Hence St. Hierom in his 58th Epistle ad Damasum calls him Successor Piscatoris and in the Council of Ephesus Parte Secunda Pope Coelestine is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Successor and Vicar of St. Peter and accordingly Rome by the Fathers is called St. Peter 's See as in St. Augustin cont literas Petil. Cathedra quid tibi fecit mali in quâ Petrus sedit in quâ hodie Anastasius sedet And likewise St. Hierom in his 57th Epistle ad Damasum Ego Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior Suitable to which is that of St. Cyprian Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram ad Ecclesiam Principalem But that which gives me full satisfaction in this point is the Custom of the Fathers who in their enumeration of the Bishops of Rome place St. Peter first as the Author of that Succession some of them joyn St. Paul with him Irenaeus reckons the Catalogue from St. Peter and Paul to Pope Eleutherius Eusebius likewise to Sylvester Optatus from St. Peter to Siricius St. Austin from St. Peter to Anastasius Tertullian from the same to Anicetus and demands of the Hereticks of his time a List of their Bishops Irenaeus having begun a Roll of Popes succeeding one the other adds Per hanc Successionem confundi omnes Haereticos and St. Austin contra Epistolam Manichei confesses that this Succession of Bishops from St. Peter was one of the Reasons which kept him in the Catholick Church 'T is observeable That when the Fathers design to give the true Succession and descendency from St. Peter as he was the Christian High-Priest they do not enumerate the Antiochian but the Roman Succession Not placing St. Peter first then Evodius or Ignatius Bishops of Antioch but first St. Peter then Linus c. Bishops of Rome These things duly perpended I could not but wonder how B. Bramhal should question how the Bishop of Rome came to be St. Peter's Heir ex asse to the Exclusion of his Elder Brother the Bishop of Antioch I never read says he that the Church was govern'd by the Law of Gavelkind that the youngest must inherit Here he affecting to shew some sportive Wit seem'd to me to talk more like a Lawyer than like a Divine But now you pretend to give a Reason why the Bishop of Rome could not succeed St. Peter in his Dignity affirming That singular and personal Priviledges are not derivable to Successors herein you are certainly right for Privilegium personale cum persona moritur but then on the other side you are as much in an Error in fancying what was spoken by our Saviour to him was delivered as to a Private Person and to terminate with him You had pleas'd me very well had you mention'd what those singular Priviledges were that were so solely affix'd to St. Peter's Person as not to be inherited by his Successors Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. was none of them nor Confirma Fratres nor Pasce oves meas Cardinal Bellarmine gives this account of them Quaedam dicuntur Petro pro se tantum ut vade post me Satana Ter me negabis quaedam ut uni ex fidelibus ut si peccaverit in te frater quaedam pro se Successoribus ratione officii Pastoralis ut Pasce oves meas c. This Pastoral Privilege conferr'd on him was not Personal but transient to his Successors being granted him as a Publick Person so not to expire with him but to survive in his descendents For the Office of a Pastor being ordinary ought to be continued as long as there be Sheep Quamdiu permanet ratio institutionis Christi tamdiu etiam res instituta necessario permanere debet the Pastorship which was instituted for the good of the Flock ought to have an equal duration with it which is to the consummation of
Language is evidently to be prov'd out of the same Father in his Second Book de Doctrina Christ and in his Exposition on Psal 123. But if you had a mind to quarrel with the Church for this it might have been begun several hundred Years past for it can be prov'd that this Nation us'd Latin in her Publick Service above Nine hundred Years ago as is evident out of the Council of Cloves Hoviae under Archibishop Cuthbert But that which gives me full satisfaction herein is that our Apostle St. Austin who made us Christians taught us to serve God in that Language and this seems not to be only out of high respect to God Almighty to serve him in Publick Liturgies not in the Common Profane Vulgar Tongue but in the most Pure Sacred Language but it seems likewise to denote Unity that the Church which is united in the same Faith should join as much as possible in the same Language by this means any one of her Communion may join in her Liturgy in any part of the Jurisdiction of the Western Church a German if in Italy a Frenchman if in Poland an Englishman if in Spain c. Neither are the People so ignorant of these Prayers as you would persuade your Party for the Liturgy having set Offices for every day and being in one set Language they by vertue of their Catechisms Manuals Prayers and Psalters in the Vulgar Tongue where the Prayers used by the Church are found and likewise Psalms and Hymns proper to every day have several other Books Expounding the Churches Service to the meanest capacity Besides the Priests are very solicitous herein assisting them by their private Instructions so that the Sense of the Churches Liturgy is well understood even by Women and Persons of ordinary Capacity But this Practice of the Church in having her Liturgy in Latin being no Article of Belief but rather a Point of Church Discipline and as such not indispensable but changable whereas Articles of Faith are unalterable you who knew 't was in the Power of the Church to gratify you herein should have fairly requested it before you made the breach and took upon you to tamper with Articles of Faith before your expelling and deposing your Spiritual Guids It may be the Church to prevent a greater inconvenience might have humour'd you condescending to what might have seem'd most expedient for long ago it was permitted to other Nations in her Communion as to the Sclavonians by Pope John the Eighth and to the Chineses by Paul the Fifth to make use of their own Languages in their Divine Worship the Church do's not hold it as unlawful but as not expedient every where to celebrate in the Vulgar Tongue as she declares in the Council of Trent The Fifth Point is St. Peters Supremacy This is I must confess an Article which all Catholicks are oblig'd to believe and because it is of high import being the Basis of Papacy I intend to Discouse of it at large and to establish it The Sixth Point c. Is the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy This flows naturally from the Fifth Jure successionis St. Peter being the First Bishop of Rome invested with Universal Jurisdiction The Seventh is the Popes Infallibility to which I shall say nothing till you can prove it to be an Article of Faith to believe the Pope Infallible separated from a General Council As for his granting Indulgences to break Gods Law as you accuse him of that is a false Crime of your own hatching for we deny any thing of that Nature knowing his Power to be conversant in things indifferent As for his absolving Subjects of their Allegiance to their Princes when 't is acknowledged as an Article of Catholick Faith I shall Discourse of it in the interim I will only hope that no Person will absolve you or that you will absolve your self of your Allegiance and herein we shall desire no more of you than that you be as good Subjects to this present Prince and stand by him with your Lives and Fortunes as we did by his Royal Brother and Father Your ensuing Discourse is to prove the Roman Church guilty of Fraternal Schism for this you have Three strong Reasons The First is because she renounces Communion with other Churches c. As to this I must needs tell you that it is an high piece of injustice in you wilfully to revolt from her and then falsly to accuse her of renouncing Communion with you 'T is clear enough that she rejects no Church that hath not Schismatically fallen off from her and so found guilty of Schism and Heresie The Second is Because she denounces all damn'd who submit not to her This you look on as very hard and uncharitable tho' the Church herein is not blamable but those who dis-join themselves from her and stand in opposition to her she can do no less than acquaint them of their unhappy Estate this she do's out of kindness rathan severity that they being thereby made sensible of their desperate condition may return to her Bosom and so avoid that Condemnation which attends those who depart this life unreconcil'd to her Her plain dealing in this case has much more of tenderness than your Latitudinarian Indulgence which flatters poor Souls with false hopes of Salvation and then consigns them into the Hands of Perdition cheating their baffled expectancy of their imaginary Paradise If you accuse the Roman Church of rigidness herein you may bring the same Indictment against all the Fathers there being not one Point in which they are more positive than concerning the Unity of the Church and that out of its Pale Eternal Life is unattainable Nemini salus nisi in Ecclesia Cyprian 62 Epist ad Pomp. and St. August in his 204 Epist to Donatus says Foris ab Ecclesia constitutus aeterno supplicio punieris etiamsi pro Christi nomine Vivus incendereris The Fathers are so strict herein that they look on that Person who separates from the Catholick Church to be in a damnable state tho' he leads a Religious Devout and Vertuous Life Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesiâ fuerit separatus quantumlibet laudabiliter vivere se existimet hoc solo scelere quod a Christi unitate fuerit sejunctus non habet vitam sed ira Dei manet super ipsum says St. Austin to Donatus the Reason is because being separated from the Catholick Church he is consequently separated from Christ who is the Head to that Mystical Body Another Reason is Quia in unâ Catholicâ Ecclesia vera hostia redemptionis immolatur The Third Reason may be Quia sola est per quam Sacrificium Dominus libenter accipiat as I find it St. Aust Serm. 181. de temp He has one Reason more in his 50 Epist Quia extra hoc Corpus neminem vivificat Spiritus Sanctus Your Third Reason to prove Rome guilty of Fraternal Schism is Because she sends her Emissaries into the known
do with a Pertinacious Undisciplin'd Fanatick but with a Candidate of Literature a Votary of Antiquity if you can prove that I go contrariant to her stemming her Sacred Current I shall acknowledge my Error and sing my Palinode upon your convincing me But notwithstanding this my pliant and yielding inclination you shall find me severe enough to such as endeavour by delusory Impostures to obtrude their Smoke on me offering Fallacies wash'd with Chymical Tinctures such Persons I have just reason to shun and abhor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now how sincere you have dealt by me in Matters of Religion will be obvious to the dimmest Eye when I shall have ungilt your Varnish unmask'd your specious Artifices detected your Wiles and Doubles then it will be discernible whether you have endeavour'd to reduce me to the right Opinion or seduce me into Erroneous Principles The first thing you attack is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I affirm'd to signifie Regere gubernare as well as Pascere To this you make no other Reply than this but aliter pascit Rex aliter Episcopus This seem'd to me a meer evasive sleight and I must acknowledge my want of Augury to Divine what you mean by the word Rex for I never ascrib'd any Royalty or Monarchy to Peter but what was meerly Spiritual If this then be all you have to say against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it amounts to no more than a Greek Expletive Particle which signifies nothing it remains then that it denotes to Rule as well as to Feed and if you think I did not sufficiently prove it in my first Papers I shall here give you full satisfaction St. Austin Tract 123. in Johan gives a clear Gloss on Oves pascendas id est says he docendas regendasque St. Ambrose Lib. 10. Cap. 24. on St. Luke speaking of Peter Oves pascere jubetur perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret And Theophylact John 21. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now besides these Testimonies Reason will carry it on my side for to this very Intention our Savior chang'd the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which implies not all the Functions of Pastoral Authority but only what appertain to feed for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both to Feed and to Rule this was observ'd by Erasmus in his Notes on this place Bis dixit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Pasce sive ale semel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. rege Thus the word is commonly us'd and it being apply'd to Reasonable Creatures it imports Rule and Government For this cause Kings are called Pastores as in Isaia 44. Qui dico Cyro pastor meus es And accordingly the Five Tribes spoke to David Dixit Dominus ad te tu pasces populum meum Israel tu eris Dux super Israel Thus the Emperor Tiberius in Suetonius compares himself to a Shepherd and his Subjects to Sheep Praesidibus onerandas tributo provincias suadentibus rescripsit Boni Pastoris esse tondere pecus non deglubere which Dion renders thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato in his 4th Book de Repub. calls the Magistrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer calls Agamemnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hesiod likewise in his Theog calls Jason so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence Cyril Glaphyr Lib. 1. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is usual with the Divine Writ and with the Wise Men of Greece to call the Governors of Nations Cities or People Shepherds of the People Xenophon says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Actions of a good Shepherd and a good King are nigh related And St. Basil Homil. de Mar. Mam. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Pastoral and Regal Art are Sisters differing only in this the one is entrusted with the Government of Irrational the other of Rational Creatures These Authorities I look on to be a sufficient Guard to secure what I wrote on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Next you affirm That the other Apostles had Commission to Feed and Rule the whole Flock as much as Peter This your Assertion I cannot assent to yet I will grant that the other Apostles were Capita Pastores totius Mundi Having most full and ample Power to found Churches every where to Convert Baptize and Preach to every Creature and that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All in Common entrusted with the world the whole Universe being their Diocess Yet notwithstanding all this they did not equalize Peter for he besides his equal share with the rest in that General Commission to teach all Nations given to him jointly with them had a particular Commission apart solely to himself in which the rest were no immediate sharers not only to strengthen and confirm but also to feed and govern the rest they being included in the words Oves meas and consequently recommended to his Pastoral Care and Regency who by vertue of these our Saviors words was created not only chief Pastor of all other Christians but even of the Apostles themselves He then only had Commission to feed the whole Flock of Christ taken in a Collective Sense as comprehending all Christians and likewise the Apostles themselves as I shall hereafter Illustrate Your following Attempt to lessen Peters Power is by assaying to take his Commission from him affirming Pasce Oves meas to be an Exhortation and no Commission This Artifice I find to be made use of by several Modern Protestant Authors Dr. Hammond says All that can by any torture be extracted from it is an Exhortation to a diligent discharge of that Office to which he was before Commission'd Dr. Stillingfleet in his Part. 2. C. 7. Those words contain no particular Commission to Peter but a more vehement Exhortation to the discharge of his Duty Dr. Barrow in his Treatise of the Supremacy These words are not Institutive or Collative of Power but rather only Admonitive Exhortative to Duty Thus they agree in their united Verdict But the words being pronounc'd by a Lord to his Servant Imperatively have no Lineaments of an Exhortation but of a Commission And accordingly I find the Fathers whose Sense I rather choose to follow than such Authors to Interpret them looking on them as a Command Commission Injunction as a great trust committed to him as will clearly appear by the following Quotations Mandatum de pascendis Ovibus suis unum idemque ter praecepit August Lib. 3. de Consens Evang. And in the same place Petrum ter interrogavit utrum ab illo amaretur ei pascendas commendavit Oves Dominus respondenti amorem commendat agnos suos Serm. 149. de Temp. Tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum Gregem suscepit In festo Cathedrae Petri. Cui pascendas Oves suas post Resurrectionem Dominus commendavit Cont. Epist Manih And again Pastor est Petrus cui pascendas Oves credidisti ipse commendasti Interrogatur amor imperatur labor Festo Cathed Petri Oves pascere jubetur
Lib. 10. Cap. 14. in Lucam Dixit ei Jesus Pasce Agnos meos Bene conscius sui non ad tempus assumptum sed jamjudum Deo cognitum Petrus testificatur affectum quis est enim alius qui de se hoc facilè profiteri possit ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur major enim omnibus Charitas Here St. Ambrose clearly acknowledges that the Reason of his Prelation before the Rest was because he lov'd more than they and that he did so is the Sense of other Fathers as well as his Hence Chrysost calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Raging Ardent Mad Lover of Christ And in his Hom. 1. de Paenitentia he says That he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More love for Christ than all the Disciples besides Nazianzen calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A greater Lover of his Lord than the other Apostles St. Hierom on Matt. 16. Nimii ardoris amorisque quam maximi fuit Petrus in Salvatorem St. Austin Tract 124. John Sciebat Dominus non solùm quod diligeret verùm etiam quod plus illis illum deligeret And in the same Tract Quod Petrus plus aliis dilexit Christum possunt multa documenta proferri This excessive love towards his Lord made him generous and forward in his Promises and Protestations to him and likewise adventurous in exposing his life for him When Christ was seiz'd on by Judas's Company he only drew and fought for him And after his Resurrection he could not conceal the Ardour of his Affection nor the Gallantry of his Spirit he being the only Person all the Rest continuing abroad that upon the first Intelligence of Christs appearance on the Shore impatient of the dull progress of the becalm'd Vessel hastning to his Lord threw himself into the Sea And altho' St. John was more quicksighted and saw Christ first St. Peter was more ardent and arriv'd to him first As Nazianz. affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Cartwright knowing Peter's surpassing Love towards Christ to be very considerable and that it would make a great inclination of the Ballance to his advantage had a mind to elude it by reviving an old Cheat which was extant in St. Augustin's days We may deny says he that the Comparison here is made between the Love of Peter and the Love of the Rest but between the Love he bare to Christ above that he had to his Ship Nets and his present Friends This St. Austin looks on as a cunning Interpretation Vafre diligis me plus his i. e. plusquam hi diligunt me sed diligis me plus his i. e. plusquam hos diligis But de Sanctis Petro Paulo he discovers the Forgery herein non simpliciter dixerat Dominus diligis me sed addiderat plus his diligis me id est plus me diligis quam isti The next thing that the Palate of your Fancy seems to disrelish is my affirming Peter by vertue of these words Pasce Oves meas to have receiv'd Authority over the whole World and over the Apostles themselves All that you alledge in opposition thereto is this But Christ said Pasce Oves meas not tuas and Pasce Oves not Pastores likewise confirma Fratres is not confirma Filios or Subditos By these ingenious and subtile distinctions you fancy to have overthrown what I wrote on this matter but to me those distinctions seem to be only whiffling and versatile Could any Vafrous Proteus transmute himself into more varieties of shapes only to make an Evasion But pray now you have done shuffling give me leave to cut the Expression is proper enough for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Timothy which is translated to divide right signifies properly to cut right I do believe and assert that the words Oves meas do impale and infold all Christs Sheep in general as well the Apostles as other Christians all were recommended and deliver'd over to Peter's care and prefecture the words being deliver'd indefinitely in an unlimited manner there being no Exception Restriction or Distinction And herein I proceed according to the Rule of St. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is indefinite compre hends all This was likewise St. Bernards Sense Lib. 2. de Conf. ad Eugenium Si me amas Petre Pasce Oves meas inquit quas illius vel illius populos Civitatis aut Regionis aut certe Regni Oves meas inquit cui non planum non designasse aliquas sed assignasse omnes Nihil excipitur ubi nihil distinguitur Thus you see according to his Opinion Peters Power was not confin'd within the limited Tropicks of any particular Kingdom or Regions but without any Boundary or Horison to terminate it without any Shores or Frontires to restrain it was stretch'd and extended over the vast Universe This I shall likewise prove out of St. Chrysost and Theophyl for St. Bernard will be excepted against as living in the time of Antichrists chief exaltation and therefore not to be regarded says Dr. Fulk or as Dr. Whitaker has it he lived in those times quando Papatûs splendore acies perstringebatur animorum St. Chrysost Hom. 87. in Johan says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ foretold St. Peter great things and deliver'd the World into his Hands This his Oecumenical Jurisdiction he acknowledges Hom. 1. de Paenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ deliver'd into his Hands the Government of the Oecumenical Church And on the 16th of St. Matt. he confesses him to preside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every where in the World Hence he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Master of the Vniverse Theophyl likewise in his Comments on Johan 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ delivers to Peter the Government of the Sheep of all the World And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Follow me delivering into your Hands the whole World I shall add no more Testimonies now on this Point intending to prosecute it further in my Second Part. I am oblig'd now to take some small Cognisance of your several nice Distinctions your first was that Christ said Oves meas not tuas I wish you had explain'd what you meant by this Criticism that I might have shap'd a pertinent Reply which otherwise it may be I shall not I find the Archbishop Spalato to make a cunning Interpretation on Oves meas i. e. says he Israelitas because Christ declar'd he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of Israel and because St. Paul calls Christ Minister Circumcisionis by this Gloss he design'd to rob Peter of the Prefecture of the Gentiles limiting him to the Jews which Error I shall confute in my Second Part. St. Austin in his Serm. 123. in Johan says thus Si me diligis non te pascere cogita sed Oves meas Et sicut Oves meas non sicut tuas Gloriam meam in eis quaere non tuam Lucra mea non tua Dominium meum non
tuum Here St. Austin explains what he meant by his Distinction what you design'd by it to me is wrapt up in Clouds unless you fancy that our Savior delivering his Sheep into the Hands of Peter lost his propriety in them But I fancy Christ no more lost his Claim and Interest in his Sheep when he recommended them to Peters Government than a King loses his Royalty and Jurisdiction in those Subjects over whom he constitutes a Viceroy For neither Peter nor any of the Apostles set up for themselves Neither did they lay any other Foundation but Christ and their united endeavours were to make Men Christanos not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius calls them You may then now understand Peters Jurisdiction to be derivative from and subordinate to our Savior and tho' in respect to the other Apostles and Christians whatsoever he was chief Pastor yet in relation to Christ who is the only Supreme Independent Pastor he is but a Sheep yet the Noblest most Honourable and Excellent of the Flock as St. Chrysost says in Apost 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as such a Sheep he is govern'd and fed by Christ This St. Austin Serm. 62. Johan 2. affirms Commendabat Christus Petro agnos suos pascendos qui pascebat Petrum Yet it do's not at all follow but that Peter after Christ's relinquishing this World was the Pastor of all Christ's Sheep but by Authority from him and as dependant of him and herein you may see St. Austin's Judgment in his Book de Pastoribus Nam ipsum Petrum cui commendabat Oves suas quasi alter alteri unum secum facere volebat ut sic ei Oves commendaret ut sit ille Caput ille figuram Corporis portaret id est Ecclesiae And again in the same Book Non ibi dixit Dominus Ego pascam Oves meas non tu sed Petre amas me Pasce Oves meas Here Christ is said not to feed his Flock that is visibly but Peter Your other Criticism is that Christ said Pasce Oves not Pastores but the difficulty of this Distinction may be remov'd with great facility for 't is very easie to explain how Pastors may be fed even to the lowest Capacity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that it may be more intelligible I will make it out to you by this Simile You who are a Minister of such a Parish in relation to your Flock and Parishioners are a Pastor and they are your Sheep receiving from you Spiritual Food and Pasture But you on the other side this Janus having a bifront aspect in relation to your Bishop are a Sheep and he has Power to exercise his Pastoral Government over you when he sees occasion And to rise to an higher Ela a Bishop Archbishop or Primate are Pastors in consideration of those Sheep which are in subjection to them but being ballanc'd with a Patriarch they are Sheep themselves Thus it was with the Apostles they in reflection to the whole Christian World were Pastors Governors and Princes but in comparison with Peter the Head of the Apostolick Senate and Supreme Pastor immediately next to Christ they were Sheep And to this intent our Savior seem'd to have chang'd the words in his Commission to Peter as St. Ambrose observes in his Lib. 10. Cap. 24. in Luc. Denique tertiò Dominus non jam diligis me sed amas me interrogat Et jam non agnos ut primò quodam lacte pascendos nec oviculas ut Secundò sed Oves pascere jubetur perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret And the same Author in another place says thus Petro committi incipientes proficientes perfectos Hence Euseb Emissenus Serm. De Nat. St. Johan says Non solùm Pastorem sed Pastorum Pastorem eum constituit And Arnobius on Psal 138. calls him a Bishop of Bishops which is equipollent to a Pastor Pastorum Ecce Apostolo paenitenti succurritur qui est Episcopus Episcoporum The next thing I am to regard is your Asterisk and Note on Confirma Fratres that it was not said Confirma Filios or Servos or Subditos but Fratres I have no design to endeavour to alter the least tittle of the Text but shall liberally grant you your Observation And now what will you inferr out of it that they were therefore equal because they were call'd Fratres This surely must be the design of your Criticism but I deny the Consequence for you will find our Savior to call his Disciples Fratres as Matt. 20. 10. Nuntiate Fratribus ut eant in Galilaeam and speaking to Mary Magdalen he says Vade ad Fratres meos c. I hope you will not conclude the Apostles equal with him upon this account St. Paul in like manner calls the Corinthians Fratres in his Epistle to them Et ego Fratres non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus Hoc itaque dico Fratres But notwithstanding this Appellation he had Spiritual Jurisdiction over them and exercis'd it too as appears by delivering one of them over to Hell's Jailor And in Cor. 4. he says Quid vultis in virgâ veniam vobis an in Charitate This Virga was a Symbol of Power Oecomenius on the words Viri Fratres in the 2. Acts Apost gives this account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not say Fratres by way of Equality as if by such a term they had equaliz'd themselves to them but to shew how familiar they were with them Now the reason why Christ spake to Peter to strengthen his Brethren was according to Theophyl because he look'd on him as their Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Cyril accordingly on the same words Postquam me negato ploraveris corrobora Fratres cum te Principem Apostolorum deputavero St. Ambrose do's clearly confess that by vertue of these words spoken to him Christ made him their Supreme Pastor in Psa 43. Ecclesiae praeponitur postquam tentatus a Diabolo est ideoque ante significat Dominus quid sit illud quod postea eum elegit gregis Dominici Pastorem nam huic dixit confirma Fratres tuos Having thus remov'd these your slender Objections with as much ease as the Wind puffed away the aged Sybils disordered Leafs I shall now hasten to conclude what I have to say more on this Subject and to shew you how fair an Antagonist you have of me If you can prove that the other Apostles were none of Christ's Sheep I will exempt them from Peter's Prefecture This seems to me an equitable proposal Now if they were his Sheep they were under the denomination of Oves meas recommended to Peter's Shepherdly Government Now that which enforces me to believe that they were comprehended under those words and that Christ meant them when he said so is because he often calls them Sheep I 'll strike the Shepherd and the Sheep shall be scattered My Sheep hear my Voice Behold I send you as Sheep And accordingly in the 10th
Baptism and the Creed c. In ipsa Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non estis They believ'd more than what you esteem as Fundamental yet were out of the Pale of the Catholick Church In this Church is Unity of Faith Harmony in Doctrine Conformity in Administration of the Sacraments Uniformity in her Liturgy and Ceremonies all the World over To distinguish this Church from all Heretical Sects the Apostles in their Creed the Antient Fathers in their Writings gave her the Sir-name of Catholick This very name seem'd so emphatical to St. Austin that he reckons it as a principal reason next to the Succession of Popes from St. Peter that kept him in the true Church Cont. Epist Manichaei Tenet ipsum Catholicae nomen quod non sine causa inter tam multas Haereses sic ipsa Ecclesia sola obtinuit ut cum omnes Haeretici se Catholicos dici velint Quaerenti tamen peregrino alicui ubi ad Catholicam conveniatur nullus Haereticorum vel Basilicam suam vel domum audeat ostendere From this place you may evidently see That it was the humor of the Hereticks of those Days as well as it is now to affect the Title of Catholick but this was but an usurpation in them and so 't is with you He says the Greeks call'd this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod per torum orbem terrarum diffunditur And according to this sense it is true Hereticks may be called Catholicks for they are disseminated all over the World But in his Fourth Book against Cresconius he makes this distinction betwixt a Real Catholick and an Heretical one Catholicks says he are the same every where and Hereticks are different Hence 't is that a Lutheran will not Communicate with a Greek nor a Greek with a Lutheran nor a Calvinist with a Muscovite nor an Anabaptist with an Armenian or an Hugonot with a Georgian vice versa whereas a Catholick Communicates with a Catholick in any part of the World as Members of the same Body and as having the same Unity of Faith as Irenaeus affirms in his first Book C. 3. The Church spread over the whole World having receiv'd the true belief keeps it and practiseth it as if it dwelt but in one House and had but one Soul and Heart Neque hae quae in Germania sunt fundatae Ecclesiae aliter credunt neque hae quae in Iberis sunt neque hae quae in Celtis neque hae quae in Oriente Aegypto Lybia Thus it was at first when Christian Churches were united and untainted with Heresie for the Apostles taught the self same Doctrine wherever they went and all those various Churches seated in divers Kingdoms and Regions differed only in Situation not in Doctrine Hence from their Unity of Faith they may be called One Church as St. Chrysost in his Comments on first Corinth affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There ought to be but one Church in the World although it be divided into many places Now 't is evident that of all Orthodox Churches an Union of which constitutes the Catholick Rome as being the See of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles was the chief and upon that account though Hierusalem and Antioch were somewhat before her in time she was before them in Dignity Hence by Irenaeus she is called the Greatest and most Glorious by St. Cyprian the Principle Church and St. Austin says 't is Arrogancy to deny her the Primacy and that she had obtain'd the Primacy frustra Haereticis latrantibus Hence it is that by way of Eminency she is call'd the Catholick Church including all the latitude of her Communion of which she is the Center the Mother the Mistress the Radix Matrix Hence 't is that the Fathers promiscuously use Catholick and Roman as Synonima's as I shall hereafter demonstrate out of them CHAP. III. Concerning the Respect which Catholicks pay to Images I Shall next employ my self in taking a Prospect of those Points for maintaining which you would prove Rome notoriously guilty of Paternal Schism and this I do the more willingly because you stand highly guilty of a false Representing them The First is Image-Worship as you phrase it which you have improv'd and sublimated to that height as to make it pass for Idolatry This is done to render your selves acceptable and us odious to the Populace as Violators of the first Commandment 'T is but rendring Pesel which properly signifies Sculptile to be an Image and then boldly affirming us Idolators to bring all the places in Scripture and Fathers against the Idolatry of the Gentiles and the business is done But those places are indeed nothing to your purpose they only importing a Prohibition of giving Soveraign Honor due to God to an Idol whereas you are to prove out of Scripture That 't is unlawful to give a Relative Honor to the Picture of Christ for his sake But by this Action you do not only shew your self defamatory but ungrateful to the Roman Church which when this Nation lay really in the Pollutions of Idolatry took compassion of us and by planting the Gospel here rescu'd us from that Calamitous Condition This confounding Image-worship with Idolatry is certainly a most fraudulent and malitious Method they being quite different things the one is an Honorary Relative Respect to the thing represented which is Sacred But the other is a Worshipping a Creature an Idol a Devil or false God in some dark Representation giving it Divine Incommunicable Attributes and in the Imagination exercising supreme Devotion to it for to those Idols by Magical Conjuration they annexed an Evil Spirit to do Wonders and thereby to extort Divine Worship from the cheated People hence they are often call'd Gods as in the Fifth of Daniel they pray'd their Gods of Silver Brass Iron Wood Stone Now to ascribe this heinous Sin to the Catholick Church is highly injurious Idolatry being the blackest Sin a Church can be spotted with for it doth not only thereby cease to be a true Christian Church but it becomes worse than a Jewish Synagogue and I had rather turn Jew or Turk than Idolater There is no Question but that Idolatry is a sufficient excuse for any one to fall off from a Church that is tainted with it But if this were the reason of your falling off from Rome the pretence was malicious and forg'd and Mr. Thorndike who well knew what Idolatry was will tell you in his Just weight Cap. primo his Opinion herein whose words are these Should the Church of England declare that the change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this supposition I must then acknowledge that we are Schismaticks But I shall now make a short Discussion of this Point according to the Definition of the Council of Trent which I find to take all care imaginable to obviate any accusation herein the Words being as so many Characters to distinguish the respect paid to an Image from Idolatry First the