and as Head of a new and strange Church draws the Body of his Faction after him into the same Schism in flat contradiction to the essential Profession both of the ancient and present Church of Rome and to that solemn Oath by which also the Pope as Pope binds himself at his Inauguration to maintain and communicate with Hence not only Vsurpation Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysius so utterly silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning Dionysius at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 290. The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Turtullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To.
differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Fathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in sid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2. Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church And as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observés which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged with Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction and will
so prodigiously lets flie against the Stile of Vniversal Bishop yet all this is said and must be maintained lest we should exclude the Vniversal Pastorship out of the Primitive Church There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist upon this Argument with which I shall not trouble the Reader yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any shew of Argument on their Side among which the words of Saint Gregory following in his Argument are most material Object Saint Gregory saith the care of the whole Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles Saint Peter and yet he is not called the Vniversal Bishop Sol. 'T is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say that the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter again that he was the Prince of the Apostles and yet he was not called Vniversal Apostle 't is hence plain that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry in it so much as Vniversal Bishop otherwise Saint Gregory would not have given the one and denied him the other and 't is as plain that he had the care of all Churches and so had Saint Paul but 't is not plain that he had Power over all Churches Doctor Hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself in the Novels if any Complaint be made saith he against a Bishop the Cause shall be judged before the Metropolitane Secundum Regulas Ex Reg. lib. 11. Ep. 54. Sanctas Nostras Leges if the Party stand not to his Judgment the Cause is to be brought to the Arch-Bishop or Patriarch of that Diocess and he shall give it a Conclusion according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid no place left for Appeal to Rome Object Yet it must be acknowledged Saint Gregory adds si dictum fuerit c. where there is no Metropolitane nor Patriarch the Cause may be heard by the ApostolickSee which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches Sol. Now if this be allowed what hath the Pope gained if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch how is he the nearer to the Vniversal Authority over those Churches that have Primates of their own or which way will he by this means extend his Jurisdiction to us in England who have ever had more than one Metropolitane the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was once acknowledged by a Pope to be Alterius Orbis Apostolicus Patriarch But admitting this extraordinary Case that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick 't is a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it then that his late Grace should mention it at which A. C. so much admires for this one observation with the assistance of that known Rule in Law exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis puts a plain and speedy end to the whole Controversie for if recourse may be had to Rome from no other place but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarcb then not from England either when Saint Gregory laid down the Rule or ever since and perhaps then from no other place in the World and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary Case that might possibly happen for it is but reason that where there is no Primate to appeal to appeal should be received somewhere else and where better than at Rome which Saint Gregory calls Caput omnium Ecclesiarum and this is the utmost advantage the Romanist can hope to receive from the Words Object But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head of all Churches Sol. 'T is true whether he intends a Primacy of Fame or visible Splendor and Dignity being the Seat of the Emperor or Order and Vnity is not certain but 't is certain he intends nothing less by it than that which just now he denied a Supremacy of Power and Vniversal ordinary Jurisdiction he having in the words immediately sore-going concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate Object But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the thing though he denied the Word of Vniversal Sol. What Hypocrisie damn the Title as he doth and yet practise the thing you must have good proof His first Instance is of the Primate of Byzacene wherein the Emperor first put forth his Authority and would have him judged by Gregory Piissimus Imperator eum per nos voluit Vid. Ep. 65. l. 7. judicari saith Gregory Hence as Doctor Hammond smartly and soundly observes that Appeals from a Primate lie to none but the Supreme Magistrate To which purpose in the Cause of Maximus Bishop of Solana decreed excommunicate Ep. l. 3. Ep. 20. by Gregory his Sentence was still with this reserve and submission nisi prius unless I should first understand by my most Serene Lords the Emperors that they commanded it to be done Thus if this perfect instance as S. W. calls it have any force in it his Cause is gone what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it Besides the Emperors Command was that Gregory should judge him juxta Statuta Canonica and Gregory himself pleads quicquid esset Canonicum Judicaremus Thus S. W's Cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance for if Saint Gregory took the Judgment upon him in obedience to the Emperor and did proceed and was to proceed in judging according to the Canons where was then the Vniversal Monarchy Yet it is confessed by Dr. Hammond which is a full answer to all the other not so perfect instances that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch there being no lawful Superior who had power over him the injured person sometimes made his complaint to the Pope as being the most Eminent Person in the Church and in such case he questionless might and ought in all fraternal Charity admo nish the Primate or Patriarch or disclaim Communion with him unless he reform But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did formally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch or juridically and authoritively act in any such Cause without the express license of the Emperor which not being done his instances are answered besides Saint Gregory always pleads the Ancient Canons which is far from any claim of Vniversal Pastorship by Divine Right or Donation of Christ to Saint Peter I appeal saith Doctor Hammond to S. W. whether that were the Interpretation of secundum Canones and yet he knows that no other Tenure but that will stand him in stead Indeed the unhappiness is as the Doctor observes that such Acts at first but necessary Vid. dispat disp p. 408. to p 423. fraternal charity were by ambitious men drawn into example and means of assuming power of Vniversal Pastorship which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing than by those Ancient examples which being rightly considered pretend no higer than Ecclesiastical Canons and the Universal Laws of Charity but never made
the true God without a ◠Cr. 15. 3. Teaching Priest and without Law Vid. Dr. Still p. 239 c. 2. It is also argued from that Example of rhe Apostles under the New Testament that Ar. 2. Example H. T. they were assisted with an Infallible Spirit and Ans there is the same reason for the Pope But this is to dispose Gods Gifts and Wisdom by our own Reason The Apostles Infallibility attested with Miracles was necessary to the first Plantation and State of the Church and it no more followeth that therefore the succeeding Bishops must be insallible because they were so than that because Moses wrought miracles for the confirmation of the Law therefore the Sanhedrin should work Miracles for the ordinary Government of Israel according to the Law Besides what reason can be given why this priviledge of Infallibility should be entailed upon the Bishops of Rome more than other Bishops who succeeded the Infallible Apostles as well as the Pope What ground hath he to claim it more than they Or if they have all an interest in it what becomes of the Argument that the Pope is the universal Head and Governor of the Church because he is Infallible SECT II Arg. 2. From the Promises of Infallibility Ar. 2 GOd hath promised that his Church shall be preserved which Promise engageth his Infallible Assistance Therefore the Church by that assistance is always Infallible To this mighty purpose A. C. reasons with A. B. Laud. Ans God will certainly and Infallibly have a Church therefore that Church shall not only be but be Infallible in all her decrees de fide Is not this strong Reason God is Infallible therefore his Church is so a Church shall continue therefore it shall not Err Pray what Security doth the promise of the Churches Perpetuity or Infallibility as to Fundamentals give to any single Person or particular Church that they shall continue in the Christian Faith more than it did to seven Churches in Asia And where are they now The Argument will conclude as well God hath promised his Church shall ever exist upon Earth therefore Christians of which the Church consists shall never dye as well as never fall away For if the Promise be made to the Present Church in the Romanists sence it is made to the Individuals that make the Church 2. And that every particular Christian as well as every particular Church having an equal common interest in the promise of assistance is infallible If we should grant the Vniversal Church to be Infallible not only as to her Perpetuity but her Testimony which the Argument reacheth not yet it rests to be proved that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and then that the Pope is the Church of Rome in the same sence that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and that in the same consideration as the Catholick Church is Infallible But if we consider the particular Promises the Argument thence is so wide and inconclusive that one would think no considerate man could be abused by it These promises are such as concern the Apostles and Church in general or such as are pretended General to Apostles 〈◊〉 to dignifie St. Peter in special and above the rest Such as concern the Apostles and the Church Luc. 10. 16. Math. 28. 20. in general are these three He that heareth you heareth me c True while you teach me that is my Doctrine I am with you always to the end of the world True while you are faithful and teach whatsoever I command The Comforter Joh. 14. 16. the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever True also while you love me and keep my Commandments As the Condition is just before the Promise Now what are these Texts to the Pope or the Church of Rome in special They certainly that plead the Promise should not neglect the duty it were well if that was thought on The Popes special Friends insist on other promises more peculiarly designed as they would have them for St. Peter's Prerogative They are St. Peter these 1. The First is Math. 16. 18. Thou art Peter Text. and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it An. But what is this to St. Peter's Infallibility The Church shall not be overthrown therefore St. Peter is Infallible What 's this to the Popes Infallibility The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church therefore the Pope is Infallible Can God find no other way to preserve the Church but St. Peter's Infallibility and the Popes Infallibility Is this promise made to secure the Church under St. Peter and his Successors absolutely from all error How came St. Peter himself to fall then by denying his Master and to err about Act. 1. 6. the Temporal Kingdom of Christ And Popes to be Blasphemers Heretical Atheistical How came so many particular Churches that were under the Apostolick Chair if all were so at first to miscarry as those first Churches in Asia did But whatever is here promised to St. Peter is nothing to the Pope unless the Pope be indeed St. Peter's Successor and sit in his Chair the great point reserved for the last Refuge and shall there at large be examined The next Promise is Joh. 21. Peter feed my Text. 2. Sheep therefore the Pope is Infallible But must not others feed Christs Sheep and are they Infallible too 'T is acutely said that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the rest of the Apostles as extraordinary Ambassadors But doth this Text say so or any other Text How came it to pass that the ordinary Pastor should be greater than the extraordinary Embassadors How is it proved that this power of Feeding is Infallible only as in St. Peter or as such is transmitted to St. Peters Successor in a more peculiar manner than to the Successors of other Apostles And that the Pope is this Successor this must be considered hereafter their proof is not yet ready Another is Luke 22. 31. Simon Simon Satan Text. 3. hath desired to winnow thee but I have prayed that thy Faith fail not Viz. that thou perish not in Apostacy not that thou be absolutely secured from error nor thy pretended Successors And had not others the Prayer of Christ also Joh. 17. even all that should believe on him In a word what is this to the Pope that Peter should not utterly miscarry in the High-Priests Hall Unless it fignifie that the Pope may err grievously as St. Peter did though he hath no more the security of not failing in the Faith than every ordinary Christian hath But this trifling with holy Scripture provokes Rebuke and deserves no answer If any desire further satisfaction either upon these or other like Scriptures urged for the Popes or the Churches Infallibility let them peruse P. 254. c. Dr. Stillingfleet in defence of my Lord of Canterbury
especially when that fails him yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pretences who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons as they say the Pope is If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches And if it could be proved too yet one thing more remains to be proved to subject the Church of England to that his power viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such or without our own consent or allowance And 't is impossible this should be proved while our Kings are Supreme and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood However we decline not the examination of the plea viz. that the Popes Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils viz. general But when this is said it is but reasonable to demand which or in what Canons It is said the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils in which of these is the grant to be found Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible We find it very plain that in some of those Councils and those the most ancient this Power is expresly denyed him and that upon such reason as is eternal and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever if future Grants were to be just and reasonable or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity by the Canons of the Fathers or fidelity to the Church to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws and he had ever shewed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes as well as over all persons Ecclesiastical even Popes themselves 't is not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine or to the prejudice of the Emperor 's said Supremacy and consequently not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes Justinian's Sanction extended to the four Justin Sanction of four first great Councils Nic. Constant Ephes 1. and Calcedon in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canones qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt confirmati hoc est Niceno c. praedictorum enim Consdiorum dogmata sicut divinas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges observamus Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not Apostles Canons not mention reason confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles whether because their Authority was suspected especially many of them or because Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly General Council or because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus c. or lastly whether because the first fifty had before a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole Ibid. Church or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors the Apostles or Apostolical men I venture not to declare my opinion But truly there seems something considerable for the later for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons but their own by the Quotation of them taking Authority from them as Laws founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon in such matters as were found there determined A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have full to our present purpose given us by Binius Nicena Synodus Can. 6. c. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed those Bin. To. 1. p. 20. Canons of the Apostles appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitane Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus and do nothing without their own Diocess but rather the Bishop of Alexandria according to the Canons understand saith Binius those 35 36 of the Apostles must govern the Churches of Egypt the Bishop of the East the Eastern Churches the Ephesine Synod also saith it is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus c. Hence it is plain that according to Apostles Canons interpreted and allowed as Authentick so far at least by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief over the Churches within his Provinces and that he as such exclusive of all Forreign Superior Power was to govern and ordain within his own Provinces not consonant to but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers and the matter is plainer SECT I. Can. Apostol THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose but what we find in Can. 35 36. or in the Reddition as Binius gives it Can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Bishops of 35 33. every Nation know or they ought to know who among them is accounted or is chief and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput and do nothing difficult aut magni momenti praeter ejus Conscientiam vel Sententiam but what if the matter were too hard for the Primate is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome here was indeed a proper place for it but not a word of that In the 36 aliàs 34. it is added that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction but neither of these Canons concern the Pope unless they signifie that the Pope is not Head of all Churches and hath not power in any place but within the Diocess of Rome or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Head in his Note upon these Canons SECT II. Concil Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion VVE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod that looks our way except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let ancient Custom be kept through Can. 6. Egypt Libia and Pentapolis so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be kept in their own Churches but suppose differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have
without a universal Monarch to send Preachers into other Provinces c. Ans Who can doubt but that the Governors of any Church have as much Power to send any of her members and have as much power in Pagan and Infidel Countries as the supposed Vniversal Bishop And if Hereticks can propagate their errors why should not the Orthodox the Truth without the Pope Arg. 3 3. 'T is necessary saith Bellar. that all the faithful should have one Faith which cannot be without one chief Judge Ans In necessaries they may in other things they need not as appears sufficiently among the Romanists about this as well as other points neither could Peter himself with the help of the rest of the Apostles in their time prevent Heresies and Schisms These things are too weak to bear up the great power and Vniversal Monarchy pretended and indeed an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of Christ if he have not provided such a Government for his Church as they plead a necessity of for the said ends The thing next to be enquired 2. Not from Scripture Prophesies Promises Metaphors or Example of High-Priest They affirm that the Scriptures evince an universal Monarchy over the Church but how is it proved Arg. The Prophecies and Promises and sundry Metaphors of a House Kingdom Body Flock c. prove the Church to be one in it self and consequently it must have one Supreme Governor Ans We are agreed that the Church is but one and that it hath one Supreme Governor And we are agreed that Christ hath the Supreme Government of it and that those Scriptures too signifie that he is such if we consider the Government to be Imperial as Hart confesseth to Dr. Raynolds And thus the Argument passeth without any harm but it still rests to be proved that the ministerial Governor is but one or that the Scriptures intend so or St. Peter or the Pope as his Successor is that one Governor over the whole Church 'T is true as our Saviour saith there is one Flock and one Shepherd but 't is as true which he saith in the same place I am that good Shepherd but as that one principal Pastor had many Vicars not Peter only but 12 Apostles to gather and feed the Sheep who were therefore sent to Preach to all Nations And did as it said divide the World into 12 Provinces respectively So that one great Monarch might have many Viceroy's if we may so call the future Bishops to govern the Church though in Faith but one yet in site and place divided 'T is no unreasonable thing that the King of Brittain and Ireland should Govern Scotland and Ireland which lye at some distance from him by his Deputations as before was hinted Arg. 2 There was one High-Priest over the Church of the Jews and by Analogy it ought to be so in the Christian Church Ans Many things were in that Church which ought not to be in this They were one Nation as well as one Church and if every Christian Nation have one High-Priest the Analogy holds well enough The making the Nations of the World Christian hath as experience shews rendred the Government of the Church by one person that cannot reside in all places very inconvenient if not impracticable Now if our Saviour foresaw this and hath ordered the government of the Christian Church otherwise than Moses had that of the Jews who shall say What hast thou done 2. It can never be proved that the High-Priest over the Jews was either called the Judge Vid. Ray. and Hart. p. 240. or had such Power over that Church as the Pope pretends over the Christian Lastly 't is not doubted but Moses was Faithful and Christ as faithful in appointing a fit Government for these great and distinct States of the Church But what kind of Government Moses appointed is nothing to the question unless it appear that Christ hath appointed the same The proper question is whether Christ hath appointed that the Christian Church should be governed by one universal Monarch let us apply to that The great issue is the instance of St. Peter 'T is affirmed that our Lord committed the Government of the Christian Church to St. Peter and his Successors the Popes of Rome for ever A Grant of so great consequence ought to be Ar. 3. Peter very plain the whole World is concern'd and may expect Evidence very clear 1. That Christ gave this universal Supremacy to St. Peter And 2. To the Pope as his Successor if either fail Roma Ruit SECT II. Of St. Peter's Monarchy Tu es Petrus Fathers abused VVE are now come to the quick The first great question is Whether Christ gave his Apostle St. Peter the Government of his whole Church This would be proved from Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will 1 Scrip. Matth. 16. 18. build my Church The Argument is what Christ promised he gave but in these words Christ promised to make Peter the Supreme Head and Governor of his Church therefore this Power was given him Ans If this Argument conclude by this Rock must be meant St. Peter and the words I will build my Church upon it must signifie the committing the Supreme Power of the Church to him For the First It is at least a controversie among the ancient Fathers and many of them do deny that by this Rock we are to understand any thing but that Confession which was evidently the occasion of this Promise and was made by Peter just before as St. Cyril Hilary Jerom Ambrose Basil and St. Augustine whose Lapsus humanus in it is reproved by Stapleton Princ. doct li. 6. c. 3. But I am willing to agree as far as we may and therefore shall not deny but something peculiar to St. Peter's Person was here promised though I believe it was a point of Honour not a Supremacy of Power what that was will appear by the thing promised I will build my Church that is upon my Doctrine preached by thee I will build my Church thou shalt have the honour of being a prime and principal Author of the Worlds Conversion or as Dr. Reynolds against Hart Peter was in order with the first who believed P. 60. and amongst those First he had a mark of Honour in that he was named Stone above his Brethren Yet as he so the Rest are called Foundations and indeed so were in both these Sences For the Twelve were all Prime Converts and converters of others and were Foundations in their respective Provinces on which others were built But they were not built one upon another and they had no other Foundation on which they themselves were built but Christ himself We are willing to any thing that the Sence of the words will conveniently bear but that they should signifie Power and Government over the whole Church and the rest of the Apostles we cannot understand for the Rock is supposed before the building upon
the Rest of the Apostles were Christs Sheep and members of his Church Hart and Ray. p 129. Ans Christ saith not to Peter feed all my Sheep but he doth say to them all Preach to every Creature And if Peter have power over the rest because they are Sheep and he is to feed the Sheep then every one of the rest have power over Peter because he is a Creature and they are to preach to every Creature But this is trifling so is all that is further argued from this Text though by Feeding we understand Ruling Ruling of Pastors or what you will while whatsoever was charged on Peter here is within the same Commission wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally impowered as before and that of Bellarmine that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the Apostles as extraordinary Embassadors is altogether as groundless as if there were any colour of Reason that an ordinary Pastor should have more power than an extraordinary Embassador Dr. Hammond observes Bellarmine was not 13 Oct. 1562. the Author of that Artifice Cajetan and Victoria had used it before him and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent where the Bishop of Granada derided it and the Authors of it and soon after the Bishop of Paris expresly affirmed that Cajetan was about 50 years before the first deviser of it The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture as understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen as he affirmed Concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11. To conclude this matter Feed my Sheep are not a ground for the Popes Presidency which are found not to be so of Peter's above the body of the Universal Church as was publickly pronounced in the Covent of the Fryers Minors and appears by the Opusc of John Patriarch of Antioch And Cardinal Cusanus who lived at the same De Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 23. time makes them words of Precept not of Institution and both are agreeable to the interpretatiou of the Ancients St. Ambrose de dign Sacerd. c. 2. Aug. de Ago Christiano c. 30. Theoph. in Joh. c. 21 c. It is time to look further The third great place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being Luk. 22. 31 converted strengthen thy Brethren Whence Hart reasons thus Christ commands Peter to strengthen Rayn and Hart. p. 142. his Brethren and his Brethren were the Apostles Therefore he was to strengthen the Apostles and by consequence he must be their Supreme Head Ans When Hart urged this Argument with all his wit and might and Dr. Raynolds had made it evident there is no Authority given by the words nor carried in the word Strengthen that Equals and Inferiors are capable of it as well as Superiors much less can it necessarily imply a Supremacy over the whole Church he confesseth with Stapleton that Christ gave the Power to Peter after his Resurrection when he said to him Feed my Lambs which we have weighed before but those words of strengthning c. he spake before his death and did but futuram insinuaverat insinuate therein and as Harts word is that he would make him Supreme Head then if he did not make him so afterward he did it not at all That Peter had power over the rest of the 4 Scrip. Apostles would be proved as before from the Promise and Commission of Christ so at last by Peter's Execution he proposed the Election of a Act. 1. 25. new Apostle in the Room of Judas Ans Therefore he was Speaker at least pro tempore in the Assembly but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch Obj. But St. Chrysostom saith that though Peter's modesty was commendable for doing all things by common advice and consent and nothing by In Matth. 40. 51. his own Authority yet addeth that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself Ans Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him by the rest a Primacy not a Supremacy Again In Matth. Hom. 15. he derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apostles not the donation of Christ as Hart Rayn Hart. p. 156. confesseth But indeed the Father exceeded in his Charity and 't is he that said that Peter might have chosen one himself The Scripture saith not that he might yea it saith he did not And the Argument from Peter's Execution of this power is come to this that he did not execute it Besides many Fathers and in Council too together with St. Cyprian pronounce that Peter proposing the matter to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice did according to the lessons and Precepts of God therefore jure divino they thought Peter had no such power as Dr. Raynolds shews p. 159. But when Peter had been heard all the Multitude held their peace and James and all the 5 Scrip. Act. 15. Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence Ans What is this to prove his Supremacy because the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him was therefore Gamaliel a Pharisee a Doctor of the Law whom all the People honoured Supreme Head and Superior to the High-Priest and Act. 3. 34. Council And if Jerom say Peter was Princeps Decreti he acknowledged perhaps the Reason the Motion and the Delivery or declaration of it principally to Peter the first Author of the Sentence as the same Jerom calls him and explains himself Epist 11. inter Epistol August So was Tully called viz. Prince of Decrees when he was Pro Cor. Balbo neither President nor Prince of the Senate We conclude that Peter had no Superiority of Power or Government over the rest of the Apostles or the whole Church because it neither was promised him nor given him nor Peter added Nihil doctrinae aut potestatis Aquinas Not inferior to the chief Apost 2 Cor. 11. 5. Executed by him notwithstanding Bellarmine's 28 Prerogatives of St. Peter from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue many of them being uncertain some vain and trifling and some common with the rest of the Apostles but neither divisim or conjunctim sufficient to make or to evince any real Supremacy of power in St. Peter 5. 'T is indeed said by some of the Fathers So Paul judged Chris Hom. 12. 2. 87. that the Government of the World and the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but it is plain they speak of his Apostleship for they say the same of Paul ille Solusgerebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orbis praefectam suscepit and the like of Timothy who was never reputed Vniversal Monarck Paul and Peter had two different Primacies Saint Hom. 1. ad Pop. Orat. 6. Con. Jud. Ambr. had the same Dignity Chrisost were equal Oecumenius CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession I Have laboured the more to scatter the pretences of Saint Peter's Supremacy because though the Consequence be not good
in the Vatican there after he had planted a Christian Church first at Antioch and afterwards at Rome S. Hierom. Page 246. 247. S. Peter 's Martyrdom Ioh. 21. 18. 19. Verily verily I say unto thee when thou wast young thou girdedst thy self walkedst whither thou wouldst but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands another shall gird thee carry thee whither thou wouldst not This spake he signifying by what death he should glorify God Peter had power of casting out of Devils c. and doing such miracles as the Pope pretends not to do Lastly what if the Pope affirms that he is and others account him to be St. Peter's Successor the point requires the truth there-of to be shewn Jure divino SECT V. Arg. 3. St. Peter dyed at Rome Then de Facto not de Fide Arg. 3 BEllarmine saith the Succession it self is Jure divino but the Ratio Successionis arose out of the Fact of St. Peter planting his See and dying at Rome and not from Christs first Institution Then doubts quamvis non sit c. whether this Succession be so according to his own position fortè non est de jure divino but neither shews the Succession it self to be Christs Institution at all nor proves the Tradition of Peter on which he seems to lay his stress and we may guess why he doth not Ans In short if the Succession of the Bishop of Rome be of Faith 't is so either in Jure or in Facto But neither is proved Yea the contrary is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself Not in Right because that is not certo divinum as Bellarmine confesseth Nor in Fact because before Peter's death which introduced no change in the Faith as Bellarmine also confesseth this Succession was not of Faith Indeed it is well observed that the whole weight of Bellarmine's reasoning is founded in Fact then where is the Jus divinum 2. In such fact of Peter as is not found in Scripture or can be proved any way 3. In such Fact as cannot constitute a Right either divine or humane 4. In such Fact as cannot conclude a Right in the sence of the most learned Romanists Scot. in 4. dist 24. Cordubensis lib. 4. qu. 1. Cajetan de prim pap c. 23. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 1. a. 10. who contend that the union of the Bishoprick of the City and the World is only per accidens and not Jure divino vel imperio Christi But when the uncertainty of that Fact on which the Right of so great and vast an Empire is raised is considered what further answer can be expected For is it not uncertain whether Peter were ever at Rome or whether he was ever Bishop of Rome or whether he dyed at Rome or whether Christ called him back that he might dye at Rome or whether he ordained Clement to succeed him at Rome Indeed there is little else certain about the matter but this that Peter did not derive to him that succeeded him and his Successors for ever his whole dignity and Power and a greater Authority than he had himself Jure divino But if we allow all the uncertainties mention'd to be most certain we need not fear to look the Argument with all its attendants and strength in the face Peter was Bishop of Rome was warned by Christ immediately to place his Seat at Rome to stay and dye at Rome and before he died he appointed one to succeed him in his Bishoprick at Rome Therefore the Bishops of Rome successively are universal Pastors and have supreme power over the whole Church jure divino Is not the cause rendred suspicious by such Arguments and indeed desperate that needs them and has no better SECT VI. Arg. 4. Councils Popes Fathers Arg. BEllarmine tells us boldly that the Primacy of the Roman High-Priest is proved out of the Councils the Testimonies of Popes by the consent of the Fathers both Greek and Latin Ans These great words are no Arguments the matter hath been examined under all these Topicks and not one of them proves a Supremacy of Power over the whole Church to have been anciently in the Pope much less from the beginning and jure divino especially when St. Augustine and the Greek Fathers directly opposed it as an Vsurpation A Primacy of Order is not in the question though that also was obtained by the ancient Popes only more humano an on Temporary Reasons as hath before appeared But as a learned man saith the Primacy of a Monarchical Power in the Bishop of Rome was never affirmed by any ancient Council or by any one of the ancient Fathers or so much as dreamt of and at what time afterwards the Pope took upon him to be a Monarch it should be inquired qno jure by what Right he did so whether by Divine Humane or altogether by his own i. e. no Right at all SECT VII Arg. 5. The Prevention of Schism St. Jerom. Ar. 5 A Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism as St. Hierom saith Now hence they urge that a mere precedency of Order is not sufficient for that Ans The Inference is not divine it is not St. Hieroms it is only for St. Peter and reacheth not the Pope Besides it plainly argues a mistake of St. Jerom's assertion and would force him to a Lib. 1. Jov. c. 14. contradiction For immediately before he teacheth that the Church is built equally on all the Apostles and that they all receive the Keys and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them all so that what Primacy he meant it consisted with Equality as Monarchy cannot Therefore St. Hierom more plainly in another Epis ad Evagr place affirms that wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome Constantinople c. Ejusdem meriti est ejusdem est Sacerdotii Again 't is neither Riches nor Poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower but they are all the Apostles Successors SECT VIII Arg. 6. Church committed to him Ar. 6 ST Chrysostom saith the Care of the Church was committed as to Peter so to his Successors Tum Petro tum c. therefore the Bishops of Rome being Successors of St. Peter in that Chair have the care and consequently the power committed to them which was committed to Peter Ans True the Care and power of a Bishop not of an Apostle or universal Monarch the commission of all other Bishops carried Care and power also But indeed this place proves not so much as that the Pope is Peter's Successor in either much less Jure divino which was the thing to be proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which followed in time and place not otherwise as before SECT IX Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrose Acacius Arg. 7 THere is one Chair saith Optatus quae prima est de Dotibus in which Peter sate first Linus succeeded him and Clemens Linus Optatus speaks nothing against the Title or power
of other Chairs or for the preheminence of power in this one Chair above the rest He intended not to exclude the other Apostolical Seats from the honour or power of Chairs For he saith as well that James sate at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus as that Peter sate at Rome which Tertullian calls Apostolicas Cathedras all presiding in their own places De praescrip c. 36. 'T is most evident that Optatus calls the Chair of Peter one not because of any Superiority over other Apostolical Chairs but because of the Vnity of the Catholick Church in opposition to the Donatists who set up another Chair in opposiion Altare contra Altare to the Catholick Church Bellarmine well observes that Optatus followed the doctrine of St. Cyprian who said there is but one Church one Chair c. And out of St. Cyprian himself his meaning therein is manifest Cyprian to be no other than a specifical not numerical Unity He tells us plainly in the same place that the other Apostles were the same with Peter equal in honour and power He teacheth that the one Bishoprick is dispersed consisting of the unanimous multitude of many Bishops that the Bishoprick is but one a portion whereof is wholly and fully Head of every Bishop So there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church i. e. all Bishops ought to be one in Faith and Fellowship Vid. Cypr. de Vnit Eccles lib. 3. Epis 11. But is it not prodigious that men should build the Pope's Dominion upon the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and Optatus The latter tells us roundly that whosoever is without the Communion of seven Churches of Asia is an Alien in effect calling the Pope Infidel and Saint Cyprian is well known to have always stiled Pope Cornelius Brother to have severely censured his Successor Pope Stephen contradicting his Decrees opposing the Roman Councils disclaiming the Pope's Power of Appeals and contemning his Excommunications A Council at Africk under Saint Cyprian as another wherein Saint Augustine sate rejected and condemned the Jurisdiction of the Pope over them as is frequently observed and why do men endeavour to blind the World with a few words of these great Fathers contrary to the known Language of their Actions and course of Life The sence of the words may be disputed but when it came to a Tryal their deeds are known to have shewed their mind beyond all dispute For Instance Ambrose calls Pope Damascus Ambr. Rector of the whole Church yet 't is known that he would never yield his Sences to the Law of Rome about Easter lib. 3. de sacr c. 1. for which the Church of Milain was called the Church of Ambrose 670 years after his death when the Clergy of Milain withstood the Legate of Leo 9. saying the Church of Ambrose had been always free and never yet subject to the Laws of the Pope of Rome as Baron notes An. 1059. Nu. 46. Many other Aiery Titles and Courtly Addresses given to the Pope in the Writings of the Fathers we have observed before to carry some Colour for a Primacy of Order but no wise man can imagine that they are an Evidence or Ground much less a formal Grant of Vniversal Dominion seeing scarce one of them but is in some of the Fathers and usually by the same Fathers given as well to the other Apostles and to other Bishops as to Peter and the Pope and so unfortunate is Bellarmine in his Instances that usually the very same place carries its Confutation It is strange that so great a Wit should so egregiously bewray it self to bring in Acacius Bishop of Constantinople submitting as it were the Eastern Church to the See of Rome because in his Epistle to Pope Simplicius he tells him he hath the care of all the Churches for what one Bishop of those times could have been worse pitch'd upon for his purpose who ever opposed himself more fiercely against the Jurisdiction of the Pope than Acacius who more boldly rejected his Commands than this Patriarch or stands in greater opposition to Rome in all History yet Acacius must be the Instance of an Eastern Patriarch's Recognition of the An. 478. n. 3. An. 483. n. 78. An. 484. n. 17. As they say See of Rome Acacius phrenesi abreptus as Baronius hath it adversus Rom. Pontificem Violenter insurgit Acacius that Received those whom the Pope Damn'd Acacius Excommunicated by the Pope and the very Head of the Eastern Schism this is the man that must witness the Pope's Supremacy against himself and his own and his Churches famous Cause and this by saying in a Letter to the Pope himself that he had the care of all Churches a Title given to Saint Paul in the days of Peter to Athanasius in the time of Pope Julius to the Bishops of France in time of Pope Elutherius and to Zecharias an Arch-Bishop by Pope John the first but conferred no Monarchy upon any of them I do not remember that I have yet mentioned the Titles of Summus Pontifex and Pontifex Sum. max. Pontifex Maximus which are also said to carry the Pope's Supremacy in them but it is impossible any wise man can think so Azor. Jesuit acknowledgeth these terms may have a Negative Sence only and Baronius saith they do admit Equality In this Sence Pope Clemens called Saint James Bishop of Bishops and Pope Epis 88 Leo stiled all Bishops Summos Pontifices and the Bishops of the East write to the Patriarch of Constantinople under the Title of Universal Patriarch and call themselves Chief Priests Epist ad Tharasiam c. SECT X. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why no more of them A Challenge touching them No Consent of Fathers in the Point Evident in General Councils Reasons of it Rome 's contradiction of Faith Pope Schism Perjury c. I Was almost tempted to have gone through with a particular Examination of all the Titles and Phrases which Bellarmine hath with too much Vanity gathered out of the Fathers both Greek and Latine on behalf of the Pope's Supremacy But considering they are most of them very frivilous and impertinent and that I conceive I have not omitted any one that can be soberly thought material and that all of them have been frequently answered by Learned Protestants and very few of them so answered thought fit to be replied to by our Adversaries I thought it prudent to excuse that very needless exercise and I hope none will account me blame-worthy for it but if any do so I offer Compensation by this humble Challenge upon mature deliberation If any one or more places in any of the A Challenge Ancient Fathers Greek or Latin shall be chosen by any sober Adversary and argued from as Evidence of the Pope's Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter God giving me life and health I shall appear and undertake the Combate with weapons extant in our English Writers though they may not think that one
is a voluntary division of a Christian Church in its external Communion without sufficient cause 1. 'T is a Division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divisions or Act. Division in the Church particular Rents among you This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it in it as it is a particular Church which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth c. 11. Though they came together and did not separate from the external Communion but divided in it and about it 2. Division is made also in the Church as Catholick Catholick or Universal and some charge the Church or Court of Rome as we shall observe hereafter herewith as the cause of many deplorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it and indeed in a true sence all that are guilty of dividing either in or from a particular Church without just cause are guilty of Schism in the Catholick as the Aggregatum of all particular Churches There is division as well from as in the Church and this is either such as is improperly called Separation or properly or more perfectly so 1. Separation improperly so called we may term Negative which is rather a recusancy or a denyal of Communion where it is either due or only claimed and not due but was never actually given 2. 'T is properly so where an actual separation is made and Communion broken or denyed where it has wont to be paid 3. Or yet more perfectly when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church joyn themselves in an opposite body and erect Altar against Altar SECT II. Subject of Schism THus of the Act of Schism Division Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division Subject which is not a civil or an Infidel Society but a Christian Church I do not express it a true Church for that is supposed For if it be a Christian Church it must be true otherwise it is not at all Some learned of our own side distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or metaphysically considered or morally and acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church or truly a Church as some would rather have it but deny it to be such morally and plead for separation from it only in a moral sence or as it is not a true Church i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church not as it is a Church But finding this distinction to give offence and perhaps some advantage to our Adversaries at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able I shall not insist upon these distinctions I confess pace tantorum I see no danger in but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sence largely speaking as moral is distinguished from Physical or metaphysical and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sence or a Church of Christ For to say that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally yet is so really i. e. Physically or Metaphysically seems to imply that it is a Christian Church and it is not a Christian Church seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sence as I conceive is not questioned by either side And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sence we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sence as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church seems to be of a Moral nature as is evident in all its causes its Efficient The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause the form living in true faith and Religion is moral its End and all its formal Actions in Profession and Communion are of a Moral nature and the Christians as they are Men are indeed natural Beings yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church and more as they are in a Society they fall properly under a Moral Consideration But how can a Church be true and not true and both in a Moral sence How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church and yet leave her as a false Church and true and false be both taken Morally Very well And our Learned Men intend no other though they speak it not in these terms For to be true and false in the same Moral Sence doth not imply the being so in the same respects Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church with respect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth and yet be very false and justly to be deserted for her gross Errors in many other points believed also and professed by her as a Bill in Chancery may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admitted and yet in many things falsely suggested it may be very false and as to them be rejected 2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may 1. Catholick be further considered as Catholick i. e. Absolute Formal Essential and as it lies spread over all the world but united in one common Faith From this Church the Donatists and other ancient Hereticks are said to have separated 2. As Particular in a greater or lesser number 2. Particular or part of the Catholick Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismaticks 3. In a Complex and mixt Sence as the particular 3. Mix'd Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholick Church calls her self Roman Catholick and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor In which sence the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholick Church for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome SECT III. Object of Schism 1. Faith THe third Point is the Object about and External Communion in which Separation is made Namely External Communion in those three great Means or Bonds of it Faith Worship and Government under that Notion as they are bonds of Communion The first is Faith or Doctrine and it must Faith be acknowledged that to renounce the Churches Faith is a very great Schism yet here we must admit two exceptions it must be the Churches Faith that is such Doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed if we speak of a particular Church for in other Points both Authorities allow Liberty Again though the Faith be broken there is not Schism presently or necessarily except the external Communion be also or thereby disturbed Heretical Principles not declared are Schism in Principle but not in Act Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self 'T is farther agreed that we may and some times must
and Mr. Pool's Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject CHAP. XVI II. Arg. For Infallibility viz. Tradition Concessions 4. Propositions 3. Arguments Objections Answered THat the difference may not seem wider than indeed it is we shall make way for our discussion of this Argument by a few but considerable Concessions 1. We yield that Tradition truly Catholick is Apostolical Truly Catholick that is in all the three known Conditions ab omnibus semper ubique For we cannot imagine that any thing should be believed or practised by all Learned Christians at all times and in all places as a point of Christian Religion that was not receiv'd as such either from Christ himself or his Apostles 2. We grant that Tradition hath been and ever will be both useful and necessary for the delivering down to the Faith of the Church in all succeeding Ages both the Canon of the Scripture and the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion The necessity hereof ariseth from the distance of Time and Place and must be supposed upon the Succession of Generations in the Church after the removal of the first Preachers and Writers and consequently the first deliverers thereof 3. We need not stick to agree that Tradition is Infallible if we abuse not the term too rigidly in conveying and preserving the substance of Religion which I was much enclined to believe before and am now much encouraged to express after I had read the learned and ingenious book of the Several ways of resolving Faith he concludes p. 129. the Necessaries to Salvation should ever fail to be practically transmitted from Generation to Generation is alike impossible as that multitudes of People should not in every Age be truly desirous of their own and their Posterities everlasting happiness seeing it is a thing both so easie to be done and so necessary to Salvation By the substance of Christian Religion I mean the Credenda and the Agenda or as he doth the Creed the Lords Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Two Sacraments 4. We may for ought I see to the contrary Gratifie the Author of Rushworth's Dialogues and the Abettors of that late new found Tradition of the present Church of Rome For every Church of Christ as such hath possession of the substance of Christian Religion and without it cannot be a Church And I am sure by this Concession the great Argument for Tradition is allowed and we are so far agreed in a main point I am troubled we must now differ but our Propositions shall be such as none that have weighed Antiquity can well doubt of them We affirm that whatsoever matter of Faith 1 Prop. or Practice is not derived from the first hands by Tradition Catholick as explained in the first Concession is not necessary to Salvation For 't is agreed if it were it would have been preserved by Tradition But it is against all Sence to believe that Tradition is sufficient to secure us from all Additions 2 Prop. to the first Faith or Additions and Alterations in Ceremonies and Worship or any thing that is not necessary to Salvation and herein indeed lies the Controversie for if Midwifes Nurses Parents and Tutors have as it is said Tradition in their hands and hold themselves obliged not to poyson little Babes as soon as they can receive Instructions accordingly and Tradition could not possibly admit or deliver any thing but what is necessary to salvation it were not possible for any Error to obtain in the Church or with any one Party or even Member of it but truth would be equally Catholick with Tradition and then Charity will not suffer us to believe that the Jews that kept the Law should be guilty of any vain Traditions contrary to our Saviour's Reproofs or that there should be any such Parties as Hugonites and Protestants in the World or such various Sects in the Church of Rome it self or so many Successive Additions to the Faith and Worship of that Church as none may have the confidence to deny have happened Vincentius speaks very truly saith Rigaltius and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Observ in Cyp. p. 147. Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by Fools or Knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions and we add by zealously superstitious men or by men tempted as is evident they were about the time of Easter and Rebaptization in the beginning to pretend Tradition to defend their Opinions when put to it in Controversie It further follows that the Infallibility of the Pope or Court of Rome or Church in 3 Prop. Matters of Faith is no necessary Point of Faith because it is not delivered down to us as such by lawful i. e. Catholick Tradition this is the Point Now here we justly except against the Testimony of the present Oral Tradition of the Roman Church or Tradition revers'd because it cannot secure us against additions to the Faith It is no evidence that Tradition was always the same in that point it cannot bear against all Authentick History to the contrary That Popes and Councils and Fathers and the Church too have erred in their belief and practice is past all doubt by that one instance of the Communion of Infants for some hundred of Years together which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent Yea that there was no such Tradition of the Pope's or the Church of Rome's Infallibility in ancient times is as manifest by the oppositions betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches which could not consist with such Tradition or belief of it And for the Church of England had she owned such Tradition her ancient Bishops would not have contended with and rejected his Messenger St. Austin and his Propositions together Neither can any considering man imagine that the Tradition of the Popes Infallibility is Catholick or generally received and believed in the Church of Rome at this day 'T is well known many of their eminent men renounce it and indeed the Pope himself doth not believe it or he does not believe that all his Doctors believe it For if he does believe both why does he not make use of his Talent and put an end to all the scandalous broils and Ruptures occasioned by the Doctrinal differences and Disputes among the several factions of his Church and have peace within his own Borders But this admits no Answer 'T is said by the Romanist that Universal Traditions are recorded in the Fathers of every succeeding Age and 't is reasonably spoken It behoves him as to the present point to shew us in some good Authors in every age since the Apostles this Tradition for Infallibility then indeed he hath done something which ought to be done But till that be done we must adhere that there is no such ground of the Popes Authority over us as his Infallibility proved by Scripture or Tradition This proof I think was never
Apostle too blame to say there must be Heresics or Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be an Infallible Judge among you and no Heresies but now men are wiser and of another mind To conclude whether we regard the Truth or Vnity of the Church both Reason and Sence assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing for as to Truth 't is impossible men should give up their Faith and Conscience and inward apprehension of things to the Sentence of any one man or all the men in the World against their own Reason and for Vnity there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it but that the Authority of Ecclesiastical Government can preserve it as well without as with Infallibility But if there be any Sence in the Argument methinks 't is better thus the Head and Governour of the Christian Church must of necessity be Infallible but the Pope is not Infallible ' either by Scripture Tradition or Reason therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governour of the Christian Church CHAP. XVIII Of the Pope's Universal Pastorship its Right divine or humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas WE have found some flaws in the pretended Title of the Pope as our Converter Patriarch Possessor and as the Subject of Infallibility his last and greatest Argument is his Vniversal Pastorship and indeed if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on Earth he is ours also and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him without the guilt of that which is charged upon us viz. Schism if his Commands be justifiable but if the proof of this fail also we are acquitted This Right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship is divine or humane if at all both are pretended and are to be examined The Bishop of Calcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the Original if the Right be granted 't is not de fide to believe whether it come from God or no. If the Pope be Universal Pastor Jure humano only his Title is either from Civil or from Ecclesiastical Power and least we should err Fundamentally we shall consider the pretenses from both If it be said that the Civil Power hath conferred this honour upon the Pope may it not be questioned whether the Civil Powers of the World extend so far as either to dispose of the Government of the Church or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor However de facto when was this done when did the Kings of England in Conjunction with the Rulers of the whole World make such a Grant to the Pope I think the World hath been ashamed of the Const donat Donation of Constantine long agon yet that no shadow may remain unscattered we shall briefly take an account of it They say Constantine the third day after he was baptized left all the West part of the Empire to Pope Sylvester and went himself to dwell at Constantinople and gave the whole Imperial and Civil Dominion of Rome and all the Western Kingdoms to the Pope and his Successors for ever A large Boon indeed this looks as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor but who makes him Vniversal Pastor and who ever since hath bequeathed the Eastern World to him either as Pastor or Emperor for it should seem that part Constantine then kept for himself But Mr. Harding throws off all these little Cavils and with sufficient Evidence out of Math. Hieromonachus a Greek Author shews the very Words of the Decree which carry it for the Pope as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Advantages they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We decree and give in charge to all Lords and to the Senate of our Empire that the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter chief of the Apostles have Authority and Power in all the World greater than that of the Empire that he have more honour than the Emperor and that he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats and that matters of Faith be by him determined this is the Charter whereby some think the Pope hath Power saith De potest Pap. c. 19. Harveus as Lord of the whole World to set up and pull down Kings 'T is confessed this Grant is not pleaded lately with any Confidence Indeed Bishop Jewel did check it early when he shewed Harding the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it such as Platina Cusanus Petavius Laurent Valla Antoninus Florentinus and a great many more Cardinal Cusanus hath these words Donationem Constantini dilligenter expendens c. Carefully weighing this Grant of Constantine even Conc. Cath. lib. 3. c. 2. in the very penning thereof I find manifest Arguments of Forgery and Falshood 'T is not found in the Register of Gratian that is in the allowed Original Text though it be indeed in the Palea of some Books yet that Palea is not read in the Schools and of it Pope Pius himself said dicta Palea Constantinus Pius 2. dial falsa est and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute an valuâ—rit id quod nunquam fuit and those that speak most favourably of it confess that it is as true that Vox Angelorum Audita est that at the same time the voice of Angels was heard in the Air saying hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam Much more to the discountenance of this vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence P. 537 538. 539. which to my observation was never since answered to him therefore I refer my Reader But alas if Constantine had made such a Grant Pope Pipus tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valuerit and the whole World besides must judge the Grant void in it self especially after Constantine's time Had Satan's Grant been good to our Saviour if he had faln down and worshipped him no more had Constantine's pardon the comparison for in other things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the flourishing Grandeur of the Church of Christ though by this he had as was said given nothing but poyson to it for the Empire of the World and the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his Successors for ever Arg. 2 King John But it is urged nearer home that King John delivered up his Crown to the Pope and received it again as his Gift 'T is true but this Act of present fear could not be construed a Grant of Right to the Pope if King John gave away any thing it was neither the Power of making Laws for England nor the exercise of any Jurisdiction in England that he had not before for he only acknowledged unworthily the Pope's Power but pretended not to give him such Power to confer the Crown for ever much less to make him Supreme Disposer of our English Church But if our Constitution be considered how
Remedy from any other a Remedy is indeed provided by the Canon Sin duo aut tres c. if two or three do contradict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not go to Rome but obtineat Sententia plurimorum let the major Vote carry it In the seventh Canon Custom and Tradition Can. 7. both are the Grounds upon which the Council confirmed the like priviledge of the Church of Hierusalem because Custom and Ancient Tradition ut Aeliae Episcopus honoretur let him have have the consequence of Honour with a Salvo for the proper Dignity of the Metropolis but not a word of Rome Note that in Can. 6. the Power of the Alexandrian Bishop is grounded upon Ancient Custom Antiqua consuetudo servetur and not upon the Concession of the Roman Bishop as Berlarmine would force it and that the like manner or Custom of Rome is but another Example of the same thing as Antioch was and the rest of the Provinces but this ungrammatical and illogical Evasion was put off before SECT III. Concil Constantinop Gen. 2. An. 381. THe next Council admired by Justinian as one of the Gospels is that Famous Council of Constantinople adorned with 150 Fathers Hath this made any better provision for the Pope's Supremacy certainly no for the very Can. 1. Bin. p. 660. Alter Editio Bin. p. 664. Can. 2. first Canon chargeth us not to despise the Faith of the 318 Fathers in the Synod of Nice which ought to be held firm and Inviolate The Second Canon forbids the confusion of Diocesses and therefore injoyns Secundum Regulas constitutas i. e. the Rules of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers to be kept the Bishop of Alexandria must govern them in Egypt only and so the rest as are there mentioned more particularly than in Nicene Canons In the Third is reinforced the Canon of the former Council against Ordinations by Bishops Can. 3. out of their own Jurisdictions and adds this Reason that casts no countenance upon any Forreign Jurisdiction 't is manifest that the proper Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things per quasquc singulas Provincias within their peculiar Provinces secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita This third Canon honours the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Bishop of Rome as Binius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Binius is very angry that such a Canon is found there and urgeth many reasons against it and therefore we shall conclude that as none of the rest Bin. To. 1. 672. so neither doth this Canon confer the universal government of the Church upon the Bishop of Rome SECT IV. Concil Ephesin Gen. 3. An. Christi 431. THe third general Council whose Canons Justinian passed into Laws is that of Ephesus and this so far abhors from the grant that it is a plain and zealous contradicter of the Popes pretensions In Act the seventh 't is agreed against the invasion of the Bishop of Antioch that the Cyprian Prelates shall hold their Rights untouched and unviolated according to the Canons of the holy Fathers before mentioned and the ancient custom ordaining their own Bishops and let the same be observed in other Diocesses and in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province or subject it by force which formerly and from the beginning was not under his power or his Predecessors Or if he have done so let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not slighted nor Pride creep into the Church nor Christian Liberty be lost Therefore it hath pleased the holy Synod that every Province enjoy its Rights and Customs unviolated which it had from the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice repeated whereby we are to learn a very great Rule that the bounds of primacies were settled very early before this Council or any other general Council before this even at the beginning and that those bounds ought to be observed to the end according to the Canons of the Fathers and ancient custom and consequently that such as are invaders of others Rights are bound to make restitution Now 't is evident we were a free Province in England in the beginning and when St. Augustine came from Rome to invade our Liberties 't is evident this Council gave the Pope no power or priviledge to invade us Yea that what power the Pope got over us in after times was a manifest violation of the Rights we had from the beginning as also of the Canons of the ancient Fathers in the three mentioned sacred and General Councils of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus all grounded upon the ancienter Canons called the Apostles Lastly such Usurpers were always under the obligation of the Canon to restore and quit their incroachments and consequently the Brittanick Churches were always free to vindicate and reassume their Rights and Liberties as they worthily did in Hen. 8. SECT V. Concil Calcedon Gen. 4. An 451. S. W's Gloss THere is little hope that this Council should afford the Pope any advantage seeing it begins Canones c. with the confirmation of all the Canons made by the Fathers in every Synod before that time and consequently of those that we have found in prejudice to his pretensions among the rest The Ninth Canon enjoyns upon differences Can. 9. betwixt Clerks that the Cause be heard before the proper Bishop betwixt a Bishop and a Clerk before the Provincial Synod betwixt a Bishop or Clerk and the Metropolitan before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the See of the Royal City of Constantinople To the same effect we read Can. 17. Can. 17. Si quis a suo c. If any one be injured by his Bishop or Metropolitan apud Exarchum seu Primatem Dioceseos vel Constantinopolitam sedem litiget But Where is any provision made for Remedy at Rome Indeed that could not consist with the sence of this Synod who would not endure the Supremacy or so much as the Superiority of Rome above Constantinople This is evident in Can. 28 the Fathers gave Can. 28. priviledge to the See of old Rome Quod Vrbs illa imperaret eadem consideratione saith the Canon and for the same reason an hundred and fifty Bishops gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Priviledges to the Seat of new Rome recte judicantes rightly judging that that City that hath the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with old Royal Rome etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illa extolli ac magnifieri secundam post illam existentem Now to what purpose doth S. W. to Dr. Hammond trifle on the Canon and tell us that S. W's Gloss these Priviledges were only Honorary Pomps when the Canon adds in Ecclesiastical matters and names one the Ordination of Bishops and Metropolitans within themselves as before was declared by the divine Canons We conclude that this Bar against the Popes universal Pastorship will never be removed These are the four first general Councils honoured by
it and the building before the Government of the house and the Government of the Church cannot tollerably be thought to be of the Foundation or first building of the Church but for the Preservation or Augmentation of it after its existence is supposed Perhaps there is ground to allow that Peter's Foundation was the first as his Name was first among the Apostles and that this was the reason of that Primacy of Order and Dignity which some of the Ancients in their writings Paul had the same Primacy over Barnabas that Peter over Apost as St. Amb. in 2 ad Gal. acknowledged in Saint Peter but certainly there is need of a plainer Text to argue this Text to signifie that Supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church which is so hotly contended for by our Romish Adversaries to be given Saint Peter however after the Resurrection of Christ all were made equal both in Honour and Power as Saint Cyprian saith de Vnita Eccles But it is urged that the other Part of the 2. Script Matth. 16. 19. Promise is most clear to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven viz. the fulness of Celestial Power as Hart expressed it Answ Our Answer is that Christ here promised no more Power to Peter than he performed to all the Apostles Peter's Confession was made in the Name of all and Christ's Promise was made to Peter in the Name of all and nothing can be clearer either in the Text or in Fact The Text is plain both in it self and in the Judgment of the Fathers that Peter stood in the room of the rest both when he made the Confession and received the Promise Vid. St. Aug. in Joh. Tract 118. St. Ambr. in Psal 38. Jerom. adv Jovi li 1. Orig. in Math. Tract 1. Vid. Concor Cottrol l. 2. c. 13. Hilary de Trinit l. 6. c. Cardinal Cusan is plain in this Point also And that it did equally concern the rest of the Apostles is evident by the performance of it A Promise is of something de futuro our Saviour saith to Peter I will give thee the Keys but when did he do it and how did he do it Certainly at the time when he delivered those words recorded John 20. 21 23. And after the manner there expressed and by that Form of Words now are not those Words spoken by Christ equally to all the Apostles As my Father sent me so do I send you whose soever sins ye remit c. nothing plainer To say that Christ gave not the Keys to all but only the Power of remitting and retaining sins seems pitiful unless some other proof be offered that Christ did actually perform this Promise to Saint Peter apart and give him the Keys at some other time in distinction to the Power given in the 20. John to all together Remitting and retaining sins is certainly the Power of the Keys and so called by the Council of Trent it self Chatech in Sacram. Paenit and 't is not the keeping but the Power of the Keys is the question and indeed Bellarmine proves that the whole Power of the Keys and not a part only as Stapleton supposed was granted to all the Apostles in the Words John 20. to be the general interpretation of the Fathers in Prael Rom. Controv. 4. q. 3. de Sum. Pontif. Stapleton from Turrecrem distinguisheth betwixt From Turrecrem the Apostolick and the Episcopal Power and they grant that the Apostolick Power was equal in all the Apostles and received immediatly from Christ but the Episcopal Power was given to Saint Peter with the Keys and immediatly and by him to the rest This is a new shift else why is the Title Apostolical given to the Pope to his See to all Acts c. seeing the Pope according to the sineness of this distinction doth not succeed Peter as an Apostle but as a Bishop 'T is as strang as new seeing the Power of the Keys must as well denote the Episcopal Power of the rest of the Apostles as of Peter and the Power of using them by remitting c. was given generally and immediatly by Christ to them all alike This distinction of Turrecremata was as Reynolds against Hart sheweth spoiled before Doctor Stapleton new vamped it by two learned Relict 2. de Potest Eccl. Friars Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus Victoria evidencing both out of the Scriptures that the Bibli Sanc. l. 6. annot 269 271. Apostles received all their Power immediatly of Christ and the Fathers that in the Power of Apostleship and order so the two Powers were called Paul was equal to Peter and the rest to them both Therefore this distinction failing another is invented and a third kind of Power is set up viz. the Power of Kingdoms and now from the threefold Power of Saint Peter Apostolatus Ordinis Regni it is strongly affirmed 1. Touching the Apostleship Paul as Jerom saith 1. In Com. ad Gal. was not inferior to Peter for he was chosen to preach the Gospel not by Peter but by God as Peter was 2. Touching the Power given 2. Advers Jovini ad Evag. in the Sacrament of Order Jerom saith well too that all the Apostles received the Keys equally and that they all as Bishops were equal in the degree of Priesthood and the Spiritual Power of that degree thus the first distinction is gone But thirdly touching the Power 3. Advers Jovin Lucif of Kingdom Saint Jerom saith best of all that Peter was chosen among the Twelve and made the Head of all that all occasion of Schism might be removed These are Phansies of the Schoolmen but where are they grounded we are seeking for Saint Peter's Supremacy in the Scripture where do we there find this Power of the Kingdom given him by Christ or what Ancient Father ever so expounded this Text of the Keys We grant many expressions are found in the Fathers in honour of Saint Peter Saint Augustine affirms his Primacy is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent Grace Saint Chrysostom calleth him the Mouth the Chief the Top of the Company Theodoret stiles him the Prince Epiphamus the Highest Saint Augustine the Head President and first of the Apostles which he proveth out of Saint Cyprian who saith the Lord chose Peter first and Saint Jerom saith he was the Head that occasion of Schism might be taken away and gives him the honour of great Authority all these were used by Hart against Raynolds To them all Doctor Raynolds gives cleer and satisfactory answers shewing largely that they signifie nothing but a Primacy of Election or Order or Dignity or Esteem and Authority in that Sence or a Primacy in Grace and Gifts viz. a Principallity or Chiefness in Worth or a Primacy of Presidentship in Assemblies as the Mouth and Moderator or the Head of Vnity and Order as Jerom means but 't is not to be proved from any or
all of these Encomiums that the Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under Saint Peter as their Governour or that he had any real Power given him by Christ more than they The Words of Saint Cyprian are plain and full albeit Christ saith he gave equal Power to 1. St. Cyp. de unit Eccl. all the Apostles after his Resurrection and said as my Father c. yet to declare Vnity he disposed by his Authority the Original of that Vnity beginning in one no doubt saith he the rest were the same that Peter was endued with the like fellowship pari Consortio of Honour and Power but the beginning doth come from Vnity that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be but one Thus this Topick of the Fathers expounding the Text being found to fail another device and such a one as the very detection both answers and shames the Authors is fled unto viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers and to make them speak home indeed The place of Saint Cyprian just now set is a In Opusc Contr. Graec. very clear instance of this black Art allowed by the Popes themselves the place in the former Prints was as it is set down in the Roman-purged-Cyprian is thus altered by addition of these words And the Primacy is given to Peter Again he appointed one Church and the Chair to be one and to make all sure the Antwerp Cyprian addeth conveniently Peter's Chair And then saith he who forsaketh Peter's Chair on which the Church was founded c. And by this time Against Haâ—â— Peter's Primacy is the Popes Supremacy Vid. Dr. Rayn p. 210 211. But Tho. Aquinas hath dealt worse with St. Cyril Fathering a Treasure upon him which he never owned beyond all tolerable defence To the Grecians St. Cyril is brought in speaking thus Christ did commit a full and ample power both to Peter and his Successors The Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every Doctrine Peter and his Church to be instead of God and to him even to Peter all do bow by the Law of God and the Princes of the World are obedient to him even as to the Lord Jesus and we as being Members must cleave unto our Head the Pope and Apostolick See c. Now either St. Cyril said thus or not If he did who will believe him that shall make such Stories and Father them upon every Doctrine in the New Testament contrary to common sence and the knowledge of all or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers But if this Book called St. Cyril's Treasure be none of St. Cyril's as certainly it is not then though I am provoked I shall say no more but that we should weigh the Reasons but not the Authority of such a Schoolman especially in his Masters Cause 'T is certain the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's Treasure which are Extant as Hart acknowledgeth to Dr. Raynolds Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so hainous a thing as Thomas committed against 600 Bishops Ibid. even the General Council of Calcedon when he saith they decreed thus If any Bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome because we have Peter for a Rock of Refuge and he alone hath Right with freedom of Power in the stead of God to Judge and Try the crime of a Bishop according to the Keys which the Lord did give him calling the Pope the Holy Apostolick and universal Patriarch of the whole World Now in that Council there is not a word of all this and they answer Hereticks have rased it out if you will believe it but neither Surius nor Caranza find any thing wanting I shall only make this Note that seeing the Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the Power of their Master 'T is no wonder that their learned Adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such Judges but rather appeal to the true Canon and call for Scripture One would think this were enough but this Opinion of the equality of Power among the Apostles was not only the concurrent Judgment of the Ancients but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome even from these words Tues Petrus c. upon unanswerable Reason Lyra on Matth. 16. Durand a St. Porciano in 4. Cent. dist 18. q. 2. both in the 14 Cent. and Abulensis in the In Matth. 18. q. 7. In Matth. 20. q. 83 84. 15 Cent. the latter argues earnestly that none of the Apostles did understand those words of Christ to give any Supremacy to Peter for afterwards they contended for Superiority Matth. 18. and after that the two Sons of Zebedee desire it Matth. 20. and at the last Supper the question is put again Luke 22. Therefore he concludes they thought themselves equal till Christs death when they knew not which of them should be greatest Cusanus his contemporary de concord Cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and Fran. Victoria This was the interpretation of all the Doctors of Paris Bin. Conc. an 1549. and of Adulphus Arch-Bishop of Cologne and of the Bishops of his Province the Decrees of whose Synod with this interpretation were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth and enjoyned to be observed Thus the chief ground of St. Peter's Supremacy is sunk and there is little hopes that any other Text will hold up that weighty super-structure Another Scripture much insisted on for the support of St. Peter's Supremacy is Joh. 21. 14 15 16. 3. Joh. 21. 14 c. Peter lovest thou me feed my Sheep feed my Lambs Wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church Ans 'T is answered this Text gives not any Commission or power to St. Peter it gives him charge and Commandment to execute his Commission received before Now it hath appeared sufficiently that the Commission was given equally to all the Apostles in those words as my Father sent me so send I you c. so that the power of feeding and the Duty of Pastors was alike to them all though this Charge was given to Peter by name here with so many Items perhaps intimating his repeated Prevarications yet were they all sent and all charged with a larger Province than these words to Peter import Teach all Nations Preach the Gospel to every Creature are our Saviours charge to them all Obj. In the Apostolick Power all were equal saith Hart not in the Pastoral Charge Ans We answer with a distinction allowed by Stapleton of the Name Pastor 't is special and distinct from Apostle Some Apostles some Eph. 4. Pastors or general and common to all commission'd to preach the Gospel So Christ is called Pastor and all the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter Obj. But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest for he is charged to feed all the Sheep the whole Church Now
Persons within his Dominions both Civil and Ecclesiastical his Paternal Inheritance of Empire and at last leave it intirely to his Heirs and Successors upon Earth for a more glorious Crown in Heaven And in the mean time may he defend the Faith of Christ his own Prerogative the Rights Priviledges and Liberties and Estates of his People and the defensive Laws and Customs of his Royal Progenitors And therefore may he ever manage his Government both with Power Care and Caution in opposition to the force and detection and destruction of the hellish Arts and traiterous designs and attempts of Popery 8. I Conclude that if the precious things already mentioned and many more be in evident danger with the Return of Popery let us again consider our Oaths as well as our Interest and that we have the Bond of God upon our Souls and as the Conquerors words are we are Jurati Fratres we are sworn to God our King and Country to preserve and defend the things so endangered against all foreign Invasion and Usurpation i. e. against Popery Accordingly may our Excellent King and his Councils and Ministers may the Peers of the Realm and the Commons in Parliament may the Nobility and Gentry may the Judges and Lawyers may the Cities and the Country the Church and State and all Ranks and Degrees of Men amongst us may we all under a just Sense both of our Interest and our Oaths may we all as one man with one heart stand up resolved by all means possible to keep out Popery and to subvert all grounds of Fear of its Return upon England for ever Amen Amen Origen Cont. Cels l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is fit that the Governor of the Church of each City should Correspond to the Governor of those which are in the City Praesumi malam fidem ex Antiquiore Adversarii possessione Leg. Civil Ad transmarina Concilia qui putaverint appellandum a nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur Concil Milevitan THE OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND SUPREMACY The Oath of ALLEGIANCE I A. B. Do truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World that our Soveraign Lord King Charles is Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries And that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any Power or Authority to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdoms or Dominions or to Authorize any Foreign Prince to Invade or Annoy Him or his Countries or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give License or leave to any of them to bear Arms raise Tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties Subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do swear from my Heart that notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successors or by any Authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the said King his Heirs or Successors or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence or Declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty his Heirs and Successors all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against Him or any of them And I do further swear That I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever And I do believe and in Conscience am resolved That neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to be lawfully Administred unto me and do Renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and Swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sence and understanding of the same words without any Equivocation or mental Evasion or secret Reservation whatsoever And I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the true Faith of a Christian So help me God c. The Oath of SUPREMACY I A. B. Do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience That the Kings Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal And that no Foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Foreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities and do promise from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors and to my Power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preeminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So help me God and by the Contents of this Book THE END A Catalogue of some Books Reprinted and of other New Books Printed since the Fire and sold by R. Royston viz. Books Written by H. Hammond D. D. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament in Folio Fourth Edition The Works of the said Reverend and Learned Author containing a Collection of Discourses chiefly Practical with many Additions and Corrections from the Author 's own hand together with the Life of the Author enlarged by the Reverend Dr. Fell now Bishop of Oxford In large Fol. Books written by Jer. Taylor D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor Ductor Dubitantium or The Rule of Conscience in Five Books in Fol. The Great Exemplar or The Life and Death of the Holy Jesus in Fol. with Figures suitable to every Story ingrav'd in Coper whereunto is added the Lives and Martyrdoms of the Apostles by Will. Cave D. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or A Collection of Polemical Discourses addressed against the enemies of the Church of England both Papists and Fanaticks in large Fol. The Third Edition The Rules and Exercises of holy Living and holy Dying The Eleventh Edition newly
Successoribus Committebat lib. 2. de Sacerdotio Answ 'T is granted Peter had his Successors in time and place and that 's all the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be rendred those which followed him will conclude However admit the Bishop of Rome did succeed Saint Peter in his care as the word is doth it follow that he succeeded him in his Primacy which hath appeared not capable of Succession Application of Sect. 1. Therefore I conclude that whatsoever Inference Primacy the Bishop of Rome obtained in the Ancient Church it was not the Primacy of Saint Peter or as he was Successor of Saint Peter in his Primacy but he obtained it upon other Grounds not those Antecedent in Saint Peter but such as arose afterwards and were peculiar to the Church of Rome A Note as easie to be observed by such as look into the practice of the Ancient Church as of great caution and use in this Controversie The Grounds are known to be such as these because Rome was the Imperial City because the Church of Rome was then most Famous for the Christian Faith because she was the most noted Seat of true Tradition because her Bishops were most Eminent for Piety Learning and a charitable Care for other Churches and lastly perhaps because Saint Peter had been Bishop there his Memory might deflect some honour at least by way of motive on the Bishop of Rome as the Council of Sardica moveth if it please you let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter but though the Memory of Saint Peter might be used as an Argument of the Pope's Priority 't is far from concluding his inheriting Saint Peter's Primacy though he had honour by being his Successor 2. It further follows that the Primacy of Inference Primacy not Jure Divino that See heretofore was not Jure Divino but from the Civility of the World and the Curtesie of Princes and the Gratitude of the Church Indeed this Primacy was not an Office but an honour and that honour was not given by any Solemn Grant of God or Man but seems to have gained upon the World insensibly and by degrees till it became a Custom as the Council of Nice intimates Inference Not in succeeding Popes 3 Lastly it follows that this Primacy was not derived to the Succeeding Bishops of Rome it standing upon such temporary Grounds as too soon failed for when that which was the cause of it ceased no wonder if the honour was denied When the Faith of the See was turned to Infidelity and Blasphemy and Atheism and Sorcery as their own men say when their piety was turned into such villanies of pride Symony uncleaness and monstrous lewdness as themselves report when their care and vigilance was turned into Methods of wasting and destroying the Churches when the Exordium Vnitatis was turned into a Head of Schism and division no wonder that the Primacy and honour of the See of Rome which was raised and stood upon the contrary grounds was at length discovered to be groundless and the former primacy which stood on Courtesie and was exalted by an usurped Supremacy and Tyranny was thrown off by us and our ancient liberty is Repossessed and the Glory of Rome is so far departed SECT II. Whether the Pope be Supreme as Successor of Peter by Divine Right Neg. Not Primate as such Peter himself not Supreme Pope not Succed him at all THis is the last Refuge and the meaning of it is that our Saviour made St. Peter Vniversal Monarch of the whole Church and intended the Pope of Rome should succeed him in that power All possible defence herein hath been prevented For if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed him in his Primacy how should he succeed him in his Supremacy Again if St. Peter had no such Supremacy as hath appeared how should the Pope receive it as his Successor Besides what ever power St. Peter had it doth no way appear that the Pope should succeed him in it much less in our Saviours Intention or by Divine Right However let us try their colours Will they maintain it that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in so great a power The Claim is considerable the whole World in all Ages is concerned none could give this priviledge of Succession but the giver of the power But where did he do it Where or how when or by whom was it expressed Should not the Grant of so great an Empire wherein all are so highly concern'd especially when it is disputed and pretended be produced Instead of plain proof we are put off with obscure and vanishing Shadows such as follow SECT III. Arg. 1. Peter Assigned it Arg. 1 INstead of proving that Christ did they say that St. Peter when he died bestowed the Supremacy upon the Bishops of Rome in words to this effect as Hart expresseth them I Ordain this Clement to be your Bishop unto whom alone I commit the Chair of my Preaching and Doctrine And I give to him that power of binding and loosing which Christ gave to me Ans And what then I Ordain then he had it not as Peters Successor by Divine Right but as a Gift and Legacy of St. Peter 2. This Clement a foul blot to the Story For it 's plain in Records that Linus continued Bishop eleven years after Peter's death and Cletus twelve after Linus before Clemens had the Chair Your Bishop Euseb in Chron. that is the Bishop of Rome what 's this to the Vniversal Bishop And I give to him what the Chair of Preaching and Doctrine and the power of the Keys viz. no more than is given to every Bishop at his Ordination Now 't is observable though this pitiful Story signifie just nothing yet what strange Arts and stretches Vid. Raynolds and Hart. p. 269 c. of invention are forced to support it and to render it possible though all in vain SECT IV. Arg. 2. Bishop of Antioch did not Succeed Ergo of Rome Arg. 2 BEllarmine argues more subtilly yet supposeth more strongly than he argues Pontifex Romanus the High-Priest of Rome succeeded St. Peter dying at Rome in his whole dignity and power for there was never any that affirmed himself to be St. Peter's Successor any way or was accounted for such besides the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch But the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed St. Peter in pontificatu Ecclesiae totius therefore the Bishop of Rome did Ans He supposeth that St. Peter's Successor succeeded him in all his dignity and power but 't is acknowledged by his friends there was no Succession of the Apostolick but only of the Episcopal power 2. If so then Linus Cletus and Clemens should have had dignity and power over John and the other Apostles who lived after St. Peter as their Pastor and Head according to their own way of Arguing 3. Besides St. St. PETER He was crucified at Rome with his head downwards and Buried