learning Polycarpus being converted and taught by the Apostles instructed the Church of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia follow it Yet none of all these Churches ever allowed or received your strange Doctrine Yea the very wild Barbarous Nations that have received the Faith of Christ at the Apostles hands only by hearing without any Book or Letter if they should hear of these Heresies they would stop their Ears Here he appeals to the Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia But then he adds It would be too tedious to reckon up the Sucession of all Churches and for that reason being himself a Western Bishop he appeals to that Church which was of Apostolical plantation in the West viz. the Church of Rome Which he calls the greatest most ancient and known to all Men. Not the most Ancient of all other Churches as the Vindicator renders it for it is well known that Jerusalem Antioch and several others were more ancient but it was then the most famous Church in the West To this Church therefore he appeals and thinks it necessary that in such cases all other Churches i. e. all other Churches in the West should do the same and that for two Reasons 1. Because of the more powerful principality 2. Because in this Church the Tradition of the Apostles hath ever been kept The latter of these which is the principal the Vindicator leaves out and he had reason for it for with that he could not serve the end he aim'd at At that time the Tradition i. e. the Doctrine of the Apostles was look'd upon to be the best Trial and Rule of Faith. Which Doctrine in those early days was exactly observed in Rome without corruption and for that reason was that Church had in Reverence and Estimation above others And if the Church of Rome at this day did as faithfully keep the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles as she did then we would never scruple to yield her that same Honour that Irenaeus gives to the ancient Church of Rome But he makes sure not to forget the other reason viz. The more powerful principality And yet he will be as little able to avail himself of this as of the other for the Principality which Irenaeus here means is the Civil Dominion and Temporal State of the City of Rome which was then the Imperial City For if we consider that this was in the Reign of Commodus the Emperor who was an Heathen and a Persecutor we cannot imagine that the Church was then possessed of any powerful Principality But as in every Province there was a Metropolis or chief City so it was usual with the Fathers to call the Church planted there the chief or principal Church And it is well known Concil Constant 6. that upon that very account the Patriarch of Constantinople was by a general Council declared to have equal Privileges and Authority with the Patriarch of Rome And that this was all the principality that Irenaeus dream'd of will appear plainly if we consider that when Victor Bishop of Rome was angry with the Churches of Asia for not celebrating the Feast of Easter at the same time Euseb Histor Eccles l. 5. c. 23. and in the same manner as they did at Rome and would have Excommunicated them for it Irenaeus opposed his design and sharply reproved him as a disturber of the Church's peace Which certainly he would not have done had he thought that the Church of Rome had been the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience to her Bishop was necessary for every Christian in order to his Salvation His next witness is Optatus Milevitanus lib. 2. adv Parm. Where he speaks of St. Peter's Chair being erected at Rome to the end that Unity might be preserved and that they are Schimaticks and Sinners and Sacrilegious who set up themselves in defiance against the Chair of Peter To this I answer That Optatus there writes against Parmenianus the Donatist Now the Donatists were a certain Sect of Christians broken off from the Unity of the Catholick Church confining it to a corner of Africa where they themselves dwelt as our Neighbours of the Roman Communion do now to Rome To convince these People of their folly and madness and to reduce them if possible into the bosom of the Church Optatus doth as Irenaeus before him had done appeal to those Churches which were planted by the Apostles and particularly to the Church of Rome blaming them for departing from that Faith and Doctrine which was there kept and taught and telling them that they could not belong to the Church of Christ so long as they continued in a state of separation from that Church He doth not therefore require their Union and Communion with the Roman Church as with the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches but as with the keeper of the Apostolick Faith. Nor doth he require them to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the universal Head and Monarch of all Churches for there is not one word to be found in all Optatus tending that way His next Evidence is St. Cyprian Epist 40. There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one Chair founded upon Peter by the Word of God. The design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle is to give an account to those to whom he wrote of the Schismatical Sedition raised by Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters in the Church of Carthage and against him their Bishop and by warning them against it to preserve them in Peace and Unity To that end he lays down these words There is one God c. And immediately adds Another Altar cannot be set up nor a new Priesthood made besides that one Altar and one Priesthood Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth It is Adulterous it is Wicked it is Sacrilegious to make way for humane Inventions by the violation of a divine Constitution Whence it is plain That by the one Church here he meant the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and by the One Chair the Episcopal Chair Obedience whereunto preserves Unity and Disobedience begets Schism and Sedition in the Church But the force of his Argument lies here That this One is founded upon Peter and that not by any humane but by divine Authority Voce Domini by the Word of the Lord i. e. as the Margin of St. Cyprian directs us those Words of our Saviour Matth. xvi 18. where our Saviour saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To this I answer 1. That there are some who read these words of St. Cyprian not super Petrum but super petram not upon Peter but upon the Rock not upon Peter's person but upon his profession or as others upon Christ who is the spiritual Rock upon which St. Peter himself was builded But 2. Suppose we should grant that St. Cyprian speaks of St. Peter's person
ad Damasum whose words are thus rendered by him Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae i. e. Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior I following no other Leader but Christ am in Communion with your Holiness i. e. with the Chair of Peter c. And I cry aloud Whoever is in Communion with the Chair of Peter is mine Which may better be Translated thus I following no first Man but only Christ am joined as a Fellow in Communion unto thy Blessedness i. e. to Peter 's Chair Whence we may observe 1. That St. Jerome doth not acknowledge any first head or chief in the Church no not the Pope himself but only Christ 2. That he doth not submit himself as a Vassal or Subject to the Pope but doth consociate himself in Communion with him 3. That it is not only with him but with St. Peter's Chair And what he meaneth by St. Peter's Chair he afterwards explains when he comes to give a reason of this his Address Where he tells us The Foxes destroy the Vineyard of Christ so that among these broken Cisterns that have no Water it is hard to understand where that sealed Fountain and inclosed Garden is Therefore he thought it good to consult St. Peter's Chair and that Faith which was commended by the Apostles Mouth So that it was not St. Peter's Successor in place but in Doctrine that he applied himself unto Now if we consider that the Age in which St. Jerome lived did mightily abound with Hereticks we cannot think it strange that he should forsake the company of those wicked Men and join himself in communion with those who then held that Faith intire which they impugned But if you ask me why should he rather address himself to the Bishop of Rome than any other The answer is ready he had received his Christianity at Rome In vita Hieron he had been educated there from his youth he was a Priest of Rome and had sometime been Secretary to this very Damasus All which considered it is no wonder if he had a particular kindness for that See. Now what is all this to that universal power which the Pope at this day claims to have over the whole Church of God Should the Vindicator follow St. Jerome's Example and and in his Address call the Pope his Fellow I doubt it would not be very welcome And that St. Jerome meant no more than is here explained will plainly appear if we consider what account he made at other times of St. Peter's Chair when he found abuses and errors maintained in the Church of Rome Then he cries out Si Authoritas quaeritur c. Hieron in Epist ad Evagrium If we seek for Authority that of the World is greater than that of the City viz. Rome Whereever there is a Bishop whether it be at Rome or at Tanais or at Engubium he is of equal Merit and equal Priesthood The power of Riches and the humility of Poverty cannot make a Bishop either higher or lower All Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles His next Evidence is St. Aug. Epist 92. ad Innocentium Papam whose words are not well translated by him The words of the Epistle are these In the great dangers of the infirm Members of Christ we beseech you to use your Pastoral diligence For there is a new Heresie and too pernicious a Tempest raised by the Enemies of the Grace of Christ who by their wicked Disputations endeavour to take from us the Lords Prayer And then giving him an account what that Heresie and Tempest was he at last concludes But we hope the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ assisting who deigns to govern thee consulting him and to hear thee praying to him those who think so perversely and perniciously will yield to the Authority of your Holiness drawn from the Authority of holy Scriptures that so we may rather rejoice in their Correction than sorrow for their Destruction For the better understanding hereof we are to consider That this Epistle was sent to Pope Innocent not by St. Austin alone but by the Milevitan Council in which he presided and in which the Pelagian Heresie had been considered and censured as it had been before in the Council of Carthage And the design of their writing as appears by the whole tenour of the Epistle was not to beg his confirmation of what they had done but to acquaint him with what they had done and to desire him to take the same pastoral care and use the same diligence to discountenance that Heresie in his Province as they had done in theirs Epist 95. ad Innocent For St. Austin in another Epistle tells him We have heard that there are some even in Rome it self where Pelagius long lived who for divers causes are favourable to him some there are who report that you perswade them so to be but more who believe that he is cleared from that Heresie by the Eastern Bishops And therefore they expected that he should not only clear himself of that suspicion but also undeceive his people as to the Transactions in this matter in the East This was the design of this Epistle as indeed it was of all those Communicatory Letters which in those days were so frequent when any matter of great importance happened in the Church which were things of great use and no small advantage then for thereby Catholick Communion was preserved warning was given of any approaching danger and the Bishops and Pastors of the Church awakened to provide against it Nor were these Epistles sent to the Bishop of Rome only but to other Bishops also To this purpose we meet with another Epistle to Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers in France Epist 94. written in the same stile and to whom he makes his Address in words to the same effect as he did to the Bishop of Rome for thus he directs it To Hilarius our most blessed Lord and reverend Brother and fellow-Fellow-Bishop in the truth of Christ In this Epistle he tells him That a new Heresie an Enemy to the Grace of Christ was endeavoured to be set up and having given him an account what it was he desires him to use his pastoral care and diligence to suppress it But that St. Austin and the Fathers in the Numidian Council never dreamt of any power or authority either in him or the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop over them and all other Churches we need no other Evidence than the Acts of this very Council In which we find this Decree made Concil Milevitan Can. 22. If they have a mind to appeal from their Bishops let them not appeal but only to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their own Provinces But if they shall make their Appeals beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome let no Man in Africa receive them into Communion Concil Carthag 6. Can. 92. The same was also decreed in the African Council and
the reasons of it are expressed at large in the Epistle of that Council to Pope Coelestinus Thus have I considered the Proofs brought for Vindication of this important Article and having laid them in the Balance have found them all too light But he hath yet one Authority more not from Antiquity but from a Modern Author and one of our own viz. the Reverend and learned Doctor Sherlock This I confess Disc of the Knowl of Jes Christ p. 163. I did not expect for who would ever have thought that that worthy Gentleman should ever have been brought upon the Stage as an Advocate for the Popes Supremacy But this Gentleman thinks that whatsoever is said by any Body touching Order and Discipline in the Church and the necessity of subjection and obedience to the Governors thereof must needs terminate in the Pope who they say is the Center of Unity though in so saying they do but beg the Question For we can with great cheerfulness and willingness subscribe to all that Dr. Sherlock hath there said and yet think our selves never a jot the more obliged to swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome I undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent and I condemn reject and anathematize all things contrary thereunto and all Heresies whatsoever the Church hath condemned rejected and Anathematized THIS he tells us is the consequence of that Doctrine of our Creed wherein we profess to believe The Holy Catholick Church But how comes this to be the consequence of that Doctrine Very naturally for the Church of Rome is this Catholick Church 'T is boldly said but how doth this appear Very plainly for there are the greatest reasons in the world to believe it So that now we must either show our selves to be unreasonable Men or else of necessity we must subscribe this Article But are we obliged to take all this upon the bare word of the Vindicator May we not look into and consider these reasons whether they be so great and good as he talks of Surely we may or else he would not have exposed them to publick view Well then let us see what they are R. 1. His first Reason is Because the Church of Rome has continued in a visible Succession of Pastors from Christ's time till now Ans The point of Succession hath been already considered and I think enough said to show the unreasonableness of that Plea. But because he so much insists upon the visible Succession of Persons in the same place let me ask him two or three questions 1. Who was the Bishop of Rome next by Succession to Peter who the second who the third who the fourth For in this they are not yet well agreed Some say Linus was the second others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the third others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the fourth others say Anacletus 2. Whether an Heretick or a Necromancer or a Blasphemer being in the Chair be the true Successor of St. Peter and if not whether that do not break the Line of Succession 3. Whether when there was no Pope for some Years the visible succession of Pastors in that Church was not discontinued 4. When there were three or four Popes at one and the same time and not known who was the true one there was not an apparent interruption of their visible succession R. 2. Because the Church of Rome never went out of or separated from any precedent Church but all other separate Congregations have gone out from her Ans If by going out of or separating from any precedent Church he mean departing from the Doctrine and renouncing the Discipline of that Church which he must do if he mean any thing then we say That in both these the present Church of Rome hath gone out of and separated from the Primitive Church as hath been plainly made appear in this Discourse And that those who separate from her do not separate from the Church but from the corruptions of that particular Church which they are well warranted to do by St. Paul who having told the Corinthians That there can be no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness no Communion between Light and Darkness no Concord between Christ and Belial nor any Agreement between the Temple of God and Idols at last thus inferrs Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor. vi 14 15 16 17. Because the Church of Rome hath sent Apostles abroad and converted all Heathen Nations to Christianity R. 3. Ans This is so notoriously false and so well known to be so to every one that hath but looked into Church History in which we have an account of most Nations when and by whom they were converted that I cannot but wonder at the Confidence of this Gentleman in asserting it But if we should grant him this would it thence follow That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church Might I not as well reason thus The Scribes and Pharisees compass Sea and Land to gain Proselytes therefore those two Sects were the whole Jewish Church Because the Church of Rome in publick Synods has opposed and condemn'd in all Ages arising Heresies R. 4. This is as notoriously false as the former Ans as is plain from those two Instances of the Milevitan and African Councils which I mentioned in the precedent Article and might easily be made more plainly appear by Instances of other Councils which have not only not desired but rejected the Authority of the Church of Rome when it would have inposed But the thing is so well known that I shall not need to do it These are all the Reasons he alledgeth and these he tells us are the greatest in the World. If they be so the World is in an ill condition and men like the great Nebuchadnezzar may be sent now to graze amongst the Beasts of the Field having lost their Reason I am of Doctor Sherlock's mind That Men cannot own the Authority and Government of Christ till they submit to the publick Instructions Authority and Discipline of the Church But what is all this to the Church of Rome's being the Catholick Church 'T is plain he doth not say it and I am well assured he never meant it I subscribe to St. Austin's Judgment That particular Councils Aug. de Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 9. must yield to General because the whole is deservedly preferred before a part But did ever any Council either particular or General decree a part to be the whole or a particular Church to be the Catholick Church If not I do not see how the Vindicator can avail himself of this passage nor for what end he did produce it Thus it appears that the New Articles in Pope Pius
did frequently relax some part of their penance And if this be all that is intended by Indulgences we shall not much quarrel with him about them but I am apt to think that this Gentleman will find but few of his own Communion who will be so ready to comply with him herein as we are There are two eminent persons of his own Church if he has any acquaintance with them viz. Greg. de Valentia Greg. de Valentia de Indulg c. 2. Bellarm. de Indulg l. 1. c. 7. and Cardinal Bellarmine who if he please to consult them in this matter will tell him another tale The former will assure him That this opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things And the latter will inform him That if this opinion be true then there will be no need of the Treasure of the Church and that Indulgences will be rather hurtful than profitable It is plain That these Doctors had a far different notion of Indulgences from that which the Vindicator here would perswade us to But it may be he will appeal from them as private Doctors which if he do whither will he send us to learn the Intention of the Church in this matter The Council is silent and gives us no Definition of the thing established by it and their chief Pastor who by the Bull of Pope Pius IV. is made the sole Interpreter of that Council hath not by any publick Act that we ever yet heard of declared the sence of the Council in this Decree So that we are still left either to spell out the intention of the Church in the Writings of their approved Doctors or else to guess at it by the practices of their supreme Pastors As to the former I have already given you a taste in two eminent Instances and might without any great trouble furnish you with many more And for the latter we need go no farther than the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber and the Bullarium in the former of which you may find Rates set which being paid an Indulgence may be had for almost any kind of Sin. And in the latter you have an account of several Bulls of Indulgence by several Popes Vide Bullar Tom. I. p. 204. Tom. III. p. 74 Tom. IV. p. 86. wherein a plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins and of all Sins is granted Which certainly must amount to more than a bare Relaxation of some part of Canonical Penance or else the poor People who purchased them were horribly cheated both of their Money and Expectations And if this be their notion of Indulgences we do not believe that any such power was ever given or left by Christ to his Church or that the use of it is at all beneficial to the Faithful I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and I promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. THE Vindicator foreseeing what Objection might be made to the Catholicism of the Roman Church begins his defence of this Article with an explanation of that Title telling us That as the Catholick or universal Church signifies a Church consisting of all particular Churches united in the Communion of the same Faith and Sacraments and submission to the same Ecclesiastical Government the Church of Rome is not the universal or Catholick Church but a part of it but as it imports a Church which is universal in its influence and by a singular privilege hath Authority over all other particular Churches and is the Center of their Communion the Church of Rome in this sence is the Catholick or universal Church and is rightly stiled the Mother and Mistress of all other particular Churches This Notion of the Catholick Church is liable to as many if not more Objections than the other For 1. Where or by whom was ever the Catholick or Universal Church understood to import a particular Church endowed with universal Influence 2. By what singular privilege hath any particular Church this universal Influence or Authority over all other particular Churches seeing par in parem non habet imperium 3. Whence had the Church of Rome this singular Privilege Was it from God or of Men If from God let her produce her Charter if of Men then those who gave it were superior to her to whom it was given and certainly they did not give away their own Superiority and if not then the Church of Rome instead of being a Mother and Mistress must own her self to be a Daughter and Handmaid to another 4. When where or by whom was the Church of Rome ever made or owned to be the Center of Catholick Union or Communion These Questions I doubt will not be quickly answered and till we are satisfied in these and some others we shall hardly be perswaded to subscribe this Article But why not The Vindicator assures us This was the Doctrine of the first Ages of the Church and if so then ought we rather to suspect our own Judgments than distrust theirs To this I answer That if this was the Doctrine of the first Ages then Pope Gregory the Great who certainly was as Infallible as any other Pope was mightily mistaken For when John Bishop of Constantinople did arrogantly assume to himself the Title of Oecumenic or Vniversal Bishop Gregory sharply reproves him for it and tells him Gregor l. 4. Epist 38 39. c. It is a New Name a wicked profane insolent Name the general plague of the Church a corruption of the Faith against Canons against the Apostle Peter and against God himself And he farther adds That never any Godly Man never any of his Predecessors used those Titles and whosoever doth or shall use them is the very Fore-runner of Antichrist From whence it is plain that before his time which was about Six hundred Years after Christ there never was any pretence made to it But the Vindicator says there was and that it was the Doctrine of the first Ages Now whether Gregory or this Gentleman be in the right is the thing in question The Vindicator to make good his ground urgeth us with the Authority of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. adv Haer. where he saith That the Church of Rome is the greatest and most ancient of all others founded and established there by the Two most Glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. 'T is necessary that every Church should recurr to this by reason of its more powerful principality To this I answer That Irenaeus in that Book writeth against Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion who contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles had devised certain strange Heresies for trial whereof he appeals to those Churches which the Apostles had planted saying The Church of Ephesus first instructed by St. Paul and afterward continued by St. John is a sufficient witness of the Apostles
what is this to the Bishop of Rome for it is granted by all that after this time he was first settled in the See of Antioch but it is questioned by many whether ever he was fixed in the See of Rome Or if he was why should his Successors in the latter place have a better Title to it than those in the first But 3. If we will suffer St. Cyprian to be his own Interpreter he will fully clear the matter where having occasion to explain those words of our Saviour to Peter St. Cypr. de Unitat. Eccles Edit Oxon. p. 107. he concludes The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined with him in the same fellowship of Honour and Power Where it is plain he gives no Supremacy to St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles much less did he intend any to his Successors But St. Cyprian must not escape thus he is again pressed to speak in this Cause For in his 73. Epist saith the Vindicator he hath these words Christ gave this power to Peter upon whom he built the Church To this I answer That this Epistle is an Answer to one sent him by Jubaianus concerning the Rebaptizing of Hereticks Against which it is objected by Jubaianus That we are not to enquire by whom a person is Baptized since he that is Baptized may receive Remission of Sins if he believe In answer to this Objection St. Cyprian after he had for some time discoursed of the Faith of those who are without the Church and the Efficacy thereof at last concludes But it is manifest where and by whom that Remission of Sins which is given in Baptism can be given For the Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and from whence he shows the Original of Vnity that Power that whatsoever he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven And after the Resurrection he also spoke to the Apostles saying As my Father hath sent me so send I you and when he had said this he breathed on them John xx 21. and said Whosoever Sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever Sins ye retain they are retained Where you see he joins St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the same fellowship of Honour and Power with this only difference that it was given to St. Peter first and afterwards to them all jointly And at last he concludes which was all that he aimed at By this we understand both where and by whom Remission of Sins in Baptism can be given viz. In the Church and by the Pastors of the Church And now what is all this to the Supremacy either of the Bishop or Church of Rome But he hath not yet done with St. Cyprian he must come upon the Stage again to justifie what he saith Epist 55. where we find these words They are bold to carry Letters from schismatical and profane Persons to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the Priestly Vnity hath its rise In answer whereunto it may not be amiss to give you a short Account of the whole matter The Story is this Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters with him had made an horrible Schism in the Church of Carthage contending for the reception both of Hereticks and Apostates into the Church without any form of Ecclesiastical Discipline These were opposed by St. Cyprian of whose Opposition they were so impatient that at last they proceeded contrary to all Rule and Order to chuse a new Bishop and fix'd upon one Fortunatus Hereupon St. Cyprian calls a Council of African Bishops in which the cause was heard and these Schismaticks censured This so inflamed their turbulent and unquiet Minds that they resolve to carry the matter to Rome and accordingly Felicissimus and others of the Party were sent with Letters from their mock-Bishop Fortunatus to Cornelius Bishop of Rome And this is the carrying of Letters to St. Peter 's Chair c. that St. Cyprian here speaks of So soon as they were come there and had made known their business Cornelius by Letters acquaints St. Cyprian with it and he in this Epistle returns him an answer Whence we may Note That it was not St. Cyprian and the Catholick Bishops of Africa but the schismatical mock-Bishop Fortunatus and his adherents that appealed to Rome Nor doth Cornelius take upon him to cite St. Cyprian and the African Bishops to appear and answer the matter before him but only in a Brotherly and friendly manner by letters acquaints him with it And so far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the Bishops of Africa that the highest titles that he gives him in this whole Epistle are only Brother and Most dear Brother He also takes upon him sharply to reprove him for his pusillanimity and lowness of Spirit at the threats and menaces of those wicked Men He instructs him what he should do and directs him how to behave himself towards them He acquaints him that the cause was already judged in Africa and as good as tells him that he ought not to meddle with it For saith he it is determined by all of us and it is both equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard where the crime was committed Every Pastor hath his portion of the Flock which he ought to rule and govern and to give an account thereof not at Rome but in Heaven not to Cornelius but to Christ to the Lord. Those therefore who are under our Jurisdiction ought not to run about i. e. they ought not to apply themselves to any foreign Jurisdiction but to plead their cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime So far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or Power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the African Bishops But he calls the Church of Rome The Chair of Peter and the principal Church 'T is true he doth so but that he never intended thereby to ascribe unto her a Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Churches I take to be very plain from the account I have now given you of his sentiments out of this very Epistle But having already accounted for these expressions I am not willing to repeat the same thing over again but shall rather referr you to what hath been already said His next evidence is Greg. Naz. Hom. de Cre. Epist Doar We do not contemn nor revile that great Pastor who governs that magnificent City we know him to be honourable we acknowledge him the Head we desire he will shew himself an indulgent and tender Father and diligently take care of the whole Church To this I answer That if by Head he mean the chief Ruler and Governour we grant that he is so in his own province and that he take care of the whole Church of that Province committed to his Charge we think is his duty and with Nazianzen we
heartily desire that he may do it Greg. Naz. in Epist ad Caesareenses Chrysost ad pop Antiochenum Hom. 3. and do it diligently And that this Holy Father meant no more than this may plainly appear from what he saith of the Church of Caesarea It is saith he in a manner the Mother of all Churches and the whole Christian Common-wealth so embraceth and beholdeth it as the Circle embraceth and beholdeth the Center Thus Jerusalem is frequently stiled the Mother of all Churches and St. Chrysostome calls Antioch the Head of the World. Now as these Churches are called Mother Churches because the Cities in which they were planted were the Mother Cities of those Provinces so for the same reason the Church of Rome is oftentimes called the Chief the Principal and the Mother Church because that City was the Metropolis or Head-City of the West And as the Bishops of those Churches may be and oftentimes are called the Chief Rulers and Governours of the Church so likewise and no otherwise the Bishop of Rome is sometimes stiled the Head i. e. the chief Governour of the Church And that by the whole Church here we are to understand no more but only the whole Church of that Province Polydor. Virgil explaining those words of St. Cyprian The Chair of Peter Polydor. Virgil. de Inventor rerum l 4. the principal Church from which the Vnity of the Priesthood first began thus writeth Lest any man hereby deceive himself it cannot in any other wise be said that the Order of Priesthood grew first from the Bishop of Rome unless we understand it only within Italy For it is clear and out of question that Priesthood was orderly appointed at Jerusalem long before Peter ever came to Rome To this I might add That every Bishop may be called the Bishop of the Vniversal Church because it is his duty to take care not only of his own Flock but of the whole Church of God. As also that this Title Head of the Church hath been given to several godly Bishops who were never Bishops of Rome nor ever dreamt that any Supremacy of power over all other Churches was thereby conferred either upon him or them But I am not willing to enter farther into the Controversie than the Vindicator leads me And to this Evidence of his I think enough hath been said to show that it will not much avail him His next witness is St. Chrysostome l. 2. de Sacerd. c. 1. For what reason did Christ shed his Blood Certainly to purchase those sheep the care of which he committed to Peter and his Successors The whole force of his Argument if he can frame any out of these words must be That the Bishop of Rome is the true Successor to St. Peter Which if we should grant him I do not see how it would thence follow that the Bishop of Rome is the Supream Pastor Head and Governor of the Catholick Church For if St. Peter himself was not so he cannot have it by Succession from him De Unitate Eccles Edit Oxon p. 107. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 38. Now St. Cyprian saith The Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined in the same fellowship of Honour and Power And their own Pope Gregory saith Peter the Apostle is not the Head but the chief Member of the holy universal Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but the Heads of several Nations Yet notwithstanding under one Head viz. Christ they are all members of the Church And to speak in short The Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints in the time of Grace all accomplishing the Lord's Body are placed among the Members of the Church And there was never any one yet that would have himself called the Universal Bishop So that as Paul Andrew and John were Heads of the Church in like manner and no otherwise was St. Peter Head of the Church If therefore St. Peter was then they were all so too for they were all equal and what a confusion that would be let the Vindicator judge To this may be added That if St. Peter was really the Prince of the Apostles and Head of the Church constituted by Christ St. Paul certainly was very much to blame Gal. ii 2. to withstand him to the face as he did And it must be a very great Arrogance and presumption in him to say That in nothing he was behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. xij 11. Gal. ij 7. Or to share Jurisdiction with him saying That the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed unto him as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter But St. Chrysostome Chrysost in Epist ad Galat. c. ii whose Authority he so much depends upon will tell him That Paul had no need of Peter 's help nor did he want his voice but was equal unto him in Honour Besides all this One may be said to succeed another either because he possesseth the same place that he did or because he teacheth the same Doctrine and with the same diligence that he did Now the former of these will not be enough to make any one the true Successor of St. Peter Alphons contra Haeres l. 1. c. 9. for as their own Alphonsus de Castro saith Though it be matter of Faith to believe the true Successor of St. Peter is the Supream Pastor of the whole Church yet are we not bound by the same Faith to believe that Leo or Clement though Bishops of Rome are the true Successors of St. Peter And yet this is the Succession they so much boast of and if this be it Dist 40. Multi the same St. Chrysostom will inform him That it is not the Chair that makes the Bishop but it is the Bishop that makes the Chair Neither is it the place that Halloweth the Man but it is the Man that Halloweth the place Dist 40. Non est facile And St. Jerome will tell him They are not always the Children of Holy Men that sit in the rooms of Holy Men. Nor did these Holy Fathers speak without Book for the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses's Chair Matth. xxiij 2. And the Abomination of Desolation shall stand in the holy Place Matth. xxiv 15. And the Man of Sin as God shall sit in the Temple of God 2 Thes ij 3 4. As the first of these did Succeed Moses in place but not in Doctrine so the two other shall succeed Christ and his Apostles And thus Pope Liberius though an Arian Heretick and Pope Coelestinus though a Nestorian and Pope Honorius though a Monothelite may be said to succeed St. Peter in place though not in Doctrine But will the Vindicator say or can he imagine that St. Chrysostom meant That Christ shed his Blood to purchase a Church and when he had done committed the care of it to such Successors of St. Peter as these were His next is St. Jerome Epist 57 and 58.
his Creed are neither agreeable to Scripture nor the Sence of the Primitive Fathers And for that reason we cannot subscribe to this last Article THE CLOSE TO close up his Vindication he undertakes to answer some Objections of ours against these New Articles which how well he hath done I shall now examine The Apostles knew best what was to be believed Object since therefore none of these Articles are in their Creed they ought not to be imposed on us as Matters of Faith. To this he answers Answ That the Apostles Creed is a Summary of the principal Mysteries of the Christian Religion but doth not contain all that is of Faith. To this I reply That a thing may be said to be of Faith two ways Reply either absolutely or occasionally 1. Absolutely i. e. in and for its self when by its own nature and God's primary intention it is an essential part of the Gospel such an one as Teachers in the Church cannot without mortal Sin omit to teach the Learners such an one as is intrinsecal to the Covenant between God and Man and not only plainly revealed by God and so a certain Truth but also commanded to be preached to all Men and to be distinctly believed by all and so a necessary Truth Of this kind there are two sorts viz. Such as are necessary to be believed or such as are necessary to be done and of the former of these it is that we speak when we say That the Apostles Creed contains all necessary Matters of Faith. 2. A thing may be said to be of Faith only occasionally i. e. when it is not so in and for its self but because it is joined with others which are necessary to be believed and for the sake of that Authority by which it is delivered Of this sort there are multitudes of Verities contained in the Holy Scriptures as for Instance That Zacharias was a Priest of the Course of Abia that Elizabeth was of the Daughters of Aaron that Cyrenius was Governor of Syria that Pontius Pilate was the Roman Deputy that Paul left his Cloak at Troas These are all Truths and Objects of Faith because they are found in the divine Revelation but they are not such Truths as the Pastors of the Church are bound to teach their Flock or their Flock bound to know and remember For it would be no crime to be ignorant of these or to believe the contrary if I did not know that they were delivered in Holy Scripture When therefore we speak of Matters of Faith contained in the Creed we mean all necessary points of meer Belief and of such we say it is a perfect Summary No saith the Vindicator for it doth not contain all that is in the Scripture and yet all that is there is of Divine Inspiration and of Faith. We grant it but all things that are there are not equally of Faith many of them are not absolute and necessary but only occasional and accidental Objects of Faith as I have already shown As for Baptism and the Lord's Supper we acknowledge them to be great Mysteries of our Religion but they are not points of meer Faith and therefore not within the question That the Scripture is the word of God and that such and such Books are Canonical depends upon another Evidence by which we must be convinc'd that they are so before we can give a rational assent to the Articles of the Creed because they are all taken out of these Books and our belief of them built upon that Authority The Belief therefore of this being necessarily antecedent to the belief of the other it would have been a very absurd and preposterous thing to have made that an Article of our Creed As for the 39 Articles of the Church of England they are propounded only as Articles of Communion not as Articles of Faith and therefore the Objection doth not reach them And as for the Nicene and Athanasian Creed they are only explications of the Apostles Creed and contain the same and no other Faith but what is contained in that This I think may suffice to show That he hath not yet answered that Objection But if the Vindicator desire yet further satisfaction in this point I would recommend to him if he be allowed to read such Books the fourth Chapter of Mr. Chillingworth's Book intituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation and another little Treatise printed at London the last year intituled The Pillar and Ground of Truth All the particulars in this profession were not undoubtedly believed by all Object before the Decrees were made at Trent To this he answers Suppose they were not Answ Neither was the Canon of Scripture which the Church of England receives undoubtedly believed by all in the primitive times This may be allow'd to be a good answer to that Objection Reply but that Objection is his own it is none of ours Our Objection is this That not one of all these twelve new Articles in Pope Pius 's Creed was ever received as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Church And to this he answers nothing There 's no Authority upon Earth can make a new Article of Faith. Object Answ To this he answers That there is an Authority which can declare a thing to be of Faith which was not before expresly so believed by all This we willingly grant but this doth not answer the Objection Reply for we do not question the Church's power to declare a thing to be of Faith which before was dubious or not expresly believed by all But we say That there is no such Authority in the Church as to make that to be of Faith which really was not so before i. e. to make a new Article of Faith. And to this he returns not one word of Answer This Authority can declare only such points Object as may be warranted by Holy Scripture and such as these are the subject of the XXXIX Articles but as for Pope Pius's Creed it is but the Invention of Men. For Answer hereunto he referrs us to what he hath said in his Book Answ wherein he saith he hath shewed That all the Articles of this Creed are founded upon Scripture and the Authority of the most eminent Men in the Primitive Church And farther faith That the XXXIX Articles are not so express in Scripture as these of Pope Pius Whether there be any Truth in the first part of his Answer Reply as he referrs us to his Book so I shall referr you to the Answer given to it in these Papers And to the latter part of his Answer it may be a sufficient Reply to remind him of what he hath been often told That the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England are not propounded as Articles of Faith but as Articles of Communion nor is the Belief of them required of all upon pain of Damnation as these of Pope Pius are and therefore there is not so much danger in our complyance or non-complyance with the one as with the other Whether these Articles of Pope Pius be founded upon Scripture hath been one part of the question between us and therefore for satisfaction in this point I shall refers you to what hath been said upon that Subject on both sides Thus have I considered the Vindicator's Answers to some Objections which he thought fit to encounter with and how well he hath acquitted himself therein I shall now leave it to the ingenuous Reader to judge between us The End.