yet so much as undertaken and may be expected Hoc opus est 'T is observed by Dr. Stillingfleet that there is but one eminent place in Antiquity produced on their side in the behalf of Traditions and that is out of St. Basil de sp sanc ad Amphilo But the Book with just reason is suspected Three of the Traditions mentioned in the place are the Consecration of the Person to be Baptized the standing at the Prayers until Pentecost and above all the Trine Immersion in Baptism The two first of these are not acknowledged by the present Church of Rome and the last by the very Council of Trent is pronounced not to be of Apostolical Tradition Here is not one word touching any Tradition for the Infallibility of the Church but indeed much reason against it For either the present Church at that time was actually deceived and took that to be Apostolical which was not so or the present Church in the Council of Trent took that not to be Apostolical which indeed was so and was actually deceived in her Judgment and determination to the contrary For those words of that Author parem vim habent ad pietatem unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up Piety with the written word put the dilemma beyond exception as those known words of the true Basil That it is a manifest falling from Hom. 29. de tri To. 1. the Faith and an Argument of Arrogancy either to reject any point of those things which are written or to bring in any of those things which are not written make it justly suspitious that the Book extolling unwritten Traditions was none of his Bellarmine's three Arguments 1. The Fathers say the sentence of general Councils admits of no Appeal 2. Such as submit not to them are Hereticks 3. Such Sentence is Divine prove their Authority but not their Infallibility and the force of such Sentence is from Scripture or Reason or Miracles or approbation of the Syst sid 1. c. 26. Nu. 2. whole Church as Occham and Santa Clara after St. Augustine affirm Therefore the Fathers generally allow us liberty of examination and derogate Faith from all men beside the Apostles CHAP. XVII Arg. III For Infallibility from Reason 3 Reasons answered Point Argued Retorted 'T Is Confess'd that though Scripture and Tradition prove it not yet if there be indeed any sound Reason which is a kind of divine Law for the Pope's Infallibility that will go a great way But it doubtless ought to be very clear and strong reason that is able to carry it in so great a point without either Scripture or Tradition Let us hearken Perhaps we have Tradition offering its Service R. 1. to Reason in another form and the Argument may stand thus Tradition is Infallible but the Pope in the Church of Rome is the Keeper of Tradition therefore thereby the Pope is Infallible Ans This Argument indeed hath countenance from Antiquity For Iraeneus adviseth his Adversaries who pretended Tradition to go to Rome and there they might know what was true and Apostolical Tradition for there it was preserved But how could that father assure us that Rome would always be a faithful preserver of true Apostolical Tradition What security could he give to after Ages against innovations and additions to Tradition it self in the Church of Rome Remember what hath been said that Tradition can be thought infallible only in the substantials of Religion and consequently cannot protect either it self or the Church from additional errors in other things Besides in the Substantials of Religion the Protestant Churches have the benefit of Tradition as well as the Church of Rome and if that carry Infallibility with it our Church is infallible as well as the Church of Rome and consequently thereby hath a Right to govern it's self Reas 2 But the great Reason always gloried in is from the Wisdom and Prudence of our blessed Saviour who had he not intended to afford the assistance of Infallibility to the succeeding Pastors of his Church to lead them when assembled in a general Council he had built his Church upon the Sand as A. C. argues with his Grace of Canterbury Ans Admit the necessity of this Assistance to the Pastors of the Church what is this to prove the government of the Church in the Pope because of his Infallibility But if our Saviour should not have assured us that he will thus assist his Church in all Ages as you cannot shew how do you know he hath intended it and how unchristian is your Reason to impeach your Saviour with the inference of Folly and as at other times with Ignorance and imposture if he hath not Take heed hath not our Saviour built his Church upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and is this Sand in the Roman Sence Is not Christ himself the chief Corner-Stone Is he Sand too Doth not he that keepeth his Sayings build upon a Rock as firm as the decrees of a general Council Where hath our Saviour given us the least intimation that inherent Infallibility is the only Rock to secure the Church from Error Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the Doctrine of Christ had there never been a general Council What was the Church built upon the Sand only before the Council of Nice why did it not then fall in the Storms of Persecution Did not the Apostles commit the doctrine of Christ to writing Is not Tradition the great mean of delivering the Scriptures and all things needful to Salvation by your own Arguments may not the latter be done by Nurses and Tutors c. without a general Council and if there be lesser differences in the Church is the Foundation subverted presently and may not those lesser differences among Christians be healed with Argument or at least quieted and the peace of the Church preserved by the decrees of Councils without Infallibility how unreasonable is it to deny it We grant saith Doctor Stillingfleet Infallibility P. 259. in the Foundation of Faith we declare the owning of that Infallibility is that which makes men Christians the body of whom we call the Church we further grant that Christ hath left in that Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity but we cannot discern either in Scripture Antiquity or Reason that such Infallibility is necessary for the Churches preservation by the Councils of succeeding Pastors much less a living and standing Infallible Judge as the Head of the Church Object But they say the Infinite Dissentions and Divisions amongst those that deny it make this R. 3. necessary Answ How is it in the Roman Church are there no Divisions there or is the sole Remedy Ineffectual yea are there no differences there about Infallibility it self the Manner and Subject of it are not many of your selves ashamed and weary of it do not some of you deny it and set up Tradition in stead of it was not the
not rebel against the Government that God hath placed immediatly over us This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholick and all particular Churches both in Doctrine Worship and Government and the main exception against her is that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome a Power not known as now claimed to the Ancient Church a Power when once foreseen warned against as Antichristian by a Pope himself and when usurped condemned by a General Council And lastly such a Power as those that claim it are not agreed about among themselves But the charge of Schism falls after another sort upon our Roman Adversaries who have disturbed the Vniversal and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon of the Scripture Apocriphal Books by adding to the revealed will of God groundless Traditions by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches and as for Worship how have they not corrupted it by Substraction taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance the Cup from the Laity c. by additions infinite to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship to childish Superstitions and some say dangerous Idolatry Lastly As to Government they have plainly separated themselves both from the Ancient and present Catholick Church and all other particular Churches by usurping a Dominion condemned by the Ancient and that cannot be owned without betraying the Liberty of the present Church By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion and as it is said by Excommunicating for Non-obedience to these Impositions not only the Church of England but three Parts of the Christian World The proof on both sides we are to expect in due place SECT IV. The Conditions of Schism Causless Voluntary THe fourth and last thing considerable in the Definition is the Condition which Condition adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation which is twofold it must be Causeless and Voluntary 1. It must be voluntary Separation or denial of Communion but of this I shall say nothing Voluntary a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it saying who knows not that every sin is voluntary S. W Causless 2. It must be causless or as it is usually expressed without sufficient cause 't is a Rule generally allowed that the Cause makes the Schism i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation there is the Schism if not the cause of Schism is in the Separatist and consequently where the cause is found there the charge of Schism resteth I know 't is said that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church and therefore this Condition is needless but they ever mean by the true Church the Catholick Church 'T is granted the Catholick Church cannot be supposed to give such cause she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth wherein the means of Salvation can be only found therefore we rarely meet with any such condition in the Definitions of Schism given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind that separated from the whole Church But hence to infer that we cannot have just canse to separate from the Church of Rome will be found bad Logick However if we could grant this Condition to be needless it cannot be denied to be true and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause is an eternal verity and if the cause be supposed Just cannot be said to be unjust seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin the Act is justified while it is condemned Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church then if at last we find that the Church of Rome is no more there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie But the Cause must not be pretended to effect beyond its influence or Sufficiency Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church farther than he hath cause for beyond its Activity that which is said to be a cause is no cause Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation and that known Rule that we may not totally separate from a true Church and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin The Reason is evident because the truth and very being of a Christian Church implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it hath an agreement both of Union and Communion Far be it from us therefore to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church yea we franckly and openly declare that we still retain Communion out of fraternal charity with the Church of Rome so far as she is a true Church Only protesting against her Vsurpations and reforming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty SECT V. The Application of Schism Not to our Church IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church or any particular Church either by separation from or denying Communion with it much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England But she hath not thus divided whether we respect the Act or the Cause With respect to the Act viz. Division We 1. In the Act. argue if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation that it was before then by the Reformation we have made no such Division for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own as it was before the Reformation as our Adversaries grant And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before we hold the same Communion for substance or essentials with every other Church now that we did before But for Substance we have the same Faith the same Worship the same Government now that we had before the Reformation and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity Indeed the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion and determine their Additions to be such But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden and Botches of the essence of a Man We have the same Creed to a word and in the same sence by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient that in a general Council they did forbid Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. all persons under pain of
do Alledging That none of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such neither would he suffer it And therefore willed him at his own Peril to forbear Hence 't is evident there was neither Tradition nor Belief either of the Popes ancient and necessary Government and therefore not of his Infallibility much less that anciently and from the beginning the Pope had exercised his Jurisdiction more in Scotland than in England We have that Kings word for it None of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such SECT III. In Canons Apost Nice Milev c. This Belief could have no Ground Sardia VVHat could possibly sway the first Ages to such a belief of the Popes universal Vid. c. 20. Jurisdiction Certainly nothing from the Councils nor the practice of the Church in other places nor indeed the declared Judgment of the Pope himself nor the words of the Laws 1. Nothing to be found in the Canons of the Not Councils Apostles Ancient Councils could invite to such belief In the Apostles Canons we find the quite contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or primate among the Bishops of every Nation shall be accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their Head and that every one of those Primates shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do those things only which belong to his Province and the Regions under it and in pursuance of those Canons the first Nicene Council decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nice c. that they that are cast out by some shall not be received by other Bishops and that this must be observed by the Bishops through every Province and in further Harmony the Milevetan Council prohibits all appeal from their own Bishops but to the African Councils and Mileve Primates of their own Provinces and that they which shall appeal to any Foreign whether Bishop or Council shall not be received into Communion with any in Africk And lastly the Practice of all this is visible in the very Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Celestine where Vid. v. Dr. Ham. at larg dispat disp 397 398 399 c. they beseech him for the future that he will receive none such because he may easily find it defined in the Council of Nice These Canons are all in the Roman Codex and cannot be pretended to be invalid neither can they possibly oblige any man to believe that the Pope had universal Jurisdiction as is now pretended Moreover as Dr. Hammond Notes to some of these Canons the Pope himself makes Oath Disp disp p. 178. Pope swears to the Canons that he will inviolably observe them see Corp. Juris can decret part 1. dist 16. c. 8. and from that Oath of the Pope our Bishops made this very conclusion that the Popes that Exercised a primacy over any other Bishops but those of their own province in Italy transgress'd their own profession made in their Creation as further appears by the institution of a Christian man in the year 1538. But more largly of this in the last Chapters Therefore the Brittains could not believe that they then owed Subjection to the papacy but they must charge the writers of the Apostolick Cannons whether by Apostles or Apostolical men and the Councills for enacting Sacriligious decrees and the Pope also for swearing the Inviolable observation of them These things are plain and S. W. by pretending in general that Words admit of Various interpretations without applying his Rule to the Case gives but too just occasion to Dr. Hammond to expose him as he doth See disp disp p. 181 182 183 184. Eadmer speaks plain and home too it was p. 58. 43. inauditum in Britannia quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae it was a thing unheard of no practice of it no Tradition for it therefore no such thing Could be believ'd that any other not the Pope himself did Apostolically Govern the affairs of Brittaine but only the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury SECT 4. Conc. Sard. Calced Constantinop IT may be said the Brittains might hear Vid. Cap. 20. Sict 9. of the Canon of the Council of Sardica where it was decreed that Bishops grieved might Sardica appeal to the Bishop of Rome Sol. The words of the Council are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In Case any Bishop thought himself unjustly Condemned if it seem good to you let us honour the Memory of Peter the Apostle that it be written by those who have Judged the Cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if it seem good let the judgment be renew'd and let them appoint such as may take Cognizance of of it hereupon t is plain 1 These Fathers did not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy who thus laid it at the feet and pleasure of others if it seem good to you 2. Here is no peremptory Order neither and it might not Seem good to Civil Princes to suffer such Appeals 3. No absolute appeal it seems was intended but only the Bishop of Rome might review the Case and how much a review differs from Apeal and that nothing but power to revew is More of Conc. Sar. hereafter here given to the Bishop of Rome are both fully manifested by the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petr. de Marc. de Concord l. 7. c. 3. sect 6 7. c. 4. The Decree such as it is is not grounded upon any prior right from Scripture tradition or possession or any former Council hath no other Argument but the honour of Saint Peter and that not in his Authority but his Memory who first sat in that See where Julius was now Bishop but we may have leave to ask where was the Supremacy of the Church of Rome before or how should the Brittains dream of it before or why did not these Canons take notice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the contrary made two and twenty years before either to null or explain it But that these Sardic Canons neither established the Pope's Supremacy nor were acknowledged to bind the Church afterwards nor could be accounted an Appendix to the Council of Nice and what weakness and falsness has been practised upon this Argument is so largly ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by Doctor Sillingfleet that I shall for his fuller satisfaction refer the Reader to him in his Ration acc p. 419 420 421. c. It is strongly argued in the last reasonings of my Lord Bramhall that after the Eastern Bishops were departed this Council of Sardica was no general Council because the presence of five great Patriarchs were ever held necessary to the being of a general Council as Bellarmine confesseth de Conc. Lï c. 17. If this Council had been general Why do Saint Gregory Isiodore and Bede leave it out of the Number of general Councils Why did Saint Austine Alipius and the African Fathers slight it and wbich is more why doth the Eastern Church not reckon it among their Seven
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
hearty prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and devoted Servant FR. FULLWOOD A PREFACE TO THE READER Good Reader OUr Roman Adversaries claim the Subjection of the Church of England by several Arguments but insist chiefly upon that of possession and the Universal Pastorship if any shall deign to answer me I think it reasonable to expect they should attach me there where they suppose their greatest strength lies otherwise though they may seem to have the Advantage by catching Shadows if I am left unanswered in those two main Points the Substance of their Cause is lost For if it remain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here and the contrary proof continue unshaken the Argument of Possession is on our side I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before that he took not possession by Austine the Monk and that he had no such possession here afterwards sufficient to create or evince a Title 'T is confessed that Austine took his Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury as the Gift of Saint Gregory and having recalled many of the People to Christianity both the Converts and the Converter gave great Submission and respect to Saint Gregory then Bishop of Rome and how far the People were bound to obey their Parent that had begotten them or he his Master that sent him and gave him the Primacy I need not dispute But these things to our purpose are very certain 1. That Conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their Obedience to Saint Gregory which Plea is now deserted and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very Title of Universal Bishop the only thing nowinsisted on 2. 'T is also certain that the Addition of Authority which the King's Silence Permission or Connivence gave to Austine was more than Saint Gregory's Grant and yet that Connivence of the new Converted King in the Circumstances of so great Obligation and Surprize who might not know or consider or be willing to exercise his Royal Power then in the Point could never give away the Supremacy inherent in his Crown from his Successors for ever 3. 'T is likewise certain that neither Saint Gregory's Grant nor that King's Permission did or could obtain Possession for the Pope by Austine as the Primate of Canterbury over all the Brittish Churches and Bishops which were then many and had not the same Reason from their Conversion by him to own his Jurisdiction but did stifly reject all his Arguments and Pretenses for it King Ethelbert the only Christian King at that time in England had not above the twentieth part of Brittain within his Jurisdiction how then can it be imagined that all the King of England's Dominions in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland should be concluded within the Primacy of Canterbury by Saint Augustine's possession of so small a part 4. 'T is one thing to claim another to possess Saint Augustine's Commission was to subject all Brittain to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but what possession he got for his Master appears in that after the death of that Gregory and Austine there were left but one Arch-Bishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion in all Brittain 5. Moreover the Succeeding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury soon after discontinued that small possession of England which Augustine had gotten acknowledging they held of the Crown and not of the Pope resuming the Ancient Liberties of the English Church which before had been and ought always to be Independent on any other and which of Right returned upon the Return of their Christianity and accordingly our Succeeding Kings with their Nobles and Commons and Clergy upon all occasions denied the Papal Jurisdiction here as contrary to the King 's Natural Supremacy and the Customs Liberties and Laws of this Kingdom And as Augustine could not give the Miter so neither could King John give the Crown of England to the Bishop of Rome For as Math. Paris relates Philip Augustus answered the Pope's Legate no King no Prince can Alienate or give away his Kingdom but by Consent of his Barons who we know protested against King John's endeavour of that kind bound by Knighs Service to defend the said Kingdom and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary Error his Holiness shall give to Kingdoms a most pernitious Example so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful Prince under great Temptations from laying a firm ground for the Pope's Prescription and 't is well known that both the preceeding and succeeding Kings of England defended the Rights of the Crown and disturbed the Pope's possession upon stronger grounds of Nature Custom and plain Statutes and the very Constitution of the Kingdom from time to time in all the main Branches of Supremacy as I doubt not but is made to appear by full and Authentick Testimony beyond dispute 2. The other great Plea for the Pope's Authority in England is that of Universal Pastorship now if this cannot be claimed by any Right either Divine Civil or Ecclesiastical but the contrary be evident and both the Scriptures Emperors Fathers and Councils did not only not grant but deny and reject the Pope's Supremacy as an Usurpation What Reason hath this or any other Church to give away their Liberty upon bold and groundless Claims The pretence of Civil Right by the Grant of Emperors they are now ashamed of for three Reasons 't is too scant and too mean and apparently groundless and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable Argument against the claim by any other Right whether Ecclesiastical or Divine for all the General Councils are found first not to make any such Grant to the Pope whereby the Claim by Ecclesiastical Right is to be maintained but secondly they are all found making strict provisions against his pretended Authority whereby they and the Catholick Church in them deny his Divine Right 'T is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself that before the Council of Constance non divino sed humano Jure positivis Ecclesiae Decretis primatum Rom. Pont. niti senserunt speaking of the Fathers that is the Fathers before that Council thought the Primacy of the Pope was not of Divine Right and that it stood only upon the Positive Decrees of the Church and yet he further confesseth in the same place that the Power of the Pope now contended for nullo sane decreto publico definita est is not defined by any Publick Decree tacito tamen Doctorum Consensu Now what can remain but that which we find him immediately driven to viz. to reject the pretence of humane Right by Positive Decrees of the Church and to adhere only as he himself affirmeth they generally now do to the Divine Right Nunc inquit autem nemini amplius Catholoco dubium est prorsus Divino Jure quidem illustribus Evangelii Testimoniis hunc Primatum niti Thus how have they intangled themselves if they pretend a humane
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
deposition to Bishops and Clerks and Anathematization to Lay-men to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted from Paganism or Judaism We retain the same Sacraments and Discipline we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the Modern Church by substraction or rather Reformation but they of the Church of Rome who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church by their corrupt Additions as a learned Man observes The plain truth is this the Church of Rome hath had long and much Reverence in the Church of England and thereby we were by little and little drawn along with her into many gross errors and superstitions both in Faith and Worship and at last had almost lost our liberty in point of Government But that Church refusing to reform and proceeding still further to usurp upon us we threw off the Vsurpation first and afterwards very deliberately Reform'd our selves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us and had almost over-grown both our Faith and Worship If this be to divide the Church we are indeed guilty not else But we had no power to reform our selves Here indeed is the main hinge of the Controversie but we have some concessions from our worst and fiercest Adversaries that a National Church hath power of her self to reform abuses in lesser matters provided she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without the Pope And we have declared before that we have made no alteration in the essentials of Religion But we brake our selves off from the Papal Authority and divided our selves from our lawful Governors 'T is confest the Papal Authority we do renounce but not as a lawful Power but a Tyrannical Usurpation and if that be proved where is our Schism But this reminds us of the second thing in the Definition of Schism the Cause For what 2. The Cause interpretation soever be put upon the Action whether Reformation or Division and Separation 't is not material if it be found we had sufficient Cause and no doubt we had if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our Corruptions to Reform and if we had sufficient Authority without the Pope to reform our selves But we had both as will be evident at last Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the Catholick Church but in defence of our own Church against the charge of Schism by and from the Church of Rome one of them yea either of them is sufficient For if the pretended Authority of the Church of Rome over the Church of England be ill grounded how can our Actions fall under their censure Especially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure is plainly our disobedience to that ill grounded Authority Again however their Claim and Title stand or fall if we have or had cause to deny that Communion which the Church of Rome requires though they have power to accuse us our Cause being good will acquit us from the guilt and consequently the charge of Schism Here then we must joyn Issue we deny the pretended Power of the Church of Rome in England and plead the justness of our own Reformation in all the particulars of it SECT VI. The Charge as laid by the Romanists THis will the better appear by the indictment of Schism drawn up against us by our Adversaries I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest Pens and in the fullest and closest manner I bave met with viz. Card. Perron against Arch-Bishop Laud thus Protestants have made this Rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneneous Doctrines contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholick Church by their rejecting the authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors both immediate and mediate By aggregating themselves into a separate Body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastors at all that were in lawful and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastors and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowered to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matters of Religion contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates of and from their respective Sees Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing A foul Charge indeed and the fouler because in many things false However at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all lies in our disobedience and denying Communion with the Church of Rome all the rest either concerns the grounds or manner or consequences of that Therefore if it appear at last that the Church of England is independant on the Church of Rome and oweth her no such obedience as she requires the Charge of Schism removes from us and recoyls upon the Church or Court of Rome from her unjust Vsurpations and Impositions and that with the aggrevation of Sedition too in all such whether Prelates or Priests as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just Power and Laws of this Land or that continue in the same disobedience at this day SECT VII The Charge of Schism retorted upon the Romanists The Controversie to two Points IT is well noted by a learned Man that while the Papal Authority is under Contest the question Dr. Hammond is not barely this whether the Church of England be schismatical or no For a Romanist may cheaply debate that and keep himself safe whatsoever becomes of the Vmpirage but indifferently and equally whether we or the Romanist be thus guilty or which is the Schismatick that lies under all those severe Censures of the Scriptures and Fathers the Church of England or her Revolters and the Court of Rome Till they have better answered to the Indictment than yet they have done we do and shall lay the most horrid Schism at the door of the Church or Court of Rome For that they have voluntarily divided the Catholick Church both in Faith Worship and Government by their innovations and excommunicated and damned not only the Church of England but as some account three parts of the Christian Church most uncharitably and without all Authority or just cause to the scandal of the whole world But we shall lay the charge more particularly as it is drawn up by Arch-Bishop Bramhal The Church saith he or rather the Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church 1. By usurping an higer place and power in the Body Ecclesiastical than of right is due unto them 2. By separating both by their Doctrines and Censures three parts of the Christian World from their Communion and as much as in them lies from the Communion of Christ 3. By rebelling against general Councils Lastly by breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostolical
and not as our Lord. The true Question is whether God hath given the power of Government to the Pope and directly appointed him to be the Vniversal Pastor of his Church on Earth so that the Controversie will bear us down to the last Chapter what ever can be said here and Infallibility is such a Medium as infallibly runs upon that Solicism of Argument obscurum per obscurius and indeed if there be any inseperable Connexion betwixt Infallibility and the Vniversal Pastorship as is pretended the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor under Christ then there is no necessity that any one man should be qualified for it with this wonderful grace of Infallibility But it doth not appear that God hath invested any one man with that Power therefore not with that Grace But least this Great Roman Argument should suffer too much let us at present allow the Consequence but then we must expect very fair Evidence of the Assumption viz. that the Pope is indeed Infallible I am aware that there are some vexing Questions about the Manner and Subject of this Infallibility but if we will put them out of the way then the Evidence of the Pope's or Church of Rome's Infallibility breaks out from three of the greatest Topicks we can desire Scripture Tradition and Reason let them be heard in their Order SECT 1. Argument from Scripture for Infallibility viz. Example High Priest of the Jews Apostles 1. VVHether it be an excess or defect of Charity in me I know not but I cannot bring my self to believe that the fiercest Bigot of Popery alive can seriously think the Pope Infallible in the Popish Sence of the Word especially that the holy Scriptures prove it I know that some flie the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible 't is so as it is Representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other and how shall that which is Common to all give power to one over all or what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch But the Pope is the Head and Universal Bishop as he is Bishop of Rome that is begging a great question indeed for the proof of the Pope's Infallibility which his Infallibility ought to prove and to prove the Medium by the thing in question after a new Logick Besides if the proper Seat of Infallibility be the Church in either of the Sences it concerns our Adversaries to solve Divine Providence who use to argue for this wonderful gift in the Church if there be no Infallibility God hath not sufficiently provided for the safety of Souls and the Government of his Church for seeing the Church diffusive cannot be imagined to govern it self but as Collected and seeing as the Christian World is now circumstantiated it is next to impossible we should have a General and free Council how shall this so necessary Infallible Grace in the Church be exerted upon all occasions for the Ends aforesaid It is therefore most Consonant to the Papal Interest and Reason to lodge this Infallible gift in the Pope or Court of Rome however let us attend their Arguments for the evidence of it either in the Pope or Court or Church of Rome in any acception which is first drawn from Scripture both Examples and Promises Arg. 1. From Scripture-Examples they reason thus the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Low were Infallible therefore the Pope and his Clergy are so now the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Law were so as appears Deut 17. 8. where in doubts the people were bound to submit and stand to their Judgment which supposeth them Infallible in it as A. C. argues with Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 97. n. 1. Ans Dr. Stillingfleet with others hath exposed this Argument beyond all reply In short the Consequence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the proof of Infallibility viz. That the Pope is High-Priest of the Christian Church and we must still expect an Argument for the Popes Headship if this must be granted that we may prove him Infallible to the end we may prove his Headship Were it said to the Christian Church when any Controversie of Faith ariseth go to Rome and there enquire the judgment of the Bishop and believe his determinations to be Infallible there had been no need of this consequence but seeing we read no such thing the consequence is worth nothing Besides the minor affirming the Infallibility of the High-Priest from that Law of Appeale in Minor Deut. 17. 8. is justly questioned There was indeed an obligation on the Jews to submit and stand to the judgment of that high Court but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgment Infallible The same obligation lies upon Christians in all judiciary Causes especially upon the last Appeal to submit in our practices though not in our judgment or Conscience to believe that what is determined to be Infallibly true A violence that neither the whole world nor a mans self can sometimes do to the Reason of a man The Text is so plain not to concern matters of Doctrine to be decided whether true or false but matters of Justice to be determined whether right or wrong that one would think the very reading of it should put an end for ever to this debate about it The words are viz. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea and between Stroke and Stroke being matters of Controversie within thy Gates Then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the Place which the Lord thy God shall chuse c. Thus God established a Court of Appeals a Supreme Court of Judicature to which the last application was to be made both in case of Injury and in case of Difficulty called the great Sanhedrin But note here is no direction for address to this Court but when the case had been first heard in the lower Courts held in the Gates of the Cities Therefore the Law concerned not the momentous Controversies in Religion which never came under the Cognizance of those inferior Courts Therefore it is not said whosoever doth not believe the Judgment given to be true but whosoever Deut. 17. 12. acts contumaciously in opposition to it And the man that will not hearken but do presumptuously even that man shall die Besides God still supposeth a possibility of Error in the whole Congregation of Israel Lev. 4. 15. and chargeth the Priests with Ignorance and forsaking his way frequently by the Prophets But alas where was the Infallibility of the High-Priest c. when our blessed Saviour was condemned by him and by this very Court of the Sanhedrin And when Israel had been for a long season without
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
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
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
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
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
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.
of Rome 'T is expressed more fully in their Letter to the Pope himself in Edw. 1. Reign to defend the Inheritance and Prerogative of the Crown the State of the Realm the Liberties Customs and Laws of their Progenitors against all foreign Usurpation toto posse totis viribus to the utmost of their power and with all their might adding We do not permit or in the least will permit sicut nec possumus nec debemus though our Soveraign Lord the King do or in the least wise attempt to do any of the Premises viz. owning the Authority of the Pope by his answer touching his Right to Scotland so strange so unlawful prejudicial and otherwise unheard of though the King would himself See that famous Letter sent to the Pope the 29 of Edw. 1. taken out of Cor. Christi College-Library and printed this year at Oxford the reading of which gave the occasion of these Meditations 3. It appears further in the Sheet where you have that Letter that the Commons in Parliament have heretofore held themselves bound to resist the invasion and attempts of the Pope upon England though the King and the Peers should connive at them their words are resolute Si Dominus Rex Regni majores hoc vellent meaning Bishop Adomers Revocation from Banishment upon the Popes order Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam nullatenus sustineret This is said to be recorded about the 44 of Hen. 3. 4. It is there observed also that upon the Conquest William the Conquerour made all the Freeholders of England to become sworn Brethren sworn to defend the Monarchy with their Persons and Estates to the utmost of their Ability and manfully to preserve it So that the whole Body of the people as well as the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament stood anciently bound by their Oath to defend their King and their Country against Invasion and Usurpation 5. The present Constitution of this Kingdom is yet a stronger Bulwark against Popery Heretofore indeed the Papal pretensions were checkt sometimes in temporal sometimes in spiritual concerns and Instances But upon the Reformation the Popes Supremacy was altogether and at once rejected and thrown out of England and the consequence is an universal standing obligation upon the whole Kingdom by Statutes Customs and most solemn Oaths to defend our Monarchy our Church our Country and our Posterity against those Incroachments and that Thraldom from which we were then so wonderfully delivered and for this hundred years have been so miraculously preserved blessed be God Accordingly in our present Laws both the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Supremacy is declared to be inherent in the Crown and our Kings are sworn to maintain and govern by those Laws And I doubt not but all Ministers of the Church and all Ministers of State and of Law and War all Mayors and Officers in Cities and Towns corporate c. together with all the Sheriffs and other Officers in their several Countries and even all that have received either Trust or power from his Majesty within the Kingdom All these I say I suppose are sworn to defend the King's Supremacy as it is inconsistent with and in flat opposition to Popery In the Oath of Allegiance we swear to bear true Allegiance to the King and to defend him against all Conspiracies and Attempts which shall be made against his Person and Crown to the utmost of our power meaning especially the Conspiracies and Attempts of Papists as is plain by that which follows in that Oath and yet more plain by the Oath of Supremacy In which Oath we swear that the King is the only Supreme Governor in this Realm as well in all spiritual things and causes as temporal and that no foreign Prince or Prelate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm and that we do abhor and renounce all such We swear also that we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King and to our power assist and defend all Jurisdictions viz. Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal granted or belonging to the Kings Highness 6. Now next to Oaths nothing can be thought to oblige us more than Interest But if neither Oaths nor Interest neither Conscience nor Nature neither Religion nor self-Preservation can provoke us to our own defence what remains but a certain fearful expectation of judgment to devour a perjur'd and senseless Generation If either our joynt or several Interests be considerable how are we all concern'd 1. Is there any among us that care for nothing but Liberty and Mony they should resist Popery which would many ways deprive them of both 2. But if the knowledge of the Truth if the Canon of life in the holy Scriptures if our Prayers in our own tongue if the Simplicity of the Gospel the purity of Worship and the Integrity of Sacraments be things valuable and dear to Christians let them abhor Popery 3. If the ancient Priviledges of the Brittish Church the Independency of her Government upon Foreign Jurisdiction if their legal Incumbencies their Ecclesiastical Dignities if their opportunities and capacities of saving Souls in the continuance of their Ministries if their judgment of discretion touching their Doctrine and Administrations their judgment of Faith Reason and Sence touching the Eucharist if exemption from unreasonable impositions of strange Doctrines Romish Customs groundless Traditions and Treasonable Oaths And lastly if freedom from spiritual Tyranny and bloody Inquisitions if all these be of consequence to Clergy-men let them oppose Popery 4. If our Judges and their several Courts of Judicature would preserve their Legal proceedings and judgments and decrees if they would not be controlled and superseded by Bulls Sentences and Decrees from the Pope and Appeals to Rome let them never yield to Popery 5. If the Famous Nobility and Gentry of England would appear like themselves and their heroick Ancestors in the defence of the Rights of their Country the Laws and customs of the Land the Wealth of the people the Liberties of the Church the Empire of Brittain and the grandeur of their King or indeed their own honour and Estates in a great measure let them never endure the re-admission of Popery 6. Yea let our great Ministers of State and of Law and of War consider that they stand not firm enough in their high and envied places if the Roman Force breaks in upon us and remember that had the late bloody and barbarous design taken effect one consequence of it was to put their places into other hands And therefore in this capacity as well as many other they have no reason to be Friends to Popery 7. As for His Most Excellent Majesty no suspicion either of inclination to or want of due vigilance against Popery can fasten upon him and may he long live in the Enjoyment and under a worthy Sence of the Royalties of Monarchy and the honour and exercise of his Natural and Legal Supremacy in all Causes and over all