the World The Bishops of Rome then lineally descending from St. Peter have the same Pastoral Authority devolv'd on them by Divine Sanction which St. Peter had over the Church they succeeding him in all those prerogatives which are ordinary and belonging to him as Supreme Bishop for the Government of the Church for eadem Antecessoris Successoris ratio in alicujus maneris obeundi ratione so that Pastoral Praefecture which St. Peter was invested in after his Death passed to his Successor by him handed to the next from him transmitted to the following c. and so by a perpetual descendency embalm'd and convey'd to this present Bishop as being Ordinary successive and indefectible and correspondently I find Eusebius in his Catalogue of Roman Bishops having ranked St. Peter in the Van under the Title of Christianorum Pontifex Primus to reckon Linus for the Second and the rest in their order to Sylvester his Synchronist the one and thirtieth Pope from St. Peter this Catalogue was continued by St. Hierom to Damasus the thirty fifth from St. Peter The Popes of Rome then succeeding St. Peter in the Pontificate are Jure Successionis Heirs to the Sacerdotal Power and Dignities which belonged to St. Peter's Sacred Function as he was Pontifex Christianorum it being but rational that those Supreme Pontificial Royalties which St. Peter for the good of the Universal Church was inrob'd in should still reside in his Successors for the keeping all subordinate Pastors in their duty and for the prevention of Schism which will of necessity arise where there is no Coercive Compulsory Power to quash it Thus in the Old Law there was a Sacerdotal Succession of High-Priests and Aaron who was the Head of the Levitical as St. Peter was the Head of the Christian Hierarchy was succeeded by Eleazer and he by Phineas c. and the Authority which Aaron and his Children was invested with died not with 'em but was propagated to the succeding High-Priests CHAP. II. Concerning Schism and whether the Roman or English Church be guilty of it THE next thing you observe and seem to mislike is my skipping over that part of your Papers which treated of Schism I must confess I did decline handling it being unwilling to enter into so large a Field of Matter and so I am still but because you urge and remind me and seem so fond of what you wrote on that Point as to take it ill that I made a Preterition of it I shall now supply what I omitted then for I perceive it is your temper to imagine what I did not answer to be unanswerable It cannot but be as pleasant to hear you declaim against Schism as to have heard Verres inveighing against Theft or the Gracchi against Sedition You are pleas'd to call it Damnable Schism the Epithet was very proper and now look about you and strictly examine whether like David in his Parly with Nathan you have not through anothers side imprudently transfix'd your self by being found guilty of that Crime you have so severely condemn'd in another I perceive you make use of all your Artifice for your compurgation but all is but fucous and elusive your actual Separation having too much evidence to be deny'd and too much atrocity to be defended I shall now as summarily as I can contract what you write on this Subject and then shape my Reply to it Having defin'd Schism to be a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church you divide it into Paternal and Fraternal the former you say is a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governors the latter you term to be a Causless Division of one particular true Church from another then you say your Church is not guilty of Paternal Schism because you perform Obedience to Christ and his Apostles observing all their Rules and Ordinances left in the Scripture then you pay Reverence to the Fathers of the Church and own the Four first General Councils and are willing the differences 'twixt your and other Churches should be decided by their Umperage This you judge sufficient to clear you from Paternal Schism As for Fraternal you very fairly clear your Church of that because you give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and Christians in the World Having as you fancy acquitted your Church you bring in your Indictment against the Church of Rome accusing her as notoriously guilty of Schism in both respects First of Paternal by many Doctrines and Practices contrary to the commands of Christ and his Apostles and of the Antient Church such as are Image-worship Transubstantiation c. Then you say she is guilty of Fraternal Schism by her renouncing Communion with all Churches not in subjecton to her denouncing all damn'd who submit not to her by sending Emissaries into all the World labouring to make a Spiritual Conquest of all other Churches c. These things prove the Church of Rome you say guilty of Schism in both acceptations This is a short abridgment of what you write about Schism which I design to answer as soon as I shall have premis'd something concerning the Nature and Danger of that Sin Schism do's essentially consist in deserting the External Communion of Christs Visible Church 't is a most heinous sin as tending to the destruction of Christ's Mystical Body whose Essence consists in the Union of all its substantial parts its ruine in their Division 't is a cutting Christ's Seamless Garment into Shreds as St. Chrysost affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the bold Souldiers dar'd not to do the Audacious Schismatick performs This sin is of that Malignancy that neither rectitude of Faith nor a Vertuous Life nor Good Works can attone nay Martyrdom it self according to St. Cyprian cannot expiate it Macula ista nec Sanguine abluitur inexpiabilis gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur St. Chrysost says of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is worse August cont Parmen Lib. 2. says Non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis The Devil seeing his Idols demolish'd and his Temples deserted by the planting of Christianity found out this Sin out of black Revenge Excogitavit novam fraudem ut sub ipso nominis Christiani titulo fallat incautos haereses invenit Schismata quibus fidem subverteret veritatem corrumperet scinderet unitatem rapit de ecclesia homines says Cyprian in his Book De Vnit Eccles How lucky this Stratagem has been to him the many Rents and Fractions amongst Christians can attest I shall now examine whether the Roman or the Protestant Church be guilty of this damnable Crime and herein I shall regulate my Discourse according to the Definition you have made of it namely That it is a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church and this being an evident Matter of Fact it will be easie to determine which forsook the External Commuion of the Visible Church That the Church of England in the beginning of the
Reign of Henry the Eighth agreed with the Church of Rome and all other Churches in her Communion concerning Faith and Doctrine is undeniable That at his coming to the Crown there was an Actual Church Government settled by a long continuance in Antient Possession is undebatable That Protestants alter'd the then own'd Faith and brake the Bands of that Government is manifest to the World Both the Time when and Occasion why can be assign'd Moreover That the first Protestants were born of Catholick Parents and Originally in the Communion of the Catholick Church is unquestionable and that they as desirous of Innovation voluntarily departing from that Church renouncing those points which were Principles of Unity both in Faith and Government ipso facto became Schismaticks is easily prov'd for Schismaticos non fides diversa facit sed communionis disrupta societas says St. Hierom on Matt. 11. Now how Rome should be guilty of Schism which did never withdraw from any known Christian Society or depart from the Communion of any former Church with which before she held Communion I cannot possibly apprehend she continu'd fix'd where she was as the Pillar and Firmament of Truth All Hereticks and Schismaticks go out of her this going out is an antient note of Falshood Truth being elder than Error They went forth from us 1 John 2. 19. And certain that went from us Acts 15. 14. and accordingly St. Austin 3. tract Epist Johan says Omnes Haeretici omnes Schismatici ex nobis exierunt i. e. ex Ecclesia exeunt And de Symb. Lib. 1. Haereses omnes de Ecclesia exierunt tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite praecisa ipsa autem manet in sua radice And in this Case the Rule of Optatus is very observable Videndum est quis in radice cum toto Orbe manserit quis for is exierit Lib. primo Now as for Luther and Calvin when they had voluntarily departed from the Roman Church they separated from all the Christian-Churches in the World and consequently from the Catholick Church for they did not adjoyn themselves in Communion of Sacraments to any Christian Church which was existent before their revolt from the Roman there being not one Church to be found upon Earth antecedent to their Apostacy to which they did apply themselves after their defection but they stood alone till they had acquir'd more Revolters out of the Roman Communion this is most clear and confess'd by themselves Luther in his Preface to King Henry says of himself Solus primo eram and Calvin to the same effect in his Epistle to Melancthon Absurdum est postquam discessionem a toto orbe facere coacti sumus inter ipsa principia alios ab aliis dissilire So this New Church at the first was but one Person which by the accession of more Schismaticks grew numerous being protected by the Secular against the Spiritual Power But to prove your departure from the Roman Communion to be unvoluntary and consequently not Schismatical according to your definition of Schism you cite a saying which you say was King James's Non fugimus sed fugamur I must confess I never could be inform'd how the truth of these Words could be made out for Protestants before their Excommunication having made a wilful breach may be said to be Fugitivi rather than Fugati and accordingly their Expulsion may not so properly be term'd a driving them out of the Church as their Punishment for going out they having before deserted the Church of their own accord So she had too much reason to make use of her Spiritual Weapons for they by their Novel Doctrine and Schismatical Separation having first receded from her and by way of Anti-communion rais'd a new party of Pretended Reform'd Christians distinct from the general Body of the Catholick Church having instituted new Rites and moulded new Articles of Faith contrary not only to the Roman but to the Faith of all particular Churches then known immediately before they began their Separation and refusing to Communicate and joyn with her in Publick Liturgy and Participation of Sacraments disowning her Faith and Power to which they had submitted for above 900 Years and persisting obstinate in their Opinions and Separation the Church having with much patience attended their return and having try'd all Methods that might seem conducive to their amendment was enforc'd at last to proceed against them according to her Canons by a just Excommunication eliminating them from her Bosom for their Schism as St. Paul did the Infamous Corinthian for his Incest who by the heinous offence gave the first cause of his Excision So 't is manifest that the orignal departure was theirs and accordingly St. Hierom in his Comments Epistle to Titus avers Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo And Cyprian in his Fortieth Epistle Paenas quas meruerunt pependerent ut a nobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerent de Ecclesiâ se expellerent For the Church forsakes no Person neither doth she eject any but like a tender Mother cherishes her Children in her Vital and Fotive Breast unless such as wilfully separate themselves by their obstinate adhesion to Heretical Doctrines or by persevering in a Flagitious course of Life so as she is not now the hindrance of their Reunion so neither was she at first the occasion of their Separtion Protestants well knowing that their formal Schism can neither be deny'd nor maintain'd find themselves oblig'd to acknowledge the Matter of Fact but to blanch and candy their Crime pretend to have had a just Cause given them for their Separation and upon this supposition accuse the Church of Rome of causal Schism This is what I conceive Dr. Stillingfleet to mean when he says The Church of Rome imposing unlawful Conditions of Communion it was necessary not to Communicate with her Bishop Lawd is very clear herein The cause of Schism is yours says he for you thrust us from you because we call'd for Truth and Redress of Abuses As for Abuses if any were crept in they ought to have been redress'd and this is properly Reformation but to alter receiv'd Articles of Faith establish'd by Councils that is Heresie But I could not be satisfied what truth it was that the Bishop says they call'd for I am fully convinc'd that in the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Reign our English Church did retain as a faithful depositary all those Sacred Truths which Gregory the Great convey'd unto us by St. Austin who I do fully believe did convert this Nation to the true Faith establishing his Doctrine with Miracles which Doctrine is still preserv'd unstain'd by the Catholicks of this Kingdom So I could not understand what the Bishop meant by calling for Truth neither could I tell when or by whom it was call'd for I must confess Henry the Eighth who open'd the Sluces to let in all the ensuing Mischief did call and that Vocally but not for Truth
His first call was for a fresh Bedfellow that was Carnal then he call'd for innocent Blood that was Tyrannical his other call was for Church-Goods and Lands that was a Sacrilegious call he had no scruples concerning the truth of his Religion neither alter'd he any thing of it but to gratifie his Lust and Covetousness Nullâ fere in re a fide Catholica discessit praeterquam libidinis luxuriae causâ as Sanders affirms of him And accordingly he ordered his Son to be brought up in the Catholick Religion excepting the Title of Head of the Church Edward the Sixth was too young to call for Truth he had most reason to call for it being early infected with the Zuinglian Heresie contrary to his Fathers Will by the Sacrilegious Protector who did call indeed but it was for the remains of the Goods of the Impoverish'd Church he likewise call'd for false Teachers to dilate the Gangren Martin Bucer a Dominican Peter Martyr a Canon-Regular Ochinus a Capuchin Apostate Monks and Sacerdotes Vxorati from such we were not like to have Truth who not only fell from the Catholick Church but flagitiously violated their Oath of Continency for which by the then establish'd Law they lay obnoxious to an infamous Death I shall say nothing of Queen Elizabeth she being a Woman and wholly unqualified to meddle with Church Affairs and to tamper in Articles of Faith neither shall I say any thing of the succeeding Princes who found the Schism begun and Religion alter'd to their Hands I know very well that in this case Truth is the Pretext but that is no more than what is in the Mouth of every Sectary This is the usual Mask to hide the ugly Face of a foul Action which without so fine a cover would affright those deluded Souls that are cheated with its beatiful Paint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there must be a plausible glittering Title a winning Frontispiece to a bad Enterprize but if the Origine of this unhappy Schism be examin'd we shall find that Revenge Haughtiness impure Flames and desire of Plunder were the Springs that mov'd the first Machin and nothing at all of Truth I do not find that Henry the Eighth did ever recant the Book he writ in defence of the Roman Church he hated both Lutheranism and Zuinglianism and fell out with the Church rather for its Booty and Prey than for its Doctrine and this was Tyndals Sense of it in his Letter to Frith where writing of King Henry the Eighth's intention against the Pope and Clergy saith thus Fox pag. 987. I smell a Council to be taken little for the Clergies profit in time to come but you must understand that it is not out of pure Heart and for love of Truth but to avenge himself and to eat the Whores Flesh and drink the Marrow of her Bones which because 't is somewhat enigmatically express'd Fox is pleas'd in the Margent thus to expound eating the Whores Flesh is to spoyl the Popes Church only for the Prey and Spoyl thereof not Religion Bishop Bramhall is very honest herein As for the suppression of Monasteries says he we fear that covetousness had a great Oar in the Boat and that sundry of the Principal Actors had a greater aim at the Goods of the Church than at the good of it Having premis'd thus much I shall now take notice how you acquit your Church of Schism even according to your own Distinction and Division of it You say she is not guilty of that Crime because she owns and performs Obedience to Christ and his Apostles Then because she pays Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Thirdly Because she owns the first four General Councils c. This you think enough to clear her of Schism whereas 't is nothing at all to the purpose being a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides the Cushion you define Paternal Schism to be a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governours so how do any of these Reasons clear you of it You are accus'd by Catholicks of a voluntary departure out of the Catholick Church of a defection from the Government of your Occidental Patriarch under whose Spiritual Prefecture this Nation was for several hundred Years From this your Spiritual Governor you have revolted renouncing his Authority look'd on as of Divine Institution this being your Accusation the Reasons alledg'd for your acquittance are too weak and dilute for such a purpose Now tho' you come off with a scratch'd Face concerning your Paternal I must needs say you come off very fairly with your Fraternal Schism because you so courteously give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and herein your obliging carriage is highly to be commended you extending your kindness to Lutheran Calvenist or Hugonot and indeed to any Church that will but joyn with you in separating from and defaming the Catholick The next thing I have to do is to see how you prove Rome guilty of Schism and the Method you take herein I found to be as improper as that by which you would clear your own Church of it For instead of proving Rome separating it self from any visible Society of Christians with whom she formerly held Communion which is properly Schism you accuse her of false Doctrine which Accusation could you be able to make good it would prove her to be rather Erroneous than Schismatical But I shall now descend to the Examination of those three Particulars by which you would prove your self not guilty of Schism The first is because you own and perform Obedience unto Christ and his Apostles and observe all the Rules and Ordinances they have left you in the Scriptures But how you can pretend to pay full Obedience to Christ and disobey his Spouse whom he enjoyns you to hear under penalty of being reputed an Ethnick or how you can fancy to be united to him when you fall off from his Mystical Body the Church of which he is the Head I know not or how you can be said to follow all the Rules of the Apostles when they recommend Tradition and you reject it when they tell you that the Church is the Pillar and Firmament of Truth and you make her Apostatical I could instance in many particulars how counter you run to the Scripture you so much pretend to but I shall wave them and only tell you that it is an unwarrantable way to fall off from the Church and then appeal to that Scripture which commands you to obey the Church yet this is your practice when you dispute with Catholicks but when you have to do with Sectaries who plead Scripture against you then you have recourse to Fathers and Tradition using the same Arguments against them as we do against you It was long ago observ'd by the Fathers That Hereticks were great pretenders to the Scriptures backing their false Opinions with it Omnes Haeretici ex sacris Scripturis falsas atque
World c. But instead of accusing her for this had you not been of an ungrateful temper you might have taken a fair opportunity of thanking her for sending her Apostles to convert this Nation to Christianity when we lay in the impure Arms of Heathenism But why should you take offence at her sending persons to propagate the Gospel even to the Remotest and most Barbarous Countreys as long as you whilst they are in the midst of Persecutions and Martyrdoms enjoy the soft Embraces of a Wife and the affluence of United Livings CHAP. VII Concerning Protestants objecting Errors to the Church of Rome The Authors Apologie for himself His Advice to the Protestant Parson with some other Particulars HAving hitherto followed you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tracing the print of your Footsteps and in as succinct a manner as I could examin'd your Reasons to clear your Church of Schism and to derive that crime on Rome they have appear'd to me too infirm either to justifie the one or to cast the other As for your accusing her of Errors that being but suppos'd and not prov'd it imports nothing Your Proofs to evince her Doctrines erroneous must be as manifest as your Actual Schism and your Arguments to justify your Schism must not be conjectural or Probable but they must be as Ostensive and as Irresistable as that you made it Nay you must prove her guilty of Damnable Doctrines and that Salvation was not attainable in her Communion or else you can expect none out of it For to accuse the Church of Error and upon that account to depart from her is Inevitable Perdition without a return I know it was always customary with her Enemies to object unto her the want of Truth but this was done by Schismaticks as St. Austin well observ'd Hoc dicunt qui in Ecclesiâ non sunt Upon this false surmise they audaciously attempt the reforming of her Doctrines broaching new ones in opposition to them which is done to authenticate and justify their Secession This was antiently observ'd by St. Hierom. Nullum Schisma non sibi aliquam fingit Haeresim ut recte ab Ecclesiâ recessisse videatur First they separate and so become Schismaticks then they mint new Articles of Belief and so turn Hereticks one follows upon the Neck of the other for they never continue long disjoin'd Schism being a very fair step to Heresie and Generally a Harbinger to it Quis unquam Haereses instituit nisi qui se prius ab Ecclesiae Catholicae universitate antiquitatis consensione discreverit says Vinc. Lyrinensis I know that in this case Truth is the pretence tho' indeed it is Pride and Arrogance which makes Men give the preference to their own Private Opinions and which keeps them from submitting to the Decisions of the Church for had they really with a pure ardour affected Truth they had never gone out of her who is the Pillar of Truth out of which when once departed they must not expect a Pillar of Fire to Pilote them but foolish Fires and Spirits of Delusion to misguide them through all the Serpentine windings and Mazes of falsehood In ventre Ecclesiae veritas manet quisquis ab hoc ventre Ecclesiae fuerit separatus necesse est ut falso loquatur says St. August on Psalm 57. I am apt to believe that if you would but once disenchant your self from the Spells of your unhappy Education and with an Impartial Judgment take a serious view of the Doctrines of the Church as propos'd and explicated by her not as wrongfully represented by her Adversaries that all those little Mormo's and Spectres rais'd by an injurious description of her Articles which have hitherto frighted you would disappear and that you then would be so captivated as not to be able to resist the charms of her naked Truths The force of Education is certainly great and lays violent anticipations on the Judgment which misleads us in our Elections disposing us to reject or embrace things rather as they suit or jar with our first receptions and prepossessions than by their conformity to Truth Till these false Ideas be dislodg'd Truth can expect no Introduction but must stand excluded by Preconceptions When this difficulty is conquer'd you would do well to question the Integrity of those Authors who have wrote in defence of your New Religion who first imbued your undiscerning Minority with adulterate Tinctures and then you are to apply your self with an unprejudicate Mind to those Authors who have oppos'd them After this you must lay aside all thoughts of Secular Advantage No Sophister can be more fallacious than Interest This imposes on our yielding Temper bribes our Judgments and by secret Attractions draws us to the wrong This made Alexander so violently stand up for his Ephesian Goddess tho' a false Deity and accordingly the Pythonissa was a long time maintain'd tho' possess'd with an impure Spirit for the lucre that she acquir'd for her owners In the last place you are to divest your self of your Conceitedness and high Opinion of your self assuming Humble Thoughts Fancy not your self unfallible in your Explications of Scripture look on it as unbecoming and arrogant in you to censure the Doctrines of the Church and to oppose the Definitions of General Councils When you shall have conquered all these Impedimental Obstacles you will soon descry those Mists which have hitherto benighted your Understanding to retire then through a serene and disclouded Medium you will clearly see the verity of Catholick Doctrines and by Gods assistance implor'd embrace them Nullus pudor ad meliora transire Amb. Epist 31. But now finding you to plant your Artillery to play on me I must take some care to defend my self which I do not at all despond of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both Shields and Spears are in my Armory To guard my self and gall my Enemy First You profess your self heartily sorry that I own my self revolted from my Mother Church But your sorrow being grounded upon a mistake I beg of you to supersede it Quam pro me curam geris hanc precor optime pro me deponas for I have not forsaken the Mother Church but the Schismatical Daughter But pray how can your Church be the Mother Church which began but in Luthers days and consequently so young that she resembles an Infant rather than a grave Matron I must confess I cannot see her reckon'd either by Irenaeus amongst those Churches which he calls Maximae Antiquissimae or by Tertullian amongst those which he terms Matrices Originales whereas the Roman Church is of that Antiquity and Renown that the very Holy Ghost by the Pen of St. Paul celebrates her Faith and Fame Henry the Eighth before he had violated the pure Faith he first imbib'd in his Book against Luther will tell you which the World acknowledged for the Mother Church Negare non potest Lutherus quin omnis Ecclesia fidelium sacrosanctam sedem Romanam velut
fallaces Opiniones suas conantur defendere as Hilarius attests Lib. prim de Trint Vincent Lyrinensis to the same effect Nihil de suo proferunt quod non Scripturarum verbis adumbrare conentur This they formerly did and still do to reject the Authority of the Church and to avoid a living Judge they appeal to the Scripture then they assume to themselves what they deny the Church it 's Exposition perverting it's true Sense according to their wild Fancies and so crooken the Rule to their own Bent This was observ'd by St. Basil Hexam Hom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These falsifiers of Truth which do not teach their mind to follow the Scripture but contort the meaning of Divine Writ to their own Wills Now tho' the Scripture as being the Word of God is infallibly true yet it do's witness of it self that it is not of private Interpretation and those that dare Expound it that way may instead of sound Truths extract damnable Doctrines St. Austin avouches That all Heresies take their Birth from its wrong Interpretation in his 222 Epistle to Consentius Neque enim natae sunt Haereses nisi dum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene To avoid this we must not Interpret them according to our Fancies but adhere to the Interpretations of the Church not at all questioning but that that Spirit of Truth which did direct it to distinguish Canonical from Adulterine Writ will likewise instruct it in the right Interpretation And herein consists the difference betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks as St. Austin observes Libro de Gratia Haeretici secundum suum sensum Sacras Scripturas legunt but we according to Antiquity and constant Tradition receiving both the Scripture and its Sense from the Church and her Authority is so considerable herein that St. Austin Epist Manich. says Ego Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas The Second Reason is because you pay Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Of this I shall hereafter have occasion to take notice and likewise of your Honesty and Integrity in quoting them The Third Reason to acquit your self of Schism is because you own the first four General Councils and are willing that the difference betwixt you and other Churches should be decided by their Vmpirage but I must tell you That if you own'd Forty Councils instead of Four and revolted from the Church that would not discharge you of the Crime of Schism As for your pretended willingness to admit them as Judges in differences betwixt you and other Churches this will appear to be a very empty Compliment unless you can prove that they made Definitions concerning our Modern Controversies they conven'd to define about the Heresies rise in those days of the Arrians Nestorians Eutychians Macedonians not concerning those of Protestants a word not then known and had their Doctrines been then extant they would as certainly have been condemned as the foregoing I shall only instance in one point in one Council that of Chalcedon I am fully convinc'd that that Council which paid so much respect to Pope Leo acknowledging him to have receiv'd the custody of the Vineyard from Christ granting him when they sent their Relation to him to preside over them by vertue of his Legate as the Head do's over the Members would have severely sentenc'd your revolt from that See That Council which depos'd Dioscurus the Patriarch of Alexandria and consequently no Subject of Leo's as he was Patriarch of the West not for any Erroneous Doctrine but for his Sawciness against him whom they call his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord and because he dar'd to convene a Synod without leave from the Apostolick See would most certainly have condemn'd your defection ftom the Authority of your Occidental Patriarch and more your Opprobrious Revilings of him But why the first four General Councils why not a Stage farther why Hic Terminus haeret Can you prove that all Contests in Matters of Faith arising in future Ages and in much different Centuries could possibly be determin'd in those Councils Would you have an Heresie be condem'd before it be broach'd your referring all our Controversal Differences to their Decision is as irrational as if Macedonius who was condemn'd concerning his Heresie about the Holy Ghost in the Second General Council had appeal'd to the Nicene which assembled chiefly to confute the Heresie of Arrius concerning God the Son and determin'd nothing about the Third Person of the Trinity Besides I know no reason why the Church should be credited in the first four General Councils and slighted and disbeliev'd in the following Christ promis'd he would be with them to the consummation of the World I do not in the least question but that the same Spirit of Truth which guided and directed the Church in its first Synods did accompany it in all its succeeding Conventions rendring it inerrable in its Definitions of Faith I can find no place where Christ promis'd to be with them for a limited time so as to direct them in their first four Assemblies and to leave them for the future to themselves It would have been a great incouragement to all new Heresies if no Decision in Gods Church should have been after the first four General Councils The truth of it is this 'T is usual with Hereticks to be Enemies to those Councils and to reject them that have condemn'd their Opinions charging them with Error as the Arrians did that of Nicene the Nestorians that of Ephesus the Eutichians that of Chalcedon and accordingly the Emperor Zeno being an Eutychian having put out a Profession of Faith which he call'd Henoticon he left out the Council of Chalcedon which had condemn'd that Error embracing only the Faith of the three first Councils The next thing I shall Discourse of will be concerning your Church which you assert to have all the Essentials of a true Church and to be a sound part of the Catholick This I wish you had prov'd as manifestly as you confidently affirm it Had you done this I would never have forsaken its Communion You cannot but imagine it to be a very hard task for any to forsake his Relations his Friends his Countrey-men in Matters of Religion and thereby to expose himself to their Odium the severity of rigid Laws and his Temporal Concerns to ruine nothing but the saving of ones Soul can be preponderant to all these Mischiefs So you may conceive that had I imagin'd my self as safe in reference to my Salvation in your Church as where I now am I had most certainly fix'd my self there Clavo Trabali As to your asserting your Church to have all the Essentials of a true one I must tell you plainly this That I find in the Fathers many to be condemn'd for Hereticks for denying but one of those many Articles which you disown But as for Essentials and Fundamentals I know you pretend to them but I cannot see
where your Authors define how many they be but leave them uncertain for their own advantage As to the other branch of the Assertion That your Church is a sound part of the Catholick Church I must beg your Assistance herein to inform me how a particular Church that did voluntarily fall off from the Catholick as yours did and afterward was cut off by Excommunication from it can yet continue to be a sound Member of it this I desire you to clear up to me You must not shuffle with me herein and tell me ye did not fall off from it but from its Errors that 's ridiculous Neither that ye did not fall off from the Catholick but only from the Roman Church that is false for ye then broke Communion from all Visible Orthodox Churches both in the West and East According to my Authors such Churches as yours can be no more Members of the Catholick Church than a dead Bough may be term'd part of that Tree from which 't is separated by Excision The Church is but one and cannot be divided Scindi unitas non potest nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari divulsis laceratione visceribus in frusta discerpi quicquid a matrice discescerit seorsim vivere spirare non potest substantiam salutis amittit Cyp. de Unit. And accordingly St. Austin Epist 48. ad Madurenses Videtis multos praecisos à rudice Christianae societatis c. de solâ figurâ originis sub Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari quas Haereses schismata nominamus But I find when your Party lay claim to be the Catholick Church and would vie for extent and number with the Romanist's then they make their false Musters and spread their wide Lap to several Sects only to acquire a more considerable multitude which when compar'd with one another are indeed found to be so many several Churches distinguish'd not only by Nation and Climate but by Doctrine and Points of Faith Now tho' these be opposite Parties of different Principles yet to enlarge their bounds and to boast of their greatness they rake all those together under the Title of Protestants who have revolted from Rome counting them on their side as if the definition of a Protestant were One that had apostatis'd from the Roman Church and that stands in opposition to it And I find some Protestants to specify as much as Dr. Willet in his Preface to his Synopsis a Protestant is he who professeth the Gospel of Jesus Christ and hath renounc'd the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome And Musculus in locis tit de coenâ I embrace all for Brethren in the Lord however they disagree from or amongst themselves as long as they maintain not the Popish impieties By this Method they patch up an Heterogenial Church consisting of all condemn'd Sects jarring with one another as Eutychians Nestorians Monothelits Sacramentarians Lutherans Calvenists Hugonots Anabaptists with all the numerous Spawn and Increment of fruitful Error this made Dr. Vane very ingenuously to say That the Church hath the property of Heat Congregare Homogenea things of the same kind Disgregare Heterogenea separate things of a different nature casting out of her Communion all sorts of Hereticks but your Church he says hath the property of cold Congregare Heterogenea enfolding under her Name a Miscellany of different Religions rather freezing than uniting them together and accordingly I find Bishop Vsher in a Sermon of his preach'd at Wansted before King James to adopt and matriculate into his Church Greeks Abyssines Aegyptians Jacobites tho' at variance with one another and more at odds with him and tainted with Heresies expresly condemn'd by General Councils For the Aegyptians Aethiopians and Abyssines were cast out of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon as infected with Eutychianism holding but one Will Nature and Operation in Christ much of the same Kidney are the Armenians Jacobites Georgians and Copthites The Christians under the Turk and Persian are tainted with Nestorianism and ejected out of the Church for asserting two Persons in Christ The Grecians Muscovites and Russians according to Athanasius's Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son on whom Mr. Rogers in his Thirty nine Articles is very Decretory This says he discovereth all of them to be Impious Erroneous from the way of Truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecians Russians and Muscovites maintain It was a saying of King James the First That they erring about the Holy Ghost had lost it As for the Doctrines of Lutherans and Calvenists I find them formerly condemn'd in Donatus Aerius Vigilantius Xenias Nevatus c. But now after all this I find that neither Schism nor Heresie according to the Sense of your Party hinders one from being a Member of the Church Thus Dr. Field in his first Book of the Church thinks when he says That the departure of Schismaticks is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God and Luther Serm. de Dominic says That they are frantick who go about to separate the Church from Hereticks This their favourable Opinion of Hereticks and Schismaticks made me imagine they themselves were guilty of both and that they did not exclude them from being Members of the Church lest by that Action they should bar out themselves but how a Schismatick who go's out of the Church or how a Heretick who depraves its Doctrine who has made shipwrack of his Faith and whom we are ordered to shun and avoid can be a Member of the Church I cannot conjecture so I shall keep steddy to St. Hieroms saying contra Lucif Nulla Haeretica Congregatio potest dici Ecclesia Christi Neither can I imagin how Churches opposite one to another disagreeing in weighty points so as not to join in Communion can be said to be Members of the same Catholick Church which is but one Body and has but one Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Name Church is no Name of Separation but of Vnion and Symphony says Chrysost 1 Homil Corinth And accordingly St. Austin told the Donatists who came much nearer to Catholicks than you do If our Communion be the Church of Christ yours is not Christs Church for that is but one whichsoever it be In his first Book against them And St. Cyprian in his Seventy sixth Epistle If the Church were on Novatus his side it was not with Cornelius So careful were they to preserve the Unity of the Church This makes them restrain the Church to a Company of Christians united together obeying their Supreme Pastor outwardly professing the same Faith Communicating with the rest of the Members in Publick Worship and Participation of the Blessed Sacrament Hence Austin in his Forty eighth Epistle to the Donatists tells them Nobiscum estis you are with us in
Baptism and the Creed c. In ipsa Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non estis They believ'd more than what you esteem as Fundamental yet were out of the Pale of the Catholick Church In this Church is Unity of Faith Harmony in Doctrine Conformity in Administration of the Sacraments Uniformity in her Liturgy and Ceremonies all the World over To distinguish this Church from all Heretical Sects the Apostles in their Creed the Antient Fathers in their Writings gave her the Sir-name of Catholick This very name seem'd so emphatical to St. Austin that he reckons it as a principal reason next to the Succession of Popes from St. Peter that kept him in the true Church Cont. Epist Manichaei Tenet ipsum Catholicae nomen quod non sine causa inter tam multas Haereses sic ipsa Ecclesia sola obtinuit ut cum omnes Haeretici se Catholicos dici velint Quaerenti tamen peregrino alicui ubi ad Catholicam conveniatur nullus Haereticorum vel Basilicam suam vel domum audeat ostendere From this place you may evidently see That it was the humor of the Hereticks of those Days as well as it is now to affect the Title of Catholick but this was but an usurpation in them and so 't is with you He says the Greeks call'd this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod per torum orbem terrarum diffunditur And according to this sense it is true Hereticks may be called Catholicks for they are disseminated all over the World But in his Fourth Book against Cresconius he makes this distinction betwixt a Real Catholick and an Heretical one Catholicks says he are the same every where and Hereticks are different Hence 't is that a Lutheran will not Communicate with a Greek nor a Greek with a Lutheran nor a Calvinist with a Muscovite nor an Anabaptist with an Armenian or an Hugonot with a Georgian vice versa whereas a Catholick Communicates with a Catholick in any part of the World as Members of the same Body and as having the same Unity of Faith as Irenaeus affirms in his first Book C. 3. The Church spread over the whole World having receiv'd the true belief keeps it and practiseth it as if it dwelt but in one House and had but one Soul and Heart Neque hae quae in Germania sunt fundatae Ecclesiae aliter credunt neque hae quae in Iberis sunt neque hae quae in Celtis neque hae quae in Oriente Aegypto Lybia Thus it was at first when Christian Churches were united and untainted with Heresie for the Apostles taught the self same Doctrine wherever they went and all those various Churches seated in divers Kingdoms and Regions differed only in Situation not in Doctrine Hence from their Unity of Faith they may be called One Church as St. Chrysost in his Comments on first Corinth affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There ought to be but one Church in the World although it be divided into many places Now 't is evident that of all Orthodox Churches an Union of which constitutes the Catholick Rome as being the See of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles was the chief and upon that account though Hierusalem and Antioch were somewhat before her in time she was before them in Dignity Hence by Irenaeus she is called the Greatest and most Glorious by St. Cyprian the Principle Church and St. Austin says 't is Arrogancy to deny her the Primacy and that she had obtain'd the Primacy frustra Haereticis latrantibus Hence it is that by way of Eminency she is call'd the Catholick Church including all the latitude of her Communion of which she is the Center the Mother the Mistress the Radix Matrix Hence 't is that the Fathers promiscuously use Catholick and Roman as Synonima's as I shall hereafter demonstrate out of them CHAP. III. Concerning the Respect which Catholicks pay to Images I Shall next employ my self in taking a Prospect of those Points for maintaining which you would prove Rome notoriously guilty of Paternal Schism and this I do the more willingly because you stand highly guilty of a false Representing them The First is Image-Worship as you phrase it which you have improv'd and sublimated to that height as to make it pass for Idolatry This is done to render your selves acceptable and us odious to the Populace as Violators of the first Commandment 'T is but rendring Pesel which properly signifies Sculptile to be an Image and then boldly affirming us Idolators to bring all the places in Scripture and Fathers against the Idolatry of the Gentiles and the business is done But those places are indeed nothing to your purpose they only importing a Prohibition of giving Soveraign Honor due to God to an Idol whereas you are to prove out of Scripture That 't is unlawful to give a Relative Honor to the Picture of Christ for his sake But by this Action you do not only shew your self defamatory but ungrateful to the Roman Church which when this Nation lay really in the Pollutions of Idolatry took compassion of us and by planting the Gospel here rescu'd us from that Calamitous Condition This confounding Image-worship with Idolatry is certainly a most fraudulent and malitious Method they being quite different things the one is an Honorary Relative Respect to the thing represented which is Sacred But the other is a Worshipping a Creature an Idol a Devil or false God in some dark Representation giving it Divine Incommunicable Attributes and in the Imagination exercising supreme Devotion to it for to those Idols by Magical Conjuration they annexed an Evil Spirit to do Wonders and thereby to extort Divine Worship from the cheated People hence they are often call'd Gods as in the Fifth of Daniel they pray'd their Gods of Silver Brass Iron Wood Stone Now to ascribe this heinous Sin to the Catholick Church is highly injurious Idolatry being the blackest Sin a Church can be spotted with for it doth not only thereby cease to be a true Christian Church but it becomes worse than a Jewish Synagogue and I had rather turn Jew or Turk than Idolater There is no Question but that Idolatry is a sufficient excuse for any one to fall off from a Church that is tainted with it But if this were the reason of your falling off from Rome the pretence was malicious and forg'd and Mr. Thorndike who well knew what Idolatry was will tell you in his Just weight Cap. primo his Opinion herein whose words are these Should the Church of England declare that the change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this supposition I must then acknowledge that we are Schismaticks But I shall now make a short Discussion of this Point according to the Definition of the Council of Trent which I find to take all care imaginable to obviate any accusation herein the Words being as so many Characters to distinguish the respect paid to an Image from Idolatry First the
and reconcile Differences rather than by abusive Expressions and false Representations to exasperate and widen them Think how ingenuous it would be in you who are so influential and leading to the rest of your Flock candidly to acknowledge your Errors having been convinc'd of them disabuse them of their false pre-occupations rescue them from the Chains of their Erroneous Education dispose them to a right conception of Catholick Doctrine Shed no more Cockle amongst 'em as knowing your self responsible for the pernicious Principles you infuse into them Teach them sound Catholick Verities gratifie their distempered Stomachs with no more unwholsome viands humour their prurient itching Ears with no more empty gingling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deluding their dainty Ears with the Magick of the Tongue When you have exerted your best endeavours herein you may with some ground hope for Remission from Propitious Heaven otherwise you may justly fear that those Darts which you have thrown against the Catholick Church should beat back and reverberate upon your self for as St. Basil observes in his Hom. of Envy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those Darts which are flung with violence if they light on any firm and obdurate Matter recoil upon him that threw them But I shall now decline things of this nature and return you my Thanks for the long Bedroll of Authors which you have recommended to me Jewel is the First and indeed you did well to place him in the Front as being most bold and frontless after him comes Whitaker Abbot Hall White Laud Hammond c. these you desire me to peruse not questioning but by an impartial reading of them I may be reduc'd from the strangers Lap into the Bosom of my True Chast Mother I shall not go about to extenuate the Credit of these Men but shall pay a just Deference and Respect both to their Quality and Parts But I shall not so overvalue them as to grant them the Prelation to the Catholick Church Councils and Fathers nay I shall not equalize them with Cardinal Bellarmine Perròn Baronius or multitudes of others in the Roman Communion I will grant you that they have wrote as well as possibly could be in your behalf and had your Case been desensible they had maintain'd it but it was their misfortune to be engag'd in a wrong Quarrel which they presuming to be true have bent all their endeavours and distended every Nerve to support Error and obscure Truth 'T is pleasant to observe how these cunning Fencing-Masters shift their Weapons when they fight against Sectaries in defence of Episcopacy one would swear they were perfect Catholicks Brandishing Glittering Weapons drawn from the Armory of Antiquity Tradition Practice of the Church Councils and Fathers but when they grapple with Catholicks the Case is altered Then Scripture is the only Rule Councils may err and the Church Apostatize and the Fathers guilty of mistakes making use of all the shifting evading ways imaginable to avoid the dint of the Argument But as soon as I came to understand the vast difference amongst them in their Disputings with Catholicks I did conclude their Case very bad Whitaker in his Answer to Campians Reasons appeals to the first Six hundred Years after Christ which Jewel likewise did in his Ostentatious crack at St. Paul's Cross but Dr. Humphrey in the Life of him do's much reprehend him for his bold appealing to the Fathers as if he had thereby spoil'd himself and his Church in giving the Catholicks too large scope Bishop Laud being sensible of Jewels rashness lops off very fairly Two hundred Years contracting the time to a narrower compass to the Fathers of the first Four hundred Years as appears in his Forty eighth Sect. The Protestants offer says he to be try'd by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first Four hundred years and somewhat further Dr. Hammond who I conceive to be much more Learned than the two foregoing finding Bishop Laud's Four hundred Years not to hold Water abates One hundred of them in his Eighth Chapter of Schism For the particular Doctrins saith he wherein we are affirm'd by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrins and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first Three hundred Years or the Four General Councils This pruning of Antiquity and shrinking it from the Sixth to the Fourth and so to the Third Century seem'd to me the most foul and unreasonable thing imaginable for by this means most of the chief Fathers whose Works are most Copious were excluded from attesting the truth of the Churches Doctrin and very few admitted only those who had wrote little or nothing of our differences but some small Treatises Epistles and Apologies against Heathens and Exhortations to Martyrdom the Church being then under perpetual Persecutions But to answer you concerning your Catalogue of Authors I have perus'd those parts of their Works which relate to the Catholicks but they are so far from removing me out of the Strangers Lap that they have much contributed to my fixing my self there But pray what makes you call the Roman Church a Stranger don't you know that she is the Origin and Center of Unity and that all true Christians are oblig'd to Communicate with her Don't Irenaeus to whom I shall give more credit than to all your List of Authors affirm That all the Faithful are oblig'd to have recourse to this Church for its more powerful Principality Do's not St. Hierom say That he is profane who Eats the Lamb out of this House This is the place where God planted his only Altar and here is fix'd that Cathedra against which whoever erects another is as Optatus affirms Schismaticus peccator 'T is clear that St. Hierom tho' in reference to local distance he was much remote from Rome as he acknowledges in his Fifty seventh Epistle to Damasus Neque vero tanta vastitas elementi liquentis interjacens longitudo terrarum me à pretiosae margaritae potuit inquisitione prohibere yet notwithstanding this in the same Epistle he says Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior The same happy state I heartily wish you and all other Schismaticks well knowing how deplorable a thing it is to die out of that Communion I shall therefore conclude this Point with St Cyprian's Advice Ad Matrem revertimini unde prodistis The End of the First Part. THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. The Preface to St. Peter 's Supremacy and whether St. Andrew knew Christ's Divinity before St. Peter WHAT I have hitherto wrote may resemble a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a light Skirmish it being but Prefatory and Introductive to that main design I am at which is the Vindication of St. Peter's Supremacy a Point of so high Import being the Common Center and Origin both of Catholick Unity of Sacerdotal Dignity and Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction but withal so strangely snarl'd
advance it to its deserved heighth for you are to understand that tho' Peters Confession did exceed that of others by declaring Christ to be Gods Natural Son yet this was not the sole reason of his Preferment and Honor but because the Father singled him out of the Apostolick Society illuminating him with a particular Revelation and inspiring him what he should return in answer to Christ his Question or if you please God himself spoke by him making use of his Organs You will find by the following Quotations that the Fathers assert both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was declared Blessed because he spake the Sense of God because he receiv'd what he spake from the Divine Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ancor As the Prince of the Apostles witnesseth who by our Lord was vouchsafed to be proclaimed Blessed because the Father discovered the Revelation to him Origen affirms in his Notes on St. Matthew that St. Peter knowing the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Revelation of the Father had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The highest Blessing And accordingly St. Austin Psalm 138. Jamdudum quia dixerat tu es Christus filius Dei vivi auvit non tibi revelavit Caro Sanguis sed Pater meus qui est in Caelis ideo Petra ideo Beatus Thus you may easily perceive that the sourse of Peters Glory was originated from God who became his Tutor and taught him this Divine and Mystical Theology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Damascene calls it And accordingly St. Ambrose Incar Dom. Sacram. says Qui veram generationem loquitur Patris a Patre assumpsit Peter spake it but God suggested it as Damascen affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Doctrin God declar'd to him and he taught it the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ancor For Christ did not ask the Question as if he were ignorant but as willing to manifest that this was the Doctrin of the Father which did proclaim his true Son to the Church That Peter should be enforc'd to speak and declare what he was taught by the Father He being thus endoctrinated from Heaven promulges this Article of belief and imparts it faithfully to the rest as Epiph. in Ancor observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes a true discovery of Christ who had shaded himself and was pleas'd to pass Incognito under the Title of Son of Man but Peter by a luminous illapse and ray from above finds him out and Proclaims him the Son of God St. Hierom affirms That he had this Revelation from the Holy Ghost but this his Opinion can raise no difference for Opera Sanctissimae Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa his words are these Quod Caro Sanguis revelare non potuit Spiritûs Sancti gratiâ revelatum est And again in another place Ex confessione Petrus sortitur vocabulum quod Revelationem ex Spiritu Sancto habeat cujus filius appellandus alluding to Barjona for in the Hebrew Language Jona signifies Columba the Symbol of the Holy Spirit descending in that shape Hence we may see what a high Favorite this grand Apostle was of every Person of the Blessed Trinity The Father and the Holy Ghost cull him out of the whole Body of the Apostles and honor him particularly with a Revelation Christ superadds to this Dignity making him a promise of building his Church on him and of the Donation of the Keys and after this constituting him his Supreme Vicar Pastor and Head of his Vniversal Church as shall hereafter be manifested Now after all this you are pleas'd to pass a slight Complement on St. Peter allowing him to be a forward speaker and therefore styl'd by the Fathers Os Apostolorum and if he were their Mouth you say he surely spoke their Mind To return a fit answer to this I shall first examine in what Sense he may be term'd the Mouth of the Apostles And then I shall enquire whether or no the other Apostles had the same Sense of Christ's Divinity as he had when he offer'd to solve the propos'd Question First I must acknowledge that I cannot find in any place of the Scripture that the Apostles ever chose or pitch'd upon Peter for their Speaker but spake themselves to Christ when they had a mind to it or saw occasion this I shall prove by several Instances as Matt. 13. Accesserunt ad eum Discipuli dicentes edissere nobis hanc parabolam Matt. 14. Accesserunt ad eum Discipuli ejus dicentes desertus est locus Matt. 15. Dicunt ei Discipuli ejus unde ergo nobis in deserto panes Matt. 17. Tunc accesserunt Discipuli ad Jesum secreto dicentes c. And John 14. dicit ei Thomas and in the same Chapter Dicit ei Philippus and John 12. Dixit ei Judas Iscariotes and as Nazianzen observes in his 26th Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter asks Christ one Question Philip another Judas this Thomas something else and indeed any other of them did the same By this it clearly appears that they all spoke to our Savior as well as Peter Nay in St. John 13. Peter gets John to speak for him beckoning on him to ask Christ a Question Besides they did not only in their Addresses to Christ speak for themselves but likewise answer'd for themselves when Christ propos'd any Question which they could solve Thus in Matt. 13. 51. Christ asked them if they understood all these things they said to him Yes Lord. Christ asked them How many Loaves they had they answered Seven He asked them Matt. 21. 31. Which of the two Brothers did his Fathers Will they said The first He asked them Whether they wanted any thing when he sent them without Purse Scrip or Shoes they said Nothing And in John 21. he asked them Whether they had any thing to eat they answered him No. These easie Questions you see they all answer'd as well as Peter but when Christ propos'd this difficult Question which we now treat of all the rest were silent and Peter only answer'd it 'T is very observable that tho' it was propos'd to them all in the Plural Number Peter only reply'd to it and in this all the Evangelists as many as mention it agree exactly as you may see in Matt. 16. Mark 8. and Luke 9. whereas in their raccounting other Passages they seem to vary Now 't is easily discernible when Peter speaks for the Rest uttering their common Sentiment by his speaking in the Plural Number as in St. John 6. upon our Saviors asking them Nunquid vos vultis abire Peter answers in the Plural Number in the name of all of them Domine ad quem ibimus Here Theophyl observes that he spake for all of them his Reason was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he did not say to whom shall I go but to whem shall we go And accordingly St. Austin in his 28th Tract Johan Respondit Petrus
same place he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The firm Rock of the building the Foundation of the House of God In his Ancorat he says thus of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was assisted by the Father in laying a firm Foundation of Faith And in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In all respects Faith was establish'd and confirm'd in him St. Cyril who in his 4th Book de Trinit says Petra opinor per agnominationem aliud nihil quam inconcussa firma Discipuli fides c. Do's not take his Faith apart from his Person but confesses the Church to be built on him as well as on his Faith Lib. 2. Cap. 3. in Johan In Petro tanquam in Petra Lapide firmissimo Ecclesia aedificata est And in Lib. 2. Cap. 12. in Johan Nec Simon fore nomen sed Petrum dixit vocabulo ipso commodè significans quod in eo tanquam in lapide firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus Ecclesiam And on the First of St. Johan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon him he destin'd to build his Church My next employ shall be to consult with St. Ambrose concerning this Point whom I find Lib. de Incarnat Dom. Sacram. Cap. 5. to make Faith the Foundation of the Church his words are these Fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum non enim de carne Petri sed de fide dictum est quia portae mortis ei non praevalebunt sed confessio vincit Infernum These words were so pleasing to Dr. Whitaker that having cited them to Cardinal Bellarmine he triumphantly cries out Audin ' Jesuita Yet notwithstanding this imaginary ovation the words of St. Ambrose are easily answered For first no Catholick do's affirm the Church to be built on Peters Flesh so that he should support it as Caelifer Atlas do's the Heavens by virtue of a strong robust Back and a pair of broad Shoulders neither do we affirm it to be built on his Soul but on his Person consisting of Body and Soul Next I shall prove out of Ambrose that altho ' he calls Faith the Foundation he do's not deny Peters Person to be so likewise as is well known by those celebrated Verses of his which St. Austin quotes wherein he acknowledges Peter to be Petra Ecclesiae And in Lib 4. Lucae Non turbatur ista navis quae Petrum habet turbatur illa quae Judam habet quemadmodum turbari poterat cui praeerat is in quo Ecclesiae firmamentum est Et de Incarn Lib. 4. Hic est Petrus qui respondit pro caeteris imo prae caeteris ideo fundamentum dicitur And Lib. 4. De fide Quem cum Petrum dicit firmamentum Ecclesiae indicavit St. Basil tho' he is pleas'd to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on 2d Isaiae The sublime Soul of blessed Peter is called the Rock because it is firmly rooted in Faith Yet do's he not offer to depose his Person as appears in his 6th Book against Eunomius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter for the excellency of his Faith was entrusted with the Church which was built on him The rest of the Fathers do perspicuously acknowledge the Church to be built on Peters Person St. Hierom. in Cap. 14. Ezechiel Apostolus Petrus super quem Dominus Ecclesiae fundamentum solidavit And on Matt. 16. aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te And in the same place Petro illam beatitudinem potestatem aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro promissam St. Cyprian is very positive in affirming the Church to be built on his Person Petrus super quem Ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata De bono patientiae Petrus super quem aedificata a Domino fuerat Ecclesia 52. Epist Petrus cui oves suas Dominus pascendas tuendasque commendat super quem posuit fundavit Ecclesiam De Disciplina Virg. Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit c. Epist 70. Baptisma unum Spiritus Sanctus unus una Ecclesia a Christo Domino super Petrum origine unitatis ratione fundata in the same Epistle Tertullian who in his Book de Pudicitia says concerning Peter In ipso Ecclesia extructa is pleas'd to explain himself thus id est per ipsum In the same Book affirms the Church to be built not on Peters Faith but on his Person Manifesta Domini intentio personaliter hoc Petro conferre super te inquit edificabo Ecclesiam meam tho' he denies it to belong to his Successors being when he wrote that Book infected with the Heresie of Montanus And in his Prescriptions Petrus aedificandae Ecclesiae Petra dicitur And again in Monog Petrum solum invenio maritum per socrum Monogamum praesumo per Ecclesiam quae super illum aedificata est CHAP. VI. Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations Of Peters new Name given him by Christ Peter the Rock of the Church Of Origens Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place MY following Province will be to treat of the rest of the Apostles whom to lessen and extenuate St. Peters Glory you would equalize with him that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Foundations I concede to you Oecomenius on the Apocalyps gives the reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because they laid the first ground-work of Faith in Christ And accordingly St. Hierom in Psalm 86. In illis erant fundamenta ibi primum posita est fides Ecclesiae They in reference to their Apostolick Power had equal Authority of founding Churches in any part of the World In relation to their Doctrin they were equally Orthodox and Infallible And what concern'd their Writings they being directed and influenc'd by the same Spirit they were alike Canonical and what appertain'd to the Government of all other Christians they were equally Pastors Heads and Rectors And in these Considerations the Church may be said to be built ex aequo as St. Hierom says on all of them Now notwithstanding they were all equal Foundations in these Aspects St. Peter was here the only sole Rock on whom Christ promis'd to build his Church which did consist not only of all Christians whatsoever but even of the Apostles themselves If they were Foundations so was St. Peter and the Prophets if they were Foundations they were Sub Petro post Petrum whom our Savior to preserve Unity chose out of the Apostolick Colledge and with his own Hands laid next to himself as Theophyl affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that Peter was the only Rock of the Universal Church will appear evident if we consider that Christ did here engage himself by promise solely to him to build his Church on him upon his peculiar Confession of his Divinity which the other Apostles till they had learn'd it of him were ignorant of this I have already prov'd Now what our
Successors into the Hands of Secular Princes I shall herein be satisfied This I am sure of that it continued in their Hands above 300 Years Constantine being the first Christian King and 't is evident enough that he never attempted to rob them of it and assume it to himself and the other good Emperours would not intermeddle with Church-Affairs but by assent of the Church and to assist it Some other Emperors that were busie herein ruin'd themselves thereby and some repented of it as Constantius by name who upon his Death-bed declar'd this to be one of the three things that most disquieted him which Nazianz. mentions to be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The murder of his Relations his proclaiming the Apostate Julian Emperor his Innovation in matters of Faith But that which gives me greatest satisfaction herein is because I find the Fathers to check the Emperors when they put their Fingers into Church Matters which had been very unproper had they look'd on them as Heads of the Church Thus Athanasius Ad solit vit agentes speaking of Constantius the Emperor's usurping Power in the Church says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For who is he that seeing him ruling over the lawful Bishops and presiding in Ecclesiastick Judgments will not consequently say this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by the Prophet Daniel And in the same Epistle he tells the Emperor wherein his Power properly consists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God has committed the Kingdom to you but he has intrusted the Affairs of the Church with us And accordingly St. Ambrose tells the Emperor upon the like occasion Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum non sacrorum ad Imperatorem Palatia pertinent ad Sacerdotem Ecclesia In his Epist 33. ad Imperat. and in his Epist 32. he tells him In causâ fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare This Power of the Clergy in Ecclesiasticks is acknowledg'd by Ignatius ad Smyrn where he expresly says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Bishop Vsher thus translates Nemo praeter Episcopum aliquid agat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent the words may be translated either praeter Episcopum or sine Episcopo This Priestly Power is acknowledged by the Fathers Hence 't is that Nazianz. in his Orat. 17. ascribes to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Dominion Tribunal and Principacy And in the same Orat. he affirms their Power nobler than the Secular where speaking of the Governour he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we our selves rule I will add that our Principacy is greater and more perfect And accordingly he tells the Governor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Law of Christ had subjected him to his Dominion and Tribunal St. Chrysoft seems to be of the same Opinion Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae Vidi Dominum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priesthood is a more venerable and greater Principacy than a Temporal Kingdom affirming that God subjected the Kings Head to the High-Priests Hands instructing us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he was the greatest Prince of the two And accordingly Cyril in his 17th Catech. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this very day we see Earthly Princes govern'd by Ecclesiasticks I have not quoted any of these Authorities with an intent to decide which of these two Powers be the greatest but to prove that the Fathers did acknowledge them both as distinct and as I have declar'd both of them Absolute and Independent in their kind so I shall conclude this Point with the saying of Ignatius to that purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are now pleas'd to descend to particulars mentioning the Christian Emperors by name who de facto jure govern'd the Church The first you pick out is Constantine whom you have most falsly traduc'd by making him a Head or Governor of the Church as assuming to himself Ecclesiastick Supremacy A Crime he both abhorr'd and was wholly untainted with 'T is well known he was a great Honourer of Sylvester Pope in his days looking on him as Peters Successor Supreme Head of the Church and he was besides a great enricher no Sacrilegious Robber of it He attempted not to alter any of its Articles but embrac'd its Doctrin and ratified its Conciliary Definitions as Athanasius affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strengthening them by his Imperial Law And he was so far from acting as Head of the Church as he dar'd not to judge a Bishop as Augustin affirms in his 166 Epist Sed quia Constantinus non est ausus de causâ Episcopi judicare eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit And Ruffin likewise Lib. 10. Hist Cap. 2. mentions this Answer of his to the Bishops Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos a vobis recte judicamus As for the Objection of Caecilianus I find it fully solved by Card. Perròn in his Third Book to King James Cap. 4. Besides whoever considers his behavior in the Council will not think he acted as Head of the Church For first he would not sit down till he had desired permission of the Bishops which Theodoret expresses thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having ask'd leave of the Bishops to grant it Eusebius thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Valesius thus translates Nec prius sedere sustinuit quam Episcopi id nutu significâssent Theodoret after he had mention'd the Speech he made adds this Haec similia tanquam filius amator pacis Sacerdotibus veluti Patribus offerebat Here he acted as a Son of the Church not as a Head neither did he any thing in the Council by way of defining but by assenting to its Dicisions being present there rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Decency and Order than for any thing else As for the Emperors Justinian Theodosius and Charlemain whom you likewise particularize upon the same account as you did Constantine I must acknowledge that they did make Laws concerning the Affairs of the Church but none of them made any in opposition to it or the Definitions thereof but rather agreeable to them reducing the Churches Faith and Canons for Discipline into Imperial Laws to the intent they might be more obey'd by their Subjects This is no more than what was practis'd by Jovinian who in those great differences of Opinions which were in his days desir'd of the Orthodox Bishops a Platform of the True Faith which Athanasius gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazianz. calls it A Royal Gift indeed which he confirm'd by his Imperial Power But to return to the above mention'd Emperors and to see how their Examples will jump with your Case First They made Laws that the Catholick Religion should be observ'd in all their Dominions You make Laws for its subversion altering its Articles and foisting in their room new Negatives in opposition to them They made Laws in defence of the
Lib. 4. Dist 18. And now it will seem a very fit time for you to look about you for your Case is very dubious and I must confess I cannot see what Title you have to the Keys You who who are no Priest of the Catholick Church but only a Minister of a Particular one fallen off from her You who Write and Preach against Catholick Doctrin and Unity in Justification of your Schismatical Defection You who have so much distended your Nerves in injuring not only Peter whom our Savior entrusted with the Keys but likewise in abusing his Successors who possess them after him You who by Excommunication are sever'd from the Body of the Catholick Church as Sarmentum Ramale emortuum how you should have them I cannot imagin And I may ask you as Optatus did the Donatists Lib. 2. Cont. Parm. Vnde est quod Claves Regni vobis usurpare contenditis qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus audaciis militatis St. Cyprian will tell you in his Epist 73. Foris nec ligari aliquid posse nec solvi And in his 6th Epistle Dicimus omnes omnino Haereticos atque Schismaticos nihil habere potestatis ac juris But on the other side Theophyl says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to loose and bind who are honor'd with Episcopal Grace according to Peter But before I quit this Point I shall very seriously recommend to you the Saying of St. Hierom in his Comments on Matt. 16. where speaking of the Power of the Keys he acknowledges Peter to have receiv'd it Speciatim especially particularly Quod quicunque ab unitate fidei Societate Ecclesiae se separaverit nec a peccatis solvi nec Caelum possit ingredi By this you may apprehend your deplorable condition being separated from the Unity of the Catholick Faith and from the Society of the Catholick Church Be so indulgent to your self as not to use any Sophistry in gulling your self Permit this Saying of St. Hierom not to float like a Buoy on the Surface of your Brain but to subside to your interior and deepest consideration Be so kind likewise to your Flock whose Opinion of your Learning and Orthodoxy has made them ductile to your Guidance and recipient of your Impresses as to impose no more false Tenets on their obvious credulity 'T is your Duty to instill into them saving Truths and not to infect them with pernicious Doctrin Pliny makes mention of a Poisonous Fountain in Arabia where the Shepherds pay the price of the Sheep that drink thereof and perish what punishment would that Shepherd deserve that should poison his Flock himself and how far more he who having the care of Rational Sheep committed to him should in lieu of feeding them with the sincere Milk taint them with destructive Principles You know very well how often you have preach'd over those Papers you sent me and how unsuspectedly they were imbib'd by your greedy Auditory Having now laid open those many Errors contain'd in them you would shew your self an ingenuous Person if you would uncurtain to them those many falshoods you have vented under the fallacious Mantle of sound Truths By such candid an Action as by a piacular Victim you might efface that guilt you have contracted by your slanderous reviling the Catholick Church and injurious Representations of her Doctrins I cannot imagin but that you must needs be conscious to your self of your great miscarriages herein and that a Person of your Reading must know better things and can teach too if you please but whether a long Habit or Interest retards you herein I 'll not pretend to define I shall only tell you what the Shepherds in Hesiods Theogonia say of themselves and so conclude this Point leaving it to you to make Application 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lies that resemble Truth we know to teach And if we please the ancient Faith can preach CHAP. IV. Of St. Peter 's being call'd Satan And of his Denial IT will not now seem incongruous to say something of Christs calling St. Peter Satan not long after he had told him that he would build his Church on him and had promis'd him the Keys For this I find objected by several as if by calling him so Christ had evacuated what he promis'd him before But it is to be consider'd that this happen'd betwixt the time of the Promise and Performance which was not exhibited till after Christs Resurrection St. Hierom on his Comments on Matt. 16. seems with this solution to satisfie the Objection Prudens lector inquirat quomodo post tantam beatitudinem c. nunc audiat Vade retro me Satana aut quae sit tam repentina conversio ut post tanta praemia Satanas appelletur Sed si consideret qui hoc quaerit Petro illam beatitudinem potestatem aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro promissam non in praesenti datam intelliget Aedificabo inquit super te Ecclesiam meam Portae Inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam dabo tibi Claves Regni Coelorum omnia de futuro quae si statim dedisset ei nunquam in eo pravae confessionis error invenisset locum And accordingly Theophyl 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word Dabo signifies the time to come to wit after his Resurrection But if that for which he is check'd be well inspected you will find two things which much extenuate his fault the one is his great Love and Tenderness to Christ declar'd in these words Propitius esto tibi Domine the other is his ignorance of Christs design in coming into the World Now he is called Satan not as if he willingly or malitiously did go about to hinder the Salvation of Mankind but because he out of ignorance of Gods Eternal Decree gave Christ that Advice of favouring himself which had it been follow'd would have obstructed our Redemption which was design'd us by the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross St. Austin on his 49th Tract Johan do's acquit him of any Crime herein Nec Petro tamen humana ignorantia proficit ad crimen non enim ei Pater adhuc omne passionis Mysterium revelaverat voluerunt consilium dare Domino ne moriretur qui venerat mori ne ipsi morerentur The next thing of this nature which I shall insist on is his Denyal which by several is highly exaggerated as if all his Dignities had thereby been forfeited and lost but in this his fault it is likewise to be consider'd that it was committed before his installment in his Supreme Power which was not solemniz'd till Christ return'd Victorious from the Grave It was before he was virtute indutus ex alto it was before he had receiv'd the Holy Ghost by Christs Insufflation Timore Petrus ter negavit nondum enim acceperat Spiritum Sanctum accepto postea Spiritu Sancto cum fiduciâ caepit praedicare qui ad vocem ancillae ter negaverat accepto