Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33411
|
St. Peter's supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to Holy Scripture and Greek and Latin fathers with a detection and confutation of the errors of Protestant writers on this article : together with a succinct handling of several other considerable points.
|
Clenche, William.
|
1686
(1686)
|
Wing C4640; ESTC R5309
|
132,726
|
227
|
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