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
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
Vinum Eucharistiae ante sacram invocationem adorandae Trinitatis Panis erat Vinum merum peractâ invocatione Panis fit corpus Christi Vinum Sanguis Christi And in like manner Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bread is chang'd into the very Body of Christ Now that we might not disbelieve this stupendous change because 't is supernatural he tells us how it is effected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Bread is chang'd into the Flesh of our Lord by arcane words by the Mystical Bendiction by the accession of the Holy Ghost on John 6. St. Chrysost in his 83 Hom. on Matt. says That this change is not a work of Human Power but Christ himself performs it He Sanctifies and Transmutes it That Christ who as soon as he will'd or spoke a thing by his Omnipotency effected it as soon as he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will the Leaper was cleans'd as soon as he said Lazare exi foris he caus'd and enabl'd him to come forth as soon as he Commanded the Devils to dislodge out of the Demoniacks he drave them out as soon as he ordered the Winds to hold their Breath he caus'd a Calm as soon as he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he rais'd the Virgin to Life The same Almighty Jesus at his last Supper having taken Bread into his Hands and having said Hoc est Corpus meum did by vertue and energy of those Operative Divine Words incomprehensively ineffably change and transelement it into his Body and the like concerning the Wine This adorable Mystery I shall not in the least question because I cannot comprehend it that is to incur Nicodemus his Error neither will I disbelieve it because 't is above the strength of Nature that was the weakness of Zaoharias but with the Blessed Virgin I will rely on the word of God who neither can deceive nor be deceiv'd Fiat secundum verbum tuum firmly without any diffidence by a generous and vivid Faith acquiescing in the veracity of Christ his words Cum Christus ipse affirmet ac dicat hoc est corpus meum quis deinceps audeat dubitare ac eodem dicente hic est Sanguis meus quis dubitet ac dicat non esse Sanguinem Aquam aliquando mutavit in Vinum quod est Sanguini propinquum non erit dignus cui credamus quod Vinum in Sanguinem transmutâsset Quare cum omni certitudine Corpus Sangninem sumamus nam sub specie Panis datur tibi Corpus sub specie Vini Sanguis says St. Cyril in his Mystag Catechism Which words are as clear for Transubstantiation as any thing in the Council of Lateran or Trent Now as I do undoubtedly believe that when Christ spake these words they had their effect as soon as they were uttered and for this I have St. Chrysost Authority who affirms That Christ when he said this is my Body made it his Body So with the same Father I do believe when a lawful Priest of the Catholick Church pronounces the same Consecratory words that they have the same effect Sacra ipsa oblatio sive illum Petrus sive Paulus sive cujusvis meriti sacerdos offerat eadem est quam dedit Christus Discipulis quamque sacerdotes modo conficiunt nihil habet ista quam illa minus cur id quia non sanctificant homines sed Christus qui illam antea sacraverat in his 2. Hom. on 2 Epist Timothy I know this Doctrine is much oppos'd by our Adversaries and they fancy that we are sufficiently confuted by having it try'd at the Tribunal of our Senses but this is not at all prevalent with me for Christ never intended that this supernatural change should be subjected to our External Senses for had it been visible to them it could not have been matter of Faith which is properly argumentum rerum non apparentium It is observable that Christ before he wrought this invisible Miracle had done many visible ones to convince his Disciples of his Divine Power they having imbibed that belief could never rationally doubt of his Veracity or Ability in performance of what he had said knowing him to be Omnipotent Ipse Dominus testificatur nobis quod Corpus suum accipiamus sanguinem quid debemus de ejus fide testificatione dubitare says St. Ambrose Christ then willing to exercise their and our Faith in this Mystery and at the same time to free us from eating Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper Species which we naturally abhor was pleas'd to give us them Clothed Apparell'd under another Species of Bread and Wine Quod occulis apparet species sunt visibles panis vini quod sub speciebus iisdem fides nostra non sensus aut ratio comprehendit id verum Christi corpus And accordingly Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore God indulgently condescends to us and preserves the Species of Bread and Wine but transelements them into the strength of his Flesh and Blood There is no question but that the Fathers were Men of Sense and as acute and subtle Persons as any of our Adversaries yet in judging of this Mystery they admitted not their Senses as Umpires Credamus ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi absurdum esse videtur quod dicit superat sensum rationem nostram sermo ipsius verba Domini falsa esse nequeunt sensus noster saepe fallitur quoniam ergo ille dixit hoc est Corpus meum nulla teneamur ambiguitate sed credamus says St. Chrysostom in his 60 Orat. ad Pop. Antioch and some of them advise us not to judge of this great Mystery either by our tast or by our sight being of an higher nature than to have such an inquest to sit on 't Non est panis etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi vinum quod a nobis conspicitur tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse says St. Cyril in his Catech. St. Ambrose raiseth a Question for you but then he solves it Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video sed habet similitudinem ut nullus horror sit cruoris Lib. 4. Sacrament And in like manner Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But why do's it seem to us not to be Flesh but Bread that we should not loath the eating of it And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems unto us to be Bread but 't is Flesh indeed And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is chang'd by an ineffable energy tho' it seems to us to be Bread Now the high abuse you offer Catholicks in this Point is by representing our belief herein after a Gross Carnal Capharnaical meaning impressing those of your Party with the same false Ideas concerning us as the Heathens conceiv'd against the Primitive Christians as if we were a Barbarous Inhumane sort of Cannibals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Language is evidently to be prov'd out of the same Father in his Second Book de Doctrina Christ and in his Exposition on Psal 123. But if you had a mind to quarrel with the Church for this it might have been begun several hundred Years past for it can be prov'd that this Nation us'd Latin in her Publick Service above Nine hundred Years ago as is evident out of the Council of Cloves Hoviae under Archibishop Cuthbert But that which gives me full satisfaction herein is that our Apostle St. Austin who made us Christians taught us to serve God in that Language and this seems not to be only out of high respect to God Almighty to serve him in Publick Liturgies not in the Common Profane Vulgar Tongue but in the most Pure Sacred Language but it seems likewise to denote Unity that the Church which is united in the same Faith should join as much as possible in the same Language by this means any one of her Communion may join in her Liturgy in any part of the Jurisdiction of the Western Church a German if in Italy a Frenchman if in Poland an Englishman if in Spain c. Neither are the People so ignorant of these Prayers as you would persuade your Party for the Liturgy having set Offices for every day and being in one set Language they by vertue of their Catechisms Manuals Prayers and Psalters in the Vulgar Tongue where the Prayers used by the Church are found and likewise Psalms and Hymns proper to every day have several other Books Expounding the Churches Service to the meanest capacity Besides the Priests are very solicitous herein assisting them by their private Instructions so that the Sense of the Churches Liturgy is well understood even by Women and Persons of ordinary Capacity But this Practice of the Church in having her Liturgy in Latin being no Article of Belief but rather a Point of Church Discipline and as such not indispensable but changable whereas Articles of Faith are unalterable you who knew 't was in the Power of the Church to gratify you herein should have fairly requested it before you made the breach and took upon you to tamper with Articles of Faith before your expelling and deposing your Spiritual Guids It may be the Church to prevent a greater inconvenience might have humour'd you condescending to what might have seem'd most expedient for long ago it was permitted to other Nations in her Communion as to the Sclavonians by Pope John the Eighth and to the Chineses by Paul the Fifth to make use of their own Languages in their Divine Worship the Church do's not hold it as unlawful but as not expedient every where to celebrate in the Vulgar Tongue as she declares in the Council of Trent The Fifth Point is St. Peters Supremacy This is I must confess an Article which all Catholicks are oblig'd to believe and because it is of high import being the Basis of Papacy I intend to Discouse of it at large and to establish it The Sixth Point c. Is the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy This flows naturally from the Fifth Jure successionis St. Peter being the First Bishop of Rome invested with Universal Jurisdiction The Seventh is the Popes Infallibility to which I shall say nothing till you can prove it to be an Article of Faith to believe the Pope Infallible separated from a General Council As for his granting Indulgences to break Gods Law as you accuse him of that is a false Crime of your own hatching for we deny any thing of that Nature knowing his Power to be conversant in things indifferent As for his absolving Subjects of their Allegiance to their Princes when 't is acknowledged as an Article of Catholick Faith I shall Discourse of it in the interim I will only hope that no Person will absolve you or that you will absolve your self of your Allegiance and herein we shall desire no more of you than that you be as good Subjects to this present Prince and stand by him with your Lives and Fortunes as we did by his Royal Brother and Father Your ensuing Discourse is to prove the Roman Church guilty of Fraternal Schism for this you have Three strong Reasons The First is because she renounces Communion with other Churches c. As to this I must needs tell you that it is an high piece of injustice in you wilfully to revolt from her and then falsly to accuse her of renouncing Communion with you 'T is clear enough that she rejects no Church that hath not Schismatically fallen off from her and so found guilty of Schism and Heresie The Second is Because she denounces all damn'd who submit not to her This you look on as very hard and uncharitable tho' the Church herein is not blamable but those who dis-join themselves from her and stand in opposition to her she can do no less than acquaint them of their unhappy Estate this she do's out of kindness rathan severity that they being thereby made sensible of their desperate condition may return to her Bosom and so avoid that Condemnation which attends those who depart this life unreconcil'd to her Her plain dealing in this case has much more of tenderness than your Latitudinarian Indulgence which flatters poor Souls with false hopes of Salvation and then consigns them into the Hands of Perdition cheating their baffled expectancy of their imaginary Paradise If you accuse the Roman Church of rigidness herein you may bring the same Indictment against all the Fathers there being not one Point in which they are more positive than concerning the Unity of the Church and that out of its Pale Eternal Life is unattainable Nemini salus nisi in Ecclesia Cyprian 62 Epist ad Pomp. and St. August in his 204 Epist to Donatus says Foris ab Ecclesia constitutus aeterno supplicio punieris etiamsi pro Christi nomine Vivus incendereris The Fathers are so strict herein that they look on that Person who separates from the Catholick Church to be in a damnable state tho' he leads a Religious Devout and Vertuous Life Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesiâ fuerit separatus quantumlibet laudabiliter vivere se existimet hoc solo scelere quod a Christi unitate fuerit sejunctus non habet vitam sed ira Dei manet super ipsum says St. Austin to Donatus the Reason is because being separated from the Catholick Church he is consequently separated from Christ who is the Head to that Mystical Body Another Reason is Quia in unâ Catholicâ Ecclesia vera hostia redemptionis immolatur The Third Reason may be Quia sola est per quam Sacrificium Dominus libenter accipiat as I find it St. Aust Serm. 181. de temp He has one Reason more in his 50 Epist Quia extra hoc Corpus neminem vivificat Spiritus Sanctus Your Third Reason to prove Rome guilty of Fraternal Schism is Because she sends her Emissaries into the known
Pope acknowledging him the Prince and Head of Gods Holy Priests You make Laws in defiance of him pulling of him down as a Spiritual Usurper They made Laws which were according to his Approbation the Rules and Definitions of the Church backing the Spiritual with the Temporal Sword You make Laws in affront to him and against the Decrees of the Church Thus you see their proceedings herein have no affinity with Henry the Eighth's Headship nor with Edward the Sixth's Reformation of the Ecclesiastick Laws nor with Queen Eliz. New Articles and Canons But that you may more be convinc'd herein I shall give you a few Patterns of these Emperors Decrees which at your leisure you may confront with those of your party and see how they quadrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justinian Novel 131. We enact that according to their own Sanctions the most Holy Pope of Old Rome be the Prince of High-Priests And in his Decrees about Justiniana he acknowledges therein to have followed the Definitions of Pope Vigilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Justin eod Lib. 7. he says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither will we suffer any thing which belongs to to the State of the Church not to be referr'd to your Holiness as being the Head of all the Holy Priests of God As for Theodosius I find in Sozom. L. 7. C. 4. that he put out an Edict Commanding that Religion which Pope Damasus had preserv'd as deliver'd to him by St. Peter should be observ'd enjoining all his Subjects to embrace it I can find no Edict of his for reforming and altering it This he enjoyn'd those under him to be of under penalty of being reputed Hereticks and Infamous and deservers of Punishment Thus much Power in Church-Affairs is still granted every King and to speak the Truth 't is their Duty to defend the Church by their Temporal Power against Heresie and Schism By such Actions as these they purchase to themselves the glorious Title of Nursing Fathers and Propugnators not by usurping Authority over the Church depluming its Head of that Power which Christ invested him with and appropriating it to themselves changing Articles of Belief establish'd by General Councils and Antient Traditionary Truths handed down from Father to Son these are Actions unpresidented by any well instructed Christian Emperor who I find to be very cautious touching Church-Affairs as you may perceive by the Answer of the Emperor Valentinian to the Bishop of Heraclea Sozom. Lib. 6. C. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful for me who am one of the Laity to concern my self about such things After this vagrancy of your Roving Fancy you begin to think of home and being return'd into your own Countrey you affirm of our English Kings that Church-Affairs were both de facto jure govern'd by them This if you shall ever be able to prove out of good Authors you will certainly deserve the Palm for an admirable Historian I have already prov'd that Church-Matters do belong to the Spiritual not to the Temporal Power and that these two Governments are distinct and for this I have the Authority of St. Chrysost who in his Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae in Vidi Dominum says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be other limits of a Kingdom and other limits of the Priesthood but this is greater than that As for Matter of Fact I will not deny but that some Princes before Henry the Eighth irritated either by their Passion or allur'd by a curiosity of intermedling with what did not appertain to them have intrench'd upon the Immunities of the Church and asserting a pretended Right have clashed with the Roman Bishop and medled de facto with Church-Matters but quo jure is the Question You cannot prove a right of Power by proving an exercise of Power unless it be allow'd of for granted That whatever a King do's is lawful Their Quarrels with the Pope were chiefly about Investitures and disposal of Bishopricks They did not deny his Supremacy in Spirituals or if they quarrelled with any particular Pope they did not attempt the abolishing of Papacy A Pope may be to blame and so may a King but neither of these Institutions as Sacred ought to be abrogated for the faults of Men. But to bring the parrallel home to your Case Did our Kings before Henry the Eighth make themselves absolute Heads of the Church immediately under Christ Did they challenge as innate to their Crowns Supreme Power in all Cases both Spiritual and Civil Did they rob the Pope of his Power and assume Papal Jurisdiction Did they vendicate to themselves Authority in Church Affairs ordering Laymen Vicar Generals in Spiritualities as Cromwell was who sat in the Convocation-House amongst the Bishops as Head over them This would to them have appear'd as new and monstrous a sight as ever was brought out of Africa Suppose they clash'd with the Church of Rome did they ever part from her and all other Christian Churches besides as you did in your Reformation making Laws to reverse Decrees of General Councils changing Religion and altering Articles of Belief Did they pick Quarrels with the Church and then Sacrilegiously seize on her Lands and Goods Sacrificing to their fury as many Churchmen as would not comply with their Nefarious Oaths Demolishing Religious Houses violating Sacred Orders Was any thing of this nature acted in the days of Henry the Seventh or of those brave Princes before him But I shall not proceed further on this Point we having at present a King granted us by the indulgent benignity of Heaven who well knows how to distinguish betwixt the Rights of the Church and his own Royal Right betwixt what belongs to God and what to Caesar what to the Miter and what to the Crown A most Religious Prince tracing the sure Footsteps of his Great Ancestors owning the Religion which his vast Kingdoms receiv'd at their forsaking Heathenism and Conversion to Christianity In a Right and proper Sense Defender of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith for defending whereof this Crown obtain'd that illustrious Title For this Prince Pietate insignis Armis no less Pious than Valiant no less Just than Good endued with all those Adorable Qualities which render him amongst Kings the most Conspicuous amongst Monarchs the most Renown'd we ought to be highly grateful to the Supreme God whose Lieutenant he is hoping that under so Gracious and Merciful a Prince we may be protected from our cruel inveterate Enemies and that now at length our Innocency may be a sufficient Shield to defend us from the false Oaths of Profligate Perjur'd Villains who have so long triumph'd over us bathing their wicked Hands in guiltless Blood And now having made mention of our Natural Liege Sovereign I shall conclude this Point with a Prayer for him according to the Platform of Tertullian wishing his Majesty Vitam prolixam Imperium securum Domum tutam Exercitus fortes Senatum fidelem Populum probum
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
Spiritu Sancto inter flagella Principum confessus est quem negaverat says St. Ambrose Psal 90. The Fathers alledge several Reasons why God permitted this Great Apostle to commit this Offence The first is that he might be propos'd to us as a pattern not to despair when we fall into any Sin this is Theophyl Sense of it on Luke 22. The Second is That he might be a happy Example unto us of not persevering in our Sins but by a speedy Repentance to lament detest and forsake them The Third is mention'd by St. Austin Ideo B. Petrum paululum subdeseruit ut in illo totum humanum genus posset agnoscere nihil se sine gratiâ Dei praevalere But the proper and adequate Reason is because Christ designing him to be the Supreme Ruler of the Church whom he did purpose to entrust with the Keys by which he gave him full Power to absolve or retain Sins that he might be compassionate and favourable to poor Penitent Sinners in absolving them as Christ had mercifully forgiven him And this is clearly St. Austin's Sense of it in Serm. 124. de Temp. Vt Ecclesiae Rectori futuro ignoscendi peccatoribus quaedam regula poneretur And in the same place Divinae Providentiae secretum ita temperavit atque permisit ut primus ipse laberetur ac rueret in peccatum quo ergo peccantes duriorem sententiam proprii casus intuitu temperaret For Peter was thought to be by nature very severe and rigid and lest he should be too strict a Censor of Human Frailties God suffered him to fall into this Sin that by reflecting on his own Offence he might be more gentle and indulgent to other Transgressors Vt in Clavibus esset fidelis Janitor in sententiis clementissimus Dispensator erat enim reverâ Petrus paulo durior severus says the same Author This is likewise St. Chrysostom's Opinion of it in Petrum Eliam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was permitted to Sin that he as being without Sin might not be rigid and averse to pardon He who was entrusted with the Church the Pillar of the Churches the Haven of Faith even Peter the Master of the World was suffered to trespass that this Man 's being permitted to Sin might become an Argument of favor to others St. Austin in his Serm. 124. de Temp. is pleas'd to call this a small fault in him Exiguae culpae permittitur subjacere tantus Apostolus c. Not but that the Offence was foul enough but because it was of so short a continuance he immediately recovering himself by a sincere Repentance It was a short Eclipse a Trip rather than a Fall a Verbal rather than a Real a Labial rather than a Mental Abnegation In Domini passione titubat Petrus Sermone non Mente His Tongue had no sooner disown'd him but his Heart protesting against it proclaim'd him with penitential Tears Voce visus est denegare lachrymis fatebatur says St. Ambrose And if the Devil as Theophyl affirms did in this storm blow off some of his Leafs the Root was sound and vivid Now if the Carriage of the other Disciples be well inspected I much question whether they will be found in this juncture truer to our Savior than he For if he did deny him and Judas did betray him how honourably the rest did behave themselves Theophyl will tell you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The rest fled for 't And this Action of theirs was not only a disowning of him but a sign of a fearful distrustful temper Peter only of the Disciples had the Heart to follow him and expose himself to danger St. John did indeed accompany him but this was not out of pure Valor and Gallantry as Peter did for St. John run no Rischie herein he relying on the High Priests acquaintance for his safeguard and protection And this was well observ'd by Theophyl who says he did not follow Christ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Disciple but as an Acquaintance of the High Priest But if we consider the dirity of that dreadful time when he deny'd his Master it will much lessen his fault it was when the Power of Darkness rul'd with its Black Scepter It was when the Sun was Obtenebrated the World shak'd with unusual Tremours and obdurate Rocks cleft asunder then it was when the destin'd Rock of the Church was mov'd So I shall not as some Petulant and Sawcy Pens have done exprobrate this Offence to him but endeavour to imitate him as an incomparable pattern of a speedy Penitent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he even in his failures is profitable to us by his hasty Tears abolishing his Offence and being shaken for a little time he became the Foundation of the Faithful for ever Now that after his fall he was not only restor'd to his former Dignities but advanc'd to a higher Degree I shall prove when I come to treat of his Commission CHAP. V. The Introduction to Pasce Oves meas Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherein St. Peter exceeded the Rest as Pastor Whether Pasce Oves meas were an Exhortation or a Commission Why St. Peter was sorry for Christs thrice asking him The Reason of the trine Interrogation That the foregoing words were spoken immediately to St. Peter only HAving thus travelled through all these several Stages I am at length arriv'd to Pasce Oves meas which words I find to be strongly urg'd by Catholick Writers in defence of Peters Supreme Pastoral Jurisdiction and impugn'd by Protestant Authors with all their Force and Armory as being most Emphatical for the establishment of his Ecclesiastick Praefecture Nullo in loco adeo aperte vidtur soli Petro totius Ecclesiae cura committi atque ubi ei dicitur Pasce Oves meas says the Archbishop Spalato Hic est ille unicus locus quo Petri Papatus nititur Aut hic Petro Papatus aut nusquam datur was Dr. Whitakers Sense of this place These words being confessedly thus momentous I shall expend some Oyl and Pains in giving them a due discussion for this must be done examinately not cursorily according to what Maldonate affirms Locus est gravis in quo paulo altius figere pedem oportet It shall therefore now be my province to make a strict revision of what I wrote on this place and maturely to poize what you return'd me in opposition thereto this I shall perform not only for your Answer but for my own satisfaction For I can with a Serene and Unclouded Conscience affirm that I embrac'd the Catholick Faith not by the persuasion of any Temporal or Mundan Interest nor by the insidious enticements of any Persons whatsoever as you have figur'd to your self but as attracted thereto purely by the Alliciency and Magnetism of Truth and you shall find me correspondently to maintain none of my Tenets either with Obstinacy or with Unclassical Authors but by approv'd uncontested Authority You have not now to