their Testimony of Tradition must more then put to silence all contradiction of particular Persons or Churches it must also subdue their minds to an assent and this under the Penalty of an Anathema or cutting off from the Body of Christ which answers to a Civil death in the Law 9. If then an Obedience so indispensable was required to Legal Iudges who might possibly give a wrong sentence How securâ—ly may we submit our judgements to the Supream Tribunal of the Church And how justly will an Anathema be inflicted on all gainsayers of an Authority that we are assured shall never mislead us And the grounds of this assurance which the Preacher is not yet perswaded of are now to be discoverd 10. The true grounds of the Churcheâ— Infallibility are the words of Truth the Infallibility of the promises of Christ the Eternal wisdom of the Father These Promises are the true Palladium not of the Conclave but of the Vniversal Church Nor do we think Doctor Pierce such an Vlisses as to apprehend he can steal it away 11. We do not deny however that Infallibility and Omniscience are as he saies incommunicable Attributes of God It is God alone to whose Nature either lying or being deceived are essentially contrary because he is essentially immutable as in his Being so in his Vnderstanding and Will Yet the immutable God can preserve mutable Creatures from actual mutation God who is absolutely Omniscient can teach a rational Creature 〈◊〉 Truths necessary or expedient to be known So that though a man have much ignorance yet he may be in a sort omniscient within a determinate Sphere he may be exempted from ignorance or error in teaching such special verities as God will have him know and has promised he shall faithfully teach others Our Saviour as man was certainly infallible and as far as was requisite omniscient too So were the Apostles likewise whose writings Protestants acknowledge both to be infallible and to contain all Truth necessary to Salvation Good Doctor do you think it a contradiction that God should bestow an infallibility as to some things on a Creature What did our Saviour give St. Peter when he said I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Thus the Doctor may see what a trifling Discourse he has made against Gods Church 12. Now the infallible promises of our Lord to his Church by vertue of which she has alwaies been believed to be in our sense infallible follow At least as many of them as may suffice for the present purpose 1. Our Saviour has promised his Apostles That he would be present with them alwaies to the end of the World Therefore since not any of them out-liv'd that age this infallible promise must be made good to their Successors 2. He has promised that When two or three of them meet together in his Name he will be in the midst of them Surely to direct them Therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his businesse onely 3. He has promised that he will lead his Church into all Truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know 4. He has promised that Against his Church built upon St. Peter the Gates of Hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail Therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie 5. He has commanded that Whoever shall not obey his Church shall be cut off from his Body as a Heathen and a Publican Therefore Anathema's pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of Decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren Therefore if Disobedience to such Decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to Decisions of the Universal Church call'd by the Apostle The Pillar and ground of Truth made for the composing of publick Debates about the common Faith 6. To conclude the belief of the Churches Vnity is an unchangable Article of our â—reed Therefore certainly the onely effectual mean to preserve Unity which is an un-appealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church 13. All these Texts and Prmises we by the example of the Holy Fathers and Authority of Tradition produce as firm Grounds of an Infallibility in the Universal Church representative which has an influence over the Souls of menâ— requiring much more than an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentic general Councils We hope now Doctor Pierce will not fly to Mr. Chillingworths miserable shift and say that all these Promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church-governors For this is contrary to the assertion of all Antiquity which from these Promises argues invincibly against all Heretics and Schismatics who might otherwise on Mr. Chillingworths ground alledge as the Donatists did that the Church by the sins of some had lost all her Authority and that Gods spirit was transplanted from her into themselves Nor yet that he will use the plea of several other Protestant Writers somwhat more discreet who are willing to allovv those Promises absolute and to belong also to the Guides of the Church som or other that they shall in all ages continue orthodox but not alvvayes to the more superior or to the greater bodies of these assembled in Councils because thus they see their cause will suffer by it But this plea also is utterly unsatisfying For whenever the superior and subordinate Church-Officers or Ecclesiastical Courts shall contradict or oppose one another here the superior questionlesse is to be our Guide otherwise we have no certain rule to know who is so and therefore to these not the other in such cases must belâ—ng these promises where they cannot possibly agree to both 14. These promises now being Yea and Amen the Doctor must not seem to make our Lord passe for a Deceiver but apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholic for to some Church they must be applyed But let him consider withal he must condemn St. Gregory who professed that he venerated the four first General Councils of the Catholic Church as the four Gospels He must condemn Constantine who in the first Council of Nice professed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c whatever is decreed in the holy Councils of Bishops that ought to be attributed to thâ— Divine will In a word he must by condemning all the General Councils of Gods Church condemn likewise which is more dangerous the Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. For manifest it is that all the Fathers in those Councils did pronounce many Anathema's against all those that would not submit to a belief of such and such Decisions of theirs in some of which were new expressions not extant in Scripture but devised by the Fathers then present as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Now I ask Doctor Pierce were
infamous Canon surreptitiously made saith Liberatus after the departure of the Iudges the Senate and of the Legats of the See Apostolic and entirely nullyfied by the protestation of the said Legats and the Sentence of Pope Leo without whose consent according to the antient traditionary Law nothing made in any Council could oblige the Church A Canon this was so despised during that whole Age and more that the memory of it only remained in the Acts of that Council but it was not inserted among the other Canons for as it appears by the most antient Greek and Latin Copies of that Council by the collection of Dionisius Exiguus and by the Testimony of Theodoret Anagnostes a Grecian the Council of Chalcedoâ— publisht only twenty seven Canons whereas now this is reckoned the 28th Lastly A Canon this was that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople by whose brigâ—ing with some Bishops and violence to others it was compiled was himself both ashamed and sorrow for it as appears by St. Leo's answer to him And of which Pope Gelasius forty years after affirms That the See Apostolic never consented to it the Emperor never imposed it Anatolius never made use of it and the whole matter was put in the power of the See Apostolic And therefore what the same See confirm'd remained in force and that which it receiv'd not could not have any firmnesse 9. Now because this enormous Canon was pretended to be only a renewing of a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople observe the false dealing of that Bishop and his Clergy in citing that Canon For whereas it was thus conceived Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prerogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome These renewers of this Canon at Chalcedon fraudulently thrust in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal priviledges As if excepting only the sitting in the second Chair he was to enjoy in the Church all the prerogatives of the See Apostolick A fancy which never entred into the minds of those former Bishops And indeed de facto after the fourth Council of Chalcedon the new Patriark by vertue of the exotic power given him presumed to summon all the other Patriarks and Bishops in the East to a Council An attempt repressed by Pope Leo. And no doubt when afterward the usurped the Title of Oecumenical Bishop they would not fear to give the same Title of Oecumenical to their Councils too 10. And as for the second Canon of that Council of Constantinople quoted in the Margin of the Sermon whereby the Eastern Patriarks are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiastical affairs beyond the limits of their Provinces what is this to the Bishop of Rome He is not so much as named nor thought of in that Canon Neither was there ever any received Council in Gods Church that excluded him from an universal Iurisdiction which the Doctor sees was â—rcised by so many Popes at and after the Council of Chalcedon and he will see more before it CHAP. VII The Pope's Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian Decrees of Pope's had antiently the force of Lawes Yet with restriction The Pope's Supream Iurisdiction confirmd by Examples in the Eastern Church Appeals to the See Apostolic decreed at Sardica where were present British Bishops Of the first Council at Arles where British Bishops likewise were present The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice explain'd 1. THere was an Imperial Law made by Valentinian the third who began his Reign A. D. 424. directed to the Bishops of France importing that Whatever had been and should be establish'd by the See Apostolick should have the force of a Law to them and all others And this the Emperor saies is Secundum veterem consuetudinem Moreover to shew the grounds of that Law he further saieâ— That the Supremacy of the See Apostolic has been established both by the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of Episcopal Society and by the dignity of the City and by the sacred Authority of a Synod 2. Now if we shall consider the weight of such a publick Testimony and how Christian Catholick Emperors never made Lawes touching Ecclesiastical matters but by the advice of Bishops and for the corroborating of former Church Canons both touching Faith and Discipline and by no means for introducing of new ones we shall find a greater proof can scarce be produced against the Preachers pretention That between the times of the four first General Councils the Popes enjoyed only a primacy of Order and not Iurisdiction 3. Though this Law seems too excessively large commanding That whatever had been or should be c. Pope Leo who lived in the same Age limits the true sense of it when he commands That all the Decretals and Constitutions both of Pope Innocent and all other his Predecessors should be observed namely such as are publish't touching Ecclesiastical Orders and Canons Or as Pope Hilarius expresses it What ever Constitutions have been made by Popes for the quiet of all Gods Priests the observance of Discipline and taking away confusions 4. Examples of such publick Decrees of unquestion'd Authority even in the judgement of the most learned Protestants we finde made by Pope Zosimus Pope Innocent the First and Pope Siricius who governed the Church between the yeares 385. and 418. For as for the Decretals pretended to be made by antecedent Popes they do except against them and perhaps not without ground He will not expect I should transcribe those authentick Decrees to weary both him and my self unnecessarily He knows very well where to find them I will only adde that such Decrees were actually received as Laws by the Churches of Spain France c. Hence it is that in the fourth Council of Toledo the Bishops say For what is to be observed by us in such Cases Let us be informed by the Precepts of the Apostolick See and not follow our own but our common Fathers Instruction And the Council of Tours says What Bishop shall presume to act contrary to such Decrees as have proceeded from the See Apostolick Notwithstanding it was not forbidden to Bishops to consider and examin such Decrees for if they were made upon misinformation even Popes themselves have declared that the force of them should be suspended And much more if against the ancient Canons for saith Pope Zosimus ap Gratian. 25. q. 1. Even this Seat hath not Authority to constitute or change any thing contrary to the Statute of the Fathers 5. As for the more Primitive times preceding these I will content my self with a few examples but such and of so great weight that if the Preacher will be ingenuous they will even content him In the recounting of them it will not be necessary I should observe exactly the Order of times in each of them And the first shall be a passage of
enjoying a special priviledge in the exercise of every one of these Acts and Functions or exempts them from Subordination to him as their Superior yea Supream Pastor Supream not in Order only but Iurisdiction Certainly the Doctor can easily apply this to St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles or to St. Peter's Successors and all other Bishops 8. Now if the Fathers may be believed is was a priviledge and a great one that St Peter for the merit of his Confession had Christs own Title as Christ was Governor of the Church given him of being called a Rock For in the Syrian language in which our Lord spake the words have no different termination as in the Greek or Latin Petrus Petra but the words were Thou art Gepha a Rock and upon this Gepha Rock I will build my Church It was a priviledge that Peter neither the eldest nor first chosen Apostle is alwaies in the Gospel first reckoned and expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First It was a priviledge importing a greater latitude of Iurisdiction when after our Lord's Resurrection St. Peter alone had in the midst of the rest a Commission given him of indefinitly â—eeding Christ's Flock And after the Descent of the Holy Ghost was peculiarly appointed the Apostle of the Circumcision as St. Paul was of the Gentiles Yea that the Dedication of St. Paul's Office was performed by St. Peter who by immediate revelation was appointed to gather the first fruits of the Gentiles in the conversion of Cornelius and his house-hold c. 9. But why among such Governors as the Apostles was any Supereminency of Iurisdiction given to one man Certain it is there never was lesse necessity to provide against disobedience and dis-unions then among the Apostles every one of whom was guided by a Divine unerring light by which they knew all Truth and replenish'd with the Spirit of Charity and Vnâ—ty which exempted them from all ambitious envious or malicious designâ— Yet a Subordination not absolutely necessary to them was established among them for the succeeding Churches sake which without such order would in a very short time become a meer Babel Hence St. Hierom saies The Church was built upon Peter though true it is the same thing is done upon others and that the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But among the twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism may be taken away 10. To the same purpose St. Cyprian notwithstanding the Sentence produced by the Preacher out of him That all the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Yet in the very same Book saies Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam c. Our Lord builds his Church upon one Person And though after his Resurrection he gave an equal power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins you remit c. Yet that he might manifest unity he by his Authority disposed the Original of the same Vnity beginning from one And presently after Whosoever holds not the unity of the Church does he believe that he holds the Faith He that opposes are resists the Church he that forsakes the Chair of S. Peter upon which the Church is founded does he trust that he is in the Church In like manner St. Optatus at Rome saies he a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one a particular Chair So St. Chrysostome Observe now how the same John that a little before ambitiously beg'd a preferment after yields entirely the Supremacy to St. Peter And again Christ did constitute Peter the Master not of that See of Rome alone but of the whole world 11. Now whereas the Doctor objects that St. Paul's contesting with St. Peter and resisting him to his face argues that he did not acknowledge any Superiority in him Let St. Augustin from St. Cyprian resolve us You see saies he to the Donatists what St. Cyprian hath said that the holy Apostle St. Peter in whom did shine forth so great a grace of Primacy being reprehended by St. Paul did not answer that the Supremacy belong'd to him and therefore he would not be reprehended by one that was posterior to him And he adds The Apostle St. Peter hath left to posterity a more rare example of humility by teaching men not to disdain a reproof from inferiors then St. Paul by teaching inferiors not to fear resisting even the highest yet without prejudice to Charity when Truth is to be defended 12. From all that has been said on this Subject it will necessarily follow that whatever Superiority St. Peter enjoyed and the Holy Fathers acknowledged was the gift of our Saviour only a gift far more beneficial to us then to St. Peter He was as St. Chrysostome saies Master of the World not because his Throne was establish'd at Rome but receiving from our Lord so supereminent an Authority he therefore made choice of Rome for his See because that being the Imperial City of the World he might from thence have a more commodious influence on the whole Church 13. Upon which grounds whensoever the Fathers make use of the Authority of his Successors Bishops of Rome against Hereticks or Schismaticks they consider that authority as a priviledge annexed to the Chair of St. Peter and only for St. Peters regard to the Sea of Rome This is so common in the Fathers writings that I will not trouble him with one Quotation Indeed Iohn of Constantinople when he would invade an equality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some sort with the Pope did wisely to mention only the priviledge of the Imperial City because he could allege no other pretention for his Plea But St. Leo St. Gregory St. Gelasius c. produce their evidences for their Supremacy from Tues Petrus super hanc Petram c. from Pasce oves meas c. Nay St. Augustin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council writing to Pope Innocent to joyn with them in condemning the Pelagians tell him their hope was those Hereticks would more easily be induced to submit to his Authority Why because of the splendor of the Imperial City No but because the Popes Authority was de Sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta deduced from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures 14. I might with reason enough yet I will not omit to take notice of Doctor Pierce's trivial reasonings against the Popes as he calls it pretended Headship because such being sitted to vulgar capacities and confidently pronounc'd do more mischief then those that have more shew of profundity and weight Thus then he argues If the Pope be head of the Church then the Church must be the Body of the Pope And if so then when there is no Pope the Church has no Head
our selves obliged to the assent unto which is far more then not to contradict And this obligation is founded on the Infallible Authority which we acknowledge in the Catholick Church derived from the promises of Christ whose Spirit shall lead her into all Truth The denial of which assent we affirm to be formal Heresie and an open contradiction to which Authority is formal Schism 12. This we are taught concerning our Duty and Submission to General Councils And hereto we must add that considering the present distracted state of the Christian world and especially the Schism pertinaciously persisted in by the Eastern Patriarks who live under the Tyranny of the Turk and therefore will never probably be permitted to convene for the general Union of Christendom it is almost become impossible that such General Councils should now be assembled with all formalities as the four first were wherein all the five Patriarks were present at least by their Deputies Yet notwithstanding all this we cannot without infidelity doubt that God will be wanting to his Church to preserve it in Truth and Vnity Since therefore such an Oecumenical Council cannot be expected as was during the times of the Roman Empire the Supremest that can now be had ought to have the force and vertue of obliging which the former ones had the Anathemas of it must be as valid the Decisions of it as much to be submitted to and a renunciation of its Doctrine and Laws as heynously Schismatical as of any Council that ever went before Therefore Doctor Bramhal Lord Primate of Armagh in the Preface of his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon declaring that he submits himself to the Representative Church that is to a free General Council most rationally adds this clause or to so General as can be procured 13. Thus of General Councils As for inferior subordinate Councils though their Decrees touching Doctrines and Laws for Discipline are not unappealable yet an obligation in both these respects they impose on Christians living respectively within their Precincts The Decisions of a Provincial Synod are to be internally assented to except they be evidently erroneous or contradictory to those of a Superior Synod so that without Schism they cannot be openly contradicted Yet the same Decisions may be annulled by a Patriarchical Synod And all by an Oecumenical of which alone all the Decisions and Laws are irreversible because there is no Authority upon earth superior to it and in all Governments an inferior Authority can never reverse what hath once been established by a Superior especially if that establishment hath been actually submitted to For if a Provincial Synod could annul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a Dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we profess in our Creed Vnam Catholicam Add to this that in all Synods the Major part alwayes must decide so that the fewer however they may be esteem'd the better or more learned must submit to them These likewise all use of meetings and consultations will be evacuated 14. This fundamental Rule of all Government and Vnity is the only true unering Touch-stone by which a judgement is to be made concerning Schism If Doctor Pierce can furnish us with a better let it be produced but that being impossible he must give us leave to make use of this to examin the cause between the Roman Catholick Church and all other Congregations that call themselves Reformed But indeed it is lost labour to apply such a Rule as this to any Calvinistical Independent or Fanatick Congregations because they renounce both all such Laws and the whole Authority and Offices of those that made them Therefore leaving them to the severe judgement of him who said Where are those my enemies that will not have me to rule over them I will consider the Controversie as the Preacher stated it between the Roman Catholick and English Protestant Churches I say as he hath stated it because being to treat of Schism he hath given the right notion of it and not mispent time and paper as some others have done with vain discourses of an Internal and External separation c. as if there were no danger in external Schism or dividing of Communion unless men also have with the Presbyterians c. lost all even appearance of charity to all Christian Churches before them damning all who believe that Artiticle of our Creed concerning the Unity and Authority of the Church CHAP. XXI The Fundamental RULE of Church-Government Limitations of the Authority of Gen Councils Their Grounds made by Arch Bishop Lawd Dr. Feild c. Of Points Fundamental and Non-fundamental Protestants allow not so much Authority to Gen. Councils as God commanded to be given the Iewish Sanedrim Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus The foresaid fundamental Rule of all Government That no Laws can validly be repealed by an Authority Inferior to that by which they were Enacted is a Rule not now invented to serve our present purpose but written in the hearts of all mankind that consider what Government is and it is as to Church-matters particularly taken notice of by St. Augustine when he declares the Order that is in the Church and which alone can keep it in unity Particular Writings of Bishops saies he if any Error be in them may be corrected by others more learned or by Synods and Synods themselves assembled either in Provinces or Regions ought without any tergiversation to yield and submit to the Authority of Plenary Councils and oftimes former Plenary Councils may be corrected by other following Plenary Councils 2. This most Irrefragable Rule is that by which Schism may most certainly and undeniably be discovered And therefore though in gross it be admitted by Protestants I mean the wisest and most learned among them yet out of a necessity of maintaining the grounds of the English Reformation they put such restrictions exceptions to it as utterly take away all use of it For whereas S. Augustine makes the Supream Authority of the Church to reside in plenary or general Councils because he withal implies that such Councils may be corrected they therefore take the liberty to reject them at least in decisions in their esteem of less importance and by that means altogether inervate their Authority Not considering that in case the Decisions which he saies may be mended should regard matters of belief which perhaps upon better consideration may be expressed more commodiously and so as that they may be less liable to misconstruction yet it belongs not to any particular men or Churches to correct them but onely to succeeding Councils of equal Authority To demonstrate this I will here set down what Authority learned Protestants such as Doctor Field the late Arch-Bishop Lawd c. acknowledg in general Councils and withal how they circumscribe the same Authority 3.
custome is most dangerous and altogether to be eschewed What sayes the witty Whitacre The Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the Fathers Errors sewn together And again to believe by the Testimony of the Church not excepting any Age is the plain Heresie of the Papists To conclude for I might quote all day long upon this Subject what sayes the Patriark of Protestancy Luther There never was any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted And now what shall we say our selves in this confused variety Against some of our Adversaries we must cite antiquity or else we do nothing against others if we cite all the antiquity that ever was baptized we do nothing God deliver them from their cross and incertain wandrings and me from the weariness of following them in their wild chase 5. But if the Doctor means by shewing that Iota as to which c. that we have not so shewed it as to stop their mouths or to force them to confess and repent of their fault then there can be no shewing any thing by any one party to another as long as the dissention lasts between them In this sence they have never shewed one Iota to the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers c who after all their Books Canons Acts of Vniformity c. which those Sects call Antichristian tyrannical Popery as the Protestants did ours still persist in separation from them Then neither the Apostles antient Fathers or Councils ever shewed one Iota to antient Pagans or Heretics because for all their shewing others remained Pagans and Heretics afterward And yet even in this particular though a very unreasonable one we Cathâ—lics can confidently affirm that we have defeated this bravado of the Preacher For evident Truth on our side has extorted from the mouths and pens of a world of the most learned among the Reformed Writers a Confession both in general and in every particular Controversie that Antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church against them Thousands of such proofs may be read in the Protestants Apology the Triple Cord c. Books writen on purpose to reckon up such Confessions This is truly if well considered an advantage strange and extraordinary for I believe never did any of the Antieâ—t Hâ—retiâ—s so far justifie the Catholic Church No such confessions of theirs are recorded by the Antieâ—t Fathers which shews that above all former examples the Heretics and Schismatics of this last Age are most properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by their own Consciences 6. But withall the Doctor must take notice of this one thing That it does not belong to us Catholics to be obliged to shew that Iota in which they who have set up a new and separated Church from us but the other day have left the word of God or Primitive antiquity or the four first General Councils aâ— it belongs to them who have thus divided themselves not only to shew but to demonstrate first most clearly that there is such a discession from those Scriptures Fathers and Councils by that former Church which they deserted not in an Iota but in some grand principle of our Faith which admitted no longer safety to them in her Communion because the Roman Catholic Church is in possession and by our Adversaries own Confession has been unquestionably so for above a Thousand years of all or most of her present Doctrins for which they have relinquished her Particularly the Pope has enjoy'd an Authority and Supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes in the world can pretend to A Jurisdiction acknowledged as of Divine Right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as Members of the whole Western Patriarchaâ— yea of the Vniversal Church and this as far as any Records can be produced He is now after so many Ages question'd and violently deposed from this Authority by one National Church nay by one single Woman and her Counsel the universality of her Clergy protesting against her proceedings and much more against her destroying a Religion from the Beginning establish'd among us and which had never been question'd here in former times but by a Wiclef or a Sir Iohn Oldcastle c. manifest Heretics and Traytors Now it is against all Rules of Law Iustice and Reason that such as are Possessores bonae fidei should be obliged to produce their evidences This belongs only to the Plaintiffs and no Evidences produced by them against such a Possession can be of any force except such as are manifest demonstrations of an Vsurpation yea such an Vsurpation as cannot either be exercised or submitted to without sin 7. The Doctor is likewise to consider thaâ— if ex super abundanti we should yield so far as out of Antient Records of Councils or Fathers to alledge any Proofs to enervate their claim to them and justifie our Possession Such Proofs of ours though considered in themselves were only probable yet in effect would have the force of demonstrations against English Protestants But on th' other side unlesse they can produce from Scripture or Antiquity evident demonstrations against us they are not so much as probabilities all this by their own confession For as has been shew'd they lay it for a ground and acknowledge the Catholic Church of which according to their own Doctrin the Roman is at least a Member to be in all fundamental Points infallible and that in all other Points now in debate which are not fundamental it would be unlawful for particular Churches to professe any dissent from her without an evident demonstration that she has actually and certainly erred in them yea moreover that she will admit none of the Dissenters into her Communion except such as though against their Consciences and Knowledge will subscribe to her Errors Errors so heynous as to deserve and justifie a separation 8. These things premis'd my last care must be to provide that in case a Reply be intended to this Treatise it may not be such an one as may abuse the world The Preacher must consider it is not such another blundering Sermon that will now serve his turn to give satisfaction so much as to any Protestant who has a Conscience guided by the light of Reason or thinks Schism not to be a sleight Pâ—ecadillo Therefore that he may know what Conditions are necessary to render an Answer not altogether impertinent and insupportable I here declare that in case he shall undertake a confutation of what is here alledged by me to disprove the charge of Noveltiâ—â— by him laid on the Roman Catholic Church and the excusing of Schism in his own he will be a betrayer of his own Soul and the Souls of 〈◊〉 those that rely on him unless he observe the Conditions following 9. The first is since if Protestants have in truth an evident demonstration that the Roman Doctrins for which they separate are indeed such pernicious errors and
seen and felt too Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us Nay thanks to such Sermons we see at this day Edicts severe enough published and worse preparing not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion as the Lutherans were against the Empire but against such as the Law-givers and Law-perswaders know mean no harm against such as would be both most watchful assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom Edicts to draw all the remainder of blood out of our veinâ— which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign and the prudent moderation of those about him 16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the gracious clemency of our Kings But the uncharitable Sermons that call for blood inspire fury into mens hearts make compassion esteem'd unlawful and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion The truth is Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom which Sources if they had been open'd by such as Smectymnâ—us whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction Sustinuissemus utique and so we shall do still with the help of Grace by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est quod fecit bonum est Sit nomen Domini benedictum AMEN PSAL. 108. 3. 73. 2. Pro co â—t me dâ—ligerent detrahebant mihi Ego autem or aham Memento Congregationis tue quam possâ—disti AB INITIO FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general Sect. 1 2. What was probably the design of it 3 4. Catholicks persecuted though their best friends 6 7. CHAP. II. Page 8. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics 2. Schism imputed is them 3. Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted 4 5. The Answerers Protestation of sincerity 6 7. CHAP. III. Page 13. B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor 1 5. Primitive Reformers Acknowledgment 2 3 4. The Doctors Notion of Beginning 6. Questions proposed touching that Notion 8. 9 10 11. CHAP. IV. Page 29. The sum of the Doctors Discourse against the Popes Supremacy enervated by himself 1. 2 3. The Churches Doctrine therein 4. The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 5 6. CHAP. V. Page 36. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Popes Authority as exercised during the Four General Councils 1 2. Of the Title of Universal Bishop 3 4 5. Not generally admitted at this day 6 7. CHAP. VI. Page 44. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church 1 2 3. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors 4 5 6 7. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal 8. Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople Sect. 9 10. CHAP. VII Page 54. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian 1 2. Decrees of Popes their Ancient force 3 4. The Popes Supreme Iurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church 5 6 7 8 9. Appeals to the See Apostolick decreed at Sardiea British Bishops present 11 12. Of the first Council at Arles 13 14. Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained 15. 16 17. CHAP. VIII Page 67. Proofs of the Popes Supreme Jurisdiction before first Council of Nâ—ce 2 3 5. How all Apostles and all Bishops equâ—l and how subordinate 6 7. St. Peter had more then a Primacy of Order 8. 9 10. Of St. Pauls resisting St. Peter 11 12. Objections Answered 13 15. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States On the contrary c. 18 20 22. Protestants writing in favour of it 25 26. CHAP. IX Page 89. The Churches Infallibility 2 3 4. The Necessity thereof 8 9. The Grounds whereon she claims it 10 12 14 15. Objections Answered 16 18. CHAP. X. Page 109. Prayer for the dead 3 4 5. It s Apostolick Antiquity 6 7 9. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it 11 12. Objections Answered CHAP. XI Page 121. Transubstantiâ—â—ion 2 3 4 6 8. Iustified by Authority of the Fathers 10. Objections Answered Sect. 12 14 1â— CHAP XII Page 137. Communion under one Species 2. â—onfirmâ—d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions 3 4 5 6. No cause of Separation 7 8. CHAP. XIII Page 143. The Sacrifice of the Masâ— 1. Asserted universally by Antiquity 2 3 4. The true Doctrine concerning it explain'd 5 6 7. CHAP. XIV Page 151. Veneration of Images 1. The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason 2 13. CHAP. XV. Page 163. The Churches prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned 2. 4 5. Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence 6. Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue 7 8. The Causes and Grounds thereof 9. 10. That Pracâ—ise not contrary to St. Paul 11 12 13. CHAP. XVI Page 178. Invocation of Saintâ— 2 3 4 5 6. Proved out of Antiquity 7 8 9 10. Concessions Deductions and Objections Answered â—1 adult CHAP. XVII page 201. Celibacy of Priests 2 3 4. Vows of Chastity 5 6. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both 9 10. Objections Answered 10 13 14 15 CHAP. XVIII page 219. Dovorce and the several kindes of it 2. 3 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Prâ—â—cher 8 to 17. CHAP. XIX page 225. Of Schism Sect. 1. The unpardonableness of that oâ—ime acknowledgâ—d by Antiquity 2 4 6. No cause or pretence can excuse it 7 8. CHAP. XX. page 233. The Preacher vainly endeavâ—rs to excuse his Church from Schism 3 4 5. and chapter 21. Sect. 15 16. Of the Subordination of Church-Governours and Synods 13 The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 8. Of the decisions of later Councils 9 10 11 12. CHAP. XXI page 249. The Fundamental Rule of Church Government 1 2 Limitations of the Authority of General Councils 5 6. Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd Dr. Field c. 3 4. Of Points Fundamental and non 7 8 12 Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Saâ—hedrim 13 14. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus 17. CHAP. XXII page 265. Limitations of the Churches Authority by A. B. Lawd c. examin'd 1 2 3 4. Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered 5 6. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation 7. 8 9 10 11â— Secular and carnal ends in it 12 13. CHAP. XXIII page 28â— The Doctâ—rs Proofs alledged 〈◊〉 justifie the English Separation answered 1 2. 1. From the independent Authority of our Kings 3. 2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperâ—rs 4 5. 3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings 6.
Catholicks pretends a double Design First Confidently enough to assert that the Doctrines in which we differ are on our parts meer Novelties and that Primitive Antiquity both of Scripture and the four first General Councils stands clearly for Protestants Secondly In consequence to this that not they but the Roman Church alone is guilty of Schism 2. As to the first Part he exemplyfies in these following Points of Catholick Doctrine which he saies are Novelties and undertakes to calculate the precise time of their Nativity 1. The Supremacy of the Pope 2. The infallibility of the Church 3. Purgatory 4. Transubstantiation 5. The Sacrifice of the Masse 6. Communion under one Species 7. Worship of Images 8. The Scriptures and publick Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 9. Invocation of Saints 10. The forbidding Mariage to Persons in holy Orders 11. The allowing Divorce for other causes besides Fornication 3. Then concerning the other part of his general Design about Schism he acknowledges that a real Schism there is but that the cause of it came from the Roman Church which made erroneous Novelties new Articles of their Creed which errours the Reformers were oblig'd in conscience to reject and reject them they did by warrantable and legal Authority So that though they separated from the then present visible Church yet they ought not to be called Schismatics but that Church is to be esteemed Schismatical which caused them to separate 4. This is in grosse the substance of what in his Sermon he alledges against Her that heretofore was this Churches Mother and a great proportion of whose kindnesse she still enjoyes the Roman Catholick Church Now considering with what triumphing applauses this Sermon was heard and with what a general greedinesse thousands of the printed Copies have been bought up even by those that formerly have not been curiously inquisitive after Court Sermons for any good they meant the Preachers Would not Protestants themselves in their hearts condemn Roman Catholicks if being confidently perswaded as truly for my part I am that there is not so much as one single allegation among all his replenish'd Margins that reaches home to a concluding proof of what he pretends to they should out of a treacherous fearfulnesse be utterly silent as acknowledging that now they have a prostrated cause And therefore if it be but onely out of fear of losing their good opinion somthing must be said by us to acquaint him with his mistakes 5. Now in my Remarks upon this Sermon I will follow his own order before summarily set down And both in the Points of Doctrine and Schism I will select his Arguments adjoining to each Point respectively the Quotations or Authorities of Fathers related to in the Margins And having done this I will sincerely discover the grounds upon which I think I can Demonstrate That he has neither rationally concluded any of our Catholick Doctrines to have been Novelties nor freed his own Church from the just imputation of Schism 6. And knowing very well what candor sincerity and charity Almighty God requires from those who undertake his cause and the cause of his Church I do here call Him as a witnesse upon my Soul that my purpose is studiously to avoid all cavilling distorsions either of Texts of Scriptures or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called piaâ— fraudes corruptions of either And both in my Answers and Objections I will alledge nothing but what I am perswaded is both pertinent and efficacious to conclude that for which it is produced that is I will bring nothing as a proof which I for the present think can be answered 7. I am inform'd that he in his Sermon made the like Protestation If he did I am very glad for his own sake that he forbore to print what he then spoke because though I must not charge him with wilful sincerity yet I believe he will find by this short Paper that he did neglect to make use of his best judgement and caution which certainly if ever was most requisite in a cause so important especially it being to be debated by one that professed to supply the place of God himself in his own House and who spoke to no meaner Person than the KING God's own Viceâ—erent 8. But whether the Preacher in his Sermon the subject whereof was nothing but Controversies and such as his Text neither invited much lesse compelled â—im to undertake or however to debate them with such Invectives and exulcerating digressions whether I say herein he expressed that respect and duty he owed his Majesty that is whether such a distemper'd Sermon was conformable to the Injunctions touching Preaching which his Majesty had lately commanded my Lord Archbishop to communicate to the Clergy I leave to the Preachers own Conscience If he resolved to transgresse those Orders so becomming a Prince who lov'd the peace of his Kingdoms and still feels so much by their disunions in Opinions yet in reason he might have abstained from letting the Court and Kingdom see that he had the courage to disobey the King to his own face The University-â—ulpit or some City Congregations where such behaviour is in fashion might well enough have contented him CHAP. III. Bishop Jewel's Challenge imitated by Doctor Pierce Primitive Reformers acknowledge Antiquity to stand for Catholics The Doctor 's notion of Beginning He is obliged thereto by an Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. Five Questions proposed touching that Notion 1. VVHat ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop Iewel derided by his Adversaries and condemned by his Brethren it will be lesse difficult for us to imagin than for himself sincerely to acknowledge However that both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers both in grosse and by retayl through all the particular Points by him mentioned 2. In general let him consider what Melancthon writes Presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Worships In like manner Peter Martyr affirms That in the Church errours did beg in immediately after the Apostles times And that presently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers we shall alwayes be conversant in the same errours In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle I have said more than once and I suppose not without reason that comparing the antient times of the Church even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours they had better Consciences but lesse Knowledge On the contrary We have more Knowledge but lesse Conscience This is my Iudgement c. These are esteem'd as learned Writers as the Reformation had They spent their lives in reading
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither ambitiously seek Superiority nor after a secular manner Lord it over the Flock of Christ. 6. And now let the Doctor say where is the impudent opposition of Supremacy and Iurisdiction both to the letter and sense of our Saviours Precept Such an Argument as this being Magisterially and confidently pronounc'd might for half an hour serve his present turn in the Pulpit But I wonder he could have the confidence to expose it to examination in Print 'T is time we come a little closer to examine this his first great Novelty CHAP. V. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge Submission due to the Pope's Authority as exercised during the four General Councils Of the Title of Universal Bishop It is not generally admitted at this day 1. HIs main Position in his forecited Discourse on this Argument is That a Supremacy of Iurisdiction challenged and exercised by the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the Third to whom it was sold by the Tyrant Phocas that is it began about the year 606. never before that time having been acknowledged in God's Church To prove this all the foregoing Reasons and Allegations are produced by him From this usurpeâ— Authority his English Church forsooth hath made a Secession as he demurely Phrases it and not from any Authority if any were exercised by former Popes especially during the times of the four first General Councils A Primacy of Order he is content to allow him but by no means a Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. Whatsoever Authority then the Predecessors of Pope Boniface the Third by consent of other Churches enjoy'd especially till the end of the fourth General Council he must grant is no usurpation and therefore a Legal rightful Authority from which without a formal Schism they could not withdraw themselves He will not surely say with one of their learned Bishops That they take from the Pope his lawful Christian Authority and give that only to the King not his unlawful and Antichristian So that the Controversy between us is reduced to this precise point Whether before Boniface the Third's time the Pope enjoyed a Supreme Iurisdiction over the Catholic Church This he denies On the contrary I here engage my self not only to prove he had it but moreover that not the least degree or Iota of Iurisdiction will be impos'd on them to acknowledge for enjoying the Communion of the Catholic Church more than the very same that Pope Boniface 's Predecessors within the times of the four first General Councils confessedly exercised I may adde that the new usurped Title as he says sold to him by Phocas did not give him neither did he pretend to by it any more authority than himself and his Predecessors formerly enjoy'd And this is I be able to make good then not all the water in the Sea will be able to wash off his Churches Schism by his own confession 3. Before I shew what Supremacy the Predecessor's of Boniface the Third exercised in the Church it will be convenient to enquire into the Bargain that He says Boniface made with Phocaâ— what he gain'd by it and why his Predecessors St. Gregory the Great and Pâ—lagius refused it The Patriark of Constantinople Iohn out of an humor of lightness and vanity proper to the Grecians assumed the Title of Episcopus universalis or Oâ—cumenicus Vniversal Bishop or Bishop of the whole World A Title that the Council of Chalcedon had in an Epistle given to Pope Leo but which his Successors like't not Certain it is that Iohn intended little more by it but to be a distinction of honor and preference above the other Eastern Patriarks For whilst he took that title he still acknowledg'd the Pope's Superiority not only of place but authority over him But being Bishop in a City wherein the Emperor of the world resided he thought it not unbecomming him to be called the Bishop of the world as the Emperor was the Governor Perhaps indeed his Successors if this ambition had been either approv'd or but connâ—v'd at by the West would have endeavour'd to make it not a meer empty Title but would have invaded an Authority which the Title might seem to warrant Hereupon Pope Pelagius and after him Pope Gregory the Great did vehemently resist this foolish ambition of Iohn though the Emperor himself to gain a dignity to his own City favor'd it in him 4. Now the Arguments that these two good Popes made use of against him did not so much combate Iohns present intention though his meer vain-glory and affectation of Novelty deserved to be repressed as the probable consequences of such a Title which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church For if he were the Vniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place it would follow that all others were only Bishops in name and by their Character had no other office but as his Substitutes depending on his will whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself And so their Successors the Bishops would never acknowledge a receiving their Episcopal character and right of Iurisdiction from any but Christ himself For as in other Sacraments whoever administers Baptism whether an Apostle or an Heretic Baptismus solius Christiest says Saint Augustin And again Peter and Iohn sayth he pray'd that the Holy Ghost might come on those upon whom they imposed their hands they did not give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. They as his Substitutes apply the outward Element but the inward vertue of the Sacrament is administred only by our Lord himself And as a Subject that receives â—n Office of Iurisdiction from the King will not esteem he derives that Authority from the Person who presents him the Letters patents or invests him ceremoniously in the Office but only the King So though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan a Primat a Patriarc or by the Pope himself and Iurisdiction given him they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to convey his Characters and Authority they assign him the place in which he is to exercise that Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him 5. Upon these grounds Pope Pelagius thus argues Vniversalitatis quoque nomen c. Do not give heed to the name of Vniversality that John of Constantinople hath unlawfully usurped c. For none of the Patritriarks did ever make use of so profane a Title Because if the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Patriark be call'd an universal Patriark the Title would be taken away from the rest But God forbid this should happen c. It therefore John be permitted to take this Title the honor of all Patriarks is deny'd and probably he who is called Vnivâ—rsal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the state of Truth The very same
their Epistle To our most holy Lord and Brother Silvester Marinus and the Synod of Bishops assembled together in the Town of Arles We have signified to your charity the things decreed by common Council to the end that all may know what they ought for the future to observe Here may be seen a Patriarchical council sending their Decrees to the Bishop of Rome as being the chief person from whom all Christians are to receive information of what they ought to believe and practise and by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto In which regard St. Martin Pope and Martyr makes this the Popes most proper Title that he is Custos Canonum Divinorum 14. At this Council were present three Bishops Representatives of the British Clergy Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of Lonidon Adelphius Bishop of Maldon called then Colonia Londinensium with Sacerdos a Priest and Arminius a Deacon And the Canons of this Council were by Restitutus brought into Britany saith Bishop Godwin out of Bale By which also it appears that neither the Pope himself nor his place and authority in the Church were unknown nor un-acknowledged by the Britains long before St. Augustines days 15. And now it will be seasonable to answer the Doctors great Objection grounded on that famous 6 th Canon of the first Nicene Council by which he says Every Patriarch and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocese as the Bishop of Rome is chief in his This is now to be examin'd The words of the Canon are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the antient Customs be still in force in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a Iurisdiction over them all In as much as such likewise is the custom of the Bishop of Rome In like manner both in Antioch and other Provinces let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 priviledges be preserv'd entire to every Church 16. The true sense of this Canon will best appear from the end for which it was enacted and that apparently was for the regulating and composing disorders begun in Egypt by Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis who rebelliously refused obedience to the Patriark of Alexandria presuming to ordain Bishops independently on him This Scismatical attempt the Council here represses commanding that according to the antient custom the Bishop of Alexandria should have entire Iurisdiction through all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis And the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchat and may say in his Metropolitanship too is made the Patern according to which this Regulation is framed not in regard of his plenary right and universal Jurisdiction in the Church of God which I have shewed already and shall demonstrate the same yet further even in the times preceding this Council is extended to the whole world and was exercised over the Patriarcs themselves But only of the custom and practice of his calling Synods correcting manners and making ordinations according to his Patriarkal and Metropolitical Jurisdiction for those words in the sixth Nicene Canon Similiter autem apud caeteâ—as provincias In like manner in the rest of the Provinces that is those Provinces also that were not such where a Patriarc resided Honor suus unicuique servetur Let every one's Honor be preserved to him compared with the second Canon of the first Council of Constantinople and the eighth canon of the Ephesian Council shew clearly enough that not only Patriarkical authority but Metropolitical also is spoken of in this canon and the Roman Bishops authority also herein made a Pattern And upon this ground that the Canon intends not to equalize the Bishop of Alexandria with the Bishop of Rome in his full Jurisdiction the most learned Marca late Archbishop of Tholouse observes that those who object it against the Popes Primacy though they fortifie themselves even with Ruâ—â—inus his interposition of suburbicarian Churches will gain but little by it for it signisignifies no more but that the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by Commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis 17. But though I mention this Version of Ruffinus because it is much applauded by our primitive Reformers and I expect Doctor Pierâ—e in his Reply will have recourse to it yet it is a most groundlesse and sencelesse Translation or rather corruption of the Canon His words are Vt apud Alexandriam in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur ut ille Egypti vel hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudiâ—em gerat Against which so much hath been written that it would be to lose time to repeat it especially to the Doctor who cannot be unacquainted with what Erasmus and Scalager have observed of the Interpreter that it is his custom to omit pervert and change the Text as he pleases and what Others with much Learning and Judgement have said to this interpretation Not to speak of the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction as first Patriarc whereby the other Patriarcs were subordinate to him being obliged even in this matter of their own Ordinations to give him notice sending withal a Confession of their Faith upon the approbation whereof and of the legality of their Election and Ordination He confirmed them or otherwise deposed them of which many examples may be produced Whosoever hath but looked into Ecclesiastical History must confesse that His particular Patriarchat was far from being confined to the ten Suburbicarian Provinces subject to the Vicariat of Rome Nay it is manifest that it extended to the whole Western Empire which besides Italy France Spain Germany Britany the six Maritime Provinces of Africa c. contained Illyricum Macedon Epyrus Greece and the Islands near it And all this by the confessions of Adversaries Zonaras Balsamon c. writing on this very Canon Hence St. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head or chief of the Western Regious And St. Augustin says that Pope Innocent did preside over the VVestern Church And St. Hierom Let them says he condemn me as an Heretic with the VVest as an Heretic with Egypt that is with Damasus and Peter And Iustinian the Emperor affirms that all the Regions of the VVorld are subject to the five Patriarcs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to VVestern Rome Constantinople Alexandria Thepolis or Antioch and Ierusalem Now unless Hesperia signifies the whole VVest to what Patriarc was France Spain Africa c subject If not to Rome how can all Bishops be said to be subject to five Patriarcs Hence the VVestern Bishops are by Theodores call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Sacrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Popes Supreme Iurisdiction before the first Council of Nice How all Apostles and all Bishops equal and how Subordinate St. Peter had more than a Primacy of Order Of St. Paul's resisting St. Peter The Popes Supremacy
assuming to himself such Authority over other Churches Here then are Seven of the Doctor 's Novelties confessed by Protestants themselves to have been the Doctrines of St. Gregory which the English here received with their Christianity which also sufficiently appears to those who are yet unsatisfied out of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England written about an hundred years after St. Gregory of whom the same Oâ—iander also relates That he was involved in all the Romish Errors concerning those Articles wherein saith he we dissent at this day from the Pope And for the Two others of the Doctor 's Points 1. Publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue And 2. Infallibility himself confesseth the first of these to have been in Gregories time For thus he The Publick Prayers of the Romanists have been a very long time in an unknown Tongue even as long as from the time of Pope Gregory the Great And the second he must grant to have been pretended to before Gregory in that the Preacher allows the proceedings of the Four first General Councils for these required several Points not before determined to be believed by all Christians under pain of Anathema and also inserted them into the body of the Christian Creeds Which thing the Doctor sometimes thinks unreasonable that any fallible Authority should assume to it self For surely upon this ground it is that he condemns the Council of Trent for presuming to make new Articles of Faith though they have put none such in our Creeds 13. By which it appears that this Sermon and all the severity practis'd against us in consequence of it might as justly have been preach'd and executed against our first Apostles St. Gregory and St. Augustin the Monk as against us And if against them then against the Vniversal Church both Eastern and Western since it is evident that in St. Gregory's time they were in perfect Unity both for Doctrine and Discipline And consequently if such pretended new Articles can justifie the English Separation from the present Church the same Separation ought to have been made from the universal Church above a Thousand years since I might go higher but this is even too too much That man surely must have a prodigious courage who dares venture his Soul and Eternity rather upon Scripture interpreted by an Act of Parliament or the 39. Articles than by the Authority and consent of the Vniversal Church for so many Ages I will conclude this so important Argument of Schism by a closer Application which may afford more light to discover on which side the Guilt lyes And this shall be done by making some Concessions and proposing some other Considerations c. CHAP. XXIV Of Causal and Formal Schism or Separation and the vanity of their Distinctions Considerations proposed for a clear Examination on which side the Guilt of Schism lyes The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church 1. FIrst As to the Preacher's so commended Distinction of Causal and Formal Schism it is borrowed from the late Archbishop The former member whereof only he applies to the Roman Catholick Church the later to no body He must give me leave to propose to his Consideration a Saying or two of St. Augustin thus writing to the Donatists Si possit quod fieri non potest c. If any could have which really he cannot possibly a just cause for which he should separate his Communion from the Communion of the whole World How do you know c. Aâ—d again in the same Epistle There is the Church where first that Separation was made which you after perfected if there could be any just cause for you to separate from the communion of all Nations For we are certainly assured that no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations because not any of us seeks the Church in his own Iustice or Holiness as you Donatists do but in the Divine Scriptures where he sees the Church really become as she was promised to be spread through all Nations a City on a Hill c. Hence it is that the same Saint though he wrote several Books against the special Doctrines of the Donatists yet whensoever he treats of their Schism he never meddles with any of their Opinions but absolutely proves their Separation unlawful from the Texts of Scripture and Promises of Christ which are absolute and unconditional So that the alledging Causes to justifie Separation for which there can be no just one is vain and fruitless And this way of Arguing is far more forcible against English Protestants than it was against the Donatists because all their sober Writers acknowledge the Church of Christ was and alwayes will be unerrable in Fundamentals and this as she is a Guide And further that the Roman is either this Church or at least a true Member of it 2. But Secondly whatever becomes of this Distinction his concession is That really a Formal Schism there is between us nay more that the Protestants made the actual departure and indeed they must put out their eyes who see it not The visible Communion between the now English Church and all other in being before it beyond the Seas is evidently changed and broken The same Publick Service of God which their first Reformers found in God's Church all the World over they refuse to joyn in for fear of incurring sin Most of the Ecclesiastical Laws every where formerly in force they have abrogated and without the consent of any other Churches have made new they were formerly Members of a Patriarchical Church which they esteem'd the only Orthodox Vniversal Church to the Government of this Common Body they acknowledged themselves subject And a denial of subjection to the Common Governors of this Body and especially the Supreme Pastor they judged to be a formal Act of Schism Lastly the common Doctrines of the Church they formerly embraced as of Divine Authority Traditionary only ancient and Primitive Now they called Apostatical Novelties Any of those changes conclude a Schism on one side or other but all of them more then demonstrate it A Schism then there is therefore one of the parties is guilty not of causing but of being Schismaticks properly formally Schismaticks Now would it not be hard for the Doctor to speak his conscience and declare once more at Court which of us two are properly Schismaticks It could not indeed be expected he should answer as a young maid did to my old Lady Falkland when she asked if she were a Catholick No Madam said she with a low curtesy if it please your Ladyship I thank God I am a Scismatick but withal his tongue would not readily pronounce Roman Catholicks to be Schismaticks from the English Reformed Church 3. That which is opposed to Schism is Catholick Communion We shew saith Saint Augustine by our Communion that we have the Catholick Church Therefore in discourse of Schism one while to talk of Innovations of Doctrine or of making a secession from