our ways nor his thoughts as our thoughts Isa. 55. 8 9. 11. Since it is no less behoofful for the Purity of the Militant Church to be secured from Vice than from Error by some infallible means and whereas the former is not pretended to by any is it not very reasonable to put the Romanists to it to shew from Scripture who this Infallible Visible Judge is who is invested with that Power or Commission especially when it is considered that our Judge of Controversies in the Church is now become our greatest Controversie Besides that it would puzzle any man to give a good reason why God should take more care to secure men against Errors in Belief than against Sin and Wickedness in their Lives 12. If an infallible visible Judge be such an adequate means to determin all Controversies in matters of Religion which happen in the Militant Church as the Romanists pretend how came it to pass that there were so many Schisms and Heresies too in the Apostles times when those who govern'd the Church were certainly guided by an Infallible Spirit 13. Can the fiercest Bigot of Popery prove from Holy Scripture that the Pope is infallible in the Popish Sense of the World I know that some fly the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible it is so as its representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other particular Church And how shall that which is common to all give power to one over all And what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch 14. Since the Council of Trent hath determined that Infants should not be Communicated because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lord's Body who can doubt but that Popes with their Councils and Roman Church have erred in their Belief and Practice of the Communion of Infants long ago it being past all doubt that for some Hundreds of Years it was so in the Roman Church 15. Was not the Apostle to blame to say there must be Heresies and Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be also an infallible Judge among you to obviate such pertinacious Errors and Schisms if so be that God had appointed any such infallible visible Judge to be for ever in his Church 16. If the many Dissentions in the Protestant Churches as is pretended make this infallible visible Judge always necessary how is it that this sole Remedy is found so ineffectual against the Divisions in the Roman Church and that there are so many Differences there about Infallibility it self the manner and subject of it so that many Romanists not of the dullest brains being ashamed of it have betaken themselves to Tradition instead thereof SECT XX. Of the Pope's Supremacy Qu. 1. SInce the Reason assigned by the Council of Calcedon giving equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with him of Rome is because old Bizantium was become Nova Roma that is the Emperours had fixed their Habitations there might not Milan and Ravenna have claimed the same Priviledge seeing some Emperours did honour those Cities with their Presence many years 2. Had not the African Churches as good reason to decline the pretended Authority of the Bishops of Rome as the Churches of Cyprus to reject the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch from which liberated at last by the Third General Council since they had still a Primat of their own and were no more within the Roman Patriarchat than Cyprus was within that of Antioch 3. Since all sober Persons hinc inde acknowledg a Primacy of Order in St. Peter either for his Age or his being first called to be an Apostle or for his Zeal or some other reason best known to his Lord and Master it being impossible that any Society should remain long without Confusion far less that it should continue well ordered which hath not one appointed to be the Mouth thereof it may therefore be pertinently demanded if any Romanist can produce any place of Scripture which imports a formal Jurisdiction in St. Peter which was not at some other time vouchsafed on the Catholick Church at least on the rest of the Apostles 4. Dato sed non concesso that St. Peter had a Primacy of Jurisdiction over all the General Members of the Catholick Church wherefore might not this have been a personal Priviledge and intransmissible to any Successor no less than the Gradus Mosaicus was to any other Prophet 5. Upon what Grounds do Bellarmin and others call Christ's Ingemination of these Words Feed my Sheep the peculiar Priviledge of St. Peter above all the rest of the Apostles since St. Augustin and St. Cyril of Alexandria call it the peculiar Penance of St. Peter for denying his Lord and Master which none of the rest had done 6. Since the Primitive Fathers by Rock in the 16th of St. Matthew generally understand either Christ himself or that excellent Confession of St. Peter where then doth his peculiar Prerogative lye in these Words 7. Suppose our Saviour did mean by St. Peter when he said On this Rock will I build my Church alluding to his Name by way of Emphasis not Exclusion I pray where is yet the peculiarity of St. Peter's Priviledge since if we believe either St. Paul or St. Iohn in his Revelation the rest of the Apostles were Foundations as well as he for I hope none will call him the Chief Corner-stone 8. Since the generality of the ancient Fathers look upon Peter both in his Excellent Confession and Promise made to him as personating the Catholick Church and that what our Saviour there promised was after his Resurrection fulfilled as we may read Iohn 20. 21 22 23. Where I pray you is St. Peter's special Priviledge above the rest of the Apostles since our Saviour said to them all alike As my Father sent me so send I you and I suppose S. Peter could not have a Sublimer Mission than our Saviour and breathed upon them all and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye remit c. 9. But what ever Sense these Words of St. Iohn may have or these of St. Matthew doth it not evidently appear that what our Saviour promised to St. Peter Matth. 16. was given to the Catholick Church at least to the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter in Matth. 18. 18. in the same words of Mat. 16. our Saviour himself having expounded the Power of the Keys by that of Binding and loosing 10. Since after that Promise made to St. Peter Mat. 18. we find the Apostles more than once controverting for Superiority may it not very rationally be presumed that H. Jesus the Wisdom of the Father and Prince of Peace having taken notice of that Ambitious Debate would once have undeceived them by telling them that tho the Despotical Power of the Gentile Kings or Governours should be
S. Cyprian 21. Since to be the ultimate Object of Appeals or dernier besort as the French phrase it is the Essential Privilege of all Monarchs is it accountable that the Council of Nice believed the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the Catholick Church when it determined that all Appeals during the Intervals of general Councils should be determined in the Provincial Synods or by the respective Patriarchs and that there should be no Appeal from the one to the other 22. If the Churches of Africa believed the Popes Supremacy to be jure divino how could 217 Bishops in the 6th Council of Carthage whereof S. Austin was one have opposed Three Popes successively in the matter of Appeals to Rome and condemned all those as Schismaticks who did thus Appeal and made a formal Separation of their Churches from the Roman upon the account of its Illegal and Uncharitable Incroachments 23. If that Separation was unjust how comes S. Augustin to be reputed over all the Christian World and at Rome too an eminent Saint since he died as the Romanists think in actual and unrepented Schism since S. Augustin denied the Popes Supremacy in matter of Appeals to Rome no less than Henry the Eighth of England might not P. Coelestin as justly have Excommunicated S. Augustin as P. Paul the Third did Henry the Eighth of England 24. Since by many of the Epistles of Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauricius and Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople its apparent that he declares all those Prelates who usurp the Titles of Oecumenical Patriarch Universal Bishop and Head of the Catholick Church to be the Forerunners or Harbangers of Antichrist may it not be pertinently demanded if all those Popes who from Boniface the Third inclusively have affected those Titles do not stand condemned by the Judgment of their Predecessour as Antichristian 25. If it be the Popes Prerogative as the Romanists pretend to assemble all the general Councils how did it chance that during a Thousand years after Christ and more there was not an Oecumenical Synod in Italy no not in all the West unless that of Frankford be accounted one which was indicted by Charlemain against the Conventicle at Nice and that they were very desirous to have one in Italy is most evident from the Letters of P. Leo the First none of the meanest spirited Popes to Theodosius the Younger his Sister Pulcheria the Emperour Marcianus Valentinian the Third with Eudoxia the Empress whom he did Supplicate on his Knees with many Tears thus he phraseth it for a Council to be holden in Italy against the Eutychians but could never obtain his desire as to that Circumstance 26. If the Emperours were nothing else but the Popes Mandatarij in the indicting of Councils as some term them what could be the reason that P. Vigilius being personally in Constantinople would not Countenance the 5th general Council assembled there by Iustinian the Great till he was haled thereto by the Authority of the Emperour and forced to obey the Mandat of his pretended Mandatarius in condemning the tria Capitula which by a former Constitution he had approved 27. If the Confirmation of a general Council by the Pope be so necessary that all its acts are invalid without it as some Romanists pretend how could the Patriarchs of Constantinople be so irregular as to possess the place in all succeeding Councils where they were present which the 2d and 4th general Councils had allotted to them notwithstanding of all the Protestations of P. Leo the First and his Successors against those Council Acts 28. Since the Bishops of the Primitive Church were promiscuously termed Popes from the old Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Father their Episcopal Sees Thrones and Empires and themselves how small soever their Diocess were were also called Princes if we believe S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Hilary of Poictiers all were termed the Successors of the Apostles and equal as to the intrinsi Power of Bishops whether it were the little Bishoprick of Eugubium compared with that of Rome Rhegium with that of Constantinople Tanis with Alexandria if we give Faith to S. Hierom therefore it may pertinently be demanded What solid Grounds had Hildebrand to Monopolize those Titles to the Bishop of Rome 29. If the Romanists can produce any Authentick Author for the Decretal Epistles of all the Popes from Clemens to P. Sirvius that is to the middle at the least of the 4th Century though they have made up a considerable part of the Canon Law before Riculfus Archbishop of Mentz who lived 500 years after those Popes were dead 30. Since the Belief of an Infallible Headship in the Bishop of Rome is with many Romanists the reason why they receive their Articles of Faith must it not then be the fundamental Article of all others And ought it not to be the best attested by some plain places of Scripture and not leave by its silence this sole visible Vicegerent of Christ to the Suspicion of bearing witness to himself 31. Since the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Apostolick Canons as they are termed with the Canons of the Eight first general Councils and notwithstanding it is evident from the 35 and 36 Canons of the Apostles or the 33 and 34 Canons as Binius hath them that these are directly against the Popes Supremacy as also the 6 and 7 Canons of the First general Council the 9 17 and 28 Canons of the Fourth general Council the Fifth in condemning the Sentence of P. Vigilius in favour of the tria Capitula tho he was very vehement in the cause the Sixth and Seventh in Condemning P. Honorius of Heresie the Eighth and last by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome and challenging Obedience thereunto viz. its Condemning a Custom of the Sabbath Fast in Lent may we not very rationally hence conclude that the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by Divine Right or any Right at all seeing they opposed it And that they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome that they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility that it is in vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either and that the Canons of these eight general Councils being the sense both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority must needs stand Condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in Profession with the ancient And in fine how can the Church of Rome escape the charge of Heresie for he who believes the Popes Supremacy denies in effect the eight first general Councils at least in that point and that 's Heresie and he who believes the Council of Trent believes the Article of the Popes
far removed from them yet their minds should be at rest because he had already invested St. Peter with a Paternal Authority or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over them when he promised to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but since in our Saviour's reproof we find no such Insinuation may it not be pertinently doubted if ever he meant any such matter 11. I would demand how the ensuing particulars can be reconciled to a formal Jurisdiction of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles 1. The Care of all the Churches being committed to every one of them in solidum 2. St. Peter was sent by the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem to Samaria he that gave the Commission having rather the Authority than the Person commissionated 3. His being called to an account for conversing with Cornelius the Centurion in Caesaria and other Gentiles by those at Hierusalem velut vehementur infensi as S. Chrysostom phraseth it 4. If St. Peter was then Supreme Governour wherefore did not the controverting Christians at Antioch address first to him in order to the indicting of a Council 5. Wherefore did St. Iames preside therein and by his Verdict determine the Controversie if we believe Eusebius and Epiphanius and not St. Peter on which account and because he was the first Bishop of Hierusalem and of the Christian World Epiphanius positively asserts that St. Iames was invested by our Saviour with a Superiority over all the Apostles 6. Wherefore was not that Decree issued forth in the Name of Peter if he was the Monarch of the Church 7. Why was St. Paul so immethodical to reckon Iames before Cephas or Peter and so arrogant as to say that he was in nothing inferiour to the chiefest Apostles for if St. Peter was his Superiour he came short of him in something which is very material and that is Authority 8. Was not St. Paul a very unmannerly Vassal to rebuke his Lord and Master for Judaizing and so solemnly that both Jews and Gentiles were witness to the Reproof 9. How could St. Cyprian say that the rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Finally How could Eusebius aver in his Old Editions before they suffered the Index Expurgatorius that Peter Iames and Iohn were appointed Princes of the Apostles and that these three were equal 12. Since P. Leo the Tenth with the consent and approbation of the Lateran Council which they account General declares that our Blessed Saviour did institute St. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See his Vicars to whom by the Testimony of the Book of Kings it was so necessary to yield Obedience that whosoever would not was punished with Death thus Binius Concil Tom. 9. it may be pertinently demanded if they have Five Books of the Kings for in the Vulgar Version which have four of that Name there is not any Syllable which insinuates any such matter 13. If the Bishop of Rome was invested Iure Divino with an universal Jurisdiction over the Catholick Church or if the Roman Church either in its Head or Members severally or in all conjunctly be indued with an infallible Spirit how comes it to pass that all the antient Apologists were guilty of such a Supine Negligence from Iustin Martyr the first of them who lived Anno 150. to Theodoret inclusively who dyed about the middle of the Fifth Century as never to mention that most admirable Prerogative of the Roman Church above all the Societies in the World since some of them descend to many minute Particulars which are long ago obsolete and out of date in all the Churches of Christ 14. If it be a sufficient Answer for the Silence of the Apologists to say that they are so succinct that they had no room for such a matter For though it is easily granted that of Asianus Melito Quadratus and Aristides we have but Shreds in Eusebius and that Athenagoras Tatian Theophilus Antiochenus Minutius Foelix Cyprian ad Demetrianum I. Firmicus Maternus are very brief not to speak of many Orations written by the Fathers against Iulian the Apostate the Jews and Gentiles in general which are also reckoned among the Apologists and are yet briefer yet the two Apologies of Iustin Martyr with his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew all the Works of Clem. Alexandrinus save his Paedagogus the larger Apologetick of Tertullian with his lesser ad Scapulam and some Books against the Jews and Gentiles the eight Books of Origen against Celsus the seven Books of Arnobius contra Gentes and so many of Lactantius his Institutions Eusebius de demonstratione praeparatione Evangelica S. Augustin his 22 Books de Civitate Dei Theodoret his 12 Books de curandis Graecorum affectibus all these are pretty Voluminous yet ne gru quidem not the least word or insinuation of any such prodigious privilegeof the Roman Church either in its Head or Members 15. What greater Elogy could have been given by any of the Fathers to S. Peter than that which S. Chrysostom applies to S. Paul that he was the Light of all the Churches the Foundation of the Faith the Pillar and Ground of Truth 16. Might not the Bishop of Antioch have claimed by virtue of Succession a Superiority over all the Organical Members of the Catholick Church as well as the Bishop of Rome since it is certain S. Peter resided seven years at Antioch and it cannot be proved from any Authentick Record that he was one year at Rome 17. May not the Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of us all with better reason claim an universal Monarchy over the Church by virtue of Succession since the unquestionable Head of the Church dyed there And S. Iames the Lord's Brother was unquestionably the first Bishop of the Christian World whence Epiphanius concludes that the Principality over the Church was due to him and not to St. Peter 18. Since it s granted by Bellarmin and others that St. Peter's Martyrdom at Rome was but accidental there being no Scripture Promise or Catholick Tradition for it can the Bishop of Rome by virtue of his See pretend to S. Peter's Spirit and Power upon better grounds than Vibius Rufus did to the Genius of the Great Caesar because he bought his Chair 19. Could any of the Fathers have Complemented the Bishop of Rome with an higher Hyperbole than Synesius the Bishop of Cyrene did his Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria none of the best of men for he was a great Persecutor of S. Chrysostom by calling his Advice a Divine Response and an Heavenly Oracle 20. Can any Instance be given of any Bishop of Rome who before the famous Council of Nice presumed to exercise any proper Act of Jurisdiction without the proper Bounds of his own Patriarchat called the Suburbicarian Churches except P. Victor who for attempting to Censure others without his own Precinct was severely reprehended by Irenaeus and P. Stephen who was justly censured by