therefore to the prevention of Schism t is meet they should have an Authority to bound them But now for a Metropolitan he hath no jurisdiction over Bishops he can do nothing out of his own Diocess in which he is a Bishop without the concurrence of the Major part of the Bishops of the province though he be in order and honour the first so in like sort the Patriarch may do nothing without the advice and consent of the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to him seeing therefore these have no power of Jurisdiction but only a Primacy of Order and Honour there needs none over them especially with a power of Jurisdiction to prevent their Schisms so then saith Cham. De Oecum Pontis l 9. c. 14. s 12. here is a ridiculous comparison of things dislike as if one should say T is convenient that there should be one Primate over Bishops but so as to be able to do nothing without their sentence therefore there ought to to be one over these Primates endued with full power of jurisdiction 3. The Fathers which are for one Bishop over Presbyters upon the account that Schism might be prevented yet never resorted to this one Universal Bishop for the same end but redressed all Schism by calling Synods neither is there any Unity implyed in the whole Church or Churches of divers Provinces which may not be preserved by the multitude of divers Pastors conspiring and consenting together as well as by the Unity of one chief Pastour And in this sort we shall find the Church of God to have stood in perfect Unity in the first and best ages thereof without finding any want of the help of one chief Pastour Oh but Oecumenical Synods cannot be had alwayes Answ Nor is it needful for the most part Provincal ones will serve the turn But if the Schism be very dangerous and betwixt Province and Province Apud Cham. ibid. c. 13. s 10. then will Pope Innocent tell us not that we must run to him but that we wust necessarily have recourse to a Synod quam quidem donec consequamur expedit medelam Calamitatis hujus committere voluntati Magni Dei ac Christi ejus Domini nostri who will be sure to provide sufficiently for his Church And indeed to what purpose should they go to one man till it can be proved and not Begged that God hath set him over the persons that are to be reconciled will his Verdict put an end to their Schism that think him as fallible as themselves And can we think that God appointed such a Mediator whom all the world in case of Trial would undoubtedly refuse till they had evidence of his infallibility or the Delegacy of his power from Christ and yet not give us one Iota to perswade us of his will in this matter What he hath in the third section of the sixth Chapter are but the presumptuous Dictates of a bold Romanist in despite of truth as our Answers to the Fathers alledged by him will evidence Thus having answered his reasons for the supream jurisdiction of the Pope we come now to consider what he hath to return upon the Doctor And first Sect. 4 the Doctor saith he accuseth it of opposition to the precept of Christ Mark 10.42 43 44. S. 5. p. 33. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them but so shall it not be among you Now 1. he will tell us Pag. 34. that not the affecting but lawful exercising of supremacy of power and jurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to the precept that it is established by the Text for as much as it makes mention of some that are Chief To this stale argument it hath been Answered that to argue from this Mark 10.44 Whosoever will be chief that there was one appointed to be chief among the Apostles is as ridiculous as from Luk. 9.48 He that is least among you the same shall be greatest to argue that there was some one Apostle of less power and dignity then any of the rest or from Luk. 22.26 He that is Chief as he that doth serve that some of the Apostles waited upon the rest 2. He tells us that this is so evident in the next verse Ibid. that had the Doctor but rehearsed it he would have published to his meanest reader his abuse of Scripture It seems the Doctor is very much to blame but let us hear the Objection which Bellarmine will lend him which is this that our Saviour gives them his example to confirm his Exhortation who surely had Authority yea Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Church How then are they to imitate Christ in renouncing their Superiority did he himself do so No. Well then they are to do it in keeping their humility with that supremacy of Jurisdiction Answ This Argument hath been answered several times by telling Bellarmine that t is true in Christ there was supream Authority as well as humility but the latter only was the thing propounded to their imitation thence therefore to infer that this supremacy of power is not inconsistent with that Command of his is as vain a Fancy as because he that Commanded them his humility thought it no roberry to be equal with God thence to infer that therefore this humility was not inconsistent with the pride of Lucifer 2 Christ though he had this power yet never exercised it upon Earth but was in the form of a servant and this he propounds to their imitation 3. Ibid. Whereas he tels us The Apostles were Church rulers what inference can he make For can he think that the Doctor esteemed himself and all our Hierarchy impudent opposers of the letter and sense of this precept If so he is more impudent then this opposition if not then is that spoken besides the purpose and without any Contradiction to the Doctor Well then What is it that is forbidden viz. Pag. 35. quoth he The exercising it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do Ambitious seeking of Authority and after a secular manner Lording it over Gods Heritage Now here he jumps with the Doctor whose words are For any Bishop to affect over his Brethren a supremacy of Power is a most impudent opposition both to the sence and letter of our Saviours precepts Now that the Pope affects this may be aâ—gued in that without any tolerable pretence from Scripture with manifest opposition to the primitive Fathers and invading the rights of others he bandies for it and albeit he knows t is one great occasion of Schism and of the breach of the Churches peace yet would he force all upon pain of Damnation to acknowledge it and excommunicates all who do not then which greater Tyranny and Ambition cannot well be found But yet there may be an Argument framed out of the text from this Abalens in Math. quaest 83. that the Apostles even to the last contended who should be greatest which
protested their renouncing any acknowledgment of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right belonging to the Pope over any subject of his Majesties Sect. 5 See B. Bram p. 137 138. Answ We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope yea that his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to Answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory Answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery that the Colledges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole world yea even in temporal matters now whether you have changed these opinions or no we know not 2. How long you will hold to this whether after the declaration of the Pope to the contrary whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience whether your acknowledgements be not with mental reservations and whether your intent be not as in Queen Elizabeths time it was acknowledged by some of your own party by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supream power See B. Bram. ib. and whether you do not yet think that faith with Hereticks may be broken when the good of the Catholick cause requireth it may be doubted and therefore you are too hasty in concluding that you acknowledge meerly a pure spiritual authority in the Pope have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits but to yield what you so confidently assert and so weakly prove you Catechise us thus Is this now dishonourable is it unsafe Answ Both. To whom Answ All Kings and people the whole Church of God You reply Catholick Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger Answ No such thing it being manifest that all Kingdoms and Republicks of the Roman communion do exempt themselves from this obedience to and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome or at least plead for it when they have occasion Just Vind. c. 7. as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person and deposed sent to him to recieve justice the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law what bottomless pit had belched it forth Yea further when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council he finding that all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees but commands his Bishops to depart and leave the Council whether they were summoned by the Pope 2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances complaining of the Popes usurpations and tyranny exhausting the wealth of their Kingdoms prodigality of indulgences c. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernitious attendants that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia to enlarge the Popes Coffers and the like 2. See B. â—am Just Vind. p. 161 162. They have more reason to acknowledge him then we they profess him to have been their Patriarch but t is beyond all question he hath no title to be ours 3. They may Protest against a truth esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so as being a disclaiming of that power and care over Gods Church which he hath committed to them suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they owe to Christ and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect and the faith they are stiled defenders of but he proceeds If only saith he to the dissenters from Catholick religion this be dishonourable Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they persecuted a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Emâ—ire Answ But how will it appear to have been so was it begun and upheld by Treason Rebellions continual Blood-shed all manner of vice and wickedness as the Romans evidently was and is why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority independant on the Emperours Answ But what of all this did such intolerable extortions excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops as do accompany this power of the Pope was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God by signs and wonders yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to higher powers and to resist an evident usurpation and a tyrannical yoke unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it which is found to tend to the subversion of the true faith and the enslaving of the Kingdom and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperours albeit it was wholly independant upon Pagans And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops over their Presbyters and Diocess to ordain Sect. 6 excommunicate make orders for decency c. we acknowledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Provinces may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain France c. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us because t is purely spiritual else would it be so to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you 1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists Rep. p. 289 290 291 292 293. no Protestants having any hand in it 2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine contained in it 3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath but meerly Political and such as is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every Soveraign Prince 4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be understood 1. Either by himself or by fit substitutes who are Ecclesiastical persons 2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience 3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes his power consists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties 4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art of the Church of England 5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily a lay Chancellour in the Court
say That from after the time of their convention all novelties must be dated then could not Socinianisme Anabaptisme Presbyterianisme be esteemed novelties by the Doctor for he acknowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils nor was our Authour ignorant of this for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils he thus paraphraseth it Pag. 311. Where by submission to the four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them He goes on and tells us Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this which he never did not out of a voluntary liberality Ibid. but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him wherein it is said that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils which Argument runs thus If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiritual jurisdiction must adjudge any matters to be Heresie which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively as that distinct measure of time after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties But verum prius ergo Truly Sir you your self when you wrote it might think the inference valid but no man else now can He comes next to propound some questions the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity to acknowledge Sect. 9 Pag. 21. with the rest of his fellow-Protestants that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith The second to acknowledge what we generally do that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent shrewd conclusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter Fourthly He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture Pag. 25. Ans He will plead not guilty But how can that be object when he pretends to prove the lawfulness of the English Reformation because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties and from the beginning it was not so whereas he should have evinced that it was contrary that being the import of our Saviours words reply Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him for I pray you tell me doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind forbidding Marriage or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar or Thirdly tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word as in the matter of Divorces and Prayers in an unknown tongue Secondly When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith Pag. 241. and conveyed to us by the general practice of the Church is it not enough to shew our innocency in not accepting them for such because ab initio non fuit sic especially when thirdly you know we hold that in all matters of faith 't is all one with us to be praeter Scripturam and to be contra Pag. 25. but you ridiculously add That he should have cited such Scriptures as these S. Peter his Successors never had nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction c. Which here I bind my self to do when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so or that the Scripture anywhere saith That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith The body of Christ is transubstantiated T is unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scripture Lastly Sect. 10 You tell us that the Fathers cry out against innovations Pag. 27. and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any Answ Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bishops the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator the Arrians the Nicene Fathers therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C. CHAP. IV. Mr. Cs. mistake Sect. 1. His first Argument from the necessity of an universal Bishop to hinder Schism considered Sect. 2. His second Argument from the Presbyterians Sect. 3. The Doctors first Argument from Mark 10.42 defended Sect. 4. His second from Rev. 21.14 Sect. 5. His third from Gal. 2. Sect. 6. His Argument from the notion of an Head strengthned Sect. 7 8 9. A further evidence of the no necessity of such an Head Sect. 10. THE first Novelty Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor is the usurpation of their Pope from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated Cap. 4. s 1. but whereas he would make him moreover to assert That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface And further that we have not separated from any Authority if any were exercised by the former Popes during the times of the four first General Councils he deals disingenuously with the Doctor in whom no footsteps of this assertion can be found albeit it be a great and evident truth But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils he doth more grosly and palpably abuse him only that he might make room for those Citations which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent and might seem to fight against the Doctors Sermon when he is only beating that man of clouts which himself hath made Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen Tertullian c. So that our Author which is a bad omen stumbles at the threshold builds his whole Fabrick on a mistake and confutes only what himself hath fancied not what the Doctor hath asserted Well then that which he hath to do if he would contradict his assertion is to shew not whither the Popes praeceding challenged a supremacy of jurisdiction but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God as an universal head as one who had received from the beginning a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church Now in returning an answer to what is
no other touchstone then Scripture and reason that sure word by which we are to take heed is not agreeable to these pretentions for should it be that we may try no other truth yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no and so be Judges of our Judge which sure is dangerous Yea 4 Is it not wonderful that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up Eph. 4.4 One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God should forget one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch without whose Soverain power if our Author may be believed the Church of God cannot subsist Sure if there had been any such thing this had been a proper place wherein to mention it No had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors it would not have been to the Law and to the Testimonies but to the Popes Council and his Cardinals 4. To multiply no more the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter but to its subsistence in statu meliori Now thence to infer that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church is as Illogical as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition were its members impeccable to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it Or because the making them all of one mind or enlightning them with the truth would prevent Schism and Heresie therefore God should do so or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass To infer that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves to slight the judgements of many thousands that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect is to endanger even the being of Religion that we may the better secure its Circumstantials Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth He that affirms the Popes infallability puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks and t is Granted they may be so and even to hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his Grounds cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice nay which is most Horrible yet a certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable so to say Which I say and maintain however you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real enemy Lastly to submit to him so as not to bind our Consciences to consent but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations is 1 That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous 2 T is very Dangerous seeing by these means the practice of Religion the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome the witnesses of the truth silenced and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus which yet is necessary to salvation Yea 3 Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man and to a General one when it may be had then to that Sect. 3 Well Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians and it is this If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history experience Answ I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument but I can tell what returns have been made to it before ere it was managed by the Presbyter And had they not been like you at least some of them in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments they might have spared all their pains in this particular 1. Then let Ocham tell us the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part seeing one may sustain the Hearing Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom or Country but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world In like sort though it be expedient sc for the preventing of Schism that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem adde tamem proclivis ad errorem nam talem unitatem Turcae talem Haeretici talem ipsi Philesophi habere possunt si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac Bonon Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum Davenant de sup Judice controversiarum seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world Besides saith he it would be most dangerous to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head especially when they are taught that he is Infallible Out of all that hath been said we have three Answers 1. That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism which the other is not 2. That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism 3. If it were expedient to prevent Schism yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy But 2 I answer that in respect of a Diocess or Parish there is a particular Authority resting in one and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all might be fild with Schisms so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority and
sure they would not have done if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keyes or any other act of Christ was preferred before them Yea t is wonderful that when as our Adversaries say this contention came before Christ four several times he would never intimate to them that which was so necessary to prevent Schism that he intended St. Peter for the chief when those that contended for it so strongly and especially their Followers were not likely to afford it him without some express from Christ In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14 he tells us P. 71. s 6. That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Churches building and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saith the same that Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power Thus he but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions for out of these I argue ad hominem 1. The same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles ergo The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter 2. St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him ergo The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church and consequently every member beside themselves Now then either Christ who gave them this power gave them a liberty to exercise it or forbad them the external administration of it If the first then was there no subordination in the exercise of this power to Peter unless the same person can be sub and equal too If the second then did he give them it perfectly in vain for Authority can be to no end but to exercise it on those over whom t is given Nay t is a contradiction to say a man hath power over another when he cannot exercise it de jure when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition Yea 3 how have they equal power not to speak of honour whereof one may exercise authority over the world the other may not by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop Well but saith our Author we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves then it follows Ibid. We grant therefore as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers that all the Apostles and all Bishops their successours enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either but for the external administration there may be and alwayes was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same Authority both among Apostles Ibid. and Bishops Answ He did wisely to add let him not find fault with this distinction for t is as lyable to exception as any can be For 1. What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71. Is it that Christ gave him the name of a Rock surely no seeing we have it acknowledged that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church and consequently equally Rocks for Peter is therefore so because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him or because he was one upon which the Church was to be founded Yea further among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other and that is Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is appropriated to him Eph. 2.20 And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone or foundation which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also Yea lastly Peter is not called a Rock as the Romanists would have him for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built and Peter was a member of that Church it would follow hence that Peter and all the Popes his Successours must be built upon themselves Evident is that of St. Serm. 13. de verbis Domini Austin Vpon that Rock which thou confessedst will I build my Church that is upon my self upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And again in his Retractations L. 1. C. 21. 't is not said Thou art Petra but thou art Petrus Petra autem erat Christus Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference seeing in the Greek which is Authentick it is observed quem confessus est Simon 2. Is it because he is alwaies in the Gospel placed first and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Alas 't is otherwise for we find Joh. 1.44 The City of Andrew and Peter Mark 16.7 The Disciples and Peter and what is it to the purpose that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists when almost alwaies he is put last in the Epistles 1 Cor. 3.22 Chap. 9.5 Or in the midst as Gal. 2.9 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles is no argument of their different Authority is evident from this that albeit there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet are they not placed next to Peter And then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it cannot give him this supremacy for it is afterwards promised to him you say Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys c. It being then afterward promised cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. We know that all the time of Christs life John had the dignity of place next Christ for he was the Disciple whom he loved and who lay in his bosom and therefore Peter had not the superiority For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or priority of place yea it is sufficiently evident that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John as of St. Peter in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter against Peters 3. We say that notwithstanding his contradiction Peter is called first Pag. 73. either because of his zeal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in confessing Christ or because he was the Apostle first called or else only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a numeral Or if it intimate any priority 't is of order not of superiority as we have proved Nor 3 Was this power of Administration given him See Mr. C. pag. 73. because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too and that they
were to do it indefinitely appears because they are sent by him to all Nations not fixt to any part of his flock Yea I demand whether when St. Paul Act. 20. gave commandment to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock over which Christ had made them overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he might not have charged them in these words feed the sheep of Christ Whether seeing he had a Commission to go teach all Nations common to him with the rest he might not indefinitely have constituted Bishops and given them this charge or whether he that had this indefinite power of commanding others were not an indefinite Pastor and had not a commission of feeding Christs Sheep or Lambs which is all that is affirmed of St. Peter If therefore what was given to St. Peter was likewise conferr'd upon all the rest how can it be that hence a supremacy of St. Peter above the rest of the Apostles should be concluded And whereas 't is argued that St. Peter is constituted Pastor of Christs flock indefinitely and therefore of the Apostles seeing they are Christs Sheep may it not with equal reason be concluded that seeing the Apostles had commission given to teach all Nations and every creature they were commissionated teachers of St. Peter and he ought to be subject to them as a Disciple to his Teacher Yea the argument is more forcible seeing here we have mention made of every creature whereas St. Peter is not bid to feed all Christs Sheep De Agon Christi c. 30. Add to this the suffrage of St. Austin Cum dicitur Petro ad omnes dicitur Pasce oves meas Nor Mr. C. p. 73. 4. In that he had the power of the Keys assigned to him it being manifest that the same power was given to the rest of the Apostles Matth. 18.18 Thus Origen in Matth. Hom. 1. Were the Keys given by Christ to Peter only no this is common to them all for when in the Gospel of St. John Jesus said to his Disciples Receive the Holy Ghost he constituted them all such as was Peter to which Testimony may be added Hieron Ambrose Cyprian Hilary Austin Theophylact Leo Euthym. Bed Anselm Hugo Lyran and the Council of Colen All which you may see in the Learned Crackenthorp de Eccl. Angl. c. 22. s 6. Nor Mr. C. ib. 5. From this that St. Peter was made the Minister of Circumcision for so was St. Paul of the Uncircumcision or the Gentiles who yet will not be allowed to have this external administration Ibid. And to talk of a dedication of St. Pauls office by St. Peters going to Cornelius a Proselyte when St. Paul was at Tarsus is so weak a proof of his supremacy over him that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think it needs a confutation Especially if it be considered that notwithstanding this St. Lib. 1. de prov Dei Hom. 8. de laud. Pauli Hom. 2. ad Rom. Hem. 18. ad Rom. Hom. 25. in 2. ad Corin. V. de Crak ubi supra Chrysostom will tell us That there was none greater than blessed St. Paul nay nor equal to him That he as another Aaron was anointed Priest over the whole world That he was a Pillar of the Church more firm not only than Peter but than any stone rock or iron To whom the universal dispensation through the whole world was committed And which is most observable that he governed the whole world as one house or one ship In which ship as St. Ambrose tells us Christ is the foundation the Father is the Pilot the Holy Spirit Proram servat and which the twelve Apostles as her bank of Oares bring into the Haven So that here is no peculiar place assigned to St. Peter Now then these things being so I argue thus Either in these places our Saviour did give St. Peter this external administration or he did not if he did then it follows evidently that he gave the same power to the Apostles also seeing what he gave to St. Peter we have proved he gave to them if not then let them tell us where Christ gave this power to St. Peter and what more likely arguments can be produced to conclude it 2. It is manifest 1. That Christ immediately constituted Apostles and that they received not their Apostleship from St. Peter for he saith have not I chosen you twelve Joh. 6.70 Joh. 20.21 as my Father sent me so send I you 2. It is manifest that Christ gave supream jurisdiction to the whole company of Apostles and this your Bellarmine confesseth De Pontis l. 4. c. 23. yea that he gave them all power whether external or internal yea he proves it too 1. Because he saith as my Father sent me so send I you whosesoever sins ye remit c. But now saith he Christ without all controversie was sent with full and absolute power and therefore his Apostles must be so and this Exposition or Argument from the place he backs with the Fathers and Maldonate with Jansenius say the like 2. In locum He proves it hence that the Apostle St. Paul making mention of the distinct orders of officers in the Church doth it thus first Apostles secondarily Teachers thirdly Prophets c. And this he doth when his design is to shew that some part of the Church hath more abundant honour than the rest and having done so puts the question Are all Apostles can they all plead to equal power with them Now had there been one supream over the Apostles why doth he say in general first Apostles when 't is his design to speak of the degrees which God had placed in the Church why doth he leave out the chief Certainly if the Apostles were all first Chilling to me it is very probable that no one was before the other for by first all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sence the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must be before every one of the rest or if you say that all the Apostles were before all other Pastors but St. Peter first of all then why doth not the Apostle say first St. Peter then the rest of the Apostles and therefore they must be first in the other sence and therefore no man and therefore not St. Peter must be before them Bellarmine elsewhere saith that St. Paul speaks not of the Hierarchy of the Church but of those that were indowed with extraordinary gifts and that therefore he leaves out St. Peter But 1. What doth he think of Teachers were they extraordinary persons 2. If this be the reason why have we no mention of him Eph. 4.11 where we have Pastors Evangelists Prophets Apostles without any distinction set over us till we all come in the unity of faith unto perfect men 3. He proves it because they had commission from Christ to go
teach all Nations and out of those whom they taught to ordain some Pastors whereever they came which shews they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ and a power to exercise it and so much for the second proposition 3. Hence it follows that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter for Par in parem non habet potestatem Now to restrain anothers power as to its exercise is evidently to exercise power over him And hence it follows that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter And indeed that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet not exercise one act of it upon them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for 24 years should exercise no act of regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it as strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to and yet the Apostles after these words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man No less a wonder was it that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself as that 1. Mentioning him often he should do it without any title of honour yea further that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles How is it that the other Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gentiles Act. 11.23 so that he is compelld to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James 4. See Mr. C. p. 71. The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all for he saith only this that Quoad ministerium viz. as to Preaching Administring the Sacraments Absolving and Remitting and such things which are done by Pastors and carrying not Jurisdiction in them but Ministry or Service they are equal but Quoad Politiam as to Government they are unequal and what is this to the purpose Mr. C. p. 72. Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter For 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop as Dr. Feild and Dr. Hammond will tell him 2. If he be said to have it 't were ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Diocesses are of equal Authority Jurisdiction or Power with him seeing he hath Power over them which Par in parem non habet To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures Whereas 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion nay the words seem unconsistent with it for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter bid him seed his sheep told him that what he bound should be so and that upon him he would build his Church he presently adds That he did this Pari consertio praediti houoris potestatis sed exordium ab uaitate proficiscitur albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem and so intended not any superiority in him above the rest but only to shew the necessity of unity And then for St. Jerome he doth not only say that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles and that one City though Rome it self is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild p. 548. In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Pauls Epistle to the Galathians we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for And 1. Whereas he mentions James Cephas and John and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superiour to the rest because he mentions him in the middle for if this be a sufficient evidence of his Supremacy that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles why should it not be as good a plea against it that the Apostle St. Paul when speaking of the chiefest Apostles should not do so 2. Why doth he mention them all as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and put no difference betwixt them if indeed St. Peter were Superiour to them especially if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them if we may believe St. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecum Aquinas Hugo Salmero Justinian Cornelius a Lapide and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting no difference at all betwixt them And that 3. This being evidently his scope to shew that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision because these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plâ—ased to admit of it and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles whose Authority they urged against him had St. Peter been constituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles how had it concerned his design to have told us not thus in general these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in particular that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy and perswades me to believe with the Doctor that St. James and St. John were St. Peters Peers Again ver 7. the Apostle tells us that even these Pillars saw it evident that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the circumcision was to St. Peter and that hereupon it was agreed that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Jews or circumcision Now 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul was it not by Christ by him that wrought effectually in them both ver 8. Now then if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision to St. Peter the circumcision is it not evident that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Vice-Roy in Ireland or Scotland the inferior Governors under him yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him sicut Petro circumcisio In locum Ibid. whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with
referred the judgement of that cause to the Pope And for this he cites Conc. Eph. p. 2. Art 5. in relat ad Caelestin But he might as well have cited Aristotle for there it not one Iota of any Bishop of Jerusalem in that place nor one syllable of any such affirmation of his nor any such reason alleadged to Caelestinus but there say they we deliberated of passing the same sentence upon him which he did upon them who were condemned of no crime but that we might overcome his temerity with long suffering albeit we might justly have done it or he would justly have suffered it yet have we referred it to the judgement of your Holiness Indeed Act. 4. The Bishop of Jerusalem saith that John ought presently to have had recourse to the Apostolick seat sitting with him viz. by his Legates in the Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But t is the Apostlique seat of Jerusalem not of Rome which he tells us he ought to have been directed and guided by Well then this John of Antioch being a Patriarch and Cyrill being his enemy they did well to stay their sentence against him till they knew the mind and had the suffrage of the Patriarch of Rome who was Prime of the Patriarchs But sure our Author did not so well in foysting in Rome for Jerusalem albeit Binnius was his warrant for it Add to this that even this fiction makes against them for had the Pope received an universal jurisdiction and that from Christ why doth the Bishop of Jerusalem omit the delegation of the power from Christ and sink down as low as custome why doth he particularize Antioch when not only that but all other Patriarchical Sees if we may believe our Adversaries were to be guided and directed by the See of Rome or by his Holiness We are told further Ibid Sect. 10. That when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Schismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope and this he did saith the Emperour Valentinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according the custom of Synods To this it is Answered by the same Author Review l. 4. c. 4. s 11. Act 1. Con. Chal. Evag. l. 2. c. 2. Act. 3 Con. Chal. It is easie to make it appear that it was not so For first It is plain from the Acts that the appeal was put in simply by the word Appello without mentioning to whom 2. The Appealants presented a petition to the Emâ—epours tending to this offect that they would be pleased to refer the cause unto a Council 3. The Council passeth the judgement upon the case of the Appeal And 4. The Pope himself was condemned by that Synod He was one of the Plaintiffs against Dioscorus the head of it Whereupon it was said to his Legates by the Presidents of the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. Con. Chal. Nichol. in Epist ad Michael Imperat. that they being accusers could not be judges Yea Pope Nicholas himself testifies that Dioscurus was not so much condemned for his Heresie as for daring to pass sentence against the Pope to what end then had it been to appeal to him seeing he himself was condemned and was a Plaintiff Indeed the Epistle of Valentinian tells us that he appealed to the Pope Ad Theodos in Praeamb Con. Chal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it appears to have been no otherwise then to procure his intermediation to the Emperour for the Calling of a Synod and this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the custome when contentions arose about the faith to Call Synods 2. What is said to be given to the Pope was only given to the Legates that so he might be acquainted with the business and know that he had appeall'd as appears from the 23. Ep. of Leo to Theodosius Because our Legates have stoutly stood it out against the Synod and this Bishop Flavian given them a bill of Appeal we beseech your Gentleness to command a General Synod to be Celebrated in Italy And thus we let him pass to the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 which hath a Canon to this effect Mr. C. p. 59. s 11. That in any Controversie between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved must appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the process and appoint judges and when such a case happened till the Pope had determined the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be chosen in his place De Oec Pout l. 13. c. 7. But 1. Saith Chamier this Council was not Oecumenical but only made up of the Western Bishops For Sozomen L. 3. C. 10. tell us that the Bishops of the East and West could not agree but severally set forth their Decrees and therefore it useth not to be reckoned among the General Councils T is true as Sulpitius saith Sac. Hist l. 2. it was called from each part of the world but of the Eastern Bishops came but seventy six to Sardis and these saith Socrates would not once come into the sight of the Western Bishops but their conditions being denyed Confestim discedunt they presently depart 2. This Canon is manifestly contrary to the fifth of the General Council of Nice which refers the final determination of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch which the Emperour also confirmeth and will have no man to have power to contradict the sentence which the Primate or Patriarch shall give 3. The Affricans took no notice of this Decree Dr. Field p. 566. and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent practice acceptation and execution Yea they will'd the Pope to send no more any of his Clarks to dispatch causes at any mans suit for that this was the way to bring in the Smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church and in very earnest besought him not to be Eafie in admitting any Appeals brought from them 4. This Canon makes rather against them for by it all matters must be ended at home or in the next Province to that wherein they arise And the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter having his authority and to put him in Commission with the Bishops of the Province that so he and they may jointly re-examine things formerly judged To which you may add 1. That it was not in the power of the Pope to command Appeals to himself but only to receive them when brought 2. That this power of Appealing was Ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum and therefore a personal priviledge which was to cease on the death of Julius 3. That the very same thing viz. the like power of Appealing to the Bishop of Constantinople was defined in the General Council of Chalcedon Caâ— 9.17 as you
Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
must be but one Episcopal Chair in the World all the Apostles saith Cyprian are Pastors but the Flock of Christ is but one which they are to feed with unanimous consent there is but one Body of the Church one Spirit one Hope of our Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God this unity all men must endeavour to keep especially Bishops that they may make it appear that there is but one Episcopal Commission in the Christian Church cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur whereof every one indifferently and in equal sort hath his part Here is nothing that proveth the universality of the Papal power but this place most plainly overthroweth it for Cyprian teacheth that Christ meant to give equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles and the reason why intending no more to one than to the rest yet he more especially directed his speech to one than to the rest was only to shew that there must be an unity in the Church which He settled in that beginning with one from him he proceeded to the rest not meaning that the rest should receive any thing from him but that from himself immediately they should receive that in the second place which he had first and that they should receive the same Commission together with him into which he was put first that they might know him to be the first of their Company for it cannot consist saith he either with truth with the opinion of St. Cyprian or of our Adversaries themselves that the rest of the Apostles received their Ministerial Power from Peter and were subject to him as to an Head and absolute Commander over them seeing he saith expresly that they were the same that Peter was and equal to him both in honour and power and besides both in this book and in many other places he is wont to derive the original of Schisms and Heresies from the intrusion of men into places without due admittance and allowance of them that in a kind of coherent concord rule and govern the Church and never from the resistance of one Supream Commander set over all Well then to the places objected upon that one viz. St. Peter he builds his Church we Answer in the words of St. Jerome preceding The Church was built upon St. Peter but yet true it is the same thing is done upon others and the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But you will say that St. Jerome there asserts That among the twelve one was chosen Cont. Jovin l. 2. that an head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away which seems to advance St. Peter above the rest Answ Not as to any thing of Authority for then St. Jerome would contradict himself when he saith that the Church was founded ex aequo upon the twelve so that his meaning is that before the Apostles were sent over the World and whilst they made up one particular company for better orders sake he was chosen Head that so things might be done communi concilio and there might be no Schism between them 2. He tells us this was given to Peter quia Petrus crat senior which being but a personal advantage cannot be applyed to the benefit of the Romanist who is to prove the Popes Supremacy and not only the Primacy of St. Peter not to mention that these words are not St. Jeroms but Jovinians and speak not of a plenitude of Power but only Primacy with many other Answers which you have in Dr. Ham. Sch. dis p. 238. And for the second citation from St. Cyprian Sect. 13 that he who forsakes the Chair of St. Peter upon which the Church is founded cannot think that he is in the Church Lib. 12 de Oec Pont. c. 5. s 3. He might have learned from Chamier that it is a meer gloss crept into the Text and not to be found in some Editions but if it could deserve an Answer the learned Dr. Field will inform him That St. Cyprian by that Chair intendeth not one particular Chair appointed for a General Teacher of all the World to sit in but the joynt commission unity and consent of all Pastors which is and must be such as if they did all sit in one Chair which sense of one Chair founded upon Peter you may find in the same Cyprian ad universam plebem Lib. ep 8 where he urgeth the unity of the Church and Chair not to shew that obedience was to be given to the Church of Rome but to shew that against them that are lawfully placed in a Bishoprick with consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity others may not be admitted and that they who by any other means get into places of Ministry then by consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity among themselves are in truth and indeed no Bishops at all And this is a sufficient Answer to that passage of Optatus cont Sect. 14 This would have perfect truthâ— in it saith Dr. Ham. Sch dis p. 192 had it been spoken of any other plantations of the Apostles the Chair of St. John in Asia c Seeing the meaning of the Chair doth evidently signifie the Church brought down by succession from the Apostles which the Donatists could not pretend to see him exactly scanning the whole place p. 190 192 193. Parmen l. 2. At Rome 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 his particular Chair And sure you could not be ignorant of the Answer returned to the passage by the incomparable Chillingworth viz. The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their Faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular now Optatus going upon St. Cyprians above mentioned grounds of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatickâ— for so doing and he proves it by this Argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City for in other places others had Chairs beside St. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatick who against that one single Châ—ir erects another Vnderstand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it We pass on to St. Chrysostome from whom two sentences are pressed for the service of the Pope but to the first I return a Non est inventus after twice reading the third Hom. cited by him * In Act. Apost c. 1.4 I can find nothing like the words produced In the second is evident prevarication for having told us that these words Follow me shewed his special care he had of St. Peter he adds How then was it may some say that St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this I Answer saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is
Christ ordained him Teacher or if you will Master not of any Throne but of the whole Werld as he did also the rest of the Apostles for which our Author hath it not of that See of Rome alone in which the fraud is manifest 't is true Sect. 15 the Scholiast tells us that either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be left out as the Interpreter hath done or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be added but then it must evidently refer to the See of Jerusalem and can by no stratagems be drawn to the See of Rome well then if he would have this citation serviceable to him he must first shew that St. Peter was by Christ constituted Bishop of Rome and by so doing he will contradict St. Chrysostoms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That only St. Peter and not any of the Apostles besides him were appointed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Saviour 3. Which is the most difficult of all that the Bishops of Rome are to succeed him in being so There is one passage remaining of St. Austins who tells us Sect. 16 That Melchiades judged the cause of the Donatists in Africk Judicante Melchiade sedis Romanae Episcopo cum collegis suis quos ad preces Donatistarum miserat Imperator ibid. ep 162. Third def c. 2. s 4. Non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia c. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellanduÌ„ à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur Reply p. 40. Where not to take notice of his interpreting de collegio suo removere to remove from his Communion 1. This was no Authoritative but only a brotherly decision 2. Done at the prayers of the Donatists 3. By power delegated from the Emperour 4. All this we find in Reverend Dr. Ham. together with a complaint that many other things offered by him in consideration of this passage could find no Answer Now seeing all these Answers are clearly satisfactory is it not strangly absurd that the objection should be brought upon the stage afresh without the least considerations of the returns that were made unto it Now that St. Austin was far enough from acknowledging the Supremacy contended for as well as the rest of the African Bishops is argued from this that in the Milevitan Council where he was present speaking of Appeals from their Bishops their rule is cap. 22. that they should appeal to none but the African Councils or the Primates of their own Provinces and if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine or forreign Judicature they are not to be admitted into Communion by any within Africa and this they determined agreeably to the Council of Nice and declare as much to Pope Celestine as you may see in the Reverend Dr. Hammond T is a common Proverb that the Devil will play at small game rather than stick out Sect. 17 so if the Bishop of Rome cannot be Universal Monarch he will plead for him as Patriarch over the West and thereby think to bring us into subjection to him but seeing it is notorious and almost generally confest that the power of Patriarchs is not of Divine but humane institution if he will affirm that this Dignity was given to him by the Fathers he must either allow and acknowledge that they never dream'd of his being Universal Monarch or else were so wise as to decree that he should have allotted to his Jurisdiction the third or fourth part of the World whom they knew to have received from Christ a title to the whole 2. Were he Patriarch over all the West and we included in the circuit of his Patriarchate yet would not this afford him any Authority over England Dr. Haâ— third def p. 124. Seeing the dignity of a Patriarch includes not any Authority over more then the Province or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that belongs to him as a Primate or Metropolitan and therefore infers no kind of Authority over all those that belong to the circuit of his Patriarchate Just vinet c. p. 249 Bishop Bramhal gives him three further Answers 1. That the Brittish neither were nor ought to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch as is irrefragably proved in his third conclusion 2. That Patriarchical power being not of Divine right may be quitted and that this the Pope hath done by taking up an Vniversal Monarchy unconsistent with it forfeited by many exerbitant abuses of which the Roman Bishops have been guilty beyond expression or lawfully transferred as was done by the King and the whole body of the Kingdome And 3. That the power which we have cashiered nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by antient Canons so then t is superfluous to consider his Authorities only in short 1. Zonaras and Balsamon are esteemed Hereticks by himself And secondly are affirmed by the Learned Salmasius to have mistaken the mind of the Canon Salmas de prâ—matu Papae c. ult 2. St. Basils calling the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes him only the chief in order and most eminent Bishop of the West which title we can very well allow him Salmas 16. 3. In the testimony of St. Austin he hath foâ—sted in the Western Church whereas St. Austin speaks only of the Church in which St. Peter suffered Martyrdom that is the Church of Rome it being searce ever heard that any one was said to have suffered Martyrdome in the West 3. Nor can it be inferred from that place of St. Jeromes Let them condemn me with the West that is with Damasus that he thought him Patriarch of all the West but his meaning is this Salmas ib. Let them condemn me with the most famous men and Churches in the World of which having mentioned two he leaves the rest to be understood Lastly 'T is objected that Justinian the Emperour affirms that the whole World was subject to five Partriarchs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Western Rome Constant Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Nevel 123 now saith he unless Hesperia signifies the whole West to what Patriarch was France Spain Africa c. subject Ans 'T is true the Emperour reckoneth up five Patriarchs but doth he any where say that all the World was necessarily subject to them doth he deny that it was in the power of Princes to make more or limit the Dominions of these did not he create de novo Carthage and Justiniana prima and give them all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Supream Priesthood Supream Honour and Dignity and ordain that final appeals and the Dignity of Apostolical Sees shall be given to them as is evident from his very words cited by Dr. Hammond in his â—ract of Schism Pag. 101 102 103. and then what service can you have from this his testimony Lastly Notwithstanding this there were many Provinces that were not subject to the Jurisdiction of any of the forementioned Patriarchs I should now
Anagnostes a Grecian the Council of Chalcedon publisht only twenty seven Canons whereas this is reckoned the twenty eighth Answ This is put in to admonish us what respect we owe to the Romanists collections for it is certain this Canon is in all the Greek Copies both Printed and Manuscript and from thence the Copy of that Council must originally be fetcht yea many of the Romanists confess there was such a Canon made and the story of the fact is by all the Antients agreed on and Leos Epistles and many other evidences put it beyond all dispute and indeed Lees Legates resisting and not consenting to it and complaing to the Judges that it was done without them when yet they voluntarily did absent themselves is an evidence still that there was such a Canon made and made by the Council and yet it is left out in the Codex vetus Ecclesiae Romanae and Dionysius Exiguus his Codex but we sufficiently know in whose interest they did it and what is it to the purpose whether the Canons of that Council be twenty seven or twenty eight when it is sure that this was one yea this despised Canon is not only mentioned by Socrates and Sozomen L. 5. C. 8. L. 7. C. 9 but it was also renewed by the Council in Trullo in these words renewing the Decree of the hundred and fifty Fathers who met in this City of Constantinople in which was Trullo secretarium palatii from whence the Council was so named and by the six hundred and thirty Bishops assembled at Chalcedon We define that the See of Constantinople shall have equal prerogatives of honour with that of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. C. p. 52. and shall be equally advanced in Ecclesiastical matters next we are told that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople was both ashamed and sorry for this Canon and this he proves from the fifty fifth Epistle of Leo which is saith he in Answer to Anatelius but alas that Epistle is not written to Anatolius but Pulcheria Augusta nor hath it any thing of his shame and sorrow but much of his pride and ambition and as for the matter of fact he was so much ashamed of it that he exercised it in an eminent manner on the Patriarch of Alexandria Leo the Emperour having put wholly into his hands the judging of a great affair and quieting a disturbance in that Church and if it be considered that this was adjudged to him formerly by the Council of Constantinople determined here by the six hundred and thirty Bishops that the Bishop of Constantinople held this dignity by a custome that had been long in force and many other things collected by the Reverenp Dr. Hammond Reply p. 82 83 84. there will be no possibility of assenting to this crude and audacious affirmation that the Patriarch was ashamed of this Canon Nay it is much more reasonable to affirm that the Popes themselves were at last ashamed of their opposing it for within thirty years after we find saith the same Doctor Faelix the third of his own accord consenting to his Primacy Ep. 1. and acknowledging Acasius Bishop of Constantinople to have power over the Bishops that were under him and Innocent the third confirms it with a solemn constitution yea in the Gregorian Edition of the Decree we are told that at last this was granted to the Bishops of Constantinople for peace and quietness sake Cap. 5. Con. Lat. Dist 22. ad cap. Const that I adde not the establishment of it again by the Council of Florence Sess ult in tit Vnionis What he adds from Gelasius as it hath nothing of truth in it so hath it much of fraudulent dealing Gelasius there tells us that this Synod of Chalcedon as to its determinations touching matters of Faith was universally received but other things the Apostolick See received not and afterwards that the See Apostolick consented not to this Canon that the Emperour albeit he desired the Apostolick See to consent did not impose it nor Anatolius use it and the whole as it is said in sedis Apostolicae positum est potestate not was put Petente Marciano Principe but is put as the series of the discourse shewes in the power of the See Apostolick arrogating this unto that See ita quod firmavit in Synodo sedes Apostolica hoc robur obtinuit quod refutavit habere non potuit firmitatem and therefore what it confirmed in that Synod which words our Author was pleased to conceal that was valid As the words are related by our Author any one would imagine that the deciding of this business viz. whether the See of Constantinople should have equal priviledges with that of Rome had been referred to the See Apostolick whereas in truth here is nothing but the arrogant assertion of a Pope from an obscure fragment that the consent of the See of Rome is necessary to the validity of this Canon Lastly Whereas we say with the General Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops and that other commonly called Trullensis that these priviledges were Decreed to the See of Constantinople by a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople Mr. C. p. 52. s 9. he calls upon us to observe the false dealing of the Bishop of Constantinople and his Clergy in that they fraudulently thrust in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Canon had only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answ T is well he had the modesty to accuse the Bishop of Constantinople and his Clergy only for had he spoken out and told us that the whole Synod and that in Trulso also had thus affirmed which is the very truth as you may see in the twenty eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and the words cited from that in Trullo he would have been called upon to have rubd his forehead for his rashness as he may justly be called upon to do for accusing the Bishop of Constantinople and his Clergy of this false dealing for had he cast an eye upon the Acts of this Council he might have found Aetius the Arch-deacon reading thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things were decreed by the hundred and fifty Bishops met at Constantinople and after other things concluding with this Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that I cannot imagine how Mr. C. will be able to free himself from the imputation of a manifest untruth and indeed it is a likely matter that such a fraud should be committed and the Roman Legates never object it nor the Popes amidst all they did to invalidate this act not mention one syllable of this deceit so then it was not the Bishop and Clergy of Constantinople that made this addition but the General Council of Chalcedon and after them of Constantinople that so interpreted it And thus from the Council of Chalcedon Sect. 2 we go on to that of Nice which tells us that the Antient customs should obtain in
Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a jurisdiction over them all for as much as the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome viz. to have power over the Suburbicarian Regions now to this he Answers Mr. C. p. 64. That the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchate is made the pattern of the Bishop of Alexandria not in regard of his universal jurisdiction in the Church of God which in that time was not in being but only as to his custome and practice of calling Synods correcting manners making ordinations according tr his Patriarchical and Metropolitical jurisdiction for not only Patriarchical which Salmasius tells us was not then hatcht but Metropolitical authority is spoken of in this Canon so that it signifies no more then this that the Bishops of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches and therefore so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis Now 1. We Answer Were this Canon to be limited to ordination the custome of calling Synods c. seeing it is granted that as the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission from him so must the Bishop of Antioch Alexandria and other Provinces hence it follows that the Pope hath nothing to do in their ordinations no more then they have to do with his for such ordinations as were performed by the delegates of the Pope unless they were supposed to consent to it would neither be done by them immediately nor by their Commission and seeing as the learned Bishop Bramhal saith Rep. p. 193. all other rights of jurisdiction follow the right of ordination neither can the Pope plead any jurisdiction over them 2. In the Canon t is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est as in Alexandria and Rome so also in Antioch and other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the government Hes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principalities or dignities shall be preserved to the Churches and consequently it speaks not of ordination and power of calling of Synods only but of the whole jurisdiction of each Province and comparing these with Rome and telling us that these prerogatives shall be allowed to the Provinces of Alexandria c. because the custome was such that the Bishop of Rome had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the Provinces where he resided it seems to argue that the power of the Roman Bishop was not universal but confined to those Provinces the Canon speaks of for when we say that Italy reacheth to the Ionian Adriatick and Tyrrhenian Seas and towards France and Germany to the Alpes we mean that it is terminated there and extends it self no further and in like manner when we describe the Dominions of a Prince or Emperour so here when the Canon saith the Pope hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Provinces it may consequently be argued that his power is limited to them and doth not reach to the other Provinces attributed to the Bishop of Antioch Alexandria c. And as when the Patriarch of Antioch or Jerusalem mentions his Bishops he is supposed to understand such as are not subject to the Bishop of Alexandria even so here when it is said the Bishop of Allexandria shall have power over his Bishops seeing the Bishop of Rome hath power over his we are to understand by the Bishops of Alexandria such as are not subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently his Oecumenical power must be here denyed and indeed unless the Roman Diocess were limitted it could not possibly be a copy or reason of limiting the Alexandrian it being unreasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath none which yet that it was besides the evidence of the words themselves is the express affirmation of one of their own Popes who tells us That the Nicene Synod conferred no encrease on Rome Nicholas 1. Ep. 8. but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give the Church of Alexandria Well then if at the making of the Nicene Canon Rome had bounds it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon viz. that all Provinces everywhere shall ordain their Bishops within and by themselves and that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him i. e. his predecessours power that these bounds must be at all tiems observed which is sufficiently destructive to the universal Pastorship of the Roman See for hence t is evident that an universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or power of ordaining belongs not to the Bishop of Rome See Dr. Ham. Sch. disar p. 105 106 107. and therefore ordination and jurisdiction going together he cannot have the universal jurisdiction over Bishops or which is all one universal Pastorship 3. That the Antients understood it of government and not only as to the matter of ordination in the sense we plead for is apparent from their words thus Ruffin tells us that the mind of it is that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the care of Egypt as the other had of the Suburbicarian Churches and Aristinus a Greek Author in his collection of Canons gives us the sixth of Nice thus Let the Bishop of Alexandria have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the government of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis the Bishop of Rome of those Churches that are about his City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do exactly express Ruffinus's Suburbicarias Ecclesias or regiones yea the Arabick compilation of these Canons set out by Turrianus the Jesuit speaks thus T is decreed that the Bishop of Egypt the Alex. Patriarch should preside and have power over all Egypt and all the places and Castles that are about it quia sic convenit for so t is meet seeing the Bishop of Rome likewise hath power over all the places which are about it and likewise the Bishop of Antioch let him have power over that whole Province and the Paraphrase upon the Canon tells us that this was done because the Bishop of Rome had power over the Cities or places that were near him again Zonaras with whom consent Balsamon and Nilus saith that the Alexandrian Bishops shall preside over his Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly the Canon as cited by Paschasinus the Popes Legate shews as much Con. Chal. for thus it runs The Church of Rome alwayes had its Primacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Egypt have so also that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power of all under him because the Roman Bishop hath this custome likewise he that is constituted Bishop of Antioch and in other Provinces let the Church of larger Cities have the Primacy Doth he speak of Primacy of order which the Popes had over all the world then is it a ridiculous argument and a contradiction if of jurisdiction then was not the Pope to have any jurisdiction over them seeing they were all to have 〈◊〉
is a prejudice to that because a Primate or Patriarch by the notation of each word being one that hath none over him in respect of Authority or Power and so is absolutely first in his own Diocess this supposing a supream power in one must needs prejudge that as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy and this was the very reason why Pelagius and Gregory refused it because they should have wronged the rest of the Patriarchs in assuming it Third Def. p. 406. Now whether his asserting this Primacy Sect. 3 or our accusing and condemning it as a Novelty whether his proofs or ours be more concluding let the Reader judge I am content to refer it to his conscience as our Author doth We come now to discuss the safety of admitting this Supremacy And 1. Mr. C. p. 81. Mr. C. assures us That whilst such a Primacy purely Spiritual was acknowledged which for the first six hundred years was never so much as heard of the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poisoned with Heresies Just Vindic p. 58 59. Answ Bishop Brumhal can tell you No Saxon English or Brittish King ever made any obliging solemn formal acknowledgement of their submission to the Bishop of Rome that the Popes power in England was of courtesie not duty that former Kings were as tart and vehement against him as King Henry the eighth with this only difference that they endeavoured to draw the people out of the Popes claws at home and he thought it more expedient to cast the Pope over the Brittish Seas once for all And if so your very supposition will give you the lie unless you will sink down to Queen Maries dayes Secondly If they were not torn in pieces with Schisms yet through your blood-thirsty tyranny they were torne in pieces for Schisms burned for Heresies that is for the plain evident Truths of the Gospel by your ignorance branded with the odious names of Schismatical and Heretical Tenents Thirdly I pray you tell me were there no Protestants in Queen Maries dayes did none suffer before her dayes when you suppose the Supremacy of Antichrist agnized how many righteous souls were butchered by you in prosecution of your Sanguinary Articles against poor Protestants how many piles were builded in Queen Maries dayes to sacrifice their lives upon to your rage and malice and durst you be so bloody against those who were neither Schismaticks nor Hereticks and what wonder is it that you had no Schismaticks c. when to be such was the sure way to have no being and they could find no other Answer to their Arguments but fire and faggot yea when the light was withheld from them that so they might not see the truth You go on and tell us Ibid. The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a sword drawn for or against it Answ Very good if Princes will crouch to his Holiness Nonne Rex Anglorum nâ—â—er vassâ—llus est â—t ut 〈…〉 di◠〈…〉 be his Vassals suffer him to drein their Kingdoms rob and begger their Subjects exhaust their Dominions he will not arm their Subjects against them dethrone them or seek their ruine but if they once offer to withstand his tyranny question his intolerable encroachments cannot be content thaâ— their Subjects wealth should be converted into St. Pâ—â—â—â— Patrimony then must they be Sacrifices to Papal 〈◊〉 Witness that terrible and unparalleld excommunication and interdiction of England the deprivation of Henry the eighth published at Dunkirk witness the bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceding witness the Popes Negotiations with the English Spanish French c. to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther published at Rome by Hieronymo Culena Secretary to the Cardinal Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth witness the Legantine Authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his rebellion the Phaenix Plume sent to Terowen to encourage him likewise in his rebellion and a plenary indulgence for him and all his assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King James from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman Catholick interest Witness the rebellious Tenents of your English Seminaries the many treasons and rebellions in the time of Qu. Elizabeth and King James all which you may see in the Reverend Bishop Bramhal pag. 136 137 138. of his Repli so that you do in effect say t is safe for his Majesty to admit the Popes Supremacy for otherwise he may expect the absolution of his Subjects from their obedience a Spanish Invasion a Gunpowder Treason or some other mischievous enterprises of the Romish Emissaries to take away his life You tell us further Sect. 4 That the Kings of France account it one of the most sparkling Jewels in their Crown Ibid. that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted sons of the Catholick Church the acknowledging the spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honour and defence in them then many Armies would because it preserves peace and unity in the Kingdom by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to faith and obedience Answ The acknowledgement of the same Supremacy in the Turk that civil Pope who gapes for the Universal Monarchy would be as great an expedient for peace and unity let our Authour make the inference Secondly Why may we not deny that this peace and unity is not to be derived from the acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy seeing as our Authour hath it in another case in so many places both they are not where it is and are where it is not as under the Turks Dominions c. Thirdly We tell you that his Majesty of France doth not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy From. pag. 190 to 200. as it is undeniably evinced by Bishop Bramhal in his just Vindication Lastly You fall to Divining That without such an Authority all our preaching and laws will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy Answ Very likely for to be sure if your Priests and Jesuites men born for the subversion of Governments be permitted Hoc genns hominum natum est ad interitum Christianae reipub was the prediction of the University of Paris and it was confessed this was their business to set all on fire by John Brown a Roman Priest Prin introd p. 202. N. 82. s 20. you will never leave your rebellious Attempts and treacherous conspiracies till you have brought us into new confusions and built your nests upon our ruines Again we are told how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to
be multitudes little sensible of Religion and so multitudes of wicked men to whom they without scruple give the holy bread which is Christs body albeit some of them may haply vomit him som spit him out again some throw him to the Dogs c. I can very easily perswade my self that Christ had rather be spilt upon the ground then devoured by wicked men Secondly Sect. 21 He conjectures that the heresie of Berengarius might occasion this order of the Church Mr. C. p. 142. Ans But who gave the Roman Church warrant to violate Christs Institution to those ends to commit Sacriledge to uphold a gross untruth and to conspire with the heresie of the Manichees against an Orthodox and apparent truth and here our Authour leaves Divining though some of his brethren adde that should the Laity have the Cup then some drops of Christs blood might stick unto their beards some might be ejected with their spittle and if I may be permitted to adde my Symbol some of them may be poisoned by the cup the Romanist knows how to play such pranks Oh Sect. 22 Mr. C. p. 141. but a dispensation may haply be had seeing the Trent conventicle or the General Council of fifty Bishops hath referred this matter to the Pope Ans Very good but with these provisoes 1. That those who are willing thus to communicate do in every other thing agree with the received faith doctrine and manners of the Roman Church and religiously observe all the decrees of this Synod Secondly That they believe and confess that the custom of communicating in one kind is laudable and to be observed as a Law unless the Church decree the contrary and that those who continue to think otherwise are Hereticks that is she will permit the Pope to grant us a dispensation if we will acknowledge it to be needless Thirdly That they will give all Reverence to the Pope as Bishop and Pastor of the Universal Church the Pope you see hath not this power of dispensation given him for nothing with other the like stuff and after all these things 't is but videtur posse concedi it seems the Pope may grant a dispensation But were it as he would have it seeing we openly declare this as one ground of our separation that the Church of Rome necessitates us not only to receive an half Communion but also to profess that we believe this manner of Administration agreeable to the word of God is it possible that the Schisme should be on our part who proclaim our selves willing to close with her if she will cease to require these unlawful terms of Communion and not rather on the part of the Church of Rome which still obstinately persists in exacting such conditions from us CHAP. XIII The state of the Question Sect. 1. No Argument from the name of Sacrifice Sect. 2. Preaching call'd a Sacrifice and the Testimony of Saint Austine considered Ibid. Almes call'd a Sacrifice and testimony of Irenaeus largely considered Sect. 3. The Eucharist a symbolical Sacrifice and the testimonies of Ignatius and Saint Cyprian considered Sect. 4. In some sence propitiatory Sacrifice and the testimony of Saint Chrysostome considered Mr. C. saith no more then our Church doth Sect. 6. The Eucharist no true proper Sacrifice Sect. 7. THe Council of Trent hath pronounced her Anathema upon all who shall affirm that in the Mass there is not offered a true and proper Sacrifice Sect. 1 and that propitiatory This therefore is the Doctrine of the Romanist and we are now to consider whether Scripture Reason or the Fathers of the Primitive times do countenance it 1. Sect. 2 Therefore the name of Sacrifice is attributerd to those things both by Scripture and the Primitive Fathers which even the most rigid Papist must acknowledge not to be truly and properly so called and consequently the Argument taken from this Topick must be invalid And first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haer. 79. Coul. Collor in Lovit l. 5. Mr. C. P. 146. l. 2◠De Civ Dei c. 10. C. 20. v. 6. Qui proprie jam vocantur in Ecclesiâ Sacerdotes the preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice Rom. 15.16 where the Apostle tells the Romans that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice the Gospel of God Whence Origen stiles the preaching of the Word a work of Sacrificing Epiph. saith that the Apostles were elected to Sacrifice the Gospel and Cyril of Alexandria that the Priest did slay the Host of the Word of God and offer the victimes of Holy Doctrine To omit the like sayings of Chrysostome and others and hither we refer that of Saint Austine cited by Mr. C. to evince this proper Sacrifice where descanting upon that passage of the Apocalyps They shall be Priests with God and Christ and shall reign with him 1000. years he informs us that this Text speaks not in a peculiar manner of Bishops and Presbyters to whom the name of Priests was appropriated in the Church but is to be extended to all Christians so stiled as being members of their high Priest So that he saith they are Priests properly so called not in reference to any proper sacrifice to be offered by them of which no mention at all was made but in Opposition to other Christians not entred into holy Orders Seipsum obtulit ejus sacrificii similitudinem in suae passionis memoriam celebrandum obtulit lib. qu. 83. qu. 6. Epist 23. ad Bonif. and therefore catachrestically called so And that Saint Austine was far enough from asserting the Eucharist to be a proper sacrifice is extremely evident in that he calls it the similitude of Christs sacrifice and tells us He that saith Christ is immolated in this Sacrament would not lie because if Sacraments had not a similitude of things of which they are Sacraments they could not be so Now from this similitude they take the names of the things themselves even as saith he after a manner the Sacrament of Christs Body is his Body Secundùm quendam modum and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ his blood which therefore according to Saint Austine are such only by way of similitude or by a Metonymie of the sign for the thing signified and accordingly the Sacrifice must be so stiled on the same account And hence it is that elsewhere he saith L. 10. Cont. Faust c. 2. L. 20. c. 21. and c. 28. Christiani peracti ejuedem sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione perticipatione corporis sanguit is Christi That which by all is called a true sacrifice is the sign of a true sacrifice and then presently after will have it to be a sacrifice of remembrance or the remembrance of a sacrifice § 3. Secondly Almes and Offerings made for the poor are called Sacrifices S. Paul stiles them Offerings well pleasing and acceptable to God Philip. 4.14 and Victims Heb. 13.16 * l.
Justine in his Apology to Antonius Pius 4. Lib. 7. Consonant to this is that of Origen against Celsus who tells him That amongst the Christians there were men which needed not Hemlock as the Athenian Pontifex to keep them Chaste but the Word of God was sufficient for them Now had there been any sanction of the Apostles any custome of the Church which enjoyned this Celibacy to the Clergy could it be imagined that this amongst other things should not have been mentioned by any of these Champions of the Christians But that their apologies should run so generally as they do in the places mentioned Could it reasonably be thought that Origen would have said so crudely there wants not men amongst us if he could have instanced in the Clergy would he not rather have opposed our pontifices to theirs 5. That Tertullian was married his books written to his Wife do sufficiently assure us that he did not separate from his wife is evident from the seventh Chapter of his first Book quare facultatemcontinentiae c. where speaking of Continence he saith quod in matrimonio non valemus inviduitate sectemur that which our matrimonial condition will not bear viz. the former abstinence in Widdow-hood let us follow after embracing the occasion which hath took away what necessity viz. that of the married state required C. 3. delendis conjunctionibus c. Yea in the same Book he saith Christ came not to separate marriages or to dis-joyn those that were made one and chap. the first he exhorts her that after his decease with as much Continence as she could she would renounce marriage But if in respect of humane infirmity shee could not that she would marry to a Christian not an Heathen Would he have writ thus to her if she had already abstained from the embraces of her Husband from the time of his Ordination and already promised perpetual Continency 6. How many marryed Bishops Priests Deacons do we meet with in the Primitive Church Sect. 24 See them in Chamier and Calixtus reckoned up according to the Centuries they lived in To 3. lib. 16. c. 13. Now as to the answer usually given that these abstained from their wives it is very improbable if it be considered 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante medium propter quod conjugia copulâ—nda sunt de Hares C. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paeda g. l. 2. ab initio That they tell us procreation of children is the very end of Marriage Justin Martyr ubi supra wee saith hee do not marry at all but to get children St. Austin Without doubt they condemn marriage and as much as in them lyes forbid it when they forbid to beget children to which end the Marriage knot is to bee tyed And Clemens Alexandrinus the aime of the marryed parties is the procreation of Children 2. That the marriage of the Clergy was required to bee before Ordination onely upon this ground that the person professed hee either could or would not Contain and it is strange that they who marryed upon these accounts should not use the remedy which they thought necessary 3. That they who were Orthodox esteemed marriage honourable in all and the bed undefiled by this act as wee shall see hereafter And 4. That it is recorded of some of them that after their Ordination they did not abstain Car. de ejus vita as Gregorius Nazianzenus tells us that he had not lived so many years as his Father had spent in the Priest-hood To these testimonies we add the suffrage of Scripture by them interpreted Sect. 25 1. The Scripture tells us that St. Peter and St. Mrt. 8.14 Marck 1.30 Luke 8.18 1 Cor. 9.5 Philip with others of the Apostles were marryed Now here it is answered they begot no children no young Apostles Rep. Clem. Alex. tells us they did It is again answered that however after their Apostleship they ceased to do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stro. 7. 1. Who told them so 2. It is evident they might have done it by their own rules seeing the marriage bed hath nothing of defilement in it we never read of their divorce nor it is permitted by our Saviour but in case of Adultery due benevolence is commanded to be given and the with-holding of it is styled fraud and therefore undoubtedly had it been required they would have given it 2. VVe produce the Apostles testimony Sect. 26 let a Bishop be blameless the husband of one Wife so that a Bishop may have one wife and yet bee blamelesse 1 Tim. 3.2 nor is the having of one wife sufficient to hinder a man from ascending the Episcopal chair but the having two Now here some give this answer The Apostle saith a Bishop may be ordained not who is but qui fuerit who hath been the Husband of one wife To which we reply 1. That Dominicus a Soto a great stickler for Celibacy sufficiently confutes this answer L. 7. de just jure qu. 6. Art 2. con 1. thus It doth not sufficiently clude this place to say the Apostle speaks of such as have been married but now are separated from their Wives for St. Pauls Text manifestly shews that he speaks of those that remained in the state of marriage for as much as unius uxoris vir is the same with uxorem habens and also because the Apostle requires amongst other vertues of the Bishop that he look well to his house c. 2. The very text is contradictory to this sence for the words in Timothy runs thus 1 Ep. c. 3. v. 2. It behoveth a Bishop to bee blamelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Epistle to Titus ordaining in every City Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Hee that had a Wife but now hath her not is not any longer unius uxoris vir but nullius and therefore a Widdower for these relata mutuo se ponunt tollunt 2. Others answer that he permits them to have a Wife but yet they must cease from the use of wedlock Answ Neither can this exposition hold good for in the Apostles times it was a thing unknown that a man should have a wife and yet no power to make use of her which all husbands from the Creation to those daies had seeing therefore he reiterates the phrase it is manifest he understands it in the common sense yea 2. It is contrary to the Apostles rule of not defrauding each other contrary to justice for the wife hath power over the husbands body contrary to the Apostles decree touching widdows that they should be permitted to marry and get children Now the widdows of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons could not do so without adultery by the Papists own tenent of the indissolubility of the knot of Matrimony 3. ad Oceanum in multis uxoribus liberos spargeâ—e The Fathers here are for us St.
that was the fault of the reformers saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation Add to this the King protested he reformed out of conscience his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own by the Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245. all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation and yet the putting away of this wife must bee called a carnal interest yea our freedome from their superstitious austerity and prayers the doctrine of Devils the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning fornication or many Concubines this must be called a carnal interest and as if this had not been sufficient we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent hee will ask us next I suppose whether wee dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven or a Sun in the firmament for let any man read the History of that Council and the Review of it writ by a learned Roman Catholick and he will finde the many carnal interests of that Council to be as apparent CHAP. XXV Protestants not obliged to be opponents sect 1. Mr. C's rediculous Arguments sect 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer sect 3. An answer to the first ibid. To the second sect 4. To the third sect 5 6. To the fourth sect 7. What conditions we require from him sect 8. IN the sixth sect Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. Wee are told that Catholicks cannot bee obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome Answ This is very unreasonable for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be beleived Mr. C. p. 235. then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary principles contained in divine Revelation it follows that what doctrines they propose to us to be beleived they must bee proposed as such and our assent must bee required to them as such and such an assent the Church of Rome requires of us to all the particulars disputed in this Book Now seeing to assent to them as such without evidence that they are so is evidently to lye and say the Lord saith when hee hath not said it is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations seeing by so doing we evince that to bee rquired to assent to them is to bee required to lye and therefore seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them as a condition of her communion shee must demonstrate that shee hath reason so to do or else acknowledge her condition is unjust as being the profession of a lye We are told indeed that you were in possession of those doctrines or most of them for above a thousand years but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer In civilibus causis ubi jus possessionis valet qui possidet pulsatur loco quem tenet cedere compellitur in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet Qui se possessores esse affirmant ii nos petunt id agunt id urgent ac contendunt ut nos suam illam quam jactunt possessionem secum adeamus postulant enim a nobis ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant Ergo si causae totius ingenium si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id quod intendit probare omnino hoc istis incumbere ut veris legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam Dal. l. 1. de demonst fidei ex Scripturis c. 4. You go on and say that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes 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 neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate yea of the universal Church and this as far as any records can be produced Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence and so abundantly proved that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy viz. from divine right it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation nor ever appears to have had is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that hee hath said to the contrary sect 2 3 4 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof 2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession and therefore by your own grounds are not bound to produce their evidences but you who seek to dispossess them if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution p. 50. against which no prescription pleads hee onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that hee hath had it nearer Christs time Wee Answ Be it so yet must their title stand good till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christs time then they which you will never be able to do 3. Seeing this title is held by divine right and no other pleadable is it not evidence sufficient against this plea to shew that there is no such right for it to build on which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it 4. If it had been our parts to oppose wee doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei Sch. dis p. 29. by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles which survived St. Peter should be subjected to his successors Bishops of Rome which yet they must have been if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession and by the many ages before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian Lastly When the dispute is whether our separation from your Church be the sin of Schism herein 't is impossible that we should be any other than defendants or you any other than opponents for when you accuse us of Schism surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good and 't is sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us Your seventh sect is the strangest inconsequence imaginable put it into Syllogism and it runs thus if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible that is that some members of those that profess the Christian faith shall bee kept in all truth necessary to salvation then must the proofs that