must differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Eathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in fid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2 Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church Aud as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observes which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged wiih Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction
and will not rebel against the Government that God hath placed immediatly over us This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholick and all particular Churches both in Doctrine Worship and Government and the main exception against her is that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome a Power not known as now claimed to the Ancient Church a Power when once foreseen warned against as Antichristian by a Pope himself and when usurped condemned by a General Council And lastly such a Power as those that claim it are not agreed about among themselves But the charge of Schism falls after another sort upon our Roman Adversaries who have disturbed the Vniversal and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon of the Scripture Apocriphal Books by adding to the revealed will of God groundless Traditions by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches and as for Worship how have they not corrupted it by Substraction taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance the Cup from the Laity c. by additions infinite to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship to childish Superstitions and some say dangerous Idolatry Lastly As to Government they have plainly separated themselves both from the Ancient and present Catholick Church and all other particular Churches by usurping a Dominion condemned by the Ancient and that cannot be owned without betraying the Liberty of the present Church By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion and as it is said by Excommunicating for Non-obedience to these Impositions not only the Church of England but three Parts of the Christian World The proof on both sides we are to expect in due place SECT IV. The Conditions of Schism Causless Voluntary THe fourth and last thing considerable Condition in the Definition is the Condition which adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation which is twofold it must be Causeless and Voluntary 1. It must be voluntary Separation or denial Voluntary of Communion but of this I shall say nothing a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it saying who knows not that every sin is voluntary S. W Causless 2. It must be causless or as it is usually expressed without sufficient cause 't is a Rule generally allowed that the Cause makes the Schism i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation there is the Schism if not the cause of Schism is in the Separatist and consequently where the cause is found there the charge of Schism resteth I know 't is said that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church and therefore this Condition is needless but they ever mean by the true Church the Catholick Church 'T is granted the Catholick Church cannot be supposed to give such cause she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth wherein the means of Salvation can be only found therefore we rarely meet with any such condition in the Definitions of Schism given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind that separated from the whole Church But hence to infer that we cannot have just cause to separate from the Church of Rome will be found bad Logick However if we could grant this Condition to be needless it cannot be denied to be true and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause is an eternal verity and if the cause be supposed just cannot be said to be unjust seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin the Act is justified while it is condemned Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church then if at last we find that the Church of Rome is no more there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie But the Cause must not be pretended to effect beyond its influence or Sufficiency Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church farther than he hath cause for beyond its Activity that which is said to be a cause is no cause Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation and that known Rule that we may not totally separate from a true Church and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin The Reason is evident because the truth and very being of a Christian Church implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it hath an agreement both of Union and Communion Far be it from us therefore to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church yea we franckly and openly declare that we still retain Communion out of fraternal charity with the Church of Rome so far as she is a true Church Only protesting against her Vsurpations and reforming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty SECT V. The Application of Schism Not to our Church IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church or any particular Church either by separation from or denying Communion with it much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England But she hath not thus divided whether we respect the Act or the Cause With respect to the Act viz. Division We 1. In the Act. argue if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation that it was before then by the Reformation we have made no such Division for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own as it was before the Reformation as our Adversaries grant And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before we hold the same Communion for substance or essentials with every other Church now that we did before But for Substance we have the same Faith the same Worship the same Government now that we had before the Reformation and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity Indeed the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion and determine their Additions to be such But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden and Botches of the essence of a Man We have the same Creed to a word and in the same sence by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. that in a general Council they did forbid all persons under
urged for the P. 254. c. Popes or the Churches Infallibility let them peruse Dr. Stillingfleet in defence of my Lord of Canterbury and Mr. Pool's Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject CHAP. XVI II. Arg. For Infallibility viz. Tradition Concessions 4. Propositions 3. Arguments Objections Answered THat the difference may not seem wider than indeed it is we shall make way for our discussion of this Argument by a few but considerable Concessions 1. We yield that Tradition truly Catholick is Apostolical Truly Catholick that is in all the three known Conditions ab omnibus semper ubique For we cannot imagine that any thing should be believed or practised by all Learned Christians at all times and in all places as a point of Christian Religion that was not receiv'd as such either from Christ himself or his Apostles 2. We grant that Tradition hath been and ever will be both useful and necessary for the delivering down to the Faith of the Church in all succeeding Ages both the Canon of the Scripture and the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion The necessity hereof ariseth from the distance of Time and Place and must be supposed upon the Succession of Generations in the Church after the removal of the first Preachers and Writers and consequently the first deliverers thereof 3. We need not stick to agree that Tradition is Infallible if we abuse not the term too rigidly in conveying and preserving the substance of Religion which I was much enclined to believe before and am now much encouraged to express after I had read the learned and ingenious book of the Several ways of resolving Faith he concludes p. 129. the Necessaries to Salvation should ever fail to be practically transmitted from Generation to Generation is alike impossible as that multitudes of People should not in every Age be truly desirous of their own and their Posterities everlasting happiness seeing it is a thing both so easie to be done and so necessary to Salvation By the substance of Christian Religion I mean the Credenda and the Agenda or as he doth the Creed the Lords Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Two Sacraments 4. We may for ought I see to the contrary Gratifie the Author of Rushworth's Dialogues and the Abettors of that late new found Tradition of the present Church of Rome For every Church of Christ as such hath possession of the substance of Christian Religion and without it cannot be a Church And I am sure by this Concession the great Argument for Tradition is allowed and we are so far agreed in a main point I am troubled we must now differ but our Propositions shall be such as none that have weighed Antiquity can well doubt of them We affirm that whatsoever matter of Faith 1 Prop. or Practice is not derived from the first hands by Tradition Catholick as explained in the first Concession is not necessary to Salvation For 't is agreed if it were it would have been preserved by Tradition But it is against all Sence to believe that 2 Prop. Tradition is sufficient to secure us from all Additions to the first Faith or Additions and Alterations in Ceremonies and Worship or any thing that is not necessary to Salvation and herein indeed lies the Controversie for if Midwifes Nurses Parents and Tutors have as it is said Tradition in their hands and hold themselves obliged not to poyson little Babes as soon as they can receive Instructions accordingly and Tradition could not possibly admit or deliver any thing but what is necessary to salvation it were not possible for any Error to obtain in the Church or with any one Party or even Member of it but truth would be equally Catholick with Tradition and then Charity will not suffer us to believe that the Jews that kept the Law should be guilty of any vain Traditions contrary to our Saviour's Reproofs or that there should be any such Parties as Hugonites and Protestants in the World or such various Sects in the Church of Rome it self or so many Successive Additions to the Faith and Worship of that Church as none may have the confidence to deny have happened Vincentius speaks very truly saith Rigaltius Observ in Cyp. p. 147. and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by Fools or Knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions and we add by zealously superstitious men or by men tempted as is evident they were about the time of Easter and Rebaptization in the beginning to pretend Tradition to defend their Opinions when put to it in Controversie It further follows that the Infallibility of 3 Prop. the Pope or Court of Rome or Church in Matters of Faith is no necessary Point of Faith because it is not delivered down to us as such by lawful i. e. Catholick Tradition this is the Point Now here we justly except against the Testimony of the present Oral Tradition of the Roman Church or Tradition revers'd because it cannot secure us against additions to the Faith It is no evidence that Tradition was always the same in that point it cannot bear against all Authentick History to the contrary That Popes and Councils and Fathers and the Church too have erred in their belief and practice is past all doubt by that one instance of the Communion of Infants for some hundred of Years together which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent Yea that there was no such Tradition of the Pope's or the Church of Rome's Infallibility in ancient times is as manifest by the oppositions betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches which could not consist with such Tradition or belief of it And for the Church of England had she owned such Tradition her ancient Bishops would not have contended with and rejected his Messenger St. Austin and his Propositions together Neither can any considering man imagine that the Tradition of the Popes Infallibility is Catholick or generally received and believed in the Church of Rome at this day 'T is well known many of their eminent men renounce it and indeed the Pope himself doth not believe it or he does not believe that all his Doctors believe it For if he does believe both why does he not make use of his Talent and put an end to all the scandalous broils and Ruptures occasioned by the Doctrinal differences and Disputes among the several factions of his Church and have peace within his own Borders But this admits no Answer 'T is said by the Romanist that Universal Traditions are recorded in the Fathers of every succeeding Age and 't is reasonably spoken It behoves him as to the present point to shew us in some good Authors in every age since the Apostles this Tradition for Infallibility then indeed he hath done something which ought to be done But till that be done we must adhere that there
is no such ground of the Popes Authority over us as his Infallibility proved by Scripture or Tradition This proof I think was never yet so much as undertaken and may be expected Hoc opus est 'T is observed by Dr. Stillingfleet that there is but one eminent place in Antiquity produced on their side in the behalf of Traditions and that is out of St. Basil de sp sanc ad Amphilo But the Book with just reason is suspected Three of the Traditions mentioned in the place are the Consecration of the Person to be Baptized the standing at the Prayers until Pentecost and above all the Trine Immersion in Baptism The two first of these are not acknowledged by the present Church of Rome and the last by the very Council of Trent is pronounced not to be of Apostolical Tradition Here is not one word touching any Tradition for the Infallibility of the Church but indeed much reason against it For either the present Church at that time was actually deceived and took that to be Apostolical which was not so or the present Church in the Council of Trent took that not to be Apostolical which indeed was so and was actually deceived in her Judgment and determination to the contrary For those words of that Author parem vim habent ad pietatem unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up Piety with the written word put the dilemma beyond exception as those known words of Hom. 29. de tri To. 1. the true Basil That it is a manifest falling from the Faith and an Argument of Arrogancy either to reject any point of those things which are written or to bring in any of those things which are not written make it justly suspitious that the Book extolling unwritten Traditions was none of his Bellarmine's three Arguments 1. The Fathers say the sentence of general Councils admits of no Appeal 2. Such as submit not to them are Hereticks 3. Such Sentence is Divine prove their Authority but not their Infallibility and the force of such Sentence is from Scripture Syst fid 1. c. 26. Nu. 2. or Reason or Miracles or approbation of the whole Church as Occham and Santa Clara after St. Augustine affirm Therefore the Fathers generally allow us liberty of examination and derogate Faith from all men beside the Apostles CHAP. XVII Arg. III For Infallibility from Reason 3 Reasons answered Point Argued Retorted 'T Is Confess'd that though Scripture and Tradition prove it not yet if there be indeed any sound Reason which is a kind of divine Law for the Pope's Infallibility that will go a great way But it doubtless ought to be very clear and strong reason that is able to carry it in so great a point without either Scripture or Tradition Let us hearken Perhaps we have Tradition offering its Service R. 1. to Reason in another form and the Argument may stand thus Tradition is Infallible but the Pope in the Church of Rome is the Keeper of Tradition therefore thereby the Pope is Infallible This Argument indeed hath countenance Ans from Antiquity For Iraeneus adviseth his Adversaries who pretended Tradition to go to Rome and there they might know what was true and Apostolical Tradition for there it was preserved But how could that father assure us that Rome would always be a faithful preserver of true Apostolical Tradition What security could he give to after Ages against innovations and additions to Tradition it self in the Church of Rome Remember what hath been said that Tradition can be thought infallible only in the substantials of Religion and consequently cannot protect either it self or the Church from additional errors in other things Besides in the Substantials of Religion the Protestant Churches have the benefit of Tradition as well as the Church of Rome and if that carry Infallibility with it our Church is infallible as well as the Church of Rome and consequently thereby hath a Right to govern it's self But the great Reason always gloried in is Reas 2 from the Wisdom and Prudence of our blessed Saviour who had he not intended to afford the assistance of Infallibility to the succeeding Pastors of his Church to lead them when assembled in a general Council he had built his Church upon the Sâ—nd as A. C. argues with his Grace of Canterbury Admit the necessity of this Assistance to the Ans Pastors of the Church what is this to prove the government of the Church in the Pope because of his Infallibility But if our Saviour should not have assured us that he will thus assist his Church in all Ages as you cannot shew how do you know he hath intended it and how unchristian is your Reason to impeach your Saviour with the inference of Folly and as at other times with Ignorance and imposture if he hath not Take heed hath not our Saviour built his Church upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and is this Sand in the Roman Sence Is not Christ himself the chief Corner-Stone Is he Sand too Doth not he that keepeth his Sayings build upon a Rock as firm as the decrees of a general Council Where hath our Saviour given us the least intimation that inherent Infallibility is the only Rock to secure the Church from Error Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the Doctrine of Christ had there never been a general Council What was the Church built upon the Sand only before the Council of Nice why did it not then fall in the Storms of Persecution Did not the Apostles commit the doctrine of Christ to writing Is not Tradition the great mean of delivering the Scriptures and all things needful to Salvation by your own Arguments may not the latter be done by Nurses and Tutors c. without a general Council and if there be lesser differences in the Church is the Foundation subverted presently and may not those lesser differences among Christians be healed with Argument or at least quieted and the peace of the Church preserved by the decrees of Councils without Infallibility how unreasonable is it to deny it We grant saith Doctor Stillingfleet Infallibility P. 259. in the Foundation of Faith we declare the owning of that Infallibility is that which makes men Christians the body of whom we call the Church we further grant that Christ hath left in that Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity but we cannot discern either in Scripture Antiquity or Reason that such Infallibility is necessary for the Churches preservation by the Councils of succeeding Pastors much less a living and standing Infallible Judge as the Head of the Church But they say the Infinite Dissentions and Divisions Object R. 3. amongst those that deny it make this necessary How is it in the Roman Church are there Answ no Divisions there or is the sole Remedy Ineffectual yea are there no differences there about Infallibility it self the Manner and Subject of it are
for Primates over Provinces not for an universal Monarch either over the world or the whole Church 2. The Church cannot be propogated as Bell. argues without a universal Monarch to send Arg. 2 Preachers into other Provinces c. Who can doubt but that the Governors of any Ans Church have as much Power to send any of her members and have as much power in Pagan and Infidel Countries as the supposed Vniversal Bishop And if Hereticks can propagate their errors why should not the Orthodox the Truth without the Pope 3. 'T is necessary saith Bellar. that all the Arg. 3 faithful should have one Faith which cannot be without one chief Judge In necessaries they may in other things they Ans need not as appears sufficiently among the Romanists about this as well as other points neither could Peter himself with the help of the rest of the Apostles in their time prevent Heresies and Schisms These things are too weak to bear up the great power and Vniversal Monarchy pretended and indeed an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of Christ if he have not provided such a Government for his Church as they plead a necessity of for the said ends The thing next to be enquired 2. Not from Scripture Prophesies Promises Metaphors or Example of High-Priest They affirm that the Scriptures evince an universal Monarchy over the Church but how is it proved The Prophecies and Promises and sundry Metaphors Arg. of a House Kingdom Body Flock c. prove the Church to be one in it self and consequently it must have one Supreme Governor We are agreed that the Church is but one and that it hath one Supreme Governor And Ans we are agreed that Christ hath the Supreme Government of it and that those Scriptures too signifie that he is such if we consider the Government to be Imperial as Hart confesseth to Dr. Raynolds And thus the Argument passeth without any harm but it still rests to be proved that the ministerial Governor is but one or that the Scriptures intend so or St. Peter or the Pope as his Successor is that one Governor over the whole Church 'T is true as our Saviour saith there is one Flock and one Shepherd but 't is as true which he saith in the same place I am that good Shepherd but as that one principal Pastor had many Vicars not Peter only but 12 Apostles to gather and feed the Sheep who were therefore sent to Preach to all Nations And did as it said divide the World into 12 Provinces respectively So that one great Monarch might have many Viceroy's if we may so call the future Bishops to govern the Church though in Faith but one yet in site and place divided 'T is no unreasonable thing that the King of Brittain and Ireland should Govern Scotland and Ireland which lye at some distance from him by his Deputations as before was hinted There was one High-Priest over the Church of the Jews and by Analogy it ought to be so Arg. 2 in the Christian Church Many things were in that Church which ought Ans not to be in this They were one Nation as well as one Church and if every Christian Nation have one High-Priest the Analogy holds well enough The making the Nations of the World Christian hath as experience shews rendred the Government of the Church by one person that cannot reside in all places very inconvenient if not impracticable Now if our Saviour foresaw this and hath ordered the government of the Christian Church otherwise than Moses had that of the Jews who shall say What hast thou done 2. It can never be proved that the High-Priest Vid. Ray. and Hart. p. 240. over the Jews was either called the Judge or had such Power over that Church as the Pope pretends over the Christian Lastly 't is not doubted but Moses was Faithful and Christ as faithful in appointing a fit Government for these great and distinct States of the Church But what kind of Government Moses appointed is nothing to the question unless it appear that Christ hath appointed the same The proper question is whether Christ hath appointed that the Christian Church should be governed by one universal Monarch let us apply to that The great issue is the instance of St. Peter 'T is affirmed that our Lord committed the Government of the Christian Church to St. Peter and his Successors the Popes of Rome for ever A Grant of so great consequence ought to be Ar. 3. Peter very plain the whole World is concern'd and may expect Evidence very clear 1. That Christ gave this universal Supremacy to St. Peter And 2. To the Pope as his Successor if either fail Roma Ruit SECT II. Of St. Peter's Monarchy Tu es Petrus Fathers abused VVE are now come to the quick The first great question is Whether Christ gave his Apostle St. Peter the Government of his whole Church This would be proved from Matth. 1 Scrip. Matth. 16 18. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church The Argument is what Christ promised he gave but in these words Christ promised to make Peter the Supreme Head and Governor of his Church therefore this Power was given him If this Argument conclude by this Rock Ans must be meant St. Peter and the words I will build my Church upon it must signifie the committing the Supreme Power of the Church to him For the First It is at least a controversie among the ancient Fathers and many of them do deny that by this Rock we are to understand any thing but that Confession which was evidently the occasion of this Promise and was made by Peter just before as St. Cyril Hilary Jerom Ambrose Basil and St. Augustine whose Lapsus humanus in it is reproved by Stapleton Princ. doct li. 6. c. 3. But I am willing to agree as far as we may and therefore shall not deny but something peculiar to St. Peter's Person was here promised though I believe it was a point of Honour not a Supremacy of Power what that was will appear by the thing promised I will build my Church that is upon my Doctrine preached by thee I will build my Church thou shalt have the honour of being a prime and principal Author of the Worlds Conversion or as Dr. Reynolds against Hart Peter was in order with the first who believed P. 60. and amongst those First he had a mark of Honour in that he was named Stone above his Brethren Yet as he so the Rest are called Foundations and indeed so were in both these Sences For the Twelve were all Prime Converts and converters of others and were Foundations in their respective Provinces on which others were built But they were not built one upon another and they had no other Foundation on which they themselves were built but Christ himself We are willing to any thing that the Sence of the words will conveniently bear but that
Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysins so utterly Dionysins silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 2â—0 The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Tertullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To. inter Epist illust person 147. And it is decreed saith the Church of Carthage we consult our Brethren Syricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicius Bishop of Milain Concil Carth. 3. c. 48. The like we have observed out of Origen Clemens Alex. Cyprian c. before Hence it follows that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils had no knowledge of the Popes Supremacy and we have
we ought to submit our selves to the guidance of the Pope as a good and wise man or as a Friend as our Ancestors did and not as our Lord. The true Question is whether God hath given the power of Government to the Pope and directly appointed him to be the Vniversal Pastor of his Church on Earth so that the Controversie will bear us down to the last Chapter what ever can be said here and Infallibility is such a Medium as infallibly runs upon that Solicism of Argument obscurum per obscurius and indeed if there be any inseperable Connexion betwixt Infallibility and the Vniversal Pastorship as is pretended the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor under Christ then there is no necessity that any one man should be qualified for it with this wonderful grace of Infallibility But it doth not appear that God hath invested any one man with that Power therefore not with that Grace But least this Great Roman Argument should suffer too much let us at present allow the Consequence but then we must expect very fair Evidence of the Assumption viz. that the Pope is indeed Infallible I am aware that there are some vexing Questions about the Manner and Subject of this Infallibility but if we will put them out of the way then the Evidence of the Pope's or Church of Rome's Infallibility breaks out from three of the greatest Topicks we can desire Scripture Tradition and Reason let them be heard in their Order SECT I. Argument from Scripture for Infallibility viz. Example High Priest of the Jews Apostles VVHether it be an excess or defect of Charity in me I know not but I cannot bring my self to believe that the fiercest Bigot of Popery alive can seriously think the Pope Infallible in the Popish Sence of the Word especially that the holy Scriptures prove it I know that some flie the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible 't is so as it is Representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other and how shall that which is Common to all give power to one over all or what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch But the Pope is the Head and Universal Bishop as he is Bishop of Rome that is begging a great question indeed for the proof of the Pope's Infallibility which his Infallibility ought to prove and to prove the Medium by the thing in question after a new Logick Besides if the proper Seat of Infallibility be the Church in either of the Sences it concerns our Adversaries to solve Divine Providence who use to argue for this wonderful gift in the Church if there be no Infallibility God hath not sufficiently provided for the safety of Souls and the Government of his Church for seeing the Church diffusive cannot be imagined to govern it self but as Collected and seeing as the Christian World is now circumstantiated it is next to impossible we should have a General and free Council how shall this so necessary Infallible Grace in the Church be exerted upon all occasions for the Ends aforesaid It is therefore most Consonant to the Papal Interest and Reason to lodge this Infallible gift in the Pope or Court of Rome however let us attend their Arguments for the evidence of it either in the Pope or Court or Church of Rome in any acception which is first drawn from Scripture both Examples and Promises 1. From Scripture Examples they reason Arg. thus the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Low were Infallible therefore the Pope and his Clergy are so now the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Law were so as appears Deut. 17. 8. where in doubts the people were bound to submit and stand to their Judgment which supposeth them Infallible in it as A. C. argues with Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 97. n. 1. Dr. Stillingfleet with others hath exposed this Ans Argument beyond all reply In short the Consequence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the proof of Infallibility viz. That the Pope is High-Priest of the Christian Church and we must still expect an Argument for the Popes Headship if this must be granted that we may prove him Infallible to the end we may prove his Headship Were it said to the Christian Church when any Controversie of Faith ariseth go to Rome and there enquire the judgment of the Bishop and believe his determinations to be Infallible there had been no need of this consequence but seeing we read no such thing the consequence is worth nothing Besides the minor affirming the Infallibility Minor of the High-Priest from that Law of Appeale in Deut. 17. 8. is justly questioned There was indeed an obligation on the Jews to submit and stand to the judgment of that high Court but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgment Infallible The same obligation lies upon Christians in all judiciary Causes especially upon the last Appeal to submit in our practices though not in our judgment or Conscience to believe that what is determined to be Infallibly true A violence that neither the whole world nor a mans self can sometimes do to the Reason of a man The Text is so plain not to concern matters of Doctrine to be decided whether true or false but matters of Justice to be determined whether right or wrong that one would think the very reading of it should put an end for ever to this debate about it The words are viz. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea and between Stroke and Stroke being matters of Controversie within thy Gates Then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the Place which the Lord thy God shall chuse c. Thus God established a Court of Appeals a Supreme Court of Judicature to which the last application was to be made both in case of Injury and in case of Difficulty called the great Sanhedrin But note here is no direction for address to this Court but when the case had been first heard in the lower Courts held in the Gates of the Cities Therefore the Law concerned not the momentous Controversies in Religion which never came under the Cognizance of those inferior Courts Therefore it is not said whosoever doth not Deut. 17. â—2 believe the Judgment given to be true but whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it And the man that will not hearken but do presumptuously even that man shall die Besides God still supposeth a possibility of Error in the whole Congregation of Israel Lev. 4. 15. and chargeth the Priests with Ignorance and forsaking his way frequently by the Prophets But alas where was the Infallibility of the High-Priest c. when our
the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest for Obj. he is charged to feed all the Sheep the whole Church Now the Rest of the Apostles were Christs Sheep and members of his Church Hart and Ray. p 129. Christ saith not to Peter feed all my Sheep Ans but he doth say to them all Preach to every Creature And if Peter have power over the rest because they are Sheep and he is to feed the Sheep then every one of the rest have power over Peter because he is a Creature and they are to preach to every Creature But this is trifling so is all that is further argued from this Text though by Feeding we understand Ruling Ruling of Pastors or what you will while whatsoever was charged on Peter here is within the same Commission wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally impowered as before and that of Bellarmine that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the Apostles as extraordinary Embassadors is altogether as groundless as if there were any colour of Reason that an ordinary Pastor should have more power than an extraordinary Embassador Dr. Hammond observes Bellarmine was not 13 Oct. 1562. the Author of that Artifice Cajetan and Victoria had used it before him and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent where the Bishop of Granada derided it and the Authors of it and soon after the Bishop of Paris expresly affirmed that Cajetan was about 50 years before the first deviser of it The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture as understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen as he affirmed Concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11. To conclude this matter Feed my Sheep are not a ground for the Popes Presidency which are found not to be so of Peter's above the body of the Universal Church as was publickly pronounced in the Covent of the Fryers Minors and appears by the Opusc of John Patriarch of Antioch And Cardinal Cusanus who lived at the same De Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 23. time makes them words of Precept not of Institution and both are agreeable to the interpretation of the Ancients St. Ambrose de dign Sacerd. c. 2. Aug. de Ago Christiano c. 30. Theoph. in Joh. c. 21 c. It is time to look further The third great Luk. 22. 31 place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being converted strengthen thy Brethren Whence Hart reasons thus Christ commands Peter to strengthen Rayn and Hart. p. 142. his Brethren and his Brethren were the Apostles Therefore he was to strengthen the Apostles and by consequence he must be their Supreme Head When Hart urged this Argument with all Ans his wit and might and Dr. Raynolds had made it evident there is no Authority given by the words nor carried in the word Strengthen that Equals and Inferiors are capable of it as well as Superiors much less can it necessarily imply a Supremacy over the whole Church he confesseth with Stapleton that Christ gave the Power to Peter after his Resurrection when he said to him Feed my Lambs which we have weighed before but those words of strengthning c. he spake before his death and did but futuram insinuaverat insinuate therein and as Harts word is that he would make him Supreme Head then if he did not make him so afterward he did it not at all That Peter had power over the rest of the 4 Scrip. Apostles would be proved as before from the Promise and Commission of Christ so at last by Act. 1. 25. Peter's Execution he proposed the Election of a new Apostle in the Room of Judas Therefore he was Speaker at least pro tempore Ans in the Assembly but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch But St. Chrysostom saith that though Peter's Obj. modesty was commendable for doing all things In Matth. 40. 51. by common advice and consent and nothing by his own Authority yet addeth that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him Ans In Matth. Hom. 15. by the rest a Primacy not a Supremacy Again he derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apostles not the donation of Christ as Hart Rayn Hart. p. 156. confesseth But indeed the Father exceeded in his Charity and 't is he that said that Peter might have chosen one himself The Scripture saith not that he might yea it saith he did not And the Argument from Peter's Execution of this power is come to this that he did not execute it Besides many Fathers and in Council too together with St. Cyprian pronounce that Peter proposing the matter to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice did according to the lessons and Precepts of God therefore jure divino they thought Peter had no such power as Dr. Raynolds shews p. 159. But when Peter had been heard all the Multitude 5 Scrip. Act. 15. held their peace and James and all the Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence What is this to prove his Supremacy because Ans the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him was therefore Gamaliel a Pharisee a Doctor of the Law whom all the People honoured Supreme Act. 3. 34. Head and Superior to the High-Priest and Council And if Jerom say Peter was Princeps Decreti he acknowledged perhaps the Reason the Motion and the Delivery or declaration of it principally to Peter the first Author of the Sentence as the same Jerom calls him and explains himself Epist 11. inter Epistol August So was Pro Cor. Balbo Tully called viz. Prince of Decrees when he was neither President nor Prince of the Senate We conclude that Peter had no Superiority of Power or Government over the rest of the Apostles or the whole Church because it neither was promised him nor given him nor Peter added Nihil doctrinae aut potestatis Aquinas Not inferior to the chief Apost 2 Cor. 11. 5. Executed by him notwithstanding Bellarmine's 28 Prerogatives of St. Peter from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue many of them being uncertain some vain and trifling and some common with the rest of the Apostles but neither divisim or conjunctim sufficient to make or to evince any real Supremacy of power in St. Peter 5. 'T is indeed said by some of the Fathers So Paul judged Chris Hom. 12. 2. 87. that the Government of the World and the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but it is plain they speak of his Apostleship for they say the same of Paul ille Solusgerebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orbis praefectam suscepit and the like of Timothy who was never reputed Vniversal Monarck Paul and Peter had two different Primacies Saint Hom. 1. ad Pop. Orat. 6. Con. Jud. Ambr. had the same Dignity Chrisost were
equal Oecumenius CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession I Have laboured the more to scatter the pretences of Saint Peter's Supremacy because though the Consequence be not good from that to the Popes yet 't is a Demonstration that if Saint Peter had it not the Pope cannot have it as his Successor Jure divino We must leave Saint Peter's Supremacy to stand or fall to the Reason of the Discourse before and must now examine the Plea of Successor and the Pope's Authority over the Church as he is Successor to Saint Peter Now that it may appear we love not quarrelling we shall not dispute whether Peter was a Bishop of a particular See whether he was ever at Rome whether Rome was at first converted by him whether he was Bishop of Rome whether he resided there for any considerable time whether he died there whether the Pope had any honour as his Successor or lastly whether the Pope had the Primacy of all Bishops in the former Ages of the Church 't is well known that few Adversaries would let you run away quietly with all or any one of these Yet there are two things that I shrewdly question 1. Whether the Pope had at first the Primacy it self as Successor of Saint Peter 2. Much more whether by that Succession he received Supreme Power over the whole Church Jure Divino the main Point to be proved is the last yet it may be worth the while to examine the first SECT I. Whether the Primacy of Peter descended to the Bishops of Rome Neg. IT doth not appear that Saint Peter had his Peter Primate Primacy over the rest of the Apostles as Bishop much less as Bishop of Rome but the contrary doth appear 1. Because he was Primate long before he Reas 1 was Bishop if he was so at all and therefore Before if he was Primate ratione Muneris or with respect to any Office it was that of his Apostleship and not of his Episcopacy the Consequence then is evident that the Pope could not succeed Saint Peter in the Primacy as Bishop of Rome or indeed in any Sence for the Apostolical Office was extraordinary and did not descend by Succession as the Romanists yield That Saint Peter was Primate not as Bishop Not as Bishop but was antecedently so it is most apparent upon the Grounds of it allowed and pleaded by our Adversaries because he was first called to the Apostleship he was named the first of the Apostles he had the first promise of the Keys he was the first Converter of the Gentiles c. Privilegium personale cum persona extinguitur Jesuit Salas. 2. Indeed the Primacy of Saint Peter arose Reas 2 On personal respects from such personal respects and grounds that rendred it incapable of Succession and therefore none could derive that Prerogative though they had succeeded him both as Bishop and Apostle These Prerogatives of Saint Peter which Bellarmine himself laies down as the Grounds and Arguments of his Primacy are generally such at least all of them that appear in the Scriptures all of them but such as either beg the question or depend on notorious Fables as appears at first view 1. Saint Peter was Primate because his Name 21 Prerogatives Bell. was changed by Christ 2. Because he was always first named 3. He alone walked on the Waters 4. He had peculiar Revelation 5. He paid Tribute with Christ 6. He was the chief in the miraculous fishing 7. He is commanded to strengthen his Brethren 8. He was the first of the Apostles that saw Christ risen from the dead 9. His feet Christ first washed 10. Christ foretold his death to him alone 11. He was President at the Election of Matthias 12. He first preach'd after the Holy Ghost was given 13. He did the first Miracle 14. He condemned the hypocrisie of Ananias c. 15. He passed through all quarters Acts 9. 32. 16. He first preach'd to the Gentiles 17. He was miraculously delivered out of prison 18. Paul envied him 19. Christ baptized him alone 20. He detected and condemned Simon Magus 21. He spake first in the Council Acts 15. These are 21 of the Prerogatives of Saint Peter which Bellarmine makes Grounds and Arguments of his Primacy which if one say them over and endeavour to apply them to any but Saint Peter's individual person it will appear impossible the reasons of this Primacy cannot be supposed out of Peter's person therefore Argum. the Primacy cannot pass to his Successor mark them and you will find they are all either Acts done by Saint Peter or Graces received by him and so personally in him that whatsoever depends on them must needs die with Saint Peter's person and cannot be inherited by his Successor Indeed this Primacy rose of such Grounds and was in Saint Peter by Consequence of them had the Primacy been an Office or a Grace given of or in or for it self without respect to any of these Grounds there had been some shadow and but a shadow for its Succession but it having an essential dependence on those Reasons which were peculiar and proper to Saint Peter's person they cease together But lest it should be thought that there is Other seven Prerog Bell. more of Argument in the other seven Prerogatives which Bellarmine mentioned I beg my Readers pardon to set down them also The first is perpetual stability is promised to Peter and his See 2. He alone was Ordained Bishop by Christ and the Rest by him Card Cusan believes Aneclet Epis Bellarmine proves it counterfeit c. 34. p. 771. Azorius Suarez and Cosm Ph. deny it these plainly beg the thing in question 3. He placed his Seat at Rome 4. Christ appeared to him a little before he died therefore Primate and his Successor too 5. The Churches which he founded were always counted Patriarchal 6. The feast of his chair was celebrated 7. And his Name added to the Name of the Trinity in literis formatis What then was he not yet Primate before all this was not his Primacy founded upon the Reasons above will you say he was not Primate or by virtue of his Primacy was not President in the two Councils mentioned and if that be more than confessed even pleaded by you must not the former personal respects be the Grounds of that Primacy and is it possible for such a Primacy by Succession to descend to any other person none that consider will say it The Fathers acknowledge a Primacy in Saint Fathers Peter but upon such personal grounds as are mentioned Saint Peter was called a Rock saith Serm. 47. Saint Ambrose if the Book he his eò quòd primus in Nationibus c. because he was the first that laid the Foundation of Faith in the World Cerameus gives him likewise primus Aditus Aedificationis spiritualis Christianorum Pontifex primus Petrus Reliquorum Apostolorum Princeps propter virtutis Euseb Amplitudinem He was Prince for