already stated would they have troubled our Lord to inquire of him who should be the greatest in his Kingdom when they knew that our Lord had declared his will to make Saint Peter Viceroy would the Sons of Zebedee have been so foolish and presumptuous as to beg the place which they knew by our Lord's word and promise fixed on Saint Peter would Saint Peter among the rest have fretted at that idle overture whenas he knew the place by our Lord 's immutable purpose and infallible declaration assured to him And if none of the Apostles did understand the words to imply this Roman sense who can be obliged so to understand them yea who can wisely who can safely so understand them for surely they had common sense as well as any man living now they had as much advantage as we can have to know our Lord's meaning their ignorance therefore of this sense being so apparent is not onely a just excuse for not admitting this interpretation but a strong bar against it 4. This interpretation also doth not well consist with our Lord's answers to the contests inquiries and petitions of his Disciples concerning the point of Superiority for doth he not if the Roman expositions be good seem upon those occasions not onely to dissemble his own word and promise but to disavow them or thwart them can we conceive that he would in such a case of doubt forbear to resolve them clearly to instruct them and admonish them of their duty 5. Taking the Rock as they would have it to be the Person of Saint Peter and that on him the Church should be built yet do not the words being a Rock probably denote government for what resemblance is there between being a Rock and a Governour at least what assurance can there be that this metaphor precisely doth import that sense seeing in other respects upon as fair similitudes he might be called so St. Austin saith the Apostles were Foundations because their Authority doth support our weakness St. Hierome saith that they were Foundations because the Faith of the Church was first laid in them St. Basil saith that Saint Peter's Soul was called the Rock because it was firmly rooted in the Faith and did hold stiff without giving way against the blows of temptation Chrysologus saith that Peter had his name from a Rock because he first merited to found the Church by firmness of Faith These are fair explications of the metaphor without any reference to Saint Peter's Government But however also admitting this that being such a Rock doth imply Government and Pastoral Charge yet do they notwithstanding these grants and suppositions effect nothing for they cannot prove the words spoken exclusively in regard to other Apostles or to import any thing singular to him above or beside them He might be a governing Rock so might others be the Church might be built on him so it might be on other Apostles he might be designed a Governour a great Governour a principal Governour so might they also be this might be without any violence done to those words And this indeed was for all the other Apostles in Holy Scripture are called Foundations and the Church is said to be built on them If saith Origen the Father of Interpreters you think the whole Church to be onely built on Peter alone what will you say of John the Son of thunder and of each of the Apostles c. largely to this purpose Christ as St. Hierome saith was the Rock and he bestowed on the Apostles that they should be called Rocks And You say saith he again that the Church is founded on Peter but the same in another place is done upon all the Apostles The twelve Apostles saith another ancient Authour were the immutable Pillars of orthodoxie the Rock of the Church The Church saith St. Basil is built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Peter also was one of the Mountains upon which Rock the Lord did promise to build his Church St. Cyprian in his disputes with Pope Stephen did more than once alledge this place yet could he not take them in their sense to signify exclusively for he did not acknowledge any imparity of Power among the Apostles or their Successours He indeed plainly took these words to respect all the Apostles and their Successours our Lord taking occasion to promise that to one which he intended to impart to all for themselves and their Successours Our Lord saith he ordering the honour of a Bishop and the order of his Church saith to Peter I say to thee c. hence through the turns of times and successions the ordination of Bishops and the manner of the Church doth run on that the Church should be setled upon the Bishops and every Act of the Church should be governed by the same Prelates as therefore he did conceive the Church to be built not on the Pope singularly but on all the Bishops so he thought our Lord did intend to build his Church not upon Saint Peter onely but on all his Apostles 6. It is not said that the Apostles or the Apostolical Office should be built on him for that could not be seeing the Apostles were constituted and the Apostolical Office was founded before that promise the words onely therefore can import that according to some meaning he was a Rock upon which the Church afterward to be collected should be built he was A Rock of the Church to be built as Tertullian speaketh the words therefore cannot signify any thing available to their purpose in relation to the Apostles 7. If we take Saint Peter himself for the Rock then as I take it the best meaning of the words doth import that our Lord designed Saint Peter for a prime Instrument the first mover the most diligent and active at the beginning the most constant stiff and firm in the support of his Truth and propagation of his Doctrine or conversion of men to the belief of the Gospel the which is called building of the Church according to that of St. Ambrose or some ancient Homilist under his name He is called the Rock because he first did lay in the Nations the Foundations of Faith In which regard as the other Apostles are called Foundations of the Church the Church being founded on their labours so might Saint Peter signally be so called who as Saint Basil saith allusively interpreting our Saviour's words for the excellency of his Faith did take on him the edifying of the Church Both he and they also might be so termed for that upon their testimonies concerning the Life Death and Resurrection of Christ the Faith of Christians was grounded as also it stands upon their convincing discourses their holy practice their miraculous performances in all which Saint Peter was most eminent and in the beginning of Christianity displayed them to the edification of the Church This interpretation plainly doth agree with matter
bulk whereas so long ago when it was but in its budd and stripling age it was observed of it by a very honest Historian that the Roman Episcopacy had long since advanced into a high degree of power beyond the Priesthood 3. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by destroying that brotherly co-ordination and equality which our Lord did appoint among the Bishops and chief Pastours of his Church He did as we before shewed prohibit all his Apostles to assume any domination or authoritative Superiority over one another the which command together with others concerning the Pastoral function we may well suppose to reach their Successours so did St. Hierome suppose collecting thence that all Bishops by original Institution are equals or that no one by our Lord's order may challenge Superiority over another Whereever saith he a Bishop is whether at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Thanis he is of the same worth and of the same Priesthood the power of wealth or lowness of poverty do not make a Bishop higher or lower but all are Successours of the Apostles where doth not he plainly deny the Bishop of Eugubium to be inferiour to him of Rome as being no less a Successour of the Apostles than he doth he not say these words in way of proof that the authority of the Roman Bishop or Church was of no validity against the practice of other Bishops and Churches upon occasion of Deacons there taking upon them more than in other places as Cardinal Deacons do now which excludeth such distinctions as Scholastical fancies have devised to shift off his Testimony the which he uttered simply never dreaming of such distinctions This consequence St. Gregory did suppose when he therefore did condemn the Title of Vniversal Bishop because it did imply an affectation of Superiority and dignity in one Bishop above others of abasing the name of other Bishops in comparison of his own of extolling himself above the rest of Priests c. This the ancient Popes did remember when usually in their compellation of any Bishop they did style them Brethren Collegues fellow-Ministers fellow-Bishops not intending thereby complement or mockery but to declare their sense of the original equality among Bishops notwithstanding some differences in Order and Privileges which their See had obtained And that this was the general sense of the Fathers we shall afterward shew Hence when it was objected to them that they did affect Superiority they did sometimes disclaim it so did Pope Gelasius I. a zealous man for the honour of his See 4. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture not onely by trampling down the dignity of Bishops which according to St. Gregory doth imply great pride and presumption but as really infringing the Rights granted by our Lord to his Church and the Governours of it For to each Church our Lord hath imposed a Duty and imparted a Power of maintaining divine Truth and so approving it self a pillar and support of truth of deciding Controversies possible and proper to be decided with due temper ultimately without farther resort for that he who will not obey or acquiesce in its Decision is to be as a heathen or publican Of censuring and rejecting Offenders in Doctrine or Demeanour Those within saith Saint Paul to the Church of Corinth do not ye judge But them that are without God judgeth wherefore put away from among your selves that wicked person Of preserving Order and Decency according to that Rule prescribed to the Church of Corinth let all things be done decently and in order Of promoting edification Of deciding Causes All which Rights and Privileges the Roman Bishop doth bereave the Churches of snatching them to himself pretending that he is the Sovereign Doctour Judge Regulatour of all Churches over-ruling and voiding all that is done by them according to his pleasure The Scripture hath enjoyned and empowered all Bishops to feed guide and rule their respective Churches as the Ministers Stewards Ambassadours Angels of God for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edification of the Body of Christ To them God hath committed the care of their People so that they are responsible for their Souls All which Rights and Privileges of the Episcopal Office the Pope hath invaded doth obstruct cramp frustrate destroy pretending without any warrant that their Authority is derived from him forcing them to exercise it no otherwise than as his Subjects and according to his pleasure But of this Point more afterward 5. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by robbing all Christian People of the Liberties and Rights with which by that Divine Charter they are endowed and which they are obliged to preserve inviolate Saint Paul enjoyneth the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage there is therefore a liberty which we must maintain and a power to which we must not submit and against whom can we have more ground to doe this than against him who pretendeth to dogmatize to define Points of Faith to impose Doctrines new and strange enough on our Consciences under a peremptory obligation of yielding assent to them to prescribe Laws as Divine and necessary to be observed without warrant as those Dogmatists did against whom Saint Paul biddeth us to maintain our Liberty so that if he should declare vertue to be vice and white to be black we must believe him some of his Adherents have said consistently enough with his pretences for Against such tyrannical Invaders we are bound to maintain our Liberty according to that Precept of Saint Paul the which if a Pope might well alledge against the proceedings of a General Synod with much more reason may we thereby justify our non-submission to one man's exorbitant domination This is a Power which the Apostles themselves did not challenge to themselves for We saith Saint Paul have not dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy They did not pretend that any Christian should absolutely believe them in cases wherein they had not Revelation general or special from God in such cases referring their Opinion to the judgment and discretion of Christians They say Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed If any man c. which Precept with many others of the like purport injoyning us to examine the truth to adhere unto the received Doctrine to decline heterodoxies and novelties doth signify nothing if every Christian hath not allowed to him a judgment of discretion but is tyed blindly to follow the dictates of another St. Austin I am sure did think this liberty such that without betraying it no man could be obliged to believe any thing not grounded upon Canonical Authority for
presume of a fair and favourable hearing so did Athanasius Flavianus St. Chrysostome Theodoret apply themselves to the same Bishops flourishing in so great reputation and wealth So did the Monks of Egypt Ammonius and Isidorus from the persecutions of Theophilus fly to the protection and succour of St. Chrysostome which gave occasion to the troubles of that incomparable Personage the which is so illustrious an instance that the words of the Historian relating it deserve setting down They jointly did endeavour that the trains against them might be examined by the Emperour as Judge and by the Bishop John for they conceived that he having conscience of using a just freedom would be able to succour them according to right but he did receive the men applying to him courteously and treated them respectfully and did not hinder them from praying in the Church He also writ to Theophilus to render communion to them as being Orthodox and if there were need of judging their case by law that he would send whom they thought good to prosecute the cause If this had been to the Pope it would have been alledged for an Appeal and it would have had as much colour as any Instance which they can produce 4. And when men either good or bad do resort in this manner to great friends it is no wonder if they accost them in highest terms of respect and with exaggerations of their eminent advantages so inducing them to regard and favour their cause 5. Neither is it strange that great persons favourably should entertain those who make such addresses to them they always coming crouching in a suppliant posture and with fair pretences it being also natural to men to delight in seeing their power acknowledged and it being a glorious thing to relieve the afflicted for Eminence is wont to incline toward infirmity and with a ready good will to take part with those who are under So when Basilides when Marcellus when Eustathius Sebastenus when Maximus the Cynick when Apiarius were condemned the Pope was hasty to engage for them more liking their application to him than weighing their cause 6. And when any person doth continue long in a flourishing estate so that such addresses are frequently made to him no wonder that an opinion of lawfull power to receive them doth arise both in him and in others so that of a voluntary Friend he become an authorized Protectour a Patron a Judge of such persons in such cases X. The Sovereign is fountain of all Jurisdiction and all inferiour Magistrates derive their Authority from his warrant and Commission acting as his Deputies or Ministers according to that intimation in St. Peter whether to the King as Supreme or to Governours as sent by him Accordingly the Pope doth challenge this advantage to himself that he is the fountain of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction pretending all Episcopal power to be derived from him The rule of the Church saith Bellarmine is Monarchical therefore all authority is in one and from him is derived to others the which Aphorism he well proveth from the form of creating Bishops as they call it We do provide such a Church with such a person and we do prefer him to be Father and Pastour and Bishop of the said Church committing to him the administration in temporals and spirituals in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Pope Pius II. in his Bull of Retractation thus expresseth the sense of his See In the militant Church which resembleth the triumphant there is one moderatour and Judge of all the Vicar of Jesus Christ from whom as from the Head all power and authority is derived to the subject members the which doth immediately flow into it from the Lord Christ. A Congregation of Cardinals appointed by Pope Paulus III. speaking after the style and sentiments of that See did say to him Your Holiness doth so bear the care of Christ's Church that you have very many Ministers by which you manage that care these are all the Clergy on whom the service of God is charged especially Priests and more especially Curates and above all Bishops Durandus Bishop of Mande according to the sense of his Age saith The Pope is head of all Bishops from whom they as members from an head descend and of whose fulness all receive whom he calls to a participation of his care but admits not into the fulness of his power This pretence is seen in the ordinary Titles of Bishops who style themselves Bishops of such a place By the grace of God and of the Apostolick See O shame The men of the Tridentine Convention those great betrayers of the Church to perpetual slavery and Christian truth to the prevalency of falshood till God pleaseth do upon divers occasions pretend to qualifie and empower Bishops to perform important matters originally belonging to the Episcopal Function as the Pope's Delegates But contrariwise according to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture and the sense of the Primitive Church the Bishops and Pastours of the Church do immediately receive their Authority and Commission from God being onely his Ministers The Scripture calleth them the Ministers of God and of Christ so Epaphras so Timothy in regard to their Ecclesiastical function are named the Stewards of God the Servants of God Fellow-servants of the Apostles The Scripture saith that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to feed the Church of God that God had given them and constituted them in the Church for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that is to all effects and purposes concerning their Office for the work of the Ministery comprizeth all the duty charged on them whether in way of Order or of Governance as they now do precariously and groundlesly in reference to this case distinguish And edifying the body doth import all the designed effects of their Office particularly those which are consequent on the use of Jurisdiction the which Saint Paul doth affirm was appointed for edification according saith he to the authority which God hath given me for edification and not for destruction They do preside in the Lord. They allow no other Head but our Lord from whom all the body c. The Fathers clearly do express their Sentiments to be the same St. Ignatius saith that the Bishop doth preside in the place of God and that we must look upon him as our Lord himself or as our Lord 's Representative that therefore we must be subject to him as unto Jesus Christ. St. Cyprian affirmeth each Bishop to be constituted by the judgment of God and of Christ and that in his Church he is for the present a Judge in the place of Christ and that our Lord Jesus Christ one and alone hath a power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting St. Basil A
Christians If he claimeth exorbitant Power and exerciseth Oppression and tyrannical Domination over his Brethren cursing and damning all that will not submit to his Dictates and Commands If instead of being a Shepherd he is a Wolf worrying and tearing the Flock by cruel Persecution He by such behaviour ipso facto depriveth himself of Authority and Office He becometh thence no Guide or Pastour to any Christian there doth in such case rest no obligation to hear or obey him but rather to decline him to discost from him to reject and disclaim him This is the reason of the case this the Holy Scripture doth prescribe this is according to the Primitive Doctrine Tradition and Practice of the Church For 10. In reason the nature of any spiritual Office consisting in Instruction in Truth and Guidance in Vertue toward attainment of Salvation if any man doth lead into pernicious Errour or Impiety he thereby ceaseth to be capable of such Office As a blind man by being so doth cease to be a Guide and much more he that declareth a will to seduce for Who so blind as he that will not see No man can be bound to follow any one into the ditch or to obey any one in prejudice to his own Salvation to die in his iniquity Seeing God saith in such a case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrines the Precepts of men They themselves do acknowledge that Hereticks cease to be Bishops and so to be Popes Indeed they cease to be Christians for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a one is subverted 11. According to their Principles the Pope hath the same relation to other Bishops and Pastours of the Church which they have to their people he being Pastour of Pastours But if any Pastour should teach bad Doctrine or prescribe bad Practice his people may reject and disobey him therefore in proportion the Pastours may desert the Pope misguiding or misgoverning them In such cases any Inferiour is exempted from obligation to comply with his Superiour either truly or pretendedly such 12. The case may be that we may not hold communion with the Pope but may be obliged to shun him in which case his Authority doth fail and no man is subject to him 13. This is the Doctrine of the Scripture The High Priest and his fellows under the Jewish Oeconomy had no less Authority than any Pope can now pretend unto they did sit in the Chair of Moses and therefore all their True Doctrines and Lawfull Directions the people were obliged to learn and observe but their false Doctrines and impious Precepts they were bound to shun and consequently to disclaim their Authority so far as employed in urging such Doctrines and Precepts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them alone saith our Saviour they are blind leaders of the blind Under the Christian dispensation the matter is no less clear our Lord commandeth us to beware of false Prophets and to see that no man deceive us although he wear the cloathing of a Sheep or come under the name of a Shepherd coming in his name Saint Paul informeth us that if an Apostle if an Angel from heaven doth preach beside the old Apostolical Doctrine introducing any new Gospel or a Divinity devised by himself he is to be held accursed by us He affirmeth that even the Apostles themselves were not Lords of our faith nor might challenge any power inconsistent with the maintenance of Christian Truth and Piety We saith he can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth the which an ancient Writer doth well apply to the Pope saying that he could doe nothing against the truth more than any of his Fellow-priests could doe which S. Paul did in practice shew when he resisted Saint Peter declining from the truth of the Gospel He chargeth that if any one doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach heterodoxies we should stand off from him that if any brother walketh disorderly and not according to Apostolical tradition we should withdraw from him that if any one doth raise divisions and scandals beside the doctrine received from the Apostles we should decline from him that we are to refuse any heretical person He telleth us that grievous Wolves should come into the Church not sparing the flock that from among Christians there should arise men speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them but no man surely ought to follow but to shun them These Precepts and Admonitions are general without any respect or exception of Persons great or small Pastour or Lay-man nay they may in some respect more concern Bishops than others for that they declining from truth are more dangerous and contagious 14. The Fathers in reference to this case do clearly accord both in their Doctrine and Practice St. Cyprian telleth us that a people obedient to the Lord's commandments and fearing God ought to separate it self from a sinfull Bishop that is from one guilty of such sins which unqualifie him for Christian Communion or Pastoral charge and Let not addeth he the common people flatter it self as if it could be free from the contagion of guilt if it communicate with a sinfull Bishop whose irreligious Doctrine or Practice doth render him uncapable of communion for how saith he otherwhere can they preside over integrity and continence if corruptions and the teaching of vices do begin to proceed from them They who reject the commandment of God and labour to establish their own tradition let them be strongly and stoutly refused and rejected by you St. Chrysostome commenting on Saint Paul's words If I or an Angel saith that Saint Paul meaneth to shew that dignity of persons is not to be regarded where truth is concerned that if one of the chief Angels from heaven should corrupt the Gospel he were to be accursed that not onely if they shall speak things contrary or overturn all but if they preach any small matter beside the Apostolical doctrine altering the least point whatever they are liable to an anathema And other-where very earnestly persuading his Audience to render due respect and obedience to there Bishop he yet interposeth this exception If he hath a perverse opinion although he be an Angel do not obey him but if he teacheth right things regard not his life but his words Ecclesiastical Judges as men are for the most part deceived For neither are Catholick Bishops to be assented to if peradventure in any case they are mistaken so as to hold any thing contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God If there be any Church which rejects the faith and does not hold the fundamentals of the Apostolical doctrine it ought to be forsaken lest it infect others with its heterodoxy If in such a case we must desert any Church then the Roman if any Church then much more any Bishop particularly him of
no more than Humane Thus in effect we see that it hath succeeded from the Pretence of this Unity the which hath indeed transformed the Church into a mere worldly State wherein the Monarch beareth the garb of an Emperour in external splendour surpassing all worldly Princes crowned with a triple Crown He assumeth the most haughty Titles of Our most holy Lord the Vicar general of Christ c. and he suffereth men to call him the Monarch of Kings c. He hath Respects paid him like to which no Potentate doth assume having his Feet kissed riding upon the backs of men letting Princes hold his Stirrup and lead his Horse He hath a Court and is attended with a train of Courtiers surpassing in State and claiming Precedence to the Peers of any Kingdom He is encompassed with armed Guards He hath a vast Revenue supplied by Tributes and Imposts sore and grievous the exaction of which hath made divers Nations of Christendom to groan most lamentably He hath raised numberless Wars and Commotions for the promotion and advancement of his Interests He administreth things with all depth of Policy to advance his Designs He hath enacted Volumes of Laws and Decrees to which Obedience is exacted with rigour and forcible constraint He draweth grist from all Parts to his Courts of Judgment wherein all the formalities of suspence all the tricks of squeezing money c. are practised to the great trouble and charge of Parties concerned Briefly it is plain that he doth exercise the proudest mightiest subtlest Domination that ever was over Christians 8. The Union of the whole Church in one Body under one Government or Sovereign Authority would be inconvenient and hurtfull prejudicial to the main designs of Christianity destructive to the Welfare and Peace of Mankind in many respects This we have shewed particularly concerning the Pretence of the Papacy and those Discourses being applicable to any like Universal Authority perhaps with more advantage Monarchy being less subject to abuse than other ways of Government I shall forbear to say more 9. Such an Union is of no need would be of small use or would doe little good in balance to the great Mischiefs and Inconveniences which it would produce This Point also we have declared in regard to the Papacy and we might say the same concerning any other like Authority substituted thereto 10. Such a Connexion of Churches is not any-wise needfull or expedient to the Design of Christianity which is to reduce Mankind to the Knowledge Love and Reverence of God to a just and loving Conversation together to the practice of Sobriety Temperance Purity Meekness and all other Vertues all which things may be compassed without forming men into such a Policy It is expedient there should be particular Societies in which men may concur in worshipping God and promoting that Design by instructing and provoking one another to good practice in a regular decent and orderly way It is convenient that the Subjects of each temporal Sovereignty should live as in a civil so in a spiritual Uniformity in order to the preservation of Goodwill and Peace among them for that Neighbours differing in opinion and fashions of practice will be apt to contend each for his way and thence to disaffect one another for the beauty and pleasant harmony of Agreement in Divine things for the more commodious succour and defence of Truth and Piety by unanimous concurrence But that all the World should be so joined is needless and will be apt to produce more mischief than benefit 11. The Church in the Scripture sense hath ever continued One and will ever continue so notwithstanding that it hath not had this political Unity 12. It is in fact apparent that Churches have not been thus united which yet have continued Catholick and Christian. It were great no less folly than uncharitableness to say that the Greek Church hath been none There is no Church that hath in effect less reason than that of Rome to prescribe to others 13. The Reasons alledged in proof of such an Unity are insufficient and inconcluding the which with great diligence although not with like perspicuity advanced by a late Divine of great repute and collected out of his Writings with some care are those which briefly proposed do follow together with Answers declaring their invalidity Arg. I. The name Church is attributed to the whole body of Christians which implieth Unity Answ. This indeed doth imply an Unity of the Church but determineth not the kind or ground thereof there being several kinds of Unity one of those which we have touched or several or all of them may suffice to ground that comprehensive Appellation Arg. II. Our Creeds do import the belief of such an Unity for in the Apostolical we profess to believe the Holy Catholick Church in the Constantinopolitan the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church Answ. 1. The most ancient Summaries of Christian Faith extant in the first Fathers Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian c. do not contain this Point The word Catholick was not originally in the Apostolical or Roman Creed but was added after Ruffin and Saint Austin's time This Article was inserted into the Creeds upon the rise of Heresies and Schisms to discountenance and disengage from them Answ. 2. We do avow a Catholick Church in many respects One wherefore not the Unity of the Church but the Kind and Manner of Unity being in question the Creed doth not oppose what we say nor can with reason be alledged for the special kind of Unity which is pretended Answ. 3. That the Unity mentioned in the Constantinopolitan Creed is such as our Adversaries contend for of external Policy is precariously assumed and relieth onely upon their interpretation obtruded on us Answ. 4. The genuine meaning of that Article may reasonably be deemed this That we profess our adhering to the Body of Christians which diffused over the World doth retain the Faith taught the Discipline setled the Practices appointed by our Lord and his Apostles that we maintain general Charity toward all good Christians that we are ready to entertain communion in Holy Offices with all such that we are willing to observe the Laws and Orders established by Authority or Consent of the Churches for maintenance of Truth Order and Peace that we renounce all heretical doctrines all disorderly practices all conspiracy with any factious combinations of people Answ. 5. That this is the meaning of the Article may sufficiently appear from the reason and occasion of introducing it which was to secure the Truth of Christian Doctrine the Authority of Ecclesiastical Discipline and the common Peace of the Church according to the Discourses and Arguments of the Fathers Irenaeus Tertullian St. Austin Vincentius Lirinensis the which do plainly countenance our Interpretation Answ. 6. It is not reasonable to interpret the Article so as will not consist with the State of the Church in the Apostolical and
from a stupid Easiness in admitting such a Lieutenancy to our Lord if we do not see exhibited to us manifest and certain Patents assuring its Commission to us We should love the Church better than to yield up its Liberty to the will of a Pretender upon slight or no ground Their boldly claiming such a Power their having sometime usurped such a Power will not excuse them or us Nor will precarious Assumptions or subtile Distinctions or blind Traditions or loose Conjectures serve for probations in such a case § XIX Such demands they cannot wholly balk wherefore for satisfaction to them not finding any better plea they hook in Saint Peter affirming that on him by our Lord there was instated a Primacy over his brethren all the Apostles and the Disciples of our Lord importing all the Authority which they claim and that from him this Primacy was devolved by succession to the Bishops of Rome by right indefectible for all future Ages Which Plea of theirs doth involve these main Suppositions I. That Saint Peter had a Primacy over the Apostles II. That Saint Peter 's Primacy with its Rights and Prerogatives was not personal but derivable to his Successours III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease V. That the Bishops of Rome according to God's institution and by original right derived thence should have an Vniversal Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Christian Church VI. That in fact the Roman Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Sovereign Power VII That this Power is indefectible and unalterable The truth and certainty of these Propositions we shall in order discuss so that it may competently appear whether those who disclaim these Pretences are as they are charged guilty of Heresie and Schism or they rather are liable to the imputations of Arrogancy and Iniquity who do obtrude and urge them A TREATISE OF THE Pope's Supremacy MATTH 10.2 Now the names of the twelve Apostles were these the first Simon who is called Peter AMONG the Modern Controversies there is scarce any of greater consequence than that about Universal Supremacy which the Bishop of Rome claimeth over the Christian Church the assertion whereof on his side dependeth upon divers Suppositions namely these I. That Saint Peter by our Lord's appointment had a Primacy implying a Sovereignty of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Apostles II. That the Rights and Prerogatives of this Sovereignty were not personal but derivable and transmitted to Successours III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease V. That hence of Right to the Bishops of Rome as Saint Peter 's Successours an Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ doth appertain VI. That in Fact the said Bishops continually from Saint Peter 's time have enjoyed and exercised this Power VII That this Power is indefectible such as by no means can be forfeited or fail In order to the discussion and resolution of the first Point I shall treat upon the Primacy of Saint Peter endeavouring to shew what Primacy he was capable of or might enjoy what he could not pretend to nor did possess SUPPOSITION I. The first Supposition of those who claim Universal Jurisdiction to the Pope over the Church is That Saint Peter had a primacy over the Apostles IN order to the resolution of this Point we may consider that there are several kinds of Primacy which may belong to a person in respect of others for there are 1. A Primacy of Worth or Personal Excellency 2. A Primacy of Reputation and Esteem 3. A Primacy of Order or bare Dignity and Precedence 4. A Primacy of Power or Jurisdiction To each of these what title Saint Peter might have let us in order examine I. As for the first of these a Primacy of Worth or Merit as some of the Ancients call it we may well grant it to Saint Peter admitting that probably he did exceed the rest of his Brethren in personal endowments and capacities both natural and moral qualifying him for the discharge of the Apostolical Office in an eminent manner particularly that in quickness of apprehension in boldness of spirit in readiness of speech in charity to our Lord and zeal for his Service in resolution activity and industry he was transcendent may seem to appear by the tenour of the Evangelical and Apostolical Histories in the which we may observe him upon all occasions ready to speak first and to make himself the mouth as the Fathers speak of the Apostles in all deliberations nimble at propounding his advice in all undertakings forward to make the onset being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always hot and eager always prompt and vigorous as S. Chrysostome often affirmeth concerning him these things are apparent in his demeanour and it may not be amiss to set down some instances When our Lord observing the different apprehensions men had concerning him asked the Apostles but whom say ye that I am up starteth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he skippeth forth and preventeth the rest crying Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God The other Apostles were not ignorant of the Point for they at their Conversion did take Jesus for the Messias which even according to the common Notion of the Iews did imply his being the Son of God Nathanael that is Saint Bartholomew as is supposed had in terms confessed it the whole company upon seeing our Lord walk on the Sea had avowed it Saint Peter before that in the name of them all had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have believed and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of the living God They therefore had the same Faith but he from a special alacrity of spirit and expedition in utterance was more forward to declare it He was more hot saith St. Greg. Naz. than the rest at acknowledging Christ. When our Saviour walked on the Sea who but He had the Faith and the Courage to venture on the Waters towards him When our Lord was apprehended by the Souldiers presently up was his spirit and out went his Sword in defence of him When our Lord predicted that upon his coming into trouble all the Disciples would be offended and desert him he was ready to say Though all men shall be offended because of thee yet will I never be offended and Though I should dye with thee yet will I not deny thee such was his natural courage and confidence When our Lord was discoursing about his Passion he suddenly must be advising in the case and urging him to spare himself upon which St. Chrysostome biddeth us to consider not that his answer was unadvised but that it came from a genuine and fervent affection And at the Transfiguration he
had been then as commonly known and avowed 23. Whereas divers of the Fathers purposely do treat on methods of confuting Hereticks it is strange they should be so blind or dull as not to hit on this most proper and obvious way of referring debates to the decision of him to whose Office of Universal Pastour and Judge it did belong Particularly one would wonder at Vincentius Lirinensis that he on set purpose with great care discoursing about the means of setling points of Faith and of overthrowing Heresies should not light upon this notable way by having recourse to the Pope's Magisterial sentence yea that indeed he should exclude it for he after most intent study and diligent inquiry consulting the best and wisest men could find but two ways of doing it I saith he did always and from almost every one receive this answer that if either I or any other would find out the frauds and avoid the snares of up-start Hereticks and continue sound and upright in the true Faith he should guard and strengthen his Faith God helping him by these two means viz. First by the Authority of the Divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church And again We before have said that this hath always been and is at present the custome of Catholicks that they prove their Faith by these two ways First by Authority of the Divine Canon then by the Tradition of the Vniversal Church Is it not strange that he especially being a Western man living in those parts where the Pope had got much sway and who doth express great reverence to the Apostolick See should omit that way of determining points which of all according to the modern conceits about the Pope is most ready and most sure 24. In like manner Tertullian professeth the Catholicks in his time to use such compendious methods of confuting Hereticks We saith he when we would dispatch against Hereticks for the Faith of the Gospel do commonly use these short ways which do maintain both the order of times prescribing against the lateness of impostours and the Authority of the Churches patronizing Apostolical tradition but why did he skip over a more compendious way than any of those namely standing to the judgment of the Roman Bishop 25. It is true that both he and St. Irenaeus before him disputing against the Hereticks of their times who had introduced pernicious novelties of their own devising when they alledge the general consent of Churches planted by the Apostles and propagated by continual successions of Bishops from those whom the Apostles did ordain in doctrines and practices opposite to those devices as a good argument and so indeed it then was next to a demonstration against them do produce the Roman Church as a principal one among them upon several obvious accounts And this indeed argueth the Roman Church to have been then one competent witness or credible retainer of tradition as also were the other Apostolical Churches to whose Testimony they likewise appeal but what is this to the Roman Bishop's judicial Power in such cases why do they not urge that in plain terms they would certainly have done so if they had known it and thought it of any validity Do but mark their words involving the force of their argumentation When saith Irenaeus we do again after allegation of Scripture appeal to that tradition which is from the Apostles which by successions of Presbyters is preserved in the Churches and That saith Tertullian will appear to have been delivered by the Apostles which hath been kept as holy in the Apostolical Churches let us see what milk the Corinthians did draw from Paul what the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians do reade what also the Romans our nearer neighbours do say to whom both Peter and Paul did leave the Gospel sealed with their Bloud we have also the Churches nursed by John c. Again It is therefore manifest saith he in his Prescriptions against Hereticks that every doctrine which doth conspire with those Apostolical Churches in which the Faith originally was planted is to be accounted true as undoubtedly holding that which the Churches did receive from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God but all other doctrine is to be prejudged false which doth think against the truth of the Churches and of the Apostles and of Christ and of God their argumentation then in short is plainly this that the conspiring of the Churches in doctrines contrary to those which the Hereticks vented did irrefragably signifie those doctrines to be Apostolical which discourse doth no-wise favour the Roman pretences but indeed if we do weigh it is very prejudicial thereto it thereby appearing that Christian Doctrines then in the canvasing of points and assuring tradition had no peculiar regard to the Roman Churche's testimonies no deference at all to the Roman Bishop's Authority not otherwise at least than to the Authority of one single Bishop yielding attestation to tradition 26. It is odd that even old Popes themselves in elaborate tracts disputing against Hereticks as Pope Celestine against Nestorius and Pelagius Pope Leo against Eutyches do content themselves to urge testimonies of Scripture and arguments grounded thereon not alledging their own definitive Authority or using this parlous argumentation I the Supreme Doctour of the Church and Judge of controversies do assert thus and therefore you are obliged to submit your assent 27. It is matter of amazement if the Pope were such as they would have him to be that in so many bulky Volumes of ancient Fathers living through many ages after Christ in those vast treasuries of learning and knowledge wherein all sorts of truth are displayed all sorts of duty are pressed this momentous point of doctrine and practice should nowhere be expressed in clear and peremptory terms I speak so for that by wresting words by impertinent application by streining consequences the most ridiculous positions imaginable may be deduced from their Writings It is strange that somewhere or other at least incidentally in their Commentaries upon the Scripture wherein many places concerning the Church and its Hierarchy do invite to speak of the Pope in their Treatises about the Priesthood about the Unity and Peace of the Church about Heresie and Schism in their Epistles concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs in their Historical narrations about occurrences in the Church in their concertations with heterodox adversaries they should not frequently touch it they should not sometimes largely dwell upon it Is it not marvellous that Origen St. Hilary St. Cyril St. Chrysostome St. Hierome St. Austin in their Commentaries and Tractates upon those places of Scripture Tu es Petrus Pasce oves whereon they now build the Papal Authority should be so dull and drowsie as not to say a word concerning the Pope That St. Austin in his so many elaborate Tractates against the Donatists wherein he discourseth so prolixly about the Church its Unity Communion
to defend and advance the Papal Empire What meaneth the Doctrine concerning that middle Region of Souls or Cloister of Purgatory whereof the Pope holdeth the Keys opening and shutting it at his pleasure by dispensation of pardons and indulgences but that he must be Master of the Peoples condition and of their purse What meaneth the treasure of Merits and supererogatory works whereof he is the Steward but a way of driving a trade and drawing money from simple People to his treasury Whither doth the entangling of Folks in perpetual Vows tend but to assure them in a slavish dependance on their interests eternally without evasion or remedy except by favourable dispensation from the Pope Why is the opus operatum in Sacraments taught to confer grace but to breed a high opinion of the Priest and all he doeth Whence did the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation urged with so furious zeal issue but from design to magnify the credit of those who by saying of a few words can make Our God and Saviour and withall to exercise a notable instance of their power over men in making them to renounce their Reason and Senses Whither doth tend the Doctrine concerning the Mass being a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Dead but to engage men to leave in their Wills good sums to offer in their behalf Why is the Cup withholden from the Laity but to lay it low by so notable a distinction in the principal mystery of our Religion from the Priesthood Why is saying private Mass or celebrating the Communion in solitude allowed but because Priests are pay'd for it and live by it At what doth the Doctrine concerning the necessity of auricular Confession aim but that thereby the Priests may have a mighty awe on the Consciences of all People may dive into their secrets may manage their Lives as they please And what doth a like necessary particular Absolution intend but to set the Priest in a lofty state of Authority above the People as a Judge of his condition and dispenser of his Salvation Why do they equal Ecclesiastical Traditions with Scripture but that on the pretence of them they may obtrude whatever Doctrines advantageous to their designs What drift hath the Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of Churches or Councils but that when opportunity doth invite he may call a company of Bishops together to establish what he liketh which ever after must pass for certain truth to be contradicted by none so enslaving the minds of all men to his dictates which always sute to his interest What doth the prohibition of Holy Scripture drive at but a monopoly of knowledge to themselves or a detaining of People in ignorance of truth and duty so that they must be forced to rely on them for direction must believe all they say and blindly submit to their dictates being disabled to detect their errours or contest their opinions Why must the Sacraments be celebrated and publick devotions exercised in an unknown Tongue but that the Priests may seem to have a peculiar interest in them and ability for them Why must the Priesthood be so indispensably forbidden marriage but that it may be wholly untacked from the State and rest addicted to him and governable by him that the Persons and Wealth of Priests may be purely at his devotion To what end is the clogging Religion by multiplication of Ceremonies and Formalities but to amuse the People and maintain in them a blind reverence toward the Interpreters of the dark mysteries couched in them and by seeming to encourage an exteriour shew of Piety or form of godliness to gain reputation and advantage whereby they might oppress the interiour virtue and reality of it as the Scribes and Pharisees did although with less designs Why is the veneration of Images and Reliques the credence of Miracles and Legends the undertaking of Pilgrimages and voyages to Rome and other places more holy than ordinary sprinklings of Holy-water consecrations of baubles with innumerable foppish knacks and trinkets so cherished but to keep the People in a slavish credulity and dotage apt to be led by them whither they please by any sleeveless pretence and in the mean while to pick various gains from them by such trade What do all such things mean but obscuring the native simplicity of Christianity whereas it being represented intelligible to all men would derogate from that high admiration which these men pretend to from their peculiar and profound wisedom And what would men spend for these toys if they understood they might be good Christians and get to Heaven without them What doth all that pomp of Religion serve for but for ostentation of the dignity of those who administer it It may be pretended for the honour of Religion but it really conduceth to the glory of the Priesthood who shine in those pageantries Why is Monkery although so very different from that which was in the ancient times so cryed up as a superlative state of perfection but that it filleth all places with swarms of lusty People who are vowed servants to him and have little else to doe but to advance that Authority by which they subsist in that dronish way of life In fine perusing the Controversies of Bellarmine or any other Champion of Romanism do but consider the nature and scope of each Doctrine maintained by them and you may easily discern that scarce any of them but doth tend to advance the interest of the Pope or of his sworn Vassals Whereas indeed our Lord had never any such design to set up a sort of men in such distance above their brethren to perk over them and suck them of their goods by tricks it onely did charge People to allow their Pastours a competent maintenance for a sober life with a moderate respect as was needfull for the common benefit of God's People whom they were with humility and meekness to instruct and guide in the plain and simple way of Piety This is a grievous inconvenience there being nothing wherein the Church is more concerned than in the preservation of its Doctrine pure and incorrupt from the leaven of hurtfull errours influential on practice 4. The errours in Doctrine and miscarriages in practice which this Authority in favour to it self would introduce would be established immoveably to the irrecoverable oppression of Truth and Piety any reformation becoming impossible while it standeth or so far as it shall be able to oppose and obstruct it While particular Churches do retain their liberty and Pastours their original co-ordination in any measure if any Church or Bishop shall offer to broach any novel Doctrine or Practice of bad import the others may endeavour to stop the settlement or progress of them each Church at least may keep it self sound from contagion But when all Churches and Bishops are reduced into subjection to one Head supported by the guards of his Authority who will dare to contest or be able to withstand what he shall say or doe It
c. Which thing also Agrippinus of blessed memory with his other Fellow-bishops who then governed the Church of Christ in the African Province and in Numidia did establish and by the well-weighed examination of the common advice of them all together confirmed it Thus it was the custome in the Churches of Asia as Firmilian telleth us in those words Vpon which occasion it necessarily happens that every year we the Elders and Rulers do come together to regulate those things which are committed to our care that if there should be any things of greater moment by common advice they be determined Yet while things went thus in order to common Truth and Peace every Church in more private matters touching its own particular state did retain its Liberty and Authority without being subject or accountable to any but the common Lord in such cases even Synods of Bishops did not think it proper or just for them to interpose to the prejudice of that Liberty and Power which derived from a higher Source These things are very apparent as by the course of Ecclesiastical History so particularly in that most pretious Monument of Antiquity St. Cyprian's Epistles by which it is most evident that in those times every Bishop or Pastour was conceived to have a double relation or capacity one toward his own Flock another toward the whole Flock One toward his own Flock by virtue of which he taking advice of his Presbyters together with the conscience of his People assisting did order all things tending to particular Edification Order Peace Reformation Censure c. without fear of being troubled by Appeals or being liable to give any account but to his own Lord whose Vicegerent he was Another toward the whole Church in behalf of his People upon account whereof he did according to occasion or order apply himself to confer with other Bishops for preservation of the common Truth and Peace when they could not otherwise be well upheld than by the joint conspiring of the Pastours of divers Churches So that the Case of Bishops was like to that of Princes each of whom hath a free Superintendence in his own Territory but for to uphold Justice and Peace in the World or between adjacent Nations the entercourse of several Princes is needfull The Peace of the Church was preserved by communion of all Parts together not by the subjection of the rest to one Part. 7. This political Unity doth not well accord with the nature and genius of the Evangelical dispensation Our Saviour affirmed that his Kingdom is not of this World and Saint Paul telleth us that it consisteth in a Spiritual influence upon the Souls of men producing in them Vertue Spiritual Joy and Peace It disavoweth and discountenanceth the elements of the world by which worldly designs are carried on and worldly frames sustained It requireth not to be managed by politick artifices or fleshly wisedom but by Simplicity Sincerity Plain-dealing as every Subject of it must lay aside all guile and dissimulation so especially the Officers of it must doe so in conformity to the Apostles who had their conversation in the world and prosecuted their design in simplicity and godly sincerity not with fleshly wisedom but by the grace of God not walking in craftiness or handling the word of God deceitfully c. It needeth not to be supported or enlarged by wealth and pomp or by compulsive force and violence for God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and the weak things of the world to confound the mighty and base despicable things c. that no flesh should gloâ—y in his presence And The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God c. It discountenanceth the imposition of new Laws and Precepts beside those which God hath injoined or which are necessary for order and edification derogating from the Liberty of Christians and from the Simplicity of our Religion The Government of the Christian State is represented purely spiritual administred by meek persuasion not by imperious awe as an humble ministery not as stately domination for the Apostles themselves did not Lord it over mens faith but did co-operate to their joy they did not preach themselves but Christ Jesus to be the Lord and themselves their servants for Jesus It is expresly forbidden to them to domineer over God's people They are to be qualified with Gentleness and Patience they are forbidden to strive and enjoined to be gentle toward all apt to teach patient in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves They are to convince to rebuke to exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine They are furnished with no Arms beside the divine Panoply they bear no sword but that of the Spirit which is the word of God they may teach reprove they cannot compell They are not to be entangled in the cares of this life But supposing the Church was designed to be one in this manner of political regiment it must be quite another thing nearly resembling a worldly state yea in effect soon resolving it self into such an one supposing as is now pretended that its management is committed to an Ecclesiastical Monarch it must become a worldly Kingdom for such a Polity could not be upheld without applying the same means and engines without practising the same methods and arts whereby secular Governments are maintained It s Majesty must be supported by conspicuous Pomp and Phantastry It s Dignity and Power must be supported by Wealth which it must corrade and accumulate by large Incomes by exaction of Tributes and Taxes It must exert Authority in enacting of Laws for keeping its State in order and securing its Interests backed with Rewards and Pains especially considering its Title being so dark and grounded on no clear warrant many always will contest it It must apply Constraint and Force for procuring Obedience and correcting Transgression It must have Guards to preserve its Safety and Authority It must be engaged in Wars to defend its self and make good its Interests It must use Subtilty and Artifice for promoting its Interests and countermine the Policies of Adversaries It must erect Judicatories and must decide Causes with Formality of legal process whence tedious Suits crafty Pleadings Quirks of Law and Pettifoggeries Fees and Charges Extortion and Barretry c. will necessarily creep in All which things do much disagree from the original constitution and design of the Christian Church which is averse from pomp doth reject domination doth not require craft wealth or force to maintain it but did at first and may subsist without any such means I do not say that an Ecclesiastical Society may not lawfully for its support use Power Policy wealth in some measure to uphold or defend it self but that a Constitution needing such things is not Divine or that so far as it doth use them it is
Churches settled in them agreeably to the ancient Canons of the Church Universal There are those who assert to General Councils a power of Reforming the Church without or against the Pope's consent There are those who as Bellarmine telleth us do allow the Pope to be no more in the Ecclesiastical Republick than as the Duke of Venice in his Senate or as the General of an Order in his Congregation and that he therefore hath but a very limited and subordinate Power There are consequently those who conceive the Pope notoriously erring or misdemeaning himself to the prejudice of the Christian State may be called to an account may be judged may be corrected may be discarded by a General Synod Such notions have manifestly prevailed in a good part of the Roman Communion and are maintained by most Divines in the French Church and they may be supposed every-where common where there is any liberty of judgment or where the Inquisition doth not reign There have been seasons wherein they have so prevailed as to have been defined for Catholick Truths in great Synods and by them to have been applied to practice For In the first great Synod of Pisa it was declared that Councils may reform the Church sufficiently both in Head and Members and accordingly that Synod did assume to judge two Popes Gregory XII and Benedict XIII contending for the Papacy whereof one was the true Pope and deposing them both did substitute Alexander V. who for one year as Antoninus reporteth according to the common opinion did hold the Seat of Peter The Synod of Constance declared that the Synod lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost making a General Council representing the Catholick Church militant hath immediately power from Christ to which every one of whatever state or dignity he be although it be Papal is bound to obey in those things which belong to Faith and the extirpation of the said Schism and the general reformation of the Church of God in Head and Members The which Doctrine they notably put in practice exercising jurisdiction over Popes and for Errours Misdemeanours or Contumacies discarding three of whom it is hard if one were not true Pope and chusing another who thereafter did pass for a right Pope and himself did confirm the Acts of that Council So that this Semi-heresie hath at least the authority of one Pope to countenance it Our most holy Lord the Pope said in answer thereunto that he would maintain and inviolably observe all and every of those things that were conciliarly determin'd concluded and decreed by the present Council in matters of Faith The Synod of Basil declared the same Point that Councils are superiour to Popes to be a truth of Catholick Faith which whoever doth stiffly oppose is to be accounted a Heretick Nor say they did any skilfull man ever doubt the Pope to be subject to the judgment of General Synods in things concerning Faith In virtue of which Doctrine and by its irresistable authority the Synod did sentence and reject Pope Eugenius as criminal heretical and contumacious These Synods although reprobated by Popes in Counter-synods are yet by many Roman Catholick Divines retained in great veneration and their Doctrine is so current in the famous Sorbonne that if we may believe the great Cardinal of Lorrain the contrary is there reputed heretical § XVI Yet notwithstanding these oppositions the former Opinion averring the Pope's absolute Sovereignty doth seem to be the genuine Doctrine of the Roman Church if it have any For those Divines by the Pope and his intimate confidents are looked upon as a mongrel brood or mutinous faction which he by politick connivence doth onely tolerate because he is not well able to correct or suppress them He is afraid to be violent in reclaiming them to his sense lest he spend his artillery in vain and lose all his power and interest with them Nor indeed do those men seem to adhere to the Roman Party out of entire judgment or cordial affection but in compliance with their Princes or upon account of their Interest or at best with regard to peace and quiet They cannot conveniently break with the Pope because his Interest is twisted with their own so as not easily to be disentangled For how can they heartily stick to the Pope whenas their Opinion doth plainly imply him to be an Usurper and a Tyrant claiming to himself and exercising authority over the Church which doth not rightfully belong to him to be a Rebel and Traitour against the Church invading and possessing the Sovereignty due to it for such questionless the Duke of Venice would be should he challenge and assume to himself such a Power over his Commonwealth as the Pope hath over Christendom to be an Impostour and Seducer pretending to infallible conduct which he hath not How can they honestly condemn those who upon such grounds do shake off such yokes refusing to comply with the Pope till he correct his Errours till he desist from those Usurpations and Impostures till he restore to the Church its Rights and Liberties How are the Doctrines of those men consistent or congruous to their practice For they call the Pope Monarch of the Church and Universal Pastour of Christians by God's appointment indefectibly yet will they not admit all his Laws and reject Doctrines which he teacheth particularly those which most nearly touch him concerning his own Office and Authority They profess themselves his loyal Subjects yet pretend Liberties which they will maintain against him They hold that all are bound to entertain Communion with him yet confess that he may be heretical and seduce into Errour They give him the name and shadow of a Supremacy but so that they can void the substance and reality thereof In fine where should we seek for the Doctrine of the Roman Church but at Rome or from Rome it self where these Doctrines are Heterodoxies § XVII We shall not therefore have a distinct regard to the Opinion of these Semi-romanists nor consider them otherwise than to confirm that part of Truth which they hold and to confute that part of Errour which they embrace allowing at least in word and semblance more power to the Pope than we can admit as due to him Our discourse shall be levelled at him as such as he pretendeth himself to be or as assuming to himself the forementioned Powers and Prerogatives § XVIII Of such vast Pretences we have reason to require sufficient Grounds He that demandeth assent to such important Assertions ought to produce clear proofs of them He that claimeth so mighty Power should be able to make out a good Title to it for No man may take this more than Pontifical honour to himself but he that is called by God as was Aaron They are worthily to be blamed who tumultuously and disorderly fall upon curbing or restraining those who by no law are subject to them We cannot well be justified
superiour to Saint Paul but his Collegue and equal in Authority although precedeing him in standing repute and other advantages then Saint Paul's free proceeding toward him was not onely warrantable but wholesome and deserving for edification to be recited and recorded as implying an example how Collegues upon occasion should with freedom and sincerity admonish their Brethren of their errours and faults Saint Peter's carriage in patiently bearing that correption also affording another good pattern of equanimity in such cases to which purpose S. Cypr. alledged and approved by S. Austin doth apply this passage for saith he neither Peter whom the Lord first chose and upon whom he built his Church when Paul afterward contested with him about circumcision did insolently challenge or arrogantly assume any thing to himself so as to say that he did hold the primacy and that rather those who were newer and later Apostles ought to obey him neither despised he Saint Paul because he was before a persecutour of the Church but he admitted the counsel of truth and easily consented to the lawfull course which Saint Paul did maintain yielding indeed to us a document both of concord and patience that we should not pertinaciously love our own things but should rather take those things for ours which sometimes are profitably and wholesomely suggested by our Brethren and Collegues if they are true and lawfull this St. Cyprian speaketh upon supposition that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were equals or as he calleth them Collegues and Brethren in rank co-ordinate otherwise St. Cyprian would not have approved the action for he often severely doth inveigh against Inferiours taking upon them to censure their Superiours What tumour saith he of pride what arrogance of mind what inflation of heart is it to call our Superiours and Bishops to our cognisance St. Cyprian therefore could not conceive Saint Peter to be Saint Paul's Governour or Superiour in Power he doth indeed plainly enough in the forecited words signifie that in his judgment Saint Peter had done insolently and arrogantly if he had assumed any obedience from Saint Paul St. Austin also doth in several places of his Writings make the like application of this passage The ancient Writer contemporary to St. Ambrose and passing under his name doth argue in this manner Who dared resist Peter the first Apostle to whom the Lord did give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but another such an one who in assurance of his election knowing himself to be not unequal to him might constantly disprove what he had unadvisedly done It is indeed well known that Origen and after him St. Chrysostome and St. Hierome and divers of the Ancients beside did conceive that Saint Paul did not seriously oppose or tax Saint Peter but did onely doe it seemingly upon confederacy with him for promoting a good design This interpretation however strained and earnestly impugned by Saint Austin I will not discuss but onely shall observe that it being admitted doth rather strengthen than weaken our discourse for if Saint Peter were Saint Paul's Governour it maketh Saint Peter to have consented to an act in all appearance indecent irregular and scandalous and how can we imagine that Saint Peter would have complotted to the imparing his own just Authority in the eye of a great Church doth not such a condescension imply in him a disavowing of Superiority over Saint Paul or a conspiracy with him to overthrow good Order To which purpose we may observe that St. Chrysostome in a large and very elaborate discourse wherein he professeth to endeavour an aggravation of the irregularity of Saint Paul's dâ—meanour if it were serious doth not lay the stress of that aggravation upon Saint Paul's opposing his lawfull Governour but his onely so treating a Co-apostle of such eminency neither when to that end he designeth to reckon all the advantages of Saint Peter beyond Saint Paul or any other Apostle doth he mention this which was chiefly material to his purpose that he was Saint Paul's Governour which observations if we do carefully weigh we can hardly imagine that St. Chrysostome had any notion of Saint Peter's Supremacy in relation to the Apostles In fine the drift of Saint Paul in reporting those passages concerning himself was not to disparage the other Apostles nor merely to commend himself but to fence the truth of his Doctrine and maintain the liberty of his Disciples against any prejudice that might arise from any authority that might be pretended in any considerable respects superiour to his and alledged against them to which purpose he declareth by arguments and matters of fact that his Authority was perfectly Apostolical and equal to the greatest even to that of Saint Peter the prime Apostle of Saint John the beloved Disciple of Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem the judgment or practice of whom was no law to him nor should be to them farther than it did consist with that Doctrine which he by an independent Authority and by special revelation from Christ did preach unto them He might as St. Chrysostome noteth have pretended to some advantage over them in regard that he had laboured more abundantly than them all but he forbeareth to do so being contented to obtain equal advantages Well therefore considering the disadvantage which this passage bringeth to the Roman pretence might this History be called by Baronius a History hard to be understood a stone of offence a rock of scandal a rugged place which Saint Austin himself under favour could not pass over without stumbling It may also be considered that Saint Paul particularly doth assert to himself an independent authority over the Gentiles co-ordinate to that which Saint Peter had over the Jews the which might engage him so earnestly to contest with Saint Peter as by his practice seducing those who belonged to his charge the which also probably moved him thus to assert his authority to the Galatians as being Gentiles under his care and thence obliged especially to regard his authority They saith Saint Paul knowing that I was entrusted with the Gospel of uncircumcision as Peter was entrusted with that of circumcision gave unto me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship the which words do clearly enough signifie that he took himself and that the other Apostles took him to have under Christ an absolute charge subordinate to no man over the Gentiles whence he claimeth to himself as his burthen the care of all the Churches he therefore might well contest for their liberty he might well insist upon his authority among them Thus did St. Chrysostome understand the case for Christ saith he committed the Jews to Peter but set Paul over the Gentiles and He saith that great Father farther doth shew himself to be equal to them in dignity and compareth himself not onely to the others but even to the ring-leader shewing that each did enjoy equal dignity
which did contain this Article of Faith 10. It is much that this point of Faith should not be delivered in any of those ancient Expositions of the Creed made by St. Austin Ruffin c. which enlarge it to necessary points of Doctrine connected with the Articles therein especially with that of the Catholick Church to which the Pope's Authority hath so close a connexion that it should not be touched in the Catechetical Discourses of Cyril Ambrose c. that in the Systemes of Divinity composed by Saint Austin Lacâ—antius c. it should not be treated on The world is now changed for the Catechism of Trent doth not overlook so material a Point and it would pass for a lame Body of Theology which should omit to treat on this Subject 11. It is more wonderfull that this Point should never be defined in downright and full terms by any ancient Synod it being so notoriously in those old times opposed by divers who dissented in opinion and discorded in practice from the Pope it being also a Point of that consequence that such a solemn declaration of it would have much conduced to the ruine of all particular Errours and Schisms which were maintained then in opposition to the Church 12. Indeed had this Point been allowed by the main Body of Orthodox Bishops the Pope could not have been so drowsie or stupid as not to have solicited for such a definition thereof nor would the Bishops have been backward in compliance thereto it being in our adversaries conceit so compendious and effectual a way of suppressing all Heresies Schisms and Disorders although indeed later Experience hath shewed it no less available to stifle Truth Justice and Piety The Popes after Luther were better advised and so were the Bishops adhering to his Opinions 13. Whereas also it is most apparent that many persons disclaimed this Authority not regarding either the Doctrines or Decrees of the Popes it is wonderfull that such men should not be reckoned in the large Catalogues of Hereticks wherein Errours of less obvious consideration and of far less importance did place men If Epiphanius Theodoret Leontius c. were so negligent or unconcerned yet St. Austin Philastrius Western men should not have overlooked this sort of desperate Hereticks Aerius for questioning the dignity of Bishops is set among the Hereticks but who got that name for disavowing the Pope's Supremacy among the many who did it It is but lately that such as we have been thrust in among Hereticks 14. Whereas no Point avowed by Christians could be so apt to raise offence and jealousie in Pagans against our Religion as this which setteth up a Power of so vast extent and huge influence whereas no novelty could be more surprizing or startling than the Erection of an Universal Empire over the Consciences and religious Practices of men whereas also this Doctrine could not but be very conspicuous and glaring in ordinary practice it is prodigious that all Pagans should not loudly exclaim against it It is strange that Pagan Historians such as Marcellinus who often speaketh of Popes and blameth them for their luxurious way of living and pompous garb as Zozimus who bore a great spight at Christianity as all the Writers of the Imperial History before Constantine should not report it as a very strange pretence newly started up It is wonderfull that the eager Adversaries of our Religion such as Celsus Porphyrie Hierocles Julian himself should not particularly level their Discourse against it as a most scandalous position and dangerous pretence threatning the Government of the Empire It is admirable that the Emperours themselves enslamed with emulation and suspicion of such an Authority the which hath been so terrible even to Christian Princes should not in their Edicts expresly decry and impugn it that indeed every one of them should not with extremest violence implacably strive to extirpate it In consequence of these things it may also seem strange that none of the Advocates of our Faith Justin Origen Tertullian Arnobius Cyril Austin should be put to defend it or so much as forced to mention it in their elaborate Apologies for the Doctrines and Practices which were reprehended by any sort of Adversaries thereto We may add that divers of them in their Apologies and representations concerning Christianity would have appeared not to deal fairly or to have been very inconsiderate when they profess for their common belief assertions repugnant to that Doctrine as when Tertullian saith We reverence the Emperour as a man second to God and less onely than God when Optatus affirmeth that above the Emperour there is none beside God who made the Emperour and that Donatus by extolling himself as some now do above the Emperour did in so doing as it were exceed the bounds of men that he did esteem himself as God not as a man When St. Chrysostome asserteth the Emperour to be the crown and head of all men upon earth and saith that even Apostles Evangelists Prophets any men whoever are to be subject to the temporal Powers when St. Cyril calleth the Emperour the Supreme top of glory among men elevated above all others by incomparable differences c. When even Popes talk at this rate as Pope Gregory I. calling the Emperour his Lord and Lord of all telling the Emperour that his Competitour by assuming the title of Universal Bishop did set himself above the honour of his Imperial Majesty which he supposeth a piece of great absurdity and arrogance and even Pope Gregory II. doth call that Emperour against whom he afterward rebelled the Head of Christians Whereas indeed if the Pope be Monarch of the Church endowed with the Regalities which they now ascribe to him it is plain enough that he is not inferiour to any man living in real power and dignity wherefore the modern Doctours of Rome are far more sincere or considerate in their Heraldry than were those old Fathers of Christendom who now stick not down-rightly to prefer the Pope before all Princes of the World not onely in Doctrine and Notion but in the Sacred Offices of the Church for in the very Canon of their Mass the Pope together with the Bishop of the Diocese one of his Ministers is set before all Christian Princes every Christian Subject being thereby taught to deem the Pope superiour to his Prince Now we must believe for one Pope hath written it another hath put it in his Decretals and it is current Law that the Papal Authority doth no less surpass the Royal than the Sun doth outshine the Moon Now it is abundantly declared by Papal definition as a point necessary to Salvation that every humane creature neither King nor Kesar excepted is subject to the Roman High-priest Now the mystery is discovered why Popes when summoned by Emperours declined to go in Person to General Synods because it was not tolerable that the Emperour who sometime would be present in Synods
will then be deemed high presumption contumacy rebellion to dissent from his determinations how false soever or tax the practices countenanced by him however irregular and culpable He will assume to himself the privilege not to be crossed in any thing and soon will claim infallibility the mother of incorrigibility No errour can be so palpable which that Authority will not protect and shroud from confutation no practice so enormous which it will not palliate and guard from reproof There will be Legions of mercenary Tongues to speak and stipendiary Pens to write in defence of its Doctrines and Practices so that whoever will undertake to oppose it shall be voted down and overwhelmed with noise and shall incur all the discouragement and persecution imaginable So poor Truth will become utterly defenceless wretched Vertue destitute of succour or patronage This is so in speculation and we see it confirmed by experience for when from the influence of this Power as P. Adrian VI. did ingenuously confess an apparent degeneracy in Doctrine in Discipline in Practice had seised on Christendom all the world feeling it and crying out loudly for reformation yet how stiff a repugnance did the adherents to this interest make thereto with what industry and craft did Popes endeavour to decline all means of remedy What will not this Party doe rather than acknowledge themselves mistaken or liable to errour what palliations what shifts do not they use what evidence of light do they not outface 5. The same will induce a general corruption of manners For the chief Clergy partaking of its growth and protected by its interest reciprocally supporting it and being sheltred by it from any curb or controll will swell into great pride and haughtiness will be tempted to scrape and hoard up wealth by rapine extortion simony will come to enjoy ease and sloth will be immersed in sensuality and luxury and will consequently neglect their charge The inferiours will become enamoured and ambitious of such dignity and will use all means and arts to attain it Thence emulation discord sycophantry will spring Thence all Ecclesiastical Offices will become venal to be purchased by bribes flattery favour The higher ranks will become fastuous supercilious and domineering The lower will basely crouch cogg What then must the people be the guides being such Were such guides like to edifie the people by their Doctrine Were they not like to damnifie them by their Example That thus it hath happened Experience doth shew and History doth abundantly testifie This was soon observed by a Pagan Historian Am. Marcellin By St. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What mischief this what scandal to Religion what detriment to the Church what ruins of Souls it produceth is visible The descriptions of Rome and of that Church by Mantuan do in a lively manner represent the great degeneracy and corruptions of it 6. This Authority as it would induce corruption of manners so it would perpetuate it and render the state of things incorrigible For this Head of the Church and the supporters of his Authority will often need reformation but never will endure it That will happen of any Pope which the Fathers of Basil complained of in Pope Eugenius If the Pope would as Pope Adrian VI. yet he will not be able to reform the interests of his dependents crossing it If there hath happened a good Pope who desired to reform yet he hath been ridiculous when he endeavoured it and found it impossible to reform even a few particulars in his own house the incorrigible Roman Court. The nature and pretended foundation of this spiritual Authority doth encourage it with insuperable obstinacy to withstand all reformation for whereas if any temporal Power doth grow intolerable God's Providence by Wars and Revolutions of State may dispense a redress they have prevented this by supposing that in this case God hath tied his own hands this Authority being immovably fixed in the same hands from which no revolution can take it whence from its exorbitancies there can be no rescue or relief 7. This Authority will spoil him in whom it is seated corrupting his mind and manners rendring him a Scandal to Religion and a pernicious Instrument of wickedness by the influence of his example To this an uncontrollable power bridled with no restraint and impunity doth naturally tend and accordingly hath it been How many notorious Reprobates Monsters of wickedness have been in that See If we survey the Lives of the Popes written by Historians most indifferent or as most have been partial in favour to them we shall find at first good ones Martyrs Confessours Saints but after this exorbitant power had grown how few good ones how many extremely bad The first Popes before Constantine were Holy men the next were tolerable while the Papacy kept within bounds of modesty but when they having shaked off their Master and renounced allegiance to the Emperour i. e. after Gregory II. few tolerable generally they were either rake-hells or intolerably arrogant insolent turbulent and ravenous Bellarmine and Baronius do bobb off this by telling us that hence the providence of God is most apparent But do they call this preserving the Church the permission of it to continue so long in such a condition under the prevalence of such mischiefs when hath God deserted any People if not then when such Impiety more than Pagan doth reign in it But what in the mean time became of those Souls which by this means were ruined what amends for the vast damage which Religion sustained for the introducing so pernicious Customs hardly to be extirpated To what a pass of shameless wickedness must things have come when such men as Alexander VI. having visibly such an impure brood should be placed in this Chair Even after the Reformation began to curb their impudence and render them more wary yet had they the face to set Paul the Third there How unfit must such men be to be the Guides of all Christendom to breathe Oracles of Truth to enact Laws of Sanctity How improper were those Vessels of Satan to be Organs of that Holy Spirit of discipline which will flee deceit and remove from thoughts that are without understanding and will not abide where unrighteousness cometh in It will engage the Popes to make the Ecclesiastical Authority an Engine of advancing the Temporal concerns of his own Relations his Sons his Nephews What indeed is the Popedom now but a Ladder for a Family to mount unto great estate What is it but introducing an old man into a place by advantage whereof a Family must make hay while the Sun shines 8. This Pretence upon divers obvious accounts is apt to create great mischief in the world to the disturbance of Civil Societies and destruction or debilitation of temporal Authority which is certainly God's Ordinance and necessary to the well-being of mankind so that supposing it we may in
thereby for above three hundred years but however such as they are they do not reach home to the purpose They alledge Flavianus Bishop of Antioch deposed by Pope Damasus as they affirm But it is wonderfull they should have the face to mention that Instance the story in short being this The great Flavianus a most worthy and Orthodox Prelate whom St. Chrysostome in his Statuary Orations doth so highly commend and celebrate being substituted in the place of Meletius by the Quire of Bishops a party did adhere to Paulinus and after his decease they set up Evagrius ordaining him as Theodoret who was best acquainted with passages on that side of Christendom reporteth against many Canons of the Church Yet with this party the Roman Bishops not willing to know any of these things three of them in order Damasus Siricius Anastasius did conspire instigating the Emperour against Flavianus and reproaching him as supporter of a Tyrant against the Laws of Christ. But the Emperour having called Flavianus to him and received much satisfaction in his demeanour and discourse did demand and settle him in his place The Emperour saith Theodoret wondring at his courage and his wisedom did command him to return home and to feed the Church committed to him at which proceeding when the Romans afterward did grumble the Emperour gave them such reasons and advices that they complyed and did entertain communion with Flavianus It is true that upon their suggestions and clamours the Emperour was moved at first to order that Flavianus should go to Rome and give the Western Bishops satisfaction but after that he understood the quality of his plea he freed him of that trouble and without their allowance settled him in his See Here is nothing of the Pope's deposing Flavianus but of his embracing in a Schism the side of a Competitour it being in such a case needfull that the Pope or any other Bishop should chuse with whom he must communicate and consequently must disclaim the other in which choice the Pope had no good success not deposing Flavianus but vainly opposing him wherefore this allegation is strangely impertinent and well may be turned against them Indeed in this Instance we may see how fallible that See was in their judgment of things how rash in taking parties and somenting discords how pertinacious in a bad cause how peevish against the common sense of their brethren especially considering that before this opposition of Flavianus the Fathers of Constantinople had in their Letter to Pope Damasus and the Occidental Bishops approved and commended him to them highly asserting the legitimateness of his Ordination In fine how little their authority did avail with wise and considerate persons such as Theodosius M. was De Marca representeth the matter somewhat otherwise out of Socrates but take the matter as Socrates hath it and it signifieth no more than that both Theophilus and Damasus would not entertain communion with Flavianus as being uncapable of the Episcopal Order for having violated his Oath and caused a division in the Church of Antioch what is this to judicial Deposition and how did Damasus more depose him than Theophilus who upon the same dissatisfaction did in like manner forbear communion whenas indeed a wiser and better man than either of them St. Chrysostome did hold communion with him and did at length saith Socrates not agreeing with Theodoret reconcile him to them both They alledge the Deposition of Nestorius But who knoweth not that he was for heretical Doctrine deposed in and by a General Synod Pope Celestine did indeed threaten to withdraw his communion if he did not renounce his errour But had not any other Bishop sufficient authority to desert a perverter of the Faith Did not his own Clergy doe the same being commended by Pope Celestine for it Did not Cyril in writing to Pope Celestine himself affirm that he might before have declared that he could not communicate with him Did Nestorius admit the Pope's judgment no as the Papal Legates did complain He did not admit the constitution of the Apostolical Chair Did the Pope's Sentence obtain effect No not any for notwithstanding his threats Nestorius did hold his place till the Synod the Emperour did severely rebuke Cyril for his fierceness and implicitly the Pope and did order that no change should be made till the Synod should determine in the case not regarding the Pope's judgment So that this instance may well be retorted or used to prove the insignificancy of Papal authority then They alledge also Dioscorus of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo but the case is very like to that of Nestorius and argueth the contrary to what they intend He was for his misdemeanours and violent countenancing of heresie solemnly in a General Synod accused tried condemned and deposed the which had long before been done if in the Pope his professed and provoked Adversary there had been sufficient power to effect it Bellarmine also alledgeth Pope Sixtus III. deposing Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem But no such Polychronius is to be found in the Registers of Bishops then or in the Histories of that busie time between the two great Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the Acts of Sixtus upon which this allegation is grounded have so many inconsistences and smell so rank of forgery that no conscionable nose could endure them and any prudent man as Binius himself confesseth would assert them to be spurious Wherefore Baronius himself doth reject and despise them who gladly would lose no advantage for his Master Yet Pope Nicholas I. doth precede Bellarmine in citing this trash no wonder that being the Pope who did avouch the wares of Isidore Mercator They alledge Timotheus the Usurper of Alexandria deposed by Pope Damasus and they have indeed the sound of words attesting to them These are Heads upon which the B. Damasus deposed the Hereticks Apolinarius Vitalius and Timotheus The truth is that Apolinarius with divers of his Disciples in a great Synod at Rome at which Petrus Bishop of Alexandria together with Damasus was present was condemned and disavowed for heretical Doctrine whence Sozomen saith that the Apolinarian Heresie was by Damasus and Peter at a Synod in Rome voted to be excluded from the Catholick Church On which account if we conclude that the Pope had an authority to depose Bishops we may by like reason infer that every Patriarch and Metropolitan had a power to doe the like there being so many Instances of their having condemned and disclaimed Bishops supposedly guilty of heresie as particularly John of Antioch with his convention of Oriental Bishops did pretend to depose Cyril and Memnon as guilty of the same Apolinarian heresie alledging that to exscind them was the same thing as to settle Orthodoxy The which Deposition was at first admitted by the Emperour The next Instance is of Pope Agapetus in Justinian's time for so deep into time is
no more than acknowledging a person although rejected by undue Sentence to be de jure worthy of communion and capable of the Episcopal Office upon which may be consequent an Obligation to communicate with him and to allow him his due Character according to the Precept of Saint Paul Follow righteousness faith charity peace with them that call upon the Lord with a pure heart This may be done when any man notoriously is persecuted for the Truth and Righteousness Or when the iniquity and malice of pretended Judges are apparent to the oppression of Innocence Or when the Process is extremely irregular as in the cases of Athanasius of St. Chrysostome And this is not an act of Jurisdiction but of Equity and Charity incumbent on all Bishops And there are promiscuous Instances of Bishops practising it Thus Socrates saith that Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem did restore communion and dignity to Athanasius And so Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch being reconciled and reduced to a good understanding of each other did restore to each other their Sees rescinding the Censures which in heat they had denounced each on other Which sheweth that Restitution is not always taken for an act of Jurisdiction wherein one is Superiour to another for those persons were in rank and power co-ordinate 2. Restitution sometime doth import no more than a considerable influence toward the effects of restoring a person to communion or Office no judicial act being exercised about the case The Emperour writing that Paulus and Athanasius should be restor'd to their Sees availed nothing That was a Restitution without effect Thus a Pope's avowing the Orthodoxy or Innocence or Worth of a person after a due information about them by reason of the Pope's eminent rank in the Church and the regard duely had to him might sometimes much conduce to restore a person and might obtain the name of Restitution by an ordinary scheme of speech 3. Sometimes persons said to be restored by Popes are also said to be restored by Synods with regard to such instance or testimony of Popes in their behalf In which case the Judicial Restitution giving right of Recovery and completion thereto was the act of the Synod 4. When Cases were driven to a legal debate Popes could not effectually resolve without a Synod their single acts not being held sufficiently valid So notwithstanding the Declarations of Pope Julius in favour of Athanasius for the effectual resolution of his case the great Synod of Sardica was convened So whatever Pope Innocent I. did endeavour he could not restore St. Chrysostome without a General Synod Nor could Pope Leo restore Flavianus deposed in the Second Ephesine Synod without convocation of a General Synod the which he did so often sue for to the Emperour Theodosius for that purpose Pope Simplicius affirmed that Petrus Moggus having been by a common decree condemned as an adulterer or Usurper of the Alexandrian See could not without a common Council be freed from condemnation 5. Particular instances do not ascertain right to the Person who assumeth any power for busie bodies often will exceed their bounds 6. Emperours did sometimes restore Bishops Constantine as he did banish Eusebius of Nicomedia and others so he did revoke and restore them so says Socrates They were recall'd from banishment by the Emperour's command and receiv'd their Churches Theodosius did assert to Flavianus his right whereof the Popes did pretend to deprive him which did amount to a Restitution at least to the Romanists who do assert Flavianus to be deposed by the Popes Instantius and Priscillianus were by the rescript of the Emperour Gratianus restored to their Churches Justinian did order Pope Silverius to be restored in case he could prove his Innocence 7. Commonly Restitution was not effectual without the Emperour's consent whence Theodoret although allowed by the great Synod did acknowledge his Restitution especially due to the Emperour as we shall see in reflecting on his case Now to the particular Instances produced for the Pope we answer 1. They pretend that Pope Stephanus did restore Basilides and Martialis Spanish Bishops who had been deposed for which they quote St. Cyprian's Epistle where he says Basilides going to Rome imposed upon our Collegue Stephen who lived a great way off and was ignorant of the truth of the matter seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bishoprick from which he had justly been deposed But we answer The Pope did attempt such a Restitution by way of Influence and Testimony not of Jurisdiction wherefore the result of his act in St. Cyprian's judgment was null and blameable which could not be so deemed if he had acted as a Judge for a favourable Sentence passed by just Authority is valid and hardly liable to Censure The Clergy of those places notwithstanding that pretended Restitution did conceive those Bishops uncapable and did request the judgment of St. Cyprian about it which argueth the Pope's judgment not to have been peremptory and prevalent then in such cases St. Cyprian denieth the Pope or any other person to have power of restoring in such a case and exhorteth the Clergy to persist in declining the communion of those Bishops Well doth Rigaltius ask why they should write to St. Cyprian if the judgment of Stephanus was decisive and he addeth that indeed the Spaniards did appeal from the Roman Bishop to him of Carthage No wonder seeing the Pope had no greater authority and probably St. Cyprian had the fairer reputation for wisedom and goodness Considering which things what can they gain by this Instance which indeed doth considerably make against them 2. They alledge the Restitution of Athanasius and of others linked in cause with him by Pope Julius He says Sozomen as having the care of all by reason of the dignity of his See restored to each his own Church I answer the Pope did not restore them judicially but declaratively that is declaring his approbation of their right and innocence did admit them to communion Julius in his own Defence did alledge that Athanasius was not legally rejected so that without any prejudice to the Canons he might receive him and the doing it upon this account plainly did not require any Act of Judgment Nay it was necessary to avow those Bishops as suffering in the cause of the common Faith Besides the Pope's proceeding was taxed and protested against as irregular nor did he defend it by virtue of a general power that he had judicially to rescind the acts of Synods And lastly the Restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops had no complete effect till it was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica backed by the Imperial authority which in effect did restore them This instance therefore is in many respects deficient as to their purpose 3. They produce Marcellus being restored by the same Pope Julius But that Instance beside the forementioned defects hath this that the
Rome This hath been the Doctrine of divers Popes Which not onely the Apostolical Prelate but any other Bishop may doe viz. discriminate and severe any men and any place from the Catholick communion according to the rule of that fore-condemned heresie Faith is universal common to all and belongs not onely to Clergymen but also to Laicks and even to all Christians Therefore the sheep which are committed to the cure of their Pastour ought not to reprehend him unless he swerve and go astray from the right faith 15. That this was the current opinion common practice doth shew there being so many instances of those who rejected their Superiours and withdrew from their communion in case of their maintaining errours or of their disorderly behaviour such practice having been approved by General and Great Synods as also by divers Popes When Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople did introduce new and strange Doctrine divers of his Presbyters did rebuke him and withdraw communion from him which proceeding is approved in the Ephesine Synod Particularly Charisius did assert this proceeding in those remarkable words presented to that same Synod 'T is the wish and desire of all well affected persons to give always all due honour and reverence especially to their spiritual Fathers and Teachers but if it should so happen that they who ought to teach should instill unto those who are set under them such things concerning the faith as are offensive to the ears and hearts of all men then of necessity the order must be inverted and they who teach wrong Doctrine must be rebuked of those who are their inferiours Pope Celestine I. in that case did commend the people of Constantinople deserting their Pastour Happy flock said he to whom the Lord did afford to judge about its own Pasture St. Hierome did presume to write very briskly and smartly in reproof of John Bishop of Hierusalem in whose Province he a simple Presbyter did reside Who makes a schism in the Church we whose whole house in Bethlehem communicate with the Church or thou who either believest aright and proudly concealest the truth or art of a wrong belief and really makest a breach in the Church Art thou onely the Church and is he who offendeth thee excluded from Christ Malchion Presbyter of Antioch disputed against Paulus Samosatenus his Bishop Beatus Presbyter confuted his Bishop Elipandus of Toledo But if the Rectour swerve from the faith he is to be reproved by those who are under him 16. The case is the same of the Pope for if other Bishops who are reckoned Successours of the Apostles and Vicars of Christ within their precinct if other Patriarchs who sit in Apostolical Sees and partake of a like extensive Jurisdiction by incurring heresie or schism or committing notorious disorder and injustice may be deprived of their Authority so that their Subjects may be obliged to forsake them then may the Pope lose his for truth and piety are not affixed to the Chair of Rome more than to any other there is no ground of asserting any such Privilege either in Holy Scripture or in old Tradition there can no promise be alledged for it having any probable shew that of Oravi pro te being a ridiculous pretence it cannot stand without a perpetual miracle there is in fact no appearance of any such miracle from the ordinary causes of great errour and impiety that is ambition avarice sloth luxury the Papal state is not exempt yea apparently it is more subject to them than any other all Ages have testified and complained thereof 17. Most eminent persons have in such cases withdrawn communion from the Pope as other-where we have shewed by divers Instances 18. The Canon Law it self doth admit the Pope may be judged if he be a Heretick Because he that is to judge all persons is to be judged of none except he be found to be gone astray from the faith The supposition doth imply the possibility and therefore the case may be put that he is such and then he doth according to the more current Doctrine ancient and modern cease to be a Bishop yea a Christian Hence no obedience is due to him yea no communion is to be held with him 19. This in fact was acknowledged by a great Pope allowing the condemnation of Pope Honorius for good because he was erroneous in point of Faith for saith he in that which is called the Eighth Synod although Honorius was anathematized after his death by the Oriental Bishops it is yet well known that he was accused for heresie for which alone it is lawfull for inferiours to rise up against superiours Now that the Pope or Papal succession doth pervert the truth of Christian Doctrine in contradiction to the Holy Scripture and Primitive Tradition that he doth subvert the practice of Christian piety in opposition to the Divine commands that he teacheth falshoods and maintaineth impieties is notorious in many particulars some whereof we shall touch We justly might charge him with all those extravagant Doctrines and Practices which the high flying Doctours do teach and which the fierce Zealots upon occasion do act for the whole succession of Popes of a long time hath most cherished and encouraged such folks looking squintly on others as not well affected to them But we shall onely touch those new and noxious or dangerous positions which great Synods managed and confirmed by their Authority have defined or which they themselves have magisterially decreed or which are generally practised by their influence or countenance It is manifest that the Pope doth support and cherish as his special Favourites the Venters of wicked Errours such as those who teach the Pope's infallibility his power over temporal Princes to cashier and depose them to absolve subjects from their allegiance the Doctrine of equivocation breach of faith with hereticks c. the which Doctrines are heretical as inducing pernicious practice whence whoever doth so much as communicate with the maintainers of them according to the principles of ancient Christianity are guilty of the same crimes The Holy Scripture and Catholick Antiquity do teach and injoin us to worship and serve God alone our Creatour forbidding us to worship any Creature or Fellow-servant even not Angels For I who am a Creature will not endure to worship one like to me But the Pope and his Clients do teach and charge us to worship Angels and dead men yea even to venerate the reliques and dead bodies of the Saints The Holy Scripture teacheth us to judge nothing about the present or future state of men absolutely before the time untill the Lord come who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of hearts and then each man shall have praise of God But the Pope notoriously in repugnance to those precepts anticipating God's judgment and arrogating to himself a knowledge requisite thereto doth presume to determine
or prejudice to Charity The Faith of Christians did at first consist in few Points those which were professed in Baptism whereof we have divers Summaries in the Ancients by analogy whereto all other Propositions were expounded and according to agreement whereto sound Doctrines were distinguished from false so that he was accounted orthodox who did not violate them So he that holds that immovable Rule of truth which he received at his Baptism will know the words and sayings and parables which are taken out of the Scriptures c. II. It is evident that all Christians are united by the bands of mutual Charity and Good-will They are all bound to wish one another well to have a complacence in the good and a compassion of the evils incident to each other to discharge all offices of kindness succour consolation to each other This is the command of Christ to all This is my commandment saith he That ye love one another This is the common badge by which his Disciples are discerned and distinguished Hereby saith he shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye love one another They must have the same love They must love as brethren be compassionate pitifull courteous each to other They must bear one anothers burthens and especially as they have opportunity doe good to the houshold of faith If one member suffer all the members must suffer with it and if one member be honoured all the members must rejoice The multitude of them who be-believe must be like that in the Acts of one heart and of one soul. They must walk in love and doe all things in love Whoever therefore doth highly offend against Charity maligning or mischieving his brethren doth thereby separate himself from Christ's body and cease to be a Christian. They that are enemies to brotherly charity whether they are openly out of the Church or seem to be within they are Pseudo-christians and Anti-christs When they seem to be within the Church they are separated from that invisible conjunction of Charity Whence Saint John They went out from us but were not of us He saith not that by their going out they were made aliens but because they were aliens therefore he declareth that they went out Wherefore the most notorious violations of Charity being the causing of dissentions and factions in the Church the causeless separation from any Church the unjust condemnation of Churches Whoever was guilty of any such unchristian behaviour was rejected by the Fathers and held to be no Christian. Such were the Novatians the Donatists the Meletians the Luciferians and other Schismaticks For what can be more acceptable and pleasant than to see those who are severed and scattered into so many places yet knit and joined together in the bond and union of charity as harmonious members of the body of Christ. In old time when the Church of God flourished being rooted in the same faith united in love there being as it were one conspiracy or league of different members in one body For the communion of the Spirit is wont to knit and unite mens minds which conjunction we believe to be between us and your charitable affection They therefore who by the bond of Charity are incorporated into the building setled upon the rock But the members of Christ are joined together by the charity of union and by the same cleave close to their head which is Christ. III. All Christians are united by spiritual cognation and alliance as being all regenerated by the same incorruptible seed being alike born not of bloud nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God whence as the sons of God and brethren of Christ they become brethren one to another so that it is a peculiar title or appellation of Christians the brethren signifying all Christian people and a brother being the same with a Christian professour IV. The whole Christian Church is one by its incorporation into the mystical body of Christ or as Fellow-subjects of that spiritual heavenly Kingdom whereof Christ is the sovereign Head and Governour whence they are governed by the same Laws are obliged by the same Institutions and Sanctions they partake of the same Privileges and are entitled to the same Promises and encouraged by the same Rewards being called in one hope of their calling So they make up one spiritual Corporation or Republick whereof Christ is the Sovereign Lord. Though the place disjoin them yet the Lord joins them together being their common Lord c. Hence an habit of Disobedience doth sever a man from this Body for not every one that saith Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven or continue therein Every such person who denieth God in works is a Rebel an Outlaw renouncing his Allegiance forfeiting his Title to God's protection and favour He is not a sheep of Christ because he doth not hear his voice He is separated from the Body by not holding the Head 'T is a lie to call one's self a Christian and not to doe the works of Christ. He that does not the work of a Christian name seems not to be a Christian. When in stead of the works themselves he begins to oppose even the most apparent truth whereby he is reproved then he is cut off from the Body or the Church Hence St. Austin often denieth wicked persons to be in the Church or to appertain unto its Unity For when there is one and the same Lord that dwelleth in us he every where joins and couples those that are his with the bond of Vnity V. All Christians are linked together in peaceable concord and confederacy so that they are bound to live in good correspondence to communicate in works of Piety and Devotion to defend and promote the common interest of their Profession Upon the entrance of the Gospel by our Lord's Incarnation it was by a celestial Herald proclaimed Peace on earth and good-will among men It was our Lord's office to preach Peace It was a principal end and effect of his Death to reconcile all men and to destroy enmity He specially charged his Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to maintain Peace one with another It was his Will at parting with them Peace I leave with you The Apostles frequently do enjoin to pursue Peace with all them who call upon the Lord with a pure heart to follow the things which make for Peace and edification mutual to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace It was in the Prophecies concerning the Evangelical state declared that under it The Wolfe should dwell with the Lamb and the Leopard should lie down with the Kid and the sucking Child should play on the hole of the Aspe that is that men of all tempers and conditions by virtue of this Institution should
2 Cor. 13.10.10.8 Gal. 2.9 2 Cor. 12.16 17. 2 Cor. 12.11.11.5 1 Cor. 15.9 Eph. 3.8 1 Cor. 15.10 Eph. 3.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 11.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 12.11.1.16 17. Rom. 11.13 Bell. de Pont. 1.11 Gal. 2.2 Gal. 2.6 Gal. 2.12 13 14. Vid. P. Pelag. II. apud Bin. Tom. 4. p. 308. in Epist. ad Eliam V. 11.14 Nunquid ideò aut illa ejus sequenda sunt quae meritò ejus Co-apostolus ejus facta redarguit Gelas. I. de Anath apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 645. Apostolo Paulo monstrante corrigente Aug. c. Crescon 1.32.2.32 Ep. 19. de Bap. c. Dor. 2.1 2. correptus cont Don. 2.1 objurgavit Ep. 8. qui de minorâ— causa conversationis ambiguae Petro ipsi non peperciâ— Tert. 5.3 contra Marc. who for a smaller matter of doubtfull conversation spared not Peter himself Cùm laâ—detur etsaâ— Pauli minimi Apostolorum sana ratio atque libertas quòd Petrum Apostolorum primum adductum in â—â—pocrisin non â—ectâ viâ inâ—edenâ—em ad veritatem Evangelii fidenter improbans in faciem illi restitit eúmque coram omnibus corà m objâ—â—gavit Fac. Her 8.6 Whereas the sound reason and freedom even of Paul the least of the Apostles is commended in that when Peter the chief of the Apostles was carryed away with dissimulation and walked not in a right way according to the truth of the Gospel he â—oldly dislik'd and withstood him to the face and reprov'd him openly before all Hier. ad Aug. Epist. 11. in Prol. ad Gal. Non sunt consentiendi sed reprobandi qui praelatos suos reprehendunt vel accusant Pelag. II. Ep. 2. Bonis subditis sic praepositorum suorum mala displicent ut tamen haec ab aliis occultent Greg. M. Moral 25.15 Admonendi sunt subditi nè prâ—positorum suoruâ— vitam temerâ— judicent siquid eos fortasse agere reprehensibiliter vident c. Greg. Past. part 3. cap. â— Admon 5. Grat. dist 40. cap. 6. * Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. Cypr. Ep. 71. ad Quint. †Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 2.2 Quis enim hic est superbiae tumor quae arrogantia animi quae mentis inflatio ad cognitionem suos praepositos Sacerdotes vocare Cpr. Ep. 69. Aug. c. Don. de Bap. 2.1 2. Ep. 19. Nam quis eorum auderet Petro primo Apostolo cui claves regni coelorum Dominus dedit resistere nisi alius talis qui fiduciâ electionis suae sciens se non imparem constanter improbaret quod ille sine consilio fecerat Ambr. in Gal. 2.9 Paulus Petrum reprehendit quod non auderet nisi se non imparem sciret Hieron vel alius quis ad Gal. citatus à Grat. Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 33. Paul reprehended Peter which he would not have dared to doe had he not known himself to be equal to him S. Cyril c. Jul. lib. 9. p. 325. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. Ep. 11. c. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 't is no advantage to me if when Peter has confuted the charge Paul appear to accuse his Fellow-apostle boldly and inconsiderately Gal. 1.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Gal. 1.1 Baron Anno 51. § 32 34 35. c. Rom. 11.13 Plena authoritas Petro in Judaismi praedicatione data dignoscitur Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione Gentium invenitur Ambros. There is discerned a full authority given to Peter of preaching to the Jews and in Paul there is found a perfect power and authority of preaching to the Gentiles Gal. 1.6 7. 2 Cor. 11.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. T. 5. Or. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Gal. 2.8 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Matt. 4.21 Luke 5.10 Mark 3.17 Matth. 17.1 2 Pet. 1.16 Matt. 26.37 Mark 14.33 Matt. 20.20 Mark 10.35 Mark 10.37 John 13 2â—.21 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesipp apud Euseb. 3.20 They being dismiss and sent away to govern the Churches as being both Witnesses and also Kinsmen of our Lord. Act. 12. â— Gal. 2.9 2 Cor. 12.11.11.5 Mark 3.17 Act. 1.13 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Matt. 17.1 Taking therefore the chief and principal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. ib. Wherefore taketh he these onely with him because these were the chief and principal above the others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Or. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ruffinus reddit Apostolorum Episcopum Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. 2.1 Hoc erant utique cateri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis quamvis Apostolis omnibus posâ— resurrectionem suam pareâ—â— potestatem triâ—â—at ac dicat c. Cypr. de Vn. Eccl. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Gal. 2.8 Chrys. in Gal. 1.8 Vide Tert. de Praescr cap. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. Con. Eph. part 1. p. 209. Peter and John were equal in honour one to another as were also the Apostles and holy Disciples Did Tertullian think Saint Paul inferiour to Saint Peter when he said It is well that Peter is even in martyrdom equalled to Paul Bene quod Petrus Paulo in martyrio adaequatur Tert. de Praes 24. At dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclâ—sia licèt id ipsum alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat ex 〈◊〉 super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur Hier. in Jovin 1.14 But you will say the Church is founded upon Peter though the same thing in another place is affirmed of all the Apostles and that c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys. de Eccl. Hier. cap. 5. Caeteri Apostoli cum Petro par consortium honoris potestatis acceperunt qui etiam in toto orbe dispersi Evangelium praedicaverunt quibâ—sque decedentibus successerum Episcopi qui sunt constituâ—i per totum mâ—ndum in sedibus Apostoâ—â—â—am Isid. Hisp. de Off. 2.5 Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii c. Hier. ad Evagr Ep. 85. Clem. ad Corinth Iren. 3.12.3.1 3. Agitur de summa rei Christianae c. Bell. praef ad lib. de Pontif. R. Est enim reverà non simplex error sed perniciosa haeresis negare B. Petri primatum à Christo institutum Bell. de Pont. R. 1.10 2 Pet. 3.16 Matt. 16.18 S. Romana Ecclesia nullis Synodicis constitutis caeteris Ecclesiis praelata est sed Evangelicâ voce Domini salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit Tu es Petrus inquiens c. P. Gelas 1. dist 21. cap. 3. The Holy Church of Rome is not prefer'd before other Churches by any Synodical Decrees but has obtain'd the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel saying Thou art Peter c. Quorum verborum planus obvius sensus est ut intelligatur sub duabus metaphoris promissum Petro totius Ecclesiae principatum Bell. de