differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Fathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in sid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2. Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church And as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observés which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged with Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction and will
from that to the Popes yet 't is a Demonstration that if Saint Peter had it not the Pope cannot have it as his Successor Jure divino We must leave Saint Peter's Supremacy to stand or fall to the Reason of the Discourse before and must now examine the Plea of Successor and the Pope's Authority over the Church as he is Successor to Saint Peter Now that it may appear we love not quarrelling we shall not dispute whether Peter was a Bishop of a particular See whether he was ever at Rome whether Rome was at first converted by him whether he was Bishop of Rome whether he resided there for any considerable time whether he died there whether the Pope had any honour as his Successor or lastly whether the Pope had the Primacy of all Bishops in the former Ages of the Church 't is well known that few Adversaries would let you run away quietly with all or any one of these Yet there are two things that I shrewdly question 1. Whether the Pope had at first the Primacy it self as Successor of Saint Peter 2. Much more whether by that Succession he received Supreme Power over the whole Church Jure Divino the main Point to be proved is the last yet it may be worth the while to examine the first SECT I. Whether the Primacy of Peter descended to the Bishops of Rome Neg. IT doth not appear that Saint Peter had his Peter Primate Primacy over the rest of the Apostles as Bishop much less as Bishop of Rome but the contrary doth appear Reas 1 1. Because he was Primate long before he was Bishop if he was so at all and therefore Before if he was Primate ratione Muneris or with respect to any Office it was that of his Apostleship and not of his Episcopacy the Consequence then is evident that the Pope could not succeed Saint Peter in the Primacy as Bishop of Rome or indeed in any Sence for the Apostolical Office was extraordinary and did not descend by Succession as the Romanists yield That Saint Peter was Primate not as Bishop Not as Bishop but was antecedently so it is most apparent upon the Grounds of it allowed and pleaded by our Adversaries because he was first called to the Apostleship he was named the first of the Apostles he had the first promise of the Keys he was the first Converter of the Gentiles c. Privilegium personale cum persona extinguitur Jesuit Salas. Reas 2 2. Indeed the Primacy of Saint Peter arose from such personal respects and grounds that On personal respects rendred it incapable of Succession and therefore none could derive that Prerogative though they had succeeded him both as Bishop and Apostle These Prerogatives of Saint Peter which Bellarmine himself laies down as the Grounds and Arguments of his Primacy are generally such at least all of them that appear in the Scriptures all of them but such as either beg the question or depend on notorious Fables as appears at first view 1. Saint Peter was Primate because his Name 21 Prerogatives Bell. was changed by Christ 2. Because he was always first named 3. He alone walked on the Waters 4. He had peculiar Revelation 5. He paid Tribute with Christ 6. He was the chief in the miraculous fishing 7. He is commanded to strengthen his Brethren 8. He was the first of the Apostles that saw Christ risen from the dead 9. His feet Christ first washed 10. Christ foretold his death to him alone 11. He was President at the Election of Matthias 12. He first preach'd after the Holy Ghost was given 13. He did the first Miracle 14. He condemned the hypocrisie of Ananias c. 15. He passed through all quarters Acts 9. 32. 16. He first preach'd to the Gentiles 17. He was miraculously delivered out of prison 18. Paul envied him 19. Christ baptized him alone 20. He detected and condemned Simon Magus 21. He spake first in the Council Acts 15. These are 21 of the Prerogatives of Saint Peter which Bellarmine makes Grounds and Arguments of his Primacy which if one say them over and endeavour to apply them to any but Saint Peter's individual person it will appear impossible the reasons of this Primacy cannot be supposed out of Peter's person therefore the Primacy cannot pass to his Successor mark them and you will find they are all either Acts done by Saint Peter or Graces received by him and so personally in him that whatsoever depends on them must needs die with Saint Peter's person and cannot be inherited by his Successor Indeed this Primacy rose of such Grounds and was in Saint Peter by Consequence of them had the Primacy been an Office or a Grace given of or in or for it self without respect to any of these Grounds there had been some shadow and but a shadow for its Succession but it having an essential dependence on those Reasons which were peculiar and proper to Saint Peter's person they cease together But lest it should be thought that there is Other seven Prerog Bill more of Argument in the other seven Prerogatives which Bellarmine mentioned I beg my Readers pardon to set down them also The first is perpetual stability is promised to Peter and his See 2. He alone was Ordained Bishop by Christ and the Rest by him Card. Cusan believes Aneclet Epis Bellarmine proves it counterfeit c. 34. p. 771. Azorius Suarez and Cosm Ph. deny it these plainly beg the thing in question 3. He placed his Seat at Rome 4. Christ appeared to him a little before he died therefore Primate and his Successor too 5. The Churches which he founded were always counted Patriarchal 6. The feast of his chair was celebrated 7. And his Name added to the Name of the Trinity in literis formatis What then was he not yet Primate before all this was not his Primacy founded upon the Reasons above will you say he was not Primate or by virtue of his Primacy was not President in the two Councils mentioned and if that be more than confessed even pleaded by you must not the former personal respects be the Grounds of that Primacy and is it possible for such a Primacy by Succession to descend to any other person none that consider will say it The Fathers acknowledge a Primacy in Saint Fathers Peter but upon such personal grounds as are mentioned Saint Peter was called a Rock saith Serm. 47. Saint Ambrose if the Book be his eò quòd primus in Nationibus c. because he was the first that laid the Foundation of Faith in the World Cerameus gives him likewise primus Aditus Aedisicationis spiritualis Christianorum Pontifex primus Petrus Reliquorum Apostolorum Princeps propter virtutis Amplitudinem He was Prince for the greatness Euseb of hs Virtue Virtue is a personal gift and cannot pass by Succession Object Saint Chrisostom indeed is urged against us Curam tum Petro tum Petri
the Bishop of Rome and therefore it could not argue any Authority peculiar to him Also the same universalcare of the Church the occasion of the Title hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him and indeed the power which is the Root of that Care as the occasion of that Title is founded in all Bishops Here are three things noted which may be 3 Notes distinctly considered 1. Power is given to all Bishops with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church So that if it were possible that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church they have Authority enough in their Function to do it though it be impossible and indeed inconsistent with peace and order that all should undertake it And therefore they have their bounds and limits set them hence their particular Diocesses therefore as St. Cyprian there is but one Bishoprick in the whole World a part of which is held by every Bishop 2. Thus we find in the primitive Church that every Bishop had his particular Charge yet they still regarded the common good extending their care the second thing observed sometimes beyond their own division by their council and direction yea and exercised their functions sometimes in other places Of which Dr. Stillingsleet Rat. aâ— p. 424 425. gives many instances in Polycarp Ignatius Irenaeus St. Cyprian Faustus Yea upon this very ground Nazianzen saith Or. 18. p. 281. of St. Cyprian that he not only governed the Churches of Carthage but all the Western parts and even almost all the Eastern Southern and Northern too as far as he went Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius Atha ap ad Iâ—p Const p. 786 c. We embrace saith he Peace and Vnity with the Catholick Church over which Thou through the Grace of God dost preside Whence Gregory Or. 21. p. 392. Ep. 52. Naz. saith of Athanasius that he made Laws for the whole Earth And St. Basil writes to him that he had care of all the Churches as of his own and calls him the Head and Chief of all And St. Chrisostom in the praise of Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch saith that he was instructed Tom. 5. p. 631. Savil. by the divine Spirit that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set but of the whole Church throughont the world Now what is this but to say in effect these great men were universal Bishops though indeed they none of them had power of Jurisdiction over any Church but their own as notwithstanding the general care of the ancient good Bishops of Rome had of the good of the whole and their Influence and Reverence in order thereunto the Bishops of Rome had not 3. Upon the former ground and occasion some Bishops in the most famous Churches had the honour of the Title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishops But here we must confess the Bishops of Rome had the advantage being the most famous of all both by reason of their own primitive merit and the glory of the Empire especially the latter The Roman Empire was it self accounted universal and the greatness of the Empire advanced the Church to the same Title and consequently the Bishops of that Church above others 1. That the Roman Empire was so appears by a multitude of Testimonies making orbis Romanus R. ac p. 425 426. orbis humanus Synonimous collected by Dr. Still Hence Am. Marcellinus calls L 14. c. 16. Rome Caput Mundi the head of the World And the Roman Senate Asylum Mundi totius And it was usual then to call whatever was out of the Roman Empire Barbaria as the same Dr. proves at large Therefore that Empire was Ibid. called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 11. 28. 2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical as that relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Roman Empire This appears because the very ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was the greatness of the City as appears in the Councils of Constantinople and Calcedon about it and the priviledges of old Rome gave the measure of the priviledges of new Rome And in probability the ground of that Patriarch's usurping the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness of his City which was then the Seat of the P. 426. Empire as Dr. Still very reasonably Conjectures Moreover all the three Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople had expressions given them tantamount to that Title The government of the whole World the care of all the Churches the government as it were of the whole R. ac p. 426. body of the Church as Dr. Stillingfleet particularly shews But most clear and full to that purpose as he observes is the Testimony of Theodoret Tâ—â—od Haer. fab l. 4. â— 14. p. 2. 5. To. 4. oper concerning Nestorius being made Patriarch of Constantinople He was intrusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople and thereby of the whole World Where shall we find so illustrious a Testimony for the Bishop of Rome or if we could we see it would prove nothing peculiar to him Therefore if the Council of Calcedon did offer the Title of universal Patriarch or if they did not but as the truth rather is some Papers received in that Council did give him that Title it signifieth nothing to prove the Popes universal Authority Therefore Sim. Vigorius ingeniously confesseth Comâ—â—â—o ad Res Syn. Coâ—â— Bas p. 36. that when the Western Fathers call the Roman Bishops Bishops of the universal Church they do it from the custom of their Churches not that they look on them as universal Bishops of the whole Church but in the same sence that the Patriarchs of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem are called so or as they are universal over the Churches under their own Patriarchate or that in Occumenical Councils they preside over the whole Church and after acknowledgeth that the Title of universal or oecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy It is too evident that that humble Pope Gregory seems to glorifie himself while he so often mentions that offer of the Title of Vniversal and his refusing of it and inveighing against it and that these were Engines used by him to deprive others of the same Title if not to advance his own See to the power signified by it though if he did indeed design any such thing it is an argument that he was ashamed openly to claim or own it while he rails against the Title in the effects of it which depended upon the power it self as such an abominable thing However if the Council of Calcedon did indeed offer or only record that Title to Gregory it is more than manifest it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the Authority of the whole Church or any more than that
and Mr. Pool's Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject CHAP. XVI II. Arg. For Infallibility viz. Tradition Concessions 4. Propositions 3. Arguments Objections Answered THat the difference may not seem wider than indeed it is we shall make way for our discussion of this Argument by a few but considerable Concessions 1. We yield that Tradition truly Catholick is Apostolical Truly Catholick that is in all the three known Conditions ab omnibus semper ubique For we cannot imagine that any thing should be believed or practised by all Learned Christians at all times and in all places as a point of Christian Religion that was not receiv'd as such either from Christ himself or his Apostles 2. We grant that Tradition hath been and ever will be both useful and necessary for the delivering down to the Faith of the Church in all succeeding Ages both the Canon of the Scripture and the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion The necessity hereof ariseth from the distance of Time and Place and must be supposed upon the Succession of Generations in the Church after the removal of the first Preachers and Writers and consequently the first deliverers thereof 3. We need not stick to agree that Tradition is Infallible if we abuse not the term too rigidly in conveying and preserving the substance of Religion which I was much enclined to believe before and am now much encouraged to express after I had read the learned and ingenious book of the Several ways of resolving Faith he concludes p. 129. the Necessaries to Salvation should ever fail to be practically transmitted from Generation to Generation is alike impossible as that multitudes of People should not in every Age be truly desirous of their own and their Posterities everlasting happiness seeing it is a thing both so easie to be done and so necessary to Salvation By the substance of Christian Religion I mean the Credenda and the Agenda or as he doth the Creed the Lords Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Two Sacraments 4. We may for ought I see to the contrary Gratifie the Author of Rushworth's Dialogues and the Abettors of that late new found Tradition of the present Church of Rome For every Church of Christ as such hath possession of the substance of Christian Religion and without it cannot be a Church And I am sure by this Concession the great Argument for Tradition is allowed and we are so far agreed in a main point I am troubled we must now differ but our Propositions shall be such as none that have weighed Antiquity can well doubt of them We affirm that whatsoever matter of Faith 1 Prop. or Practice is not derived from the first hands by Tradition Catholick as explained in the first Concession is not necessary to Salvation For 't is agreed if it were it would have been preserved by Tradition But it is against all Sence to believe that Tradition is sufficient to secure us from all Additions 2 Prop. to the first Faith or Additions and Alterations in Ceremonies and Worship or any thing that is not necessary to Salvation and herein indeed lies the Controversie for if Midwifes Nurses Parents and Tutors have as it is said Tradition in their hands and hold themselves obliged not to poyson little Babes as soon as they can receive Instructions accordingly and Tradition could not possibly admit or deliver any thing but what is necessary to salvation it were not possible for any Error to obtain in the Church or with any one Party or even Member of it but truth would be equally Catholick with Tradition and then Charity will not suffer us to believe that the Jews that kept the Law should be guilty of any vain Traditions contrary to our Saviour's Reproofs or that there should be any such Parties as Hugonites and Protestants in the World or such various Sects in the Church of Rome it self or so many Successive Additions to the Faith and Worship of that Church as none may have the confidence to deny have happened Vincentius speaks very truly saith Rigaltius and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Observ in Cyp. p. 147. Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by Fools or Knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions and we add by zealously superstitious men or by men tempted as is evident they were about the time of Easter and Rebaptization in the beginning to pretend Tradition to defend their Opinions when put to it in Controversie It further follows that the Infallibility of the Pope or Court of Rome or Church in 3 Prop. Matters of Faith is no necessary Point of Faith because it is not delivered down to us as such by lawful i. e. Catholick Tradition this is the Point Now here we justly except against the Testimony of the present Oral Tradition of the Roman Church or Tradition revers'd because it cannot secure us against additions to the Faith It is no evidence that Tradition was always the same in that point it cannot bear against all Authentick History to the contrary That Popes and Councils and Fathers and the Church too have erred in their belief and practice is past all doubt by that one instance of the Communion of Infants for some hundred of Years together which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent Yea that there was no such Tradition of the Pope's or the Church of Rome's Infallibility in ancient times is as manifest by the oppositions betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches which could not consist with such Tradition or belief of it And for the Church of England had she owned such Tradition her ancient Bishops would not have contended with and rejected his Messenger St. Austin and his Propositions together Neither can any considering man imagine that the Tradition of the Popes Infallibility is Catholick or generally received and believed in the Church of Rome at this day 'T is well known many of their eminent men renounce it and indeed the Pope himself doth not believe it or he does not believe that all his Doctors believe it For if he does believe both why does he not make use of his Talent and put an end to all the scandalous broils and Ruptures occasioned by the Doctrinal differences and Disputes among the several factions of his Church and have peace within his own Borders But this admits no Answer 'T is said by the Romanist that Universal Traditions are recorded in the Fathers of every succeeding Age and 't is reasonably spoken It behoves him as to the present point to shew us in some good Authors in every age since the Apostles this Tradition for Infallibility then indeed he hath done something which ought to be done But till that be done we must adhere that there is no such ground of the Popes Authority over us as his Infallibility proved by Scripture or Tradition This proof I think was never
Apostle too blame to say there must be Heresics or Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be an Infallible Judge among you and no Heresies but now men are wiser and of another mind To conclude whether we regard the Truth or Vnity of the Church both Reason and Sence assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing for as to Truth 't is impossible men should give up their Faith and Conscience and inward apprehension of things to the Sentence of any one man or all the men in the World against their own Reason and for Vnity there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it but that the Authority of Ecclesiastical Government can preserve it as well without as with Infallibility But if there be any Sence in the Argument methinks 't is better thus the Head and Governour of the Christian Church must of necessity be Infallible but the Pope is not Infallible ' either by Scripture Tradition or Reason therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governour of the Christian Church CHAP. XVIII Of the Pope's Universal Pastorship its Right divine or humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas WE have found some flaws in the pretended Title of the Pope as our Converter Patriarch Possessor and as the Subject of Infallibility his last and greatest Argument is his Vniversal Pastorship and indeed if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on Earth he is ours also and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him without the guilt of that which is charged upon us viz. Schism if his Commands be justifiable but if the proof of this fail also we are acquitted This Right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship is divine or humane if at all both are pretended and are to be examined The Bishop of Calcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the Original if the Right be granted 't is not de fide to believe whether it come from God or no. If the Pope be Universal Pastor Jure humano only his Title is either from Civil or from Ecclesiastical Power and least we should err Fundamentally we shall consider the pretenses from both If it be said that the Civil Power hath conferred this honour upon the Pope may it not be questioned whether the Civil Powers of the World extend so far as either to dispose of the Government of the Church or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor However de facto when was this done when did the Kings of England in Conjunction with the Rulers of the whole World make such a Grant to the Pope I think the World hath been ashamed of the Const donat Donation of Constantine long agon yet that no shadow may remain unscattered we shall briefly take an account of it They say Constantine the third day after he was baptized left all the West part of the Empire to Pope Sylvester and went himself to dwell at Constantinople and gave the whole Imperial and Civil Dominion of Rome and all the Western Kingdoms to the Pope and his Successors for ever A large Boon indeed this looks as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor but who makes him Vniversal Pastor and who ever since hath bequeathed the Eastern World to him either as Pastor or Emperor for it should seem that part Constantine then kept for himself But Mr. Harding throws off all these little Cavils and with sufficient Evidence out of Math. Hieromonachus a Greek Author shews the very Words of the Decree which carry it for the Pope as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Advantages they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We decree and give in charge to all Lords and to the Senate of our Empire that the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter chief of the Apostles have Authority and Power in all the World greater than that of the Empire that he have more honour than the Emperor and that he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats and that matters of Faith be by him determined this is the Charter whereby some think the Pope hath Power saith De potest Pap. c. 19. Harveus as Lord of the whole World to set up and pull down Kings 'T is confessed this Grant is not pleaded lately with any Confidence Indeed Bishop Jewel did check it early when he shewed Harding the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it such as Platina Cusanus Petavius Laurent Valla Antoninus Florentinus and a great many more Cardinal Cusanus hath these words Donationem Constantini dilligenter expendens c. Carefully weighing this Grant of Constantine even Conc. Cath. lib. 3. c. 2. in the very penning thereof I find manifest Arguments of Forgery and Falshood 'T is not found in the Register of Gratian that is in the allowed Original Text though it be indeed in the Palea of some Books yet that Palea is not read in the Schools and of it Pope Pius himself said dicta Palea Constantinus Pius 2. dial falsa est and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute an valuâ—rit id quod nunquam fuit and those that speak most favourably of it confess that it is as true that Vox Angelorum Audita est that at the same time the voice of Angels was heard in the Air saying hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam Much more to the discountenance of this vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence P. 537 538. 539. which to my observation was never since answered to him therefore I refer my Reader But alas if Constantine had made such a Grant Pope Pipus tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valuerit and the whole World besides must judge the Grant void in it self especially after Constantine's time Had Satan's Grant been good to our Saviour if he had faln down and worshipped him no more had Constantine's pardon the comparison for in other things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the flourishing Grandeur of the Church of Christ though by this he had as was said given nothing but poyson to it for the Empire of the World and the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his Successors for ever Arg. 2 King John But it is urged nearer home that King John delivered up his Crown to the Pope and received it again as his Gift 'T is true but this Act of present fear could not be construed a Grant of Right to the Pope if King John gave away any thing it was neither the Power of making Laws for England nor the exercise of any Jurisdiction in England that he had not before for he only acknowledged unworthily the Pope's Power but pretended not to give him such Power to confer the Crown for ever much less to make him Supreme Disposer of our English Church But if our Constitution be considered how
especially when that fails him yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pretences who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons as they say the Pope is If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches And if it could be proved too yet one thing more remains to be proved to subject the Church of England to that his power viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such or without our own consent or allowance And 't is impossible this should be proved while our Kings are Supreme and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood However we decline not the examination of the plea viz. that the Popes Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils viz. general But when this is said it is but reasonable to demand which or in what Canons It is said the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils in which of these is the grant to be found Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible We find it very plain that in some of those Councils and those the most ancient this Power is expresly denyed him and that upon such reason as is eternal and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever if future Grants were to be just and reasonable or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity by the Canons of the Fathers or fidelity to the Church to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws and he had ever shewed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes as well as over all persons Ecclesiastical even Popes themselves 't is not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine or to the prejudice of the Emperor 's said Supremacy and consequently not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes Justinian's Sanction extended to the four Justin Sanction of four first great Councils Nic. Constant Ephes 1. and Calcedon in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canones qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt confirmati hoc est Niceno c. praedictorum enim Consdiorum dogmata sicut divinas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges observamus Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not Apostles Canons not mention reason confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles whether because their Authority was suspected especially many of them or because Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly General Council or because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus c. or lastly whether because the first fifty had before a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole Ibid. Church or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors the Apostles or Apostolical men I venture not to declare my opinion But truly there seems something considerable for the later for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons but their own by the Quotation of them taking Authority from them as Laws founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon in such matters as were found there determined A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have full to our present purpose given us by Binius Nicena Synodus Can. 6. c. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed those Bin. To. 1. p. 20. Canons of the Apostles appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitane Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus and do nothing without their own Diocess but rather the Bishop of Alexandria according to the Canons understand saith Binius those 35 36 of the Apostles must govern the Churches of Egypt the Bishop of the East the Eastern Churches the Ephesine Synod also saith it is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus c. Hence it is plain that according to Apostles Canons interpreted and allowed as Authentick so far at least by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief over the Churches within his Provinces and that he as such exclusive of all Forreign Superior Power was to govern and ordain within his own Provinces not consonant to but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers and the matter is plainer SECT I. Can. Apostol THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose but what we find in Can. 35 36. or in the Reddition as Binius gives it Can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Bishops of 35 33. every Nation know or they ought to know who among them is accounted or is chief and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput and do nothing difficult aut magni momenti praeter ejus Conscientiam vel Sententiam but what if the matter were too hard for the Primate is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome here was indeed a proper place for it but not a word of that In the 36 aliàs 34. it is added that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction but neither of these Canons concern the Pope unless they signifie that the Pope is not Head of all Churches and hath not power in any place but within the Diocess of Rome or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Head in his Note upon these Canons SECT II. Concil Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion VVE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod that looks our way except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let ancient Custom be kept through Can. 6. Egypt Libia and Pentapolis so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be kept in their own Churches but suppose differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have
and consequently hath no force in England especially being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon a Fundamental Law of this Land all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and from him to the King to give order for Redress But to wipe away all colour of Argument what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters 't is certain they have none in this matter of Appeals for as to this Point the undoubted General Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province or a Council as hath been made to appear When I heare any thing of moment urged from any other Council as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope I shall consider what may be answered till then I think there is an end of his Claim Jure humano either by a Civil or Canonical Grant by Emperors or General Councils So much hath been said against and so little to purpose for the Council of Trent that I shall excuse my self and my Reader from any trouble about it But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received Epist Synod Conc. Basil by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures and deposed three Popes at a time The words of the Council are remarkable The Pope is subject to a general Council as well in matters of Faith as of manners so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed To say this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing if that Martin were Pope because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree But indeed the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed as appears in the History CHAP. XX. Of the Popes Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is last Refuge THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome sleight all that hath been said and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question Whether the Pope be universal Monarch or Bishop of the whole Church as St Peter's Successor Jure divino But if this point be so very plain may I have leave to ask why was it not urged sooner why were lesser inconsistent Pleas so long insisted on why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day The truth is if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds as no longer to be defended And yet give me leave to observe that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest and the least able to secure them which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause However they mightily labour to support it by these two Pillars 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical 2. That the Pope is the Monarch and both these are Jure divino But these Pillars also must be supported and how that is performed we shall examine SECT I. Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical by Divine Right Bellar. Reason Scripture BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go and no wonder if he have left it thin What solidity is in it we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture Not from Reason in 3 Arg. Arg. 1 From Reason they argue thus God hath appointed the best and most profitable Government for he is most wise and good but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable Ans 'T is plainly answered that to know which is the best Government the state of that which is to be governed must be considered the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church nothing is concluded 2. We believe that God hath the care of the World and not only of the Church therefore in his wise and good Providence he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government viz. under one universal Monarch 3. Bellarmine himself grants that if particular Churches should not be gathered inter se so as to make one visible Political Body their own proper Rector would suffice for every one and there should be no need of one Monarch But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body but as particular Bodies are complete in themselves enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Oecumenical Church qua talis 4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way God is good and wise and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch when divided under the several secular Powers of the World though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God as best for it is Monarchical is not believed by all Catholicks The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm that Aristocratical Government is the best of all and most agreeable to the nature of the Church De Eccl. Polit. potest an 1611. 6. But what if we yeild the whole Argument as the government of the Church is Imperial 't is in Christ the Vniversal Monarch over it but he being in a far Country he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries by visible ministerial Monarchs or Primates proper to each The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power is given us in this very case by our Adversaries There is nothing unreasonable unpracticable or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere the World is wide enough for many Monarchs and the Church too The Argument concludes for Primates over Provinces not for an universal Monarch either over the world or the whole Church Arg. 2 2. The Church cannot be propogated as Bell. argues
it and the building before the Government of the house and the Government of the Church cannot tollerably be thought to be of the Foundation or first building of the Church but for the Preservation or Augmentation of it after its existence is supposed Perhaps there is ground to allow that Peter's Foundation was the first as his Name was first among the Apostles and that this was the reason of that Primacy of Order and Dignity which some of the Ancients in their writings Paul had the same Primacy over Barnabas that Peter over Apost as St. Amb. in 2 ad Gal. acknowledged in Saint Peter but certainly there is need of a plainer Text to argue this Text to signifie that Supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church which is so hotly contended for by our Romish Adversaries to be given Saint Peter however after the Resurrection of Christ all were made equal both in Honour and Power as Saint Cyprian saith de Vnita Eccles But it is urged that the other Part of the 2. Script Matth. 16. 19. Promise is most clear to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven viz. the fulness of Celestial Power as Hart expressed it Answ Our Answer is that Christ here promised no more Power to Peter than he performed to all the Apostles Peter's Confession was made in the Name of all and Christ's Promise was made to Peter in the Name of all and nothing can be clearer either in the Text or in Fact The Text is plain both in it self and in the Judgment of the Fathers that Peter stood in the room of the rest both when he made the Confession and received the Promise Vid. St. Aug. in Joh. Tract 118. St. Ambr. in Psal 38. Jerom. adv Jovi li 1. Orig. in Math. Tract 1. Vid. Concor Cottrol l. 2. c. 13. Hilary de Trinit l. 6. c. Cardinal Cusan is plain in this Point also And that it did equally concern the rest of the Apostles is evident by the performance of it A Promise is of something de futuro our Saviour saith to Peter I will give thee the Keys but when did he do it and how did he do it Certainly at the time when he delivered those words recorded John 20. 21 23. And after the manner there expressed and by that Form of Words now are not those Words spoken by Christ equally to all the Apostles As my Father sent me so do I send you whose soever sins ye remit c. nothing plainer To say that Christ gave not the Keys to all but only the Power of remitting and retaining sins seems pitiful unless some other proof be offered that Christ did actually perform this Promise to Saint Peter apart and give him the Keys at some other time in distinction to the Power given in the 20. John to all together Remitting and retaining sins is certainly the Power of the Keys and so called by the Council of Trent it self Chatech in Sacram. Paenit and 't is not the keeping but the Power of the Keys is the question and indeed Bellarmine proves that the whole Power of the Keys and not a part only as Stapleton supposed was granted to all the Apostles in the Words John 20. to be the general interpretation of the Fathers in Prael Rom. Controv. 4. q. 3. de Sum. Pontif. Stapleton from Turrecrem distinguisheth betwixt From Turrecrem the Apostolick and the Episcopal Power and they grant that the Apostolick Power was equal in all the Apostles and received immediatly from Christ but the Episcopal Power was given to Saint Peter with the Keys and immediatly and by him to the rest This is a new shift else why is the Title Apostolical given to the Pope to his See to all Acts c. seeing the Pope according to the sineness of this distinction doth not succeed Peter as an Apostle but as a Bishop 'T is as strang as new seeing the Power of the Keys must as well denote the Episcopal Power of the rest of the Apostles as of Peter and the Power of using them by remitting c. was given generally and immediatly by Christ to them all alike This distinction of Turrecremata was as Reynolds against Hart sheweth spoiled before Doctor Stapleton new vamped it by two learned Relict 2. de Potest Eccl. Friars Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus Victoria evidencing both out of the Scriptures that the Bibli Sanc. l. 6. annot 269 271. Apostles received all their Power immediatly of Christ and the Fathers that in the Power of Apostleship and order so the two Powers were called Paul was equal to Peter and the rest to them both Therefore this distinction failing another is invented and a third kind of Power is set up viz. the Power of Kingdoms and now from the threefold Power of Saint Peter Apostolatus Ordinis Regni it is strongly affirmed 1. Touching the Apostleship Paul as Jerom saith 1. In Com. ad Gal. was not inferior to Peter for he was chosen to preach the Gospel not by Peter but by God as Peter was 2. Touching the Power given 2. Advers Jovini ad Evag. in the Sacrament of Order Jerom saith well too that all the Apostles received the Keys equally and that they all as Bishops were equal in the degree of Priesthood and the Spiritual Power of that degree thus the first distinction is gone But thirdly touching the Power 3. Advers Jovin Lucif of Kingdom Saint Jerom saith best of all that Peter was chosen among the Twelve and made the Head of all that all occasion of Schism might be removed These are Phansies of the Schoolmen but where are they grounded we are seeking for Saint Peter's Supremacy in the Scripture where do we there find this Power of the Kingdom given him by Christ or what Ancient Father ever so expounded this Text of the Keys We grant many expressions are found in the Fathers in honour of Saint Peter Saint Augustine affirms his Primacy is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent Grace Saint Chrysostom calleth him the Mouth the Chief the Top of the Company Theodoret stiles him the Prince Epiphamus the Highest Saint Augustine the Head President and first of the Apostles which he proveth out of Saint Cyprian who saith the Lord chose Peter first and Saint Jerom saith he was the Head that occasion of Schism might be taken away and gives him the honour of great Authority all these were used by Hart against Raynolds To them all Doctor Raynolds gives cleer and satisfactory answers shewing largely that they signifie nothing but a Primacy of Election or Order or Dignity or Esteem and Authority in that Sence or a Primacy in Grace and Gifts viz. a Principallity or Chiefness in Worth or a Primacy of Presidentship in Assemblies as the Mouth and Moderator or the Head of Vnity and Order as Jerom means but 't is not to be proved from any or
all of these Encomiums that the Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under Saint Peter as their Governour or that he had any real Power given him by Christ more than they The Words of Saint Cyprian are plain and full albeit Christ saith he gave equal Power to 1. St. Cyp. de unit Eccl. all the Apostles after his Resurrection and said as my Father c. yet to declare Vnity he disposed by his Authority the Original of that Vnity beginning in one no doubt saith he the rest were the same that Peter was endued with the like fellowship pari Consortio of Honour and Power but the beginning doth come from Vnity that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be but one Thus this Topick of the Fathers expounding the Text being found to fail another device and such a one as the very detection both answers and shames the Authors is fled unto viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers and to make them speak home indeed The place of Saint Cyprian just now set is a In Opusc Contr. Graec. very clear instance of this black Art allowed by the Popes themselves the place in the former Prints was as it is set down in the Roman-purged-Cyprian is thus altered by addition of these words And the Primacy is given to Peter Again he appointed one Church and the Chair to be one and to make all sure the Antwerp Cyprian addeth conveniently Peter's Chair And then saith he who forsaketh Peter's Chair on which the Church was founded c. And by this time Against Haâ—â— Peter's Primacy is the Popes Supremacy Vid. Dr. Rayn p. 210 211. But Tho. Aquinas hath dealt worse with St. Cyril Fathering a Treasure upon him which he never owned beyond all tolerable defence To the Grecians St. Cyril is brought in speaking thus Christ did commit a full and ample power both to Peter and his Successors The Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every Doctrine Peter and his Church to be instead of God and to him even to Peter all do bow by the Law of God and the Princes of the World are obedient to him even as to the Lord Jesus and we as being Members must cleave unto our Head the Pope and Apostolick See c. Now either St. Cyril said thus or not If he did who will believe him that shall make such Stories and Father them upon every Doctrine in the New Testament contrary to common sence and the knowledge of all or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers But if this Book called St. Cyril's Treasure be none of St. Cyril's as certainly it is not then though I am provoked I shall say no more but that we should weigh the Reasons but not the Authority of such a Schoolman especially in his Masters Cause 'T is certain the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's Treasure which are Extant as Hart acknowledgeth to Dr. Raynolds Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so hainous a thing as Thomas committed against 600 Bishops Ibid. even the General Council of Calcedon when he saith they decreed thus If any Bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome because we have Peter for a Rock of Refuge and he alone hath Right with freedom of Power in the stead of God to Judge and Try the crime of a Bishop according to the Keys which the Lord did give him calling the Pope the Holy Apostolick and universal Patriarch of the whole World Now in that Council there is not a word of all this and they answer Hereticks have rased it out if you will believe it but neither Surius nor Caranza find any thing wanting I shall only make this Note that seeing the Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the Power of their Master 'T is no wonder that their learned Adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such Judges but rather appeal to the true Canon and call for Scripture One would think this were enough but this Opinion of the equality of Power among the Apostles was not only the concurrent Judgment of the Ancients but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome even from these words Tues Petrus c. upon unanswerable Reason Lyra on Matth. 16. Durand a St. Porciano in 4. Cent. dist 18. q. 2. both in the 14 Cent. and Abulensis in the In Matth. 18. q. 7. In Matth. 20. q. 83 84. 15 Cent. the latter argues earnestly that none of the Apostles did understand those words of Christ to give any Supremacy to Peter for afterwards they contended for Superiority Matth. 18. and after that the two Sons of Zebedee desire it Matth. 20. and at the last Supper the question is put again Luke 22. Therefore he concludes they thought themselves equal till Christs death when they knew not which of them should be greatest Cusanus his contemporary de concord Cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and Fran. Victoria This was the interpretation of all the Doctors of Paris Bin. Conc. an 1549. and of Adulphus Arch-Bishop of Cologne and of the Bishops of his Province the Decrees of whose Synod with this interpretation were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth and enjoyned to be observed Thus the chief ground of St. Peter's Supremacy is sunk and there is little hopes that any other Text will hold up that weighty super-structure Another Scripture much insisted on for the support of St. Peter's Supremacy is Joh. 21. 14 15 16. 3. Joh. 21. 14 c. Peter lovest thou me feed my Sheep feed my Lambs Wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church Ans 'T is answered this Text gives not any Commission or power to St. Peter it gives him charge and Commandment to execute his Commission received before Now it hath appeared sufficiently that the Commission was given equally to all the Apostles in those words as my Father sent me so send I you c. so that the power of feeding and the Duty of Pastors was alike to them all though this Charge was given to Peter by name here with so many Items perhaps intimating his repeated Prevarications yet were they all sent and all charged with a larger Province than these words to Peter import Teach all Nations Preach the Gospel to every Creature are our Saviours charge to them all Obj. In the Apostolick Power all were equal saith Hart not in the Pastoral Charge Ans We answer with a distinction allowed by Stapleton of the Name Pastor 't is special and distinct from Apostle Some Apostles some Eph. 4. Pastors or general and common to all commission'd to preach the Gospel So Christ is called Pastor and all the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter Obj. But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest for he is charged to feed all the Sheep the whole Church Now
the Rest of the Apostles were Christs Sheep and members of his Church Hart and Ray. p 129. Ans Christ saith not to Peter feed all my Sheep but he doth say to them all Preach to every Creature And if Peter have power over the rest because they are Sheep and he is to feed the Sheep then every one of the rest have power over Peter because he is a Creature and they are to preach to every Creature But this is trifling so is all that is further argued from this Text though by Feeding we understand Ruling Ruling of Pastors or what you will while whatsoever was charged on Peter here is within the same Commission wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally impowered as before and that of Bellarmine that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the Apostles as extraordinary Embassadors is altogether as groundless as if there were any colour of Reason that an ordinary Pastor should have more power than an extraordinary Embassador Dr. Hammond observes Bellarmine was not 13 Oct. 1562. the Author of that Artifice Cajetan and Victoria had used it before him and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent where the Bishop of Granada derided it and the Authors of it and soon after the Bishop of Paris expresly affirmed that Cajetan was about 50 years before the first deviser of it The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture as understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen as he affirmed Concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11. To conclude this matter Feed my Sheep are not a ground for the Popes Presidency which are found not to be so of Peter's above the body of the Universal Church as was publickly pronounced in the Covent of the Fryers Minors and appears by the Opusc of John Patriarch of Antioch And Cardinal Cusanus who lived at the same De Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 23. time makes them words of Precept not of Institution and both are agreeable to the interpretatiou of the Ancients St. Ambrose de dign Sacerd. c. 2. Aug. de Ago Christiano c. 30. Theoph. in Joh. c. 21 c. It is time to look further The third great place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being Luk. 22. 31 converted strengthen thy Brethren Whence Hart reasons thus Christ commands Peter to strengthen Rayn and Hart. p. 142. his Brethren and his Brethren were the Apostles Therefore he was to strengthen the Apostles and by consequence he must be their Supreme Head Ans When Hart urged this Argument with all his wit and might and Dr. Raynolds had made it evident there is no Authority given by the words nor carried in the word Strengthen that Equals and Inferiors are capable of it as well as Superiors much less can it necessarily imply a Supremacy over the whole Church he confesseth with Stapleton that Christ gave the Power to Peter after his Resurrection when he said to him Feed my Lambs which we have weighed before but those words of strengthning c. he spake before his death and did but futuram insinuaverat insinuate therein and as Harts word is that he would make him Supreme Head then if he did not make him so afterward he did it not at all That Peter had power over the rest of the 4 Scrip. Apostles would be proved as before from the Promise and Commission of Christ so at last by Peter's Execution he proposed the Election of a Act. 1. 25. new Apostle in the Room of Judas Ans Therefore he was Speaker at least pro tempore in the Assembly but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch Obj. But St. Chrysostom saith that though Peter's modesty was commendable for doing all things by common advice and consent and nothing by In Matth. 40. 51. his own Authority yet addeth that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself Ans Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him by the rest a Primacy not a Supremacy Again In Matth. Hom. 15. he derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apostles not the donation of Christ as Hart Rayn Hart. p. 156. confesseth But indeed the Father exceeded in his Charity and 't is he that said that Peter might have chosen one himself The Scripture saith not that he might yea it saith he did not And the Argument from Peter's Execution of this power is come to this that he did not execute it Besides many Fathers and in Council too together with St. Cyprian pronounce that Peter proposing the matter to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice did according to the lessons and Precepts of God therefore jure divino they thought Peter had no such power as Dr. Raynolds shews p. 159. But when Peter had been heard all the Multitude held their peace and James and all the 5 Scrip. Act. 15. Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence Ans What is this to prove his Supremacy because the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him was therefore Gamaliel a Pharisee a Doctor of the Law whom all the People honoured Supreme Head and Superior to the High-Priest and Act. 3. 34. Council And if Jerom say Peter was Princeps Decreti he acknowledged perhaps the Reason the Motion and the Delivery or declaration of it principally to Peter the first Author of the Sentence as the same Jerom calls him and explains himself Epist 11. inter Epistol August So was Tully called viz. Prince of Decrees when he was Pro Cor. Balbo neither President nor Prince of the Senate We conclude that Peter had no Superiority of Power or Government over the rest of the Apostles or the whole Church because it neither was promised him nor given him nor Peter added Nihil doctrinae aut potestatis Aquinas Not inferior to the chief Apost 2 Cor. 11. 5. Executed by him notwithstanding Bellarmine's 28 Prerogatives of St. Peter from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue many of them being uncertain some vain and trifling and some common with the rest of the Apostles but neither divisim or conjunctim sufficient to make or to evince any real Supremacy of power in St. Peter 5. 'T is indeed said by some of the Fathers So Paul judged Chris Hom. 12. 2. 87. that the Government of the World and the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but it is plain they speak of his Apostleship for they say the same of Paul ille Solusgerebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orbis praefectam suscepit and the like of Timothy who was never reputed Vniversal Monarck Paul and Peter had two different Primacies Saint Hom. 1. ad Pop. Orat. 6. Con. Jud. Ambr. had the same Dignity Chrisost were equal Oecumenius CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession I Have laboured the more to scatter the pretences of Saint Peter's Supremacy because though the Consequence be not good