Pope acknowledging him the Prince and Head of Gods Holy Priests You make Laws in defiance of him pulling of him down as a Spiritual Usurper They made Laws which were according to his Approbation the Rules and Definitions of the Church backing the Spiritual with the Temporal Sword You make Laws in affront to him and against the Decrees of the Church Thus you see their proceedings herein have no affinity with Henry the Eighth's Headship nor with Edward the Sixth's Reformation of the Ecclesiastick Laws nor with Queen Eliz. New Articles and Canons But that you may more be convinc'd herein I shall give you a few Patterns of these Emperors Decrees which at your leisure you may confront with those of your party and see how they quadrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justinian Novel 131. We enact that according to their own Sanctions the most Holy Pope of Old Rome be the Prince of High-Priests And in his Decrees about Justiniana he acknowledges therein to have followed the Definitions of Pope Vigilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Justin eod Lib. 7. he says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither will we suffer any thing which belongs to to the State of the Church not to be referr'd to your Holiness as being the Head of all the Holy Priests of God As for Theodosius I find in Sozom. L. 7. C. 4. that he put out an Edict Commanding that Religion which Pope Damasus had preserv'd as deliver'd to him by St. Peter should be observ'd enjoining all his Subjects to embrace it I can find no Edict of his for reforming and altering it This he enjoyn'd those under him to be of under penalty of being reputed Hereticks and Infamous and deservers of Punishment Thus much Power in Church-Affairs is still granted every King and to speak the Truth 't is their Duty to defend the Church by their Temporal Power against Heresie and Schism By such Actions as these they purchase to themselves the glorious Title of Nursing Fathers and Propugnators not by usurping Authority over the Church depluming its Head of that Power which Christ invested him with and appropriating it to themselves changing Articles of Belief establish'd by General Councils and Antient Traditionary Truths handed down from Father to Son these are Actions unpresidented by any well instructed Christian Emperor who I find to be very cautious touching Church-Affairs as you may perceive by the Answer of the Emperor Valentinian to the Bishop of Heraclea Sozom. Lib. 6. C. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful for me who am one of the Laity to concern my self about such things After this vagrancy of your Roving Fancy you begin to think of home and being return'd into your own Countrey you affirm of our English Kings that Church-Affairs were both de facto jure govern'd by them This if you shall ever be able to prove out of good Authors you will certainly deserve the Palm for an admirable Historian I have already prov'd that Church-Matters do belong to the Spiritual not to the Temporal Power and that these two Governments are distinct and for this I have the Authority of St. Chrysost who in his Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae in Vidi Dominum says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be other limits of a Kingdom and other limits of the Priesthood but this is greater than that As for Matter of Fact I will not deny but that some Princes before Henry the Eighth irritated either by their Passion or allur'd by a curiosity of intermedling with what did not appertain to them have intrench'd upon the Immunities of the Church and asserting a pretended Right have clashed with the Roman Bishop and medled de facto with Church-Matters but quo jure is the Question You cannot prove a right of Power by proving an exercise of Power unless it be allow'd of for granted That whatever a King do's is lawful Their Quarrels with the Pope were chiefly about Investitures and disposal of Bishopricks They did not deny his Supremacy in Spirituals or if they quarrelled with any particular Pope they did not attempt the abolishing of Papacy A Pope may be to blame and so may a King but neither of these Institutions as Sacred ought to be abrogated for the faults of Men. But to bring the parrallel home to your Case Did our Kings before Henry the Eighth make themselves absolute Heads of the Church immediately under Christ Did they challenge as innate to their Crowns Supreme Power in all Cases both Spiritual and Civil Did they rob the Pope of his Power and assume Papal Jurisdiction Did they vendicate to themselves Authority in Church Affairs ordering Laymen Vicar Generals in Spiritualities as Cromwell was who sat in the Convocation-House amongst the Bishops as Head over them This would to them have appear'd as new and monstrous a sight as ever was brought out of Africa Suppose they clash'd with the Church of Rome did they ever part from her and all other Christian Churches besides as you did in your Reformation making Laws to reverse Decrees of General Councils changing Religion and altering Articles of Belief Did they pick Quarrels with the Church and then Sacrilegiously seize on her Lands and Goods Sacrificing to their fury as many Churchmen as would not comply with their Nefarious Oaths Demolishing Religious Houses violating Sacred Orders Was any thing of this nature acted in the days of Henry the Seventh or of those brave Princes before him But I shall not proceed further on this Point we having at present a King granted us by the indulgent benignity of Heaven who well knows how to distinguish betwixt the Rights of the Church and his own Royal Right betwixt what belongs to God and what to Caesar what to the Miter and what to the Crown A most Religious Prince tracing the sure Footsteps of his Great Ancestors owning the Religion which his vast Kingdoms receiv'd at their forsaking Heathenism and Conversion to Christianity In a Right and proper Sense Defender of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith for defending whereof this Crown obtain'd that illustrious Title For this Prince Pietate insignis Armis no less Pious than Valiant no less Just than Good endued with all those Adorable Qualities which render him amongst Kings the most Conspicuous amongst Monarchs the most Renown'd we ought to be highly grateful to the Supreme God whose Lieutenant he is hoping that under so Gracious and Merciful a Prince we may be protected from our cruel inveterate Enemies and that now at length our Innocency may be a sufficient Shield to defend us from the false Oaths of Profligate Perjur'd Villains who have so long triumph'd over us bathing their wicked Hands in guiltless Blood And now having made mention of our Natural Liege Sovereign I shall conclude this Point with a Prayer for him according to the Platform of Tertullian wishing his Majesty Vitam prolixam Imperium securum Domum tutam Exercitus fortes Senatum fidelem Populum probum
the World The Bishops of Rome then lineally descending from St. Peter have the same Pastoral Authority devolv'd on them by Divine Sanction which St. Peter had over the Church they succeeding him in all those prerogatives which are ordinary and belonging to him as Supreme Bishop for the Government of the Church for eadem Antecessoris Successoris ratio in alicujus maneris obeundi ratione so that Pastoral Praefecture which St. Peter was invested in after his Death passed to his Successor by him handed to the next from him transmitted to the following c. and so by a perpetual descendency embalm'd and convey'd to this present Bishop as being Ordinary successive and indefectible and correspondently I find Eusebius in his Catalogue of Roman Bishops having ranked St. Peter in the Van under the Title of Christianorum Pontifex Primus to reckon Linus for the Second and the rest in their order to Sylvester his Synchronist the one and thirtieth Pope from St. Peter this Catalogue was continued by St. Hierom to Damasus the thirty fifth from St. Peter The Popes of Rome then succeeding St. Peter in the Pontificate are Jure Successionis Heirs to the Sacerdotal Power and Dignities which belonged to St. Peter's Sacred Function as he was Pontifex Christianorum it being but rational that those Supreme Pontificial Royalties which St. Peter for the good of the Universal Church was inrob'd in should still reside in his Successors for the keeping all subordinate Pastors in their duty and for the prevention of Schism which will of necessity arise where there is no Coercive Compulsory Power to quash it Thus in the Old Law there was a Sacerdotal Succession of High-Priests and Aaron who was the Head of the Levitical as St. Peter was the Head of the Christian Hierarchy was succeeded by Eleazer and he by Phineas c. and the Authority which Aaron and his Children was invested with died not with 'em but was propagated to the succeding High-Priests CHAP. II. Concerning Schism and whether the Roman or English Church be guilty of it THE next thing you observe and seem to mislike is my skipping over that part of your Papers which treated of Schism I must confess I did decline handling it being unwilling to enter into so large a Field of Matter and so I am still but because you urge and remind me and seem so fond of what you wrote on that Point as to take it ill that I made a Preterition of it I shall now supply what I omitted then for I perceive it is your temper to imagine what I did not answer to be unanswerable It cannot but be as pleasant to hear you declaim against Schism as to have heard Verres inveighing against Theft or the Gracchi against Sedition You are pleas'd to call it Damnable Schism the Epithet was very proper and now look about you and strictly examine whether like David in his Parly with Nathan you have not through anothers side imprudently transfix'd your self by being found guilty of that Crime you have so severely condemn'd in another I perceive you make use of all your Artifice for your compurgation but all is but fucous and elusive your actual Separation having too much evidence to be deny'd and too much atrocity to be defended I shall now as summarily as I can contract what you write on this Subject and then shape my Reply to it Having defin'd Schism to be a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church you divide it into Paternal and Fraternal the former you say is a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governors the latter you term to be a Causless Division of one particular true Church from another then you say your Church is not guilty of Paternal Schism because you perform Obedience to Christ and his Apostles observing all their Rules and Ordinances left in the Scripture then you pay Reverence to the Fathers of the Church and own the Four first General Councils and are willing the differences 'twixt your and other Churches should be decided by their Umperage This you judge sufficient to clear you from Paternal Schism As for Fraternal you very fairly clear your Church of that because you give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and Christians in the World Having as you fancy acquitted your Church you bring in your Indictment against the Church of Rome accusing her as notoriously guilty of Schism in both respects First of Paternal by many Doctrines and Practices contrary to the commands of Christ and his Apostles and of the Antient Church such as are Image-worship Transubstantiation c. Then you say she is guilty of Fraternal Schism by her renouncing Communion with all Churches not in subjecton to her denouncing all damn'd who submit not to her by sending Emissaries into all the World labouring to make a Spiritual Conquest of all other Churches c. These things prove the Church of Rome you say guilty of Schism in both acceptations This is a short abridgment of what you write about Schism which I design to answer as soon as I shall have premis'd something concerning the Nature and Danger of that Sin Schism do's essentially consist in deserting the External Communion of Christs Visible Church 't is a most heinous sin as tending to the destruction of Christ's Mystical Body whose Essence consists in the Union of all its substantial parts its ruine in their Division 't is a cutting Christ's Seamless Garment into Shreds as St. Chrysost affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the bold Souldiers dar'd not to do the Audacious Schismatick performs This sin is of that Malignancy that neither rectitude of Faith nor a Vertuous Life nor Good Works can attone nay Martyrdom it self according to St. Cyprian cannot expiate it Macula ista nec Sanguine abluitur inexpiabilis gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur St. Chrysost says of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is worse August cont Parmen Lib. 2. says Non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis The Devil seeing his Idols demolish'd and his Temples deserted by the planting of Christianity found out this Sin out of black Revenge Excogitavit novam fraudem ut sub ipso nominis Christiani titulo fallat incautos haereses invenit Schismata quibus fidem subverteret veritatem corrumperet scinderet unitatem rapit de ecclesia homines says Cyprian in his Book De Vnit Eccles How lucky this Stratagem has been to him the many Rents and Fractions amongst Christians can attest I shall now examine whether the Roman or the Protestant Church be guilty of this damnable Crime and herein I shall regulate my Discourse according to the Definition you have made of it namely That it is a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church and this being an evident Matter of Fact it will be easie to determine which forsook the External Commuion of the Visible Church That the Church of England in the beginning of the
Christi periculis by repressing the Hereticks Caelestius and Pelagius infecting Africa and Palestine with their false Doctrin in this case why did they not write to the Patriarch of Jerusalem or to the Primate of Africa The Reason given is because they concluded those Hereticks would with more ease yield to Innocentius as to one whose Authority was drawn from the Scripture Now this Power which they did desire him to shew was neither his Diocesan nor Patriarchal but his Papal Power for Palestine was no Limb of the Western but Eastern Patriarchate and consequently out of his Jurisdiction as he was the Occidental Patriarch This Power of his which they desire him to make use of they acknowledg'd to be drawn out of the Scripture which cannot be made out but by what was spoken by Christ to Peter And this is the Method St. Bernard uses in his Book of Considerations to Eugenius who having attributed high things to him proves what he says ex dictis Domini I shall now come to take a view of the words which the Fathers in the Milevitan Council of which Austin was one used to Innocentius which in Epist 92. of St. Austin I find were these Arbitramur adjuvante misericordiâ D. N. J. Christi Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sacrarum literarum authoritate depromptae facilius eos qui tam perversa perniciosa sentiunt cessuros The words are very plain and clearly discovering their Opinion that his Authority was from Scripture but because this is a truth that must be suppress'd 'T is very pleasant to see how 't is deprav'd by Expositors Cedent authoritati tuoe de scripturarum authoritate depromptae that is says Chamier Tibi veram doctrinam a Scripturis expromenti But the intent of these words is not that Innocentius should make them yield by quoting of places out of the Scripture and so confute their Heresies that the African Bishops themselves or any other might have done if they had pleas'd but by vertue of his Supreme Ecclesiastick Authority to which the Fathers imagin'd these Heretick would more readily submit as grounded on Scripture This is the genuin Sense of those words but I shall add no more on this Matter but confine my following Discourse chiefly to St. Peters Supremacy First You must understand that I do believe as firmly as you do that Christ is the Primary and Principal Foundation of the Church the Lapis summus angularis a nullo alio dependens the Lapis fundamentalis cui totum innititur aedificium on whom not only every true Christian but the Apostles and Peter himself is Mystically superedified as St. Austin affirms Petra erit Christus super quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus Petrus And accordingly St. Cyril in his Notes on Isaias Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Christ is the Foundation and unmovable Basis of all containing and strengthening all to the end they be well supported for we are all of us built on him Thus you may perceive that we do not go about to despoil our Savior of his due Honor and invest Peter with it as you traduce us with for if he be the Rock of Church much more Christ is to deny which would be Antichristian But Peter is not hereby excluded notwithstanding this but is likewise the Rock but in Subordination and Inferiority to Christ And thus St. Basil Hom. 28. de Paen. makes this distinction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if Peter be a Rock he is not such a Rock as Christ sed sicut Petrus Petra est whereas Christ is really and of himself a Rock unmoveable Petrus autem propter Petram Thus I conceive Christ to be the Primordial Absolute and Independent Rock the Petra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of his own Strength Authority and Divinity whereas Peter is a Rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subordinate Vicarious Ministerial by Commission and Derivation from him laid by Christ's own Hands the glorious Architect of his Spiritual Fabrick next to himself as Theophyl observes on Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 introducing Christ speaking to St. Peter This thing belongs to you says he as one who after me are the Rock and Strength of the Church Hence you may easily perceive that things Subordinate combate not one with another but suppose one another therefore to say Christ is the Foundation of the Church and Peter is the Foundation are no repugnant duelling Propositions but friendly and compatible And thus as it was observ'd by Cardinal Perron Moses saying That God guided the Israelites in their Travels from Aegypt to the Promised Land and Stephen affirming Moses to have conducted them in the Wilderness are not Contrariant or Antistoichal one to the other God doing it by the strength of his Omnipotent Arm and Moses by Order and Authority from him as his Lieutenant With the same facility this our Discrepancy may be sodered for I affirm not Peter to be Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel aliud from Christ but Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel alterum not alterius generis as in opposition to Christ but Christo subalternum for as Salmeron well observ'd Respectu Christi non est fundamentum sed aedificatio nec caput sed membrum praecipuum tamen respectu nostri caput fundamentum This distinction of a Principal and Inferior Foundation you must allow to be deducible from St. Paul or else you must grant a Contradiction For as in one place he affirms that Christ is the only Foundation and that no other can be lay'd He in another place calls the Prophets and Apostles Foundations Now this difference cannot be reconcil'd but by admitting a Primary and Secondary Foundation Hence 't is that Austin in Psalm 86. entitles Christ the Foundation of Foundations Fandamentum Christus primum maximum c. Si Sacramenta cogites Christus sanctus sanctorum si gregem subditum cogites Christus pastor pastorum si fabricam cogites Christus fundamentum fundamentorum Thus it seems to be in the Church as in the State For as in the State notwithstanding God by his Omnipotency and Wisdom tempers and disposes all things as King of Kings and Lord of Lords Yet has he establish'd here on Earth Principacies into whose Hands he has committed the Sword whom we are in duty oblig'd to obey so tho' Christ be the Moderator and Foundation of the Church and do's rule and direct it by his Internal Influxes yet has he establish'd a Visible Monarchick Government in it with which he invested St. Peter propagating it to his Successors Now tho' Christ did build his Church on Peter he himself is the main Basis of the Structure and as Christ is the Head of the Church God is the Head of Christ who by his Omnipotent Power supports and sustains the vast pile of the Catholick Church I shall next give you some Testimonies of the Fathers who notwithstanding their affirming Christ to be the Rock disrobe not St.