the great Saint Basil who writing to St. Athanasius about suppressing Arianism in the East hath these words It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome to desire him that he would have regard to our affaires and interpose the judgment of his Decree c. Moreover that he would give Authority to sâ—m choice persons who may bring the Acts of the Council of Ariminum for the annulling of those things that were violently done there c. 6. Again when the Synod of Antioch about the year 343. assembled by Arians to the prejudice of the Council of Nice had framed a new confession of Faith it was argued of nullity saith Sâ—crates especially because Iulius Bishop of Rome was neither himself present nor sent any to supply his place Whereas saith he the Ecclesiastical Canon commands that no Decrees be established in the Church without the assent of the Bishop of Rome And this authority the same Pope Iulius asserts For writing to the Eastern Bishops who had condemned St. Athanasius he sayes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are you ignorant this is the custom that you should first write to us and after that determin just matters there Therefore if there were any ill suspition against that Bishop of Alexandria you ought to have signified it in the first place to the Church here 7. Consonantly hereto Sozomen another Greek Historian saith expresly That there was received in the Church a Sacerdotal law declaring all things to be void that are done without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Nay which is yet more this which for ought appears was only an unwritten Canon or Custom for no Council mentions it but deliver'd by Tradition even in the Eastern Churches was of such authority that the foresaid Emperor Valentinian makes it a Law-Imperial We decree says he that according to the antient custom nothing be innovated in the Church without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Surely Dr. Pierce will acknowledge these Testimonies argue more than a Primacy of Order here is a Iurisdiction asserted extending it self beyond the Diocesâ—n Metropolitan or Patriarcal limits of Rome 8. I will add a few examples more when some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriark of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Priâ—at of Ancyâ—a and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza The Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of all things does pertain restored to every one of them their own Church And he adds further That he commanded those who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunish'd if they did not cease from innovating All this he did saith Theodoret not by usurpation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Churches law 9. Again when the General council of Ephesus was entring into debate about the cause of Iohn Patriark of Antioch the Bp. of Ierusalem interposed affirming that according to the antient custom the Church of Antiochâ— as alwayes governed by the Roman Whereupon the whole Council remitted the judgement of that Cause to the Pope 10. Moreover when Dioscorus Patriark of Alexandria in the Scismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope And this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the custom of Synods sayth the Emperor Valentinian 11. Two examples more I will the rather add because we of this Nation are particularly concern'd in them The first is taken out of the famous Council of Sardica assembled about twenty years after that of Nice This Council was by Iustinian called Oecumenical because though the Eastern Bishops departed before the conclusion yet the Canons of it were never rejected by them In the third and fourth Canons of this Council it was ordain'd upon a proposal made by the famous Osius of Corduba to this effect That in any Controversies between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved might appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the Process and appoint Iudges And by a second proposal of Gaudentius a Bishop in case any Bishop deposed should make such an appeal till the Pope had determin'd the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be ordained in his place These Decrees the Council made to honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle 12. Now at this Conâ—cil among other Bishops from all the Western Countreys some came out of our Britany as St. Athanasius an eye-witness assured us And therefore the General Superintendency of the Pope over all churches could not have been unknown in this Nation long before St. Augustin the Monk or the Saxons had possession here By which may appear the slightness of the late found Welsh paper though much bragged of in which the Abbot of Bangor is said to have refused the subjection to the Pope which St. Augustin requir'd of the British Bishops For what grosse ignorance was it in this Abbot if the Paper relate truth of him That after all that power exercised by that man called the Pope over the whole Church of God especially over the Western Provinces and so much respect return'd him from them after the presence of the British Bishops at so many famous Councils and after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bishops of Romes delegation he should be such a stranger to his person or authority or his titles after the year of our Lord 600 At which time also the Irish Bishops are found to have yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop when the Britains thus denied it as appears Both in that they are said by venerable Beda the South-Irish at least to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter Ad admonitionem Apostolicae sedis Antistitis and also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory then Pope to know after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianism to whom he sends his Orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo ceteris Episcopis in Hybernia Catholicis as may be found in the Register of his Epistles 13. A second Monument wherein we Britains have a peculiar interest is that most antient first Council of Arles celebrated according to Baronius and Sirmondus assented to by Sir Henry Spelman in the year 314. about eleven years before the first Council of Nice The Canons of this Council are directed to the Bishop of Rome as appears by the first Canon in these words First concerning the Paschal observation of our Lord that it be observed by us upon one day and at one time through the whole world and that according to custom thou wouldst direct Letters to all And moreover in the head of the Canons is inserted this Breviary of
their Epistle To our most holy Lord and Brother Silvester Marinus and the Synod of Bishops assembled together in the Town of Arles We have signified to your charity the things decreed by common Council to the end that all may know what they ought for the future to observe Here may be seen a Patriarchical council sending their Decrees to the Bishop of Rome as being the chief person from whom all Christians are to receive information of what they ought to believe and practise and by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto In which regard St. Martin Pope and Martyr makes this the Popes most proper Title that he is Custos Canonum Divinorum 14. At this Council were present three Bishops Representatives of the British Clergy Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of Lonidon Adelphius Bishop of Maldon called then Colonia Londinensium with Sacerdos a Priest and Arminius a Deacon And the Canons of this Council were by Restitutus brought into Britany saith Bishop Godwin out of Bale By which also it appears that neither the Pope himself nor his place and authority in the Church were unknown nor un-acknowledged by the Britains long before St. Augustines days 15. And now it will be seasonable to answer the Doctors great Objection grounded on that famous 6 th Canon of the first Nicene Council by which he says Every Patriarch and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocese as the Bishop of Rome is chief in his This is now to be examin'd The words of the Canon are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the antient Customs be still in force in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a Iurisdiction over them all In as much as such likewise is the custom of the Bishop of Rome In like manner both in Antioch and other Provinces let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 priviledges be preserv'd entire to every Church 16. The true sense of this Canon will best appear from the end for which it was enacted and that apparently was for the regulating and composing disorders begun in Egypt by Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis who rebelliously refused obedience to the Patriark of Alexandria presuming to ordain Bishops independently on him This Scismatical attempt the Council here represses commanding that according to the antient custom the Bishop of Alexandria should have entire Iurisdiction through all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis And the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchat and may say in his Metropolitanship too is made the Patern according to which this Regulation is framed not in regard of his plenary right and universal Jurisdiction in the Church of God which I have shewed already and shall demonstrate the same yet further even in the times preceding this Council is extended to the whole world and was exercised over the Patriarcs themselves But only of the custom and practice of his calling Synods correcting manners and making ordinations according to his Patriarkal and Metropolitical Jurisdiction for those words in the sixth Nicene Canon Similiter autem apud caeteâ—as provincias In like manner in the rest of the Provinces that is those Provinces also that were not such where a Patriarc resided Honor suus unicuique servetur Let every one's Honor be preserved to him compared with the second Canon of the first Council of Constantinople and the eighth canon of the Ephesian Council shew clearly enough that not only Patriarkical authority but Metropolitical also is spoken of in this canon and the Roman Bishops authority also herein made a Pattern And upon this ground that the Canon intends not to equalize the Bishop of Alexandria with the Bishop of Rome in his full Jurisdiction the most learned Marca late Archbishop of Tholouse observes that those who object it against the Popes Primacy though they fortifie themselves even with Ruâ—â—inus his interposition of suburbicarian Churches will gain but little by it for it signisignifies no more but that the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by Commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis 17. But though I mention this Version of Ruffinus because it is much applauded by our primitive Reformers and I expect Doctor Pierâ—e in his Reply will have recourse to it yet it is a most groundlesse and sencelesse Translation or rather corruption of the Canon His words are Vt apud Alexandriam in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur ut ille Egypti vel hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudiâ—em gerat Against which so much hath been written that it would be to lose time to repeat it especially to the Doctor who cannot be unacquainted with what Erasmus and Scalager have observed of the Interpreter that it is his custom to omit pervert and change the Text as he pleases and what Others with much Learning and Judgement have said to this interpretation Not to speak of the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction as first Patriarc whereby the other Patriarcs were subordinate to him being obliged even in this matter of their own Ordinations to give him notice sending withal a Confession of their Faith upon the approbation whereof and of the legality of their Election and Ordination He confirmed them or otherwise deposed them of which many examples may be produced Whosoever hath but looked into Ecclesiastical History must confesse that His particular Patriarchat was far from being confined to the ten Suburbicarian Provinces subject to the Vicariat of Rome Nay it is manifest that it extended to the whole Western Empire which besides Italy France Spain Germany Britany the six Maritime Provinces of Africa c. contained Illyricum Macedon Epyrus Greece and the Islands near it And all this by the confessions of Adversaries Zonaras Balsamon c. writing on this very Canon Hence St. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head or chief of the Western Regious And St. Augustin says that Pope Innocent did preside over the VVestern Church And St. Hierom Let them says he condemn me as an Heretic with the VVest as an Heretic with Egypt that is with Damasus and Peter And Iustinian the Emperor affirms that all the Regions of the VVorld are subject to the five Patriarcs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to VVestern Rome Constantinople Alexandria Thepolis or Antioch and Ierusalem Now unless Hesperia signifies the whole VVest to what Patriarc was France Spain Africa c subject If not to Rome how can all Bishops be said to be subject to five Patriarcs Hence the VVestern Bishops are by Theodores call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Sacrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Popes Supreme Iurisdiction before the first Council of Nice How all Apostles and all Bishops equal and how Subordinate St. Peter had more than a Primacy of Order Of St. Paul's resisting St. Peter The Popes Supremacy
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither ambitiously seek Superiority nor after a secular manner Lord it over the Flock of Christ. 6. And now let the Doctor say where is the impudent opposition of Supremacy and Iurisdiction both to the letter and sense of our Saviours Precept Such an Argument as this being Magisterially and confidently pronounc'd might for half an hour serve his present turn in the Pulpit But I wonder he could have the confidence to expose it to examination in Print 'T is time we come a little closer to examine this his first great Novelty CHAP. V. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge Submission due to the Pope's Authority as exercised during the four General Councils Of the Title of Universal Bishop It is not generally admitted at this day 1. HIs main Position in his forecited Discourse on this Argument is That a Supremacy of Iurisdiction challenged and exercised by the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the Third to whom it was sold by the Tyrant Phocas that is it began about the year 606. never before that time having been acknowledged in God's Church To prove this all the foregoing Reasons and Allegations are produced by him From this usurpeâ— Authority his English Church forsooth hath made a Secession as he demurely Phrases it and not from any Authority if any were exercised by former Popes especially during the times of the four first General Councils A Primacy of Order he is content to allow him but by no means a Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. Whatsoever Authority then the Predecessors of Pope Boniface the Third by consent of other Churches enjoy'd especially till the end of the fourth General Council he must grant is no usurpation and therefore a Legal rightful Authority from which without a formal Schism they could not withdraw themselves He will not surely say with one of their learned Bishops That they take from the Pope his lawful Christian Authority and give that only to the King not his unlawful and Antichristian So that the Controversy between us is reduced to this precise point Whether before Boniface the Third's time the Pope enjoyed a Supreme Iurisdiction over the Catholic Church This he denies On the contrary I here engage my self not only to prove he had it but moreover that not the least degree or Iota of Iurisdiction will be impos'd on them to acknowledge for enjoying the Communion of the Catholic Church more than the very same that Pope Boniface 's Predecessors within the times of the four first General Councils confessedly exercised I may adde that the new usurped Title as he says sold to him by Phocas did not give him neither did he pretend to by it any more authority than himself and his Predecessors formerly enjoy'd And this is I be able to make good then not all the water in the Sea will be able to wash off his Churches Schism by his own confession 3. Before I shew what Supremacy the Predecessor's of Boniface the Third exercised in the Church it will be convenient to enquire into the Bargain that He says Boniface made with Phocaâ— what he gain'd by it and why his Predecessors St. Gregory the Great and Pâ—lagius refused it The Patriark of Constantinople Iohn out of an humor of lightness and vanity proper to the Grecians assumed the Title of Episcopus universalis or Oâ—cumenicus Vniversal Bishop or Bishop of the whole World A Title that the Council of Chalcedon had in an Epistle given to Pope Leo but which his Successors like't not Certain it is that Iohn intended little more by it but to be a distinction of honor and preference above the other Eastern Patriarks For whilst he took that title he still acknowledg'd the Pope's Superiority not only of place but authority over him But being Bishop in a City wherein the Emperor of the world resided he thought it not unbecomming him to be called the Bishop of the world as the Emperor was the Governor Perhaps indeed his Successors if this ambition had been either approv'd or but connâ—v'd at by the West would have endeavour'd to make it not a meer empty Title but would have invaded an Authority which the Title might seem to warrant Hereupon Pope Pelagius and after him Pope Gregory the Great did vehemently resist this foolish ambition of Iohn though the Emperor himself to gain a dignity to his own City favor'd it in him 4. Now the Arguments that these two good Popes made use of against him did not so much combate Iohns present intention though his meer vain-glory and affectation of Novelty deserved to be repressed as the probable consequences of such a Title which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church For if he were the Vniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place it would follow that all others were only Bishops in name and by their Character had no other office but as his Substitutes depending on his will whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself And so their Successors the Bishops would never acknowledge a receiving their Episcopal character and right of Iurisdiction from any but Christ himself For as in other Sacraments whoever administers Baptism whether an Apostle or an Heretic Baptismus solius Christiest says Saint Augustin And again Peter and Iohn sayth he pray'd that the Holy Ghost might come on those upon whom they imposed their hands they did not give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. They as his Substitutes apply the outward Element but the inward vertue of the Sacrament is administred only by our Lord himself And as a Subject that receives â—n Office of Iurisdiction from the King will not esteem he derives that Authority from the Person who presents him the Letters patents or invests him ceremoniously in the Office but only the King So though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan a Primat a Patriarc or by the Pope himself and Iurisdiction given him they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to convey his Characters and Authority they assign him the place in which he is to exercise that Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him 5. Upon these grounds Pope Pelagius thus argues Vniversalitatis quoque nomen c. Do not give heed to the name of Vniversality that John of Constantinople hath unlawfully usurped c. For none of the Patritriarks did ever make use of so profane a Title Because if the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Patriark be call'd an universal Patriark the Title would be taken away from the rest But God forbid this should happen c. It therefore John be permitted to take this Title the honor of all Patriarks is deny'd and probably he who is called Vnivâ—rsal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the state of Truth The very same
as shall be shewed And because new opinions arising do naturally cause debates and contentions from what causes soever they flow and contentions are apt to generate Schisms since likewise Ecclesiastical Lawes are made to be observed every where if any particular Church were Independent of the whole there could be no remedy against Divisions hence it is that the Holy Fathers do assert the necessity of a Supream Authority and assign thereto these Acts. 1. Either to determine or at least silence Disputes about opinions 2. In those which are called majores causae as wrongful Depositions of Bishops c. either by appeals or consultations to restore the Persons wrong'd and punish the wrong-doers 3. To take care that Discipline establish'd by received canons be every where observ'd 4. To judge when there is a necessity of convening in General Councils and thereupon to summon all Bishops and as far as the Authority of a common Spiritual Father may extend to oblige Princes to permit their respective Bishops to meet 4. These things thus premised now follow the Proofs demonstrating that before Boniface the thirds time suck like Acts of a Supream Authority were practised by his Predecessors and submitted to generally in the Church I must not write a Volume therefore I will select a few examples in all Ages which will at least recompence the Doctors Anti-quotations and when he shall require it many many more shall be added 5. To proceed therefore ascendendo St. Gregory the Great Predecessor of Boniface the third though he would not admit an Vniversal Episcopacy yet at the same time he challenged and exercised an Vniversal Superintendency Hence saies he t is notorious that the See Apostolic by Divine institution is preferr'd before all Churches And again more fully The care of the Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter The care and principality of the Vniversal Church was committed to him and yet he is not called the Vniversal Apostle Again writing to the Bishop of Syracusa If any fault be found in any Bishops I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See Apostolic But when no fault exacts it we are all in regard of humility equal And this subjection saies he elsewhere both our most Religious Lord the Emperor and our Brother John Bishop of the same City do frequently protest And in an Epistle to Natalis Bishop of Salona If saith he any of the four Patriarks had committed such an act so great a disobedience would not have passed without great scandal Moreover in another Epistle he declares how he had reversed the judgment of the Church of Constaninople against a Priest of Chalcedon where he saies Dost not thou know that in the cause of John the Priest against our Brother and Collegue John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostolic and that the cause was determined by our Sentence A world of like examples more may be added And in these a primacy of Iurisdiction is manifest which therefore by his own confession is no Vsurpation 6. In the next place the immediate Predecessor of St. Gregory Pope Pelagius the Second in the very same Epistle in which he condemns the presumptuous Title of Vniversal Bishop assumed by Iohn of Constantinople hath this passage writing to the Eastern Bishops The Apostolic See is inform'd that John Bishop of Constantinople out of this his presumption hath convoked you to a Synod whereas the authority of assembling general Synods is by a special priviledge deliver'd to the Apostolic See of St. Peter neither can we read of any Synod esteem'd to be ratified which was not establisht on the Apostolic Authority Therefore whatever you have decreed in your foresaid Conventicle by the Authority of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Speech of our Saviour who gave to Blessed Peter the power of binding and loosing I do command all things determined by you to be void and repealed c. Again his not immediate Predecessor Pope Gelasius is a yet more full and convincing witnesse to the Popes Vniversal Iurisdiction upon this occasion Pope Felix the second who possessed St. Peters Chair next before him had been appealed and complain'd to by Iohn Patriark of Alexandria unjustly dispossess'd by Peter an Eutichian whom the Pope in a Synod of 42. Bishops excommunicated Moreover upon the complaints of the same Iohn he cited Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to appear And upon his contumacy excommunicated him likewise in this Form Take notice saies he that thou art deprived of Sacerdotal honor and Catholic Communion and moreover that thou art segregated from the number of the Faithful having lost both the Name and Office of Priestly Ministery being condemned by us by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and Apostolic Authoriâ—y Yet this Sentence not having been as the former was denounced in a Synod some Eastern Bishops found fault with it Whereupon his next Successor Pope Gelasius justifies his proceedings in an Epistle to the Bishop of Dardania he shews that when any Heretic has bin once condemned by a Synod as Sabellius c. there was need of convoking new Synods for the condemning his Followers And that this was the case of Acacius who communicated with Peter and Timotheus Bishops of Alexandria Eutychians which Heresie had been condemned in the Council of Chalcedon In consequence whereto he adds these Words Neither do we omit to signifie which the whole Church all the world over knows very well that the See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the Sentences of any Bishops whatsoever as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgment Seeing the Canons have ordain'd that appeals should be made to it from every part of the World Are these now marks onely of a Primacy of Order and not Supremacy of Iurisdiction 7. We will next enlarge a step to Pope Leo the Great who began his Seat in the year 440. and in whose time the General Council of Chalcedon was assembled How couragious and constant an Assertor he was of his Supream Iurisdiction most of his Epistles witnesse and almost all Protestant Controverâ—ists complain He in his 53d Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople in the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus and the 55th to the Empresse Pulcheria vindicates the Derivation of his Authority not from the Imperial City but St. Peter Prince of the Apostles 8. Therefore whereas the Preacher calls to witnesse the famous Canon of Chalcedon decreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople an equality of priviledges with the Bishop of Rome not for any other reason then its having the good hap to be one of the two Imperial Cities If he had had a mind to dealingenuously he would have cal'd it an
enjoying a special priviledge in the exercise of every one of these Acts and Functions or exempts them from Subordination to him as their Superior yea Supream Pastor Supream not in Order only but Iurisdiction Certainly the Doctor can easily apply this to St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles or to St. Peter's Successors and all other Bishops 8. Now if the Fathers may be believed is was a priviledge and a great one that St Peter for the merit of his Confession had Christs own Title as Christ was Governor of the Church given him of being called a Rock For in the Syrian language in which our Lord spake the words have no different termination as in the Greek or Latin Petrus Petra but the words were Thou art Gepha a Rock and upon this Gepha Rock I will build my Church It was a priviledge that Peter neither the eldest nor first chosen Apostle is alwaies in the Gospel first reckoned and expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First It was a priviledge importing a greater latitude of Iurisdiction when after our Lord's Resurrection St. Peter alone had in the midst of the rest a Commission given him of indefinitly â—eeding Christ's Flock And after the Descent of the Holy Ghost was peculiarly appointed the Apostle of the Circumcision as St. Paul was of the Gentiles Yea that the Dedication of St. Paul's Office was performed by St. Peter who by immediate revelation was appointed to gather the first fruits of the Gentiles in the conversion of Cornelius and his house-hold c. 9. But why among such Governors as the Apostles was any Supereminency of Iurisdiction given to one man Certain it is there never was lesse necessity to provide against disobedience and dis-unions then among the Apostles every one of whom was guided by a Divine unerring light by which they knew all Truth and replenish'd with the Spirit of Charity and Vnâ—ty which exempted them from all ambitious envious or malicious designâ— Yet a Subordination not absolutely necessary to them was established among them for the succeeding Churches sake which without such order would in a very short time become a meer Babel Hence St. Hierom saies The Church was built upon Peter though true it is the same thing is done upon others and that the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But among the twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism may be taken away 10. To the same purpose St. Cyprian notwithstanding the Sentence produced by the Preacher out of him That all the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Yet in the very same Book saies Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam c. Our Lord builds his Church upon one Person And though after his Resurrection he gave an equal power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins you remit c. Yet that he might manifest unity he by his Authority disposed the Original of the same Vnity beginning from one And presently after Whosoever holds not the unity of the Church does he believe that he holds the Faith He that opposes are resists the Church he that forsakes the Chair of S. Peter upon which the Church is founded does he trust that he is in the Church In like manner St. Optatus at Rome saies he a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one a particular Chair So St. Chrysostome Observe now how the same John that a little before ambitiously beg'd a preferment after yields entirely the Supremacy to St. Peter And again Christ did constitute Peter the Master not of that See of Rome alone but of the whole world 11. Now whereas the Doctor objects that St. Paul's contesting with St. Peter and resisting him to his face argues that he did not acknowledge any Superiority in him Let St. Augustin from St. Cyprian resolve us You see saies he to the Donatists what St. Cyprian hath said that the holy Apostle St. Peter in whom did shine forth so great a grace of Primacy being reprehended by St. Paul did not answer that the Supremacy belong'd to him and therefore he would not be reprehended by one that was posterior to him And he adds The Apostle St. Peter hath left to posterity a more rare example of humility by teaching men not to disdain a reproof from inferiors then St. Paul by teaching inferiors not to fear resisting even the highest yet without prejudice to Charity when Truth is to be defended 12. From all that has been said on this Subject it will necessarily follow that whatever Superiority St. Peter enjoyed and the Holy Fathers acknowledged was the gift of our Saviour only a gift far more beneficial to us then to St. Peter He was as St. Chrysostome saies Master of the World not because his Throne was establish'd at Rome but receiving from our Lord so supereminent an Authority he therefore made choice of Rome for his See because that being the Imperial City of the World he might from thence have a more commodious influence on the whole Church 13. Upon which grounds whensoever the Fathers make use of the Authority of his Successors Bishops of Rome against Hereticks or Schismaticks they consider that authority as a priviledge annexed to the Chair of St. Peter and only for St. Peters regard to the Sea of Rome This is so common in the Fathers writings that I will not trouble him with one Quotation Indeed Iohn of Constantinople when he would invade an equality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some sort with the Pope did wisely to mention only the priviledge of the Imperial City because he could allege no other pretention for his Plea But St. Leo St. Gregory St. Gelasius c. produce their evidences for their Supremacy from Tues Petrus super hanc Petram c. from Pasce oves meas c. Nay St. Augustin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council writing to Pope Innocent to joyn with them in condemning the Pelagians tell him their hope was those Hereticks would more easily be induced to submit to his Authority Why because of the splendor of the Imperial City No but because the Popes Authority was de Sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta deduced from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures 14. I might with reason enough yet I will not omit to take notice of Doctor Pierce's trivial reasonings against the Popes as he calls it pretended Headship because such being sitted to vulgar capacities and confidently pronounc'd do more mischief then those that have more shew of profundity and weight Thus then he argues If the Pope be head of the Church then the Church must be the Body of the Pope And if so then when there is no Pope the Church has no Head
according to the foresaid limitations One may be excused from assenting to Decisions of General Councils about Points not of necessary Faith in case they be gainsaid by men of worth place and esteem So that if any such persons do contradict General Councils whether in or out of the Council He mentions not ignorant men may lawfully join with them and in comparison esteem all other Pastors of God's Church to be of less worth place or esteem What a broad Gate yea how vast a breach have these Doctors with all their learning and prudence made in the walls of God's Church to let in all manner of confusion Can any Protestant now deny Smeâ—â—ymnuus Mr. Prinn the Rump Parliament to have been persons of worth place and esteem At least the generality of England once thought them so and themselves challenged those Titles and whilst they were the strongest enjoy'd them To what miserable straits a necessity of justifying the English Separation reduced such wise and learned men 4. In the third place according to the same Writers Position all manner of Decisions made by Councils both in necessary and unnecessary Doctrines cease to be obligatory in case something appears that may argue an unlawful proceeding in the Council out of passion interest want of liberty c. But still who shall be judges of Councils proceedings Among Catholicks when there are perhaps suspicions of some irregular proceedings yet if the Points decided be embraced by the particular Catholick Churches generally speaking they then have the force of unquestion'd Catholick Doctrines But as for those who are enemies to Councils in which their Doctrines have been condemn'd such will be sure to charge them with unlawful proceedings For did not the Arians urge that Plea against the Council of Nice The Nestorians against that of Ephesus The Eutychians against that of Chalcedon 5. This clause in all probability was put in to exclude the Authority of the Council of Trent against the proceedings of which therefore very loud and very unjust clamors were made by Protestants imputing especially to the Court of Rome many policies and attempts either to intimidate the Fathers of the Council or to induce them to favour and enlarge the Grandeurs of the Pope But who ever shall unpassionately read the History of that Council compiled by the most learned and eminent Cardinal Palavicino from authentick Records yet extant will be satisfied 1. That the liberty of the Bishops was only straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court 2. That the Pope was so far from gaining an access to his Authority that when a far greater number of the Bishops would have concurr'd thereto the Pope himself forbad it meerly because the French Bishops inconsiderable for their numbers did joyn to oppose it 6. But there is no necessity that Catholicks should trouble themselves with making Apologies for that Council 1. Because all the Doctrines of it opposed by Protestants as Novelties were manifest in the general Writings and Practise of the Western Church long before that Council and most of them in the Eastern 2. Because they are now actually embraced by all Catholick Congregations as Declared Doctrines of the Church in which case by the Archbishop's own Concessions they are to be esteem'd infallibly true 3. Because the principal Doctrines censur'd in the Preacher's Sermon had been expresly determin'd by former either General or at least Patriarkical Councils admitted in this Kingdom as Transubstantiation Veneration of Images Prayers not in a vulgar tongue Communion under one Species Celibacy of Priests the universal Iurisdiction of the Pope c. 4. And lastly because in condemning the Protestant Doctrines opposite to them the Bishops of the Council of Trent are found even by Padre Paulo's Relation no favourer of that Council unanimous in their Judgment which the Reader may there see if he please to examine their Votes concerning those Points Neither did nor needed the Pope or his adherents to use any artifice herein to gain the Suffrages of a Major part And this is in that History of his only pretended to be done in other matters of Contest among Catholicks themselves 7. Therefore it would certainly be much more for the good of Consciencious Protestants to reflect seriously on the method of their Reformations and then let them be Judges of the legality of their proceedings and the disinteressedness of their first Reformers I speak not now of Presbyterian Reformations which in all Countreys have been usher'd in with Tumults Rebellions Murders Rapines Dissolution of Monarchies c. but of the English Reformation only which though free from such horrible Crimes yet how legal it was how free from worldly and carnal Interests let their own Historians be Judges 8. And first This Relation is made of it in general by Dr. Heylin In Queen Elizabeths time saith he before the new Bishops were well setled I need not mind the Reader here that all her former Bishops save on had deserted her and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy went that way to work in Her Reformation which not only her two Predecessors but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Iewish State and many of the Christian Emperours in the primitive times had done before her in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by Almighty God And to that end she published her Injunctions Ann. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders 1561. Another of Advertisements 1562. All leading unto the Reformation with the Advice and Consent of the Metropolitan and some other Godly Prelats who were then about Her these were those newly Ordained the former Bishops being ejected by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto before they were presented to Her But when the times were better setled and the first difficulty of her Reign passed over she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation and thereto authorized as the Laws required did make and publish several Books of Canons c. Thus that Doctor the sum of which is That the Queen finding no foundation to build upon because all the Innovations begun by her Father and young Brother had been utterly demolished by her Sister Queen Mary and withal perceiving the main Body of her Clergy as well as her Bishops except such as the caused to be made de novo to be generally averse from her proceedings was fain to do all the Ecclesiastical work her self assisted with some of her New Bishops without the Concurrence of any Synodal Authority till having first by her Orders sufficiently purged the Clergy she saw she could securely now do Church-work by Church-men 9. But Mr. Fuller is more punctual in delivering the retail of these her first proceedings which he extracted out of the authentick Synodals 1559. He tells us then That in the beginning of her Reign the
not dangerous to States On the contrary c. Protestants writing in favour of it 1. BUt as yet our Proofs of Primacy of Iurisdiction in the Successor of St. Peter though they reach to the Beginning in the latitude fixed by the Doctor and truly I am perswaded to an indifferent Reader will appear more credible than any his Margins furnish to the contrary Yet they may be continued till we come even to the Presbyterians Independants and Quakers Beginning too that is the Gospels themselves To demonstrate this we will make a short enquiry into the times of the Church before Constantin whilst it was a mere suffering Church incapable of conspiring either in or out of General Councils But withal a Church lesse dispersed and torn by Heresies or contentions among Bishops and therefore lesse needing this Preservative against Schisms Supreme Authority 2. In these holy peaceable times therâ—ore before Silvester I will content my self with two or three examples to prove the acknowledgement of such a Primacy And the first shall be of St. Melchiades the immediat Predecessor of Pope Silvester St. Augustin will afford us a Testimony of his care and authority extended into Africk whose words are Qualis ipsius Melchiadis ultima est prolata Sententia c. Such an one was the last sentence Melchiades himself pronounced in judgeing the cause of Donatus by which he would not have the boldnesse to remove from his Communion his Collegues the Catholic Bishops in Africa in whom no crime could be proved And having censured most deeply Donatus alone whom he found to have been the Original of all the mischief he gave a free choyce of healing the breaches of Scism to all the rest of his Followers being also in a readiness to send communicatory Letters to those subdivided Scismatics that were ordained by Majorinus a Donatist Bishop in so much as his Sentence was that in whatsoever Cities of Africk there were two Bishops dissenters a Catholic and a Donatist he should be confirm'd in the Bishoprick who was first ordained c. and that another Diocese should be provided which the other should govern O Son of Christian peace and truly Father of the Christian flock says St. Augustin 3. I will add to this three other examples in which though as to the use and administration of the Superintendency som Objections have been made yet they suffice to confirm the acknowledgement of such a Superintendency in the Pope as the Preacher denies The first is of Pope Stephanus contemporary with St. Cyprian and his fellow in Martyrdom concerning whom we read in Eusebius that he either inflicted or at least threatned excommunication to som of the Churches of Asia that held a necessity of Rebaptization after Baptism received by Heretics And in the same quarrel between the same Pope Stephaâ—â—s and St. Cyprian himself matters were almost brought to the like extremity yet neither did St. Cyprian though wonderfully sharp nor even that violent Cappadocian Bishop Firmilianus ever question the Popes Authority though as they thought unjustly employed 4. The other is extant in the same St. Cyprian who endeavour'd to peswade the Pope to depose Marcianus a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles siding with Novatian His words to Pope Stephanus about it are these Let Letters be directed from thee into the Province and to the people of Arlâ—s commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated and another put in his place And to the like purpose is another Epistle of his in a cause touching two Spanish Bishops upon mis-information restor'd by the Pope 5. The third is that so well known example of Pope Victor concerning whom Eusebius thus writes Victor endeavours to cut off from the fellowship of Communion the Churches of Asia as declining into Heresie and sends Letters by which he would divide them all indifferently from the Ecclesiastical Society c. But there are extant Letters of Bishops by whom Victor is sharply reproved as one that was carelesse of the commodity of the whole Church Particularly Ireneus reprehends him telling him that he did very ill to divide from the unity of the whole Body so many and so great Churches Now in such reproofs from Ireneus and even Polycrates an Asian Bishop himself the ring-leader of the party of the Quartâ— decimani against St. Victor it was not impuâ—ed to Victor that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him but that the cause of exercising his just Authority was â—ot sufficiently weighty 6. Having proceeded thus far our last step shall be to the utmost degree the very beginning it self our Lord and St. Peter in the Gospels And here we will acknowledge what the Dâ—ctor saies that all the Twelve Apostles were equally foundations of the Churches building That the same Authority which was first given to St. Peter alone sustaining the person of the whole Church was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saies the same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were pari consortio praediti c. endowed with an equal participation of honor and power And as St. Hierom affirms that all Bishops in all places whether at Rome or Eugubium Canterbury or Rochester are of the very same merit c. But he will give leave to the Scripture to interpret it self and to the Fathers to interpret both it and themselves We grant therefore that all the Apostles and all Bishops their Successors enjoy the whole latitude of Apostolic and Episcopal Iurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either But for the external administration there may be and alwaies was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same authority both among the Apostles and Bishops Let him not find fault with this distinction for they themselves have occasion somtimes to make use of it to the like purpose Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Defence of the Answer to the Admonition affirms that Archbishops quoad Ministerium do not differ from other Pastors but touching Government page 303. And afterward page 386. Answering the same Argument out of St. Hierom who equals the meanest Bishop with the Pope he saies that they are equal quoad Ministerium but not quoad polittam 7. Let him take therefore an example illustrating this at home What Function what Act of Iurisdiction can my Lord of Canterbury exercise I mean according to their Tenets which the meanest of his subordinate Bishops cannot perform He can ordain Bishops and Priests So can they the former with him the other without him He can visit his Prâ—vince they their Diâ—cesse He can give the Holy Ghost by Confirmation So can they He can assemble a Provincial Council They a Diocesan He has a Canonical Authority over Bishops c. They over Priests He can absolve from Censures inflected by himself they can do as much Yet nothing of all this excludes him from
When there are many Popes the Church has many Heads When the Pope is Heritical the Church has such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheâ—ded Whatever advantage the Doctor expects from such a Discourse as this it must flow from a childish Cavil upon the word Head and whatever consequences he here draws from thence against the Pope may as well be applyed to all kind of Governors whether Ecclesiastical or Civil For they are all Heads within their Precincts A King is the Head of his Kingdom and a Bishop of his Diocesse When we call therefore the Pope Head of the Church we mean that among all Governors thereof he is the Supream in the sense before declared He is a Head but not so as Christ is in respect of his Mystical body who by his Spirit internally quickens and directs it The Pope is only an external ministerial visible Head and as it were Root of Vnity and Government All this no question the Doctor knew before to be our meaning and by consequence he knew that his inferences from thence were pitifully pedantic insignificant though many of his Court-hearers and Country-readers perhaps wonder there can remain a Papist in England unconverted after such a Sermon has been publish'd 15. When there is no Pope says the Preacher the Church wants a Head It is granted For sure he does not think it is a part of our Faith to believe Popes are immortal But yet for all that the Papacy is immortal The Government is not dissolv'd Succession is not interrupted It is a Maxim in our Law that Kings dye not that is the Regal Authority lives though Kings in their particular persons dye Nor is there any substantial difference as to this point between hereditary and elective Monarchy And in this sense we may say that Popes dy not nor Bishops Partly because when a Bishop or the Pope dys at least his Jurisdiction remains in the Chapter or Body of Electors Hence it is that in St. Cyprian we read Epistles of the Roman Clergy exercising authority beyond the Diocese of Româ— But principally because when an Ecclesiastical Superior dyes there remains by Christs Ordination a vis generativa or virtue in the Church to constitute another in his place and so to continue the Government There has been oft times a long vacancy in the Apostolic See as well as in Dioceses and Kingdoms After the death of Pope Fabian before there were any Christian Emperors the See was vacant for above a years space yet neither did St. Irenâ—us Optatus Epiphanius or St. Augustin when they objected the chain of Succession in St. Peters Chair esteem that thereby the Chain had been broken neither did any old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority 16. But what shall we say to the Doctors next inference in a case of Schism when there are many Popes then says he the Church is become a Monster with many Heads But he is deceived As when after the death of a King several pretenders to the Crown appear there is still by right but one legitimate Successor all the rest are Rebels and Tyrants It is so in the Papacy In that case St. Cyprians Rule holds If the Church be with Novatian it was not with Cornelius who by a lawful Ordination succeeded Fabian Novatian therefore is not in the Church nor can be esteemed a Bishop of Rome Or if it be uncertain to which of them the right pertains so that some Nations adhere to one Head others to another it is a great calamity but yet the Church remains though wounded yet not wounded to death A General Council cures all 17. If the Pope according to Doctor Pierce his supposition should prove an Heretic he infers very improperly that the Church haâ— such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheaded For in that case the Pope is so far from remaining a Head that he is not so much as a Member of the Church but is deprived not only of the Administration but also the Communion of the Church as other Heretical Bishops are So that then there is a pure vacancy I shall not be so severe as to take notice of the unhansom not to say unmannerly terms the Doctor uses in expressing the last branch of this Objection 18. Thus much concerning the Doctors first pretended Novelty of the Roman Church the Popes primacy Now whether my asserting that Primacy or his denying it to be a Novelty and whether his proofs or mine are more concluding I leave to the Readers consciences He will excuse my dilating on this Point because therein I follow his own example for he tels his Majesty He has spoken most at large of the Popes supremacy and his reasons given for such Largenesse shall be mine too though I believe we shall have different meanings yet without equivocation even when we deliver our reasons in the same words For i. I also acknowledg the Popes supremacy to be the chief if not only hinge on which does hang the stress of more than Papal the Ecclesiastical Fabrick as being the Cement of the Churches unity 2. Because it is a point wherin say I likewise the Honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concerned His meaning is that no danger is to be apprehended for England but only from that Point I am sure on the contrary that whilst such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknowledged in England the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poyson'd with Heresies The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a Sword drawn for or against it Some few little more than Paper-quarrels hapned between the English and Roman Court about matters not of Religion but outward Interests in which generally the Pope had the worst at last But the Honor and Safety of these Dominions were far from being prejudiced The Kings of France always have been and stil continu as jealous and tender of their temporal Regalities as ever any Princes were yet they account it one of the most sparkling Jewels of their Crown that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted Sons of the Catholic Church The acknowledging the Spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honor and defence to them than many Armies would be because it preserves peace and unity in that Kingdom not by the terror of Swords drawn and Muskets charged in their Subjects faces but by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to Faith and Obedience And let Doctor Pierce be assured without a Spiritual Authority which may have influence on the hearts of Christian Subjects all their preaching and Laws too will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy 19. But we must not yet leave this passage without considering it a little better He saith That in the point of the Popes Supremacy of Iurisdiction the honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concern'd his
meaning is that it is both dishonorable and dangerous to his Majesties Dominions that any of His Subjects should be permitted to acknowledge such a Supremacy I would I could oblige the Doctor by any exorcisms to discover sincerely the inward thoughts of his heart upon this Subject But having no such power at so great a distance I must be content to argue the Case with him once more because it is a passage that reflects not only upon the honor of Catholick Religion but the safety of all Professors of it 20. He cannot be ignorant how often and how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have protested their renouncing any acknowledgement of the least degree of Temporal power or Jurisdiction as of Right to belong to the Pope over any Subject of his Majesties It is therefore meerly a pure Spiritual authority that they acknowledge in their Supreme Pastor Is this now dishonorable Is it unsafe To whom To all Supreme Princes whether Catholics or not For Catholic Princes they protest against this Opinâ—on either of dishonor or danger If only then to other Princes or States which are dissenters from and enemies to Catholick Religion then Nero and Diocletian had reason and justice on their sides when they persecuted a Religion dishonorable and dangerous to the Roman Empire For evidently neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their Spiritual Authority independent on the Emperors 21. Nay more let the Doctor himself consider lest He and his both Brethren and Fathers the Bishops be not more deeply involved in the guilt for which he desires the Catholics only should suffer They themselves acknowledge in despite of so many Statutes to the contrary a pure Spiritual Authority in their Bishops not derived from the King they promise a Canonical obedience to them they do not so to the King therefore they admit a Jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the Root For tho' for example a publick denunciation of Excommunication in their Spiritual Courts or the conferring of Orders or determining points of Faith c. without the Kings consent may expose them in case they exercise such Functions to some danger from the Law of the Kingdom yet they will justifie such acts to be in themselves valid that is perform'd with sufficient authority See Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort p. 366. Bishop Carleton of Jurisdict Reg. Episcop c. 1. p. 9. c. 4. p. 39 42. Bishop Bramh. Schism guarded p 61 63 92. Answer to Bishop of Chalced. p. 161. Doctor Ferns Discovery of Episcopacy and Presbytery p. 19. Doctor Tailor Episcopacy asserted p. 236 237 239 243 Mr. Thornd Right of Ch. c. 4. p. 234. Epilog l. 1. c. 8. p. 54. l. 1. c. 19 20. l. 3. c. 32. Which Quotations if any intelligent Reader will take the pains to peruse and consider he may clearly see what limitations they make in the sense of that Oath of Regal Supremacy which Oath yet they freely take in the full latitude of its words though these expresse not any of the said limitations Amatter which hath not passed unobserved by Mr. Thorndyke in his Iust Weights c. 20. who there conceives great reason why the Kingdom for this should enact a new Oath 22. But if I should address my Speech now to Presbyterians and their Consistories the Case is far more evident They are so far from permitting to the King a Supremacy of Authority in their Ecclesiastical Courts if such conspiracies may be called Ecclesiastical that they will not so much as allow him any authority at all in such transactions Nay they will exempt him no more than his meanest Subject from subjection to them The like may be said of other Sects which though they are not guilty of the Presbyterian tyranny yet are as averse from granting his Majesty any Supremacy in matters of Religion as either Presbyterians Protestants or Roman Catholics But I am now to deal with the Preacher and his Protestants I therefore desire them to compare themselves and Roman Catholics together as to this point of honor and safety to his Majesty and his Dominions 23. Is it dishonorable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely Spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom this whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity together with the whole Christian world submitted it self as to their Supreme Pastor And is it Honorable that the same authority should be granted to more than twenty of his Majesties own Subjects Again is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian Vnity's sake should be professed to one Venerable Prelat a 1000. miles off and is there no danger in making the same Profession to so many at home who besides their spitual authority have a right to concur in the enacting and executing Civil laws too and who we see can either exalt or depresse according to their Interests and advantages the Royal Prerogative 2. To resolve such Questions as these but also so to resolve them as becomes a Preacher of the Gospel of peace and truth would be a subject worthy the stating in a Court-Sermon But it must be don without transgressing the precise limits of the question that is by comparing the state of Catholic Religion as professed and practised for example in France Venice Germany c. with the reformed Religion in England the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the former with that of the latter and then judging whether of the two bring more security and honor to their Princes and are more effectual upon the consciences of Subjects to breed them up in peace and obedience For my own part simply as a Catholic my desire and prayers are that Gods divine truth may prevail in all our hearts but so prevail by those wayes of Charity Patience Justice and Piety with which it first conquered the World And as a Subject of the Crown of England my Prayers are that we may be all united in the profession of that only Religion which more perfectâ—y and most indispensibly gives to Caesar the things which are Caesar 's and to God the things which are God's 25. I will row for a farewel to these Testimonies of our Catholic Fathers add the Votes of the Fathers also of the Reformation that he may see how far more ingenuously they write then himself has donâ— touching the Popes Primacy And first I will produce two or three who though they oppose it as he does as a Novelty yet allow a far greater age to it Doctor Fulk most unchronologically says that five or six hundred years before Pope Leo and Pope Gregory that is almost an hundred years before Christ was born the mystery of Iniquity wrought in the See of Rome and then daily encreased they were so deceived with long continuance of error that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles then the Holy Scriptures do allow Archbishop Whitgift assures us that the Papal
Supremacy began with St. Peter his words are Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief that had chief authority over the rest to the end Schisms might be compounded And this he quotes from Calvin who said The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest 26. I will now produce two who will give this whole Cause to the Pope The first is the so fam'd Melancthoâ— who writes thus As certain Bishops preside â—ver particular Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops And this Canonical policy no wise man as I think does or ought to disallow c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end that consent of Doctrine may be retain'd Wherfore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Supremacy if other Articles could be agreed upon The other witnesse is learned Doctor Covel the Defender of Mr. Hooker he having shew'd the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppresse the Seeds of Dissention c. thus applies it against the Puritans If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissentions in the Pâ—imitive Church when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are Nâ—y if twelve Apostles were not like to agree except there had been one chief among them For saith Hierom Among the twelve one was therefore chosen that a chief being appointed occasion of Schism might be prevenâ—ed how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equal must procure unity and obedience He adds further The Church without such an Authority should be in a far worse case then the meanest Common-wealth nay almost then a Den of Theives if it were left dâ—stitute of means either to convince Heresies or to suppresse them yea though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian Magistrate Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these his own Primitive Reformers either joyn with us in this Point of Primacy or however they oppose him in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third CHAP. IX Of the Churches Infallibility The necessity thereof that she may be a certain Guide to Salvation And the grounds whereupon She claims it 1. THe Second pretended Novelty of Catholick Doctrine is the Infallibility of the Church called by the Preacher The Paâ—â—adium of the Conclave and derived from the Schollars of Marcus in Irenaeus or from the Gnosticks in Epiphanius Against which Infallibility his unanswerable Arguments are 1. Infallibility is one of Gods incommunicable Attributes 2. The Church not being omniscient must therefore be ignorant in part and consequently may fall into Error 3. It is confess'd by the great Champions of the Papacy that the Heresie of the Novatians was hatch'd in Rome and continued there almost two hundred years 4. Besides Arianism that over-spread the Church she was infected with the Heresie of the Chyliasts being deceived by Papias which Heresie found no contradiâ—â—â—â— for some Ages 5. Yea the whole Church in the opinion of St. Augustin and Pope Innocent during the space of six hundred years according to Maldonaâ— thought the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to Infants yet the Council of Trent is of a contrary mind 2. In order to the answering of this Discoâ—rse he will sure acknowledge that all Sect of Christianity agree in this that each of them has both a Rule of their Faith and a 〈◊〉 also But in both these there is difference among them To the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only Rule is the Holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only Rule yet they admit certain universally received Traditions besides expresse Scripture 3. But as for the Guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this Rule the difference among the said Sects is far greater and more irreconcilable The Socinians will have Scripture interpreted onely by private reason a Guide evidently fallible and therefore not to be imposed on others The Independents Anabaptists Quakers and Presbyterians too pretend to an Infallible Guide Gods Holy Spirit but with this difference that the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers rationally acknowledge that this Guide is only to direct those that have it and perceive they have it but cannot oblige other men that have it not nor can be sure they have it Whereas the Presbyterians by an unexampled Tyranny at least in France do oblige themselves and their Posterity to a Profession that by a Divine Illumination they are taught to distinguish Canonicâ—l Books of Scripture from Apocriphal and by the same Guide to justifie all the Doctrines by which they dissent from all others And moreover by a most senslesse inhumanity will impose a necessity on all others to belie their own Consciences and acknowledge the same Guide though they have never wrought any Miracles which certainly are necessary to oblige others to believe and follow the internal Guidance of that Spirit to which they pretend 4. As for Dr. Pierce and the generality of English Protestants I speak of them now as hitherto they have bin for what they must be hereafter neither they nor I know a special Guide of theirs beyond Reason and Spirit for the finding out the sense of Scripture and judging of Traditions received by them is the Primitive Church or foure first General Councils But since those ancient Fathers are now past speaking and their Writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking Judge of the sense of all these I suppose is their Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make and determine the sense of Acts of Parliament And upon these grounds they finde themselves obliged to behave themselves differently to several adversaries For against Sects that went out from them they use the help of Catholick weapons the Authority of the Chuâ—ch Councils c. But against Catholics they renouncing the Authority of the present Church in her Supremest Councils of convening which the times are capable and in the interval of Councils in the major part of the Governours thereof united with him whom themselves acknowledge the prime Patriark will make use of a kind of private spirit or reason or the judgment of a most inconsiderable number of Church-Governâ—rs going against the whole Body of the Catholick Church and their chief Pastor but this as to assent only where it likes them and so will be their own selves Judges of what is the sense of Councils Fathers Scriptures and all And great difficultie they often find how to avoid being accounted Papists when they speak to Sectaries and being even Fanaticks when they Dispute with Roman Catholicks And truly the Doctors whole Sermon is in effect meerly Fanatick
cause of all dis-unions and Schisms The unappealable Authority of general Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 1. IN this point of Schism to the end the Doctor may clear Protestants and lay the weight of so great a crime on the Catholick Church he argues thus Since besides corruptions in practice which yet alone cannot justify separation there were in the Roman Church so many corruptions in Doctrine likewise intrenching on Fundamentals the Schism could not be on the Chruch of Englands side which was obliged to separate so just a cause being given but on theirs who gave the cause of the separation Now that particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from corruptions without leave from the See of Rome appears 1. By the concession of the most learned Popish Writers 2. From the ancient practise of the Kings of England who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Likewise from the Codes and Novels of Justinian the capitulare of Charlemagne and the endeavours of two late Emperours 4. From the examples of the Kings of Juda. He concludes that had the Pope been content with his Primacy of Order they would never have cast off the yoke which never had been put upon their necks whence appears sayes he that the Vsurper made the Schism This is the substance of his Discourse 2. In answering this I will proceed according to this method 1. I will shew out of Antiquity from the example of all orderly Governments from evident reason c. what obedience every Christian is obliged to perform to Church Governors in the obstinate refusal of which consists Schism 2. I will apply this to the present controversie between the English and Roman Church I will consider the validity of his allegations and leave it to any indifferent mans conscience to judge whether they are sufficient to justifie the separation 3. Touching the first Point I take it for granted that we both agree that our Lord has placed in his Church Ecclesiastical Governours to continue by a legitimate succession to the end of the world And that the exercise of their Authority consists partly in proposing Doctrines to be believed partly in making Laws for Discipline and Order And that the Doctrines are to be no other then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary Principles contained in Divine Revelation no innovation no change must be in them whereas orders for Discipline may according to the prudence of the Church sometimes admit alteration Likewise I believe we agree that this lawful Authority of Church Governours or Bishops may be differently exercised that is either by their single persons or in conjunction with others meeting in Synods Diocesan Provincial National Patriarkical and Oecumenical The Authority of which Synods is by degrees respectively encreased according to the quality of them the lowest degree among these being Diocesan and the Supream unappealable authority being in Oecumenical Synods To deny this in gross is to make them ridiculous Conventicles and the more plenary they are the more dangerous and destructive of unity will they be if they may be repealed by others less plenary 4. Thus far we agree but when we come to a precise declaration of the quality of that Authority by both sides agreed on in the general here we begin to differ wherefore to the end indifferent Readers may be enabled distinctly to view and judge on which side Justice and Truth lies I will besides what has already been said of infallibility plainly set down the Catholick Doctrine concerning this matter with the exceptions which the most learned Controvertists of the English Church have interposed against it 5. There is in St. Clements Constitutions a saying that to every Bishop is entrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopal Office Vniversally In like manner St. Cyprian says Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Episcopal Office is but one of which every Bishop holds his portion in common The meaning of which speeches is not that every particular Bishop is in regard of his Jurisdiction an Oecumenical Bishop But since the Church in general is truly and perfectly one Body each Bishop in it is so to administer his Charge as that he must have an eye to the whole Dioceses and Provinces c. are not to be esteem'd as so many Secular Principalities independent and absolute which can publish Declarations and Laws without any regard to their Neighbours profit or liking It is not so in the Church But every Bishop in executing his Episcopal Office ought much more to be sollicitous of the general Vnity Peace and Edification of the whole Church than of his own Diocese So that if any Law Custom or Doctrine in it be discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province Patriarchat or much more the Vniversal Church such a Law ought not to be made or being made ought to be Repealed 6. As for the Authority of Bishops in Synods particularly in declaring Doctrines for in that we are at present principally concern'd Such Authority may be conceived to extend it self either to the notout-ward-contra-Profession only or to the inward assent c. Between which two there is a great difference 7. The common received Catholick Doctrine teacheth that whereas in General Councils the only Tribunal which is by all acknowledg'd to be infallible there may be either 1. A Declaration of Traditionary Doctrines which formerly before such Declaration did not evidently and â—niversally appear to be Traditionary 2. Or a Decision of Debates about clear and immediate Consequences of such Doctrines In both these the Church is infallible Infallible I say not to enlarge Disputes beyond the present exigence at least in all points any way necessary to our Salvation and this grounded upon those sure Promises of our Lord made to these Guides of his Church mentioned before Cap. 9. 11 12. And hence such both Declarations and Decisions are to be not only not contradicted but submitted to by an internal assent the undiscover'd refusal of which assent though it doth not render the refusers Hereticks in the judgement of the Church as upon contradiction or refusal of assent would for Ecclesia non judicat de internis Yet since such Declarations and Decisions are alwayes attended either with express or at least imply'd Anathemas to contrary Doctrines the contrary internal Judgments are Heretical 8. Of the acknowledged Infallibility of the Representative Church in Declarations of Traditionary Doctrines we have sufficient Testimonies from Antiquity St. Athanasius quoted also by St. Epiphanius professes That he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined in the Nicen Council since the Decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour Therefore they are unalterable and in our sense infallible Nor can there be any doubt but those matters defin'd were Ancient and Traditionary Doctrines And St. Augustin sayes The last Iudgment of
the Church is a General Council The same holy Father treating of Rebaptization formerly held by St. Cyprian and after by the Donatists says That for that Doctrine which was truly Traditionary the Donatists were Hereticks but St. Cyprian not Why Because it was permitted to the former Fathers and Bishops to debate and without breaking Communion to determine oppositly to one another in Provincial Councils Till in a General Council the true Orthodox Doctrâ—ne were without all further doubts confirmed Which Authority says he St. Cyprian if it had been declared in his time would without any doubt at all have believed 9. In the next place as touching Decisions of Controversies about not expressly Traditionary Doctrines but clear and immediate consequences of such Doctrines it is absolutely necessary oft-times for the Church to make such Decisions for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given to maintain freely any thing that does not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or in Tradition Thus many of the Articles of the Nicen Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds are only the clear and immediate Consequences of express Traditions which Articles in the Terms wherein they were there conceived were not absolutely necessary to be believed before the arising of Heresies forced the Church further to explain the Faith And hence it is that the Enlargements and clearer Explanations of our Faith in many Doctrines otherwise not necessary to be so generally known must and will encrease to the worlds end in case New Heresies arise 10. Now such Decisions are truly de fide or objects of our Faith For though it be most certain that the Church neither hath nor pretends to have any New Revelations of Christian verities but the same Faith which was delivered by the Apostles is still the Faith of the Church and no more There are no Additions made no new Articles invented Notwithstanding the same Articles by occasion of Heresies arising may in succeeding times be further explained and the Truths implicitely involved in them may be discovered In like manner some Traditionary points convey'd by the general practice of the Church when they come to be question'd or denyed by Hereticks are often explicitely declared in Councils to be Traditions by which Declaration there is no new thing taught but that which was formerly involved is more clearly manifested and that which was taught by practice is declared by words and that which was known to the learneder part of Christians becomes extended to all Thus the Doctrine of Purgatory Prayer for the Dead Invocation of Saints c. have been in later Councils made Articles not de novo as the Doctor misapprehends but they are lately testified to have been so anciently believed and so are all other new decisions of later Councils Points of ancient Faith either in themselves explicitely or in their necessary principles implicitely And if after such decisions of Councils there ariseth a new obligation that none can dissent from them without incurring the guilt of Disobedience so was there before an obligation of non-dissenting from the same Points without falling into Error and that in a matter of Divine Revelation Such Points were alwayes matter of faith if we would believe in those particulars what was Divine Truth though now indeed more necessary matter of our faith out of the obedience also and submission that we owe to the Church's judgement to which judgement we could have no obligation before she declared it Neither can this be avoided when ever the Church is by new risen Errors necessitated to state or declare such a Divine Truth but that such a new obligation will arise to Christians in relation to Her of believing it else to what end does the state it Which obligation is also a restraint of our former liberty indeed whereby we might then believe an error in divine matters without the guilt of disobeying the Church but this restraint is much for our benefit in our knowing and holding some truth now which perhaps we did not formerly and that in a time when we are in more danger from Seducers of falling into the contrary Error And now behold these necessary decisions are called the Church's new Articles of Faith this is her chief accusation and the same clamour now raised by the Preacher against the Council of Trent for this matter as was anciently by the Arrians against the first General Council who cryed out against the new Article and word Consubstantiality which was not found in their former Creed as was anciently by the Nestorians against the third General Council and by the Eutychians against the fourth And therefore why may not the Council of Trent for its defence return the same answer to the Preacher as the fourth General Council which he professeth to allow did to the Eutychians A not-much-discussed explication of the faith is sufficient say they for the benefit of sincere Believers But for those who endeavour to pervert the true Doctrine 't is necessary to make opposition to all those things which they erroneously broach and to provide fit remedies to their objections For if all would willingly acquiesce to the establishment of the Nicene Faith and would disturb this clear way of Piety with no innovation it were meet for the posterity of the Church to excogitate in their Councils no new additions But because there are many that decline from this right line through the crooked paths of error we are confirained with new discovery of truth to reduce them and to refute their straying opinions with wholsom additions i. e. to the former Doctrines of the Church Not as if we were ever seeking out some new thing tending to Godliness as though the former faith were defective but that we may seek out those things which are judged salutary and beneficial in opposition to those things which are innovated by them Thus that Council whose words clearly demonstrate that Councils may define not only traditionals in matters of Faith but any new conclusions which are necessarily and evidently derivative from them And here let the equal Reader judge whether the Doctor hath more reason to complain of the Councils new Articles or the Council of his and his Predecessors new Errors Out of which evil yet the wisdom of God in the several ages brings this good as Evagrius â— accutely observes to the Pagans scandalized at the divisions and novelties of opinions that arose amongst Christians that by occasions of Heresies the Orthodox dogmes are more accurately polished and more entirely compiled and that by this means the Church every day increaseth in knowledge i. e. by having the explicite Articles of her Faith more and more enlarged As we see how much even in early times the Athanasian Creed by the springing up of several Heresies in those days had enlarged the Apostolick 11. All these Declarations and Decisions framed by General Councils we Roman Catholicks do esteem
our selves obliged to the assent unto which is far more then not to contradict And this obligation is founded on the Infallible Authority which we acknowledge in the Catholick Church derived from the promises of Christ whose Spirit shall lead her into all Truth The denial of which assent we affirm to be formal Heresie and an open contradiction to which Authority is formal Schism 12. This we are taught concerning our Duty and Submission to General Councils And hereto we must add that considering the present distracted state of the Christian world and especially the Schism pertinaciously persisted in by the Eastern Patriarks who live under the Tyranny of the Turk and therefore will never probably be permitted to convene for the general Union of Christendom it is almost become impossible that such General Councils should now be assembled with all formalities as the four first were wherein all the five Patriarks were present at least by their Deputies Yet notwithstanding all this we cannot without infidelity doubt that God will be wanting to his Church to preserve it in Truth and Vnity Since therefore such an Oecumenical Council cannot be expected as was during the times of the Roman Empire the Supremest that can now be had ought to have the force and vertue of obliging which the former ones had the Anathemas of it must be as valid the Decisions of it as much to be submitted to and a renunciation of its Doctrine and Laws as heynously Schismatical as of any Council that ever went before Therefore Doctor Bramhal Lord Primate of Armagh in the Preface of his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon declaring that he submits himself to the Representative Church that is to a free General Council most rationally adds this clause or to so General as can be procured 13. Thus of General Councils As for inferior subordinate Councils though their Decrees touching Doctrines and Laws for Discipline are not unappealable yet an obligation in both these respects they impose on Christians living respectively within their Precincts The Decisions of a Provincial Synod are to be internally assented to except they be evidently erroneous or contradictory to those of a Superior Synod so that without Schism they cannot be openly contradicted Yet the same Decisions may be annulled by a Patriarchical Synod And all by an Oecumenical of which alone all the Decisions and Laws are irreversible because there is no Authority upon earth superior to it and in all Governments an inferior Authority can never reverse what hath once been established by a Superior especially if that establishment hath been actually submitted to For if a Provincial Synod could annul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a Dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we profess in our Creed Vnam Catholicam Add to this that in all Synods the Major part alwayes must decide so that the fewer however they may be esteem'd the better or more learned must submit to them These likewise all use of meetings and consultations will be evacuated 14. This fundamental Rule of all Government and Vnity is the only true unering Touch-stone by which a judgement is to be made concerning Schism If Doctor Pierce can furnish us with a better let it be produced but that being impossible he must give us leave to make use of this to examin the cause between the Roman Catholick Church and all other Congregations that call themselves Reformed But indeed it is lost labour to apply such a Rule as this to any Calvinistical Independent or Fanatick Congregations because they renounce both all such Laws and the whole Authority and Offices of those that made them Therefore leaving them to the severe judgement of him who said Where are those my enemies that will not have me to rule over them I will consider the Controversie as the Preacher stated it between the Roman Catholick and English Protestant Churches I say as he hath stated it because being to treat of Schism he hath given the right notion of it and not mispent time and paper as some others have done with vain discourses of an Internal and External separation c. as if there were no danger in external Schism or dividing of Communion unless men also have with the Presbyterians c. lost all even appearance of charity to all Christian Churches before them damning all who believe that Artiticle of our Creed concerning the Unity and Authority of the Church CHAP. XXI The Fundamental RULE of Church-Government Limitations of the Authority of Gen Councils Their Grounds made by Arch Bishop Lawd Dr. Feild c. Of Points Fundamental and Non-fundamental Protestants allow not so much Authority to Gen. Councils as God commanded to be given the Iewish Sanedrim Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus The foresaid fundamental Rule of all Government That no Laws can validly be repealed by an Authority Inferior to that by which they were Enacted is a Rule not now invented to serve our present purpose but written in the hearts of all mankind that consider what Government is and it is as to Church-matters particularly taken notice of by St. Augustine when he declares the Order that is in the Church and which alone can keep it in unity Particular Writings of Bishops saies he if any Error be in them may be corrected by others more learned or by Synods and Synods themselves assembled either in Provinces or Regions ought without any tergiversation to yield and submit to the Authority of Plenary Councils and oftimes former Plenary Councils may be corrected by other following Plenary Councils 2. This most Irrefragable Rule is that by which Schism may most certainly and undeniably be discovered And therefore though in gross it be admitted by Protestants I mean the wisest and most learned among them yet out of a necessity of maintaining the grounds of the English Reformation they put such restrictions exceptions to it as utterly take away all use of it For whereas S. Augustine makes the Supream Authority of the Church to reside in plenary or general Councils because he withal implies that such Councils may be corrected they therefore take the liberty to reject them at least in decisions in their esteem of less importance and by that means altogether inervate their Authority Not considering that in case the Decisions which he saies may be mended should regard matters of belief which perhaps upon better consideration may be expressed more commodiously and so as that they may be less liable to misconstruction yet it belongs not to any particular men or Churches to correct them but onely to succeeding Councils of equal Authority To demonstrate this I will here set down what Authority learned Protestants such as Doctor Field the late Arch-Bishop Lawd c. acknowledg in general Councils and withal how they circumscribe the same Authority 3.
Religion of their Fore-Fathers even King Henry the Eighth for all his Headship never pretended so far Of this I dare accept as Judge even Sir Edward Coke himself and Balsamon likewise though a malicious Schismatick therefore the fitter to be quoted by him yet all he sayes is That the Emperor has an inspection over the Churches that he can limit or extend the Iurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. which whether by the ancient Lawes of the Church he can do or no is little for the Preachers purpose I am sure he is not able to prove it or if he could it is a Reformation which will not serve his turn 7. His last Examples of Reformations made by Princes is that of the Kings of Iuda in which indeed Religion it self was Reformed But withal the Doctor may do well to take notice 1. That those Kings are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the High Priest or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves 2. They are not said to have reformed the people against the Priests 3. Or without the Priests 4. Yea in several places we read they were by the Priests assisted in their Reformation And therefore Bishop Andrews who was willing to make as much advantage of this example against the Roman Church as might be says only that those Kings did reform citra or ante declarationem Ecclesiae but he saies not contra And to make good his citra or ante hath only the strength of the weakest of all Arguments a Negative thus There is recorded no such Declaration of the Church in Scripture ergo there was none The infirmity of which argument is much more visible if applied to such a short History as that of the Kings and Chronicles containing a relation of so many hundred years and chiefly of the actions of Kings not of the Clergy 8. It cannot indeed be denied but that in such publick changes the Power of Kings is more Operative and Illustrious then of the Priests because their Civil Sword awes more than the others Spiritual and therefore no wonder if their part in such Reformations is more spoken of especially in so very short a story But certainly according to Gods Institution the Priests lips are to preserve knowledge and it is from their mouths that Kings are to learn Gods Law and what they are to Reform because they are the Angels of our Lord. Now for Reformations or other Ecclesiastical Ordinances made by such Kings as David Solomon c. who besides a Regal Authority were Prophets likewise immediately inspired and so employed by God I suppose the Doctor will not draw such into consequence to justify the actions of a King Henry the Eighth the young child his Son or youngest Daughter no Prophets surely 9. To these examples alleged by Doctor Pierce but very insufficient to justify the English Reformation I will in the last place take notice briefly of one great motive which as he sayes set on work the English Reformers of happy Memory which was their observing that in the Council of Trent the Roman Partizans were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith commanded to be embraced under pain of Damnation as it were in contempt of the Apostles Denunciation Gal. 1. 8. 10. But to omit his contradictions charging us with hideous errors in Faith which yet he dare not say are Fundamental lest he ruine his own Church To omit his uncivil language to the Bishops of that Council persons of too honourable a quality to be called by a little Doctor contemners of the Apostles denunciation conspirators liable to a curse To omit his commending the first English Reformers our Kings c. that they consulted not with fleth and blood then which what could be said more unluckily to himself Did not our first Reformer consult sometimes with flesh and blood Was Henry the Eighth so wholly spiritual Do not your self confess that Sacriledge and Rebellion help'd Reformation To omit his petty Quibble that the Church of Rome is but the younger Sister to that of Brittain Directly contrary not only to many of his brother Divines but to the Head of his Church King Iames who in a publick Speech to his Parliament says I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be our Mother Church To omit all these and more I shall desire the Doctor to take notice that neither what the Church hath done in the Council is any Novelty nor is it a Novelty that the Churches Adversaries should make such an objection concerning which the Reader may please to review what has been said before chap. 20. Sect. 9. 10. 11. 11. Protestants must impute this to their first Reformers that the Church hath been forced to make such as they call them new Articles of Faith For what would they have advised the Council of Trent to do when the Churches ancient Doctrines and Traditionary practises were question'd and condemned by Innovators As yet such Doctrines c. having never formerly been opposed except by inconsiderable Hereticks Such as Iovinian Vigilantius c. whose Errors before any Council could take notice of them soon after they appeared withered away again were visible only in the consent and practise of Catholicks But now it was necessary to declare Conciliariter that they were unjustly question'd either of Error or Novelty Must there be no decisions in God's Church after the four first General Councils For fear of new Articles must liberty be given to new Heresies Old Articles such as the Church had formerly occasion from time to time to mention in her Creeds and Canons will not serve the turn explicitly to condemn them therefore new ones must be excogitated says the Council New ones that is Old ones further explained Or Old Practises newly declared to be Traditions 12. But surely these which are mentioned by the Doctor and related to in his margin are no new Articles Most of them had been expressly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England For even St. Gregory who sent St. Austin hither to Preach the Gospel is accused by learned Protestants of all or most of these very Novelties which the Preacher objects Doctor Humphrey accuseth him and St. Austin the Monk Quod invexerunt in Angliam Purgatorium c. that they brought into England Purgatory Oblation of the salutary Host and Prayers for the Dead Relicks Transubstantiation To which Osiander adds That the same Gregory vehemently urged Celibacy of the Clergy Invocation and Worship of Saints nay that the Idolatrous Veneration of Images also was by him approved excused defended To which Carrion in his Relation of the state of the CHURCH in those dayes adds That when he tragically exclaim'd that he abhorred the Appellation of Vniversal Bishop yet at the same time he sufficiently declared his vehement desire of the thing which this Title signifies in his
assuming to himself such Authority over other Churches Here then are Seven of the Doctor 's Novelties confessed by Protestants themselves to have been the Doctrines of St. Gregory which the English here received with their Christianity which also sufficiently appears to those who are yet unsatisfied out of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England written about an hundred years after St. Gregory of whom the same Oâ—iander also relates That he was involved in all the Romish Errors concerning those Articles wherein saith he we dissent at this day from the Pope And for the Two others of the Doctor 's Points 1. Publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue And 2. Infallibility himself confesseth the first of these to have been in Gregories time For thus he The Publick Prayers of the Romanists have been a very long time in an unknown Tongue even as long as from the time of Pope Gregory the Great And the second he must grant to have been pretended to before Gregory in that the Preacher allows the proceedings of the Four first General Councils for these required several Points not before determined to be believed by all Christians under pain of Anathema and also inserted them into the body of the Christian Creeds Which thing the Doctor sometimes thinks unreasonable that any fallible Authority should assume to it self For surely upon this ground it is that he condemns the Council of Trent for presuming to make new Articles of Faith though they have put none such in our Creeds 13. By which it appears that this Sermon and all the severity practis'd against us in consequence of it might as justly have been preach'd and executed against our first Apostles St. Gregory and St. Augustin the Monk as against us And if against them then against the Vniversal Church both Eastern and Western since it is evident that in St. Gregory's time they were in perfect Unity both for Doctrine and Discipline And consequently if such pretended new Articles can justifie the English Separation from the present Church the same Separation ought to have been made from the universal Church above a Thousand years since I might go higher but this is even too too much That man surely must have a prodigious courage who dares venture his Soul and Eternity rather upon Scripture interpreted by an Act of Parliament or the 39. Articles than by the Authority and consent of the Vniversal Church for so many Ages I will conclude this so important Argument of Schism by a closer Application which may afford more light to discover on which side the Guilt lyes And this shall be done by making some Concessions and proposing some other Considerations c. CHAP. XXIV Of Causal and Formal Schism or Separation and the vanity of their Distinctions Considerations proposed for a clear Examination on which side the Guilt of Schism lyes The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church 1. FIrst As to the Preacher's so commended Distinction of Causal and Formal Schism it is borrowed from the late Archbishop The former member whereof only he applies to the Roman Catholick Church the later to no body He must give me leave to propose to his Consideration a Saying or two of St. Augustin thus writing to the Donatists Si possit quod fieri non potest c. If any could have which really he cannot possibly a just cause for which he should separate his Communion from the Communion of the whole World How do you know c. Aâ—d again in the same Epistle There is the Church where first that Separation was made which you after perfected if there could be any just cause for you to separate from the communion of all Nations For we are certainly assured that no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations because not any of us seeks the Church in his own Iustice or Holiness as you Donatists do but in the Divine Scriptures where he sees the Church really become as she was promised to be spread through all Nations a City on a Hill c. Hence it is that the same Saint though he wrote several Books against the special Doctrines of the Donatists yet whensoever he treats of their Schism he never meddles with any of their Opinions but absolutely proves their Separation unlawful from the Texts of Scripture and Promises of Christ which are absolute and unconditional So that the alledging Causes to justifie Separation for which there can be no just one is vain and fruitless And this way of Arguing is far more forcible against English Protestants than it was against the Donatists because all their sober Writers acknowledge the Church of Christ was and alwayes will be unerrable in Fundamentals and this as she is a Guide And further that the Roman is either this Church or at least a true Member of it 2. But Secondly whatever becomes of this Distinction his concession is That really a Formal Schism there is between us nay more that the Protestants made the actual departure and indeed they must put out their eyes who see it not The visible Communion between the now English Church and all other in being before it beyond the Seas is evidently changed and broken The same Publick Service of God which their first Reformers found in God's Church all the World over they refuse to joyn in for fear of incurring sin Most of the Ecclesiastical Laws every where formerly in force they have abrogated and without the consent of any other Churches have made new they were formerly Members of a Patriarchical Church which they esteem'd the only Orthodox Vniversal Church to the Government of this Common Body they acknowledged themselves subject And a denial of subjection to the Common Governors of this Body and especially the Supreme Pastor they judged to be a formal Act of Schism Lastly the common Doctrines of the Church they formerly embraced as of Divine Authority Traditionary only ancient and Primitive Now they called Apostatical Novelties Any of those changes conclude a Schism on one side or other but all of them more then demonstrate it A Schism then there is therefore one of the parties is guilty not of causing but of being Schismaticks properly formally Schismaticks Now would it not be hard for the Doctor to speak his conscience and declare once more at Court which of us two are properly Schismaticks It could not indeed be expected he should answer as a young maid did to my old Lady Falkland when she asked if she were a Catholick No Madam said she with a low curtesy if it please your Ladyship I thank God I am a Scismatick but withal his tongue would not readily pronounce Roman Catholicks to be Schismaticks from the English Reformed Church 3. That which is opposed to Schism is Catholick Communion We shew saith Saint Augustine by our Communion that we have the Catholick Church Therefore in discourse of Schism one while to talk of Innovations of Doctrine or of making a secession from