Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
five others all those that were not with the right Popes were Scismaticks and consequently cut off from the Church of Christ so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body of Christ In the time of Benedict the ninth five parts at least must be absciended If the Pope be an essential head of the Church as they must necessarily hold it necessarily follows that all the poor Christians even in America must be unchurched if they side with no Pope and damned if with the Schismatick albeit it sometimes hapneth that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should acknowledge as Legitimate how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search mistake the true Pope and so become Schismaticks or can any sober man think that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God and endeavour to their utmost to glorifie his name and to make them presently be rejected by him and if they dye thus perish everlastingly 2. I aske seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence not to have provided against Shism what expedient God hath provided in this case Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all P. 80. Rep. But who shall call it when t is asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes and consequently when we know not who is Pope we know not who is to convocate the Synod 2. How difficult is it to assemble them 3. Who shall have place there seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils Mr. C. p. 80. s 17. 3. The Doctor saith if the Pope should prove an Heretick the Church would deserve to be bereaved of her head Sect. 9 to which he Answes that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be not only on head but member of the Church and the See presently becomes vacant to which we have sufficiently replyed above Now for a conclusion of this business Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church and the continuation of its Unity and yet our blessed Saviour so desirous of his Church her welfare so well acquainted with the difficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter should be wholly silent in so great a point not giving us either the name or titles of this head nor the seat of his Empire to prevent the claim of others nor appointing him his work nor directing him how to do it albeit inferiour Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them when he hath the greatest work in the world to do and such as surpasseth the strength of many thousands never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties albeit St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming nor giving us any notice of his power nor telling us of his prerogative nor what officers he shall appoint under him and how nor acquainting us with our duty to obey him never telling us of the succession of this Soveraign in whom it shall reside of any successour of St. Peter rather then St. Paul I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ or his Apostles even when there was so great occasion and so many opportunities when Peter was among them when there was striving for supremacy when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers and some were for one some for another some for Cephas himself when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches as among the Corinthians Galathians and others there did yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendring of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope yea that Clemens Romanus though Bishop of Rome should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoiding of Schism to obey their own Bishops and not adde one syllable in behalf of his own authority these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdome and love of Christ his Apostles and the zeale of these Primitive Fathers against Schisme that I should sooner perswade my self of the truth of Mahomets fables then of this pretension CHAP. V. The impertinence of Mr. C's citation of Popes in their own cause Sect. 1. The testimonies of Pope Leo Pelagius Gregory and Gelasius Sect. 2 3 4. Evidence against this Supremacy from Pope Julius Leo Gregory Agatho and others Sect. 5. THus having encountred our Authors reasons in which he doth not usually abound we come now to a consideration of those authorities in which he is more copious Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce it being little better then one great Petitio principii made by many Popes and reiterated by Mr. Cressy who loves to beg the thing in question rather then evince it His work was to evidence from the undoubted records of Antiquity that the Popes Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio by the Universal Church instead of doing this our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes derided and contemned by their fellow Patriarchs and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words Spalat l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church l. 5. Satlivius c. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye apud Photâ—â—â—proâ— p. 125. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. we refer him to those in the Margent that have both produced and answered them to our hand only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope till it can be made evident 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles and the whole world and to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop of the Apostles can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors 2. That to be Princeps Apostolorum doth infer not only a Primacy of order which we grant but also of dignity which we deny And 3. That St. Peters authority was necessarily conferred upon his successors at Rome in the same
Hadrian the Pope as well as other Bishops of the East that he might seem to be under none sed solus praeesse videretur to this we are 1. Told by him p. 38. That this very title was given to Pope Leo by the Council of Chalcedon attributing that to a General Council which was done by an inconsiderable part of the Popes flatterers but were this true as our Adversary pretends this title was attributed to others also and therefore is no fit medium to conclude the Universal Supremacy of any Patriarch rather then of all to whom it was given especially seeing it is supposed to have been given to the Pope by that very Council which determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal prerogatives with him to whom this title was allowed 2 He tells us That John of Constantinople * Ibid. whilst he took this title still acknowledged the Popes Superiority not only of place but Authority over him Ans This affirmation is an immodest fiction to say no worse built upon a forgery which he hath used in foisting John into the place of Eusebius as before is shewed At last he comes to the business and tells us Sect. P. 39. s 4. That Gregory did not so much combat Johns present intention 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 fellow 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 Ans This is a profound Argument which Gregory I am confident would have been ashamed of for if the Pope be Universal Bishop whether we stile him so or not is not the whole World his Diocess hath he not Authority to exercise the functions of a General Bishop in the whole World and then doth it not follow with the same evidence of reason that all the Bishops of the World are only titular 2. He manifestly opposeth receiving a right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ and a receiving it from an Universal Bishop when he saith The Bishops the Successors of the Apostle would never acknowledge the receiving of their Episcopal right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ himself not from an Universal Bishop as the words preceding manifestly shew and yet he presently gives a reason which shews these two to be most consistent for saith he Though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan c. or Pope himself might he not have said or Universal Bishop and his Jurisdiction be given him by them they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to conveigh his Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him by whose means I pray you supposing him ordained by the Pope is it not by the means of the Universal Bishop 3. 'T is plain and evident that Gregory speaks against this title as that which argued the subjection of all other Bishops and Patriarchs to him as appears from these passages L 4 Ep. 30. Quae superviendo se caeteris praepomit Ep. 34. He that claimeth this title i◠a forerunner of Antichrist because in making himself proud he setteth himself before others from the comparison of him with the Devil who in the singularity of his pride despised the equality of joy among the Angels saying I will advance my Throne above the Stars of Heaven And again What Answer wilt thou make to Christ the Head of the whole Church Ep. 38. Cuncta ejus membra tibi supponere Ep. 34. Ut omnibus dignior esse videatur Ep. 36. Christi membra sibi subjugare Ep. 18 Ut nulli subesse solus omnibus par esse videretur lb. Semet ipsum praeponere cosque sub se premere Ep. 32. Sine aliorum imminutione ep 38. Restat ut ob vos Episcopi non sitis who goest about under the name of Vniversal Bishop to subdue all his members unto thee The like complaint he hath to the Empress Constantia That John desired he might seem worthier than all others To Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria that he studied by the haughtiness of a pompous title to subject under him Christs members and to John himself That he did affect that title that he might be subject to none and seem only to be over all that he desired thereby to set himself before all other Bishops and to press them under him and wisheth that this title might be attributed to one without the lessening of all others implying that in his judgment it could not be so But you will say Sect. 2 he evidently infers that if this title be allowed it remaineth that then others are no Bishops and tell sus that he only endeavoureth to be called Bishop Solus conetur Episcopus appellari Ibid. Answ Cupis Episcoporum nomen tui comparatione calcare Ibid. Sacerdotum omnis honor adimitur dum al 's uno universalis super omnes authoritas arrogatur ep 32. And again Prisantur honore debito universi dum quod aliis commune est ut privatum uni tribuitur and a third time Coercendus ille qui corde tumet honori imperii caeterorum se per privatum vocabulum superponit Ibid. Ep 32. ad Mauritium He sufficiently explains himself that he means this comparatively not absolutely as if he should have said You are indeed Bishops but in comparison of him you are none for when the title of Universal is admitted whereby one may be above another and depress the rest they fall from the antient right of Bishops by which right they are of one merit and Priesthood neither doth the potency of Rome make an higher Bishop nor the poverty of Eugubium a lower all are deprived of this due honour if any thing private be given to one and they in comparison of him are not to be dignified with the name of Bishops 2. He saith it because as he argued if there should be any such Universal Head upon the failing of him the whole Church and consequently all the Bishops of it must necessarily fail and the same Argument we have in that Epistle of Pelagius cited by our Author where having told us That if the Supream Patriarch should be called Vniversal the title would be taken from the rest they being no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but under the dominion of another He adds If John therefore be permitted to take this title the honour of all Patriarchs is denyed and probably he who is called Vniversal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the State of Truth so little was Papal Infallibility dreamd of in in those dayes Thus Dr. Hammond As for Patriarchs 't is manifest that the Vniversal Pastorship of one
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to
no other touchstone then Scripture and reason that sure word by which we are to take heed is not agreeable to these pretentions for should it be that we may try no other truth yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no and so be Judges of our Judge which sure is dangerous Yea 4 Is it not wonderful that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up Eph. 4.4 One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God should forget one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch without whose Soverain power if our Author may be believed the Church of God cannot subsist Sure if there had been any such thing this had been a proper place wherein to mention it No had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors it would not have been to the Law and to the Testimonies but to the Popes Council and his Cardinals 4. To multiply no more the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter but to its subsistence in statu meliori Now thence to infer that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church is as Illogical as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition were its members impeccable to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it Or because the making them all of one mind or enlightning them with the truth would prevent Schism and Heresie therefore God should do so or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass To infer that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves to slight the judgements of many thousands that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect is to endanger even the being of Religion that we may the better secure its Circumstantials Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth He that affirms the Popes infallability puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks and t is Granted they may be so and even to hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his Grounds cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice nay which is most Horrible yet a certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable so to say Which I say and maintain however you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real enemy Lastly to submit to him so as not to bind our Consciences to consent but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations is 1 That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous 2 T is very Dangerous seeing by these means the practice of Religion the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome the witnesses of the truth silenced and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus which yet is necessary to salvation Yea 3 Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man and to a General one when it may be had then to that Sect. 3 Well Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians and it is this If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history experience Answ I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument but I can tell what returns have been made to it before ere it was managed by the Presbyter And had they not been like you at least some of them in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments they might have spared all their pains in this particular 1. Then let Ocham tell us the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part seeing one may sustain the Hearing Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom or Country but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world In like sort though it be expedient sc for the preventing of Schism that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem adde tamem proclivis ad errorem nam talem unitatem Turcae talem Haeretici talem ipsi Philesophi habere possunt si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac Bonon Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum Davenant de sup Judice controversiarum seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world Besides saith he it would be most dangerous to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head especially when they are taught that he is Infallible Out of all that hath been said we have three Answers 1. That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism which the other is not 2. That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism 3. If it were expedient to prevent Schism yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy But 2 I answer that in respect of a Diocess or Parish there is a particular Authority resting in one and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all might be fild with Schisms so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority and
sure they would not have done if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keyes or any other act of Christ was preferred before them Yea t is wonderful that when as our Adversaries say this contention came before Christ four several times he would never intimate to them that which was so necessary to prevent Schism that he intended St. Peter for the chief when those that contended for it so strongly and especially their Followers were not likely to afford it him without some express from Christ In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14 he tells us P. 71. s 6. That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Churches building and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saith the same that Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power Thus he but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions for out of these I argue ad hominem 1. The same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles ergo The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter 2. St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him ergo The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church and consequently every member beside themselves Now then either Christ who gave them this power gave them a liberty to exercise it or forbad them the external administration of it If the first then was there no subordination in the exercise of this power to Peter unless the same person can be sub and equal too If the second then did he give them it perfectly in vain for Authority can be to no end but to exercise it on those over whom t is given Nay t is a contradiction to say a man hath power over another when he cannot exercise it de jure when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition Yea 3 how have they equal power not to speak of honour whereof one may exercise authority over the world the other may not by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop Well but saith our Author we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves then it follows Ibid. We grant therefore as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers that all the Apostles and all Bishops their successours enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either but for the external administration there may be and alwayes was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same Authority both among Apostles Ibid. and Bishops Answ He did wisely to add let him not find fault with this distinction for t is as lyable to exception as any can be For 1. What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71. Is it that Christ gave him the name of a Rock surely no seeing we have it acknowledged that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church and consequently equally Rocks for Peter is therefore so because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him or because he was one upon which the Church was to be founded Yea further among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other and that is Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is appropriated to him Eph. 2.20 And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone or foundation which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also Yea lastly Peter is not called a Rock as the Romanists would have him for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built and Peter was a member of that Church it would follow hence that Peter and all the Popes his Successours must be built upon themselves Evident is that of St. Serm. 13. de verbis Domini Austin Vpon that Rock which thou confessedst will I build my Church that is upon my self upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And again in his Retractations L. 1. C. 21. 't is not said Thou art Petra but thou art Petrus Petra autem erat Christus Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference seeing in the Greek which is Authentick it is observed quem confessus est Simon 2. Is it because he is alwaies in the Gospel placed first and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Alas 't is otherwise for we find Joh. 1.44 The City of Andrew and Peter Mark 16.7 The Disciples and Peter and what is it to the purpose that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists when almost alwaies he is put last in the Epistles 1 Cor. 3.22 Chap. 9.5 Or in the midst as Gal. 2.9 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles is no argument of their different Authority is evident from this that albeit there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet are they not placed next to Peter And then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it cannot give him this supremacy for it is afterwards promised to him you say Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys c. It being then afterward promised cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. We know that all the time of Christs life John had the dignity of place next Christ for he was the Disciple whom he loved and who lay in his bosom and therefore Peter had not the superiority For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or priority of place yea it is sufficiently evident that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John as of St. Peter in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter against Peters 3. We say that notwithstanding his contradiction Peter is called first Pag. 73. either because of his zeal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in confessing Christ or because he was the Apostle first called or else only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a numeral Or if it intimate any priority 't is of order not of superiority as we have proved Nor 3 Was this power of Administration given him See Mr. C. pag. 73. because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too and that they
teach all Nations and out of those whom they taught to ordain some Pastors whereever they came which shews they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ and a power to exercise it and so much for the second proposition 3. Hence it follows that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter for Par in parem non habet potestatem Now to restrain anothers power as to its exercise is evidently to exercise power over him And hence it follows that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter And indeed that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet not exercise one act of it upon them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for 24 years should exercise no act of regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it as strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to and yet the Apostles after these words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man No less a wonder was it that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself as that 1. Mentioning him often he should do it without any title of honour yea further that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles How is it that the other Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gentiles Act. 11.23 so that he is compelld to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James 4. See Mr. C. p. 71. The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all for he saith only this that Quoad ministerium viz. as to Preaching Administring the Sacraments Absolving and Remitting and such things which are done by Pastors and carrying not Jurisdiction in them but Ministry or Service they are equal but Quoad Politiam as to Government they are unequal and what is this to the purpose Mr. C. p. 72. Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter For 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop as Dr. Feild and Dr. Hammond will tell him 2. If he be said to have it 't were ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Diocesses are of equal Authority Jurisdiction or Power with him seeing he hath Power over them which Par in parem non habet To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures Whereas 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion nay the words seem unconsistent with it for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter bid him seed his sheep told him that what he bound should be so and that upon him he would build his Church he presently adds That he did this Pari consertio praediti houoris potestatis sed exordium ab uaitate proficiscitur albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem and so intended not any superiority in him above the rest but only to shew the necessity of unity And then for St. Jerome he doth not only say that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles and that one City though Rome it self is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild p. 548. In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Pauls Epistle to the Galathians we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for And 1. Whereas he mentions James Cephas and John and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superiour to the rest because he mentions him in the middle for if this be a sufficient evidence of his Supremacy that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles why should it not be as good a plea against it that the Apostle St. Paul when speaking of the chiefest Apostles should not do so 2. Why doth he mention them all as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and put no difference betwixt them if indeed St. Peter were Superiour to them especially if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them if we may believe St. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecum Aquinas Hugo Salmero Justinian Cornelius a Lapide and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting no difference at all betwixt them And that 3. This being evidently his scope to shew that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision because these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plâ—ased to admit of it and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles whose Authority they urged against him had St. Peter been constituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles how had it concerned his design to have told us not thus in general these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in particular that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy and perswades me to believe with the Doctor that St. James and St. John were St. Peters Peers Again ver 7. the Apostle tells us that even these Pillars saw it evident that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the circumcision was to St. Peter and that hereupon it was agreed that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Jews or circumcision Now 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul was it not by Christ by him that wrought effectually in them both ver 8. Now then if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision to St. Peter the circumcision is it not evident that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Vice-Roy in Ireland or Scotland the inferior Governors under him yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him sicut Petro circumcisio In locum Ibid. whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with
but from the Canons of Nice which yet were so far from justifying his pretensions no such Canon being found upon examination that if he could have thought that other pleadable he would certainly have discerned cause to make use of it Adde to this 3. That other instance of Pope Leo in the great cause of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Chalcedon of which anon where note 1. That the Pope interprets the injury done in that Council to have been a breach against the Nicene Canons and dispositions of Ecclesiastical affairs without mention of any others 2. That through the Epistles written on that occasion he deduceth not his Primacy from St. Peter 3. That he takes no notice of any injury done to himself in that Council but only to the Bishop of Alexandria Antioch and other Metropolitans 4. That the deducing the dignity of the Roman See from the greatness of that imperial City which was more then pretended by that Council was never so much as quarrelled at by the Popes Legates in that controversie which sure is a competent prejudice to the deducing it from St. Peter Adde 4. That solemn prohibition of Gregory to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria Ep. ex reg l. 7. indic 1. c. 30. enjoyning him not to call him universal Father that being derogatory to his brethren c. a manifold testimony that this did not in his opinion belong to him by the law of Christ for then 1. According to Christs own rule You call me Lord and Master Joh. 13.13 and you do well for so I am he had done well in giving him this title 2. It could not have been derogatory to his brethren 3. Reason could not have required the contrary as he saith it did 4. He could not have averted it with an absit recedant without even fighting against God much less could he have spoken those things of it which we have mentioned elsewhere Add fifthly The clear confession and manifest declaration of Pope Agatho in his letters sent to the Emperour concerning a General Council that his Primacy did extend only to the Bishops of the West and not to the East 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. p. 45. to 2. Con. And again p 47. he excuseth himself for sending so late 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergo beyond the Ocean then it was not 2. Because he hoped that Theodorus his fellow Bishop and Archbishop of the Great Island of Brittain with others there living would joyn with him the words run thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a clear evidence 1. That the Patriarchate of Rome even in Agathos time extended no farther than the Ocean and so not to Brittain And 2. That Brittain was not numbred by him amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the multitude of those who were under the inspection of the Pope or belonged to his Patriarchate which is a sufficient evidence that at that time the Bishops of Rome had no such universal Primacy CHAP. VI. The Law of the Emperour Valentinian considered Sect. 1. St. Basils testimony not concluding Sect. 2. The Ecclesiastical Canon interpreted Sect. 3. The Popes restoring Athanasius and others Sect. 4. The Argument from the Council of Ephesus Sect. 5. From the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 Of Arles Sect. 7. His negative Argument from St. Cyprian Sect. 8. His perswading the Pope to depose Marcianus Sect. 9. His Argument from his 68. Epistle not concluding Sect. 10. The example of Pope Victor Sect. 11. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae against them Sect. 12. St. Jeroms testimony of an Head constituted to avoid Schism Ibid. And St. Cyprians of the Chair of St. Peter no evidences of the Popes Supremacy Sect. 12 13. Nor that of Optatus Sect. 14. Nor that of St. Chrysostome Sect. 15. Nor that of St. Austin Sect. 16. We not members of the Roman Patriarchiate the invalidity of the inference thence Sect. 17. The conclusion of the Chapter Sect. 18. IN the seventh Chapter Mr. C. Sect. 1 confirms the supremacy of the Pope by a Law of the Emperour Valentinian which runs thus That whatever had been or should be established by the See Apostolick Mr. C. p 54. Novel Theo. of Tit. 24. should have the force of a Law to the Bishops of France and all others and that secundum veterem consuetudinem Yea further he adds That this Supremacy of the See Apostolick has been established both by the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of Episcopal society and by the dignity of the City and by the Sacred Authority of a Synod Ans 1. All this falls short of an universal Jurisdiction which Valentinian being only Emperour of the West could not be imagined to confer upon the Pope nor can his Edict be supposed to reach those Bishops which came not within the compass of his Empire 2. Consider who was it that made this Edict Valentinian a young Emperour and as yet sub potestate matris yea saith the great Salmasius De primatu Papae c. 17. it was procured a Principe intertissimo imbelli desidiaque ac luxurie perditissimo And further against whom was it framed even against pious and learned St. Hilary a man acquainted I presume with the antient customes of the Church as well as this young Emperour or his instructer Pope Leo. 3. This Law was got from him by the suggestion and false dealing of the Pope and that manifestly ambitious of and yawning after this Supremacy and hence it is that the Edict saith Hilary as we have found by the faithful relation of that venerable man the Pope of Rome vindicates his unjust ordination of Bishops used only out of temerity not consulting Pontificem Romanae Ecclesiae which is sufficient evidence saith Salmasius that this Edict was put forth by the arts and suggestions of the Roman Pontifex as also he gathers from another clause viz. Sola mansueti praesulis humanitas permittit Hilarium adhuc Episcopum nominari words that smell rank of a Pope and are exactly parallel to what Leo writes in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna that as for St. Hilary suae civitatis sacerdotium pro sedis Apostolicae pietate perceptio nostra servaverit 4. Saith he he restrains the authority of the Pope and will have it only acknowledged Si quid a quopiam contra veterem consuetudinem tentaeretur and in the beginning of his Edict ne quid praeter authoritatem sedis Romanae illicitum praesumptio adtentare nitatur and therefore the Pope hath nothing to do when all things are done rightly and according to ancient custom so that this Edict sends us only to look what that was 5. He sums up all and concludes that this Edict should not seem to have much authority if it be considered that it was suggested by a false relation viz. that St. Hilary did against right and the antient customs in ordaining Bishops without consulting the Pope which is very false that this
thereunto Ib s 5. Secondly He tells us this was no special priviledge of the Bishop of Rome but a right common to him with all other Patriarchs who ought of necessity to be summoned to all General Councils and this is the reason why the second Council of Constantinople is not accounted properly General because all the Patriarchs were not there however saith Balsamon In Com. ad Synod Constant 1. ad finem the Synod of Constantinople be no General Council because the other Patriarchs were not there yet it is greater than all other Synods and the Archbishop of that See was stiled Universal Patriarch For this cause also Nestorius when he was summoned to appear at the Council of Ephesus S. 6 Socrat. l. 7. c. 33. answered that he would so as soon as John the Patriarch of Antioch was come thither and this was the reason why the Patriarch of Antioch was so highly offended with Cyril who would not vouchsafe to stay for him that being come after the sentence of deposition against Nestorius he banded with his own Bishops against Cyril S. 7 and excommunicated him And the eighth General Council after the arrival of the Patriarch of Alexandria's Deputy who came somewhat tardy gave thanks to God at his coming because he supplyed what was wanting to a General Council and made it most compleat Nay they were not only called to General Councils but the custom was for honours sake to wait for them certain dayes when they did not come at the day appointed So at the Council of Ephesus they stayed sixteen dayes after the time was expired for the Patriarch of Antioch And the eighth General Council having expected the Popes Legates for certain dayes Id. s 10. and seeing they came not took this ensuing resolution Considering the deputies for the See of old Rome have been a long time expected and that it is against all reason to wait for them any longer we hold it an unbeseeming thing to slight and endanger the tottering Church of our Saviour Christ by such delayes and thus much for that Argument He comes now to add a few examples more viz. Sect. 4 When some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople P 58. s 8. L 3 c. 7. Non sinesadissima labe lapsu cum à Julio restitutum dicit Sozamenus Crakenth def Ecc. Ang. c. 22. s 69. Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Marcellus Primate of Ancyra and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza the Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of All things doth pertain restored to every one of them their own Church and he adds further that he commanded them who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give an account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunished if they would not cease from innovating all this he did saith Theodoret not by usurping but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law of the Church Now to this we answer Lib. 4. c. 4. s 10. in the words of the same Author who replies to Bellarmin that he takes out of Sozomen what makes against him For 1. He doth not any way speak of appealing from the Council to the Pope for that was not then in use He saith indeed that Athanasius and some other Bishops being deprived of their Sees and persecuted by the Arrian Bishops which were in the East fled to Rome as to an Haven of refuge that the Pope having heard their Confessions according with the Nicene Creed received them into Communion restored them to their Churches and writ to the Eastern Bishops whom he rebuked for deposing them but we must alwaies remember that they were Arrians and Persecutors and that the Controversie was not between party and party If Bellarmine deny it or if he answer that he must look here only to the form of proceeding which was ordinary we will take him at his word and presently oppose to him the Authority of his own Author who saith that these Bishops so soon as they had received these letters fram'd an answer full of Ironies and threats and confessed as he said that the Church of Rome was the principal as that which was from the Prime of the Apostles and the Metropolitan from the beginning for Piety howbeit these that planted Christian Religion there came first out of the East but they were displeased that he should think they were inferior to himself because his Church was of greater lustre though they excelled him in Virtue and Sanctity of life they objected also against him as a crime that he had communicated with Athanasius and the other Bishops and that they could not indure to see their sentence made invalid by him as if it were by a Council so that what he did was by way of Usurpation and not by Right and that which our Author cites out of Theodoret for the contrary is very disingenuous Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Mr. C. p. 59. For Theodoret saith only thus That Athanasius foreseeing what designs were on foot against him fled to Rome to Pope Julius and those that were Eusebians sent many Calumnies against him to the Pope But Julius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the way of the Church in not condemning a Bishop before he hath been heard and put in his plea for himself bids them come to Rome to make good their Accusations and shew that their proceedings were just and equal and accordingly appointed a day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the deciding of the Case at which Athanasius was ready to appear but these lyars would not In this therefore he followed the Law of the Church that he required evidence of the fact before he renounc't his Communion but Theodoret doth not so much as mention the other Circumstances which we meet with in Sozomen much less say that the Pope followed the Law of Custome of the Church in them and so much for that instance Nor doth it at all conclude his Supremacy that he is said to have the care of all the Churches upon him for this was common to him not only with other Patriarchs but other Bishops as the Fathers everywhere speak I will cite Origen for them all who in his sixth Hom. on Isaiah saith He that is call'd to a Bishoprick is call'd ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae which you may see confirmed by Mr. Collins his Defence of the Bishop of Ely p. 174. and more copiously elsewhere yet the Bishop of Rome was to do it more especially for the dignity of his Seat which made him Prime in order of the Bishops Again Sect. 5 He tells us p. 59. s 9. That the Council of Ephesus entring into a debate about the cause of John Patriarch of Alexandria the Bishop of Jerusalem interposed affirming that according to the ancient custome the Church of Antioch was alwayes governed by the Roman whereupon the whole Council
Christ ordained him Teacher or if you will Master not of any Throne but of the whole Werld as he did also the rest of the Apostles for which our Author hath it not of that See of Rome alone in which the fraud is manifest 't is true Sect. 15 the Scholiast tells us that either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be left out as the Interpreter hath done or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be added but then it must evidently refer to the See of Jerusalem and can by no stratagems be drawn to the See of Rome well then if he would have this citation serviceable to him he must first shew that St. Peter was by Christ constituted Bishop of Rome and by so doing he will contradict St. Chrysostoms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That only St. Peter and not any of the Apostles besides him were appointed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Saviour 3. Which is the most difficult of all that the Bishops of Rome are to succeed him in being so There is one passage remaining of St. Austins who tells us Sect. 16 That Melchiades judged the cause of the Donatists in Africk Judicante Melchiade sedis Romanae Episcopo cum collegis suis quos ad preces Donatistarum miserat Imperator ibid. ep 162. Third def c. 2. s 4. Non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia c. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellanduÌ„ à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur Reply p. 40. Where not to take notice of his interpreting de collegio suo removere to remove from his Communion 1. This was no Authoritative but only a brotherly decision 2. Done at the prayers of the Donatists 3. By power delegated from the Emperour 4. All this we find in Reverend Dr. Ham. together with a complaint that many other things offered by him in consideration of this passage could find no Answer Now seeing all these Answers are clearly satisfactory is it not strangly absurd that the objection should be brought upon the stage afresh without the least considerations of the returns that were made unto it Now that St. Austin was far enough from acknowledging the Supremacy contended for as well as the rest of the African Bishops is argued from this that in the Milevitan Council where he was present speaking of Appeals from their Bishops their rule is cap. 22. that they should appeal to none but the African Councils or the Primates of their own Provinces and if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine or forreign Judicature they are not to be admitted into Communion by any within Africa and this they determined agreeably to the Council of Nice and declare as much to Pope Celestine as you may see in the Reverend Dr. Hammond T is a common Proverb that the Devil will play at small game rather than stick out Sect. 17 so if the Bishop of Rome cannot be Universal Monarch he will plead for him as Patriarch over the West and thereby think to bring us into subjection to him but seeing it is notorious and almost generally confest that the power of Patriarchs is not of Divine but humane institution if he will affirm that this Dignity was given to him by the Fathers he must either allow and acknowledge that they never dream'd of his being Universal Monarch or else were so wise as to decree that he should have allotted to his Jurisdiction the third or fourth part of the World whom they knew to have received from Christ a title to the whole 2. Were he Patriarch over all the West and we included in the circuit of his Patriarchate yet would not this afford him any Authority over England Dr. Haâ— third def p. 124. Seeing the dignity of a Patriarch includes not any Authority over more then the Province or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that belongs to him as a Primate or Metropolitan and therefore infers no kind of Authority over all those that belong to the circuit of his Patriarchate Just vinet c. p. 249 Bishop Bramhal gives him three further Answers 1. That the Brittish neither were nor ought to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch as is irrefragably proved in his third conclusion 2. That Patriarchical power being not of Divine right may be quitted and that this the Pope hath done by taking up an Vniversal Monarchy unconsistent with it forfeited by many exerbitant abuses of which the Roman Bishops have been guilty beyond expression or lawfully transferred as was done by the King and the whole body of the Kingdome And 3. That the power which we have cashiered nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by antient Canons so then t is superfluous to consider his Authorities only in short 1. Zonaras and Balsamon are esteemed Hereticks by himself And secondly are affirmed by the Learned Salmasius to have mistaken the mind of the Canon Salmas de prâ—matu Papae c. ult 2. St. Basils calling the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes him only the chief in order and most eminent Bishop of the West which title we can very well allow him Salmas 16. 3. In the testimony of St. Austin he hath foâ—sted in the Western Church whereas St. Austin speaks only of the Church in which St. Peter suffered Martyrdom that is the Church of Rome it being searce ever heard that any one was said to have suffered Martyrdome in the West 3. Nor can it be inferred from that place of St. Jeromes Let them condemn me with the West that is with Damasus that he thought him Patriarch of all the West but his meaning is this Salmas ib. Let them condemn me with the most famous men and Churches in the World of which having mentioned two he leaves the rest to be understood Lastly 'T is objected that Justinian the Emperour affirms that the whole World was subject to five Partriarchs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Western Rome Constant Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Nevel 123 now saith he unless Hesperia signifies the whole West to what Patriarch was France Spain Africa c. subject Ans 'T is true the Emperour reckoneth up five Patriarchs but doth he any where say that all the World was necessarily subject to them doth he deny that it was in the power of Princes to make more or limit the Dominions of these did not he create de novo Carthage and Justiniana prima and give them all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Supream Priesthood Supream Honour and Dignity and ordain that final appeals and the Dignity of Apostolical Sees shall be given to them as is evident from his very words cited by Dr. Hammond in his â—ract of Schism Pag. 101 102 103. and then what service can you have from this his testimony Lastly Notwithstanding this there were many Provinces that were not subject to the Jurisdiction of any of the forementioned Patriarchs I should now
Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a jurisdiction over them all for as much as the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome viz. to have power over the Suburbicarian Regions now to this he Answers Mr. C. p. 64. That the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchate is made the pattern of the Bishop of Alexandria not in regard of his universal jurisdiction in the Church of God which in that time was not in being but only as to his custome and practice of calling Synods correcting manners making ordinations according tr his Patriarchical and Metropolitical jurisdiction for not only Patriarchical which Salmasius tells us was not then hatcht but Metropolitical authority is spoken of in this Canon so that it signifies no more then this that the Bishops of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches and therefore so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis Now 1. We Answer Were this Canon to be limited to ordination the custome of calling Synods c. seeing it is granted that as the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission from him so must the Bishop of Antioch Alexandria and other Provinces hence it follows that the Pope hath nothing to do in their ordinations no more then they have to do with his for such ordinations as were performed by the delegates of the Pope unless they were supposed to consent to it would neither be done by them immediately nor by their Commission and seeing as the learned Bishop Bramhal saith Rep. p. 193. all other rights of jurisdiction follow the right of ordination neither can the Pope plead any jurisdiction over them 2. In the Canon t is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est as in Alexandria and Rome so also in Antioch and other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the government Hes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principalities or dignities shall be preserved to the Churches and consequently it speaks not of ordination and power of calling of Synods only but of the whole jurisdiction of each Province and comparing these with Rome and telling us that these prerogatives shall be allowed to the Provinces of Alexandria c. because the custome was such that the Bishop of Rome had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the Provinces where he resided it seems to argue that the power of the Roman Bishop was not universal but confined to those Provinces the Canon speaks of for when we say that Italy reacheth to the Ionian Adriatick and Tyrrhenian Seas and towards France and Germany to the Alpes we mean that it is terminated there and extends it self no further and in like manner when we describe the Dominions of a Prince or Emperour so here when the Canon saith the Pope hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Provinces it may consequently be argued that his power is limited to them and doth not reach to the other Provinces attributed to the Bishop of Antioch Alexandria c. And as when the Patriarch of Antioch or Jerusalem mentions his Bishops he is supposed to understand such as are not subject to the Bishop of Alexandria even so here when it is said the Bishop of Allexandria shall have power over his Bishops seeing the Bishop of Rome hath power over his we are to understand by the Bishops of Alexandria such as are not subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently his Oecumenical power must be here denyed and indeed unless the Roman Diocess were limitted it could not possibly be a copy or reason of limiting the Alexandrian it being unreasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath none which yet that it was besides the evidence of the words themselves is the express affirmation of one of their own Popes who tells us That the Nicene Synod conferred no encrease on Rome Nicholas 1. Ep. 8. but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give the Church of Alexandria Well then if at the making of the Nicene Canon Rome had bounds it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon viz. that all Provinces everywhere shall ordain their Bishops within and by themselves and that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him i. e. his predecessours power that these bounds must be at all tiems observed which is sufficiently destructive to the universal Pastorship of the Roman See for hence t is evident that an universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or power of ordaining belongs not to the Bishop of Rome See Dr. Ham. Sch. disar p. 105 106 107. and therefore ordination and jurisdiction going together he cannot have the universal jurisdiction over Bishops or which is all one universal Pastorship 3. That the Antients understood it of government and not only as to the matter of ordination in the sense we plead for is apparent from their words thus Ruffin tells us that the mind of it is that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the care of Egypt as the other had of the Suburbicarian Churches and Aristinus a Greek Author in his collection of Canons gives us the sixth of Nice thus Let the Bishop of Alexandria have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the government of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis the Bishop of Rome of those Churches that are about his City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do exactly express Ruffinus's Suburbicarias Ecclesias or regiones yea the Arabick compilation of these Canons set out by Turrianus the Jesuit speaks thus T is decreed that the Bishop of Egypt the Alex. Patriarch should preside and have power over all Egypt and all the places and Castles that are about it quia sic convenit for so t is meet seeing the Bishop of Rome likewise hath power over all the places which are about it and likewise the Bishop of Antioch let him have power over that whole Province and the Paraphrase upon the Canon tells us that this was done because the Bishop of Rome had power over the Cities or places that were near him again Zonaras with whom consent Balsamon and Nilus saith that the Alexandrian Bishops shall preside over his Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly the Canon as cited by Paschasinus the Popes Legate shews as much Con. Chal. for thus it runs The Church of Rome alwayes had its Primacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Egypt have so also that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power of all under him because the Roman Bishop hath this custome likewise he that is constituted Bishop of Antioch and in other Provinces let the Church of larger Cities have the Primacy Doth he speak of Primacy of order which the Popes had over all the world then is it a ridiculous argument and a contradiction if of jurisdiction then was not the Pope to have any jurisdiction over them seeing they were all to have 〈◊〉
is a prejudice to that because a Primate or Patriarch by the notation of each word being one that hath none over him in respect of Authority or Power and so is absolutely first in his own Diocess this supposing a supream power in one must needs prejudge that as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy and this was the very reason why Pelagius and Gregory refused it because they should have wronged the rest of the Patriarchs in assuming it Third Def. p. 406. Now whether his asserting this Primacy Sect. 3 or our accusing and condemning it as a Novelty whether his proofs or ours be more concluding let the Reader judge I am content to refer it to his conscience as our Author doth We come now to discuss the safety of admitting this Supremacy And 1. Mr. C. p. 81. Mr. C. assures us That whilst such a Primacy purely Spiritual was acknowledged which for the first six hundred years was never so much as heard of the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poisoned with Heresies Just Vindic p. 58 59. Answ Bishop Brumhal can tell you No Saxon English or Brittish King ever made any obliging solemn formal acknowledgement of their submission to the Bishop of Rome that the Popes power in England was of courtesie not duty that former Kings were as tart and vehement against him as King Henry the eighth with this only difference that they endeavoured to draw the people out of the Popes claws at home and he thought it more expedient to cast the Pope over the Brittish Seas once for all And if so your very supposition will give you the lie unless you will sink down to Queen Maries dayes Secondly If they were not torn in pieces with Schisms yet through your blood-thirsty tyranny they were torne in pieces for Schisms burned for Heresies that is for the plain evident Truths of the Gospel by your ignorance branded with the odious names of Schismatical and Heretical Tenents Thirdly I pray you tell me were there no Protestants in Queen Maries dayes did none suffer before her dayes when you suppose the Supremacy of Antichrist agnized how many righteous souls were butchered by you in prosecution of your Sanguinary Articles against poor Protestants how many piles were builded in Queen Maries dayes to sacrifice their lives upon to your rage and malice and durst you be so bloody against those who were neither Schismaticks nor Hereticks and what wonder is it that you had no Schismaticks c. when to be such was the sure way to have no being and they could find no other Answer to their Arguments but fire and faggot yea when the light was withheld from them that so they might not see the truth You go on and tell us Ibid. The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a sword drawn for or against it Answ Very good if Princes will crouch to his Holiness Nonne Rex Anglorum nâ—â—er vassâ—llus est â—t ut 〈…〉 di◠〈…〉 be his Vassals suffer him to drein their Kingdoms rob and begger their Subjects exhaust their Dominions he will not arm their Subjects against them dethrone them or seek their ruine but if they once offer to withstand his tyranny question his intolerable encroachments cannot be content thaâ— their Subjects wealth should be converted into St. Pâ—â—â—â— Patrimony then must they be Sacrifices to Papal 〈◊〉 Witness that terrible and unparalleld excommunication and interdiction of England the deprivation of Henry the eighth published at Dunkirk witness the bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceding witness the Popes Negotiations with the English Spanish French c. to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther published at Rome by Hieronymo Culena Secretary to the Cardinal Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth witness the Legantine Authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his rebellion the Phaenix Plume sent to Terowen to encourage him likewise in his rebellion and a plenary indulgence for him and all his assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King James from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman Catholick interest Witness the rebellious Tenents of your English Seminaries the many treasons and rebellions in the time of Qu. Elizabeth and King James all which you may see in the Reverend Bishop Bramhal pag. 136 137 138. of his Repli so that you do in effect say t is safe for his Majesty to admit the Popes Supremacy for otherwise he may expect the absolution of his Subjects from their obedience a Spanish Invasion a Gunpowder Treason or some other mischievous enterprises of the Romish Emissaries to take away his life You tell us further Sect. 4 That the Kings of France account it one of the most sparkling Jewels in their Crown Ibid. that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted sons of the Catholick Church the acknowledging the spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honour and defence in them then many Armies would because it preserves peace and unity in the Kingdom by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to faith and obedience Answ The acknowledgement of the same Supremacy in the Turk that civil Pope who gapes for the Universal Monarchy would be as great an expedient for peace and unity let our Authour make the inference Secondly Why may we not deny that this peace and unity is not to be derived from the acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy seeing as our Authour hath it in another case in so many places both they are not where it is and are where it is not as under the Turks Dominions c. Thirdly We tell you that his Majesty of France doth not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy From. pag. 190 to 200. as it is undeniably evinced by Bishop Bramhal in his just Vindication Lastly You fall to Divining That without such an Authority all our preaching and laws will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy Answ Very likely for to be sure if your Priests and Jesuites men born for the subversion of Governments be permitted Hoc genns hominum natum est ad interitum Christianae reipub was the prediction of the University of Paris and it was confessed this was their business to set all on fire by John Brown a Roman Priest Prin introd p. 202. N. 82. s 20. you will never leave your rebellious Attempts and treacherous conspiracies till you have brought us into new confusions and built your nests upon our ruines Again we are told how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have
protested their renouncing any acknowledgment of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right belonging to the Pope over any subject of his Majesties Sect. 5 See B. Bram p. 137 138. Answ We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope yea that his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to Answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory Answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery that the Colledges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole world yea even in temporal matters now whether you have changed these opinions or no we know not 2. How long you will hold to this whether after the declaration of the Pope to the contrary whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience whether your acknowledgements be not with mental reservations and whether your intent be not as in Queen Elizabeths time it was acknowledged by some of your own party by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supream power See B. Bram. ib. and whether you do not yet think that faith with Hereticks may be broken when the good of the Catholick cause requireth it may be doubted and therefore you are too hasty in concluding that you acknowledge meerly a pure spiritual authority in the Pope have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits but to yield what you so confidently assert and so weakly prove you Catechise us thus Is this now dishonourable is it unsafe Answ Both. To whom Answ All Kings and people the whole Church of God You reply Catholick Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger Answ No such thing it being manifest that all Kingdoms and Republicks of the Roman communion do exempt themselves from this obedience to and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome or at least plead for it when they have occasion Just Vind. c. 7. as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person and deposed sent to him to recieve justice the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law what bottomless pit had belched it forth Yea further when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council he finding that all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees but commands his Bishops to depart and leave the Council whether they were summoned by the Pope 2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances complaining of the Popes usurpations and tyranny exhausting the wealth of their Kingdoms prodigality of indulgences c. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernitious attendants that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia to enlarge the Popes Coffers and the like 2. See B. â—am Just Vind. p. 161 162. They have more reason to acknowledge him then we they profess him to have been their Patriarch but t is beyond all question he hath no title to be ours 3. They may Protest against a truth esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so as being a disclaiming of that power and care over Gods Church which he hath committed to them suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they owe to Christ and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect and the faith they are stiled defenders of but he proceeds If only saith he to the dissenters from Catholick religion this be dishonourable Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they persecuted a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Emâ—ire Answ But how will it appear to have been so was it begun and upheld by Treason Rebellions continual Blood-shed all manner of vice and wickedness as the Romans evidently was and is why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority independant on the Emperours Answ But what of all this did such intolerable extortions excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops as do accompany this power of the Pope was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God by signs and wonders yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to higher powers and to resist an evident usurpation and a tyrannical yoke unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it which is found to tend to the subversion of the true faith and the enslaving of the Kingdom and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperours albeit it was wholly independant upon Pagans And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops over their Presbyters and Diocess to ordain Sect. 6 excommunicate make orders for decency c. we acknowledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Provinces may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain France c. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us because t is purely spiritual else would it be so to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you 1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists Rep. p. 289 290 291 292 293. no Protestants having any hand in it 2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine contained in it 3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath but meerly Political and such as is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every Soveraign Prince 4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be understood 1. Either by himself or by fit substitutes who are Ecclesiastical persons 2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience 3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes his power consists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties 4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art of the Church of England 5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily a lay Chancellour in the Court
Christian and an Abbess over her Nuns But you argue thus Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops Pag. 83. they do not so to the King ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root Answ We grant the whole who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction or that it was only jure Regio 2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience and therefore he is in a sense the root of it Sect. 7 But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom 1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity 2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its supream Pastor Answ Yes Because the person you speak of is some Utopian Pastor and both these surmises are evident untruths And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects Answ Yes because they have a right to it As if the Bishops were indep on his Majesty he no title but usurpation which it would be dishonourable to permit Again say you Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate to whom we owe no obedience a thousand miles off Answ Yes because he is a thousand miles off And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home who are by his Majesty over us to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due who are present with us Answ No. What follows is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress when their interest leads them to it the royal prerogatives and I leave it to their Answer CHAP. IX Of the Infallibility of the Church Mr. C's State of the question Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith Sect. 2. Why we pâ—efer the four first General Councils before others Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture Sect. 6. Mr. C's Calumny Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason Scripture or Antiquity Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture Sect. 9. Mr. C's Arguments for the Churches Infallibility first From Deut. 17.8 9 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christs promise of his presence with his Disciples considered Sect. 11. From Christs promise of his presence with two or three Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth Sect. 17. These promises not to be applyed to particular Churches Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory Constant and the Anathemas of Councils Sect. 9. Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility Sect. 20. The Doctors Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants Sect. 23. IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith and the guide of it and then tells us that 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 express Scripture But as for the guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule he tells us That Dr. Pierce Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church or four first General Councils but since their writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking judge of the sense of all these is our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons the authority of the Church c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason so that let them Preach as much as they will the result of all the dispute between them and us must come to this whether their last speaking judge in England or ours in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believed and relyed on But it s the Roman Catholick Church alone that is guided both by reason God spirit the primitive Church and the visible Governours of the present Church this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful as gross For Sect. 2 1. You tell us P. 90. s 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule yet we admit beside express Scripture certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith why did you forbear to name some of them and yet confidently assert that we hold what we know we do not hold do not all English Protestants prove against you that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule And though we make use of universal tradition yet not as a rule but as a motive or argument for our faith as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word is the attestation of the Church in all ages which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable to confirm and conveigh this to us and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity such as Celsus Julian Porphyrie c. But we say you Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils Sect. 3 whom if we can believe you we constitue judges of the traditions received by us Answ We do I confess appeal to the four first general Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it but
we have done it legally and with sufficient Authority due moderation and other conditions requisite yea we had the implicite consent of the Eastern Church which doth with us reject these Laws of the Church of Rome this we constantly plead in our own behalf and yet we must be Schismaticks though neither all nor any of these pleas can be invalidated Again saith he They acknowledged themselves subject to the Church of Rome and esteemed this Patriarchical Church Ibid. the only Orthodox universal Church and a separation from its Pastor to beformal Schism Ans And will not the worshipers of the Beast do so to him should the Graecian Churches entertain this Faith would you esteem it any argument to prove them guilty of the crime of Schisme because formerly they esteemed your Church Heretical and your supreme Pastor an Usurper if so then must men be Schismaticks whether they separate from you or joyn in communion with you if not I pray you why but because it was their duty to change their opinions in these particulars which is evidently our plea we found that what you called Antient Doctrines from the beginning were not held what you required to be embraced as a truth was evidently condemned in the Word of God c. and when you have talked your self hoarse about the nature of Schisme you will still labour in the fire till you have proved that we are under an obligation to beleive those doctrines as the truths of God which wee reject as contrary to his revealed will which I expect should be performed at latter Lammas You tell us from St. Austin Mr. C. p. 292. sect 11. Reply p. 89 90. that there is no just cause of separating from the communion of all Nations or the whole world To which it is answered by Bishop Bramhal Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against him it is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures wee have made no absolute separation from the Roman Church it self but suppose it had been so the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church seeing she separated first from the pure Primitive Church which was before her not locally but morally Well but to say thus Mr. C. p. 294. and to acknowledge the actual departure was ours and yet we are not Schismaticks as leaving the errours of the Church of Rome rather then the Church is to act the Donatist Answ Yes by all means because the Donatist pretended not to finde any thing in the Doctrine of the Catholick Church See Dally Apol. c. 6. from which they separated contrary to their belief both the one and the other taught the same faith read the same books exercised the same services well but the Donatists derive the word Catholick not from the Universality of Nations but integrity of doctrine Which is most apparently the errour of the Church of Rome which esteems none members of the Catholick Church but those which embrace her doctrines intirely but concerns not us who esteem them members of the Catholick Church that differ from us See Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 281. CHAP. XIX Our third Proposition that all Schisme is not damnable limited sect 1. Proved from divers instances sect 2. Mr. C ' s. Arguments answered And 1 his similitude from Civil Governments considered sect 3. 2 His Arguments from the division of the Schismatick from Christs body sect 5. From the Fathers as St. Chrysostome St. Austin St. Pacian St. Denis and Irenaeus sect 7. His inference from hence that the Church of Rome is not Schismatical considered sect 8. MY third Proposition shall bee this 3 Proposition That all Schisme is not damnable Sect. 1 nor doth it alwaies carry such obliquity with it as to exclude the person thus offending from Gods favour Before I enter upon the proof of this assertion I shall propose this one distinction viz. that Schisme may be either through weakness viz. in persons desirous to know the truth and earnest endeavourers after it who notwithstanding through the weakness of their intellectuals or prejudices from friends or education or such like causes miss their aim or wilfulness as it is in persons who are either negligent as to their inquiry into truth or act against the convictions of their consciences now for these latter sort of Schismaticks I grant their separation to be damnable but for the weaker Brother the person or Church which out of frailty onely is Schismatical I undertake to be an advocate and free such though not from crime yet upon general repentance for unknown sins from the sad sentence of damnation For 1. In that combustion which arose in the Church of God Sect. 2 touching the celebration of the Easter festival the West separated and refused Communion with the East for many years together now here one part of the Christian world must necessarily be accounted Schismaticks for either the Western Church had sufficient grounds for separation and then evidently the Eastern was causally the Schismatick or it was otherwise and then the Western Church must take the Imputation to it self as separating without cause and yet that both continued parts of the Church of God and were not cut off from Christ upon this account who dares deny who can without the greatest breach of Charity thus in the many Schismes which have happened in the Church of Rome about the Popes Supremacy in some of which the best men knew not whom to cleave unto will any charitable Papist say that all who died on the erring part were necessarily damned Again the Myriads of Jews that beleived in Christ and yet were zealous of the law were guilty of this crime as requiring such conditions of their communion which they ought not to have required and excluding men from it upon terms unequal and yet to say that all these Myriads who through weakness and infirmity thus erred did perish and that their beleiving in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with Hypocrisie and Heresie is so harsh a speech that I should not be very hasty to pronounce it Yea further let but a man consider the variety of mens principles their constitutions and educations tempers and distempers weaknesses degrees of light and understanding the many several determinations that are made even by most Churches the various judgements of the most learned touching many of them I say let these things be considered and then let any man tell mee whether it be consistent with the goodnesse of that God who is so acquainted with our infirmities as that he pardoneth many things in which our wills indeed have the least but yet some share to condemn those to eternal torments who after diligent enquiry into the truth erre in some little punctilioes determined by the Church and thinks themselves bound to deny obedience
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the canonical-Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
Sect. 8 sect 2. touching infallibility in fundamentals is a strange miscarriage for albeit hee gives us this assertion in Italian Characters that General Councils are infallible in fundamentals yet doth hee assuredly impose upon the Reader for neither the Arch-Bishop nor Dr. Field have any such assertions in the places cited and therefore I am not obliged to consider what hee returns to a limitation which is framed by himself Lastly to the fourth condition that there appears nothing Sect. 9 that may argue an unlawful proceeding He asks still who shall judge Wee Answ Who was it that judged the proceedings in the Council of Calcedon to be unlawful was it not Mr. C yea p. 51. 2. Is it not evident in the story of the Acts of the Council of Ariminum that matters were unlawfully handled there need wee any General Councils to tell us of the illegality of the Trent Council is it not so legible that he that runs may read it and that from the testimonies of Roman Catholicks eye witnesses thereof Sect. 10 But were General Councils absolutely infallible and were their decrees without any limitations or demurs to bee assented to yet what will this advantage the Church of Rome which cannot shew that any of the doctrines which we refuse to assent unto were ever determined by a General Council nay this pretence doth undeniably free us from the guilt of Schism in rejecting the new Articles she requires of us as conditions of her Communion Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing she requires them contrary to the express words of the Ephesine Council which saith that it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any beleif beside that which was established by the Fathers of Nice and that they which should dare to compose or tender or offer any such other Faith to any that were willing to convert from Judaism Gentilism or any other Heresie whatsoever if they were Bishops should be degraded if Layicks anathematized or excommunicated And this brings mee to my next Proposition which is this The Trent Conventicle was no General Council Proposition 5. This we have excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhall Sect. 11 whose words I shall transcribe and give you authority for them where it is needful His words are these How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates or any Proctours or Commissioners from them either present or summoned to bee present except peradventure some tituler Europian mock-Prelates without cures such as Olaus Magnus entituled Arch-Bishop of Vpsall Or Sir Robert the Scotchman entituled Arch-Bishop of Armagh How was that General or so much as patriarchal where so great a part of the West was wanting wherein there was twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy the Popes professed Vassails and many of them the Popes parasitical hungry Pentioners as there were out of all other Christian Kingdomes and Nations put together See the Review of the Trent Council written by a Roman Catholick lib. 1. c. 9. sect 8. chap. 10. sect 2. How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of Faith and the exposition thereof as the King of England could have called together in his own dominions at any one time upon a months warning Idem lib. 1. c. 10. sect 1. How was that general which was not generally received by all Churches even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it For it was stoutly rejected by the Kings of France id chap. 1. lib. 2. And until this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as might ensure thereupon yet did they never admit it And as it was not general so neither was it free nor lawful Not free where the place could afford no security to the one party it being in the Popes dominions and his Armies continually abroad Sleid. l. 17. Idem lib. 1. c. 7. sect 16. Where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopt or was turned out of the Council where the few Protestants that adventured to come thither were not admitted to dispute where the Fathers were noted to bee guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male where divers not onely new Bishops but new Bishopricks were created during the sitting of the Convent to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains Id. l. 1. c. 9. Nor yet lawful in regard of the place which ought to have been in Germany Actor debit rei forum sequi A guilty person is to be judged in his Province and the cause to be pleaded where the crime was committed and likewise in regard of the Judge In that 1. The Pope was a party whose reformation was urged And therefore by his own Canon Law could not be Judge or President in the Council 2. Appeals were put from him to a lawful Council and it was never known that hee from whom the appeal was made should bee Judge in the very case of appeal Idem lib. 1. cap. 3. Again in every Judgement there ought to bee four distinct persons The Accuser the Witnesse the guilty person and the Judge But in the Council of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself Hee was the right guilty person and yet withal the accuser of the Protestants the witnesse against them and their Judge Lastly No man can lawfully be condemned before he be heard But in this Council the Protestants were not permitted to propose their cause much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation but were condemned before they were called id sect 1. c. 5. Now in defence of this Council we are told 1. Sect. 12 That the liberty of the Bishops was onely straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court. Mr. C. p. 270. Answ It was so far restrained that nothing was done there but what pleased the Pope and for this reason the decision of things proposed was frequently prorogued because the resolution of the Pope and Court of Rome Mr. C. Ib. was not known unto them id sect 1. chap. 9. 2. Saith he the Pope gained no access to his Authority thereby which it concerns not me to refute and therefore I refer you to the same Author l. 1. c. 1. sect 4. sect 6. c. 14. sect 1 9. l. 4. c. 1. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 1 2 3. in all which places the Author shews that the Council ascribed too much to the Pope 3. We are told that these Bishops were unanimous in condemning the Protestants Doctrines Mr. C. p. 271. Answ True the History of that Council tells us they resolved upon the condemnation of the Lutherans before they proceeded to debate the matter and the Bull of Paul the third bearing date August 23.15 35. informs us that the very end of calling this Council was the extirpation of
then your selves And the same might easily be shewed of your other notes were it worth the while 2. You call upon us to procure you an authorized conference wherein wee may understand one anothers Churches and know one anothers essential Doctrines which haply you may procure when you can give in good security that what S. C. or any other persons appointed as Members of this conference shall affirm to bee the essential Doctrines of the Church of Rome shall be accepted as the essential Doctrines of that whole Communion and by them declared to be such and no others for unlesse this be so we may by this means understand the opinions of S. C. but not what and which onely are the essential doctrines of the Church of Rome FINIS APPENDIX TO page 65. line 37. add And whereas he tells us page 76 77. that St. Austin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council Austin Ep. 92. writing to Pope Innocent acknowledge that the Popes Authority was de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta Wee Answ The words in St. Austin run thus Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate depromptae That is saith Chamier to thy drawing forth and confirming the truth from scripture they the Hereticks will more easily submit and therefore here is no acknowledgement that the Popes Authority was derived from Scripture Add to this 2. That it is no way evident that the authority he speaks of was any authority over the whole Church of God To page 173. l 30. add Nor is this sufficiently confuted by telling us that one or two of the Fathers call it an Apostolical custome seeing it is most notorious that they very frequently afford this title to such customes and traditions as unquestionably were not derived from the Apostles Yea as St. Jerome most clearly hath it praecepta majorum Apostolicas traditiones quisquis existimat every one esteemed and consequently called the precepts of their Ancestors Apostolical traditions Haer. 75. Decreverunt Apost feria quarta prosabbatho Jejunium Ep. 86. Thus Epiphanius tells us that the Apostles decreed a fast upon Wednesdaies and Fridaies continually Where as St. Austin professeth quibus diebus non oporteat jejunare quibus oporteat precepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio definitum Christ or his Apostles have not defined what daies we should fast upon And by Tertullian it appeareth that the Primitive Church alledged against the Montanists De Jejunio that the Apostles imposed no yoak of standing and common fasts In the first age after the Apostles Dr. Taylors liberty of Proph. sect 5. Papias pretended hee received a tradition from the Apostles touching Christs millenary Reign on Earth which pretence was received by all or most of the Christian world in the first three hundred years and yet there was no such tradition but a mistake in Papias now if a tradition whose beginning of being called so begun with a Schollar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some ages upon the meer authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a tradition Apostolical Again St. Austin called the communicating of Infants a tradition Apostolical and yet we do not practise it because we dis-beleive the allegation But I refer you to that excellent discourse now cited for abundant evidence And whereas they call this praying for the Dead an Ecclesiastical custome this name is frequently given by them to such things as were not universally practised by the Church of Christ and therefore is no sufficient evidence that this was so Thus St. Apol. 2. cont Ruff. To. 2. p. 314 apud Da. de usu Patrum p. 207. Jerome asserts the Church of Christ to have held the immediate creation of Souls whereas Prudentius Tricassinus Episcopus tells us expresly that it was absque certa definitione relicta This and many other instances of the like nature you may finde in Dally de usu Patrum p. 206 207. To page 176. l. 4. add Yea many of the Fathers especially the most Antient dreamed of a purging fire at the day of Judgement which was to try every Soul and purge it from it's dross if it had contracted any whilest it lived on Earth this was the opinion of Lactantius Hilarie Ambrose Austin Jerome Casarius Arelatensis Eusebius Emissenus Eligius Noviomensis as you may see in Dally de paenis Satis Hum. p. 387. Yea Maldonate confesseth in Luc. 11. 35. that this was the opinion not only of Origen sed fere Antiquissimi cujusque Scriptoris Dally p. 498. and therefore if the Fathers speak of any purging fire after death it will make nothing for Purgatory unless it can bee proved that they assert moreover that the Souls of the faithful presently after their departure are carried to it To p. 183 l. 4. â—dde And should you not blush to tell us p. 116. that without all controversie all Churches who professed Christianity before the reformation do agree unanimously in the practise of praying for the dead so as to beg forgivenesse of their sins a bettering of their state which Protestants allow an asswagement of their sufferings Dr. Field's Apen Where as the p. 68. Jacobites p. 69 Armenians and p. 70. Cophti pray not for the dead at all nor can it bee evinced that the Eastern Churches pray for the asswagement of their sufferings yea Nilus in his discourse de Purgatoria tells us that the Grecians reject and anathematize this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that if any remission of sins be given to the dead that it is given by the Divine bounty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by inflicting punishments see Dally p. 540. As vain is your â—â—mmiseration of the condition of the members of our Church P. 117. because shee doth not offer up those prayers for the dead which from the most Antient times were offered For as Mr. Dally hath it if the omission of those prayers bee criminal this crime is common to us with you who have together with us rejected those prayers which they were wont to make in their behalf for whereas the Antients prayed for all the faithful departed you esteem this a great absurdity and will have us pray but for some onely Again you have rejected the three great grounds of praying for the dead On which the Father 's bottomed their petitions for that which was the common opinion of all the Antients Atqui veterum pro mortuis preces omnes fere ad illa tria vel placita pertinebant Dally p. 534. horum aliquid in animo babebant cum pro mortuis precabantur qui ergo ista tria unde omnis veterum profluebat pro mortuis â—ratio c. viz. that the souls of the faithful departed were kept in some secret receptacles extra Coelum your Florentine