meaning is that it is both dishonorable and dangerous to his Majesties Dominions that any of His Subjects should be permitted to acknowledge such a Supremacy I would I could oblige the Doctor by any exorcisms to discover sincerely the inward thoughts of his heart upon this Subject But having no such power at so great a distance I must be content to argue the Case with him once more because it is a passage that reflects not only upon the honor of Catholick Religion but the safety of all Professors of it 20. He cannot be ignorant how often and how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have protested their renouncing any acknowledgement of the least degree of Temporal power or Jurisdiction as of Right to belong to the Pope over any Subject of his Majesties It is therefore meerly a pure Spiritual authority that they acknowledge in their Supreme Pastor Is this now dishonorable Is it unsafe To whom To all Supreme Princes whether Catholics or not For Catholic Princes they protest against this Opinâ—on either of dishonor or danger If only then to other Princes or States which are dissenters from and enemies to Catholick Religion then Nero and Diocletian had reason and justice on their sides when they persecuted a Religion dishonorable and dangerous to the Roman Empire For evidently neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their Spiritual Authority independent on the Emperors 21. Nay more let the Doctor himself consider lest He and his both Brethren and Fathers the Bishops be not more deeply involved in the guilt for which he desires the Catholics only should suffer They themselves acknowledge in despite of so many Statutes to the contrary a pure Spiritual Authority in their Bishops not derived from the King they promise a Canonical obedience to them they do not so to the King therefore they admit a Jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the Root For tho' for example a publick denunciation of Excommunication in their Spiritual Courts or the conferring of Orders or determining points of Faith c. without the Kings consent may expose them in case they exercise such Functions to some danger from the Law of the Kingdom yet they will justifie such acts to be in themselves valid that is perform'd with sufficient authority See Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort p. 366. Bishop Carleton of Jurisdict Reg. Episcop c. 1. p. 9. c. 4. p. 39 42. Bishop Bramh. Schism guarded p 61 63 92. Answer to Bishop of Chalced. p. 161. Doctor Ferns Discovery of Episcopacy and Presbytery p. 19. Doctor Tailor Episcopacy asserted p. 236 237 239 243 Mr. Thornd Right of Ch. c. 4. p. 234. Epilog l. 1. c. 8. p. 54. l. 1. c. 19 20. l. 3. c. 32. Which Quotations if any intelligent Reader will take the pains to peruse and consider he may clearly see what limitations they make in the sense of that Oath of Regal Supremacy which Oath yet they freely take in the full latitude of its words though these expresse not any of the said limitations Amatter which hath not passed unobserved by Mr. Thorndyke in his Iust Weights c. 20. who there conceives great reason why the Kingdom for this should enact a new Oath 22. But if I should address my Speech now to Presbyterians and their Consistories the Case is far more evident They are so far from permitting to the King a Supremacy of Authority in their Ecclesiastical Courts if such conspiracies may be called Ecclesiastical that they will not so much as allow him any authority at all in such transactions Nay they will exempt him no more than his meanest Subject from subjection to them The like may be said of other Sects which though they are not guilty of the Presbyterian tyranny yet are as averse from granting his Majesty any Supremacy in matters of Religion as either Presbyterians Protestants or Roman Catholics But I am now to deal with the Preacher and his Protestants I therefore desire them to compare themselves and Roman Catholics together as to this point of honor and safety to his Majesty and his Dominions 23. Is it dishonorable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely Spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom this whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity together with the whole Christian world submitted it self as to their Supreme Pastor And is it Honorable that the same authority should be granted to more than twenty of his Majesties own Subjects Again is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian Vnity's sake should be professed to one Venerable Prelat a 1000. miles off and is there no danger in making the same Profession to so many at home who besides their spitual authority have a right to concur in the enacting and executing Civil laws too and who we see can either exalt or depresse according to their Interests and advantages the Royal Prerogative 2. To resolve such Questions as these but also so to resolve them as becomes a Preacher of the Gospel of peace and truth would be a subject worthy the stating in a Court-Sermon But it must be don without transgressing the precise limits of the question that is by comparing the state of Catholic Religion as professed and practised for example in France Venice Germany c. with the reformed Religion in England the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the former with that of the latter and then judging whether of the two bring more security and honor to their Princes and are more effectual upon the consciences of Subjects to breed them up in peace and obedience For my own part simply as a Catholic my desire and prayers are that Gods divine truth may prevail in all our hearts but so prevail by those wayes of Charity Patience Justice and Piety with which it first conquered the World And as a Subject of the Crown of England my Prayers are that we may be all united in the profession of that only Religion which more perfectâ—y and most indispensibly gives to Caesar the things which are Caesar 's and to God the things which are God's 25. I will row for a farewel to these Testimonies of our Catholic Fathers add the Votes of the Fathers also of the Reformation that he may see how far more ingenuously they write then himself has donâ— touching the Popes Primacy And first I will produce two or three who though they oppose it as he does as a Novelty yet allow a far greater age to it Doctor Fulk most unchronologically says that five or six hundred years before Pope Leo and Pope Gregory that is almost an hundred years before Christ was born the mystery of Iniquity wrought in the See of Rome and then daily encreased they were so deceived with long continuance of error that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles then the Holy Scriptures do allow Archbishop Whitgift assures us that the Papal
truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church and no other 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes as such cease to be sons of the Church they must be saved as well as their Subjects and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord Qui vos audit me audit They are not Pastors but Sheep Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge that their Civil power extends it self to all manner of causes though purely Ecclesiastical so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law according to the Churches exposition thereof or the Laws of the Church require Such a power yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors Sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the holy Ghost c. Teach all Nations c. No promise hath been made to Princes that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors to whom only that Promise was made 3. Nay that very Argument by which he would assert his cause is a Demonstration against him He sayes and that very truly Our Kings are as much as any in the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God without any dependence on any other authority on earth The like must be said of other absolute Princes too Now this independency of Princes demonstrates that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all which is in the Church For otherwise being independent and absolute they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means Other Princes are independent as well as they and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation as well as they So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all and submitted to by all what will become of Vnity Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another Shall there be Patriarchicall or General Councils of Kings meet together Who shall summon them In such Royal Synods there must be order which of them shall challenge a Primacy even of Order Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions 4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian and the practice of Charlemain for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times The Churches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church more averse from innovations in Doctrine and irregularity in manners And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio◠legum Ecclesiasticarum or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare Let the Emperor Iustinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere c We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules we observe as Lawes Add again to shew that the Laws enacted by him touching Ecclesiastical matters were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority he saies Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules of the Church These were indeed Lawes of Reformation fit for glorious Princes devout Sons of the Church to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose 5. What the late Emperours Fardinand the first and Maximilian the second did neither his Sermon nor Margin tell us but onely that something was done which he it seems thought for his advantage I 'le tell him what it was Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful yet not so but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition Those worthy Emperors for peace sake made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholicks some indeed too moderate as Cassander c. how the Church Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified Hereupon divers expedients were proposed Treatises written c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended But how By betraying the present Churches Faith By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction or consent to a composition Far otherwise For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church they surceased all motions of reconciliation rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion 6. Touching the many Kings of England as he sayes in Popish times whose actions in his opinion shewed that the work of Reformation belonged especially to them in their Kingdom His Margin indeed quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest as if he would have the world believe the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old But what Reformations were made by any of them either in Religion or Church-Discipline neither I nor himself can shew except by the last King Henry the Eighth who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion 'T is true the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome touching Investitures procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the Kings Courts usurping a disposal of Bishopricks and other Benefices c. But what is all this to Religion Such debates as these he may see at this day between the Roman Court and the Kings of France Spain c. in all which commonly the Pope is but little a gainer yet notwithstanding all these he will not sure deny but that the Kings of France and Spain and 't is as certain that all those former Kings of England except one were perfect Roman Catholicks not any of them ever did believe that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the
to the publick received Doctrin of the Catholic Church but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants 6. However to qualifie a little the admiration that many Protestants have of their new Champion or Hyperaspista as he calls it somthing must be said thiâ— hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes And first whereas in all points now in debate between us he so often repeats From the Beginning it was not so He did very well to fix a notion and conception of this word Beginning or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrins are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties Novelties of so great importance as to justifie a separation from the external communion of all Churches both Eastern and Western And that is the time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively This he has don not out of a voluntary liberality but because an Act of Parliament obliges him wherein it is said That such persons Laicks or Ecclesiasticks to whom Queen Elizabeth shall by Letters patents under the great Seal of England give authority to execute any Iurisdiction spiritual or to correct any Errors Heresies Schisms c shall not in any wise have authority to adjudge any matter or caus to be Heresy but only such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresâ— by the express and plain words of the said Canâ—nical Scriptures or such as hereafter shall be judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation 7. By this Proviso it appears that though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects who will call all things Novelties which they think are not in express Scripture yet the Law would have allow'd him a greater extent for the might have enlarg'd the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeding Council that in the Opinion of Commissioners judged Heresy by express Scripture or to future Acts of Parliament judging after the same manner but we are content with and thank him for his allowance 8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion As first Does he submit only to the four first General Councils because they had an Authority inherent in them obliging him thereto Or because he judged their Decisions conformable to God's express word If the former then he must inform us why only four Councils have such authority which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalcedon rose If the later then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents Quakers c. makes Scripture alone in effect th Rule of Reformation and Protestants only the Interpreters of that Rule Because the Statute tyes no further to any General Council than as that Council is believ'd to proceed according to express Scripture which whether it does or no who must be Judge Doctor Pierce To answer this Question well will be a great Master-piece I am sure his late immortal Archbishop found it a Task too hard for himself as shall be seen before we part too hard I say to resolve so that any rational man can be satisfied with 9. A second Question is Whether to judge of Heresy that is to determin authoritatively what is Heresy and what is conformable to Scripture be not an Act of Iurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners but ordinarily in the Parliament And this not being possible to be denyed then he must be further ask'd since by one of the 39. Articles it is affirmed That General Councils may and have err'd whether the English judge of Heresy be it the King as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th or the Parliament also as in Queen Elizabeths be infallible or no If he acknowledge it infallible he must resolve us whether the Supreme Temporal Authority with the assent of the Clergy be infalliâ—le only in England or in other Countrys also as Holland Swedland c. If the former he must shew what Promises our Lord has made to England alone If the later then it will follow that that may and certainly will be Heresy and contrary to Scripture in England which England it self confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea But if no such Authority be indeed infallible then it will follow that Decisions made by it do not oblige in Conscience and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so I mean oblige not only to non-contradiction but to internal assent The consequences of which Position he may imagin and shal see anon 10. A third Question is Whether since Presbyterians and Independents and all such Reformed Churches following the Heresy of Aerius do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their Iurisdiction that is the whole frame of God's Church manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils and as is here affirmed of Divine Right by expresse Scripture whether I say they be not according to this Rule formal Heretics or however Schismatics since to alter this Frame they relinquish'd both this Church and ours And especally for their denying the Supream Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Authority to be in Temporal Governors which yet the Statute tells us in effect is the fundamental Corner-stone of the English Church If all this do not render them Heretics or at least in the highest degree Schismatics what will become of this Act of Parliament and his Primitive Rule of Reformation If they be such what will become of the English Church which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship and acknowledges them holyChristianâ— Reformed Congregations And on the other side since notwithstanding the extremity of passion against Catholics if was never yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute how comes it to passe that we alone are punish'd with death as Heretics and this meerly for Religion since we both often have justified and still are ready to justifie our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception which yet no other Diffenters from this Church though real Heretics and Schismatics either have or I fear will do 10. A fourth Question shall be how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scripture and mis-applying through the whole Sermon his Text to the prejudice of his Church He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteem'd the Pattern or Primitive Rule of Reformation and consequently as our Lord demonstrated Pharasaical Divorces to be illegal because Ab initio non fuit sic So the Dâ—ctor pretends to prove the Justice and Legality of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither ambitiously seek Superiority nor after a secular manner Lord it over the Flock of Christ. 6. And now let the Doctor say where is the impudent opposition of Supremacy and Iurisdiction both to the letter and sense of our Saviours Precept Such an Argument as this being Magisterially and confidently pronounc'd might for half an hour serve his present turn in the Pulpit But I wonder he could have the confidence to expose it to examination in Print 'T is time we come a little closer to examine this his first great Novelty CHAP. V. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge Submission due to the Pope's Authority as exercised during the four General Councils Of the Title of Universal Bishop It is not generally admitted at this day 1. HIs main Position in his forecited Discourse on this Argument is That a Supremacy of Iurisdiction challenged and exercised by the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the Third to whom it was sold by the Tyrant Phocas that is it began about the year 606. never before that time having been acknowledged in God's Church To prove this all the foregoing Reasons and Allegations are produced by him From this usurpeâ— Authority his English Church forsooth hath made a Secession as he demurely Phrases it and not from any Authority if any were exercised by former Popes especially during the times of the four first General Councils A Primacy of Order he is content to allow him but by no means a Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. Whatsoever Authority then the Predecessors of Pope Boniface the Third by consent of other Churches enjoy'd especially till the end of the fourth General Council he must grant is no usurpation and therefore a Legal rightful Authority from which without a formal Schism they could not withdraw themselves He will not surely say with one of their learned Bishops That they take from the Pope his lawful Christian Authority and give that only to the King not his unlawful and Antichristian So that the Controversy between us is reduced to this precise point Whether before Boniface the Third's time the Pope enjoyed a Supreme Iurisdiction over the Catholic Church This he denies On the contrary I here engage my self not only to prove he had it but moreover that not the least degree or Iota of Iurisdiction will be impos'd on them to acknowledge for enjoying the Communion of the Catholic Church more than the very same that Pope Boniface 's Predecessors within the times of the four first General Councils confessedly exercised I may adde that the new usurped Title as he says sold to him by Phocas did not give him neither did he pretend to by it any more authority than himself and his Predecessors formerly enjoy'd And this is I be able to make good then not all the water in the Sea will be able to wash off his Churches Schism by his own confession 3. Before I shew what Supremacy the Predecessor's of Boniface the Third exercised in the Church it will be convenient to enquire into the Bargain that He says Boniface made with Phocaâ— what he gain'd by it and why his Predecessors St. Gregory the Great and Pâ—lagius refused it The Patriark of Constantinople Iohn out of an humor of lightness and vanity proper to the Grecians assumed the Title of Episcopus universalis or Oâ—cumenicus Vniversal Bishop or Bishop of the whole World A Title that the Council of Chalcedon had in an Epistle given to Pope Leo but which his Successors like't not Certain it is that Iohn intended little more by it but to be a distinction of honor and preference above the other Eastern Patriarks For whilst he took that title he still acknowledg'd the Pope's Superiority not only of place but authority over him But being Bishop in a City wherein the Emperor of the world resided he thought it not unbecomming him to be called the Bishop of the world as the Emperor was the Governor Perhaps indeed his Successors if this ambition had been either approv'd or but connâ—v'd at by the West would have endeavour'd to make it not a meer empty Title but would have invaded an Authority which the Title might seem to warrant Hereupon Pope Pelagius and after him Pope Gregory the Great did vehemently resist this foolish ambition of Iohn though the Emperor himself to gain a dignity to his own City favor'd it in him 4. Now the Arguments that these two good Popes made use of against him did not so much combate Iohns present intention though his meer vain-glory and affectation of Novelty deserved to be repressed as the probable consequences of such a Title which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church For if he were the Vniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place it would follow that all others were only Bishops in name and by their Character had no other office but as his Substitutes depending on his will whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself And so their Successors the Bishops would never acknowledge a receiving their Episcopal character and right of Iurisdiction from any but Christ himself For as in other Sacraments whoever administers Baptism whether an Apostle or an Heretic Baptismus solius Christiest says Saint Augustin And again Peter and Iohn sayth he pray'd that the Holy Ghost might come on those upon whom they imposed their hands they did not give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. They as his Substitutes apply the outward Element but the inward vertue of the Sacrament is administred only by our Lord himself And as a Subject that receives â—n Office of Iurisdiction from the King will not esteem he derives that Authority from the Person who presents him the Letters patents or invests him ceremoniously in the Office but only the King So though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan a Primat a Patriarc or by the Pope himself and Iurisdiction given him they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to convey his Characters and Authority they assign him the place in which he is to exercise that Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him 5. Upon these grounds Pope Pelagius thus argues Vniversalitatis quoque nomen c. Do not give heed to the name of Vniversality that John of Constantinople hath unlawfully usurped c. For none of the Patritriarks did ever make use of so profane a Title Because if the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Patriark be call'd an universal Patriark the Title would be taken away from the rest But God forbid this should happen c. It therefore John be permitted to take this Title the honor of all Patriarks is deny'd and probably he who is called Vnivâ—rsal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the state of Truth The very same
as shall be shewed And because new opinions arising do naturally cause debates and contentions from what causes soever they flow and contentions are apt to generate Schisms since likewise Ecclesiastical Lawes are made to be observed every where if any particular Church were Independent of the whole there could be no remedy against Divisions hence it is that the Holy Fathers do assert the necessity of a Supream Authority and assign thereto these Acts. 1. Either to determine or at least silence Disputes about opinions 2. In those which are called majores causae as wrongful Depositions of Bishops c. either by appeals or consultations to restore the Persons wrong'd and punish the wrong-doers 3. To take care that Discipline establish'd by received canons be every where observ'd 4. To judge when there is a necessity of convening in General Councils and thereupon to summon all Bishops and as far as the Authority of a common Spiritual Father may extend to oblige Princes to permit their respective Bishops to meet 4. These things thus premised now follow the Proofs demonstrating that before Boniface the thirds time suck like Acts of a Supream Authority were practised by his Predecessors and submitted to generally in the Church I must not write a Volume therefore I will select a few examples in all Ages which will at least recompence the Doctors Anti-quotations and when he shall require it many many more shall be added 5. To proceed therefore ascendendo St. Gregory the Great Predecessor of Boniface the third though he would not admit an Vniversal Episcopacy yet at the same time he challenged and exercised an Vniversal Superintendency Hence saies he t is notorious that the See Apostolic by Divine institution is preferr'd before all Churches And again more fully The care of the Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter The care and principality of the Vniversal Church was committed to him and yet he is not called the Vniversal Apostle Again writing to the Bishop of Syracusa If any fault be found in any Bishops I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See Apostolic But when no fault exacts it we are all in regard of humility equal And this subjection saies he elsewhere both our most Religious Lord the Emperor and our Brother John Bishop of the same City do frequently protest And in an Epistle to Natalis Bishop of Salona If saith he any of the four Patriarks had committed such an act so great a disobedience would not have passed without great scandal Moreover in another Epistle he declares how he had reversed the judgment of the Church of Constaninople against a Priest of Chalcedon where he saies Dost not thou know that in the cause of John the Priest against our Brother and Collegue John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostolic and that the cause was determined by our Sentence A world of like examples more may be added And in these a primacy of Iurisdiction is manifest which therefore by his own confession is no Vsurpation 6. In the next place the immediate Predecessor of St. Gregory Pope Pelagius the Second in the very same Epistle in which he condemns the presumptuous Title of Vniversal Bishop assumed by Iohn of Constantinople hath this passage writing to the Eastern Bishops The Apostolic See is inform'd that John Bishop of Constantinople out of this his presumption hath convoked you to a Synod whereas the authority of assembling general Synods is by a special priviledge deliver'd to the Apostolic See of St. Peter neither can we read of any Synod esteem'd to be ratified which was not establisht on the Apostolic Authority Therefore whatever you have decreed in your foresaid Conventicle by the Authority of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Speech of our Saviour who gave to Blessed Peter the power of binding and loosing I do command all things determined by you to be void and repealed c. Again his not immediate Predecessor Pope Gelasius is a yet more full and convincing witnesse to the Popes Vniversal Iurisdiction upon this occasion Pope Felix the second who possessed St. Peters Chair next before him had been appealed and complain'd to by Iohn Patriark of Alexandria unjustly dispossess'd by Peter an Eutichian whom the Pope in a Synod of 42. Bishops excommunicated Moreover upon the complaints of the same Iohn he cited Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to appear And upon his contumacy excommunicated him likewise in this Form Take notice saies he that thou art deprived of Sacerdotal honor and Catholic Communion and moreover that thou art segregated from the number of the Faithful having lost both the Name and Office of Priestly Ministery being condemned by us by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and Apostolic Authoriâ—y Yet this Sentence not having been as the former was denounced in a Synod some Eastern Bishops found fault with it Whereupon his next Successor Pope Gelasius justifies his proceedings in an Epistle to the Bishop of Dardania he shews that when any Heretic has bin once condemned by a Synod as Sabellius c. there was need of convoking new Synods for the condemning his Followers And that this was the case of Acacius who communicated with Peter and Timotheus Bishops of Alexandria Eutychians which Heresie had been condemned in the Council of Chalcedon In consequence whereto he adds these Words Neither do we omit to signifie which the whole Church all the world over knows very well that the See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the Sentences of any Bishops whatsoever as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgment Seeing the Canons have ordain'd that appeals should be made to it from every part of the World Are these now marks onely of a Primacy of Order and not Supremacy of Iurisdiction 7. We will next enlarge a step to Pope Leo the Great who began his Seat in the year 440. and in whose time the General Council of Chalcedon was assembled How couragious and constant an Assertor he was of his Supream Iurisdiction most of his Epistles witnesse and almost all Protestant Controverâ—ists complain He in his 53d Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople in the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus and the 55th to the Empresse Pulcheria vindicates the Derivation of his Authority not from the Imperial City but St. Peter Prince of the Apostles 8. Therefore whereas the Preacher calls to witnesse the famous Canon of Chalcedon decreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople an equality of priviledges with the Bishop of Rome not for any other reason then its having the good hap to be one of the two Imperial Cities If he had had a mind to dealingenuously he would have cal'd it an
infamous Canon surreptitiously made saith Liberatus after the departure of the Iudges the Senate and of the Legats of the See Apostolic and entirely nullyfied by the protestation of the said Legats and the Sentence of Pope Leo without whose consent according to the antient traditionary Law nothing made in any Council could oblige the Church A Canon this was so despised during that whole Age and more that the memory of it only remained in the Acts of that Council but it was not inserted among the other Canons for as it appears by the most antient Greek and Latin Copies of that Council by the collection of Dionisius Exiguus and by the Testimony of Theodoret Anagnostes a Grecian the Council of Chalcedoâ— publisht only twenty seven Canons whereas now this is reckoned the 28th Lastly A Canon this was that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople by whose brigâ—ing with some Bishops and violence to others it was compiled was himself both ashamed and sorrow for it as appears by St. Leo's answer to him And of which Pope Gelasius forty years after affirms That the See Apostolic never consented to it the Emperor never imposed it Anatolius never made use of it and the whole matter was put in the power of the See Apostolic And therefore what the same See confirm'd remained in force and that which it receiv'd not could not have any firmnesse 9. Now because this enormous Canon was pretended to be only a renewing of a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople observe the false dealing of that Bishop and his Clergy in citing that Canon For whereas it was thus conceived Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prerogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome These renewers of this Canon at Chalcedon fraudulently thrust in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal priviledges As if excepting only the sitting in the second Chair he was to enjoy in the Church all the prerogatives of the See Apostolick A fancy which never entred into the minds of those former Bishops And indeed de facto after the fourth Council of Chalcedon the new Patriark by vertue of the exotic power given him presumed to summon all the other Patriarks and Bishops in the East to a Council An attempt repressed by Pope Leo. And no doubt when afterward the usurped the Title of Oecumenical Bishop they would not fear to give the same Title of Oecumenical to their Councils too 10. And as for the second Canon of that Council of Constantinople quoted in the Margin of the Sermon whereby the Eastern Patriarks are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiastical affairs beyond the limits of their Provinces what is this to the Bishop of Rome He is not so much as named nor thought of in that Canon Neither was there ever any received Council in Gods Church that excluded him from an universal Iurisdiction which the Doctor sees was â—rcised by so many Popes at and after the Council of Chalcedon and he will see more before it CHAP. VII The Pope's Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian Decrees of Pope's had antiently the force of Lawes Yet with restriction The Pope's Supream Iurisdiction confirmd by Examples in the Eastern Church Appeals to the See Apostolic decreed at Sardica where were present British Bishops Of the first Council at Arles where British Bishops likewise were present The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice explain'd 1. THere was an Imperial Law made by Valentinian the third who began his Reign A. D. 424. directed to the Bishops of France importing that Whatever had been and should be establish'd by the See Apostolick should have the force of a Law to them and all others And this the Emperor saies is Secundum veterem consuetudinem Moreover to shew the grounds of that Law he further saieâ— That the Supremacy of the See Apostolic 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 2. Now if we shall consider the weight of such a publick Testimony and how Christian Catholick Emperors never made Lawes touching Ecclesiastical matters but by the advice of Bishops and for the corroborating of former Church Canons both touching Faith and Discipline and by no means for introducing of new ones we shall find a greater proof can scarce be produced against the Preachers pretention That between the times of the four first General Councils the Popes enjoyed only a primacy of Order and not Iurisdiction 3. Though this Law seems too excessively large commanding That whatever had been or should be c. Pope Leo who lived in the same Age limits the true sense of it when he commands That all the Decretals and Constitutions both of Pope Innocent and all other his Predecessors should be observed namely such as are publish't touching Ecclesiastical Orders and Canons Or as Pope Hilarius expresses it What ever Constitutions have been made by Popes for the quiet of all Gods Priests the observance of Discipline and taking away confusions 4. Examples of such publick Decrees of unquestion'd Authority even in the judgement of the most learned Protestants we finde made by Pope Zosimus Pope Innocent the First and Pope Siricius who governed the Church between the yeares 385. and 418. For as for the Decretals pretended to be made by antecedent Popes they do except against them and perhaps not without ground He will not expect I should transcribe those authentick Decrees to weary both him and my self unnecessarily He knows very well where to find them I will only adde that such Decrees were actually received as Laws by the Churches of Spain France c. Hence it is that in the fourth Council of Toledo the Bishops say For what is to be observed by us in such Cases Let us be informed by the Precepts of the Apostolick See and not follow our own but our common Fathers Instruction And the Council of Tours says What Bishop shall presume to act contrary to such Decrees as have proceeded from the See Apostolick Notwithstanding it was not forbidden to Bishops to consider and examin such Decrees for if they were made upon misinformation even Popes themselves have declared that the force of them should be suspended And much more if against the ancient Canons for saith Pope Zosimus ap Gratian. 25. q. 1. Even this Seat hath not Authority to constitute or change any thing contrary to the Statute of the Fathers 5. As for the more Primitive times preceding these I will content my self with a few examples but such and of so great weight that if the Preacher will be ingenuous they will even content him In the recounting of them it will not be necessary I should observe exactly the Order of times in each of them And the first shall be a passage of
their Epistle To our most holy Lord and Brother Silvester Marinus and the Synod of Bishops assembled together in the Town of Arles We have signified to your charity the things decreed by common Council to the end that all may know what they ought for the future to observe Here may be seen a Patriarchical council sending their Decrees to the Bishop of Rome as being the chief person from whom all Christians are to receive information of what they ought to believe and practise and by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto In which regard St. Martin Pope and Martyr makes this the Popes most proper Title that he is Custos Canonum Divinorum 14. At this Council were present three Bishops Representatives of the British Clergy Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of Lonidon Adelphius Bishop of Maldon called then Colonia Londinensium with Sacerdos a Priest and Arminius a Deacon And the Canons of this Council were by Restitutus brought into Britany saith Bishop Godwin out of Bale By which also it appears that neither the Pope himself nor his place and authority in the Church were unknown nor un-acknowledged by the Britains long before St. Augustines days 15. And now it will be seasonable to answer the Doctors great Objection grounded on that famous 6 th Canon of the first Nicene Council by which he says Every Patriarch and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocese as the Bishop of Rome is chief in his This is now to be examin'd The words of the Canon are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the antient Customs be still in force in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a Iurisdiction over them all In as much as such likewise is the custom of the Bishop of Rome In like manner both in Antioch and other Provinces let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 priviledges be preserv'd entire to every Church 16. The true sense of this Canon will best appear from the end for which it was enacted and that apparently was for the regulating and composing disorders begun in Egypt by Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis who rebelliously refused obedience to the Patriark of Alexandria presuming to ordain Bishops independently on him This Scismatical attempt the Council here represses commanding that according to the antient custom the Bishop of Alexandria should have entire Iurisdiction through all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis And the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchat and may say in his Metropolitanship too is made the Patern according to which this Regulation is framed not in regard of his plenary right and universal Jurisdiction in the Church of God which I have shewed already and shall demonstrate the same yet further even in the times preceding this Council is extended to the whole world and was exercised over the Patriarcs themselves But only of the custom and practice of his calling Synods correcting manners and making ordinations according to his Patriarkal and Metropolitical Jurisdiction for those words in the sixth Nicene Canon Similiter autem apud caeteâ—as provincias In like manner in the rest of the Provinces that is those Provinces also that were not such where a Patriarc resided Honor suus unicuique servetur Let every one's Honor be preserved to him compared with the second Canon of the first Council of Constantinople and the eighth canon of the Ephesian Council shew clearly enough that not only Patriarkical authority but Metropolitical also is spoken of in this canon and the Roman Bishops authority also herein made a Pattern And upon this ground that the Canon intends not to equalize the Bishop of Alexandria with the Bishop of Rome in his full Jurisdiction the most learned Marca late Archbishop of Tholouse observes that those who object it against the Popes Primacy though they fortifie themselves even with Ruâ—â—inus his interposition of suburbicarian Churches will gain but little by it for it signisignifies no more but that the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by Commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis 17. But though I mention this Version of Ruffinus because it is much applauded by our primitive Reformers and I expect Doctor Pierâ—e in his Reply will have recourse to it yet it is a most groundlesse and sencelesse Translation or rather corruption of the Canon His words are Vt apud Alexandriam in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur ut ille Egypti vel hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudiâ—em gerat Against which so much hath been written that it would be to lose time to repeat it especially to the Doctor who cannot be unacquainted with what Erasmus and Scalager have observed of the Interpreter that it is his custom to omit pervert and change the Text as he pleases and what Others with much Learning and Judgement have said to this interpretation Not to speak of the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction as first Patriarc whereby the other Patriarcs were subordinate to him being obliged even in this matter of their own Ordinations to give him notice sending withal a Confession of their Faith upon the approbation whereof and of the legality of their Election and Ordination He confirmed them or otherwise deposed them of which many examples may be produced Whosoever hath but looked into Ecclesiastical History must confesse that His particular Patriarchat was far from being confined to the ten Suburbicarian Provinces subject to the Vicariat of Rome Nay it is manifest that it extended to the whole Western Empire which besides Italy France Spain Germany Britany the six Maritime Provinces of Africa c. contained Illyricum Macedon Epyrus Greece and the Islands near it And all this by the confessions of Adversaries Zonaras Balsamon c. writing on this very Canon Hence St. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head or chief of the Western Regious And St. Augustin says that Pope Innocent did preside over the VVestern Church And St. Hierom Let them says he condemn me as an Heretic with the VVest as an Heretic with Egypt that is with Damasus and Peter And Iustinian the Emperor affirms that all the Regions of the VVorld are subject to the five Patriarcs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to VVestern Rome Constantinople Alexandria Thepolis or Antioch and Ierusalem Now unless Hesperia signifies the whole VVest to what Patriarc was France Spain Africa c subject If not to Rome how can all Bishops be said to be subject to five Patriarcs Hence the VVestern Bishops are by Theodores call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Sacrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Popes Supreme Iurisdiction before the first Council of Nice How all Apostles and all Bishops equal and how Subordinate St. Peter had more than a Primacy of Order Of St. Paul's resisting St. Peter The Popes Supremacy
not dangerous to States On the contrary c. Protestants writing in favour of it 1. BUt as yet our Proofs of Primacy of Iurisdiction in the Successor of St. Peter though they reach to the Beginning in the latitude fixed by the Doctor and truly I am perswaded to an indifferent Reader will appear more credible than any his Margins furnish to the contrary Yet they may be continued till we come even to the Presbyterians Independants and Quakers Beginning too that is the Gospels themselves To demonstrate this we will make a short enquiry into the times of the Church before Constantin whilst it was a mere suffering Church incapable of conspiring either in or out of General Councils But withal a Church lesse dispersed and torn by Heresies or contentions among Bishops and therefore lesse needing this Preservative against Schisms Supreme Authority 2. In these holy peaceable times therâ—ore before Silvester I will content my self with two or three examples to prove the acknowledgement of such a Primacy And the first shall be of St. Melchiades the immediat Predecessor of Pope Silvester St. Augustin will afford us a Testimony of his care and authority extended into Africk whose words are Qualis ipsius Melchiadis ultima est prolata Sententia c. Such an one was the last sentence Melchiades himself pronounced in judgeing the cause of Donatus by which he would not have the boldnesse to remove from his Communion his Collegues the Catholic Bishops in Africa in whom no crime could be proved And having censured most deeply Donatus alone whom he found to have been the Original of all the mischief he gave a free choyce of healing the breaches of Scism to all the rest of his Followers being also in a readiness to send communicatory Letters to those subdivided Scismatics that were ordained by Majorinus a Donatist Bishop in so much as his Sentence was that in whatsoever Cities of Africk there were two Bishops dissenters a Catholic and a Donatist he should be confirm'd in the Bishoprick who was first ordained c. and that another Diocese should be provided which the other should govern O Son of Christian peace and truly Father of the Christian flock says St. Augustin 3. I will add to this three other examples in which though as to the use and administration of the Superintendency som Objections have been made yet they suffice to confirm the acknowledgement of such a Superintendency in the Pope as the Preacher denies The first is of Pope Stephanus contemporary with St. Cyprian and his fellow in Martyrdom concerning whom we read in Eusebius that he either inflicted or at least threatned excommunication to som of the Churches of Asia that held a necessity of Rebaptization after Baptism received by Heretics And in the same quarrel between the same Pope Stephaâ—â—s and St. Cyprian himself matters were almost brought to the like extremity yet neither did St. Cyprian though wonderfully sharp nor even that violent Cappadocian Bishop Firmilianus ever question the Popes Authority though as they thought unjustly employed 4. The other is extant in the same St. Cyprian who endeavour'd to peswade the Pope to depose Marcianus a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles siding with Novatian His words to Pope Stephanus about it are these Let Letters be directed from thee into the Province and to the people of Arlâ—s commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated and another put in his place And to the like purpose is another Epistle of his in a cause touching two Spanish Bishops upon mis-information restor'd by the Pope 5. The third is that so well known example of Pope Victor concerning whom Eusebius thus writes Victor endeavours to cut off from the fellowship of Communion the Churches of Asia as declining into Heresie and sends Letters by which he would divide them all indifferently from the Ecclesiastical Society c. But there are extant Letters of Bishops by whom Victor is sharply reproved as one that was carelesse of the commodity of the whole Church Particularly Ireneus reprehends him telling him that he did very ill to divide from the unity of the whole Body so many and so great Churches Now in such reproofs from Ireneus and even Polycrates an Asian Bishop himself the ring-leader of the party of the Quartâ— decimani against St. Victor it was not impuâ—ed to Victor that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him but that the cause of exercising his just Authority was â—ot sufficiently weighty 6. Having proceeded thus far our last step shall be to the utmost degree the very beginning it self our Lord and St. Peter in the Gospels And here we will acknowledge what the Dâ—ctor saies that all the Twelve Apostles were equally foundations of the Churches building That the same Authority which was first given to St. Peter alone sustaining the person of the whole Church was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saies the same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were pari consortio praediti c. endowed with an equal participation of honor and power And as St. Hierom affirms that all Bishops in all places whether at Rome or Eugubium Canterbury or Rochester are of the very same merit c. But he will give leave to the Scripture to interpret it self and to the Fathers to interpret both it and themselves We grant therefore that all the Apostles and all Bishops their Successors enjoy the whole latitude of Apostolic and Episcopal Iurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either But for the external administration there may be and alwaies was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same authority both among the Apostles and Bishops Let him not find fault with this distinction for they themselves have occasion somtimes to make use of it to the like purpose Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Defence of the Answer to the Admonition affirms that Archbishops quoad Ministerium do not differ from other Pastors but touching Government page 303. And afterward page 386. Answering the same Argument out of St. Hierom who equals the meanest Bishop with the Pope he saies that they are equal quoad Ministerium but not quoad polittam 7. Let him take therefore an example illustrating this at home What Function what Act of Iurisdiction can my Lord of Canterbury exercise I mean according to their Tenets which the meanest of his subordinate Bishops cannot perform He can ordain Bishops and Priests So can they the former with him the other without him He can visit his Prâ—vince they their Diâ—cesse He can give the Holy Ghost by Confirmation So can they He can assemble a Provincial Council They a Diocesan He has a Canonical Authority over Bishops c. They over Priests He can absolve from Censures inflected by himself they can do as much Yet nothing of all this excludes him from
enjoying a special priviledge in the exercise of every one of these Acts and Functions or exempts them from Subordination to him as their Superior yea Supream Pastor Supream not in Order only but Iurisdiction Certainly the Doctor can easily apply this to St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles or to St. Peter's Successors and all other Bishops 8. Now if the Fathers may be believed is was a priviledge and a great one that St Peter for the merit of his Confession had Christs own Title as Christ was Governor of the Church given him of being called a Rock For in the Syrian language in which our Lord spake the words have no different termination as in the Greek or Latin Petrus Petra but the words were Thou art Gepha a Rock and upon this Gepha Rock I will build my Church It was a priviledge that Peter neither the eldest nor first chosen Apostle is alwaies in the Gospel first reckoned and expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First It was a priviledge importing a greater latitude of Iurisdiction when after our Lord's Resurrection St. Peter alone had in the midst of the rest a Commission given him of indefinitly â—eeding Christ's Flock And after the Descent of the Holy Ghost was peculiarly appointed the Apostle of the Circumcision as St. Paul was of the Gentiles Yea that the Dedication of St. Paul's Office was performed by St. Peter who by immediate revelation was appointed to gather the first fruits of the Gentiles in the conversion of Cornelius and his house-hold c. 9. But why among such Governors as the Apostles was any Supereminency of Iurisdiction given to one man Certain it is there never was lesse necessity to provide against disobedience and dis-unions then among the Apostles every one of whom was guided by a Divine unerring light by which they knew all Truth and replenish'd with the Spirit of Charity and Vnâ—ty which exempted them from all ambitious envious or malicious designâ— Yet a Subordination not absolutely necessary to them was established among them for the succeeding Churches sake which without such order would in a very short time become a meer Babel Hence St. Hierom saies The Church was built upon Peter though true it is the same thing is done upon others and that the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But among the twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism may be taken away 10. To the same purpose St. Cyprian notwithstanding the Sentence produced by the Preacher out of him That all the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Yet in the very same Book saies Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam c. Our Lord builds his Church upon one Person And though after his Resurrection he gave an equal power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins you remit c. Yet that he might manifest unity he by his Authority disposed the Original of the same Vnity beginning from one And presently after Whosoever holds not the unity of the Church does he believe that he holds the Faith He that opposes are resists the Church he that forsakes the Chair of S. Peter upon which the Church is founded does he trust that he is in the Church In like manner St. Optatus at Rome saies he a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one a particular Chair So St. Chrysostome Observe now how the same John that a little before ambitiously beg'd a preferment after yields entirely the Supremacy to St. Peter And again Christ did constitute Peter the Master not of that See of Rome alone but of the whole world 11. Now whereas the Doctor objects that St. Paul's contesting with St. Peter and resisting him to his face argues that he did not acknowledge any Superiority in him Let St. Augustin from St. Cyprian resolve us You see saies he to the Donatists what St. Cyprian hath said that the holy Apostle St. Peter in whom did shine forth so great a grace of Primacy being reprehended by St. Paul did not answer that the Supremacy belong'd to him and therefore he would not be reprehended by one that was posterior to him And he adds The Apostle St. Peter hath left to posterity a more rare example of humility by teaching men not to disdain a reproof from inferiors then St. Paul by teaching inferiors not to fear resisting even the highest yet without prejudice to Charity when Truth is to be defended 12. From all that has been said on this Subject it will necessarily follow that whatever Superiority St. Peter enjoyed and the Holy Fathers acknowledged was the gift of our Saviour only a gift far more beneficial to us then to St. Peter He was as St. Chrysostome saies Master of the World not because his Throne was establish'd at Rome but receiving from our Lord so supereminent an Authority he therefore made choice of Rome for his See because that being the Imperial City of the World he might from thence have a more commodious influence on the whole Church 13. Upon which grounds whensoever the Fathers make use of the Authority of his Successors Bishops of Rome against Hereticks or Schismaticks they consider that authority as a priviledge annexed to the Chair of St. Peter and only for St. Peters regard to the Sea of Rome This is so common in the Fathers writings that I will not trouble him with one Quotation Indeed Iohn of Constantinople when he would invade an equality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some sort with the Pope did wisely to mention only the priviledge of the Imperial City because he could allege no other pretention for his Plea But St. Leo St. Gregory St. Gelasius c. produce their evidences for their Supremacy from Tues Petrus super hanc Petram c. from Pasce oves meas c. Nay St. Augustin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council writing to Pope Innocent to joyn with them in condemning the Pelagians tell him their hope was those Hereticks would more easily be induced to submit to his Authority Why because of the splendor of the Imperial City No but because the Popes Authority was de Sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta deduced from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures 14. I might with reason enough yet I will not omit to take notice of Doctor Pierce's trivial reasonings against the Popes as he calls it pretended Headship because such being sitted to vulgar capacities and confidently pronounc'd do more mischief then those that have more shew of profundity and weight Thus then he argues If the Pope be head of the Church then the Church must be the Body of the Pope And if so then when there is no Pope the Church has no Head
When there are many Popes the Church has many Heads When the Pope is Heritical the Church has such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheâ—ded Whatever advantage the Doctor expects from such a Discourse as this it must flow from a childish Cavil upon the word Head and whatever consequences he here draws from thence against the Pope may as well be applyed to all kind of Governors whether Ecclesiastical or Civil For they are all Heads within their Precincts A King is the Head of his Kingdom and a Bishop of his Diocesse When we call therefore the Pope Head of the Church we mean that among all Governors thereof he is the Supream in the sense before declared He is a Head but not so as Christ is in respect of his Mystical body who by his Spirit internally quickens and directs it The Pope is only an external ministerial visible Head and as it were Root of Vnity and Government All this no question the Doctor knew before to be our meaning and by consequence he knew that his inferences from thence were pitifully pedantic insignificant though many of his Court-hearers and Country-readers perhaps wonder there can remain a Papist in England unconverted after such a Sermon has been publish'd 15. When there is no Pope says the Preacher the Church wants a Head It is granted For sure he does not think it is a part of our Faith to believe Popes are immortal But yet for all that the Papacy is immortal The Government is not dissolv'd Succession is not interrupted It is a Maxim in our Law that Kings dye not that is the Regal Authority lives though Kings in their particular persons dye Nor is there any substantial difference as to this point between hereditary and elective Monarchy And in this sense we may say that Popes dy not nor Bishops Partly because when a Bishop or the Pope dys at least his Jurisdiction remains in the Chapter or Body of Electors Hence it is that in St. Cyprian we read Epistles of the Roman Clergy exercising authority beyond the Diocese of Româ— But principally because when an Ecclesiastical Superior dyes there remains by Christs Ordination a vis generativa or virtue in the Church to constitute another in his place and so to continue the Government There has been oft times a long vacancy in the Apostolic See as well as in Dioceses and Kingdoms After the death of Pope Fabian before there were any Christian Emperors the See was vacant for above a years space yet neither did St. Irenâ—us Optatus Epiphanius or St. Augustin when they objected the chain of Succession in St. Peters Chair esteem that thereby the Chain had been broken neither did any old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority 16. But what shall we say to the Doctors next inference in a case of Schism when there are many Popes then says he the Church is become a Monster with many Heads But he is deceived As when after the death of a King several pretenders to the Crown appear there is still by right but one legitimate Successor all the rest are Rebels and Tyrants It is so in the Papacy In that case St. Cyprians Rule holds If the Church be with Novatian it was not with Cornelius who by a lawful Ordination succeeded Fabian Novatian therefore is not in the Church nor can be esteemed a Bishop of Rome Or if it be uncertain to which of them the right pertains so that some Nations adhere to one Head others to another it is a great calamity but yet the Church remains though wounded yet not wounded to death A General Council cures all 17. If the Pope according to Doctor Pierce his supposition should prove an Heretic he infers very improperly that the Church haâ— such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheaded For in that case the Pope is so far from remaining a Head that he is not so much as a Member of the Church but is deprived not only of the Administration but also the Communion of the Church as other Heretical Bishops are So that then there is a pure vacancy I shall not be so severe as to take notice of the unhansom not to say unmannerly terms the Doctor uses in expressing the last branch of this Objection 18. Thus much concerning the Doctors first pretended Novelty of the Roman Church the Popes primacy Now whether my asserting that Primacy or his denying it to be a Novelty and whether his proofs or mine are more concluding I leave to the Readers consciences He will excuse my dilating on this Point because therein I follow his own example for he tels his Majesty He has spoken most at large of the Popes supremacy and his reasons given for such Largenesse shall be mine too though I believe we shall have different meanings yet without equivocation even when we deliver our reasons in the same words For i. I also acknowledg the Popes supremacy to be the chief if not only hinge on which does hang the stress of more than Papal the Ecclesiastical Fabrick as being the Cement of the Churches unity 2. Because it is a point wherin say I likewise the Honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concerned His meaning is that no danger is to be apprehended for England but only from that Point I am sure on the contrary that whilst such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknowledged in England the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poyson'd with Heresies The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a Sword drawn for or against it Some few little more than Paper-quarrels hapned between the English and Roman Court about matters not of Religion but outward Interests in which generally the Pope had the worst at last But the Honor and Safety of these Dominions were far from being prejudiced The Kings of France always have been and stil continu as jealous and tender of their temporal Regalities as ever any Princes were yet they account it one of the most sparkling Jewels of their Crown that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted Sons of the Catholic Church The acknowledging the Spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honor and defence to them than many Armies would be because it preserves peace and unity in that Kingdom not by the terror of Swords drawn and Muskets charged in their Subjects faces but by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to Faith and Obedience And let Doctor Pierce be assured without a Spiritual Authority which may have influence on the hearts of Christian Subjects all their preaching and Laws too will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy 19. But we must not yet leave this passage without considering it a little better He saith That in the point of the Popes Supremacy of Iurisdiction the honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concern'd his
the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies and by no means to publick Congregations That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber and but a half Communion in a Church That a sick man or one at Sea c. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground 6. Till these things be proved by him which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant that here is no Noveâ—ty at all no change in the present Catholic â—hurch as to Doctrin And that the change which is made in external Disciplin is of so great importance that Protestants who would not have separated from her Communion if she had given them leave to break our Saviours Institution only privatly will renounce her because she thinks and knows that a privat House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful and therfore since she had authority within doors she cannot be deprived of it abroad 7. Nay further Doctor Pierce's task does not end here for though he should be able to prove all this yet if this be one of the provocations and causes of their separation he cannot justifie that separation till they have made a tryal whether the Church will not dispence with them as to this point of Discipline and after tryal been refused For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable as to expose themselves to the guilt of it because others besides them are obliged and content to receive under one species whilst themselves are left at liberty They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisions in the Church by disputing against others when they themselves are not concern'd Now that such a dispensation may possibly be had does appear in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to or acknowledged in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own prudence and as he shall see it to be prâ—fitable to the Church and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice 8. As for us Catholics we are bread up to the Orders established by Gods Church And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises and consequently his Church shall never mislead us to our danger we do not think it our duty to question the Churches prudence or set up a private Tribunal to censure her Lawes We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practise almost generally introduced by custome before Yet some Reasons we see which truly are of very great moment for that purpose to wit the wonderful encrease of the numbers of Communicants and wonderful decay of their Devotion From whence could not be prevented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion oft-times of the precious blood of our Lord considering the defect of providence and caution to be expected in multitudes little sensible of Religion It is probable likewise that the Heresie of Berengarius who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament than the meer signs of the body and blood of our Lord might induce the Catholics publickly to practise what the Primitive Church did privatly to the end they might thereby demonstrate that though they received not both the Signs yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species which was whole Christ not his body only but also his blood c. CHAP. XIII Of the Sacrifice of the Masse Asserted Universally by Antiquity The true Doctrine concerning it explained 1. HIS sixth supposed Novelty which is the third that regards the blessed Sacrament is the Sacrafice of the Masse But how is this prov'd to be a Novelty Ipse dixit Not one Text not one Quotation appears in the Margin and why Alas where should he find any Since there 's not a Father in Gods Church from the very Apostles but acknowledged a Christian Sacrifice nor any old Heretick ever denyed it Nay who besides himself calls it a Noveltie I am sure Dr. Fulk expresly confesseth that Teâ—tullian Cyprian Austin Hierom and a great many more do witnesse that Sacrifice yea Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the Masse is so antient that no first beginning of it can be shewed Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applyed to this his From the beginning it was not so But could not find one Word in Antiquitie for his purpose However for all that it must not be omitted His Auditors would have wonderd to hear the Church accused and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment 2. To please therefore popular ears he named it as an ill thing But coming to print his Sermon he leaves that Margin empty For what could be in the Fathers to fill it It was not for his purpose to quote St. Ignatius's saying It is not lawful either to offer or to immolate the Sacrifice or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop Which say the Centurists are dangerous words and seeds of Errors Or St. Ireneus who tells us that our Lord consecrating the Mystical Elements Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offers to God through the whole World Or St. Cyprian whose words are Who was more a Priest of the most High God then our Lord Iesus Christ Who offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and offred the very same that Melchisedech had offred that is Bread and Wine to wit his own Body and Blood c. and commanded the same to be afterward done in memory of him That Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ himself offerd In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice seven times and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are offred in it 3. The truth is in the writings of Antiquity the celebration of these Mysteries is scarce ever call'd by other name but Oblation Sacrifice Immolation c. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rhetorically the Canons also of the Church which ought to speak properly scarce ever use any other expression See the third among the Apostolic Canons The 58 th Canon of the Council of Laodicea The 20 th Canon of the first Council of Aâ—les The 40 th Canon of the Council of Cartâ—age And the 18 th Canon of the first General Coâ—ucil of Nice in which are these words The Holy Synod is inform'd that in some places Deacons administer the Euâ—harist to Priests
according to the foresaid limitations One may be excused from assenting to Decisions of General Councils about Points not of necessary Faith in case they be gainsaid by men of worth place and esteem So that if any such persons do contradict General Councils whether in or out of the Council He mentions not ignorant men may lawfully join with them and in comparison esteem all other Pastors of God's Church to be of less worth place or esteem What a broad Gate yea how vast a breach have these Doctors with all their learning and prudence made in the walls of God's Church to let in all manner of confusion Can any Protestant now deny Smeâ—â—ymnuus Mr. Prinn the Rump Parliament to have been persons of worth place and esteem At least the generality of England once thought them so and themselves challenged those Titles and whilst they were the strongest enjoy'd them To what miserable straits a necessity of justifying the English Separation reduced such wise and learned men 4. In the third place according to the same Writers Position all manner of Decisions made by Councils both in necessary and unnecessary Doctrines cease to be obligatory in case something appears that may argue an unlawful proceeding in the Council out of passion interest want of liberty c. But still who shall be judges of Councils proceedings Among Catholicks when there are perhaps suspicions of some irregular proceedings yet if the Points decided be embraced by the particular Catholick Churches generally speaking they then have the force of unquestion'd Catholick Doctrines But as for those who are enemies to Councils in which their Doctrines have been condemn'd such will be sure to charge them with unlawful proceedings For did not the Arians urge that Plea against the Council of Nice The Nestorians against that of Ephesus The Eutychians against that of Chalcedon 5. This clause in all probability was put in to exclude the Authority of the Council of Trent against the proceedings of which therefore very loud and very unjust clamors were made by Protestants imputing especially to the Court of Rome many policies and attempts either to intimidate the Fathers of the Council or to induce them to favour and enlarge the Grandeurs of the Pope But who ever shall unpassionately read the History of that Council compiled by the most learned and eminent Cardinal Palavicino from authentick Records yet extant will be satisfied 1. That the liberty of the Bishops was only straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court 2. That the Pope was so far from gaining an access to his Authority that when a far greater number of the Bishops would have concurr'd thereto the Pope himself forbad it meerly because the French Bishops inconsiderable for their numbers did joyn to oppose it 6. But there is no necessity that Catholicks should trouble themselves with making Apologies for that Council 1. Because all the Doctrines of it opposed by Protestants as Novelties were manifest in the general Writings and Practise of the Western Church long before that Council and most of them in the Eastern 2. Because they are now actually embraced by all Catholick Congregations as Declared Doctrines of the Church in which case by the Archbishop's own Concessions they are to be esteem'd infallibly true 3. Because the principal Doctrines censur'd in the Preacher's Sermon had been expresly determin'd by former either General or at least Patriarkical Councils admitted in this Kingdom as Transubstantiation Veneration of Images Prayers not in a vulgar tongue Communion under one Species Celibacy of Priests the universal Iurisdiction of the Pope c. 4. And lastly because in condemning the Protestant Doctrines opposite to them the Bishops of the Council of Trent are found even by Padre Paulo's Relation no favourer of that Council unanimous in their Judgment which the Reader may there see if he please to examine their Votes concerning those Points Neither did nor needed the Pope or his adherents to use any artifice herein to gain the Suffrages of a Major part And this is in that History of his only pretended to be done in other matters of Contest among Catholicks themselves 7. Therefore it would certainly be much more for the good of Consciencious Protestants to reflect seriously on the method of their Reformations and then let them be Judges of the legality of their proceedings and the disinteressedness of their first Reformers I speak not now of Presbyterian Reformations which in all Countreys have been usher'd in with Tumults Rebellions Murders Rapines Dissolution of Monarchies c. but of the English Reformation only which though free from such horrible Crimes yet how legal it was how free from worldly and carnal Interests let their own Historians be Judges 8. And first This Relation is made of it in general by Dr. Heylin In Queen Elizabeths time saith he before the new Bishops were well setled I need not mind the Reader here that all her former Bishops save on had deserted her and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy went that way to work in Her Reformation which not only her two Predecessors but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Iewish State and many of the Christian Emperours in the primitive times had done before her in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by Almighty God And to that end she published her Injunctions Ann. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders 1561. Another of Advertisements 1562. All leading unto the Reformation with the Advice and Consent of the Metropolitan and some other Godly Prelats who were then about Her these were those newly Ordained the former Bishops being ejected by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto before they were presented to Her But when the times were better setled and the first difficulty of her Reign passed over she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation and thereto authorized as the Laws required did make and publish several Books of Canons c. Thus that Doctor the sum of which is That the Queen finding no foundation to build upon because all the Innovations begun by her Father and young Brother had been utterly demolished by her Sister Queen Mary and withal perceiving the main Body of her Clergy as well as her Bishops except such as the caused to be made de novo to be generally averse from her proceedings was fain to do all the Ecclesiastical work her self assisted with some of her New Bishops without the Concurrence of any Synodal Authority till having first by her Orders sufficiently purged the Clergy she saw she could securely now do Church-work by Church-men 9. But Mr. Fuller is more punctual in delivering the retail of these her first proceedings which he extracted out of the authentick Synodals 1559. He tells us then That in the beginning of her Reign the
authorized Conference in which the only Design may be by consent to enquire and set down clearly upon what terms a Reconcilement may follow and without which it must not nor ought to be expected Let us understand one anothers Churches let us know one anothers essential Doctrines If there be any mistakes any misinterpretations on either side let them be cleared But till this be done and it can only be effected by them they must pardon us if according to the temper of calamitous unjustly oppressed persons we suspect that this last seemingly moderate passage of his Sermon is in effect the most severe and bitter against us as declared to be persons with whom all Reconcilement is unlawful 5. Certain I am this zealous Preacher is far from the prudent temper of King Iames whose authority being his Supreme Governor in all spiritual things as well as temporal should surely have more then an ordinary influence over him That learned King in his before mentioned Speech hath these remarkable words I could wish from my heart it would please God to make me one of the Members of such a general Christian union in Religion as laying wilfulness aside on both hands we might meet in the midst which is the Center and perfection of all things For if they of the Roman Church would leave and be ashamed of such new and gross corruptions of theirs as themselves cannot maintain nor deny to be worthy of Reformation I would fâ—r my own part be content to meet them in the mid-way so that all novelties might be renounced on either side See the condescence of this great King and compare it with the stiff humor of this little Doctor He 'l not comply with the least of our defilements not he Softly good Sir do you not as ill when you comply with the Lutherans who surely are not without some little stains Do you not as ill when you comply with the Hugenots who are not at so perfect a harmony with you in your being clean Look soberly into your own rashness you began the Separation that hath bred so many wars and so much licenciousness both in faith and manners upon points which your selves confess are not fundamental and now you solemnly protest to continue it without complying in the least difference between us Go now and close your Sermon with a few soft words Your arms are open to embrace c. your hearts are wide open to pray to God to bind up the breaches c. of his divided defiled disgraced Spouse And when all 's done you 'l not stir an inch towards the peace you so gloriously talk of If this be Hypocrisie remember Doctor the woes that attend it if not express your self so sincerely hereafter that we may not suspect it For my part of all the faults in a Sermon to that of dissembling I here declare a Vitinian hatred as you learnedly call it Much more moderate were Vives and Cassander whom you commend for complaining of some abuses in the Church among other Authors which you there cite jumbling Protestants and Catholicks confusedly together for after all their zeal they dyed quietly in her bosom and did not like you tear in pieces the seamless Coat of our SAVIOUR and reject all terms of peace unless every pretence of yours be satisfied to a tittle I remember too a dogged word you gave us not far from the beginning of your Sermon where after you had reckoned up Socinians Antinomians Ranters Solifidians Millenaries Reprobratarians c. a fine Peal to make a Pulpit ring to all which you yield more antiquity then any will allow your Reformation you pass them over with the gentler names of Heresie and Usurpation but when you come to the Pontificians you immediately grow high and rage and resemble them to the Mahometans c. blind and impertinent Passion Do you not see abroad a civil and learned portion of Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and are they no better than Mahometans Do you not see in your own Country and at Court too Persons so qualified that you should blush at your own unmannerliness to compare them to Mahometans 6. If their chief quarrel be against the Court of Rome for proudly treading upon Crowns and making Decrees with a non-obstante to c. This might perhaps have been more seasonable five or six hundred years since But surely they know Catholick Princes are wiser now and the Court of Rome too This needs not be the least hindrance to a Reconcilement On the contrary by a Reconcilement this Church and Kingdom would receive from the Court of Rome only what France Spain c. find extremely advantageous both to the honour and safety of their Churches and States And as for Decrees with a non-obstante he mistakes the terms of Apostolick Constitutions by which is intended Constitutions not made by the Apostles but former Popes And touching the Decree of the Council of Constance in his Margin let me ask him a Question or two Do not Protestants in Baptism use sprinkling instead of dipping non obstante that our Saviour and his Apostles instituted it otherwise Do they not think themselves obliged to communicate fasting non-obstante that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament after Supper Do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings non-obstante the Apostles gave a command to the contrary All this they do because they think these things not essential or unalterable but left to the prudence of their particular Church Let them permit therefore the same liberty to a General Council And here give me leave to insert some few Citations concerning the Protestant-acknowledgments of the Authority of Councils Mr. Ridley sayes Councils indeed represent the Vniversal Church and being so gathered together in the Name of Christ they have the promise of the Gift and guiding of the Spirit into all Truth Doctor Bilson plainly confesses the Presence and Assistance of the Holy Ghost for Direction of General Councils into all Truth And after fairly sayes The Fathers in all Ages as well before as since the Great Council of Nice have approved and prastis'd this of Councils as the surest means to decide Doubts Hooker professes The Will of God is to have us do whatever the Sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determin yea though it seem utterly to swerve from what is right in our opinion Their Authority General Councils is immediately deriv'd and delegated from Christ sayes Potter And if Doctor Peirce agree with these his Brethren I might say Fathers in this Point I shall not easily fall out with him about it but rather endeavour a further approach by offering this fair Proposal I will not require of him to hold that the Fathers meet in Council to make question of the matters of Faith for those they were taught from their Childhood but to consult about their adversaries proofs and what arguments should be alleadged against them to consult
custome is most dangerous and altogether to be eschewed What sayes the witty Whitacre The Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the Fathers Errors sewn together And again to believe by the Testimony of the Church not excepting any Age is the plain Heresie of the Papists To conclude for I might quote all day long upon this Subject what sayes the Patriark of Protestancy Luther There never was any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted And now what shall we say our selves in this confused variety Against some of our Adversaries we must cite antiquity or else we do nothing against others if we cite all the antiquity that ever was baptized we do nothing God deliver them from their cross and incertain wandrings and me from the weariness of following them in their wild chase 5. But if the Doctor means by shewing that Iota as to which c. that we have not so shewed it as to stop their mouths or to force them to confess and repent of their fault then there can be no shewing any thing by any one party to another as long as the dissention lasts between them In this sence they have never shewed one Iota to the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers c who after all their Books Canons Acts of Vniformity c. which those Sects call Antichristian tyrannical Popery as the Protestants did ours still persist in separation from them Then neither the Apostles antient Fathers or Councils ever shewed one Iota to antient Pagans or Heretics because for all their shewing others remained Pagans and Heretics afterward And yet even in this particular though a very unreasonable one we Cathâ—lics can confidently affirm that we have defeated this bravado of the Preacher For evident Truth on our side has extorted from the mouths and pens of a world of the most learned among the Reformed Writers a Confession both in general and in every particular Controversie that Antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church against them Thousands of such proofs may be read in the Protestants Apology the Triple Cord c. Books writen on purpose to reckon up such Confessions This is truly if well considered an advantage strange and extraordinary for I believe never did any of the Antieâ—t Hâ—retiâ—s so far justifie the Catholic Church No such confessions of theirs are recorded by the Antieâ—t Fathers which shews that above all former examples the Heretics and Schismatics of this last Age are most properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by their own Consciences 6. But withall the Doctor must take notice of this one thing That it does not belong to us Catholics to be obliged to shew that Iota in which they who have set up a new and separated Church from us but the other day have left the word of God or Primitive antiquity or the four first General Councils aâ— it belongs to them who have thus divided themselves not only to shew but to demonstrate first most clearly that there is such a discession from those Scriptures Fathers and Councils by that former Church which they deserted not in an Iota but in some grand principle of our Faith which admitted no longer safety to them in her Communion because the Roman Catholic Church is in possession and by our Adversaries own Confession has been unquestionably so for above a Thousand years of all or most of her present Doctrins for which they have relinquished her Particularly the Pope has enjoy'd an Authority and Supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes in the world can pretend to A Jurisdiction acknowledged as of Divine Right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as Members of the whole Western Patriarchaâ— yea of the Vniversal Church and this as far as any Records can be produced He is now after so many Ages question'd and violently deposed from this Authority by one National Church nay by one single Woman and her Counsel the universality of her Clergy protesting against her proceedings and much more against her destroying a Religion from the Beginning establish'd among us and which had never been question'd here in former times but by a Wiclef or a Sir Iohn Oldcastle c. manifest Heretics and Traytors Now it is against all Rules of Law Iustice and Reason that such as are Possessores bonae fidei should be obliged to produce their evidences This belongs only to the Plaintiffs and no Evidences produced by them against such a Possession can be of any force except such as are manifest demonstrations of an Vsurpation yea such an Vsurpation as cannot either be exercised or submitted to without sin 7. The Doctor is likewise to consider thaâ— if ex super abundanti we should yield so far as out of Antient Records of Councils or Fathers to alledge any Proofs to enervate their claim to them and justifie our Possession Such Proofs of ours though considered in themselves were only probable yet in effect would have the force of demonstrations against English Protestants But on th' other side unlesse they can produce from Scripture or Antiquity evident demonstrations against us they are not so much as probabilities all this by their own confession For as has been shew'd they lay it for a ground and acknowledge the Catholic Church of which according to their own Doctrin the Roman is at least a Member to be in all fundamental Points infallible and that in all other Points now in debate which are not fundamental it would be unlawful for particular Churches to professe any dissent from her without an evident demonstration that she has actually and certainly erred in them yea moreover that she will admit none of the Dissenters into her Communion except such as though against their Consciences and Knowledge will subscribe to her Errors Errors so heynous as to deserve and justifie a separation 8. These things premis'd my last care must be to provide that in case a Reply be intended to this Treatise it may not be such an one as may abuse the world The Preacher must consider it is not such another blundering Sermon that will now serve his turn to give satisfaction so much as to any Protestant who has a Conscience guided by the light of Reason or thinks Schism not to be a sleight Pâ—ecadillo Therefore that he may know what Conditions are necessary to render an Answer not altogether impertinent and insupportable I here declare that in case he shall undertake a confutation of what is here alledged by me to disprove the charge of Noveltiâ—â— by him laid on the Roman Catholic Church and the excusing of Schism in his own he will be a betrayer of his own Soul and the Souls of 〈◊〉 those that rely on him unless he observe the Conditions following 9. The first is since if Protestants have in truth an evident demonstration that the Roman Doctrins for which they separate are indeed such pernicious errors and
seen and felt too Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us Nay thanks to such Sermons we see at this day Edicts severe enough published and worse preparing not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion as the Lutherans were against the Empire but against such as the Law-givers and Law-perswaders know mean no harm against such as would be both most watchful assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom Edicts to draw all the remainder of blood out of our veinâ— which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign and the prudent moderation of those about him 16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the gracious clemency of our Kings But the uncharitable Sermons that call for blood inspire fury into mens hearts make compassion esteem'd unlawful and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion The truth is Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom which Sources if they had been open'd by such as Smectymnâ—us whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction Sustinuissemus utique and so we shall do still with the help of Grace by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est quod fecit bonum est Sit nomen Domini benedictum AMEN PSAL. 108. 3. 73. 2. Pro co â—t me dâ—ligerent detrahebant mihi Ego autem or aham Memento Congregationis tue quam possâ—disti AB INITIO FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general Sect. 1 2. What was probably the design of it 3 4. Catholicks persecuted though their best friends 6 7. CHAP. II. Page 8. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics 2. Schism imputed is them 3. Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted 4 5. The Answerers Protestation of sincerity 6 7. CHAP. III. Page 13. B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor 1 5. Primitive Reformers Acknowledgment 2 3 4. The Doctors Notion of Beginning 6. Questions proposed touching that Notion 8. 9 10 11. CHAP. IV. Page 29. The sum of the Doctors Discourse against the Popes Supremacy enervated by himself 1. 2 3. The Churches Doctrine therein 4. The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 5 6. CHAP. V. Page 36. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Popes Authority as exercised during the Four General Councils 1 2. Of the Title of Universal Bishop 3 4 5. Not generally admitted at this day 6 7. CHAP. VI. Page 44. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church 1 2 3. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors 4 5 6 7. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal 8. Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople Sect. 9 10. CHAP. VII Page 54. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian 1 2. Decrees of Popes their Ancient force 3 4. The Popes Supreme Iurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church 5 6 7 8 9. Appeals to the See Apostolick decreed at Sardiea British Bishops present 11 12. Of the first Council at Arles 13 14. Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained 15. 16 17. CHAP. VIII Page 67. Proofs of the Popes Supreme Jurisdiction before first Council of Nâ—ce 2 3 5. How all Apostles and all Bishops equâ—l and how subordinate 6 7. St. Peter had more then a Primacy of Order 8. 9 10. Of St. Pauls resisting St. Peter 11 12. Objections Answered 13 15. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States On the contrary c. 18 20 22. Protestants writing in favour of it 25 26. CHAP. IX Page 89. The Churches Infallibility 2 3 4. The Necessity thereof 8 9. The Grounds whereon she claims it 10 12 14 15. Objections Answered 16 18. CHAP. X. Page 109. Prayer for the dead 3 4 5. It s Apostolick Antiquity 6 7 9. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it 11 12. Objections Answered CHAP. XI Page 121. Transubstantiâ—â—ion 2 3 4 6 8. Iustified by Authority of the Fathers 10. Objections Answered Sect. 12 14 1â— CHAP XII Page 137. Communion under one Species 2. â—onfirmâ—d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions 3 4 5 6. No cause of Separation 7 8. CHAP. XIII Page 143. The Sacrifice of the Masâ— 1. Asserted universally by Antiquity 2 3 4. The true Doctrine concerning it explain'd 5 6 7. CHAP. XIV Page 151. Veneration of Images 1. The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason 2 13. CHAP. XV. Page 163. The Churches prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned 2. 4 5. Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence 6. Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue 7 8. The Causes and Grounds thereof 9. 10. That Pracâ—ise not contrary to St. Paul 11 12 13. CHAP. XVI Page 178. Invocation of Saintâ— 2 3 4 5 6. Proved out of Antiquity 7 8 9 10. Concessions Deductions and Objections Answered â—1 adult CHAP. XVII page 201. Celibacy of Priests 2 3 4. Vows of Chastity 5 6. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both 9 10. Objections Answered 10 13 14 15 CHAP. XVIII page 219. Dovorce and the several kindes of it 2. 3 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Prâ—â—cher 8 to 17. CHAP. XIX page 225. Of Schism Sect. 1. The unpardonableness of that oâ—ime acknowledgâ—d by Antiquity 2 4 6. No cause or pretence can excuse it 7 8. CHAP. XX. page 233. The Preacher vainly endeavâ—rs to excuse his Church from Schism 3 4 5. and chapter 21. Sect. 15 16. Of the Subordination of Church-Governours and Synods 13 The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 8. Of the decisions of later Councils 9 10 11 12. CHAP. XXI page 249. The Fundamental Rule of Church Government 1 2 Limitations of the Authority of General Councils 5 6. Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd Dr. Field c. 3 4. Of Points Fundamental and non 7 8 12 Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Saâ—hedrim 13 14. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus 17. CHAP. XXII page 265. Limitations of the Churches Authority by A. B. Lawd c. examin'd 1 2 3 4. Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered 5 6. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation 7. 8 9 10 11â— Secular and carnal ends in it 12 13. CHAP. XXIII page 28â— The Doctâ—rs Proofs alledged 〈◊〉 justifie the English Separation answered 1 2. 1. From the independent Authority of our Kings 3. 2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperâ—rs 4 5. 3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings 6.