Schism is a voluntary division of a Christian Church in its external Communion without sufficient cause 1. 'T is a Division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divisions or Act. Division in the Church particular Rents among you This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it in it as it is a particular Church which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth c. 11. Though they came together and did not separate from the external Communion but divided in it and about it 2. Division is made also in the Church as Catholick Catholick or Universal and some charge the Church or Court of Rome as we shall observe hereafter herewith as the cause of many deplorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it and indeed in a true sence all that are guilty of dividing either in or from a particular Church without just cause are guilty of Schism in the Catholick as the Aggregatum of all particular Churches There is division as well from as in the Church and this is either such as is improperly called Separation or properly or more perfectly so 1. Separation improperly so called we may term Negative which is rather a recusancy or a denyal of Communion where it is either due or only claimed and not due but was never actually given 2. 'T is properly so where an actual separation is made and Communion broken or denyed where it has wont to be paid 3. Or yet more perfectly when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church joyn themselves in an opposite body and erect Altar against Altar SECT II. Subject of Schism THus of the Act of Schism Division Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division Subject which is not a civil or an Infidel Society but a Christian Church I do not express it a true Church for that is supposed For if it be a Christian Church it must be true otherwise it is not at all Some learned of our own side distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or metaphysically considered or morally and acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church or truly a Church as some would rather have it but deny it to be such morally and plead for separation from it only in a moral sence or as it is not a true Church i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church not as it is a Church But finding this distinction to give offence and perhaps some advantage to our Adversaries at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able I shall not insist upon these distinctions I confess pace tantorum I see no danger in but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sence largely speaking as moral is distinguished from Physical or metaphysical and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sence or a Church of Christ For to say that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally yet is so really i. e. Physically or Metaphysically seems to imply that it is a Christian Church and it is not a Christian Church seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sence as I conceive is not questioned by either side And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sence we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sence as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church seems to be of a Moral nature as is evident in all its causes its Efficient The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause the form living in true faith and Religion is moral its End and all its formal Actions in Profession and Communion are of a Moral nature and the Christians as they are Men are indeed natural Beings yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church and more as they are in a Society they fall properly under a Moral Consideration But how can a Church be true and not true and both in a Moral sence How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church and yet leave her as a false Church and true and false be both taken Morally Very well And our Learned Men intend no other though they speak it not in these terms For to be true and false in the same Moral Sence doth not imply the being so in the same respects Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church with respect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth and yet be very false and justly to be deserted for her gross Errors in many other points believed also and professed by her as a Bill in Chancery may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admitted and yet in many things falsely suggested it may be very false and as to them be rejected 2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may 1. Catholick be further considered as Catholick i. e. Absolute Formal Essential and as it lies spread over all the world but united in one common Faith From this Church the Donatists and other ancient Hereticks are said to have separated 2. As Particular in a greater or lesser number 2. Particular or part of the Catholick Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismaticks 3. In a Complex and mixt Sence as the particular 3. Mix'd Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholick Church calls her self Roman Catholick and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor In which sence the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholick Church for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome SECT III. Object of Schism 1. Faith THe third Point is the Object about and External Communion in which Separation is made Namely External Communion in those three great Means or Bonds of it Faith Worship and Government under that Notion as they are bonds of Communion The first is Faith or Doctrine and it must Faith be acknowledged that to renounce the Churches Faith is a very great Schism yet here we must admit two exceptions it must be the Churches Faith that is such Doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed if we speak of a particular Church for in other Points both Authorities allow Liberty Again though the Faith be broken there is not Schism presently or necessarily except the external Communion be also or thereby disturbed Heretical Principles not declared are Schism in Principle but not in Act Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self 'T is farther agreed that we may and some times
must differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Eathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in fid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2 Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church Aud as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observes which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged wiih Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction
not many of your selves ashamed and weary of it do not some of you deny it and set up Tradition in stead of it was not the Apostle too blame to say there must be Heresies or Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be an Infallible Judge among you and no Heresies but now men are wiser and of another mind To conclude whether we regard the Truth or Vnity of the Church both Reason and Sence assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing for as to Truth 't is impossible men should give up their Faith and Conscience and inward apprehension of things to the Sentence of any one man or all the men in the World against their own Reason and for Vnity there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it but that the Authority of Ecclesiastical Government can preserve it as well without as with Infallibility But if there be any Sence in the Argument methinks 't is better thus the Head and Governour of the Christian Church must of necessity be Infallible but the Pope is not Infallible either by Scripture Tradition or Reason therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governour of the Christian Church CHAP. XVIII Of the Pope's Universal Pastorship its Right divine or humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas WE have found some flaws in the pretended Title of the Pope as our Converter Patriarch Possessor and as the Subject of Infallibility his last and greatest Argument is his Vniversal Pastorship and indeed if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on Earth he is ours also and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him without the guilt of that which is charged upon us viz. Schism if his Commands be justifiable but if the proof of this fail also we are acquitted This Right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship is divine or humane if at all both are pretended and are to be examined The Bishop of Calcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the Original if the Right be granted 't is not de fide to believe whether it come from God or no. If the Pope be Universal Pastor Jure humano only his Title is either from Civil or from Ecclesiastical Power and least we should err Fundamentally we shall consider the pretenses from both If it be said that the Civil Power hath conferred this honour upon the Pope may it not be questioned whether the Civil Powers of the World extend so far as either to dispose of the Government of the Church or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor However de facto when was this done when did the Kings of England in Conjunction with the Rulers of the whole World make such a Grant to the Pope I think the World hath been ashamed of the Const donat Donation of Constantine long agon yet that no shadow may remain unscattered we shall briefly take an account of it They say Constantine the third day after he was baptized left all the West part of the Empire to Pope Sylvester and went himself to dwell at Constantinople and gave the whole Imperial and Civil Dominion of Rome and all the Western Kingdoms to the Pope and his Successors for ever A large Boon indeed this looks as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor but who makes him Vniversal Pastor and who ever since hath bequeathed the Eastern World to him either as Pastor or Emperor for it should seem that part Constantine then kept for himself But Mr. Harding throws off all these little Cavils and with sufficient Evidence out of Math. Hieromonachus a Greek Author shews the very Words of the Decree which carry it for the Pope as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Advantages they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We decree and give in charge to all Lords and to the Senate of our Empire that the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter chief of the Apostles have Authority and Power in all the World greater than that of the Empire that he have more honour than the Emperor and that he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats and that matters of Faith be by him determined this is the Charter whereby some think the Pope hath Power saith De potest Pap. c. 19. Harveus as Lord of the whole World to set up and pull down Kings 'T is confessed this Grant is not pleaded lately with any Confidence Indeed Bishop Jewel did check it early when he shewed Harding the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it such as Platina Cusanus Petavius Laurent Valla Antoninus Florentinus and a great many more Cardinal Cusanus hath these words Donationem Constantini dilligenter expendens c. Carefully weighing this Grant of Constantine even Conc. Cath. lib. 3. c. 2. in the very penning thereof I find manifest Arguments of Forgery and Falshood 'T is not found in the Register of Gratian that is in the allowed Original Text though it be indeed in the Palea of some Books yet that Palea is not read in the Schools and of it Pope Pius himself said dicta Palea Constantinus Pius 2. dial falsa est and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute an valuerit id quod nunquam fuit and those that speak most favourably of it confess that it is as true that Vox Angelorum Audita est that at the same time the voice of Angels was heard in the Air saying hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam Much more to the discountenance of this P. 537 538. 539. vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence which to my observation was never since answered to him therefore I refer my Reader But alas if Constantine had made such a Grant Pope Pipus tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valuerit and the whole World besides must judge the Grant void in it self especially after Constantine's time Had Satan's Grant been good to our Saviour if he had faln down and worshipped him no more had Constantine's pardon the comparison for in other things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the flourishing Grandeur of the Church of Christ though by this he had as was said given nothing but poyson to it for the Empire of the World and the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his Successors for ever Arg. 2 King John But it is urged nearer home that King John delivered up his Crown to the Pope and received it again as his Gift 'T is true but this Act of present fear could not be construed a Grant of Right to the Pope if King John gave away any thing it was neither the Power of making Laws for England nor the exercise of any Jurisdiction in England that he had not before for he only acknowledged unworthily the Pope's Power but pretended not to give him such Power to
Can. Apost allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus THough it seem below his Holiness's present grandeur to ground his Right upon the Civil Power especially when that fails him yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pretences who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons as they say the Pope is If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches And if it could be proved too yet one thing more remains to be proved to subject the Church of England to that his power viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such or without our own consent or allowance And 't is impossible this should be proved while our Kings are Supreme and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood However we decline not the examination of the plea viz. that the Popes Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils viz. general But when this is said it is but reasonable to demand which or in what Canons It is said the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils in which of these is the grant to be found Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible We find it very plain that in some of those Councils and those the most ancient this Power is expresly denyed him and that upon such reason as is eternal and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever if future Grants were to be just and reasonable or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity by the Canons of the Fathers or fidelity to the Church to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws and he had ever shewed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes as well as over all persons Ecclesiastical even Popes themselves 't is not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine or to the prejudice of the Emperor 's said Supremacy and consequently not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes Justinian's Sanction extended to the four Justin Sanction of four first great Councils Nic. Constant Ephes 1. and Calcedon in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canones qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt confirmati hoc est Niceno c. praedictorum enim Consiliorum dogmata sicut divinas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges observamus Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not Apostles Canons not mention reason confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles whether because their Authority was suspected especially many of them or because Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly General Council or because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus c. or lastly whether because the first fifty had before a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole Ibid. Church or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors the Apostles or Apostolical men I venture not to declare my opinion But truly there seems something considerable for the later for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons but their own by the Quotation of them taking Authority from them as Laws founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon in such matters as were found there determined A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have full to our present purpose given us by Binius Nicena Synodus Can. 6. Bin. To. 1. p. 20. c. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed these Canons of the Apostles appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitane Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus and do nothing without their own Diocess but rather the Bishop of Alexandria according to the Canons understand saith Binius those 35 36 of the Apostles must govern the Churches of Egypt the Bishop of the East the Eastern Churches the Ephesine Synod also saith it is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus c. Hence it is plain that according to Apostles Canons interpreted and allowed as Authentick so far at least by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief oyer the Churches within his Provinces and that he as such exclusive of all Forreign Superior Power was to govern and ordain within his own Provinces not consonant to but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers and the matter is plainer SECT I. Can. Apostol THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose but what we find in Can. 35 36. or in the Reddition as Binius gives it Can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Bishops of 35 33. every Nation know or they ought to know who among them is accounted or is chief and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput and do nothing difficult aut magni momenti praeter ejus Conscientiam vel Sententiam but what if the matter were too hard for the Primate is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome here was indeed a proper place for it but not a word of that In the 36 alias 34. it is added that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction but neither of these Canons concern the Pope unless they signifie that the Pope is not Head of all Churches and hath not power in any place but within the Diocess of Rome or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Head in his Note upon these Canons SECT II. Concil Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion VVE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod that looks our way except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let ancient Custom be kept through Can. 6. Egypt Libia and Pentapolis so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be kept in their own Churches but suppose
Infer 1. That the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by divine Right or any right at all seeing they opposed it 2. That they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome 3. That they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility 4. That 't is vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either 5. That the Judgment of those 8 general Councils was at least the Judgment and Faith not only during their own times but till the contrary should be decreed by a following Council of as great Authority and how long that was after I leave to themselves to answer 6. That the Canons of those 8 first general Councils being the sence both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority stands condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in profession with the Ancient 7. That this was the Faith of the Catholick Church in opposition to the pretended Supremacy of the Pope long after the eight first General Councils is evident by the plain Sence of it in the said Point declared by several Councils in the Ages following as appears both in the Greek and Latin Church a word of both SECT IX The Latin Church Constance Basil Councils c. THe Council of Constance in Germany long after of almost a thousand Fathers An. 1415 Say they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and a General Council representing the whole Church and having immediate power from Christ whereunto obedience is due from all Persons both for Faith and Reformation whether in the Head or Members this was expresly confirmed by Pope Martin to be held inviolable in Matters of Faith vid. Surium Concil Const 99. 4. Tom. 3. Conc. Their great Reason was the Pope is not Head of the Church by Divine Ordinance as the Council of Calcedon said a thousand years before Now where was necessary Union and Subjection to the Pope where was his Supremacy Jure divino where was Tradition Infallibility or the Faith of the present Church for the Pope's Authority Concil Basil Bin. To. 4. in Conc. Basil initio The Council of Basil An. 1431. decreed as the Council of Constance Pope Eugenius would dissolve them the Council commands the contrary and suspend the Pope concluding that who ever shall question their power therein is an Heretick the Pope pronounceth them Schismaticks in the end the Pope did yield and not dissolve the Council this was the Judgment of the Latine Church above 1400 years after Christ and indeed to this day of the true Church of France and in Henry the Eighth's time of England as Gardner said the Pope is not a Head by Dominion but Order his Authority is none with us we ought not to have to doe with Rome the Common Sence of all in England Bellarmine saith that the Pope's Subjection to De Conc. li. 2. c. 14. General Councils is inconsistent with the Supreme Pastorship 't is Repugnant to the Primacy of Saint Peter saith Gregory de Valentiâ yet nothing Anal. fid l. 8. c. 14. is more evident than that General Councils did exercise Authority over Popes deposing them and disposing of their Sees as the Council of Constance did three together and always made Canons in opposition to their Pretensions Yea 't is certain that a very great Number if not the greater of the Roman Church it self were ever of this Faith that General Vid. Dr. Hammond's dispute p. 102. Councils are Superior have Authority over give Laws unto and may justly censure the Bishop of Rome Pope Adrian the Sixth and very many other Learned Romanists declared this to be their Judgment just before or near upon the time that Henry the Eighth was declared Supreme in England So much for the Latine Church SECT X. The Greek Church African Can. Synod Carth. Cancil Antiochen The Faith of the Greek Church since THat the Greek Church understood the first General Councils directly contrary to the Pope's Supremacy is written with a Sun-beam in several other Councils 1. By the Canons of the African Church The 27th Canon forbids all Transmarine Appeals Can. 27. threatens such as make them with Excommunication makes order that the last Appeal be to the proper Primate or a General Council to the same effect is the 137 Canon and the Notes of Voel upon these Canons put it beyond question that in the Transmarine Appeals Tom. 1. p. 425. they meant those to Rome as it is expressed the Church of Rome and the Priests of the Roman Church 2. Const Concil Antiochen This Council is more plain it saith if any Bishop in any Crime be judged by all the Bishops in the Province he shall be judged in no wise by any Other the Sentence given by the Provincial Bishops shall remain firm Thus the Pope is excluded even in the case of Bishops out of his own Province contrary to the great pretence of Bellarmine ibid. 3. Syn. Carthag This Synod confirmed the twenty Canons of Nice and the Canons of the African Councils and then in particular they decreed ab Vniversis Can. 4. Si Criminosus est non admittatur again 8. if any one whether Bishop or Presbiter that is driven from the Church be received into Communion by another even he that receives him is held guilty of the like Crime Refugientes sui Episcopi regulare Judicium Again if a Bishop be guilty when there is no Synod let him be judged by twelve Bishops Secundum Statuta Veterum Conciliorum the Statutes of the Ancients knew no reserve for the Pope in that Case Further no Clergy-man might go beyond the Seas viz. to Rome without the Advice of his Metropolitan and taking his Formatam vel Commendationem The 28 Canon is positive that Priests and Deacons shall not Appeal ad Transmarina Judicia viz. to Rome but to the Primates of their own Provinces and they add Sicut de Episcopis saepê constitutum est and if any shall do so none in Africa shall receive them and Can. 125. 't is renewed adding the African Councils to which Appeals are allowed as well as to the Primates but still Rome is Barr'd The Sence of the Greek Church since Now when did that Church subject it self to Rome in any Case our Adversaries acknowledge the early contests betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches in the point of Supremacy where then is the Consent of Fathers or Vniversality of time and place they use to boast of Bellarmine confesseth that An. 381. to the time of the Council of Florence viz. 1140 years the Greek Church disclaimed subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome and he confesseth they did so in several general Councils And he doth but pretend that this Church submitted it self to Rome
Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysins so utterly Dionysins silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 2â—0 The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Tertullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To. inter Epist illust person 147. And it is decreed saith the Church of Carthage we consult our Brethren Syricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicius Bishop of Milain Concil Carth. 3. c. 48. The like we have observed out of Origen Clemens Alex. Cyprian c. before Hence it follows that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils had no knowledge of the Popes Supremacy and we have
a long Epistle the truth is I thought my self accountable to your Lordship for a Brief of the Book that took its being from your Lordship's Encouragement and the rather because it seems unmannerly to expect that your good Old Age should perplex it self with Controversie which the Good God continue long and happy to the honour of his Church on Earth and then crown with the Glory of Heaven It is the hearty prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and devoted Servant FR. FULLWOOD A PREFACE TO THE READER Good Reader OUr Roman Adversaries claim the Subjection of the Church of England by several Arguments but insist chiefly upon that of possession and the Universal Pastorship if any shall deign to answer me I think it reasonable to expect they should attach me there where they suppose their greatest strength lies otherwise though they may seem to have the Advantage by catching Shadows if I am left unanswered in those two main Points the Substance of their Cause is lost For if it remain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here and the contrary proof continue unshaken the Argument of Possession is on our side I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before that he took not possession by Austine the Monk and that he had no such possession here afterwards sufficient to create or evince a Title ' T is confessed that Austine took his Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury as the Gift of Saint Gregory and having recalled many of the People to Christianity both the Converts and the Converter gave great Submission and respect to Saint Gregory then Bishop of Rome and how far the People were bound to obey their Parent that had begotten them or he his Master that sent him and gave him the Primacy I need not dispute But these things to our purpose are very certain 1. That Conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their Obedience to Saint Gregory which Plea is now deserted and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very Title of Universal Bishop the only thing now insisted on 2. ' T is also certain that the Addition of Authority which the King ' s Silence Permission or Connivence gave to Austine was more than Saint Gregory ' s Grant and yet that Connivence of the new Converted King in the Circumstances of so great Obligation and Surprize who might not know or consider or be willing to exercise his Royal Power then in the Point could never give away the Supremacy inherent in his Crown from his Successors for ever 3. ' T is likewise certain that neither Saint Gregory ' s Grant nor that King ' s Permission did or could obtain Possession for the Pope by Austine as the Primate of Canterbury over all the Brittish Churches and Bishops which were then many and had not the same Reason from their Conversion by him to own his Jurisdiction but did stifly reject all his Arguments and Pretenses for it King Ethelbert the only Christian King at that time in England had not above the twentieth part of Brittain within his Jurisdiction how then can it be imagined that all the King of England ' s Dominions in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland should be concluded within the Primacy of Canterbury by Saint Augustine ' s possession of so small a part 4. ' T is one thing to claim another to possess Saint Augustine ' s Commission was to subject all Brittain to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but what possession he got for his Master appears in that after the death of that Gregory and Austine there were left but one Arch-Bishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion in all Brittain 5. Moreover the Succeeding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury soon after discontinued that small possession of England which Augustine had gotten acknowledging they held of the Crown and not of the Pope resuming the Ancient Liberties of the English Church which before had been and ought always to be Independent on any other and which of Right returned upon the Return of their Christianity and accordingly our Succeeding Kings with their Nobles and Commons and Clergy upon all occasions denied the Papal Jurisdiction here as contrary to the King 's Natural Supremacy and the Customs Liberties and Laws of this Kingdom And as Augustine could not give the Miter so neither could King John give the Crown of England to the Bishop of Rome For as Math. Paris relates Philip Augustus answered the Pope's Legate no King no Prince can Alienate or give away his Kingdom but by Consent of his Barons who we know protested against King John ' s endeavour of that kind bound by Knighs Service to defend the said Kingdom and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary Error his Holiness shall give to Kingdoms a most pernitious Example so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful Prince under great Temptations from laying a firm ground for the Pope's Prescription and 't is well known that both the preceeding and succeeding Kings of England defended the Rights of the Crown and disturbed the Pope's possession upon stronger grounds of Nature Custom and plain Statutes and the very Constitution of the Kingdom from time to time in all the main Branches of Supremacy as I doubt not but is made to appear by full and Authentick Testimony beyond dispute 2. The other great Plea for the Pope ' s Authority in England is that of Universal Pastorship now if this cannot be claimed by any Right either Divine Civil or Ecclesiastical but the contrary be evident and both the Scriptures Emperors Fathers and Councils did not only not grant but deny and reject the Pope ' s Supremacy as an Usurpation What Reason hath this or any other Church to give away their Liberty upon bold and groundless Claims The pretence of Civil Right by the Grant of Emperors they are now ashamed of for three Reasons 't is too scant and too mean and apparently groundless and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable Argument against the claim by any other Right whether Ecclesiastical or Divine for all the General Councils are found first not to make any such Grant to the Pope whereby the Claim by Ecclesiastical Right is to be maintained but secondly they are all found making strict provisions against his pretended Authority whereby they and the Catholick Church in them deny his Divine Right 'T is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself that before the Council of Constance non divino sed humano Jure positivis Ecclesiae Decretis primatum Rom. Pont. niti senserunt speaking of the Fathers that is the Fathers before that Council though the Primacy of the Pope was not of Divine Right and that it stood only upon the Positive Decrees of the Church and yet he further confesseth in the same place that the Power of the Pope now contended for nullo sane decreto publico definita est is
not defined by any Publick Decree tacito tamen Doctorum Consensu Now what can remain but that which we find him immediately driven to viz. to reject the pretence of humane Right by Positive Decrees of the Church and to adhere only as he himself affirmeth they generally now do to the Divine Right Nunc inquit autem nemini amplius Catholoco dubium est prorsus Divino Jure quidem illustribus Evangelii Testimoniis hunc Primatum niti Thus how have they intangled themselves if they pretend a humane Right he acknowledgeth they cannot find it where it ought to be found in the Publick Decrees of the Church if a Divine Right he confesseth the Fathers denied it before the Council of Constance and he knows that Council condemn'd it Stapleton at length affirms that now no Catholick doubts but the Pope's Primacy is of Divine Right whence the heart of the Roman Cause is stabb'd by these clear and sharp Conclusions 1. Concl. That all Catholicks of the present Roman Church do now hold a New Article touching the Pope's Primacy not known to the Fathers before the Council of Constance An. 1415. and condemned by that Council as an Error 2. Concl. That therein the Faith of the present Roman Church stands counter to the Faith Decrees and Practices of all the first General Councils consisting of Fathers that flourished therein long before the Council of Constance i. e. in their own sence the Ancient Catholick Church You will find that the Evidence hereof ariseth not only from the Words of Stapleton but from the Decrees of all the first eight General Councils every one of them one way or other expresly declaiming that Supremacy which the Pope and his present Church would arrogate and in those Councils all the Fathers and the Catholick Church are confessedly concluded and consequently Antiquity Infallibility and Tradition are not to be found at Rome The Sum is the Church of England that holds the true Ancient Catholick Faith and the four first General Councils and hath the Evidence of four more in the Point cannot be blamed for rejecting or not readmitting a Novel and groundless Usurpation contrary to them all and contrary also to the Profession of the present Roman Church that pretends to believe that the Faith of the eight first general Councils is the Catholick Faith Imprimatur GUIL JANE R. P. D. HEN. Episc LOND Ã Sacris Domest Jan. 24. 1678. THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS and SECTIONS THe Introduction The Design The Controversie contracted into one point viz. Schism Page 1 CHAP. I. The Definition of Schism Sect. 1. Of the Act of it p. 3 Sect. 2. The Subject of Schism p. 4 Sect. 3. The Object of Schism 1. Faith p. 7 2. Worship p. 9 3. Government p. 11 Sect. 4. The Conditions Causeless Voluntary p. 14 Sect. 5. The Application of Schism 't is not applicable to us p. 16 In the Act. p. 17 Or Cause p. 19 Sect. 6. The Application of it to the Romanists p. 20 Sect. 7. The charge retorted upon them p. 21 The Controversie broken into two Points The Authority The Cause p. 23 CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments proposed and briefly reflected on p. 24 1. Conversion 2. Prescription 3. Western Patriarchate 4. Infallibility 5. Succession p. 25 CHAP. III. Of the Pope's claim from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory p. 28 CHAP. IV. His claim as Patriarch Four Propositions laid down 1. The Pope was Patriarch of the West p. 32 2. He had then a limited Jursdiction p. 33 3. His Patriarchate did not include Brittain p. 35 4. A Patriarch and Vniversal Bishop inconsistent p. 37 CHAP. V. The Third Papal claim Prescription The Case stated p. 39 Their Plea Our Answer in three Positions viz. 1. The Pope never had possession absolutely 2. That which he had could never create a Title 3. However his Title extinguish'd with his possession p. 40 CHAP. VI. The Papacy of no power here for the first 600 years Augustine Dionoth in fact or faith p. 41. c. Sect. 1. No one part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for six hundred years not Ordination till 1100 years after Christ c. nor any other p. 46 Sect. 2. No possession of Belief of his Jurisdiction then in England or Scotland p. 52 Sect. 3. This belief could have no ground in the Ancient Canons Apostolic Nicen. Milev c. p. 54 Sect. 4. Of Concil Sardi Calced Constantinop p. 56 Sect. 5. Arabick Canons forged not of Nice p. 60 Sect. 6. Ancient practice interpreted the Canons against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs S. Cyprian S. Augustine's sence in practice p. 63 Sect. 7. The Sayings of Ancient Popes Agathâ— Pelagius Gregory Victor against the pretence of Supremacy p. 69 Sect. 8. The words of the Imperial Law against him p. 90 Sect. 9. The Conclusion touching possession in the first Ages vix six hundred years from Christ p. 97 CHAP. VII The Pope had not full possession here before Hen. 8. I. Not in St. Augustine's time nor after p. 100 Sect. 1. Not in St. Augustine's time ibid. A true State of the question betwixt the Pope and the King of England in seven particulars p 102 Sect. 2. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. p 104 In eight distinctions of Supremacy ibid. The question stated by them p. 105 CHAP. VIII What Supremacy Hen. 8. took from the Pope the particulars of it with Notes upon them p. 107. c. CHAP. IX Whether the Pope's possession here was a quiet possession till Hen. 8. as to the Point of Supremacy p. 109 Sect. 1. Of Appeals to Rome Three Notions of Appeal Appeals to Rome Locally or by Legates Wilfrid Anselm ibid. Sect. 2. Of the possession by Legates the occasion of them here their entertainment p. 117 CHAP. X. Of the Pope's Legislative power here before Hen. 8. Canons oblige us not without our Consent our Kings Saxon Danish Norman made Ecclesiastical Laws p. 126 CHAP. XI Of the Power of Papal Licenses c. in Edw. 1. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7's time p. 133 CHAP. XII The Patronage of this Church ever in our own Kings by History by Law p. 140 CHAP. XIII Of Peter-pence and other payments to the Pope p. 149 First-Fruits p. 151 Payments extraordinary p. 154 Casual p. 156 CHAP. XIV The Conclusion of the Argument of Prescription 't is on our side p 158 On their side of no force p. 159 CHAP. XV. The Plea from Infallibility considered in its Consequence Retorted p. 161 Sect. 1 Scripture Examples for Infallibility p. 163 High Priest not infallible nothing to the Pope p. 164 Apostles p. 166 Sect. 2. Scripture-promises of Infallibility p. 167 CHAP. XVI 2. Argument for Infallibility viz. Tradition four Concessions three Propositions about Tradition Arguments Objections p. 171 c. CHAP. XVII The third way of Argument for Infallibility viz. by Reason three
and will not rebel against the Government that God hath placed immediatly over us This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholick and all particular Churches both in Doctrine Worship and Government and the main exception against her is that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome a Power not known as now claimed to the Ancient Church a Power when once foreseen warned against as Antichristian by a Pope himself and when usurped condemned by a General Council And lastly such a Power as those that claim it are not agreed about among themselves But the charge of Schism falls after another sort upon our Roman Adversaries who have disturbed the Vniversal and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon of the Scripture Apocriphal Books by adding to the revealed will of God groundless Traditions by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches and as for Worship how have they not corrupted it by Substraction taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance the Cup from the Laity c. by additions infinite to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship to childish Superstitions and some say dangerous Idolatry Lastly As to Government they have plainly separated themselves both from the Ancient and present Catholick Church and all other particular Churches by usurping a Dominion condemned by the Ancient and that cannot be owned without betraying the Liberty of the present Church By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion and as it is said by Excommunicating for Non-obedience to these Impositions not only the Church of England but three Parts of the Christian World The proof on both sides we are to expect in due place SECT IV. The Conditions of Schism Causless Voluntary THe fourth and last thing considerable Condition in the Definition is the Condition which adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation which is twofold it must be Causeless and Voluntary 1. It must be voluntary Separation or denial Voluntary of Communion but of this I shall say nothing a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it saying who knows not that every sin is voluntary S. W Causless 2. It must be causless or as it is usually expressed without sufficient cause 't is a Rule generally allowed that the Cause makes the Schism i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation there is the Schism if not the cause of Schism is in the Separatist and consequently where the cause is found there the charge of Schism resteth I know 't is said that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church and therefore this Condition is needless but they ever mean by the true Church the Catholick Church 'T is granted the Catholick Church cannot be supposed to give such cause she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth wherein the means of Salvation can be only found therefore we rarely meet with any such condition in the Definitions of Schism given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind that separated from the whole Church But hence to infer that we cannot have just cause to separate from the Church of Rome will be found bad Logick However if we could grant this Condition to be needless it cannot be denied to be true and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause is an eternal verity and if the cause be supposed just cannot be said to be unjust seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin the Act is justified while it is condemned Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church then if at last we find that the Church of Rome is no more there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie But the Cause must not be pretended to effect beyond its influence or Sufficiency Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church farther than he hath cause for beyond its Activity that which is said to be a cause is no cause Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation and that known Rule that we may not totally separate from a true Church and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin The Reason is evident because the truth and very being of a Christian Church implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it hath an agreement both of Union and Communion Far be it from us therefore to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church yea we franckly and openly declare that we still retain Communion out of fraternal charity with the Church of Rome so far as she is a true Church Only protesting against her Vsurpations and reforming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty SECT V. The Application of Schism Not to our Church IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church or any particular Church either by separation from or denying Communion with it much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England But she hath not thus divided whether we respect the Act or the Cause With respect to the Act viz. Division We 1. In the Act. argue if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation that it was before then by the Reformation we have made no such Division for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own as it was before the Reformation as our Adversaries grant And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before we hold the same Communion for substance or essentials with every other Church now that we did before But for Substance we have the same Faith the same Worship the same Government now that we had before the Reformation and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity Indeed the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion and determine their Additions to be such But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden and Botches of the essence of a Man We have the same Creed to a word and in the same sence by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. that in a general Council they did forbid all persons under
abominates or that he really exercised that Vniversal Authority and Universal Bishoprick though he so prodigiously lets flie against the Stile of Vniversal Bishop yet all this is said and must be maintained lest we should exclude the Vniversal Pastorship out of the Primitive Church There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist upon this Argument with which I shall not trouble the Reader yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any shew of Argument on their Side among which the words of Saint Gregory following in his Argument are most material Saint Gregory saith the care of the whole Object Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles Saint Peter and yet he is not called the Vniversal Bishop 'T is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say Sol. that the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter again that he was the Prince of the Apostles and yet he was not called Vniversal Apostle 't is hence plain that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry in it so much as Vniversal Bishop otherwise Saint Gregory would not have given the one and denied him the other and 't is as plain that he had the care of all Churches and so had Saint Paul but 't is not plain that he had Power over all Churches Doctor Hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself in the Novels if any Complaint be made saith he against a Bishop the Cause shall be judged before the Metropolitane Secundum Regulas Ex Reg. lib. 11. Ep. 54. Sanctas Nostras Leges if the Party stand not to his Judgment the Cause is to be brought to the Arch-Bishop or Patriarch of that Diocess and he shall give it a Conclusion according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid no place left for Appeal to Rome Yet it must be acknowledged Saint Gregory Object adds si dictum fuerit c. where there is no Metropolitane nor Patriarch the Cause may be heard by the Apostolick See which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches Now if this be allowed what hath the Pope Sol. gained if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch how is he the nearer to the Vniversal Authority over those Churches that have Primates of their own or which way will he by this means extend his Jurisdiction to us in England who have ever had more than one Metropolitane the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was once acknowledged by a Pope to be Alterius Orbis Apostolicus Patriarch But admitting this extraordinary Case that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick 't is a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it then that his late Grace should mention it at which A. C. so much admires for this one observation with the assistance of that known Rule in Law exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis puts a plain and speedy end to the whole Controversie for if recourse may be had to Rome from no other place but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarch then not from England either when Saint Gregory laid down the Rule or ever since and perhaps then from no other place in the World and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary Case that might possibly happen for it is but reason that where there is no Primate to appeal to appeal should be received somewhere else and where better than at Rome which Saint Gregory calls Caput omnium Ecclesiarum and this is the utmost advantage the Romanist can hope to receive from the Words But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head Object of all Churches 'T is true whether he intends a Primacy of Sol. Fame or visible Splendor and Dignity being the Seat of the Emperor or Order and Vnity is not certain but 't is certain he intends nothing less by it than that which just now he denied a Supremacy of Power and Vniversal ordinary Jurisdiction he having in the words immediately fore-going concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the Object thing though he denied the Word of Vniversal What Hypocrisie damn the Title as he Sol. doth and yet practise the thing you must have good proof His first Instance is of the Primate of Byzacene wherein the Emperor first put forth his Authority and would have him judged by Gregory Piissimus Imperator eum per nos voluit Vid. Ep. 65. l. 7. judicari saith Gregory Hence as Doctor Hammond smartly and soundly observes that Appeals from a Primate lie to none but the Supreme Magistrate To which purpose in the Case of Maximus Bishop of Solana decreed excommunicate Ep. l. 3. Ep. 20. by Gregory his Sentence was still with this reserve and submission nisi prius unless I should first understand by my most Serene Lords the Emperors that they commanded it to be done Thus if this perfect instance as S. W. calls it have any force in it his Cause is gone what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it Besides the Emperors Command was that Gregory should judge him juxta Statuta Canonica and Gregory himself pleads quicquid esset Canonicum Judicaremus Thus S. W's Cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance for if Saint Gregory took the Judgment upon him in obedience to the Emperor and did proceed and was to proceed in judging according to the Canons where was then the Vniversal Monarchy Yet it is confessed by Dr. Hammond which is a full answer to all the other not so perfect instances that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch there being no lawful Superior who had power over him the injured person sometimes made his complaint to the Pope as being the most Eminent Person in the Church and in such case he questionless might and ought in all fraternal Charity admonish the Primate or Patriarch or disclaim Communion with him unless he reform But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did formally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch or juridically and authoritively act in any such Cause without the express license of the Emperor which not being done his instances are answered besides Saint Gregory always pleads the Ancient Canons which is far from any claim of Vniversal Pastorship by Divine Right or Donation of Christ to Saint Peter I appeal saith Doctor Hammond to S. W. whether that were the Interpretation of secundùm Canones and yet he knows that no other Tenure but that will stand him in stead Indeed the unhappiness is as the Doctor Vid. dispat disp p. 408. to p 423. observes that such Acts at first but necessary fraternal charity were by ambitious men drawn into example and means of assuming power of Vniversal Pastorship which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing than by those Ancient examples which being rightly
advance very far towards the ending of it For so the Title hath been given to others as well as the Bishop of Rome and therefore it could not argue any Authority peculiar to him Also the same universalcare of the Church the occasion of the Title hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him and indeed the power which is the Root of that Care as the occasion of that Title is founded in all Bishops Here are three things noted which may be 3 Notes distinctly considered 1. Power is given to all Bishops with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church So that if it were possible that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church they have Authority enough in their Function to do it though it be impossible and indeed inconsistent with peace and order that all should undertake it And therefore they have their bounds and limits set them hence their particular Diocesses therefore as St. Cyprian there is but one Bishoprick in the whole World a part of which is held by every Bishop 2. Thus we find in the primitive Church that every Bishop had his particular Charge yet they still regarded the common good extending their care the second thing observed sometimes beyond their own division by their council and direction yea and exercised their functions sometimes in other places Of which Dr. Stillingfleet Rat. ac p. 424 425. gives many instancesin Polycarp Ignatius Irenaeus St. Cyprian Faustus Yea upon this very ground Nazianzen saith Or. 18. p. 281. of St. Cyprian that he not only governed the Churches of Carthage but all the Western parts and even almost all the Eastern Southern and Northern too as far as he went Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius Atha ap ad Imp. Const p. 786 c. We embrace saith he Peace and Vnity with the Catholick Church over which Thou through the Grace of God dost preside Whence Gregory Or. 21. p. 392. Naz. saith of Athanasius that he made Laws for the whole Earth And St. Basil writes to him Ep. 52. that he had care of all the Churches as of his own and calls him the Head and Chief of all And St. Chrisostom in the praise of Eustathius Tom. 5. p. 631. Savil. the Patriarch of Antioch saith that he was instructed by the divine Spirit that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set but of the whole Church throughout the world Now what is this but to say in effect these great men were universal Bishops though indeed they none of them had power of Jurisdiction over any Church but their own as notwithstanding the general care of the ancient good Bishops of Rome had of the good of the whole and their Influence and Reverence in order thereunto the Bishops of Rome had not 3. Upon the former ground and occasion some Bishops in the most famous Churches had the honour of the Title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishops But here we must confess the Bishops of Rome had the advantage being the most famous of all both by reason of their own primitive merit and the glory of the Empire especially the latter The Roman Empire was it self accounted universal and the greatness of the Empire advanced the Church to the same Title and consequently the Bishops of that Church above others 1. That the Roman Empire was so appears R. ac p. 425 426. by a multitude of Testimonies making orbis Romanus orbis humanus Synonimous collected by Dr. Still Hence Am. Marcellinus calls L. 14. c. 16. Rome Caput Mundi the head of the World And the Roman Senate Asylum Mundi totius And it was usual then to call whatever was o◠of the Roman Empire Barbaria as the same Dr. Ibid. proves at large Therefore that Empire was called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 11. 28. 2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical as that relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Roman Empire This appears because the very ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was the greatness of the City as appears in the Councils of Constantinople and Calcedon about it and the priviledges of old Rome gave the measure of the priviledges of new Rome And in probability the ground of that Patriarch's usurping the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness P. 426. of his City which was then the Seat of the Empire as Dr. Still very reasonably Conjectures Moreover all the three Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople had expressions given them tantamount to that Title The government of the whole World the care of all R. ac p. 426. the Churches the government as it were of the whole body of the Church as Dr. Stillingfleet particularly shews But most clear and full to that purpose Theod. Haer. fab l. 4. c. 14. p. 245. To. 4. oper as he observes is the Testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius being made Patriarch of Constantinople He was intrusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople and thereby of the whole World Where shall we find so illustrious a Testimony for the Bishop of Rome or if we could we see it would prove nothing peculiar to him Therefore if the Council of Calcedon did offer the Title of universal Patriarch or if they did not but as the truth rather is some Papers received in that Council did give him that Title it signifieth nothing to prove the Popes universal Authority Therefore Sim. Vigorius ingeniously confesseth Comento ad Res Syn. Conc. Bas p. 36. that when the Western Fathers call the Roman Bishops Bishops of the universal Church they do it from the custom of their Churches not that they look on them as universal Bishops of the whole Church but in the same sence that the Patriarchs of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem are called so or as they are universal over the Churches under their own Patriarchate or that in Oecumenical Councils they preside over the whole Church and after acknowledgeth that the Title of universal or oecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy It is too evident that that humble Pope Gregory seems to glorifie himself while he so often mentions that offer of the Title of Vniversal and his refusing of it and inveighing against it and that these were Engines used by him to deprive others of the same Title if not to advance his own See to the power signified by it though if he did indeed design any such thing it is an argument that he was ashamed openly to claim or own it while he rails against the Title in the effects of it which depended upon the power it self as such an abominable thing However if the Council of Calcedon did indeed offer or only record that Title to Gregory it is more than manifest
it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the Authority of the whole Church or any more than that qualified sence of Vigorius before mentioned because other Patriarchs had the same Title and we see no reason to believe that that Council intended to subject themselves and all Patriarchs to the Authority of the Western Pope contrary to their great design of advancing the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome as appears by their 16 Sess Can. 28. and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo. Thus the bare Title is no Argument and by what hath been said touching the grandure of the Roman Empire and the answerable greatness and renown of the Roman Church frequent recourse had unto it from other Churches for counsel and assistance is of no more force to conclude her Supremacy nor any matter of wonder at all Experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in all cases not only a renowned Lawyer Physician but Divine shall have great resort and almost universal addresses An honest and prudent Countryman shall be upon all Commissions the Church of Rome was then famous both for Learning Wisdom Truth Piety and I may add Tradition it self as well as greatness both in the eye of the world and all other Churches and her Zeal and care for general good keeping peace and spreading the grace of the Gospel was sometimes admirable And now no wonder that Applications in difficult cases were frequently and generally made hither which at first were received and answered with Love and Charity though soon after the Ambition of Popes knew how to advance and hence to assume Authority From this we see it was no great venture Iren. l. 3. c. 3. how ever A. C. Term it for Arch-Bishop Laud to grapple with the Authority of Irenaeus who saith to this Church meaning Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique should have recourse in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata estâ—ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio His Lordship seems to grant the whole Rome being then the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Authority than any other yet not the Head of the Church Vniversal this may suffice without the pleasant criticizing about undique with which if you have a mind to be merry you may entertain your self in Dr. Still p. 441. c. But indeed A. C. is guilty of many Mistakes in reasoning as well as criticizing he takes it for granted that this Principality is attributed by Irenaeus here to Rome as the Church not as the City 2. That the necessity arising hence was concerning the Faith and not secular Affairs neither of which is certain or in likelihood true vid. Dr. Still p. 444. Besides if both were granted the necessity is not such as supposeth Duty or Authority in the faithful or in Rome but as the sense makes evident a necessity of expedience Rome being most likely to give satisfaction touching that Tradition about which that dispute was Lastly the Principality here implies not proper Authority or Power to decide the Controversie one kind of Authority it doth imply but not such as A. C. enquired for not the Authority of a Governor but of a Conservator of a Conservator of that Truth that being made known by her might reasonably end the quarrel not of an absolute Governour that might command the Faith or the Agreement of the Dissenters This is evident 1. Because the Dispute was about a matter of Fact whether there was any such Tradition or not as the Valentinians pretended 2. Because Irenaeus refers them to Rome under this reason conservata est the Apostolical Traditions are kept there being brought by the faithful undique thither and therefore brought thither because of the more Principality of the City all persons resorted thither Lastly It is acknowledged that Pope Gregory Obj. Eph. 65. ind 2. doth say that if there be any fault in Bishops it is subject to the Apostolical See but when their fault doth not exact it that then upon the account of Humility all were his Equals Indeed this smells of his ambition and design Sol. before spoken of but if there be any truth in it it must agree with the Canon Saint Gregory himself records and suppose the faulty Bishop hath no proper Primate or Patriarch to judge him also with the proceeding then before him and suppose Complaint to the Emperor and the Emperor's subjecting the Cause to the Apostolical See as that Cause was by Saint Gregory's own Confession However what he seems here to assume to his own See he blows away with the same breath denying any ordinary Jurisdiction and Authority to be in that See over all Bishops while he supposes a fault necessary to their subjection and that while there is no fault all are equall which is not true where by a lawful standing ordinary Government there is an eternal necessity of Superiority and Inferiority But of this I had spoken before had I thought as I yet do not that there is any weight or consequence in the words Further Evidence that the Ancient Popes themselves though they might thirst after it did not believe that they were Vniversal Bishops and Monarks over the whole Church and that they did not pretend to it in any such manner as to make the World believe it I say further evidence of this ariseth from their acknowledged subjection to the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical Affairs Pope Leo begged the Emperor Theodosius with tears that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would Command not permit a Council to be held in Italy that sure was not to signifie his Authoritative desires That Instance of Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the Emperor is as pertinent as the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with praise we admire your Conc. Tom. 5. p. 60. E. F. purpose well pleasing to God not to the Pope and for these Commands of yours we are rejoyced and with groans give thanks to God and many such Doctor Hammond saith might be afforded Pope Gregory received the power of hearing and determining Causes several times as he himself confesseth from the Emperor as we shewed before Hence Pope Eleutherius to King Lucius you are the Vicar of Christ the same in effect which is contained in the Laws of Edward the Confessor And Pope Vrban the Second entertained our Arch-bishop Anselm in the Council of Bar with the Title of the Pope of another World or as some relate it the Apostle of another World and a Patriarch worthy to be reverenced Malm. pro. ad lib. de gest pont Angl. Now when the Bishops of Rome did acknowledge that the Civil Magistrate had power to command the assembling of general Councils and to command Popes themselves to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes when they acknowledged the King of England
the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced Now what can the Reader desire to put an eternal end to this Controversie and consequently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age but an account of the Judgment of this Council when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons on which the point depended out of the East This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celastine who succeeded Boniface and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet who searcheth R. ac p. 410 411. all things to the bottom hath transcribed it at large as a worthy Monument of Antiquity and of very great light in the present Controversie To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole and only note some few expressions to the purpose We say they humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice For if this be taken care for as to the inferior Clergy and Laity how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans for they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an universal Council Or how can a Judgment made beyond the Sea be valid to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason c. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that Council of Nice we cannot find it in the truest Copies sent by holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ and concerning our brother Faustinus Apiarius being cast out we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing Africa shall no more be troubled with him This is the sum of that famous Epistle the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council The Canons determine against the Pope and from the whole story 't is inferred evidently 1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth his Jurisdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice and that all the Laity and Clergy too except Bishops that lived beyond the Seas and consequently in England were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council 2. Pope Boniface even then when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the African Fathers pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome but the allowance of the Council of Nice no tu es Petrus then heard of 3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church 4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fallible and actually mistaken both to his own power and sense of the Council Proving substantially that neither Authority from Councils nor any foundation in Justice Equity or order of Government or publick Conveniency will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases All these things lye so obviously in prejudice both of the Popes Possession and Title as universal Pastor at that time both in his own the Churches sence that to apply them further would be to insult which I shall forbear seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess there are some hard things in this Epistle And Perron hath hereupon exposed his Wit with so much sweat and so little purpose but his own Correction and Reproach as Dr. Still notes Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance that the sence of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council to be against the Popes Supremacy and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it and a further consequence to our purpose is that then the Catholick Church did not universally own it i. e. the Popes Supremacy then had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church For as A. C. p. 191. maintains the Africans notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage were always in true Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended Separation And Caelestine himself saith that St. Augustine one of those Fathers lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church SECT IX The Conclusion touching Possession Anciently VVE hope it is now apparent enough that the Popes Supremacy had no possesion in England from the beginning or for the first six hundred years either de facto or in fide Our Ancestors yielded not to it they unanimously resisted it and they had no reason to believe it either from the Councils or practice of the Church or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law or the very sayings of the Popes themselves Thus Sampson's Hair the strength and Pomp of their best Plea is cut off The foundation of the Popes Supremacy is subverted and all other pleas broken with it If according to the Apostles Canons every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning to be ackonwledged by them under God And according to a general Council all such Heads should hold as from the beginning there can be no ground afterwards for a lawful possession to the contrary If tu es Petrus pasce Oves have any force to maintain the Popes Supremacy why did not the ancient Fathers the Authors of those Canons see it Why was not it shewn by the Popes concerned in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun and had not yet laid their Foundation Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it when general Councils abroad laid restraints upon it and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it Indeed both Antiquity Universality and Tradition it self and all colour of Right for ever fails with possession For Possession of Supremacy afterwards cannot possibly have either a divine or just Tâ—â— but must lay its Foundation contrary to Gods Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber our Adversaries being Judges He invades others Provinces and is bound to Restore And long Possession is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church However it be with the secular Powers Christs Vicar must certainly derive from him must hold the power he gave must come in it at his door And S. W. himself P. 50 against Dr. Hammond fiercely affirmeth That Possession in this
we ought to submit our selves to the guidance of the Pope as a good and wise man or as a Friend as our Ancestors did and not as our Lord. The true Question is whether God hath given the power of Government to the Pope and directly appointed him to be the Vniversal Pastor of his Church on Earth so that the Controversie will bear us down to the last Chapter what ever can be said here and Infallibility is such a Medium as infallibly runs upon that Solicism of Argument obscurum per obscurius and indeed if there be any inseperable Connexion betwixt Infallibility and the Vniversal Pastorship as is pretended the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor under Christ then there is no necessity that any one man should be qualified for it with this wonderful grace of Infallibility But it doth not appear that God hath invested any one man with that Power therefore not with that Grace But least this Great Roman Argument should suffer too much let us at present allow the Consequence but then we must expect very fair Evidence of the Assumption viz. that the Pope is indeed Infallible I am aware that there are some vexing Questions about the Manner and Subject of this Infallibility but if we will put them out of the way then the Evidence of the Pope's or Church of Rome's Infallibility breaks out from three of the greatest Topicks we can desire Scripture Tradition and Reason let them be heard in their Order SECT I. Argument from Scripture for Infallibility viz. Example High Priest of the Jews Apostles VVHether it be an excess or defect of Charity in me I know not but I cannot bring my self to believe that the fiercest Bigot of Popery alive can seriously think the Pope Infallible in the Popish Sence of the Word especially that the holy Scriptures prove it I know that some flie the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible 't is so as it is Representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other and how shall that which is Common to all give power to one over all or what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch But the Pope is the Head and Universal Bishop as he is Bishop of Rome that is begging a great question indeed for the proof of the Pope's Infallibility which his Infallibility ought to prove and to prove the Medium by the thing in question after a new Logick Besides if the proper Seat of Infallibility be the Church in either of the Sences it concerns our Adversaries to solve Divine Providence who use to argue for this wonderful gift in the Church if there be no Infallibility God hath not sufficiently provided for the safety of Souls and the Government of his Church for seeing the Church diffusive cannot be imagined to govern it self but as Collected and seeing as the Christian World is now circumstantiated it is next to impossible we should have a General and free Council how shall this so necessary Infallible Grace in the Church be exerted upon all occasions for the Ends aforesaid It is therefore most Consonant to the Papal Interest and Reason to lodge this Infallible gift in the Pope or Court of Rome however let us attend their Arguments for the evidence of it either in the Pope or Court or Church of Rome in any acception which is first drawn from Scripture both Examples and Promises 1. From Scripture Examples they reason Arg. thus the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Low were Infallible therefore the Pope and his Clergy are so now the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Law were so as appears Deut. 17. 8. where in doubts the people were bound to submit and stand to their Judgment which supposeth them Infallible in it as A. C. argues with Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 97. n. 1. Dr. Stillingfleet with others hath exposed this Ans Argument beyond all reply In short the Consequence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the proof of Infallibility viz. That the Pope is High-Priest of the Christian Church and we must still expect an Argument for the Popes Headship if this must be granted that we may prove him Infallible to the end we may prove his Headship Were it said to the Christian Church when any Controversie of Faith ariseth go to Rome and there enquire the judgment of the Bishop and believe his determinations to be Infallible there had been no need of this consequence but seeing we read no such thing the consequence is worth nothing Besides the minor affirming the Infallibility Minor of the High-Priest from that Law of Appeale in Deut. 17. 8. is justly questioned There was indeed an obligation on the Jews to submit and stand to the judgment of that high Court but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgment Infallible The same obligation lies upon Christians in all judiciary Causes especially upon the last Appeal to submit in our practices though not in our judgment or Conscience to believe that what is determined to be Infallibly true A violence that neither the whole world nor a mans self can sometimes do to the Reason of a man The Text is so plain not to concern matters of Doctrine to be decided whether true or false but matters of Justice to be determined whether right or wrong that one would think the very reading of it should put an end for ever to this debate about it The words are viz. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea and between Stroke and Stroke being matters of Controversie within thy Gates Then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the Place which the Lord thy God shall chuse c. Thus God established a Court of Appeals a Supreme Court of Judicature to which the last application was to be made both in case of Injury and in case of Difficulty called the great Sanhedrin But note here is no direction for address to this Court but when the case had been first heard in the lower Courts held in the Gates of the Cities Therefore the Law concerned not the momentous Controversies in Religion which never came under the Cognizance of those inferior Courts Therefore it is not said whosoever doth not Deut. 17. â—2 believe the Judgment given to be true but whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it And the man that will not hearken but do presumptuously even that man shall die Besides God still supposeth a possibility of Error in the whole Congregation of Israel Lev. 4. 15. and chargeth the Priests with Ignorance and forsaking his way frequently by the Prophets But alas where was the Infallibility of the High-Priest c. when our
blessed Saviour was condemned by him and by this very Court of the Sanhedrin And when Israel had been for a long season without the true God without a 2 Cr. 15. 3. Teaching Priest and without Law Vid. Dr. Still p. 239 c. 2. It is also argued from that Example of Ar. 2. Example N. T. rhe Apostles under the New Testament that they were assisted with an Infallible Spirit and there is the same reason for the Pope But this Ans is to dispose Gods Gifts and Wisdom by our own Reason The Apostles Infallibility attested with Miracles was necessary to the first Plantation and State of the Church and it no more followeth that therefore the succeeding Bishops must be infallible because they were so than that because Moses wrought miracles for the confirmation of the Law therefore the Sanhedrin should work Miracles for the ordinary Government of Israel according to the Law Besides what reason can be given why this priviledge of Infallibility should be entailed upon the Bishops of Rome more than other Bishops who succeeded the Infallible Apostles as well as the Pope What ground hath he to claim it more than they Or if they have all an interest in it what becomes of the Argument that the Pope is the universal Head and Governor of the Church because he is Infallible SECT II Arg. 2. From the Promises of Infallibility GOd hath promised that his Church shall be preserved which Promise engageth his Infallible Ar. 2. Assistance Therefore the Church by that assistance is always Infallible To this mighty purpose A. C. reasons with A. B. Laud. God will certainly and Infallibly have a Church therefore that Church shall not only Ans be but be Infallible in all her decrees de fide Is not this strong Reason God is Infallible therefore his Church is so a Church shall continue therefore it shall not Err Pray what Security doth the promise of the Churches Perpetuity or Infallibility as to Fundamentals give to any single Person or particular Church that they shall continue in the Christian Faith more than it did to seven Churches in Asia And where are they now The Argument will conclude as well God hath promised his Church shall ever exist upon Earth therefore Christians of which the Church consists shall never dye as well as never fall away For if the Promise be made to the Present Church in the Romanists sence it is made to the Individuals that make the Church 2. And that every particular Christian as well as every particular Church having an equal common interest in the promise of assistance is infallible If we should grant the Vniversal Church to be Infallible not only as to her Perpetuity but her Testimony which the Argument reacheth not yet it rests to be proved that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and then that the Pope is the Church of Rome in the same sence that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and that in the same consideration as the Catholick Church is Infallible But if we consider the particular Promises the Argument thence is so wide and inconclusive that one would think no considerate man could be abused by it These promises are such as concern the Apostles and Church in general or such as are pretended General to Apostles to dignifie St. Peter in special and above the rest Such as concern the Apostles and the Church Luc. 10. 16. Math. 28. 20. in general are these three He that heareth you heareth me c True while you teach me that is my Doctrine I am with you always to the end of the world True while you are faithful and teach whatsoever I command The Comforter Joh. 14. 16. the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever True also while you love me and keep my Commandments As the Condition is just before the Promise Now what are these Texts to the Pope or the Church of Rome in special They certainly that plead the Promise should not neglect the duty it were well if that was thought on The Popes special Friends insist on other promises more peculiarly designed as they would have them for St. Peter's Prerogative They are St. Peter these 1. The First is Math. 16. 18. Thou art Peter Text. and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it But what is this to St. Peter's Infallibility An. The Church shall not be overthrown therefore St. Peter is Infallible What 's this to the Popes Infallibility The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church therefore the Pope is Infallible Can God find no other way to preserve the Church but St. Peter's Infallibility and the Popes Infallibility Is this promise made to secure the Church under St. Peter and his Successors absolutely from all error How came St. Peter himself to Act. 1. 6. fall then by denying his Master and to err about the Temporal Kingdom of Christ And Popes to be Blasphemers Heretical Atheistical How came so many particular Churches that were under the Apostolick Chair if all were so at first to miscarry as those first Churches in Asia did But whatever is here promised to St. Peter is nothing to the Pope unless the Pope be indeed St. Peter's Successor and sit in his Chair the great point reserved for the last Refuge and shall there at large be examined The next Promise is Joh. 21. Peter feed my Text. 2. Sheep therefore the Pope is Infallible But must not others feed Christs Sheep and are they Infallible too 'T is acutely said that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the rest of the Apostles as extraordinary Ambassadors But doth this Text say so or any other Text How came it to pass that the ordinary Pastor should be greater than the extraordinary Embassadors How is it proved that this power of Feeding is Infallible only as in St. Peter or as such is transmitted to St. Peters Successor in a more peculiar manner than to the Successors of other Apostles And that the Pope is this Successor this must be considered hereafter their proof is not yet ready Another is Luke 22. 31. Simon Simon Satan Text. 3. hath desired to winnow thee but I have prayed that thy Faith fail not Viz. that thou perish not in Apostacy not that thou be absolutely secured from error nor thy pretended Successors And had not others the Prayer of Christ also Joh. 17. even all that should believe on him In a word what is this to the Pope that Peter should not utterly miscarry in the High-Priests Hall Unless it fignifie that the Pope may err grievously as St. Peter did though he hath no more the security of not failing in the Faith than every ordinary Christian hath But this trifling with holy Scripture provokes Rebuke and deserves no answer If any desire further satisfaction either upon these or other like Scriptures
urged for the P. 254. c. Popes or the Churches Infallibility let them peruse Dr. Stillingfleet in defence of my Lord of Canterbury and Mr. Pool's Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject CHAP. XVI II. Arg. For Infallibility viz. Tradition Concessions 4. Propositions 3. Arguments Objections Answered THat the difference may not seem wider than indeed it is we shall make way for our discussion of this Argument by a few but considerable Concessions 1. We yield that Tradition truly Catholick is Apostolical Truly Catholick that is in all the three known Conditions ab omnibus semper ubique For we cannot imagine that any thing should be believed or practised by all Learned Christians at all times and in all places as a point of Christian Religion that was not receiv'd as such either from Christ himself or his Apostles 2. We grant that Tradition hath been and ever will be both useful and necessary for the delivering down to the Faith of the Church in all succeeding Ages both the Canon of the Scripture and the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion The necessity hereof ariseth from the distance of Time and Place and must be supposed upon the Succession of Generations in the Church after the removal of the first Preachers and Writers and consequently the first deliverers thereof 3. We need not stick to agree that Tradition is Infallible if we abuse not the term too rigidly in conveying and preserving the substance of Religion which I was much enclined to believe before and am now much encouraged to express after I had read the learned and ingenious book of the Several ways of resolving Faith he concludes p. 129. the Necessaries to Salvation should ever fail to be practically transmitted from Generation to Generation is alike impossible as that multitudes of People should not in every Age be truly desirous of their own and their Posterities everlasting happiness seeing it is a thing both so easie to be done and so necessary to Salvation By the substance of Christian Religion I mean the Credenda and the Agenda or as he doth the Creed the Lords Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Two Sacraments 4. We may for ought I see to the contrary Gratifie the Author of Rushworth's Dialogues and the Abettors of that late new found Tradition of the present Church of Rome For every Church of Christ as such hath possession of the substance of Christian Religion and without it cannot be a Church And I am sure by this Concession the great Argument for Tradition is allowed and we are so far agreed in a main point I am troubled we must now differ but our Propositions shall be such as none that have weighed Antiquity can well doubt of them We affirm that whatsoever matter of Faith 1 Prop. or Practice is not derived from the first hands by Tradition Catholick as explained in the first Concession is not necessary to Salvation For 't is agreed if it were it would have been preserved by Tradition But it is against all Sence to believe that 2 Prop. Tradition is sufficient to secure us from all Additions to the first Faith or Additions and Alterations in Ceremonies and Worship or any thing that is not necessary to Salvation and herein indeed lies the Controversie for if Midwifes Nurses Parents and Tutors have as it is said Tradition in their hands and hold themselves obliged not to poyson little Babes as soon as they can receive Instructions accordingly and Tradition could not possibly admit or deliver any thing but what is necessary to salvation it were not possible for any Error to obtain in the Church or with any one Party or even Member of it but truth would be equally Catholick with Tradition and then Charity will not suffer us to believe that the Jews that kept the Law should be guilty of any vain Traditions contrary to our Saviour's Reproofs or that there should be any such Parties as Hugonites and Protestants in the World or such various Sects in the Church of Rome it self or so many Successive Additions to the Faith and Worship of that Church as none may have the confidence to deny have happened Vincentius speaks very truly saith Rigaltius Observ in Cyp. p. 147. and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by Fools or Knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions and we add by zealously superstitious men or by men tempted as is evident they were about the time of Easter and Rebaptization in the beginning to pretend Tradition to defend their Opinions when put to it in Controversie It further follows that the Infallibility of 3 Prop. the Pope or Court of Rome or Church in Matters of Faith is no necessary Point of Faith because it is not delivered down to us as such by lawful i. e. Catholick Tradition this is the Point Now here we justly except against the Testimony of the present Oral Tradition of the Roman Church or Tradition revers'd because it cannot secure us against additions to the Faith It is no evidence that Tradition was always the same in that point it cannot bear against all Authentick History to the contrary That Popes and Councils and Fathers and the Church too have erred in their belief and practice is past all doubt by that one instance of the Communion of Infants for some hundred of Years together which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent Yea that there was no such Tradition of the Pope's or the Church of Rome's Infallibility in ancient times is as manifest by the oppositions betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches which could not consist with such Tradition or belief of it And for the Church of England had she owned such Tradition her ancient Bishops would not have contended with and rejected his Messenger St. Austin and his Propositions together Neither can any considering man imagine that the Tradition of the Popes Infallibility is Catholick or generally received and believed in the Church of Rome at this day 'T is well known many of their eminent men renounce it and indeed the Pope himself doth not believe it or he does not believe that all his Doctors believe it For if he does believe both why does he not make use of his Talent and put an end to all the scandalous broils and Ruptures occasioned by the Doctrinal differences and Disputes among the several factions of his Church and have peace within his own Borders But this admits no Answer 'T is said by the Romanist that Universal Traditions are recorded in the Fathers of every succeeding Age and 't is reasonably spoken It behoves him as to the present point to shew us in some good Authors in every age since the Apostles this Tradition for Infallibility then indeed he hath done something which ought to be done But till that be done we must adhere that there
differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have Remedy from any other a Remedy is indeed provided by the Canon Sin duo aut tres c. â—f two or three do contradict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not go to Rome but obtineat Sententia plurimorum let the major Vote carry it In the seventh Canon Custom and Tradition Can. 7. both are the Grounds upon which the Council confirmed the like priviledge of the Church of Hierusalem because Custom and Ancient Tradition ut Aeliae Episcopus honoretur let him have have the consequence of Honour with a Salvo for the proper Dignity of the Metropolis but not a word of Rome Note that in Can. 6. the Power of the Alexandrian Bishop is grounded upon Ancient Custom Antiqua consuetudo servetur and not upon the Concession of the Roman Bishop as Berlarmine would force it and that the like manner or Custom of Rome is but another Example of the same thing as Antioch was and the rest of the Provinces but this ungrammatical and illogical Evasion was put off before SECT III. Concil Constantinop Gen. 2. An. 381. THe next Council admired by Justinian as one of the Gospels is that Famous Council of Constantinople adorned with 150 Fathers Hath this made any better provision for the Pope's Supremacy certainly no for the very Can. 1. Bin. p. 660. Alter Editio Bin. p. 664. Can. 2. first Canon chargeth us not to despise the Faith of the 318 Fathers in the Synod of Nice which ought to be held firm and Inviolate The Second Canon forbids the confusion of Diocesses and therefore injoyns Secundum Regulas constitutas i. e. the Rules of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers to be kept the Bishop of Alexandria must govern them in Egypt only and so the rest as are there mentioned more particularly than in Nicene Canons In the Third is reinforced the Canon of the Can. 3. former Council against Ordinations by Bishops out of their own Jurisdictions and adds this Reason that casts no countenance upon any Forreign Jurisdiction 't is manifest that the proper Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things per quasque singulas Provincias within their peculiar Provinces secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita This third Canon honours the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Bishop of Rome as Binius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Binius is very angry that such a Canon is found there and urgeth many reasons against it and therefore Bin. To. 1. 672. we shall conclude that as none of the rest so neither doth this Canon confer the universal government of the Church upon the Bishop of Rome SECT IV. Concil Ephesin Gen. 3. An. Christi 431. THe third general Council whose Canons Justinian passed into Laws is that of Ephesus and this so far abhors from the grant that it is a plain and zealous contradicter of the Popes pretensions In Act the seventh 't is agreed against the invasion of the Bishop of Antioch that the Cyprian Prelates shall hold their Rights untouched and unviolated according to the Canons of the holy Fathers before mentioned and the ancient custom ordaining their own Bishops and let the same be observed in other Diocesses and in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province or subject it by force which formerly and from the beginning was not under his power or his Predecessors Or if he have done so let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not slighted nor Pride creep into the Church nor Christian Liberty be lost Therefore it hath pleased the holy Synod that every Province enjoy its Rights and Customs unviolated which it had from the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice repeated whereby we are to learn a very great Rule that the bounds of primacies were settled very early before this Council or any other general Council before this even at the beginning and that those bounds ought to be observed to the end according to the Canons of the Fathers and ancient custom and consequently that such as are invaders of others Rights are bound to make restitution Now 't is evident we were a free Province in England in the beginning and when St. Augustine came from Rome to invade our Liberties 't is evident this Council gave the Pope no power or priviledge to invade us Yea that what power the Pope got over us in after times was a manifest violation of the Rights we had from the beginning as also of the Canons of the ancient Fathers in the three mentioned sacred and General Councils of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus all grounded upon the ancienter Canons called the Apostles Lastly such Usurpers were always under the obligation of the Canon to restore and quit their incroachments and consequently the Brittanick Churches were always free to vindicate and reassume their Rights and Liberties as they worthily did in Hen. 8. SECT V. Concil Calcedon Gen. 4. An 451. S. W's Gloss THere is little hope that this Council should afford the Pope any advantage seeing it begins Canones c. with the confirmation of all the Canons made by the Fathers in every Synod before that time and consequently of those that we have found in prejudice to his pretensions among the rest The Ninth Canon enjoyns upon differences Can. 9. betwixt Clerks that the Cause be heard before the proper Bishop betwixt a Bishop and a Clerk before the Provincial Synod betwixt a Bishop or Clerk and the Metropolitan before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the See of the Royal City of Constantinople To the same effect we read Can. 17. Can. 17. Si quis a suo c. If any one be injured by his Bishop or Metropolitan apud Exarchum seu Primatem Dioceseos vel Constantinopolitam sedem litiget But Where is any provision made for Remedy at Rome Indeed that could not consist with the sence of this Synod who would not endure the Supremacy or so much as the Superiority of Rome above Constantinople This is evident in Can. 28 the Fathers gave Can. 28. priviledge to the See of old Rome Quod Vrbs illa imperaret eadem consideratione saith the Canon and for the same reason an hundred and fifty Bishops gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Priviledges to the Seat of new Rome recte judicantes rightly judging that that City that hath the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with old Royal Rome etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illa extolli ac magnifieri secundam post illam existentem Now to what purpose doth S. W. to Dr. S. W.'s Gloss Hammond trifle on the Canon and tell us that these Priviledges were only Honorary Pomps when the Canon adds in Ecclesiastical matters and names one the Ordination of Bishops and Metropolitans within themselves as before was declared by the divine
in the Council of Florence An. 1549. for the contrary is evident in that they would not yield that the Pope should choose them a Patriarch as Surius himself observes Tom. 4. p. 489. So true is it that Maldonate and Prateolus Mald. in Math. 10. 2. Prate in Haer. Tit. Grae. Vid. St. Aug. To. 2. Epist 162. acknowledge and Record the Greek Church always disliked the Supreme Dignity of the Pope and would never obey his Decrees To conclude the Law of the Greeks hath always been against the Pope's Supremacy the Fundamental Law was a prohibition of Appeals to Rome therefore that Church acknowledged no absolute Subjection to Rome 2. They excommunicate all African Priests Appealing to Rome therefore they held no necessity of Vnion with Rome 3. They excommunicate all such qui putaverint as should but think it lawful to Appeal to Rome therefore they had no Faith of the necessity of either Vnion or Subjection to the Church of Rome Enough to the Pope's prejudice from the Councils of all sorts we must in the foot of the account mind our Adversaries that we have found no colour for the pretence of a Grant from any one General Council of the Pope's Authority much less over the Church of England which their Plea from the Canons expresly requires at their hand For my Lord Bramhall with invincible Reason affirms We were once a free Patriarchate Independent on any other and according to the Council of Ephesus every Province should enjoy its Ancient Rights pure and inviolate and that no Bishop should occupy any Province which did not belong to him from the beginning and if no true General Council hath ever since Subjected Brittain under the Roman Court then saith he the case is clear that Rome can pretend no Right over Brittain without their own consent nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves We must expect therefore some better Evidence of such Grant to the Pope and such Obligation upon England by the Canons of some truly General Council and we may still expect it notwithstanding the Canons of Sardice which yet shall be considered for it is their faint colour of Antiquity SECT XI The Sardican Canons NO Grant from the Matter manner or Authority No Appendix to Council of Nice Zozimus his Forgery never Ratified nor thought Universal after contradicted by Councils THe Pope at length usurped the Title and pretended the Power of Supreme and the Canons in time obtained the Name of the Pope's Decrees but the question is what General Council gave him either Doctor Stillingfleet observes that nothing is more apparent than that when Popes began to pirk up they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the Church for what they did then their best and only Plea when nothing of Divine Right was heard of as Julius to the oriental Bishops Zozimus to the African and so others but still what Canons The Romanist against Arch-Bishop Laud argues Arg. p. 193. thus it was ever held lawful to Appeal to Rome from all Parts therefore the Pope must be Supreme Judge this saith he is evidenced by the Sardican Canons accounted anciently an Appendix to the Council of Nice this he calls an unanswerable Argument But it is more than answered if we consider Answ either the Matter or the Manner or the Authority of these Canons 1. The Matter said to be granted appears 1. For the matter of these Canons in the words themselves Can. 3. it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it seem good to you let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter and by those Bishops that are Judges Scribatur Julio Romanorum Episcopo and by the next Bishops of the Province if need be let the Judgment be revoked cognitores ipse praebeat But 1. here is no Grant so much as of Appeal only of a Review 2 'T is not pretended to be according to any former Canons 3. The Judgment is to be revoked by a Council of Bishops chosen for the purpose 4. The request seems to terminate in the Person of Julius and not to extend to his Successors for else why should it be said to Julius Bishop of Rome and not to the Bishop of Rome absolutely 2. The Manner of the Motion spoils all if Manner it please you did the Vniversal Pastorship then lie at the feet or depend upon the pleasure of this Council did no Canons evidence the Pope's Power and Right till then eleven years after the death of Constantine besides how unworthily was is said let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter did the Pope's Succession of Saint Peter depend upon their pleasure too 3. But lastly the main exception is against the Authority of this Council or at least of Authority this Canon as Cusanus questions Concord Cathol lib. 2. c. 15. 1. 'T is certain they are no Appendix to the No Appendix to Nice Can. Council of Nice wherein their strength is pretended to consist though Zozimus fraudulently sent them under that Name to the African Bishops which can never be excused for they are now know to have been made twenty two years after that Council Upon that pretence of Zozimus indeed a Zozimus's Forgery Temporary Order was made in the Council of Africk that Appeals might be made to the Pope till the true Canons of Nice were produced which afterwards being done the Argument was spoiled and that Pope if possible was put to shame hereupon that excellent Epistle was written to Pope Caelestine of which you had account before 2. This Council was never ratified by the Reception Not received of the Catholick Church for the Canons of it were not known by the African Bishops when Zozimus sent them and Saint Augustine discredits them saying they were made by a Synod of Arrians 3. It is evident that this Council was never Or thought Universal accounted truly Vniversal though Constance and Constantius intended it should be so for but seventy of Eastern Bishops appeared to three hundred of the Western and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew from the other and decreed things directly contrary to them So that Balsomon and Zonarus as well as the Elder Greeks say it can only bind the Western Churches and indeed it was a long time before the Canons of it were received in the Western Church which is the supposed reason why Zozimus sent them as the Nicen and not as the Sardican Canons 4. After the Eastern Bishops were departed there were not Patriarchs enough to make a General Council according to Bellermine's De Conc. L. ◠c. 17. own Rule Consequently Venerable Bede leaves it out of the Number the Eastern Churches do not reckon it among their Seven nor the Western among their Eight first General Councils The English Church in their Synod at He difield An. 680. left it out of their Number and embrace only the Council of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of
Ephesus the first and second of Calcedon to this day Therefore Arch-Bishop Bramhall had reason to say that this Council was never incorporated into the English Laws and consequently hath no force in England especially being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon a Fundamental Law of this Land all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and from him to the King to give order for Redress But to wipe away all colour of Argument what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters 't is certain they have none in this matter of Appeals for as to this Point the undoubted General Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province or a Council as hath been made to appear When I heare any thing of moment urged from any other Council as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope I shall consider what may be answered till then I think there is an end of his Claim Jure humano either by a Civil or Canonical Grant by Emperors or General Councils So much hath been said against and so little to purpose for the Council of Trent that I shall excuse my self and my Reader from any trouble about it But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received Epist Synod Conc. Basil by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures and deposed three Popes at a time The words of the Council are remarkable The Pope is subject to a general Council as well in matters of Faith as of manners so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed To say this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing if that Martin were Pope because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree But indeed the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed as appears in the History CHAP. XX. Of the Popes Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is last Refuge THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome sleight all that hath been said and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question Whether the Pope be universal Monarch or Bishop of the whole Church as St Peter's Successor Jure divino But if this point be so very plain may I have leave to ask why was it not urged sooner why were lesser inconsistent Pleas so long insisted on why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day The truth is if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds as no longer to be defended And yet give me leave to observe that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest and the least able to secure them which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause However they mightily labour to support it by these two Pillars 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical 2. That the Pope is the Monarch and both these are Jure divino But these Pillars also must be supported and how that is performed we shall examine SECT I. Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical by Divine Right Bellar. Reason Scripture BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go and no wonder if he have left it thin What solidity is in it we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture Not from Reason in 3 Arg. From Reason they argue thus God hath appointed Arg. 1 the best and most profitable Government for he is most wise and good but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable 'T is plainly answered that to know which is Ans the best Government the state of that which is to be governed must be considered the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church nothing is concluded 2. We believe that God hath the care of the World and not only of the Church therefore in his wise and good Providence he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government viz. under one universal Monarch 3. Bellarmine himself grants that if particular Churches should not be gathered inter se so as to make one visible Political Body their own proper Rector would suffice for every one and there should be no need of one Monarch But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body but as particular Bodies are complete in themselves enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Oecumenical Church qua talis 4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way God is good and wise and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch when divided under the several secular Powers of the World though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God as best for it is Monarchical is not believed by all Catholicks The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm that Aristocratical Government is the best of all and most agreeable to the nature of the Church De Eccl. Polit. potest an 1611. 6. But what if we yeild the whole Argument as the government of the Church is Imperial 't is in Christ the Vniversal Monarch over it but he being in a far Country he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries by visible ministerial Monarchs or Primates proper to each The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power is given us in this very case by our Adversaries There is nothing unreasonable unpracticable or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere the World is wide enough for many Monarchs and the Church too The Argument concludes
for Primates over Provinces not for an universal Monarch either over the world or the whole Church 2. The Church cannot be propogated as Bell. argues without a universal Monarch to send Arg. 2 Preachers into other Provinces c. Who can doubt but that the Governors of any Ans Church have as much Power to send any of her members and have as much power in Pagan and Infidel Countries as the supposed Vniversal Bishop And if Hereticks can propagate their errors why should not the Orthodox the Truth without the Pope 3. 'T is necessary saith Bellar. that all the Arg. 3 faithful should have one Faith which cannot be without one chief Judge In necessaries they may in other things they Ans need not as appears sufficiently among the Romanists about this as well as other points neither could Peter himself with the help of the rest of the Apostles in their time prevent Heresies and Schisms These things are too weak to bear up the great power and Vniversal Monarchy pretended and indeed an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of Christ if he have not provided such a Government for his Church as they plead a necessity of for the said ends The thing next to be enquired 2. Not from Scripture Prophesies Promises Metaphors or Example of High-Priest They affirm that the Scriptures evince an universal Monarchy over the Church but how is it proved The Prophecies and Promises and sundry Metaphors Arg. of a House Kingdom Body Flock c. prove the Church to be one in it self and consequently it must have one Supreme Governor We are agreed that the Church is but one and that it hath one Supreme Governor And Ans we are agreed that Christ hath the Supreme Government of it and that those Scriptures too signifie that he is such if we consider the Government to be Imperial as Hart confesseth to Dr. Raynolds And thus the Argument passeth without any harm but it still rests to be proved that the ministerial Governor is but one or that the Scriptures intend so or St. Peter or the Pope as his Successor is that one Governor over the whole Church 'T is true as our Saviour saith there is one Flock and one Shepherd but 't is as true which he saith in the same place I am that good Shepherd but as that one principal Pastor had many Vicars not Peter only but 12 Apostles to gather and feed the Sheep who were therefore sent to Preach to all Nations And did as it said divide the World into 12 Provinces respectively So that one great Monarch might have many Viceroy's if we may so call the future Bishops to govern the Church though in Faith but one yet in site and place divided 'T is no unreasonable thing that the King of Brittain and Ireland should Govern Scotland and Ireland which lye at some distance from him by his Deputations as before was hinted There was one High-Priest over the Church of the Jews and by Analogy it ought to be so Arg. 2 in the Christian Church Many things were in that Church which ought Ans not to be in this They were one Nation as well as one Church and if every Christian Nation have one High-Priest the Analogy holds well enough The making the Nations of the World Christian hath as experience shews rendred the Government of the Church by one person that cannot reside in all places very inconvenient if not impracticable Now if our Saviour foresaw this and hath ordered the government of the Christian Church otherwise than Moses had that of the Jews who shall say What hast thou done 2. It can never be proved that the High-Priest Vid. Ray. and Hart. p. 240. over the Jews was either called the Judge or had such Power over that Church as the Pope pretends over the Christian Lastly 't is not doubted but Moses was Faithful and Christ as faithful in appointing a fit Government for these great and distinct States of the Church But what kind of Government Moses appointed is nothing to the question unless it appear that Christ hath appointed the same The proper question is whether Christ hath appointed that the Christian Church should be governed by one universal Monarch let us apply to that The great issue is the instance of St. Peter 'T is affirmed that our Lord committed the Government of the Christian Church to St. Peter and his Successors the Popes of Rome for ever A Grant of so great consequence ought to be Ar. 3. Peter very plain the whole World is concern'd and may expect Evidence very clear 1. That Christ gave this universal Supremacy to St. Peter And 2. To the Pope as his Successor if either fail Roma Ruit SECT II. Of St. Peter's Monarchy Tu es Petrus Fathers abused VVE are now come to the quick The first great question is Whether Christ gave his Apostle St. Peter the Government of his whole Church This would be proved from Matth. 1 Scrip. Matth. 16 18. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church The Argument is what Christ promised he gave but in these words Christ promised to make Peter the Supreme Head and Governor of his Church therefore this Power was given him If this Argument conclude by this Rock Ans must be meant St. Peter and the words I will build my Church upon it must signifie the committing the Supreme Power of the Church to him For the First It is at least a controversie among the ancient Fathers and many of them do deny that by this Rock we are to understand any thing but that Confession which was evidently the occasion of this Promise and was made by Peter just before as St. Cyril Hilary Jerom Ambrose Basil and St. Augustine whose Lapsus humanus in it is reproved by Stapleton Princ. doct li. 6. c. 3. But I am willing to agree as far as we may and therefore shall not deny but something peculiar to St. Peter's Person was here promised though I believe it was a point of Honour not a Supremacy of Power what that was will appear by the thing promised I will build my Church that is upon my Doctrine preached by thee I will build my Church thou shalt have the honour of being a prime and principal Author of the Worlds Conversion or as Dr. Reynolds against Hart Peter was in order with the first who believed P. 60. and amongst those First he had a mark of Honour in that he was named Stone above his Brethren Yet as he so the Rest are called Foundations and indeed so were in both these Sences For the Twelve were all Prime Converts and converters of others and were Foundations in their respective Provinces on which others were built But they were not built one upon another and they had no other Foundation on which they themselves were built but Christ himself We are willing to any thing that the Sence of the words will conveniently bear but that
they should signifie Power and Government over the whole Church and the rest of the Apostles we cannot understand for the Rock is supposed before the building upon it and the building before the Government of the house and the Government of the Church cannot tollerably be thought to be of the Foundation or first building of the Church but for the Preservation or Augmentation of it after its existence is supposed Perhaps there is ground to allow that Peter's Foundation was the first as his Name was first among the Apostles and that this was the reason of that Primacy of Order and Dignity which some of the Ancients in their writings Paul had the fame Primacy over Barnabas that Peter over Apost as St. Amb. in 2 ad Gal. acknowledged in Saint Peter but certainly there is need of a plainer Text to argue this Text to signifie that Supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church which is so hotly contended for by our Romish Adversaries to be given Saint Peter however after the Resurrection of Christ all were made equal both in Honour and Power as Saint Cyprian saith de Vnita Eccles But it is urged that the other Part of the 2. Script Matth. 16. 19. Promise is most clear to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven viz. the fulness of Celestial Power as Hart expressed it Our Answer is that Christ here promised no Answ more Power to Peter than he performed to all the Apostles Peter's Confession was made in the Name of all and Christ's Promise was made to Peter in the Name of all and nothing can be clearer either in the Text or in Fact The Text is plain both in it self and in the Judgment of the Fathers that Peter stood in the room of the rest both when he made the Confession and received the Promise Vid. St. Aug. in Joh. Tract 1 18. St. Ambr. in Psal 38. Jerom. adv Jovi li 1. Orig. in Math. Tract 1. Vid. Concor Cottrol l. 2. c. 13. Hilary de Trinit l. 6. c. Cardinal Cusan is plain in this Point also And that it did equally concern the rest of the Apostles is evident by the performance of it A Promise is of something de futuro our Saviour saith to Peter I will give thee the Keys but when did he do it and how did he do it Certainly at the time when he delivered those words recorded John 20. 21 23. And after the manner there expressed and by that Form of Words now are not those Words spoken by Christ equally to all the Apostles As my Father sent me so do I send you whose soever sins ye remit c. nothing plainer To say that Christ gave not the Keys to all but only the Power of remitting and retaining sins seems pitiful unless some other proof be offered that Christ did actually perform this Promise to Saint Peter apart and give him the Keys at some other time in distinction to the Power given in the 20. John to all together Remitting and retaining sins is certainly the Power of the Keys and so called by the Council of Trent itself Chatech in Sacram. Paenit and 't is not the keeping but the Power of the Keys is the question and indeed Bellarmine proves that the whole Power of the Keys and not a part only as Stapleton supposed was granted to all the Apostles in the Words John 20. to be the general interpretation of the Fathers in Prael Rom. Controv. 4. q. 3. de Sum. Pontif. Stapleton from Turrecrem distinguisheth betwixt From Turrecrem the Apostolick and the Episcopal Power and they grant that the Apostolick Power was equal in all the Apostles and received immediatly from Christ but the Episcopal Power was given to Saint Peter with the Keys and immediatly and by him to the rest This is a new shift else why is the Title Apostolical given to the Pope to his See to all Acts c. seeing the Pope according to the sineness of this distinction doth not succeed Peter as an Apostle but as a Bishop 'T is as strang as new seeing the Power of the Keys must as well denote the Episcopal Power of the rest of the Apostles as of Peter and the Power of using them by remitting c. was given generally and immediatly by Christ to them all alike This distinction of Turrecremata was as Reynolds against Hart sheweth spoiled before Relect. 2. de Potest Eccl. Doctor Stapleton new vamped it by two learned Friars Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus Victoria evidencing both out of the Scriptures that the Bibli Sanc. l. 6. annot 269 271. Apostles received all their Power immediatly of Christ and the Fathers that in the Power of Apostleship and order so the two Powers were called Paul was equal to Peter and the rest to them both Therefore this distinction failing another is invented and a third kind of Power is set up viz. the Power of Kingdoms and now from the threefold Power of Saint Peter Apostolatus Ordinis Regni it is strongly affirmed 1. Touching the Apostleship Paul as Jerom saith 1. In Com. ad Gal. was not inferior to Peter for he was chosen to preach the Gospel not by Peter but by God as Peter was 2. Touching the Power given 2. Advers Jovini ad Evag. in the Sacrament of Order Jerom saith well too that all the Apostles received the Keys equally and that they all as Bishops were equal in the degree of Priesthood and the Spiritual Power of that degree thus the first distinction is gone But thirdly touching the Power 3. Advers Jovin Luciâ— of Kingdom Saint Jerom saith best of all that Peter was chosen among the Twelve and made the Head of all that all occasion of Schism might be removed These are Phansies of the Schoolmen but where are they grounded we are seeking for Saint Peter's Supremacy in the Scripture where do we there find this Power of the Kingdom given him by Christ or what Ancient Father ever so expounded this Text of the Keys We grant many expressions are found in the Fathers in honour of Saint Peter Saint Augustine affirms his Primacy is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent Grace Saint Chrysostom calleth him the Mouth the Chief the Top of the Company Theodoret stiles him the Prince Epiphanius the Highest Saint Augustine the Head President and first of the Apostles which he proveth out of Saint Cyprian who saith the Lord chose Peter first and Saint Jerom saith he was the Head that occasion of Schism might be taken away and gives him the honour of great Authority all these were used by Hart against Raynolds To them all Doctor Raynolds gives cleer and satisfactory answers shewing largely that they signifie nothing but a Primacy of Election or Order or Dignity or Esteem and Authority in that Sence or a Primacy in Grace and Gifts viz. a Principallity or Chiefness in Worth or a
Primacy of Presidentship in Assemblies as the Mouth and Moderator or the Head of Vnity and Order as Jerom means but 't is not to be proved from any or all of these Encomiums that the Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under Saint Peter as their Governour or that he had any real Power given him by Christ more than they The Words of Saint Cyprian are plain and full albeit Christ saith he gave equal Power to 1. St. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. all the Apostles after his Resurrection and said as my Father c. yet to declare Vnity he disposed by his Authority the Original of that Vnity beginning in one no doubt saith he the rest were the same that Peter was endued with the like fellowship pari Consortio of Honour and Power but the beginning doth come from Vnity that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be but one Thus this Topick of the Fathers expounding the Text being found to fail another device and such a one as the very detection both answers and shames the Authors is fled unto viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers and to make them speak home indeed The place of Saint Cyprian just now set is a In Opusc Contr. Graec. very clear instance of this black Art allowed by the Popes themselves the place in the former Prints was as it is set down in the Roman-purged Cyprian is thus altered by addition of these words And the Primacy is given to Peter Again he appointed one Church and the Chair to be one and to make all sure the Antwerp Cyprian addeth conveniently Peter's Chair And then saith he who forsaketh Peter's Chair on which the Against Hart. Church was founded c. And by this time Peter's Primacy is the Popes Supremacy Vid. Dr. Rayn p. 210 211. But Tho. Aquinas hath dealt worse with St. Cyril Fathering a Treasure upon him which he never owned beyond all tolerable defence To the Grecians St. Cyril is brought in speaking thus Christ did commit a full and ample power both to Peter and his Successors The Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every Doctrine Peter and his Church to be instead of God and to him even to Peter all do bow by the Law of God and the Princes of the World are obedient to him even as to the Lord Jesus and we as being Members must cleave unto our Head the Pope and Apostolick See c. Now either St. Cyril said thus or not If he did who will believe him that shall make such Stories and Father them upon every Doctrine in the New Testament contrary to common sence and the knowledge of all or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers But if this Book called St. Cyril's Treasure be none of St. Cyril's as certainly it is not then though I am provoked I shall say no more but that we should weigh the Reasons but not the Authority of such a Schoolman especially in his Masters Cause 'T is certain the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's Treasure which are Extant as Hart acknowledgeth to Dr. Raynolds Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so hainous Ibid. a thing as Thomas committed against 600 Bishops even the General Council of Calcedon when he saith they decreed thus If any Bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome because we have Peter for a Rock of Refuge and he alone hath Right with freedom of Power in the stead of God to Judge and Try the crime of a Bishop according to the Keys which the Lord did give him calling the Pope the Holy Apostolick and universal Patriarch of the whole World Now in that Council there is not a word of all this and they answer Hereticks have rased it out if you will believe it but neither Surius nor Caranza find any thing wanting I shall only make this Note that seeing the Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the Power of their Master 'T is no wonder that their learned Adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such Judges but rather appeal to the true Canon and call for Scripture One would think this were enough but this Opinion of the equality of Power among the Apostles was not only the concurrent Judgment of the Ancients but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome even from these words Tues Petrus c. upon unanswerable Reason Lyra on Matth. 16. Durand a St. Porciano in 4 Cent. dist 18. q. 2. both in the 14 Cent. and Abulensis in the In Matth. 18. q. 7. In Matth. 20. q. 83 84. 15 Cent. the latter argues earnestly that none of the Apostles did understand those words of Christ to give any Supremacy to Peter for afterwards they contended for Superiority Matth. 18. and after that the two Sons of Zebedee desire it Matth. 20. and at the last Supper the question is put again Luke 22. Therefore he concludes they thought themselves equal till Christs death when they knew not which of them should be greatest Cusanus his contemporary de concord Cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and Fran. Victoria This was the interpretation of all the Doctors of Paris Bin. Conc. an 1549. and of Adulphus Arch-Bishop of Cologne and of the Bishops of his Province the Decrees of whose Synod with this interpretation were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth and enjoyned to be observed Thus the chief ground of St. Peter's Supremacy is sunk and there is little hopes that any other Text will hold up that weighty super-structure Another Scripture much insisted on for the 3. Joh. 21. 14 c. support of St. Peter's Supremacy is Joh. 21. 14 15 16. Peter lovest thou me feed my Sheep feed my Lambs Wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church 'T is answered this Text gives not any Commission Ans or power to St. Peter it gives him charge and Commandment to execute his Commission received before Now it hath appeared sufficiently that the Commission was given equally to all the Apostles in those words as my Father sent me so send I you c. so that the power of feeding and the Duty of Pastors was alike to them all though this Charge was given to Peter by name here with so many Items perhaps intimating his repeated Prevarications yet were they all sent and all charged with a larger Province than these words to Peter import Teach all Nations Preach the Gospel to every Creature are our Saviours charge to them all In the Apostolick Power all were equal saith Obj. Hart not in the Pastoral Charge We answer with a distinction allowed by Ans Stapleton of the Name Pastor 't is special and distinct from Apostle Some Apostles some Eph. 4. Pastors or general and common to all commission'd to preach the Gospel So Christ is called Pastor and all
the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest for Obj. he is charged to feed all the Sheep the whole Church Now the Rest of the Apostles were Christs Sheep and members of his Church Hart and Ray. p 129. Christ saith not to Peter feed all my Sheep Ans but he doth say to them all Preach to every Creature And if Peter have power over the rest because they are Sheep and he is to feed the Sheep then every one of the rest have power over Peter because he is a Creature and they are to preach to every Creature But this is trifling so is all that is further argued from this Text though by Feeding we understand Ruling Ruling of Pastors or what you will while whatsoever was charged on Peter here is within the same Commission wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally impowered as before and that of Bellarmine that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the Apostles as extraordinary Embassadors is altogether as groundless as if there were any colour of Reason that an ordinary Pastor should have more power than an extraordinary Embassador Dr. Hammond observes Bellarmine was not 13 Oct. 1562. the Author of that Artifice Cajetan and Victoria had used it before him and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent where the Bishop of Granada derided it and the Authors of it and soon after the Bishop of Paris expresly affirmed that Cajetan was about 50 years before the first deviser of it The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture as understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen as he affirmed Concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11. To conclude this matter Feed my Sheep are not a ground for the Popes Presidency which are found not to be so of Peter's above the body of the Universal Church as was publickly pronounced in the Covent of the Fryers Minors and appears by the Opusc of John Patriarch of Antioch And Cardinal Cusanus who lived at the same De Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 23. time makes them words of Precept not of Institution and both are agreeable to the interpretation of the Ancients St. Ambrose de dign Sacerd. c. 2. Aug. de Ago Christiano c. 30. Theoph. in Joh. c. 21 c. It is time to look further The third great Luk. 22. 31 place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being converted strengthen thy Brethren Whence Hart reasons thus Christ commands Peter to strengthen Rayn and Hart. p. 142. his Brethren and his Brethren were the Apostles Therefore he was to strengthen the Apostles and by consequence he must be their Supreme Head When Hart urged this Argument with all Ans his wit and might and Dr. Raynolds had made it evident there is no Authority given by the words nor carried in the word Strengthen that Equals and Inferiors are capable of it as well as Superiors much less can it necessarily imply a Supremacy over the whole Church he confesseth with Stapleton that Christ gave the Power to Peter after his Resurrection when he said to him Feed my Lambs which we have weighed before but those words of strengthning c. he spake before his death and did but futuram insinuaverat insinuate therein and as Harts word is that he would make him Supreme Head then if he did not make him so afterward he did it not at all That Peter had power over the rest of the 4 Scrip. Apostles would be proved as before from the Promise and Commission of Christ so at last by Act. 1. 25. Peter's Execution he proposed the Election of a new Apostle in the Room of Judas Therefore he was Speaker at least pro tempore Ans in the Assembly but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch But St. Chrysostom saith that though Peter's Obj. modesty was commendable for doing all things In Matth. 40. 51. by common advice and consent and nothing by his own Authority yet addeth that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him Ans In Matth. Hom. 15. by the rest a Primacy not a Supremacy Again he derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apostles not the donation of Christ as Hart Rayn Hart. p. 156. confesseth But indeed the Father exceeded in his Charity and 't is he that said that Peter might have chosen one himself The Scripture saith not that he might yea it saith he did not And the Argument from Peter's Execution of this power is come to this that he did not execute it Besides many Fathers and in Council too together with St. Cyprian pronounce that Peter proposing the matter to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice did according to the lessons and Precepts of God therefore jure divino they thought Peter had no such power as Dr. Raynolds shews p. 159. But when Peter had been heard all the Multitude 5 Scrip. Act. 15. held their peace and James and all the Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence What is this to prove his Supremacy because Ans the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him was therefore Gamaliel a Pharisee a Doctor of the Law whom all the People honoured Supreme Act. 3. 34. Head and Superior to the High-Priest and Council And if Jerom say Peter was Princeps Decreti he acknowledged perhaps the Reason the Motion and the Delivery or declaration of it principally to Peter the first Author of the Sentence as the same Jerom calls him and explains himself Epist 11. inter Epistol August So was Pro Cor. Balbo Tully called viz. Prince of Decrees when he was neither President nor Prince of the Senate We conclude that Peter had no Superiority of Power or Government over the rest of the Apostles or the whole Church because it neither was promised him nor given him nor Peter added Nihil doctrinae aut potestatis Aquinas Not inferior to the chief Apost 2 Cor. 11. 5. Executed by him notwithstanding Bellarmine's 28 Prerogatives of St. Peter from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue many of them being uncertain some vain and trifling and some common with the rest of the Apostles but neither divisim or conjunctim sufficient to make or to evince any real Supremacy of power in St. Peter 5. 'T is indeed said by some of the Fathers So Paul judged Chris Hom. 12. 2. 87. that the Government of the World and the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but it is plain they speak of his Apostleship for they say the same of Paul ille Solusgerebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orbis praefectam suscepit and the like of Timothy who was never reputed Vniversal Monarck Paul and Peter had two different Primacies Saint Hom. 1. ad Pop. Orat. 6. Con. Jud. Ambr. had the same Dignity Chrisost were
after St. Peter as their Pastor and Head according to their own way of Arguing 3. Besides St. Peter had power of casting out of Devils c. and doing such miracles as the Pope pretends not to do Lastly what if the Pope affirms that he is and others account him to be St. Peter's Successor the point requires the truth thereof to be shewn Jure divino SECT V. Arg. 3. St. Peter dyed at Rome Then de Facto not de Fide BEllarmine saith the Succession it self is Jure Arg. 3 divino but the Ratio Successionis arose out of the Fact of St. Peter planting his See and dying at Rome and not from Christs first Institution Then doubts quamvis non sit c. whether this Succession be so according to his own position fortè non est de jure divino but neither shews the Succession it self to be Christs Institution at all nor proves the Tradition of Peter on which he seems to lay his stress and we may guess why he doth not In short if the Succession of the Bishop of Rome Ans be of Faith 't is so either in Jure or in Facto But neither is proved Yea the contrary is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself Not in Right because that is not certo divinum as Bellarmine confesseth Nor in Fact because before Peter's death which introduced no change in the Faith as Bellarmine also confesseth this Succession was not of Faith Indeed it is well observed that the whole weight of Bellarmine's reasoning is founded in Fact then where is the Jus divinum 2. In such fact of Peter as is not found in Scripture or can be proved any way 3. In such Fact as cannot constitute a Right either divine or humane 4. In such Fact as cannot conclude a Right in the sence of the most learned Romanists Scot. in 4. dist 24. Cordubensis lib. 4. qu. 1. Cajetan de prim pap c. 23. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 1. a. 10. who contend that the union of the Bishoprick of the City and the World is only per accidens and not Jure divine vel imperio Christi But when the uncertainty of that Fact on which the Right of fo great and vast an Empire is raised is considered what further answer can be expected For is it not uncertain whether Peter were ever at Rome or whether he was ever Bishop of Rome or whether he dyed at Rome or whether Christ called him back that he might dye at Rome or whether he ordained Clement to succeed him at Rome Indeed there is little else certain about the matter but this that Peter did not derive to him that succeeded him and his Successors for ever his whole dignity and Power and a greater Authority than he had himself Jure divino But if we allow all the uncertainties mention'd to be most certain we need not fear to look the Argument with all its attendants and strength in the face Peter was Bishop of Rome was warned by Christ immediately to place his Seat at Rome to stay and dye at Rome and before he died he appointed one to succeed him in his Bishoprick at Rome Therefore the Bishops of Rome successively are universal Pastors and have supreme power over the whole Church jure divino Is not the cause rendred suspicious by such Arguments and indeed desperate that needs them and has no better SECT VI. Arg. 4. Councils Popes Fathers BEllarmine tells us boldly that the Primacy Arg. of the Roman High-Priest is proved out of the Councils the Testimonies of Popes by the consent of the Fathers both Greek and Latin These great words are no Arguments the matter hath been examined under all these Topicks Ans and not one of them proves a Supremacy of Power over the whole Church to have been anciently in the Pope much less from the beginning and jure divino especially when St. Augustine and the Greek Fathers directly opposed it as an Vsurpation A Primacy of Order is not in the question though that also was obtained by the ancient Popes only more humano and on Temporary Reasons as hath before appeared But as a learned man saith the Primacy of a Monarchical Power in the Bishop of Rome was never affirmed by any ancient Council or by any one of the ancient Fathers or so much as dreamt of and at what time afterwards the Pope took upon him to be a Monarch it should be inquired qno jure by what Right he did so whether by Divine Humane or altogether by his own i. e. no Right at all SECT VII Arg. 5. The Prevention of Schism St. Jerom. A Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Ar. 5. Schism as St. Hierom saith Now hence they urge that a mere precedency of Order is not sufficient for that The Inference is not divine it is not St. Hieroms Ans it is only for St. Peter and reacheth not the Pope Besides it plainly argues a mistake of Lib. 1. Jov. c. 14. St. Jerom's assertion and would force him to a contradiction For immediately before he teacheth that the Church is built equally on all the Apostles and that they all receive the Keys and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them all so that what Primacy he meant it consisted with Equality as Monarchy cannot Therefore St. Hierom more plainly in another Epis ad Evagr place affirms that wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome Constantinople c. Ejusdem meriti est ejusdem est Sacerdotii Again 't is neither Riches nor Poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower but they are all the Apostles Successors SECT VIII Arg. 6. Church committed to him ST Chrysostom saith the Care of the Church Ar. 6. was committed as to Peter so to his Successors Tum Petro tum c. therefore the Bishops of Rome being Successors of St. Peter in that Chair have the care and consequently the power committed to them which was committed to Peter True the Care and power of a Bishop not Ans of an Apostle or universal Monarch the commission of all other Bishops carried Care and power also But indeed this place proves not so much as that the Pope is Peter's Successor in either much less Jure divino which was the thing to be proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which followed in time and place not otherwise as before SECT IX Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrose Acacius THere is one Chair saith Optatus quae prima Arg. 7 est de Dotibus in which Peter sate first Linus succeeded him and Clemens Linus Optatus speaks nothing against the Title or power of other Chairs or for the preheminence of power in this one Chair above the rest He intended not to exclude the other Apostolical Seats from the honour or power of Chairs For he saith as well that James sate at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus as that Peter sate at Rome which Tertullian calls Apostolicas Cathedras all presiding in their own places De
and Caution in opposition to the force and detection and destruction of the hellish Arts and traiterous designs and attempts of Popery 8. I Conclude that if the precious things already mentioned and many more be in evident danger with the Return of Popery let us again consider our Oaths as well as our Interest and that we have the Bond of God upon our Souls and as the Conquerors words are we are Jurati Fratres we are sworn to God our King and Country to preserve and defend the things so endangered against all foreign Invasion and Usurpation i. e. against Popery Accordingly may our Excellent King and his Councils and Ministers may the Peers of the Realm and the Commons in Parliament may the Nobility and Gentry may the Judges and Lawyers may the Cities and the Country the Church and State and all Ranks and Degrees of Men amongst us may we all under a just Sense both of our Interest and our Oaths may we all as one man with one heart stand up resolved by all means possible to keep out Popery and to subvert all grounds of Fear of its Return upon England for ever Amen Amen Origen Cont. Cels l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is fit that the Governor of the Church of each City should Correspond to the Governor of those which are in the City Praesumi malam fidem ex Antiquiore Adversarii possessione Leg. Civil Ad transmarina Concilia qui putaverint appellandum a nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur Concil Milevitan THE OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND SUPREMACY The Oath of ALLEGIANCE I A. B. Do truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World that our Soveraign Lord King Charles is Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries And that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any Power or Authority to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdoms or Dominions or to Authorize any Foreign Prince to Invade or Annoy Him or his Countries or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give License or leave to any of them to bear Arms raise Tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties Subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do swear from my Heart that notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successors or by any Authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the said King his Heirs or Successors or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence or Declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty his Heirs and Successors all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against Him or any of them And I do further swear That I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever And I do believe and in Conscience am resolved That neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to be lawfully Administred unto me and do Renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and Swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sence and understanding of the same words without any Equivocation or mental Evasion or secret Reservation whatsoever And I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the true Faith of a Christian So help me God c. The Oath of SUPREMACY I A. B. Do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience That the Kings Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal And that no Foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Foreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities and do promise from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors and to my Power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preeminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So help me God◠and by the Contents of this Book THE END A Catalogue of some Books Reprinted and of other New Books Printed since the Fire and sold by R. Royston viz. Books Written by H. Hammond D. D. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament in Folio Fourth Edition The Works of the said Reverend and Learned Author containing a Collection of Discourses chiefly Practical with many Additions and Corrections from the Author 's own hand together with the Life of the Author enlarged by the Reverend Dr. Fell now Bishop of Oxford In large Fol. Books written by Jer. Taylor D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor Ductor Dubitantium or The Rule of Conscience in Five Books in Fol. The Great Exemplar or The Life and Death of the Holy Jesus in Fol. with Figures suitable to every Story ingrav'd in Coper whereunto is added the Lives and Martyrdoms of the Apostles by Will. Cave D. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or A Collection of Polemical Discourses addressed against the enemies of the Church of England both Papists and Fanaticks in large Fol. The Third Edition The Rules and Exercises of holy Living and holy Dying The Eleventh Edition newly Printed in Octavo Books written by the Reverend Dr. Patrick The Christian Sacrifice A Treatise shewing the Necessity End and Manner of receiving the Holy Communion together with suitable Prayers and Meditations for every Month in the Year and the principal Festivals in memory of our blessed Saviour in Four Parts The Third Edition corrected The devout Christian instructed how to pray and give thanks to God or a Book of Devotions for Families and particular persons in
most of the concerns of humane life The Second Edition in Twelves An Advice to a Friend The Third Edition in Twelves A Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Nonconformist in Octavo Two Parts Jesus and the Resurrection justified by Witnesses in Heaven and in Earth in Two Parts in Octavo new The Glorious Epiphany with the devout Christians love to it in Octavo new The Book of Job Paraphras'd in Octavo new A Collection of Sermons upon several occasions together with a correct Copy of some Notes concerning God's Decrees in Quarto Enlarged by Tho. Pierce D. D. Dean of Sarum The History of the Church of Scotland by Bishop Spotswood The Fourth Edition Enlarged Fol. Memoires of the late Duke Hamilton or a continuation of the History of the Church of Scotland beginning in the Year 1625. where Bishop Spotswood ends and continued to the Year 1653. Fol. new The Lives of the Apostles in Fol. alone by Will. Cave D. D. Chirurgical Treatises by R. Wisman Serjeant-Surgeon to his Majesty Fol. new Go in peace containing some brief directions for Young Ministers in their Visitation of the Sick Useful for the People in this state both of Health and Sickness In Twelves new The Practical Christian in Four Parts or a Book of Devotions and Meditations Also with Meditations and Psalms upon the four last things 1. Death 2. Judgment 3. Hell 4. Heaven By R. Sherlock D. D. Rector of Winwick In Twelves The Life and Death of K. Charles the First by R. Perenchief D. D. Octavo Bishop Cozen 's Devotions in Twelves The true Intellectual Systeme of the Universe the First Part wherein all the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is confuted and its Impossibility demonstrated By R. Cudworth D. D. Fol. new The Jesuits Loyalty manifested in three several Treatises lately written by them against the Oath of Allegiance with a Preface shewing the pernicious consequence of their Principles as to Civil Government Also three other Treatises concerning the Reasons of the Penal Laws viz. 1. The Execution of Justice in England not for Religion but for Treason 2. Important Considerations by the Secular Priests 3. The Jesuits Reasons unreasonable In Quarto New The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court wherein are represented the great Discouragements from Sinning which the Sinner receiveth from Sin it self To which is added the signal diagnostick whereby we are to judge of our own Affections and as well of our Present as Future State By Tho. Pierce D. D. Dean of Sarum and Domestick Chaplain to his Majesty the Fourth Edition in Quarto Les Provinciales The Mystery of Jesuitism discovered in certain Letters written upon occasion of the present differences at Sorbonne between the Jansenists and the Molinists displaying the pernicious Maxims of the late Casuists with Additionals in Octavo The Penitent Pardoned or a discourse of the Nature of Sin and the Efficacy of Repentance under the Parable of the Prodigal Son by J. Goodman D. D. Rector of Hadham In Quarto New To which is added a Visitation Sermon A Century of Select Psalms and Portions of the Psalms of David especially those of Praise turn'd into Meter and fitted to the usual Tunes in Parish Churches for the use of the Charter-House London By J. Patrick Preacher there in Octavo New THE END DUX MEA IN TENEBRAS ET GAUDIUM IN MEROREM VT PELLICANA IN DESERTO Nunquam CHRISTO Charior quam sub Cruce gemens Ecclesia LEGES ANGLIAE THE LAWFULNESS OF Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND Asserted and Vindicated In ANSWER to Mr HICKERINGILL's Late Pamphlet Stiled NAKED TRUTH the 2d Part. Gen. II. ult Naked but not ashamed By Fran. Fullwood D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent Majesty at the Sign of the Angel in Amen-Corner 1681. TO THE READER I MUST beg my Readers pardon that I have not chastised so spiteful an Adversary according to his merits and provocations for I verily want his Talent and dislike the Sport I confess that when a Divine of the Church of England who hath also a share in her Government when such a one shall be taken throwing dirt in the face of his Mother Fathers Brethren and his own Profession he cannot but expect to be lasht to purpose and to be told roundly that none but accursed Children and very fools would speak such Naked Truth Some Censors that observe his endeavours to make not only the Canons of the Church but the very Canon of Scripture it self to vail to the Law of the Land would charge him with the profaneness of Hobbs yea others that find him playing tricks and sporting according to his little wit with the very names of Canon Clergie Church and Church-men and scoffing at almost all that 's Sacred will take him to be at Hugh Peters's game and running his wretched race But while he damns the Presbyterians Independents and the Fifth-Monarchy together with the Church of England he tempts the Wits to produce thirty one reasons to prove he is something viz. a Papist notwithstanding his drollery and railery about Foppery and Popery Lastly For Pride Envy Wrath Malice Spite and Revenge some say he is a very Angel of Light and in somewhat more excellent for the Scriptures witness that the Devil himself spake many words both of truth and soberness and that he seldom or never speaks like an Atheist For my part I say nothing of him further than this That if others can find Truth in the man I cannot And though I am sure he lies open and naked enough yet I had never troubled my self to expose him had it not been to secure the Government and to preserve the Simple from being betray'd to the danger of the Laws by the insolent Rant of a pitiful Sophister THE PROEME The Contents of it 1. Power purely Spiritual of Divine Right 2. Emperors confirm'd Bishops-Canons 3. The force of our Canons not from Rome 4. Officers of our Courts 5. Magna Charta 6. The Authors Concessions 1. DIscoursing in the following Treatise of the Forensic Jurisdiction of this Church as Establish'd by the Law of the Land we had no direct or necessary occasion to speak of the Churches Power as purely Spiritual touching Preaching the Sacraments and Censures For this is certainly of Divine Right and was given to the Church by Christ himself with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and was accordingly exercised in the Apostles times and several hundred years after without the allowance of the Civil Magistrate and was also supposed allowed and admitted as such in our own Kingdom and by all the world even with their receiving Christianity without question or Alteration as is evident in all our Histories and indeed our own Laws exclude this purely Spiritual Power of the Keys from the Supremacy of our Kings except it be to see that Spiritual men do their duty therein 2. Neither doth it concern me to enquire what Power the Church
causes Testamentary 18 Edw. 3. 6. Synodals and procurations and pensions c. 15 Hen. 8. 19. Defamations 9 Edw. 2. 3. 1 Edw. 3. c. 11 c. all which are clear evidences that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was establish'd by the Statute-laws of this Realm and consequently did not depend upon was not derived from any foreign power before the 20 of Hen. 8. SECT IV. TO seek for the Original of our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Courts in the Statute-book is more than ridiculous seeing they both stood in a flourishing estate long before the beginning of that book and are among the number of the great things which were then secundum consuetudinem leges Angliae and are plainly establish'd in the Common Law of the Land by which they have stood and been practis'd ever since as we shall prove more fully anon 2. Magna Charta which is found first in the book of Statutes and is said by Lawyers to be Common Law i. e. shews us what is Common Law in this Kingdom begins thus We have granted and confirmed for us and our Heirs for ever that the Church of England shall be free and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties Inviolable Reserving to all Archbishops and Bishops and all persons as well Spiritual as Temporal all their Free Liberties and free Customs which they have had in times past and which we have granted to be holden within this Realm and all men of this Realm as well Spiritual as Temporal shall observe the same against all persons 3. Now what can any man that knows the practice of the Spiritual Courts before that time at that time and ever since imagine what is meant by the Liberties and Customs of the Church i. e. in the sence of Mr. Hickeringill and the words of Magna Charta Archbishops Bishops and all Spiritual men but the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the first and chief place And these by the great Charter are confirm'd for ever and the like confirmation hath been made by the many succeeding Kings and Parliaments in their confirmation of Magna Charta 4. Therefore I cannot but conclude that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being founded in the Common Law Magna Charta and the Statutes by so long practice beyond all Records is in the very Constitution of the Kingdom The great men of the Church having always had authority in the very making of Laws as they had before Magna Charta and been reputed as in the Statute of Eliz. one of the three States in Parliament and the Execution also of the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England SECT V. LASTLY All this is plainly confirm'd by ancient Ecclesiastical Canons which seems to be an Argument of great weight with Mr. Hickeringill as well as by the Ancient Laws and Customs of the Land In the Apostles Canons 't is ordained that every National Church should have its own chief or head and thence derive all Power under the Crown 'T is acknowledged against the Papists that we had our Arch-bishops and Bishops before the Vsurpation of the Pope We were anciently a Patriarchate independent upon Rome The four first Councils confirm'd the Apostles Canons and establish'd our ancient Cyprian priviledge Let after encroachments of the Pope be accordingly renounced as lawless Vsurpations Let us quietly enjoy our restored ancient priviledges and let ancient Custom prevail according to the Sentence of the ancient Councils in spight of all Papists and Hobbists CHAP. III. King Hen. 8. did not by renouncing the Power pretended by the Pope make void the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction neither was it void before it was restored by 1 Edw. 6. 2. IT 's somewhat difficult to make this Proposition than it is in its self more plain pray Mr. Wise-man where and by what words did Hen. 8. cut off as you say all those ordinary Jurisdictions Did that great Prince and his Parliament intend by any Statute then made to cut them off or not If they did intend it how came it to pass that they continued in their usual course of power and proceedings all the rest of his Reign which may be presumed to be near ten years Was that watchful Prince so asleep was the whole Kingdom so stupid so long a time to suffer such oppression by invasion of the Crown and the peoples Liberties by a company of Church-men now deprived of the Pope's assistance and without any power at all or were the Ecclesiastical Governours so desperate or careless as to lie under so much danger of praemunire neither desisting to act without power nor to sue for it 2. But perhaps though the King and Parliament did not intend it yet the words of the Statute express enough to dissolve and cut off all those ordinary Jurisdictions and no body could see through this milstone or tumble it upon the Churches head before Mr. Hickeringill was inspired to do it in a lucky time I will answer him with a story There was a certain Lord laid claim to a Mannor that was in another Lord's possession upon Trial it was found that the Plaintiffe had the Right of it and he that had had possession was thrown out and the other the Right Owner was as he ought to be put into the possession of the said Mannor but it was observed that though the Lords were changed yet the Customs and Courts and Officers were not changed at all but all things proceeded as before 3. Thus King Hen. 8. and his Parliament express'd themselves as if on purpose to our present case only that the Pope's power then was rather in a pretended claim than in possession as is evident from that notable Statute 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. where we have the Kings Supremacy first asserted with a body Politick of the Spiritualty and Temporalty every way furnish'd with Authorities and Jurisdictions to administer Justice to the whole Realm Thus the Imperial Crown fully accomplish'd throws off the pretence of the Pope as King Edw. Rich. and Hen. 4. had done before yet as they also did reserves as well the Spiritualty and its Jurisdiction as the Temporalty and its Jurisdiction Afterwards 4. The King doth by his Royal assent and by the assents of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons Assembled and by the Authority of the same Enact Establish and Ordain that all Causes Testamentary Causes of Matrimony and Divorces rights of Tithes Oblations and Obventions the knowledge whereof by the goodness of Princes of this Realm and by the Laws and Customs of the same appertaineth to the Spiritual Jurisdiction of this Realm shall be from henceforth heard examined discuss'd clearly finally and definitively adjudged and determined in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal as the natures of the controversie shall require 5. 'T is plain therefore that though Hen. 8. did cut off the Pope's pretence which is the great intention of that excellent Law yet the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was not dissolved but annex'd or declared to be annex'd to the Imperial Crown