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. Stillingsleet Rat. aâ— p. 424 425. gives many instances in 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 Iâ—p 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. Ep. 52. Naz. saith of Athanasius that he made Laws for the whole Earth And St. Basil writes to him 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 the Patriarch of Antioch saith that he was instructed Tom. 5. p. 631. Savil. 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 throughont 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 by a multitude of Testimonies making orbis Romanus R. ac p. 425 426. 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 out of the Roman Empire Barbaria as the same Dr. proves at large Therefore that Empire was Ibid. 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 of his City which was then the Seat of the P. 426. 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 the Churches the government as it were of the whole R. ac p. 426. body of the Church as Dr. Stillingfleet particularly shews But most clear and full to that purpose as he observes is the Testimony of Theodoret Tâ—â—od Haer. fab l. 4. â— 14. p. 2. 5. To. 4. oper 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 Comâ—â—â—o ad Res Syn. Coâ—â— 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 Occumenical 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
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 1. Argument from Scripture for Infallibility viz. Example High Priest of the Jews Apostles 1. 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 Arg. 1. From Scripture-Examples they reason 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. Ans Dr. Stillingfleet with others hath exposed this 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 of the High-Priest from that Law of Appeale in Minor 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 believe the Judgment given to be true but whosoever Deut. 17. 12. 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
in the Vatican there after he had planted a Christian Church first at Antioch and afterwards at Rome S. Hierom. Page 246. 247. S. Peter 's Martyrdom Ioh. 21. 18. 19. Verily verily I say unto thee when thou wast young thou girdedst thy self walkedst whither thou wouldst but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands another shall gird thee carry thee whither thou wouldst not This spake he signifying by what death he should glorify God 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 there-of to be shewn Jure divino SECT V. Arg. 3. St. Peter dyed at Rome Then de Facto not de Fide Arg. 3 BEllarmine saith the Succession it self is Jure 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 Ans In short if the Succession of the Bishop of Rome 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 divino vel imperio Christi But when the uncertainty of that Fact on which the Right of so 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 Arg. BEllarmine tells us boldly that the Primacy 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 Ans These great words are no Arguments the matter hath been examined under all these Topicks 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 an 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. Ar. 5 A Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism as St. Hierom saith Now hence they urge that a mere precedency of Order is not sufficient for that Ans The Inference is not divine it is not St. Hieroms it is only for St. Peter and reacheth not the Pope Besides it plainly argues a mistake of St. Jerom's assertion and would force him to a Lib. 1. Jov. c. 14. 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 Ar. 6 ST Chrysostom saith the Care of the Church 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 Ans True the Care and power of a Bishop not 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 Arg. 7 THere is one Chair saith Optatus quae prima est de Dotibus in which Peter sate first Linus succeeded him and Clemens Linus Optatus speaks nothing against the Title or power