therefore they sung at the Burial Return my soul to thy rest for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee And this he proves likewise from the Ancient Liturgies wherein prayers are made for all Saints Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs and others And S. Ambrose after he had said That Valentinian and Gratian were both blessed and enjoyed the pleasures of everlasting life and yet subjoyns his Orizons for them Thus he prayes for Theodosius of whom he had said That he enjoyes everlasting light and continual tranquillity And so for his Brother Satyrus when he had pronounced of him before That he had entred into the Kingdom of Heaven The same doth Gregory Nazianzen for his Brother Caesarius Now Is it possible you should think that Prayer for the Dead as used in the the Ancient Church doth necessarily inferr Purgatory when they who made these Prayers did suppose the persons they made them for to be at rest and in joy and in the Kingdom of Heaven And I hope that is a different state from that of Purgatory Therefore you see it is not barely proved that some different accounts are given of Prayer for the Dead but such as are exclusive of it and those such as appear from the eldest times of the Church when such Prayers were used Now having thus shewed for whom these Prayers were made he proceeds to shew of what kinds they were whereof he saith some were Eucharistical for the blessed estate of the party deceased others deprecatory and petitory that God would forgive him his sins keep him from Hell and place him in the Kingdom of Heaven which though at first well meant were turned to an ill use afterwards when these intercessions began once to be applied not only to the good but evil livers also unto whom by the first Institution they were never intended And he at large proves by very many examples that the primary Intention of the Church in her supplications for the Dead was That the whole man not the soul separated only might receive publick remission of sins and a solemn acquittal in the judgement of that great Day and so obtain both a full escape from all the consequences of sin and a perfect consummation of bliss and happiness And of this nature he shews afterwards were the Prayers of the Church used in Epiphanius his time which Aërius was condemned for rejecting of and he plainly proves that the Church of Rome comes nearer the Opinion of Aërius than they would seem to do For they agree with Aërius in rejecting that kind of praying and offering for the Dead which was used in the Church at that time which was for such as were believed to be in bliss For since the Romanists say That without the supposition of Purgatory Prayer for the Dead would be unprofitable and at that time the souls they prayed for are supposed to be already in bliss therefore they do as much condemn those Prayers for the Dead which were then used as Aërius did And it is very strange if the releasing of souls out of Purgatory had been any ground then of praying for the Dead that Epiphanius among all his far-fetcht Reasons should never assign that which you think to be the only proper ground of such Prayers Thus we see what was the general Intention of the Church in those Prayers which were made for the Dead and how far this was from inferring Purgatory But besides this there were several particular Opinions among the Ancient Fathers touching the place and condition of souls separated from their bodies and according to the several apprehensions which they had thereof they made different interpretations and applications of the Vse of praying for the Dead whose particular intentions and devotions in that kind must of necessity therefore be distinguished from the general intention of the whole Church Thus there were two Opinions much in vogue among many of the Fathers viz. of souls being kept in secret receptacles till the day of resurrection and the purging of them in the fire of conflagration at the day of judgement of which Opinion were not only S. Augustin but Origen Lactantius S. Hilary S. Ambrose and others Now according to these Opinions they interpreted the Vse of praying for the Dead And thence S. Augustin saith That the oblations and alms usually offered in the Church for all the Dead that received Baptism were thanksgivings for such as were very good propitiations for such as were not very bad but as for such as were very evil although they were no helps of the Dead yet were they some kind of consolations of the Living but this was only a private exposition of the Churches meaning in her Prayers because it is not to be found in the writings of the former Fathers and because it suiteth not well with the general practice of the Church which it intendeth to interpret For it is somewhat too harsh an interpretation to imagine that one and the same act of praying should be a petition for some and for others only a thanksgiving Some other private Opinions there were besides these as that of Theophylact That God did not alwaies cast grievous sinners into Hell but that the Prayers of the Church might keep them from being cast into Hell another That an augmentation of Glory might be procured for the Saints and either a total deliverance or a diminution of torment at least obtained for the wicked to which S. Chrysostom and others incline Besides there were different Opinions concerning the benefit which the Dead received by the Prayers of the Living For the Authour of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyrs work 's Gregory Nazianzen Theodoret Diodorus Tarsensis and S. Hierom all conclude that there is no release to the expected for the sins of those who were dead But others supposed the Dead might receive profit by the Prayers of the Living either for be remission of their sins or the ceasing of their punishment but they were not agreed as to the nature of the sins which might be pardoned or the manner of the benefit which they received whether their punishment were only lessened or at last extinguished And Stephanus Gobarus in Photius tells us That though some held these things yet the true sentence of the Church was That none at all was freed from punishment But that still this was a Question in the Church Whether the Dead received profit by the Prayers of the Living that learned Authour more at large proves but my design is only to give a very brief extract of his discourse that you may from thence see how far by the Intention of the Church in praying for the Dead you are from gathering the necessary belief of Purgatory And by this a full Answer is given to what you object concerning the practice of the Fathers to pray for the soul and not the body and that when we pray for them they receive ease comfort and
most part yet living These are your assertions and because you seek not to prove them it shall be sufficient to oppose ours to them Our assertion therefore is that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism by obtruding erroneous Doctrines and superstitious practises as the conditions of her Communion by adding such Articles of Faith which are contrary to the plain rule of Faith and repugnant to the sense of the truly Catholick and not the Roman Church by her intolerable incroachments and usurpations upon the liberties and priviledges of particular Churches under a vain pretence of Vniversal Pastourship by forcing men if they would not damn their souls by sinning against their consciences in approving the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God according to the rule of Scripture and practise of the Primitive Church and suspending Communion with that Church till those abuses and corruptions be redressed In which they neither deny obedience to any Lawful Authority over them nor take to themselves any other Power than the Law of God hath given them receiving their Authority in a constant Succession from the Apostles they institute no Rites and Ceremonies either contrary to or different from the practise of the Primitive Church they neither exclude or dispossess others of their Lawful Power but in case others neglect their office they may be notwithstanding obliged to perform theirs in order to the Churches Reformation Leaving the Supreme Authority of the Kingdome or Nation to order and dispose of such things in the Church which of right appertain unto it And this we assert to be the case of Schism in reference to the Church of England which we shall make good in opposition to your assertions where we meet with any thing that seems to contradict the whole or any part of it These and the like practises of yours to use your own words not any obstinate maintaining any erroneous Doctrines as you vainly pretend we averre to have been the true and real causes of that separation which is made between your Church and Ours And you truly say That Protestants were thrust out of your Church which is an Argument they did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of it and therefore are no Schismaticks but your carriage and practises were such as forced them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And it was not we who left your Church but your Church that left her Primitive Faith and Purity in so high a manner as to declare all such excommunicate who will not approve of and joyn in her greatest corruptions though it be sufficiently manifest that they are great recessions from the Faith Piety and Purity of that Roman Church which was planted by the Apostles and had so large a commendation from the Apostolical men of those first ages Since then such errours and corruptions are enforced upon us as conditions of Communion with you by the same reason that the Orthodox did very well in departing from the Arrians because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine will our separation from you be justified who first departed from the Faith and Purity of the Primitive Church and not only so but thrust out of your Communion all such as would not depart from it as farr as you Having thus considered and retorted your Assertions we come to your Answers Nor say you does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party by saying The cause of Schism was ours and that we Catholicks thrust Protestants from us because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses For first there can be no just cause of Schism this hath been granted already even by Protestants And so it is by us and the reason is very evident for it for if there be a just cause there can be no Schism and therefore what you intend by this I cannot imagine unless it be to free Protestants from the guilt of Schism because they put the Main of their tryal upon the justice of the cause which moved them to forsake the Communion of your Church or else you would have it taken for granted that ours was a Schism and thence inferr there could be no just cause of it As if a man being accused for taking away the life of one who violently set upon him in the High-way with an intent both to rob and destroy him should plead for himself that this could be no murther in him because there was a sufficient and justifiable cause for what he did that he designed nothing but to go quietly on his road that this person and several others violently set upon him that he intreated them to desist that he sought to avoid them as much as he could but when he saw they were absolutely bent on his ruine he was forced in his own necessary defence to take away the life of that person Would not this with any intelligent Jury be looked on as a just and reasonable Vindication But if so wise a person as your self had been among them you would no doubt have better informed them for you would very gravely have told them All his plea went on a false supposition that he had a just cause for what he did but there could be no just cause for murther Do you not see now how subtil and pertinent your Answer is here by this parallel to it For as in that case all men grant that there can be no just cause for murther because all murther is committed without a just cause and if there be one it ceaseth to be murther So it is here in Schism which being a causeless separation from the Churches Vnity I wonder who ever imagined there could be just cause for it But to rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwayes imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin but besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawful that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary For separation is not lawful but when it is necessary now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgement passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation if there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the Vnion of the Catholick Church lyes in Fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the
and by an Epistle of Pelagius 1. A. D. 555. it appears that the Bishops of Aquileia and Milan were wont to ordain each other which though he would have believed was only to save charges in going to Rome yet as that learned and ingenuous person Petrus de Marcâ observes the true reason of it was because Milan was the Head of the Italick Diocese as appears by the Council of Aquileia and therefore the ordination of the Bishop of Aquileia did of right belong to the Bishop of Milan and the ordination of the Bishop of Milan did belong to him of Aquileia as the chief Metropolitan of the general Synod of the Italick Diocese Although afterwards the Bishops of Rome got it so far into their hands that their consent was necessary for such an ordination yet that was only when they began more openly to encroach upon the liberties of other Churches But as the same learned Author goes on those Provinces which lay out of Italy did undoubtedly ordain their own Metropolitans without the authority or consent of the Bishop of Rome which he there largely proves of the African Spanish and French Churches It follows then from the scope of the Nicene Canon and the practice of the Church that the Bishop of Rome had a limited Jurisdiction as the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and other Primates had 2. That what Churches did enjoy priviledges before had them confirmed by this Canon as not to be altered For it makes provision against any such alteration by ordaining that the ancient Customs should be in force still And accordingly we find it decreed in the second Canon of the Constantinopolitan Council That the same limits of Dioceses should be observed which were decreed in the Council of Nice and that none should intrude to do any thing in the Dioceses of others And by the earnest and vehement Epistles of Pope Leo to Anatolius we see the main thing he had to plead against the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was that by this means the most sacred Decrees of the Council of Nice would be violated We see then that those priviledges which belonged to Churches then ought still to be inviolably observed so that those Churches which then had Primates and Metropolitans of their own might plead their own right by virtue of the Nicene Canon So we find it decreed in that Council of Ephesus in the famous case of the Cyprian Bishops for their Metropolitan being dead Troilus the Bishop of Constance the Bishop of Antioch pretended that it belonged to him to ordain their Metropolitan because Cyprus was within the civil Jurisdiction of the Diocese of Antioch upon this the Cyprian Bishops make their complaint to the General Council at Ephesus and ground it upon that ancient custom which the Niccne Canon insists on viz. that their Metropolitan had been exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch and was ordained by a Synod of Cyprian Bishops which priviledge was not only confirmed to them by the Ephesine Council but a general decree passed That the rights of every Province should be preserved whole and inviolate which it had of old according to ancient custom Which was not a decree made meerly in favour of the Cyprian Bishops but a common asserting the rights of Metropolitans that they should be held inviolate Now therefore it appears that all the Churches then were far from being under one of the three Patriarchs of Rome Antioch or Alexandria for not only the three Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thracia were exempt although afterwards they voluntarily submitted to the Patriarch of Constantinople but likewise all those Churches which were in distinct Dioceses from these had Primates of their own who were independent upon any other Upon which account it hath not only been justly pleaded in behalf of the Britannick Churches that they are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop but it is ingenuously confessed by Father Barns That the Britannick Church might plead the Cyprian priviledge that it was subject to no Patriarch And although this priviledge was taken away by force and tumult yet being restored by the consent of the Kingdom in Henry 8. time and quietly enjoyed since it ought to be retained for peace sake without prejudice of Catholicism and the brand of Schism If so certainly it can be no Schism to withdraw from the usurped Authority of the Roman Church But these things have been more largely insisted on by others and therefore I pass them over 3. From thence it follows that there was then an equality not only among the Patriarchs whose name came not up till some time after the Council of Nice but among the several Primates of Dioceses all enjoying equal power and authority over their respective Dioceses without subordination to each other But here it is vehemently pleaded by some who yet are no Friends to the unlimited power of the Roman Bishop That it is hardly conceivable that he should have no other power in the Church but meerly as Head of the Roman Diocese and that it appears by the Acts of the Church he had a regular preheminence above others in ordering the Affairs of the Church To which I answer 1. If this be granted it is nothing at all to that Vniversal Pastorship over the Church which our Adversaries contend for as due by divine right and acknowledged to be so by consent of the Church Let the Bishop of Rome then quit his former plea and insist only on this and we shall speedily return an Answer and shew How far this Canonical Primacy did extend But as long as he challengeth a Supremacy upon other grounds he forfeits this right whatever it is which comes by the Canons of the Church 2. What meerly comes by the Canons of the Church cannot bind the Church to an absolute submission in case that authority be abused to the Churches apparent prejudice For the Church can never give away her Power to secure her self against whatever incroachments tend to the injury of it This power then may be rescinded by the parts of the Church when it tends to the mischief of it 3. This Canonical preheminence is not the main thing we dispute with the Church of Rome let her reform her self from all those errours and corruptions which are in her communion and reduce the Church to the primitive purity and simplicity of Faith and Worship and then see if we will quarrel with the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome according to the Canons or any regular preheminence in him meerly in order to the Churches Peace and Unity But this is not the case between us and them they challenge an unlimited power and that by divine right and nothing else will satisfie them but this although there be neither any ground in Scripture for it nor any evidence of it in the practice of the Ancient Church But however we must see what you produce for it First
your Head of the Church as if they had been spoken by a Protestant against that Doctrine which you all own What is there in all this that implies that others should be no Bishops but only titular yes they may be as much Bishops as you acknowledge them to be i. e. as to their power of Order but not as to their Jurisdiction For this you say and defend comes from the Head of the Church or else your Monarchical Government in the Church signifies nothing Do not you make the Pope Vniversal Pastor of the Church in as high a sense as any of these expressions carry it And when St. Gregory urges so often That if there be such an Vniversal Bishop if he fails the Church would fail too Do you deny the consequence as to the Pope Doth not Bellarmine tell us when he writes of the Pope he writes de summâ rei Christianae Of the main of all Christianity and surely then the Church must fail if the Popes Supremacy doth And I pray now consider with your self Whether this Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over can satisfie any reasonable man Nay Doth it not appear to be so absurd and incongruous that it is matter of just admiration that ever it should have been given once and yet you are wonderfully displeased that his Lordship should bring this Objection upon the stage again But Do you think your Answers like your Prayers will do you good by being said so often over Indeed therein they are alike that they are both in an unknown tongue Your Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop being in this case no more intelligible than your Latin-Prayers to a Country Congregation These things being thus clear I have prevented my self in the second Enquiry in that I have proved already that the Reasons which St. Gregory produceth hold against that sense of Vniversal Bishop which you own and contend for as of right belonging to the Bishop of Rome Although it were no difficult matter to prove that according to the most received Opinion in your Church viz. that all Jurisdiction in Bishops is derived from the Pope which opinion you cannot but know is most acceptable at Rome and was so at the Council of Trent that that which you call the Literal sense doth follow your Metaphorical i. e. If the Pope hath Vniversal Jurisdiction as Head of the Church then other Bishops are not properly Bishops nor Christ's Officers but his For what doth their power of order signifie as to the Church without the power of Jurisdiction And therefore if they be taken only in partem solicitudinis and not in plenitudinem potestatis according to the known distinction of the Court of Rome it necessarily follows that they are but the Pope's Officers and are taken just into so much authority as he commits to them and no more And this Bellarmine proves from the very form of the Pope's consecration of Bishops whereby he commits the power of governing the Church to him and the administration of it in spirituals and temporals And you may see by the speech of Father Laynez in the Council of Trent How stoutly he proves that the power of Jurisdiction was given wholly to the Bishop of Rome and that none in the Church besides hath any spark of it but from him that the Bishop of Rome is true and absolute Monarch with full and total power and Jurisdiction and the Church is subject unto him as it was to Christ. And as when his Divine Majesty did govern it it could not be said that any of the faithful had any the least power or Jurisdiction but meer pure and total subjection so it must be said in all perpetuity of time and so understood that the Church is a Sheepfold and a Kingdom And that he is the Only Pastor is plainly proved by the words of Christ when he said He hath other sheep which he will gather together and so one Sheepfold should be made and one Shepherd What think you now of the Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop for the Only Bishop Are not the Only Bishop and the Only Pastor all one Will not all those words of St. Gregory reach this which any of you make use of to prove that he takes it in the worst and Literal sense nay it goes higher For Gregory only argues that from the Title of Vniversal Bishop he must be sole Bishop and others could not be any true Bishops but here it is asserted in plain terms that the Bishop of Rome is the only Pastor and that as much as if Christ himself were here upon earth and therefore if your Literal sense hath any sense at all in it it is much more true of the Bishop of Rome than ever it could be of the Patriarch of Constantinople And therefore I pray think more seriously of what he saith That to agree in that prophane word is to lose the Faith That such a blasphemous name should be far from the hearts of Christians in which by the arrogance of one Bishop the honour of all is taken away Neither will it serve your turn to say which is all that you have to say that this is not the definitive sentence of your Church but that many in your Church hold otherwise That there is power of Jurisdiction properly in Bishops For although these latter are not near the number of the other nor so much in favour with your Church but are looked on as a discontented party as appears by the proceedings in the Council of Trent yet that is not it we are to look after What all in your Church are agreed on but what the Pope challengeth as belonging to himself Was not Father Laynez his Doctrine highly approved at Rome as well as by the Cardinal Legats at Trent and all the Italian party Were not the other party discountenanced and disgraced as much as might be Doth not the Pope arrogate this to himself to be Oecumenical Pastor and the sole Fountain of all Jurisdiction in the Church If so all that ever St. Gregory said against that Title falls most heavily upon the Pope For St. Gregory doth not stand upon what others attributed to him but what he arrogated to himself that therein he was the Prince of Pride the forerunner of Antichrist using a vain new rash foolish proud prophane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blaspemous Name For all these goodly Epithets doth S. Gregory bestow upon it and I believe if he could have thought of more and worse he would as freely have bestowed them If therefore John the Patriarch was said by him to transgress God's Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise his Brethren imitate Lucifer How much more doth this belong to him that not only challengeth to be Oecumenical Patriarch but the sole Pastor of the Church and that all Jurisdiction is derived from him And by this time I hope you see that the Answer you say hath
been given a hundred times over is so pitifully weak absurd and ridiculous that you might have been ashamed to have produced it once and much more to repeat it without saying any more for it than you do For your other discourse depends wholly upon it and all that being taken away the rest doth fall to the ground with it We must now therefore return to his Lordships discourse in which he goes on to give an account of the rise of the Pope's Greatness As yet saith he The right of Election or ratification of the Pope continued in the Emperour but then the Lombards grew so great in Italy and the Empire was so infested with Saracens and such changes happened in all parts of the world as that neither for the present the homage of the Pope was useful for the Emperour nor the protection of the Emperour available for the Pope By this means the Bishop of Rome was left to play his own game by himself A thing which as it pleased him well enough so both he and his Successors made great advantage by it For being grown to that Eminence by the Emperour and the greatness of that City and place of his aboad he found himself the more free the greater the Tempest was that beat upon the other And then first he set himself to alienate the hearts of the Italians from the Emperour Next he opposed himself against him And about A. D. 710. Pope Constantine 1. did also first of all openly confront Philippicus the Emperour in defence of Images as Onuphrius tells us After him Gregory 2. and the 3. did the same by Leo Isaurus By this time the Lombards began to pinch very close and to vex on all sides not Italy only but Rome also This drives the Pope to seek a new Patron And very fitly he meets with Charls Martell in France that famous warrior against the Sarazens Him he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards This address seems very advisedly taken at least it proves very fortunate to them both For in short time it dissolved the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy which had then stood two hundred and four years which was the Popes security And it brought the Crown of France into the house of Charls and shortly after the Western Empire And now began the Pope to be great indeed For by the bounty of Pepin Son of Charls that which was taken from the Lombards was given to the Pope So that now of a Bishop he became a Temporal Prince But when Charls the Great had set up the Western Empire then he resumed the ancient and original power of the Emperour to govern the Church to call Councils to order Papal Elections And this power continued in his posterity For this right of the Emperour was in force and use in Gregory the seventh's time Who was confirmed in the Popedom by Henry the fourth whom he afterward deposed And it might have continued longer if the succeeding Emperours had had abilities enough to secure or vindicate their own Right But the Pope keeping a strong Council about him and meeting with some weak Princes and they oft-times distracted with great and dangerous warrs grew stronger till he got the better So this is enough to shew How the Popes climed up by the Emperours till they over-topt them which is all I said before and have now proved And this was about the year 1073. Yet was it carried in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different success The Emperour sometimes plucking from the Pope and the Pope from the Emperour winning and losing ground as their spirits abilities aids and opportunities were till at the last the Pope settled himself upon the grounds laid by Gregory 7. in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christian world To all this you return a short Answer in these words We deny not but that in Temporal power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours But what is this to the purpose If he would have said any thing material he should have proved that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholick Church which is the only thing they claim jure divino and which is so annexed to the dignity of their office by Christ's institution that were the Pope deprived of all his Temporalties yet could not his Spiritual Authority suffer the least diminution by it But 1. Doth his Lordships discourse only contain an account of the Popes temporal greatness by the Patronage of Christian Emperours Doth he not plainly shew How the Popes got their power by rebelling and contesting with the Emperours themselves How they assumed to themselves a power to depose Emperours and Do they claim these things jure Divino too 2. What you say of the Popes Spiritual Authority will then hold good when it is well proved but bare asserting it will never do it We must therefore have patience till you have leisure to attempt it But in the mean time we must consider How you vindicate the famous place of Irenaeus concerning as you say the Pope's Supreme Pastoral Authority from his Lordships interpretation Yet before we come to the Authority it self there are some light skirmishes as you call them to be passed through and those are concerning Irenaeus himself For his Lordship saith That his Adversarie is much scanted of ancient proof if Irenaeus stand alone besides Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallican Church and a very unlikely man to captivate the liberty of that Church under the more powerful principality of Rome And how can we have better evidence of his judgement touching that principality then the actions of his life When Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow was not Irenaeus the chief man that reprehended him for it A very unmeet and undutiful thing sure it had been in Irenaeus in deeds to tax him of rashness and inconsiderateness whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him the Supreme and Infallible Pastour of the Vniversal Church To which you Answer 1. To the liberty of the Gallican Church As if forsooth the so much talked of liberties of the Gallican Church had been things known or heard of in St. Irenaeus his time as though there were no difference between not captivating the Liberty of that Church to Rome and asserting the Liberties of the Gallican Church in her obedience to Rome yet these two must be confounded by you to render his Lordships Answer ridiculous which yet is as sound and rational as your cavil is vain and impertinent But this you pass over and fix 2. Vpon his reprehending Pope Victor where you say that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension but rather a friendly and seasonable perswasion his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
he alledges there 's not a word of the Churches principality 2. That he only implies that he was the first of the Apostles made Bishop of any particular place viz. at Hierusalem which is called Christs Throne as any Episcopal Chair is in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers But whosoever will examine the places in Epiphanius will find much more intended by him than what you will allow For not only he saith that he first had an Episcopal Chair but that our Lord committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Throne upon Earth which surely is much more than can be said of any meer Episcopal Chair and I believe you will be much to seek where Hierusalem was ever called Christ's Throne upon earth after his Ascension to Heaven Besides if it were it is the strongest prejudice that may be against the principality of the Roman See if Jerusalem was made by Christ his Throne here And that a principality over the whole Church is intended by Epiphanius seems more clear by that other place which his Lordship cites wherein he not only saith That James was first made Bishop but gives this reason for it because he was the Brother of our Lord and if you observe How Epiphanius brings it in you will say he intended more by it than to make him the first Bishop For he was disputing before How the Kingdom and the Priesthood did both belong to Christ and that Christ had transfused both into his Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but his Throne is established for ever in his holy Church consisting both of his Kingdom and Priesthood both which he communicated to his Church quare Jacobus primus omnium est Episcopus constitutus as Petavius renders it so that he seems to settle James in that principality of the Church which he had given to it and what reason can you have to think but that Christ's Throne in which Epiphanius saith James was settled in the other place is the same with his Throne in the Church which he mentions here And What would you give for so clear a testimony in Antiquity for Christ's settling S. Peter in his Throne at Rome as here is for his placing S. James in it at Jerusalem His Lordship goes on And he still tells us the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter 's successor Well suppose that What then What Why then he succeeded in all S. Peter 's prerogatives which are ordinary and belonged to him as a Bishop though not in the extraordinary which belonged to him as an Apostle For that is it which you all say but no man proves Yes you say Bellarmine hath done it in his disputations on that subject For this you produce a saying of his That when the Apostles were dead the Apostolical Authority remained alone in S. Peter 's successor I see with you still saying and proving are all one But since you referr the Reader to Bellarmine for proofs I shall likewise referr him to the many sufficient Answers which have been given him You argue stoutly afterwards That because Primacy in the modern sense of it implies Supremacy therefore wherever the Fathers attribute a Primacy to Peter among the Apostles they mean his Authority and power over them I see you are resolved to believe that there cannot be one two and three but the first must be Head over all the rest A Primacy of Order his Lordship truly saith was never denied him by Protestants and an Vniversal Supremacy of power was never granted him by the Primitive Christians Prove but in the first place that S. Peter had such a Supremacy of power over the Apostles and all Christian Churches and that this power is conveyed to the Pope you will do something In the mean time we acknowledge as much Primacy Authority and Principality in S. Peter as D. Reynolds proves in the place you cite none of which come near that Supremacy of power which you contend for and we must deny till we see it better proved than it is by you But you offer it from S. Hierom because he saith The Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism but a meer precedency of order is not sufficient for that But Doth not S. Hierom in the words immediately before say That the Church is equally built on all the Apostles and that they all receive the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them and Can he possibly then mean in the following words any other Primacy but such as is among equals and not any Supremacy of power over them And certainly you think the Apostles very unruly who would not be kept in order by such a Primacy as this is unless a S. Peter's full jurisdiction over them And since it is so evident that S. Hierom can mean no other but such a preheminence as this for preventing Schism you had need have a good art that can deduce from thence a necessity of a Supremacy of power in the Church for that end For say you Whatsoever power or jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for preventing Schisms must à fortiori be necessary in all succeeding ages but still be sure to hold to that power or jurisdiction which was in the Apostles times and we grant you all you can prove from it You still dispute gallantly when you beg the Question and argue as formally as I have met with one when you have supposed that which it most concerned you to prove Which is that God hath appointed a Supremacy of power in one particular person alwaies to continue in the Church for preservation of Faith and Unity in it For if you suppose the Church cannot be governed or Schism prevented without this you may well save your self a labour of proving any further But so far are we from seeing such a Supremacy of power as you challenge to the Pope to be necessary for preventing Schisms that we are sufficiently convinced that the Vsurping of it hath caused one of the greatest ever was in the Christian world CHAP. VII The Popes Authority not proved from Scripture or Reason The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture acknowledged by Romanists themselves The impertinency of Luk. 22.32 to that purpose No proofs offered for it but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope as St. Peters successour confessed and proved by Vigorius and Mr. White The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor but not as Pope acknowledged by them John 21.15 proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings T. C's beggings of the Question and tedious repetitions past over The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge considered The Government of the Church not Monarchical but Aristocratical The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church manifested from reason No evidence that
the rest are Rebels and Traytors And Is not this just the same Answer which you give here That the Pope is still appointed to keep peace and unity in the Church because all that question his Authority be Hereticks and Schismaticks But as in the former case the surest way to prevent those Consequences were to produce that power and authority which the King had given him and that should be the first thing which should be made evident from authentick records and the clear testimony of the gravest Senatours so if you could produce the Letters Pattents whereby Christ made the Pope the great Lord Chancellour of his Church to determine all Controversies of Faith and shew this attested by the concurrent voice of the Primitive Church who best knew what order Christ took for the Government of his Church this were a way to prevent such persons turning such Hereticks and Schismaticks as you say they are by not submitting themselves to the Popes Authority But for you to pretend that the Popes Authority is necessary to the Churches Vnity and when the Heresies and Schisms of the Church are objected to say That those are all out of the Church is just as if a Shepherd should say That he would keep the whole Flock of sheep within such a Fold and when the better half are shewed him to be out of it he should return this Answer That those were without and not within his Fold and therefore they were none of the Flock that he meant So that his meaning was those that would abide in he could keep in but for those that would not he had nothing to say to them So it is with you the Pope he ends Controversies and keeps the Church at Vnity How so They who do agree are of his Flock and of the Church and those that do not are out of it A Quaker or Anabaptist will keep the Church in Vnity after the same way only the Pope hath the greater number of his side for they will tell you If they were hearkned to the Church should never be in pieces for all those who embrace their Doctrines are of the Church and those who do not are Hereticks and Schismaticks So we see upon your principles What an easie matter it is to be an Infallible Judge and to end all Controversies in the Church that only this must be taken for granted that all who will not own such an infallible Judge are out of the Church and so the Church is at Vnity still how many soever there are who doubt or deny the Popes Authority Thus we easily understand what that excellent harmony is which you cry so much up in your Church that you most gravely say That had not the Pope received from God the power he challenges he could never have been able to preserve that peace and unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church Of what nature that Unity is we have seen already And surely you have much cause to boast of the Popes faculty of deciding Controversies ever since the late Decree of Pope Innocent in the case of the five Propositions For How readily the Jansenists have submitted since and what Unity there hath been among the dissenting parties in France all the world can bear you witness And whatever you pretend were it not for Policy and Interest the Infallible Chair would soon fall to the ground for it hath so little footing in Scripture or Antiquity that there had need be a watchful eye and strong hand to keep it up But now we are to examine the main proof which is brought for the necessity of this Living and Infallible Judge which lyes in these words of A.C. Every earthly Kingdom when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot be called upon all occasions hath besides the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the highest Judge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Vnity in all Temporal Affairs And Shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his Kingdom the Church only the Law-Books of holy Scripture and no living visible Judges and above all one chief so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Books as he list This his Lordship saith is a very plausible argument with the many but the Foundation of it is but a similitude and if the similitude hold not in the main argument is nothing And so his Lordship at large proves that it is here For whatever further concerns this Controversie concerning the Popes Authority is brought under the examination of this argument which you mangle into several Chapters thereby confounding the Reader that he may not see the coherence or dependence of one thing upon another But having cut off the superfluities of this Chapter already I may with more conveniency reduce all that belongs to this matter within the compass of it And that he may the better apprehend his Lordships scope and design I shall first summ up his Lordships Answers together and then more particularly go about the vindication of them 1. Then his Lordship at large proves that the Militant Church is not properly a Monarchy and therefore the foundation of the similitude is destroyed 2. That supposing it a Kingdom yet the Church Militant is spread in many earthly Kingdoms and cannot well be ordered like one particular Kingdom 3. That the Church of England under one Supreme Governour our Gracious Soveraign hath besides the Law-Book of the Scripture visible Magistrates and Judges Arch-Bishops and Bishops to govern the Church in Truth and Peace 4. That as in particular Kingdoms there are some affairs of greatest Consequence as concerning the Statute Laws which cannot be determined but in Parliament so in the Church the making such Canons which must bind all Christians must belong to a free and lawful General Council Thus I have laid together the substance of his Lordships Answer that the dependence and connexion of things may be better perceived by the intelligent Reader We come now therefore to the first Answer As to which his Lordship saith It is not certain that the whole Church Militant is a Kingdom for they are no mean ones which think our Saviour Christ left the Church-Militant in the hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or rather a mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom And the very expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the places of Scripture and other arguments brought by Bellarmine to prove that the Church is a Monarchy But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought fittest to govern it Aristocratically
to over-see the lesser parts of it and all joyn to promote the Peace and Unity of it which they may with the more ease do if no one challenge to be Supreme Head to whom belongs the chief care of the Church For by this means they cannot with that power and authority redress abuses and preserve the Churches Purity and Peace which otherwise they might have done So that considering barely the nature of things nothing seems more repugnant to the end for which Christ instituted a Catholick Church than such a Monarchy as you imagine and nothing more suitable than an Aristocracy considering that Christian Churches may be much dispersed abroad and that where they are they are incorporated into that Civil Society in which they live according to the known saying of Optatus Ecclesia est in republicâ c. and therefore such a Monarchy would be unsuitable to the civil Governments in which those Churches may be For it were easie to demonstrate that such a Monarchy as you challenge in the Church is the most inconvenient Government for it take the Church in what way or sense you please Whether as to its own peace and order or to its spreading into other Churches or to the respect it must have to the civil Government it lives under And if we would more largely enquire into these things we might easily find that those which you look on as the great ends wherefore Christ should institute such a Monarchical Government in his Church are things unsuitable to the nature of a Christian Church and which Christ as far as we can judge did never intend to take care that they should never be which are freedom from all kind of Controversies and absolute submission of Judgement to the decrees of an Infallible Judge We no where find such a state of a Christian Church described or promised where men shall all be of one mind only that peace and brotherly love be continued is that all Christians are bound to much less certainly that this Vnity should be by a submission of our understandings to an Infallible Judge of whom we read nothing in that Book which perswades us to be Christians and without which freedom of our understandings which this pretended Infallibility would deprive us of we could never have been judicious and rational Christians But granting that wise men have thought Monarchy the best Government in it self What is this to the proving what Government Christ hath appointed in his Church For that is the best Government for the Church not which Philosophers and Politicians have thought best but which our Saviour hath appointed in his Word For he certainly knew best what would suit with the conveniencies of his Church And these are bold and insolent disputes wherein those of your side argue That Christ must have instituted a Monarchy in his Church because all Philosophers have judged That the most perfect Government I need not tell you what these speeches imply Christ to be if he doth not follow the Philosophers judgement Will you give him leave to judge what is fittest for his Church himself or do you think he hath not wisdom enough to do it unless the Philosophers instruct him Let us therefore appeal to his Laws to see what Government he hath there appointed And now I shall deal more closely with you You tell me therein Christ hath appointed this Monarchical Government But I may be nearer your mind when you will Answer me these following Questions When and where did any wise Legislator appoint a matter of so vast concernment to the good of the Society as the Supreme Government of it and express no more of it in his Laws than Christ hath done of this Monarchical Government of the Church Is there not particular care taken in all Laws about that to express the rights of Soveraignty to hinder Vsurpations to bind all to obedience to determine the way of Succession by descent or election And hath Christ instituted a Monarchy in his Church and said nothing of all these things When the utmost you can pretend to are some ambiguous places which you must have the power of Interpreting your selves or they signifie nothing to your purpose So that none of the Fathers or the Primitive Church for several Centuries could find out such mysteries in super hanc Petram dabo tibi Claves and pasce oves as you have done If such a Monarchy had been appointed in the Church what should we have had more frequent mention of in the Records of the Church than of this Where do we meet with any Histories that write the affairs of Kingdoms for some hundred of years and never mention any Royal Acts of the Kings of them If St. Peters being at Rome had setled the Monarchy of the Church there what more famous act could have been mentioned in all Antiquity then that What notice would have been taken by other Churches of him whom he had left his Successour What addresses would have been made to him by the Bishops of other Churches What testimonies of obedience and submission what appeals and resort thither And it is wonderful strange that the Histories of the Church should be silent in these grand Affairs when they report many minute things even during the hottest times of persecution Did the Christians conspire together in those times not to let their posterity know Who had the Supream Government of the Church then Or were they afraid the Heathen Emperours should be jealous of the Popes if they had understood their great Authority But then methinks they should have carried it however among themselves with all reverence and submission to the Pope and not openly oppose him assoon as ever he began to exercise any Authority as in the case of Victor and the Asian Bishops But of all things it seems most strange and unaccountable to me that Christ should have instituted such a Monarchy in his Church and none of the Apostles mention any thing of it in any of the Epistles which they writ in which are several things concerning the Peace and Government of the Church nay when there were Schisms and divisions in the Church and that on the account of their Teachers among whom Cephas was one by that very name on which Christ said he would build his Church and yet no mention of respect more to him then to any other no intimation of what power St. Peter had for the Government of the Church as the Head and Monarch of it no references at all made to him by any of the divided parties of the Church at that time no mention at all of any such power given him in the Epistles written by him but he writes just as any other Apostle did with great expressions of humility and as if he foresaw what Vsurpations would be in the Church he forbids any Lording it over Gods heritage and calls Christ the chief Pastour of the Church And this he doth in an Epistle not writ
Authority and Jurisdiction given by Christ to one Bishop above another St. Hierom was not so sensless as not to see that the Bishops of Rome Constantinople and Alexandria had greater Authority and larger Jurisdiction in the Church then the petty Bishops of Eugubium Rhegium and Tanis but all this he knew well enough came by the custom of the Church that one Bishop should have larger power in the Church then another But saith he if you come to urge us with what ought to be practised in the Church then saith he Orbis major est urbe it is no one City as that of Rome which he particularly instanceth in which can prescribe to the whole world For saith he all Bishops are of equal merit and the same Priesthood wheresoever they are whether at Rome or elsewhere So that it is plain to all but such as wilfully blind themselves that St. Hierom speaks not of that which you call the Character of Bishops but of the Authority of them for that very word he useth immediately before Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe And where do you ever find merit applyed to the Bishops Character They who say It is understood of the merit of good life make St. Hierom speak non-sense For are all Bishops of the same merit of good life But we need not go out of Rome for the proper importance of merit here For in the third Roman Synod under Symmachus that very word is used concerning Authority and Principality in the Church ejus sedi primum Petri Apostoli meritum sive principatus deinde Conciliorum venerandorum authoritas c. where Binius confesseth an account is given of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome the first ground of which St. Peters merit or principality apply now but this sense to S. Hierom and he may be very easily understood All Bishops are ejusdem meriti sive principatus of the same merit Dignity or Authority in the Church But you say he speaks not of the Pope as he is Pope good reason for it for St. Hierom knew no such Supremacy in the Pope as he now challengeth And can you think if St. Hierom had believed such an authority in the Pope as you do he would ever have used such words as these are to compare him with the poor Bishop of Agobio in Merit and Priesthood I cannot perswade my self you can think so only something must be said for the cause you have undertaken to defend And since Bellarmine and such great men had gone before you you could not believe there were any absurdity in saying as they did Still you say He doth not speak of that Authority which belongs to the Bishop of Rome as S. Peter 's Successor But if you would but read a little further you might see that S. Hierom speaks of all Bishops whether at Rome or Eugubium c. as equally the Apostles Successors For it is neither saith he riches or poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower Caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt but they are all the Apostles Successors therefore he speaks of them with relation to that Authority which they derived from the Apostles And never had there been greater necessity for him to speak of the Popes succeeding S. Peter in the Supremacy over the Church than here if he had known any such thing but he must be excused he was ignorant of it No that he could not be say you again for he speaks of it elsewhere and therefore he must be so understood there as that he neither contradict nor condemn himself But if the Epistle to Damasus be all your evidence for it a sufficient account hath been given of that already therefore you add more and bid us go find them out to see Whether they make for the purpose or no. I am sure your first doth not out of his Commentary on the 13. Psalm because it only speaks of S. Peters being Head of the Church and not of the the Popes and that may import only dignity and preheminence without authority and jurisdiction besides that Commentary on the Psalms is rejected as spurious by Erasmus Sixtus Senensis and many others among your selves Your second ad Demetriadem Virginem is much less to your purpose for that only speaks of Innocentius coming after Anastasius at Rome qui Apostolicae Cathedrae supradicti viri successor filius est Who succeeded him in the Apostolical Chair But Do you not know that there were many Apostolical Chairs besides that of Rome and had every one of them supreme authority over the Church of God What that should be on the 16. of S. Matthew I cannot imagine unless it be that S. Peter is called Princeps Apostolorum which honour we deny him not or that he saith Aedificabo Ecâ—lesiam meam super te But how these things concern the Popes Authority unless you had further enlightened us I cannot understand That ep 54. ad Marcellam is of the same nature with the last for the words which I suppose you mean are Petrus super quem Dominus fundaâ—it Ecclesiam and if you see what Erasmus saith upon that place you will have little cause to boast much of it Your last place is l. 1. Cont. Lucifer which I suppose to be that commonly cited thence Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet but there even Marianus Victorius will tell you it is understood of every ordinary Bishop Thus I have taken the pains to search those places you nakedly refer us to in S. Hierom and find him far enough from the least danger of contradicting or condemning himself as to any thing which is here spoken by him So that we see S. Hierom remains a sufficient testimony against the Popes Monarchical Government of the Church His Lordship further argues against this Monarchy in the Church from the great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus that wheresoever there is a Church there the Church is in the Common-wealth and not the Common-wealth in the Church And so also the Church was in the Roman Empire Now from this ground saith his Lordship I argue thus If the Church be within the Empire or other Kingdom 't is impossible the Government of the Church should be Monarchical For no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominion that shall be greater than himself since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch Your answer to this is That these two Kingdoms are of different natures the one spiritual the other temporal the one exercised only in such things as concern the worship of God and the Eternal Salvation of souls the other in affairs that concern this world only Surely you would perswade us we had never heard of much less read Bellarmin's first Book de Pontifice about the Popes Temporal Power which was fain to get license for the other four to pass at Rome and although he minces
the matter as much as may be and much more than Baronius and others did who pleaded downright for the Popes Temporal Power yet he must be a very weak Prince who doth not see how far that indirect and reductive power may extend when the Pope himself is to be Judge What comes under it and what not And What may not come under it when deposing of Princes shall be reduced under that you call The Worship of God and absolving subjects from their obedience tend to promote their Eternal Salvation But if the Pope may be Judge What temporal things are in ordine ad spiritualia and bring them under his power in that respect Why may not the Prince be Judge what spiritual things are in ordine ad temporalia and use his power over them in that respect too But in the mean time Is not a Kingdom like to be at peace then If the Pope challenged no other authority but what Christ or the Apostles had his Government might be admitted as well as that authority which they had but What do you think of us the mean while when you would perswade us that the Popes Power is no other than what Christ or the Apostles had you must certainly think us such persons as the Moon hath wrought particularly upon as you after very civilly speak concerning his Lordship Your instance from the Kings of France and Spain his Lordship had sufficiently answered by telling you That he that is not blind may see if he will of what little value the Popes Power is in those Kingdoms further than to serve their own turns of him which they do to their great advantage And when you would have this to be upon the account of Faith and Conscience Let the Pope exercise his power apparently against their Interest and then see on what account they profess obedience to him But as long as they can manage such pretences for their advantage and admit so much of it and no more they may very well endure it and his Lordship be far enough from contradicting himself When you would urge the same inconvenience against the Aristocratical Government of the Church you suppose that Aristocratical Government wholly Independent on and not subordinate to the Civil Government whereas his Lordship and the Church of England assert the Kings Supremacy in Government over all both persons and causes Ecclesiastical And therefore this nothing concerns us And if from what hath gone before it must as you say remain therefore fully proved that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical It may for all that I see remain as fully proved that you are now the man who enjoy this Monarchical Power over the Church And whatever you stile the Pope Whether the Deputy or Vicar General of Christ or Servus servorum or what you will it is all one to us as long as we know his meaning whatever fair words you give him As though men would take it one jot the better to have one usurp and Tyrannize over them because he doth not call himself King or Prince but their humble servant Is it not by so much the greater Tyranny to have such kind of Ecclesiastical Saturnalia when the servus servorum must under that name tyrannize over the whole world We have already at large shewed How destructive this pretended Supremacy is to that Government of the Church by Bishops which his Lordship proves from the ancient Canons and Fathers of the Church doth of right belong to them viz. from several Canons of the Councils of Antioch and Nice and the testimonies of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian To all this you only say That you allow the Bishops their portion in the Government of Christs Flock But it is but a very small portion of what belongs to them if all their Jurisdiction must be derived from the Pope which I have shewed before to be the most current Opinion in your Church And I dare say you will not dispute the contrary His Lordship was well enough aware to what purpose Bellarmine acknowledged that the Government of the Church was ever in the Bishops for he himself saith It was to exclude temporal Princes but then he desires A. C. to take notice of that when Secular Princes are to be excluded then it shall be pretended that Bishops have power to govern but when it comes to sharing stakes between them and the Pope then hands off they have nothing to do any further than the Pope gives them leave What follows concerning the impossibility of a right executing of this Monarchy in the Church hath been already discussed of and you answer nothing at all to it that hath any face of pertinency for when you say it will hold as well against the Aristocratical Form I have plainly enough shewed you the contrary That which follows about the design of an Vniversal Monarchy in the State as well as the Church about Pope Innocent 's making the Pope to be the Sun and the Emperour the Moon the Spanish Friers two Scutchions Campanella 's Eclogue since you will not stand to defend them I shall willingly pass them over But what concerns the Supremacy of the Civil Power is more to our purpose and must be considered His Lordship therefore saith That every soul was to be subject to the higher power Rom. 13.1 And the higher Power there mentioned is the Temporal And the ancient Fathers come in with a full consent that every soul comprehends all without exception All spiritual men even to the highest Bishop even in spiritual causes too so the Foundations of Faith and good Manners be not shaken And where they are shaken there ought to be prayer and patience there ought not to be opposition by force Nay Emperours and Kings are custodes utriusque Tabulae They to whom the custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law for worship to God and duty to man are committed A Book of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time to be given to the King Deut. 17.18 And the Kings under the Law but still according to it did proceed to necessary Reformation in Church-businesses and therein commanded the very Priests themselves as appears in the Acts of Hezekiah and Josiah who yet were never censured to this day for usurping the High-Priests office Nay and the greatest Emperours for the Churches honour Theodosius the elder and Justinian and Charls the Great and divers others did not only meddle now and then but enact Laws to the great settlement and encrease of Religion in their several times Now to this again you answer That the civil and spiritual are both absolute and independent powers though each in their proper Orb the one in spirituals the other in temporals But What is this to that which his Lordship proves That there can be no such absolute independent spiritual power both because all are bound to obey the Civil Power and because the
exorbitances and capricious humours of any phantastical Spirits which may cry out That the most received truths ever since Christianity was in the world are intolerable errours If you are resolved yet further to ask Who shall be judge what a necessary reason or demonstration is His Lordship tells you I think plain enough from Hooker what is understood by it viz. such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it And Do you require any other judge but a mans own reason in this case But you say Others call their arguments demonstrations but let them submit to this way of tryal and they may soon be convinced that they are not Still you say They will not be convinced but will break the peace of the Church supposing they have sufficient evidence for what they say But if men will be unreasonable who can help it Can you with telling them Councils are Infallible I doubt you would hear of more arguments than you could well satisfie against that presently We appeal then to the common reason of mankind Whether it be not a far probable way to end Controversies to perswade men in disputable matters to yield external obedience to the Decrees of a lawful General Council than to tell them they are bound to believe whatever they decree to be infallibly true And therefore you are very much mistaken when you say His Lordship declines the main Question which is of the necessity of submitting to a living Judge or a definitive sentence in case two parties equal for learning and integrity both pretend to equal evidence for what they say for his Lordship doth not deny but that in such a case the submitting to a definitive sentence may be a reasonable way to end the Controversie but then the difference between you lyes in two things 1. That you would bind men to internal assent to the Decrees of a Council as being Infallible but his Lordship saith They bind to external obedience as being the Supremest Judicatory can be expected in the Church 2. You pretend that Councils called and confirmed by the Pope are thus Infallible and our Supreme Judge in matters of Faith his Lordship justly dedies that and sayes That a Free General Council observing the same conditions which the first did is the only equal and indifferent Judge So that the Question is not so much Whether shall be a living Judge as Who shall be he and How far the definitive Sentence binds and What is to be done in case there cannot be a free and indifferent Judge for in this case we say Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them We now come to the remaining Enquiry which is Whether your Doctrine or ours tends more to the Churches peace For clearing of this his Lordship premises these things by way of Considerations 1. That there is n necessity of any such Infallibility in the Church as was in the Apostles 2. That what Infallibility or Authority belongs to the Church doth primarily reside in the whole body of the Church and not in a General Council 3. That in case a General Council erre the whole Church hath full Authority to represent her self in another Council and so to redress what was amiss either practised or concluded And so upon these principles his Lordship saith Here is a sufficient remedy for what is amiss and yet no infringing any lawful Authority in the Church and yet he grants as the Church of England doth that a General Council may erre But he saith It doth not follow because the Church may erre therefore she may not govern For the Church hath not only a Pastoral Power to teach and direct but a Praetorian also to controll and censure too where errours or crimes are against points fundamental or of great consequence Thus he represents the advantages which follow upon his opinion after which he comes to the disadvantages of yours But we must first consider what you have to object against what his Lordship hath here delivered To the first you say nothing but that Stapleton and Bellarmin attribute more Infallibility to the Church than his Lordship doth which is an excellent way to prove the necessity of it if you had first proved those two Authours Infallible To the second your Answer is more large for his Lordship to confirm what he said That the power and authority given by Christ lyes in the whole Church produces that saying of S. Austin That S. Peter did not receive the Keyes of the Church but as sustaining the person of the Church from whence he proves against Stapleton That it is not to be understood finally only for the good of the Church but that the primary and formal right is in the Church For he that receives a thing in the person of another receives it indeed to his good and use but in his right too To this you answer from Bellarmin That there is a twofold representing or bearing the person of another The one Parabolical and by way of meer figure and supposition only as Agar represented the people of the Jews under bondage of the Law c. The other historical and real viz. when the person representing has right or relation à parte rei in and towards the thing represented by vertue whereof it bears the person of the thing represented Now S. Peter say you sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense really and historically and not parabolically and in figure i. e. he received the Keyes as Head of the Church though that Reception were ordained for the good of the whole Church But Sir our enquiry is not How many waies one may imagine a Representation to be made but What kind of Representation that is which is suitable to S. Austin's meaning That there may be an Allegorical Representation no body denies but I cannot imagine How it can belong to this place or Who ever meant that S. Peter stood here for an Allegory of the Church and therefore the members of your distinction are not apposite For those who assert that S. Peter did sustain the person of the Church in his Lordships sense do yet acknowledge that he did it historicè and not parabolicè as you speak i. e. the donation was really made to him but then the Question is In what right or capacity it was made to him Whether in his personal or representative capacity For these are the two only proper members of a distinction here St. Austin saith not only in that place but in very many others that S. Peter did sustain the person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven Now the Question is In what sense he sustained the person of the Church You say In his own right as Head of the Church We say As
a publick person representing the Church not parabolically for that is no sustaining the person at all but really and historically And that S. Austin means As a publick person appears by the other expressions in the places cited that he did universam significare Ecclesiam signifie the whole Church and that those things which are spoken of Peter Non habent illustrem intellectum nisi cum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestâsse personam Have no clear sense but when they are referred to the Church whose person he did bear Can you say this of a King who receives the Keyes of a Town whereof he takes possession for himself though it be for the good of the Kingdom that he signifies the whole Kingdom in it and that it cannot have any clear sense but when it is applied to the Kingdom which he represents No this cannot be for the King takes possession in his own full right and it is not the possession but the administration which is referred properly to the good of the Kingdom But this might be properly said of a Duke of Venice that he takes possession of a Town in the person of the State and that the proper sense is that the State took possession and he only representing it So that the full right lyes in the body of the State but he as chief member represents the whole And this is that which S. Austin means when he saith That S. Peter represented the Church propter primatum for the Primacy which he had amongst the Apostles i e. such a Primacy of order whereby he was fittest to represent the whole Church For it is impossible to conceive that he should mean that S. Peter should receive this as Head of the Church when you acknowledge that he was not Head of the Church till after the Keyes were given him For you say The performance of Christ's Promise in making him Head of the Church was not till after his resurrection But Will you say the Church had no power of the Keyes till then and then only finally too and not formally What became then of the power of the Keyes at S. Peters death if only formally in him and not in the Church What becomes of them at the death of every Pope Will you say as Bellarmin doth that Christ takes them and gives them to his Successour But he must be sure to wait till the Cardinals agree To whom he must give them Nothing then could be further from S. Austin's meaning than that S. Peter received the Keyes as Head of the Church and so that he represented the Church only finally whereas his expressions carry it that he means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church and that S. Peter was only a publick person to receive them in the name of the Church But whatever S. Austin's meaning was the strength of his Lordships assertion doth not stand or fall with that for there are arguments sufficient besides to prove that the Authority for governing the Church was not committed formally to S. Peter much less to any pretended successour but that it primarily and formally resides in the whole body of the Church And were that the thing to be here disputed you must not think to take it for granted that if the Keyes were given personally to S. Peter by them was meant the Supreme Authority of governing the Church exclusively of the other Apostles To the third Consideration you answer That in case a General Council erre there can be no redress for errour in Faith for if one Council may erre so may another and a third and a fourth c. This indeed is very suitable to your Doctrine from the beginning that a man can be certain of nothing but what it is impossible should be otherwise I hope you are certain your self you do not erre but I suppose you do not think it impossible you should So although we do not think it impossible a Council should erre yet we may be certain it doth not and supposing it should we do not say It is impossible that a Council should not erre so that another Council may correct the errour of the former And doubtless men may be certain of it too if as his Lordship saith plain Scripture and evident demonstration be brought against the former errour But these are strange Doctrines that because a Council may erre therefore a Council can never afford remedy against inconveniences For one great inconvenience is the breaking the Churches peace that is remedied by the Councils Authority another is errour in Faith that may be remedied by another Council No say you for that may erre too but Doth it follow that it must erre or Is it probable that it should erre if the former errour be so discovered and the Council so proceed as his Lordship supposes For your other difficulty about the calling another General Council I have answered it already when I shewed what we meant by a General Council and when it was lawfully call'd When you after add That the Church never represented her self in another Council but where the former Council was unlawful and instance in the Councils of Ariminum and Ephesus you say the same which his Lordship doth for these Councils were therefore accounted unlawful because erroneous and factious and he never asserts the necessity of calling a new Council but in those two cases But if you would have us account none such but whom you do you must excuse us till we see greater reason for it then we do yet and so likewise for what follows that the Councils which rectified the errours of those were called by the Popes authority as that of Trent and others were which to speak mildly is a gross untruth You urge from his Lordships granting That the Church hath a Praetorian power to controul and censure too where errours or crimes are against points Fundamental or of great consequence that therefore he and all Protestants are justly censured by the Roman Church for opposing those Doctrines which are with her Fundamental and of great consequence But still there is no difference with you between the Roman Church and the Catholick between Papal Councils and Free and General between what she judges Fundamental and what all are bound to judge so If you prove then that we are bound to rely only on the judgement of your Church your consequence is good but otherwise it is tyed with a rope of sand and therefore we do not fear the lashes of it And the same fault runs through your subsequent discourse in which you suppose the Church Infallible in all she propounds which you know is constantly denyed and hath been at large disproved in our first Part. For the ground of your resolution of Faith being removed I see the Fabrick of your Church falls down with it For take but away your pretence of Infallibility and your confounding the Catholick and Roman
might satisfie for the temporary punishment of sin and be translated out of that state to the Kingdom of Heaven And thence although in the Bull of Vnion published by Eugenius 4. at the concluding the Florentine Council no more was concluded than that those penitents who departed this life before they had satisfied for their former sins by worthy fruits of pennance should have their souls purged after death poenis purgatoriis with purgatory punishments yet Marcus Eugenicus utterly refused to subscribe it thus which certainly he would never have done if all the Controversie had been only Whether the fire were real or metaphorical And the whole Greek Church utterly refused those terms of union and therefore Alphonsus à Castro recounts the denying Purgatory among the errours of the Greeks The Greeks indeed do not believe that any souls enjoy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement and on that account they allow of prayer for the dead notwith any respect to a deliverance of souls out of purgatory but to the participation of their happiness at the great Day But there is a great deal of difference between this Opinion and that of your Church for they believe all souls of believers to be in expectation of the final Judgement but without any temporary punishment for sin or any release from that punishment by the prayers of the living which your Church asserts and is the proper state of the Question concerning Purgatory Which is not Whether there be any middle state wherein the souls of the Faithful may continue in expectation of the final consummation of their happiness at the great day nor Whether it be lawful in that sense for the Church on earth to pray for departed souls in order to their final justification at the day of Judgment or in St. Pauls language That God would have mercy on them in that day but Whether there be such a state wherein the souls of men undergo a temporary punishment for sin the guilt being pardoned out of which they may be released by the prayers of the living and translated from Purgatory to the Kingdom of Heaven before the day of Resurrection This is the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and now we come to examine Whether your Doctrine concerning Purgatory be either an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition which how confidently so ever you may assert we shall find your confidence built on very little reason Which we may the easier believe since there are so many among your selves who do not think themselves obliged to own this Doctrine of your Church concerning Purgatory Nay we have not only the confession of several of your party that your Doctrine of Purgatory was not known in the Primitive Church as Alphonsus à Castro Roffensis Polydore c. and of others that it cannot be sufficiently proved from Scripture as Petrus â Soto Perionius Bulenger whose testimonies are produced by others but there are some persons of note among you who have expresly denied the Doctrine it self and confuted the pretended reasons which are given for it Petrus Picherellus saith There is no fuel to be found in Scripture either to kindle or maintain the fire of Purgatory and which afterwards he largely disproves in his excellent Discourse de Missâ Father Barns acknowledges That the punishment of souls in Purgatory is a thing which lyes meerly in humane opinion which cannot be firmly deduced from Scriptures Fathers or Councils Yea saith he with submission to better judgements the opposite opinion seems more agreeable to them But later then these you cannot but know Who it is here at home that hath not only pull'd down the superstructure but raced the very Foundations of your Doctrine of Purgatory in his discourse de medio Animarum statu wherein he professedly disproves the Doctrine of your Church though he is loath to own it to be so in this particular and shews at large that it hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Antiquity or Reason But if your Doctrine of Purgatory be to be believed as an Article of Faith and Apostolical Tradition if any be How come these differences among your selves about it How comes that Authour not to be answered and his reasons satisfied But if you be not agreed among your selves What this Article of Faith is you are most unreasonable men to tell us We are as much bound to believe it as the Trinity or Incarnation We ask you What it is we are bound to believe You tell us according to the sense of your Church The punishment of souls in a future state out of which they may be delivered by the prayers of the Faithful and translated into the Kingdom of Heaven Another he denies all this and saith We are in effect only bound to believe That faithful souls do not enjoy their full happiness till the resurrection and that there is no deliverance at all out of any state in which mens souls are after death till the day of Judgement and that the prayers of the Church only respect that Day but that the former Doctrine is so far from being an Article of Faith that it is contrary to Scripture Antiquity and Reason If such a state of expectation wherein faithful souls are at rest but according to different degrees of grace which they had at their departure hence and look for the day of Resurrection when they shall have a perfect consummation of their bliss were all the Purgatory which your Church asserted the breach might be far nearer closing as to this Article than now it is For although we find some particular persons ready to give a fair and tolerable sense of your Doctrine herein yet we cannot be ignorant that the General apprehension and sense of your Church is directly contrary and those persons who have discovered the freedom of their judgements as to this and other particulars know how much it concerns them to keep a due distance from Rome if they would preserve the freedom of their persons But you are not one of those that hath cause for any such fears for what ever Bellarmin saith you are ready to swear to it and accordingly set your self to the defence of Purgatory upon his principles which are far more suitable to the Doctrine of your Church than to Scripture or Antiquity But because this Controversie is not managed between his Lordship and you about the sense of the Scripture but the Fathers concerning it I must therefore enquire Whether your Doctrine of Purgatory were ever owned by the Fathers as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition And that I may the more fully clear it before I come to examine your proofs for it I shall lay down some general considerations 1. Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what they declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation As to all other things which