Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

III.

262 Pope did then and doth still claim. For, as I have already DISCOURSE said, two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his communion, but excommunicated by him, only because they would not submit their necks to his yoke. And those other countries which yielded more obedience to him, or were not so well able to contest against him, yet, when they were over much pinched, and his oppressions and usurpations did grow intolerable, did oppose him, and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies, and of the limits of Papal authority, and set bounds unto it, as I have demonstrated in the Vindication'. So, whereas this Refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly, he cometh not near the true question at all; which is not, whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholic Church;-he had authority in his diocese, as a Bishop; in his province, as a Metropolitan; in his Patriarchate, as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs; and all over, as the Bishop of an Apostolical Church, or successor of St. Peter:-but the true question is, what are the right limits and bounds of his authority; whether he have a legislative power over all Christians; whether the patronage and disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him; whether he may convocate synods, and exercise jurisdiction, and sell palls, pardons, and indulgences, and send legates, and set up legantine courts, and impose pensions at his pleasure, in all kingdoms without consent of sovereign princes, and call all ecclesiastical causes to Rome, and interdict whole nations, and infringe their liberties and customs, and excommunicate princes, and deprive them of their realms, and absolve their subjects from their allegiance. Let these pretended branches of Papal power be lopped off, and all things restored to the primitive form, and then the Papacy will be no more like that "insana laurus m," the cause of contention or division in all places. In the mean time, if they want that respect which is due unto them, they may blame themselves, who will not accept what is their just right, unless they may have more.

versal tra

Fourthly, that which follows is a great mistake, that it 4. [No uni"was" and "is" the "constant belief of the Catholic world, 1 [c. vii. vol. i. pp. 200-246.]

BRAMHALL.

m

[Plin., Nat. Hist., lib. xvi. c. 89.]

dition, that

PART 1.

[ocr errors]

that these principles are Christ's own ordination rethe Pope's corded in Scripture ""

supremacy

is by Christ's

own ordination.]

13.]

What? that St. Peter had any power over his fellowApostles? or that the Bishop of Rome succeeds him in that power? It doth not appear out of the Holy Text that St. Peter was at Rome, except we understand Rome by the name [1 Pet. v. of Babylon °. If it be "Christ's own ordination recorded in the Scriptures," that St. Peter should have all these privileges, and the Bishop of Rome inherit them as his successor, then the great general Council of Chalcedon was much to be blamed, to give equal privileges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome, and to esteem the "imperial city " more than the "ordination of Christ." Then the whole Catholic Church was much to be blamed, to receive such an unjust constitution not approved by the then Bishop of Rome. Lastly, this is so far from the "constant belief of the Catholic world," that it is not the belief of the Roman Church itself at this day. The greatest defenders of the Pope's supremacy dare not say, that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth St. Peter by "Christ's own ordination," but only by St. Peter's dying Bishop of Rome. They acknowledge, that St. Peter might have died Bishop of Antioch, and then they say the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded him; or he might have died Bishop of no place, and then the Papacy had been in the disposition of the Catholic Church, though he died at Rome; as without doubt it is, and may be contracted, or enlarged, or translated from one see to another, for the advantage of Christian religion. His "manifest evidence"," which he stileth "so ample a memory and succession as is stronger than the stock of human government and action"," that is, "that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed, and as long as it adhered to that method, nothing could be altered in it,"-is so far from a demonstration, that it scarcely deserveth the name of a topical argument. For as universal uncontroverted

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

III.

tradition of the whole Christian world of all ages united, DISCOURSE is a convincing and undeniable evidence-(such a tradition is the Apostles' Creed, comprehending in it all the necessary points of saving Faith, repeated daily in our Churches, 263 every Christian standing up at it, both to express his assent unto it and readiness to maintain it, professed by every Christian at his Baptism, either personally when he is of age sufficient, or by his sureties when he is an infant,)and the tradition of the universal Church of this age, a proof not to be opposed nor contradicted by us; so the tradition of some particular persons, or some particular Churches, in particular points or opinions of an inferior nature, which are neither so necessary to be known, nor so firmly believed, nor so publicly and universally professed, nor derived downwards from the Apostolical ages by such uninterrupted succession, doth produce no such certainty either of evidence or adherence. When the Christian world is either not united, or divided, about particular opinions or inferior points of Faith, it proveth most probably that there was no Apostolical tradition at first, but that particular persons or places have assumed their respective opinions in succeeding ages; or, otherwise, there is a fault in the conduit-pipe, or an error and failing in the derivation of the tradition. And both these do take much away from assurance, more or less according to the degree of the opposition. In such questionable and controverted points as these, which are neither so universally received, nor so publicly professed, his assertion is groundless and erroneous, that "the latter age cannot be ignorant what the former believed." Yes, in such controverted points this present age may not know, yea, doth not know, what itself believeth, or rather opiniateth, until it come to be voted in a synod. The most current opinions in the schools are not always the most generally received in the Church; and those which are most plausible in one place, are often hissed out of another. And though it were possible for a man to know what opinion is universally most current, yet how shall he know that the greater part is the sounder part? or if he did, how shall he know that what he believeth in such points is more than an indifferent opinion? or that it was deposited by the Apostles with the Church, and de

PART

[S. W.'s main principle ad

livered from age to age by an uninterrupted succession? No ways but by universal tradition of the Christian world united, either written or unwritten. But this is all the evidence which they can expect, who confound universal tradition with particular tradition, the Roman Church with the Catholic Church, the Christian world united with the Christian world divided, and scholastical opinions with articles of Faith.

Yet from these two principles he maketh two inferences,— The one against the Church of England; that, since the mitted by Reformation, "neither the former rule of unity of Faith nor the second of unity of government have had any power. . in the English Church"."

the Eng

lish Church;]

[Contradicted by the Roman.]

Whilst he himself knoweth no better what we believe, who live in the same age, how doth he presume, that “the latter age cannot be ignorant of what the former believed?" I have shewed him already, how we do willingly admit this principle, wherein both his rules are comprehended, "that the doctrines and discipline inherited from our forefathers as the legacies of Christ and His Apostles are solely to be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed." This is as much as any person disinteressed can or will require. And upon this principle we are willing to proceed to a trial with them. There is a fallacy in logic, called "Of more interrogations than one;" that is, when several questions of different natures, to which one uniform answer cannot be given, yea, or no, are mixed and confounded together. So he doth not only set down this second rule concerning government ambiguously, that a man cannot tell whether he make St. Peter only a Head of order among the Apostles, or a Head of single power and jurisdiction also over the Apostles; but also he shuffles the Bishop of Rome into St. Peter's place "by Christ's own ordination," and confounds St. Peter's "exordium unitatis" with the usurped power of Popes, as it was "actually exercised" by them in latter ages.

His second inference is in favour of the Church of Rome; that the Roman Church, with "those Churches which continue in communion with it, are the only Churches, which have true [See above p. 287.]

[ocr errors]

[Ibid., pp. 307, 308.]

[ocr errors]

III.

doctrine in virtue of the first principle above-mentioned, and DISCOURSE the right government in virtue of the second;" and 'consequently' are "the entire Catholic or Universal Church 261 of Christians, all others by misbelief or schism being excluded."

sion.]

Our answer is ready,-that the Church of Rome, or the Court of Rome, have sophisticated the true doctrine of Faith by their supplemental articles and erroneous additions, contrary to the first principle; and have introduced into the Church a tyrannical and unlawful government, contrary to the second principle; and are so far from being the entire Catholic Church, that by them both they are convicted to have made themselves guilty of superstition and schism. And, lastly, where he saith, that my "only way to clear [Concluour Church from schism" is "either by disproving the former to be the necessary rule of unity in Faith, or the latter the necessary bond of government"," he is doubly mistaken. First, we are the persons accused, our plea is negative or not guilty. So the proof lieth not upon us, but upon him to make good his accusation by proving us schismatics. Secondly, if the proof did rest upon our sides, we do not approve of his advice: it is not we who have altered the doctrine or discipline which Christ left to His Church by our substractions, but they by their additions. There is no

doubt but Christ's legacy ought to be preserved inviolable; but we deny, that Christ bequeathed spiritual monarchy over His Church to St. Peter, and that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peter's heir "by Christ's ordination," and that this was the "constant belief of the Catholic world" at any time. This is his province; let him either make this good or hold his peace.

SECTION THE SECOND.

[Of the Third Chapter of the Vindication.]

So his prologue is ended; now we come to his "animadversions" upon my arguments.

My first ground was, because not Protestants but Roman [The first

ground

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »