Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.

CHAP. VIII. (Book 8)

Proofs of the Popes Supreme Iurisdi∣ction before the first Council of Nice. How all Apostles and all Bishops equal: and how Subordi∣nate. St. Peter had more than a Primacy of Order. Of St. Paul's resisting St. Peter. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States. On the contrary, &c. Protestants writing in favour of it.

1. BUt as yet our Proofs of Primacy of Iurisdiction in the Successor of St. Peter, though they reach to the Beginning in the latitude fixed by the Doctor, and truly I am perswaded to an indifferent Reader will appear more credible than any his Margins furnish to the contrary: Yet they may be continued, till we come even to the Presbyte∣rians, Independants and Quakers Beginning

too, that is, the Gospels themselves. To de∣monstrate this, we will make a short enquiry into the times of the Church before Constan∣tin, whilst it was a mere suffering Church, inca∣pable of conspiring either in or out of General Councils: But withal a Church lesse disper∣sed and torn by Heresies or contentions a∣mong Bishops, and therefore lesse needing this Preservative against Schisms, Supreme Au∣thority.

2. In these holy peaceable times ther••ore be∣fore Silvester, I will content my self with two or three examples to prove the acknowledge∣ment of such a Primacy. And the first shall be of St. Melchiades the immediat Predecessor of Pope Silvester:* 1.1 St. Augustin will afford us a Testimony of his care and authority extended into Africk,* 1.2 whose words are, [Qualis ip∣sius Melchiadis ultima est prolata Sententia, &c.]

Such an one was the last sentence Melchiades himself pronounced (in judge∣ing the cause of Donatus:) by which he would not have the boldnesse to remove from his Communion his Collegues, (the Catholic Bishops in Africa) in whom no crime could be proved: And having censu∣red most deeply Donatus alone, whom he found to have been the Original of all the mischief, he gave a free choyce of healing the breaches of Scism to all the rest of his Followers: being also in a readiness to send communicatory Letters to those (subdi∣vided

Scismatics) that were ordained by Majorinus (a Donatist Bishop:) in so much as his Sentence was, that in whatsoever Ci∣ties of Africk there were two Bishops dis∣senters (a Catholic and a Donatist▪ he should be confirm'd in the Bishoprick, who was first ordained, &c. and that another Dio∣cese should be provided which the other should govern. O Son of Christian peace! and truly Father of the Christian flock, says St. Augustin.

3. I will add to this three other examples, in which, though as to the use and admini∣stration of the Superintendency som Objecti∣ons have been made, yet they suffice to con∣firm the acknowledgement of such a Super∣intendency in the Pope▪ as the Preacher denies. The first is of Pope Stephanus contemporary with St. Cyprian and his fellow in Martyr∣dom,* 1.3 concerning whom we read in Eusebius,* 1.4 that he either inflicted,* 1.5 or at least threatned excommunication to som of the Churches of Asia that held a necessity of Rebaptization af∣ter Baptism received by Heretics. And in the same quarrel, between the same Pope Ste∣pha••••s and St. Cyprian himself,* 1.6 matters were almost brought to the like extremity: yet nei∣ther did St. Cyprian, though wonderfully sharp, nor even that violent Cappadocian Bi∣shop, Firmilianus ever question the Popes Authority, though, as they thought, unjustly employed▪

4. The other is extant in the same St. Cy∣prian, who endeavour'd to peswade the Pope to depose Marcianus a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles, siding with Novatian; His words to Pope Stephanus about it are these,* 1.7 Let Letters be directed from thee into the Province, and to the people of Arl••s, commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated, and another put in his place. And to the like purpose is another Epistle of his in a cause touching two Spanish Bishops,* 1.8 upon mis-information restor'd by the Pope.

5. The third is that so well known exam∣ple of Pope Victor,* 1.9 concerning whom Euse∣bius thus writes,* 1.10 Victor endeavours to cut off from the fellowship of Communion the Churches of Asia, as declining into Heresie, and sends Let∣ters by which he would divide them all indifferently from the Ecclesiastical Society, &c. But there are extant Letters of Bishops by whom Victor is sharp∣ly reproved, as one that was carelesse of the com∣modity of the whole Church. Particularly I∣reneus reprehends him, telling him, that he did ve∣ry ill to divide from the unity of the whole Body so many and so great Churches. Now in such re∣proofs from Ireneus, and even Polycrates an Asian Bishop, himself the ring-leader of the party of the Quart•• decimani against St. Victor, it was not impu••ed to Victor that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not sub∣ject to him, but that the cause of exercising his just Authority was ••ot sufficiently weighty.

6. Having proceeded thus far, our last step shall be to the utmost degree, the very begin∣ning it self, our Lord and St. Peter in the Gos∣pels. And here we will acknowledge what the D••ctor saies, that all the Twelve Apostles were equally foundations of the Churches building:* 1.11 That the same Authority which was first given to St. Peter alone, sustaining the person of the whole Church, was afterward given to the rest of the A∣postles; that as St. Cyprian saies, the same that St. Peter was, the rest of the Apostles likewise were [pari consortio praediti, &c.] endowed with an equal participation of honor and power. And as St. Hierom affirms, that all Bishops in all places whether at Rome or Eugubium, [Canterbury or Rochester] are of the very same merit, &c. But he will give leave to the Scripture to in∣terpret it self, and to the Fathers to interpret both it and themselves. We grant therefore that all the Apostles, and all Bishops their Suc∣cessors, enjoy the whole latitude of Apostolic and Episcopal Iurisdiction, for as much as con∣cerns the internal, essential qualifications of ei∣ther: But for the external administration there may be, and alwaies was acknowledg∣ed, a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same authority both a∣mong the Apostles and Bishops. Let him not find fault with this distinction; for they themselves have occasion somtimes to make use of it to the like purpose. Arch-bishop Whitgift, in his Defence of the Answer to the

Admonition, affirms, that Archbishops, quoad Ministerium, do not differ from other Pastors, but touching Government, page 303. And after∣ward page 386. Answering the same Argu∣ment out of St. Hierom, who equals the mean∣est Bishop with the Pope, he saies, that they are equal quoad Ministerium, but not quoad polittam.

7. Let him take therefore an example il∣lustrating this at home. What Function, what Act of Iurisdiction can my Lord of Can∣terbury exercise (I mean according to their Tenets) which the meanest of his subordi∣nate Bishops cannot perform? He can ordain Bishops and Priests; So can they; the former with him, the other without him. He can visit his Pr••vince; they their Di••cesse. He can give the Holy Ghost by Confirmation; So can they▪ He can assemble a Provincial Coun∣cil; They a Diocesan. He has a Canonical Authority over Bishops, &c. They over Priests. He can absolve from Censures inflected by himself; they can do as much. Yet nothing of all this excludes him from enjoying a spe∣cial priviledge in the exercise of every one of these Acts and Functions, or exempts them from Subordination to him as their Superior, yea, Supream Pastor, Supream not in Order on∣ly, but Iurisdiction. Certainly the Doctor can easily apply this to St. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, or to St. Peter's Successors, and all other Bishops.

8. Now if the Fathers may be believed, is

was a priviledge, and a great one, that St Peter, for the merit of his Confession, had Christs own Title, as Christ was Governor of the Church, given him, of being called a Rock. For in the Syrian language, in which our Lord spake, the words have no different termination, as in the Greek or Latin, Petrus, Petra; but the words were, Thou art Gepha (a Rock) and upon this Gepha (Rock) I will build my Church. It was a priviledge that Peter, neither the eldest, nor first chosen Apostle, is alwaies in the Gospel first reckoned, and expresly called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the First. It was a priviledge import∣ing a greater latitude of Iurisdiction, when after our Lord's Resurrection, St. Peter alone had in the midst of the rest a Commission given him of indefinitly ••eeding Christ's Flock; And after the Descent of the Holy Ghost, was peculiarly appointed the Apostle of the Circumcision, as St. Paul was of the Gentiles: Yea that the Dedication of St. Paul's Office was performed by St. Peter, who by immediate revelation was appointed to ga∣ther the first fruits of the Gentiles, in the con∣version of Cornelius, and his house-hold, &c.

9. But, why among such Governors as the Apostles, was any Supereminency of Iurisdicti∣on given to one man? Certain it is, there ne∣ver was lesse necessity to provide against dis∣obedience and dis-unions, then among the Apostles; every one of whom was guided by

a Divine unerring light, by which they knew all Truth, and replenish'd with the Spirit of Charity and Vn••ty, which exempted them from all ambitious, envious or malicious de∣sign••: Yet a Subordination, not absolutely ne∣cessary to them, was established among them, for the succeeding Churches sake, which without such order would in a very short time become a meer Babel. Hence St. Hierom saies,* 1.12 The Church was built upon Peter: though true it is the same thing is done upon others, and that the strength of the Church equally rests upon all. But among the twelve one is chosen, that a Head being constituted, the occasion of Schism may be taken away.

10. To the same purpose St. Cyprian,* 1.13 not∣withstanding the Sentence produced by the Preacher out of him, That all the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris & potestatis; Yet in the very same Book saies,* 1.14 [Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam, &c.] Our Lord builds his Church upon one Person. And, though after his Resurrection, he gave an equal power to all the A∣postles, saying, As my Father sent me, so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose sins you re∣mit, &c. Yet that he might manifest unity, he by his Authority disposed the Original of the same V∣nity beginning from one.* 1.15 (And presently after) Whosoever holds not the unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He that opposes are resists the Church; he that forsakes the Chair of S. Peter, upon which the Church is founded, does

he trust that he is in the Church? In like manner St. Optatus at Rome,* 1.16 (saies he) a Chair was placed for St. Peter, to the end that unity might be preserved of all; and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one a particular Chair. So St. Chrysostome, Observe now, how the same John,* 1.17 that a little before ambitiously beg'd a preferment, after yields entirely the Supre∣macy to St. Peter. And again, Christ did con∣stitute Peter the Master,* 1.18 not of that See of Rome alone, but of the whole world.

11. Now,* 1.19 whereas the Doctor objects that St. Paul's contesting with St. Peter, and resisting him to his face, argues that he did not acknowledge any Superiority in him:* 1.20 Let St. Augustin, from St. Cyprian, resolve us, You see (saies he to the Donatists) what St. Cyprian hath said, that the holy Apostle St. Peter, in whom did shine forth so great a grace of Primacy, being reprehended by St. Paul, did not answer that the Supremacy belong'd to him, and therefore he would not be reprehended by one that was posterior to him. And he adds, The Apostle St. Peter hath left to posterity a more rare example of humility,* 1.21 by teaching men not to disdain a reproof from inferiors; then St. Paul by teaching inferiors not to fear, resisting even the highest, yet without prejudice to Charity, when Truth is to be defended.

12. From all that has been said on this Sub∣ject, it will necessarily follow, that whatever Superiority St. Peter enjoyed, and the Holy Fa∣thers acknowledged, was the gift of our Sa∣viour

only, a gift far more beneficial to us then to St. Peter. He was, as St. Chrysostome saies, Master of the World, not because his Throne was establish'd at Rome, but receiving from our Lord so supereminent an Authority, he therefore made choice of Rome for his See; because that being the Imperial City of the World, he might from thence have a more commodious influence on the whole Church.

13. Upon which grounds, whensoever the Fathers make use of the Authority of his Successors, Bishops of Rome against Hereticks or Schismaticks, they consider that authority as a priviledge annexed to the Chair of St. Peter, and only for St. Peters regard to the Sea of Rome. This is so common in the Fathers writings, that I will not trouble him with one Quotation. Indeed Iohn of Constantino∣ple, when he would invade an equality [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in some sort with the Pope, did wisely to mention only the priviledge of the Imperial City, because he could allege no o∣ther pretention for his Plea. But St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. Gelasius, &c. produce their e∣vidences for their Supremacy from Tues Pe∣trus, & super hanc Petram, &c. from Pasce oves meas, &c. Nay, St. Augustin and other Bi∣shops of the Milevitan Council, writing to Pope Innocent to joyn with them in condemning the Pelagians, tell him their hope was those Hereticks would more easily be induced to submit to his Authority: Why, because of

the splendor of the Imperial City? No, but because the Popes Authority* 1.22 was [de Sancta∣rum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta] de∣duced from the Authority of the Holy Scri∣ptures.

14. I might with reason enough, yet I will not omit to take notice of Doctor Pierce's trivial reasonings against the Popes, (as he calls it) pretended Headship; because such being sitted to vulgar capacities, and confi∣dently pronounc'd, do more mischief, then those that have more shew of profundity and weight. Thus then he argues: If the Pope be head of the Church, then the Church must be the Body of the Pope:* 1.23 And if so, then when there is no Pope, the Church has no Head: When there are many Popes, the Church has many Heads: When the Pope is Heritical, the Church has such a Head as makes her deserve to be behe••ded.

Whatever advantage the Doctor expects from such a Discourse as this, it must flow from a childish Cavil upon the word Head, and whatever consequences he here draws from thence against the Pope, may as well be applyed to all kind of Governors, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil: For they are all Heads within their Precincts: A King is the Head of his Kingdom; and a Bishop of his Diocesse. When we call therefore the Pope, Head of the Church, we mean that among all Governors thereof, he is the Supream in the sense before declared: He is a Head, but not so as Christ is in respect

of his Mystical body, who by his Spirit inter∣nally quickens and directs it. The Pope is only an external, ministerial, visible Head, and, as it were, Root of Vnity and Govern∣ment.

All this, no question, the Doctor knew be∣fore to be our meaning: and by consequence he knew that his inferences from thence were pitifully pedantic, & insignificant, though ma∣ny of his Court-hearers and Country-readers perhaps wonder there can remain a Papist in England unconverted after such a Sermon has been publish'd.

15. When there is no Pope, says the Preach∣er, the Church wants a Head. It is granted: For sure he does not think it is a part of our Faith to believe Popes are immortal. But yet for all that the Papacy is immortal: The Go∣vernment is not dissolv'd: Succession is not interrupted. It is a Maxim in our Law that Kings dye not, that is, the Regal Authority lives, though Kings in their particular persons dye: Nor is there any substantial difference, as to this point, between hereditary and ele∣ctive Monarchy▪ And in this sense we may say, that Popes dy not, nor Bishops: Partly because when a Bishop or the Pope dys, at least his Jurisdiction remains in the Chapter or Body of Electors. Hence it is that in St. Cyprian we read Epistles of the Roman Clergy exercising authority beyond the Diocese of Rom••: But principally because, when an Ec∣clesiastical▪

Superior dyes there remains by Christs Ordination a [vis generativa] or vir∣tue in the Church to constitute another in his place, and so to continue the Government. There has been oft times a long vacancy in the Apostolic See, as well as in Dioceses and Kingdoms. After the death of Pope Fabian (before there were any Christian Emperors) the See was vacant for above a years space: yet neither did St. Iren••us, Optatus, Epipha∣nius, or St. Augustin, when they objected the chain of Succession in St. Peters Chair, esteem that thereby the Chain had been bro∣ken: neither did any old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority.

16. But what shall we say to the Doctors next inference, in a case of Schism? when there are many Popes, then▪ says he, the Church is become a Monster with many Heads. But he is deceived. As when, after the death of a King, several pretenders to the Crown ap∣pear, there is still by right but one legitimate Successor: all the rest are Rebels and Tyrants. It is so in the Papacy.* 1.24 In that case St. Cypri∣ans Rule holds, If the Church be with Nova∣tian, it was not with Cornelius, who by a law∣ful Ordination succeeded Fabian. Novatian therefore is not in the Church, nor can be e∣steemed a Bishop (of Rome.) Or if it be un∣certain to which of them the right pertains, so that some Nations adhere to one Head, o∣thers

to another: it is a great calamity: but yet the Church remains, though wounded, yet not wounded to death: A General Coun∣cil cures all.

17. If the Pope, (according to Doctor Pierce his supposition) should prove an Heretic, he infers very improperly, that the Church ha•• such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheaded: For in that case, the Pope is so far from re∣maining a Head, that he is not so much as a Member of the Church, but is deprived not only of the Administration, but also the Com∣munion of the Church, as other Heretical Bi∣shops are: So that then there is a pure vacan∣cy. I shall not be so severe as to take notice of the unhansom (not to say unmannerly) terms the Doctor uses in expressing the last branch of this Objection.

18. Thus much concerning the Doctors first pretended Novelty of the Roman Church, the Popes primacy. Now whether my asserting that Primacy or his denying it to be a Novelty, and whether his proofs or mine are more conclu∣ding, I leave to the Readers consciences. He will excuse my dilating on this Point, because therein I follow his own example,* 1.25 for he tels his Majesty, He has spoken most at large of the Popes supremacy and his reasons given for such Largenesse shall be mine too, though I believe we shall have different meanings, yet without equivocation, even when we deliver our rea∣sons▪ in the same words. For i. I also acknow∣ledg

the Popes supremacy to be the chief, if not on∣ly hinge on which does hang the stress of (more than Papal) the Ecclesiastical Fabrick, as being the Cement of the Churches unity.* 1.26 2. Because it is a point wherin (say I likewise) the Honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most con∣cerned. His meaning is, that no danger is to be apprehended for England, but only from that Point. I am sure, on the contrary, that whilst such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknow∣ledged in England, the Church here was ne∣ver torn in pieces with Schisms, nor poyson'd with Heresies: The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account; never was a Sword drawn for or against it. Some few little more than Paper-quarrels hapned be∣tween the English and Roman Court, about matters, not of Religion, but outward Inte∣rests: in which generally the Pope had the worst at last: But the Honor and Safety of these Dominions were far from being prejudiced. The Kings of France always have been, and stil continu as jealous and tender of their temporal Regalities, as ever any Princes were: yet they account it one of the most sparkling Jewels of their Crown, that they call themselves the eld∣est [and most devoted] Sons of the Catholic Church. The acknowledging the Spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honor and defence to them than many Armies would be: because it preserves peace and u∣nity in that Kingdom, not by the terror of

Swords drawn and Muskets charged in their Subjects faces, but by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to Faith and Obedience. And let Doctor Pierce be as∣sured, without a Spiritual Authority, which may have influence on the hearts of Christian Subjects, all their preaching, and Laws too will prove but shaking Bulwarks for suppor∣ting Monarchy.

19. But we must not yet leave this passage without considering it a little better. He saith, That in the point of the Popes Supremacy of Iu∣risdiction the honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concern'd: his meaning is, that it is both dishonorable and dangerous to his Majesties Dominions, that any of His Subjects should be permitted to acknow∣ledge such a Supremacy. I would I could oblige the Doctor by any exorcisms to discover sincerely the inward thoughts of his heart up∣on this Subject. But, having no such pow∣er, at so great a distance, I must be content to argue the Case with him once more, because it is a passage, that reflects not only upon the honor of Catholick Religion, but the safety of all Professors of it.

20. He cannot be ignorant, how often and how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have protested their renouncing any acknow∣ledgement of the least degree of Temporal power or Jurisdiction as of Right to belong to the Pope, over any Subject of his Majesties;

It is therefore meerly a pure Spiritual autho∣rity that they acknowledge in their Supreme Pastor. Is this now dishonorable? Is it un∣safe? To whom? To all Supreme Princes, whether Catholics, or not? For Catholic Princes, they protest against this Opin••on ei∣ther of dishonor or danger; If only then to other Princes or States which are dissenters from, and enemies to Catholick Religion, then Nero and Diocletian had reason and ju∣stice on their sides, when they persecuted a Religion dishonorable and dangerous to the Ro∣man Empire: For evidently, neither St. Peter, nor any other Apostle, or Bishops, but were, as to their Spiritual Authority, independent on the Emperors.

21. Nay more, let the Doctor himself con∣sider, lest He and his, both Brethren and Fa∣thers, the Bishops, be not more deeply invol∣ved in the guilt, for which he desires the Ca∣tholics only should suffer. They themselves acknowledge, in despite of so many Statutes to the contrary, a pure Spiritual Authority in their Bishops, not derived from the King, they promise a Canonical obedience to them▪ they do not so to the King, therefore they ad∣mit a Jurisdiction in Bishops, of which the King is not the Root.* 1.27 For tho' for example, a publick denunciation of Excommunication

in their Spiritual Courts: or the conferring of Orders, or determining points of Faith, &c. without the Kings consent may expose them, in case they exercise such Functions, to some danger from the Law of the King∣dom, yet they will justifie such acts to be in themselves valid, that is, perform'd with sufficient authority; See Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort p. 366.—Bishop Carleton of Ju∣risdict. Reg. & Episcop. c. 1. p. 9.—&c. 4. p. 39, 42.—Bishop Bramh. Schism guarded, p, 61, 63, 92.—Answer to Bishop of Chalced. p. 161.—Doctor Ferns Discovery of Episco∣pacy and Presbytery, p. 19.—Doctor Tailor Episcopacy asserted, p. 236, 237, 239, 243, —Mr. Thornd. Right of Ch. c. 4. p. 234. —Epilog. l. 1. c. 8. p. 54.—l. 1. c. 19, & 20. —l. 3. c. 32. Which Quotations if any in∣telligent Reader will take the pains to peruse and consider, he may clearly see what limi∣tations they make in the sense of that Oath of Regal Supremacy, which Oath yet they free∣ly take in the full latitude of its words, though these expresse not any of the said limitations. Amatter, which hath not passed unobserved by Mr. Thorndyke in his Iust Weights, c. 20. who there conceives great reason why the Kingdom for this should enact a new Oath.

22. But if I should address my Speech now to Presbyterians and their Consistories, the Case is far more evident. They are so far from permitting to the King a Supremacy of

Authority in their Ecclesiastical Courts (if such conspiracies may be called Ecclesiastical) that they will not so much as allow him any authority at all in such transactions: Nay they will exempt him no more than his mean∣est Subject from subjection to them. The like may be said of other Sects, which though they are not guilty of the Presbyterian tyranny, yet are as averse from granting his Majesty any Supremacy in matters of Religion, as ei∣ther Presbyterians, Protestants, or Roman Ca∣tholics. But I am now to deal with the Prea∣cher and his Protestants: I therefore desire them to compare themselves and Roman Ca∣tholics together as to this point of honor and safety to his Majesty and his Dominions.

23. Is it dishonorable either to the King or Kingdom, that a purely Spiritual authori∣ty should be acknowledged in him, to whom this whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity together with the whole Chri∣stian world submitted it self as to their Su∣preme Pastor? And is it Honorable, that the same authority should be granted to more than twenty of his Majesties own Subjects? Again, is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian Vnity's sake should be professed to one Venerable Prelat a 1000. miles off, and is there no danger in making the same Professi∣on to so many at home, who, besides their spi∣tual authority, have a right to concur in the enacting and executing Civil laws too; and

who, we see, can either exalt or depresse, ac∣cording to their Interests, and advantages the Royal Prerogative?

2. To resolve such Questions, as these, but also so to resolve them as becomes a Prea∣cher of the Gospel of peace and truth would be a subject worthy the stating in a Court-Sermon. But it must be don without transgressing the precise limits of the question, that is, by com∣paring the state of Catholic Religion as pro∣fessed and practised, for example, in France, Venice, Germany, &c. with the reformed Religion in England; the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the former with that of the lat∣ter; and then judging whether of the two bring more security and honor to their Prin∣ces, and are more effectual upon the consci∣ences of Subjects to breed them up in peace and obedience. For my own part, simply as a Catholic, my desire and prayers are, that Gods divine truth may prevail in all our hearts, but so prevail by those wayes of Charity, Pa∣tience, Justice and Piety with which it first conquered the World. And as a Subject of the Crown of England my Prayers are, that we may be all united in the profession of that on∣ly Religion, which more perfect••y and most indispensibly gives to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's.

25. I will row for a farewel, to these Te∣stimonies of our Catholic Fathers, add the

Votes of the Fathers also of the Reformation, that he may see how far more ingenuously they write then himself has don•• touching the Popes Primacy. And first I will produce two or three, who, though they oppose it, as he does, as a Novelty▪ yet allow a far greater age to it.* 1.28 Doctor Fulk (most unchronologically) says, that five or six hundred years before Pope Leo and Pope Gregory (that is almost an hun∣dred years before Christ was born) the myste∣ry of Iniquity wrought in the See of Rome, and then daily encreased; they were so deceived with long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, then the Holy Scriptures do allow. Archbishop Whitgift assures us,* 1.29 that the Papal Supremacy began with St. Peter, his words are, Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief, that had chief authority o∣ver the rest, to the end Schisms might be com∣pounded. And this he quotes from Calvin, who said,* 1.30 The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest.

26. I will now produce two, who will give this whole Cause to the Pope. The first is the so fam'd Melanctho••, who writes thus: As certain Bishops preside ••ver particular Chur∣ches,* 1.31 so the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops. And this Canonical policy no wise man, as I think, does or ought to disallow, &c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end, that consent

of Doctrine may be retain'd. Wherfore an agree∣ment may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Supremacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon.

The other witnesse is learned Doctor Covel,* 1.32 the Defender of Mr. Hooker, he having shew'd the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppresse the Seeds of Dissention, &c. thus applies it against the Puritans, If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissentions in the P••imitive Church, when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are: N••y, if twelve [Apostles] were not like to agree, except there had been one chief among them: For saith Hierom, Among the twelve one was therefore chosen, that a chief be∣ing appointed, occasion of Schism might be preven∣••ed; how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity? For in all Societies, Authority, which cannot be where all are equal, must procure unity and obedi∣ence.* 1.33 He adds further: The Church without such an Authority, should be in a far worse case then the meanest Common-wealth; nay almost then a Den of Theives; if it were left d••stitute of means, either to convince Heresies, or to suppresse them; yea, though there were neither help nor as∣sistance of the Christian▪ Magistrate. Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these, his own Primitive Reformers, either joyn with us in this Point of Primacy, or however they oppose him, in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third.

Notes

• * 1.1

  A. D. 311.
• * 1.2

  Aug Epist. 162.
• * 1.3

  A. D. 258.
• * 1.4

  Euseb. Hist.
• * 1.5

  Eccles. lib. 7. c. 4. 6.
• * 1.6

  Cypr. Epist. 75
• * 1.7

  Id. Epist. 67.
• * 1.8

  Id. Epist. 68.
• * 1.9

  A. D. 19••.
• * 1.10

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
• * 1.11

  Serm. page. 18.
• * 1.12

  Hierom. cont. Jovin. lib. 2.
• * 1.13

  Cypr. de unit. Ecclesiae.
• * 1.14

  Ibid.
• * 1.15

  Ibid.
• * 1.16

  Optat. cont. Parm. lib. 2.
• * 1.17

  Chrysost. in Act. Ap. cap. 1. hom. 3.
• * 1.18

  Id. in. cap. 21. Jo••n. hom. 87▪
• * 1.19

  Serm. page 17.
• * 1.20

  August. lib. 2. de Bapt. cont. Donat.
• * 1.21

  Ibid.
• * 1.22

  August. Ep. 92.
• * 1.23

  Serm. Pag. 20.
• * 1.24

  Cypr. Epist. 76.
• * 1.25

  Epist. Ded.
• * 1.26

  Ibid.
• * 1.27

  Contrary to th•• Statute 37 Hen. 8. c. 17.—••, Ed. 6. c. ••.—& Reform. Leg. Ecclesiast. c. De Offici▪ & Iu∣risdictione, p. 190.
• * 1.28

  Fulk against Bristows mo∣tives, p. ••48.
• * 1.29

  Wh••tg. De∣fence, cap. 59.
• * 1.30

  Ibid. p. 173.
• * 1.31

  Centur. E••ist. Th••ol. Epist. 74.
• * 1.32

  Covel. Exam. page 106, 107.
• * 1.33

  Ibid.