36 INTRODUCTION. but at Rome, or from Rome itself, where these doctrines are hetero- doxies? § XVII. We shall not, therefore, have a distinct regard to the opinion of these semi-Romanists, nor consider them otherwise than to confirm that part of truthwhich they hold, and to confute that part of error which they embrace, allowing, at least in word and semblance, more power to thepope thanwe can admit asdue to him. Our discourse shall be levelled at him as suchas he pretends himself to be, or as assuming tohimself the fore mentioned powers and pre- rogatives. § XVIII. Of such vast pretences we have reason to require suf- ficient grounds. He that demands assent to such important asser- tions ought to produce clear proofs of them. He that claims so mighty power should be able to make out a good title to it; for " No man may take this" (more than pontifical) " honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as was Aaron," Heb. v. 4. "They are worthily to be blamed who tumultuously and disorderly fall upon curbing or restraining those who by no law are subject to them."' We cannot well be justified from a stupid easiness in admitting such a lieutenancy to our Lord, if we do not see exhibited to us manifest and certain patents assuring its commission to us. We should love the churchbetter than to yield up its liberty to the will of a pretender, upon slight or no ground. Their boldly claiming such a power, their having some timeusurped sucha power, will not excuse them or us.' Norwill precarious assumptions, or subtile dis- tinctions, or blind traditions, or loose conjectures, serve for probations in such a case. § XIX. Such demands they cannot whollybaulk; wherefore, for satisfaction to them, not finding any better plea, they hook in St Peter, affirming that onhim by our Lord there was instated a primacy over his brethren, all the apostles and the disciples of our Lord, im- porting all the authoritywhich they claim, and that from him this primacywas devolved by succession to the bishops of Rome, by right indefectible for all future ages. Which plea of theirs involves these main suppositions: I. That. St Peter had a primacy over the apostles. II. That St Peter's primacy, with its rights and prerogatives, was not personal, but derivable to his successors. III. That St Peterwas bishop ofRome. ' Jure culpandi aunt, qui turbide atque inordinate in eos coercendos insiliunt, qui nulla sibi lege subjecti sunt. Aug. de Unst. Eccl., cap. xvii. 2 Nemo sibi et professor et testis est.Tertui. v. 1, adv. Marc. "None can be both a claimer and a witness for himself."
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=