Province which was not of old and from the begiÌ„niÌ„ng under his power If any have entred anothers Province have by force subjected it unto himself let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed nor the pride of worldly Authority under pretence of the Hierarchy enter into the Church and by little and little before we are aware we loose that Liberty which the Lord Jesus Christ the deliverer of all men by his blood hath procured Therefore it bath pleased the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod that the rights belonging to every Province be preserved inviolated and the customes which were from the beginning No marvell if some have gone about by sleight of hand to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of this Councell and Binius having recited only six Canons of it pretend that in the Vatican and some other Copies there be no more Indeed any man observing the latter practices of the Church of Rome may easily think that the Vatican can scarce brook a CanoÌ„n so directly crossing the present claimes of that See But however he thought meet not to give it the place proper for it among the Canons yet I suppose the truth of the case of the Cyprian Bishops and the judgement of the Councell thereupon were so evident that he could not but relà te it and give it the Authority of a Decree of the said Councell referring his Reader thereuntoin the close of the six Canons set by him together From this Canon the most Reverend Primate of Ireland doth duely inferre Vindic. p. 96. that sith this councell doth determine that no Bishop should occupy any Province which before that Councell and from the beginning had not been under him or his Predecessors and that if any Patriarch Usurped any jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it and that it may be made to appear that the Bishops of Rome from not so much as any time before the celebration of that Synod no nor for yeares after Christ much lesse from the beginning exercis'd over the Britâ—nick Churches therefore Rome can pretend no right over BritaÌ„nie without their own consents nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves This priviledge of our Brittish-Church upon the proceedings of the fore-named Councell of Ephesus will appear the lesse disputable from our Antiquity of receiving the Christian faith Armachan de primord Eccles Brittan p. 23. for if Joseph of Arimathea presently after the passion of our Lord as the Legats of the English Nation at the Councell of Constance contend pleading it as a just reason for the super excellency of their Country above France and Spaine as having received the faith before them preached in England the gospel of Christ before Tiberius's death and Peter came not to lay the foundation of the roman-Roman-Church at that City â—ay not into Italy till the second year of Claudius the brittanick-Brittanick-Church in its first originall was free from Rome and by the authority of the Councell of Ephesus ought to continue so as having its beginning afore there was at Rome either Bishop or Court or ecclesiastical jurisdiction Moreover the learned Primate doth demonstrate the continuance of the freedome of our Church from Rome by its adhaesion unto the Eastern-Churches in the controversie that arose about the celebration of Easter and the administration of Baptisme for 't is not credible that the whole Brittish Scottish Church too should even in Augustin's time have dissented from Rome if they had been Subject unto the Roman Bishop as their lawfull Patriarch see the Primates vindication p. 100. c When I say that the guilt of Schisme may be incurred by forcing others to leave us he reply's as he useth when he hath nothing to say that this is no Answer to which I thinke I need say no more but that this is no reply Clemens according to the title of the 4 ch of his 6 booke of Constitut might have taught him (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he that forsaketh the wicked is no Schismatique but hâ— that forsaketh the godly He will not yield that we were forced to forsake Rome But is it not notoriously evident They that make Termes of Comunion inconsistant with the integrity of our Catholique faith are clearly the Schismatiques but so have the Romanists done as is evident by the Trent Decrees Ergo Moreover if it be Schisme as it is for a particular church to withdraw her selfe from communicating with a sound part of the Catholique-church Rome as long as she refuseth communion with the Protestants maintaining no doctrines contrary to the Catholick faith nor infringing the fair claimes of any of the ancient Patriarch's must needs be Schismaticall He pretends that we are impatient under the spirituall punishments of Rome whilest she seeks to reduce us to our former faith and herein we are like Rebells that storme at their King that seeks to reduce them We are not so fond in espousing opinions but that we shall judg it a favour to be undeceived from them assoon as we shall be taught that they are not agreeable to the Catholique faith * Psal 141.5 If the righteâ—us smite us it shall be a Kindnesse and if they reprove us it shal be an excellent oyle which shall not break our head But till we can be farther convinced of Rom's Authority over us we professe our selves not at all engaged to submit to her unrighteous censures which the Roplyer may indeed justly call spirituall punishments forasmuch as they reach when the Pope hath power our very souls and spirits so far as to expell them from our Bodies by fire sword Gun-powder and all the instruments of cruelty that wit and malice can contrive they fight against us with arguments borrowed out of the Butchers-shops rather then the sacred Scriptures though St. Augustine (t) Nullis bonis in Catholicâ hâ—c placet si usque ad mortem in quemquam licèt haereticuÌ„ saeviatur Aug cont Cresc Iram l. 3. c. 5. was more mild in the punishment of such as were truely Heretiques affirming it to be a thing that liked no good men that Heretiques should be put to death and though he saw good reason to change his opinion and that the Imperiall Lawes were by their severity advantagious unto Christianity yet it was in cases of manifest opposition against the Catholique Church which the Papists shall then prove the Protestants to be guilty of when they shall prove their own new doctrine to be Catholicke and that will be when they shall convince us that the Church alway's held what for severall hundreds of years it never heard of That resemblance of a King reducing his Subjects by force will never concerne us till the Popes Authority over us be made evident and therefore it will be our crime not to be obedient when it shall be his Prerogative to give us Commands When I say the Church of Rome hath
first and chief efficient cause of the holy and spirituall building of his Church Peter by his endeavours whil'st he lâ—ved and by his doctrine since his death together with the rest of the Apostles though chief among them in the sense of the Ancients but not Moderne church of Rome a secondary or subord note efficient faith the instrumentall cause of this Glorious Edifice and the faithfull the materiall of the Temple of God When therefore this Replyer would play the Critick upon Peters name in the Syriack language which imports a rock he follows indeed his Masters Baronius and Bellarmine but to little purpose Peter (m) non est à Petra Petrus sed ipse est Petra is not saith Baronius derived from Petra a rock but he himselfe is a rock But what would the Replyer get hereby first he would fecretly disparage the Greek copies of the Gospel as if they did not conveniently expresse the importance of Christs words secondly directly oppose the Authority of St. Augustine (n) Petrus a Petrâl quemadmodum a Christo Christianes vocatur Aug deverb Dom. Ser. 13. lib. Retract 1. c. 21. who saith Peter was called from a rocke as a Christian is called from Christ and thirdly teach us what small skil he hath in the Analogy of Grammar for grant Christ and Peter too to be called a Rock the word rock shall be praedicated of them both univocally equivocally or denominativel as the Logicians speak The first kind of praedication cannot be admitted true of Christ and Peter without blasphemy for if Christ and Peter be named a roek un vocally then the same definition must agree to the rock Christ the Son of God and to the rock Simon son of Jonas Now Christ is a rock because he giveth life comfort and protection to his Church against all dangers ghostly and bodily which none can do but God If Simon be such a rock it follows he must be God also which is such a blasphemy that I hope this Replyer trembleth to be guilty off It follows therefore that Peter be a rock equivocally or by denomination from the true rock and let him take which sense he will the same definition by the Lawes of Logick shal not be assign'd to Christ and Simon because there will be a vast difference between the Rock Christ and the rock Simon By reason of the severall Genius's of the Syriack and Greek tongues as Causaubon hath noted Simon may in the one language be called a Rock equivocally and in the other a rock by denomination because in Syriack the name of Peter is written with the same letters that the word is that signifies a rock Cepha denoteth both but in Greek with others which is required in denominations as (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simplicius in Categ apud Casaub Smiplicius hath observed out of Aristotle Whether therefore in Syriack from Cepha Peter be also called Cepha or from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference will consist only in the form of words but not in the importance of the sense we are not afraid to call Peter a rock or a foundation the Scripture giveth this Appellation to all the Apostles Ephe 2.20 Rev 21.14 and why should we deny it unto him whose name challengeth it by particular praerogative The question is in what sense he is so called We see evidently by the Testimony of the Fathers that Antiquity thought him not a Foundation or Rock in the sense that the Patrons of the Popes omnipotency assert as if the whole Church were bottomed upon him and his Successors and the whole world become his Diocesse as Hart affirmed in his conference with Reynolds pag. 459 neither did they think that by these Titles given to Peter the Pope might lay claime not only to a Primacy of Order amongst the rest of the Patriarchs but a Lordly Soveraignty over all Christian people throughout the whole world Whereas now it is too manifest that all this contention is raised not so much for Peters honour as the Popes ambitious designes whom it would better become to imitate Peters true humility who would not endure Cornelius a Centurion to lye prostrate before him Acts 10.26 then assume his false titles false I say in respect of the sense now imposed on them whereby he may tread on the necks of Princes But what though the Pope succeeded St. Peter at Rome did not a Bishop succeed him also at Antioch might not this Successor clayme as much priviledge at the one See as the Roman Usurper doth at the other T is evident enough that Peter had no Successor in the Apostolicall dignity and (p) Contrvers 2. q. 3. a. 3. Stapleton teacheth that the Apostleship ceased when the Apostles dyed and yet though this were something currant doctrine at Rome (q) Annotat in Cyor. excus Rom. 1563. Bellarmine took courage to affirme that because some have given the name of Apostleship to the Popes office therefore the Pope succeedeth after a sort in the Apostleship viz in the charge of the whole world But Eusebius lib. 3. c. 17. mentioneth St. John after St. Peters decease to have discharged his Apostolick Office by constituting Churches and ordaining Bishops whereas he assigneth no imployment to the Bishop of Rome but the administration of his own Diocesse Certainly if the first Bishops of Rome had succeeded St. Peter in such a Superiority as the Romanists now contend for not only all other Bishops but St. John himself also must have acknowledged the Pope to have been his Diocesan which were to submit the supream dignity of the Apostolick Authority instituted imediatly by Christ to the limited jurisdiction of a particular See for such was the Bishop of Romes circumscription as we have shewn afore out of Clemens his constitutions That the purer ages of the Church had no such opinion of the Popes universall jurisdiction is manifest by the eight Canon of the famous Councell of Ephesus framed for the vindicating of the Bishops of Cyprus their exemption from the incroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch who claimed Authority over them in the consecration of their Metropolitan For when Reginus Bishop of Constantia Zenon Bishop of Curiun and Euagrius Bishop of Sela all within the limits of Cyprus made their complaint that the Patriarch of Antioch would subject their Island to himselfe attempting to draw to him the power of Ordinations amongst them contrary to the ancient Customes the Canons of the Apostles the decrees of the Nicene Councell upon the hearing of their cause they framed a Canon the last of the eight recited by Justellus wherein they exempt the Cypriots from the usurpation they complained of and moreover without the least reservation oâ— priviledge to the Bishop of Rome iâ— in this behalfe adde (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the same course be observed in other Diocesses in all Provinces every where that none of the boly Bishops seize upon another
that Liberius subscrib'd not to the ArriaÌ„ Confession which St. Hierome * in Catalogo saith he did compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme which is charged upon him by * apud Chamier lib 3. de Canone cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina who saith upon the credit of common fame that he dyed a strange death either as Arrius or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand Albo floriacensis Anastasins Bibliot hecarius Let her make an Apology for * condemnatus in sexta Synodo Honorius who was condemned by a Councell a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders who though Honorâ—us taught heresie yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man yet he did it not as a Pope 3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme in that she doth not only depart from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her except they would communicate with her in her abominations Schisme is theirs who cause it when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the Hereticks caused the Schisme a forced separation maketh not them that in such a case seperate themselves guilty of schisme such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant are Schismaticks and this imputation lyeth strong upon the Church of Rome in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell if then it be demanded for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall first Whose company did she leave secondly From what Body did she go forth thirdly Where was the true Church which she forsook 1. To the first question we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines 2. She departed from their Body not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves which particular Churches are bound to do when they cannot do it which were the best course by a generall Councell This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate Though thou Israell play the Harlot Hosea 4.15 yet let not Judoh offend though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome and tenne in the other yet notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church and the multitude of the other comparatively they were to reforme themselves that were fewer in case the other should remain in their Idolatry 3. And if it be thirdly demanded Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock we reply first what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incurred by forcing others except they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry to depart from us and then secondly it 's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say I mean that the Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion when she publikely owned those doctrines and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein forsook the rest of her Communion who misliked and detested the said errors in heart before they had by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order were that the only quarrell we would not deny and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before As for that enquiry 1. By what generall Councell 〈…〉 Fathers 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned written against or reproved We answer that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Generall Councells the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts the worshipping of Images censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice by the 36 Canon of the Councell of Elâ—beris Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is adored be painted on walls and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Councell of Nice in the defence of Images yet it 's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received because as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled by Charles the great two years afterward at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened If it should be demanded where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants it is easy to reply that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time and such as were destructive to them that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants as might be quickly shown out of their writings were it seasonable to take the pains and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enquiry where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer Sir YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with as you say Doctor Samwais's Answer to which take this brief Reply The Paper which you sent takes it for granted and the Dr. denies it not that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church and proves her continuance thus This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by
Apostacy Heresy or Schisme But first not by apostacy for Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title to christianity none will say the church of Rome ever fell thus But notwithstanding this the Doctor by a new definition of apostacy will prove she fell thus for saith he Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the name and title to Christianity only nor a departure from the whole Christian Faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the Profession which we have formerly made But the Church of Rome hath thus withdrawn ergo he proves the minor because she embraces particular Doctrines there mention'd which formerly she did not Reply The minor is deny'd and the probation concerning particular Doctrines as Worshipping of Images invocation of Saints c. is likewise deny'd because assum'd without proof and the definition he gives of Apostacy is invalid because it confounds Apostacy with heresy but the other definition is good because it clearly distinguishes them and if so then the Dâ— hath not prov'd as yet that the Church of Rome hath ever fallen by heresie This done the paper proceeds to prove that secondly the Church of Rome never fell by heresy and to effect this it puts the definition of heresy see it in the paper then it goes oâ— thus If the Church of Rome did eveâ— adhere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common receiveâ— Doctrine of the Christian-world I pray satisfy me in these particulars viz. 1. By what generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever w 〈…〉 against her 3. By what authority was shâ— otherwise reproved Before we put the Drs. answers to these particulars we will take a view how he proves the Church of Rome to have fallen by heresy thus therefore he argues Certain Popes Bishops of the Church of Rome as Liberius Anastasius secundus and Honorius have fallen by heresie ergo the Church of Rome hath fallen by Heresie Reply The Antecedent begets a new dispute of ihe Popes infallibility ex Cathedrâ which is to be wav'd because the paper doth not meddle with it and I deny the consequence which he no wayes goes about to prove But since he cannot prove that the Church of Rome hath fallen by heresy let us see at least what he sayes to the Quaeries To the first then which demands By what generall Councell was she ever condemned he answers by the sixt Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which condemns the usurpation of unlimited power challenged by the Pope and gives like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts Reply This unlimmited power challenged by the Pope is his supremacy alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine institution and therefore onely said not prov'd in which he is stil like himself to be an Usurpation As for the sixt Canon of the Nicene Councell it is so farr from condemning or limiting the universall jurisdict on justly challenged by the Bishop of Rome as it clearly asserts it to evince this we will cite the words of the Canon which the Dr. least they should discover his bold assertion untrue omitred the words are these Let the ancient custome be kept in Aegypt Lybia Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexand 〈…〉 have power over all these because the Roman-Bishop also hath such a custome these last words because the Bâ—shop of Rome c. evince the thing to be aâ— I have said for they are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government to wit because as the Councell sayes it is the Bishop of Rome his custome to have it so If you say that the Popes custome is not referr'd to the Government of these Churches by the Patriarch of Alexandria but to the Government of other Churches in the West I reply that you speak against the Text because this not another thing but this here spoken off viz. That the Bishop of Alexandria have power over these Provinces this is accustomed and to whom to the Bishop of Rome it is his custome to have it so wherefore we like of it well and confirme it Out of which it is clear they do not condemne or limit his Universall jurisdiction but confirme it I know the Dr. would have the sence of the Canon to be this Let the Bishop of Alexandria governe in the places specified because the Bishop of Rome hath a custome to governe in other places to wit in the West Reply This is against the fence of the Canon for those words because the Bishop of Rome c. are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government whereas a Bishop's governing Churches in the West were no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria particularly should governe the Churches here mentioned As for the Councell of Eliberis it being but a particular one and the Quaeries demanding a generall one we need not reply unto it Nay if it be look'd into it absolutely makes for the Church of Rome the words are Placu't picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church least that which is adored be painted on walls In which Decree these words that which is adored are manifestly against the Doctor for they suppose a due reverence constantly given to pictures and lest that things reverenced might be abus'd the Councell forbad pictures in those times of persecution to be painted on the Church-walls for fear the Infidells should deface them Now if you bring the Authority of the second generall Councell of Nice Act 7. desining that we must exhibit to Pictures contrary to what Dr. Samwaies holds Honorariam adorationens non veram â—atâ—iam An honorary adoration not true latria that is an inferiour adoration but not the supream due to Almighty God only Hethinks to evade by saying the Canons thereof were not universally received because assoon as the news of the Acts came to the ears of the Fathers assembled at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those 300. Bishops there convened Reply It is barely said not prov'd that the Nicene Canons were not universally received but I expect proof as for the Councell of Frankford it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicene Canons but only defines that vera latria is not to be given to Images which the Councell of Nice likewise affirms If then these two Councells agree how could the Dr. truly say that the Frankford councell rejected the Nicene Thus you see that the Dr. hath not at all prov'd the church of Rome condemned by any generall Councell But since he cannot prove it by Authority he will by reason thus The want saith he of the sentence of a generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no Security to the Romanists
that their Church is ae sure communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time such as were destructive to those that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been â—o convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church Reply We grant that the Church both can and has condemned arising heresies before there was any conveniency for a generall Councell for the Church either diffusedly or representatively that is either as she is disperst throughout the world and out of councell or as assembled in a generall Councell hath power to coÌ„demn arising heresies and her condemnation of them either way is security enough to her adherents I grant likewise that the want of the sentence of a generall Councell to condemn us were no security to us in case you could shew us otherwise condemned by the Catholique-church dispersed throughout the world but since you can neither do the one nor the other the Church of Rome and her adherents that have both for them are secure enough and you who have both against you are most insecure and I say further that seeing it hath been the custome of the Catholique-church to condemn arising heresies by general Councells ever since she hath had the conveniency of having them it is certain that the Quaerie by what generall Councell was she ever condemned is rationally put and you being not able to produce one leave it unsatisfied As to the Quaerie Which of the Fathers ever writ against her the Dr. answers that it is evident enough that the Fathers of the first five hundred years are against the present Church in all controversies disputed between the Romanists and Protestants Reply Sir We expect to see your evidence but never hope to see it produc'd As to the third By what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd the Dr. answers We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church Reply Shew that the Scriptures thus interpreted do reprove the Church of Rome for till you do so I must needs averre that the Ouaerie is unsatisfied Now let us see how the Paper sent to Dr. Samwaies proves the church of Rome not to have fallen at any time into Schisme and to do this it puts the desinition of Schisme which see in the Paper then it proceeds If ever the church of Rome c. read what is said till you come to the Quaeries and afterwards the Quaeries This done let us see how on the contrary the Dr. hath prov'd the church of Rome guilty of schisme The Church of Rome saith he c. hath departed from the communion of the Orthodox Churches Reply Assigne them good Dr. otherwise you only give us words He goes on And hath forc'd a departure c. No good Doctor you voluntarily left her communion and so made your selves Schismaticks He proceeds The schisme is theirs who cause it Let that passe He holds on When the Orthodox departed from the Arrians c. Reply Strange the Orthodox departed from the Arrians this is quite contrary to St. John 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain heretiques sayes Exierunt ex nobis they went out of us or departed from us which if true and certainly what St. John saith is true and withall that the Orthodox departed from the Arrians as the Dr. sayes then it evidently followes that the Orthodox were Arrians that is heretiques and the Arrians that is heretiques Orthodox for according to St. Iohn they are heretiques that depart but according to Dr. Samwaies the Orthodox departed from the Arrians therefore the Orthodox were heretiques and if so then the Dr. at unawares hath made himselfe an Arrian for I suppose he will say he is one of the Orthodox I wonder again the Dr. did not see the manifest contradiction he run into when he said the Orthodox departed for the Orthodox are they that do not depart from the Doctrine anciently received so that to say that the Orthodox departed is to say those that did not depart did depart which is plain contradiction in terminis Now he begins to answer the Quaeries If then saith he it be demanded 1. Whose company did she leave 2. FroÌ„ what body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook To the first he saith we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she persisted in her false Doctrines Reply He does not satisfie the Quaerie at all for he tells us not what Orthodox company she left he only sayes she left the company of the Orthodox because she persisted in her false doctrines but this is still to leave the Quaerie unsatisfied and according to his accustomed manner to assert things without proof I confesse if we would grant what he saith without proof he would need no more and might lawfully proclaim his victory To the second he replies That she departed from their body that is from the body of the Orthodox not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves Reply You are still like your selfe that is constant in affirming without proof as for what you say of locall separation 't is frivolous to mention it since none was urged in the paper and as for the reformation we call it deformation till you evidence the contrary The text brought out of the Prophet Hosea is impertinent and so deserves no reply and as impertinent is the text which at the beginning of his answer he brings out of the Prophet Isaiah concerning the Church of Jerusalem which only proves that there were many in her who were fallen into sin but what is this to the church of Romes falling into heresie for it is one thing to fall into sin another to fall into heresie and we deny not but many of the church of Rome fall into sin That instance likewise of the church of Corinth is to as little purpose objected against us for it only proves that some not all did erre concerning the resurrection He may if he please but it is to as little purpose argue thus Other particular Churches as the Eastern have fallen into heresie therefore the Church of Rome at least may fall therefore for ought we know hath fallen I deny the consequence for it was only said to St. Peter and his Successors and the Church of which they were to be Pastours Thou art Peter or as the Syriack hath it Thou art a Rock and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gatos of hell shall not prevail against it To the third Which was the true Church which she forsook he sayes We reply what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incur'd by forcing others Reply This is no answer for you do not tell us what true church she forsook and whereas you mention again her forcing you I reply as before that you
these doctrines Let the Replyer deny them if he please we shall congratulate his abrenunciation of such dangerous errors but as long as we see them taught and practised by all the Romish-communion we need not prove what they deny not being indeed so farre obliged not to deny it as they are obliged to professe the Trent-Canons To assert a partiall apostacy is not to confound it with heresie the word implyes a ecesse or departure from what a Church or Person hath sometimes professed which heresie doth not he that never acknowledged the truth cannot apostatize from it but he that heretically maintains opihions destructive to the christian faith may be call'd an heretique though he were never Orthodox Rome is Apostaticall in all the errors which she now holdeth against the truth which she once professed 't is not her mistake only in the truth but her dereliction of it when she affirms men to be justified not by faith alone but by workes also for this she believed not but the contrary when St. Paul wrote to her and taught her the right belief Rom 3.28 And when St. Clemens governed her as appears by his Epistle to the Corinthians where he thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 41. The next thing the Replyer conceiveth him selfe concerned in is to prove that thâ—s Enthymem or argument The Pope have fallen by heresie therefore the Church of Rome is no valid way of reasoning and withall an extravagant controversie leading to a new dispute coÌ„cerning the Popes infalibility ex Cathedrá the Replyer here is much mistaken so if it be demanded whether the Church of Rome ever fell by heresy is it not pertinent to prove that she hath so fallen if she be concludeed in the faith of her Bishops that have so fallen else sure t is no sin not to believe as the Pope believes except he first justifie his faith to the Christian world by some better authority then his own Profession Let not therefore this Advocate of the Trent-faith think that he replies when he trifles and that when he saith that he denieth my consequence he hath answer'd my argument my reason is clear and I must not permit him to fly into his obscure corners to shun the evidence of it Thus then I argue is it lawfull to dissent from the Pope or not if it be lawfull why are they censured that obey not his decrees if unlawfull why are they excused that erre not with him nor are involved in his judgement when he teacheth errors opposite to the Christian faith may not a Protestant as lawfully dissent from the Pope as a Papist but sure the Replyer upon better consideration will change his mind and as Hart did in his coÌ„ference with Reynolds rather in despite of all evidence to to the contrary say the Pope cannot erre then plead that though he doth yet the Church is not bound to obey him and truly if it be obliged to obey him how it can stand when he falls I see not 'T is pretended also by the Replyer that the Church of Rome in ascribing universall jurisdiction to the Bishop of that See is not obnoxious to the fixt Canon of the Councell of Nice and so not condemâ—ad by a Generall Councell to prove this he interprets the Canon with a glosse that I think destroyes the Text. I confesse he hath (c) De Roman Pontifice lib 2. c. 13. Bellarmine for his Author in this exposition who having cited four opinions concerning those words in the Canon because this is customary to the Bishop of Rome (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quia et Episcope Romano parilis 〈◊〉 would make the Bishop of Rome the efficient and not the example of the Authority granted to the rest of the Patriarchs in this Canon so that if Bellarmine please the words in the Canon because this is the custome to the Bishop of Rome shall import because it is the Bishop of Romes custome to have it so id est as the Canon before speaketh that Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be under the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope did use to be so liberall in his Concessions to that Bishop as to grant him Authority over those Provinces But why must the sence of Ruffinus be rejected who Lib. 1. C. 6. of his Ecclesiasticall History saith that it was decreed by the Councell in this Canon that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Charge of Aegypt (g) suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum as the Bishop of Rome had the charge of the Citties of his Neighbourhood why must the Authority of Zonaras and Balsamon be despised who give the same interpretation of the Canon The Replyer therefore is very bold when he saith that this sence of the Canon which I give is against the intention of it seeing I give no other then what these and many other men of Iudgment and Learning have given of it before Moreover what a goodly account is given why this cannot be the Genuine sence of the Canon A Bishop governing Churches in the West saith the Replyer is no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria should govern the Churches mentioned in the Canon No reason I Confesse efficient but yet a Morall reason it might be moving the Fathers assembled in the Councell to provide for the Unity of the Church by like expedient in the East as they saw it furnished with in the West Take the meaning of the Canon in this sense and the discourse hath nothing in it against the Laws of a legitimate Argumentation which may out of the Canon thus be framed The ancient Customes are to be retained but that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is an Ancient Custome therefore the Major is manifest from the example of the Bishop of Rome who by the right of custome kept his Authority over the West the minor is evident by experience The Replyer I know likes not the major for he saith that the Popes Supremacy was alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine-right Alwayes held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how did this word escape him I appeal to a competent Judge the Author of the Apostolick Constitutions whether Clemens Romanus or no I dispute not but I suppose of authority enough to give his verdict in point of Fact for the age wherein he wrote doth not he in that forme of Supplication extant lib 8. cap 10. of the Constitutions sufficiently declare that the Bishop of of Rome had his limits aswell as other Bishops (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co. sâ—it lib. 8. c. 10. Let us pray saith he for the Episcopacy of the whole world and for our Bishop James of Jerusalem and his Diocesse and for our Bishap Clement of Rome and his Diocesse and for Luod us of Antâ—och and his Diocess Let the Replyer heâ—e obseâ—ve that Clemens is not prayed for as Bishop of all the World but as a Pastor over his own