referred the judgement of that cause to the Pope And for this he cites Conc. Eph. p. 2. Art 5. in relat ad Caelestin But he might as well have cited Aristotle for there it not one Iota of any Bishop of Jerusalem in that place nor one syllable of any such affirmation of his nor any such reason alleadged to Caelestinus but there say they we deliberated of passing the same sentence upon him which he did upon them who were condemned of no crime but that we might overcome his temerity with long suffering albeit we might justly have done it or he would justly have suffered it yet have we referred it to the judgement of your Holiness Indeed Act. 4. The Bishop of Jerusalem saith that John ought presently to have had recourse to the Apostolick seat sitting with him viz. by his Legates in the Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But t is the Apostlique seat of Jerusalem not of Rome which he tells us he ought to have been directed and guided by Well then this John of Antioch being a Patriarch and Cyrill being his enemy they did well to stay their sentence against him till they knew the mind and had the suffrage of the Patriarch of Rome who was Prime of the Patriarchs But sure our Author did not so well in foysting in Rome for Jerusalem albeit Binnius was his warrant for it Add to this that even this fiction makes against them for had the Pope received an universal jurisdiction and that from Christ why doth the Bishop of Jerusalem omit the delegation of the power from Christ and sink down as low as custome why doth he particularize Antioch when not only that but all other Patriarchical Sees if we may believe our Adversaries were to be guided and directed by the See of Rome or by his Holiness We are told further Ibid Sect. 10. That when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Schismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope and this he did saith the Emperour Valentinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according the custom of Synods To this it is Answered by the same Author Review l. 4. c. 4. s 11. Act 1. Con. Chal. Evag. l. 2. c. 2. Act. 3 Con. Chal. It is easie to make it appear that it was not so For first It is plain from the Acts that the appeal was put in simply by the word Appello without mentioning to whom 2. The Appealants presented a petition to the Emâ—epours tending to this offect that they would be pleased to refer the cause unto a Council 3. The Council passeth the judgement upon the case of the Appeal And 4. The Pope himself was condemned by that Synod He was one of the Plaintiffs against Dioscorus the head of it Whereupon it was said to his Legates by the Presidents of the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. Con. Chal. Nichol. in Epist ad Michael Imperat. that they being accusers could not be judges Yea Pope Nicholas himself testifies that Dioscurus was not so much condemned for his Heresie as for daring to pass sentence against the Pope to what end then had it been to appeal to him seeing he himself was condemned and was a Plaintiff Indeed the Epistle of Valentinian tells us that he appealed to the Pope Ad Theodos in Praeamb Con. Chal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it appears to have been no otherwise then to procure his intermediation to the Emperour for the Calling of a Synod and this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the custome when contentions arose about the faith to Call Synods 2. What is said to be given to the Pope was only given to the Legates that so he might be acquainted with the business and know that he had appeall'd as appears from the 23. Ep. of Leo to Theodosius Because our Legates have stoutly stood it out against the Synod and this Bishop Flavian given them a bill of Appeal we beseech your Gentleness to command a General Synod to be Celebrated in Italy And thus we let him pass to the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 which hath a Canon to this effect Mr. C. p. 59. s 11. That in any Controversie between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved must appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the process and appoint judges and when such a case happened till the Pope had determined the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be chosen in his place De Oec Pout l. 13. c. 7. But 1. Saith Chamier this Council was not Oecumenical but only made up of the Western Bishops For Sozomen L. 3. C. 10. tell us that the Bishops of the East and West could not agree but severally set forth their Decrees and therefore it useth not to be reckoned among the General Councils T is true as Sulpitius saith Sac. Hist l. 2. it was called from each part of the world but of the Eastern Bishops came but seventy six to Sardis and these saith Socrates would not once come into the sight of the Western Bishops but their conditions being denyed Confestim discedunt they presently depart 2. This Canon is manifestly contrary to the fifth of the General Council of Nice which refers the final determination of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch which the Emperour also confirmeth and will have no man to have power to contradict the sentence which the Primate or Patriarch shall give 3. The Affricans took no notice of this Decree Dr. Field p. 566. and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent practice acceptation and execution Yea they will'd the Pope to send no more any of his Clarks to dispatch causes at any mans suit for that this was the way to bring in the Smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church and in very earnest besought him not to be Eafie in admitting any Appeals brought from them 4. This Canon makes rather against them for by it all matters must be ended at home or in the next Province to that wherein they arise And the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter having his authority and to put him in Commission with the Bishops of the Province that so he and they may jointly re-examine things formerly judged To which you may add 1. That it was not in the power of the Pope to command Appeals to himself but only to receive them when brought 2. That this power of Appealing was Ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum and therefore a personal priviledge which was to cease on the death of Julius 3. That the very same thing viz. the like power of Appealing to the Bishop of Constantinople was defined in the General Council of Chalcedon Caâ— 9.17 as you
latitude as it was delegated to him if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory Protestants will have no further cause to complain against him as he saith they do But alas this is the least of our Authors excellencies to be impertinent Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too as will be seen throughout In Decrex Ep. p. 645. And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage toâ—plead for that Title which he so passionately condemnes in his fellow Patriarch And he tells us Mr. C. p. 48. indic Ep. 3. The See Apostolick is preferred before all Churches Answ True we acknowledge with the Council of Chalcedon that being the Emperours Seat it had a Primacy of order confered upon it but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony His second citation as it is frivolous and already answered Ibid. so is it false and not to be found but in some Vtopian Edition A third is very unsutable to his protestation P. 10. Sect. 6. Ibid. L. 5. Indic 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s 9. Nu. 42. For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious as Protestants do generally thence conclude claps in John Bishop of Constantinople L. 2. indic 10. Ep 37 Ibid. a very palpable deceit His next quotations will afford us as he reads it this that if any of the four Patriarchs had committed such an act as the person he complains of did such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal whereas the Latine runs tanta contumacia and who knows not that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals L. 7. ind 2. Ep. 64. though disobedience be proper to inferiours Another of his testimonies speaks thus When any fault is found in any Bishop I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome but in the Latine tis subjectus sit may not be subject to the See of Rome viz. may not be subject if the Emperour refer the cause to his decision C. 5. S. 9. which here was evidently the case and if the Pope himself had been found faulty he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople L. 5. indic 14. Ep. 24. as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully exposed that which brings up the rear is this that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick Ibid. and that the cause was determined by his sentence Now to this the same Doctor Answers That here was no appeal from an inferiour to a superiour but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome who accordingly writes to John of Constantinople tells him what was to be done in this matter according to the rules of justice accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Council of Chalcedon and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of And where he talks of the Canons of the Church the Doctor calls it a pretence of Canons a device which sometimes Popes made use of Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him but was found a falsifier as you may see in the learned Chamier and what wonder if his successors were in this his followers 2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Patriarch De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from popes what his duty was and intercede in the Priests behalf might not this be done without an universal Pastorship but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher for they pretend that The See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the sentences of any Bishops whatsoever Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 50. as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement seeing the Canons have ordained that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican ex vetusto codice Vaticano saith Binius and what false ware he hath brought us thence who can be ignorant this Epistle I am sure smels rank of forgery Sutlivius calls it an impudent fiction and makes it evident 1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was condemned by the authority of the See Apostolick Act. 1. et 2. whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shew that he was condemned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council L. 2. c. 18. which Evagrius also witnesseth to which he might have added that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See Act. 1. when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian 2. Saith he the Epistle tells another lye L. 4. C. in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolick See whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor and as Socrates saith Vir valde pius eximius and consequently such a one as no honest man would offer to condemn And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy See 5. let us see what we can deduce from them against it and 1. Pope Julius Dr. Ham. 3. def c. 2. s 4. who was willing enough not only to defend but take advantage to exalt his power doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius Ep. Jul. p. 741 753. defend the right of his act by an antient custome especially and by the Canon of Nice which yet t is plain would not justifie it and not by pretence of any Divine Authority or in any such Dialect that could intimate his pretension that from St. Peter this belonged unto him which sure he would have done and thereby have silenced all Catholick opposers if thus it had then been believed by them or even by himself to have belonged to him 2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was present and the Popes pretensions were disputed and his power in their Churches denyed he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter
Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primacy of jurisdiction in their own Provinces Add to this the Councils following who generally thus interpret it Nor is this Supremacy condemned only by the Nicene Sect. 3 Ephesine Milevitan Council and most evidently by the Council of Chalcedon An. Dom. 258. but also by the Council of Carthage under Cyprian which thus Decrees That no man should make himself Bishop of Bishops or go about tyrannically to enforce others to a necessity of obeying seeing each Bishop hath his liberty and no one may judge another nor be judged of another but they must all be judged of God in which Decree they directly strike at the priod of Pope Stephen who had stiled himself Bishop of Bishops and threatned excommunication to those that thought otherwise as even Baronius doth acknowledge Aâ— 258. Na. 42. An. â—41 in Câ—â—â—â— Afric c. 15. 12. An. 407. The Acts of the Council are extant amongst the African Councils Acts apud Biâ— p. 781. To. 1. Joct â—am cleriâ—atus accipiant c. 72. An. 416 in their letters to Pope Celastine yea the Council of Antioch decrees That a person condemned by all the Bishops of his Province shall by no means be juaged by others but the sentence of the Bishops of his Province shall remain firm unless the guilty person shall appeal to a more plâ—nary or General Council The like we have in another Council of Carthage in which it is decreed That whoever are cast out of communion in Africa if they go to communicate beyâ—nd the Seas they chiefly aim at the Roman Church shall lâ—se their Priesthood now to take away appeals to the Pope to reject his sentence of the persons appearing is evidently to destroy his Supremacy Again in the sixth Council of Carthage at which St. Austin was present it was determined That the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appealed to him and that for this reason because this was never derogated from the Africk Church by any definition of their forefathers and the Nicene Decree doth commit both the inferior Clergy and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans for they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the Grace of the Holy Ghost â—â—y they will not be wanting to each Province Let this equity therefore be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council of his Province or to a General Council unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a justice of Tryal into any one person or Pope and deny it to innumerable that are convened in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognifance of their affairs they Answered That any should be sent as Legates from your Sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers Can 26. al. 27. An. Do. 397. see Bin. To. 1. p. 759. moreover in the third Courcil of Carthage they determined That the Bishop of the first See shall not be called the chief of the Priests or the chief Priest or any such thing but only the Bishop of the first See Sect. 4 Again the second General Council determines That the Bishops that are without any Diocess Extra dioecesia shall not intermeddle with the Churches beyond their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but according to the Rules constituted viz. by the Nicene Synod the Bishop of Alexandria shall govern those only that are in Egypt the Bishops of the East shall take care only of the Eastern Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again The Bishops uncalled shall not go beyond their Diocess to ordain Bishops or dispose of any Ecclesiastical causes but shall observe the Rule above written de unaquaque dioecesi saith the Latine for it is manifest by what is defined in the Nicene Council that in every Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things Mr. C. p 53. What is this to the Bishop of Rome is this nothing to the Church of Rome hath the Bishop of Rome no Province did the Nicene Canon speak nothing of him and if all things in every Province must be determined by the Provincial Synod what will become of Appeals to the Church of Rome I will conclude with something which concerns our own Nation Sect. 5 and it is this That when Austin proposed three things to the Brittish Clergy 1. That they should submit to the Romish Bishop whose very Name they were ignorant of at that time Bish Bra. Just vind p. 103 104. as appears from their language The man whom thou callest the Pope 2. That they should conform to the customes of the Roman Province about the observation of Easter and the administration of Baptism And lastly That they should joyn with him in preaching to the Saxons all the Brittish Clergy assembled themselves together in two several Synods one after another to deliberate hereupon Spel. con an 601. Galt Mon. l. 2. c. 12. vid. Bed his l. 2. c. 2. and after mature consideration they rejected all his propositions Synodically and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon these terms these things being considered must not our Author well deserve the whetstone Pag. 53. when he so confidently affirms That there was never any received Council in Gods Church that excluded the Pope from an Vniversal jurisdiction when as besides the Council by me cited you have twenty more in the learned Crakanthorp unanimously condemning this usurpation Def. Eccles CHAP. VIII St. Gregory against the Popes Supremacy Sect. 1. An objection answered Sect. 2. T is not safe to admit this Supremacy Sect. 3. The instance of the Kings of France considered Sect 4. An Answer to his Questions Sect 5. The Power we assign to Bishops is not contrary to any Acts of Parliament or the Oath of Supremacy Sect. 6. THirdly the Doctor argued from the known testimonies of St. Gregory who flyes out excessively against the very name of Universal Bishop calling it a wicked prophane and blasphemous title importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand yea an imitation of the very Devil who despising the Legions of Angels socially created with him endeavoured to mount the top of singularity Ep ex Reg. l. 4. cp 38. It wasdone by Theodorus and Ischiron two distressed Deacons Dr. Field p 523. To John of Jerusalem by the Synod of Constant sub Menna Act. 5. p. 451. to Minnas by the same General Council Act. 4. p. 437 438 440. and by Justinian Novel 42. to Sergius Bishop of Constant in the sixth General Council Act. 13. to Tharasius in the Nicene Council Act. 3. and that even by
to what these testimonies seem to speak nor doth he there say as our Author cites him Baptisme alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants indeed one of the places tels us that there is full remission of sins in Baptisme and consequently if the person Baptized should instantly depart this life si continuo consequatur ab hac vita migratio he will not be obnoxious to any thing agreeable to which is the place cited from venerable Bede but hence we can only infer that St. Austin thought in such a case of absolute necessity they might be dispensed with through the mercy of God but yet 't is evident he held they had a right to the Sacrament and that ordinarily it was necessary to their obtaining life eternal Which also most evidently appears from the Book cited by our Author cap. 24. he cites cap. 22. From an Antient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptisme and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal which after he had endeavoured to prove from 1 Peter 3. and John 6. he proceeds thus If therefore so many testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting life is not to be expected without Baptisme and the body and blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them Now if this opinion which St. Austine saith was so deeply setled in the See Austin ep 95. De usu Patrum p. 263 264. Church of God and which was held by Innocent the first by St. Cyprian and others as Dally may inform you be not a flat contradiction to the Trent Councils Anathema upon those who hold Parvulis necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem let any reasonable man judge CHAP. X. The Question stated by Mr. C. Sect. 1. Prayer for the dead infers not Purgatory Sect. 3. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome not faithfully related Sect. 4. Prayer for the dead not of Apostolical Antiquitie Sect. 5. The Testimony of St. Denis considered Sect. 6. Of Tertullian Sect. 7. Of St. Cyprian Sect. 8. St. Chrysostome Sect. 9. Eusebius Sect. 10. Epiphanius Sect. 11. An evasion confuted Sect. 12. St. Ambrose Sect. 13. St. Austin not for Purgatory Sect. 14. Mr. C s. Dilemma considered Sect. 15. Arguments against Purgatory Sect. 16 17. Mr. C s. Argument Answered S. 18 19. IN this Chapter our Author tells us Sect. 1 That the Church obligeth all Catholicks no further Sect. 4. 5. 111 112. then simply to believe there is a State or place of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers whereupon he gives us a Prayer of the Mass which mercifully desires to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment light and peace through Christ our Lord and also another which beseecheth the Lord to absolve the soul of his servant from all the Chains of his sin Now saith he if it can be demonstrated That by the Universal practice of the Church such Prayers as these were made for the dead it unavoydably follows that the souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven nor Hell and if so where are they Dr. Pierce speak like an honest man Sect. 1 Answer This is a shrewd Argument which forceth the Doctor either to lose his Honesty or his Cause But sure the Case is not so desperate For were this the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which yet is an evident untruth and were these Prayers used from the beginning and that through the Universal Church of God which cannot be proved yet would I defie his Conclusion and his Argument to infer it For 1. Sect. 2 If Prayer for a place of refreshment exclude the person prayed for at present out of Heaven then is there not one Saint one Martyr nay not the Virgin Mary her self now in Heaven seeing the Prayer begs this to all that rest in Christ Sess 9. De invocatione Sanctorum and then farewel the Council of Trent which talks of Saints reigning with Christ aeterna felicitate in Coelo fruentium Nay the Liturgy of Saint James prayes for the Spirits of all flesh which they had prayed for and which they had not from righteous Abel to that very day that they might rest in the Region of the living in the Kingdome of God in the delights of Paradise in the bosome of Abraham Isaac and Jacob And yet will our Authour say That there is not one of these souls in Heaven And so for the absolving of their sins which is his second instance The Liturgy of Saint Crhysostom Prayes for all the Fathers and Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that had gone before them for all that had laboured and administred in the Holy Function before them for the forgiveness of the sins of the builders of their Mansions worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance and prayes God to pardon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Orthodox Fathers and Brethren which slept in the Communion of God in the hope of the Resurrection and Eternal Life Dall de Satisfact page 510. And likewise Saint Augustin prayes for his Mother that the Lord would pardon her sins Confes l. 9 c. 13 I know O Lord saith he That she was merciful and from her heart forgave her Debtors Do thou therefore forgive her debts if she hath contracted any after her Baptisme for so many years Forgive her Lord forgive her I beseech thee do not thou enter into judgment with her And so on and yet the same Austin tells us what ever it be that is signified by Abrahams bosome there his Mother is ibi vivit nam quis alius tali animae locus for what other place was fitting for her Of such prayers our Author may find good store in Dall ubi supra pag. 520. Now then is Abrahams bosome Purgatory Are all the Orthodox Fathers in Purgatory or if not is it not evident that the Church hath made such prayers for those that are not in Purgatory Sect. 4 2. We shall tell him in the sequel of the Chapter That these prayers of the Fathers depended partly upon suppositions exploded by the Romanist himself partly upon other things which cannot suppose a Purgatory in the mild'st sence Sect. 5 But is it true that the Romanist's Purgatory is onely a place wherein souls are capable of receiving help or ease by prayers why then may it not be Heaven for the souls there may be help't to a fuller state of Glory by our prayers as the Fathers generally affirm 2. The Trent Council tells us that the Catholick Church out of Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers and the holy Councils hath taught us that there is a Purgatory and thereupon commands the Bishops to be diligent that the sound Doctrine of Purgatory taught by the Fathers and Councils should be believed held and every where preached Now
we have done it legally and with sufficient Authority due moderation and other conditions requisite yea we had the implicite consent of the Eastern Church which doth with us reject these Laws of the Church of Rome this we constantly plead in our own behalf and yet we must be Schismaticks though neither all nor any of these pleas can be invalidated Again saith he They acknowledged themselves subject to the Church of Rome and esteemed this Patriarchical Church Ibid. the only Orthodox universal Church and a separation from its Pastor to beformal Schism Ans And will not the worshipers of the Beast do so to him should the Graecian Churches entertain this Faith would you esteem it any argument to prove them guilty of the crime of Schisme because formerly they esteemed your Church Heretical and your supreme Pastor an Usurper if so then must men be Schismaticks whether they separate from you or joyn in communion with you if not I pray you why but because it was their duty to change their opinions in these particulars which is evidently our plea we found that what you called Antient Doctrines from the beginning were not held what you required to be embraced as a truth was evidently condemned in the Word of God c. and when you have talked your self hoarse about the nature of Schisme you will still labour in the fire till you have proved that we are under an obligation to beleive those doctrines as the truths of God which wee reject as contrary to his revealed will which I expect should be performed at latter Lammas You tell us from St. Austin Mr. C. p. 292. sect 11. Reply p. 89 90. that there is no just cause of separating from the communion of all Nations or the whole world To which it is answered by Bishop Bramhal Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against him it is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures wee have made no absolute separation from the Roman Church it self but suppose it had been so the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church seeing she separated first from the pure Primitive Church which was before her not locally but morally Well but to say thus Mr. C. p. 294. and to acknowledge the actual departure was ours and yet we are not Schismaticks as leaving the errours of the Church of Rome rather then the Church is to act the Donatist Answ Yes by all means because the Donatist pretended not to finde any thing in the Doctrine of the Catholick Church See Dally Apol. c. 6. from which they separated contrary to their belief both the one and the other taught the same faith read the same books exercised the same services well but the Donatists derive the word Catholick not from the Universality of Nations but integrity of doctrine Which is most apparently the errour of the Church of Rome which esteems none members of the Catholick Church but those which embrace her doctrines intirely but concerns not us who esteem them members of the Catholick Church that differ from us See Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 281. CHAP. XIX Our third Proposition that all Schisme is not damnable limited sect 1. Proved from divers instances sect 2. Mr. C ' s. Arguments answered And 1 his similitude from Civil Governments considered sect 3. 2 His Arguments from the division of the Schismatick from Christs body sect 5. From the Fathers as St. Chrysostome St. Austin St. Pacian St. Denis and Irenaeus sect 7. His inference from hence that the Church of Rome is not Schismatical considered sect 8. MY third Proposition shall bee this 3 Proposition That all Schisme is not damnable Sect. 1 nor doth it alwaies carry such obliquity with it as to exclude the person thus offending from Gods favour Before I enter upon the proof of this assertion I shall propose this one distinction viz. that Schisme may be either through weakness viz. in persons desirous to know the truth and earnest endeavourers after it who notwithstanding through the weakness of their intellectuals or prejudices from friends or education or such like causes miss their aim or wilfulness as it is in persons who are either negligent as to their inquiry into truth or act against the convictions of their consciences now for these latter sort of Schismaticks I grant their separation to be damnable but for the weaker Brother the person or Church which out of frailty onely is Schismatical I undertake to be an advocate and free such though not from crime yet upon general repentance for unknown sins from the sad sentence of damnation For 1. In that combustion which arose in the Church of God Sect. 2 touching the celebration of the Easter festival the West separated and refused Communion with the East for many years together now here one part of the Christian world must necessarily be accounted Schismaticks for either the Western Church had sufficient grounds for separation and then evidently the Eastern was causally the Schismatick or it was otherwise and then the Western Church must take the Imputation to it self as separating without cause and yet that both continued parts of the Church of God and were not cut off from Christ upon this account who dares deny who can without the greatest breach of Charity thus in the many Schismes which have happened in the Church of Rome about the Popes Supremacy in some of which the best men knew not whom to cleave unto will any charitable Papist say that all who died on the erring part were necessarily damned Again the Myriads of Jews that beleived in Christ and yet were zealous of the law were guilty of this crime as requiring such conditions of their communion which they ought not to have required and excluding men from it upon terms unequal and yet to say that all these Myriads who through weakness and infirmity thus erred did perish and that their beleiving in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with Hypocrisie and Heresie is so harsh a speech that I should not be very hasty to pronounce it Yea further let but a man consider the variety of mens principles their constitutions and educations tempers and distempers weaknesses degrees of light and understanding the many several determinations that are made even by most Churches the various judgements of the most learned touching many of them I say let these things be considered and then let any man tell mee whether it be consistent with the goodnesse of that God who is so acquainted with our infirmities as that he pardoneth many things in which our wills indeed have the least but yet some share to condemn those to eternal torments who after diligent enquiry into the truth erre in some little punctilioes determined by the Church and thinks themselves bound to deny obedience
Romanists bring against the Church of England though in themselves but probable be demonstrations but the first is so ergo which is no better then this if the Moon be made of Green Cheese then is the Roman Church infallible but the Moon c. Again Sect. 2 if wee acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to dissent from the Catholick without an evident demonstration that is such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines held by the fourth part of Gods Church and denied by all the world besides be so much as probabilities but the first is so What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these I shall not envy you We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply And the first is this to declare expresly that in all the points handled in this Book we are demonstratively certain that they are errours and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils for saith he without this certainty according to the Arch-Bishop it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church Which reason will then be valid when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God for of that only as we have evidenced the Arch-Bishop speaks not till then 2. It doth not lye upon us to shew that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith are novelties and errours but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere whence it can be made evident that they are Articles of faith traditions received from the Apostles for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion which require us to beleive they are such 3. We are sufficiently convinced that your veneration of Images is a novelty that your prayer in an unknown tongue the infallibility of the Church of Rome are so many untruths and that nothing in this or any other Book said to the contrary is convictive 2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation 1. That the universal Church represented in a General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so mislead the Church by errours that a particular Church c. discovering such errours may be obliged to separate externally Answ This is so far from being a main ground of our separation that it is no ground at all neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one Iota contrary to us That which he calls the second ground of our separation hath been considered already Our third ground of separation must be this Sect. 5 that a particular Church in opposition to the universal can judge what doctrines are fundamental what not in reference to all Persons States or Communities and then he requires that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent or else demonstrative reason be alledged why such an one is not necessary Answ This I binde my self to do when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to bee fundamental against the universal Church or are concerned to do so yea could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us which yet is a contradiction seeing we are a part thereof yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental which is thus practised and as for his catalogue of fundamentals 1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated that such a Catalogue is not necessary c. 3. sect 13. 2. I promise to give it him when he shall be able to evince it necessary or shew demonstrative reasons why wee do not 3. We urge him with as much vehemency to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome without which no man can tell whether or no his errour be in fundamentals and render him uncapable of salvation Well Sect. 6 but if wee deny our external separation from the present universal Church we are saith he obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with in whose publick service we will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods we ever have or can repair Answ This as also the question following hath been sufficiently answered already under the eighth Proposition Lastly saith he since the English Church by renouncing not only several doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby departed from both these we must finde out some other pretended members of the Catholick Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly Heretical with whom the English Church communicates Answ Every line is a misadventure For 1. This passage supposeth that wee cannot be in the communion with those from whom we differ in any doctrine so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council the adoration of Latria due to some Images the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno and the like cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world which all hold the contrary 2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches unless we receive the same Councils for General which they do 3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General which wee do not which is untrue 4. That the Reformed Churches are manifestly Heretical Yea 5. If he would not bee manifestly impertinent hee must infer that to renounce any Doctrine received by these Churches or not to acknowledge any Council to be General which they do not must necessarily bee Schismatical and unchurch us which it is impossible to prove unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so Lastly wee say the Church of Rome can produce no Churches but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical with whom she communicates His fourth condition is Sect. 7 that wee must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments and to bee no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations or shew how wee can acquit our selves from Schism who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods and to whom a General permission is given to acknowledge them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Churches Here again are many suppositions like the former As 1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical is to be Schismaticks which makes the whole world Schismaticks for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical in the difference about Easter and did they not both convene in a General Synod yea did not the Orthodox Bishops resort to the Synod at Arriminum where there were many Arrian Bishops was the Church of Rome Schismatical for resorting to the