five others all those that were not with the right Popes were Scismaticks and consequently cut off from the Church of Christ so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body of Christ In the time of Benedict the ninth five parts at least must be absciended If the Pope be an essential head of the Church as they must necessarily hold it necessarily follows that all the poor Christians even in America must be unchurched if they side with no Pope and damned if with the Schismatick albeit it sometimes hapneth that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should acknowledge as Legitimate how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search mistake the true Pope and so become Schismaticks or can any sober man think that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God and endeavour to their utmost to glorifie his name and to make them presently be rejected by him and if they dye thus perish everlastingly 2. I aske seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence not to have provided against Shism what expedient God hath provided in this case Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all P. 80. Rep. But who shall call it when t is asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes and consequently when we know not who is Pope we know not who is to convocate the Synod 2. How difficult is it to assemble them 3. Who shall have place there seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils Mr. C. p. 80. s 17. 3. The Doctor saith if the Pope should prove an Heretick the Church would deserve to be bereaved of her head Sect. 9 to which he Answes that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be not only on head but member of the Church and the See presently becomes vacant to which we have sufficiently replyed above Now for a conclusion of this business Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church and the continuation of its Unity and yet our blessed Saviour so desirous of his Church her welfare so well acquainted with the difficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter should be wholly silent in so great a point not giving us either the name or titles of this head nor the seat of his Empire to prevent the claim of others nor appointing him his work nor directing him how to do it albeit inferiour Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them when he hath the greatest work in the world to do and such as surpasseth the strength of many thousands never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties albeit St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming nor giving us any notice of his power nor telling us of his prerogative nor what officers he shall appoint under him and how nor acquainting us with our duty to obey him never telling us of the succession of this Soveraign in whom it shall reside of any successour of St. Peter rather then St. Paul I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ or his Apostles even when there was so great occasion and so many opportunities when Peter was among them when there was striving for supremacy when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers and some were for one some for another some for Cephas himself when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches as among the Corinthians Galathians and others there did yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendring of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope yea that Clemens Romanus though Bishop of Rome should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoiding of Schism to obey their own Bishops and not adde one syllable in behalf of his own authority these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdome and love of Christ his Apostles and the zeale of these Primitive Fathers against Schisme that I should sooner perswade my self of the truth of Mahomets fables then of this pretension CHAP. V. The impertinence of Mr. C's citation of Popes in their own cause Sect. 1. The testimonies of Pope Leo Pelagius Gregory and Gelasius Sect. 2 3 4. Evidence against this Supremacy from Pope Julius Leo Gregory Agatho and others Sect. 5. THus having encountred our Authors reasons in which he doth not usually abound we come now to a consideration of those authorities in which he is more copious Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce it being little better then one great Petitio principii made by many Popes and reiterated by Mr. Cressy who loves to beg the thing in question rather then evince it His work was to evidence from the undoubted records of Antiquity that the Popes Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio by the Universal Church instead of doing this our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes derided and contemned by their fellow Patriarchs and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words Spalat l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church l. 5. Satlivius c. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye apud Photâ—â—â—proâ— p. 125. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. we refer him to those in the Margent that have both produced and answered them to our hand only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope till it can be made evident 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles and the whole world and to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop of the Apostles can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors 2. That to be Princeps Apostolorum doth infer not only a Primacy of order which we grant but also of dignity which we deny And 3. That St. Peters authority was necessarily conferred upon his successors at Rome in the same
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
Romish Doctrines NOT FROM THE BEGINNING OR A REPLY To what S.C. or Serenus Cressy A ROMAN CATHOLICK hath returned to Dr. PIERCES SERMON Preached before his MAJESTY at WHITEHALL Feb. 1. 1662. IN Vindication of Our CHURCH Against the NOVELTIES of ROME By DANIEL WHITBIE M.A. and Fellow of Trin. Coll. Oxon. 1 Jo. 2.24 Let that therefore abide in you which yee have heard from the beginning LONDON Printed by R. W. for Tho. Basset in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-street and Ja. Magnes in Coven-Garden 1664. Imprimatur Nov. 6. 1663. Tho. Grig R. in Christo P.D. Humfr. Epis Lond. à Sac. Domesticis To the Right Reverend Father in God SETH Lord Bishop of Exeter My very good Lord BEing informed of a Book which passed the decretorial sentence against our Church and that it was written by an Author grave and sober whose reason was very keen and sharp one who was the Coryphaeus of the Roman Party and therefore from whom I might expect all that the matter could well bear one lastly who was once a professed son of the Church of England and therefore would not be so ungrateful to his Mother as to pass so heavy a doom upon her without the greatest evidence and conviction I first set upon perusing it big with expectations but finding my self miserably disappointed I was put into such a passion as vented it self into this Reply which humbly lies prostrate at your Lordships feet begging the favour and honour of your acceptance and that you would be pleased to take it into your protection And indeed what can be more proper then to commit a discourse of this nature to the protection of such a Father of the Church whose zeal for the Churches good is as ardent as her enemies rage and fury violent What therefore my former promises of tendering my first fruits unto your Lordship and the influence of your instructions and encouragement have made your own flies to the shelter of your goodness where leaving it I securely rest Your Lordships most humbly devoted Servant DANIEL WHITBIE TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Cannot but expect to be censured as a bold adventurer as one who hath puld upon himself a burthen not sufficiently considering Quid ferre recusant Quid valeant humeri In that I have dared to appear in a matter of such concernment as this I have undertaken you will happily cry out of an impar congressus betwixt one of yesterday and Father Cressy But notwithstanding this objection which lyes so fair in the view of all men I shall not despair of a milder censure if it be considered 1. That I did not presume to venture upon the Work till I had found that every citation produced from the Fathers by S.C. was already Answered to my hands by the Champions of our Cause so that when any matter of Antiquity is scanned by me know that I steared my course by the greatest lights our Nation or other reformed Churches would afford me that I speak the mind of an Hammond Field Salmasius or a Baron in the business of the Popes Supremacy of an Usher Fern and Dally in that of Purgatory of a Taylor and Featly in the business of Communion in one kind of a Crakanthorp and Dally in that of Images of an Usher Andrews and Crakanthorp in that of Invocation of Saints of an Hall Taylor and Calixtus touching Celibacy of Priests of a Chillingworth in the two great Controversies of the Infallibility of the Church and Schism of a Chamier and a Lord du Plessis in them all and if you will but acknowledge that Bellarmine hath been Answered and that it is not a thing impossible for such an one as I am to have seen those Answers and to be able to transcribe them you will consequently be obliged to grant that it was possible for me to have returned an Answer to this Epitomie of him which our Author hath produced And yet after all this I must say 2. That these collections for so I am content they should be called have not passed without the censure of some Critical eyes to whom I have wholly referr'd my self for the addition to or alteration of what ever seemed good unto them so to do and that I have moreover omitted many things of lesser moment wherein I had clearly the advantage of my Adversary that I might not be too much burthensome to the Readers patience Now if these things be impartially considered I hope the Objection which before appeared so considerable will vanish and this poor Treatise which intends only to tell the world that the advantage of our Cause is such as that the wisest of our Antagonists may be encountered by even the meanest sons of the Church of England that to plead for Popery is but to give us the trouble of transcribing the Answers of our learned Protestants may find a favourable acceptance from thee Farther I entreat thee not to be offended either with the breach of Pages which was necessary from the employment of divers Printers in this work or with some false Pointings which may easily be rectified or lastly with some few Marginal citations not very appositely placed which hoping thou wilt gratifie me in I bid thee farewell D. W. A Catalogue of some Books Printed for T. Basset in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-street SCintilla Altaris or Primitive Devotion in the Feasts and Fasts of the Church the third Edition by E. Spark D.D. Dr. Collets Devotions for every day of the week The new Book of Common-Prayer with choice Cuts in Brass suited to all the Feasts and Fasts of the Church of England throughout the year in a Pocket volume ΛΟΓΙΚΗΛΑΤΡΕΙΑ The Reasonableness of Divine Service in Answer to the contrary pretentions of H. D. in a late Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer and Liturgies by Ir. Freeman M A. An exact Abridgement of all the Acts of Parliament in force and use since the 16. K Ch. 1. to this present by W. Hughes of Grayes-Inn Esquire A Synoptical Directory on the Canons of the Scripture by Ferdinando Parkhurst The Extravagant Shepherd an Anti-Romance in fol. ERRATA PAge 3. l. ult r. Morton p. 10. l. 26. r. abundantia p 20. l. 9. r. E Cathedra l. 15. r. secondly p. 33. l. 33. add to p 38. l. 8. r. now p. 46. l. 33. add illi l. 34. r. praeceptio p. 52. l. 22. r. or p 60. l. 8. r. it l. 27. r. his p. 67. l. 29. del S. 15. p. 76. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 84. l 27. dele not p. 94. l. 26. r. next query p. 106. l. 7. r. pâ—opositions l 33. r. can we p. 112. l. 34. add are p. 117. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 118. l. 20. add c. p. 172. l. 5. r. that p. 176. l. 4. r. not p. 182. l. 28. add the. p. 194. l. 32. r. they p 200. l. 14. dele Answ p. 201. l. 1. r. of p. 204. l. 31.
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
pontifical which tells us Cap 2. de bened Sanct. Crucis that the Pontifex in which name other Bishops are included ante imaginem crucis genua flectit eamque devotè adorat osculatur Magist Ceremon lib. 2. de feria 6. Majoris Heb. And feriâ sextâ or on good Friday when the Pope or Priest uncovereth Gently the Cross and crys ccce signum crucis and the singers answer venite adoremus that the Pope puts off his shoes or makes as if he did so genu ter flexo adorat osculatur and then all the rabble ad infimum caudatarium omnes crucem adorant osculantur So then you have no cause I hope to quarrel with us for saying you worship images when so many of your great Doctors that knew this practice of the Church as well as your self acknowledge that as a doctrine of faith which you so warily disclaim when General Councils yea and common practice can assure us of the truth thereof You ask us further Sect. 10. p. 158. whether indeed we think that you worship false gods and true devils Ans You may be idolatrous in worshipping the true God in an image as well as the Israelites in their worshipping God in a Calf 2. That you worship false Saints and Elilim De cultu Sanct. Ibid. see abundantly evidenced in the Sedan Divines 3. You ask whether we consider our Images as they did their Idols to which by magicall conjurations they annexed an evill Spirit to do wonders and extort Divine Worship from the seduced Ans What if some of the learned among the Heathens as Athenaeus confesseth Legat. pro Christ thought that the deity or some divine vitrue accompanyed the statute after consecration would it cease to be Idolatry if the Image of Jupiter were worshipped or any other Deity without these magical Inchantments 2. What shall we think of these images which you call miraculous which you say sometimes sweat blood sometimes nod their heads or stretch forth a wooden or stony arm unto their suppliants Vid. miss Rom. sub tit de ritu Serm. where you have as bad or worse in the Dedication of the Cross the Image of Saint John and the Agnus Dei. or of the form of Consecration Viz. Sanctifie O God this form of the blessed Virgin that it may bring saving health to thy faithful people that thundrings and lightnings may be driven away the sooner that immoderate rains or floods and civil wars may at the presence of this be suppressed Pont. Rom. 3. Might not the Jews have put the same question to those that accused them of idolatry in worshipping the brazen image 4. What matter is it whether the Heathens esteemed their Deity present or absent Quis nisi totus fatuus haec Deos esse credit seeing they acknowledge most evidently that they did not worship their images but their Gods by these images as you may see in Origen Contr. Cels l. 7. p. 384. Arnob. l. 6. advers Gentes Lact. l. 2. de divin Deos per simulachra veneramur Institut c. 2. we fear not the works of mens hands viz. these Images but those we fear to whom these are consecrated August in ps 96. I do not worship that stone or that image which is without sense but I adore what I see and serve him whom I do not see 5. 'T is evident that many of the Heathens thought their Gods to dwell in heaven Act. 14. and to be absent from their Statutes Hence the Lycaonians cry out upon the miracles wrought by Paul and Barnabas the Gods are come down amongst us See Price upon the place making out this by Heathen Authours and what said the Chaldeans to Nebuchadnezzar even that their Gods dwelt not with flesh Dan. 2. vers 11. what need I cite Max. Tyr. Plut. de Isid Osyr Cicero c. for a thing so clear Lastly you tell that us sect 11 there is not in Catholick countrys a Groom or Kitchin-maid so ignorant but had rather burn an image then afford it any honour due to God only Ans True But neither would these Heathens who thought them arrant fools who esteemed images to be God 2. Nor can we reasonably think that the Israelites intended any such thing in worshipping the Calf But 3. Tom. 1. de prob sp Num. 17. Gerson will tell you that people were so infected with Superstition as to yield divine honour to Images And Cornelius Agrippa that it is not to be spoken De vanit scient de Imag. fol. 73. how great Idolatry is foster'd among rude people by Image-worship while the Priests connive at these things and make no small gain thereby Cassander Consul de Imag. it is more manifest then that it can be denyed that the worship of Images and Idols hath too much prevailed and the Superstitious humour of people hath been so cherished that nothing hath been omitted among you either of the highest adoration or vanity of Panims in worshipping and adoring Images De invent l. 6. c. 13. And Polydor Virgil that there are many rude and stupid persons that repose more trust in Images then in Christ or the Saints to whom they were dedicated Lastly Simon Majolus a great stickler for Imagery Defens Imag. Con. 9. c. 19. confesseth that some rural persons esteem Images as if they were God You tell us Sect. Sect. 12 that it would be ridiculous to pray to an Image Ans To let pass your O crux Ave what can you say to Salve Sancta facies Nostri Redemptoris In quâ nitet species divini splendoris Impressa panniculo nivei candoris Salve vultus Domini Imago beata Nos deduc ad propria O felix figura Ad videndum faciem Christi quae est pura And again Brevar Rom. Reformatum in par Hyemali ad 3. Martii in festo inventionis Sanctae crucis O crux c. quae sola fuisti digna portare mundi talentum dulce lignum dulces claves dulcia ferens pondera salva proesentem catervam in tuis hodiè laudibus congregatam Lastly all your distinctions are used with you as miracles and the gift of tongues were not for them that believe but them that believe not For strangers and them that make objections not for the obedient that worship Images and break the Commandment Well Sect. 13 but you have Arguments as well as Pretences which must not be over-look'd Mr. C. p. 156. And First You tell us that in Scripture we find Kings adored and a prostration of body paid to them yet for all this no man will suspect that any dishonour was intended to God thereby Answer True and yet you may dishonour him by giving this worship unto Images seeing he hath commanded saying Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them which your Gerson paraphraseth thus In comp Theol. explic praecepti primi Thou shalt not bow down to
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
say That from after the time of their convention all novelties must be dated then could not Socinianisme Anabaptisme Presbyterianisme be esteemed novelties by the Doctor for he acknowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils nor was our Authour ignorant of this for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils he thus paraphraseth it Pag. 311. Where by submission to the four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them He goes on and tells us Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this which he never did not out of a voluntary liberality Ibid. but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him wherein it is said that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils which Argument runs thus If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiritual jurisdiction must adjudge any matters to be Heresie which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively as that distinct measure of time after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties But verum prius ergo Truly Sir you your self when you wrote it might think the inference valid but no man else now can He comes next to propound some questions the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity to acknowledge Sect. 9 Pag. 21. with the rest of his fellow-Protestants that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith The second to acknowledge what we generally do that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent shrewd conclusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter Fourthly He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture Pag. 25. Ans He will plead not guilty But how can that be object when he pretends to prove the lawfulness of the English Reformation because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties and from the beginning it was not so whereas he should have evinced that it was contrary that being the import of our Saviours words reply Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him for I pray you tell me doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind forbidding Marriage or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar or Thirdly tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word as in the matter of Divorces and Prayers in an unknown tongue Secondly When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith Pag. 241. and conveyed to us by the general practice of the Church is it not enough to shew our innocency in not accepting them for such because ab initio non fuit sic especially when thirdly you know we hold that in all matters of faith 't is all one with us to be praeter Scripturam and to be contra Pag. 25. but you ridiculously add That he should have cited such Scriptures as these S. Peter his Successors never had nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction c. Which here I bind my self to do when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so or that the Scripture anywhere saith That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith The body of Christ is transubstantiated T is unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scripture Lastly Sect. 10 You tell us that the Fathers cry out against innovations Pag. 27. and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any Answ Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bishops the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator the Arrians the Nicene Fathers therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C. CHAP. IV. Mr. Cs. mistake Sect. 1. His first Argument from the necessity of an universal Bishop to hinder Schism considered Sect. 2. His second Argument from the Presbyterians Sect. 3. The Doctors first Argument from Mark 10.42 defended Sect. 4. His second from Rev. 21.14 Sect. 5. His third from Gal. 2. Sect. 6. His Argument from the notion of an Head strengthned Sect. 7 8 9. A further evidence of the no necessity of such an Head Sect. 10. THE first Novelty Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor is the usurpation of their Pope from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated Cap. 4. s 1. but whereas he would make him moreover to assert That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface And further that we have not separated from any Authority if any were exercised by the former Popes during the times of the four first General Councils he deals disingenuously with the Doctor in whom no footsteps of this assertion can be found albeit it be a great and evident truth But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils he doth more grosly and palpably abuse him only that he might make room for those Citations which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent and might seem to fight against the Doctors Sermon when he is only beating that man of clouts which himself hath made Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen Tertullian c. So that our Author which is a bad omen stumbles at the threshold builds his whole Fabrick on a mistake and confutes only what himself hath fancied not what the Doctor hath asserted Well then that which he hath to do if he would contradict his assertion is to shew not whither the Popes praeceding challenged a supremacy of jurisdiction but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God as an universal head as one who had received from the beginning a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church Now in returning an answer to what is
but from the Canons of Nice which yet were so far from justifying his pretensions no such Canon being found upon examination that if he could have thought that other pleadable he would certainly have discerned cause to make use of it Adde to this 3. That other instance of Pope Leo in the great cause of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Chalcedon of which anon where note 1. That the Pope interprets the injury done in that Council to have been a breach against the Nicene Canons and dispositions of Ecclesiastical affairs without mention of any others 2. That through the Epistles written on that occasion he deduceth not his Primacy from St. Peter 3. That he takes no notice of any injury done to himself in that Council but only to the Bishop of Alexandria Antioch and other Metropolitans 4. That the deducing the dignity of the Roman See from the greatness of that imperial City which was more then pretended by that Council was never so much as quarrelled at by the Popes Legates in that controversie which sure is a competent prejudice to the deducing it from St. Peter Adde 4. That solemn prohibition of Gregory to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria Ep. ex reg l. 7. indic 1. c. 30. enjoyning him not to call him universal Father that being derogatory to his brethren c. a manifold testimony that this did not in his opinion belong to him by the law of Christ for then 1. According to Christs own rule You call me Lord and Master Joh. 13.13 and you do well for so I am he had done well in giving him this title 2. It could not have been derogatory to his brethren 3. Reason could not have required the contrary as he saith it did 4. He could not have averted it with an absit recedant without even fighting against God much less could he have spoken those things of it which we have mentioned elsewhere Add fifthly The clear confession and manifest declaration of Pope Agatho in his letters sent to the Emperour concerning a General Council that his Primacy did extend only to the Bishops of the West and not to the East 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. p. 45. to 2. Con. And again p 47. he excuseth himself for sending so late 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergo beyond the Ocean then it was not 2. Because he hoped that Theodorus his fellow Bishop and Archbishop of the Great Island of Brittain with others there living would joyn with him the words run thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a clear evidence 1. That the Patriarchate of Rome even in Agathos time extended no farther than the Ocean and so not to Brittain And 2. That Brittain was not numbred by him amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the multitude of those who were under the inspection of the Pope or belonged to his Patriarchate which is a sufficient evidence that at that time the Bishops of Rome had no such universal Primacy CHAP. VI. The Law of the Emperour Valentinian considered Sect. 1. St. Basils testimony not concluding Sect. 2. The Ecclesiastical Canon interpreted Sect. 3. The Popes restoring Athanasius and others Sect. 4. The Argument from the Council of Ephesus Sect. 5. From the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 Of Arles Sect. 7. His negative Argument from St. Cyprian Sect. 8. His perswading the Pope to depose Marcianus Sect. 9. His Argument from his 68. Epistle not concluding Sect. 10. The example of Pope Victor Sect. 11. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae against them Sect. 12. St. Jeroms testimony of an Head constituted to avoid Schism Ibid. And St. Cyprians of the Chair of St. Peter no evidences of the Popes Supremacy Sect. 12 13. Nor that of Optatus Sect. 14. Nor that of St. Chrysostome Sect. 15. Nor that of St. Austin Sect. 16. We not members of the Roman Patriarchiate the invalidity of the inference thence Sect. 17. The conclusion of the Chapter Sect. 18. IN the seventh Chapter Mr. C. Sect. 1 confirms the supremacy of the Pope by a Law of the Emperour Valentinian which runs thus That whatever had been or should be established by the See Apostolick Mr. C. p 54. Novel Theo. of Tit. 24. should have the force of a Law to the Bishops of France and all others and that secundum veterem consuetudinem Yea further he adds That this Supremacy of the See Apostolick has been established both by the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of Episcopal society and by the dignity of the City and by the Sacred Authority of a Synod Ans 1. All this falls short of an universal Jurisdiction which Valentinian being only Emperour of the West could not be imagined to confer upon the Pope nor can his Edict be supposed to reach those Bishops which came not within the compass of his Empire 2. Consider who was it that made this Edict Valentinian a young Emperour and as yet sub potestate matris yea saith the great Salmasius De primatu Papae c. 17. it was procured a Principe intertissimo imbelli desidiaque ac luxurie perditissimo And further against whom was it framed even against pious and learned St. Hilary a man acquainted I presume with the antient customes of the Church as well as this young Emperour or his instructer Pope Leo. 3. This Law was got from him by the suggestion and false dealing of the Pope and that manifestly ambitious of and yawning after this Supremacy and hence it is that the Edict saith Hilary as we have found by the faithful relation of that venerable man the Pope of Rome vindicates his unjust ordination of Bishops used only out of temerity not consulting Pontificem Romanae Ecclesiae which is sufficient evidence saith Salmasius that this Edict was put forth by the arts and suggestions of the Roman Pontifex as also he gathers from another clause viz. Sola mansueti praesulis humanitas permittit Hilarium adhuc Episcopum nominari words that smell rank of a Pope and are exactly parallel to what Leo writes in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna that as for St. Hilary suae civitatis sacerdotium pro sedis Apostolicae pietate perceptio nostra servaverit 4. Saith he he restrains the authority of the Pope and will have it only acknowledged Si quid a quopiam contra veterem consuetudinem tentaeretur and in the beginning of his Edict ne quid praeter authoritatem sedis Romanae illicitum praesumptio adtentare nitatur and therefore the Pope hath nothing to do when all things are done rightly and according to ancient custom so that this Edict sends us only to look what that was 5. He sums up all and concludes that this Edict should not seem to have much authority if it be considered that it was suggested by a false relation viz. that St. Hilary did against right and the antient customs in ordaining Bishops without consulting the Pope which is very false that this
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
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