and changeable as I prove not only by the expresse testimony of the Council of Chalcedon but by the stating of the Primacy at last in Gregories dayes on Constantinople it self whose pretence neither was nor could be any other then a humane late institution And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories daies and at the Council of Chalcedon in Leo's daies we have no reason to think that they ever judged otherwise at least not in Flavians dayes that were the same as Leo's and the businesse done about 449. This Argument I here set against all your instances at once and it is unanswerable 3. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret upon an appeal to just judgement Reply 1. Every Bishop hath a power to discern who is fit for his own Communion and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox received him as a Catholick into their Communion and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done But when this was done the Council did not hereupon receive him and restore him to his Bishoprick no nor would hear him read the passages between Pope Leo and him no nor make a Confession of his faith but cried out against him as a Nestorian till he had expresly Anathematized Nestorius and Eutiches before the Council and then they received and restored him so that the finall judgement was not by Leo but by the Council But if in his distresse he appealed as you say to a just judgement from an unjust or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder but this is no grant of an Universall Soveraignty in Leo and if it had granted it in the Empire that 's nothing to the Churches in other Empires Or if he had granted it as to all the world he was but one man of the world and not the Catholick Church The Council expresly take on them the determination after Leo and they slight the Legates of the Pope and pronounce him a creature of the Fathers and give Constantinople equall priviledges though his Legates refuse to consent But of the frivolousnesse of this your instance see Dr. Field of the Church lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537 538. and more fully Blondell de primatu ubi sup cap. 25. sect 63 65. 4. Your next instance is of Cyprians desire that Stephen would depose Martian Bishop of Arles Reply 1. That Epistle cannot be proved to be Cyprians for the Reasons I refer you to M. de Lanny on that subject and Rivets Critica Sacra only adding that there are eight copies of Cyprian ancient M. S. S. in the English Universities that have none of them this Epistle to Stephen of which see Ierem. Stephens Edition of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae 2. Could you prove this Epistle to be Cyprians it makes against you more then for you Not for you for the distance of Cyprian the nearnesse of Stephen might make it a matter more concerning him and fitter for him to transact And it was within his Patriarchate and therefore no wonder if he were minded of it And yet Cyprian only writes to him to write to the Bishops of France to restrain Martian § 2. Quapropter facere te oportet plenissimas literas ad coepiscopos nostros in Gallia constitutos ne ultra Maertianum pervicacem superbum divinae pietatis ac fraternae salutis inimicum collegio nostro insultare patiantur Cyprian did as much to Stephen as he desired Stephen to do to the Bishops of France This therefore is against you if any thing to the purpose Had you found but such words of a Pope to another Bishop as Cyprian useth to your Pope you would have taken it as an evidence of his superiority § 3. Dirigantur in provinciam plebem in Arelate câ—â—xistentem à te literae c. Let thy Letters be directed to the Province and people at Arles c. And it s plainly an act of non-Communion common to all Bishops towards those unfit for their Communion that Cyprian speaks of § 3. Idcirco enim frater charissime copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum ut siquis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentaverit subveniant caeteri quasi pastores utiles misericordes oves dominicas in gregem colligant You see it is a common duty of brotherhood and not an act of jurisdiction that Cyprian speaks of 5. Your next instance is that the Council of Sardis determined that no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Athanas. Apol. 2. pag. 753. Reply It seems you are well acquainted with the Council that know not of what place it was It was the Council at Sardica and not at Sardis that you would mean Sardis was a City of Lydia apud Tmolum montem olim Regio Craesi inter Thiatiram Philadelphiam But this Sardica was a City of Thrace in the confines of the higher Mysia inter Naissum Myssiae Philippopolim Thraciae As to the instance 1. This Council was by Augustine rejected as hereticall though I defend not his opinion 2. It was of so little note and authority that it was not known to the Council of Carthage to have the next antecedent Canons which you would not have omitted if you had read them its like in which your writers glory as their chiefest strength and which Bellarmine thinks Pope Zosimus call'd the Nicene Canon or rather is it not suspicious that this Canon is but forged when those Carthage Fathers plainly say In nullo Patrum concilio decretum invenimus mentioning that antecedent Canon proposed by Hosius to which this mentioned by you proposed by Gaudentius is but an addition or supplement And it is not like that all these Africane Fathers could be ignorant of those Canons of Sardica when such abundance of Africane Bishops were at the Council and that but about 50 years before you may see in Binnius how hard a strait he is put to to give any tolerable reason of this and only saith that its like some how the Canons were lost sure Tradition was then grown untrusty Your Cardinal Cusanus de Concord Cath. l. 2. c. 25. makes a doubt whether the Canon of appeals be indeed a Canon of this Council 3. But grant it be yet take these observations and you shall find small cause of confidence in that Canon 1. It was made in a Case of the distresse of Athanasius and other Orthodox Orientall Bishops meerly in that strait to save them and the Churrhes from the Arrians The Arrians withdrew from the Council being the minor part and excommunicated Iulius with Athanasius and other Occidentals and the Occidental Bishops excommunicated the Oriental Athanasius himself was a chief man in the Council and had before been rescued by
the help of Iulius and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches 2. Note that this is a thing newly granted now by this Canon and not any ancient thing 3. Note that therefore it was of Humane Right and not of Divine 4. Note that yet this Canon was not received or practised in the Church but after this the contrary maintained by Councils and practised as I shall anon prove 5. That it is not any antecedent Governing Power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope but in honour of the Memory of S. Peter as they say yet more for their present security they give this much to Rome it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been there Bishop 6. That it is not a Power of judging alone that they give but of causing the re-examination of Causes by the Council and adding his assistants in the judgement and so to have the putting of another into the place forborn till it be done 7. And I hope still you will remember that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given not a Ruling but a saving Power to the Pope so far as is there expressed this had been far from proving that he had a Ruling Power as the Vice-Christ over all the world and that by Divine right Blame me not to call on you to prove this consequence 8. There is as much for Appeals to Constantinople that never claimed a Vice-Christship as Iure divino 6. Your sixth instance out of Basils 74. Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed if ever you had read that Epistle and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it I have given you out of this and other Epistles of Basil a sufficient proof of his enmity to Popery in my Key cap. 26. pag. 170 171 172. and cap. 27. pag. 177. that very Epistle of Basils was written to the Western Bishops and not to the Bishop of Rome only nor so much as naming him The help that he desireth is either a Visit or perswasive Letters never mentioning the least Power that the Pope had more then other Bishops but only the interest of Credit that the Western Bishops had more then Basil and his Companions saith he For what we say is suspected by many as if for certain private contentions we would strike a fear and pusillanimity into their minds But for you the further you dwell from them so much the more credit you have with the common people to which this is added that the grace of God is a help to you to care for the oppressed And if many of you unanimously decree the same things it is manifest that the Multitude of you decreeing the same things will cause an undoubted reception of your opinion with all You see here upon what terms Liberius his Letters might bestead Eustathius He having received him into his own Communion and Eustathius being Orthodox in words no wonder that the Synod of Tiana receive him upon an Orthodox confession and their fellow-Bishops reception and Letters No doubt but the Letters of many another Bishop might have perswaded them to his reception though he had more advantages from Rome Is it not now a fair Argument that you offer Liberius sometime an Arrian Pope of Rome by his Letters prevailed with a Synod at Tyana to restore Eustathius an Arrian that dissembled an Orthodox confession What then Ergo the Pope of Rome is the Vice-Christ or was then the Governour of all the Christian world Soft and fair 1. Basil gives you other reasons of his interest 2. He never mentioneth his universall Government when he had the greatest need to be helped by it if he had known of such a thing 3. The Empire is not all the world If Basil knew the Roman Soveraignty I am certain he was a wilfull Rebel against it 7. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome who you say expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries if they do repent Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply You much wrong your soul in taking your Religion thus on trust some Book hath told you this untruth and you believe it and its like will perswade others of it as you would do me There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent nor any thing like it 8. Your eighth proof is this The like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the Case of Iohn of Antioch Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. Reply 1. The first Council at Ephesus which no doubt you mean is in Binnius enough to make a considerable Volume and divided into six Tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into Acts And if you expect that I should exactly read six Tomes in Folio before I can answer your severall sentences or shreds you will put me on a twelve-moneths work to answer a few sheets of Paper If you mean by p. 3. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. Cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say nor like it Only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius that if he repent not he will excommunicate him and they will have no more communion with him which others did as well as he but not a word of Iohn Bishop of Antioch there Nor can I find any such thing in the 4. Tome where Iohn's cause is handled Indeed the Notes of your Historian divide the Council into Sessions But in his fifth Session there is nothing of Iohn but of Nestorius And in the 4. Sess. Iohn and his Party excommunicate Cyril Memnon and theirs And it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated Iohn And it is the Emperour to whom he appeals Indeed your Annotator in Sess. 6. mentions some words of Iuvenals that he should at least have regarded the Roman Legates it being the custome that his Church be directed by that But I see no proof he brings of those words and it is known that Cyril of Alexandria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Legates even to the severall Letters of the Synod as you may see in Tom. 2. cap. 23. passim 2. But if your words were there to be found what are they to your purpose The Pope can punish the Bishop of Antioch But how Why by excommunicating him True if he deserve it that is by pronouncing him unfit for Christian Communion and requiring his flock and exhorting all others to avoid him And thus may another Bishop do and thus did Iohn by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferiour Seat and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishop of Rome and so may others 9. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arrians and Athanasius
them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500. were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible Consent in the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus immediately appeals to the Pope as to his judge Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an appeal unto a just judgement Saint Cyprian desirâ—â— Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successour appointed until the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against Saint Athanasius the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against Saint Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the Councill in Judgement which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and a half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Councill Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiasticalâ— and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their appearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholikes for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Councill gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari â—stis hanc consuetudinâ—m esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut â—inc quod justum est à â—finiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most cleerly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to pass a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the Case of Saint Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appears to Innocentius from the Councill assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation and declares him innocent Thridly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostome Fourthly after Saint Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperour and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were obsolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not believed it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and Authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legats affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Coventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Chruch with great evidences of Sorrow and Pennance Presently after Anno. 451. follows the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their Faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of
the Eutychians should sit in the Councill but be presented as a guilty person to be judged becuase he had celebrated a Councill in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Councill and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribred by the Councill Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixthly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Councill had consented to as had also the Third General Councill of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition against the express ordination of the First Councill of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose Censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the Censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroyled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope Celestine in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before St. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis Patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn Patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana dirigeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Celestine who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from St. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and Government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperours Letters Pattents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches And then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still entituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate id est the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the
profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour 3. No history or authority of the least regard is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches under your jurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilful in making much of nothing No credible witnesses mention your Acts of jurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church history must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your subjects 4. Their absence from general Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence 5. Their Liturgies even the most ancient bear no footsteps of any subjection to you Though your forgeries have corrupted them as I shall here digressively give one instance of The Ethiopick Liturgy because of a Hoc est corpus meum which we also use is urged to prove that they are for the corporal presence or Transubstantiation But saith Vsher de success Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen Panis 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Euseb. in vit Constant. mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there 7. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about the Easter observation even in the daies of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused communion with his Ministers 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers as Reynerius contra Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. p. 773. saying The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of their Empire 3. The Diocess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire see both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime giveing power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key p. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope which is the thing in question is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kind of Government 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their Government was of the same kind 2. If any of them or all did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived and so held National Councils and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches and not of another kind The Roman Government was no other but One thus Ordered in one Empire And if there were also One so ordered in England one in Scotland one in Ethiopia c. this was of the same kind with the Roman Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth is even as to that humane mode of the same kind if a humane mode must be called a Kind It may be of that same kind and mode without being part of the same Individual But 2. You say that How far from truth this is appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Perri quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet Reply If you take your Religion on trust as you do your authorities that are made your ground of it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the the face when you must answer for such temerity Leo hath no Sermons de Natali suo but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons lately found in an oid book of Nicol. Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words which might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what past between him and the Council of Chalcedon and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be judge in his own cause 3. But you add that The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop Reply 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it and then your words are regardable 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Aethiopia Pisanus new inventions we regard not 3. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Jury are under the Foremen or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior or York is under London or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel 4. But if both these were proved that Ethiopia was under Alexandria and Alexandria under Rome I deny the consequence that Ethiopia was under Rome for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid and so far as it was within the Empire and therefore those without the Empire that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome 5. And if it could as it never can be proved of Abassia what is that to all the other Churches in India Persia and the
unacquainted with the opinions of your own Divines and upon this mistake so confidently feign that it is our Novel writers forced to it by your arguments that have been so charitable to these Churches against antiquity that knew better If the Greeks and Latins tear the Church of Christ by their Condemnations of each other they may both be schismatical as guilty of making divisions in the Church though not as dividing from the Church And if they pretend the denyal of the Christian faith against each other as the cause you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitableness by telling us that they know better then we If wise men fall out and fight I will not justifie either side because they are wise and therefore likelier then I to know the cause But what need we more to open your strange mistake and unjust dealing then the authority of your so much approved Council of Florence that received both Greeks and Armenians and the very words of the Popes Bull of the union which declare that the Greeks and Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly both the words are these Convenientes Latini Graeci in hac sacrosancta Oecumenica synodo magno studio invicem usi sunt ut inter alia articulus etiam ille de Divina Spiritus Sancti processione summa cum diligentia assidua inquisitione discuteretur Prolatis vero testimoniis ex Divinis Scripturis plurimisque authoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium occidentelium aliquibus quidem ex Patre Filio quibusdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus Spiritū Sanctum ad eandem intelligentiam aspicientibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis Graeci quidem asseruerunt quod id quod dicunt Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre procedere non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filiū sed quia eis videbatur ut aiunt Latinos asserere spiritum Sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere tanquam ex duobus principiis duabus Spirationibus ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre procedat Filio Latini vero affirmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum Sanctum ex Filioque procedere ut excludant Patrem quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis Filii scilicet Spiritus Sancti aut quod id quod Spiritus Sanctu procedat ex Filio Filius à Patre non habeat sive quod duo ponant esse principia seu duas spirationes sed ut unum tantum asserunt esse principium unicamque spirationem Spiritus Sancti prout hactenus asseruerunt cum ex his omnibus unus idem eliciatur veritatis sensus tandem c. I pray you now tell it to no more that it is same Novel writers of ours prest by force of argument that have been the authors of this extenuation May heart even trembleth to think that there should be a thing called Religion among you that can so far extinguish both Charity and Humanity as to cause you to pass so direful a doom without authority or tryal on so great a part of the Christian world for such a word as this about so exceeding high a mysterie when your Pope and Council have pronounced a union of meanings And what mean you in your Margin to refer me to Nilus as if he asserted That the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone Verily Sir in the high matters of God this dealing is scarce fair pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacy of the Pope The very contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. An Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of the dissension between the Latin and Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the cognisance and iudgement of that which is controverted to a general Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Laws and actions of the Apostles and Fathers And he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity For other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind This therefore is not the cause of the dissention much less is it the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is controverted For to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault But who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before He maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter only as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner do succeed him and that his Primacy is no Governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sale and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmines answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself If you say that This point was the first cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the only or chief cause afterward The Munner of bringing in the filioque by Papal authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning But you say that when I have made the best of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes supremacy which was your proposition Reply I have oft told you we own no universal informing Head but Christ. In respect to him I have proved to you that is not my interest or design to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians Nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves But as you are Papal and set up a new informing head I have proved that you differ from all the antient Churches but yet that my cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession You add your Reason because these beforenamed were at first involved in your Congregation and then fell off as dead branches Reply This is but an untruth in a most publick matter of fact All the truth is this 1. Those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell
their Diocess yet they might renounce all communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have communion with one another and that communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies and also written their Letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their Communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it did no good or did not avail And it is to be noted that your Author Nicephorus tells you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent And therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excommunicate but his Letters might do much Well but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can find there no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2. You say Innocentius nulls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might as well have done it Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a Ministeriall binding which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise even on those that are not of his Diocess examples in Church-history are common 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth Lib. de pontif Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454 455. 1. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress which would have made so great a noise and stir that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius 2. This Bull of Innocents as Nicephorus would have us believe it hath such falshoods contrary to more credible history as bewray the forgery For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia But if Nicephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Arsacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus And withall who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over Reply 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust peruse that page and see his words 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed Member of his charge and he remitted the Censure Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over It is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but suasorily or Synodically Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope and that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes Universal Government That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable when they excommunicated him But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him 12. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synod expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synod the Controversie is at end If you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose Reply 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil Chalcedon 1. You tell me not in what Author whether Crabbe Binnius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius which is 63 pages in Folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake But in the preambul Epist I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam
Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Commonwealth did give him leave to choose the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with 2. You say Anatolius and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their faith by his order Reply 1. And what then therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority 2. But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius 3. You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council Reply What then therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council Are you still in jest But if it must be so then I can prove that others were the Universal Governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the Legates of the Pope and in many his Legats had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithful partiality in the matters of salvation 4. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was Universal Governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the Accused may not sit as judge till he be tried 2. But did you not know that Leo's Legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done till Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binnius Act 1. pag. 5. 5. You say the Popes Legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedes and that but in the Empire 2. The Popes Legates were not the Council nor judges in their own cause and not opposing signifies not alwayes a consent 3. But the Council do as I said expresly define the point both what your Primacy is and of how long standing and of whose institution and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equall priviledges 6. You say all the Fathers acknowledged thtmselves Leo 's Children and wrote to him as their Father Reply Of this you give me not any proof but leave me to read 190 pages in Folio to see whether you say true or no. And what if you do as I believe you do can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow-Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome 7. You add that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might hâ—ve the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope Reply So far were the Council from what you falsly say of them that they put it into their Canons that Constantinople should have the second place yea and equal priviledges with Rome and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy even because it was the Imperial Seat Vid. Bin. pag. 133 124. col 2. And not only Ephesus but the second general Council at Constantinople they tell you had decreed the same before You see then contrary to your fiction that three general Councils of the greatest likened by Gregory to the 4 Evangelists not only judged without the Pope but by your own confession against him for you say he consented not yea so much did they slight the Popes consent that when his Legates dissented they were not heard See Bin. pag. 134 136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38. notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and Paschasinus and by the Judges it was accordingly pronounced p 137. And unanimously the whole Synod consented never stopping at the Roman dissent Pergamius Bishop of Antioch saith in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit No man contradicted this And is not this as much or more then you alledge as spoke to Leo They call Leo you say Father And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the Chief Father in all things in honour and Cure And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl the chief adversary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome and he received it Upon which your Historian hath no better an observation then that either Eusebius lyed or else at that hour he deceived Leo. It s true that the Synod writ to him for his consent but not as suspending any of their Decrees on it but telling him over and over that the things were by them defined and confirmed already pag. 140. that which they desired of him was what Synods ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem convenientissima dignare complecti sanctissime beatissime pater 13. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Iustinian depoâ—ed Anthymius in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour the Empress Reply 1. And doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly yea and as the Governour of that Church when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius was he not even with him and did that prove that Rome was subject to Constantinople Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. When Dioscorus excommunicated Leo and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Iulius Sozom. l. 3. c. 11. that proves not that they did it justly or as his Governours Honorius the Emperour deposed Boniface 1. Othe with a Synod deposed Iohan. 13. Iustinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius Will you confess it therefore justly done 2. As to the history I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron cap. 25. sect 84 85. 3. Usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople who sure was not his subject Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. vel 25.
we know that the Turks believe in Mahomet by the common consent of history and travellers Part of the Churches anathematize the Romans and part more modestly disown them and the generality that subject not themselves do profess that Popery is an usurpation and that in the ancient Church it was not so and this they have by Tradition from generation to generation And if the Roman pretended Tradition be with them of value the Tradition of the far greater part of the Church is with us to be of more We must despair of satisfying them with witness if most of the Christian world be rejected and the Tradition of the greatest part of the Church be taken to be false in a matter of publick notorious fact Arg. 4. Many Churches without the verge of the Roman Empire never subjected themselves to Rome and many not of many hundred years after Christ therefore there were visible Christian Churches from the beginning to this day that were not for the Roman Vicarship That abundance of Churches were planted by the Apostles without the reach of the Roman Empire is plentifully testified by the ancients and the Papists commonly confess it That these were under the Papal Government all the Papists in the world cannot prove The contrary is confessed by them and proved by us 1. They came not so much as to Generall Councils 2. They had no Bishops ordained by the Pope or any impowred by him 3. They never appealed to him 4. They never had any causes judged by him 5. They performed no obedience to him nor lived under his Laws nor scarce had any communion with him more then the common communion that is held in Charity and common faith and ordinances with all Such were the Indians the Persians the further Armenia and Parthia the Habassines and many more And of long time the English and the Scots that refused so much as to eat and drink in the same Inn with the Roman Legates much less would obey him so much as in the change of Easter day we challenge them to shew us any appearance of subjection to the Pope in the generality of the Churches without the Empire But you say that the Habassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria and he under the Pope Ans. 1. If that were true yet what 's that to all the rest 2. Give us your proof that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria before that Patriarch broke off his communion with Rome The Canons of Pisanus of yesterdayes invention we regard not Surely the true Canons of Nice Can. 6. measure out no more to the Patriarch of Alexandria but Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis There 's no mention of Ethiopia And it s not like that the greatest part of his Province would have been left out 3. If it had been so yet we utterly deny that ever the Pope had the Government of the Alexandrian Patriarch Only for a little while he had a precedency in honorary Title and in Councils as the City of London is preferred before York but doth not Govern it at all Here therefore without the Roman Empire you may see those Churches that have successively been visible and yet no Papists This your Raynerius confesseth contr Waldens Catalog in Bibliothec. Patr. Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying Armeniorum Ecclesiae Aethiopum Indorum caeterae quaâ— Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Romanae Ecclesiae See Godignus de Rebus Abassinorum of their Antiquity Arg. 5. The Eastern Churches within the Empire were never subjects of the Pope therefore there have been and are Churches Visible that neither were nor are his subjects The Antecedent I have proved in my Key for Catholicks from the Council of Carthage's Letters to Pope Coelestine after their resistance of Zosimus and divers testimonies from Basil and others And they can give us themselves no plausible appearance of a proof of that subjection which they assert no more then the younger Justices on the Bench are subject to the elder or the Jury to the foreman or a Master of Arts in a Colledge to a Batchelor in Divinity or then the Mayor of Bristoll is to the Mayor of York 1. The Pope never chose the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch c. 2. It did not belong to him to ordain them nor did he authorize any other to do it nor did they receive or hold their power from him 3. They receive no Laws of his to Rule by 4. They were not commanded or Judged by him 5. The Patriarch of Constantinople had equall Priviledges with him So that here is nothing like to Soveraignty and subjection nor any acknowledgement of an universal Vicar of Christ. Communion indeed they held with Rome as they did with one another till pride divided them but Communion is one thing and Subjection is another The Greek Church never gave them this Arg. 6. My next Argument to prove the Novelty of their Church as Papal and consequently that the Universal Church was void of Popery and therefore of the same Religion with Protestants shall be from the testimony of their own most magnified Bishops Gregory 1. Epist. Regist. l. 4. c. 80. speaking against the Patriarch of Constantinople for usurping the Title of Oecumenicall Patriarch or Universal Bishop saith fol. 181 182. Edit Paris 1551. Sicut enim veneranda vestra sanctitas novit mihi per sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae cui Deo disponente deservio hoc Vniversalitatis nomen oblatum est sed Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit Quia viz si Vnus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen Caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc absit à Christiana mente id sibi velle quempiam arripere unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulacunque parte videatur Cum ergo nos hunc honorem nolumus oblatum suscipere pensate quam ignâ—miniosum sit hunc sibi quempiam violenter usurpare voluisse Propterea sunctitas vestra in suis Epistâ—lis neminem Universalem nominet ne sibi debitum detrahat cum alteri honorem offert indebitum 1. Here he affirmeth that the Title of Vniversal was never used by any of his predecessors nor received 2. That it is a prophane Title 3. That it is an injury to other Patriarchs 4. That its unbeseeming a Christian mind to assume it 5. That its undue 6. He perswaded the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch to give it to no man whosoever Obj. But he saith that the Council of Chalcedon offered it him Ans. 1. If he renounce it as undue and prophane and say that de facto none of his predecessors took it this is as much as we desire 2. That at the Council of Chalcedon near 150. years before this two Deacons that they say have no Votes call'd Theodorus and Ischirion did superscribe their Libels to Leo Vniversal Archbishop I find but no more And this is it that Gregory here brags of And what 's
two Deacons to the Council Obj. But it is only the Name and not the Thing that he disclaims and that is in modesty Ans. 1. How then could he censure the name as undue injurious prophane and blasphemous if he owned the Thing seeing aptanda sunt verba rebus words are to be fitted to Things 2. But I shall confute this fully from his following words Ita ut Vniversa sibi tentet ascribere omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare Here it is plain 1. That it is the Thing as well as the Name that Gregory wrote against 2. And that it is also a palpable fiction of the Papists for want of a better that Gregory opposeth only such an Universal Episcopacy as taketh away all Episcopacy from others Ridiculous They would make us believe that Iohn of Constantinople would have had no Bishop in the world but himself and that the Council that gave him the Title intended all to degrade themselves and that there were no Bishops under him ever after when other Councils confirmed his Title On the contrary you here see 1. That there is but one Head even Christ. 2. And that Iohns sin in arrogating the Title Vniversal was that he would subjugate or subject all Christs Members to himself And is not this now the very form of Popery which Gregory makes so great a sin even to subject all Christs Members to one as an Universal Patriarch or Bishop Yea much higher Titles do they arrogate even to be the Vicar of Christ and God and in stead of Christ and God and to be the Vice-Christ He proceeds Nec mirum quod ille tentator qui initium omnis peccati scit esse superbiam c. Making the Devil the author of this Title He adds a weighty reason si enim hoc dici licenter permittitur honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur Et cum fortasse is in errore periit qui Vniversalis dicitur nullus jam Episcopus remansisse in statu veritatis invenitur or as more plainly before c. 76. fol. 180. in the Epist. to the Emperour Maurice si igitur illud nomen in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripuit quod apud bonorum omnium judicium fuit Vniversa ergo Ecclesia quod absit à statu suo corruit quando is qui appellatur Vniversalis cadit The reason is plain because the Head of every political society is essential to it and therefore if the Head of the Universal Church fall away to Heresie or Infidelity the Church falls as Bellarmine knew when he told us that if the Pope should erre in determining the Church would be bound to take evil for good and vice for vertue He proceeds in the same Epist. ad Maur. Imperat. Sed absit à Cordibus Christianorum nomen istud blasphemiae c. Far be this name of blasphemy from the hearts of Christians c. And after again saith Sed nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit nec uti consensit That none of the Roman Bishops did ever assume this name of singularity nor consent to use it And therefore he concludes to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch c. 80. Oportet ergo ut constanter ac sine praejudicio servetis sicut accepistis Ecclesias nihil sibi in nobis haec tentatio diabolicae usurpationis ascribat State sortes state securi Scripta cum Vniversalis nominis falsitate nec dare unquam nec recipere praesumatis He chargeth them never to give or take writing with the falshood of this name Vniversal as being from the Devils tentation And in Ep. 38. c. 82. to Iohn Const. himself he calls it Nefandum elationis vocabulum and the cause Nefandum prophanum tumorem and after he calls it the usurping of a proud and foolish word To all this Bellarmine miserably answereth de Pontif. Rom. l. 2. c. 31. that the title Universal as it signifieth a sole Bishop to whom all other are but Vicars is indeed profane sacrilegious and Anrichristian and is it that Gregory speaks against but not as it excludeth not particular Bishops To which I answer 1. To be the Vicarius of a Superiour is not an exclusion The Pope saith he is the Vicar of Christ the chief Pastour and Bishop of souls and all Pastours are to Preach the Word of reconciliation in his name and stead 1 Cor. 5.19 and yet they are not thereby excluded from being Pastours If to be Christs servants may consist with Episcopacy much more to be his Vicarii over their particular flocks Rather this is too high an honour for us to assume I do not think that all the Clergy under the Pope do think themselves honoured so much as they should be if they were his Vicars 2. Hath not that man sold his conscience to his cause that will perswade the world that the Patriarch of Constantinople was about to unbishop all the Bishops in the world except himself Let any man shew us by tolerable proof that Iohn of Constantâ—nople did claim any higher a power over all others or would bring other Bishops by his Universality to be lower then the Pope of Rome doth by his Universality and then I will confess that Papists only have eyes and reason and all the world besides are blind and mad or beasts Their cause is at a fair pass when they must fly to such palpable falshoods as makes them the wonder of their sober readers 3. I proved before from the express words of Gregory that it is Superiority of Government and making all other Bishops subject to him that he condemned in the Patriarch of Constantinople And no doubt he made not the least of his arrogancy Nor do I believe that it can be proved that Iohn or the Council that gave him the Title did ever intend so much as a Universal Government which the Pope now usurpeth but only a Primacy before all which Popes were then striving for For the Greeks to this day disclaim it and they never strove to exercise it I will give you more of Gregories words to put the question past doubt Cap. 82. Ep. 38. to Iohn saith Humilitatem ergo frater charissime totis visâ—eribus dilige per quam cunctorum fratrum concordia sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae unitas vâ—leat custodiri Certe Paulus Apostâ—lus cum audiret quosdam dicere Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego vero Cophae hanc dilacerationem corporis Dominici per quam membra ejus aliis quodammodo se capitibus sociabant vehementissimè perhorrescens exclamavit dicens Nunquid Paulus pro vobis crucifixus est aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis Sic ergo ille membra Dominici corporis certis extra Christum quasi capitibus ipsis quidem Apostolis subjici particulariter evitavit Tu quid Christo Vniversalis scilicet Ecclesiae capiti in extremi judicii es dicturus
like of the Ordinary Glosses of the Bible which yet seem of greater authority then Aquinas The sixth example is of some not Canonized Saints as Anselm Cantuar. Hugo de Sancto Victore and others as authentick as S. Thomas And say they his Canonization hindereth not which some pretend as of great colour To say that S. Tho. in some part of his doctrine erred in faith derogates not from his Canonization nor from the approbation of his Theologicall doctrine even as to say this of other Saints and chief Doctors derogateth not from their Canonization or approbation For as the Church by Canonizing one a Saint doth not thereby approve all his Deeds so in approving his doctrine it doth not hereby approve all his sayings or writings but only that which is not retracted by himself or corrected by another or deservedly to be corrected as contrary to truth And now when Fathers even the chief and your Saints and highest Doctors have this Testimony from the famous University of Paris to have somewhat hereticall or erroneous in the faith and so who among you is free I leave it to modesty to judge whether the Greeks Armenians c. and we are not of one Faith Religion and Catholick Church for all our differences in some points Have you had all these Nations man by man before your bar and convinced them of pertinaciousness in heresie If not call them not Hereticks till you are willing to be called such your selves and that by your selves And thus I have evinced 1. That the Church of which the Protestants are Members hath been Visible since the dayes of Christ on earth 2. And ex abundanti that the Papal Church as Papal hath not been visible and that Christian Churches without Papal Soveraignty have been Visible since Gregories dayes and the whole Catholick Church was such before And you see both in the Essentialls and in the freedom from the Romish Vice-Christ where our Church hath been before Luther even since Christ. Sir I have performed this task on this supposed condition that you will now do the like as to your own Church and send me in solid Arguments your proof of this Thesis The Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Where note that it is not the Visibility of your Church as Christian United in Christ the Head that is in Question We grant as Christians all of you are of the true Christian Church that destroy not your Christianity But it is your new Church form as Papal that we question and renounce Protestants are of no Church but the Christian united in Christ The name Protestant signifieth not any essentiall of their Church but their Rejection of your Church as Headed by the Pope You are therefore to prove that your Catholick Church as Headed by the Pope hath been visible in all ages And here I must in Justice expect that you give us such a Definition as you will stand to through the dispute 1. Of the Church 2. Of the Pope and 3. Of the Subjects of the Pope or Papists The term Roman Catholicks would but divert and elude For it is not as Romane that we oppose you that is as inhabitants of Rome or as subject to him as a Bishop of Rome Nor is it as Catholicks that is as of the Universal Christian Church but as Papists that is subjects of the Pope as universal Soveraign or Bishop To dispute of terms not agreed on is lost labour Define first or you do nothing I find of your Writers some by the Church mean the Pope as Gretser Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. de Verbo Dei pag. 1450 1451. By the Church saith he we mean the Pope of Rome and per Ecclesiam Papam interpretantur Non abnuo Some by the Church mean a Council and what they mean by a Council I know not well And some mean the Roman Clergy i. e. of that Diocess And some mean all the Clergy under the Pope And some mean all the people that are his subjects I have given you the Reason of my doubting of your meaning in these terms in a Book come out of the Press since your last to me where I have answered most of yours 2. Let me desire of you such proofs as in your own judgement are cogent I suppose as I have there told you Key pag. 41. cap. 12. that none of you will take either Sense Reason Scripture the Tradition or judgement of most of the Church for a sufficient proof but yet we will accept of them when you argue but ad hominem for we renounce them not I think what ever you say that is not the Determination of the Pope or a Council by him approved which is all one you will give us leave to judge that you are uncertain your selves whether you say true in it if de fide Saith Skul Revius Apol. pro Bellâ—rm c. 6. p. 255. The Popes Power is as the hinge the foundation and that I may comprehend all in a word the summ of the Christian faith Greg. Valent. Anal. fid l. 8. c. 7. The Authority that resideth in the Pope alone is called the Authority of the Church and Councils Bellâ—r de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. It is apparent that the whole firmness or strength of Councils is from the Pope not partly of the Pope and partly of the Council Binnius Vol. 2. p. 515. saith Every Council hath just so much strength and authority as the Apostolike seat bestoweth on it But I leave you to give us your own judgement Your Testimonies from Fathers can seem of no great weight to us while you so slight them your selves as commonly you do with what lies or Errors or other incompetency you charge Iustin Mart. Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Victorinus Cyprian Eusebius Epiphanius Prudentius Hierom Lactantius Augustine Procopius Theodoret Isidore Euthymius Sozomen Oecumenius Bernard and all the Fathers see Dr. Iames Corrupt of Fath. Part. 4. p. 2 3. Tell us therefore how far you credit them Sir if you refuse thus first to explain your terms and then prove the Visibility of your Church as Papal successively as I have proved the Visibility of the Church that I am of I shall be forced to conclude that you love not the light but at once give up your cause and the reputation of your impartial Love of truth Addenda Miscellanea COncil Ephes. 1. in Epistola ad Nestor Tom. 1 fol. 315. ed. Pet. Crab. Petrus Iohannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis Comment in epist Synodal Basil. p. 31. p. 40. Impress Colon. 1613. saith that The Provinces subject to the four great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian Church did know no other supream but their own Patriarcks And if the Pope be a Patriarck it is by the Church If he be Head of all Churches it is by the Church And whereas we have said that it is expressed in the
made to Iulius Ex Athan. ad solit Epist. Iulius in Lit. ad Arian apud Athan. Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. 2. Zozom l. 3. c. 7. Reply I marvel you urge such rancid instances to which you have been so fully and so often answered I refer you to Blondell de Primatu cap. 25. sect 14 15. Whittaker de Roman Pontif. p. 150. passim Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35 c. Briefly this may shew the vanity of your proof 1. Sozomen in that place saith that though he alone wrote for them yet he wrote in the Name and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West 2. The advantages of Rome by its reputation and greatness and the number and quality of the Western Bishops made their Judgement and Communion valuable to others Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree those that are distant are supposed to be impartiall especially when numerous To which is added which Basil intimates that some hope of help from the Secular powers by the interposition of the Western Bishops made them the more sought to 3. And the Primacy of Rome though it had no Soveraignty made it seem irregular that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgment of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats This was the custome that Iulius spoke of and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much if the Patriarch of Ierusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them 4. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent and hold communion with them in his own Patriarchate and if any be against it as the Arrians here were and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Iulius he may require them to prove their accusations if they will have him moved by them Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgment of our own well informed consciences Iulius desired not any more then to be one with a Council that should decide the case Councils then had the Rule and Patriarchs were the most honourable Members of those Councils but no Rulers of them 5. Yet Sozomen and others tell you that Iulius when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus could do no good nor prevail with the Bishops of the East till the Emperors commands prevailed yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his when he dealt with the Novatians seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another and so they took it ill that he interposed though but to call the matter to a Synod when a Patriarch was deposed Any Bishop might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Iulius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him All your consequences here therefore are denied 1. It is denied that because Iulius made this attempt that therefore he was Universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denied that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by Divine Right any more then Constantinople had equall priviledges by Divine Right 3. It is denied that it hence followeth that either by Divine or humane right he had any Power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire Had you all that you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was made by Councils and Emperours the chief Bishop or Patriarch in a Nationall Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the Archbishop of Canterbury was in England But a Nationall or Imperiall Church is not the Universall And withall oppressed men will seek relief from any that may help them In your Margin you adde that Concerning S. Athanasius being judged and rightly by P. Julius Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Reply Take it not ill Sir I beseech you if I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare write so many untruths which you knew or might know I could quickly manifest Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497 are untrue 1. The matter of fact is it that he denieth He proveth to you from Sozomens words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a Judge but only fled for help to a friend He shews you that Iulius did not play the Judge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of Judgement 2. He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judgeing but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused to shew that he did not play the part of a Judge but a friend as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him I pray answer his reasons And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret I say again that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his adversaries but not as to an Universal Governour or Judge no not as to the Universal Judge of the Church Imperiall much less of all the Catholick Churches 10. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostomes Case where you say some things untrue and some impertinent 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue if you mean it of an Appeal to a superiour Court or Judge much more if as to an Universal Judge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and help him as far as he could I need no other proof of the Negative then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative that ever he made any such appeal 2. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synod and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synod and a righteous judgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Judges never mentioning the Pope as Judge By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withall perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done Yea and it seems it was not to Innocent only but to others with him that he wrote for he would scarce else have used the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But what need we more then his own words to know his request saith he Let those that are found to have done so wickedly be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall Laws but for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your Letters and your charity and all others whose society we did formerly enjoy The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to sentence in his own Diocess though the person sentenced lived out of