d'Aubespine owns in his third Observation upon him but enough of this passage I will onely observe farther that as Optatus calls St. Peter Head of all the Apostles so do others give as great Titles and as honourable Compellations to other Apostles Hesychius for example as Photius hath it Cod. 275. calls St. James the Bishop of Jerusalem Head of the Apostles g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Photii Biblioth Cod. 275. p. 1525. Edit Haeschel 1612. I must also tell our Compiler that Socius in this passage is a little more than Contemporary Optatus calls the Bishop Syricius our Fellow-bishop which was a very rude thing to one so much a Prince above them and a false one too if there were but one Cathedra and consequently but one Bishop in the World Syricius at Rome The four next little passages from St. Cyprian h Nubes Test p. 24 25. Nat. Alex. p. 276 293. the first of which is directly against our Compiler have been sufficiently considered in the Interpretations of the Rock in St. Matthew I shall not trouble my self with saying much to his Synodical Epistle of i Nubes Test p. 25. Nat. Alex. p. 290. the Sardican Synod which was for giving to the Bishop of Rome a power of granting the revision of causes already judged in the Provincial Synods this very attempt of this Synod is sufficient to shew that the Bishop of Rome had no such a power before that time I will not enlarge here though I easily might he that desires to see the Romish Pretensions for Appeals founded upon the third fourth and fifth Canons of this Western Synod sufficiently baffled ought to consult our Excellent and most Learned Dean of St Paul's Origines Britanicae k Ch. 3. p. 142 143 c. and after him the very Learned Du Pin in his second Historical Dissertation l De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disciplina Dissertationes Historicae Sect. 3. p. 103 104 c. at Paris 1686. I will onely say that this Synod's Canons were admitted to no Authority in the Church because they were not admitted into the Code of the universal Church which is answer sufficient to our Compiler who pretends to prove this Supremacy from the first six Centuries I will onely remark that if the Sardican Synod could or did take away from Constantius the Emperour the power of granting the revising and rehearing of Causes which had been already judged in Provincial Synods because he was an Arian It should not upon the same reasons have granted or given that power to the Bishops of Rome since the very next Bishop to Julius turned Arian Liberius who confirmed the Council of Sirmium and during his Exile before his Arianism Felix who was put into his place was an Arian also as St. Hierom doth assure us m D. Hieron Catalogus Scriptorum Illustr in Acacio p. 297 298. T. 1. Edit Basil 1565. so that in endeavouring to avoid one Rock they split upon another The best answer any one can make for these their Canons is that they were onely a present temporary provision limited to Julius his time who was a Catholick against Constantius who was an Arian The next instance n Nubes Test p. 25. Nat. Alex. p. 298. about Irenaeus his writing to Victor with F. Alexandre's silly Remarks before and after it is so far from being for that it is one of the clearest instances in Antiquity against the Pope's Supremacy When the Controversie about the celebration of Easter began to grow warm there were several Synods gathered about it in Palestine Pontus o Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Edit Vales Rome France and other places and from them all together not from the Bishop of Rome or his Synod did proceed p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. the Ecclesiastical Rule of celebrating Easter onely on the Lord's day This Rule or Determination it is probable Victor was desired to transmit to the Asiaticks thereby to bring them to a consent in practice in this Thing The Asiaticks refused upon the grounds set down in Polycrates his Letter to the Bishop and Church of Rome which was so highly resented by Victor that he immediately does that which he seems to have threatned them with before in his Letter to them and excommunicates the Asiatick Churches This practice of his was so far from being consented to or approved by those Bishops who were agreeing with him about the matter of the time of keeping Easter that they all immediately q Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 24. fell upon him for his extravagant irregular action and do not onely exhort him as Valesius translates but command him as I think a compound from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be translated to mind those things that are for promoting Peace Vnity and Charity towards their neighbours and Eusebius tells us in the same place that several of those Letters were to be seen in his time wherein the Bishops had so severely checkt and reprehended this Bishop of Rome and he puts down part of that from Irenaeus which F. Alexandre and our Compiler make use of I think this behaviour does not very clearly prove the Supremacy of the Pope and this would certainly have been very unaccountable carriage towards Christ's True Vicar who had full power of governing the whole Church the truth is they knew of no such person in those days he was not born into the world till near a Thousand years after them But says our Compiler from F. Alexandre and this is a pert saying among a great many among us Irenaeus does not deny the Bishop of Rome's power of Excommunicating the Asiaticks it is true he does not and which is more he could not since every Bishop in the Catholick Church and therefore he at Rome among the rest might deny to communicate with any other Bishop or Church against which they thought they had sufficient reason for such a suspension of Communion One thing however I would commend to his and F. Alexandre's consideration and that is that this Action of Victor's was so little valued in the Catholick Church that it does not appear that any Christians did thereupon refuse Communion with the Asiaticks which is a great commendation truly of that Bishop's management but a certain evidence of the Opinion of the Ecclesiasticks of those days concerning the Bishop of Rome's Power The next Quotation r Nubes T. p. 25 26. from St. Basil's Comments ad cap. 2. Isaiae is not from F. Alexandre so that here our Compiler doubtless would take it amiss if he be not allowed to have something of his own and to have perused St. Basil for example but the great unhappiness is that he must not be allowed it since he either borrowed this passage from some other friend or made it himself there being no such passage in that Commentary of this Father upon the second of Isaiah and
in this affair that so what was decided by them in Synod might have a general reception His next Authorities are much more unfit for the proving such great things as the Florentine Council says of the Pope Nub. Testium p. 34. none but a very short-sighted person would quote the Comparison of St. Peter and Plato which passage is not in St. Hierome as set down by our Authour since no one ever made or believed Plato to be such a Prince over the Philosophers as the Church of Rome says St. Peter was over the Apostles and the whole Church g Nub. Test p. 34 35. Nat. Alex. p. 281 282. The business of the Council of Jerusalem with St. Hierome's leave makes more for the honour of St. James Bishop there than of St. Peter since he concluded the debates and the Canon was drawn up in the very expressions prescribed by him and I must confess that as to the next passage from St. Hierome h Nub. Test p. 35. Nat. Alex. p. 283. about a Head constituted among the Apostles since I find nothing in the Gospels or in the Acts of the Apostles that either our Saviour did appoint or the Apostles elect or constitute Peter Head of the Apostles I cannot believe it though St. Hierome doth affirm it especially since his being made the Apostles Messenger Acts 8.14 is so home an Evidence against it The next Testimony i Nub. Test p. 35. Nat. Alex. Par. 2. Sec. 4. p. 190. proves onely that St. Hierome acted as every good Christian ought in keeping to the Faith and Church of Christ against the Hereticks that he acted as every Presbyter ought when he consulted his own Bishop whether he might use the term Hypostases about the Trinity The two last Testimonies from him do not deserve a word of answer and therefore I will pass to those from St. Austin the two first k Nub. Test p. 37. Nat. Alex. p. 284. passages from whom are directly against our Compiler the rest are too weak for his designs and to very little purpose since as to the first l Nub. Test p. 39. of them several other Câ—urches as well as that at Rome did enjoy the prerogative of having an Apostolical Chair and as to the next m Nub. Test p. 39 40. Nat. Alex. p. 308. it was very expedient the Africans should try all means and use all helps that could be got to suppress a growing Heresie and for the third n Nub. Test p. 40. Nat. Alex. p. 309. it was customary enough for other Bishops to call Bishops to Synods the History of the first ages of St. Cyprian in particular will put this out of doubt the last o Nub. Test p. 40 41. Nat. Alex. p. 309. falls in with the second and therefore I pass it and ought to doe so by those of St. Cyril since they p Nub. Test p. 41. were answered sufficiently above in the Interpretation of the Rock Having spent so much time about the Testimonies hitherto I will make the more haste through the rest there are but one or two lest that can give us much occasion of an Answer that about Nestorius had need to have a Preface to make it look great for the Pope as if Nestorius could not be excommunicated but by his Authority and Cyril did excommunicate him by virtuo onely of the power given him by that Pope q Nub. Test p. 41 42. Nat. Alex. p. 309 310. whereas it is certain from Saint Cyril's own Letter to Coelestine that before then upon Dorotheus his having denounced in the presence of Nestorius an Anathema r Cyril Alex Ep. ad Coelest in T. 3. Concil p. 341. Edit Coss against all that should say the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God not onely the people of Constantinople but almost all the Monasteries with their Abbats had lest off communicating with Nestorius and that St. Cyril himself had already broke off Communion with him but does not publickly denounce Excommunication against Nestorius till he had consulted with Coelestine in the thing Å¿ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΜΕΤΑ ' ΠΑΡΡΗΣΙ'ΑΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Ibid. who upon the hearing of Nestorius his great Errour did send an Answer to Cyril wherein he tells him that They ought to excommunicate Nestorius if he did not recant his Errour and therefore gave Cyril leave to join his Authority to his own and in their names to excommunicate Nestorius t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΕΜΕΙ Σ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΟΦΕΙ'ΛΟΜ ΕΠ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΣΟΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Coelest Ep. Cyrillo What is cited next from the Council of Ephesus signifies nothing at all but what the Pope's Legate said there signifies much less since this is a Controversie that is not to be decided by what this Pope or that Legate said passing therefore what either Coelestine or his Legate say here u Nubes Testium p. 42 43. Nat. Alexan. p. 310 311 312. or Pope Leo's Legate at Chalcedon * Nubes Testium p. 44. Nat. Alexan. p. 312. and the little passage of the Council there as of no strength I am come to that passage from the Emperour Valentinian's Letter which speaks of the Bishop of Rome 's having power to judge of Matters of Faith and the Cause of Priests or Bishops I onely ask our Compiler x Nub. Test p. 44 45. whether he designs from this passage to prove that the Bishop of Rome had such a power of judging Matters of Faith and the Causes of the Clergy alone or in Conjunction with other Bishops if he designs onely the latter no body does oppose a Synod's having power of Judging and examining such things but if he will have the Bishop of Rome alone to have full power over such Matters and Controversies See Nouvelles de la Republ. des Lettres for the Month October 1684. p. 262. I cannot but refer him to his own Master F. Alexandre who was so earnest and so vigorous to have the Proposition censured which is in the Hungarian Censure of the Propositions of the Clergy of France which teaches that it doth belong to the Apostolical See alone by divine immutable z Ad solam Sedem Apostolicam divino immutabili privilegio spectat de Controversiis Fidei judicare privilege to determine in Controversies of Faith against which extravagant Proposition it is said that Father made a Discourse of two hours long which pleased Monsieur Colbert so well that he sent him a present of a hundred Louidores This Doctrine of the sole power of the Pope in Judging Controversies of Faith is so odious to the Clergy of France that they call it the Heresie of the Jesuites and the Sorbonists who wrote the Notes upon the Hungarian Censure of the four Propositions of the Gallican Clergy tell the Clergy a Notae in
which is more unhappy still there is the direct contrary to it for St. Basil ſ in Domo Dei quae est Ecclesia Dei viventis cujus Fundamenta in Montibus Sanctis est enim aedificata supra Fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum unus ex Montibus erat Petrus c. S. Basil in cap. 2. Esa Vol. 1. p. 869. Edit Par. 1618. speaking of the Church of God that its Foundations are upon the Holy Mountains says that St. Peter is one of those Mountains and that the Church of God is built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets As the first passage is guilty of falshood so the second t Nub. Test p. 26. N. Alex. p. 304 305. from St. Basil is guilty of very egregious disingenuity Certainly F. Alexandre borrowed this passage from some such Writer as Bellarmine and never consulted the Epistle it self or he could not have been guilty of such disingenuous dealing had he read the Epistle he might have seen that as it is directed to the Western Bishops so it did desire from them not from the Bishop of Rome onely or more than the rest help and assistence in their present afflictions caused by this Eustathius and others There are two reasons set down in the Epistle why they did desire this help the first of them is because that Eustathius v Eustathius his business to Rome was not to appeal but as Legate from the Synod of Lampsacus as Du Pin assures us Dissert 2. p. 163. to draw Liberius to communicate with the Semiarians coming to Rome and having imposed upon Liberius and the Western Bishops in Synod perhaps with him so far as to be admitted to communion had obtained their Communicatory Letter to testifie the Orthodoxy of his Faith upon his producing of which to the Synod of Tyana he had been restored and thence had the opportunity of ravaging the Churches and dispersing his Impieties and therefore they desire that as their Letter was the cause of his being restored and thereby enabled to doe them such mischief so they would from thence * Quoniam igitur isthinc vires accepit laedendi Ecclesias ac publicandae suae impietatis fiducia quam VOS dedistis ad subversionem multorum usus est necesse est ut isthinc quoque veniat malorum istorum correctio scribatúrque Ecclesiis quibus quidem conditionibus ad Communionem susceptus sit simul vero adjiciatur quomodo jam immutatâ sententiâ gratiam à PATRIBVS qui tum erant acceptam irritam reddat S. Basilii Ep. 74. ad Occident Episcopos p. 875 876. Edit Par. 1618. vouchsafe them a Cure for this spreading Evil the other reason is because that what they at home said against Eustathius was said to proceed from a private pique or a contentious humour x Quae nos enim loquimur multis suspecta sunt quasi propter privatas quasdam contentiones metum ac pusillanimitatem illis incutere velimus Vo◠vero quanto ab illis habitatione remotiores estis tanto plus apud plebem habetis fidei Idem Ibidem p. 874. and therefore St. Basil in their name desires their Letter who lived so far off and would thereupon be considered as disinteressed persons and have the greater credit among their people I appeal to any man of sense whether any thing can be more evident than that it was not Liberius alone who gave Eustathius that unhappy Letter and that the Community of Western Bishops were desired not he at Rome alone to help them in their distress and lastly that they desired this help not because they had not power enough of their own to have judged and deposed Eustathius but because they were desirous to use the least invidious Method of ridding their Communion of him by getting a great number of the Western Bishops to condemn his Opinions and to exhort the faithfull not to communicate any longer with him Had our Compiler but translated the two words Occidentales Episcopos in the beginning of this Testimony there are few Readers but would have seen the cheat The next Testimony of Gregory Nazianzen's y Nub. Test p. 27. which says the faith confessed by St. Peter was the foundation of the Church ought in prudence to have been omitted since it is directly against our Compiler the next passage from him does not concern the Bishop of Rome as our Compiler z Nub. Test p. 27. N. Alex. p. 289 290. from F. Alexandre does most falsly assert but St. Basil as Elias Cretensis and Billius in their Comments upon him assure us The following story about Dionysius of Alexandria is nothing to our Compiler a Nub. Test p. 27 28. N. Alex. p. 300 301. or F. Alexandre's purpose since here is nothing done but what any Bishop might have done and which is more nothing done by the Bishop of Rome himself but by a Synod then met when the complaint was made against Dionysius and all the share the Bishop of Rome hath in this affair besides his suffrage is onely to be the Synods Secretary in drawing up this Letter and sending their Opinion b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athan. de Synod Arimin Seleuc. p. 707. Edit Commel 1600. to his name-sake at Alexandria and therefore our Compiler is very much to be blamed but F. Alexandre much more for their impertinent and false accounts prefixed to this passage from Athanasius What credit in Ecclesiastical History Natalis Alexandre may have beyond Sea I cannot tell if all his twenty five Volumes be of the same strain with his first I must needs say that he was fitter to write Romances than Church-History for certainly no man whose talent does not lie wonderfully that way could with so much art have drest up the story about Dionysius or with so much address and formality have told the next story of Julius's taking the Cause of Athanasius into his hands and of his citing him and his enemies to appear before his Apostolick Tribunal and yet ground this formal story upon a bit of Julius's Letter as he calls it to the Orientals which hath not one syllable of any such thing in it first here is nothing here of Julius's taking the Cause of Athanasius into his own hands but the contrary to it is evident from Sozomen who writes that upon the Eusebians prevailing against the Orthodox Bishops in the East and deposing them all the Western Bishops He at Rome among the rest did very kindly receive Athanasius when he came into the West and did take upon themselves the hearing and Judgment of his Cause c Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 7. Edit Vales secondly it is as false that there is in this Letter any citation of St. Athanasius and the Orientals before the Apostolick Tribunal As false as this account is our Compiler d Nubes Test p. 28 29. Nat. Alex. p. 302 303. ventures upon F. Alexandre's credit to transcribe and
vend it for true History and which is more to add to it by telling us that Athanasius appealed upon his deposition by the Eusebians unto the Bishop of Rome whereas his own Master F. Alexandre puts it down for his first Conclusion in his Dissertation concerning the Cause of Athanasius that Athanasius did not appeal to Julius Bishop of Rome e Nat. Alex. Dissert 21. in Pars 3. Sec. 4. p. 329. nay his own next Testimony from Sozomen says that Julius being satisfied f Sozom. H. E. l. 3. c. 10. Edit Vales there was no safety for Athanasius in Aegypt invited him to Rome which is evidence enough he had not appealed thither What our Compiler designs from this passage about Athanasius and the three next Testimonies from Sozomen g Nub. Test p. 28 29 30. Nat. Alex. p. 302 303. Socrates g Nub. Test p. 28 29 30. Nat. Alex. p. 302 303. and Theodoret g Nub. Test p. 28 29 30. Nat. Alex. p. 302 303. is to shew the custome of Appeals to the Pope In answer to which I say first that there is no evidence that Athanasius did appeal to the Pope next I say that this Letter drawn up by Julius was in the name and therefore spoke the sense of a Synod of Wostern Bishops at Rome this thing Athanasius himself informs us of for after he hath put down the Letter penned by Julius to the Orientals he says that after that the Synod at Rome h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. D. Athan. Apolog 2. p. 58 had wrote that Letter by Julius the Roman Bishop the Eusebians still persisted in disturbing the Churches farther it is evident from this Synodical Epistle as I hope I may now call it 〈◊〉 Julius did not pretend to any Judgment of the cause himself in particular as Bishop of Rome which our Compiler from F. Alexandre doth very falsly assert since in this Letter the complaint is that the Orientals had in this affair about Athanasius acted against Canon in that they had not written to all the Western Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Idem Ibidem p. 586. B. are their own words which according to our wise Guide and his Transcriber must be translated to the Bishop of Rome that so it might have been determined by all together Occidentals as well as Orientals what was just and necessary in this affair lastly as I partly observed above the Bishop of Rome was so far from being owned or thought the sole Judge in this affair that Sozomen tells us k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΠΡΟ'Σ'ΑΥΤΟΥ'Σ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΑΥΤΟ'Π〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΔΙ'ΚΗΠSozom. H. E. l. 3. c. 7. Edit Vales that upon St. Athanasius and the other Bishops being deposed by the Eusebian Faction the Bishop of Rome and all the Western Bishops lookt upon these practices of the Eusebians as wrongs done to themselves and therefore did receive St. Athanasius who came to them very kindly and took upon themselves the hearing and judging of his Cause This was such a mortification to Eusebius the Ring-leader of the Arian Faction to see Athanasius received to Communion and the hearing of his Cause espoused by the Body of the Western Bishops that he l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΑΥΤΟ'Π〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Ibidem wrote to Julius of Rome that he would take upon himself to be Judge of what had past against Athanasius at Tyre the design of which Letter could certainly be no other than either to make a Division among the Western Bishops if the Bishop of Rome should hearken to such a thing or to have served for a pretence to have thrown out Athanasius again should he be restored by the Bishop of Rome's Sentence when opportunity served because this Judgment would have been against the Laws of the Church which appoints such Judgments to be managed Synodically Socrates and Sozomen upon this business speak of a Canon which the present Writers of the Church of Rome urge often enough that no Acts of the Church should be valid which were made without the Approbation of the Bishop of Rome They both seem to ground what they write upon Julius's Letter to the Orientals and upon that passage in it wherein Julius asks them whether they did not know that the Custome is that we ought first to be written to that what was just might be determined hence m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. Synod apud Athan Apol. 2. p. 586. if They did ground their words upon that Letter they are guilty of two great mistakes first in saying there was such a Canon whereas the Letter it self pretends to no more than that there was such a Custome secondly They are much more mistaken in thinking the Letter to be Julius his own when as it was a Synodical Letter penn'd onely by Julius and by ut primum NOBIS scribatur was meant the Western Bishops whose the Letter was and not Julius the Bishop of Rome in particular This answer I think is fair and sufficient but if any one will notwithstanding this have Julius to speak here of himself I refer him for an answer not very creditable to that Bishop unto the Learned Monsieur Launoy who n Launoii Ep. ad Jac. Bevilaquam p. 269 c. 273. in Part. 6. Ep. will shew him that Julius went upon a great mistake since there is no Canon in the Code of the Vniversal Church nor in the ancient Code of the Church of Rome that makes any mention of such a thing The next Testimony of the Pope's Authority in restoring Paulus of Constantinople Asclepas and others to their Bishopricks is taken from Socrates and Sozomen o Nubes Test p. 30 31. Nat. Alex. p. 303 304. How far from accurate in these affairs those two Historians are I have just shewn and how little they are to be followed or credited in this account about Paulus is what the Learned Valesius in his Observationes Ecclesiasticae p Valesii Observationes Eccles in Socr. Sozom l. 2. c. 3. upon them hath made apparent from St. Athanasius whose Authority in this business must be of infinitely greater value than Socrates and Sozomen since He lived at the very same time and they two so many years after this business There is no evidence in Antiquity that these Bishops appealed to the Bishop of Rome it is very plain from Athanasius q Vide Valesii Observationes Eccles in Socrat. Soz. l. 2. c. 6. that these Historians give a false account of the several banishments and restitutions of Paulus for example and it is as certain from him r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Paulus CP 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athan Ep. ad Solitar Vit. agentes p. 630. that Paulus could not come to Rome nor was restored by Julius since Constantius had
Text of St. Austin which runs thus nec eo ad adoranda daemonia non servio lapidibus sed tamen in parte Donati sum I wonder why F. Alexandre should be so much afraid of this passage though we do object to his Church as a most grievous crime the giving religious worship to Saints and Angels and their Images yet he cannot but know that we do not lay to their charge the worshiping of Devils which we are very glad our selves that we cannot doe But I begin to suspect strongly that Father Alexandre and our Compiler are very near a-kin that our Compiler hath made the same use of N. Alexandre that Alexandre himself hath done of others that which inclines me very much to this Opinion is that Father Alexandre never tells us that I have observed what Editions of the Fathers he used nor quotes the page where one may find his quoted passage above once in five hundred passages I believe through all his Volumes CHAP. II. Concerning the Pope's Supremacy SECT I. AFter twenty pages spent about matters that do not at all concern our present Controversie we are come to that which must be allowed not onely to be a Controversie but the greatest of any that are now on foot in the World and which hath been and is the cause of all those tyrannical pretensions and uncanonical impositions which do at present divide the Christian World. The Pope's Supremacy is that point which the Members of the Church of Rome especially the Vltramontaines are so carefull to defend and we of the Reformation to oppose Our Compiler being now come to a point of debate doth not forget his art of palliating which was so very serviceable to him in his Misrepresentations and Representations of Popery He cannot but know and therefore ought to have avoided it that this loose talk about Successor of Peter and Centre of Catholick Communion does not reach the Pretensions of the Bishops of Rome nor fully and fairly declare what Power Jurisdiction and Authority in and over the Catholick Church those Bishops challenge as their right To let him see how loosely he manages this debate betwixt us I can with putting in two or three necessary words subscribe to all our Compiler says for the Pope and yet be as far from owning the Pope's Supremacy as the Church of England is or ever was The Fathers teach Nub. Testium p. 22. says our Compiler that Christ built his Church upon Peter so say I too if by Fathers here be meant two or three of them and not the Fathers unanimously as he hath it before or generally That the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter is what I can also grant and that That See is the Centre of the Catholick Communion if I may but put in here what is absolutely necessary while possessed by an Orthodox Bishop and that whosoever separates himself from it I add professing the true Faith and possessed by a Catholick Bishop is guilty of Schism I can I say subscribe though I do not to all this without any Obligation in the least of believing the Pope's Supremacy all that our Compiler puts down here reaching no farther than a Primacy of Order does not at all suppose in the Popes any Jurisdiction or Authority over the Catholick Church Since then our Compiler seems to be afraid of setting down a true account of this Controversie betwixt us by mincing the matter so much about the Pope's power I must borrow of him his last Quotation under this head the Canon of the Council of Florence and set that down as the true account of their Doctrine concerning the Pope's power and then not onely shew our reasons why we dare not submit to it but that all the Testimonies our Compiler hath put down from F. Alexandre except two or three under this head do not prove the Pope's Supremacy as it is stated by their General Council of Florence m Diffinimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem tenere Primatum ipsum Pontificem Romanum Successorem esse Beati Petri Principis Apostolorum verum Christi Vicarium totiúsque Ecclesiae Caput omnium Christianorum Patrem ac Doctorem existere ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam à Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse quemadmodum etiam in Gestis Oecumenicorum Conciliorum in Sacris Canonibus continetur Concil Florent Pars 2. Collatio 22. p. 1136. Edit Cossart We define says the Canon that the Holy Apostolick See and Bishop of Rome is invested with the Primacy over the whole World and that the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter Prince of the Apostles and that he is the true Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that the full power of feeding ruling and governing the whole Church was given to him in St. Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ as it is expressed or contained in the Acts of General Councils and in the Holy Canons The Reader will very easily see what a great difference there is betwixt this account of the Pope's Supremacy and that set down by our Compiler and yet this Gentleman would be thought to be an exact Stater of the Controversie betwixt us and to have represented fairly what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning their Popes Power and Jurisdiction I hope I am out of the danger of being made a Misrepresenter while I charge that onely upon them as their Doctrine which hath been defined by one of their General Councils which is the greatest strength and countenance that any Doctrine is capable of among them This then being the true state of their Doctrine concerning their Popes Power or Supremacy and that which I would call naked Popery I am sure I have Commission from the Church of England to declare that she cannot without betraying the Rights of all Bishops and the Interest of the Catholick Church espouse the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy which we of her Communion do believe is altogether without foundation either from Scripture or Primitive Antiquity It will not be consistent with that brevity I have confined my self to in this Answer to go through our several arguments against this usurped Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome I am onely desirous to consider in short whence they have this their extraordinary Power which they do as extraordinarily contend for there are but Three Sources whence they can pretend to derive it either that it is from the Law of God set down in the Scriptures or from the Laws of the Vniversal Church to be seen in her Code or lastly from the favour and authority of secular Princes the first of these is that which they commonly claim and insist upon the second is what this Canon of the Florentine Council doth challenge also in the
in this his third exile put him in chains and banished him to Singara in Mesopotamia and afterwards removed him to Emesa so that he could not be at Rome nor be restored by that Bishop upon his Profession of the Nicene Faith as Sozomen tells the story He that will compare Athanasius and these two Historians will find perfect Confusion in the latter but if he grudge so much pains he may find it very sufficiently done by Valesius in his second Book of Ecclesiastical Observations upon these two Historians The next quotations from St. Chrysostome ſ Nub. Test p. 31 32. are onely some of his Rhetorical flights his Opinion against any Superiority in St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles we have had above t p. 25. I will pass therefore to his Letter of Request forsooth to Innocent the First v Nub. Test p. 32 33. N. Alex. p. 307 308. that he would repeal the Sentence of the Synod ad Quercum against him and order him to be restored to his See. But how little this History helps the Papal Supremacy these few Observations will shew First that Chrysostome did appeal from that Synod ad Quercum not to the Bishop of Rome which they of his Communion should prove but to a General Council as is apparent not onely from Sozomen * Sozomen H. E. l 8. c. 17. Edit Vales but from this Epistle it self x ac mille appellante Judices paratum praesente orbe universo quaeque objecta diluere D. Chrys Ep. apud Palladium de Vita Chrys p. 5. in T. 2. Chrys Edit Duc. to Innocent Secondly that Chrysostome sent the same Epistle to Venerius Bishop of Milain and to Chromatius of Aquileia y Scripsimus ista ad Venerium Mediolanensem ad Chromatium Aquilegiensem Episcopum Vale in Domino Idem Ibidem so that if this Epistle prove any Prerogative for Innocent it will prove the same for Venerius and Chromatius and that I am sure is no help towards a Supremacy Thirdly That this Letter was not sent to Innocent in particular but to some other Bishops z Haec igitur cogitantes omnia Domini beatissimi a◠Reverendissimi dignum vestrae constantiae congruum robur ac studium sumite Ne igitur immanis ista confusio cuncta percurrat scribite precor authoritate vestrâ decernite c. Idem Ibidem with him which I take to be the Bishops of his Diocese as the Letter to Venerius did I suppose concern the Bishops of his Diocese and that to Chromatius all that were under his Jurisdiction and therefore yields no assistence towards the proving a particular Prerogative for Innocent in this case Fourthly That Innocent did not pretend to give Judgment in the Quarrels betwixt St. Chrysostome and Theophilus but told St. Chrysostome a Ad haec rescripsit Innocentius dicens oportere conflari aliam irreprehensibilem Synodum Occidentalium Orientalium Sacerdotum cedentibus Concilio amicis primum deinde inimicis Neutrarum quippe partium ut plurimum rectum esse Judicium Innoc. Ep. apud Palladium Ibidem c. 3. that there must be a Synod which neither side could take exceptions at of Oriental and Occidental Bishops together to put an end to this business upon which account Innocent did request of Honorius to call a Western Council which the Emperour b Non tulit ultra Innocentius Pontifex indignitate summâ permotus scripsitque ad Honorium Imperatorem Motus his literis Princeps praecepit Synodum Occidentalium Episcoporum congregari cùm in unam sententiam concurrisset ad se referre Congregati Italiae Episcopi Imperatorem orant ut scriberet Arcadio Fratri suo ut juberet Thessalonicae Concilium fieri quo facilius possent utraeque partes Orientis Occidentisque concurrere Palladius in Vita D. Chrysost p. 6. in T. 2. Operum Chrysost Edit Ducaei readily did and this Synod did beseech the Emperour to write to his Brother Arcadius that he would appoint a General Synod at Thessalonica where the Western and Eastern Bishops might meet and pass a final Judgment upon this Affair of St. Chrysostome How far this Account is from proving any thing extraordinary about Innocent is what the meanest Reader will readily apprehend I will not inquire of our Compiler because I believe he knows nothing of the business but I do of Father Alexandre in what Edition of St. Chrysostome he found this Epistle called Libellus Supplex and where he read that St. Chrysostome presented it upon his knees I suppose they would have it as Letters of Requests use to be to Innocent for that must be the sense of F. Alexandre's porrexit Innocentio I. Pontifici Romano I desire our Compiler to send F. Alexandre word that He that will be guilty of such tricks must either be no Scholar or no honest Man. The two next Authorities from Vincentius and St. Ambrose c Nub. Test p. 33. N. Alex. p. 298 299. are of too little value to deserve much consideration that of Lirinensis supposes other Bishops to have equal share in the Care of the Church while it calls them the Collegues of the Bishop of Rome and for St. Ambrose about feeding the sheep that Text hath been sufficiently secured and cleared above d p. 22. and I need be no longer upon the next passage from his Epistle to Theophilus but that I cannot pass over the ignorance and disingenuity of our Compiler and his Master F. Alexandre upon this point e Nub. Test p. 33 34. N. Alex. p. 307. They tell us that the Synod of Capua did commit to Theophilus the decision of the quarrel betwixt Evagrius and Flavianus at Antioch which is very false for it is expressed as plain in this Epistle as words can doe it that the decision of that business was committed to Theophilus and the Aegyptian Bishops f Cùm sancta Synodus cognitionis Jus unanimitati tuae Caeterisque ex Aegypto Consacerdotibus nostris commiserit c. Ambros Ep. 78. T. 3. p. 233. Edit Frob. 1538. who were in Synod to determine that affair They tell us also that St. Ambrose owns that Theophilus ought to give an account of his Decision not of the Cause as our Compiler mistakes his Master to the See Apostolick and that his Decision would be of no force or obligation if the Bishop of Rome did not ratifie it the folly of which is sufficiently exposed from the Determination of the Synod of Capua it self which utterly ruins this foolish talk when it did commit the final Decision of that business to a Synod of Aegyptian Bishops without taking the least notice of the Bishop of Rome and they have as little ground for what they so boldly affirm here from St. Ambrose's Epistle since all that St. Ambrose who had been consulted in the business by Theophilus directs here is that his opinion is that they would advise with the Bishop of Rome