that in Recognition thereof it decreed that all Constitutions of Councils and all the Synodical Epistles of the Roman Bishops should remain in their ancient force and vigour But what sayes his Reserve his Master-Allegation the Fourth Council of Toledo just as much as the rest It added sayes the Bishop some things to the Creed which were not expresly deliver'd in former Creeds So they might well do for fuller explication of what was implicitely deliver'd before and in opposition to Heresies already condemn'd by the whole Church Did it adde any thing contrary to to the common Faith of the Church or of the Sea Apostolique which is the question in hand and which Protestants did in all their pretended National Pseudo-Synods Neither needed the Prelates to ask express leave of the Sea of Rome to convene and determine matters concerning the whole Church provided it were done with due Subordination to the Sea Apostolique For that thus a National Synod may proceed the Council of Milevis a little above cited doth sufficiently declare which with the Authority of the Sea Apostolique concurring condemn'd the Heresie of Pelagius By such examples as these does our Adversary labour to justifie his Reformed English Church Thus does he prove that Provincial and Particular Councils may sometimes make Reformation in matters of Faith and Doctrine without yea against the Authority of the Apostolique Sea Hath he not worthily acquitted himself of his Province think you when in all the instances he brings there is not the least glance or intimation of any thing done contrary to the Popes Authority but express mention of it and of due regard towards it He urges again that the Church of Rome added the word Filioque to the Creed But can any man in his wits think it was done without and against the Popes consent Surely the Relatour cannot be thought here to have well minded his matter or peradventure he perswaded himself the multitude of his Allegations would serve to hide the impertinency of them 9. Yet after so many lost proofs with a confidence as great as if they had been all Demonstrations he asks us the question And if this was practis'd so often and in so many places why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like Truly I know no reason why it may not provided it be a True National Council and a True Church of England as those recited were true Churches and Councils and provided also that it do no more But seeing as his following words declare by the Church of England he menas the present Protestant Church there and by National Council either that Pseudo-Synod above-mentioned in the year 1562. or some other like it I must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition and tell him the Church of England in that sense signifies no true Church neither is such a National Council to be accounted a lawful Synod duly representative of the true English Church For is it not notorious that the persons constituting that pretended Synod in the year 1562. were all manifest usurpers Is it not manifest that they all by force intruded themselves both into the Seas of other lawful Bishops and into the Cures of other lawful Pastours quietly and Canonically possessed of them before their said Intrusion Can those be accounted a lawful National Council of England or lawfully to represent the English Church who never had any lawful that is Canonical and Just Vocation Mission or Jurisdiction given them to and over the English Nation But suppose they had been True Bishops and Pastors of the English Church and their Assembly a lawful National Council yet were they so far from doing the like to what the forementioned particular Churches and Councils did that they acted directly contrary to them Not one of those Councils condemned any point of Faith that had been generally believ'd and practis'd in the Church before them as this Synod of London did Not one of them contradicted the doctrine of the Roman Church as this did None of them convened against the express will of the Bishop of Rome as this Conventicle did None of them deny'd the Popes Authority or attempted to deprive him of it as these did so far as 't was in their power What Parallel then is there between the proceedings of the abovesaid National Synods or Councils of Rome Gangres Carthage Aquileia c. and the Bishops pretended Synod of Protestants at London in the year 1562. What the Bishops in King Henry the eighths time did is known and confess'd not only by Bishop Gardiner afterward in Queen Maries reign who was the learnedst Prelat then in England but even by Protestant Authors to have been extorted from them rather by threats force then otherwise and consequently can be of no great advantage to the Bishop And yet what they subscrib'd was far out-done by the Synod of 62. For though the Henry-Bishops as we may call them for distinction seemingly at least renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England I mean that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters which the Pope exercis'd here by vertue of the Canons Prescription and other title of humane Right and gave it to the King yet they never renounc'd or depriv'd him of that part of his Authority which is far more intrinsecal to his office and absolutely of Divine Right they never deny'd the Popes Sovereign Power to teach the universal Church and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever with a General Council nor did they dissent from him in any of those points of Faith which that Synod of London condemned in the year 1562. That which the King aim'd at was to get the Power into his hands and to have those Authorities Prerogatives Immunities annexed to his Crown which the Pope enjoyed and had exercised here in England time out minde in Ecclesiastical Causes that is in the Goverment and Discipline of the English Church and to this the Bishops yielded but what concern'd the Popes Authority in relation to the whole Catholique Church for ought appears clearly to the contrary both the Bishops and the King too left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge I have no more to say to this part of his Paragraph onely I observe that though his Lordship will not acknowledge Heresie or 〈◊〉 to have had place in his pretended Reformation yet he does not deny but Sacriledge too often reforms Superstition which yet he is ready to excuse telling us it was the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation But we ask What induc'd those Reformers to commit Sacriledge but the novel and impious Maximes of their Reformation Was it for any thing else that they sack't and demolisht so many Monasteries and Religious Houses alienating their Lands and Revenues but because by the principles of Reformation they held it Superstition to be a Religious Person or to live a Monastical life Was it for
practise not onely of the Roman but of the whole Church near upon a thousand years together even by the confession of Protestants Is this onely to reform themselves and not to condemn other Churches otherwise then by silence and example Do not all other Protestant Confessions of Faith speak the same language Do they not all take upon them with a more then censorious presumption to condemn the Doctrine and practise of the Roman Catholique that is of the whole true Church of Christ in the same and divers other contested points 2. A. C. therefore well mindes us that in all matters of difficulty belonging to Faith particular Churches should have recourse to the Church of Rome as Irenaeus intimates which hath a more powerful Principality and to her Bishop who is chief Pastour of the whole Church as being St. Peters Successour to whom Christ promis'd the Keyes Math. 16. for whom he pray'd that his Faith might not fail Luke 22. and whom he charg'd to Feed and Govern his Flock John 21. which saith A. C. he shall never refuse to do in such sort as that his neglect shall be a just cause for any particular man or Church under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Schisme or Separation from the whole General Church In answer to this the Bishop tells us the Roman Church hath indeed a more powerful Principality then any other particular Church but not from Christ which is contrary to St. Austin or rather to the whole Council of Milevis who in their Epistle to Innocent the first professe that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. Secondly he sayes the Patriarchs were all as even and equal for any Principality of Power as the Apostles were But this is first Equivocal the Apostles themselves were not in all respects equal or of even Authority They had a Superiour among them viz. Saint Peter 'T is true indeed except St. Peter they were are all equal among themselves every one of them had equal mission unto and Jurisdiction over the whole Church and none of them any Authority preceptive or coercive over another whereas St. Peter together with his Authority Apostolical over the whole Church which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles had also Jurisdiction and Authority over the Apostles themselves as being in the number of Christs sheep committed to his charge by our Saviour John 21. as is clear in all Antiquity Secondly 't is contrary to the Council of Nice In the third Canon whereof which concerns the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs the Authority or Principality if you will of the Bishop of Rome is made the patern or model of that Authority and Jurisdiction which the Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops The words of the Canon are these Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus qui sub potestate ejus sunt sicut ille qui tenet Sedem Romae CAPUT ESTET PRINCEPS OMNIUM PATRIARCHARUM The Patriarch say they is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as He who holds the Sea of Rome is Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs And in the same Canon the Pope is afterward stiled Petro similis Autoritate par resembling Saint Peter and his equal in Authority This also the practise of the Church shews which is alwayes the best Expositour and Assertour of the Canons For not onely the Popes Confirmation was required to all new-elected Patriarchs but it belong'd likewise to him to depose unworthy ones and restore the unjustly deposed by others We read of no less then eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sixtus the third deposed also Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie On the contrary Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople were by Julius the first restored to their respective Seas having been unjustly expell'd by Hereticks The same might be said of divers others over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority which he could never have done upon any other ground then that of divine Right and as being generally acknowledg'd St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church St. Austin therefore said well in Romanâ Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus in the Roman Church the Principality of the Apostolique Chair hath alwayes flourisht Here the Bishop will have some other Apostolique Chairs like this of Rome viz. equal to it in Authority But this he does partly to level the Dignity of the Roman Sea contrary to St. Austin and all Antiquity and partly to make way to some other pretty perversions of the same Father For we must know he is now entring upon that main question concerning the Donatists of Africk of whose proceedings the whole forecited Epistle of St. Austin treateth and therefore to make our answer to his objections more compendious and clear it will not be amiss in the first place to state that business by way of Narrative and matter of Fact onely which I shall briefly do out of St. Austin and Optatus Milevitanus Thus then it was 3. The Donatists of Africk finding themselves sharply oppos'd by Caecilianus Arch-bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa by way of revenge accuse him of having in time of Persecution deliver'd up the Holy Scriptures with other Sacred Utensils of the Church into the possession of the Heathens which was accounted a most capital crime amongst Christians They added to their accusation that he was made Bishop by one guilty of the same crime viz. by Felix Bishop of Aptung and they prosecuted the business so hotly that by a Synod of seventy African Bishops Caecilian was condemn'd and outed of his Bishoprick But he making no great reckoning of the sentence as being condemn'd absent and unheard and knowing himself to be in Communion with the Roman Church the Donatists are forced to prosecute their charge against him in other Churches beyond Sea But not daring to appear at Rome or at least knowing it would be to little purpose they address themselves to the Emperour Constantin and desire him to command their cause to be heard by some Bishops of the Gaules in France where the Emperour then resided But the Emperour was so far from favouring them that he shew'd a great dislike of their proceedings telling them exprefly that it belong'd not to him neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops Nevertheless knowing very well the turbulent disposition of Schismatiques and perceiving they meant not to acquiesce in the sentence of any Ecclesiastical Tribunal to which they were immediately subject he thought good to take a middle way which was to send them to Rome there to be heard and judged by the Pope to whom the cause did most properly belong but yet
to comply a little with the Donatists he sent along with them some Bishops of the Gaules in whom they more confided and whom they had already demanded to be their Judges intending that these French Bishops should hear the Donatists cause together with the Pope and determine therein what they should finde to be right Neither did Melchiades the Pope refuse them but for the greater solemnity of the judgement and satisfaction of the parties adjoyned to them fifteen other Italian Bishops and so proceeded to the hearing of the Cause But behold the issue After a full hearing of all parties the Donatists were condemn'd Caecilianus Felix and some other African Bishops of their party were justifi'd and acquitted The Schismatiques being thus condemn'd at Rome and even by those Bishops of the Gaules whom they had chosen for Judges by way of Appeal address themselves again to the Emperour which the pious Prince took so hainously that as Optatus Milevitanus reports he cry'd out against them to this purpose O the audacious folly and madness of these men See They have here exhibited an Appeal being themselves Bishops and in a cause of Bishops just as Infidels use to do in their own causes Nevertheless being at length as it were forced by their obstinate importunity he condescends they should be heard once again not as admitting their appeal or deporting himself in the business as their competent Judge but chiefly for their further conviction and to inform himself of the cause of Felix Bishop of Aptung which the Donatists pretended had not been duly heard at Rome Whereupon a Council of two hundred Bishops was assembled at Arles where the Popes Legates were present as also the three Bishops of the Gaules and some of the Italian Bishops who had already pronounced sentence in the cause at Rome To be short the Donatists are in this Council likewise condemn'd but not quieted for with an impudence proper to such people and to be parallel'd onely with their fellow Schismatiques they run the third time to the Emperour and will not be satisfied unless he condescend to hear them in person What should the Emperour do He had already protested against this as of it self unlawful but there was no remedy the Schismatiques will not let him rest until he hear them Wherefore having first promised to ask the Bishops pardon he consents to this also hears them and condemns them with his own mouth This is the true and real story of the Donatists proceedings from whence his Lordship brings several objections against the Popes Supremacy which we are now to examine First he would have us observe that the Roman Prelate came not in till the Donatists had leave given them by the African Prelates to be heard by forreign Bishops But this proves rather the justice and moderation of the Roman Prelate that he came not in before it was due time and the matter orderly brought before him For though the cause did most properly belong to the Popes Cognizance yet was it first to be heard and decided by the Bishops of the Province where the cause first sprang up The Pope was not to meddle with it otherwise then by way of regular Appeal unless perchance he had seen the Provincial Bishops to have neglected it or been unable effectually to determine it Secondly he abuses St. Austin in making him say that the African Bishops gave the Donatists leave to be heard by forreign Bishops Whereas there is no such leave mention'd or insinuated by St. Austin in all that Epistle What he sayes is onely his own private advise viz. that if any of them had convincing proofs of ought that was criminal in the Catholique Bishops of Africa for which they fear'd to communicate with them they should apply themselves to the Transmarine Bishops and especially to the Bishop of Rome and there make their complaints which is not a dispensing with them to do something which otherwise they might not do as the Bishop would have it thought much less is it a license or dispensation given them by the African Bishops sitting in Council but onely a private exhortation and counsel of St. Austin himself requiring them to do what according to the Canons was to be done in such a case His second objection is that if the Pope had come in without this leave to judge the Donatists cause it had been an usurpation in him But this is grounded partly upon his own false supposition that such leave was given and partly upon an affected mistake or mis-translation of the words usurpare and usurpavit For 't is evident in the first part of the sentence St. Austin speaks not in his own person but in the person of the Donatists as making an objection to himself in their behalf An fortè non debuit c. the words you have in the margin at large Ought not perchance Melchiades Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops to challenge to himself that judgement c. Whereas the Bishop by his englishing the words makes St. Austin positively say peradventure Melchiades ought not of right to have challenged or usurp'd to himself that judgement which surely was a notorious winding in his Labyrinth For it makes that to be a Negative in St. Austins sense which doubtless in his true meaning was an Affirmative and by asking will you Donatists say he ought not to do this he by consequence and in effect said that he ought to do it For the second part of the Speech where St. Austin answers the objection 't is no less clear that he speaks per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of condescendence to his Adversaries manner of speaking the better to mollifie them which is oftentimes practis'd in Rhetorick and not as acknowledging that it could be any real usurpation in the Pope to take cognizance of such a cause without leave given And if our Adversaries think not this true let them tell us who but our Saviour Christ and the Canons of the Universal Church gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius and those many other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church which most certainly he did both hear and judge effectually no man no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffer'd by his judgement complaining or accusing him of usurpation Thirdly he alledges that other Bishops were made Judges with the Pope and that by the Emperours power which the Pope will now least of all endure I answer first the Bishops sent by the Emperour were onely three an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence and the Pope to shew his Authority that he was not to be prescrib'd by any in this cause added to these three fifteen other Bishops of Italy to be his Colleagues and Assistants in the business Secondly I answer the Emperour in sending those Bishops together with the Donatists to Rome did nothing by
of such Superiour Courts to receive and determine Causes of Appeal To prevent as much as might be all occasion of Complaints in this kinde the Council of Sardica provided this expedient that no Ecclesiasticks under the degree of Bishops should usually be allow'd to appeal to Rome which may easily serve to reconcile all seeming contradiction in Authours touching this matter And it must be observ'd that though the Canons prohibit Priests and inferiour Clergy-men to appeal out of their own Province yet they forbid not the Pope to call what causes of theirs he sees necessary before him although indeed in the business of Apiarius the Pope properly speaking did neither call him out of his own Province to be heard by himself nor yet admitted his appeal but remanded him back to his proper Judges with command they should hear his cause once again and do him right in case it were found that any injustice had been used towards him in the former Sentence However Bishops were never prohibited the liberty of appealing to Rome by any Ecclesiastical Canon whatever 'T is true indeed the Africans in their Epistle above-mention'd thought good by way of Argument and Deduction to extend the Canon prohibiting Appeals even unto Bishops causes but the general custome of the Church was ever against them as is manifest by what hath been said 10. The Fathers in the sixth Council of Carthage petition'd I confess the Pope not easily to give ear to those who appeal'd to Rome from Africk especially where the crimes were manifest They except also against the manner of proceeding in the case of Apiarius and some others in which the Popes Legats sent into Africk carried not themselves as Judges but rather as Patrons and Advocates of the appealers Wherefore the Prelates at that Council request his Holiness he would rather please to give power to some in Africk to end such causes then send from Rome such as should give encouragement to Delinquents ne fumosum Typhum Saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi videretur inducere Lest otherwise say they his Holiness should seem to introduce the swelling pride or haughtiness of the world into the Church of Christ which ought to be the School and Mistress of Humility We confess also that in the times of Pope Zosimus Boniface the first and Pope Celestin there was much searching into the Records of the Nicen Council to finde the matter of Appeals therein decided The occasion was this Pope Zosimus to shew his proceedings in that affair to be not onely just but Canonical had by a little mistake the errour probably being rather his Secretaries then his own cited the Council of Nice for his Right touching Appeals whereas it should have been the Council of Sardica in the Canons whereof that Power is clearly allow'd the Pope Now this Council of Sardica being rather an Appendix of the Council of Nice then otherwise and called presently after it consisting likewise for the most part of the same Prelates and assembled for no other end but to confirm the Faith of the Nicen Council and supply some Canons necessary for the Discipline of the Church what matters it that such a mis-citation of one Council for another happened or how does it prejudice the Popes right Did the African Fathers or any other Catholique Authour of succeeding ages ever charge the Pope with falsifying the Canons upon this account as Protestants now do let them shew this if they can CHAP. 16. Of the Title of Vniversal Bishop ARGUMENT 1. The Title of Universal Bishop often given by Antiquity to the Bishops of Rome but never used by them 2. Though the Bishops of Constantinople assum'd the Title yet they never conceiv'd it did exempt them from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 3. A double signification of the Term Universal Bishop the one Grammatical the other Metaphorical and how they differ 4. St. Gregory condemn'd it onely in the first sense asserting the second expresly to himself 5. Phocas gave no new title to Boniface but onely declar'd that the Title of Universal Bishop did of right belong to the Pope and not to the Bishop of Constantinople 6. St. Irenaeus not rightly translated by the Bishop 7. Ruffinus corrupts the Nicen Canons and the Bishop mistakes Ruffinus 8. The Bishop even with Calvins help cannot clear himself of the Authority of St. Irenaeus 9. St. Epiphanius miscited and mistaken by the Bishop 10. Primacy and Supremacy in the Ecclesiastical sense all one and as necessary in the Church of Christ now as in the Apostles times AFter many windings the Bishop leads us at last into a Trite and beaten way falling upon the Question of John Patriarch of Constantinople so much censur'd by St. Gregory for assuming the title of Universal Bishop an objection satisfi'd a hundred times over yet though never so clear in it self the Bishop still endeavours to overshadow it with difficulties and amuse his Reader To the end therefore all obscurity may be taken away and the truth clearly appear I think it not amiss in the first place to set down the whole matter Historically as I finde it registred in the Monuments of the Church 1. Know then that the Title of Universal or Oecumenical Bishop in Ecclesiastical History was anciently attributed to the Bishop of Rome This no man can deny that reads the Acts of that famous General Council of Chalcedon where in a Letter approv'd by the whole Council and afterward by order of the Bishops there assembled inserted into the Acts thereof the Priests and Deacons of Alexandria style Pope Leo The most Holy and most Blessed Oecumenical or Universal Patriarch of great Rome c. The National Council of Constantinople did the same to Pope Agapet calling him their most holy Lord the Archbishop of old Rome and Oecumenical Patriarch Agapet c. John Bishop of Nicopolis with others styles Pope Hormisda Universi orbis terrarum Patriarcha which is in full sense the same with Oecumenical Constantinus Pogonatus the Emperour in the third Council of Constantinople which is the sixth General calls Leo the Second Oecumenical Pope as witness both Baronius and Binius So likewise did Basil the younger Emperour with Eustathius Bishop of Constantinople as appears by the Acts of their Reconciliation Yea Balsamon himself notwithstanding his known rancour against the Roman Sea is forc'd to acknowledge that the Greeks had an ancient custom to style the Bishop of Rome Oecumenical or Universal POPE nevertheless it cannot be shown they ever made use of this honourable Title but rather contented themselves with that of Servus Servorum Dei as relishing more of Humility and Apostolical meekness Whereas on the contrary the Bishops of Constantinople have for many hundreds of years usurp't it in all their Briefs Letters c. as appears by the Greek Canon Law it self viz. in the Titles of Sisinnius German Constantin Alexius and several other Patriarchs 2. It is further observable that
altogether vnsuspected themselues to be warping in religion he had erroneously and scandalously deliuer'd to the preiudice of Catholique verity As to any matter of abuse in this kinde crept in amongst the ignorant wee haue already shew'n how carefull the Council of Trent was to prouide against and preuent all inconueniences that could reasonably be fore seen or feared And if notwithstanding such diligence on the Churches part there happen something now and then to be amiss eyther through the infirmity of some particular persons or the negligence of others yet neyther is the doctrine or practice of the Church iustly to be blam'd for it nor yet the pious and more discrect deuotion of the rest for this reason to be discountenanced much less prohibited or forbiden Otherwise for the like pretended reason of Abuse and Scandall wee might be thought to stand oblig'd to blott out of the 〈◊〉 those words concerning our Saniour that he sitts at the right hand of God and diuerse Texts out of the Bible it 〈◊〉 Why because that by them ignorant and ill-disposed people haue been formerly and may be still induc'd to thinke that God the Father is of a Bodily Shape and hath a right hand and a left as men haue and likewise to forme to themselues many other false and dangerous conceptions of God Abuses of this nature if any be and whensoeuer they happen must be redressed by better instruction and information but the pious and lawfull custome of the Church must not therefore be abolish'd and quite taken away 11. As for what Llamas a Spanish Authour relates of the people of Asturias Cantabria and Gallicia who were so addicted to their old worm-eaten and ill-fashioned Images that when the Bishops of those Prouinces commanded new ones and bandsomer to be sett vp in their stead they begg'd euen with teares to haue their old ones still J confess there might be some indiscretion in their proceeding but J see noe ground the Bishop hath to taxe them of 〈◊〉 For the people did not cry after the Bishops officers when they remou'd these old Jmages why doe you take away our Gods giue vs our Gods againe or the like as Jdolaters would haue done as well as Laban Genes 31. 30. when he reprehended Iacob for stealing away his Gods Beside what euer was amiss in this kinde as the same Authour testifieth was by a little intruction of their Pastours quickly amended though the Bishop a man it seems of very hard beleefe will not thinke so But why should his Lordship make such difficulty to beleeue what a graue Author reports of his own knowledge As to what he further inferrs from the words of Llamas namely that the Jmages of Christ and his Saynts as they represent their Exemplars haue Diuinity in them and that wee may 〈◊〉 things of them and put trust in them in that regard my answer is the Bishop always shews himselfe ouer ready to expound our Authors in the worst sense euen many times where there is no rationall pretense This Author sufficiently shews he could haue no such meaning as the Bishop imputes to him what euer his words may seeme to import For in the very place cited by the Bishop he cleerly teacheth that wee ought to worship Jmages according to the Prescript of the Council of 〈◊〉 and how carefull that Council was that all might be duly instructed in this matter and no occasion left euen for the most ignorant and weake to offend by conceiuing or beleeuing any Diuine Power to be in the Jmages or by puting trust in them or crauin any thing of them appeares by the words of the Council already cited and by the Relatours own acknowledgement who stiles the Fathers religiously carefull in that respect Adde hereunto the Prouiso which this Author giues in the same chapter which is that wee ought to aske nothing of the Saynts no not of our B. Lady her selfe otherwise then by desiring them to beg it for vs at Gods hand and that to doe otherwise that is to aske any thing of them as if they were Authors of it or could of themselues alone giue or grant vs the good things wee aske were Jdolatrie Thus therfore wee hope this Author Llamas his intention and true meaning is cleer'd of what the Bishop imputes to him but it will not be amiss to take notice also how weakely the Bishops illation is made out of the sayd Authors words Because Llamas writes that the Images of Christ are not to be 〈◊〉 as if there were Diuinity in them as they are materiall things made by art but only as they represent Christ and the Saynts the Relatour inferrs thus So then belike according to the Diuinity of this Casuist a man may worship Images AND ASKE OF THEM AND PVT TRVST IN THEM as they represent Christ and his Saynts But what consequence is this How does it follow that wee may aske of Images and put our trust in them as they represent Christ and his Saynts because wee may worship them as they represent Christ and his Saynts wee many times loue and reuerence a picture for the person it represents and yet noe body is so foolish as to aske any thing of it as it represents that person Wee shew a 〈◊〉 respect to the chaire of state and chamber of Presence for the kings sake yet wee neither make to them any ciuill inuocation nor place confidence in them as they relate to the king Why therfore must it follow that wee may call vpon pictures or Jmages as they represent our Sauiour or the Saints because they may be honour'd or worshiped as they doe represent them Nor is it less ridiculous what the Bishop adds in pursuance of his discourse namely his resoluing this proposition of Llamas The Images of Christ and the Saynts are to be worshiped not as if there were any Diuinity in them as they are materiall things made by arte but as they represent Christ and his Saynts into this other The Images of Christ and his Saynts as they represent their Exemplars haue Deity or Diuinity in them making them both to signifie the same thing For why might he not as well haue resolu'd this proposition The kings picture is to be honour'd not as if there were Souereign Authority in it as it is a materiall thing made by arte but as it represents the king into this other The kings picture as it represents its Exemplar hath Souereign Authority in it The Bishop here surely giues the Reader more cause to suspect his iudgement touching the interpretation of Llamas then vpon his interpretation of him to taxe our Church of Idolatric I conclude it therfore most certain and indubitable that Llamas in the wordes cited by the Relatour intended noe more then to signifie that all worship done to Jmages was Relatiue and not Absolute which is to say that it was exhibited to them not for their own but for their exemplars sake which they represent
way of Authority or Command but of Mediation as using his Interest with the Pope which he might do without breach of the Canons What he did afterward he openly protested to be in it self unlawful and not belonging to him he did it therefore onely in condescendence to the Donatists importunity and would have askt the Bishops pardon for it as S. Austin witnesses whose sentence here lamely cited by the Bishop is far from proving his intent viz. that the judgement of this cause was a thing properly belonging to the Emperours Authority Nor doth it concern us at all that the Emperour gave sentence in the business since being wrought to it by the importunity of the Donatists he was bound in conscience to act the part of a just Judge and pronounce a right sentence which as he finally did in condemning these Schismaticks as we said above so no doubt it is all St. Austin means by the words alledged 4. His Deductions from the Civil Law are no better For first suppose that an inferiour Prelate could not appeal from the sentence of his Patriarch yet when the Patriarchs themselves have differences one with another must there not according to the rules of good Government be some higher ordinary Tribunal where such causes may be heard and determined I say Ordinary For it would be a manifest defect if that which is the extraordinary High Court of Ecclesiastical Justice viz. a General Council should be of necessity assembled for every particular difference between Patriarchs Secondly what the Law sayes is rightly understood and must be explicated of Inferiour Clerks onely who were not of ordinary course to appeal further then the Patriarch or the Primate of their Province for so the Council of Africk determines But 't is even there acknowledg'd that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome The same explication is to be given to the Text of St. Gregory viz. that he speaks of Inferiour Clerks since Bishops were ever accustomed to appeal to the Pope But I wonder his Lordship would expose to view the following words of St. Gregory Where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch even Inferiour Clerks when they appeal must have their recourse to the Sea Apostolique Then surely it follows the Bishop of Romes Jurisdiction is not onely over the Western or Southern Provinces as the Relatour limits it pag. 168. but over the whole Church whither the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and Patriarchs never extended Neither could such Appeals be just if the Bishop of Rome were not the Lawful Superiour and Judge of all the Bishops of Christendome it being confest that no Juridical Appeal can be made but from an inferiour to a superiour Judge To those words of St. Gregory quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est wherein he intimates the reason why Appeals should be brought from all parts of Christendome to the Sea Apostolique his Lordship thinks it best to use this evasion I have said enough to that saith he in divers parts of this discourse But in what parts hitherto I cannot finde though I have us'd some diligence in the search I could therefore wish he had spoken something to it here where he had so fair an occasion I onely say this If the Roman Sea be the Head of all Churches as St. Gregory sayes it is surely it hath Authority over all Churches His Lordship as long as he stands upon the Roman ground stands upon thorns and therefore makes a step or rather a leap from the Church of Rome to the Church of England with whose Encomiums given heretofore by Antiquity he is much pleas'd But what those Antient times of Church Government were wherein Brittain was never subject to the Sea of Rome we desire should be prov'd and not meerly said I should not have envy'd his Lordships happiness much less the honour of his Sea had he and all his worthy Predecessours as he calls them since St. Austin been enobled with the Eminence of Patriarks yet I see no reason why a velut Patriarcha pronounc'd by the Pope by way of Encomium onely upon a particular occasion should be of force to make Canterbury a Patriarchal Sea Similies fall alwayes short of the thing it self Again it imports little that there was a Primate in Brittain for that onely proves that inferiour Clerks might not ordinarily appeal from him to Rome but that Brittain was not subject to the Roman Sea or that the Brittish Bishops did not as ocsion requir'd freely and continually appeal to Rome it doth not prove yea the contrary is manifest by all the monuments of the Brittish Church What ever is meant by the words in Barbarico cited by his Lordship out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae certain it is that whoever were under the government of the Patriarch of Constantinople were not exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of Rome neither ought the Relatour to suppose it unless he had first prov'd that the said Patriarch had been himself legally exempt or not subject to the Pope which he neither offers to do nor can it be done nay the contrary is evident 5. To me truly it seems very strange his Lordship should be so little acquainted with the Ecclesiastical History of England as to affirm so confidently that in ancient times Brittain was never subject to Rome meaning in Ecclesiastical matters For to instance in the very business of Appeals doth not Venerable Bede tell us that in King Egfrids time which was about the Year of our Lord 673. St. Wilfrid Archbishop of York being unjustly depriv'd of his Bishoprick appeal'd to the Sea Apostolique was heard by Pope Agatho in the presence of many other Bishops and by their unanimous Sentence was pronounced innocent Was he not restor'd again to his Bishoprick by vertue of that sentence Doth not the same Authour affirm that being the second time expell'd his Sea he did the second time also appeal to Rome and was likewise acquitted upon a full hearing of his cause in the presence of his adversaries Was there not upon his second return into England a Synod of Bishops call'd in obedience to the Popes order in which by the general vote of all the good Bishop was again restor'd Is this no Evidence of Romes Authority over England in ancient times 'T is now almost a thousand yeares since Bede wrote and doubtless his History is one of the most Authentick we have he being a most holy and learned man Again is it not manifest out of him that even the Primitive Original Institution of our English Bishopricks was from Rome See the Letter of Pope Gregory the first to St. Austin our English Apostle which Bede reports in these words Quia nova Anglorum Ecclesia ad omnipotentis Dei gratiam codem Domino largiente et Te labor ante perducta est c. Seeing by the goodness of God saith he and your industry the new English Church is brought