S. Basil writes to him That he had care of all the Churches as of his own and in the same Epistle calls him The Head and chief over all Hence S. Chrysostome in the praise of Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch saith That he was instructed by the Divine Spirit that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set but of the whole Church throughout the world Hence came the great endeavours of Theophilus and Cyril Patriarchs of Alexandria of Eusebius Vercellensis Hilarius Pictaviensis and several others for rooting out of Heresies not confining themselves to those Provinces allotted to them but extending their care over other Churches Hence came frequent ordinations of persons out of their own Dioceses as of Paulinus at Antioch by Lucifer Caralitanus of many Bishops in Syria and Mesopotamia by Eusebius Samosatenus and of a Presbyter at Bethleem by Epiphanius who when he was quarrel'd at by John of Hierusalem for it he defends his action by this saying That In Sacerdotio Dei nulla est diversitas i. e. where-ever a Bishop was he might exercise his power as such although the Churches prudence had set limits to their ordinary Jurisdiction From these things then we see that a general care and solicitude of the Vniversal Church doth belong to every Bishop and that some of them have been expresly said to have had the care of the whole Church which in other terms is to say They were Vniversal Bishops So that from this sense of the Title you gain nothing to your purpose though the care of the Vniversal Church be attributed to the Bishop of Rome though he acts and calls Councils and orders other things out of his own Province yet all this proves not the Supremacy you intend for this is no more than other Bishops did whom you will not acknowledge to be Heads of the Church or Vniversal Bishops in that sense 2. An Vniversal Bishop denotes a peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire For which two things will be sufficient to manifest it 1. That the Roman Empire was then accounted Vniversal 2. That some Bishops in the Great Churches were on that account called Oecumenical or Vniversal Bishops 1. That the Roman Empire was then accounted Vniversal for which multitudes of testimonies might be cited in which orbis Romanus and orbis humanus were looked on as Synonymous thence Trebellius Pollio in Macrianus qui ex diversis partibus orbis Romani restituant and as Salmasius witnesseth in those writers of the Imperial History most of the ancient M S S. for orbis Romanus have orbis humanus for as he saith Eâ gloriâ fuerunt Romani ut totum orbem suum vocarent hinc orbis Romanus passim apud auctores reperitur pro universo orbe thence they called the Roman people omnium gentium victorem and from hence Ammianus Marcellinus calls Rome caput mundi the head of the world and the Roman Senate Asylum mundi totius the Sanctuary for the whole world thence Spartianus saith of Severus orbem terrarum Romamque despexit when as Casaubon observes he speaks only of the Roman Provinces And from hence whatever was out of the Roman Empire was called Barbaria thence the rura vicina Barbariae in Lampridius for the Marches which lay next to the enemies Country thence Marcellinus visus est in Barbarico miles and in the Imperial Constitutions as Justellus observes Barbari vocantur quicunque Imperio Romano non parebant all were called barbarous out of the Roman Empire and in the same sense barbaricum is used in the 58. Canon of the African Code and in the 206. Canon of the Code of the Vniversal Church that the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. out of the Roman Empire should be ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople Now since the Roman Empire was called orbis Romanus and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears in that Augusius Luk. 2.1 is said to tax 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole world which could be only the Roman Empire and the famine in the same is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 11.28 it is no wonder if these Bishops who enjoyed the greatest dignity in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical and those Councils so too which consisted of the Bishops within those bounds I come therefore to the second thing That some Bishops in the Great Churches in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical as that relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Roman Empire For which we may consider the primary ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was the greatness of the City as is undeniably manifest by the proceedings of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon about him wherein it was decreed since that was New-Rome that it should enjoy equal priviledges with the old And in all probability the ground of the Patriarch of Constantinople's usurping the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness of his City which at the time of the contest between Pope Gregory and him was in a better condition than Rome it self being the seat of the Empire and therefore he thought it suitable thereto to be called Oecumenical Patriarch But besides this peculiarity of Constantinople it was no unusual thing for the Bishop of the Patriarchal Churches to have expressions given them tantamount to the title of Vniversal Bishop in any sense but that of the Vniversal Jurisdiction which I shall prove as to the three Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople First Of Alexandria So Greg. Nazianzen saith of Athanasius being made Bishop there he had the Government of that people committed to him which is as much as to say of the whole world and John of Hierusalem writing to Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria saith That he had the care of all the Churches And St. Basil writes to Athanasius about the establishing of Meletius as Patriarch of Antioch that so he might govern as it were the whole body of the Church But most clear and full to that purpose is the testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius being made Patriarch of Constantinople He was intrusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople and thereby of the whole world What work would you make with so illustrious a testimony in Antiquity for the Bishop of Rome as this is for the Patriarch of Constantinople Use therefore and interpret but these testimonies as kindly as you do any for the Roman See and will you not find as large a power over the Church attributed to the other Patriarchs as you do to the Bishop of Rome What is it then you would infer from the title of Vniversal Bishop being attributed to him Will the very title do more then what is signified by it Or must it of necessity import something more when given to the Bishop of Rome
consecrated and invested in them And so they were the places being supplied by worthy persons the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury being consecrated by a Canonical number of Edward-Bishops and the rest duly consecrated by other hands And for all this Must all these persons be intruders and intrude themselves by force and that into the places of other lawful Bishops When so many Sees were actually vacant and the rest by due form of Law into which other Bishops were elected and legally consecrated notwithstanding the putid Fable of the Nags-Head ordination which hath so often and so evidently been disproved that I am glad to find you have so much modesty as not to mention it These Bishops being thus legally invested in their places To whom did the care and Government of the English Church belong to these or to those who were justly deprived If to these Were not they then the due representatives of the English Church in a National Synod who with those of the lower House of Convocation make up a true National Council And if so it belonged to them as such to consider what appertained to the Faith and Government of the Church of England For they undertook not to prescribe to the whole world that they leave to the Bishop and Church of Rome not as legally belonging to them but arrogantly usurped by them but to draw up Articles of Religion which should be owned by all such who enjoyed any place of Trust in the Church of England So that in all this they were neither intruders neither did they act any thing beyond their place and authority But you would seem to quarrel with their Vocation Mission and Jurisdiction as though it were not lawful i. e. Canonical and Just all these are your own words and they are but words for not one syllable like a proof is suggested I tell you then not to spend time in a needless vindication of the Vocation of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England when you give us no reason to question it that by the same arguments that you can prove that you have any lawful Bishops and Pastors in your Church it will appear that we have too And that our Vocation and Mission is far more consonant to the Apostolical and Primitive Church than yours is But the main quarrel is still behind which is that Supposing they had been true Bishops and Pastors of the English Church and their Assembly a lawful National Council yet you say They were so far from doing the like that other Provincial Councils had done that they acted directly contrary to them which charge lyes in these things 1. Condemning points of Faith that had been generally believed and practised in the Church before them This you know we deny and you barely affirm it and I have shewed some reason of our denial already and shall do more when we come to particulars 2. In contradicting the Doctrine of the Roman Church A great Heresie indeed but never yet condemned in any General Council 3. In convening against the express Will of the Church of Rome We shall then think that a fault when you prove it belongs to that only to summon all Councils General National and Provincial 4. In denying the Popes Authority or attempting to deprive him of it if you speak of his usurped Authority you must prove it a fault to deprive him of it i. e. to withdraw our selves from obedience to it for that is all the deprivation can be here understood If you mean Just Authority shew wherein it lyes whence he had it by what means he came into it in the Church of England and if you can make it appear that he had a just claim it will be easie proving them guilty of a fault who disowned it But Whether it were a fault in them or no I am sure it is one in you to lay such things and so many to our charge and not offering to give evidence for one of them But I must consider the Infallibility of your Church lyes in dictating and not proving Thus then for any thing which you so much as seem to say to the contrary the proceedings of the Reformation were very regular and just being built on sufficient grounds managed in a legal manner and carried on with due moderation Which are the highest commendations can be given to a work of Reformation and do with the greatest right belong to the Church of England of any Church in the Christian world There remains nothing now which you object against our Reformation but some faults of the Reformers as to which his Lordship had already said If any such be found they are the crimes of the persons and not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them Which Answer so full of justice and modesty one would have thought should have been sufficient for any reasonable man but you are not satisfied with it For you will have those faults to come from the principles of the Reformation and that they did not belong to the persons of the Reformers but are entailed on their Successors But a short Answer will suffice for both these shew us What avowed principles of the Church of England tend to any real Sacriledge before you charge any thing of that nature as flowing from the Maxims of the Reformation And if you can prove the Successors of the Reformers to continue in any Sacrilegious Actions let those plead for them who will I shall not but leave them as his Lordship did to answer such things to God As to the Memorandum which his Lordship concludes this discourse with That he spake at that time of the General Church as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Roman See not doubting but that as the Vniversal Catholick Church would have reformed her self had she been in all parts freed of the Roman Yoke so while she was for the most in these Western parts under that Yoke the Church of Rome was if not the only yet the chief hinderance of Reformation You answer with some stomach By what force I pray Is it possible or Can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man that a single Bishop of no very large Diocese should be able by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes Power when the pretended Reformation began But What reasonable man can imagine that a single Bishop indeed of no very large Diocese if kept within his bounds should in progress of time extend his power so far as the Pope did but by one of these two means force or fraud And since you seem to be so much displeased at the former I pray take the latter or rather the conjunction of both together For that there was force used appears by the manifold resistance which was made to the encroachments of the Popes power and
but it belonged 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 Hierusalem 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 Sees having been unjustly expelled 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 acknowledged St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church Three things I shall return you in Answer to this Discourse 1. That the practise of the Church doth not shew any such inequality as you contend for between the Pope and other Patriarchs 2. That no such practise of the Church can be proved from the instances by you brought And therefore lastly It by no means follows that the Pope exercised any such authority by Divine right or was acknowledged to be St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church I begin with the practice of the ancient Church which is so far from being an evidence of such an inequality of Patriarchs as that you contend for that nothing doth more confirm that which his Lordship saith concerning the equality of them then that doth For which we appeal to that famous testimony to this purpose in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council Let ancient customes prevail according to which let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them who are in Aegypt Libya and Pentapolis because this was likewise the custome for the Bishop of Rome And accordingly in Antioch and other Provinces let the priviledges be preserved to the Churches Which Canon is the more remarkable because it is the first that ever was made by the ancient Church for regulating the rights and priviledges of Churches over each other which there was like to be now more contest about not only by reason of the Churches liberty under Constantine but because of the new disposition of the Empire by him which was made not long before the sitting of the Council of Nice But the particular occasion of this Canon is generally supposed to be this Meletius an ambitious Bishop in Aegypt much about the time that Arrius broached his Heresie at Alexandria takes upon him to ordain Bishops and others in Aegypt without the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria This case being brought before the Nicene Fathers they pronounce these ordinations null depose Meletius and to prevent the like practises for the future do by this Canon confirm the ancient customs of that nature in the Church so that the Bishop of Alexandria should enjoy as full right and power over the Provinces of Aegypt Libya and Pentapolis as the Bishop of Rome had over those subject to him as likewise Antioch and other Churches should enjoy their former priviledges Where we plainly see that the ground of this extent of power is not attributed to any Divine right of the Bishop of Rome or any other Metropolitan but to the ancient custome of the Church whereby it had obtained that such Churches that were deduced as it were so many colonies from the Mother-Church should retain so much respect to and dependence upon her as not to receive any Bishop into them without the consent of that Bishop who governed in the Metropolis Which was the prime reason of the subordination of those lesser Churches to the Metropolis And this custome being drawn down from the first plantation of Churches and likewise much conducing to the preserving of unity in them these Nicene Fathers saw no reason to alter it but much to confirm it For otherwise there might have been continual bandying and opposition of lesser Bishops and Churches against the greater and therefore the Discipline and Vnity of the Church did call for this subordination which could not be better determined then by the ancient custome which had obtained in the several Churches It being found most convenient that the Churches in their subordination should be most agreeable to the civil disposition of the Empire And therefore for our better understanding the force and effect of this Nicene Canon we must cast our eye a little upon the civil disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantine then lately altered from the former disposition of it under Augustus and Adrian He therefore distributed the administration of the Government of the Roman Empire under four Praefecti Praetorio but for the more convenient management of it the whole body of the Empire was cast into several Jurisdictions containing many Provinces within them which were in the Law call'd Dioeceses over every one of which there was appointed a Vicarius or Lieutenant to one of the Praefecti Praetorio whose residence was in the chief City of the Diocese where the Praetorium was and justice was administred to all within that Diocese and thither appeals were made Under these were those Proconsuls or Correctores who ruled in the particular Provinces and had their residence in the Metropolis of it under whom were the particular Magistrates of every City now according to this disposition of the Empire the Western part of it contained in it seven of these Dioceses as under the Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum was the Diocese of Gaul which contained seventeen Provinces the Diocese of Britain which contained five afterwards but three in Constantines time the Diocese of Spain seven Under the praefectus Praetorio Italiae was the Diocese of Africa which had six Provinces the Diocese of Italy whose seat was Milan 7. the Diocese of Rome 10. Under the Praefectus Praetorio Illyrici was the Diocese of Illyricum in which were seventeen Provinces In the Eastern Division were the Diocese of Thrace which had six Provinces the Diocese of Pontus 11. and so the Diocese of Asia the Oriental properly so called wherein Antioch was 15. all which were under the Praefectus Praetorio Orientis the Aegyptian Diocese which had six Provinces was under the Praefectus Augustalis in the time of Theodosius the elder Illyricum was divided into two Dioceses the Eastern whose Metropolis was Thessalonica and had eleven Provinces the Western whose Metropolis was Syrmium and had six Provinces According to this division of the Empire we may better understand the Affairs and Government of the Church which was model'd much after the same way unless where Ancient custom or the Emperour's edict did cause any variation For as the Cities had their Bishops so the Provinces had their arch-Arch-Bishops and the Dioceses their Primates whose Jurisdiction extended as far as the Diocese did and as the Conventus Juridici were kept in the chief City of the Diocese for matters of Civil Judicature so the chief Ecclesiastical
and by an Epistle of Pelagius 1. A. D. 555. it appears that the Bishops of Aquileia and Milan were wont to ordain each other which though he would have believed was only to save charges in going to Rome yet as that learned and ingenuous person Petrus de Marcâ observes the true reason of it was because Milan was the Head of the Italick Diocese as appears by the Council of Aquileia and therefore the ordination of the Bishop of Aquileia did of right belong to the Bishop of Milan and the ordination of the Bishop of Milan did belong to him of Aquileia as the chief Metropolitan of the general Synod of the Italick Diocese Although afterwards the Bishops of Rome got it so far into their hands that their consent was necessary for such an ordination yet that was only when they began more openly to encroach upon the liberties of other Churches But as the same learned Author goes on those Provinces which lay out of Italy did undoubtedly ordain their own Metropolitans without the authority or consent of the Bishop of Rome which he there largely proves of the African Spanish and French Churches It follows then from the scope of the Nicene Canon and the practice of the Church that the Bishop of Rome had a limited Jurisdiction as the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and other Primates had 2. That what Churches did enjoy priviledges before had them confirmed by this Canon as not to be altered For it makes provision against any such alteration by ordaining that the ancient Customs should be in force still And accordingly we find it decreed in the second Canon of the Constantinopolitan Council That the same limits of Dioceses should be observed which were decreed in the Council of Nice and that none should intrude to do any thing in the Dioceses of others And by the earnest and vehement Epistles of Pope Leo to Anatolius we see the main thing he had to plead against the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was that by this means the most sacred Decrees of the Council of Nice would be violated We see then that those priviledges which belonged to Churches then ought still to be inviolably observed so that those Churches which then had Primates and Metropolitans of their own might plead their own right by virtue of the Nicene Canon So we find it decreed in that Council of Ephesus in the famous case of the Cyprian Bishops for their Metropolitan being dead Troilus the Bishop of Constance the Bishop of Antioch pretended that it belonged to him to ordain their Metropolitan because Cyprus was within the civil Jurisdiction of the Diocese of Antioch upon this the Cyprian Bishops make their complaint to the General Council at Ephesus and ground it upon that ancient custom which the Niccne Canon insists on viz. that their Metropolitan had been exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch and was ordained by a Synod of Cyprian Bishops which priviledge was not only confirmed to them by the Ephesine Council but a general decree passed That the rights of every Province should be preserved whole and inviolate which it had of old according to ancient custom Which was not a decree made meerly in favour of the Cyprian Bishops but a common asserting the rights of Metropolitans that they should be held inviolate Now therefore it appears that all the Churches then were far from being under one of the three Patriarchs of Rome Antioch or Alexandria for not only the three Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thracia were exempt although afterwards they voluntarily submitted to the Patriarch of Constantinople but likewise all those Churches which were in distinct Dioceses from these had Primates of their own who were independent upon any other Upon which account it hath not only been justly pleaded in behalf of the Britannick Churches that they are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop but it is ingenuously confessed by Father Barns That the Britannick Church might plead the Cyprian priviledge that it was subject to no Patriarch And although this priviledge was taken away by force and tumult yet being restored by the consent of the Kingdom in Henry 8. time and quietly enjoyed since it ought to be retained for peace sake without prejudice of Catholicism and the brand of Schism If so certainly it can be no Schism to withdraw from the usurped Authority of the Roman Church But these things have been more largely insisted on by others and therefore I pass them over 3. From thence it follows that there was then an equality not only among the Patriarchs whose name came not up till some time after the Council of Nice but among the several Primates of Dioceses all enjoying equal power and authority over their respective Dioceses without subordination to each other But here it is vehemently pleaded by some who yet are no Friends to the unlimited power of the Roman Bishop That it is hardly conceivable that he should have no other power in the Church but meerly as Head of the Roman Diocese and that it appears by the Acts of the Church he had a regular preheminence above others in ordering the Affairs of the Church To which I answer 1. If this be granted it is nothing at all to that Vniversal Pastorship over the Church which our Adversaries contend for as due by divine right and acknowledged to be so by consent of the Church Let the Bishop of Rome then quit his former plea and insist only on this and we shall speedily return an Answer and shew How far this Canonical Primacy did extend But as long as he challengeth a Supremacy upon other grounds he forfeits this right whatever it is which comes by the Canons of the Church 2. What meerly comes by the Canons of the Church cannot bind the Church to an absolute submission in case that authority be abused to the Churches apparent prejudice For the Church can never give away her Power to secure her self against whatever incroachments tend to the injury of it This power then may be rescinded by the parts of the Church when it tends to the mischief of it 3. This Canonical preheminence is not the main thing we dispute with the Church of Rome let her reform her self from all those errours and corruptions which are in her communion and reduce the Church to the primitive purity and simplicity of Faith and Worship and then see if we will quarrel with the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome according to the Canons or any regular preheminence in him meerly in order to the Churches Peace and Unity But this is not the case between us and them they challenge an unlimited power and that by divine right and nothing else will satisfie them but this although there be neither any ground in Scripture for it nor any evidence of it in the practice of the Ancient Church But however we must see what you produce for it First
you say The Pope's Confirmation was required to all new elected Patriarchs To that I shall return the full and satisfactory Answer of the late renowned Arch-Bishop of Paris Petrus de Marcâ where he propounds this as an Objection out of Baronius and thus solves it That the confirmation of Patriarchs by the Bishop of Rome was no token of Jurisdiction but only of receiving into Communion and a testimony of his consent to the consecration already performed And this was no more than was done by other Bishops in reference to the Bishop of Rome himself for S. Cyprian writing to Antonianus about the election of Cornelius saith That he was not only chosen by the suffrage of the people and testimony of the Clergy but that his election was confirmed by all their consent May not you then as well say That the Bishop of Carthage had power over the Bishop of Rome because his ordination was confirmed by him and other African Bishops But any one who had understood better than you seem to do the proceedings of the Church in those ages would never have made this an argument of the Pope's Authority over other Patriarchs since as the same Petrus de Marcâ observes It was the custom in those times that not only the Patriarchs but the Roman Bishop himself upon their election were wont to send abroad Letters testifying their ordination to which was added a profession of Faith contained in their Synodical Epistles Upon the receipt of which Communicatory Letters were sent to the person newly ordained to testifie their Communion with him in case there were no just impediment produced So that this was only a matter of Fraternal Communion and importing nothing at all of Jurisdiction but the Bishops of Rome who were ready to make use of all occasions to advance their own Grandeur did in time make use of this for quite other ends than it was primarily intended for in case of any suspicions and jealousies of any thing that might tend to the dis-service of their See they would then deny their Communicatory Letters as Simplicius did in the case of the Patriarch of Alexandria And in that Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo 1. which Baronius so much insists on Leo himself gives a sufficient account of it viz. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the world So that if the Pope's own judgement may be taken this Confirmation of new elected Patriarchs imported nothing of Jurisdiction But in case the Popes did deny their Communicatory Letters that did not presently hinder them from the execution of their office as appears by the instance of Flavianus the Patriarch of Antioch for although three Roman Bishops successively opposed him Damasus Syricius and Anastasius and used great importunity with the Emperour that he might not continue in his place yet because the Churches of the Orient Asia Pontus and Thracia did approve of him and communicate with him he opposed their consent against the Bishops of Rome Upon which and the Emperour 's severe checking them for their pride and contention they at last promised the Emperour that they would lay aside their enmity and acknowledge him So that notwithstanding whatever the Roman Bishops could do against him he was acknowledged for a true Patriarch and at last their consent was given only by renewing Communion with him which certainly is far from being an instance of the Pope's power over the other Patriarchs Whereby we also see What little power he had in deposing them although you tell us That it belonged likewise to him to depose unworthy ones restore the unjustly deposed by others But that the power of deposing Bishops was anciently in Provincial Councils appears sufficiently by the fifth Canon of the Nicene Council and by the practice of the Church both before and after it and it is acknowledged by Petrus de Marcâ that the sole power of deposing Bishops was not in the hands of the Bishop of Rome till about eight hundred years since and refutes the Cardinal Perron for saying otherwise and afterwards largely proves that the Supreme authority of deposing Bishops was still in Provincial Councils and that the Pope had nothing to do in it till the decree of the Sardican Synod in the case of Athanasius which yet he saith did not as is commonly said decree Appeals to be made to Rome but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to Review their actions but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in All the power which he then had was only this that he might decree that the matters might be handled over again but not that he had the power himself of deposing or restoring Bishops Which is proved with that clearness and evidence by that excellent Author that I shall refer you to him for it and consider the instances produced by you to the contrary We read say you of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Surely if you had read this your self you would have quoted the place with more care and accuracy than you do for you give us only a blind citation of an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus to the Emperour Michael neither citing the words nor telling us which it is when there are several and those no very short ones neither But however it is well chosen to have a Pope's testimony in his own cause and that such a Pope who was then in contest with the Patriarch of Constantinople and that too so long after the encroachments of the Bishops of Rome it being in the ninth Century and yet for all this this Pope doth not say those words which you would fasten upon him that which he saith is That none of the Bishops of Constantinople or scarce any of them were ejected without the consent of the Bishop of Rome And then instanceth in Maximus Nestorius Accacius Anthimus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus but his design in this is only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his consent But what is all this to the Pope's sole power of deposing when even at that time the Pope did not challenge it But supposing the Popes had done it before it doth not follow that it was in their power to do it and that the Canons had given them right to do it but least of all certainly that they had a Divine right for it which never was in the least acknowledged by the Church as to a deposition of Patriarchs which you contend for But besides this you say Sixtus the third deposed Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem Whereas Sixtus only sent eight persons from a Synod at Rome to Hierusalem who when they came there did not offer to depose Polychronius by vertue of the Popes power but a Synod of seventy or more neighbour Bishops were call'd by whom he was deposed and yet after all
by the Bishops of their own Province But this Answer is very unreasonable on these accounts 1. If Appeals do of right belong to the Bishop of Rome as Vniversal Pastor of the Church then Why not the Appeals of the Inferiour Clergy as well as Bishops Indeed if Appeals were challenged only by virtue of the Canons and those Canons limit one and not the other as the most eager pleaders for Appeals in that age pleaded only the Canons of the Church for them then there might be some reason Why one should be restrained and not the other but if they belong to him by Divine Right then all Appeals must necessarily belong to him 2. If Appeals belong to the Pope as Vniversal Pastor then no Council or persons had any thing to do to determine who should appeal and who not For this were an usurping of the Pope's priviledge for he to whom only the right of Appeals belongs can determine Who should appeal and who not and where and by whom those Controversies should be ended So that the very act of the Council in offering to limit Appeals implies that they did not believe any such Vniversal Pastorship in the Pope for had they not done so they would have waited his judgement and not offered to have determined such things themselves 3. The Appeals of the upper and inferiour Clergy cannot be supposed to be separate from each other For the Appeal of a Presbyter doth suppose the impeachment of the Bishop for some wrong done to him as in the case of Apiarius accusing Vrban the Bishop of Sicca for excommunicating him So that the Bishop becomes a party in the Appeal of a Presbyter And if Appeals be allowed to the Bishop it is supposed to be in his favour for clearing of his right the better and if it be denied to the Presbyter it would savour too much of injustice and partiality 4. The reason of the Canon extends to one as well as the other which must be supposed to prevent all those troubles and inconveniencies which would arise from the liberty of Appeals to Rome and would not these come as well by the Appeals of Bishops as of Inferiour Clergy Nay Doth not the Canon insist on that that no Appeals should be made from the Council of Bishops or the Primates of Africa but in case of Bishops Appeals this would be done as well as the other and therefore they are equally against the reason and design of the Canon 5. The case of Presbyters may be as great and considerable as that of Bishops and as much requiring the judgement of the Vniversal Pastor of the Church As for instance that very case which probably gave occasion to the Milevitan Canon viz. the going of Coelestius to Rome being condemned of Heresie in Africa Now What greater cause could there be made an Appeal to Rome in than in so great a matter of Faith as that was about the necessity of Grace And therefore Petrus de Marcá proves at large against Perron that in the Epistle of Innocent to Victricius where it is said That the greater causes must be referred to the Apostolick See is not to be understood only of the causes of Bishops but may referr to the causes of Presbyters too i. e. when they either concern matter of Faith or some doubtful piece of Church-discipline 6. The Pope notwithstanding this Canon looked on himself as no more hindred from receiving the Appeals of Presbyters than those of Bishops If therefore any difference had been made by any act of the Church surely the Pope would have remanded Presbyters back to their own Provinces again but instead of that we see he received the Appeal of Apiarius But for this a rare Answer is given viz. that though the Presbyters were forbidden to appeal yet the Pope was not forbidden to receive them if they did appeal But to what purpose then were such prohibitions made if the Pope might by his open incouragement of them upon their Appeals to him make them not value such Canons at all for they knew if they could but get to Rome they should be received for all them Notwithstanding all which hath been said you tell us That in the Council of Africk it was acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome for which you cite in your Margent part of an Epistle of the Council to Boniface But with what honesty and integrity you do this will appear by the story Apiarius then appealing to Zosimus he sends over Faustinus to Africa to negotiate the business of Appeals and to restore Apiarius for which he pleads the Nicene Canons an account of which will be given afterwards the Fathers all protest they could find no such thing there but they agree to send Deputies into the East to fetch the true Canons thence as hath been related already in the mean time Zosimus dyes and Boniface succeeds him but for the better satisfaction of the Pope the Council of Carthage dispatch away a Letter to Boniface to give him an account of their proceedings in which Epistle extant in the African Code of Canons after they have given an account of the business of Apiarius they proceed to the instructions which Faustinus brought with him to Africa the chief of which is that concerning Appeals to be made to Rome and then follow those words which you quote in which they say That in a Letter written the year before to Zosimus they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome and that therein they had intimated so much to him Thus far you are right but there is usually some mystery couched in your c. for you know very well where to cut off sentences for had you added but the next words they had spoiled all your foregoing there being contained in them the full reason of what went before viz. that because the Pope pretended that the Appeals of Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced And is this now all their acknowledgement that Bishops might in their own causes appeal to Rome when they made only a Provisional decree What should be done till the matter came to a resolution But if you will throughly understand what their final judgement was in this business I pray read their excellent Epistle to Pope Celestine who succeeded Boniface after they had received the Nicene Canons out of the East Which being so excellent a Monument of Antiquity and giving so great light to our present Controversie I shall at large recite and render it so far as concerns this business After our bounden duty of Salutation we earnestly beseech you that hereafter you admit not so easily to your ears those that come from hence and that you admit no more into communion those whom we have cast out for your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid by the Council of
that he saith Ruffinus did rectissimè ex usu recepto very agreeably both to reason and custom compare the Alexandrian and Roman Bishop in this that he should have the power over the Diocese of Aegypt by the same right that the Bishop of Rome had over the Vrbicary Diocese or saith he ut Ruffinus-eligantissime loquitur In Ecclesiis Suburbicariis id est in iis Ecclesiis quae decem Provinciis Suburbicariis continebantur as Ruffinus most elegantly speaks sure then he thought him no such ignorant person as Perron and others from him have reproached him to be In the Suburbicary Churches that is in those Churches which are contained in the ten Suburbicary Provinces For as as he goes on the calling of Synods the ordination of Bishops the full administration of the Churches in those Provinces did belong to the Bishop of Rome as to the Bishop of Alexandria in the Aegyptian Diocese and to the Bishop of Antioch in the Oriental Which he likewise confirms by the ancient Latin Interpreter of the Nicene Canons who he saith was elder than Dionysius Exiguns in whose interpretation he makes the Suburbicaria loca to contain the four Regions about Rome which made the proper Metropolitan Province of the Roman Bishop comprehending sixty nine Bishopricks and that which he calls his Province to be the Vrbicary Diocese contained in those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions But the Pope's being Vniversal Bishop having so little evidence elsewhere his Lordships adversary at last hath recourse to this That the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter 's successor and therefore to him we must have recourse To which his Lordship answers The Fathers I deny not ascribe very much to S. Peter but 't is to S. Peter in his own person And among them Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter as any of them And yet did he never intend to give an absolute principality to Rome in S. Peter 's right which he at large manifests by a place particularly insisted on in which he proves that the building of the Church on S. Peter in Epiphanius his sense is not as if he and his successors were to be Monarchs over it for ever but it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ by the Confession which S. Peter made And so saith he he expresses himself elsewhere most plainly that Christ's building his Church upon this Rock was upon the Confession of S. Peter and the solid Faith contained therein And that Epiphanius could not mean that S. Peter was any Rock or Foundation of the Church so as that he and his successors must be relyed on in all matters of Faith and govern the Church like Princes and Monarchs he proves not only by the Context but because he makes S. James to succeed our Lord in the principality of the Church And Epiphanius saith he was too full of learning and industry to speak contrary to himself in a point of this moment This is the summ of his Lordships discourse to which you answer That it is clear even by the Texts of Epiphanius that this promise by Christ to S. Peter is derived to his successors which you prove from hence because he saith That by the Gates of Hell Heresies and Hereticks are understood now this say you cannot be understood of S. Peter 's person alone for then Why not Heresies and Hereticks prevail against the Church after S. Peter 's death yea so far as utterly to extinguish the true Faith But Cannot God preserve the Church from being extinguished by Heresies though S. Peter hath no Infallible Successor Is not the promise That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church It doth not say That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against any that shall pretend to be his Successors at Rome For if Heresies be those Gates they have too often prevailed against him And Is this your way indeed to secure the Church by providing S. Peter such successors which may be Hereticks themselves But much more wisely did S. Gregory say If one pretends to be Vniversal Bishop then upon his falling the Church must fall too much more wisely the Council of Basil in their Synodal Epistle object this as the necessary consequent of the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy that errante Pontifice quod saepe contigit contingere potest tota erraret Ecclesia that in case the Pope erre which often hath happened and often may the whole Church must erre too And yet this is your way to secure the Church from errours and heresies If you designed to ruine it you could not do it in a more compendious way than to oblige the whole Church to believe the dictates of one who is so far from that Infallibility which S. Peter had that he follows him in nothing more than his Falls I wish he would in his Repentance too and that would be the best way to secure the Church from Errours and Heresies Which she can never be secured from as long as one pretends to be her Head who may not only erre himself but propound that to be believed infallibly which is notoriously false For that Popes as Popes may erre and propound false Doctrine to the Church not only Protestants but some of your own Communion have abundantly proved particularly Sim. Vigorius in his defence of Richerius in his Commentary on the forecited Synodal Epistle of the Council of Basil. And calls that opinion That the Pope may erre as a private Doctor but not as Pope ineptissimam opinionem a most foolish opinion For otherwise as he saith it would be most absurd to say That the Pope might be deposed for Heresie for he is not deposed as a private Doctor but as Pope And this he proves by the contradictious decrees of Adrian 3. to Adrian 1. and Leo 7. and so of Formosus Martinus Romanus to Johannes Stephanus and Sergius Nay he instanceth in that famous decree of Boniface 8. in pronouncing so definitively that it was de necessitate salutis subesse Romano Pontifici necessary to salvation to be subject to the Pope and that he decreed this as Pope appears by those words Declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis than which words nothing can be more express and definitive and yet Pope Innocent 3. asserts that the King of France hath no superiour upon earth Is not the Church like then to be well secured from Heresies when her Infallible Heads may so apparently contradict each other and this acknowledged by men of your own Communion Nothing then can be more absurd or unreasonable than to say That the Church cannot be preserved from being extinguished by Heresie unless the Pope be S. Peter's successor as Head of the Church To his Lordships testimonies out of Epiphanius that S. James succceded our Lord in the principality of the Church you answer 1. That in the places
The several Testimonies to the contrary of S. Ambrose S. Hierom John Patriarch of Constantiople S. Augustine Optatus c. particularly examined and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church The several Answers of his Lordship to the Testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Hierom S. Greg. Nazianzen S. Cyril and Ruffinus about the Infallibility of the Church of Rome justified From all which it appears that the making the Roman Church to be the Catholick is a great Novelty and perfect Jesuitism p. 289. CHAP. II. Protestants no Schismaticks Schism a culpable Separation therefore the Question of Schism must be determined by enquiring into the causes of it The plea from the Church of Rome's being once a right Church considered No necessity of assigning the punctual time when errours crept into her An account why the originals of errours seem obscure By Stapletons Confession the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same The falsiâ—y of that assertion manifested that there could be no pure Church since the Apostles times if the Roman Church were corrupt No one particular Church free from corruptions yet no separation from the Catholick Church How far the Catholick Church may be said to erre Men may have distinct communion from any oâ—e particular Church yet not separate from the Catholick Church The Testimony of Petrus de Alliaco vindicated Bellarmin not mis cited Almain full to his Lordships purpose The Romanists guilty of the present Schism and not Protestants In what sense there can be no just cause of Schism and how far that concerns our case Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome but were thrust out of it The Vindication of the Church of Rome from Schism at last depends upon the two false Principles of her Infallibility and being the Catholick Church The Testimonies of S. Bernard and S Austin not to the purpose The Catalogue of Fundamentals the Churches not erring c. referr'd back to their proper places p. 324. CHAP. III. Of keeping Faith with Hereticks The occasion of this Dispute The reason why this Doctrine is not commonly defended Yet all own such Principles from whence it necessarâ—ly follows The matter of fact as to the Council of Constance and John Hus opened Of the nature of the safe conduct granted him by the Emperour that it was not a general one salvâ justitiâ but particular jure speciali which is largely proved The particulars concerning Hierom of Prague Of the safe-conduct granted by the Council of Trent Of the distinction of Secular and Ecclesiastical Power and that from thence it follows that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks Simancha and several others fully assert this Doctrine Of the Invitation to the Council of Trent and the good Instructions there and of Publick Disputation p. 343. CHAP. IV. The Reformâ—tion of the Church of England justified The Church of Rome guilty of Schism by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion The Communion of the Catholâ—ck and particular Churches distinguished No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption proved The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary Whether those things we condemn as errours were Catholick Tenets at the time of the Reformation The contrary shewed and the dâ—fference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines How far particular Churches Power to reform themselves extends His Lordships Instances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of Reformation vindicated The particular case of the Church of England discussed The proceedings in our Reformation defended The Church of England a true Church The National Synod 1562. a lawful Synod The Bâ—shops no intruders in Queen Elizabeth's time The justice and modâ—ration of the Church of England in her Reformation The Popes Power here a forcible and fraudulent Usurpation p. 356. CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon How far our Church in reforming her self condemns the Church of Rome The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs asserted The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice The Rights of Primats and Metropolitans settled by it The suitableness of the Ecclesiastical to the Civil Government That the Bishop of Rome had then a limitted Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches as Primate of the Roman Diocese Of the Cyprian Priviledge that it was not peculiar but common to all Primats of Dioceses Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons how far pertinent to our dispute How far the Pope's Confirmation requisite to new elected Patriarchs Of the Synodical and Communicatory Letters The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops The Instances brought for it considered The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius truly stated The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome how far allowed by the Canons of the Church The great case of Appeals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited as well as those of the inferiour Clergy C's fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops for acknowledging Appeals to Rome The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface and the other to Coelestine The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome asserted The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion Of the state of the African Churches after their denying Appeals to Rome The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod in case of Appeals whether ever received by the Church No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene The weakness of the Pleas for it manifested p. 382. CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity A threefold acceptation of it as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity besides the Bishop of Rome as is largely proved 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire This accounted then Oecumenical thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches 3. Noting Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it so never given
in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople Of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon about the Popes Supremacy Of the Grammatical and Metaphorical sense of this Title Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gregory should understand it in the Grammatical sense The great absurdities consequent upon it S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it which is admitted in the Church of Rome Of Irenaeus his opposition to Victor Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops argues no authority he had over them What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Roman Empire The Pope no Infallible Successour of S. Peter nor so acknowledged to be by Epiphanius S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles p. 422. CHAP. VII The Popes Authority not proved from Scripture or Reason The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture acknowledged by Romanists themselves The impertinency of Luke 22.32 to that purpose No proofs offered for it but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope as S. Peters Successour confessed and proved by Vigorius and Mr. White The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor but not as Pope acknowledged by them Joh. 21.15 proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings C's beggings of the Question and tedious repetitions past over The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge considered The Government of the Church not Monarchical but Aristocratical The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church manifested from reason No evidence that Christ intended to institute such Government in his Church but much against it The Communicatory letters in the primitive Church argued an Aristocracy Gersons testimony from his Book de Auferibilitate Papae explained and vindicated S. Hieroms testimony full against a Monarchy in the Church The inconsistency of the Popes Monarchy with that of temporal Princes The Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters asserted by the Scripture and Antiquity as well as the Church of England p. 451. CHAP. VIII Of the Council of Trent The Illegality of it manifested first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceeded by different from that of the first General Councils and from the Popes Presidency in it The matter of Right concerning it discussed In what cases Superiours may be excepted against as Barties The Pope justly excepted against as a Party and therefore ought not to be Judge The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome acknowledged by Roman Catholicks The matter of fact enquired into as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council Two Councils held at Constantinople within two years these strangely confounded The mistake made evident S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils The justness of the Exception against the place manifested and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent Protestants not condemned by General Councils The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks The Exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated A General Council in Antiquiâ—y not so called from the Popes General Summons In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice and that at Trent The Exception from the number of Italian Bishops justified How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants with an account of the proceedings between them p. 475. PART III. Of Particular Controversies CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of General Councils HOw far this tends to the ending Controversies Two distinct Questions concerning the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils The first entred upon with the state of the Question That there can be no certainty of faith that General Councils are Infallible nor that the particular decrees of any of them are so which are largely proved Pighius his Arguments against the Divine Institution of General Councils The places of Scripture considered which are brought for the Churches Infallibility and that these cannot prove that General Councils are so Matth. 18.20 Act. 15.28 particularly answered The sense of the Fathers in their high expressions of the Decrees of Councils No consent of the Church as to their Infallibility The place of St. Austin about the amendment of former General Councils by latter at large vindicated No other place in St. Austin prove them Infallible but many to the contrary General Councils cannot be Infallible in the conclusion if not in the use of the means No such Infallibility without as immediate a Revelation as the Prophets and Apostles had taking Infallibility not for an absolute unerring Power but such as comes by a promise of Divine Assistance preserving from errour No obligation to internal assent but from immediate Divine Authority Of the consistency of Faith and Reason in things propounded to be believed The suitableness of the contrary Doctrine to the Romanists principles p. 505. CHAP. II. Of the Use and Authority of General Councils The denying the Infallibility of General Councils takes not away their Vse and Authority Of the submission due to them by all particular persons How far external obedience is required in case they erre No violent opposition to he made against them Rare Inconveniencies hinder not the effect of a just power It cannot rationally be supposed that such General Councils as are here meant should often or dangerously erre The true notion of a General Council explained The Freedom requisite in the proceedings of it The Rule it must judge by Great Difference between external obedience and internal assent to the Decrees of Councils This latter unites men in errour not the former As great uncertainties supposing General Councils Infallible as not Not so great certainty requisite for submission as Faith Whether the Romanists Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils or ours tend more to the Churches peace St. Austin explained The Keyes according to him given to the Church No unremediable inconvenience supposing a General Council erre But errours in Faith are so supposing them Infallible when they are not The Church hath power to reverse the Decrees of General Councils The power of Councils not by Divine Institution The unreasonableness of making the Infallibility of Councils depend on the Popes Confirmation No consent among the Romanists about the subject of Infallibility whether in Pope or Councils No evidence from
sent home as empty as he came and found things in a much worse condition then he left them Which could not rationally be expected to be otherwise When the Greeks knew that the Emperour had assented that the Council should be in Italy they began strangely to be troubled at it some resolved never to communicate more in the Councils of the Vnion the Patriarch often said that he knew no good issue could come of a Council held in the Popes Territories and if they must receive their allowance from the Pope what did they else but therein confess themselves his Vassals already and therefore nothing could be expected from them but to do just what he would have them or else he might easily starve them into consent and approbation of his Will For they should be wholly under his power and if he denyed their stipends there was no possibility of getting from him Was not this then like to be a very free Council And it proved accordingly for when they were at Council the Pope kept them short enough so that many of them were reduced to the greatest necessities and were not suffered unless by stealth to go so much as out of the Gates of the City as Bessarion himself once found when he attempted it at Florence But notwithstanding all the perswasions of the wisest of his Councellors at home to the contrary notwithstanding an Express from the Emperour Sigismund to disswade the Greek Emperour in the present state of affairs from this journy into Italy yet he was resolved upon it and used all the arts he could before-hand to make choice of such persons as might be most for his purpose Himself without the consent of the Patriarch appointing the Legats of the three other Patriarchs of Jerusalem Antioch and Alexandria and when these Patriarchs had given no other instructions to these Legats then that they should have power to give their suffrages upon these terms and no other That all things were carried fairly and defined Canonically according to the decrees of Oecumenical Councils and Holy Fathers so that nothing should be added changed or innovated in the Symbol of Faith he at the instigation of one of the Latin Legats then resident at Constantinople sent away to the several Patriarchs for the altering their instructions upon a solemn Promise that the conditions mentioned by them should however be exactly observed which whether they were or no will appear by the series of the story And that we may better judge how General this Council was like to be at the same time that these negotiations for Vnion were on foot the Council of Basil was then sitting in opposition to Pope Eugenius to them and to the Pope at the same time the Emperour dispatcheth several Legats with the same instructions and both of them returned theirs to the Emperour seeking as much as possible to outvy each other in large Promises if the Greeks did joyn in Council with them both which the Emperour held in play till he could see with whom he was like to make the best terms But as the Romanists are never backward at such arts they had caused it by their Instruments to be reported at Constantinople that the Council at Basil had submitted to the Pope which within fifteen days was confuted by the arrival of the Gallyes sent from the Council to convey the Greeks over to it upon which the Emperour had much to do to keep Condelmerius the Popes Nephew from fighting the Councils Gallies within his view for he said he had express order from the Pope to sink them where-ever he met them And were not these fair tendencies to a free and General Council And yet after all this not full thirty Bishops of the Greek Church went along with the Patriarch as appears by the particular enumeration of them by Sguropulus other Officers indeed and Monks there were to fill up the number and yet these were more then the Emperour could well mould to his designes when he had them there But the Pope soon accomplished the Patriarchs prediction in keeping them bare enough when they were at his finding that he might be sure to make them hungry Greeks and then he supposed the other part of the Proverb would follow after After the Council had begun at Ferrara and continued there sixteen Sessions wherein were many publick and solemn Disputes between the Greeks and Latins it was removed to Florence where the Greeks still underwent the same hardships and the Latins sought to hold out at Disputations till the Greeks necessity should be so pressing as to necessitate them to an absolute submission to the Latin Church But Reports and Messages coming from Constantinople acquainting the Emperour with the difficulties the City was in and the Progress which the enemies made and finding that during the sitting of the Council the Pope still put him off and gave him nothing but words he therefore resolves upon another course he breaks all publick and Conciliary proceedings pretending that no issue would come of those Disputations calls a private Cabal of such whom he knew fittest for his purpose to contrive some shorter way to put an end to this business For that end makes choice first of ten Persons of either side to agree upon some proposals for Union and acquaints none else of the Greeks with their transactions When these things took no effect the Patriarch who carryed on the Emperour's design often convenes the Greeks together and in plain terms perswades them to perfect dissimulation that since the necessity of affairs was such it would be hugely for their advantage if in some things they did yield to the Latins desires When they told him that in matters of Faith they could not do it he replyes that if in twenty four Articles of Faith they yielded but in one the soundness of twenty three would make amends for the twenty fourth Such kind of Arguments as these were they driven to to bring the Greeks to hearken to any terms of Vnion After this the Latins sent them an explication of Faith which if the Greeks would subscribe there might be an Union between them which being read among them containing chiefly the acknowledgement of the Procession from the Son all but the four who were the Emperour's instruments in this work unanimously disown it and when the Emperour urged them every one to deliver their Suffrages in writings they tell him it was contrary to the proceeding of all Oecumenical Councils However he told them he commanded them to do it By which means rebuking some cajoling others he at last brought it by the multitude of Suffrages that five persons were selected among the rest to draw up a Form of Vnion which though drawn up very favourably for the Greeks yet those who were for it did not easily carry it from those who opposed it And yet to this the Latins returned no less than twelve Exceptions Upon
which the Emperour was fain to take a new course and exclude those from the Councils who were of greatest authority in obstructing his designs but Marcus Ephesius still continued in so great opposition that he publickly charged the Latins opinion with Heresie Notwithstanding all which when it was put to Suffrage Whether the Spirit did proceed from the Son for ten who affirmed it there were seventeen who denyed it which put them yet to more disquietment and new Councils At first the Emperour would vote himself which when the Patriarch kept him from some advised him to remove more of the Dissenters but instead of that they used a more plausible and effectual way the Emperour and Patriarch sent for them severally and some they upbraided with ingratitude others they caressed with all expressions of kindness both by themselves and their Instruments Yet at the last they could get but thirteen Bishops to affirm the Procession from the Son all others being excluded the power of giving Suffrage who were accustomed formerly to give it such as the great Officers of the Church of Constantinople the Coenobiarchs and others but to fill up the number all the Courtiers were called in who made no dispute but did presently what the Emperour would have them do Having dispatched this after this manner the other Controversies concerning the Addition to the Creed unleavened bread in the Eucharist Purgatory Pope's Supremacy the Emperour agreed them privately never so much as communicating them to the Greek Synod Among the Emperours Instruments the Bishop of Mitylene went roundly to work saying openly Let the Pope give me so many Florens to be distributed to whom I think fit and I make no question but to bring them in very readily to subscribe the Vnion which he accordingly effected and the same way was taken with several others by which and other means most of those who were excluded from the Suffrages were at last perswaded to Subscribe This is the short account of the management of those affairs at Florence which are more particularly and largely prosecuted by the Author wherein we see what Clandestine Arts what menaces and insinuations what threats and promises were used to bring the poor Greeks to consent to this pretended Vnion For it afterwards appeared to be no more than pretended for the infinitely greater number of Bishops at home refused it and these very Bishops themselves when they saw what arts were used in it fell ofâ— from it again and the Emperour found himself at last deceived in his great expectations of help from the Latins Must we then acknowledge this for a free and General Council which hath a promise of Infallibility annexed to the definitions of it Shall we from hence pronounce the Greeks Doctrine to be Heretical when for all these proceedings yet at last no more was agreed on than that they did both believe the Procession from the Son without condemning the other opinion as Heretical as you pretend which the Greeks would never have consented to or Anathematizing the persons who denyed it as was usual in former General Councils who did suppose it not enough to have it virtually done by the positive definition but did expresly and formally do it For when this Anathematizing dissenters was propounded among the Greeks by Bessarion of Nice and Isidore of Russia who for their great service to the Pope in this business were made Cardinals it was refused by the rest who were zealous promoters of the Vnion Thus I have at large more out of a design to vindicate the Greek Church than being necessitated to it by any thing you produce shewed that there is no reason from Authority either before or after the Council of Florence to charge the Greek Church with Heresie I now come to the examination of your Theological Reason by which you think you have so evidently proved the Greeks Opinion to be Heresie that you introduce it with confidence in abundance But say you though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it Still you so unadvisedly place your expressions that the sharpest which you use against your adversaries return with more force upon your self For it being so fully cleared that these clouds of witnesses are Fathers Councils and Popes against you What do you else by this expression but exclude them from the number of Rational men because forsooth not acquainted with the depth of your Theological Reason But Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendom for many hundred years quite blind and your self only clear and sharp-sighted Which swelling presumption what Spirit it argues c. You see wee need no other weapons against you but your immediate preceding words What pitty it is that the Fathers and Councils had not been made acquainted with this grand Secret of your Theological Reason but happy we that have it at so cheap a rate but it may be that is it which makes us esteem it no more But such as it is it being Reason and Theological too it deserves the greatest respect that may be if it makes good its title His Lordship had said That since the Greeks notwithstanding this opinion of theirs deny not the equality or Consubstantiality of the Persons in the Trinity he dares not deny them to be a true Church for this opinion though he grants them erronious in it So this you reply Is it think you enough to assert the Divinity and Consubstantiality and personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost as the Bishop sayes to save from Heresie the denyal of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle But why is it not enough your Theological Reason is that we want to convince us of the contrary That therefore follows Would not he that should affirm the Son to be a distinct person from and Consubstantial to the Father but denyed his eternal Generation from him be an Heretick Or he who held the Holy Ghost distinct from and Consubstantial to them both but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son only and not from the Father be guilty of Heresie It is then most evident that not only an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction but against the Origination Generation and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient matter of Heresie Your faculty at Clinching your Arguments is much better than of Driving them in For your Conclusion is most evident when your Premises have nothing like evidence in them For 1. He that doth acknowledge the Son to be Consubstantial with the Father and yet a distinct person from him must needs therein acknowledge his Eternal Generation for how he should be the Son of the same nature with God and yet having a distinct Personality as a Son without Eternal Generation is so hard to
let us now make way for Theological reason to enter the lists armed Cap-a-pe in Mood and Figure For now at last you tell us You will argue in Forme against his Lordship and the Greek Church together And thus it proceeds If the Greeks errour be not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost then according to the Bishops own distinction they have lost all assistance of that blessed Spirit and are become no true Church But their errour is not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost Therefore c. The Major or first Proposition contains the Bishops own Doctrine the Minor or second Proposition wherein you learnedly tell us what the Major and Minor in Syllogisms are you thus prove All errours specially opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost are according to all Divines not only errours concerning but errours against the Holy Ghost But the Greeks errour is opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost as is already proved Ergo their errour is not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost whose assistance therefore they have lost not only according to the first but even latter branch of the Bishops distinction and consequently remain no true Church Now who is there that out of meer pitty can find in his heart not to yield this to you when you have been at such pains to prove it But things set out with the greatest formality have not alwayes the most solidity in them All the force of this Argument such as it is lye's in this that his Lordship had said That the errour of the Greeks was rather about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then against the Holy Ghost which he after explains by saying It was not such an errour as did destroy the equality or Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the other persons of the Trinity I pray now take his Lordships explication of himself and you must form your Argument after another way then you have done but you saw well enough that you could not make any shew of an Argument but meerly from words If I thought it worth considering it were easie to tell you that what is only against the Procession from the Son is not thereby against the Holy Ghost because it may be the Holy Ghost i. e. the third person in the Trinity though it proceed only from the Father And as well you might say that whatever Doctrine denies the Son to be begotten of the Spirit is not only concerning but against the Son and urge the consequences upon as good terms as you do about the Spirit But so trifling an Argument is too much honoured by any serious confutation And it seems you were something sensible of it your self when you say His Lordship seemed to have provided against the force of it as who would not by hinting a difference between errours fundamental and not fundamental which point I shall purposely examine in the following Chapter When you therefore come to hold forth what is now but hinted at I shall readily hearken to what you have to say Thus for any thing you have produced to the contrary it sufficiently appears that the Greek Church is very unjustly charged with Heresie by you and that those testimonies which his Lordship produced would as well hold for the Modern as Ancient Greeks to which I might add the judgement of others of your own side who speak as much concerning the Modern Greeks as Thomas à Jesu Azorius and others but I think not that way of arguing to have much force on either side and therefore pass it over And come to the debate of the Filioque with which you say his Lordship begins to quibble on occasion of the Popes inserting it into the Creed But I am quite of another mind I think he speaks very seriously and with a great deal of reason when he saith And Rome in this particular should be more moderate if it be but because this Article Filioque was added to the Creed by her self And 't is hard to add and Anathematize too For what you say to this of the Holy Ghost's having leave to assist the Church in adding expressions for the better explication of any Article of Faith and then the Pope hath leave and command too to Anathematize all such as shall not allow the use of such expressions I commend you that when you must beg something you would beg all that was to be had at once but before you perswade us to the digesting such crudities as these are prove but these following things 1. Where it is that there is any promise of the Ghost's assistance in adding any Articles to the Creed under pretence of better expressions for explication of them 2. Supposing such an assistance what ground is there to impose such additional expressions so that those who admit them not must be guilty of Heresie and consequently by your principles incurr eternal damnation 3. How those expressions can be accounted a better explication of an Article of Faith which contain something not implyed in nor necessarily deduced from any other Article of Faith 4. If this assistance be promised to the Church how any one part of that Church as great a part stifly opposing such additional expressions can claim that assistance to it self the other parts of the Catholick Church utterly denying it 5. If an assistance as to such things be promised the Church why may it not be more reasonably presumed to be in an Oecumenical Council as that at Ephesus forbidding such additions than in any part of the Church which after such a Decree shall directly contradict it 6. What right can the Church have to Anathematize any for the not using such expressions which that Church which determins the use of them doth acknowledge to be only expressions for better explication of an Article of Faith and consequently the denyal of them cannot amount to the denyal of an Article of Faith but only of the better explication of it 7. If all these things be granted how comes the Pope not only to have leave but command too to Anathematize all such as use not these expressions Where is that Command extant how comes it to be limited to him Is he expressed in it or doth it by necessary consequence follow from it What good would it do us to see but one of these proved which you very fairly beg in the lump together And till you have proved them all you may assure your self that we shall never believe that the Pope hath so much as leave much less command to Add and Anathematize too As to the Filioque you grant That many hundred years had passed from the time of the Apostles before Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed and more since the declarations and decrees were sufficiently published and in all these years salvation was had without mention of Filioque A fair Concession and nothing is wanting to destroy all that
now made known it must be understood with a reference to those silly people who lived in that Age but there were greater Mysteries than these which neither Christ nor any of his Apostles were ever acquainted with as Purgatory and those before mentioned for these were reserved as the Churches Portion when her Infallibility-ship should come to Age. S. Paul honest man spake as he thought when he told not the common people but the Bishops of the Church That he had not shunned to declare unto them all the Counsel of God but if he had lived to our Age he would have heard of this mistake with both ears and if he had not sworn the contrary he must have been contented to have been call'd Schismatick and Heretick a thousand times over These are all the just and rare consequences of your Churches blessed Infallibility and Power of Defining things necessary which were not so in Christ or his Apostles times But the greatest knack of all is yet behind for men are bound to believe all the Doctrines of your Church to be Apostolical and yet that your Church hath power to make things necessary to be believed which were not so in the Apostolical times Yes say you They were Doctrines then but not so necessary as now because they had not the Churches Definition It seems at last the Apostles knew them but did not understand the worth of them else no doubt they were such charitable souls they would have declared them to the world Blessed S. Paul who was continually employed in teaching and instructing men in the way to Salvation could he have held back any thing that had tended to it when he sayes He kept back nothing that was profitable to them but shewed them and taught them publickly and from house to house testifying to the Jews and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ What not one word of the necessary Points all this while nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christ's Vicar on Earth and his Infallibility How slily and cunningly did S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles carrie it if they had believed these things never let one word drop from their mouths or pens concerning them and instead of that speak so and write so that one that believes them honest would swear they never heard of them In what another kind of strain would S. Paul have writ to the Church of Rome if he had had but any inckling of the Chair of Infallibility being placed there How soon would he have blotted out the whole 14. Chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians if he had known his Holiness his pleasure about serving God in an unknown tongue How well might he have spared saying That a Bishop should be the Husband of one Wife if he had known de jure divino he must have none at all At what another rate would he have discoursed of the Eucharist had he believed Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass Communion under one kind What course would he have taken with the Schismatical Corinthians that were divided like other Churches if he had known the Infallible Judge of Controversie If he had but understood the danger of reading Scriptures he might have spared his exhortations to the people of the Word of God dwelling richly in them and filled his Epistles with Pater Nosters and Ave Mary's or given good directions about them But he must be pardoned he was ignorant of these things as well as we only S. Paul never heard of them and we do not believe them because neither he nor his Brethren ever revealed them to us though they were the Stewards of the Mysteries of God and they tell us themselves That it is requisite such should be faithful which we cannot understand how they could be if they knew these deep Mysteries but never discovered them that we can learn But if they knew them not I pray from whence is it your Church learns them By immediate inspiration no as bold as you are you dare not challenge that but whence then come you to know them to be necessary infallibly forsooth But whence comes this Infallibility must there not be a peculiar Revelation to discover that to be necessary which was never discovered to be so before But if discovered before and declared before the things were as necessary before your Churches Definition as after and therefore your Churches Definition adds nothing of necessity to them If neither discovered nor declared you must have particular Revelation for them and then work miracles and we will believe you but not otherwise but before you do it consider what S. Paul hath said concerning an Angel from Heaven preaching another Gospel let him be accursed and what can be more preaching another Gospel than making other things necessary to Salvation than Christ or his Apostles did and think then what your Church hath deserved for all her Definitions concerning Articles of Faith or things necessary to be believed in order to Salvation But yet further you say That these things were declared by the Apostles but they need a further Declaration now And why so shew us the Apostle's Declaration and it sufficeth us we shall not believe them one jot the more for your additional Definition And it is surely a sign you did not think the Apostles Declaration sufficient or else you would never pretend to new ones Perhaps you will tell us It was to their Age but not to ours why not as well as the other necessary Articles of Faith contained in Scripture I know your Answer is We can know no necessary Article of Faith at all but from your Church So then we have brought all into a narrow compass and instead of new Definitions of the Church concerning necessary things we can know nothing at all to be necessary to be believed but from your Church This is high but the higher it is the better Foundation it had need stand on which we shall throughly search into in the Controversie of the resolution of Faith to which we referr it and return If there were once a Declaration but still there needs another What is become of that Declaration was it lost in its passage down to us how then was that present Church infallible which lost a Declaration in matter of Faith was it necessary to be believed in the intermediate Age or no if it was then it was not lost and then what need a new Declaration if not then a thing once necessary to Salvation may be not necessary to Salvation and become necessary to Salvation again But still we have cause to envy their happiness who lived in the Age when they might be saved without believing these things for the case goes hard with us for you tell us Unless we believe them necessary we cannot be saved and our consciences tell us that if we did profess to believe them necessary when we do not and cannot we cannot be saved
Doctrine is meant the adhering to that Doctrine which God hath revealed as necessary in his Word but by the Definitions of the teaching Church you understand a Power to make more things necessary to the Salvation of all than Christ hath made so that joyn these two together the Consequence is this If the Pastors of the Church may and ought to keep men from believing any other Doctrine then they have power to impose another Doctrine which things are so contradictious to each other that none but one of your faculty would have ventured to have set one to prove the other Therefore when you would prove any thing by this Argument your Medium must be this That the Pastors of the Church are a Foundation of constancy in Doctrine by laying New Foundations of Doctrines by her Definitions which is just as if you would prove That the best way to keep a House entire without any additions is to build another house adjoyning to it But say you further Were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a Foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not S. Paul expresly affirm it superaedificati supra Fundamentum Apostolorum c. To which I answer 1. That the Apostles were not therefore said to be the Foundation on which they were built who believed on that Doctrine because by virtue of their Power they could define or decree any thing to be necessary to Salvation which was not so before but because they were the Instruments whereby the things which were necessary to Salvation were conveyed to them And because their Authority by virtue of their Mission and the Power accompanying it was the means whereby they were brought to believe the Doctrin of the Gospel as in it self true But there is a great deal of difference between teaching what is necessary to Salvation and making any thing necessary to Salvation which was before meerly because it is taught by them 2. I grant that those things did become necessary to be believed which the Apostles taught but it was either because the things were in themselves necessary in order to the end declared viz. Man's Salvation or else it was on the account of that evidence which the Apostles gave that they were persons immediately imployed by God to deliver those Doctrines to them But still here is nothing becoming necessary by virtue of a Decree or Definition but by virtue of a Testimony that what they delivered came from God 3. When the Apostles delivered these things the Doctrine of the Gospel was not made known to the world but they were chosen by God and infallibly assisted for that end that they might reveal it to the world And this is certainly a very different case from that when the Doctrine of Salvation is fully revealed and delivered down to us in unquestionable records And therefore if you will prove any thing to your purpose you must prove as great and as divine assistance of the Spirit in the Church representative of all Ages as was in the Apostles in the first Age of the Christian Church 4. When you say from hence That the Apostles as the teaching Church laid the Foundation of the Church taught that can only be understood of those Christians who became a Church by the Apostles preaching the Doctrine of the Gospel to them but this is quite a different thing from laying the Foundation of a Church already in being as your Church taught and diffusive is supposed to be Can you tell us where the Apostles are said to lay further Foundations for Churches already constituted that they made or declared more things necessary to Salvation than were so antecedently to their being a Church But this is your case you pretend a power in your Church representative to make more things necessary to Salvation than were before to a Church already in Being and therefore supposed to believe all things necessary to Salvation You see therefore what a vast disparity there is in the case and how far the Apostles declaring the Doctrine of Christ and thereby founding Churches is from being an Argument that the representative Church may lay the Foundation of the Church diffusive which being a Church already must have its Foundation laid before all new Decrees and Definitions of the teaching Church So that still it unavoidably follows upon your principles That the Church must lay her own Foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her Foundation is laid Your weak endeavour of retorting this upon the Bishop because of the Apostles teaching the Church of their Age only shews that you have a good will to say something in behalf of so bad a cause but that you want ability to do it as appears by the Answers already given as to the difference of the Apostles case and yours The subsequent Section which is spent in a weak defence of A. C's words hath the less cause to be particularly examined and besides its whole strength lyes on things sufficiently discussed already viz. the sufficient Proposition of matters of Faith and the Material and Formal Object of it That which follows pretending to something New and which looks like Argumentation must be more distinctly considered Cs. words are That if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may against another and another and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakned in any one cannot be firm in any other To which his Lordship answers 1. That this is understood only of Catholick Maxims which are properly Fundamental by Vincentius Lirinensis from whom this Argument is derived 2. He denies that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation 3. He denies that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church Of each of these he gives his reasons the examination and defence of which is all that remains of this Chapter To the first you answer three things for I must digest your Answers for you 1. That there is no evidence that A. C. borrowed this from Vincentius and you give an excellent reason for it because good wits may both hit on the same thing or at least come near it which had it been said of your self had been more unquestionable but to let that pass 2. You tell us That the Doctrine is true whosoever said it For which you give this reason For the same reason which permits not our questioning or denying the prime Maxims of Faith permits not our questioning or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church because it is not the greatness or smalness of the matter that moves us to give firm Assent
believe them this Divine Testimor is never pretended to be contained in the Creed but that it is only a summary Collection of the most necessary Points which God hath revealed and therefore something else must be supposed as the ground and formal reason why we assent to the truth of those things therein contained So that the Creed must suppose the Scripture as the main and only Foundation of believing the matters of Faith therein contained But say you If all the Scripture be included in the Creed there appears no great reason of scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other Points especially of that for which we admit Scripture it self But do you make no difference between the Scripture being supposed as the ground of Faith and all Scripture being contained in the Creed And doth not his Lordship tell you That though some Articles may be Fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were Fundamental for though they may have Authority and use in the Church as Apostolical yet are they not Fundamental in the Faith And as for that Tradition That the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and Infallible in every part he promises to handle it when he comes to the proper place for it And there we shall readily attend what you have to object to what his Lordship saith about it But yet you say His Lordship doth not answer the Question as far as it was necessary to be answered we say he doth No say you For the Question arising concerning the Greek Churches errour whether it were Fundamental or no Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop What Points he would account Fundamental to which he answers That all Points contained in the Creed are such but yet not only they and therefore this was no direct Answer to the Question for though the Greeks errour was not against the Creed yet it may be against some other Fundamental Article not contained in the Creed This you call fine shuffling To which I answer That when his Lordship speaks of its not being Fundamentum unicum in that sense to exclude all things not contained in the Creed from being Fundamental he spake it with an immediate respect to the belief of Scripture as an Infallible Rule of Faith For saith he The truth is I said and say still That all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental And herein I say no more than some of your best learned have said before me But I never said or meant that they only are Fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum is the Council of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole body of the Creed Now what reason can you have to call this shuffling unless you will rank the Greeks errour equal with the denying the Scripture to be the Word of God otherwise his Lordship's Answer is as full and pertinent as your cavil is vain and trifling His Lordship adds That this agrees with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from the Proposition in terminis To which your Exceptions are so pitiful that I shall answer them without reciting them for he that supposeth the sense of Scripture joyned with the Articles of Faith to be the Rule of Faith as Albertus doth must certainly suppose the belief of the Scripture as the Word of God else how is it possible its sense should be the Rule of Faith Again it is not enough for you to say That he believed other Articles of Faith besides these in the Creed but that he made them a Rule of Faith together with the sense of Scripture 3. All this while here is not one word of Tradition as the ground on which these Articles of Faith were to be believed If this therefore be your way of answering I know none will contend with you for fine shuffling What follows concerning the right sense of the Article of the Descent of Christ into Hell since you say You will not much trouble your self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours I look on that expression as sufficient to excuse me from undertaking so needless a trouble as the examining the several senses of it since you acknowledge That no one determinate sense is Fundamental and therefore not pertinent to our business Much less is that which follows concerning Mr. Rogers his Book and Authority in which and that which depends upon it I shall only give you your own words for an Answer That truly I conceive it of small importance to spend much time upon this subject and shall not so far contradict my judgement as to do that which I think when it is done is to very little purpose Of the same nature is that of Catharinus for it signifies nothing to us whether you account him an Heretick or no who know Men are not one jot more or less Heretick for your accounting them to be so or not You call the Bishop your good friend in saying That all Protestants do agree with the Church of England in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For say you by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and only one by Vnity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions As good a friend as you say his Lordship was to you in that saying of his I am sure you ill requite him for his Kindness by so palpable a falsification of his words and abuse of his meaning And all that Friendship you pretend lyes only in your leaving out that part of the Sentence which takes away all that you build on the rest For where doth his Lordship say That the Protestants only agree in their main Exceptions against the Roman Church and not in their Doctrines Nay doth he not expresly say That they agree in the chiefest Doctrines as well as main Exceptions which they take against the Church of Rome as appears by their several Confessions But you very conveniently to your purpose and with a fraud suitable to your Cause leave out the first part of agreement in the chiefest Doctrines and mention only the latter lest your Declamation should be spoiled as to your Unity and our Disagreements But we see by this by what means you would perswade men of both by Arts and Devices fit only to deceive such who look only on the appearance and outside of things and yet even there he that sees not your growing Divisions is a great stranger to the Christian world Your great Argument of the Vnity of your party because
sifted were it for no other end but to lay open the juglings and impostures of your way of resolving Faith Which we now come more closely to the discovery of for as you tell us The Bishop propounding diverse wayes of resolving the Question first falls to the attaquing your way who prove it by Tradition and authority of the Church And his first onset is so successful that it makes you visibly recoyle and withdraw your self into so untenable a Shelter as exposeth you to all the attempts which any adversary would desire to make upon you For whereas you are charged by his Lordship with running into the most absurd kind of argumentation viz. by proving the Scriptures infallible by Tradition and that Tradition infallible by Scripture you think to escape that Circle by telling us That you prove not the Churches Infallibility by the Scripture but by the motives of credibility belonging to the Church This then being your main principle which your following discourse is built upon and in your judgement the only probable way to avoid the Circle that you may not think I am afraid of encountering you in your greatest strength I dare put the issue of the cause upon this Promise that besides the weak proofs you bring for the thing it self which shall after be considered if this way of yours be not chargeable with all the absurdities such an attempt is capable of I will be content to acknowledge what you say to be true which is That your way of resolving Faith hath no difficulty at all and that ours is insuperably hard which I think are as hard terms as can be imposed upon me Now there are two grand Absurdities which any vindication of an Opinion are subject to first If it be manifestly unreasonable and 2. If supposing it true it doth not effect what it was intended for now these two I undertake to make good against this way of your resolving Faith that it is guilty of the highest unreasonableness and that supposing it true you are in a circle as much as before 1. First I begin with the unreasonableness of it which is so great that I know not whether I may abstain from calling it ridiculous but that I may not seem to follow you in asserting confidently and proving weakly it will be necessary throughly to examine the grounds on which your opinion stands and then raise our batteries against it Three grand principles your discourse relyes upon which are your postulata in order to the resolving Faith 1. That it is necessary to the believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God with a Divine Faith that it be built on the infallible testimony of the Church 2. That your Church is that Catholick Church whose testimony is Infallible 3. That this Infallibility is to be known and assented to upon the motives of credibility These three I suppose if your confused discourse were reduced to method would be freely acknowledged by your self to be the Principles on which your resolution of Faith depends And although I am sufficiently assured of the falseness of your two first Principles as will appear in the sequel of this discourse yet that which I have now particularly undertaken is the unreasonableness of resolving Faith upon these Principles taken together viz. That the Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation for Divine Faith and that this Infallibility can be known only by the Motives of Credibility If then in this way of resolving Faith you require Assent beyond all proportion of evidence if you run into the same Absurdities you would seem to avoid if you leave men more uncertain in their Religion than you found them you cannot certainly excuse this way from unreasonableness and each of these I undertake to make good against this way of yours whereby you would assure men of the Truth and Divinity of the Scriptures 1. An Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence for you require an Infallible Assent only upon Probable grounds which is as much as requiring Infallibility in the conclusion where the premises are only probable Now that you require an Assent Infallible to the nature of Faith appears by the whole series of your Discourse for to this very end you require Infallibility in the Testimony of your Church because otherwise you say Our Faith would be uncertain it is plain then you require an Infallible Assent in Faith and it is as plain that this Assent according to you can be built only upon probable grounds for you acknowledge the motives of Credibility to be no more than such yet those are all the grounds you give why the Church should be believed Infallible If you say That which makes the Assent Infallible is that Infallibility which is in the Churches Testimony I reply That this is a most unreasonable thing to go about to establish an Infallible Assent meerly because the Testimony is supposed to be in it self Infallible For Assent is not according to the Objective Certitude of things but the evidence of them to our Vnderstandings For is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner because any Mathematician tells one The thing is demonstrable for in that case the Assent is not according to the Evidence of the thing but according to the opinion such a person hath of him who tells him It is demonstrable Nay supposing that person infallible in saying so yet if the other hath no means to be infallibly assured that he is so such a ones Assent is as doubtful as if he were not infallible Therefore supposing the Testimony of your Church to be really infallible yet since the Means of believing it are but probable and prudential the Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony infallible And in all such cases where I believe one thing for the sake of another my Assent to the Object believed is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it for by the means of that the other is conveyed to our minds As our sight is not according to the light in the body of the Sun but that which presseth upon our Organs of sense So that supposing your Churches Testimony to be in it self infallible if one may be deceived in judging whether your Church be infallible or no one may be deceived in such things which he believes upon that supposed Infallibility It being an impossibility that the Assent to the matters of Faith should rise higher or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is upon which those things are believed Now that one may be deceived according to your own principles in judging whether the Church be Infallible appears by this That you have no other means to prove the Infallibility of your Church but only probable and prudential Motives For I desire to know
you can attribute this title to it For otherwise you will find that marvellously true which the same Tostatus saith Ecclesia Latinorum non est Ecclesia Vniversalis sed quaedam pars ejus ideò etiamsi tota ipsa errâsset non errabat Ecclesia Vniversalis quia manet Ecclesia Vniversalis in partibus illis quae non errant sive illae sint numero plures quà m errantes sive non So that if you prove the Infallibility of the Catholick Church this proves nothing at all as to the Roman Church which at most can be supposed to be but a part of it and though that should err the Catholick Church might not err because that remains in those parts which err not though they be more or less in number then those that err This is the sense of his words who seemed to have a much truer conception of the Vniversal Church than those now of your Sect and Party If then we may believe the Church to be infallible and yet in the mean time condemn your Church for the grossest Errours Will it not be found necessary for you to tell us yet more distinctly What you mean by the Church you would prove Infallible But supposing that only those parts you esteem Catholick make up the Catholick Church even among them the Question will still return What you mean by this Catholick Church Do you mean all the Individual Persons in this number taken either distributively or collectively or Do you mean all those who are entrusted with the Government of these and then Whether all Inferiour Pastors or only Bishops And if Bishops Whether all these collectively or else by way of Representation in a Council and still remember to make it good that what you pitch upon as the acception of the Church be not an effect of humane Policy as Albertus Pighius said All Councils were no more but that what you fasten the acception of the Church-Catholick upon you be sure to make it out that is the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made in Scripture And be sure to tell us How a Church comes to be infallible by Representation Whether as they who make the Church representative deliver the sense of the Church they represent or by an immediate Promise made to them upon their Convention If the former Whether it will not be necessary in order to the Infallibility of the Council to know that it speaks the sense of all those particular Churches whom they represent If the latter you must remember such places as belong to them as representing the Church for otherwise any company of Christians assembled together will challenge an equal interest in them and then you will find it a hard matter to prove one infallible and not the other But if after all this your Windmill should dwindle into a Nutcracker and this harangue concerning the Infallibility of the Catholick Church should at last end in one particular Person which by a strange Catachresis must be call'd the Church or else as Heir at Law to her doth take possession of all her priviledges Then the Testament must be produced wherein he is named so and those clauses especially wherein the rights and priviledges of her are devolved over to him and his Heirs for ever There being then so much ambiguity and uncertainty in the very name of the Church-Catholick which you would prove infallible that if nothing else discovered your Imposture yet this would sufficiently that you would undertake to resolve Mens Faith by the Infallibility of the Church and yet never offer to shew what that Church is 2. Supposing you had shewn what the Church is yet you never tell us what the subject of Infallibility is in that Church For when in this case you speak of Infallibility you must remember you are not to shew what that Church is which is not deceived in judging concerning things necessary to Salvation but what that Church is which is infallible in her Direction of others to Salvation For you speak of such an Infallibility as must be a Guide to others and whose infallible judgement must be known to all such who must resolve their Faith into her Testimony You would have done then no more than was absolutely necessary to have precisely shewn us where this infallibility is lodged in your Church whether in Pope or Council or both together I suppose it can be no news either to you or to the Reader what Controversies there are among the greatest of your side whether the Pope or Council be the greater and to whom this Infallibility belongs neither are either side fully agreed in their own way for some that are for the Infallibility of a general Council will make that infallible without the Pope others account that opinion if not haeretical the next step to it Those who are for the Pope's Infallibility are not agreed neither when he shall be said to be infallible They who speak Oracles tell us when he doth define ex Cathedrâ but what that is neither they nor we can well tell some say it is when he hath a Congregation of chosen Cardinals about him others make the whole Colledge of Cardinals necessary and therefore some in the late Definition concerning the Jansenists were refractory because it was defined only by a Congregation of chosen Cardinals which they said was not defining ex Cathedrâ some again make neither of these necessary but suppose the Infallibility lodged in the Pope himself And are we not at a fine pass for the certainty of our Faith if it must rely upon the infallible Testimony of your Church and yet you your selves not at all agreed to whom this Infallible Testimony doth belong Think not that we will be put off with that silly evasion That these differences among you hinder not the certainty of Faith because it is not de fide either way For 1. How shall we come to know among you what is de fide and what not till you are agreed to whom this Infallibility belongs And if it belongs to a general Council then it is de fide for it was determined at the Council of Basil in behalf of the Council and therefore if one of the opinions be true it must be de fide for I suppose you make that to be so which is determined by the infallible Testimony of your Church 2. How shall a man believe that any thing at all is de fide among you if that on which your Faith is to rest be not de fide For supposing a difference to happen which hath often done between the Pope and Council and they decree contrary things to each other if it be not de fide to believe either the one or the other distinctly to be infallible upon what Testimony at such a time must that which supposeth the infallible Testimony of your Church rely 3. If it be said not to be de fide because not determined by the same reason your Churches
Infallibility cannot be de fide because not determined neither For if the Determination of the Church be necessary to make any thing de fide it must by the same reason be necessary to make your Churches Infallibility de fide and I suppose you will not readily instance in any decree of the Catholick Church where the Testimony of your Church is determined to be infallible And yet one would imagine that if there were such a necessity in order to Faith of the Infallible Testimony of your Church there would be an equal necessity of believing this Infallibility on the same Testimony or if one may believe one Article especially so important a one as that without any precedent infallible Testimony why not any other nay why not all the rest Thus you still see how uncertainties grow upon us when we search into your account of Faith 3. You are not certain neither What kind of Infallibility this is For you offer to prove the Church infallible by the same way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved infallible A very fair Offer if you could make it good but then we were in hopes you would have proved such a kind of Infallibility as they had you tell us No for your Infallibility is Supernatural but not Divine that it is precise Infallibility but not absolute that it is not by immediate Revelation but by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost Something you would have but you cannot tell what an Infallibility in the Conclusion without any in the Vse of means an Infallibility by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost yet but in a sort Divine an Infallibility yielding nothing to Scripture in point of Supernaturality and Certainty yet nothing so infallible as Scripture Are not these brave things to make wise men certain in their Religion with that they are to believe the Scriptures upon a Testimony infallible yet not infallible divine yet not divine and therefore certain but not certain true but not true But of the silliness of these Distinctions afterwards But can you think to perswade wise or rational men to believe their Religion on such terms as these are Had they no other evidence than what you give them would they not be shrewdly tempted to reject all Religion as a meer Imposture as no doubt your Doctrine of Infallibility is A strange kind of Talisman which secures your Pope from a possibility of erring but still he must be under the certain direction of his Stars for if he be not in Cathedrâ this Telesm doth him no good at all It were heartily to be wished if he should once happen to be in Cathedrâ he would infallibly determine what it was to be in Cathedrâ for ever after for it would ease mens minds of a great many troublesome scruples which they cannot without some infallible Determination get themselves quit of But still we are bound to believe your Church infallible But I pray whence comes this Infallibility Comes it from Heaven or is it of Men From Heaven no doubt you say for it is by a promise of the Holy Ghost This were something if it were proved but yet you maintain this Infallibility in such a manner that none that read the Scriptures could ever think it were promised there For there they alwaies read That the Spirit of Truth is a Spirit of Holiness and never dwells in those who are carnal or wicked men but you tell us That let the lives of Popes be what they will they have no promise to secure them from being wicked but the Spirit of God doth by immediate Assistance secure them from being fallible But I pray Which of these two is not only more contrary to Scripture but to Humane Nature Wickedness or Fallibility This latter so consequent upon the imperfection of our understandings that till we put off the one we can hardly be freed from the other but Wickedness is that which the whole design of Christian Religion is against and administers the highest Motives and the greatest Assistance for the conquest of and can it then be thought suitable to such a Doctrine that the Divine Spirit should like Mahomet's Dove be alwaies ready to whisper in the ear of the most profligate person if it be but his fortune to sit in Cathedrá Such a kind of Infallibility as this I assure you will never prevail with any such persons who understand Christian Religion to believe the Doctrine of it upon such pretences as yours are 4. Supposing you could tell men intelligibly and suitably to the Doctrine of Christianity What kind of Infallibility this is yet if you cannot satisfie them When your Church doth define infallibly you leave them still in the same Labyrinth without any clue to direct them out of it But if we consider what things are necessary to be believed before we can believe any definition of your Church infallible how impossible it is to be infallibly assured of any such definition of your Church sure you cannot blame us for crying out of the Labyrinth you have brought us into 1. How many things in Christian Religion are to be believed before we can imagine any such thing as an infallible Testimony of your Church And if the Infallibility of that be the ground of Faith on what account must those things be believed which are antecedent to the belief of such an infallible Testimony Now that many things and some of them far from being clear are to be believed antecedently to an infallible Testimony will appear if we do but consider what they commonly mean by that Church which they suppose infallible and what must be supposed that this Infallibility be the Rule of Faith By the Church they tell you they mean the Catholick Church but lest you should think them too honest in saying so at next word it is the Roman-Catholick Church just as if one should say the German-Vniversal Emperour But lest you should think at least they meant the Roman Church of all Ages and think you might have some relief from the Primitive Roman Church they will soon rectifie your mistakes by telling you it is the present Roman-Church they mean but if it be the present Roman-Church it may be you would be willing to hear the judgement of all the honest men in that Church and that you hope many of the people and learned men not in Orders may speak their minds freely To prevent that they tell you they mean only the representative Church But still the Bishops who make up this representative Church may in their several Synods complain of abuses and rectifie miscarriages therefore they understand not Bishops by themselves or particular Synods but met together in General Councils But yet if the Councils were truly Oecumenical there might be some hopes of redress But for that they are sure for they allow none to be members of the General Councils which are in Schism or Heresie and their own Church is to be Judge what
which supposing it never so great is not shewed to the Councils but to your Church For the reason of that Reverence cannot be resolved into the Councils but into that Church for whose sake you reverence them And thus it evidently appears That the cunning of this device is wholly your own and notwithstanding these miserable shifts you do finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman-Church which was the thing to be proved The first Absurdity consequent from hence which the Arch-Bishop chargeth your party with is That by this means they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholick Church as to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Societie of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in nature in reason in all things that any part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the whole Here you deny the Consequence which you say depends upon his Lordships wilfully mistaken Notion of the Catholick Church which he saith Is the Church we believe in our Creed and is the Society of all Christians which you call a most desperate extension of the Church because thereby forsooth it will appear that a part is not so great as the whole viz. that the Roman-Church in her full latitude is but a piece or parcel of the Catholick Church believed in our Creed Is this all the desperate Absurdity which follows from his Lordships Answer I pray shew it to have any thing tending to an Absurdity in it And though you confidently tell us That the Roman-Church taken as comprizing all Christians that are in her Communion is the sole and whole Catholick Church yet I will contentedly put the whole issue of the cause upon the proof of this one Proposition that the Roman-Church in its largest sense is the sole and whole Catholick Church or that the present Roman-Church is a sound member of the Catholick Church Your evidence from Ecclesiastical History is such as I fear not to follow you in but I beseech you have a care of treading too near the Apostles heels That any were accounted Catholicks meerly for their Communion with the Roman-Church or that any were condemned for Heresie or Schism purely for their dissent from it prove it when you please I shall be ready God willing to attend your Motions But it is alwaies your faculty when a thing needs proving most to tell us what you could have done This you say You would have proved at large if his Lordship had any more than supposed the contrary But your Readers will think that his Supposition being grounded on such a Maxim of Reason as that mentioned by him it had been your present business to have proved it but I commend your prudence in adjourning it and I suppose you will do it as the Court of Areopagus used to do hard causes in diem longissimum It is apparent the Bishop speaks not of a part of the Church by representation of the whole which is an objection no body but your self would here have fancied and therefore your Instance of a Parliament is nothing to the purpose unless you will suppose that Councils in the Church do represent in such a manner as Parliaments in England do and that their decision is obligatory in the same way as Acts of Parliament are if you believe this to be good Doctrine I will be content to take the Objecters place and make the Application The next Absurdity laid to your charge is as you summe it up That in your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of your Church your proceeding is most unreasonable in regard you will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture exposition of Fathers propriety of Language Conference of Places Antecedents and Consequents c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholick because she professeth it to be such which saith he is to prove idem per idem To this you answer That as to all those helps you use them with much more candour than Protestants do And why so Because of their manifold wrestings of Scriptures and Fathers Let the handling the Controversies of this Book be the evidence between us in this case and any indifferent Reader be the Judge You tell us You use all these helps but to what purpose do you use them Do you by them prove the Infallibility of your Church If not the same Absurdity lyes at your door still of proving idem per idem No that you do not you say But how doth it appear Thanks to these mute persons the good Motives of Credibility which come in again at a dead lift but do no more service than before I pray cure the wounds they have received already before you rally them again or else I assure you what strength they have left they will employ it against your selves You suppose no doubt your Coleworts good you give them us so often over but I neither like proving nor eating idem per idem But yet we have two Auxiliaries more in the field call'd Instances The design of your first Instance is to shew That if your Church be guilty of proving idem per idem the Apostolical Church was so too For you tell us That a Sectary might in the Apostles times have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholick Church For if you ask the Christians then Why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole true Catholick Faith their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them How they know it to be so they will produce the words sentences and works of Christ who taught it But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that those Testimonies do indeed make for them or their cause or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or Doctrine but their Answer is They know it to be so because the present Apostolick Church doth witness it And so by consequence prove idem per idem Thus the Sectary I know not whether your faculty be better at framing Questions or Answers to them I am sure it is extraordinary at both Is it not enough to be in a Circle your selves but you must needs bring the Apostles into it too at least if you may have the management of their Doctrine you would do it The short Answer to all this is That the ground why the Christians did assent to the Apostles Doctrine as true was because God gave sufficient evidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such Infallibility was requisite For you had told us before That the Apostles did confirm their words with signs that followed by which signs all their hearers were bound to submit themselves unto
answer that when you say It is necessary we must believe the Scriptures to be the VVord of God with Divine Faith this Divine Faith must be taken in one of these three senses either first that Faith may be said to be Divine which hath a Divine Revelation for its Material Object as that Faith may be said to be a Humane Faith which is conversant about natural causes and the effects of them And in this sense it cannot but be a Divine Faith which is conversant about the Scripture because it is a Divine Revelation Or secondly a Faith may be said to be Divine in regard of its Testimony or Formal Object and so that is called a Divine Faith which is built on a Divine Testimony and that a Humane Faith which is built on a Humane Testimony Thus I assert all that Faith which respects particular Objects of Faith supposing the belief of the Scriptures is in this sense Divine because it is built on a properly Divine Testimony but the Question is Whether that Act of Faith which hath the whole Scripture as its Material Object be in that sense Divine or no. Thirdly Faith may be said to be Divine in regard of the Divine Effects it hath upon the soul of man as it is said in Scripture to purifie the heart overcome the world resist Satan and his Temptations receive Christ c. And this is properly a Divine Faith and there is no Question but every Christian ought to have this Divine Faith in his soul without which the other sorts of Divine Faith will never bring men to Heaven But it is apparent that all who heartily profess to believe the Scriptures to be the VVord of God have not this sort of Divine Faith though they have so firm an assent to the Truth and Authority of it that they durst lay down their lives for it The Assent therefore we see may be firm where the effects are not saving The Question now is Whether this may be called a Divine Faith in the second sense that is Whether it must be built on a Testimony infallible For clearing which we must further consider the meaning of this Question How we know Scripture to be Scripture which may import two things How we know that all these Books contain God's VVord in them Or secondly How we know the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Divine If you then ask me Whether it be necessary that I believe with such a Faith as is built on Divine Testimony that these Books called the Scripture contain the principles of the Jewish and Christian Religion in them which we call God's VVord I deny it and shall do so till you shew me some further necessity of it than you have done yet and my reason is because I may have sufficient ground for such an Assent without any Divine Testimony But if you ask me On what ground I believe the Doctrine to be Divine which is contained in those Books I then answer affirmatively On a Divine Testimony because God hath given abundant evidence that this Doctrine was of Divine Revelation Thus you see what little reason you have to triumph in your Argument from Divine Faith inferring the necessity of an unwritten VVord of God But the further explication of these things must be reserved till I come to the positive part of our way of resolution of Faith I now return Having after your way that is very unsatisfactorily attempted the vindicating your resolution of Faith from the Objections which were offered against it by his Lordship you come now to consider the second way propounded by him for the resolving Faith which is That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by divine and infallible Testimony by the resplendency of that light which it hath in it self only and by the witness it can so give to it self against which he gives such evident reasons that you acknowledge the Relator himself hath sufficiently confuted it and you agree with him in the Confutation Yet herein you grow very angry with him for saying That this Doctrine may agree well enough with your grounds in regard you hold that Tradition may be known for God's VVord by its own light and consequently the like may be said of Scripture This you call aspersing you and obtruding falshoods upon you Whether it be so or no must appear upon examination Two Testimonies are cited from A. C. to this purpose the first is Tradition of the Church is of a Company which by its own light shews it self to be infallibly assisted Your Answer is That the word which must properly relate to the preceding word Company and not to the more remote word Tradition But what of all this Doth any thing the less follow which the Bishop charged A. C. with For it being granted by you That there can be no knowing an Apostolical Tradition but for the Infallibility of the present Church the same light which discovers the Infallibility of that Company doth likewise discover the Truth of Tradition If therefore your Church doth appear infallible by its own light which is your own confession May not the Scripture as well appear infallible by its own light For is there not as great self-evidence at least that the Scripture is infallible as that your Church is infallible And therefore that way you take to shift the Objection makes it return upon you with greater force For I pray tell me how any Company can appear by its own Light to be assisted by the Holy Ghost and not much more the Holy Scripture to be divine Especially seeing you must at last be forced to derive this Infallibility from the Scriptures For you pretend to no other Infallibility than what comes by a promise of the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost How then can any Company appear by its own Light to be thus infallibly assisted unless it first appear by its own Light that there was such a Promise and how can that unless it antecedently appear by its own Light that the Scripture in which the Promise is written is the VVord of God You tell us A. C ' s. intention is only to affirm That the Church is known by her Motives of Credibility which ever accompany her and may very properly be called her own Light How well you are acquainted with A. C ' s. intention I know not neither is it much matter for granting this to have been his intention may not the Scripture be known by her Motives of Credibility as well as the Church and do not these accompany her as much as the Church and may they not be called her Light as properly as those of the Church It is plain then by all the senses and meanings you can find out in the very same that you say the Church may be known by her own Light the Scripture may much more and therefore you have no reason to quarrel with his Lordship or affirming it The second Testimony
produced is That a Tradition may be known to be such by the Light it hath in it self in which you say you find not one word of Tradition being known by its own Light But who are so blind as those who will not see I pray what difference is there between a Tradition being known to be such by its own Light and a Tradition being known by its own Light Yes say you known to be such implies that is to be God's unwritten Word but are not doctrinal Traditions and an unwritten Word with you the same thing Can therefore a Tradition be known to be an unwritten Word by its own Light and not be known to be a Tradition by its own Light Nay How can it possibly be known to be an unwritten Word unless it first appears to be a Tradition for Tradition containing under it both those that are unwritten Words and those that are not it must in order of nature be known to be a Tradition before it can be known to be the other As I must first know you to be a living Creature before I can know you to be a reasonable Creature and I may much sooner know the one than the other You do therefore very well when you have given us such occasion for sport to give us leave to laugh at it as you do in your next words But before you leave this point you have some graver matter to take notice of which is that you desire the reader to consider what the Relator grants viz. That the Church now admits of St. James and St. Judes Epistles and the Apocalypse which were not received for diverse years after the rest of the New Testament From which you wisely inferr That if some Books are now to be admitted for Canonical which were not alwayes acknowledged to be such then upon the same authority some Books may now be received into the Canon which were not so in Ruffinus his time And therefore the Bishop doth elsewhere unjustly charge the Church of Rome that it had erred in receiving more Books into the Canon then were received in Ruffinus his time To which I Answer 1. By your own confession then the Church of Rome doth now receive into the Canon more Books then she did in Ruffinus his time from whence I enquire whether the present Church of Rome were Infallible in Ruffinus his time in determining the Canon of the Scripture If not then the present Church is no Infallible propounder of the Word of God and then all your discourse comes to nothing If she were Infallible then she cannot be now for now she determins otherwise as to a main point of Faith than she did then unless you will say your Church can be Infallible in determining both parts of a contradiction to be true 2. Is the integrity of the Canon of Scripture an Apostolical tradition or no I doubt not but you will say It is if so Whether were these Books which you admit now and were not admitted then known to be of the Canon by this Apostolical tradition If not by what right come they now to be of the Canon if so then was not your Church in Ruffinus's time much to seek for her Infallibility in defining what was Apostolical tradition and what not 3. Your main principle on which the lawfulness of adding more books to the Canon of the Scripture is built is That it is in the power of your Church judicially and authoritatively to determine what books belong to the Canon of the Scripture and what not which I utterly deny For it is impossible that your Church or any in the world can by any definition make that Book to be Divine which was not so before such a definition For the Divinity of the Book doth meerly arise from Divine revelation Can your Church then make that to be a Divine revelation which was not so All that any Church in the world can do in this case is not to constitute any new Canon which were to make Books Divine which were not so but to use its utmost diligence and care in searching into the authenticalness of those Copy's which have any pretence to be of the Canon and whether they did originally proceed from such persons as we have reason to believe had an immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and according to the evidence they find the Church may declare and give in her verdict For the Church in this case is but a Jury of grand Inquest to search into matters of Fact and not a Judge upon the Bench to determine in point of Law And that is the true reason why the Books of the New Testament were gradually received into the Canon and some a great while after others as St. James St. Jude the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse because at first the Copyes being not so publickly dispersed there was not that occasion ministred to the Church for examination of them upon which when by degrees they came to be more publick it caused scruples in many concerning them because they appeared no sooner especially if any passages in them seemed to gratifie any of the Sects then appearing as the Epistle to the Hebrews the Novatians and the Apocalypse the Millenary's But when upon a through search and examination of all circumstances it did appear that these Copyes were authentical and did originally proceed from Divine Persons then they came to be admitted and owned for such by the Vniversal Church which we call being admitted into the Canon of the Scripture Which I take to be the only true and just account of that which is called the constituting the Canon of Scripture not as though either the Apostles met to do it or St. John intended any such thing by those words in the end of the Apocalypse for that Book being as much lyable to question as any how could that seal the Canon for all the rest much less that it was in the power of any Church or Council and least of all of the Pope to determine what was Canonical and what not but only that the Church upon examination and enquiry did by her Universal reception of these Books declare it self satisfied with the evidence which was produced that those were true and authentick Copyes which were abroad under such names or titles and that there was great reason to believe by a continued tradition from the age and time these Books were written in that they were written by such persons who were not only free from any design of imposture but gave the greatest Rational evidence that they had a more special and immediate assistance of Gods Spirit You see then to how little advantage to your Cause you made this digression As to the third way propounded for resolving the Question How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God viz. by the testimony of the Holy Ghost three things you object against the Bishops discourse about it First that his discourse
and therefore may cause an undoubted Certainty of Assent As it is in all matters of fact for Will you say that it is as probable that there is not such a place as Rome as that there is because the only Argument you have to be convinced of it is but in it self a probability which is the fame and report of people It is a piece therefore of great weakness of judgement to say That there can be no certain Assent where there is a meer possibility of being deceived For there is no kind of Assent in the humane understanding as to the existence of any thing but there is a possibility of deception in it Will you say because it is possible all mens senses may deceive them therefore there can be no certainty of any object of sense And as well may you say it as destroy any certainty of Assent in Religion where you suppose a possibility of being deceived But if I be not much deceived though I suppose you will account it a grand Paradox an Assent may be as firm and certain upon moral grounds as upon a demonstration that is when the matter is capable of no more than moral grounds For the reason why we suspend Assent is the unproportionateness of the evidence to the matter to be proved So when the matter is capable of more evidence than is produced and I know it to be so my understanding cannot firmly assent on such evidence but when the matter is capable of no more than moral evidence and I know it I may as firmly assent to the Truth of such a thing as to the Truth of a clearer thing upon clearer evidence Thus I may as firmly assent that there are such places as the East and West-Indies upon the constant report of men as that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles I say not the evidence is the same but that the Assent may be as firm You cannot then destroy the certainty of Assent which is required to Christian Religion by telling men that the Arguments they rely on are but moral Arguments And by this you may see there may be a degree far beyond probability in the Assent where the Arguments in themselves considered may be called probable or rather that Moral certainty may be a most firm rational and undoubted certainty Your following discourse between the Bishop and Heathen run upon the former mistake as though his intention were to prove first the Bible to be God's Infallible Word before he would prove Christian Religion to be true which I have already shewed you is a mistake which appears sufficiently by his own words of proving the Christian Religion to stand upon surer grounds than any other Religion not only than that one which the Heathen believed but any other in the world and therefore your Objection is answered that for all this a third Religion may be truer than both Your remaining discourse proves nothing at all but on the former Supposition and therefore supposing his intention be to prove Christianity to be True and Divine his Argument from the power of it over the Devil follows plainly enough And when he mentions the evidence of it out of Scripture he doth not suppose the belief of it as an infallible Word of God but only as of any other history and therefore is far from such a petitio principii as you imagine That which the Bishop saith may reasonably be supposed as a Principle in Divinity as there are postulata in other Sciences is not the Infallibility of the Doctrine or Revelation but the Credibility of both in order to further Conviction concerning their Infallibility for unless the Credibility of it be first assumed as a Principle men will not use the means in order to conviction of its Infallibility And in this sense he doth not contradict himself nor unsay what he had said before and that this was his sense appears by the last words of that discourse That a meer natural man may be thus far convinced that the Text of God is a very credible Text. Thus we see how much notwithstanding your protestation to the contrary You have wronged the Bishop both by falsly imposing on him and dissembling the force of his Argument And how unjust that imputation is That if his Doctrine had been held in the Primitive Church it would have laid the world under an impossibility of being converted to Christianity whereas I have shewed how consonant his way is as I explained it both to reason and the proceedings of the Primitive Christians in the conversion of learned Heathens But since you will needs set the Bishop to convert a learned Heathen I will see what an excellent faculty you have according to your Principles of satisfying an Atheist or a Sceptick in Religion whom for your sake I will suppose more desirous of satisfaction than commonly such persons are Let us see then how he accosts you Scept Sir I understand by a great Book of yours that you have only taken the right course to convince such persons as my self who are a little doubtful concerning the received Principles of Religion in the world for the wisest I have conversed with of those who own those things do offer only to prove them by Reason and Arguments which I understand you decry as a way to make all men such as I am but that you have an excellent recipe for men under my distemper for you promise them no less then Infallible certainty in all things you require them to believe which is a thing I have been so long seeking for and have yet so unhappily mist of that I cannot but rejoyce in meeting with such a healing Priest who offers nothing short of Infallibility in all matters of Religion T. C. Sir I question not but before you and I part I shall cure those distorted joynts of your mind and instead of being a Sceptick make you a sound Catholick For indeed it is true what you say That those who would convince you by reason do but offer to make you more a Sceptick than you are at least you can have no Divine Faith at all upon such principles but if you will follow my counsel I doubt not but to make you Infallibly certain in the things we require you to believe Scept I see then there is hope of a cure for me but I pray tell me what that is I must be Infallibly certain of and by what means I shall attain it I would therefore in the first place be Infallibly certain of the being of God and the immortality of souls for these I take to be the principles of all Religion T. C. You take a wrong method you should first enquire after the means of this Infallible certainty for when once you have got that it will make you Infallibly certain of what ever you desire but as long as you use still so much reason as to demand Infallible certainty in principles
contentment they had in their minds And so I verily believe it is but probably your meaning is This Doctrine will cause gripes and torture of spirit in those who have no other foundation of Faith but your Churches authority and never enquire after more If it does so much good may they do them and I verily believe Such doubts may tend more to their satisfaction at last than their present security and a Doctrine which tends to convince the world of the folly and unreasonableness of such a kind of implicite Faith the unsuitableness of it to the nature of Religion in general but more especially the Christian whose great commendation is that it puts men upon so much searching and enquiry into the truth of it would tend more to the good of the Christian world than any of those soft and easie principles which you seek to keep men in obedience by and that I am afraid more to your Church than to Christ. Why then such a Doctrine should cause needless gripes and tortures of spirit I cannot imagine it must certainly be a great confirmation to the mind of any good man to see still further reason for his Faith by which it grows more radicated and confirmed Or would you have a man disquiet himself because he is not still a Child much such a kind of thing this is that a mans mind must be tortured because his Faith grows stronger for we assert that there are degrees in Faith which you who make all Faith Infallible cannot do unless you suppose an Infallible thing may grow more Infallible And if all true Faith be Infallible how can men pray for the increase of Faith unless they pray for the increase of their Infallibility which is a prayer I suppose not many in your Church are allowed to make for then what becomes of your Popes prerogative when not only every one among you is supposed to be Infallible but hopes as well as prayes to be more Infallible which is more then your Pope or your Church dares pretend to But whether Doctrine tends more to inward gripes and tortures of spirit yours or ours let any reasonable man judge for we assert that true Faith is capable of degrees of augmentation but you assert that there is no Divine Faith but what is Infallible when therefore men by reflection upon themselves are so far from finding such an Infallibility in their assent that they combat with many doubts and fears as we see the Apostles did even after the resurrection of Christ you must pronounce that the Apostles when they questioned Christs resurrection from the dead had no Divine Faith at all for it is plain they were far from an Infallible assent to it when Christ upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen Were they Infallible in their assent then or no I hope you will not contradict it so much as to say so or had they no Divine Faith then at all what not S. Peter for whom Christ prayed that his Faith should not fail and from the indesectibility of whose Faith you derive that of the Pope but here you may see what a certain Foundation you have for it when it is so apparent here that S. Peter's Faith did fail and that as to so important an Article of Faith as Christ's own Resurrection for certainly S. Peter was one of the eleven Nay Doth not Christ upbraid them for their unbelief in not believing them that had seen him after he was risen We see then Christ chides them for not resolving their Faith into a humane and moral Testimony If you had been there no doubt you must have told him He was mistaken in the nature of Faith which could rest on nothing but an infallible Testimony and unless he shewed you by sufficient Motives that those persons who saw him risen were infallible for all his haste you were not bound to believe him But whether Christ or you be the more infallible judge you We see our Blessed Saviour requires no more Assent than the nature of the thing will bear nay he upbraids those who will not believe upon Moral and Humane Testimony but you say just the contrary as though you were resolved to contradict him But that is sufficient Argument to all Christians of the falsity and folly of your Doctrine which tends to no other end but to make all considering men Scepticks or Atheists For when you lay it down as a certain Maxim that no Faith can be Divine but what is infallible and they find no such Infallibility in the grounds or the nature of mens Assent What then follows but those worst sort of gripes and tortures such as argue an inward Convulsion of mind and bring men to a greater Question Whether there be any such thing as that you call true Divine Faith in the world You go on with your Catechumen's discourse who must suppose Either that the Church taught that he was to believe Scripture infallible upon her own infallible Testimony or not If so then he reflects that this Church hath plainly deceived him and all others who believed upon that Supposition and so exposed them all to the hazard of eternal damnation and therefore was no True Church but a deceiver From whence say you he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole Letter of Scripture and so must gather from thence its Authority or there can be no means left him on the Bishop's own Principles to believe infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the True Word of God This discourse of yours consists of three Absurdities which will follow upon one of your Churches questioning her Infallibity 1. That then your Church will be guilty of Imposture 2. Then the Churches Testimony signifies nothing 3. That then the sole Letter of Scripture must assure men of its Divine Authority For the first I must confess him whom before you supposed a Child to be now grown to years of understanding since he doth so wisely reflect on himself as to your Churches gross Imposture in her pretence of Infallibility and no doubt it is one of the greatest which hath been known in the Christian world which you cannot your self deny supposing that it be not true that she is infallible For Can there be any higher cheat in the world than under a pretence of Infallibility to impose things upon mens Faith which are contrary to the Sense and Reason of mankind to keep them from that inward satisfaction which their souls might find from a serious consideration of the excellent nature of Christian Religion and a diligent practice of it to contradict thereby the very scope of Christianity which courts our esteem by offering it self to the fairest tryal when I say under this pretence Christian Religion is apparently dishonoured the welfare of mens souls hindered and the greatest corruptions
obtruded without possibility of amendment of them excuse your Church from Imposture if you can for my part I cannot nor any one else who throughly considers it For the second it will follow indeed that the Testimony of your Church is as much as nothing as to any infallible Foundation of Faith but yet it may be of great use for conveying Vniversal Tradition to us and so by that delivering the Scripture into our hands as the infallible Rule of Faith To the third it by no means follows that there is nothing but the sole Letter of Scripture left to convince us of the Divine Authority of Scripture I hope the working Miracles fulfilling Prophecies the nature and reasonableness of the Doctrine of Scriptures are all left besides the bare letter of Scripture and these we say are sufficient to make us believe that the Scripture contains the infallible Word of God Now your profound Christian begins to reflect on the Bishops way which is say you That the Testimony of the Church is humane and fallible and that the belief of the Scripture rests upon the Scripture it self But it will be more to our purpose to hear the Bishop deliver his own mind than to hear you so lamely deliver it which in short he summs up thus A man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with its self and with other writings with the help of ordinary grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full Assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the help of Tradition without and Grace within This is the substance of his Lordship's Opinion against which we shall now consider what your Discourser hath to object 1. The first is from the case of ignorant and illiterate persons such who either through want of learning could not read the Scripture and examine or else made little use of it because they supposed they might have infallible Faith without it What then becomes of millions of such souls both in former and present times To that I answer Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour after the highest waies of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindered from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed that is Hearing and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a Light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this Light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any 2. The second thing objected by your discourser is That if the Churches judgement be fallible then much more ones own judgement is fallible And therefore if notwithstanding all the care and pains taken by the Doctors of the Church their perswasion was only humane and fallible What reason hath any particular person to say That he is divinely and infallibly certain by his reading the Scripture that it is Divine Truth But 1. Is there no difference between the Churches Perswasion and the Churches Tradition Doth the Bishop deny but the perswasion of the Doctors of the Church is as infallible as that of any particular person But this he denies that they can derive that Infallibility of the grounds of their Perswasion into their Tradition so as those who are to receive it on their Testimony may be competent Judges of it May we not then suppose their Tradition to be humane and fallible whose perswasion of what they deliver is established on infallible grounds As a Mathematician is demonstratively convinced himself of the Truth of any particular Problem but if he bids another believe it on his Testimony the other thereby hath no demonstrative evidence of the Truth of it but only so great moral evidence as the Testimony of that person carries along with it The case is the same here Suppose those persons in the Church in every Age of it have to themselves infallible evidence of the Divinity of the Scripture yet when they are to deliver this to be believed by others unless their Testimony hath infallible evidence in it men can never have more than humane or moral certainty of it 2. It doth not at all follow that if the Testimony of the Church be fallible no particular person can be infallibly assured of the Divinity of the Scripture unless this assurance did wholly depend upon that Testimony indeed if it did so the Argument would hold but otherwise it doth not at all Now you know the Bishop denies that the Faith of any particular person doth rest upon the judgement of the Church only he saith This may be a Motive and Inducement to men to consider further but that which they rely upon is that rational evidence which appears in the Scripture it self 3. He goes on and argues against this use of
part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational Infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual Certainty concerning the Truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it Thus I have followed your discoursing Christian through all his doubts and perplexities and upon the result can find no ground at all either of doubting concerning the Scripture or of believing the Testimony of your Church or any to be an infallible ground of Faith Your next passage is to tell us how his Lordships Dedalian windings as you finely call them are disintricated A happy man you are at squaring Circles and getting out of Labyrinths And thus it appears in the present case For when his Lordship had said That the Tradition of the Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine you repeat over your already exploded Proposition that there may be an infallible Testimony which is not absolutely Divine which when I have your faculty of writing things which neither you nor any one else can understand I may admit of but till then I must humbly beg your pardon as not being able to assent to any thing which I cannot understand and have no reason to believe And withall contrary to your second Answer it appears That if the Testimony of the Primitive were absolutely Divine because infallible the Testimony of the present Church must be absolutely Divine if it be infallible The rest of this Chapter is spent in the examining some by-citations of men of your own side chiefly and therefore it is very little material as to the truth or falshood of the present Controversie yet because you seem to triumph so much assoon as you are off the main business I shall briefly return an Answer to the substance of what you say His Lordship having asserted the Tradition of the Primitive Apostolical Church to be Divine and that the Church of England doth embrace that as much as any Church whatsoever withall adds That when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church moved me some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in general not excluding after Ages but sure to include Christ and his Apostles In your Answer to this you insult strangely over his Lordship in two things First That he should say Some and mention but one in his Margent 2. That that One doth not say what he cites out of him To the first I answer you might easily observe the use his Lordship makes of his Margent is not so much to bring clear and distinct proofs of what he writes in his Book but what hath some reference to what he there saies and therefore it was no absurdity for him to say in his Book indefinitely some and yet in his Margent only to mention Occham For when his Lordship writ that no doubt his mind was upon others who asserted the same thing though he did not load his Margent with them And that you may see I have reason for what I say I hope you will not suppose his Lordship unacquainted with the Testimonies of those of your side who do in terms assert this That I may therefore free you from all kind of suspicion What think you of Gerson when speaking of the greater Authority of the Primitive Church than of the present he adds And by this means we come to understand what S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel c. For there saith he he takes the Church for the Primitive Congregation of Believers who saw and heard Christ and were witnesses of what he did Is not this Testimony plain enough for you But besides this we have another as evident in whom are those very words which his Lordship by a lapse of memory attributes to Occham For Durandus plainly sayes That for what concerns the approbation of Scripture by the Church it is understood only of the Church which was in the Apostles times who were filled with the Holy Spirit and withall saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his Doctrine and on that account were convenient witnesses of all which Christ did or taught that by their Testimony the Scripture containing the actions and speeches of Christ might receive approbation Do you yet desire a Testimony more express and full than this is of one who doth understand the Church exclusively of all successive to the Apostles when he had just before produced that known Testimony of S. Augustine You see then the Bishop had some reason to say Some of your Church asserted this to be S. Augustine 's meaning and therefore your Instances of some where but one is meant are both impertinent and scurrilous For where it is evidently known there was but one it were a Soloecism to say some as to say that some of the Apostles betrayed Christ when it is known that none but Judas did it But if I should say that some Jesuits had writ for the killing of Kings and in the Margent should cite Mariana no person conversant in their writings would think it a Soloecism for though I produce him for a remarkable Instance yet that doth not imply that I have none else to produce but only that the mentioning of one might shew I was not without proof of what I said For your impudent oblique slander on the memory of that excellent Prelate Arch-Bishop Cranmer when you say If a Catholick to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury should say Some of them carried a holy Sister lockt up in a Chest about with them and name Cranmer only in the Margent His memory is infinitely above your slyest detractions and withall when you are about such a piece of Criticism I pray tell me what doth some of them relate to Is Primacy the name of some men Just as if one should disgrace the See of Rome and say Some of them have been Atheists Magicians debauched c. Though I confess it were a great injury in this case to cite but one in the Margent unless in pity to the Reader yet you may sooner vindicate some of them from a Soloecism in Language when the See of Rome went before than any of them from those Soloecisms in manners which your own Authours have complained of But say you What if this singular-plural say no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie I have already granted it to have been a very venial mistake of memory in his Lordship of Occham for Durandus in whom those very words are which are in the Margent of his Lordships Book as appears in the Testimony already produced I acknowledge therefore that Occham in that place of his Dialogues doth speak
of the Catholick Church of all Ages comprehending the Apostles and Evangelists in it and in this sense he saith that place of S. Augustine is to be understood But what advantage this is to your cause I cannot imagine For what if the Catholick Church be taken in that comprehensive sense to include not only the Apostles but the Church successively from their times Doth it hence follow That it is not day though the Sun shines Or rather Doth it not follow That you are not so quick-sighted as you would seem to be And Whether his Lordship or you come nearer the meaning of Occham's words let any one judge For they who speak of the Church in that comprehensive sense do only suppose the Infallibility to have been in the Primitive Apostolical Church but the successive Church to be only the chanel of conveyance of that Testimony down to us and so they say no more than we do Thus Driedo expounds that place of S. Augustine who understands it of the Catholick Church which was from the beginning of the Christian Faith increasing according to the course of succession of Bishops to these times which Church comprehends in it the Colledge of Apostles Do you think that these men did believe a present Infallibility in the Church If so To what end are they so careful to carry it so high as the Apostles Whereas on your Principle we can have no Assurance concerning any thing that the Apostles did or said but only for the Infallibility of the present Church You must therefore understand the present Church exclusively of the Apostolical Church and therefore if S. Augustine be understood in their sense he is far enough from serving your purposes But say you It is evident that S. Augustine must speak of the Church in his time because he speaks of that Church which said to him Noli credere Manichaeo which was not true of the Apostolical Church But Why might not the Apostolical Church be a reason to S. Augustine not to believe Manichaeus because he found no footsteps of his Doctrine in the Records of that Church Again suppose he means the present Church Doth he mean the infallible Testimony of the present Church Might not the Testimony of the Church supposing it fallible be sufficient for what S. Augustine saith of it I doubt it not And you seem to have no great confidence in this Testimony your self when you add That though it be a point of Faith to believe that the Church is infallible in delivering Scripture to us yet it is not a point of Faith that her Infallibility is proved out of the cited place of S. Augustine But when you say it is sufficient that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self what Text do you mean S. Augustines or the Scriptures If S. Augustines you would do well to shew by what engines you force Infallibility out of his words if the Scriptures What becomes of our good Motives of Credibility When his Lordship objects That according to your Principles the Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitive you very learnedly distinguish That if he means the one must be as truly and really infallible quoad substantiam as the other you grant it But if he mean the one must be as highly and perfectly infallible as the other quoad modum you deny it Very good still It seems there are higher and lower degrees in Infallibility I pray tell us What that is which is more than infallible The present Church you say is infallible but not so highly and perfectly infallible therefore there must be degrees in Infallibility and since the lowest degree is infallible that which is highly infallible must be more than infallible Again What difference is there between the substance and the mode in Infallibility I had thought the substance of Infallibility had layn in the mode and I should rather think Infallibility it self to be a mode of Apprehension then talk of substances and modes in it But it may be you mean such kind of modes of Infallibility as absolute and hypothetical If you do so explain your self by them and that we may better understand your meaning shew us whether the Church be at all capable of absolute Infallibility if not What difference there is in degrees between the hypothetical Infallibility of the present and Primitive Church supposing both infallible in delivering their Testimony and no otherwise For you yet again add Of the Churches Testimony being infallible but not simply Divine but it is the infallible Testimony of a desperate cause to have but one bad shift and to use it so often Because you would be apt to say That upon his Lordships rejecting the Infallibility of Tradition he left no use at all of it He therefore tells you Notwithstanding that it is serviceable for very good ends that it induces Infidels to the reading and consideration of Scripture and that it instructs novices and doubters in the Faith which two ends you say fall short of the end of Tradition For say you it founds and establishes Believers even the greatest Doctors of the Church for which you cite again this same place of S. Augustine But did not his Lordship tell you that some of your own understood that very place either of Novices or Infidels For which besides the Testimony of some of your own party he adds this reason because the words immediately before are If thou find one qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospel What wouldst thou do to make him believe Ego vero non c. To which you very prudently say nothing Concerning Almayn's Opinion That we are first and more bound to believe the Church than the Scripture you would seem in terms to disavow it though very faintly it is not altogether true and hope to salve it by a distinction of priority of time and nature and you acknowledge That in priority of nature we are first bound to believe the Church and I suppose in priority of time too if we believe the Scripture for the Churches sake Yet you would not have it said That we are more bound to believe the Church than Scripture but it is not what you would have properly said but what follows from that antecedent which Jacobus Almayn puts It is certain saith he that we are bound to believe all things contained in the Sacred Canon upon that account alone because the Church believes them therefore we are first and more bound to believe the Church than the Scripture which is so evident a consequence that nothing but shame would make you deny it Touching Almayn's and Gerson's reading compelleret for commoveret his Lordship saith That Almayn falsifies the Text notoriously you say No but you had rather charitably think they both read it so in some Copies his Lordship produceth a very ancient M.S. for the common reading you none at all for
could not at so small a distance of time prove any corruption by any Copies which were extant For saith he if they should say They would not embrace their writings because they were written by such who were not careful of writing Truth their evasion would be more sâ—y and their errour more pardonable But thus it seems they did by the Acts of the Apostles utterly denying them to contain matter of Truth in them and the reason was very obvious for it because that Book gives so clear an account of the sending the Spirit upon the Apostles which the Manichees pretended was to be only accomplished in the person of Manichaeus And both before and after S. Austin mentions it as their common speech That before the time of Manichaeus there had been corrupters of the sacred Books who had mixed several things of their own with what was written by the Apostles And this they laid upon the Judaizing Christians because their great pique was against the Old Testament and probably some further reason might be from the Nazarene Gospel wherein many things were inserted by such as did Judaize The same thing St. Austin chargeth them with when he gives an account of their Heresie And this likewise appears by the management of the dispute between S. Austin and Faustus who was much the subtillest man among them Faustus acknowledged no more to be Gospel than what contained the Doctrine delivered by our Saviour and therefore denied the Genealogies to be any part of the Gospel and afterwards disputes against it both in S. Matthew and S. Luke And after this S. Austin notes it as their usual custom when they could not avoid a Testimony of Scripture to deny it Thus we see what kind of persons these were and what their pretences were which S. Austin disputes against They embraced so much of Scripture as pleased them and no more To this therefore S. Austin returns these very substantial Answers That if such proceedings might be admitted the Divine Authority of any Books could signifie nothing at all for the convincing of errours That it was much more reasonable either with the Pagans to deny the whole Bible or with the Jews to deny the New Testament than thus to acknowledge in general the Books Divine and to quarrel with such particular passages as pinched them most that if there were any suspicion of corruption they ought to produce more true Copies and more ancient Books than theirs or else be judged by the Original Languages with many other things to the same purpose To apply this now to the present place in dispute S. Austin in that Book against the Epistle of Manichaeus begins with the Preface to it which is made in imitation of the Apostles strain and begins thus Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi providentià Dei Patris c. To this S. Austin saith he believes no such thing as that Manichaeus was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and hopes they will not be angry with him for it for he had learned of them not to believe without reason And therefore desires them to prove it It may be saith he one of you may read me the Gospel and thence perswade me to believe it But what if you should meet with one who when you read the Gospel should say to you I do not believe it But I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church did not move me Whom therefore I obey in saying Believe the Gospel should I not obey in saying Believe not Manichaeus The Question we see is concerning the proving the Apostleship of Manichaeus which cannot in it self be proved but from some Records which must specifie such an Apostleship of his and to any one who should question the authenticalness of those Records it can only be proved by the testimony and consent of the Catholick Church without which S. Austin professeth he should never have believed the Gospel i. e. that these were the only true and undoubted Records which are left us of the Doctrine and actions of Christ. And he had very good reason to say so for otherwise the authority of those Books should be questioned every time any one such as Manichaeus should pretend himself an Apostle which Controversies there can be no other way of deciding but by the Testimony of the Church which hath received and embraced these Copies from the time of their first publishing And that this was S. Austin's meaning will appear by several parallel places in his disputes against the Manichees For in the same chapter speaking concerning the Acts of the Apostles Which Book saith he I must believe as well as the Gospel because the same Catholick Authority commends both i. e. The same Testimony of the Vniversal Church which delivers the Gospel as the authentick writings of the Evangelists doth likewise deliver the Acts of the Apostles for an authentick writing of one of the same Evangelists So that there can be no reason to believe the one and not the other So when he disputes against Faustus who denied the truth of some things in S. Paul's Epistles he bids him shew a truer Copy than that the Catholick Church received which Copy if he should produce he desires to know how he would prove it to be truer to one that should deny it What would you do saith he Whither would you turn your self What Original of your Book could you shew What Antiquity what Testimony of a succession of persons from the time of the writing of it But on the contrary What huge advantage the Catholicks have who by a constant succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Sees and by the consent of so many people have the Authority of the Church confirmed to them for the clearing the validity of its Testimony concerning the Records of Scripture And after laies down Rules for the trying of Copies where there appears any difference between them viz. by comparing them with the Copies of other Countries from whence the Doctrine originally came and if those Copies vary too the more Copies should be preferred before the fewer the ancienter before the latter If yet any uncertainty remains the original Language must be consulted This is in case a Question ariseth among the acknowledged authentical Copies of the Catholick Church in which case we see he never sends men to the infallible Testimony of the Church for certainty as to the Truth of the Copies but if the Question be Whether any writing it self be authentical or no then it stands to the greatest reason that the Testimony of the Catholick Church should be relyed on which by reason of its large spread and continual Succession from the very time of those writings cannot but give the most indubitable Testimony concerning the authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists And were it not for this Testimony S. Austin might justly say He should not believe the Gospel i. e. Suppose those writings which
to belief But the belief it self that Scripture is the Word of God rests upon Scripture when a man finds it to answer and exceed that which the Church gave in Testimony For this his Lordship cites Origen who though much nearer the prime Tradition than we are yet being to prove that the Scriptures were inspired from God he saith De hoc assignabimus ex ipsis Scripturis Divinis quae nos competentèr moverint c. We will mention those things out of the sacred Scriptures which have perswaded us c. To this you answer Though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves that they were inspired from God yet doth he never avow that this could be proved out of them unless they were received by the infallible Authority of the Church Which Answer is very unreasonable For 1. It might be justly expected that his Lordship had produced an express Testimony to his purpose out of Origen you should have brought some other as clear for his believing Scripture on the Churches Infallibility which you are so far from that you would put us to prove a Negative But if you will deal fairly and as you ought to do produce your Testimonies out of him and the rest of the Fathers concerning your Churches Infallibility Till then excuse us if we take their express words and leave you to gather Infallibility out of their latent meanings 2. What doth your Infallibility conduce to the believing Scriptures for themselves For you say The Scriptures cannot be proved by themselves to be Gods Word unless they were received by the infallible Authority of the Church it seems then if they be so received they may be proved by themselves to be Gods Word Are those proofs by themselves sufficient for Faith or no If not they are very slender proofs if they be What need your Churches Infallibility Unless you will suppose no man can discern those proofs without your Churches Testimony and then they are not proofs by themselves but from your Churches Infallibility which may serve for one accession more to the heap of your Contradictions His Lordship asserting the last resolution of Faith to be into simply Divine Authority cites that speech of Henr. à Gandavo That in the Primitive Church when the Apostles themselves spake they did believe principally for the sake of God and not the Apostles from whence he inferrs If where the Apostles themselves spake the last resolution of Faith was into God and not into themselves on their own account much more shall it now be into God and not the present Church and into the writings of the Apostles than into the words of their successors made up into Tradition All that you answer is That this argument must be solved by the Bishop as well as you because he hath granted the authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as you Was there ever a more senseless Answer Doth Gandavo deny the Apostles authority to have been Divine Nay Doth he not imply it when he saith Men did not believe for the Apostles sakes but for Gods who spake by them As S. Paul said You received our word not as the word of men but as it is indeed the Word of God How the Bishop should be concerned to answer this is beyond my skill to imagine If Origen speaks to such as believed the Scriptures to be the Word of God so doth the Bishop too viz. on the account of Tradition and Education If Origen endeavoured by those proofs to confirm and settle their Faith that is all the Bishop aims at that a Faith taken up on the Churches Tradition may be settled and confirmed by the internal arguments of Scripture But how you should from this discourse assert That the Authority of the Church must be infallible in delivering the Scripture is again beyond my reach neither can I possibly think what should bear the face of Premises to such a Conclusion Unless it be if Origen assert That the Scriptures may be believed for themselves if Gandavo saith That the resolution of Faith must be into God himself then the Churches Authority must be infallible but it appears already that the premises are true and what then remains but therefore c. which may indeed be listed among your rare argumentations for Infallibility 2. That Scripture cannot manifest it self to be an infallible Light the proof of which is the design of your following discourse Wherein you first quarrel with the Bishop for his arguing from the Scriptures being a Light for thence you say it will only follow that the Scripture manifests it self to be a Light which you grant but that it should manifest it self to be an infallible Light you deny for say you unless he could shew that there are no other Lights save the Word of God and such as are infallible he can never make good his consequence For in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle you read many Lights and those manifest themselves to be Lights but they do not therefore manifest themselves to be infallible Lights The substance of your argument lyes in this The Scripture discovers the Being of God so doth the Talmud and Alcoran as well as it the Scripture delivers abundance of moral instructions but these may be found in multitudes of other Books both of Christians and Jews and Heathens and as we do not thence inferr that these Books are infallible so neither can we that the Scriptures are This is the utmost of sense or reason which I can extract out of your discourse which reduced into Form will come to this If the Scriptures contain nothing in them but what may be found in other Books that are not infallible then the Scriptures cannot shew themselves to be infallible but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent I could wish you would have taken a little more pains in proving that which must be your assumption viz. That Scripture contains nothing in it but what may be seen in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle the Talmud Alcoran and other Books of Jews and Heathens These are rare things to assert among Christians without offering at any more proof of them than you do which lyes in this Syllogism If Scripture contain some things which may be seen in these Books then it contains nothing but what may be seen in these Books but the Scripture contains some things which may be seen in other Books viz. the existence of God and moral instructions therefore it contains nothing but what is in them And Do you really think that you have now proved that there is nothing in Scripture that can shew it self to be infallible because some things are common to other writings Would you not take it very ill that any should say that you had no more brains than a Horse or a creature of a like nature because they have sense and motion as well as you Yet this is the very same argument whereby you would prove that the Scriptures cannot shew
not of falsifying Hookers words yet of perverting his meaning let the Impartial Reader judge CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of St. Basils Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less lyable to corruption than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated THE main design of this Chapter being to prove the Infallibility of the Church from the Testimonies of Scripture before I come to a particular discussion of the matters contained in it I shall make some general Observations on the scope and design of it which may give more light to the particulars to be handled in it 1. That the Infallibility you challenge to the Church is such as must suppose a promise extant of it in Scripture Which is evident from the words of A. C. which you own to his Lordship That if he would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men in which sense the Authority of it is humane and fallible but as the Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense he might easily find it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Whence I inferr that in order to the Churches Testimony being an Infallible Motive to Faith it must be believed that this company of men which make the Church are assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit Now I demand Supposing there were no Scripture extant the belief of which you said before in defence of Bellarmine was not necessary to salvation by what means could you prove such an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholick Church in order to the perswading an Infidel to believe Could you to one that neither believes Christ nor the Holy Ghost prove evidently that your Church had an assistance of both these You tell him that he cannot believe that there is a Christ or a Holy Ghost unless he believes first your Church to be Infallible and yet he cannot believe your Church to be Infallible unless he believes there are such things as Christ and the Holy Ghost for that Infallibility by your own confession doth suppose the peculiar assistance of both these And can any one believe their assistance before he believes they are If you say as you do By the motives of credibility you will prove your Church Infallible But setting aside the absurdity of that which I have fully discovered already Is it possible for you to prove your Church Infallible unless antecedently to the belief of your Churches Infallibility You can prove to an Infidel the truth of these things 1. That the names of Christ and the Holy Ghost are no Chimerical Fancies and Ideas but that they do import something real otherwise an Infidel would speedily tell you these names imported nothing but some kind of Magical spells which could keep men from errour as long as they carried them about with them That as well might Mahomet or any other Impostor pretend an infallible assistance from some Tutelar Angels with hard Arabick names as you of Christ and the Holy Ghost unless you can make it appear to him that really there are such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost and when you have proved it to him and he be upon your proof inclinable to believe it you are bound to tell him by your Doctrine that for all these proofs he can only fancy there are such Beings but he cannot really believe them unless he first believes your Church infallible And when he tells you He cannot according to your own Doctrine believe that Infallibility unless he believes the other first Would he not cry out upon you as either lamentable Fools that did not understand what you said or egregious Impostors that play fast and loose with him bidding him believe first one thing and then another till at last he may justly tell you that in this manner he cannot be perswaded to believe any thing at all 2. Supposing he should get through this and believe that there were such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost he may justly ask you 1. Whether they be nothing else but such a kind of Intellectus Agens as the Arabick Philosophers imagined some kind of Being which did assist the understanding in conception You answer him No but they are real distinct personalities of the same nature and essence with God himself then he asks 2. Whence doth this appear for these being such grand difficulties you had need of some very clear evidence of them If you send him to Scripture he asks you To what end for the belief of that must suppose the Truth of the thing in Question that your Church is infallible in delivery of this Scripture for Divine Revelation But he further demands 3. Whence comes that Church which you call Infallible to have this Assistance of both these Do they assist all kind of men to make them infallible You answer No. But Do they assist though not all men separately yet all societies of men conjunctly You answer No. Do they assist all men only in Religious actions of what Religion soever they are of Still you answer No. Do they assist then all men of the Christian Religion in their societies No. Do they assist all those among the Christians who say they have this Assistance No. Do they thus assist all Churches to keep them from errour No. Whom is it then that they do thus infallibly assist You answer The Church But what Church do you mean The Catholick Church But which is this Catholick Church for I hear there are as great Controversies about that as any thing You must answer confidently That Church which is in the Roman Communion is the true Catholick Church Have then all in that Communion this Infallible Assistance No. Have all the Bishops in this Communion it No. Have all these Bishops this Assistance when they meet together Yes say you undoubtedly if the Pope be their Head and confirm their Acts. Then it should seem to me that this Infallible Assistance is in the Pope and he it is whom you call the Catholick Church But surely he is a very big man then is he not But say you These are Controversies which are not necessary for you to know it sufficeth
that the Catholick Church is the subject of Infallibility But I had thought nothing could have been more necessary than to have known this But I proceed then How comes this Catholick Church to have this Infallible Assistance Cannot I suppose that Christ and the Holy Spirit may exist without giving this Assistance cannot I suppose that Christian Religion may be in the world without such an Infallibility Is this Assistance therefore a necessary or a free Act A free Act. If a free Act then for all you know Your Catholick Church may not be so assisted No you reply you are sure it is so assisted But Whence can you be sure of an arbitrary thing unless the Authours of this Assistance have engaged themselves by Promise to give your Catholick Church that Infallible Assistance Yes that they have you reply and then produce Luk. 10.16 Mat. 28.20 Joh. 14.16 But although our Infidel might ask some untoward Questions still as How you are sure these are Divine Promises when the knowledge that they are Divine must suppose the thing to be true which you would prove out of them viz. that your Church is infallible Supposing them Divine how are you sure That and no other is the meaning of them when from such places you prove that your Church is the only Infallible Interpreter of Scripture But I let pass these and other Questions and satisfie my self with this That it is impossible for you to prove such an Infallible Assistance of Christ and the Holy Spirit unless you produce some express Promise for it 2. This being impossible it necessarily follows That the only Motives of Credibility which can prove your Church Infallible must be such as do antecedently prove these Promises to be Divine This is so plain and evident a Consectary from the former that it were an affront upon humane understanding to go about to prove it For if the Infallibility doth depend upon the Promise nothing can prove that Infallibility but what doth prove that Promise to be True and Divine True or else not to be believed Divine or else not to be relyed on for such an Assistance none else being able to make a promise of it but the Authour of it As therefore my right to an estate as given by Will depends wholly upon the Truth and Validity of that Will which I must first prove before I can challenge any right to it So your pretence of Infallibility must solely depend upon the Promises which you challenge it by By which it appears that your attempting to prove the Infallibility of your Church by Motives of Credibility antecedent to and independent on the Scripture is vain ridiculous and destructive to that very Infallibility which you pretend to Which being by a free Assistance of Christ and his Spirit must wholly depend on the proof of the Promise made of it For if you prove no Promise all your Motives of Credibility prove nothing at all as I have at large demonstrated before and shall not follow you in needless repetitions 3. No right to any priviledge can be challenged by virtue of a free Promise made to particular persons unless it be evident that the intention of the Promiser was that it should equally extend to them and others For the Promise being free and the Priviledge such as carries no necessity at all along with it in order to the great ends of Christian Religion it is intolerable Arrogance and Presumption to challenge it without manifest evidence that the design of it was for them as well as the persons to whom it was made Indeed in such Promises which are built on common and general grounds containing things agreeable to all Christians it is but reasonable to inferr the universal extent of that Promise to all such as are in the like condition Hence the Apostle inferrs from the particular Promise made to Joshua I will never leave thee nor forsake thee the effect of it upon all believers Although had not the Apostle done it before us it may seem questionable on what ground we could have done it unless from the general reason of of it and the unbounded nature of Divine Goodness in things necessary for the Good of his People But in things arbitrary and such as contain special Priviledge in them to challenge a right to a Promise of the same Priviledge without equal evidence of the descent of it as the first Grant is great presumption and a challenge of the Promisor for partiality if he doth not make it good Because the pretence of the right of the Priviledge goes upon this ground that it is as much due to the Successor as to the Original Grantee 4. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to challenge a right to a Priviledge by virtue of such a Promise which was granted upon quite different considerations from the grounds on which that right is challenged Thus I shall after make it evident that the Promise of an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost had a peculiar respect to the Apostles present employment and the first state of the Church that it was not made upon reasons common to all ages viz. for the Government of the Church deciding Controversies Foundation of Faith all which Ends may be sufficiently attained without them But above all it seems very unreasonable that a Promise made to persons in one office must be applied in the same manner to persons in a quite different office that a Promise made to each of them separate must be equally applied to others only as in Council that a Promise made implying Divine Assistance must be equally applied to such who dare not say that Assistance is Divine but infallible and after a sort Divine that a Promise made of immediate Divine Revelation and enabling the persons who enjoyed the Priviledge of it to work miracles to attest their Testimony to be infallible should be equally applied to such as dare not challenge a Divine Revelation nor ever did work a miracle to attest such an Infallible Assistance Yet all this is done by you in your endeavour of fetching the Infallibility of your Church out of those Promises of the assistance of Christ and his Spirit which were made to the Apostles These general Considerations do sufficiently enervate the force of your whole Chapter which yet I come particularly to consider His Lordship tells A. C. That in the second sense of Church-Tradition he cannot find that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority till A. C. can prove that this company of men the Roman Prelates and Clergy he means are so fully so clearly so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility much less to a Divine Infallibilility in this or any other Principle which they teach In answer to this you tell us That the Bishop declines the Question by withdrawing his Reader from the thesis to the hypothesis from the Church to the Church of Rome But
at Rome from St. Peter If then Traditions be so uncapable of falsification and corruption how came they to be so much to seek as to what the Apostolical Tradition was in the very next age succeeding the Apostles What Could not those who lived in St. Johns and St. Peters time know what they did Could they be deceived themselves or had they an intent to deceive their posterity If some of them did falsifie Tradition so soon we see what little certainty there is in the deriving a Tradition from the Apostles if neither falsified then it should seem there was no universal practise of the Apostles concerning it but they looked on it as a matter of indifferency and some might practise one way and some another If so then we are yet further to seek for an Vniversal Tradition of the Apostles binding succeeding Ages For can you possibly think the Apostles did intend to bind unalterably succeeding Ages in such things which they used a Liberty in themselves If then it be granted that in matters of an indifferent nature the Apostles might practise severally as they saw occasion How then can we be certain of the Apostles universal practise in matters of an indifferent nature If we cannot so we can have no evidence of an Vniversal Tradition of the Apostles but in some things which they judged necessary But whence shall we have this unquestionable evidence first that they did such things and secondly that they did them with an apprehension of the necessity of them and with an intention to oblige posterity by their actions By what rule or measure must we judge of this necessity By their Vniversal practise but that brings us into a plain Circle for we must judge of the necessity of it by their Vniversal practise and we must prove that Vniversal practise by the necessity of the thing For if the thing were not judged necessary the Apostles might differ in their practise from one another Whence then shall we prove any practise necessary unless built on some unalâ—erable ground of reason and then it is not formally an Apostolical Tradition but the use of that common reason and prudence in matters of a religious nature or else by some positive Law and Institution of theirs and this supposing it unwritten must be evidenced from something distinct from their practise or else you must assert that whatever the Apostles did they made an unalterable Law for or lastly you must quit all Vnwritten Traditions as Vniversal and must first inferr the necessity and then the Vniversality of their practise from some record extant in Scripture and then you can be no further certain of any Vniversal practise of the Apostles then you are of the Scriptures by which it will certainly appear that the Scripture is farr more evident and credible then any Vniversal unwritten Tradition A clear and evident Instance of the uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions in things not defined in Scripture is one of those you instance in your self viz. that of Rebaptizing Hereticks which came to be so great a Controversie so soon after the Apostolical Age. For though this Controversie rose to its height in St. Cyprians time which was about A. D. 250. yet it was begun some competent time before that For St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Jubaianus where he gives an account of the General Council of the Provinces of Africa and Numidia consisting of seventy one Bishops endeavours to remove all suspicion of Novelty from their opinion For saith he it is no new or sudden thing among us to judge that those ought to be baptized who come to the Church from Hereticks for now many years are past and a long time since under Agrippinus the Bishops meeting together did determine it in Council and thousands of Hereticks have voluntarily submitted to it How far off could that be from the Apostolical times which was done so long before Cyprians And although S. Augustine as it was his interest so to do would make this to have been but a few years yet we have greater evidence both of the greater antiquity and larger spread of this Opinion Whereby we may see how little the judgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis is to relyed on as to Traditions who gives Agrippinus such hard words for being the first who against Scripture the Rule of the Vniversal Church the judgement of all his Fellow-Priests the custom of his Ancestors did assert the rebaptization of Hereticks How little Truth there is in what Vincentius here saies and consequently how little certainty in his way of finding out Traditions will appear from the words of Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epistle to Philemon and Dionysius concerning this subject For therein he asserts That long before that custom obtained in Africa the same was practised and decreed in the most famous Churches both at Iconium Synada and other places On which account this great person professeth that he durst not condemn their Opinion who held so Whether this Synod at Iconium were the same with that mentioned by Firmilian is not so certain but if it were that can be no argument against the Antiquity of it For although Firmilian say That we long ago meeting in Iconium from Galatia Cilicia and the neighbour Regions have confirmed the same viz. that Hereticks should be baptized yet as the learned Valesius observes the pronoune We is not to be understood of Firmilian's person but of his predecessors and therefore checks both Baronius and Binius for placing that Synod A. D. 258. We see therefore this Opinion was so largely spread that not only the Churches in Africa Numidia and Mauritania favoured it but almost all the Eastern Christians For Dionysius in an Epistle to Xystus who succeeded Stephanus at Rome wherein he pleads for Moderation as to this Controversie and desires him more throughly to consider the weight of the business and not proceed so rashly as Stephanus had done he tells him in conclusion that he writ not this of himself but at the request of the several Bishops of Antioch Caesarea Aelia Tyre Laodicea Tarsus c. Nay and as it appears by Firmilians Epistle they made no question but this custom of theirs descended from Christ and his Apostles For telling Cyprian that in such places where the other custom had been used they did well to oppose truth to custom But we saith he joyn truth and custom together and to the custom of the Romans we oppose the custom of truth holding that from the beginning which was delivered by Christ and his Apostles And therefore adds Neither do we remember when this practice began seeing it was alwaies observed among us And thence charges the Church of Rome in that Epistle with violating that and several other Traditions of the Apostles But Vincentius Lyrinensis still takes Stephens part and all that he hath to say is That that is the property of Christian modesty and gravity not to deliver
prove that any of the Fathers have denyed this place to extend to infallibility is a very unreasonable thing which you put the Bishop and his party upon because they only deliver what they conceive the meaning of places to be without reflections on any Heresies but such as were most prevalent in their own times And if your Church had in their time challenged Infallibility from such places you might have heard of their Negative which at present you put us unreasonably to prove Your answer to John 14.16 only is that it must be understood in some absolute sense and doth not his Lordship say so too viz. in regard of Consolation and Grace But if you say there can be no other absolute sense but an infallible assistance you would do well to prove it and not barely to suppose it and so likewise what follows as to John 16.13 which his Lordship justly restrains to the Apostles alone you tell us That you contend that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart it is also to be understood in relation to their Successors assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church That you contend we grant but we say it is without sense or reason And therefore come to examine what you produce for it Your first reason Because the Representative of the Church in General Council and the Bishop of Rome as Pastor of the whole Church have equal power to oblige the Church to believe what they deliver as each Apostle had is utterly denied and must be more then barely supposed as it is here Your second which you call the Fundamental reason of this Exposition is in short That the preservation of the Church requires infallibility in future ages of the Church as well as in the Apostles times which is again utterly denied And the next time you write I pray prove your reasons well and think not your confident producing things you know are denied by us will serve for reasons against us Before you can sufficiently prove that any rite of the Church not mentioned in Scripture had the Holy Ghost for its Authour especially when contrary to a custome expressed in Scripture you must do more then produce a single testimony of St. Augustine for it who was apt to suppose the Holy Ghost might be pleased with such things which the Church though not therein infallible might consent in the practise of Which certainly is far from supposing the Church to have infallible assistance with it in delivering Doctrines of Faith because some things might be used in the Church which the Holy Ghost might be supposed not displeased with which is the utmost can be made of your citation out of St. Austin It seems you were aware of that disparity between the Apostles times and ours as to the pretence of Infallibility because the Apostles were first to deliver this Doctrine to the world and after to consign it by writing to future ages from whence it were easie to inferr there could not be that necessity of a Continual Infallible Assistance in the Church because the Doctrine infallibly delivered by them is preserved in the Church by the Infallible Records of it But to this your answer is considerable What wise man say you would go about to raise a stately building for many ages and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for a few years Our Saviour the wisest of Architects is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable building of the Church upon sand which must infallibly have happened had he not intended to afford his continual assistance also to the succeeding Pastors of the Church to lead them when assembled in a General Council into all those truths wherein he first setled the Apostles Whether you call this arguing for the Churches infallibility or libelling against our blessed Saviour if he hath not done what you would have him is hard to determine I am sure it is arguing ab absurdo with a witness for if he hath not done just as you fancy he should have done he must venture to be accounted an Ignoramus and Impostor before and here to do that which no wise man would have done viz. build a stately Fabrick the Church upon the Sands So it seems you account the Prophets and the Apostles for if the Apostle may be credited we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone And this is it you must mean by being built on the sand for herein it is plain the Church is built on these viz. that Infallible doctrine which was delivered by them but here is not one word or the least intimation of an inherent infallibility in the Church which was to be its foundation so as to secure it from all errour And this you say must infallibly happen if there be not the same infallibility in General Councils which was in the Apostles for that I suppose must be the meaning of your last words if they be to the purpose But how groundless your pretence of the Infallibility of General Councils is will appear when we come to that subject but have you so little of common sense and reason with you as to suppose the Church presently notwithstanding the Divine Revelation of the Doctrine of Christianity in Scripture to be built on Sand if General Councils be not infallible Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the Doctrine of Christianity supposing there never had been any General Council in the world What was the Church built on before the Nicene Council only on Sand surely the Wind and Billows of persecutions would then have easily overturned it What if through civil combustions in the Empire there could never have been any Assembly's of the Bishops afterwards must the Church needs have fallen to the ground for want of General Councils But why I pray must the Infallibility of the Apostles be compared only to a foundation that can last but for few years Do you suppose that these Apostles never did commit their Doctrine infallibly to writing or that these writings of theirs did last but for a few years without one of these it is hard to find out your meaning by those expressions If you deny either of them I shall readily prove them but if you affirm both these as if you are heartily a Christian you must do with what face can you say that Christ in making the Apostles infallible did lay a Foundation but for a few years But thanks be to God although perverse and unreasonable men are alwaies quarrelling with the methods of Divine wisdom and goodness this Foundation of the Lord standeth sure still and as long as the Infallible Doctrine of the Gospel continues the Church will be built on a stedfast and unmoveable Rock which will prove a much surer Foundation than the seven Hills of Infallibility But this is your grand and fundamental
that you deny not the truth of what is therein contained for otherwise the want of Authority in themselves the ambiguity of them the impossibility of knowing the sense of them without Tradition are the very same arguments which with the greatest pomp and ostentation are produced by you against the Scriptures being the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies Which we have no more cause to wonder at than Irenaeus had in the Valentinians because from them we produce our greatest arguments against your fond opinions Now when the Valentinians pretended their great rule was on oral Tradition which was conveyed from the Apostles down to them to this Irenaeus opposeth the constant Tradition of the Apostolical Churches which in a continued succession was preserved from the Apostles times which was the same every where among all the Churches which every one who desired it might easily be satisfied about because they could number them who by the Apostles were appointed Bishops in Churches and their successors unto our own times who taught no such thing nor ever knew any such thing as they madly fancy to themselves We see then his appeal to Tradition was only in a matter of fact Whether ever any such thing as their opinion which was not contained in Scripture was delivered to them by the Apostles or no i. e. Whether the Apostles left any oral Traditions in the Churches which should be the rule to interpret Scriptures by or no And the whole design of Irenaeus is to prove the contrary by an appeal to all the Apostolical Churches and particularly by appealing to the Roman Church because of its due fame and celebrity in that Age wherein Irenaeus lived So that Irenaeus appealed to the then Roman Church even when he speaks highest in the honour of it for somewhat which is fundamentally contrary to the pretensions of the now Roman Church He then appealed to it for an evidence against such oral Traditions which were pretended to be left by the Apostles as a rule to understand Scripture by and were it not for this same pretence now what will become of the Authority of the present Roman Church After he hath thus manifested by recourse to the Apostolical Churches that there was no such Tradition left among them it was very reasonable to inferr that there was none such at all for they could not imagine if the Apostles had designed any such Tradition but they would have communicated it to those famous Churches which were planted by them and it was absurd to suppose that those Churches who could so easily derive their succession from the Apostles should in so short a time have lost the memory of so rich a treasure deposited with them as that was pretended to be from whence he sufficiently refutes that unreasonable imagination of the Valentinians Which having done he proceeds to settle those firm grounds on which the Christians believed in one God the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ which he doth by removing the only Objection which the Adversaries had against them For when the Christians declared the main reason into which they resolved their Faith as to these principles was Because no other God or Christ were revealed in Scripture but them whom they believed the Valentinians answered this could not be a sufficient foundation for their Faith on this account because many things were delivered in Scripture not according to the truth of the things but the judgment and opinion of the persons they were spoken to This therefore being such a pretence as would destroy any firm resolution of Faith into Scripture and must necessarily place it in Tradition Irenaeus concerns himself much to demonstrate the contrary by an ostension as he calls it that Christ and the Apostles did all along speak according to truth and not according to the opinion of their auditours which is the entire subject of the fifth Chapter of his third Book Which he proves first of Christ because he was Truth it self and it would be very contrary to his nature to speak of things otherwise then they were when the very design of his coming was to direct men in the way of Truth The Apostles were persons who professed to declare truth to the world and as light cannot communicate with darkness so neither could truth be blended with so much falshood as that opinion supposeth in them And therefore neither our Lord nor his Apostles could be supposed to mean any other God or Christ then whom they declared For this saith he were rather to increase their ignorance and confirm them in it then to cure them of it and therefore that Law was true which pronounced a curse on every one who led a blind man out of his way And the Apostles being sent for the recovery of the lost sight of the blind cannot be supposed to speak to men according to their present opinion but according to the manifestation of truth For what Physitian intending to cure a Patient will do according to his Patients desire and not rather what will be best for him From whence he concludes Since the design of Christ and his Apostles was not to flatter but to cure mens souls it follows that they did not speak to them according to their former opinion but according to truth without all hypocrisie and dissimulation From whence it follows that if Christ and his Apostles did speak according to truth there is then need of no Oral Tradition for our understanding Scripture and consequently the resolution of our Faith as to God and Christ and proportionably as to other objects to be believed is not into any Tradition pretending to be derived from the Apostles but into the Scriptures themselves which by this discourse evidently appears to have been the judgement of Irenaeus The next which follows is Clemens of Alexandria who flourished A. D. 196. whom St. Hierome accounted the most learned of all the writers of the Church and therefore cannot be supposed ignorant in so necessary a part of the Christian Doctrine as the Resolution of Faith is And if his judgement may be taken the Scriptures are the only certain Foundation of Faith for in his Admonition to the Gentiles after he hath with a great deal of excellent learning derided the Heathen Superstitions when he comes to give an account of the Christians Faith he begins it with this pregnant Testimony to our purpose For saith he the Sacred Oracles affording us the most manifest grounds of Divine worship are the Foundation of Truth And so goes on in a high commendation of the Scripture as the most compendious directions for happiness the best Institutions for government of life the most free from all vain ornaments that they raise mens souls up out of wickedness yielding the most excellent remedies disswading from the greatest deceit and most clearly incouraging to a foreseen happiness with more of the same nature And when after he perswades men with so much Rhetorick and
general Foundations of Christian Society But if any Society shall pretend a necessity of communion with her because it is impossible this should be done by her this priviledge must in reason be as evident as the common grounds of Christianity are nay much more evident because the belief of Christianity it self doth upon this pretence depend on the knowledge of such Infallibility and the indispensable obligation to communion depends upon it 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they believe and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the great difficulty lyes in knowing when such things are required and who must be the judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable then that the Society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question only were in matters of peace and conveniency and order the judgement of the Society ought to over-rule the judgements of particular persons but in such cases where great Bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism Which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation 5. By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not communicating with a Church imposing such conditions by how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger by so much the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from these abuses and the setling the bonds of Christian communion without them And on those grounds viz. the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion it was necessary not to communicate with her and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by the assistance of the Supream power it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those abuses but to settle the Church upon its proper and true foundations So that the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion is the reason why we do not communicate with her and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self is the reason of our joyning together in the service of God upon the principles of our Reformation On these grounds I doubt not but to make it appear how free the Church of England is from all imputation of Schism These things being thus in general premised we come to consider what those principles are on which you can found so high a charge as that of Schism on the Protestant Churches And having throughly considered your way of management of it I find all that you have to say may be resolved into one of these three grounds 1. That the Roman Church is the true and only Catholick Church 2. That our Churches could have no power or cause to divide in their Communion from her 3. That the Authority of the Roman Church is so great that upon no pretence soever could it be lawful to withdraw from Communion with her I confess if you can make good any one of these three you do something to the purpose but how little ground you have to charge us with Schism from any of these Principles will be the design of this Part at large to manifest I begin then with the first which is the pretence of your Churches being the Catholick Church and here we again enter the lists to see how fairly you deal with your Adversary Mr. Fisher saith That from the Controversie of the resolution of Faith the Lady callâ—d them and desiring to hear whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church the Bishop saith he granted that it was To which his Lordship answers after a just complaint of the abuse of disputations by mens resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth that the question was neither asked in that form nor so answered And that there is a great deal of difference especially as Romanists handle the question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church For The Church may import the only true Church and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholick And this saith he I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more then that it is a member of the whole And this I never did saith he nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right For Truth only imports the being right perfection in conditions thus a Thief is a true man though not an upright man So a corrupt Church may be true as a Church is a company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are baptized into his Name but it is not therefore a right Church either in doctrine or manners And this he saith is acknowledged by very learned Protestants before him This is the substance of his Lordships answer to which we must consider what you reply That about the terms of the Ladie 's question you grant to be a verbal Controversie and that whatever her words were she was to be understood to demand this alone viz. Whether the Roman were not the True Visible Infallible Church out of which none can be saved for herein you say she had from the beginning of the Controversie desired satisfaction And in this subject the Roman Church could not be any Church at all unless it were The Church and a Right Church The reason is because St. Peters successour being the Bishop of Rome and Head of the whole Church as you tell us you will prove anon that must needs be the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be any Church at all And because the Church can be but one if it be a true Church it must be the right Church But all this amounts only to a confident assertion of that which wants evident proof which is that the notion of a Church relates to one as appointed the Head of the whole Church without which it would be no Church at all Which being a thing so hard to be understood and therefore much harder to be proved we must be content to wait your leasure till you shall think fit
to prove it When you therefore tell us afterwards That the Vniversal Church supposes the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ and that those Dioceses which agree in this acknowledgement as well as in the same Faith and communion of the same Sacraments make up one and the same Vniversal Church When you further add That the Roman Church is therefore stiled the Church because it is the seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastor of the Church Vniversal I can only say to all these confident affirmations that if you had sat in the chair your self you could not have said more or proved less It is not therefore in what sense words may be taken by you for who questions but you may abuse words but in what sense they ought to be taken You may call the Bishop of Rome the Vicar of Christ but before you can expect our submission to him you must prove that he is so you may call the Roman Church The Church if you please among your selves but if by that you would perswade us there can be no Church but that you would do an office of kindness to offer a little at some small proof of it i. e. as much as the cause and your abilities will afford And what if the Ancients by a true Church did mean an Orthodox Church I know but one of these things will follow from it either that they took a true Church for one morally and not metaphysically true or that if your Church be not an Orthodox Church it can be none at all From hence you proceed to quarrel with his Lordship for saying That may be a true Church which is not a right Church which is all the thanks he hath for his kindness to you for say you how can you call that a true Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven but to eternal perdition Which is as much as to ask How you can call that man a true man that hath a Leprosie upon him But if you had considered what his Lordship had said you would never have made such an objection For his Lordship doth not speak of the soundness of a Church but of the metaphysical entity of it For he saith It is true in that sense as ens and verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of substance But say you how can that be a true Church which teacheth the way to eternal perdition by some false Doctrine in matter of Faith because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not or denies that to be his Word which is to err in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition An excellent discourse to prove that no man can be saved that is not Infallible for if he be not Infallible he may either teach something to be Gods Word which is not or deny that to be his Word that is either of which being a mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God it is impossible any man that is not Infallible should be saved either then we must put off that humanity which exposes us to errour or pronounce it impossible for any men to be saved or else assert that there may be errour where Gods veracity is not denyed And if so then not only men severally but a Society of men may propound that for truth which is not and yet not mortally offend against Gods veracity supposing that Society of men doth believe though falsly that this is therefore true because revealed by God In which case that Church may be a true Church in one sense though an erroneous Church in another true as there is a possibility of salvation in it erroneous as delivering that for truth which is not so But here is a great deal of difference between a Church acknowledging her self fallible and that which doth not For suppose a Church propose something erroneous to be believed if she doth not arrogate Infallibility to her self in that proposal but requires men to search and examine her doctrine by the Word of God the danger is nothing so great to the persons in her communion but when a Church pretends to be Infallible and teacheth errours that Church requiring those errours to be believed upon her Authority without particular examination of the Doctrines proposed is chargeable with a higher offence against the honour and veracity of God and doth as much as in her lies in your expression teach men the way to eternal perdition And of all sorts of blind guides it is most dangerous following such who pretend to be Infallible in their blindness and it is a great miracle if such do not fall past recovery The more therefore you aggravate the danger of errour the worse still you make the condition of your Church where men are bound to believe the Church Infallible when she proposeth the most dangerous errours When you say The whole Church is not lyable to these inconveniencies of seducing or being seduced if you mean as you speak of that which is truly the whole Church of Christ you are to seek for an Adversary in it if you mean the Roman Church you are either seduced or endeavour to seduce in saying so when neither that is or can be the whole Church neither is it free from believing or proposing errours as will appear afterwards You quarrel with his Lordship again for his Similitude of a man that may be termed a man and not be honest and say it comes not home to the case But we must see how well you have fitted it Instead of a man you would have a Saint put and then you say the Parallel would have held much better But certainly then you mean only such Saints as Rome takes upon her to Canonize for the Question was of one that might be a man and not be honest Will you say the same of your Saint too If instead of Saint you had put his Holiness in there are some in the world would not have quarrelled with you for it But you are an excellent man at paralleling cases His Lordship was speaking of the Metaphysical Truth of a Church being consistent with moral corruptions for which he instanced in a thiefs being truly a man though not an honest man now you to mend the matter make choice of moral Integrity being consistent with Metaphysical Truth which is of a Saint and a man And Doth not this now come home to our case That which follows to shew the incongruity of his Lordships Similitude would much more shew your wit if it were capable of tolerable sense For you say the word Church in our present debate implies not a simple or uncompounded term as that of man but is a compound of substance and accidents together We had
Church of Rome First the Church was called Catholick from the Vniversal spread of its Doctrine and the agreement of all particular Churches in it So Irenaeus derives the Vnity of the Church spread abroad over the world from the Vnity of that Faith which was Universally received and from thence saith That the Church is but as one house and having one soul and heart and speaks as with one mouth Nothing can be more plain then that Irenaeus makes the consent in Doctrine to be the ground of Vnity in the Catholick Church And that he did not suppose this consent to arise from the Church of Rome appears from what he saith before That this Faith was received in the Church so universally spread from the Apostles and their Disciples Which must be understood of that universal diffusion of it by the first Preachers of it in the world the continuance of which Doctrine was the ground of the Vnity in the Catholick Church To the same purpose Tertullian gives an account of the Churches Vnity by the adhering to that Doctrine which was first preached by the Apostles who having first delivered it in Judea and planted Churches there went abroad and declared the same to other Nations and setled Churches in Cities from whence other Churches have the same Doctrine propagated to them which are therefore call'd Apostolical Churches as the off-spring of those which were founded by them Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one prime Apostolical Church from whence all others come And thus they are all prime and Apostolical in regard of their Vnity as long as there is that communication of that title of Brotherhood and common mark of peace and hospitality Wherein we see that which made Churches in Tertullians sense Apostolical is the embracing and continuing in that Doctrine which was first delivered by the Apostles and thus Churches though remote from the Apostolical times may have the denomination of Apostolical from their consent in Doctrine with those which were founded by them But here is not the least intimation of any centre of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity into the Catholick Church for this unity ariseth from that Doctrine which was declared in and propagated by all the Apostolical Churches So likewise Theodoret speaks That there is one Church throughout the world and therefore we pray for the Holy One Catholick and Apostolick Church extended from one end of the earth to the other Which saith he is divided by Cities and Towns and Villages so that there are infinite and innumerable Churches in the Islands and Continent but all these are reduced to one being united in the agreement of the same true doctrine So Constantine in his Epistle to the Bishops who were absent from the Council of Nice saith That our Saviour would have one Catholick Church whose members though dispersed in many several places yet are nourished by the same Spirit which is the Will of God In all which and many other places which might be produced to the same purpose we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church from that which you mention as the cause of it we find the Church call'd Catholick in regard of its large extent in the world as is apparent besides these testimonies from the Controversies between St. Austin and the Donatists and the unity of that Catholick Church not placed in the least respect to the Church of Rome but in the consent in the Apostolical Doctrine in all those Churches which concurred as members to make up this Catholick Church So that the formal reason of any particular Churches having the denomination of Catholick must come not from any communion with the Church of Rome but from the owning the Catholick and Apostolick Faith and joyning in communion with those Churches which did own and acknowledge it And therefore we find that the symbol of communion in the ancient communicatory letters never lay in the acknowledgement of Christs Vicar on earth or communion with the Church of Rome but in such things which were common to all Apostolical Churches And therefore the Church of Rome could not be then accounted the center of Ecclesiastical communion as you speak after Cardinal Perron from whom you have Verbatim transcribed all your former discourse This being therefore the utmost which that great witt of your Church was able to plead in behalf of its being the Catholick Church it deserves to be further considered We come therefore to that kind of unity in the Catholick Church which depends on the Government of it and this is that which is pretended as the ground of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church because though as Cardinal Perron says she be in her own Being particular yet she may be call'd Catholick causally as the center and beginning of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity which is the form of universality into the Catholick Church This therefore must be more narrowly searched into to see if this were a known and received truth in the ancient Church Which is so far from it that we find no such causal influence from the Church of Rome then owned or asserted but that the Catholick Church was a whole consisting of homogeneal parts without any such subordination or dependence as the contrary supposition implies This is by none more fully asserted than by such who have with the greatest zeal and industry stood up for the unity of the Catholick Church The first of whom is St. Cyprian in whose time and writings there are very remarkable cases occurring to clear upon what terms the unity of the Catholick Church did then stand The first I begin with is the case which arose in the Church about the Schism of Novatianus which will give us the fuller discovery of the grounds of unity in the Catholick Church because the first rise of this Schism was in Rome it self For Novatus coming to Rome in a discontent from Africa falls in with Novatianus which two names the Greek writers of the Church commonly confound who being likewise under discontent at the election of Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome was ready to joyn with the other in fomenting a Schism For which they made this their pretext That Cornelius had admitted such to communion who had lapsed in the persecution of Decius which tended to the overthrow of the Churches purity upon this Novatianus gets himself ordained by three Bishops Bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius the fame of which Schism being spread abroad there was great making of parties on both sides Cyprian and the Churches of Africa after full inquiry into it declare for Cornelius so did Dionysius of Alexandria and the Churches there but Fabius of Antioch with the Churches of Pontus and Cilicia suspend and rather encline to Novatianus for some time till they were after more fully satisfied by Dionysius of Alexandria Now here is a case wherein the grounds of unity in the
Catholick Church may be easily discerned which it is plain from the proceedings in it were as in all such emergent cases what should be determined and agreed on by the consent of the Catholick Church i. e. of those Churches which all consented in the same Catholick Faith and therefore made up one Catholick Church Now if the Church of Rome had been the center of Ecclesiastical communion and had infused Catholick unity into the Church at this time what way or possibility had there been for restoring the Churches unity Neither was the appeal made to forraign Churches meerly because Rome it self was divided and so the Controversie could not be ended there but it appears from the whole story of the proceedings that this was looked on as the proper means for preserving the unity of the Catholick Church at that time when the Faith and communion of the Apostolical Churches were so fully known and distinguished from all others These things will more fully appear from St. Cyprians Epistle to Antonianus upon the occasion of this Schism Who it seems at first adhered to Cornelius and with him to the Catholick Church not as though his joyning with Cornelius was the cause of his being with the Catholick Church but because in joyning with him he joyned with the Catholick Church which declared for him but it seems afterwards by some Letters of Novatianus he began to stagger and desires Cyprian to give him an account what Heresie Novatianus broached and what the reason was why Cornelius communicated with the lapsed persons As to which particulars he endeavours to satisfie him and withall to give an account why they joyned with Cornelius in opposition to Novatianus and what the practise of the Church was as to lapsed persons and on what reasons it was built wherein he tells him That though some of their own Bishops had formerly denyed communion to lapsed persons yet they did not recede from the Vnity of the Catholick Church or communion of their Fellowships because by them they were admitted For saith he the bond of concord remaining and the communion of the Catholick Church continuing every Bishop orders and disposeth his own actions as one that must give an account of his design to God Doth St. Cyprian here speak like one that believed the Church of Rome to be the center of Ecclesiastical communion or that the unity of the Church lay in acknowledging the Pope to be Christs Vicar or in dependence on the Church of Rome when every Bishop is left to himself and God in all such things which he may do and yet hold communion with the Catholick Church And therefore afterwards he tells us That there is one Church divided into many members throughout the world and one Episcopal office spread abroad by the consenting multitude of many Bishops If this Church be one in this sense and the whole Government of the Church but as one Bishoprick as all the Bishops unanimously consent in the management of it then here is not the least foundation for the Catholick Churches taking its denomination causally from the Roman Church and much less for the Bishops having dependence on her or relation to her Since the care and government of the Church by these words of Cyprian appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church And from thence it was that in this Epistle we read that St. Cyprian writ to the Church of Rome after the death of Fabianus to advise them what to do in the case of lapsed persons which letters of his were sent through the world which Rigaltius well observes did arise from that unity of Ecclesiastical discipline whereby Cyprian not doubting but the care of all Churches was upon him dispatched these letters to the Clergy at Rome from whence they were sent through the Catholick Church as an evidence that there was but one Episcopal office in the whole Church part of which was committed in full power to every Bishop Thus we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church than what you from Cardinal Perron would perswade us of It being an easie matter for men of wit and parts especially such as that great Cardinal was master of to coyn distinctions to make the most absurd things seem plausible but yet when they come to be examined they are found to have no other bottom but the invention of that person who coined them And that it is so as to this distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church will be further evident from another case which happened in St. Cyprians time which was this Felicissimus and Fortunatus being cast out of communion by a Synod of African Bishops when they saw they could do little good in Africa run over to Rome and bring letters to Cornelius the Bishop there misrepresenting the whole business of their being ejected out of the Church on purpose to perswade Cornelius to admit them into communion Who at first being unwilling to hearken to them was at last by their threats and menaces brought to receive their letters Upon which St. Cyprian writes an Epistle to Cornelius wherein he tells him That if the threats of such profligate persons should relax the Churches discipline all the power and strength of it would be soon taken away that the ground of all Schism and Heresie arises from disobedience to the Bishop Certainly he doth not mean the Bishop of Rome but every Bishop in the Catholick Church for it was not Cornelius but Cyprian and the African Bishops who were disobeyed upon which he falls upon the matter of their appeal to a forraign Church and after some fair commendations of the Church of Rome the meaning of which will be afterwards examined he very sharply condemns these appeals to forraign Churches as unreasonable unjust and dishonourable to those Bishops whose sentence they appealed from For What cause saith he could these persons have of coming and declaring against their Bishops For either they are pleased in what they have done and continue in their wickedness or if they are displeased at it and recede from it they know whither to return For since it is decreed by us all and it is a thing just and reasonable in it self that every ones cause be heard where the fault was committed and every Pastour hath a part of the flock committed to him which he is to rule and govern as being to give an account of it to God it is requisite that those whom we rule over ought not to run about and break the concord of Bishops by their headdiness and subtilty but there to defend their cause where they may have accusers and witnesses of their faults Vnless it be that to a few desperate and profligate persons the authority of the Bishops of Africa seems less to them who have already sate in judgement upon them and solemnly condemned them lately for their crimes Can any thing be more express
and punctual then this testimony of Cyprian is to overthrow that sense of the Catholick Church which you contend for How farr were Cyprian and the African Bishops from making Rome the center of Ecclesiastical communion when they looked on appeals thither as very unjust and unreasonable What acknowledgement and dependence was there on the Church of Rome in those who looked on themselves as having a portion of Christs flock committed to them of which they were to give an account to God alone And I pray what excellent persons were those who undervalued the Authority of the African Bishops and ran to Rome St. Cyprian tells us they were pauci desperati perditi and translate these with as much advantage to your cause as you can So fatal hath it been to Rome even from its first foundation to be a receptacle for such persons And is not this a great credit to your cause that such persons who were ejected out of communion for their crimes at home did make their resort to Rome and the more pious and stout any Bishops were the more they defended their own priviledges in opposition to the encroachments of the Roman Sec. Which was apt to take advantage from such Renegado's as these were by degrees to get more power into her hands and lift up her head above her fellow-Churches But lest you should think that St. Cyprian only spake these things in an heat out of his opposition to these persons and his desire to crush them you shall see what his judgement was concerning the same things when he purposely discourseth of them For in his Book of the Vnity of the Church he useth that expression which destroyes all your subordinate union in the Church which is Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur They who consider and understand the importance of that speech will find nothing more destructive to your doctrine of the Catholick Church then that is For when he makes the Vniversal Government of the Church to be but one Episcopal office and that committed in the several parts of it with full power to particular Bishops can any be so senseless to imagine that he should ever think the Government of the Church in General to depend on any one particular Church as chief over the rest And that the former words do really import such a full power in particular Bishops over that part of the flock which is committed to them appears from the true importance of the phrase insolidum a phrase taken out of the Civil Law where great difference is made between an obligation in partem and in solidum and so proportionable between a tenure in partem and in solidum those things were held in solidum which were held in full right and power without payments and acknowledgements But where the usus-fructus belonged to another it was not held in solidum So that when St. Cyprian saith that every part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full right and power which every Bishop hath over his charge and in this speech he compares the Government of the Church to an estate held by several Freeholders in which every one hath a full right to that share which belongs to him Whereas according to your principles the Government of the Church is like a Mannor or Lordship in which the several inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord and you would fain have it at the will of your Lord too But thus farr we see St. Cyprian was from your modern notion of the Catholick Church that he looks on the Vnity of it as depending on the consent of the Catholick Bishops and Churches under their full power and not deriving that Vnity from any particular Church as the head and fountain of it And therefore in the former Schism at Rome about Cornelius and Novatianus St. Cyprian imployed two of his colleagues thither Caldonius and Fortunatus that not only by the Letters they carried but by their presence and Counsel they should do their utmost endeavour to bring the members of that divided body to the unity of the Catholick Church Which is certainly a very different thing from the Catholick Churche's deriving its Vnity from the particular Church of Rome Many other instances of a like nature might be produced out of the Reports of St. Cyprians times but these are sufficient to evidence how far the Vnity of the Catholick Church was then from depending on the Church of Rome But lest we should seem to insist only on St. Cyprians testimony it were easie to multiply examples in this kind which I shall but touch at some of and proceed If the Church of Rome then had been looked on as the center of Ecclesiastical communion is it possible to conceive that the excommunications of the Church of Rome should be slighted as they were by Polycrates for which St. Hierome commends him as a man of courage that Stephen should be opposed as he was by Cyprian and Firmilian in a way so reflecting on the Authority of the Roman Church that appeals to Rome should be so severely prohibited by the African Bishops that causes should be determined by so many Canons to be heard in their proper Dioceses that when the right of appeals was challenged by the Bishops of Rome it was wholly upon the account of the imaginary Nicene Canons that when Julius undertook by his sole power to absolve Athanasius the Oriental Bishops opposed it as irregular on that account at the Council at Antioch that when afterwards Paulus Marcellus and Lucius repaired to Rome to Julius and he seeks to restore them the Eastern Bishops wonder at his offering to restore them who were excommunicated by themselves and that as when Novatus was excommunicated at Rome they opposed it not so neither ought he to oppose their proceedings against these persons What account can be given of these passages if the Vnity of the Catholick Church had depended on the particular Church of Rome Besides while the Church of Rome continued regular we find she looked on her self as much obliged to observe the excommunications made by other Churches as others were to observe hers As in the case of Marcion who being excommunicated by his Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus and by no means prevailing with his Father for his admission into the Church again resorts to Rome and with great earnestness begs admission there where he received this answer That they could not do it without the command of his Father for there is one Faith and one consent and we cannot contradict our worthy brother your Father This shews the Vnity of the Catholick Church to proceed upon other grounds than the causal influence of the Church of Rome when the consent of the Church did oblige the Church of Rome not to repeal the excommunication of a particular Bishop Upon which ground it was that Synesius
proceeded so high in the letters of excommunication against Andronicus that he forbids all the Churches upon earth to receive him into their communion And withall adds That if any should contemn his Church because it was of a little City and should receive those who were condemned by it as though it were not necessary to obey so poor a Church he lets them know that they make a Schism in that Church which Christ would have to be one We see here on what equal terms the communion of the Catholick Church then stood when so small a Church as that of Ptolemais could so farr oblige by her act the Catholick Church that they should be guilty of Schism who admitted them to communion whom she had cast out of it If Synesius had believed the Church of Rome to have been the center of Ecclesiastical communion had it not been good manners nay duty in him to have asked first the pleasure of the Church of Rome in this case before he had passed so full and definitive a sentence as this was But the wise and great men of those ages were utterly strangers to these rare distinctions of a causal formal and participative Catholick Church It is true indeed they did then speak honourably of the Church of Rome in their age as a principal member of the Catholick Church and having advantages above other Churches by its being fixed in the seat of the Empire on which account her communion was much desired by other persons But still we find the persons most apt to extoll her Authority were such as were most obnoxious who not being able to hold any reputation in their own Churches where their crimes and scandals were sufficiently known ran presently to Rome which was ready still to take their part thereby to inhance her power as is most evident in the many disputes which arise upon such accounts between the Roman and African Bishops But these things we shall have occasion to discuss more particularly afterwards At the present it may be sufficient by these few of very many examples which might be produced to have made it appear that it was farr from being a known and received truth in the ancient Church that the Church of Rome was the center of Ecclesiastical communion or that the Church was call'd Catholick from the union with her and dependence upon her But we must now consider what strenuous proofs you produce for so confident an affirmation your instances therefore being the most pregnant to your purpose which you could find in Antiquity must be particularly examined your first is of St. Ambrose relating that his brother Satyrus going on shore in a certain City of Sardinia where he desired to be Baptized demanded of the Bishop of that City whether he consented with the Catholick Bishops that is saith he with the Roman Church These words I grant to be in St. Ambrose but whosoever throughly considers them will find how little they make for your purpose For which it will be sufficient to look on the following words which tell us that at that time there was a Schism in the Church and Sardinia was the chief seat of it For Lucifer Caralitanus had newly separated himself from the Church and had left Societies there which joyned in his Schism For Caralis was the Metropolis of Sardinia and it appears by St. Hierome that the Luciferians confined the Church only to Sardinia which is the cause of that expression of his That Christ did not come meerly for the sake of the Sardinians So that those Luciferians were much like the Donatists confining the Church only to their own number Now there being such a Schism at that time in Sardinia what did Satyrus any more then enquire whether the Bishop of the place he resorted to was guilty of this Schism or no But say you he made that the tryal whether he was a Catholick or no by asking whether he agreed with the Church of Rome To which I answer that there was very great reason for his particular instancing in the Church of Rome 1. Because Satyrus was originally of the Church of Rome himself for Paulinus in the life of S. Ambrose Satyrus his brother speaking of him after his consecration to be Bishop say's Ad urbem Romam hoc est ad natale solum perrexit He went to Rome i. e. to the place of his birth now Satyrus being originally a Roman what wonder is it that he should particularly enquire of the Roman Church As suppose one of the Gallican Church of Arles or Vienna should have been cast upon shore in another Island belonging to France at the same time and understanding there was a Schism in the place should particularly enquire whether they agreed with the Catholick Bishops i. e. with the Church of Arles or Vienna Could you hence inferr that either of these were the center of Ecclesiastical communion and if not from hence how can you from the other Or suppose in the time of the Donatists Schism in Africk a stranger coming accidentally thither and desiring communion with the Christians of that City he was in should enquire of the Bishop of the City whether he communicated with the Catholick Bishops i. e. with the Church of Hippo or Carthage Could you hence inferr that Hippo was causally the Catholick Church and if not with what reason can you do it from so parallel a case 2. Because Sardinia did belong to the Metropolitan Province of the Church of Rome it being one of the Suburbicarian Provinces under the jurisdiction of the Roman Lieutenant and consequently one of the Suburbicarian Churches appertaining to the Metropolitan power of the Bishop of Rome and therefore it was but reason to ask whether the Churches in Sardinia did agree with their Mother Church or no. But all this is very farr from implying that the Vnity of the Catholick Church comes from the particular Church of Rome on this account because at that time when the Vnity of the Catholick Church was preserved by that continual correspondence between the parts of it by the formed letters and otherwise who ever was known to have communion with any one particular Church which communicated with the rest had thereby communion with the Catholick Church So that on that account the question might as well have been asked of the Churches of Milan Agobio or any other in Italy as of the Church of Rome For whosoever communicated with any of them did communicate with the Catholick Church as well as those who did communicate with the Church of Rome So that your first instance will prove no more the Church of Rome to be the fountain and center of Ecclesiastical communion then any other particular Church Your second is from St. Hieromes saying That the Church of Alexandria made it her glory to participate of the Roman Faith But doth it hence follow that the Church of Alexandria was therefore Catholick because she participated of
the Faith of the Roman Church considered as a particular Church For any one who reads that Epistle will easily see that St. Hierome there speaks of the Roman Faith not as it proceeds from the Roman Church but as it was received by it and that he doth not understand it of the then present Roman Faith any further then it agreed with that Faith which the Apostle commended in them So that the utmost which can be extracted out of this testimony is that it was the glory of the Church of Alexandria to hold the same Faith which the Primitive Roman Church did for which the Apostle commended it Which is apparent by the design of the whole Epistle which is to encourage Theophilus the Patriarch of Alexandria to suppress the Nefarions Heresie as he calls it of the Origenists for it seems Theophilus then dealt more mildly with them which Hierome was displeased at And therefore tells him that although he took some care by the discipline of the Church to reduce them yet that was not enough and thence brings in these words But withall know that nothing is more our design then to preserve the rights of Christ and not to transgress the bounds of our Fathers and alwayes to remember the Roman Faith commended by the mouth of the Apostle which it is the glory of the Church of Alexandria that she is a partaker of If you had dealt so fairly as to have cited St. Hieromes words at large any one might easily see how remote they were from your purpose it being manifest by them that St. Hieromes only design was To perswade Theophilus to assert the ancient Faith against the incroachments of modern Heresies and to incourage him to it mentions that commendation which was given to the ancient Faith by the Apostle writing to the Romans upon their receiving it and therefore since the same Faith was in the Church of Alexandria which the Romans were commended for receiving of Theophilus ought to be a vigorous assertor of it against the oppositions of Hereticks But how from hence we should inferr that the Church of Rome was the fountain of Faith as well as center of communion is a thing we are yet to seek for till you further direct us Yet it may be the strength of it lyes in this That the Roman Faith was commended by the Apostle And was not the Faith of other Churches where it was pure commended as well as that And although the Fathers in their complemental addresses to the Church of Rome were pleased often to mention this That the Roman Faith was praised by the apostle yet as Rigaltius well observes That the Latin Fathers took those words of the Apostle as though their Faith were more pure and sincere then in other places whereas the Apostle only saith that he gave thanks to God that there was such a fame abroad that the Romans who swayed the world had embraced the Christian Faith Which by reason of the dignity of the City which was head of the world and Empress of Nations did conduce much to the propagation of the Christian Faith For that there was no peculiar excellency in the Roman Faith above the Faith of other Churches appears from the scope of this Epistle which was to instruct and settle them in the right Faith and from the testimonies of the Author of the Commentaries under St. Ambrose's name and St. Hierome himself The former tells us The reason why St. Paul commended their Faith was Because though they saw no miracles yet they believed though not so purely as they ought to have done And afterwards saith That St. Paul commends their Faith although it were not exact according to rule yet since by that they came to worship God in Christ he rejoyceth in it knowing they might increase more in it And St. Hierome elsewhere speaking without design or interest saith Not that the Romans have any other kind of Faith then what all other Churches have but that there was greater devotion and simplicity in believing And withall adds that the very same faults which the Apostle condemned them for then did continue still among them the greatest of which was Pride And if this present Controversie do not make good St. Hieromes observation till this time we are strangely mistaken for what greater Pride can there be than for any particular Church to arrogate the title of Catholick to her self and to make all others no farther Catholick then they participate of her Faith and Communion Your next Testimony is that of John the Patriarch of Constantinople who did in his Epistle to Hormisda judge those to be severed from the communion of the Catholick Church who did not consent in all things with the See Apostolick but the main force of your testimonies lyes in a presumption that men will never take the pains to examine them We must therefore consider the occasion and manner of the writing this Epistle for those words you cite are not the words of the Patriarch himself but of the form of subscription required by Hormisda in order to an Vnion of the Eastern and Western Churches which had been then a long time in a Schism For after that Acacius stood up so resolutely in defence of the rights of his See at Constantinople the Roman Bishops who made it then their design to infringe the liberties of other Churches the better to inhance their own would by no means admit of any reconciliation unless the names of Acacius and those who defended him in that See being his Successours as Phravita Euphemius Macedonius c. were expunged out of the Diptychs of the Church which being so unjust and unreasonable a demand for a long time the Patriarchs of Constantinople would by no means assent to it But after the death of the Emperour Anastasius Justin succeeds in the throne one who made it his business to have this breach made up in order to which he writes to Hormisda and earnestly perswades him to a reconciliation and so likewise doth the Patriarch John But it hath been the common practise of the Bishops of that Church to be therein unlike the unjust Judge that they will not be wrought on by importunities but have been the more implacable the more they have been sought to as it appeared in this present case For this soure and inflexible Pope would not yield to any terms of Vnion but upon conditions of his own prescribing which were the expunging of Acacius and subscribing that form which he sent to them Which when the Emperour and Patriarch saw though they were sufficiently displeased at it yet out of their greedy desire of peace they were contented rather to swallow these hard conditions than suffer the Schism to remain still Now it is in this form of subscription that these words are contained wherein they promise not to recite the names of those in the sacred mysteries who are severed from the communion of the Catholick
Church i. e. who consent not in all things with the See Apostolick But lest these words being thus inserted by the Pope himself should be interpreted to the disadvantage of other Churches and particularly that of Constantinople The Patriarch makes a Preface to that Subscription by way of Protestation wherein after declaring the reception of the Popes letters and congratulating the hopes of Vnion he manifests his own desire of peace and his willingness to refuse the communion of all Hereticks For saith he I look on those most holy Churches of your elder and our new Rome as both making but one Church And after declaring his assent to the decrees of the four General Councils he adds That those who opposed them he judged fallen off à Sanct â Dei generali Apostolicâ Ecclesiâ from the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church Now when the Patriarch was thus careful to explain himself so as to assert that the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople made but one Church when he adds what he means by the Catholick Church viz. the truely General and Apostolical Church inferr as much from Hormisda's words as you will I am sure you can do little to your purpose from the Patriarchs taking them in the sense he explains himself in by this Protestation So that the meaning of them is only this that as he judged the Church of Rome a member of the Catholick Church whose Vnity required that those who were out of communion in one Church should be so with the rest so he consented to acknowledge them justly excommunicated whom the Church of Rome would have to be so So that hence nothing ariseth to your purpose more then will equally advance the authority of any other particular Church whose excommunications did oblige the whole Church as we have seen already in the case of Sinope and Ptolemais You proceed to another Testimony of St. Austin addressing himself to the Donatists telling them That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not thereby insinuating that the very succession of those Bishops is in some true sense the Catholick Church But from whence doth it appear that the succession of the Roman Bishops is the Rock here spoken of For St. Austin was there arguing against the Donatists and shewing them the danger of being separated from the unity of the Catholick Church that if they were cut off from the vine they would wither and be in danger to be cast into the fire and therefore exhorts them to come and be planted into the vine it being a grief to them to see them cut off Now in order to this he brings in the former words to acquaint them with the way whereby they might better understand the Catholick Church which could not in reason be confined to their own age but must be derived from the Apostles So that his counsel is of the same nature with that of Tertullian and Irenaeus who put men upon a diligent search into the successions of the Apostolical Churches But now when by this search they have found out the Catholick Church he tells them That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overcome For so elsewhere St. Austin calls the Catholick Church a Rock as he calls it likewise a House and a City in several places of these disputations against the Donatists As here before he calls it the Vine from whence all who are cut off wither and dye But what is all this to the particular Church of Rome which none of the Disputes with the Donatists at all concerned As is fully manifest from the whole management of that Controversie in which though he was so much put upon shewing what and where the Catholick Church was yet he never once expressed any such thing as that the Church was called Catholick from any relation to the Church of Rome but still mentions it as a particular Church which with other Churches made up one Catholick Church So in his Commentaries on the 44. Psalm Behold Rome saith he behold Carthage behold several other Cities these are Kings daughters and have delighted the King in his honour but they all make up but one Queen How incongruous had this expression been had St. Austin believed the Roman Church to be so much above all others that the ground why any others were called Catholick was from their union with her and therefore he must according to your principles have saluted the Church of Rome as the Queen of all the rest and made other particular Churches but as her daughters and hand-maids But St. Austin knew of no such difference but looked on all particular Churches whether at Rome Carthage or elsewhere as making up but one Catholick Church And to the same purpose he frequently speaks when he sayes That the Church is call'd One in regard of her Vnity and Many in regard from the several Societies of Christians abroad in the world When he calls the several Churches members of that one Church which is spread all over the world without setting any note of discrimination upon one above all the rest When he reckons the Roman Corinthian Galatian Ephesian Churches together and that all these and the Churches propagated from them do conspire in one Vniversal Church But the places are so many to this purpose in him that it would look too much like ostentation to offer to prove a matter so evident to all that read any thing in him And is it possible then for you to think That St. Austin made the succession of Bishops at Rome in any sense the Catholick Church You might as well say that he made the Church spread all over the world a particular Church as that he made any particular Church whether at Rome or elsewhere for he makes no difference to be in any sense the Vniversal Church But that which you seem to lay the greatest force on is the testimony of Optatus Milevitanus Who say you after he had said that St. Peter was head of all the Apostles and that he would have been a Schismatick who should have erected another chair against that singular one of St. Peter as also that in that chair of St. Peter being but one Vnity was to be kept by all he adds that with Syricius then Pope he himself was united in communion with whom the whole world saith he meaning the whole Catholick Church agrees by communicatory letters in one Society of communion See here say you how clearly he makes the union with the Bishop of Rome the measure of the Catholick Church which the Bishop calls a Jesuitism and further proves himself to be in the Catholick Church because he was in communion with the See of St. Peter For our better understanding the meaning of these words of Optatus we must consider the state of the Controversie between Optatus and Parmenianus by which it will appear how
very little these words of his make to your purpose The main question between the Catholicks and the Donatists was about the Catholick Church To whom it was that title did belong The difficulty seemed the greater because there was no difference between them in any matter of Faith or in the substance of the Sacraments and therefore they were fain to find out other means to decide this Controversie than by either of those two For which the Catholicks made choice of these two arguments Vniversality and Succession the former as agreeing with that large spread of the Church which was Prophesied to be in the times of the Gospel whereas the Donatists confined the Church to a Corner in Africa the latter in regard of the necessity of deriving themselves from the Apostolical Churches Now the Donatists denying any but themselves to be the Catholick Church the proof lay on their Adversaries part who upon all occasions offer to make it good That the Church from which the Donatists separated themselves was the only true and Catholick Church Accordingly Optatus having in the first book discussed the matters of fact about the rise of the Schism the ordinations of Cecilian and Majorinus and the proceedings used for the ending the Schism in this second Book he enters on the Controversie of the Church which Parmenianus would have to be only among themselves against which he urgeth first that then certainly the Church could not be called Catholick because it was so called from its large comprehension and universal spread Had Optatus believed the ground of the Churches being Catholick had been its union with the Church of Rome he would never have given that account of its being called so which here he doth After which he produceth many places of Scripture to prove the large extent of the Church and concludes That to be the Catholick Church which was diffused over all the world than which nothing can be more contrary to your pretensions who limit and confine the Catholick Church to your own party as the Donatists did And if those arguments then used against the Donatists had any force against them they have still as much against you who exclude so great and considerable Churches from being members of the Catholick Church because not of your communion From hence Optatus proceeds to examine Which had the better title to be the Catholick Church on the account of Succession and Parmenianus reckoning the Cathedra in the first of the dotes Ecclesiae Optatus begins with that by which is understood the lawful derivation of power for governing the Church so Albaspinaeus as well as others understands it Now the Controversie was where this Cathedra was Optatus proves there can be no lawful power but what is derived from the Apostles and therefore where the succession is plain and uninterrupted there and no where else can that Cathedra be Which Episcopal chair being first placed at Rome by St. Peter in which he as chief of the Apostles sate from whence he had his name Cephas in which one chair Vnity should be kept by all lest the other Apostles should set up others against it so that he must be a schismatick and offender who should place another chair against that Therefore in this one chair St. Peter sate first to whom succeeded Linus to him Clemens and so on to Syricius who joyns with us with whom the whole world communicates by the entercourse of formed letters Do you now give an account of your chair who challenge to your selves the name of the Holy Church To pass by that ridiculous account of the name Cephas which Baldwin supposes to be inserted into the text from some ignorant gloss made in the margin the main thing to be considered is the scope and design of these words in which he doth two things 1. He shews the evident succession of the Catholick Bishops from St. Peter in the Church of Rome which he doth by a distinct and particular enumeration of them 2. From thence shews the unlawfulness of setting up another chair in opposition to that i. e. pretending to another right of Government then what was conveyed down from the Apostles or setting up another chair in opposition to that of St. Peter at Rome i. e. that succession of Bishops which was derived from him Now saith he God providing for the unity of the Church intended there should be but one chair in a place i. e. that the several Apostles should not in the same place set up a distinct Cathedra or succession of Church-Governours and therefore though St. Paul as well as St. Peter were instrumental in the settling the Church of Rome yet that the Churches Vnity might be preserved there were not two distinct series of Bishops the one deriving from St. Peter and the other from St. Paul So that Optatus his saying is much of the same nature with that of Cyprian in the case of the Schism about Cornelius and Novatianus who urgeth that most That there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church now the Bishop and his Cathedra are correlates to each other Optatus therefore saying that there was but one Cathedra at Rome puts the Donatist's upon this issue that if they could not deduce their succession from St. Peter at Rome they could have no pretence to the Cathedra there And therefore challengeth them to deduce the succession of their Bishops there as at large appears in his following discourse Which could be no higher then of Macrobius from Encolpius Encolpius from Bonifacius Ballitanus as he from Victor Garbiensis who was sent over on purpose from the Donatists in Africk to make a faction and a party at Rome among the African Inhabitants there Now this being the utmost succession they could pretend to and that being in opposition to that succession which was derived from St. Peter nothing could be more plain then that at Rome about which the Contest was the Cathedra could not belong to the Donatists but their Adversaries and therefore that being by Parmenianus acknowledged one of the dowries of the Catholick Church the title of that could not belong to the Donatists but their opposers This therefore doth not at all concern Romes being causally the Catholick Church but is only produced as a particular Church for a known instance whereby to decide this particular Controversie of succession For otherwise the argument would have held as well for any other Apostolical Church where the succession was clear And therefore afterwards he makes the communion with the seven Churches as plain an argument of communion with the Catholick as he doth here of the Church of Rome You may therefore every jot as well make the seven Churches of Asia to be causally the Catholick Church as the Church of Rome And to the same purpose he instanceth in the Corinthian Thessalonian Galatian Churches as he doth in that of Rome or the seven Churches We see then Optatus his design
was to shew that their Church from which the Donatists separated was the true Catholick Church which he proves from their communion with all the Apostolical Churches which had a clear and distinct succession from the Apostles their planters And because of the Vicinity and Fame of Rome and the easier knowing the succession there he instanceth in that in the first place and then proceeds to the rest of them But withall to shew the Vnity of all these Apostolical Churches when he had mentioned Siricius as the present Bishop of Rome he adds That all the world agreed with him in the entercourse of the formed Letters not thereby intimating any supremacy of that Church above others but to shew that that succession he instanceth in at Rome was of the Catholick Church because the whole Christian world did agree in Communion with him that was the Bishop there And when he speaks of one chair it is plain he means it of the particular Church of Rome because every Apostolical Church had an Apostolical Chair belonging to it So Tertullian expresly That in all the Apostolical Churches there were their Chairs still remaining And Eusebius particularly mentions the Apostolical Throne or Chair at Hierusalem as others do that of Mark at Alexandria and of the rest elsewhere Nothing then can possibly be inferred from these words of Optatus concerning the Church of Rome but what would equally hold for any other Apostolical Church and how much that is let the Reader judge And how much soever it be it will be very little for your advantage who pretend to something peculiar to the Church of Rome above all other Churches From Optatus you proceed or rather return to S. Hierom who say you professes the Church is built upon S. Peter 's See and that whoever eats the Lamb that is pretends to believe in Christ and partakes of the Sacraments out of that house that is out of the communion of that Church is prophane and an Alien yea that he belongs to Antichrist and not to Christ whoever consents not with the successor of S. Peter This Testimony sounds big and high at first and I shall not impute these expressions either to S. Hierome's heat or his flattery although it looks the more suspicious because at that time he had so great a pique against the Eastern Bishops and that these words are contained in a complemental address to Damasus But setting aside what advantages might be gained on that account to weaken the force of this Testimony if we consider the occasion or nature of these expressions we shall find that they reach not the purpose you design them for We must therefore consider that at the time of the writing this Epistle S. Hierom seems to be in a great perplexity what to do in that division which was then in the Church of Antioch concerning Paulinus Vitalis and Miletius but besides this Schism it seems S. Hierom suspected some remainders of Arrianism to be still among them from their demanding of him Whether he acknowledged three distinct hypostases in the Trinity Now S. Hierom by hypostasis understands the essence as many of the Greek Fathers did and thence the Sardian Council defined That there was but one hypostasis of the Father Son and Spirit and therefore he suspects that when they require of him the acknowledgement of three hypostases they might design to entrap him and unawares betray him into Arrianism And therefore argues stifly in the remainder of that Epistle that hypostasis properly signifies essence and nothing else and from thence urgeth the inconvenience of admitting the terms of three hypostases Now S. Hierom being thus set upon by these Eastern Bishops he keeps off from communion with them and adviseth with the Aegyptian Confessors and follows them at present but having received his Baptism in the Church of Rome and being looked on as a Roman where he was he thought it necessary to address himself to Pope Damasus to know what he should do in this case And the rather because if S. Hierom had consented with them they would have looked on it as an evidence of the agreement of the Roman Church with them Therefore he so earnestly and importunately writes to Damasus concerning it as being originally part of his charge having been baptized in that Church But say you whatever the occasion of the words were Is it not plain that he makes the Church to be built on S. Peter's See and that whosoever is out of the communion of that Church is an Alien and belongs to Antichrist To that therefore I answer 1. That he doth not say that the Catholick Church is built on the particular Church of Rome for it is not super hanc Petram as referring to the Cathedra immediately preceding but super illam and therefore it is not improbably supposed by some that the Rock here referrs to Christ. And although Erasmus doth imagine that some particular priviledge and dignity did belong to Rome above other Churches from this place which is not the thing we contend about yet withall he sayes that by the Rock we must not understand Rome for that may degenerate but we must understand that Faith which Peter professed And it is a much easier matter for Marianus Victorius to tell him he lyes as he doth here in plain terms than to be able to confute what he saith And that the rather because he begins his discourse in that manner Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens whereby he attributes the supreme power and infallible judgement in the Church only to Christ. For as for your learned correction of praemium for primum though you follow Cardinal Perron in it yet it is without any probability at all it being contrary to all the MSS. used by Erasmus Victorius Gravius Possevin and others and hath no authority to vouch it but only Gratian who is condemned by your own Writers for a falsifier and corrupter of Authours 2. I answer when S. Hierom pronounces those Aliens and prophane who are out of the communion of the Church either it belongs not to the particular Church of Rome or if it doth it makes not much for your purpose 1. There is no certainty that he there speaks of the particular Church of Rome but that he rather speaks of the true Vniversal Church for it is plain he speaks of that Church which is built upon the Rock now by your own confession that cannot be the Church of Rome for that you suppose to be the Rock it self viz. the See of Peter and therefore the Church built upon it must be the Vniversal Church And that this must be his meaning appears from his plain words for he saith Vpon that Rock the Church is built and whosoever eats the Lamb without this house is prophane he cannot certainly mean Whosoever eats without the Rock but without the house built upon it so that the house in the latter clause
considering them any further than hath been done already in the very entrance into this Conference And here you tell us You now come to perform your Promise viz. to examine more fully his Lordships pretended solutions as you call them of Bellarmine 's authorities in behalf of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome But for all your boasting at first what great things you would do you seem a little fearful of engaging too far and therefore are resolved only to maintain them in general as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church or of the Pope defining Articles of Faith in a General Council But as far as you dare go I shall attend your motions and doubt not to make it evident that none of these authorities have any reference to that sense which you only offer to maintain them in and that though they had yet no such thing as Infallibility can be proved out of them The first authority is out of S. Cyprian's Letter to Cornelius Bishop of Rome whose words I am contented should be recited as fully as may be In which he chargeth Felicissimus and Fortunatus with their complices that having set up a Bishop against him at Carthage they sail to the chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the sacerdotal Vnity had its rise and carry Letters from prophane and Schismatical persons not considering that the Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle were such to whom perfidiousness could not have access Now the meaning of this place you would have to be this and no other viz. that the See of S. Peter which is the principal of all Churches was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost that no errour in Faith could have access to it or be admitted by it if not as a particular Church yet at least as the Head of the Vniversal Church of Christ and as the Fountain of Priestly Vnity which S. Cyprian here expresly affirms that Church and See to be This you summe up at last as the most which can be made of this Testimony and which is indeed far more in all particulars than it can amount to Which will appear by particular examinations of what you return in answer to his Lordship Three things his Lordship answers to this place 1. That perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith and if so then this can make nothing for Infallibility 2. That supposing it granted to signifie errour in Faith and Doctrine yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely but with a respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle 3. That it seems to be rather a Rhetorical insinuation than a dogmatical assertion And that S. Cyprian could not be supposed to assert herein the Popes Infallibility appears by the contracts between him and the Bishops of Rome This is the short of his Lordships answers to this place to which we must consider what you reply 1. His Lordship sayes That perfidia can hardly stand for errour in Faith or misbelief but it properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of trust and action not error in Faith but in fact against the discipline and Government of the Church And to make this interpretation appear the more probable his Lordship gives an account of the story which was the occasion of writing that Epistle which is this as his Lordship reports it from Binius and Baronius In the year 255. there was a Council in Carthage in the cause of two Schismaticks Felicissimus and Novatian about restoring of them to the communion of the Church which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry Felicissimus would admit all even without penance and Novatian would admit none no not after penance The Fathers 42 in number went as Truth led them between both extreams To this Council came Privatus a known Heretick but was not admitted because he was formerly excommunicated and often condemned Hereupon he gathers his Complices together and chooses one Fortunatus who was formerly condemned as well as himself Bishop of Carthage and set him up against St. Cyprian This done Felicissimus and his Fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party and pretend that 25 Bishops concurred with them and their desire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church and to have their new Bishop acknowledged Cornelius then Pope though their haste had now prevented St. Cyprians letters having formerly heard from him both of them and their Schism in Africk would neither hear them nor receive their letters They grew insolent and furious the ordinary way that Schismaticks take Vpon this Cornelius writes to St. Cyprian and St. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African fugitives declares their Schism and wickedness at large and encourages him and all Bishops to maintain the Ecclesiastical Discipline and censures against any the boldest threatnings of wicked Schismaticks This being the story his Lordship sayes He would fain know why perfidia all circumstances considered may not stand here in its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing which these men having practised at Carthage thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also but that he was wary enough not to be over-reached by busie Schismaticks This demand of his Lordship seeming very just and reasonable we are bound to consider what reasons you give why perfidia must be understood for errour in Faith and not in the sense here mentioned Why calls he say you St. Peters chair Ecclesiam principalem the chief Church but because it is the head to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of doctrine the words following signifie as much Unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est from which chair of St. Peter as it were from its fountain unity in Priesthood and consequently unity in Faith is derived Why brings he the Apostle as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith Is it forsooth because no malicious falshood in matter of trust or errour in fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church can have access unto them as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the See Apostolick Certain it is perfidia in this sense is diametrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary viz. misbelief or errour in Faith Three Arguments in these words you produce why perfidia must be understood of errour in Faith 1. Because the Church of Rome is called the chief Church but is it not possible it should be called so in any other sense but as the head of all other Churches in matter of doctrine Is it not sufficiently clear from Antiquity that there were other accounts of calling the Church of Rome the chief or principal Church as the eminency of it joyned
with the power of the City the potentior principalitas in Irenaeus which advanced its reputation to the height it was then at What matters of doctrine do you find brought to the Church of Rome to be Infallibly decided there in St. Cyprians time how little did St. Cyprian believe this when he so vehemently opposed the judgement of Stephen Bishop of Rome in the case of rebaptization Doth he write speak or carry himself in that Controversie like one that owned that Church of Rome to be head of all other Churches to which they must be subordinate in matter of doctrine Nay in the very next words St. Cyprian argues against appeals to Rome and is it possible then to think that in these words he should give such an absolute power and authority to it And therefore any one who would reconcile St. Cyprian to himself must by those words of Ecclesia principalis only understand the dignity and eminency and not the power much less the Infallibility of the Church of Rome And no more is implyed in the Second That it is said to be the fountain of Sacerdotal Vnity which some think may probably referr to the Priesthood of the Church of Africk which had its rise from the Church of Rome as appears by Tertullian and others in which sense he might very well say that the Vnity of the Priesthood did spring from thence or if it be taken in a more large and comprehensive sense it can import no more then that the Church of Rome was owned as the Principium Vnitatis which certainly is a very different thing from an infallible judgement in matters of Faith For what connexion is there between Vnity in Government and Infallibility in Faith Suppose the Church of Rome should be owned as the principal Member of the Catholick Church and therefore that the Vnity of the Church should begin there in regard of the dignity of it doth it thence follow that there must be an absolute subordination of all other Churches to it Nothing then can be inferr'd from either of those particulars that by perfidia errour in Faith must be understood taking those two expressions in the most favourable sense that can be put upon them But considering the present state of the Church of Rome at the time when Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither I am apt to think another interpretation more probable than either of the foregoing For which we must remember that there was a Schism at Rome between Novatianus and Cornelius the former challenging to be Bishop there as well as the latter upon which a great breach was made among them Now these persons going out of Africa to Rome that they might manage their business with the more advantage address themselves to Cornelius and his party upon which St. Cyprian saith Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde Vnitas sacerdotalis exorta est thereby expressing their confidence that they not only went to Rome but when they were there they did not presently side with the Schismatical party of the Novatians there but as though they had been true Catholicks they go to Cornelius who being the legal successour of St. Peter in opposition to Novatianus calls his See the chair of St. Peter and the principal Church and the spring of the Vnity of the Priesthood because the contrary party of Novatianus had been the cause of all the Schism and disunion which had been among them And in this sense which seems very agreeable to St. Cyprians words and design we may easily understand what this perfidia was viz. that falseness and perfidious dealing of these persons that although they were Schismaticks themselves yet they were so farr from seeming so at their coming to Rome that as though they had been very good Catholicks they seek to joyn in communion with Cornelius and the Catholick party with him By which we see what little probability there is from those expressions that perfidia must be taken for an errour in Faith But 3. You say To what purpose else doth he mention St. Pauls commendation of their Faith if this perfidia were not immediately opposite to it But then inform us what part of that Apostolical Faith was it which Felicissimus and Fortunatus sought to violate at Rome It is apparent their whole design was to be admitted into communion with the Church of Rome which in all probability is that access here spoken of if therefore this perfidia imported some errour in Faith it must be some errour broached by those particular persons as contrary to the old Roman Faith which was extold by the Apostle And although these persons might be guilty of errours yet the ground of their going to Rome was not upon any matter of Doctrine whereby they sought to corrupt the Church of Rome but in order to the justifying of their Schism by being admitted into the communion of that Church Notwithstanding then any thing you have produced to the contrary there is no necessity of understanding perfidia for an errour in matter of Faith And St. Cyprians mentioning the praise given to the Romans for their Faith by the Apostle was not to shew the opposition between that and the perfidia as an errour in Faith but that being the greatest Elogium of the Church of Rome extant in Scripture he thought it now most convenient to use it the better to engage Cornelius to oppose the proceedings of the Schismaticks there Although withall I suppose St. Cyprian might give him some taste of his old office of a Rhetorician in the allusion between fides and perfidia without ever intending that perfidia should be taken in any other sense then what was proper to the cause in hand You having effected so little in the solution of his Lordships first answer you have little cause to boast in your following words That hence his other explication also vanishes into smoak viz. when he asserts that Perfidia non potest may be taken hyperbolically for non facile potest because this interpretation suits not with those high Elogiums given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church as being the principal Church the Church whence Vnity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches If you indeed may have the liberty to interpret St. Cyprians words as you please by adding such things to them of which there is no intimation in what he saith you may make what you please unsuitable to them For although he calls it the principal Church from whence the Vnity of the Priesthood is sprung yet what is this to the Vnity of Faith and Discipline as derived from thence to all other Churches as you would perswade the unwary reader that these were St. Cyprians words which are only your groundless interpretation of them And therefore there is no such improbability in what his Lordship sayes That this may be only a Rhetorical excess of speech in which St. Cyprian may
freely expatiate super hanc â—etram Touching Ruffinus I grant his Lordship is of opinion That he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible for which he gives this reason For if he had so esteemed of it he would not have dissented from it in so main a point as is the Canon of Scripture as he plainly doth For reckoning up the Canonical Books he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was Infallible or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Books within the Canon than heretofore she did If she do then she is changed in a main point of Faith the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible for if she were right in her reckoning then she is wrong now and if she be right now she was wrong then and if she do not reckon now more then she did when Ruffinus lived then he reckons fewer than she and so dissents from her which doubtless he durst not have done had he thought her judgement Infallible Yea and he sets this mark upon his dissent besides that he reckons up the Books of the Canon just so and no otherwise then as he received them out of the Monuments of the fore-Fathers and out of which the assertions of our Faith are to be taken Now what have you to say to this strong and nervous Discourse of his Lordship Why forsooth this argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing And why so For say you though it should be granted that the Catholick Church the Roman you mean at present declares more books to be contained in the Canon than she did in Ruffinus his time yet this could be no errour in her That is strange that the Church should declare the Canon to be compleat then without these books and now not to be and yet neither time be in an errour No say you unless it be shewed which I am sure cannot be that she condemned those books then as not Divine Scripture or not Canonical which now she declares to be Divine or Canonical Excellent good still that which you are sure cannot be shewed is obvious to any one that hath eyes in his head For I only ask you Whether the Church of Rome did declare any Canon or no in that age If not according to your principles those who lived in that age could have no Divine Faith as to the Scripture if she did declare the Canon of Scripture without these Books did she not thereby condemn these Books to be not Canonical For you say that all are bound to take her judgement what is in the Canon and what not if therefore she did not put them into the Canon did she not leave them out of the Canon or Can you find any medium between being put in and being left out Yes say you these Books were left then under dispute with whom were they under dispute with the Church of Rome or not If with her was she not Infallible the mean while when so great a matter as the Canon of Scripture was under dispute with her But this whole business concerning the Canon of Scripture is largely discussed already only here it is sufficient to shew how you are pent in on every side so that there is no possibility of getting out As to the strait his Lordship takes notice of that the Church of Rome is driven to in borrowing a testimony for her Infallibility from one whom she branded with Heresie in that very Book from whence this testimony is taken You answer That it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it But if they confess it no better then Ruffinus doth she will have little cause to applaud her self for her Integrity in that respect And although a Testimony may be taken from persons suspected in some things yet it argues those have but very few friends who are fain to make use of their enemies to bear witness for them What follows concerning a particular Church being Infallible because you disown it although not consonantly to the principles of your party as was shewed in the occasion of the Conference I pass by The errours of the Church of Rome which his Lordship mentions but you say proves not you shall find abundantly proved before our task is over Your vindication of Bellarmin from inconsistency in saying A proposition is most true and yet but peradventure as true as another is so fine and subtil that it were an injury to the Reader to deprive him of the pleasure of perusing it And yet when all is done a Proposition very false might be as true as this which Bellarmin speaks of viz. That the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre And thus I have cleared that there can be no ground of an imputation of Schism on our Church from hence that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church which acception of the Catholick Church I have manifested to be as great a stranger to Antiquity as it is an enemy to Reason And that the calling the Roman Church the Catholick Church is as his Lordship truly saith a meer Novelty and perfect Jesuitism CHAP. II. Protestants no Schismaticks Schism a culpable separation therefore the Question of Schism must be determined by enquiring into the causes of it The plea from the Church of Rome's being once a right Church considered No necessity of assigning the punctual time when errours crept into her An account why the originals of errours seem obscure By Stapleton's confession the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same The falsity of that assertion manifested That there could be no pure Church since the Apostles times if the Roman Church were corrupt No one particular Church free from corruptions yet no separation from the Catholick Church How far the Catholick Church may be said to erre Men may have distinct communion from any one particular Church yet not separate from the Catholick Church The Testimony of Petrus de Alliaco vindicated Bellarmin not mis-cited Almain full to his Lordships purpose The Romanists guilty of the present Schism and not Protestants In what sense there can be no just cause of Schism and how far that concerns our case Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome but were thrust out of it The Vindication of the Church of Rome from Schism at last depends upon the two false Principles Of her Infallibility and being the Catholick Church The Testimonies of S. Bernard and S. Austin not to the purpose The Catalogue of Fundamentals the Churches not erring c. referr'd back to their proper places BEfore I come to examine the particulars of this Chapter it will be necessary to see what the state of the Controversie was concerning Schism between his Lordship and his Adversary His Lordship delivers his sense clearly
made good but since you are so cautious as not to think your self obliged to do it I commend your discretion in it and proceed I cannot see that his Lordship is guilty of a false quotation of Bellarmin for that saying Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâsse in Ecclesiâ Christi luce clarius est for he doth not seem at all to Cite Bellarmin for it but having Cited the place just before where he endeavours to vindicate the Popes from all errours he adds this expression as directly contrary to his design that though he had endeavoured so much to clear them from errours yet that they had sown some grievous errours in the Church was as clear as the day and as it immediately follows is proved by Jac. Almain c. And therefore it was only your own oscitancy which made you set it in the Contents of your Chapter that Cardinal Bellarmin was most falsly quoted by him But that falseness which with so much confidence you charge his Lordship with rebounds with greater force on your self when you say That Almain speaks not of errours in Faith at all but only of errours or rather abuses in point of manners whereas he not only asserts but largely proves That the Pope may err not only personally but judicially and in the same Chapter brings that remarkable Instance of the evident contradiction between the definitions of Pope Nicolaus 3. and John 22. And Platina tells us that John 22. declared them to be Hereticks who held according to the former definition And Is this only concerning some abuses abuses in point of manners and not concerning errours in Faith that Almain speaks You might as well say so of Lyra who said That many Popes have Apostatized from the Faith of Cusanus who saith That both in a direct and collateral line several Popes have fallen into Heresie of Alphonsus à Castro who saith That the best friends of the Popes believe they may err in Faith of Carranza who sayes No one questions but the Pope may be an Heretick of Canus who sayes It is not to be denyed but that the chief Bishop may be an Heretick and that there are examples of it You might as well I say affirm that all these spake only of abuses in Manners and not errours in Faith as you do of Almain Neither will your other subterfuge serve your turn That they taught errours in Doctrine as private men for Alphonsus à Castro expresly affirms in the case of Pope Coelestine about the dissolution of Marriage in case of Heresie That it cannot be said that he erred through negligence and as a private person and not as Pope For saith he this definition is extant in the decretals and he had seen it himself Although the contrary to this were afterwards defined not only by Pope Innocent 3. but by the Council of Trent And hence it appears whatever you pretend to the contrary That there may be tares sown in the Church of Rome not only by private persons but by the publick hands of the Popes too if they themselves may be believed who else do most Infallibly contradict each other But whether these errours came in at first through negligence or publick definitions is not so material to our purpose for which it is sufficient to prove that the Church of Rome may be tainted and corrupted which may be done one way as well as the other As Corn-fields may be over-run with tares though no one went purposely to sow them there And so much is acknowledged by Cassander when he speaks of the superstitious practises used in your Church That those who should have redressed those abuses were if not the Authours yet the incouragers of them for their own advantage by which means errours and corruptions may soon grow to a great height in a Church though they were never sown by publick definitions And when you disparage Cassanders Testimony by telling us how little his credit is among Catholicks you thereby let us see how much your Church is over-run with corruptions when none among you can speak against them but they presently forfeit their reputation The case of the Schism at Rome between Cornelius and Novatianus and the imployment of Caldonius and Fortunatus from St. Cyprian thither doth belong to the former Chapter where it hath been fully discoursed of already and must not be repeated here Only thence we see that Rome is as capable of a Schism within her own bowels as any other Church is which is abundantly attested by the multitudes of Schisms which happened afterwards between the Bishops of that See But this being insisted on by his Lordship in the former Controversie of the Catholick Church doth not refer to this Chapter wherein the causes of our separation should be enquired into Which at last you come to and passing by the verbal dispute between A.C. and his Lordship about what was spoken at the Conference you tell us It more concerns you to see what could or can be said in this point You draw up therefore a large and formal charge of Schism against us in your following words Our assertion say you is but good Sir it is not what you assert but what you prove It were an easie matter for us to draw up a far larger Bill against your Church and tell you our assertion is that you are the greatest Schismaticks in the world Would you look on it as sufficiently proved because we asserted it I pray think the same of us for we are not apt to think our selves guilty of Schism at all the more because you tell us what your assertion is if this be your way of dealing with us your first assertion had need be That you are Infallible but still that had need be more then asserted for unless it be Infallibly proved we should not believe it But however we must see what your assertion is that we may at least understand from you the state of the present Controversie Your assertion therefore is that Protestants made this rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholick Church by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate by aggregating themselves into a separate body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastours at all that were in lawful and quiet possession of jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowerâ—d to give it by instituting new rites and ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendome by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective See's Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing the said Prelates and Pastours for the
Church If your Church indeed were what she is not the Catholick Church we might be what we are not Hereticks but think it not enough to prove us Hereticks that you call us so unless you will likewise take it for granted that the Pope is Antichrist and your Church the Whore of Babylon because they are as often and as confidently call'd so And if your Church be truly so as she is shrewdly suspected to be Do you think she and all her followers would not as confidently call such as dissented from her Hereticks and the using those expressions of her virulent execrations against her as you do now supposing her not to be so What therefore would belong to your Church supposing her as bad as any Protestants imagine her to be cannot certainly help to perswade us that she is not so bad as she is When you say still That Protestants did really depart from the Roman Church and in so doing remained separate from the whole Church you very fairly beg the thing in dispute and think us uncivil for denying it You know not what that passage means That the Protestants did not voluntarily depart taking their whole body and cause together since there is no obscurity in the expression but a defect elsewhere I can only say That his Lordship was not bound to find you an Vnderstanding as oft as you want it But it were an easie matter to help you for it is plain that he speaks those words to distinguish the common cause of Protestants from the heats and irregularities of some particular persons whom he did not intend to justifie such as he saith Were either peevish or ignorantly zealous And if you distinguish the sense of your Church from the judgements of particular persons I hope it may be as lawful for us to distinguish the body and cause of Protestants from the inconsiderate actings of any particular men All that which follows about the name of Protestants which his Lordship saith Took its rise not from protesting simply against the Roman Church but against the Edict at Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state without any reformation is so plain and evident that nothing but a mind to cavil and to give us the same things over and over could have made you stay longer upon it For what else means your talk of Innovation in matters of Religion which we say was caused by you and protesting against the Roman Church and consequently against all particular Visible Churches in the world and that which none but Hereticks and Schismaticks used to do Do you think these passages are so hard that we cannot know what they mean unless we have them so often over But they are not so hard to be understood as to be believed and that the rather because we see you had rather say them often than prove them once If the Popes professed Reformation necessary as to many abuses I hope they are not all Schismaticks who call for the redress of abuses in your Church But if all the Reformation we are to expect of them be that which you say was effectually ordained by the Council of Trent if there had not been an Edict at Worms there were the Decrees of that Council which would have made a Protestation necessary Although we think your Church needs Reformation in Manners and Discipline as much as any in the world yet those are not the abuses mainly insisted on by the Protestants as the grounds of their Separation and therefore his Lordship ought to be understood of a Reformation as to the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church and doubtless that Edict of Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state did cut off all hopes of any such Reformation as was necessary for the Protestants to return to the Roman Communion And whatever you say till you have proved the contrary better than as yet it is done it will appear that they are the Protestants who stand for the ancient and undefiled Doctrine of the Catholick Church against the novel and corrupt Tenets of the Roman Church And such kind of Protestation no true Christian who measures his being Catholick by better grounds than communion with the Church of Rome will ever have cause to be ashamed of But A. C. saith his Lordship goes on and will needs have it that the Protestants were the cause of the Schism For saith he though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church which to do S. Bernard thinks is pride S. Austin madness At this his Lordship takes many and just exceptions 1. That holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the prime cause was theirs still Now to this your Answer is very considerable That the Bishop of Rome being S. Peter 's successor in the Government of the Church and Infallible at least with a General Council it is impossible that Protestants or other Sectaries should ever find such errours or corruptions difinitively taught by him or received by the Church as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine or lawfully to forsake her communion We say Your Church hath erred you say It is impossible she should we offer you evident proofs of her errours you say She is Infallible we say It is impossible that Church should be Infallible which we can make appear hath been deceived you tell us again It is impossible she should be deceived for let Hereticks say what they will she is Infallible And if this be not a satisfactory way of answering let the world judge But having already pulled down that Babel of Infallibility this Answer falls to the ground with it and to use your phrase The truth is all that you have in effect to say for your Church is that she is Infallible and the Catholick Church and by this means you think to cast the Schism upon us and these things are great enough indeed if you could but make any shew of proof for them but not being able to do that you do in effect as much as if a man in a high feaver should go about to demonstrate it was impossible for him to be sick which the more he takes pains to do the more evident his distemper is to all who hear him And it is shrewdly to be suspected if your errours had not been great and palpable you would have contented your selves with some thing short of Infallibility But as the case is with your Church I must confess it is your greatest wisdom to talk most of Infallibility for if you can but meet with any weak enough to swallow that all other things go down without dispute but if men are left at liberty to
examine particulars they would as soon believe it was impossible for that man to fall whom they see upon the ground as your Church to be infallible which they find overspread with errour and corruptions Much such another Answer you return to his Lordship's second Exception which is at his calling the Christian Faith the Roman Faith For you say It is no incongruity so to call it for the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian or Catholick Church the Faith approved and taught by him as Head thereof though it be de facto the general Faith and Profession of all Christians may yet very well be called the Roman Faith Why because the root origine and chief Foundation under Christ of its being practised and believed by Christians is at Rome But if the Bishop of Rome be no such thing as Head of the Christian Church and they must have a very wide Faith which must swallow that Vniversal Headship with all the appurtenances upon your bare affirmation if it belongs no more to him to approve and teach the Faith then to any other Catholick Bishop if the coming from Rome affords no credibility at all to the Christian Faith then still there remains as great an incongruity as may be in calling the Christian Faith the Roman Faith And as to all these my denial is as good as your affirmation when you undertake to prove I shall to answer If A. C. adds the practice of the Church to the Roman Faith I see no advantage is gotten by it for the first must limit the latter and the Faith being Roman the Church must be so too and therefore all your cavils on that subject come to nothing The third Exception is against the place out of S. Bernard and S. Austin which his Lordship saith are mis-applied for neither of them saith he spake of the Roman and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholick nor the Roman but of a particular Church or Congregation His words are What greater pride than that one man should prefer his judgement before the whole Congregation Which A. C. conveniently to his purpose rendred before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world Whereas no such thing is in him as all the Christian Churches in the world And his Lordship saith He thinks it is plain that he speaks both of and to the particular Congregation to which he was then preaching This you deny not but say The argument holds â minori ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who prefer their private fanatick Opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholick Church The Roman Church you should have said for you own no Catholick Church but what is Roman and therein the argument you mention will hold yet further against those who prefer the Novel Opinions of the Roman Church before the ancient Apostolical Faith of the truly Catholick Church His Lordship adds That it is one thing to prefer a mans private judgement before the whole Congregation and another for an intelligent man in something unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholick Church And much more may a whole National Church nay the whole body of Protestants do it Now you very wisely leave out this last clause that you might take an opportunity to declaim against Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. for want of modesty But what pretext could there have been for such virulency had they been guilty of what you charge them if you would but have given us all that his Lordship said And may not I now therefore more justly return you your own language in the same page upon a far less occasion That here 's a manifest robbery of part of his Lordships words for which you are bound to restitution For his Lordship as it were foreseeing this cavil warily adds that concerning a whole National Church and the whole body of Protestants which you for reasons best known to your self craftily leave out But we must excuse our adversary for this slip though it be an unhandsome one For the truth is he had no other way to hide the guiltiness of his own pen c. These are your own words only applied and that much more justly to your self for a more palpable fault in the very same page wherein you had accused his Lordship for one of that kind But you go on further and supposing the doubts had been modestly proposed yet this could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholick Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful heretical and damnable Were it our present business it were easie to make it appear that the far greatest part of the matters in Controversie were never determined as points of Faith before the Council of Trent and I hope you will not say that was before the Reformation or any proposal of doubts But if they had been defined by your Church for matters of Faith and our great doubt be How your Church comes to have this power of determining points of Faith to whom should this doubt be propounded to your Church no doubt then we should hear from her as now we do from you That to question it with what seeming modesty soever is sinful heretical ond damnable And Is it not then likely that your Church should ever yield to the proposal of doubts and you do well to tell us so for it will save Protestants a great deal of labour when they see your Church so incurable that she makes it sinful heretical and damnable to question any thing she hath determined Although we do with much more reason assert it to be sinful heretical and damnable in your Church to offer to obtrude erroneous Doctrines on the Faith of the Christian world as points necessary to be believed and to urge superstitious practices as the conditions of communion with her To the place of S. Austin wherein he saith That it is a part of most insolent madness for any man to dispute Whether that be to be done which is usually done in and through the whole Catholick Church of Christ. His Lordship answer 1. Here 's not a word of the Roman Church but of that which is all over the world Catholick which Rome never yet was and for all your boast of having often shewn That the Roman and the Catholick are all one I dare leave it to the indifferent Reader Whether you have not miserably failed in your attempts that way 2. He answers That A. C. applies this to the Roman Faith whereas S. Austin speaks expresly of the rites and ceremonies of the Church and particularly about the manner of offering upon Maundy-Thursday whether it be in the morning or after supper or both 3. T is manifest by the words themselves that S. Austin speaks of no matter of Faith
not from hence that Heresie was supposed to dissolve that obligation to obedience which otherwise men lay under And if it doth destroy that Faith which men owe to their Soveraigns in case of Heresie Will it not equally destroy that Faith which Princes promise to their subjects in case of Heresie too For what reason can be given for the one which will not hold for the other also And who were they I pray but those loyal persons the Jesuits who broached fomented and propagated that Doctrine Was not Father Creswell a Jesuit who under the name of Andreas Philopator delivers this excellent Doctrine That the whole School of Divines teach and it is a thing certain and of Faith that any Christian Prince if he manifestly falls off from the Religion of the Catholick Roman Church and endeavours to draw others from it doth by Law of God and man fall from all power and authority and that before the sentence of the Pope and Judge delivered against him and that all his subjects are free from the obligation of any Oath to him of obedience and loyalty and that they may and ought cast such a one out of his power as an Apostate and a Heretick lest he infect others I might mention many more who write after the same nature but I spare you only this one may serve instead of many for he delivers it not only as his own judgement but the consent of the School and as a thing most certain as being of Faith And will you still say That no Jesuits own such principles as That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks For if Heresie doth thus destroy all obligation to obedience in subjects to Heretical Princes Will it not much more in Princes toward heretical subjects because certainly Princes have a greater power and right to command over subjects than subjects over them even in your own case of Heresie Since this therefore is the avowed Doctrine of the Jesuitical School perswade whom you can to believe that you look on an obligation to Faith remaining in a case of Heresie Certainly none who understand your principles and practices will have much cause to rely on your Faith in this particular So much at present of the Jesuits Integrity as to this principle of keeping Faith with Hereticks What you add further about the Council of Constance and John Husse and Hierom of Prague is only serving up the very same matter in somewhat different words for there is nothing contained in them but what hath been sufficiently disproved already for it all depends on the nature of the safe-conduct and the difference of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power His Lordship very pertinently asks supposing men might go safely to Rome To what purpose is it to go to a General Council thither and use freedom of speech since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing and you very pertinently answer That they were invited thither to be better instructed and reclaimed from their errours But Will no place serve to reclaim them but Rome Can they not be as well instructed elsewhere and by other means than by being summoned to a General Council We had thought the intention of General Councils had been to have had free debates concerning the matters which divide the Church But it seems the Protestants must have been summoned as guilty persons i. e. Hereticks and their Adversaries must have sate as their proper Judges and such who were accused as the great Innovators must have believed themselves Infallible and by your own saying If an Angel from Heaven had come as a Protestant thither he would not have been believed nay it had been well he had escaped so if your power were as great over spirits as over our grosser bodies So I suppose John Husse and Hierom of Prague were invited to Constance to be better instructed and it is well we know by their example what you mean by your good instructions and out of a desire to avoid them care not how little we appear where our Adversaries not only intend to be Judges but resolve beforehand to condemn us whatsoever we say For so you tell us That Rome and the Fathers of Trent were resolved to stick to their own Doctrine which they call Catholick notwithstanding any pretended difficulties or objections brought against it either by Bishops or any other person Your kind invitations then of the Protestants were wonderful expressions of your Churches civility towards them that they might be present to hear themselves condemned and then escape how they could themselves The offer of a publick Disputation his Lordship truly tells you signifies nothing without an indifferent arbitration and the impossibility of agreeing on that renders the other useless and only becomes such Thrasonical persons as Campian was who yet had as little reason as any man to boast of his Atchievements in his disputations When you therefore say His Lordship would have some Atheist Turk or Jew to fit as indifferent persons you shew only your Scurrility and want of understanding For his Lordship only insists on the necessity of that to shew the uselesness of publick Disputations where such cannot be agreed on as in this case And he truly saith This is a good Answer to all such offers that the Kings and Church of England had no reason to admit of a publick Dispute with the English Romish Clergy till they shall be able to shew it under the Seal or Powers of Rome that that Church will submit to a Third who may be an indifferent Judge between us and them or to such a General Council as is after mentioned not such a one as you would have wherein the Pope should sit as Head of the Church for that is to make the greatest Criminal Judge in his own cause And this saith he is an honest and I think a full Answer And without this all Disputation must end in Clamour and therefore the more publick the worse Because as the Clamour is the greater so perhaps will be the Schism too CHAP. IV. The Reformation of the Church of England justified The Church of Rome guilty of Schism by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion The Communion of the Catholick and particular Churches distinguished No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption proved The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary Whether those things we condemn as errours were Catholick Tenets at the time of the Reformation The contrary shewed and the difference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines How far particular Churches Power to reform themselves extends His Lordships Instances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of
Reformation vindicated The particular case of the Church of England discussed The proceedings in our Reformation defended The Church of England a true Church The National Synod 1562. a lawful Synod The Bishops no intruders in Queen Elizabeths time The justice and moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation The Popes Power here a forcible fraudulent usurpation HAving thus far examined your Doctrine of keeping Faith with Hereticks we now return to the main business concerning Schism And his Lordship saying That there is difference between departure out of the Church and causeless thrusting from you and therefore denying that it is in your power to thrust us out of the Church You answer by a Concession That we were thrust out from the Church of Rome but that it was not without cause Which that you might not seem to say gratis you pretend to assign the causes of our expulsion So that by your own confession the present division or separation lyes at the Church of Rome's door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient reasons for her casting the Protestants out of her communion If therefore the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her communion for doing nothing but what became them as members of the Catholick Church then that must be the Schismatical party and not the Protestants For supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her communion within such narrow and unjust bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such errours in doctrine and corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those conditions from the members of her Communion That i◠when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to salvation For in this case that Church hath first divided her self from the Catholick Church for the Communion of that lying open and free to all upon the necessary conditions of Christian Communion whatever Church takes upon her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inclosing as return to the Communion of the Primitive and Vniversal Church The Catholick Church therefore lyes open and free like a Common-Field to all Inhabitants now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to their right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yield their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Now this is plainly the case between the Church of Rome and Ours the Communion of the Catholick Church lyes open to all such who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and are willing to joyn in the profession of them Now to these your Church adds many particular Doctrines which have no foundation in Scripture or the consent of the Primitive Church these and many superstitious practises are enjoyned by her as conditions of her Communion so that all those are debarred any right of Communion with her who will not approve of them by which it appears your Church is guilty of the first violation of the Vnion of the Catholick and whatever number of men are deprived of your Communion for not consenting to your usurpations do not divide themselves from you any further than you have first separated your selves from the Catholick Church And when your Church by this act is already separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church the disowning of those things wherein your Church is become Schismatical cannot certainly be any culpable separation For whatever is so must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catholick i. e. so far as it hath divided her self from the Belief and Communion of the Vniversal Church But herein a great mistake is committed by you when you measure the Communion of the Catholick Church by the judgement of all or most of the particular Churches of such an Age which supposes that the Church of some one particular Age must of necessity be preserved from all errours and corruptions which there is no reason or necessity at all to assert and that is all the ground you have for saying That the separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome but as Calvin confesseth à toto mundo from the whole Christian world and such a separation necessarily involves separation from the true Catholick Church Now to this we answer two things 1. That we have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherein the whole Christian World is agreed but to disagree from the particular Churches of the Christian World in such things wherein those Churches differ among themselves is not to separate from the Christian World but to disagree in some things from such particular Churches As I hope you will not say That man is divided from all mankind who doth in some feature or other differ from any one particular man but although he doth so he doth not differ from any in those things which are common to all for that were to differ from all but when he only differs from one in the colour of his eyes from another in his complexion another in the air of his countenance and so in other things this man though he should differ from every particular man in the world in something or other yet is a man still as well as any because he agrees with them in that in which they all agree which is Humane nature and differs only in those things wherein they differ from each other And therefore from the disagreement of the Protestants from any one particular Church it by no means follows that they separated from the whole Christian World and therefore from the true Catholick Church 2. The Communion of the Catholick Church is not to be measured by the particular opinions and practices of all or any particular Churches but by such things which are the proper Foundations of the Catholick Church For there can be no separation from the true Catholick Church but in such things wherein it is Catholick now it is not Catholick in any thing but what properly relates to its Being and Constitution For whatever else there is however universal it may be is extrinsecal to the nature and notion of the Catholick Church and therefore supposing a separation from the Church in what is so extrinsecal and accidental it is no proper separation from the Catholick Church As for Instance supposing all men were agreed that some particular
just cause of actual separation of one Church from another in that Catholick body of Christ the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any since as Stapleton grants there is scarce any sin that can be thought on by man Heresie only excepted with which that Sea hath not been fouly stained especially from eight hundred years after Christ. And he need not except Heresie into which Biel grants it possible the Bishops of the Sea may fall And Stella and Almain grant it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars defection to look to his Cure himself But you tell us The discovery of some few motes darkens not the brightness of the Sunshine I wonder what you account Beams if the Sins of your Popes and others be but motes with you We grant that the Sun himself hath his Maculae but they are such as do not Eclipse his Light we find the Maculae in your Church but we are to seek for the bright Sunshine Or Doth it lye in the service of your Religious Votaries For that is the great part of the conspicuous Piety of your Church which you instance in But Is this indeed the bright Sunshine of your Church that there are so many thousand of both Sexes you do well to joyn them together who tye themselves by perpetual vows never to be dissolved by their own seeking and therefore doubtless pleasing to God whether they are able to keep them or no and these pray if they understand what they say and sing Divine Hymns day and night which makes the Sunshine the brighter which you say is a strange and unheard of thing among Protestants What that men and women though not in Cloysters pray and sing Hymns to God no surely For as the Devotion of our Churches is more grave and solemn so it is likewise more pious and intelligible You pray and sing but how Let Erasmus speak who understood your praying and singing well Cantiuncularum clamorum murmurum ac bomborum ubique plus satis est si quid ista delectant Superos Do you think those Prayers and Hymns are pleasing to God which lye more in the throat than the heart And such who have been wise and devout men among your selves have been the least admirers of your mimical uncouth and superstitious devotions but have rather condemned them as vain ludicrous things and wondered as Erasmus said what they thought of Christ who imagined he could be pleased with them Quid sentiunt obsecro de Christo qui putant eum ejusmodi cantiunculis delectari Are these then the glorious parts of your Devotions your Prayers and Hymns But they pray and sing Divine Hymns day and night If this be the only excellency of your Devotion How much are you out-done by the ancient Psalliani and Euchitae that spent all their time in prayer and yet were accounted Hereticks for their pains Still you pray and sing but to whom to Saints and Angels often to the Virgin Mary with great devotion and most solemn invocations but to God himself very sparingly in comparison If this then be the warm Sunshine of your Devotions we had rather use such wherein we may be sure of Gods blessing which we cannot be in such Prayers and Hymns which attribute those honours to his creatures which belong wholly to himself But you not only sing and pray but can be very idle too and the number of those men must be called Religious Orders and the Garment of the Church is said by you to be imbroidered by the variety of them and for this Psalm 44.10 is very luckily quoted And are those indeed the ornaments of your Church which were become such sinks of wickedness that those of your Church who had any modesty left were ashamed of them and call'd loud for a Reformation Those were indeed such Gardens wherein it were more worth looking for useful or odoriferous flowers as you express it than for Diogenes to find out an honest man in his croud of Citizens Therefore not to dispute with you the first Institutions of Monastick life nor how commendable the nature of it is nor the conveniencies of it where there are no indispensable vows the main things we blame in them are the restraints of mens liberties whatever circumstances they are in the great degeneracy of them in all respects from their Primitive Institutions the great snares which the consciences of such as are engaged in them are almost continually exposed to the unusefulness of them in their multitudes to the Christian world the general unserviceableness of the persons who live in them the great debaucheries which they are subject to and often over-run with and if these then be the greatest Ornaments of your Churches Garments it is an easie matter to espy the spots which she hath upon her What you add concerning the good lives of Papists and bad of Protestants if taken universally iâ— as unjust as uncharitable if indefinitely it shews only that not thâ— particular lives of men on either side but the tendency of the Doctrine to promote or hinder the sanctity of them is here to be regarded And to that you speak afterwards but in a most false and virulent manner when you say That though sins be committed among you they are not defended or justified as good works whereas among Protestants Darkness it self is called Light and the greatest of all sins viz. Heresie Schism Sacriledge Rebellion c. together with all the bad spawn they leave behind them are cryed up for perfect Virtue Zeal good Reformation and what not I doubt not but you would be ready to defend and justifie this open Raillery of yours and call it a good work notwithstanding what you said before If we had a mind to follow you in such things How easie a matter were it to rip up all the frauds impostures villanies of all sorts and kinds which have been committed by those who have sate in your Infallible Chair and charge them all on your Church with much more justice than you do the miscarriages of any under the name of Protestants For the Protestant Churches disown such persons and condemn those practices with the greatest indignation whereas you excuse palliate and plead for the lives of the Popes as much as you dare and not out-face the Sun at Noon which hath laid open their Villanies Where do the Principles of Protestants incourage or plead for Heresie Schism Sacriledge Rebellion c. much less cry them up as Heroicall actions Doth not the Church of England disown and disclaim such things to the uttermost Have not her sufferings made it appear how great a hater she is of Heresies Schisms Sacriledge and Rebellion Did she ever cry up those for Martyrs who died in Gun-powder treasons Did she ever teach it lawful to disobey Heretical Princes and to take away their lives
That to reform what is amiss in Doctrine or Manners is as lawful for a particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholick in either And your Question Quô judice lies alike against both And yet I think saith he It may be proved that the Church of Rome and that as a particular Church did promulgate an orthodox truth which was not then Catholickly admitted in the Church namely the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son If she erred in this fact confess her errour if she erred not Why may not another particular Church do as she did From whence he inferrs That if a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent it may reform any thing that is not Catholick where the whole Church is negligent or will not Now to this you answer 1. That this procession from the Son was a truth alwaies acknowledged in the Church but what concerns that and the time of this Article being inserted into the Creed have been so amply discussed already that I shall not cloy the reader with any repetition having fully considered whatever you here say concerning the Article it self or its addition to the Creed 2. You answer That the consequence will not hold that if a particular Church may in some case promulgate an orthodox truth not as yet Catholickly received by the Church then a particular Church may repeal or reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and definitively received Surely no. Yet this say you is his Lordships and the Protestants case You do well to mention an egregious fallacy presently after these words for surely this is so For doth his Lordship parallel the promulgating something Catholick and repealing something Catholick together Surely no. But the promulgating something true but not Catholickly received with the reforming something not Catholick Either therefore you had a mind to abuse his Lordships words or to deceive the reader by beging the thing in Question viz. that all those which we call for a Reformation of were things Catholickly and definitively received by the whole Church which you know we utterly deny But you go on and say That thence it follows not that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholick where the whole Church is negligent or will not because this would suppose errour or something uncatholick to be taught or admitted by the whole Church To put this case a little more plainly by the former Instance Suppose then that the Worship of God under the symbols of the Calves at Dan and Bethel had been received generally as the visible worship of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin as well as the rest Doth not this Answer of yours make it impossible that ever they should return to the true Worship of God For this were to call in question the truth of Gods Promise to his Church and to suppose something not Catholick to be received by the whole Church And so the greater the corruptions are the more impossible it is to cure them and in case they spread generally no attempts of Reformation can be lawful which is a more false and paradoxical Doctrine than either of those which you call so And the truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation the more necessary so far is it from making it the more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general Infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves What reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too But you answer 3. That all this doth not justifie the Protestants proceedings because they promulged only new and unheard of Doctrines directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholick Truths This is the great thing in Question but I see you love best the lazy trade of begging things which are impossible to be rationally proved But yet you would seem here to do something towards it in the subsequent words For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began was not the real presence of our Saviours body and blood in the Eucharist by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine generally held by the whole Church Was not the real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believed Was not Veneration of Holy Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Praying for the dead that they might be eased of their pains and receive the full remission of their sins generally used and practised by all Christians Was not Free will Merit of good works and Justification by Charity or inherent Grace and not by Faith only universally taught and believed in all Churches of Christendom Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope and the Latin Church To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge that a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick This doth not justifie at all his Reformation he should prove that it may not only add but take away something that is Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church for this the pretended Reformers did as well in England as elsewhere His Lordship never pretends much less disputes that any particular Church hath a power to take away any thing that is truly Catholick but the ground why he supposeth such things as those mentioned by you might be taken away is because they are not Catholick the Question then is between us Whether they were Catholick Doctrines or not this you attempt to prove by this medium Because they were generally held by the whole Church at the time of the Reformation To which I answer 1. If this be a certain measure to judge by what was Catholick and what not then what doth not appear to have been Catholick in this sense it was in our Churches power to reject and so it was lawful to reform our selves as to all such things which were not at the time of the Reformation received by the whole Church And what think you now of the Popes Supremacy your Churches Infallibility the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy Communion in one kind Prayer in an unknown tongue Indulgences c. Will you say That those were generally received by the Church at the time of the Reformation If you could have said so no doubt you would not have omitted such necessary points and some of which gave the
imposed those things which had been before only the errours of particular persons as the Catholick Doctrines of that Church and the necessary conditions of Communion with her 3. I may answer yet further That it is not enough to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one Age but it must be made appear to have been so received from the Apostles times So that if we should grant that these Doctrines were owned for Catholick not only by the Church of Rome but all other Christian Churches so far as it can be discerned by their Communion yet this doth not prove these Doctrines so owned to be truly Catholick unless you can first prove that all the Christian Churches of one Age can never believe a Doctrine to be Catholick which is not so You see therefore your task increases further upon you for it is not enough to say That A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick and therefore they were so but that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so and then we shall more easily believe you When you will therefore prove Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Image-worship Invocation of Saints or any other of the good Doctrines mentioned by you in a constant tradition from the Apostles times to have been looked on as Catholick Doctrines you may then say That Protestants in denying these did take away something Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church but till that time these Answers may abundantly suffice We now come closer to the business of the Reformation but before we examine the particulars of it the general grounds on which it proceeded must somewhat further be cleared which his Lordship tells you are built upon the power of particular Churches reforming themselves in case the whole Church is negligent or will not to which you say That you grant in effect as great power as the Bishop himself does to particular Churches to National and Provincial Councils in reforming errours and abuses either of doctrine or practice only we require that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastor of the Church and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith especially when they define or declare points not generally known and acknowledged to be Catholick Truths What you grant in effect at first you in effect deny again afterwards For the Question is about Reformation of such errours and abuses as may come from the Church of Rome and when you grant a power to reform only in case the Pope consent you grant no power to reform at all For the experience of the world hath sufficiently taught us How little his consent is to be expected in any thing of Reformation For his Lordship truly saith in Answer to Capellus who denies particular Churches any power of making Canons of Faith without consulting the Roman See That as Capellus can never prove that the Roman See must be consulted with before any Reformation be made So it is as certain that were it proved and practised we should have no Reformation For it would be long enough before the Church should be cured if that See alone should be her Physitian which in truth is her disease Now to this you say That even Capellus himself requires this as though Capellus were not the man whom his Lordship answers as to this very thing But besides you say The practise of the Church is evident for it in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils which as St. Austin witnesseth sent their decrees touching Grace Original sin in Infants and other matters against Pelagius to be confirmed by the Pope but what is all this to the business of Reformation that nothing of that nature is to be attempted without the Popes consent That these Councils did by Julius an African Bishop communicate their decrees to Pope Innocent Who denyes but what is it you would thence infer to your purpose for the utmost which can be drawn hence is that they desired the Pope to contribute his assistance in condemning Pelagius and Coelestius by adding the authority of the Apostolical See to their decrees that so by the consent of the Church that growing Heresie might the more easily be suppressed And who denyes but at that time the Roman Church had great reputation which is all that Authority implyes and by that means might be more serviceable in preventing the growth of Pelagianism if it did concur with the African Councils in condemning that Doctrine But because they communicated their decrees to Pope Innocent desiring his consent with them that therefore no reformation should be attempted in the Church without the consent of the Pope is a very far-fetched inference and unhappily drawn from those African Fathers who so stoutly opposed Zosimus Innocents Successour in the case of Appeals about the business of Apiarius Did they think you look on themselves as obliged to do nothing in the reforming the Church without the Popes authority who would by no means yield to those encroachments of power which Zosimus would have usurped over them Nay it appears that till the African Fathers had better informed him Zosimus did not a little favour Coelestius himself and in case he had gone on so to do do you think they would have thought themselves ever the less obliged to reform their Churches from the Pelagian Heresie which began to spread among them And in this time of the Controversie between Zosimus and them though they carried it with all fairness towards the Roman See yet they were still careful to preserve and defend their own priviledges and in case the Pope should then have challenged that power over them which he hath done since no doubt they would not have struck at calling such incroachments The disease of the Church without any unhandsomness or incivility and would have been far from looking on him as the only Physitian of it To that pretence That things should have been born with till the time of a General Council his Lordship answers First 't is true a General Council free and entire would have been the best remedy and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so far and eaten so deep into Christianity But what should we have suffered this Gangrene to endanger life and all rather then be cured in time by a Physitian of weaker knowledge and a less able hand Secondly we live to see since if we had stayed and expected a General Council what manner of one we should have had if any For that at Trent was neither General nor free And for the errours which Rome had contracted it confirmed them it cured them not And yet I much doubt whether ever that Council such as it was would have been call'd if some Provincial and National Synods under Supreme and Regal power had not first set upon this great work of Reformation which
I heartily wish had been as orderly and happily pursued as the work was right Christian and good in it self But humane frailty and the heats and distempers of men as well as the cunning of the Devil would not suffer that For even in this sense also the wrath of man doth not accomplish the will of God St. James 1.20 but I have learnt not to reject the good which God hath wrought for any evil which men may fasten upon it Now to this you answer 1. By a fair Concession again that a Provincial Council is the next Chirurgion when a Gangrene endangers life but still the Popes assistance is required For fear the Chirurgion should do too much good of himself you would be sure to have the Pope as Physitian to stand by whom you know too much concerned in the maladies of the Church to give way to an effectual cure 2. But you say further That the most proper expedient is an Oecumenical Council and this you spoil again with saying Such as the Council of Trent was For what you say in vindication of that being General and free we shall consider in the Chapter designed for that purpose What you object against our National Synod 1562. will be fully answered before the end of this which that we may make way for we must proceed to the remainder of these general grounds in which his Lordship proves That when the Vniversal Church will not or for the iniquity of the times cannot obtain and settle a free General Council 't is lawful nay sometimes necessary to reform gross abuses by a National or a Provincial To this you answer in General That you deny not but matters of less moment as concerning rites and ceremonies abuses in manners and discipline may be reformed by particular Councils without express leave of the Pope but that in matters of great moment concerning the Faith and publick Doctrine of the Church Sacraments and whatever else is of Divine Institution or universal obligation particular Councils if they duly proceed attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolick and the Pope's consent either expresly granted or justly presumed Fair hopes then there are of a cure when the Imposthume gathers in the Head we are indeed by this put into a very good condition for if a small matter hurts a Church she hath her hands at liberty to help her self but if one comes to ravish her her hands are tyed and by no means must she defend her self For in case say you it be any matter of great moment it must be left to the Pope and nothing to be done without his consent no not although the main of the distempers come through him But thanks be to God our Church is not committed to the hands of such a merciless Physitian who first causeth the malady and then forbids the cure we know of no such obligation we have to sleep in St. Peters Church as of old they did in the Temple of Aesculapius in hopes of a cure God hath entrusted every National Church with the care of her own safety and will require of her an account of that power he hath given to that end It will be little comfort to a Church whose members rot for want of a remedy to say The Pope will not give leave or else it might have been cured I wonder where it is that any Christian Church is commanded to wait the Popes good leasure for reforming her self Whence doth he derive this Authority and sole power of reforming Churches But that must be afterwards examined But is it reasonable to suppose that there should be Christian Magistrates and Christian Bishops in Churches and yet these so tyed up that they can do nothing in order to the Churches recovery though the distempers be never so great and dangerous Do we not read in the Apostolical Churches that the Government of them was in themselves without any the least mention of any Oecumenical Pastour over all if any abuses were among them the particular Governours of those Churches are checked and rebuked for it and commanded to exercise their power over offenders and must the encroachments of an usurped and arbitrary power in the Church hinder particular Churches from the exercise of that full power which is committed to the Governours of them Neither is this only a Right granted to a Church as such but we find this power practised and asserted in the history of the Christian Churches from the Apostles times For no sooner did the Bishops of Rome begin to encroach but other Bishops were so mindful of their own priviledges and the Interess of their Churches that they did not yield themselves his Vassals but disputed their rights and withstood his usurpations As hath partly appeared already and will do more afterwards And that particular Churches may reform themselves his Lordship produceth several Testimonies The first is of Gerson who tells us plainly That he will not deny but that the Church may be reformed by parts And that this is necessary and that to effect it Provincial Councils may suffice and in some things Diocesan And again Either you should reform all estates of the Church in a General Council or command them to be reformed in Provincial Councils But all this you say doth not concern matters of Faith but only personal abuses But I pray what ground is there that one should be reformed and not the other Is it not the reason why any reformation is necessary that the Churches purity and safety should be preserved and is not that as much or more endangered by erroneous doctrines then by personal abuses Will not then the parity of reason hold proportionably for one as well as the other that if the Church may be reformed by parts as to lesser abuses then much more certainly as to greater Besides you say Gerson allowed no Schismatical Reformations against the Churches head neither do we plead for any such but then you must shew Who the Churches head is and By what right he comes to be so otherwise the cause of the Schism will fall upon him who pretends to be the head to direct others and is as corrupt a member as any in the body But his Lordship adds This right of Provincial Synods that they might decree in causes of Faith and in cases of Reformation where corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ was practised much above a thousand years ago by many both National and Provincial Synods For which he first instanceth in the Council at Rome under Pope Sylvester An. 324. condemning Photinus and Sabellius whose heresies were of a high nature against the Faith but here you say The very title confutes his pretence for it was held under the Pope and therefore not against him But however whether with the Pope or against him it was no more then a Provincial Synod and this decreed something in matters of Faith though according to your own
Doctrine the Pope could not be Infallible there for you restrain his Infallibility to a General Council and do not assert that it belongs to the particular Church of Rome As well then may any other Provincial Synod determine matters of Faith as that of Rome since that hath no more Infallibility belonging to it as such then any other particular Church hath and the Pope himself you say may erre when he doth not define matters of Faith in a General Council To his Lordships second instance of the Council of Gangra about the same time condemning Eustathius for his condemning marriage as unlawful you answer to the same purpose That Osius was there Pope Sylvester's Legat but what then if the Pope had been there himself he had not been Infallible much less certainly his Legat who could have only a Second-hand Infallibility To the third of the Council of Carthage condemning rebaptization about 348. you grant That it was assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage but that no new Article was defined in it but only the perpetual tradition of the Church was confirmed therein Neither do we plead for any power in Provincial Councils to define any new Articles of Faith but only to revive the old and to confirm them in opposition to any Innovations in point of Doctrine and as to this we profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils To the fourth of the Council of Aquileia A. D. 381. condemning Palladius and Secundinus for embracing the Arrian Heresie St. Ambrose being present you answer That they only condemned those who had been condemned already by the Nicene Council and St. Ambrose and other Bishops of Italy being present Who can doubt but every thing was done there by the Popes authority and consent But if they only enforced the decrees of the Council of Nice What need of the Pope's authority to do that And do you think that there were no Provincial Councils in that part of Italy which was particularly distinguished from the suburbicarian Churches under the Bishop of Rome wherein the Pope was not present either by himself or Legats If you think so your thoughts have more of your will then understanding in them But if this Council proceeded according to that of Nice Will it not be as lawful for other Provincial Councils to reform particular Churches as long as they keep to the Decrees not barely of Nice but of the four General Councils which the Church of England looks on as her duty to do In the two following Instances of the second Council of Carthage declaring in behalf of the Trinity and the Milevitan Council about the Pelagian Heresie you say The Bishops of Rome were consulted But what then Were they consulted as the Heads of the Church or only as eminent members of it in regard of their Faith and Piety Prove the former when you are able and as to the latter it depends upon the continuance of that Faith and Piety in them and when once the reason is taken away there can be no necessity of continuing the same resort The same answer will serve for what you say concerning the second Council of Aurange determining the Controversies about Grace and Free-will supposing we grant it assembled by the means of Felix 4. Bishop of Rome as likewise to the third of Toledo We come therefore to that which you call his Lordships reserve and Master-allegation the fourth Council of Toledo which saith he did not only handle matters of Faith for the reformation of that people but even added also something to the Creed which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds Nay the Bishops did not only practise this to condemn Heresies in National and Provincial Synods and so to reform those several places and the Church it self by parts but they did openly challenge this as their right and due and that without any leave asked of the See of Rome For in this fourth Council of Toledo they decree that If there happen a cause of Faith to be setled a general that is a National Synod of all Spain and Gallicia shall be held thereon And this in the year 643. where you see it was then Catholick Doctrine in all Spain that a National Synod might be a competent Judge in a cause of Faith But here still we meet with the same Answer That all this might be done with a due subordination to the See Apostolick but that it doth not hence follow that any thing may be done in Provincial Councils against the authority of it Neither do we plead that any thing may be done against the just authority of the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop but then you must prove that he had a just authority over the Church of England and that he exercised no power here at the Reformation but what did of right belong to him But the fuller debate of these things must be left to that place where you designedly assert and vindicate the Pope's Authority These things being thus in the general cleared we come to the particular application of them to the case of the Church of England As to which his Lordship say's And if this were practised so often and in so many places Why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like As she did For she cast off the Pope's usurpation and as much as in her lay restored the King to his right That appears by a Book subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eighths time And by the Records in the Archbishops office orderly kept and to be seen In the Reformation which came after our Princes had their parts and the Clergy theirs And to these two principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs That our Princes had their parts is manifest by their calling together of the Bishops and others of the Clergy to consider of that which might seem worthy Reformation And the Clergy did their part for being thus call'd together by Regal power they met in the National Synod of sixty two And the Articles there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by acts of State and the Royal assent In this Synod the Positive truths which are delivered are more then the Polemicks So that a meer calumny it is that we profess only a Negative Religion True it is and we must thank Rome for it our Confession must needs contain some Negatives For we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored Nor can we admit maimed Sacraments Nor grant Prayers in an unknown tongue And in a corrupt time or place 't is as necessary in Religion to deny falshood as to assert and vindicate Truth Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former an Affirmative verity being ever included in the Negative to a falshood As for any errour which might fall into this as any other Reformation if
any such can be found then I say and 't is most true Reformation especially in cases of Religion is so difficult a work and subject to so many Pretensions that 't is almost impossible but the Reformers should step too far or fall too short in some smaller things or other which in regard of the far greater benefit coming by the Reformation it self may well be passed over and born withall But if there have been any wilfull and gross errours not so much in opinion as in Fact Sacriledge too often pretending to Reform Superstition that 's the crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them This is his Lordships full and just account of the proceedings of the Reformation in the Church of England to which we must consider what Answer you return To his Lordships Question Why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like you give this answer 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 We are contended to put the issue of this business upon these three things viz. That our Church is a true Church That the power which reformed it was sufficient for that purpose and That no more was done by them then was in their power to do But for the first you tell us That seeing by the Church of England he means the present Protestant Church there you must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition and tell him the Church of England in that sense signifies no true Church Were it not an easie matter to requite you by telling you It is impossible we should be guilty of Schism in any separation from your Communion because we must crave leave of you to say that the Church of Rome is no true Church and where there is Schism that must be a true Church which men are guilty of it in separating from Not as though I sought only to return a blow on you which I could not defend our Church from but to let you see that by whatever way you would prove your Church to be true by the same we may prove ours to be so too If you own and believe the Christian Doctrine to be the way to salvation so do we If you embrace the ancient Creeds so do we If you acknowledge the Scriptures to be Gods Word so do we If you joyn together in participation of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper so do we If you have a constant succession of Bishops so have we Name then What it is which is Fundamental to the Being of a Church which our Protestant Church doth want You grant the Church of England was a true Church before the Reformation Wherein was it altered from it self by it that it ceased to be a true Church Was it in denying the Pope's Supremacy in eighth's time That cannot be for you very remarkably grant afterwards That the Bishops and the King too left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge Which is a concession we shall make more use of afterwards Surely then this could not unchurch them Or Was it the proceedings of the Reformation in Elizabeth's time The Supremacy could not be it neither now for that was asserted under a more moderate title in her time than in her Fathers Was it the Vse of the Liturgy in the English tongue Surely not when Pius the fourth offered to confirm it as is credibly reported from Vincentius Parpalia whom that Pope imployed on a Message to Queen Elizabeth with terms of Accommodation But What was it which did unchurch us Were they the Articles of Religion agreed on in the Convocation 1562 If they were these Were they either the positive or negative Articles If the positive Were they the asserting the Articles contained in the three Creeds the sufficiency of Scriptures the necessity of Divine Grace or What else If the negative Was it the denying Purgatory Invocation of Saints Vnlawfulness of Priests Marriage Communion in one kind or Which of them else was it which made the Protestant Church to be no true Church Or Is it lastly the asserting That as the Church of Jerusalem Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their livings and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith Is this it which hath done us all the mischief to unchurch us viz. the denying your Churches Infallibility If this be it it is our comfort yet that our Church will remain a true Church till yours be proved to be Infallible which I dare say will be long enough But as though it were in your absolute power to church and unchurch whom and when you please you offer at no proof at all of this assertion but only very fairly crave his Lordships leave to call the Protestant Church no true Church Which indeed is a more civil way of begging the Question And if it will not be granted you cannot help it for you have done your utmost in craving his leave for it and you have no more to say to it But you seem to say much more to the second That the Reformation was not managed by a lawful power nor carried on in a due manner for you offer to prove that the National Synod 1562. was no lawful Synod in these words For is it not notorious that pretended Synod A. D. 1562. were all manifest usurpers Is it not manifest that they all by force intruded themselves both into the Sees of other lawful Bishops and into the cures of other lawful Pastors quietly and Canonically possessed of them before the 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 Two things you object as the great reasons why those persons who sate in the Convocation A. 1562. could make no lawful Synod and those are Intrusion and want of a lawful Mission which shall be particularly examined The first charge is of Intrusion which you would seem to aggravate by several circumstances that they intruded themselves and that by force and not some but all and that into the Sees of other lawful Bishops and cures of lawful Pastors But how true these circumstances are must appear by a true account of the matters of fact relating to these things in the beginning of Elizabeth's Reign How false that is That all intruded themselves is notorious to any one who understands any thing of those times For this Convocation was held in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeth and in the fifth of her Reign Of 26 Cathedral Churches there were but fourteen
or fifteen Bishops then living in England For the Sees of Salisbury and Oxford fell vacant A. 1557. and were not supplied in the time of Queen Mary Hereford Bristow Bangor were vacant by the death of the several Bishops some weeks before Queen Mary Canterbury by the death of Cardinal Pool the same day with the Queen Norwich and Gloucester a few weeks after her and so likewise Rochester Worcester and S. Asaph became vacant by the voluntary exile of Pates and Goldwell the Bishops thereof so that but fifteen Bishops were then living and remaining in England And Were all those who supplied these vacant Sees Intruders A strange kind of Intrusion into dead mens places So then this circumstance is notoriously false That they All by force intruded themselves into the Sees of other lawful Bishops But let us see Whether the other are more justly charged with a forcible Intrusion into the Sees of the other Bishops For which we must consider what the proceedings were in reference to them It appears then that in the first year of the Queen the Oath of Supremacy formed and enjoyned in the time of Henry 8. was in the first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth revived for the better securing the Queen of the Fidelity of her subjects but yet it was so revived that several considerable passages in the Act concerning it were upon mature deliberation mitigated both as to the Queens title which was not Supreme Head but Supreme Governour a title which Queen Mary had used before as appears by an Act passed in the third Session of Parliament in her time and likewise as to the penalty for whereas the Stat. 28. Hen. 8. c. 10. was so very severe That whosoever did extol the authority of the Bishop of Rome was for the first offence within the compass of a Praemunire and for refusing to take the Oath was guilty of Treason it passed now in Elizabeth's time only with this penalty That such who refused it should be excluded such places of honour and profit as they held in the Church or Common-wealth and that such as should maintain or defend the authority preheminence power or jurisdiction Spiritual or Ecclesiastical of any forein Prince Prelate Person State or Potentate whatsoever should be three times convicted before he suffered the pains of death Upon the expiring of the Parliament Commissioners were appointed to require the Bishops to take the Oath of Supremacy according to the Law made to that purpose which being tendred to them they all Kitchin of Landaffe only excepted unanimously refused it although they had taken it before as Priests or Bishops in the Reign of Henry 8. or Edward 6. But whether by some secret intimations from Rome or their own obstinacy they were resolved rather to undergo the penalty of the Law than to take it now and accordingly before the end of that year they were deprived of their Bishopricks So that the Question about the Intrusion of those Bishops who came into their Sees depends upon the legality of the deprivation of these And certainly whosoever considers their former carriage towards the Queen in refusing to assist at her Coronation and some of them threatning to excommunicate her instead of disputing at Westminster as they had solemnly engaged to do joyned with this contumacy in refusing the Oath will find that these persons did not unjustly suffer this deprivation For which I need not run out into the Princes power over Ecclesiastical persons for you have given a sufficient reason for it your self in that acknowledgement of yours That the Bishops and the King too meaning King Henry left the Pope in possession of all he could rightly challenge If this be true that notwithstanding the Stat. 28. Hen. 8. notwithstanding the Oath of Supremacy then taken the Pope might injoy all that belonged to him of Divine Right he might then do the same notwithstanding this Oath in Elizabeth's time which was only reviving the former with some mitigation and what could it be then else but obstinacy and contumacy in them to refuse it And therefore the plea which you make for those whom you call the Henry-Bishops will sufficiently condemn these present Bishops whom we now speak of For if those Bishops only renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England as you say i. e. that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters which the Pope exercised here by virtue of the Canons Prescription and other titles of humane right and gave it to the King yet they never renounced or deprived him of that part of his authority which is far more intrinsecal to his office and of Divine Right they never denied the Popes Soveraign Power to teach the Vniversal Church and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever in a General Council If these things I say be true which you confidently assert the more inexcusable were these Bishops for refusing that Oath of Supremacy which they had not only taken in Henry's time but which by your own confession takes away nothing of the Pope's Authority in relation to the whole Catholick Church And by this means their obstinacy appeared so great as might justly deserve a deprivation It being certainly in the Power of the King and Bishops to assert their own rights in opposition to any Canons or Prescriptions whatsoever of meerly humane right So that by your own confession the more excusable the Henry-Bishops were as you call them the less excusable the Mary-Bishops were as to follow you we must call them in refusing the Oath of Supremacy when tendred to them Was it lawful then in Henry's time to take this Oath or not If not then King Henry's Bishops are infinitely to blame for taking it and you for defending them If it was lawful then why not in Elizabeth's time Had she not as much reason to impose it as her Father Had she not as much power to do it When one of the chief refusers Heath Arch-Bishop of York and then L. Chancellour of England did upon the first notice of the death of Queen Mary declare to the House of Commons That the succession of the Crown did of right belong to the Princess Elizabeth whose title they conceived to be free from all legal Questions this could be then no plea at all for them So that if any persons through the greatest obstinacy might be deprived by a Prince of their Ecclesiastical preferments these might and when you can prove that in no case a Prince hath power to deprive Ecclesiastical persons you will say more to your purpose than yet you have done But till you have done that it remains clear that these Bishops were justly deprived and if so What was to be done with their vacant Sees Must they be kept vacant still or such be put into them who were guilty of the same fault with themselves in refusing the Oath when tendred to them If not such then it was necessary that other fit persons should be legally
the sad complaints of the usurpations and abuses which were in it and these abundantly delivered by Classical Authors of both the present and precedent times and to use more of your own words all Ecclesiastical Monuments are full of them so that this is no false calumny or bitter Pasquil as you call it but a very plain and evident truth But that there was likewise a great deal of art subtilty and fraud used in the getting keeping and managing the Popes power he hath but a small measure of wit who doth not understand and they as little of honesty who dare not confess it CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon How far our Church in reforming her self condemns the Church of Rome The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs asserted The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice The Rights of Primates and Metropolitans settled by it The suitableness of the Ecclesiastical to the Civil Government That the Bishop of Rome had then a limited Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches as Primate of the Roman Diocese Of the Cyprian Priviledge that it was not peculiar but common to all Primates of Dioceses Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons how far pertinent to our dispute How far the Pope's Confirmation requisite to new elected Patriarchs Of the Synodical and Communicatory Letters The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops The Instances brought for it considered The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius truly stated The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome how far allowed by the Canons of the Church The great case of Appeals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited as well as those of the inferiour Clergy C's fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops for acknowledging Appeals to Rome The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface and the other to Coelestine The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome asserted The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion Of the state of the African Churches after their denying Appeals to Rome The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod in case of Appeals Whether ever received by the Church No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene The weakness of the pleas for it manifested THat which now remains to be discussed in the Question of Schism is concerning the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome Whether that be so large and extensive as to bind us to an universal submission so that by renouncing of it we violate the Vnity of the Church and are thereby guilty of Schism But before we come to a particular discussion of that we must cast our eyes back on the precedent Chapter in which the title promiseth us That Protestants should be further convinced of Schism but upon examination of it there appears not so much as the shadow of any new matter but it wholly depends upon principles already refuted and so contains a bare repetition of what hath been abundantly answered in the first part So your first Section hath no more of strength than what lyes in your Churches Infallibility For when you would plead That though the Church of Rome be the accused party yet she may judge in her own cause you do it upon this ground That you had already proved the Roman Church to be infallible and therefore your Church might as well condemn her accusers as the Apostles theirs and that Protestants not pretending Infallibility cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church Now What doth all this come to in case your Church be not infallible as we have evidently proved she is not in the first part and that she is so far from it that she hath most grosly erred as we shall prove in the third part Your second Section supposes the matter of fact evident That Protestants did contradict the publick Doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world which we have lately proved to be an egregious falsity and shall do more afterwards The cause of the Separatists and the Church of England is vastly different Whether wee look on the authority cause or manner of their proceedings and in your other Instances you still beg the Question That your Church is our Mother-Church and therefore we are bound to submit to her judgement though she be the accused party But as to this whole business of Quô Judice nothing can be spoken with more solidity and satisfaction than what his Lordship saith If it be a cause common to both as certain it is here between the Protestant and Roman Church then neither part alone may be Judge if neither alone may judge then either they must be judged by a third which stands indifferent to both and that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or a doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Council which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferency to all parties and that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as private mens When you either attempt to shew the unreasonableness of this or substitute any thing more reasonable instead of it you may expect a further Answer to the Question Quô Judice as far as it concerns the difference between your Church or ours The remainder of this whole Chapter is only a repetition of somewhat concerning Fundamentals and a further expatiating in words without the addition of any more strength from reason or authority upon the Churches Infallibility being proved from Scripture which having been throughly considered already and an account given not only of the meaning of those places one excepted which we shall meet with again but of the reason Why the sense of them as to Infallibility should be restrained to the Apostles I find no sufficient motive inducing me to follow you in distrusting the Readers memory and trespassing on his patience so much as to inculcate the same things over and over as you do Passing by therefore the things already handled and leaving the rest if any such thing appear to a more convenient place where these very places of Scripture are again brought upon
the stage in the Questions of the Pope's Authority and Infallibility of General Councils I come to your following Chapter in which you enter upon the Vindication of the Roman Churches Authority 2. That which his Lordship hath long insisted on and evidently proved is The Right which particular Churches have to reform themselves when the General Church cannot for impediments or will not for negligence do it And your Answers to his proofs have had their weakness sufficiently laid open the only thing here objected further is Whether in so doing particular Churches do not condemn others of Errours in Faith To which his Lordship answers That to reform themselves and to condemn others are two different works unless it fall out so that by reforming themselves they do by consequence condemn any other that is guilty in that point in which they reform themselves and so far to judge and condemn others is not only lawful but necessary A man that lives Religiously doth not by and by sit in judgement and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers but yet while he is silent his very life condemns them To what end his Lordship produceth this Instance any one may easily understand but you abuse it as though his Lordship had said That Protestants only by their Religious lives do condemn your Church and upon this run out into a strange declamation about Who the men are that live so Religiously They who to propagate the Gospel the better marry wives contrary to the Canons and bring Scripture for it Yes surely much more then they who to propagate your Church enjoy Concubines for which if they can bring some Canons of your Church I am sure they can bring no Scripture for it They who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women I see you are still as loth to part them as they are to be parted themselves but if all their lives be no more Religious then the most of them have been the pulling of them down might be a greater act of Religion then living in them They who cast Altars to the ground More certainly then they who worshipped them They who partly banish Priests and partly put them to death Or they who commit treasons and do things worthy of death But you are doubtless very Religious and tender-hearted men whose consciences would never suffer you to banish or put any to death for the sake of Religion no not in Queen Maries time here in England They who deface the very Tombs of Saints and will not permit them to rest even when they are dead Or they who profess to worship dead Saints and martyr living ones with Fire and Faggot If this be your religious living none who know what Religion means will be much taken with it I shall easily grant that you stick close to the Pope but are therein far enough from the Doctrine or life of St. Peter If any of you have endured Sequestrations Imprisonments Death it self I am sure it was not for any good you did not for the Catholick Faith but if you will for some Catholick Treasons such as would have enwrapt a whole Nation in misery If this be your suffering persecution for righteousness sake you will have little cause to rejoyce in your Fellow-sufferers But if you had not a mind to calumniate us and provoke us to speak sad truths of you all this might have been spared for his Lordship only chose this Instance to shew that a Church or person may be condemned consequentially which was not intentionally But you say Our Church hath formally condemned yours by publick and solemn censures in the 39. Articles Doth his Lordship deny that our Church in order to our own reformation hath condemned many things which your Church holds No but that our Churches main intention was to reform it self but considering the corruption and degeneracy of your Church she could not do it without consequentially condemning yours and that she did justly in so doing we are ready on all occasions to justifie But his Lordship asks If one particular Church may not judge or condemn another What must then be done where particulars need reformation To which his Adversary gives a plain Answer That particular Churches must in that case as Irenaeus intimateth have recourse to the Church of Rome which hath more powerful principality and to her Bishop who is the chief Pastour of the whole Church as being St. Peters Successour c. This is the rise and occasion of the present Controversie To this his Lordship Answers That it is most true indeed the Church of Rome hath had and hath yet more powerful Principality then any other particular Church But she hath not this power from Christ. The Roman Patriarch by Ecclesiastical constitutions might perhaps have a Primacy of order but for principality of power the Patriarchs were as even as equal as the Apostles were before them The truth is this more powerful Principality the Roman Bishops got under the Emperours after they became Christian and they used the matter so that they grew big enough to oppose nay to depose the Emperours by the same power which they had given them And after this other particular Churches especially here in the West submitted themselves to them for Succour and Protections sake And this was one main cause that swel'd Rome into this more powerful Principality and not any right given by Christ to make that Prelate Pastour of the whole Church To this you Answer That to say that the Roman Churches Principality is not from Christ is contrary to St. Austin and the whole Milevitan Council who in their Epistle to Innocent the first profess that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. But whoever seriously reads and throughly considers that Epistle will find no such thing as that you aim at there For the scope of the Epistle is to perswade Pope Innocent to appear against Coelestius and Pelagius to that end they give first an account of their Doctrine shewing how pernicious and contrary to Scripture it was after which they tell him that Pelagius being at Jerusalem was like to do a great deal of mischief there but that many of the Brethren opposed him and especially St. Hierom. But we say they do suppose that through the mercy of our Lord Christ assisting you those which hold such perverse and pernicious principles may more easily yield by your Authority drawn out of Scripture Where they do not in the least dream of his Authority as Vniversal Pastor being grounded on Scripture but of his appearing against the Pelagians with his Authority drawn out of Scripture that is to that Authority which he had in the Church by the reputation of the Roman See the Authority of the Scripture being added which was so clear against the Pelagians or both these going together were the most probable way to suppress their Doctrine And it hath been sufficiently proved
by others by very many instances of the writers about that Age that Authoritas was no more then Rescriptum as particularly appears by many passages in Leo's Epistles in which sense no more is expressed by this than that by the Pope's Answer to the Council drawn out of the Authority of Scripture the Pelagians might more probably be suppressed But what is this to an Vniversal Pastorship given by Christ to him any otherwise then to those who sat in any other Apostolical Sees But your great quarrel is against his Lordship for making all the Patriarchs even and equal as to Principality of power and when he saith Equal as the Apostles were you say that is aequivocal for though the Apostles had equal jurisdiction over the whole Church yet St. Peter alone had jurisdiction over the Apostles but this is neither proved from John 21. nor is it at all clear in Antiquity as will appear when we come to that Subject But this assertion of the equality of Protestants is so destructive to your pretensions in behalf of the Church of Rome that you set your self more particularly to disprove it which you offer to do by two things 1. By a Canon of the Nicene Council 2. By the practise of the ancient Church You begin with the first of them and tell us That '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 Pattern and Model of that Authority and Jurisdiction which Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops The words of the Canon are these Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus qui sub ejus potestate sunt sicut ille qui tenet sedem Romae caput est 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 See of Rome is head and Prince of the Patriarchs And in the same Canon the Pope is afterwards styled Petro similis Authoritate par resembling St. Peter and his equal in Authority These are big words indeed and to your purpose if ever any such thing had been decreed by the Council of Nice but I shall evidently prove that this Canon is supposititious and a notorious piece of Forgery Which forgery is much increased by you when you tell us these words are contained in the third Canon of the Council of Nice Which in the Greek Editions of the Canons by du Tillet and the Codex Canonum by Justellus and all other extant in the Latin versions of Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore Mercator is wholly against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. such kind of women which Clergy men took into their houses neither as wives or Concubines but under a pretext of piety In the Arabick Edition of the Nicene Canons set out by Alphonsus Pisanus the third Canon is against the ordination either of Neophyti or criminal persons and so likewise in that of Turrianus So that in no Edition whether Arabick or other is this the third Canon of the Council of Nice and therefore you were guilty either of great ignorance and negligence in saying so or of notorious fraud and imposture if you knew it to be otherwise and yet said it that the unwary reader might believe this Canon to be within the 20. which are the only genuine Canons of the Council of Nice Indeed such a Canon there is in these Arabick Editions but it is so far from being the third that in the Editions both of Pisanus and Turrianus it is the thirty ninth and in it I grant those words are but yet you will have little reason to rejoyce in them when I have proved as I doubt not to do that this whole farrago of Arabick Canons is a meer forgery and that I shall prove both from the true number of the Nicene Canons and the incongruity of many things in the Arabick Canons with the State and Polity of the Church at that time In those Editions set out by Pisanus and Turrianus from the Copy which they say was brought by Baptista Romanus from the Patriarch of Alexandria there are no fewer then eighty Canons whereas the Nicene Council never passed above 20. Which if it appear true that will sufficiently discover the Forgery and Supposititiousness of these Arabick Canons Now that there were no more then twenty genuine Canons of the Council of Nice I thus prove First from Theodoret who after he had given an account of the proceedings in the Council against the Arrians he saith That the Fathers met in Council again and passed twenty Canons relating to the Churches Polity and Gelasius Gricenus whom Alphonsus Pisanus set forth with his Latin version recounts no more then twenty Canons the same number is asserted by Nicephorus Callistus and we need not trouble our selves with reciting the testimonies of more Greek Authors since Binius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more then twenty Canons then determined But although certainly the Greeks were the most competent Judges in this case yet the Latins themselves did not allow of more For although Ruffinus makes twenty two yet that is not by the addition of any more Canons but by splitting two into four And if we believe Pope Stephen in Gratian the Roman Church did allow of no more then twenty And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches A.D. 773. the same number of the Nicene Canons appears still And in a M S. of Hincmarus Rhemensis against Hincmarus Laudunensis this is not only asserted but at large contended for that there were no more Canons determined at Nice then those twenty which we now have from the testimonies of the Tripartite history Ruffinus the Carthaginian Council the Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople and the twelfth action of the Council of Chalcedon So that if both Greeks and Latins say true there could be no more then twenty genuine Canons of the Council of Nice which may be yet further proved by two things viz. the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons and the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae both which yield an abundant testimony to our purpose If ever there was a just occasion given for an early and exact search into the authentick Canons of the Council of Nice it was certainly in that grand Debate between the African Fathers and the Roman Bishops in the case of Appeals For Zosimus challenging not only a right of Appeals to himself but a power of dispatching Legats unto the African Churches to hear causes there and all this by vertue of a Canon in the Nicene Council and this being delivered to them in Council by Faustinus Philippus and Asellus whom
Zosimus sent into Africa to negotiate this affair no sooner did they hear this but they were startled and amazed at it that such a thing should be challenged by vertue of a Canon in the Council of Nice which they had never heard of before Upon this they declare themselves willing to yield to what should appear to be determined by the Nicene Canons thence they propound that a more exact search might be made into the authentical Copies of them for they profess no such thing at all to appear in all the Greek copies which they had among them although Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage were present in the Council of Nice and brought home those Copies which were preserved in the Church of Africa For in all the subscriptions of the Nicene Council whether Arabick or others the name of Caecilian appears now Caecilian was immediate Predecessor in Carthage to Aurelius who presided in that Council wherein these things were debated And there it is expresly said There were but twenty Canons But in order to further satisfaction they decree that a message should be sent on purpose to Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria to find out the authentick Copies of the Nicene Canons and after a most diligent search no more Canons could be found then what the African Fathers had before And thence in the Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople written to the Council of Carthage he acquaints them that he according to their desire had sent them the true and compleat Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Nicene Council And to the same purpose Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria mentioning their desires of having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most true and authentick copies out of the Archives of that Church so he tells them he had sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most faithful copies of the authentick Synod of Nice Now if there had been any ground in the world for Turrianus his conjecture that the Nicene Canons were translated into Arabick by Alexander who was present at the Council for the Benefit of those in Pentapolis or Aegypt who only understood that language and that before the Nicene Canons were burnt of which Athanasius complains who was more likely to have found out these Arabick Canons then Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria upon this occasion especially when the full and authentick Copies were so extreamly desired And since no such thing at all appeared then upon the most diligent inquiry What can be more evident then that these eighty Arabick Canons are the imposture of some latter age Besides if these Canons had been genuine and authentick what imaginable reason can be given why they were not inserted in the Codex Canonum as the other twenty were For as Jacobus Leschasserius well observes we are not to imagine that the Ancient Church was governed at Randome by loose and dispersed Canons whereby it had been an easie matter to have foisted in false and supposititious Canons but that there was a certain body and collection of them digested into an exact order so that none could add to or take away any thing from it and whatever Canons were not contained in this body had no power or force at all in the Church And that there was such a Codex Canonum that learned Person hath abundantly proved from the Council of Chalcedon which hath many passages referring to it so that there is now no question made but that which Justellus published is the true collection of those Canons of the Vniversal Church which were inserted into the Codex in which we find but only the twenty Canons of the Nicene Council and that there could possibly be no more appears by the number of the Canons as they are reckoned in the Council of Chalcedon From whence it follows that only these twenty Canons were ever own'd by the Vniversal Church for had the Fathers of the Church known of so many other Canons of the Nicene Council as surely at least the Patriarchs of Alexandria could not be ignorant of them if there had been any such can we possibly think that those who had so great a Veneration for the Nicene Council should have left the far greater part of the Canons of it out of the Code of the Churches Canons I am not ignorant of what is objected by Binius Bellarmin and others to prove that there were more then twenty Canons of the Council of Nice but those proofs either depend upon things as supposititious as the Arabick Canons themselves such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum or else they only prove that several other things were determined by the Nicene Council as concerning the celebration of Easter rebaptizing Hereticks and such like which might be by the Acts of the Council without putting them into the Canons as Baronius confesseth but there cannot be any evidence brought of any Canon which concerned the Churches Polity for about that Theodoret and Nicephorus tell us the Canons were made which was not among these twenty So that it appears that these Arabick Canons are a meer forgery of later times there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four General Councils and therefore Baronius notwithstanding the pretences of Pisanus and Turrianus from the Alexandrian Copy and that out of Marcellus his Library yet since these Canons were unknown in the Controversie of the African Church about the Nicene Canons leaves the Patronage of them to such as might be able to defend them And Spondanus in his contraction of him though in his marginal note he saith Baronius was sometimes more inclinable to the inlarged number of the Nicene Canons yet he relates it as his positive opinion that he rejected all but the twenty whether Arabick or other as spurious and supposititious You see then what a fair choice you have made of the third Canon of the Council of Nice to prove the superiority of the Pope over other Patriarchs by when neither is it the third Canon nor any Canon at all of the Council of Nice but a spurious figment like those of Isidore Mercator who thought all would pass for gold which made for the Interess of the Church of Rome But were there not such a strong and pregnant evidence from authority to make it appear that these Canons were supposititious yet the incongruity of them with the state of the Church at that time would abundantly manifest it if we had time to compare many of those Canons with it But that which is most material to our purpose concerning the equality of the Patriarchs your following words will put us upon a further enquiry into This also say you viz. That the Pope was head and Prince of all the Patriarchs the practise of the Church shews which is alwayes the best expositor and assertor of the Canons For not only the Popes confirmation was required to all new elected Patriarchs
Councils for the affairs of the Church were to be kept there too for which there is an express passage in the Codex of Theodosius whereby care is taken That the same course should be used in Ecclesiastical which was in civil matters so that such things which concerned them should he heard in the Synods of the Diocese Where the word Diocese is not used in the sense the African Fathers used it in for that which belonged to one Bishop as it is now used but as it is generally used in the Codex of Theodosius and Justinian and the Novells and Greek Canons for that which comprehends in it many Provinces as a Province takes in several Dioceses of particular Bishops These things being premised we may the better understand the scope of the Canon of the Council of Nice in which three things are to our purpose considerable 1. That it supposeth particular bounds and limits set to the Jurisdiction of those who are mentioned in it 2. That what Churches did enjoy priviledges before this Council had them confirmed by this Canon as not to be altered 3. That the Churches enjoying these priviledges were not subordinate to each other 1. That particular bounds and limits were supposed to the power of those Churches therein mentioned For although we grant that this Canon doth not fix or determine What the bounds were of the Roman Bishops power yet that it doth suppose that it had its bounds is apparent from the example being drawn from thence for the limits of other Churches For What an unlikely thing is it that the Church of Rome should be made the pattern for assigning the limits of other Metropolitan Churches if that had not its known limits at that time And Can any thing be more absurd or unreasonable than the Answer which Bellarmin gives to this place That the Bishop of Alexandria ought to govern those Provinces because the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed i. e. saith he To let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them Here is an id est with a witness What will not these men break through that can so confidently obtrude such monstrous interpretations upon the credulous world Is it possible to conceive when the Canon makes use of the parallel of the Roman Bishop and makes that the ground why the Bishop of Alexandria should enjoy full power over those Provinces because the Bishop of Rome did so that the meaning should be That he gave the Bishop of Alexandria power to govern those Provinces They who can believe such things may easily find arguments for the Pope's unlimited Supremacy every where I make no scruple to grant what Bellarmin contends for from the Epistle of Nicolaus 1 That the Council did not herein assign limits to the Church of Rome but made that a pattern whereby to order the Government of other Churches And from thence it is sufficiently clear to any reasonable man that the limits of her Government were though not assigned yet supposed by the Council For otherwise How absurd were it to say Let the Bishop of Alexandria govern Aegypt Libya and Pentapolis because the Bishop of the Church of Rome hath no limits at all but governs the whole Church Doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import some parallel custom in the Church of Rome and name therefore what that is supposing he hath no limits set to his Jurisdiction Yes it may be you will reply He had limits as a Metropolitan but not as Head of the Church Grant me then that he had limits as Metropolitan and then prove you that ever he had any unlimited power acknowledged as Head of the Church Would they ever have made such an instance in him without any discrimination of his several capacities if they had known any other power that he had but only as a Metropolitan Nay might not the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria be rather supposed to have the greater power because their Provinces were much larger here than his And although Bellarmin useth that as his great argument Why Ruffinus his exposition cannot hold Because the Bishop of Rome would have a lesser Diocese assigned him than either the Bishops of Antioch or Alexandria yet when we consider What hath been said already of the agreement of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Government a sufficient account may thence be given of it For as the Praefectus Augustalis had all the Provinces of Aegypt for his Diocese so had the Bishop of Alexandria and as the Lieutenant of Antioch had that which was properly called the Orient containing fifteen Provinces under him so had the Bishop of Antioch and by the same proportion the power of the Bishop of Rome did correspond to the Diocese of the Roman Lieutenant which was over those ten Provinces which were subject to his Jurisdiction as it was distinct from the Diocese of Italy which was under that Lieutenant whose residence was at Milan Here we see then a parity of reason in all of them and therefore I cannot but think that the true account of the Suburbicary Churches in Ruffinus his exposition of this Canon is that which we have now set down viz. those Churches which lay within the ten Provinces subject to the Roman Lieutenant But of them more afterwards That which I now insist on is that the Bishop of Rome had then a limited Jurisdiction as other Metropolitans and Primats had Nay if we should grant that the title produced by Paschasinus in the Council of Chalcedon to this Canon were not such a forgery as that of Zosimus yet the most that it could prove was only this That the Roman Church had alwaies the primacy within her Diocese i. e. all Metropolitical power but not that it had an unlimited primacy in the whole Church which was a thing none of those Fathers who lived in the time of the four Councils did ever acknowledge but alwaies opposed any thing tending to it as appears by those very proceedings of Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon and by the Canons of that Council and of the Council of Constantinople And it is a rare Answer to say That those Canons are not allowed by the Roman Church for by that very Answer it appears that they did oppose the Pope's Supremacy or else doubtless they would have been allowed there But that the Pope's Metropolitical Power was confined within the Roman Diocese so as not to extend to the Italick we have this pregnant evidence that it appears by the occasion of the Nicene Canon that the main Power contested for was that of Ordination and it is evident by Theodoret and Synesius his Epistles that the Bishop of Alexandria did retain it as his due by virtue of this Canon to ordain the Bishops of Pentapolis as well as Aegypt But now the Bishop of Rome did not ordain the Bishop of Milan who was in the Italick Diocese for S. Ambrose was ordained Bishop by a Synod of Italy at the appointment of the Emperour Valentinian
this Binius himself condemns those Acts which report this story for spurious there being a manifest repugnancy in the time of them and no such person as Polychronius ever mentioned by the Ecclesiastical Historians of that time and other fabulous Narrations inserted in them Yet these are your goodly proofs of the Popes power to depose Patriarchs But we must see whether you have any better success in proving his power to restore such as were deposed for which you only instance in Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius whose case must be further examined which in short is this Athanasius being condemned by the Synods of Tyre and Antioch goes to Rome where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius who would not accept of the Decree of the Eastern Bishops which was sent after him to Rome For Pope Julius did not formally offer to restore Athanasius to his Church but only owned and received him into Communion as Bishop of Alexandria and that because he looked on the proceedings as unjust in his condemnation And all that Julius himself pleads for is not a power to depose or restore Patriarchs himself but only that such things ought not to have been done without communicating those proceedings to him which the Vnity of the Church might require And therefore Petrus de Marca saith that Baronius Bellarmin and Perron are all strangely out in this story when they would infer That the causes of the Eastern Bishops upon appeal were to be judged by the Bishop of Rome whereas all that Julius pleads for is that such things should not be done by the Eastern Bishops alone which concerned the deposition of so great a person in the Church as the Patriarch of Alexandria but that there ought to be a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops on which account afterwards the Sardican Synod was call'd But when we consider with what heat and stomack this was received by the Eastern Bishops how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings then they had with theirs when they say that the Pope by this usurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed we see what an excellent instance you have made choice of to prove the Popes power of restoring Bishops by Divine right and that this was acknowledged by the whole Church The next thing to be considered is that speech of St. Augustine That in the Church of Rome there did alwayes flourish the Principality of an Apostolick chair As to which his Lordship saith That neither was the word Principatus so great nor the Bishops of those times so little as that Principes and Principatus are not commonly given them both by the Greek and Latin Fathers of this great and learnedst age of the Church made up of the fourth and fift hundred years alwayes understanding Principatus of their spiritual power and within the limits of their several jurisdictions which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed And there is not one word in St. Augustine that this Principality of the Apostolick chair in the Church of Rome was then or ought to be now exercised over the whole Church of Christ as Bellarmin insinuates there and as A. C. would have it here To all this you say nothing to purpose but only tell us That the Bishop by this makes way to some other pretty perversions as you call them of the same Father For we must know say you that he is entering upon that main Question concerning the Donatists of Africk and he is so indeed and that not only for clearing the meaning of St. Augustine in the present Epistle but of the whole Controversie to which a great light will be given by a true account of those proceedings Thus then his Lordship goes on And to prove that St. Augustine did not intend by Principatus here to give the Roman Bishop any power out of his own limits which God knows were far short of the whole Church I shall make it most manifest out of the same Epistle For afterwards saith St. Augustine when the pertinacy of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops only they gave them leave to be heard by forraign Bishops And after that he hath these words And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the transmarine Bishops non debuit ought not to usurp to himself this judgement which was determin'd by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate And what will you say if he did not usurp this power for the Emperour being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole cause In which passage saith his Lordship there are very many things observable As first That the Roman Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops Secondly That if the Pope had come in without this leave it had been an Vsurpation Thirdly That when he did thus come in not by his own Authority but by Leave there were other Bishops made Judges with him Fourthly That these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperour and his power that which the Pope least of all will endure Lastly Lest the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Vsurpation in the Emperour St. Austin tells us a little before in the same Epistle still that this doth chiefly belong ad curam ejus to the Emperours care and charge and that he is to give an account to God for it And Melciades did sit and judge the business with all Christian Prudence and Moderation So at this time the Roman Prelate was not received as Pastour of the whole Church say A. C. what he please nor had he Supremacy over the other Patriarchs In order to the better shaping your Answer to this Discourse you pretend to give us a true Narrative of the Donatists proceedings by the same figure that Lucians Book is inscribed De vera historia There are several things therefore to be taken notice of in your Narrative before we come to your particular Answers whose strength depends upon the matters of fact First You give no satisfactory account at all Why if the Popes Vniversal Pastourship had been then owned the first appeal on both sides was not made to the Bishop of Rome for in so great a Schism as that was between the different parties of Caecilian and Majorinus To whom should they have directly gone but to Melchiades then Bishop of Rome How comes it to pass that there is no mention at all of his judgement by either party till Constantine had appointed him to be one of the Judges St. Austin indeed pleads in behalf of Caecilian why he would not be judged by the African Synod of LXX Bishops that there were thousands of his Colleagues on the other side the Sea whom he might be tryed by But why not by the Bishop
of Rome alone if the Vniversal Pastorship did belong to him But your Narrative gives us a rare account why the Donatists did not go to the Pope before they went to the Emperour viz. That they durst not appear there or else knew it would be to little purpose But by what Arguments do you prove they durst not appear there before when we see they went readily thither after the Emperour had appointed Rome for the place where their cause was to be heard if they thought it were to so little purpose For we see the Donatists never except against the place at all or the person of the Bishop of Rome but upon the command of Constantine made known to them by Analinus the Proconsul of Africa ten of their party go to Rome to negotiate their affairs before the Delegates This is but therefore a very lame account why the first appeal should be to the Emperour and not to the Pope if he had been then known to be the Vniversal Pastour of the Church But say you further The Emperour disliked their proceedings and told them expresly That it belonged not to him neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops But on what grounds he durst not do it we may easily judge by his undertaking it at last and passing a final judgement in this cause himself after the Councils at Rome at Arles could not put an end to it If Constantine had judged it unlawful could their importunity have excused it and could it be any other then unlawful if the Pope were the Vniversal Pastour of the Church Do you think it would be accounted a sufficient plea among you now for any Prince to assume to himself the judgement of any cause already determin'd by the Pope because of the importunity of the persons concerned in it Indeed Constantine did at first prudently wave the business himself and that I suppose the rather because the Donatists in their Petition had intreated that some of the Bishops of Gaul might umpire the business either because that was then the place of the Emperours residence or else that Gaul under Constantius had escaped the late persecution and therefore were not lyable to the suspicion of those crimes whereof Caecilian and Felix of Aptung were accused But however though Constantine did not sit as Judge himself he appointed Marinus Rheticius and Maternus to joyn with Melchiades the Bishop of Rome in the determining this case But this he did you say to comply with the Donatists What to joyn other Bishops with the Head of the Church in equal power for deciding Controversies and all this meerly to comply with the Schismatical Donatists was this think you becoming one who believed the Popes Vniversal Pastourship by Divine Right Well fare then the Answer of others who love to speak plain truths and impute all these proceedings to Constantines Ignorance of his duty being yet but a Catechumen in Christian Religion and therefore did he knew not what But methinks the Vniversal Pastour or some of those nineteen Bishops who sat at Rome in this business or of those two hundred whom you say met afterwards at Arles about it should have a little better instructed him in his duty and not let him go so far on in it as from delegating Judges to hear it and among them the Head of the Church to resume it afterwards himself both to hear and determine it If the Emperour had as you say protested against this as in it self unlawful would none of the Bishops hinder him from doing it But where doth Constantine profess against it as in it self unlawful if so no circumstances no importunities could ever make it lawful Unless you think the importunity of Josephs Mistress would have made adultery no sin in him If Constantine said he would ask the Bishops pardon in it that might be as looking on them as the more competent Judges but not thinking it unlawful in it self for him to do as you say Well but you tell us It was 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 I am very much of your mind in this and if all Popes since Melchiades had used the same justice and moderation to have staid till things had been orderly brought to them and not usurped upon the priviledges of other Churches things had been in a far better condition in the Christian world then they are Had there been none but such as Melchiades who shewed so much Christian prudence and moderation in the management of this business that great Schism which your Church hath caused by her arrogant pretences might have been prevented But how come you to know that this case did properly belong to the Popes cognizance who told you this to be sure not the Emperour Constantine who in his Epistle to Miltiades extant in Eusebius intimates no such thing but only writes to him as one delegated to hear that cause with the other Bishops and gives him Instructions in order to it Do the Donatists or their Adversaries mention any such thing Doth the Pope himself ever express or intimate it It seems he wanted your information much at that time Or it may be like the late Pope Innocent in the case of the five propositions he might say he was bred no Divine and therefore might the less understand his duty But can it possibly enter into your head that this case came to the Pope at last by way of regular appeal as you seem to assert afterwards Is this the way of appeals to go to the Emperour and Petition him to appoint Judges to hear the case If the case of appeals must be determined from these proceedings to be sure the last resort will be to the Emperour himself as well as the first appeal Whether the African Bishops gave leave to the Donatists to be heard by forraign Bishops or they took it themselves is not much material because the Schism was so great at home that there was no likelihood of any ending the Controversie by standing to a fair arbitration among themselves And therefore there seemed a necessity on both sides of referring the business to some unconcerned persons who might hear the Allegations and judge indifferently between them And no other way did the nineteen Bishops at Rome proceed with them but as indifferent Arbitrators and therefore the Witnesses and Allegations on both sides were brought before them but we read of no power at all challenged absolutely to bind the persons to the judgement of the Church of Rome as the final judgement in the case The Question Whether the Pope had usurped this power or no depends not upon the Donatists Question Whether Melchiades ought to have undertaken the judgement of that cause which had been already determined by a Synod of LXX Bishops in Africk But upon St. Augustines Answer who justifies
the lawfulness of his doing it because he was thereto appointed by the Emperour But when you say St. Austin gives this answer only per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of condescension to his adversaries way of speaking you would do well to prove elsewhere from St. Austin that when he lay's aside his Rhetorick he ever speaks otherwise but that it would have been an Vsurpation in the Pope to challenge to himself the hearing of those causes which had been determined by African Bishops But what St. Augustines judgement as well as the other African Fathers was in this point abundantly appears from the Controversies between them and the Bishop of Rome in the case of Appeals It sufficiently appears already That neither our Saviour nor the Canons of the Vniversal Church gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius and other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church and therefore you were put to your shifts when you run thither for security But that which follows is notoriously false That when he did so interpose no man no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffered by his judgement complained or accused him of usurpation when in the case of Athanasius it is so vehemently pleaded by the Eastern Bishops that the Pope had nothing at all to do in it but they might as well call in Question what was done at Rome as he what was done at Antioch Nay name us any one cause in that age of the Church where the Pope did offer to meddle in matters determined by other Bishops which he was not opposed in and the persons concern'd did not complain and accuse him of meddling with what he had no right to which are but other words for Vsurpation You say The Bishops whom the Emperour sent as Judges with the Pope were an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence It seems three to one are with you an inconsiderable number But say you The Pope to shew his authority added fifteen other Bishops of Italy to be his Colleagues and Assistants in the business Either these fifteen Bishops were properly Judges in the cause or only assistants for better management and speedier dispatch if they were Judges how prove you that Constantine did not appoint them if they were only assistants and suffragans to the Bishop of Rome as is most probable except Merocles Bishop of Milan what authority did the Pope shew in calling his Suffragans to his assistance in a matter of that nature which required so much examination of Witnesses But the Pope had more effectually shewn his authority if he had refused the Bishops whom Constantine sent and told him he medled with that which did not concern him to appoint any Judges at all in a matter of Ecclesiastical Cognisance and that it was an unsufferable presumption in him to offer to send three underling Bishops to sit with him in deciding Controversies as though he were not the Vniversal Pastour of the Church himself to whom alone by Divine right all such things did belong Such language as this would have become the Head of the Church and in that indeed he had shewn his authority But for him sneakingly to admit other Bishops as joynt-commissioners forsooth with him and that by the Emperours appointment too What did he else but betray the rights of his See and expose his Infallible Headship to great contempt Do you think that Pope Hildebrand or any of his Successours would have done this No they understood their power far better then so and the Emperour should have known his own for offering such an Affront to his Holiness And if his Bay-leaves did not secure him the Thunder-bolts of Excommunication might have lighted on him to his prejudice For shame then never say That Pope Miltiades shewed his authority but rather give him over among those good Bishops of Rome but bad Popes who knew better how to suffer Martyrdom then assert the Authority of the Roman See I pray imagine but Paul 5. or any other of our stout-spirited Popes in Miltiades his place Would they have taken such things at Constantines hands as poor Miltiades did and for all that we see was very well contented too and thought he did but his duty in doing what the Emperour bid him Would they have been contented to have had a cause once passed the Infallible judgement of the Roman See to be resumed again and handled in another Council as though there could be any suspicion that all things were not rightly carried there and that after all this too the Emperour should undertake to give the final decision to it would these things have been born with by any of our Infallible Heads of the Church But good Miltiades must be excused he went as far as his knowledge carried him and thought he might do good service to the Church in what he did and that was it he looked at more then the grandeur of his See The good Bishops then were just crept out of the Flames of persecution and they thought it a great matter that they had liberty themselves and did not much concern themselves about those Vsurpations which the Pride and Ease of the following ages gave occasion for They were sorry to see a Church that had survived the cruel Flames of Dioclesians persecution so suddenly to feel new ones in her own bowels that a Church whose constitution was so strong as to endure Martyrdomes should no sooner be at ease but she begins to putrifie and to be fly-blown with heats and divisions among her members and that her own Children should rake in those wounds which the violence of her professed enemies had caused in her and therefore these good Bishops used their care and industry to close them up and rather rejoyced they had so good an Emperour who would concern himself so much in healing the Churches breaches then dispute his Authority or disobey his Commands And if Constantine doth express himself unwilling to engage himself to meddle in a business concerning the Bishops of the Church it was out of his tender respect to those Bishops who had manifested their piety and sincerity so much in their late persecutions and not from any Question of his own Authority in it For that he after sufficiently asserted not only in his own actions but when the case of Felix of Aptung was thought not sufficiently scanned at Rome in appointing about four months after the judgement at Rome Aelianus the Proconsul of Africa to examine the case of Felix the Bishop of Aptung who had ordained Caecilian To this the Donatists pleaded That a Bishop ought not to be tryed by Proconsular judgement to which St. Austin Answers That it was not his own seeking but the Emperours appointing to whose care and charge that business did chiefly belong of which he must give an account to God And can it now enter into any head but yours that for all this the Emperour looked on the judgement
of this cause as a thing not belonging to his Authority They who can believe such things as these and notwithstanding all the circumstances of this story can think the Popes Vniversal Pastourship was then owned the most I can say of them is that they are in a fair way to believe Transubstantiation there being nothing so improbable but upon equal grounds they may judge it true That the Pope had no Supremacy over other Patriarchs his Lordship saith That were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civil Law is proof enough And that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church The Text there is A Patriarchâ non datur appellatio From a Patriarch there lyes no appeal No appeal Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his own Patriarchate Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacy over the whole Church Therefore certainly not then received as universal Pastor Two things you answer to this 1. That this reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves who must have some higher ordinary Tribunal where such causes may be heard and determined Very well argued against the Pope's power of judging for in case of a difference between him and the other Patriarchs who must decide the difference Himself no doubt But still it is your way to beg that you can never prove for you herein suppose the Pope to be above all Patriarchs which you know is the thing in dispute Or Do you suppose it very possible that other Patriarchs may quarrel and fall out among themselves but that the Popes are alwaies such mild and good men that it is impossible any should fall out with them or they with others that still they must stand by as unconcerned in all the quarrels of the Christian world and be ready to receive complaints from all places If therefore a General Council must not be the Judge in this case I pray name somewhat else more agreeable to reason and the practice of the Church But you answer 2. What the Law saith is rightly understood and must be explicated of inferiour Clerks only who were not of ordinary course to appeal further than the Patriarch or the Primate of their Province For so the Council of Africk determines But 't is even there acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome This answer of yours necessarily leads us to the debates of the great case of appeals to Rome as it was managed between the African Bishops and the Bishops of Rome by which we shall easily discover the weakness of your answer and the most palpable fraud of your citation by which we may see What an excellent cause you have to manage which cannot be defended but by such frauds as here you make use of and hope to impose upon your Reader by Your Answer therefore in the general is That the Laws concerning appeals did only concern inferiour Clergy-men but that Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome even by the Council of Africk which not only decreed it but acknowledged it in an Epistle to Pope Boniface And therefore for our through understanding the truth in this case those proceedings of the African Church must be briefly explained and truly represented Two occasions the Churches of Africa had to determine in the case of Appeals to Rome the first in the Milevitan the second in the Carthaginian Councils in both which we have several things very considerable to our purpose In the Milevitan Council they decree That whosoever would appeal beyond the Sea should not be received into Communion by any in Africa which decree is supposed by some to be occasioned by Coelestius having recourse to Pope Zosimus after he had been condemned in Africa No doubt those prudent Bishops began to be quickly sensible of the monstrous inconvenience which would speedily follow upon the permission of such appeals to Rome for by that means they should never preserve any discipline in their Churches but every person who was called in Question for any crimes would slight the Bishops of those Churches and presently appeal to Rome To prevent which mischief they make that excellent Canon which allows only liberty of appealing to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their Province but absolutely forbids all forein appeals All the difficulty is Whether this Canon only concerned the Inferiour Clergy as you say and which is all that the greatest of your side have said in it or Whether it doth not take away all appeals of Bishops too For which we need no more than produce the Canon it self as it is extant in the authentick collection of the Canons of the African Church In which is an express clause declaring that the same thing had been often determined in the case of Bishops Which because it strikes home therefore Perron and others have no other shift but to say That this clause was not in the original Milevitan Canons but was inserted afterwards But why do not they who assert such bold things produce the true authentick Copy of these Milevitan Canons that we may see What is genuine and what not But suppose we should grant that this clause was inserted afterwards it will be rather for the advantage than prejudice of our cause For which we must consider that in the time of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage there had been very many Councils celebrated there no fewer than seventeen Justellus and others reckon But a general Council meeting at Carthage A. D. 419. which was about three years after that Milevitan Council which was held 416. as appears by the Answer of Innocentius to it A. D. 417. at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of those lesser Councils and out of them all composed that Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae as Justellus at large proves in the preface to his edition of it So that if this clause were inserted it must be inserted then for it is well known that the case of Appeals was then at large debated and by that means it received a more general authority by passing in this African Council And hence it was that this Canon passed with this clause into the Greek Churches for Balsamon and Zonaras both acknowledge it and not only they but many ancient Latin Copies had it too and is so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes as Hincmarus and others have already proved But Gracian hath helped it well out for he hath added a brave Antidote at the end of it by putting to it a very useful clause Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit by which the Canon makes excellent sense that none shall appeal to Rome unless they do appeal to Rome for none who have any understanding of the state of those Churches at that time do make the least Question but the intent of the Canon was to prohibit appeals to Rome but then say they They were only the appeals of the Inferiour Clergy which were to be ended
Nice For if this be taken care for as to the Inferiour Clergy and Laity How much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops that so they who are in their own Province suspended from communion be not hastily or unduly admitted by your Holiness Let your Holiness also reject the wicked refuges of Priests and Inferiour Clerks for no Canon of the Fathers hath taken that from the Church of Africk and the decrees of Nice hath subjected both the Inferiour Clergy and Bishops io their Metropolitans For they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting to every Province that so equity may be prudently discovered and constantly held by Christ's Priests Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an Vniversal Council Vnless perhaps some body believe that God can inspire to every one of us the justice of examination of a cause and refuse it to a multitude of Bishops assembled in Council Or How can a judgement made beyond the Sea be valid to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought by reason of the infirmity of their sex and age or of many other intervening impediments For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that which you did long since send to us by Faustinus our Fellow-Bishop as belonging to the Council of Nice we could not find it in the truest Copies of the Council sent by holy Cyril our Colleague Bishop of Alexandria and by the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your predecessor Boniface of happy memory by Innocent a Presbyter and Marcellus a Deacon Take heed also of sending to us any of your Clerks for executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ which beareth the light of simplicity and the brightness of humility before them that desire to see God And concerning our Brother Faustinus Apiarius being now for his wickedness cast out of the Church of Christ we are confident that our brotherly love continuing through the goodness and moderation of your Holiness Africa shall no more be troubled with him Thus I have at large produced this noble Monument of the prudence courage and simplicity of the African Fathers enough to put any reasonable man out of the fond conceit of an Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome I wonder not that Baronius saith There are some hard things in this Epistle that Perron sweats and toils so much to so little purpose to enervate the force of it for as long as the records of it last we have an impregnable Bulwark against the Vsurpations of the Church of Rome And methinks you might blush for shame to produce those African Fathers as determining the Appeals of Bishops to Rome who with as much evidence and reason as courage and resolution did finally oppose it What can be said more convincingly against these Appeals than is here urged by them That they have neither authority from Councils nor any Foundation in Justice and Equity that God's presence was as well in Africk as Rome no doubt then they never imagined any Infallibility there that the proceedings of the Roman Bishop were so far from the simplicity and humility of the Gospel that they tended only to nourish swelling pride and secular ambition in the Church That the Pope had no authority to send Legats to hear causes and they hoped they should be no more troubled with such as Faustinus was All these things are so evident in this testimony that it were a disparagement to it to offer more at large to explain them I hope then this will make you sensible of the injury you have done the African Fathers by saying that they determined the causes of Bishops might be heard at Rome Your Answer to the place of S. Gregory which his Lordship produceth concerning Appeals viz. that the Patriarch is to put a final end to those causes which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Arch-Bishops is the very same that it speaks only of the Inferiour Clergy and therefore is taken off already But you wonder his Lordship should expose to view the following words of S. Gregory where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocese there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick as being the Head of all Churches Then surely it follows say you the Bishop of Rome 's Jurisdiction is not only over the Western and Southern Provinces but over the whole Church whither the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs and Metropolitans never extended See how well you make good the common saying That Ignorance is the cause of Admiration for Wherefore should you wonder at his Lordships producing these words if you had either understood or considered the abundant Answers which he gives to them 1. That if there be a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his judgement is final and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome 2. It is as plain that in those ancient times of Church-Government Britain was never subject to the See of Rome of which afterwards 3. It will be hard for any man to prove that there were any Churches then in the world which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitan 4. If any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where-ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome And Do you still wonder why his Lordship produces these words I may more justly wonder why you return no Answer to what his Lordship here sayes But still the Caput omnium Ecclesiarum sticks with you if his Lordship hath not particularly spoken to that it was because his whole discourse was sufficient to a man of ordinary capacity to let him see that no more could be meant by it but some preheminence of that Church above others in regard of order and dignity but no such thing as Vniversal Power and Jurisdiction was to be deduced from it And if Gregory understood more by it as his Lordship saith 'T is gratis dictum and Gregory himself was not a person to be believed in his own cause But now as you express it his Lordship takes a leap from the Church of Rome to the Church of England No neither his Lordship nor we take a leap from thence hither but you are the men who leap over the Alps from the Church of England to that of Rome We plead as his Lordship doth truly That in the ancient times of the Church Britain was never subject to the See of Rome but being one of the Western Dioceses of the Empire it had a Primate of its own This you say his Lordship should
have proved and not meerly said But What an unreasonable man are you who would put his Lordship to prove Negatives if you challenge a right which the Pope hath over us it is your business to prove it his Lordship gave a sufficient reason for what he said in saying that Britain was one of the Dioceses of the Empire and therefore had a Primate of her own This you deny not but say this only proves That the Inferiour Clergy could not appeal to Rome What again but this subterfuge hath been prevented already But to pass by what without any shadow of proof you say of the Patriarch of Constantinople 's being subject to the Pope and Pope Urban 's calling Anselm the Patriarch of the other world which we are far from making the least ground to make Canterbury a Patriarchal See which as far as concerns the rights of Primacy was so long before the Synod of Bar in Apulia we come to that which is more material viz. your attempt to prove That Britain was anciently subject to the See of Rome for which you instance in Wilfrid Arch-Bishop of York appealing to Rome about A. D. 673. who was restored to his Bishoprick by virtue of the sentence passed in his behalf at Rome and so being a second time expelled appealed as formerly and was again restored To which I shall return you a clear and full Answer in the words of another Arch-Bishop the late learned L. Primate of Ireland The most famous saith he I had almost said the only appellant from England to Rome that we read of before the Conquest was Wilfride Archbishop of York who notwithstanding that he gained sentence upon sentence at Rome in his Favour and notwithstanding that the Pope did send express Nuncio's into England on purpose to see his sentence executed yet he could not obtain his restitution or the benefit of his sentence for six years during the Raigns of King Egbert and Alfrede his son Yea King Alfrede told the Nuncio's expresly That he honoured them as his Parents for their grave lives and honourable aspects but he could not give any assent to their Legation because it was against reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English should be restored upon the Popes letter If they had believed the Pope to be their competent Judge either as Universal Monarch or so much as Patriarch of Brittain or any more then an honourable Arbitratour which all the Patriarchs were even without the bounds of their proper jurisdictions How comes it to pass that two Kings successively and the great Councils of the Kingdom and the other Archbishop Theodore with all the prime Ecclesiasticks and the flower of the English Clergy did so long and so resolutely oppose so many sentences and messages from Rome and condemn him twice whom the Pope had absolved Consider that Wilfride was an Archbishop not an Inferiour Clerk and if an appeal from England to Rome had been proper or lawful in any case it had been so in this case But it was otherwise determined by those who were most concerned Malmsbury supposeth either by Inspiration or upon his own head that the King and the Archbishop Theodore were smitten with remorse before their deaths for the injury done to Wilfride and the slighting the Popes sentence letter and Legats But the contrary is most apparently true For first it was not King Alfrede alone but the great Council of the Kingdome also not Theodore alone but the main body of the Clergy that opposed the Popes letter and the restitution of Wilfride in that manner as it was decreed at Rome Secondly after Alfrede and Theodore were both dead we find the Popes sentence and Wilfrides restitution still opposed by the surviving Bishops in the Raign of Alfredes son To clear the matter past contradiction let us consider the ground of this long and bitter contention Wilfride the Archbishop was become a great Pluralist and had ingrossed into his hands too many Ecclesiastical Dignities The King and the Church of England thought fit to deprive him of some of them and to confer them upon others Wilfride appealed from their sentence to Rome The Pope gave sentence after sentence in favour of Wilfride But for all his sentences he was not he could not be restored untill he had quitted two of his Monasteries which were in Question Hongestilldean and Ripon which of all others he loved most dearly and where he was afterwards interred This was not a Conquest but a plain waving of his sentences from Rome and yielding of the Question for those had been the chief causes of the Controversie So the King and the Church after Alfredes death still made good his conclusion That it was against reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English should be restored upon the Popes Bull. And as he did not so neither did they give any assent to the Popes Legation This I hope may suffice as a most sufficient Answer to your Objection from Wilfrides Appeal But you would seem to urge yet further for the ancient subjection of Britain to the Church of Rome in these words Again is it not manifest out of him Bede that even the Primitive original Institution of our English Bishops is from Rome And for this you cite a letter of Pope Gregory 1. to Augustine the Monk whom you call our English Apostle in which Gregory grants to him the use of the Pall the proper badge or sign of Archiepiscopal Dignity and that he condescended that he should ordain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction c. Behold here say you the original Charter as I may say of the Primacy of Canterbury in this Letter and Mandate of the Pope it is founded nor can it with any colour of reason be drawn from other origin And by vertue of this Grant have all the succeeding Bishops of that See enjoyn'd the Dignity and Authority of Primats of this Nation From whence you very civilly charge his Lordship either with gross Ignorance if he knew it not or with great Ingratitude if he knew it To which I Answer that his Lordship knowing this no doubt very well that Gregory sent Austin into England c. could not from thence think himself bound to submit to the Roman Bishop and it had been more pertinent to your purpose not to charge him with Ingratitude but with Disobedience For that was it which you ought to prove hence that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought still to be subject to the Bishop of Rome because Gregory 1. made Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury A wonderful strong Argument no doubt which out of charity to you we must further examine for you tell us The Original Charter of the Primacy of Canterbury is contained in that Grant To satisfie you as to this two things are to be considered the Primacy it self and the exercise of it by a particular person in some
particular place If you speak of the Primacy it self i. e. the independent right of Governing the Churches within the Provinces of Britain then we utterly deny that this was contained in that Grant For Britain having been a Province before in which Bishops did Govern Independently on any Forrein Bishop no Forrein Bishops could take away that Priviledge from it I will not stand here to deduce the History of the Bishops of Britain before Augustines coming into England but it is as certain that there were such as it is that St. Augustine ever came hither For not only all our own Historians and Bede himself confess it but it is most evident from the subscriptions of three of them to the first Council of Arles Eborius of York Restitutus of London and Adelfius de civitate Coloniâ Londinensium which some will have to be a mistake for Colonia Camaloduni whether by that Colchester Maldon or Winchester be meant as it is differently thought from the presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod and the Council of Ariminum as appears by Athanasius and others but this I suppose you will not deny that there were Bishops in England before Austin came And that these Bishops had then no dependence on the See of Rome if it were not sufficiently evident from other Arguments the relation of the proceedings in Bede himself between Austin and them about submission would abundantly discover as likewise that there was then an Archbishop with Metropolitical power over them whose ancient seat had been Caerleon But I consider not this Primacy now as in any particular place but in general as belonging to the Provinces of Britain which I say had a Primacy belonging to it whether at York or London is not material at the time of the Council of Nice according to what hath been formerly said about the state of Churches then now the Council of Nice takes care that the priviledges of all Churches should be preserved i. e. That where there had been a Primacy it should so continue Now therefore I ask How came this priviledge of Britain to be lost which was not only confirmed with others by the Nicene Council but by that of Chalcedon and Ephesus in which the ancient priviledges of Churches are secured what right had Austin the Monk to cassate the ancient Metropolitical power of the Britannick Church and to require absolute subjection to himself If the Pope made him Archbishop of Canterbury by what right was he Primate over the Britain Church How came the Archbishop then in being to lose his Primacy by Austins coming into England Was it because the Britannick Church was then over-run with Pagan-Saxons and the visible power of it confined to a narrow compass Yet I doubt not but there were many Brittish Christians living here among the Saxons though oppressed by them as they were after by the Normans for Where is it that any conquest hath carried away all the inhabitants and that these did many of them retain their Christianity though not daring publickly to own it there are many not improbable circumstances to lead us to suppose But we will grant that the face of the Britannick Church was only in Wales what follows thence that the whole Province had lost its right Let us suppose a case like this as that the Church of Rome should be over-run with a Barbarous people as it was by the Goths and Vandals and the inhabitants destroyed these Barbarous people continuing in possession of it and that a Bishop should have been sent from Britain to convert them to the Faith and upon their Conversion to Govern those Churches and should be made Bishop of that place by the Brittish Bishops Whether would he be bound to continue alwayes in subjection to them or no If not but you say by his succession in the See of Rome he enjoyes the priviledges of that See though the inhabitants be altered the same I say of the Britannick Churches though the inhabitants were altered and Saxons succeeded the Britains yet the priviledge of the Church remains still as to its Primacy and Independency And therefore the Popes making Augustine Archbishop so as to give him withall the Primacy over the Churches in the Province of Britain was an Vsurpation upon the rights of our Church which had an absolute and Independent Primacy within it self as it was in the case of the Cyprian Bishop As supposing those ancient Sects of Churches which are over-run with Turks should again be converted to Christianity the Bishops of those Churches as of Ephesus or the like would enjoy the same rights which the ancient Bishops had so we say it was in our case though the Nation was then over-spread with Paganism yet Christianity returning the priviledges of our Churches did return with it and whosoever were rightly consecrated Bishops of them would enjoy the same rights which they did before So that Gregory might make Austin a Bishop and send him to convert this Nation by which he was capable to Govern the Churches here which he did convert but he could not give to him the right over these Churches which Gregory had no power over himself neither could Austin or any other Archbishop of Canterbury give away the Primacy of England by submitting himself to the Roman See What therefore is Gregories Grant to Austin to the Primacy of England If you ask then How the Archbishops of Canterbury come to be Primates of England I Answer 1. This Primacy must be lodged somewhere and it is not unalterably fixed to any certain place because the Primacy belongs to the Church and not to a particular See 2. It is in the power of Princes to fix the Metropolitan See in what place is judged most convenient thence have been the frequent removes of Episcopal and See's as is evident in many examples in Ecclesiastical history particularly in Justiniana Prima made a Metropolis by Justinian 3. Where ever the Primacy is lodged it retains its ancient priviledges so that there is no need of a succession of our Archbishops from the Brittish Archbishops of Caerleon to preserve the Brittish Primacy but that See being removed by the Power of Princes the Primacy still remains the same that it was in the Brittish Metropolitans And thus I hope I have shewn you that the Original Charter of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Primacy was not contained in the Popes grant to Austin From hence we proceed again to the case of the African Churches for as his Lordship saith the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melchiades his temper set themselves to assert their own liberties and held it out stoutly against Zozimus Boniface 1 and Caelestine 1. who were successively Bishops of Rome At last it was concluded in the sixth Council of Carthage wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeen Bishops of which St. Augustine himself was one that they would not give way to such a manifest encroachment upon
their rights and liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Caelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal separation from the Church of Rome and to have continued for the space of somewhat more then one hundred years For which his Lordship produceth two publick instruments extant among the ancient Councils the one an Epistle from Boniface 2. in whose time the reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage but the separation instigante Diabolo by the Temptation of the Devil The other is an exemplar precum or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius in which he damns and curses all those his Predecessours which went against the Church of Rome Now his Lordship urges from hence Either these Instruments are true or false If they be false then Boniface 2. and his Accomplices at Rome or some for them are notorious forgers and that of Records of great consequence to the Government and peace of the whole Church of Christ and to the perpetual Infamy of that See and all this foolishly and to no purpose On the other side if these instruments be true then 't is manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome which separation was either unjust or just if unjust then St. Austin Eugenius Fulgentius and all those Bishops and other Martyrs which suffered in the Vandalike persecution dyed in actual and unrepented Schism and out of the Church If it were just then is it far more lawful for the Church of England by a National Council to cast off the Popes Vsurpation as she did than it was for the African Church to separate because then the African Church excepted only against the Pride of Rome in case of Appeals and two other Canons less material but the Church of England excepts besides this grievance against many corruptions in Doctrine with which Rome at that time was not tainted And St. Austin and those other famous men durst not thus have separated from Rome had the Pope had that powerful Principality over the whole Church of Christ and that by Christs own Ordinance and Institution as A. C. pretends he had This is the substance of his Lordships discourse to which we must consider what Answer you return Which in short is That you dare not assert the credit of those two Instruments but are very willing to think them forgeries but you say the Schismatical separation of the African Church from the Roman is inconsistent with the truth of story and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances which prove that the Africans notwithstanding the context in the sixth Council of Carthage touching matter of Appeals were alwayes in true Catholick Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended separation For which you produce the Testimony of Pope Caelestine concerning St. Austin the proceeding of Pope Leo in the case of Lupicinus the Testimonies of Eugenius Fulgentius Gregory and the presence of some African Bishops at Rome To all which I Answer that either the African Fathers did persist in the decree of the Council of Carthage or they did not if they did persist in it and no separation followed then the casting off the Vsurpations of the Roman See cannot incur the guilt of Schism for these African Bishops did that and it seems continued still in the Roman Communion by which it is evident that the Roman Church was not so far degenerated then as afterwards or that the Authority of those persons was so great in the Church that the Roman Bishops durst not openly break with them which is a sufficient account of what Caelestine saith concerning St. Austin that he lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church If you say the reason why they were in Communion with the Roman Church was because they did not persist you must prove it by better instances then you have here brought for some of them are sufficient proofs of the contrary As appears by the case of Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing to Leo who indeed was willing enough to receive him but what of that Did not the African Bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis excommunicate him notwithstanding that appeal and ordained another in his place and therefore the Pope very fairly sends him back to be tryed by the Bishops of his Province Which instance as it argues the Popes willingness to have brought up Appeals among them so it shews the continuance of their stoutness in opposing them And even Pope Gregory so long after though in his time the business of Appeals was much promoted at Rome yet he dares not challenge them from the Bishops of Africa but yields to them the enjoyment of those priviledges which they said they had enjoyed from the Apostles times And the testimonies of Eugenius and Fulgentius imply nothing of subjection to Rome but a Praeeminence which that Church had above all others which it might have without the other as London may I hope be the Head-City of England and yet all other Cities not express subjection to it But if after that Council of Carthage the Bishops of Rome did by degrees encroach upon the liberties of the African Churches there is this sufficient account to be given of it that as the Roman Bishops were alwayes watchful to take advantages to inhance their power and that especially when other Churches were in a suffering condition so a fit opportunity fell out for them to do it in Africa For not long after that Council of Carthage fell out that dismal persecution of the African Churches by the irruption of the Vandals in which all the Catholick Bishops were banished out of Africa or lived under great sufferings and by a strict edict of Gensericus no new Bishops were suffered to be ordained in the places of the former This now was a fair opportunity for the Bishop of Rome to advance his Authority among the suffering Bishops St. Peters pretended Successour loving to fish in troubled waters and it being fatal to Rome from the first Foundation of it to advance her self by the ruins of other places But we are call'd off from the ruins of other Churches to observe the methods whereby the Popes grew great under the Emperours which his Lordship gives an account of from Constantines time to Charles the Great about five hundred years which begins thus So soon as the Emperours became Christian the Church began to be put in better order For the calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferiour Clergy that was a thing of known use and benefit for preservation of Vnity and Peace in the Church Which was confessed by St. Hierom himself and so settled in mens minds from the very Infancy of the Church that it had not been to that time contradicted by any The only difficulty then
was to accommodate the places and precedencies of Bishops among themselves for the very necessity of order and Government To do this the most equal and impartial way was that as the Church is in the Common-wealth not the Common-wealth in it as Optatus tells us So the Honours of the Church should follow the Honours of the State and so it was insinuated if not ordered as appears by the Canons of the Councils of Chalcedon and Antioch And this was the very Fountain of the Papal Greatness the Pope having his Residence in the great Imperial City But Precedency is one thing and Authority another It was thought fit therefore that among Bishops there should be a certain subordination and subjection The Empire therefore being cast into several Divisions which they call'd Dioceses every Diocese contained several Provinces every Province several Bishopricks The chief of a Diocese was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes a Patriarch the chief of a Province a Metropolitan next the Bishops in their several Dioceses as we now use that word among these there was effectual subjection respectively grounded upon Canon and Positive Law in their several Quarters but over them none at all all the Difference there was but Honorary not Authoritative To all this part of his Lordships Discourse you only say That it is founded upon his own conjectural presumptions more then upon any thing else and that you have shewed a far different Fountain of the Popes Authority from Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. The meaning of what you say is That his Lordships Discourse hath too much Truth and Reason to be Answered solidly but because it is against the Popes interest you defie him and cross your self and cry Tu es Petrus c. and think this will prevent its doing you any harm For if we look for one dram of Reason against it we must look somewhere else then in your Book though you tell us You have often evidenced the contrary but when and where I must profess my self to seek and I doubt shall continue so to the end of your Book But his Lordship proceeds If the ambition of some particular persons did attempt now and then to break these bounds it is no marvel For no calling can sanctifie all that have it And Socrates tells us that in this way the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome advanced themselves to a great height 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even beyond the quality of Bishops Now upon view of story it will appear that what advantage accrewed to Alexandria was gotten by the violence of Theophilus Patriarch there A man of exceeding great Learning and no less violence and he made no little advantage out of this that the Empress Eudoxia used his help for the casting of St. Chrysostome out of Constantinople But the Roman Prelats grew by a steady and constant watchfulness upon all occasions to increase the honour of that See Interposing and assuming to themselves to be Vindices Canonum as Greg. Naz. speaks Defenders and Restorers of the Canons of the Church which was a fair pretence and took extreamly well But yet the world took notice of this their aim For in all Contestations between the East and West which were not small nor few the Western Bishops objected Levity to the Eastern and they again arrogancy to the Bishops of the West as Bilius observes and upon very warrantable testimonies For all this the Bishop of Rome continued in good obedience to the Emperour enduring his censures and judgements and being chosen by the Clergy and people of Rome he accepted from the Emperour the ratification of that choice Insomuch that about the year 579. when all Italy was on fire with the Lombards and Pelagius the second constrained through the necessity of the times contrary to the example of his Predecessours to enter upon the Popedome without the Emperours leave St. Gregory then a Deacon was shortly after sent on Embassie to excuse it To all these things you give one general Answer by calling them impertinencies which is a general name for all that you cannot Answer The Popes obedience to the Emperours you say was constrained their ratifications of Popes elections only declaring them Canonical Socrates was a Heretick the Eastern Bishops partial This is the substance of all you say whereof the two former are manifestly contrary to the truth of stories as when you desire it may at large be manifested and the two latter the pitiful shifts of such who have nothing else to say But though you cannot answer particulars you can overthrow his whole design though you cannot Fiddle it seems you can conquer Cities but they must be very weak then His main design you tell us is to overthrow the Pope's Supremacy by shewing it was not lawful to appeal to Rome but Catholick Authours to be sure you are in the number frame an unanswerable argument for his Supremacy even from the contrary thus it was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome in Ecclesiastical affairs from all the parts of Christendom therefore say they The Pope must needs be Supreme Judge in Ecclesiastical matters This is evidenced out of the 4 and 7 Canons of the Council of Sardica accounted anciently an Appendix of the Council of Nice and often cited as the same with it Will you give us leave to come near and handle this unanswerable argument a little for persons of your profession use to be very shie of that But however since it is exposed to common view we may take leave to do it And seriously upon consideration of all the parts and circumstances of it I am of your mind without flattering you that it is an unanswerable argument but quite to another purpose than you brought it for even against the Pope's Supremacy as I shall presently discover so that those Catholick Authors have served you just as Lazarillo did his blind Master in bidding him leap over the water that he might run his head full butt against the tree For that which your best Authors shun as much as may be and use their best arts to get besides it you run blindly and therefore boldly upon it as though it were an excellent argument to your purpose You say The evidence for Appeals is from the Canons of the Sardican Synod but if this be an unanswerable argument for the Pope's Supremacy 1. How come these Appeals to be pleaded from the Sardican Synod 2. How come these Appeals to be denied notwithstanding the Canons of it The former will prove that the Supremacy if granted from hence was not acknowledged from Divine Right the latter that it was not universally acknowledged by the Church after and therefore both of them will make an unanswerable argument against that which you would prove viz. the Pope's Supremacy First If the Pope's Supremacy be evidenced from hence 1. How comes it at all to depend on the Canons 2. Why no sooner than
the Canons of Sardica 3. Why not at all mentioned in them 1. How comes the Pope's Supremacy if of Divine Right to depend at all upon the Canons of the Church We had thought it had been much more to your purpose not to have mentioned any Canons at all of the Church about it but to have produced evidences that this was constantly acknowledged as of Divine Institution But we must bear with you in not producing that which is not to be found For nothing can be more apparent than that when the Popes began to pierk up they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the Church for what they did as Julius to the Oriental Bishops Zosimus to the African and so others If it had been ever thought then that this Supremacy was of Divine Right What senseless men were these to make use of the worst pleas and never mention the best For supposing they had such a Supremacy granted them by the Canons of the Church Doth not this imply that their authority did depend upon the Churches grant and what the Church might give for her own conveniency she might take it away when she saw it abused to her apparent prejudice And therefore if they had thought that God had commanded all Churches to be subject to them it was weakly done of them to plead nothing but the Canons of the Church for it 2. Why no sooner than the Canons of Sardica Was the Church of Rome without her Supremacy till that time Will no Canons of the Church evidence it before them When this Council was not held till eleven years after the death of Constantine Had the Pope no right of Appeals till it was decreed here Yes Zosimus pleads the Nicene Canons for it But upon what grounds will appear suddenly 3. Why is not the Pope's Supremacy mentioned as the ground of these Appeals then Certainly those Western Bishops who made those Canons should have only recognized the Divine Right of the Pope's Supremacy and not made a Canon in such a manner as they do that would make any one be confident they never knew the Popes Supremacy For their decree runs thus That in case any Bishop thought himself unjustly condemned if it seem good to you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle that it be written by those who have judged the cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if it seem good let the judgement be renewed and let them appoint such as may take cognizance of it Were these men mad to make such a Canon as this if they believed the Popes Supremacy of Divine Institution What a dwindling expression is that for the Head of the Church to call him Bishop of Rome only when a matter concerning his Supremacy is decreeing And why to Julius Bishop of Rome I pray Had it not been better to S. Peter's successor whosoever he be so it would have been no doubt if they had intended a Divine or Vniversal Right And why for the honour of S. Peter 's memory Had it not been more becoming them to have said out of obedience to Christ's Commands which made him Head of the Church And all this come in with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it please you What if it please you Whether the Pope should be Vniversal Pastor or no If it please you Whether the Church should be built super hanc Petram or no If it please you Whether the Bishop of Rome succeeds S. Peter or no Are these the men that give such evidence for the Popes Supremacy You had better by far never mention them for if that was the Lesson they had to say never any Boyes at School said their Lesson worse than they do They wanted such as you among them to have penned their Canon for them and no doubt it had run in a better strain For as much as our Lord and Saviour did appoint S. Peter Head of the Church and the Bishop of Rome to succed him as Christ's Vicar upon earth these are to let you know that he hath an absolute power by Divine Right over all persons and causes and that men are bound to obey him upon pain of eternal damnation This had been something like if you could have found in some Canons of the Church but to produce a poor sneaking If it please you What do you else but betray the Majesty and Grandeur of your Church And yet after all this no such thing as absolute Appeals to Rome are decreed here neither but only that the Bishop of Rome should have power to review the case and in case it was thought necessary that other persons should be appointed to examine it But How much a Review differs from an Appeal and that nothing but a power to review cases is here given to the Bishop of Rome are fully manifested by Petrus de Marcâ to whom I again referr you So that we see from hence you have very comfortable evidence for the Pope's Supremacy 2. Suppose it had been decreed here you had not gained much by it Because notwithstanding this decree it was far from being acknowledged by the Vniversal Church Which I prove from hence That the Sardican Canons were not received by the Church Nothing can be more evident than that these Canons were not so much as known by the African Bishops when Pope Zosimus fraudulently sent them under the name of the Nicene Canons insomuch that Cusanus questions Whether ever any such thing were determined by the Sardican Synod or no And it appears by S. Austin that the Council of Sardica was of no great credit in Africa for when Fortunius the Donatist-Bishop would prove that the Sardican Synod had written to some of their party because one Donatus was mentioned in it S. Austin tells him It was a Synod of Arrians by which it seems very improbable that they had ever received the decrees of the Western but only of the Eastern part of it which adjourned to Philippopolis Neither was this ever acknowledged for an Oecumenical Council for although it was intended for such by the Emperours Constans and Constantius yet but 70. of the Eastern Bishops appeared to 300. of the Western and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew from the other and decreed things directly contrary to the other So that Balsamon and Zonaras as well as the elder Greeks say The decrees of it can at most only bind the Western Churches and the arrogating of this power of reviewing causes decided by the Eastern Churches by Western Bishops was apparently the cause of the divisions between them the Eastern and Western Churches being after this divided by the Alpes Succiae between Illyricum and Thracia And although Hilary and Epiphanius expresly call this a Western Council yet it was a long time before the Canons of it were received in the Western Church Which is supposed to be the reason Why Zosimus would not mention the Sardican but called them the Nicene Canons which forgery was
sufficiently detected by the African Bishops And it is the worst of all excuses to lay the blame of it as you do on the Pope's Secretary for Do you think Pope Zosimus was so careless of his business as not to look over the Commonitorium which Faustinus carried with him Do you think Faustinus would not have corrected the fault when the African Bishops boggled so at it What made him so unwilling that they should send into the East to examine the Nicene Canons but intreated them to leave the business wholly with the Pope if he were not conscious of some forgery in the business But you say as a further plea in Zosimus his excuse That the Council of Sardica was an Appendix to the Nicene Council rather than otherwise An excellent Appendix made at two and twenty years distance from the other and called by other Emperours consisting of many other persons and assembled upon a quite different occasion If this had been an Appendix to the Nicene Council How comes that to have but twenty Canons How came Atticus and Cyrillus not to send these with the other How come all the Copies of Councils and Canons to distinguish them How came they not to be contained in the Code of Canons produced in the Council of Chalcedon in the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus If this were the same Council because some of the same things were determined How comes that in Trullo not to be the same with the 6. Oecumenical How comes the Council of Antioch not to be an Appendix to the Council of Nice if this was when it was celebrated before this and the Canons of it inserted in the Code of Canons owned by the Council of Chalcedon So that by all the shifts and arts you can use you cannot excuse Zosimus from Imposture in sending these Sardican under the name of the Nicene Canons And on what account the Pope satisfied the Canons then is apparent enough viz. for the advancing the Interess of his See and this the African Fathers did as easily discern afterwards as we do now But by this we see What good Foundations the Pope's claim of Supremacy had then and what arts not to say frauds they were beholding to for setting it up even as great as they have since made use of to maintain it CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity A threefold acceptation of it as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity besides the Bishop of Rome as is largely proved 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire This accounted then Oecumenical thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches 3. Nothing Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it so never given in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople Of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon about the Popes Supremacy Of the Grammatical and Metaphorical sense of this Title Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gregory should understand it in the Grammatical sense The great absurdities consequent upon it S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it which is admitted in the Church of Rome Of Irenaeus his opposition to Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops argues no authority he had over them What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Roman Empire The Pope no Infallible successor of S. Peter nor so acknowledged to be by Epiphanius S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles HIs Lordship having undertaken to give an account How the Popes rose by degrees to their Greatness under the Christian Emperours in prosecution of that necessarily falls upon the Title of Vniversal Bishop affected by John the Patriarch of Constantinople and condemned by Pelagius 1. and Gregory 2. This you call a trite and beaten way because I suppose the truth is so plain and evident in it but withall you tell us This Objection hath been satisfied a hundred times over if you had said the same Answer had been repeated so often over you had said true but if you say that it hath been satisfied once you say more than you are able to defend as will evidently appear by your very unsatisfactory Answer which at last you give to it So that if none of your party have been any wiser than your self in this matter I am so far from being satisfied with what they say that I can only pitty those persons whose interest swayes their understandings so much or at least their expressions as to make them say any thing that seems to be for their purpose though in it self never so senseless or unreasonable And I can scarce hold my self from saying with the Oratour when a like Objection to this was offered him because multitudes had said so Quasi verò quidquam sit tam valdè quà m nihil sapere vulgare That truth and reason are the greatest Novelties in the world For seriously Were it possible for men of common understanding to rest satisfied with such pitiful shifts as you are fain to make if they would but use any freedom in enquiring and any liberty of judging when they had done But when once men have given not to say sold away the exercise of their free reason by addicting themselves to a particular interest there can scarce any thing be imagined so absurd but it passeth currently from one to another because they are bound to receive all blindfold and in the same manner to deliver it to others By which means it is an easie matter for the greatest nonsense and contradictions to be said a hundred times over And Whether it be not so in the present case is that we are now to enquire into And for the same ends which you propose to your self viz. that all obscurity may be taken away and the truth clearly appear I shall in the first place set down What his Lordship saith and then distinctly examine What you reply in Answer to it Thus then his Lordship proceeds About this time brake out the ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople affecting to be Vniversal Bishop He was countenanced in this by Mauricius the Emperour but sowrely opposed by Pelagius and S. Gregory Insomuch that S. Gregory plainly sayes That this Pride of his shews that the times of Antichrist were near So as yet and this was near upon the point of six hundred years after Christ there was no Vniversal Bishop no one Monarch over the whole Militant Church But Mauricius being deposed and murthered by Phocas Phocas conferred upon Boniface the third that very Honour which two of his predecessors had
declaimed against as monstrous and blasphemous if not Antichristian Where by the way either these two Popes Pelagius and S. Gregory erred in this weighty business about an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church Or if they did not erre Boniface and the rest which after him took it upon them were in their very predecessors judgement Antichristian Before you come to a particular Answer you think it necessary to make a way for it by premising two things 1. That the Title of Vniversal Bishop was anciently attributed to the Bishops of Rome but they never made use of it 2. That the ancient Bishops of Constantinople never intended by this usurped Title to deny the Popes Vniversal Authority even over themselves These two things I shall therefore consider because they tend much to the clearing the main Controversie I begin therefore with the Title of Vniversal Bishop attributed to the Bishop of Rome and before I answer your particular allegations we must more fully consider in what sense that title of Vniversal Bishops was taken in Antiquity and in what manner it was attributed to him For when titles have different senses and those senses evidently made use of by the ancient Writers it is a most unreasonable thing meerly from the title to inferr one determinate sense which is the most contrary to the current of Antiquity The title then of Vniversal Bishop may be conceived to import one of these three things 1. A general care and solicitude over all the Churches of the Christian world 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Empire 3. Vniversal Jurisdiction over all Churches so that all exercise of it in the Church is derivative from him as Vniversal Pastor and Head of the Church This last is that which you attribute to the Pope and though you find the name of Vniversal Bishop a hundred times over in the records of the Church yet if it be taken in either of the two former senses it makes nothing at all to your purpose Our business is therefore now to shew that this title was used in the Church in the two former senses and that nothing from hence can be inferred for that Oecumenical Pastorship which you say doth of Divine Right belong to the Bishop of Rome I begin with the first as this Title may import a general care and solicitude over all the Christian Churches and I deny not but in this sense this title might be attributed in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome but then I assert that nothing peculiar to him can be inferred from hence because expressions importing the same care are attributed to other Bishops especially such who were placed in the greater Sees or were active in promoting the Churches interest For which we must consider that power and authority in the Bishops of the Church is given with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church so that if it were possible that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church they have authority enough by their Function to do it But it not only being impossible that every Bishop should do it but it being inconsistent with peace and order that all should undertake it therefore it was necessary that there should be some restraints and bounds set for the more convenient management of that authority which they had From hence came the Original of particular Dioceses that within such a compass they might better exercise that power which they enjoyed As if many lights be placed in a great Room though the intention of every one of these is to give light to the whole Room yet that this might the better be done these lights are conveniently placed in the several parts of it And this is that which S. Cyprian means in that famous expression of his That there is but one Bishoprick in the whole world a part of which is held by every Bishop For the Church in common is designed as the Diocese of all Bishops which is set out into several appartiments for the more advantagious governing of it As a flock of many thousand sheep being committed to the care of many Shepherds these all have an eye to the good of the whole Flock but do not therefore sit altogether in one place to over-see it but every one hath his share to look after for the benefit of the Whole But yet so that upon occasion one of them may extend his care beyond his own division and may be very useful for the whole by counsel and direction Thus we shall find it was in the Primitive Church though every Bishop had his particular Charge yet still they regarded the common good of the whole Church and upon occasion did extend their counsel and advice far beyond their particular Churches and exercised their Functions in other places besides those which the Churches convenience had allotted to them Hence it was that dissentions arising between the Asian and Roman Churches Polycarp comes to Rome and there as Eusebius from Irenaeus tells us He exercised with Anicetus his consent his Episcopal Function For as Valesius observes it cannot be understood as Franciscus Florens would have it of his receiving the Eucharist from Anicetus but something of honour is implied in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas there was nothing but what was common in the other Hence the several Epistles of Ignatius Polycarp Irenaeus and others for the advising confirming and settling Churches Hence Irenaeus concerned himself so much in the business between Victor and the Asian Churches either to prevent or repeal his sentence of Excommunication against them Hence S. Cyprian writes into Spain about the deposing Basilides and Martialis two Apostatizing Bishops and checks Stephen Bishop of Rome for his inconsiderate restoring them Hence Faustus Bishop of Lyons writes to S. Cyprian in the case of Martianus of Arles and he writes to Stephen as being nearer and more concerned in the business of Novatianism for the honour of his predecessors in order to his Deposition yet so as he looks on it as a common cause belonging to them all cui rei nostrum est consulere subvenire frater charissime in which they were all bound to advise and help Hence S. Cyprian writes to the Bishop of Rome as his Brother and Colleague without the least intimation of deriving any Jurisdiction from him but often expressing that charge which was committed to every Bishop which he must look to as mindful of the account he must give to God Hence Nazianzen saith of S. Cyprian That he not only governed the Churches of Carthage and Africa but all the Western parts and even almost all the Eastern Southern and Northern too as far as his fame went Hence Arsenius writes to Athanasius We embrace Peace and Vnity with the Catholick Church over which thou through the Grace of God dost preside Hence Gregory Nazianzen saith of Athanasius That he made Laws for the whole earth Hence
then it doth when given to other Bishops if it doth you must prove it from some other Arguments and not barely from the title being attributed to them Thus you see though the title were granted to be attributed to him there is nothing new nothing peculiar in it But we must further examine Who they are that attribute this title to him and what the account is of their doing it For this you cite the Council of Chalcedon in a letter inserted in the Acts of it the Council of Constantinople sub Mena John Bishop of Nicopolis Constantinus Pogonatus the Emperour Basil the yonger and Balsamon himself To the first I Answer 1. That this title was not given by the Council of Chalcedon 2. If it had no more was given to the Bishop of Rome then to the Bishops of other Patriarchal Churches 1. That this title was not given by the General Council of Chalcedon this I know Gregory 1. in his Epistles about this subject repeats usque ad nauseam that the title of Vniversal Bishop was offered to the Bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon and that he refused it but there is as little evidence for the one as the other That the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was attributed to the Bishop of Rome by some Papers read and received in that Council I deny not but we must consider the persons who did it and the occasion of it The persons were such who came to inform the Council against Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria and they were no other then Athanasius a Presbyter Theodorus and Ischyrion two Deacons and Sophronius a Laick of Alexandria now these persons not in a letter as you relate it but in their bills exhibited to the Council against Dioscorus give that title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Archbishop to Leo the Bishop of Rome And is this now the offer made of the title of Vniversal Bishop by the Council of Chalcedon But you say This was inserted into the Acts of the Council I grant it was but on what account not with any respect to the title but as containing the Accusations against Dioscorus But where do any of the Bishops of that Council attribute that title to Leo which of them mentions it in their subscriptions to the Deposition of Dioscorus though many of them speak expresly of Leo and Anatolius together with the same titles of honour to them both Why did not the Council superscribe their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo with that title so indeed Binius rather supposes they should have done then proves they ever did it and that only from Gregories Epistle not Leo's as he mistakes it to Eulogius where he mentions this offer but upon what grounds we have seen already But suppose 2. We should grant that the Council of Chalcedon should have offered the title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Bishop to the Bishop of Rome there are none who understand any thing of the nature of that title or the proceedings of that Council who can imagine they should intend any acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy by it For the title it self as to the importance of it was common to other Bishops especially of the Patriarchal Sees as I have proved by some instances already and might do yet by more but I shall content my self with the ingenuous confession of Sim. Vigorius That when the Western Fathers call the Roman Bishops Bishops of the Vniversal Church they do it from the custome of their Churches not that they look on them as Vniversal Bishops of the whole Church but in the same sense that the Patriarchs of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem are call'd so or as they are Vniversal over the Churches under their Patriarchate or that in Oecumenical Councils they preside over the whole Church And after acknowledgeth that the title of Vniversal or Oecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy in the Church And if it doth not so when given by the Western Fathers much less certainly when given by the Eastern especially those who met in the Council of Chalcedon For it is evident by their 16 Session the 28 Canon and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo they designed the advancement of the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome And therefore if they gave the Pope the title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Bishop it was that he might be willing that the Patriarch of Constantinople might be call'd so too And if as Gregory saith the Bishops of Rome would not accept the title of Vniversal Bishop the truest account I know of it is lest the Patriarch of Constantinople should share with him in it but we see when the great Benefactor to your Church the Benigne Phocas as Gregory himself styles him gave it to the Bishop of Rome alone then hands and heart and all were ready to receive it And I much fear Leo 1. and St. Gregory himself would have been shrewdly tempted to receive it if it had been offered them upon those terms that no one else should have it besides them but they scorned it till they could have it alone And for all their declamations against the pride of Anatolius and John Patriarchs of Constantinople they must look very favourably on the actions of those two Popes that discern not their own Pride in condemning of them for it For usually men shew it as much in suspecting or condemning others for it as in any other way whatsoever Thus it was in these persons they thought the Patriarchs of Constantinople proud and arrogant because they sought to be equal with them But Was it not their own greater Pride that they were able to bear no equals and it is to be feared it was their desire to advance their own Supremacy which made them quarrel so much with Anatolius and John and Cyriacus For would they but have been contented to truckle under the Roman Bishops they had been accounted very meek and humble men And St. Gregory himself would not sure have thought much to have call'd them so who most abominably flatters that monster Phocas after the murder of Mauricius and his Children for he begins his Epistle to him with Gloria in excelsis Deo Glory to God on high who according to what is written changes times and transfers Kingdomes and after in such notorious flattering expressions congratulates his coming to the Throne that any one who reads them would think Phocas the greater Saint he rejoyces that the benignity of his piety was advanced to the Imperial Throne nay laetentur coeli exultet terra let the heavens rejoyce and the earth be glad and all the people which hath been hitherto in much affliction revive at the benignity of your actions O rare Phocas Could he do any less then pronounce the Bishop of Rome Vniversal Bishop after this when poor Cyriacus at Constantinople suffered for his opposing him for the execrable murder of his Master Therefore these proceedings of Leo
and Gregory yield shrewd matter of suspicion what the main ground of their quarrel against the Patriarchs of Constantinople was For before the Emperours stood up for the honour of Constantinople as being the seat of their Empire and Rome began to sink the Empire decaying there but now there was a fit time to do something for the honour of the Roman See Cyriacus was in disgrace with the Tyrant Phocas and no such time as now to fall in with him and caresse him and we see Gregory did it prety well for a Saint but he lived not to enjoy the benefit of it but Boniface did however After the Patriarchate of Constantinople was erected the Popes had a double game to play to advance themselves and depress that which it was very hard for them to do because all the Eastern Bishops as well as the Emperour favoured it But after equal priviledges were decreed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome by the Council of Constantinople they could no longer dissemble their choler but had no such occasion ministred to them to express it as after the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon wherein were present 630 Bishops which confirmed the former For then Leo fumes and frets and writes to Martianus and Pulcheria to Anatolius and the Bishops of the East but still pretends that he stood up for the priviledges of the other Patriarchs and the Nicene Canons and what not but one might easily discern what it was that pinched him viz. the equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople with himself Which it is apparent he suspected before by the instructions he gave his Legats Paschasinus and Lucentius to be sure to oppose whatever was proposed in the Council concerning the Primacy of that See And accordingly they did and complained that the Canon was surreptitiously made Which they were hugely overseen in doing while the Council sat for upon this the whole matter is reviewed the Judges scan the business the Bishops protest there were no practises used that they all voluntarily consented to it and all this in the presence of the Roman Legats How comes it then to pass that this should not be a regular and Conciliar action Were not the Bishops at age to understand their own priviledges Did not the Bishop of Antioch know his own interest as well as Pope Leo Must he be supposed more able to understand the Nicene Canons then these 630 Bishops Why then was not this Canon as regular as any other Why forsooth The Pope did not consent to it So true is that sharp censure of Ludovicus Vives that those are accounted lawful Canons and Councils which make for their interest but others are no more esteemed then a company of tattling Gossips But what made the Pope so angry at this Canon of the Council of Chalcedon He pretends the honour of the Nicene Canons the preserving the priviledges of other Patriarchs But Binius hath told us the true reason of it because they say that the Primacy of Rome came by its being the seat of the Empire and therefore not by Divine right and since Constantinople was become the seat of the Empire too therefore the Patriarch there should enjoy equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome If Rome had continued still the sole seat of the Empire this reason would not have been quarrelled at but now Rome sinking and Constantinople rising this must not be endured but all the arts and devices possible must be used to keep it under And this is the true account of the pique which the Bishops of Rome had to the Patriarchs of Constantinople From whence we may easily guess how probable it is that this Council of Chalcedon did acknowledge the Pope Oecumenical Bishop in any other sense then they contended the Patriarch of Constantinople was so too And the same answer will serve for all your following Instances For as you pretend that the Council of Constantinople sub Menna did call Pope Agapetus Oecumenical Patriarch so it is most certain that it call'd Mennas the Patriarch of Constantinople so too And which is more Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Tharasius of Constantinople in the second Nicene Council calls him Vniversal Bishop If therefore the Greek Emperours and Balsamon call the Pope so they import nothing peculiar to him in it because it is most evident they call'd their own Patriarch so likewise So that you find little advantage to your cause from this first thing which you premise viz. that the Pope was anciently call'd Vniversal Bishop But you say further 2. That the Bishops of Constantinople never intended to deny by this usurped title the Popes Vniversal Authority even over themselves This is ambiguous unless it be further explained what you mean by Vniversal Authority for it may either note some kind of prae-eminence and dignity which the Bishop of Rome had as the chief Patriarch and who on that account had great Authority in the Church and this your instances prove that the Patriarchs of Constantinople did acknowledge to belong to the Pope but if by Vniversal Authority be meant Vniversal Jurisdiction over the Church as appointed the head of it by Christ then not one of your instances comes near the shadow of a proof for it Thus having considered what you premise we come to your Answer it self For which you tell us We are to take notice that the term Vniversal Bishop is capable of two senses the one Grammatical the other Metaphorical In the Grammatical sense it signifies Bishop of the Vniversal Church and of all Churches in particular even to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops and consequently displaceable at his pleasure as being only his not Christs officers and receiving authority from him and not from Christ. In the Metaphorical sense it signifies only so high and eminent a dignity above all other Bishops throughout the whole Church that though he who is stiled Vniversal Bishop hath a true and real Superintendency Jurisdiction and Authority over all other Bishops yet that they be as truly and properly Bishops in their respective Provinces and Dioceses as he himself This being clear'd say you 't is evident that St. Gregory when he inveighs against the title of Vniversal Bishop takes it in the literal and Grammatical sense which you very faintly endeavour to prove out of him as I shall make it presently appear This being then the substance of that Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over must now once for all pass a strict and severe examination Which it shall receive in these two Enquiries 1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory should take Vniversal Bishop in the literal and Grammatical sense 2. Whether all the Arguments which he useth against that title do not hold against that Vniversal Jurisdiction which you attribute to the Pope as Head of the Church 1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory
should take Vniversal Bishop in the literal and Grammatical sense which you give of it And he which can think so must have some other way of understanding his meaning then by his words and arguments which I confess I do not pretend to But if we examine them we shall find how impossible it is that St. Gregory should ever think that John pretended to be the sole Bishop of this world 1. Because Gregory saith That same title which John had usurped was offered to the Roman Bishops by the Council of Chalcedon but none of them would ever use it because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops Now I pray think with your self whether ever 630 Bishops would consent together to give away all their power and Authority in the Church For you say The literal sense of Vniversal Bishop doth suppose him to be Bishop of all particular Churches to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops and are displaceable at his pleasure Can it now enter into your mind that Gregory should ever think that these Bishops should all make themselves the Popes Vassals of their own free choice We see even under the great Vsurpations of the Bishop of Rome since though they pretend for all that I can see to be Oecumenical Bishops in a higher sense then ever John pretended to that yet the Bishops of the Roman Communion are not willing to submit their office wholly to the Papal Jurisdiction witness the stout and eager contests of the Spanish Bishops in the Council of Trent about the Divine Institution of the Episcopal office against the pretences of the Italian Party And shall we then think when the Pope was far from that power which he hath since Usurped that such multitude of grave and resolute Bishops should throw their Miters down at the Popes feet and offer him in your literal sense to be sole Bishop of the World That they would relinquish their power which they made no question they had from Christ and take it up again at the Popes hands But whether you can imagine this of so many Bishops or no Can you conceive that Gregory should think so of them and he must do it if he took the title of Vniversal Bishop in your literal sense and yet this Gregory saith Hoc Vniversitatis nomen oblatum est That very name of Vniversal Bishop was offered to the Pope by the Council of Chalcedon Sed nullus unquam Decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano Vocabulo uti consensit Nothing then can be more plain then that John took that which the Pope refused And he that can believe that this title should ever be offered in this literal sense I despair without the help of Physick to make him believe any thing 2. This very title was not usurped wholly by John himself but was given him in a Council at Constantinople This Gregory confesseth in his Epistle to Eulogius and Anastasius the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria that about eight years before in the time of Pelagius his predecessor John called a Council at Constantinople in which he endeavours to be called Vniversal Bishop so Gregory but he confesseth elsewhere that he effected it And it appears by the Epistle of Pelagius himself writ on that occasion that it was more then a meer endeavour and that they did consent to it else Why doth Pelagius say Quicquid in vestro conventiculo statuistis Whatever they had determin'd in their Conventicle as on this account Pelagius calls it because it wanted his approbation And it is evident from Gregories zealous writing to the other Patriarchs about it that they did not â—ook on themselves as so much concerned about it Now in this Council which met at Constantinople which was called together in the case of Gregory the Patriarch of Antioch all the Patriarchs either by themselves or substitutes were present as Evagrius tells us and not only they but several Metropolitans too now if they had taken this in the literal sense Can you think they would have yielded to it Were not they much more concerned about it then either Pelagius or Gregory were for they were near him and were sure to live under this usurped power of his and to smart by it if it were so great as you suppose it to be But it is apparent by their yielding to it they looked on it to be sure not in the Literal sense and it may be as no more than the Honorary Title of Oecumenical Patriarch 3. How comes it to pass that none of the successors of John and Cyriacus did ever challenge this Title in the Literal sense of it For we do not see that they quitted it for all Phocas gave it to Pope Boniface since by your own confession in the Greek Canon-Law Sisinnius German Constantine Alexius and others are called Oecumenical Patriarchs And it appears by the Epistles of Pelagius and Gregory that was the Title which John had then given him Si summus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris denegatur saith Pelagius Si enim hoc dici licentèr permittitur honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur saith Gregory From which words I think it most probable that the main ambition of the Patriarchs of Constantinople was not meerly that they would be called Oecumenical Patriarchs but that Title should properly belong to them as excluding others from it which was it that touched the Bishops of Rome to the quick because then Constantinople flourished as much as Rome decayed by the oppressions of the Lombards and Gregory complained of this to Constantia the Empress that for seven and twenty years together they had lived in Rome inter Longobardorum gladios among the swords of the Lombards and this made them so jealous that the honour of the Roman See was then sinking and therefore they stickle so much against this Title and draw all the invididious consequences from it possible the better to set the other Patriarchs against it and because that would not extend far beyond the Patriarchs themselves they pretend likewise that this was to make himself Vniversal Bishop But not certainly in your Literal sense for then Gregory would have objected some actions consequent upon this Title in depriving Bishops of their Jurisdiction and displacing some and putting in others at his pleasure which you say is the natural effect of this Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop But we read of nothing of this nature done either by John or Cyriacus they acted no more than they did only enjoyed a higher Title And this is proved further 4. By the carriage of the Emperour Mauricius in this business Gregory writes a pitiful moaning Letter to him about it and uses all the Rhetorick he had to perswade the Emperour that he would either flectere or coercere incline or force him to lay aside that arrogant Title But for all this it appears by Gregory's Letter to the Empress That the
Emperour had checked him for medling in it and was so far from opposing the Patriarchs Title that in effect he bid him trouble himself no more about it Which poor S. Gregory took very ill And afterwards when Cyriacus succeeded John in Constantinople the Emperour being somewhat fearful lest Gregory at the coming in of a new Patriarch might on the account of this new Title deny his Communicatory Letters he dispatches a Letter to him to quicken him about it And he takes it very unkindly that the Emperour should suspect his indiscretion so much that for the sake of this Title which he saith had sorely wounded him he should deny Communion in the Faith with him and yet in the same Epistle saith That whosoever took the Title of Vniversal Bishop upon him was a forerunner of Antichrist But if this name had been apprehended in that which you call The Literal and Grammatical sense Would not the Emperour being commended by Gregory too for his Piety have rather encouraged him in it where as he plainly tells him It was a contest about a frivolous name and nothing else and that there ought to be no scandal among them about it Upon which Gregory is put to his distinctions of two sorts of frivolous things some that are very harmless and some that are very hurtful i. e. frivolous things are either such as are frivolous or such as are not for Who ever imagined that such things as are very hurtful are frivolous But however S. Gregory speaks excellent sense for his meaning is that the Title it self may be frivolous but the consequences of it may be dreadful and so we have found it since his time So that this appears to be the true state of the business between them the Patriarch of Constantinople he challengeth the Title of Oecumenical Patritriarch or Bishop as belonging of right to him being Patriarch of the chief Seat of the Empire but in the mean time challengeth no Vniversal Jurisdiction by virtue of this Title On which account the Emperour and Eastern Bishops admit of it On the other side the Bishops of Rome partly looking at their own interest in it for so it appears by one of Gregory's Epistles to the Emperour that he suspected it to be his own interest which he stood so much up for and partly foreseeing the dangerous consequences of this if Vniversal Jurisdiction were challenged with it they resolutely oppose it not meerly for the Title sake but for that which might follow upon that Title taking it not in your Literal but in your Metaphorical sense as I shall shew presently But neither party was so weak and silly as to apprehend it in your Literal sense for then neither would the Emperour have sleighted it nor the Popes opposed it on those terms which they do and on such grounds which reach your Metaphorical sense 5. The same Title in the same sense which Gregory opposed it did Boniface accept of from the Emperour Phocas This you confess your self when you say That all that Phocas did was but to declare that the Title in contest did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome only therefore the same Title which the Patriarch of Constantinople took to himself before was both given by Phocas and taken by Pope Boniface This then being confessed by you let me now seriously ask you Whether the Title of Vniversal Bishop which Pope Gregory opposed was to be taken in the Grammatical or Metaphorical sense Take now Whether of them you please if in the Metaphorical all his arguments hold against the Popes present Vniversal Jurisdiction by your own confession if in the Literal and Grammatical then Pope Boniface had all those things belonging to him which Gregory condemns that Title for Then by your own confession Pope Boniface must be the forerunner of Antichrist he must equal himself to Lucifer in pride he must have that name of blasphemy upon him and all those dreadful consequences must attend him and all his followers who own that Title of Vniversal Bishop in that which you call the Literal or Grammatical sense of it 6. Lastly it appears from S. Gregory himself that the Reasons which he urgeth against the Title of Vniversal Bishop are such as hold against that which you call the Metaphorical sense of it which in short is An Vniversal Pastor exercising Authority and Jurisdiction over the whole Church And It is scarce possible to imagine that he should speak more clearly against such an Vniversal Headship than he doth and urges such arguments against it which properly belong to that Metaphorical sense of it As when he saith to John the Patriarch What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church in the day of judgement who dost endeavour to subject all his members to thee under the name of Vniversal Bishop What is there in these words which doth not fully belong to your Metaphorical sense of Head of the Church Doth he not subject all Christs members to him Doth he not challenge to himself proper Jurisdiction over them What then will he be able to answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church as St. Gregory understands it exclusivè of any other Doth not he arise to that height of singularity that he is subject to none but rules over all yet these are the very words he uses and Can any more expresly describe your Head of the Church than these do Yet herein he saith He imitates the Pride of Lucifer who according to St. Gregory endeavoured to be the Head of the Church Triumphant as the Pope of the Church Militant And follows that parallel close That an Vniversal Bishop imitates Lucifer in exalting his Throne above the Starrs of God For saith he What are all the Brethren the Bishops of the Vniversal Church but the Starrs of Heaven and after parallels them with the Clouds and so this terrestrial Lucifer ascends above the heights of the clouds And again saith he Surely the Apostle Peter was the first member not the Head of the Holy and Vniversal Church Paul Andrew and John What are they else but the Heads of particular Churches And yet they are all members of the Church under one Head Can any thing be more clear against any Head of the Vniversal Church but Christ himself when St. Peter is acknowledged to be only a prime member of the Church How then come his successors to be the Heads of it And as he goes on The Saints before the Law and under the Law and under Grace who all make up the body of our Lord they were all but members of the Church and none of them would be called Vniversal And I pray let his Holiness consider his following words Let your Holiness acknowledge what pride it is to be called by that name which none that was truly holy was ever call'd by And Do you think now that these expressions do not as properly reach
your Head of the Church as if they had been spoken by a Protestant against that Doctrine which you all own What is there in all this that implies that others should be no Bishops but only titular yes they may be as much Bishops as you acknowledge them to be i. e. as to their power of Order but not as to their Jurisdiction For this you say and defend comes from the Head of the Church or else your Monarchical Government in the Church signifies nothing Do not you make the Pope Vniversal Pastor of the Church in as high a sense as any of these expressions carry it And when St. Gregory urges so often That if there be such an Vniversal Bishop if he fails the Church would fail too Do you deny the consequence as to the Pope Doth not Bellarmine tell us when he writes of the Pope he writes de summâ rei Christianae Of the main of all Christianity and surely then the Church must fail if the Popes Supremacy doth And I pray now consider with your self Whether this Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over can satisfie any reasonable man Nay Doth it not appear to be so absurd and incongruous that it is matter of just admiration that ever it should have been given once and yet you are wonderfully displeased that his Lordship should bring this Objection upon the stage again But Do you think your Answers like your Prayers will do you good by being said so often over Indeed therein they are alike that they are both in an unknown tongue Your Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop being in this case no more intelligible than your Latin-Prayers to a Country Congregation These things being thus clear I have prevented my self in the second Enquiry in that I have proved already that the Reasons which St. Gregory produceth hold against that sense of Vniversal Bishop which you own and contend for as of right belonging to the Bishop of Rome Although it were no difficult matter to prove that according to the most received Opinion in your Church viz. that all Jurisdiction in Bishops is derived from the Pope which opinion you cannot but know is most acceptable at Rome and was so at the Council of Trent that that which you call the Literal sense doth follow your Metaphorical i. e. If the Pope hath Vniversal Jurisdiction as Head of the Church then other Bishops are not properly Bishops nor Christ's Officers but his For what doth their power of order signifie as to the Church without the power of Jurisdiction And therefore if they be taken only in partem solicitudinis and not in plenitudinem potestatis according to the known distinction of the Court of Rome it necessarily follows that they are but the Pope's Officers and are taken just into so much authority as he commits to them and no more And this Bellarmine proves from the very form of the Pope's consecration of Bishops whereby he commits the power of governing the Church to him and the administration of it in spirituals and temporals And you may see by the speech of Father Laynez in the Council of Trent How stoutly he proves that the power of Jurisdiction was given wholly to the Bishop of Rome and that none in the Church besides hath any spark of it but from him that the Bishop of Rome is true and absolute Monarch with full and total power and Jurisdiction and the Church is subject unto him as it was to Christ. And as when his Divine Majesty did govern it it could not be said that any of the faithful had any the least power or Jurisdiction but meer pure and total subjection so it must be said in all perpetuity of time and so understood that the Church is a Sheepfold and a Kingdom And that he is the Only Pastor is plainly proved by the words of Christ when he said He hath other sheep which he will gather together and so one Sheepfold should be made and one Shepherd What think you now of the Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop for the Only Bishop Are not the Only Bishop and the Only Pastor all one Will not all those words of St. Gregory reach this which any of you make use of to prove that he takes it in the worst and Literal sense nay it goes higher For Gregory only argues that from the Title of Vniversal Bishop he must be sole Bishop and others could not be any true Bishops but here it is asserted in plain terms that the Bishop of Rome is the only Pastor and that as much as if Christ himself were here upon earth and therefore if your Literal sense hath any sense at all in it it is much more true of the Bishop of Rome than ever it could be of the Patriarch of Constantinople And therefore I pray think more seriously of what he saith That to agree in that prophane word is to lose the Faith That such a blasphemous name should be far from the hearts of Christians in which by the arrogance of one Bishop the honour of all is taken away Neither will it serve your turn to say which is all that you have to say that this is not the definitive sentence of your Church but that many in your Church hold otherwise That there is power of Jurisdiction properly in Bishops For although these latter are not near the number of the other nor so much in favour with your Church but are looked on as a discontented party as appears by the proceedings in the Council of Trent yet that is not it we are to look after What all in your Church are agreed on but what the Pope challengeth as belonging to himself Was not Father Laynez his Doctrine highly approved at Rome as well as by the Cardinal Legats at Trent and all the Italian party Were not the other party discountenanced and disgraced as much as might be Doth not the Pope arrogate this to himself to be Oecumenical Pastor and the sole Fountain of all Jurisdiction in the Church If so all that ever St. Gregory said against that Title falls most heavily upon the Pope For St. Gregory doth not stand upon what others attributed to him but what he arrogated to himself that therein he was the Prince of Pride the forerunner of Antichrist using a vain new rash foolish proud prophane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blaspemous Name For all these goodly Epithets doth S. Gregory bestow upon it and I believe if he could have thought of more and worse he would as freely have bestowed them If therefore John the Patriarch was said by him to transgress God's Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise his Brethren imitate Lucifer How much more doth this belong to him that not only challengeth to be Oecumenical Patriarch but the sole Pastor of the Church and that all Jurisdiction is derived from him And by this time I hope you see that the Answer you say hath
been given a hundred times over is so pitifully weak absurd and ridiculous that you might have been ashamed to have produced it once and much more to repeat it without saying any more for it than you do For your other discourse depends wholly upon it and all that being taken away the rest doth fall to the ground with it We must now therefore return to his Lordships discourse in which he goes on to give an account of the rise of the Pope's Greatness As yet saith he The right of Election or ratification of the Pope continued in the Emperour but then the Lombards grew so great in Italy and the Empire was so infested with Saracens and such changes happened in all parts of the world as that neither for the present the homage of the Pope was useful for the Emperour nor the protection of the Emperour available for the Pope By this means the Bishop of Rome was left to play his own game by himself A thing which as it pleased him well enough so both he and his Successors made great advantage by it For being grown to that Eminence by the Emperour and the greatness of that City and place of his aboad he found himself the more free the greater the Tempest was that beat upon the other And then first he set himself to alienate the hearts of the Italians from the Emperour Next he opposed himself against him And about A. D. 710. Pope Constantine 1. did also first of all openly confront Philippicus the Emperour in defence of Images as Onuphrius tells us After him Gregory 2. and the 3. did the same by Leo Isaurus By this time the Lombards began to pinch very close and to vex on all sides not Italy only but Rome also This drives the Pope to seek a new Patron And very fitly he meets with Charls Martell in France that famous warrior against the Sarazens Him he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards This address seems very advisedly taken at least it proves very fortunate to them both For in short time it dissolved the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy which had then stood two hundred and four years which was the Popes security And it brought the Crown of France into the house of Charls and shortly after the Western Empire And now began the Pope to be great indeed For by the bounty of Pepin Son of Charls that which was taken from the Lombards was given to the Pope So that now of a Bishop he became a Temporal Prince But when Charls the Great had set up the Western Empire then he resumed the ancient and original power of the Emperour to govern the Church to call Councils to order Papal Elections And this power continued in his posterity For this right of the Emperour was in force and use in Gregory the seventh's time Who was confirmed in the Popedom by Henry the fourth whom he afterward deposed And it might have continued longer if the succeeding Emperours had had abilities enough to secure or vindicate their own Right But the Pope keeping a strong Council about him and meeting with some weak Princes and they oft-times distracted with great and dangerous warrs grew stronger till he got the better So this is enough to shew How the Popes climed up by the Emperours till they over-topt them which is all I said before and have now proved And this was about the year 1073. Yet was it carried in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different success The Emperour sometimes plucking from the Pope and the Pope from the Emperour winning and losing ground as their spirits abilities aids and opportunities were till at the last the Pope settled himself upon the grounds laid by Gregory 7. in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christian world To all this you return a short Answer in these words We deny not but that in Temporal power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours But what is this to the purpose If he would have said any thing material he should have proved that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholick Church which is the only thing they claim jure divino and which is so annexed to the dignity of their office by Christ's institution that were the Pope deprived of all his Temporalties yet could not his Spiritual Authority suffer the least diminution by it But 1. Doth his Lordships discourse only contain an account of the Popes temporal greatness by the Patronage of Christian Emperours Doth he not plainly shew How the Popes got their power by rebelling and contesting with the Emperours themselves How they assumed to themselves a power to depose Emperours and Do they claim these things jure Divino too 2. What you say of the Popes Spiritual Authority will then hold good when it is well proved but bare asserting it will never do it We must therefore have patience till you have leisure to attempt it But in the mean time we must consider How you vindicate the famous place of Irenaeus concerning as you say the Pope's Supreme Pastoral Authority from his Lordships interpretation Yet before we come to the Authority it self there are some light skirmishes as you call them to be passed through and those are concerning Irenaeus himself For his Lordship saith That his Adversarie is much scanted of ancient proof if Irenaeus stand alone besides Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallican Church and a very unlikely man to captivate the liberty of that Church under the more powerful principality of Rome And how can we have better evidence of his judgement touching that principality then the actions of his life When Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow was not Irenaeus the chief man that reprehended him for it A very unmeet and undutiful thing sure it had been in Irenaeus in deeds to tax him of rashness and inconsiderateness whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him the Supreme and Infallible Pastour of the Vniversal Church To which you Answer 1. To the liberty of the Gallican Church As if forsooth the so much talked of liberties of the Gallican Church had been things known or heard of in St. Irenaeus his time as though there were no difference between not captivating the Liberty of that Church to Rome and asserting the Liberties of the Gallican Church in her obedience to Rome yet these two must be confounded by you to render his Lordships Answer ridiculous which yet is as sound and rational as your cavil is vain and impertinent But this you pass over and fix 2. Vpon his reprehending Pope Victor where you say that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension but rather a friendly and seasonable perswasion his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
c. he exhorts him after a handsome manner as reflecting on the Popes dignity and clearly shews that the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church For otherwise it had been very absurd in St. Irenaeus to perswade Pope Victor not to cut off from the Church so many Christian Provinces had he believed as Protestant contends he did that the Pope had no power at all to cut them off Just as if a man should entreat the Bishop of Rochester not to excommunicate the Archbishop of York and all the Bishops of his Province over whom he hath not any the least pretence of Jurisdiction I Answer that if you say that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension it is a sign you have not read what Eusebius saith For doth not he expresly say That the Epistle of some of the Bishops are yet remaining in which they do severely rebuke him Among whom saith he Irenaeus was one c. It seems Irenaeus was one of those Bishops who did so sharply reprehend him but it may be you would render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kissing his Holiness feet or exhorting him after a handsome manner and indeed if they did it sharply they did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suitably enough to what Victor deserved for his rash and inconsiderate proceedings in this business But withall to let you see how well these proceedings of his were resented in the Christian world Eusebius tells us before That Victor by his letters did declare those of the Eastern Churches to be excommunicate and he presently adds But this did no wayes please all the Bishops wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they countermanded him that he might mind the things of peace and unity and brotherly love And will you still render that word too by exhorting him after a handsome manner when even Christopherson renders it by magnoperè adhortabantur Valesius by ex adverso hortati sunt and although these seem not to come up to the full emphasis of the word yet surely they imply somewhat of vehemency and earnestness in their perswading him as well as their being hugely dissatisfied with what Victor did I grant that these persons did reflect as you say on the Pope but not as you would have it on his dignity but on his rashness and indiscretion that should go about to cast the Asian Churches out of Communion for such a trifle as that was in Controversie between them But you are the happiest man at making inferences that I have met with for because Irenaeus in the name of the Gallican Bishops writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this action thence you infer that the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church Might you not every jot as well inferr that when a man in passion is ready to kill those that stand about him whoever perswades him not to do it doth suppose he might lawfully have done it if he would But if those Bishops had so venerable an esteem as you would perswade us they had then of the Bishop of Rome How come they to dispute his actions in so high a manner as they did If they had looked on him as Vniversal Pastor of the Church it had more become them to sit still and be quiet then severely to reprehend him who was alone able to judge what was fit to be done and what not in those cases If the Pope had call'd them to Council to have known their advise it might have been their duty to have given it him in the most humble and submissive manner that might be But for them to intrude themselves into such an office as to advise the Head of the Church what to do in a matter peculiarly concerning him as though he did not know what was fit to be done himself methinks you should not imagine that these men did act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as became them in doing it Could they possibly in any thing more declare how little they thought it necessary for all Churches to conform to that of Rome when they plead for dissenters in such a matter which the Pope had absolutely declared himself about And how durst any of them slight the thunderbolts which the Pope threatned them with Yet not only Polycrates and the Asian Bishops who joyned with him profess themselves not at all affrighted at them but the other Churches looked not on themselves as obliged to forsake their communion on that account If this be such an evidence of the Popes power in one sense I am sure it is a greater evidence of his weakness in another It seems the Head of the Church began betimes to be troubled with the fumes of passion and it is a little unhappy that the first Instance of his Authority should meet with so little regard in the Christian world If the Pope did begin to assume so early you see it was not very well liked of by the Bishops of other Churches But it seems he had a mind to try his power and the weight of his Arm but for all his haste he was fain to withdraw it very patiently again Valesius thinks that he never went so far as to excommunicate the Asian Bishops at all but the noise of his threatning to do it being heard by them it seems the very preparing of his thunderbolts amazed the world Irenaeus having call'd a Synod of the Bishops of Gaul together doth in their name write that Letter in Eusebius to Victor to disswade him from it and that it wrought so effectually with him that he gave it over And this he endeavours to prove 1. Because Eusebius saith he only endeavour'd to do it But Cardinal Perron supposeth Eusebius had a worse meaning then so in it i. e. that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in communion with them and therefore he calls Eusebius an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome when yet all the records of this story are derived from him 2. Because the Epistles of Irenaeus tend to perswade him not to cut them off whereas if they had been excommunicate it would have been rather to have restored them to Communion and that Photius saith that Irenaeus writ many letters to Victor to prevent their excommunication But because Eusebius saith expresly That he did by letters pronounce them out of the Communion of the Church the common opinion seems more probable and so Socrates understands it but still I am to seek for such an Argument of the acknowledgement of the Popes Authority then as you would draw from it Yes say you because they do not tell him He had no Authority to do what he did which they would have done if they could without proclaiming themselves Schismaticks ipso facto and shaking the very Foundation of the Churches Discipline and Vnity
But all this proceeds from want of understanding the Discipline of the Church at that time for excommunication did not imply any such authoritative act of throwing men out of the Communion of the whole Church but only a declaring that they would not admit such persons to communion with themselves And therefore might be done by equals to equals and sometimes by Inferiours to Superiours In equals it is apparent by Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicating Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria and I suppose you will not acknowledge it may be done by Inferiours if we can produce any examples of Popes being excommunicated and what say you then to the African Bishops excommunicating Pope Vigilius as Victor Tununensis an African Bishop himself relates it Will you say now that Victors excommunicating the Asian Churches argued his authority over them when another Victor tells us that the African Bishops solemnly excommunicated the Pope himself And I hope you will not deny but the Bishop of Rochester might as well excommunicate the Archbishop of York as these Africans excommunicate the Bishop of Rome What say you to the expunging the name of Felix Bishop of Rome out of the Diptychs of the Church by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople What say you to Hilary's Anathema against Pope Liberius If these excommunications did not argue just power and authority over the persons excommunicated neither could Pope Victors do it For it is apparent by the practise of the Church that excommunication argued no such superiority in the persons who did it but all the force of it lay in the sense of the Church for by whomsoever the sentence was pronounced if all other Churches observed it as most commonly they did while the Vnity of the Church continued then they were out of the Communion of the Catholick Church if not then it was only the particular declaration of those persons or Churches who did it And in this case the validity of the Popes excommunication of the Asian Bishops depended upon the acceptance of it by other Churches which most consenting to it he could not throw them out of the communion of the whole Church but only declare that if they came to Rome he would not admit them to communion with him And therefore Ruffinus well renders that place in Eusebius out of Irenaeus his Epistle to Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these words Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclesiae societate aut venientes ab illis partibus non sunt suscepti so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may as well signifie not to receive as to cast out for the Churches not receiving is her casting out Thus I hope it is evident that his Lordship hath received no injury by these lighter skirmishes We now follow you into hotter service For you say he ventures at last to grapple with the Authority it self alleadged by A. C. out of St. Irenaeus where in the first place you wink and strike and let your blows fall besides him for fear he should return them or some one for him You quarrel with his translation of the Authority cited by him but that the ground of this quarrel may be understood we must first enquire what his Lordship hath to say for himself The place of Irenaeus is To this Church he speaks of Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique round about should have recourse Now for this his Lordship saith there was very great reason in Irenaeus his time that upon any difference arising in the faith Omnes undique Fideles all the faithful or if you will all the Churches round about should have recourse that is resort to Rome being the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Principality then any other at that time in those parts of the world But this his Lordship saith will not exalt Rome to be Head of the Church Vniversal Here your blood rises and you begin a most furious encounter with his Lordship for translating undique round about as if say you St. Irenaeus spake only of those neighbouring Churches round about Rome and not the Churches throughout the world whereas undique as naturally signifies every where and from all parts witness Thomas Thomasius where the word undique is thus Englished From all parts places and corners every where Can you blame me now if I seek for a retreat into some strong-hold or if you will some more powerful Principality when I see so dreadful a Charge begun with Thomas Thomasius in the Front You had routed us once before with Rider and other English Lexicons but it seems Rider had done service enough that time now that venerable person Thomas Thomasius must be upon duty and do his share for the Catholick Cause You somewhere complain how much Catholicks are straitned for want of Books Would any one believe you that find you so well stored with Thomas Thomasius Rider and other English Lexicons You would sure give us some cause of suspition that there is some Jesuits School taught in England and that you are the learned Master of it by your being so conversant in these worthy Authours But although the Authority of Th. Thomasius signifie very little with us yet that of the Greek Lexicons might do much more if we had the original Greek of Irenaeus instead of his barbarous Latin Interpreter For now it is uncertain what word Irenaeus used and so it is but a very uncertain conjecture which can be drawn from the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless we knew which of them was the genuine word in the Greek of Irenaeus But you say all of them undeniably signifie from all parts Vniversally and that because they are rendred by the word undique So that this will make an excellent proof undique must signifie from all parts because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie so in Greek and that these do undeniably signifie so much appears because they are rendred by undique And I grant they are so for in the old Glossary which goes under the name of Cyril undique is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—ully than whom we cannot possibly desire a better Authour in this case renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by undique For in his Book de Finibus he translates that of Epicurus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by undique complerentur voluptatibus and so he renders that passage in Plato's Timaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by undique aequabilem although as Hen. Stephanus notes that be rather the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but still there is some difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek Authours notes ex omni parte terrae but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only ex quâvis parte so that
the one signifies Vniversally the other indefinitely undique relating properly to the circumference as undique aequalis on all sides it is equal so that qui sunt undique fideles are those which lye upon all quarters round about And so it doth not imply that all persons were bound to come but that from all quarters some did come as Herodian speaks of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was very populous and did receive them which came from all parts which doth very fitly explain the sense of Irenaeus that to Rome being the Imperial City men came from all quarters But the sense of this will be more fully understood by a parallel expression in the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch in which it is decreed that the Metropolitan should have the care of all the Bishops in his Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all persons who have business from all parts resort to the Metropolis here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the very same with the undique convenire in Irenaeus so that it relates not to any Obligation on Churches to resort thither but that being the Seat of the Empire all believers from all parts did make their recourse thither Which is most fully expressed by Leo speaking of S. Peter's coming to Rome Cujus nationis homines in hâc Vrbe non essent aut quae uspiam gentes ignorarent quod Roma didicisset And so if I grant you that it extends to all parts I know not what advantages you will get by it for Irenaeus his design is to shew that there was no such secret Tradition left by the Apostles as the Valentinians pretended And for this he appeals to the Church of Rome which being seated in the Imperial City to which Believers from all parts did resort it is impossible to conceive that the Apostles should have left such a Tradition and it not to be heard of there which is the plain genuine meaning of Irenaeus his words Not as you weakly imagine That all Churches in all doubts of Faith were bound to have their recourse thither as to their constant guide therein For Irenaeus was not disputing What was to be done by Christians in doubts of Faith but was enquiring into a matter of fact viz. Whether any such Tradition were ever left in the Church or no and therefore nothing could be more pertinent or convincing than appealing to that Church to which Christians resorted from all parts for it could not be conceived but if the Apostles had left such a Tradition any where it would be heard of at Rome And you most notoriously pervert the meaning of Irenaeus when you would make the force of his argument to lye in the necessity of all Christians resorting to Rome because the Doctrine or Tradition of the Roman Church was as it were the touchstone of all Apostolical Doctrine But I suppose you deal in some English Logicians as well as English Lexicons and therefore I must submit both to your Grammar and Logick but your ingenuity is as great as your reason for you first pervert his Lordships meaning and then make him dispute ridiculously that you might come out with your triumphant language Is not this fine Meandrick Logick well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth Whereas his Lordships reasoning is so plain and clear that none but such a one as had a Labyrinth in his brains could have imagined any Meanders in it As appears by what I have said already in the explication of the meaning of Irenaeus But that I may see the strength of your Logick out of this place of Irenaeus I will translate undique and semper as fully as you would have me and give you the words at large in which by those who come from all places the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies conserved What is it you inferr hence From the Premises you argue thus All the faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome by reason of her more powerful principality This is S. Irenaeus his proposition But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful principality if her said power extended not to them all This is evident to reason Ergo this more powerful principality of the Roman Church must needs extend to all the faithful every where and not only to those of the Suburbicary Churches or Patriarchal Diocese of Rome as the Bishop pleads Now I see you are a man at arms and know not only how to grapple with his Lordship but with Irenaeus to boot But we must first see How Irenaeus himself argues that we may the better understand the force of what you deduce from him The Question as I have told you already was Whether the Apostles left any such Tradition in the Church as the Valentinians pretended Irenaeus proves they did not because if there had been any such the Apostolical Churches would certainly have preserved the memory of it but because it would be too tedious to insist on the succession of all Churches he therefore makes choice of the most famous the Church of Rome in which the Apostolical Tradition had been derived by a succession of Bishops down to his own time and by this saith he we confound all those who through vain glory or blindness do gather any such thing For saith he to this Church for the more powerful principality all Churches do make resort i. e. the believers from all parts in which by those who come from all parts the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies preserved We must now see How Irenaeus argues according to your sense of his words If all the faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome for her more powerful principality then there is no secret Tradition left by the Apostles But Where lyes the connexion between these two What had the Valentinians to do with the power of the Church of Rome over other Churches That was not the business they disputed their Question was Whether there were no such Tradition as they pretended And Rome might have never so great power over all Churches and yet have this secret Tradition too For now we see when she pretends to the greatest power nay to Infallibility she pretends the highest to Traditions Where then lyes the force of Irenaeus his argument Was it in this that the Valentinians did acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church of Rome then in Traditions This were indeed to the purpose if it could be proved Or Doth Irenaeus go about to prove this first But by what argument doth he prove it so that the Valentinians might be convinced by it Yes say you he saith That all the faithful must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome This is your way of proving indeed to take things for granted but How doth this necessity appear because say you she hath the more powerful principality But
What principality do you mean over all Churches But that was the thing in Question So that if you will make Irenaeus speak sense and argue pertinently his meaning can be no other than this If there be such a Tradition left it must be left somewhere among Christians if it be left among them it may be known by enquiry Whether they own any such or no. But because it would be troublesome searching of all Churches we may know their judgement more compendiously there is the Church of Rome near us a famous and ancient Church seated in the chief City of the Empire to which all persons have necessities to go and among them you cannot but suppose but that out of every Church some faithful persons should come and therefore it is very unreasonable to think that the Apostolical Tradition hath not alwaies been preserved there when persons come from all places thither Is not every thing in this account of Irenaeus his words very clear and pertinent to his present dispute But in the sense you give of them they are little to the purpose and very precarious and inconsequent And therefore since the more powerful principality is not that of the Church but of the City since the necessity of recourse thither is not for doubts of Faith but other occasions therefore it by no means follows thence That this Churches power did extend over the faithful every where thus by explaining your Proposition your Conclusion is ashamed of it self and runs away For your argument comes to this If English men from all parts be forced to resort to London then London hath the power over all England or if one should say If some from all Churches in England must resort to London then the Church at London hath power over all the Churches in England and if this consequence be good yours is for it is of the same nature of it the necessity of the resort not lying in the Authority of the Church but in the Dignity of the City the words in all probability in the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so relate to the dignity of Rome as the Imperial City From whence we proceed to the Vindication of Ruffinus in his Translation of the 6. Canon of the Council of Nice The occasion of which is this His Lordship saith Supposing that the powerful principality be ascribed to the Church of Rome yet it follows not that it should have power over all Churches for this power was confined within its own Patriarchate and Jurisdiction and that saith he was very large containing all the Provinces in the Diocese of Italy in the old sense of the word Diocese which Provinces the Lawyers and others term Suburbicaries There were ten of them the three Islands Sicily Corsica and Sardinia and the other seven upon the firm Land of Italy And this I take it is plain in Ruffinus For he living shortly after the Nicene Council as he did and being of Italy as he was he might very well know the bounds of the Patriarchs Jurisdiction as it was then practised And he sayes expresly that according to the old custom the Roman Patriarchs charge was confined within the limits of the Suburbican Churches To avoid the force of this testimony Cardinal Perron laies load upon Ruffinus For he charges him with passion ignorance and rashness And one piece of his ignorance is that he hath ill translated the Canon of the Council of Nice Now although his Lordship doth not approve of it as a Translation yet he saith Ruffinus living in that time and place was very like well to know and understand the limits and bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome in which he lived This you say is very little to his Lordships advantage since it is inconsistent with the vote of all Antiquity and gives S. Irenaeus the lye but if the former be no truer than the latter it may be very much to his advantage notwithstanding what you have produced to the contrary What the ground is Why the Roman Patriarchate was confined within the Roman Diocese I have already shewed in the precedent Chapter in explication of the Nicene Canon We must now therefore examine the Reasons you bring Why the notion of Suburbicary Churches must be extended beyond the limits his Lordship assigns that of the smalness of Jurisdiction compared with other Patriarchs I have given an account of already viz. from the correspondency of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Government for the Civil Dioceses of the Eastern part of the Empire did extend much farther than the Western did and that was the Reason Why the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria had a larger Metropolitical Jurisdiction than the Bishop of Rome had But you tell us That Suburbicary Churches must be taken as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any waies subordinate to the City of Rome which was at that time known by the name of Urbs or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency not as it related to the Praefect or Governour of Rome in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction we confess it commanded only those few places about it in Italy but as it related to the Emperour himself in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this subject But this is one instance of what mens wits will do when they are resolved to break through any thing For whoever that had read of the Suburbicary Regions and Provinces in the Code of Theodosius or other parts of the Civil Law as distinguished from other Provinces under the Roman Empire and those in Italy too could ever have imagined that the notion of Suburbicary Churches had been any other than what was correspondent to those Regions and Provinces But let that be granted which Sirmondus so much contends for That the notion of Suburbicary may have different respects and so sometimes be taken for the Churches within the Roman Diocese sometimes for those within the Roman Patriarchate and sometimes for those which are under the Pope as Vniversal Pastor yet How doth it appear that ever Ruffinus took it in any other than the first sense No other Provinces being called Suburbicary but such as were under the Jurisdiction either of the Roman Prefect within a hundred miles of the City within which compass references and appeals were made to him or at the most to the Lieutenant of the Roman Diocese whose Jurisdiction extended to those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions It is not therefore In what sense words may be taken but in what sense they were taken and what Evidence there is that ever they were so understood Never was any Controversie more ridiculous than that concerning the extent of the Suburbicary Regions or Provinces if Suburbicary were taken in your sense for all the Cities within the Roman
Empire But this extending of the Suburbicary Churches as far as the Roman Empire is like the art of those Jesuits who in their setting forth Anastasius de vitis Pontificum in Stephanus 5. turn'd Papa Vrbis into Papa Orbis for that being so mean and contemptible a title they thought much it should remain as it did but Papa Orbis was magnificent and glorious I wonder therefore that instead of extending the signification of Suburbicary Churches you do not rather pretend that it ought to be read Suborbicary and so to suit exactly with the Papa Orbis as importing all those Churches which are under the power of the Vniversal Pastor For Why should you stop at the confines of the Roman Empire How comes his Jurisdiction to be confined within that By what right did he govern the Churches within the Empire and not those without Surely not as Primate Metropolitan or Patriarch of the Roman Empire for those are titles yet unheard of in Antiquity if as Head of the Church How comes the Jurisdiction of that to be at all limited Were there no Churches without the Empire then I hope you will not deny that If there were To whom did the Jurisdiction over them belong to the Pope or not If not How comes he to be Head of the Church and Vniversal Pastor If they did Why were not these Suburbicary Churches as well as those within the Empire Besides it is confessed by the learnedest among you that when the notion of Suburbicary is extended beyond the Suburbicary Provinces it is not out of any relation to the City but to the power of the Bishop of the City and therefore the Suburbicary Churches may be larger than the Suburbicary Provinces But if this be true as it is the only probable evasion then it is impossible for you to confine the Suburbicary Churches within the Roman Empire without confining the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop within those bounds too For if the inlarging the notion of Surburbicary Churches depends upon the extent of his power the fixing the limits of those Churches determines the bounds of his power too Which is utterly destructive to your pretences of the Pope's being Head of the Vniversal Church and not barely of the Churches within the Roman Empire But if it had been Ruffinus his design to express by Suburbicary Churches all those within the Roman Empire surely he made choice of the most unhappy expression to do it by which he could well have thought of For it being then so well known what the Suburbicary Provinces were that in the Code of Theodosius where they are so often mentioned they are not distinctly enumerated because they were then as well understood as the African Gallican or Britannick Provinces How absurd were it for him to take a word in common use and so well known and apply it to such a sense as no example besides can be produced for it For if any one at that time should have spoken of the African Gallican or Britannick Churches no one would have imagined any other than those which were contained in the several Provinces under those names What reason is there then that any thing else should be apprehended by the Suburbicary Churches I know the last refuge of most of your side instead of explaining these Suburbicary Churches hath been to rail at Ruffinus and call him Dunce and Blockhead and enemy to the Roman Church instances were easie to be given if it were at all necessary but besides that it were easie to make it appear that Ruffinus was no such fool as some have taken him for And if they think so because S. Hierom gives him such hard words they must think so of all whom S. Hierom opposed he is sufficiently vindicated in this translation by the Ancient Vatican Copy of the Nicene Canons out of which this very Canon is produced by Sirmondus and the very same word of Suburbicary therein used And that in such a manner as utterly destroies your sense of the Suburbicary Churches for such as are within the Roman Empire for that Copy calls them Loca Suburbicaria and Will you say those are the Provinces within the Roman Empire too Can any one rationally think that any other places should be called Suburbicary but such as lye about the City And by the same interpretation which you here use you may call all England the Suburbs of London because London is the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you speak and therefore all the Churches of England must be Suburbicary to London But if you think this incongruous you may on the same account judge the other to be so too It appears then that the Suburbicary places in the Vatican Copy and in that very Ancient Copy which Justellus had which agrees with the Vatican are the same with the Suburbicary Churches in Ruffinus and if you will explain these latter of the Roman Empire you must do the former too But not only the Vatican Copy but all other different Versions of the Nicene Canon utterly overthrow this Opinion of Cardinal Perron that the Suburbicary Churches must be taken for those within the Roman Empire For in the Arabick Version published by Turrianus it is thus rendred Siquidem similitèr Episcopus Romae i. e. successor Petri Apostoli potestatem habet omnium civitatum locorum quae sunt circa eam Are all the Cities and places in the Roman Empire circa eam about the City of Rome If not neither can the Churches be And in that Arabick paraphrase which Salmasius had of the famous Peireskius it is translated much more agreeably to the Nicene Canon in these words Propterea quod Episcopus Romanus etiam hunc morem obtinet hoc ei adjunctum est ut potestatem habeat supra civitates loca quae prope eam sunt Which is yet more full to shew the absurdity of your exposition for these Suburbicary Churches must be then in places near the City of Rome And agreeably to these Aristinus the Greek Collector of the Canons hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Ruffinus his Suburbicary doth exactly render By whom now must we be judged What is meant by these Suburbicary Churches by you who make a forced and strained interpretation of the word Suburbicary to such a sense of which there is no evidence in Antiquity or Reason and is withall manifestly repugnant to the design of the Canon which is to proportion the Dioceses of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandrina by the example of Rome which had been very absurd if these Suburbicary Churches did comprehend the Dioceses of Alexandria and Antioch and all other Provinces as you make them or else must we be judged by the ancient Versions of the Nicene Canon Latin and Arabick and by other Greek Paraphrases all which unanimously concurr to overthrow that Figment that the Suburbicary Churches are all those within the Roman Empire And this the learned Petrus de Marcâ was so sensible of
he alledges there 's not a word of the Churches principality 2. That he only implies that he was the first of the Apostles made Bishop of any particular place viz. at Hierusalem which is called Christs Throne as any Episcopal Chair is in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers But whosoever will examine the places in Epiphanius will find much more intended by him than what you will allow For not only he saith that he first had an Episcopal Chair but that our Lord committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Throne upon Earth which surely is much more than can be said of any meer Episcopal Chair and I believe you will be much to seek where Hierusalem was ever called Christ's Throne upon earth after his Ascension to Heaven Besides if it were it is the strongest prejudice that may be against the principality of the Roman See if Jerusalem was made by Christ his Throne here And that a principality over the whole Church is intended by Epiphanius seems more clear by that other place which his Lordship cites wherein he not only saith That James was first made Bishop but gives this reason for it because he was the Brother of our Lord and if you observe How Epiphanius brings it in you will say he intended more by it than to make him the first Bishop For he was disputing before How the Kingdom and the Priesthood did both belong to Christ and that Christ had transfused both into his Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but his Throne is established for ever in his holy Church consisting both of his Kingdom and Priesthood both which he communicated to his Church quare Jacobus primus omnium est Episcopus constitutus as Petavius renders it so that he seems to settle James in that principality of the Church which he had given to it and what reason can you have to think but that Christ's Throne in which Epiphanius saith James was settled in the other place is the same with his Throne in the Church which he mentions here And What would you give for so clear a testimony in Antiquity for Christ's settling S. Peter in his Throne at Rome as here is for his placing S. James in it at Jerusalem His Lordship goes on And he still tells us the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter 's successor Well suppose that What then What Why then he succeeded in all S. Peter 's prerogatives which are ordinary and belonged to him as a Bishop though not in the extraordinary which belonged to him as an Apostle For that is it which you all say but no man proves Yes you say Bellarmine hath done it in his disputations on that subject For this you produce a saying of his That when the Apostles were dead the Apostolical Authority remained alone in S. Peter 's successor I see with you still saying and proving are all one But since you referr the Reader to Bellarmine for proofs I shall likewise referr him to the many sufficient Answers which have been given him You argue stoutly afterwards That because Primacy in the modern sense of it implies Supremacy therefore wherever the Fathers attribute a Primacy to Peter among the Apostles they mean his Authority and power over them I see you are resolved to believe that there cannot be one two and three but the first must be Head over all the rest A Primacy of Order his Lordship truly saith was never denied him by Protestants and an Vniversal Supremacy of power was never granted him by the Primitive Christians Prove but in the first place that S. Peter had such a Supremacy of power over the Apostles and all Christian Churches and that this power is conveyed to the Pope you will do something In the mean time we acknowledge as much Primacy Authority and Principality in S. Peter as D. Reynolds proves in the place you cite none of which come near that Supremacy of power which you contend for and we must deny till we see it better proved than it is by you But you offer it from S. Hierom because he saith The Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism but a meer precedency of order is not sufficient for that But Doth not S. Hierom in the words immediately before say That the Church is equally built on all the Apostles and that they all receive the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them and Can he possibly then mean in the following words any other Primacy but such as is among equals and not any Supremacy of power over them And certainly you think the Apostles very unruly who would not be kept in order by such a Primacy as this is unless a S. Peter's full jurisdiction over them And since it is so evident that S. Hierom can mean no other but such a preheminence as this for preventing Schism you had need have a good art that can deduce from thence a necessity of a Supremacy of power in the Church for that end For say you Whatsoever power or jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for preventing Schisms must à fortiori be necessary in all succeeding ages but still be sure to hold to that power or jurisdiction which was in the Apostles times and we grant you all you can prove from it You still dispute gallantly when you beg the Question and argue as formally as I have met with one when you have supposed that which it most concerned you to prove Which is that God hath appointed a Supremacy of power in one particular person alwaies to continue in the Church for preservation of Faith and Unity in it For if you suppose the Church cannot be governed or Schism prevented without this you may well save your self a labour of proving any further But so far are we from seeing such a Supremacy of power as you challenge to the Pope to be necessary for preventing Schisms that we are sufficiently convinced that the Vsurping of it hath caused one of the greatest ever was in the Christian world CHAP. VII The Popes Authority not proved from Scripture or Reason The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture acknowledged by Romanists themselves The impertinency of Luk. 22.32 to that purpose No proofs offered for it but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope as St. Peters successour confessed and proved by Vigorius and Mr. White The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor but not as Pope acknowledged by them John 21.15 proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings T. C's beggings of the Question and tedious repetitions past over The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge considered The Government of the Church not Monarchical but Aristocratical The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church manifested from reason No evidence that
first because he is called by his private name Simon and not by his Apostolical name Peter 2. Because Christ immediately subjoyns after St. Peters answer his threefold denyal of him 3. The event it self makes it appear by the Apostles flight St. Peters temptation and fall his conversion and tears when Christ looked on him and by his confirming the Disciples after Christs resurrection But saith he if this place be taken as respecting the future times of the Church the same thing must be expected in St. Peters Successours which fell out in St. Peter himself viz. that either through fear or some other motive they may be drawn into the shew of Heresie or into Heresie it self but so as either in themselves or their Successours they should be restored to the Catholick Faith But what reason there is for this latter interpretation though destructive to the Popes infallibility neither doth that person acquaint us nor can I possibly understand All the evasion that you have to avoid the force of what ever is brought against you out of this place is by conjuring up that rare distinction of the Popes not erring when he defines any thing as matter of Faith But see what that same person saith of this distinction of yours Excipiunt aliqui saith he Papam posse esse haereticum sed non posse haeresim promulgare Adeò quidlibot effutire pro libidine etiam licitum est Some Answer that the Pope may be a Heretick but cannot promulge or define Heresie So far do men think it lawful to say what they please But can any man saith he be guilty of so much incogitancy as not to see that these things are consequent upon each other It is a Pear tree and therefore it will bear Pears It is a Vine and therefore it will bring forth Grapes Christ saith An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit but these say an evil tree cannot bring forth bad fruit The Apostle saith the wisdom of the Flesh cannot be subject to God but these say it cannot but be subject to God And then he further presseth That they would declare from what Authour they brought this contradiction into the Church of God lest men should believe they were inspired by the Father of lyes when they made it Nay he goes further yet in these stinging expressions An putatis licere in re quae totum Ecclesiae statum aâ—vivum tangit novitatem adeò inauditam adeò rationi adversantem adeò excedentem omnem fidem ex somniis cerebri vestri inferre Do you think it lawful in a matter which toucheth the whole state of the Church to the quick to produce so unheard of a novelty so repugnant to reason so far above all Faith out of the dreams of your own brain Go now and answer these things among your selves complain not that we account such evasions silly absurd and ridiculous you see they are accounted so by some of your own Communion or at least who pretend to be so and those no contemptible persons neither But such as have seen so much of the weakness and absurdity of your common doctrine that they openly and confidently oppose it and that upon the same grounds that Protestants had done it before them And I hope this is much more to our purpose to shew the insufficiency of these proofs than it was for you to produce the Testimonies of several Popes in their own Cause Which was all the proof that Bellarmin or you had that these words are extended to St. Peters Successours when we bring men from among your selves who produce several reasons that they ought not to be so interpreted But yet there is another place as pertinent as the former the celebrated Pasce oves agnos John 21.15 16 17. But sheep and Lambs say you are Christs whole flock So there are both these saith his Lordship in every flock that is not of barren Weathers and every Apostle and every Apostles successour hath charge to feed both sheep and Lambs that is weaker and stronger Christians not people and Pastours subjects and Governours as A. C. expounds it to bring the necks of Princes under the Roman Pride No say you no such charge is given to any other Apostles in the places his Lordship cites Matth. 28.19 Matth. 10.17 for these speak of persons unbaptized but that place of St. John of those who were actually Christs Flock and the words being absolutely and indefinitely pronounced must be understood generally and indefinitely of all Christs sheep and Lambs that is of all Christians whatsoever not excepting the Apostles themselves unless it appear from some other place that the other Apostles had the feeding of all Christs sheep as universally and unlimitedly committed to them as they were here to St. Peter But all this is nothing as Vigorius speaks about the solvere ligare pascere but dudum explosis cantilenis aures Christianorum obtundere to bring us those things over and over which have been answered as oft as they have been brought For how often have you been told that these words contain no particular Commission to St. Peter but a more vehement exhortation to the discharge of his duty and that pressed with the quickness of the question before it Lovest thou me How often that the full Commission to the Apostles was given before As the Father hath sent me so send I you And that as Christ was by his Fathers appointment the chief Shepheard of the Sheep and Lambs too so Christ by this equal Commission to all the Apostles gives them all an equal power and authority to govern his Flock How often that nothing appears consequent upon this whereby St. Peter took this office upon him but that afterwards we find St. Peter call'd the Apostle of the Circumcision which certainly he would never have been had he been looked on as the Vniversal Pastour of the Church we find the Apostles sending St. Peter to Samaria which was a very unmannerly action if they looked on him as Head of the Church How often that these indefinite expressions are not exclusive of the Pastoral charge of other Apostles over the Flock of Christ when they are not only bid to preach the Gospel to every creature but even those Bishops which they ordained in several Churches are charged to feed the Flock and therefore certainly the Apostles themselves had not only a charge to preach to unbaptized persons as you suppose but to govern the Flock of those who were actually Christs Sheep and Lambs as well as St. Peter How often I say have you been told all these and several other things in Answer to this place and have you yet the confidence to object it as though it had never been taken notice of without ever offering to take off those Answers which have been so frequently given But you must be pardoned in this as in all other things of an equal impossibility Well
but his Lordship objects a shrewd Consequence from this Universal Pastourship that this brings the necks of Princes under the Roman Pride And if Kings be meant his Lordship saith yet the command is pasce feed them but deponere or occidere to depose or kill them is not pascere in any sense Lanii id est non Pastoris that 's the Butchers not the Shepheards part This you call his Lordships winding about and falling upon that odious Question of killing and deposing Kings An odious Question indeed whether we consider the grounds or the effects and consequents of it But yet you would seem to clear your selves from the odium of it First By saying that it is a gross fallacy to argue a negatione speciei ad negationem generis which is a new kind of Logick It is indeed for it is of your own coyning for his Lordship argues ab affirmatione generis ad affirmationem speciei and I hope this is no new Logick unless you think he that saith He hath power over all living creatures hath not thereby power over men too His Lordship therefore doth not argue against the Popes Vniversal Supremacy from the denyal of that but deduces that as a consequence from your assertion and explication of what you mean by Sheep and Lambs But this is but a sleight Answer in comparison of what follows Secondly we answer That the point of Killing Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation scandalous enough indeed if false and though your Popes have not given express warrant for the doing it yet it is sufficiently known How the Pope in Consistory could not contain his joy when it was done in the case of Henry 3. of France And it hath been sufficiently confessed and lamented by persons of your own communion How much the Doctrine of the Jesuits hath encouraged those Assassinations of those two successive Henryes of France Will you or dare you vindicate the Doctrines of Mariana and others which do not obscurely deliver their judgement as to that very thing of Killing Haeretical Princes But if we should grant you this That the Pope may not command to kill What say you to that of deposing Princes which seldome falls much short of the other As to this you dare not cry It is a false and scandalous imputation as you did to the other but you answer 'T is no point of your Faith that the Pope hath power to do it and therefore you say it is no part of your task to dispute it Is this all the security Princes have from you that it is no point of your Faith that the Pope hath power to do it Is it not well enough known that there are many things which are held undoubtedly by the greatest part of your Church which yet you say are no points of Faith And yet in this you are directly contradicted by one who knew what were points of Faith among you as well as you and that was Father Creswell whose testimony I have cited already and he saith expresly Certum est de fide It is a thing certain and of Faith that the subjects of an Haeretical Prince are not only freed from Allegiance but are bound ex hominum Christianorum dominatu ejicere to cast him out of his power which certainly is more than the deposing of him And Sanders plainly enough saith That a King that will not submit to the Popes Authority is by no means to be suffered but his subjects ought to do their utmost endeavour that another may be placed in his room Indeed he saith not as the other doth That this is de fide but that is the only reserve you have when a Doctrine is odious and infamous to the world to cry out It is not de side when yet it may be as firmly believed among you as any that you account de fide And if you believe the Duke of Alva in his Manifesto at the siege of Pampelona when the Pope had deposed the King of Navarre to whom that City belonged he saith That it is not doubted but the Pope had power to depose Heretical Princes And if you had been of another opinion you ought to have declared your self more fully than you do If you had said that indeed some were of that opinion but you abhorred and detested it you had spoken to the purpose but when you use only that pitiful evasion That it is not of Faith c. you sufficiently shew What your judgement is but that you dare not publickly own it It seems you remember what was said by your Masters in reference to Emanuel SÃ Non fuit opus ad ista descendere There was no need to meddle with those things It seems if there had been there was no hurt in the Doctrine but only that it was unseasonable I pray God keep us from that time when you shall think it needful to declare your selves in this point But you conclude this with a most unworthy and scandalous reflection on Protestants in these words But what Protestants have both done and justified in the worst of these kinds is but too fresh in memory But Were those the practices and principles of Protestants Were they not abhorred and detested in the highest manner by all true Protestants both at home and abroad It will be well if you can clear some of your selves from having too much a hand in promoting both those principles and practices I suppose you cannot but have heard Who it was is said to have expressed so much joy at the time of that horrid execution What counsels and machinations are said to have been among some devoted Sons of the Church of Rome abroad about that time Therefore clear your selves more than yet you have done of those imputations before you charge that guilt on Protestants which they express the highest abhorrence of And let the names of such who either publickly or privately abett or justifie such horrid actions be under a continual Anathema to all Generations After all this discourse about the Popes Authority A. C. brings it at last home to the business of Schism For he saith The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock in such sort as that neither particular man nor Church shall have just cause under pretence of Reformation in manners of Faith to make a separation from the whole Church This his Lordship saith by A. C 's favour is meer begging the Question For this is the very thing which the Protestants charge upon him namely that he hath governed if not the whole yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his power so as that he hath given too just cause of the present continued Separation And as the corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith in the Church of Rome were the cause of the first Separation so are they at this present day the cause why the Separation continues
the rest are Rebels and Traytors And Is not this just the same Answer which you give here That the Pope is still appointed to keep peace and unity in the Church because all that question his Authority be Hereticks and Schismaticks But as in the former case the surest way to prevent those Consequences were to produce that power and authority which the King had given him and that should be the first thing which should be made evident from authentick records and the clear testimony of the gravest Senatours so if you could produce the Letters Pattents whereby Christ made the Pope the great Lord Chancellour of his Church to determine all Controversies of Faith and shew this attested by the concurrent voice of the Primitive Church who best knew what order Christ took for the Government of his Church this were a way to prevent such persons turning such Hereticks and Schismaticks as you say they are by not submitting themselves to the Popes Authority But for you to pretend that the Popes Authority is necessary to the Churches Vnity and when the Heresies and Schisms of the Church are objected to say That those are all out of the Church is just as if a Shepherd should say That he would keep the whole Flock of sheep within such a Fold and when the better half are shewed him to be out of it he should return this Answer That those were without and not within his Fold and therefore they were none of the Flock that he meant So that his meaning was those that would abide in he could keep in but for those that would not he had nothing to say to them So it is with you the Pope he ends Controversies and keeps the Church at Vnity How so They who do agree are of his Flock and of the Church and those that do not are out of it A Quaker or Anabaptist will keep the Church in Vnity after the same way only the Pope hath the greater number of his side for they will tell you If they were hearkned to the Church should never be in pieces for all those who embrace their Doctrines are of the Church and those who do not are Hereticks and Schismaticks So we see upon your principles What an easie matter it is to be an Infallible Judge and to end all Controversies in the Church that only this must be taken for granted that all who will not own such an infallible Judge are out of the Church and so the Church is at Vnity still how many soever there are who doubt or deny the Popes Authority Thus we easily understand what that excellent harmony is which you cry so much up in your Church that you most gravely say That had not the Pope received from God the power he challenges he could never have been able to preserve that peace and unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church Of what nature that Unity is we have seen already And surely you have much cause to boast of the Popes faculty of deciding Controversies ever since the late Decree of Pope Innocent in the case of the five Propositions For How readily the Jansenists have submitted since and what Unity there hath been among the dissenting parties in France all the world can bear you witness And whatever you pretend were it not for Policy and Interest the Infallible Chair would soon fall to the ground for it hath so little footing in Scripture or Antiquity that there had need be a watchful eye and strong hand to keep it up But now we are to examine the main proof which is brought for the necessity of this Living and Infallible Judge which lyes in these words of A.C. Every earthly Kingdom when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot be called upon all occasions hath besides the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the highest Judge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Vnity in all Temporal Affairs And Shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his Kingdom the Church only the Law-Books of holy Scripture and no living visible Judges and above all one chief so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Books as he list This his Lordship saith is a very plausible argument with the many but the Foundation of it is but a similitude and if the similitude hold not in the main argument is nothing And so his Lordship at large proves that it is here For whatever further concerns this Controversie concerning the Popes Authority is brought under the examination of this argument which you mangle into several Chapters thereby confounding the Reader that he may not see the coherence or dependence of one thing upon another But having cut off the superfluities of this Chapter already I may with more conveniency reduce all that belongs to this matter within the compass of it And that he may the better apprehend his Lordships scope and design I shall first summ up his Lordships Answers together and then more particularly go about the vindication of them 1. Then his Lordship at large proves that the Militant Church is not properly a Monarchy and therefore the foundation of the similitude is destroyed 2. That supposing it a Kingdom yet the Church Militant is spread in many earthly Kingdoms and cannot well be ordered like one particular Kingdom 3. That the Church of England under one Supreme Governour our Gracious Soveraign hath besides the Law-Book of the Scripture visible Magistrates and Judges arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops to govern the Church in Truth and Peace 4. That as in particular Kingdoms there are some affairs of greatest Consequence as concerning the Statute Laws which cannot be determined but in Parliament so in the Church the making such Canons which must bind all Christians must belong to a free and lawful General Council Thus I have laid together the substance of his Lordships Answer that the dependence and connexion of things may be better perceived by the intelligent Reader We come now therefore to the first Answer As to which his Lordship saith It is not certain that the whole Church Militant is a Kingdom for they are no mean ones which think our Saviour Christ left the Church-Militant in the hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or rather a mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom And the very expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the places of Scripture and other arguments brought by Bellarmine to prove that the Church is a Monarchy But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought fittest to govern it Aristocratically
by divers rather than by one Vice-Roy And I believe saith he this is true For so it was governed for the first three hundred years and somewhat better the Bishops of those times carrying the whole business of admitting any new consecrated Bishops or others to or rejecting them from their Communion And this his Lordship saith He hath carefully examined for the first six hundred years even to and within the time of S. Gregory the Great Now to this you answer 1. That though A. C. urgeth the argument in a similitude of a Kingdom only yet it is of force in any other kind of settled Government as in a Common-wealth But by this A. C. seems a great deal the wiser man for he knew what he did when he instanced in in a Kingdom for he foresaw that this only would tend to his purpose concerning the Popes Supremacy but though there be the same necessity of some Supreme Power in a Common-wealth yet that would do him no good at all for all that could be inferred thence would be the necessity of a General Council And by this you may see How little your similitude will hold any other way than A.C. put it Therefore 2. You answer That the Government of the Church is not a pure but a mixt Monarchy i. e. the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical you confess yet Bishops within their respective Dioceses and Jurisdictions are spiritual Princes also that is chief Pastors and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right How far this latter is consonant to your principles I have already examined but the former is that we dispute now concerning the Supreme Government of the Church Whether that be Monarchical or no and this is that which his Lordship denies and for all that I see we may continue to do so too for any argument you bring to the contrary Although you produce your Achilles in the next paragraph viz. that since the Government of one in chief is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect What wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to govern the Church by one Vice-Roy than Aristocratically or by many as he would have it But Are you sure Christ asked the Philosophers opinions in establishing a Government in the Church The Philosophers judged truly that of all Forms of Civil Government Monarchy was the best i. e. most conducing to the ends of Civil Government for the excellency of such things must be measured by their respect to the ends Now if we apply this to the Church we must not measure it by such ends as we fancy to our selves or such as are only the ends of meer Civil Societies but all must be considered with a respect to the chief design of him who first instituted a Church And from thence we must draw our Inferences as to what may tend most to the Peace and Vnity of it Now it appearing to be the great design of Christ that mankind should be brought to eternal Happiness we cannot argue from hence as to the necessity of any manner of Government unless one of them hath in it self a greater tendency to this than another hath For in Civil Governments the whole design of the Society is the Civil Peace of it but it is otherwise in the Church the main end of it is to order things with the greatest conveniency for a future life Now this being the main end of this Society and no manner of Government having in it self a greater tendency to this than other It was in the power of the Legislator to appoint what Government he pleased himself But when we consider that he intended this Church of his should be spread all over the world and this to be his immediate errand he sent his Apostles upon to preach to every creature and to plant Churches in the most remote and distant places from each other we can have the least ground to fancy he should appoint an Vniversal Monarchy in his Church of any Government whatsoever For if we will take that boldness you put us upon to enquire What form is fittest for a Society dispersed into all parts of the world and that are not bound upon their being Christians to live nearer Rome than Mexico or Japan Could any one imagine it would be to appoint one Vice-Roy to superintend his Church at such a place as Rome is Suppose all the East and West-Indies consisted of Christian Churches What advantage in order to the Government of those Churches could the Popes Authority be What Heresies and Schisms might be among them before his Holiness could be acquainted with them These are therefore very slender and narrow Conceptions concerning Christs Institution of a Government over his Catholick Church as though he should only have regard to these few adjacent parts of Europe without any respect to the good of the whole Church But since we see Christ designed such a Church which might be in most remote and distant places from each other and yet at such a distance might equally promote the main ends wherefore they became Churches it is very unreasonable to think he should appoint one Vice-Roy to be Head over them all For which let us suppose that Europe might be as the Eastern Churches have been over-run with the Turkish Power and only some few suffering Christians left here and the Pope much in the same condition with the Patriarch of Constantinople But on the other side that Christianity should largely spread it self in China and the East Indies and the Christian Church flourish in America Could any Philosopher think that fixing a Monarchy at Rome or elsewhere were the best way to Govern the Catholick Church which consists of all these Christian Societies For that is certainly the best Government which is suited to all conditions of that Society which it is intended for now it is apparent the Christian Church was intended to be so Catholick that no one Vice-Roy can be supposed able to look to the Government of it If Christ had intended meerly such a Church which should have consisted of such persons which lay here near about Rome and no others the supposition of such a Monarchy in the Church would not have been altogether so incongruous though liable to very many inconveniencies but when he intended his Religion for the universal good of the world and that in all parts of it without obliging them to live near each other it is one of the most unreasonable suppositions in the world that he should set up a Monarchical Government over his Catholich Church in such a place as Rome is But now if we suppose only an Aristocratical Government in the Church under Christ as the alone Supreme Head nothing can be more suitable to the nature of the Church or the large extent of it than that is For where-ever a Church is there may be Bishops to govern it and other Officers of the Church
to over-see the lesser parts of it and all joyn to promote the Peace and Unity of it which they may with the more ease do if no one challenge to be Supreme Head to whom belongs the chief care of the Church For by this means they cannot with that power and authority redress abuses and preserve the Churches Purity and Peace which otherwise they might have done So that considering barely the nature of things nothing seems more repugnant to the end for which Christ instituted a Catholick Church than such a Monarchy as you imagine and nothing more suitable than an Aristocracy considering that Christian Churches may be much dispersed abroad and that where they are they are incorporated into that Civil Society in which they live according to the known saying of Optatus Ecclesia est in republicâ c. and therefore such a Monarchy would be unsuitable to the civil Governments in which those Churches may be For it were easie to demonstrate that such a Monarchy as you challenge in the Church is the most inconvenient Government for it take the Church in what way or sense you please Whether as to its own peace and order or to its spreading into other Churches or to the respect it must have to the civil Government it lives under And if we would more largely enquire into these things we might easily find that those which you look on as the great ends wherefore Christ should institute such a Monarchical Government in his Church are things unsuitable to the nature of a Christian Church and which Christ as far as we can judge did never intend to take care that they should never be which are freedom from all kind of Controversies and absolute submission of Judgement to the decrees of an Infallible Judge We no where find such a state of a Christian Church described or promised where men shall all be of one mind only that peace and brotherly love be continued is that all Christians are bound to much less certainly that this Vnity should be by a submission of our understandings to an Infallible Judge of whom we read nothing in that Book which perswades us to be Christians and without which freedom of our understandings which this pretended Infallibility would deprive us of we could never have been judicious and rational Christians But granting that wise men have thought Monarchy the best Government in it self What is this to the proving what Government Christ hath appointed in his Church For that is the best Government for the Church not which Philosophers and Politicians have thought best but which our Saviour hath appointed in his Word For he certainly knew best what would suit with the conveniencies of his Church And these are bold and insolent disputes wherein those of your side argue That Christ must have instituted a Monarchy in his Church because all Philosophers have judged That the most perfect Government I need not tell you what these speeches imply Christ to be if he doth not follow the Philosophers judgement Will you give him leave to judge what is fittest for his Church himself or do you think he hath not wisdom enough to do it unless the Philosophers instruct him Let us therefore appeal to his Laws to see what Government he hath there appointed And now I shall deal more closely with you You tell me therein Christ hath appointed this Monarchical Government But I may be nearer your mind when you will Answer me these following Questions When and where did any wise Legislator appoint a matter of so vast concernment to the good of the Society as the Supreme Government of it and express no more of it in his Laws than Christ hath done of this Monarchical Government of the Church Is there not particular care taken in all Laws about that to express the rights of Soveraignty to hinder Vsurpations to bind all to obedience to determine the way of Succession by descent or election And hath Christ instituted a Monarchy in his Church and said nothing of all these things When the utmost you can pretend to are some ambiguous places which you must have the power of Interpreting your selves or they signifie nothing to your purpose So that none of the Fathers or the Primitive Church for several Centuries could find out such mysteries in super hanc Petram dabo tibi Claves and pasce oves as you have done If such a Monarchy had been appointed in the Church what should we have had more frequent mention of in the Records of the Church than of this Where do we meet with any Histories that write the affairs of Kingdoms for some hundred of years and never mention any Royal Acts of the Kings of them If St. Peters being at Rome had setled the Monarchy of the Church there what more famous act could have been mentioned in all Antiquity then that What notice would have been taken by other Churches of him whom he had left his Successour What addresses would have been made to him by the Bishops of other Churches What testimonies of obedience and submission what appeals and resort thither And it is wonderful strange that the Histories of the Church should be silent in these grand Affairs when they report many minute things even during the hottest times of persecution Did the Christians conspire together in those times not to let their posterity know Who had the Supream Government of the Church then Or were they afraid the Heathen Emperours should be jealous of the Popes if they had understood their great Authority But then methinks they should have carried it however among themselves with all reverence and submission to the Pope and not openly oppose him assoon as ever he began to exercise any Authority as in the case of Victor and the Asian Bishops But of all things it seems most strange and unaccountable to me that Christ should have instituted such a Monarchy in his Church and none of the Apostles mention any thing of it in any of the Epistles which they writ in which are several things concerning the Peace and Government of the Church nay when there were Schisms and divisions in the Church and that on the account of their Teachers among whom Cephas was one by that very name on which Christ said he would build his Church and yet no mention of respect more to him then to any other no intimation of what power St. Peter had for the Government of the Church as the Head and Monarch of it no references at all made to him by any of the divided parties of the Church at that time no mention at all of any such power given him in the Epistles written by him but he writes just as any other Apostle did with great expressions of humility and as if he foresaw what Vsurpations would be in the Church he forbids any Lording it over Gods heritage and calls Christ the chief Pastour of the Church And this he doth in an Epistle not writ
to the Catholick Church which had been most proper for him if Head of the Church but only to the dispersed Jews in some particular Provinces Can any one then imagine he should be Monarch of the Church and no act of his as such recorded at all of him but carrying himself with all humility not fixing himself as Head of the Church in any Chair but going up and down from one place to another as the rest of the Apostles for promoting the Gospel of Christ To conclude all Is it possible to conceive there should be a Monarch appointed by Christ in the Church and yet the Apostle when he reckons up those offices which Christ had set in the Church speak not one word of him he mentions Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers but the chief of all is omitted and he to whom the care of all the rest is committed and in whose Authority the welfare peace and unity of the Church is secured These things to me seem so incredible that till you have satisfied my mind in these Questions I must needs judge this pretended Monarchy in the Church to be one of the greatest Figments ever were in the Christian world And thus I have at large considered your Argument from Reason Why there should be such a Monarchy in the Church which I have the rather done because it is one of the great things in dispute between us and because the most plausible Argument brought for it is The necessity of it in order to the Churches peace which Monarchy being the best of Governments would the most tend to promote To return now to his Lordship He brings an evidence out of Antiquity against the acknowledgement of any such Monarchy in the Church from the literae communicatoriae which certified from one great Patriarch to another Who were fit or unfit to be admitted to their Communion upon any occasion of repairing from one See to another And these were sent mutually and as freely in the same manner from Rome to the other Patriarchs as from them to it Out of which saith his Lordship I think this will follow most directly that the Church-Government then was Aristocratical For had the Bishop of Rome been then accounted sole Monarch of the Church and been put into the definition of the Church as he is now by Bellarmin all these communicatory Letters should have been directed from him to the rest as whose admittance ought to be a rule for all to communicate but not from others to him at least not in that even equal brotherly way as now they appear to be written For it is no way probable the Bishops of Rome which even then sought their own greatness too much would have submitted to the other Patriarchs voluntarily had not the very course of the Church put it upon them To this you Answer That these literae communicatoriae do rather prove our assertion being ordained by Sixtus 1 in favour of such Bishops as were called to Rome or otherwise forced to repair thither to the end they might without scruple be received into their own Diocese at their return having also decreed that without such letters communicatory none in such case should be admitted But that these letters should be sent from other Bishops to Rome in such an even equal and brotherly way you say is one of his Lordships Chimaera's But this difference or inequality you pretend to be in them that those to the Pope were meerly Testimonial those from him were Mandatory witness say you the case of St. Athanasius and other Bishops restored by the Popes communicatory letters But supposing them equal you say it only shewed the Popes humility and ought to be no prejudice to his just authority and his right and power to do otherwise if he saw cause But all this depends upon a meer fiction viz. That these communicatory letters were ordained by Sixtus 1 in favour of such Bishops as were called to Rome than which nothing can be more improbable But I do not say that this is a Chimaera of your own Brains for you follow Baronius in it for which he produceth no other evidence but the Authour of the lives of the Popes but Binius adds that which seems to have been the first ground of it which is the second decretal Epistle of Sixtus 1 in which that Decree is extant But whosoever considers the notorious forgery of those decretal Epistles as will be more manifested where you contend for them on which account they are slighted by Card. Perron and in many places by Baronius himself will find little cause to triumph in this Epistle of Sixtus 1. And whoever reflects on the state of those times in which Sixtus lived will find it improbable enough that the Pope should take to himself so much Authority to summon Bishops to him and to order that none should be admitted without Communicatory letters from him It is not here a place to enquire into the several sorts of those letters which passed among the Bishops of the Primitive Church whether the Canonical Pacifical Ecclesiastical and Communicatory were all one and what difference there was between the Communicatory letters granted to Travellers in order to their Communion with forrain Churches and those letters which were sent from one Patriarch to another But this is sufficiently evident that those letters which were the tessera hospitalitatis as Tertullian calls it the Pass-port for Communion in forrain Churches had no more respect to the Bishop of Rome than to any other Catholick Bishop Therefore the Council of Antioch passeth two Canons concerning them one That no Traveller should be received without them another That none but Bishops should give them And that all Bishops did equally grant them to all places appears by that passage in St. Austin in his Epistle to Eusebius and the other Donatists relating the conference he had with Fortunius a Bishop of that party wherein St. Austin asked him Whether he could give communicatory letters whither he pleased for by that means it might be easily determined whether he had communion with the whole Catholick Church or no. From whence it follows that any Catholick Bishop might without any respect to the Bishop of Rome grant Communicatory letters to all forrain Churches And the enjoying of that Communion which was consequent upon these letters is all that Optatus means in that known saying of his that they had Communion with Siricius at Rome commercio formatarum by the use of these communicatory letters But besides these there were other letters which every Patriarch sent to the rest upon his first installment which were call'd their Synodical Epistles and these contained the profession of their Faith and the answers to them did denote their Communion with them Since therefore these were sent to all the Patriarchs indifferently and not barely to the Bishop of Rome there appears no difference at all in the letters sent to or
from him and the other Patriarchs on this occasion As for your instance of the Popes restoring Athanasius I have sufficiently answered it already and if the Popes letter were never so Mandatory as it was not yet we see it took no effect among the Eastern Bishops and therefore they were of his Lordships mind That the Government of the Church was not Monarchical but Aristocratical I did expect here to have met with the pretended Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople about the manner of making formed letters wherein one Î is said to be for the honour of St. Peter but since you pass it over on this occasion I hope you are convinced of the Forgery of it In the beginning of your next Chapter which because of the coherence of the matter I handle with this you find great fault with his Lordship for a Marginal citation out of Gerson because he supposeth that Gersons judgement was that the Church might continue without a Monarchical head because he writ a Tract de Auferibilitate Papae whereas you say Gersons drift is only to shew how many several waies the Pope may be taken away that is deprived of his office and cease to be Pope as to his own person so that the Church pro tempore till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head But although the truth of what his Lordship proves doth not at all depend upon this Testimony of Gerson which was only a Marginal citation yet since you so boldly accuse him for a false allegation we must further examine how pertinent this Testimony is to that which his Lordship brought it for The sentence to which this Citation of Gerson refers is this For they are no mean ones who think our Saviour Christ left the Church-militant in the hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or rather a mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head Over against these words that Tract of Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae is cited If therefore so much be contained in that Book as makes good this which his Lordship sayes he is not so much guilty of false alledging Gerson as you are of falsly accusing him To make this clear we must consider what Gersons design was in writing that Book and what his opinion therein is concerning the Churches Government It is well known that his Book was written upon the occasion of the Council of Constance in the time of the great Schism between the three Popes and that the design of it is to make it appear that it was in the power of the Council to depose the Popes and suspend them from all Jurisdiction in the Church Therefore he saith That the Pope may not only lose his office by voluntary cession but that in many cases he may be deprived by the Church or by a General Council representing the Church whether he consent to it or no Nay in the next consideration he saith That he may be deprived by a General Council which is celebrated without his consent or against his will And in the following consideration adds That this may be done not only declaratively but juridically the Question now comes to this Whether a person who asserts these things doth believe the Government of the Militant Church to be Monarchical and not rather Aristocratical and mixt Government And I dare appeal to any mans reason whether that may be accounted a Monarchical Government where he that is Supream may be deposed and deprived of his office in a Juridical manner by a Senate that hath Authority to do these things For it is apparent the Supream power lyes in the Senate and not the Prince and that the Prince is only a Ministerial Head under them And this is plainly Gersons opinion as to the Church although therefore he may allow the supream Ministerial Authority to be in the Pope which is all your Citations prove yet the radical and intrinsecal power lyes in the Church which being represented in a General Council may depose the Pope from his Authority in the Church And the truth is this opinion of Gerson makes the Fundamental power of the Church to be Democratical and that the Supream exercise is by Representatives in a General Council and that the Pope at the highest is but a Ministerial and accountable Head And therefore Spalatensis truly observes That this opinion of Gerson which is the same with that of the Paris Divines of which he speaks doth only in words attribute supream Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Pope but in reality it takes it quite away from him And this is the same Doctrine which then prevailed in the Council of Constance and afterwards at Basil as may be seen at large in their Synodical Epistle defended by Richerius Vigorius and others Now let any man of reason judge whether notwithstanding your charge of false citation from some expressions intimating only a Ministerial Headship his Lordship did not very pertinently cite this Tract of Gersons to prove that no mean persons did think the Church Militant not to be Governed by a Monarchical but by an Aristocratical or mixt Government But no sooner is this marginal citation cleared but the charge is renewed about another viz. St. Hierom yet here you dare not charge his Lordship with a false allegation but you are put to your shifts to get off this Testimony as well as you can For St. Hierom saying expresly in his Epistle to Evagrius Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii c. ejusdem meriti est ejusdem est sacerdotii his Lordship might well inferr That doubtless he thought not of the Roman Bishops Monarchy For what Bishop saith he is of the same merit or the same degree in the Priesthood with the Pope as things are now carried at Rome To this you Answer That he speaks not of the Pope as he is Pope or in respect of that eminent Authority which belongs to him as St. Peters Successour but only compares him with another private Bishop in respect of meer character or power of a Bishop as Bishop only But though this be all which any of your party ever since the Reformation have been able to Answer to this place yet nothing looks more like a meer shift than this doth For had St. Hierom only compared these Bishops together in regard of their order was not Sacerdotium enough to express that by if St. Hierom had said only that all Bishops are ejusdem sacerdotii there might have been some plausible pretence for this distinction but when he adds ejusdem meriti too he wholly precludes the possibility of your evading that way For What doth merit here stand for as distinct from Priesthood if it imports not something besides what belongs to Bishops as Bishops What can merit here signifie but some greater Power
Authority and Jurisdiction given by Christ to one Bishop above another St. Hierom was not so sensless as not to see that the Bishops of Rome Constantinople and Alexandria had greater Authority and larger Jurisdiction in the Church then the petty Bishops of Eugubium Rhegium and Tanis but all this he knew well enough came by the custom of the Church that one Bishop should have larger power in the Church then another But saith he if you come to urge us with what ought to be practised in the Church then saith he Orbis major est urbe it is no one City as that of Rome which he particularly instanceth in which can prescribe to the whole world For saith he all Bishops are of equal merit and the same Priesthood wheresoever they are whether at Rome or elsewhere So that it is plain to all but such as wilfully blind themselves that St. Hierom speaks not of that which you call the Character of Bishops but of the Authority of them for that very word he useth immediately before Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe And where do you ever find merit applyed to the Bishops Character They who say It is understood of the merit of good life make St. Hierom speak non-sense For are all Bishops of the same merit of good life But we need not go out of Rome for the proper importance of merit here For in the third Roman Synod under Symmachus that very word is used concerning Authority and Principality in the Church ejus sedi primum Petri Apostoli meritum sive principatus deinde Conciliorum venerandorum authoritas c. where Binius confesseth an account is given of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome the first ground of which St. Peters merit or principality apply now but this sense to S. Hierom and he may be very easily understood All Bishops are ejusdem meriti sive principatus of the same merit Dignity or Authority in the Church But you say he speaks not of the Pope as he is Pope good reason for it for St. Hierom knew no such Supremacy in the Pope as he now challengeth And can you think if St. Hierom had believed such an authority in the Pope as you do he would ever have used such words as these are to compare him with the poor Bishop of Agobio in Merit and Priesthood I cannot perswade my self you can think so only something must be said for the cause you have undertaken to defend And since Bellarmine and such great men had gone before you you could not believe there were any absurdity in saying as they did Still you say He doth not speak of that Authority which belongs to the Bishop of Rome as S. Peter 's Successor But if you would but read a little further you might see that S. Hierom speaks of all Bishops whether at Rome or Eugubium c. as equally the Apostles Successors For it is neither saith he riches or poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower Caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt but they are all the Apostles Successors therefore he speaks of them with relation to that Authority which they derived from the Apostles And never had there been greater necessity for him to speak of the Popes succeeding S. Peter in the Supremacy over the Church than here if he had known any such thing but he must be excused he was ignorant of it No that he could not be say you again for he speaks of it elsewhere and therefore he must be so understood there as that he neither contradict nor condemn himself But if the Epistle to Damasus be all your evidence for it a sufficient account hath been given of that already therefore you add more and bid us go find them out to see Whether they make for the purpose or no. I am sure your first doth not out of his Commentary on the 13. Psalm because it only speaks of S. Peters being Head of the Church and not of the the Popes and that may import only dignity and preheminence without authority and jurisdiction besides that Commentary on the Psalms is rejected as spurious by Erasmus Sixtus Senensis and many others among your selves Your second ad Demetriadem Virginem is much less to your purpose for that only speaks of Innocentius coming after Anastasius at Rome qui Apostolicae Cathedrae supradicti viri successor filius est Who succeeded him in the Apostolical Chair But Do you not know that there were many Apostolical Chairs besides that of Rome and had every one of them supreme authority over the Church of God What that should be on the 16. of S. Matthew I cannot imagine unless it be that S. Peter is called Princeps Apostolorum which honour we deny him not or that he saith Aedificabo Ecâ—lesiam meam super te But how these things concern the Popes Authority unless you had further enlightened us I cannot understand That ep 54. ad Marcellam is of the same nature with the last for the words which I suppose you mean are Petrus super quem Dominus fundaâ—it Ecclesiam and if you see what Erasmus saith upon that place you will have little cause to boast much of it Your last place is l. 1. Cont. Lucifer which I suppose to be that commonly cited thence Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet but there even Marianus Victorius will tell you it is understood of every ordinary Bishop Thus I have taken the pains to search those places you nakedly refer us to in S. Hierom and find him far enough from the least danger of contradicting or condemning himself as to any thing which is here spoken by him So that we see S. Hierom remains a sufficient testimony against the Popes Monarchical Government of the Church His Lordship further argues against this Monarchy in the Church from the great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus that wheresoever there is a Church there the Church is in the Common-wealth and not the Common-wealth in the Church And so also the Church was in the Roman Empire Now from this ground saith his Lordship I argue thus If the Church be within the Empire or other Kingdom 't is impossible the Government of the Church should be Monarchical For no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominion that shall be greater than himself since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch Your answer to this is That these two Kingdoms are of different natures the one spiritual the other temporal the one exercised only in such things as concern the worship of God and the Eternal Salvation of souls the other in affairs that concern this world only Surely you would perswade us we had never heard of much less read Bellarmin's first Book de Pontifice about the Popes Temporal Power which was fain to get license for the other four to pass at Rome and although he minces
the matter as much as may be and much more than Baronius and others did who pleaded downright for the Popes Temporal Power yet he must be a very weak Prince who doth not see how far that indirect and reductive power may extend when the Pope himself is to be Judge What comes under it and what not And What may not come under it when deposing of Princes shall be reduced under that you call The Worship of God and absolving subjects from their obedience tend to promote their Eternal Salvation But if the Pope may be Judge What temporal things are in ordine ad spiritualia and bring them under his power in that respect Why may not the Prince be Judge what spiritual things are in ordine ad temporalia and use his power over them in that respect too But in the mean time Is not a Kingdom like to be at peace then If the Pope challenged no other authority but what Christ or the Apostles had his Government might be admitted as well as that authority which they had but What do you think of us the mean while when you would perswade us that the Popes Power is no other than what Christ or the Apostles had you must certainly think us such persons as the Moon hath wrought particularly upon as you after very civilly speak concerning his Lordship Your instance from the Kings of France and Spain his Lordship had sufficiently answered by telling you That he that is not blind may see if he will of what little value the Popes Power is in those Kingdoms further than to serve their own turns of him which they do to their great advantage And when you would have this to be upon the account of Faith and Conscience Let the Pope exercise his power apparently against their Interest and then see on what account they profess obedience to him But as long as they can manage such pretences for their advantage and admit so much of it and no more they may very well endure it and his Lordship be far enough from contradicting himself When you would urge the same inconvenience against the Aristocratical Government of the Church you suppose that Aristocratical Government wholly Independent on and not subordinate to the Civil Government whereas his Lordship and the Church of England assert the Kings Supremacy in Government over all both persons and causes Ecclesiastical And therefore this nothing concerns us And if from what hath gone before it must as you say remain therefore fully proved that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical It may for all that I see remain as fully proved that you are now the man who enjoy this Monarchical Power over the Church And whatever you stile the Pope Whether the Deputy or Vicar General of Christ or Servus servorum or what you will it is all one to us as long as we know his meaning whatever fair words you give him As though men would take it one jot the better to have one usurp and Tyrannize over them because he doth not call himself King or Prince but their humble servant Is it not by so much the greater Tyranny to have such kind of Ecclesiastical Saturnalia when the servus servorum must under that name tyrannize over the whole world We have already at large shewed How destructive this pretended Supremacy is to that Government of the Church by Bishops which his Lordship proves from the ancient Canons and Fathers of the Church doth of right belong to them viz. from several Canons of the Councils of Antioch and Nice and the testimonies of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian To all this you only say That you allow the Bishops their portion in the Government of Christs Flock But it is but a very small portion of what belongs to them if all their Jurisdiction must be derived from the Pope which I have shewed before to be the most current Opinion in your Church And I dare say you will not dispute the contrary His Lordship was well enough aware to what purpose Bellarmine acknowledged that the Government of the Church was ever in the Bishops for he himself saith It was to exclude temporal Princes but then he desires A. C. to take notice of that when Secular Princes are to be excluded then it shall be pretended that Bishops have power to govern but when it comes to sharing stakes between them and the Pope then hands off they have nothing to do any further than the Pope gives them leave What follows concerning the impossibility of a right executing of this Monarchy in the Church hath been already discussed of and you answer nothing at all to it that hath any face of pertinency for when you say it will hold as well against the Aristocratical Form I have plainly enough shewed you the contrary That which follows about the design of an Vniversal Monarchy in the State as well as the Church about Pope Innocent 's making the Pope to be the Sun and the Emperour the Moon the Spanish Friers two Scutchions Campanella 's Eclogue since you will not stand to defend them I shall willingly pass them over But what concerns the Supremacy of the Civil Power is more to our purpose and must be considered His Lordship therefore saith That every soul was to be subject to the higher power Rom. 13.1 And the higher Power there mentioned is the Temporal And the ancient Fathers come in with a full consent that every soul comprehends all without exception All spiritual men even to the highest Bishop even in spiritual causes too so the Foundations of Faith and good Manners be not shaken And where they are shaken there ought to be prayer and patience there ought not to be opposition by force Nay Emperours and Kings are custodes utriusque Tabulae They to whom the custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law for worship to God and duty to man are committed A Book of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time to be given to the King Deut. 17.18 And the Kings under the Law but still according to it did proceed to necessary Reformation in Church-businesses and therein commanded the very Priests themselves as appears in the Acts of Hezekiah and Josiah who yet were never censured to this day for usurping the High-Priests office Nay and the greatest Emperours for the Churches honour Theodosius the elder and Justinian and Charls the Great and divers others did not only meddle now and then but enact Laws to the great settlement and encrease of Religion in their several times Now to this again you answer That the civil and spiritual are both absolute and independent powers though each in their proper Orb the one in spirituals the other in temporals But What is this to that which his Lordship proves That there can be no such absolute independent spiritual power both because all are bound to obey the Civil Power and because the
within two years these strangely confounded The mistake made evident S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils The justness of the Exception against the place manifested and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent Protestants not condemned by General Councils The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks The exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated A General Council in Antiquity not so called from the Popes General Summons In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice and that at Trent The exception from the number of Italian Bishops justified How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants with an account of the proceedings between them HAving thus far considered the several grounds on which you lay the charge of Schism upon us and shewed at large the weakness and insufficiency of them we should now have proceeded to the last part of our task but that the great Palladium of the present Roman Church viz. the Council of Trent must be examined to see whether it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no whether it came from Heaven or was only the contrivance of some cunning Artificers And the famous Bishop of Bitonto in the Sermon made at the opening the Council of Trent hath given us some ground to conjecture its original by his comparing it so ominously to the Trojan-horse Although therefore that the pretences may be high and great that it was made Divina Palladis arte the Spirit of God being said to be present in it and concurring with it yet they who search further will find as much of Artifice in contriving and deceit in the managing the one as the other And although the Cardinal Palavicino uses all his art to bring this Similitude off without reflecting on the honour of the Council yet that Bishop who in that Sermon pleaded so much That the Spirit of God would open the mouths of the Council as he did once those of Balaam and Caiaphas was himself in this expression an illustrious Instance of the truth of what he said For he spake as true in this as if he had been High-Priest himself that year But as if you really believed your self the truth of that Bishops Doctrine That whatever spirit was within them yet being met in Council the Spirit of God would infallibly inspire them you set your self to a serious vindication of the proceedings of that Council and not only so but triumph in it as that which will bring the cause to a speedy Issue And therefore we must particularly enquire into all the pretences you bring to justifie the lawfulness and freedom of that Council but to keep to the Bishops Metaphor Accipe nunc Danaûm Insidias crimine ab uno Disce omnes And when we have thorowly searched this great Engine of your Church we shall have little reason to believe that ever it fell from Heaven His Lordship then having spoken of the usefulness of free General Councils for making some Laws which concern the whole Church His Adversary thinks presently to give him a Choak-pear by telling him That the Council of Trent was a General Council and that had already judged the Protestants to hold errours This you call Laying the Axe to the Root of the Tree that Tree you mean out of which the Popes Infallible Chair was cut for the management of this dispute about the Council of Trent will redound very little to the honour of your Church or Cause But you do well to add That his Lordship was not taken unprovided for he truly answered That the Council of Trent was neither a Legal nor a General Council Both these we undertake to make good in opposition to what you bring by way of answer to his Lordships Exceptions to them That which we begin with is That it was not a Legal Council which his Lordship proves First Because that Council maintained publickly that it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and make it to be de Fide and so in your judgement fundamental though it have not a written word for its warrant nay so much as a probable testimony from Scripture The force of his Lordships argument I suppose lyes in this that the Decrees of that Council cannot be such as should bind us to an assent to them because according to their own principles those Decrees may have no foundation in Scripture And that the only legal proceeding in General Councils is to decree according to the Scriptures Now to this you answer That the meaning of the Council or Catholick Authours is not that the Council may make whatever they please matter of Faith but only that which is expressed or involved in the Word of God written or unwritten and this you confess is defined by the Council of Trent in these terms that in matters of Faith we are to rely not only upon Scripture but also on Tradition which Doctrine you say is true and that you have already proved it And I may as well say It is false for I have already answered all your pretended proofs But it is one thing Whether the Doctrine be true or no and another Whether the Council did proceed legally in defining things upon this principle For upon your grounds you are bound to believe it true because the Council hath defined it to be so But if you will undertake to justifie the proceedings of the Council as legal you must make it appear that this was the Rule which General Councils have alwaies acted by in defining any thing to be matter of Faith But if this appear to be false and that you cannot instance in any true General Council which did look on this as a sufficient ground to proceed upon then though the thing may since that Decree be believed as true yet that Council did not proceed legally in defining upon such grounds Name us therefore What Council did ever offer to determine a matter of Faith meerly upon Tradition In the four first General Councils it is well known What authority was given to the Scripture in their definitions and I hope you will not say That any thing they defined had no other ground but Tradition But suppose you could prove this it is not enough for your purpose unless you can make it appear that those Fathers in making such Decrees did acknowledge they had no ground in Scripture for them For if you should prove that really there was no foundation but Tradition yet all that you can inferr thence is That those Fathers were deceived in judging they had other grounds when they had not But still if they made Scripture their Rule and
soever For still I hope the Head must be over the members and you say it will bring the Church to confusion if any shall except against their Superiours as parties You must therefore absolutely and roundly assert that it is impossible that the Superiours in the Church may be guilty of any errour or corruption or that if they be they must never be called to an account for it or else that it may be just in some cases to except against them as parties And if in some cases then the question comes to this whether the present be some of those cases or no and here if you make those Superiours Judges again what you granted before comes to nothing This will be more clear by a parallel case Suppose the setting up the Calves at Dan and Bethel had been done without such an open separation as that of Jeroboam was but that the people had sensibly declined from the worship of God at Hierusalem and had agreed to assemble at those places the High-Priest and the Priests and Levites having deserted Hierusalem and approving this alteration of Gods worship But although this might continue for many years yet some of the Inferiour Priests and others of the people reading the Book of the Law they find the worship of God much altered from what it ought to be which they publish and declare to others and bring many of the people to be of their mind but the High-Priest and his Clergy foreseeing how much it will be to their prejudice to bring things into their due order they resolutely oppose it I pray tell me now what were to be done in this case Must the people stand wholly to the judgement of those Superiour Priests who have declared themselves to be utterly averse from any Reformation And if a Council be called is it reasonable or just that he should sit as President in it because he pretends to be the Head over the members and that if Superiours be once accused as parties all order and peace is gone Is there any way left or no whereby the Church of Israel might be reformed Yes say you by a General Council but Must it be such a General Council wherein the High-Priest sits as President and all who sit with him sworn to do nothing against him Is this a Free and General Council likely to reform these things And is it not all the Justice in the world that such a Council should be truly Free and General and those freely heard who complain of these as great corruptions and that before the most equal and indifferent Judges or in case such cannot be assembled that by the Assistance of the civil power the Church may be reformed by its parts so that still these parts be willing to give an account of what they do before any Free and General Council where the main party accused sits not as President in it But what then may you say will you allow all Inferiours to proceed to a Reformation in case the Superiours do not presently consent No but men ought first to exhibit their complaints of abuses and the reasons against them to those who are actually the Superiours of the Church and that with all due reverence to Authority but if notwithstanding this they declare themselves willful and obstinate in defence of those things by the concurrence of the Supream power they may lawfully and justly proceed to a Reformation Well but you say all this comes not to your case for the Pope was not justly accusable of any crime for you deny not but that other Bishops in Council may proceed against the Pope himself if the case do necessarily require it as if he be a Heretick If you will then grant that in some cases as in that of Heresie the Pope may be excepted against as a Party you destroy all that ever you say besides For when the Pope is accused for Heresie in a Council Who must sit as President in that Council the Pope himself or not If the Pope must sit as President for the Head you say still must be over the members Do you think he will ever be condemned for Heresie if he hath the supream management of the Council If he may not sit as President then by the same reason he ought not to do it when he is accused of errour or Vsurpation but the other Bishops of the Church met together by the Assistance of Christian Princes in a Free and General Council ought to be Judges in that case as well as the former And this is no more then is agreeable to the Doctrine and practise of the Councils of Constance and Basil for if they had suffered the Popes to have been Presidents in them or have had that power over them which the Popes had in the Council of Trent Do you think they could have done so to the present Popes as they did But the Popes were grown wiser afterwards they had these examples fresh in their memory and therefore they were resolved never to be ridden by General Councils more And thence came that continual opposition to all proposals of the Emperour for a General Council till necessity put the Pope upon yielding to it thence came the resolution at Rome not to venture any more Councils in Germany for that place breathed too much freedome for the Popes interest though this were most vehemently desired by both the Emperour and German Princes and Bishops Thence when a Council must be call'd he summons it first at Mantua then at Vicenza and when none would come thither at last he yields it should be at Trent a most inconvenient place for the Germans to come to when they were there though all art possible was used to prevent the mention of any thing of Reformation yet sometimes some free words breaking out troubled the Legats who dispatch notice of it to Rome and receive instructions what to do yet all could not prevent their fears and jealousies lest something concerning the Popes Interest should be discussed upon which to make all sure they translate the Council to Bononia and leave the Emperour's bishops to blow their fingers at Trent And when upon the Emperour and King of France's Protestations the Pope saw a necessity of removing it back to Trent again though any fair pretence would have been taken to have dissolved the Council yet since that could not be the greatest care must be used to spin out the time in hopes of some occurrence happening which might give a plausible pretext for breaking it up But to be sure nothing must pass but what was privately dispatched to Rome and approved there first a good sure way to prevent any mischief and thence the Holy Ghost came in a Portmantue once or twice a week as the common by-word was then But when notwithstanding all this the grand points of the Residence and power of Bishops were so hotly debated by the Spanish Bishops What arts were used to divert them when that
more that Hosius should not subscribe first in that capacity but only as Bishop of Corduba for the Popes Legats do not use to be so forgetful of their place and honour It seems then very plain that the Pope had no manner of Presidency at the Council ef Nice We come therefore to following Councils You grant That in the second General Council Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was President and not the Pope or his Legats But the reason you say was because Pope Damasus having first summoned that Council to be held at Constantinople and the Bishops of the Oriental Provinces being accordingly there met the Pope for some reasons altered his mind and would have had them come to Rome to joyn with the Bishops he had there assembled which the Prelates at Constantinople refusing in a submissive manner alledged such arguments as the Pope remained satisfied with them So the Council you say was upon the matter held in two places at Rome and Constantinople So that while the Pope presided in the Council at Rome and gave allowance to their proceedings at Constantinople and that by reason of their entercourse they were looked on but as one Council in effect and the Pope to have presided therein In all this you discover How much you take up things upon trust and utter them with great confidence when they seem for your purpose although they are built upon notorious mistakes in Ecclesiastical History as I shall make it plain to you this Answer of yours is For neither was the General Council at Constantinople ever in the least summoned by the Pope neither did it â—it at the same time that the Council at Rome under Damasus did neither were any Letters sent from that Council to the Pope and therefore certainly Pope Damasus could not in any sense be said to preside there These things I know make you wonder at first but I shall undertake to make it appear How much your great Masters I need not name them to you have abused your credulity in this story We are to know then that the Emperour Theodosius having been newly admitted into a share of the Empire by Gratian and the Eastern parts of it being allotted to him he considering what a deplorable condition the Churches of those parts were in by reason of the factions and heresies which were among them judges it the best expedient to call a Council at Constantinople to see if there were any hopes to bring the Church to any peace For this purpose 150. Bishops meet from the several Provinces at Constantinople who condemn Macedonius publish a new Creed make several Canons accept of Gregory Nazianzen's resignation of the See of Constantinople chuse Nectarius in his room and on the death of Meletius at Antioch elect Flavianus to succeed him make a Synodical Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius giving him an account of their proceedings and so dissolve This is the short of the narration of it in Theodoret Socrates and Sozomen But as soon as the report of their actions was come into the Western parts great discontents are taken at their proceedings especially at the election of Flavianus to the See at Antioch because the Church of Rome had declared it self in favour of Paulinus at Antioch during the life of Meletius and therefore by no means would they now yield to the succession of Flavianus Upon this Damasus sollicits the Emperour Gratian for a General Council that the cause might be heard and that the Eastern Bishops might meet too he sends other Letters to Theodosius to the same purpose upon the intimation of which the Eastern Bishops who either were detained at Constantinople by several occurrences there or were sent again out of their Provinces thither assemble together and write a Synodical Epistle to Damasus Ambrosius Britton Valerian c. wherein they give an account Why they could not come to Rome because the Eastern Churches could not in so divided and busie a time be left destitute of their Bishops and therefore they desire to be excused but however they had sent Cyriacus Eusebius and Priscianus as their Legats thither This excuse the Emperour Theodosius accepted of and Damasus and his Council were fain to rest satisfied with it only some of Paulinus his party met him there as Epiphanius and S. Hierom although S. Hierom being no Bishop could only shew his good will and take that opportunity of returning to Rome What this Council did under Damasus we are to seek for both Baronius and Binius confess that the Acts of that Council are wholly lost only Baronius thinks that the condemnation of Apollinaris and Timotheus which Theodoret mentions to have been done before and that Paulinus was restored to the See of Antioch by this Council which seems the more probable in that Paulinus the next year returns to Antioch and because the Bishops of Rome afterward took his part and defended his successour against Flavianus in the See of Antioch This being the true account of those proceedings let now any indifferent person judge Whether you were not much put to it when you are fain to confound two Councils held at several times on several occasions on purpose to blind the Reader and to make him believe that Pope Damasus had somewhat to do in calling and presiding in the General Council at Constantinople because he requested the meeting of the Bishops again the year after the General Council And the truth of this is so plain that Baronius and Binius confess the difference of these two Councils both as to the times and occasions of them Baronius placeth the Oecumenical Council at Constantinople A. D. 381. Eucherius and Syagrius being COSS. in May but the other Council at Constantinople he placeth the year after A. D. 382. Syagrius and Antonius COSS. at which time likewise the Council at Rome sate And so Binius reckons this Council as a second Council at Constantinople under Damasus and in all things concerning the times of this and the former follows Baronius exactly So much are the two great Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron mistaken when they would have the Council at Constantinople called Oecumenical on this account because there was a Council at Rome sitting under Damasus at the same time approving what was done at Constantinople Whereas the occasion of the Council at Rome was given by some of the last Acts of the Oecumenical Council viz. the election of Flavianus But that this could not be that those two Councils at Rome and Constantinople should sit together at the same time and on the same account appears by the Synodical Epistle of the Council the year following sent to Damasus which is exemplified both in Binius and Baronius and is originally extant in Theodoret. Although Binius placeth it at the end of the Oecumenical Council but Baronius much more fairly in the next year as being the Act of the second Council Now there are two things in that
Synodical Epistle by which I shall prove it impossible that either the Letters of Pope Damasus did concern the calling of the Oecumenical Council or that the sitting of the Council at Rome and the General one at Constantinople could be at the same time The first is from the date of those Letters which is thus expressed there that they met together at Constantinople having received the Letters which were sent the year before from them to the Emperour Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Synod at Aquileia Now the Synod at Aquileia by Baronius his computation was held the same year A. D. 381. in which the Oecumenical Council at Constantinople was held and much later in the year too for this was held in the Nones of September and the other in May and so much is likewise confessed by Binius in his notes on that Council Now let me demand of you Whether is it impossible that Damasus should by his Letters summon the Oecumenical Council when the date of those Letters to Theodosius is so long after the sitting of it But besides this these Eastern Bishops in that Council which sate after these Letters of Damasus clearly distinguished themselves from the Oecumenical Council of the year foregoing for after they had given a brief account of their Faith they referr the Pope and Western Council to that declaration of Faith which had been made the year before by the Oecumenical Council assembled at Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is it possible then any thing should be more evident than that this Council assembled upon the Letters of Damasus to Theodosius and sitting with the Council at Rome is clearly distinct from the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople And thus I hope I have dispelled those mists which you would cast before the Readers eyes by confounding these two Councils and thereby offering to prove that the Pope had some kind of very remote Presidency in the second General Council Which is so far from being true that there is not any intimation in any of the ancient Historians Theodoret Socrates or Sozomen that the Pope or any of the Western Bishops had any thing at all to do in it But you will ask How comes it then to be accounted an Oecumenical Council For this indeed Baronius would fain find out some hand that Damasus had in it or else he cannot conceive how it should become Oecumenical but all the proof he produceth is Because in the Acts of the sixth Council it is said that Theodosius and Damasus opposed Macedonius and so I hope he might do by declaring his consent to the Doctrine decreed in this Council not that thereby his approbation made it Oecumenical And as that Doctrine was received and that Confession of Faith embraced all over the world so that Council became Oecumenical For I cannot see but that if Damasus had stood up for Macedonius if the Decrees against him had been received by the Catholick Church it had been never the less Oecumenical in the sense of Antiquity That testimony which Baronius brings out of his own Library and a Copy of the Vatican expressing that Damasus did summon the Council at Constantinople is not to be taken against the consent of the ancient Church-Historians it being well known what Interess those Roman Copies have a long time driven on I deny not therefore but that the Council of Constantinople was assented to by Damasus and the Western Bishops in the matters of Faith there decided but I utterly deny that Damasus had any thing to do in the Presidency over that Council So that we find a Council alwaies acknowledged to be Oecumenical in which the Pope had no Presidency at all and this very Instance sufficiently refutes your Hypothesis viz. that the Popes Presidency is necessary to a General Council In the third General Council held at Ephesus A. D. 431. it is agreed on both sides that S. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria was the President of it but the Question is In what capacity he sate there whether in his own or as Legat of Celestine Bishop of Rome All the proof you produce for the latter is That it appears by a Letter written to him by the Pope long before he sent any other Legats to that Council in which Letter he gives S. Cyril charge to supply his place as is testified by Evagâ—ius Prosper Photius and divers other Authours But here again you offer to confound two things which are of a distinct nature for you would have your Reader believe that this Letter was sent by Coelestine to Cyril in order to his Presidentship in the Council whereas this Letter was sent the year before without any relation to the Council as appears by the series of the story which is briefly this the differences in the Eastern Churches increasing about the Opinions broached by Nestorius S. Cyril of Alexandria chiefly appearing in opposition to them they both write much about the same time to Pope Coelestine impeaching each other of Heresie But before Coelestine had read the Letters from Nestorius in vindication of himself Possidonius a Deacon of Alexandria comes with several dispatches from S. Cyril wherein a large account is given of the heresie and actions of Nestorius upon which the Pope calls a Council at Rome and therein examines the allegations on both sides which being done the Council condemns Nestorius and passeth this sentence on him That ten daies should be allowed him after notice given for his repentance and in case of obstinacy he should be declared excommunicate And for executing this sentence Coelestine commits his power to Cyril not as though it belonged to the Pope only to do it but that by this means there might appear the Consent of the Western with the Eastern Bishops in putting Nestorius out of the communion of the Catholick Church S. Cyril having received these Letters by the return of Possidonius dated the third of the Ides of August as appears by the Letters extant in Baronius calls a Council at Alexandria in which four Legats are decreed to be sent to Constantinople in pursuance of the sentence against Nestorius they deliver the Letters of Coelestine and Cyril to him he returns them no answer at all but addresses himself to the Emperour Theodosius and complains of the persecutions of Cyril which occasioned a very sharp Letter of the Emperour to him charging him with disturbing the Churches Peace But this was not all for Cyril having with the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Alexandria sent twelve Anathematisms to be subscribed by Nestorius he was so far from it that he charges Cyril with the heresie of Apollinaris in them and sends them to Johannes Antiochenus who with the Syrian Bishops of his Diocese joyn with Nestorius in the impeachment of Cyril So that by this means the sentence against Nestorius could not be put in execution because of the dissent of the Eastern Bishops and that S. Cyril stood
charged with Heresie as well as the other Things being grown to this height Theodosius calls a General Council at Ephesus to be held the ensuing year writes to all the Metropolitans to appear there at the time appointed and bring such Bishops with them as they thought convenient but what contentions happened there between the two parties is not here our business to relate but the Emperour foreseeing what disturbance was like to be there sent the Count Candidianus for better management of the affairs of the Council Now S. Cyril and his party having the advantage of the other both in number and forwardness of being there Cyril sits as President among them The Question now is Whether he sate there by virtue of that Legantine Power he had for the excommunicating Nestorius the year before or not or only as Patriarch of Alexandria and chief of that party But by what authority he should challenge to be President of the Council because he had been deputed by Coelestine to act his part in the excommunicating Nestorius I think is somewhat hard to understand Neither doth any thing appear in the Council which gives any ground for it for Cyril subscribes to it meerly as Patriarch of Alexandria the Council on all occasions call him and Memnon of Ephesus their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when they speak of Coelestine after his Legats came they say He did only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assist together with them in Council But Why should Coelestine send other Legats afterwards viz. Arcadius Philippus and Projectus if S. Cyril supplied the Popes place there already Yet although we should grant that before the Legats came Cyril did supply the place of Coelestine yet it doth not follow that he sate President of the Council on that account but only to shew the concurrence of Coelestine with the Council in matter of Doctrine and this there was good reason for because Coelestine had fully declared himself to Cyril concerning that already And this was usual in the Councils as appears in this very Council by Flavianus Bishop of Philippi subscribing likewise in the place of Rufus of Thessalonica So that if we grant Cyril to sit in the Council as Legat of Coelestine yet it doth not follow that he was President of the Council in that capacity for the other was only to testifie his consent this required a particular Commission to that purpose So that he might give a vote in the Council for Coelestine and yet sit as he did President of the Council as Patriarch of Alexandria Thus it being manifested that in the three first General Councils the Pope sate not either by himself or his Legats as President it is sufficiently proved thereby that his Presidency is no necessary condition to a General Council and if not then we say It is unjust and unreasonable he should challenge it when he is the person mainly accused But in the mean while it is not at all necessary that we should deny that ever he sate as President in any other General Council for being the Bishop of the chief See Why should he in a case of general concernment to the Church as that of Chalcedon not be allowed by his Legats to have the prime place But there wants sufficient evidence too that these were properly the Presidents of that Council In the next at Constantinople you grant that Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople sate President but you say That he acknowledged this priviledge to be due to Pope Vigilius But How came it to pass then that he would not sit there though then at Constantinople It appears by the many frivolous excuses he made that he durst not trust himself in the Council for fear that authority should not be given him which he expected For that hath alwaies been the subtilty of the Popes in those elder times when they began to encroach not to venture themselves in presence in a General Council for fear of opposition but by their absence they reserved to themselves a liberty to declare their dissent when any Acts passed which did not please them As Leo did in the case of the Council of Chalcedon But however this is evident from the fifth General Council that the Popes Presidency was not then thought at all necessary What was done in following Councils is not material to our purpose because it doth already sufficiently appear that the Popes Presidency is not necessary to a General Council and therefore you conclude with a notorious falsity in saying with Bellarmin That the Pope hath been possest full 1500 years of the right of presiding in General Councils His Lordships third exception against the Council of Trent is That the place was not free but either in or too near the Popes dominions To this you Answer That certainly Trent is not within the Popes dominion but it is well enough known that Trent was under the sole jurisdiction of the Bishop and the Bishop to be sure was under the Popes dominion having been particularly obliged too by receiving a Cardinal's Hat And therefore it was not without just reason that the place was protested against not only by the German Protestants as being out of Germany where the States of the Empire had often promised the Council should be at the Diet at Norimberg 1524 at Auspurg 1526. Spire 1529. Ratisbone 1532 1541. again at Norimberg 1543. and last of all at Spire 1544. but as a most inconvenient place for them to come to being a weeks journey as they say from the borders of Germany seated in a barren and almost inaccessible place having no freedom of passage almost amidst the Alps This place I say was not only protested against by them as being contrary to the promises made to them but the German Bishops made it their earnest request that the Council might be held in Germany for at Trent they said they could neither be present themselves nor send any Legats thither and particularly instance in the unpassableness of the Alps between them and Trent and that it was rather in the borders of Italy then Germany And the Pope himself in his Answer to the German Bishops and the Emperours Protestation upon the removal of the Council from Trent to Bononia insists upon the inconvenience of Trent for the long residence of the Bishops there And in behalf of the Protestants declaring against this place in regard of the unsafeness of it the places about being all under the Popes authority du Ranchin tells you That it is an exception allowable by the Doctors of the Canon Law who all agree that an exception against the safety of the place is pertinent and ought to be admitted that it is good both by the Civil Law and the Law of Nature that a man summon'd to a place where any danger threatens him is not bound to appear nor to send his Proctour and that a Judge is bound to assign the parties a place of safety for the hearing of their
cause otherwise there is just cause of appeal That the Council of Pisa excepted against appearing at Rome on the same accounts and if they durst not venture to Rome upon the offer of safe-conduct much less reason had the Protestants to do it to such a place as Trent a City by reason of the neighbouring woods very subject to treacheries and ambushments that the very designing such a place yielded ground of fear and suspicion especially to such as had not forgotten the late examples of John Husse and Hierom of Prague at the Council of Constance That the States of Germany in the diet at Francford A. D. 1338. pleaded the nullity of the Popes excommunication of Lewis 5 because he was cited to Avignon where the Pope was Lord of the place and the place being not free for him to appear at the summons were not Canonical but void and invalid in Law This and many other instances are there brought by the same learned Authour to justifie the Protestants in not appearing at Trent because the place was not free nor safe although the Authour seems not to have been one himself All these things being considered he must have been an Infidel indeed who would pronounce Trent to have been the most indifferent place for both parties to meet at For what you say That it might have been as unsafe for the Pope and his party if it had been in Germany there is no reason at all for it because of the Emperours openly owning that Interest but if you plead the warrs of Germany which then broke out I hope that may serve as a further plea for the Protestants who were in a good condition to go to a free Council about matters of Religion when a war was already begun upon them upon the account of Religion as most evidently appears not only by the supplies sent by the Pope but by the transactions afterwards between the Pope and the Emperour in some of which it is expresly confessed But supposing the place had been never so free there is another great Exception remaining still viz. That none had suffrage but such as were sworn to the Pope and Church of Rome and professed enemies to all that call'd for Reformation or a free Council To this you Answer 1. That it is no new thing for Bishops to take an oath of Canonical obedience to the Pope for St. Gregory mentions it as an ancient custome in his time and therefore this objection would serve as much against ancient General Councils as this of Trent 2. That the Bishops oath doth not deprive them of the liberty of their suffrage nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself if they see just cause but only that they will be obedient to him so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sacred Canons of the Church But what falshood and fraud lies in both these Answers it will not take up much time to discover Could you without blushing offer to say That no other oath was taken by the Bishops at the Council of Trent then what was taken in ancient General Councils for so much your words imply when you say That the same objection would have held as well against them as this of Trent Why do you not produce some instance of any oath taken to the Pope in any of the first General Councils I dare challenge you to bring any footsteps of any such thing in any ancient Council and you must needs have exceedingly hardened your forehead that durst let fall any thing tending that way It was in much later times before that oath of Canonical obedience from Bishops to their Metropolitan came up and when it did no more took any such oath to the Bishop of Rome then such as were under his Metropolitical jurisdiction In your citation of Gregory you would let us see how far you can out-go Bellarmin himself in these things For Bellarmin only proves that it is not new for Bishops to take an oath of Canonical obedience to the Pope but you say That Gregory mentions it as an ancient custom in his time which is egregiously false For there is not one word in all that Epistle implying any thing of former custome neither doth it contain an oath of Canonical obedience made by every Bishop at his consecration but only a Form of renunciation of Heresie by any Bishop who comes off from it to the Catholick Church and so the title of it is Promissio cujusdam Episcopi haeresin suam anathematizantis and what is this I pray to the oath taken by every Bishop at his consecration wherein he swears to defend and retain the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of St. Peter so their new Pontifical hath it whereas in the old one it was regulas Sanctorum Patrum against all men And was this no more then a bare oath of Canonical obedience The first mention we meet with of any oath of Canonical obedience taken by men in Orders is in the eleventh Council of Toledo cap. 10. held saith Loaysa A. D. 675. and therein indeed they say it is expedibile a matter they judge expedient That those in orders should Promissionis suae vota sub cautione spondere bind themselves by promise to observe the Catholick Faith and obey their Superiours but here is nothing at all concerning any oath to be taken by all Bishops to the Pope though Bellarmin produce it to that purpose For that was much later then the time of this Council it beginning at the time of the contests between the Popes and Princes about Investitures then the Pope to secure as many as he could to himself binds them in oath of Fealty and Allegiance rather then Canonical obedience to himself by which as Spalatensis truly saith he makes the Bishops his slaves and vassals And therefore in another place he justly wonders that any Christian Princes will suffer any Bishops to make that Homage by this oath to the Pope which is only due to themselves For saith he That oath which was only of Canonical obedience before they have turned it into absolute homage to the Pope so that none can be consecrated Bishops without it But yet you would perswade us that notwithstanding this oath they may proceed and vote against the Pope himself Surely Pope Pius 2 was of another mind who as the Appendix to Vrspergensis tells us in an Epistle to the Chapter at Mentz saith That to speak truth against the Pope is to break their oath But all this will more evidently appear if we produce the form of the Oath it self I mean not that in the old Roman Pontifical but that which was taken in Julius the third's time which was in the time of the sitting of the Council of Trent In which besides in the first place a promise of obedience to the Pope and his Successours and a promise of concealment of
all his Councils there are these express words Jura honores privilegia authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae Domini nostri Papae successorum praedictorum conservare defendere augere promovere curabo I will take care to preserve defend increase and promote the rights honours priviledges and authority of the Roman Church and of our Lord the Pope and his Successours aforesaid but lest this should not be full enough there follows another clause Nec ero in Concilio in facto seu tractatu in quibus contra Dominum nostrum vel Romanam Ecclesiam aliqua sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum juris honoris statûs potestatis eorum machinentur Et si talia à quibusdam tractari cognovero aut procurari impediam hoc pro posse quantocyus potero commodè significabo eidem Domino nostro vel alteri per quem ad ipsius notitiam possit pervenire I will not be in any Council action or debate in which they shall plot or contrive any thing to the prejudice of our Lord the Pope or the Roman Church or of any persons right honour state or power belonging to them Was not this now a fit Oath to send Bishops to a free Council with where the main thing to have been debated had been the usurped power of the Pope and Church of Rome He that can believe a Council made up of such persons who judge this Oath lawful to be Free may think those men free to rebell against their Soveraign who had but just taken an Oath of Allegiance to him Not that the Pope had any right or power to impose it or that the Oath is in it self lawful but that those who judged both these things true could not possibly be more obliged not to act in any measure against the Pope then they were And therefore the Pope knew what he did when he utterly denied to absolve the Bishops of this Oath which the States of the Empire pressed him to as necessary in order to the Freedom of the Council No said he I do not mean to have my hands bound up so He knew well enough how much his Interest lay at stake if the Bishops were released of this Oath and therefore he was resolved to hold them fast enough to himself by it What restrictions or limitations can you now find out in this Oath whereby these Bishops might freely debate the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome They that swear not to be in any Council or debate against the Pope are not like to make any Free Council about the matters then in dispute And Do you think now the Protestants had no cause to except against this Council where all the Bishops were swore before-hand to maintain and defend that which they most complained of And Were there nothing else but this Oath so unheard of a thing in all ancient Councils so contrary to the ends of a Free Council this were enough to keep them from ever submitting to the judgement of such a Council as that of Trent was And yet this is not all neither for his Lordship adds That the Pope himself to shew his charity had declared and pronounced the appellants Hereticks before they were condemned by the Council I hope saith he an Assembly of enemies are no lawful Council and I think that the Decrees of such a one are omni jure nulla and carry their nullity with them through all Law All the Answer you give to this is That the Pope did nothing therein but in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do and of the Decrees of General Councils which had already condemned their Opinions for Heresie You mend the matter well for it seems the Pope not only did so but was bound to do so For shame then never talk of a Free and General Council to debate those things which you say were already condemned for Heresies by General Councils One may now see What the Safe-conduct had been for the Protestants if they had come to Trent for it seems they were condemned for Hereticks before they came there and nothing then was wanting but execution But if the Protestants Opinions were condemned for Heresies before by General Councils Why was the Council of Trent at all summoned Why was the world so deceived with the promises of a Free and General Council Why did they proceed to make new Decrees in these matters In what ancient General Councils will you shew us the Popes Supremacy the Infallibility of the Church of Rome decreed that those who held the contrary should be accounted Hereticks Speak them out that we may find our selves therein condemned Give us a Catalogue of the rest of your Tridentine Articles and name us the General Councils in which they were decreed as they are there But this is not a work for you to meddle in However What folly and madness would it be to account that a Free Council in which the things to be debated are looked on as condemned Heresies already and no liberty allowed to any persons to debate them The last Exception you say of his Lordship is against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council and in the first place he mentions the Greeks whom he takes say you to have been unjustly excluded To this you say 1. The Pope called all who had right to come you should say all whom he would judge to have right to come 2. The Greeks by reason of their notorious Schism had excluded themselves And Might not the Greeks if they were in condition every whit as well hold a General Council among themselves and say The Latins had excluded themselves by their notorious Schism You say It is confessed that no known Heretick or Schismatick hath right to sit in Council but still you make your own selves Judges Who are Orthodox and who Hereticks and Schismaticks and Might not the Greeks again say the very same of you and for all that I know with much more truth and reason It was then very like to be a Genegeneral Council when the Pope and his party must sit as Judges Who were to be admitted and who not Might not the Donatists in Africa have call'd their Council of seventy Bishops an Oecumenical Council upon the same grounds because they accounted none to belong to the Church but such as were of their own party And if they did not belong to the Church they could have no right to sit in Council It seems the more uncharitable you are the freer your Councils are For the Pope may by pronouncing men Hereticks and Schismaticks keep them from coming to Councils and appearing against him there and the Council be never the less General for all that If the Greeks be not called to the Council they may thank themselves they are notorious Schismaticks and if we believe you Hereticks too If the Protestants be not admitted it is their own fault they are condemned
Hereticks if none appear from any other more remote Churches still the same plea will serve to exclude them all For my part I much approve the saying of Eugenius in the Council of Florence when they spake of the paucity of Bishops for a General Council That where he and the Emperour and the Patriarch of Constantinople were present there was a General Council though there were no more And Pope Pius the fourth might have saved a great deal of mony in his purse with which he maintained his Bishops Errant at that Council had he been of the same mind But the scene of things was altered in Europe there were such clamours made for a General Council that something must be done to satisfie the world and as long as the Pope knew how to manage the business there would be nothing could breed so great danger in it He therefore barely summons a Council without acquainting any of the Eastern Patriarchs with it as was the custom in the ancient General Councils among whom it was debated after the Emperours indicting of it these summoned by the Emperours order their Metropolitans the Metropolitans the Bishops the Bishops they agreed among themselves who should go to the Council who on that account might be said to represent those Churches from whence they came What was there like this in the Council of Trent What messages were there sent to the Eastern Patriarchs of Constantinople Antioch and Alexanandria What Metropolitans came thence What Bishops by the consent of those Churches And if there were nothing of all this What boldness is it to call this a General Council Just by the same figure that your Church is called the Catholick Church which is by an insufferable Catachresis And must six fugitive greek-Greek-Bishops give vote here for all the Eastern Churches and two fugitive english-English-Bishops for all the Church of England I do not then at all wonder How easily this might be a General Council though there were so very few persons in most of the Sessions of it But you say There was no need of any particular sending from the Greeks as the case then stood and still continues 't is sufficient they were called by the Pope Sufficient indeed for your purpose but not at all for a General Council For if the Greek Churches had been in condition to have sent an equal number of Eastern to Western Bishops the Popes would rather have lost all than stood to the judgement of such a Council And this you know well enough for all your saying That the Greek Church condemns the Protestants You dread the Greek Churches meeting you in a Free General Council and therefore to prevent that they must be called Schismaticks and excluded as such though you would never permit the debate of the Schism in a Free Council As the case then stood and still continues there was no need of sending And Why so Is it because those Churches were then under persecutions and are still and therefore there is no hopes that the Bishops should come to a General Council But all that thence follows is that as things stood then and do still there can be no truly General Council and that is a just inference but I suppose you rather mean because those Churches were then in Schism and are still which still discovers what a wonderful good opinion you have of your selves and how uncharitable you are to all others And so great is the excellency of your Bishops that one of them may represent a whole Nation and so about fifty will be more than sufficient for the whole world And therefore I rather wonder there were so many Bishops at Trent for if the Pope pleased as he made Patriarchs Primats and Arch-Bishops of such places where they never durst go which he knew well enough it had been but appointing such to stand for such a Nation and such for another and a small number might have served turn without putting any to the trouble of coming from any forein Countries at all For otherwise if we go about to examine the numbers of Bishops by their proportions to the Churches they come from as it ought to be in General Councils we shall find a most pitiful account in the Council of Trent For as his Lordship saith Is it to be accounted a General Council that in many Sessions had scarce ten Arch-Bishops or forty or fifty Bishops present In all the Sessions under Paul 3. but two Frenchmen and sometimes none as in the sixth under Julius 3. when Henry 2. of France protested against that Council And from England but one or two by your own confession and those not sent by Authority And the French he saith held off till the Cardinal of Lorrain was got to Rome As for the Spaniards they laboured for many things upon good grounds but were most unworthily over-born Now to this you have a double Answer ready 1. That mission or deputation is not of absolute necessity but only of Canonical provision when time or state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent will permit in other cases it sufficeth they be called by the Pope 2. For those who were absent the impediment was not on the Councils part and in the latter Sessions wherein all that had been formerly desined by the Council was de Novo confirmed and ratified by the unanimous consent of all the Prelates 't is manifest the Council was so full that in the number of Bishops it exceeded some of the first four General Councils I begin with your first Answer which necessarily implies that a General Council is not so called by representation of the whole Church but by relation to the Popes Summons So that if the Pope make a General Summons that must be called a General Council though none be present but such whom the Pope shall think fit to call thither But Where do you find any such account of a General Council in all Antiquity I have given you instances already of General Councils in which the Popes had nothing at all to do with the summoning of them nay all the four General Councils were called by the Emperour and not by the Pope as any one may see that doth not wilfully blind himself The Pope sometimes did beseech and intreat the Emperour to call a Council but never presumed to do it himself in those daies And this is evident not only from the Historians but from the authentick Acts of the Councils themselves and Perron's distinction of the temporal and spiritual call of Councils is as ill grounded as the Popes temporal and spiritual power there being no foundation at all in Anquity nor any reason in the thing for two such several Calls the one by the Emperour and the other by the Pope But this is a meer evasion the evidence being so clear as to the Emperours calling those Councils the Nicene by Constantine the Constantinopolitan by Theodosius the Ephesine by the Junior Theodosius the Chalcedonian
by Martian and Valentinian And this is so clear that Bellarmine in his Recognitions confesseth his mistake about the Constantinopolitan Council being called by the Letters of Pope Damasus and acknowledges that to be true which I at large proved before That the Synodical Epistle was not sent by the General Council but by another the year after If then the calling of Councils belongs not of right to the Pope it is not his summoning which can make a General Council without mission and deputation from those Churches whom they are to represent And any other sense of a General Council is contrary to the sense of Antiquity and is forced and unreasonable in it self For it must be either absolutely general or by representation none ever imagined yet an absolutely General Council and therefore it must be so called as it doth represent if so then there is a necessity of such a deputation But here a Question might arise Whether those Deputies of Churches have power by their own votes to oblige the Churches they are sent from by conveying in a General Council or else only as they carry with them the sense of those Churches whom they represent and this latter seems more agreeable to the nature of a truly General Council whose acts must oblige the whole Church For that can only be said to be the act of the whole Church which is done by the Bishops delivering the sense of all particular Churches and it is not easie to understand How the Vniversal Church can be obliged any other way unless it be proved that General Councils are instituted by some positive Law of Christ so that what is done by the Bishops in them must oblige the Catholick Church and then we must find out not only the Institution it self but the way and manner how General Councils should be called of which the Scripture is wholly silent And therefore there is no reason that there should be any other General Council imagined but by such a representation and in order to this the consent of all those Churches must be known by the particular Bishops before they can concurr with others so as to make a General Council The most suitable way then to a General Council is that the Summons of them being published by the consent of Christian Princes every Prince may call together a National Synod in which the matters to be debated in the Council are to be discussed and the sense of that Synod fully declared which those Bishops who are appointed by it to go to the General Council are to carry with them and there to declare the sense of their particular Church and what all these Bishops so assembled do all agree in as the sense of the whole Church may be called the decree of a General Council Or in case some great impediment happen that such Bishops cannot assemble from all Churches but a very considerable number appearing and declaring themselves which upon the first notice of it is universally received by all particular Churches that may ex post-facto be called a General Council as it was with the first four Oecumenical Councils And yet that in them there was such a deputation as this is appears by that expression in the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Constantinople before mentioned for in that they give this account Why they could not do what the Western Bishops desired because they brought not with them the consent of the Bishops who remained at home to that purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And concerning this only Council viz. at Constantinople have we brought the consent of those Bishops which remain in the Provinces So that they looked on the consent of the other Bishops to be necessary as well as their own But now if we examine your Council of Trent by this Rule How far is it from any appearance of a General Council What Bishops were there sent from the most of Christian Churches Those that did appear What equality and proportion was there among them For Voices in General Councils ought not to go by the number of Bishops but by the number of Churches so that if six were sent from the Church of England or France delivering the sense of that Church they come from they have equal Votes with the greatest number of Italian Bishops But here lay the great imposture of that Council first that the Councils being general depended upon the Popes general Summons though never so few Bishops appeared next that the Decrees of the Council were to be carried by most Voices and the Bishops to give their bare placet these things being thus laid when there was any fear that businesses would not go right it was but the Legats using some art in delaying it and sending intelligence to Rome and forty Bishops are made together and posted to Trent to help out the number of voices and thus it was in the case of the Institution and Residence of Bishops And this is that you call a General Council 2. To your other That what was wanting in number at first was made up at last when all former Decrees were confirmed by a full number of Bishops it is soon replied That this is as all the rest of the proceedings of that Council was but a meer Artifice For it appears by the History of that Council that in the last Session under Pius 4. a Proposition was made that all the Decrees under Paul and Julius should be approved which was opposed because they said it would be a derogation to the Authority of the Council of those times if it should seem that the things then done had need of a new confirmation of the Fathers and would shew that this and that was not all one because none can confirm his own things But upon the French Bishops earnest insisting upon it it was determined simply to read them and no more And Do you call this a confirming and ratifying them de novo So that for all appears by this last Session the Authority of those Decrees must as far as concerns the Council depend upon the number of the Bishops then present which was but very small certainly for a General Council there being not so many in most of the Sessions as were in the Donatists Council in Africa so far were they from the number of the ancient General Councils But here comes your grand Objection in the way That nothing is pretended by us against the Council of Trent which might not have been in effect as justly objected by the Arrians against the Council of Nice But Is not there easily discernable a vast disparity between these two which way soever we conceive them The one called by the Emperour who in person sate in the Council to prevent all disorders and clancular actions the other by the Pope who presided in it by his Legats and ordered all things by his directions In that of Nice the Arrian Bishops were as freely admitted to debate as
the Catholick Church with them and there was the greater hopes of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since neither part did agree with the Bishop of old Rome or the Church which joynes with him but both oppose the evil customs and abuses which come by him which bears the same date with the Patriarchs first Answer to the Tubing Divines May 15. 1576. And the Patriarch in his letter heartily wishes an union and conjunction between them From hence we may easily gather how true both those things were viz. That the intent of their writing was to be admitted into the communion of the Greek Church and that the Patriarch did not in the least approve their Doctrine but confirmed the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church But we must look further into the writings themselves to see how far they agreed and wherein they differed It appears then that the Patriarch did profess his consent with them in these things besides the Articles of the Creed and the satisfaction of Christ and other more general points viz. That the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds that the use of marriage was not to be absolutely forbidden the Clergy though their custom is that they must be married before they take Orders besides the grand Articles of the Popes Supremacy and the Roman Churches Infallibility Doth he that joyns with them in these things not in the least approve their Doctrine but confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church But withall it must be confessed that besides that common Article of the Procession of the Spirit wherein he disputes most earnestly there are five others in which they dissented from each other about Free will justification by Faith the number of Sacraments Invocation of Saints and Monastick life and about these the remaining disputes were In some of which it is easie to discern how far the right state of the question was from being apprehended which the Lutheran Divines perceiving sent him a larger and fuller explication of their mind in a body of Divinity in Greek but the Patriarchs troubles coming on Cantacuzenus deposing him too and other businesses taking him off upon his restauration he breaks off the Conference between them But although he differed from them in these things yet he was far enough from rebuking them for departing from the Roman Church although he was desirous they should have joyned with them in the approbation of such things as were in use among themselves And in those things in which he seems to plead for some practises in use in the Roman Church yet there are many considerable circumstances about them wherein they differ from the Church of Rome as hath been manifested by many others As in the Article of Invocation of Saints the Patriarch saith They do not properly Invocate Saints but God for neither Peter nor Paul do hear us upon which ground it is impossible to maintain the Romish Doctrine of Invocation of Saints And in most of the other the main difference lies in the want of a true State of the Questions between them But is this any such great matter of admiration that the Patriarch upon the first sight of their confession should declare his dissent from them in these things It is well enough known how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks the means of Instruction being taken from them and it being very rare at that time to have any Sermons at all in so much that one of your Calogeri being more learned then the rest and preaching there in Lent was thereby under great suspicion and at last was by the Patriarch himself sent out of the way It is therefore more to be wondered they should preserve so much of the Doctrine of Faith entire as they have done then that any corrupt practises should prevail amongst them The most then which you can make of the judgement of the Patriarch Hieremias is that in some things he was opposite to the Protestants as in others to the Church of Rome But what would you have said if any Patriarch of Constantinople had declared his consent so fully with the Church of Rome as the Patriarch Cyril did afterwards with the Protestants who on that account suffered so much by the practises of the Jesuits of whom he complains in his Epistle to Vtenbogard And although a Faction was raised against him by Parthenius who succeeded him yet another Parthenius succeeding him stood up in vindication of him Since therefore such different opinions have been among them about the present Controversies of the Christian world and there being no declared Confession of their Faith which is owned by the whole Greek Church as to these things there can be no confident pronouncing what their judgement is as to all our differences till they have further declared themselves PART III. Of Particular Controversies CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of General Councils How far this tends to the ending Controversies Two distinct Questions concerning the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils The first entered upon with the state of the Question That there can be no certainty of faith that General Councils are infallible nor that the particular decrees of any of them are so which are largely proved Pighius his Arguments against the Divine Institution of General Councils The places of Scripture considered which are brought for the Churches infallibility and that these cannot prove that General Councils are so Matth. 18.20 Acts 15.28 particularly answered The sense of the Fathers in their high expressions of the decrees of Councils No consent of the Church as to their infallibility The place of St. Austin about the amendment of former General Councils by latter at large vindicated No other places in S. Austin prove them infallible but many to the contrary General Councils cannot be infallible in the conclusion if not in the use of the means No such infallibility without as immediate a revelation as the Prophets and Apostles had taking Infallibility not for an absolute unerring power but such as comes by a promise of Divine Assistance preserving from errour No obligation to internal assent but from immediate Divine Authority Of the consistency of Faith and reason in things propounded to be believed The suitableness of the contrary Doctrine to the Romanists principles IF high pretences and large promises were the only things which we ought to value any Church for there were none comparable to the Church of Rome For there can be nothing imagined amiss in the Christian world but if we believe the bills her Factours set up she hath an Infallible cure for it If any enquire into the grounds of Religion they tell us that her testimony only can give them Infallible Certainty if any are afraid of mistaking in opinions they have the only Infallible Judge of Controversies to go to if any complain of the rents and divisions of the Christian world they have Infallible Councils either to
your following words not to yield to such a Council wherein all excommunicate Bishops Hereticks and Schismaticks are not excluded which is in short to tell us You are resolved to account none General Councils but such as are wholly of your own pary in which the Pope shall sit as Judge Who are admitted and Who not though this be as contrary to sense and reason as it is to the practice of the Primitive Church in those Councils which were then called In which I have already proved that the Pope did not sit as President And as long as you hold to such unreasonable conditions it evidently appears That your discourses of General Councils are meerly delusory and to use your own words Such a General Council as you would have is a meer nothing as to a general and free Council an empty name to amuse silly people with for you require such conditions in order to it as are destructive both to the freedom and Being of a General Council If therefore it be true which you say That morally speaking such a General Council as Protestants would have is impossible to be had it is much more true that such a General Council as you would have it is most unreasonable we should submit to For as long as you condemn all other Bishops but those of your own Church for out-laws and desertors of the Catholick Church and give no other reason for it but because you say so we thereby see How absolutely averse you are from any Free Council and that without any shew of justice you condemn all others but your selves without suffering them to plead for themselves in an Indifferent Council where both parties may be equally heard But it was wisely said of Pope Clement 7. that General Councils are very dangerous when the Popes Authority is called in Question and this you know well enough for if a Free Council were held the Pope himself might be found with his party to be the greatest out-laws and desertors of the truly Catholick Church But in such pack'd Councils where the Pope sits as President and orders all by his Legats I shall desire you once more to ruminate over your own words What Rebel would ever be found criminal if he might be allowed to be his own Judge But of such a kind of Council as you would have I have spoken sufficiently in the precedent chapter That which we are now upon is not the Hypothesis but the Thesis in which we are to enquire Whether such a General Council as you suppose be Infallible or no His Lordship maintains the negative and you the affirmative Your Opinion then is That the Decrees of a General Council confirmed by the Pope are Infallible and that the holding of this is a piece of Catholick Faith and that it secures all the members of the Church from erring in any matter of Faith For you say It is not de fide that the Pope without a Council is Infallible but that Pope and Council together are Infallible you all along above assert to be so and that the Decrees of General Councils fall nothing short in point of certainty of the Scripture it self and that the contrary opinion does actually expose and abandon all the adherents to it to an unevitable wavering and uncertainty in Faith These are your own words in several places which I have laid together the better to discern the state of the Question The main thing then whereon the use of General Councils depends being that this must be believed to be de fide in order to the certainty of mens Faith and prevention of errours that I may the better shew how insignificant all this pretext of the Infallibility of General Councils is I shall first prove from your own principles that this cannot be de fide and then examine the grounds you insist on for the proof of their Infallibility I begin with the First which will sufficiently demonstrate to how little purpose you talk of this Infallibility of Councils for preventing uncertainty of Faith when you cannot have any certainty of Faith at all as to that principle which must prevent it For supposing that really General Councils are Infallible if you cannot give me any reasons to believe that they are so their Decrees can have no power over my understanding to oblige me to assent to them And since you say this principle must be held de fide if there be no foundation at all for such an assent of Faith to it I must needs be uncertain whatever the Decrees of those Councils be upon your own principles If you require an assent to the Decrees of Councils as Infallible there must be an antecedent assent to this Proposition That whatsoever Councils decree is Infallible As I cannot assent to any thing as Infallible which is contained in Scripture unless I first assent to this That the Scripture it self is Infallible If I therefore prove from your own principles that none can have an assent of Faith to this Proposition That whatever General Councils decree is Infallible then all your discourse comes to nothing and men can have no more certainty by their Decrees than if they were not Infallible And this I shall prove by these things 1. That you can have no certainty of Faith I must use your own terms That the Decrees of General Councils in the general are Infallible 2. That you can have no such certainty as to the Decrees of any General Council in particular 1. That you cannot in the general have any certainty of Faith as to the Infallibility of General Councils For 1. What Infallible Testimony have you for this without which you say No certainty of Faith is to be had It is not enough for you to say That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it for that were to make the Scripture the sole Judge of this great Controversie which you deny to be the sole Judge of any And we must consider this as a present Controversie which divides the Church Whether General Councils be Infallible or no In order to the ending which Controversie we desire you to assign the way to it for you tell us you have the only Infallible Way of putting an end to Controversies Shew us therefore which way this must be ended in the first place Not by Scripture for that were to come wholly over to us and if it may decide this Controversie it may as well all others Who must then The Pope That cannot be for we are not bound to believe him Infallible but only with a General Council as you tell us often Must every one judge it by his reason No this is the private Spirit and would leave all to uncertainties What then must do it the Pope and Council together But that is it we are enquiring for Whether we are to believe Pope and Council or no And then the reason is we must believe them because they say so And
the Patriarch of Alexandria did over-rule the rest What assurance can we have of any fair dealing where the Pope himself presides who hath more waies both to terrifie and oblige than ever Dioscorus could have Besides set aside this over-awing by some potent person suppose some active and subtil men perceiving how things are like to go in a Council use their wits to bring off some men not of so deep reach as others to their own party and it may be by the accession of a small number they over-vote the rest Must we presently say That the Spirit of God went off with those few men to the other party for the Decrees of Councils going by Votes and those Votes by the major part Who doth not see how easie it is when it stands it may be upon a few Votes to fetch off a number to the other side And I do not know where the Spirit of God hath promised that where three or four men may so much alter the Decrees of a General Council those Decrees if they pass the major part shall be infallible and as certain as the Scripture To be sure then there ought to be great confidence of the simplicity of the Councils proceedings where a man must assent to them as Infallible and to that end men must be assured that they came thither without any prejudice upon their minds that when they were there they sought nothing but the Truth and the Honour of Christ or else to be sure they are not gathered in his name and if not so they cannot expect he should be in the midst of them Now let any one who understands the world and humane nature see if he can perswade himself that a Council can have no prejudices or by-ends upon them that nothing of interest and reputation may sway upon them when they are met there that there shall be no heats or contentions among them for if there be let him then see Whether he can believe them to be Infallible If you say In a matter so highly concerning the Church the Spirit of God will not suffer them to erre You must first shew where the Spirit of God hath promised this and then if you could that those promises do not suppose the performance of some conditions which if they neglect they may want the effect of them In which case there can be no greater assurance of the Spirit 's presence than there is of performance of the conditions which is the thing I now aim at Besides all which we have known that when it hath been a matter of as great concernment to the Church as any of those you can fancy great numbers of Bishops at Sirmium Seleucia Ariminum Ephesus have miscarried and decreed that which hath been judged Heresie by the Church 4. Suppose men could be assured of the proceedings of the Council yet what certainty of Faith can be had of the meaning of those decrees for we see they are as lyable to many interpretations as any other writings If the Scriptures cannot put an end to Controversies on that account how can General Councils do it when their decrees are as lyable to a private sense and wrong interpretation as the Scriptures are Nay much more for we have many other places to compare the help of original tongues and the consent of the Primitive Church to understand Scriptures by when the Decrees of Councils are many times purposely framed in general terms and with ambiguous expressions to give satisfaction to some dissenting parties then in the Council Who knows not what disputes have been raised about the sense of some of the Decrees of the Council of Trent about which the several parties neither are nor are like to be agreed Nay Who is so unacquainted with the proceedings of that Council as not to understand how much care was taken in many of the decrees to pass them in such general terms that each party might find their sense in them How fearful were they of declaring themselves for fear of disobliging a particular party and are these the effects of an Infallible Spirit Since we know it hath been thus in some Councils Who dares venture his faith it hath not been so in others Who dare be confident this or that is the meaning of such a Decree when it may be capable of several senses Was it a sign that Council was Infallible that was afraid to speak out in a case of great consequence and necessity in the Church the Council of Trent I mean in determining That due honour be given to Images without assigning what that due honour was which was the most needful of all to be done If the Decrees of Councils were not ambiguous what mean so many disputes still about them as are in the world And when at last you say That the Councils are Infallible when the Pope confirms them you say nothing more then if we should say That Councils are Infallible when Scripture confirms them Nay you say nothing near so much for all are agreed that Scriptures are Infallible but many among your selves are far from believing that the Pope is Infallible And therefore we are much nearer ending Controversies in saying Councils confirmed by Scripture are Infallible than you are in saying Councils confirmed by the Pope are so These things being thus in the General premised we come now to the particular handling this Controversie between his Lordship and you And for the greater clearness of proceeding he premises some things by way of consideration whereof the first is That all the power an Oecumenical Council hath to determine and all the assistance it hath not to err in that determination is all from the Vniversal Body of the Church whose representative it is For the Government of the Church being not Monarchical but as Christ is head this principle is inviolable in nature Every body collective that represents receives power and priviledges from the body which is represented else a representation might have force without the thing it represents which cannot be So there is no power in the Council no assistance to it but what is in and to the Church But withall his Lordship adds That the representative body cannot be so free from errour as the whole Church because in all such assemblies many able and sufficient men being left out they which are present may miss or misapply that reason and ground upon which the determination is principally to rest By which means the representative body may err whereas the represented by vertue of those members which saw and knew the ground may hold the principle inviolated All the Answer which you return to this is That his supposition of the Churches not being Monarchical is confuted already and I say whatever you have produced is Answered already and that the power and assistance of General Councils cannot possibly be communicated to them by the Church but must proceed from the same fountain now it did in the Apostles
the Infallibility of General Councils that I believe a Philosopher might hear them repeated a hundred times over without ever imagining any such thing as a General Council much less concluding thence that they are Infallible But because you again cavil with another expression of his Lordships in that he saith That no one of them doth infer much less inforce Infallibility from whence you not infer but inforce this consequence that he was loath to say all of them together did not I shall therefore give you his Lordships Answer from all of them together Which is likewise sufficient for every one of them And for all the places together saith he weigh them with indifferency and either they speak of the Church including the Apostles as all of them do and then all grant the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Divine and Infallible Or else they are general unlimited and appliable to private assemblies as well as General Councils which none grant to be Infallible but some mad Enthusiasts Or else they are limited not simply to all truth but all necessary to salvation in which I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err suffering it self to be led by this Spirit of Truth in Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise assistance even to Infallibility yet they granted it not to every General Council but to the Catholick body of the Church it self and if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a General Council but by consequent as the Council represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong unto it then it consents and cleaves to that upon which it is a consequent And therefore a General Council hath not this assistance but as it keeps to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to hear his Word and determine by it And therefore if a General Council will go out of the Churches way it may easily go without the Churches truth Which words of his contain so full an Answer to all these places together that till that be taken off there is no necessity at all to descend to the particular places especially those which are acknowledged by your selves to speak primarily of the Churches Infallibility Yet for your satisfaction more than any intelligent Readers I shall add somewhat further to shew the impertinency of the former places and then consider the force of the two last which have not yet been handled 1. There can be nothing drawn from promises made to the diffusive body for the benefit of the representative unless the maker of those promises did institute that representation Therefore supposing that Infallibility were by these promises bestowed upon the Catholick Church yet you cannot thence inferr that it belongs to a General Council unless you prove that Christ did appoint a General Council to represent the Church and in that representation to be Infallible For this Infallibility coming meerly by promise it belongs only to those to whom the promise is made and in that capacity in which it is made to it For Spiritual gifts are not bequeathable to Heirs nor can be made over to Assigns if the Church be promised Infallibility she cannot pass away the gift of it to her Assigns in a General Council unless that power of devolution be contained in the Original Grant For she can give no more then is in her power to bestow but this Infallibility being out of her disposal the utmost that can be given to a General Council is a power to oblige the Church by the acts of it which falls much short of Infallibility Besides this representation of the Church by a General Council is a thing not so evident from whence it should come that from a promise made to one it must necessarily be understood of the other For as Pighius sayes It cannot be demonstrated from Theological grounds that a General Council which is so far from being the whole Church that it is not a thousandth part of it should represent the whole Church For either saith he it hath this from Christ or from the Church but they cannot produce one tittle from Scripture where Christ hath conveyed over the power and authority of the whole Church to a hundred or two hundred Bishops If they say It is from the Church there are two things to be shewed first that it is done and secondly that it is de jure or ought to be so done First it can never be shewed that such a thing ever was done by the Vniversal Church for if it were it must either be by some formal act of the Church or by a tacit consent It could not be by any formal act of the Church For then there must be some such act of the Vniversal Church preceding the being of any General Council for by that act they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the Vniversal Church And this could not be done in a General Council because that is not pretended to be the whole Church but only to represent it and therefore it must have this power to represent the Church by something antecedent to its being Else it would only arrogate this power to it self without any act of the Church in order to it Now that the Vniversal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it could be or that it was Yet such a delegation to a General Council must be supposed in order to its representation of the whole Church and this delegation must not only be before the first General Council but for all that I can see before every one For how can the Church by its act in one age bind the Church in all ages succeeding to the acts of those several Councils which shall be chosen afterwards If it be said That such a formal act is not necessary but the tacit consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it then such a consent of the Church must be made evident by which they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a representative And all those must consent in that act whose power the Council pretends to have and so it cannot be sufficient to say That those who choose Bishops for the Council do it for then they could only represent those who chose them and so their authority will fall much short of that of the whole Church But suppose such a thing were done by the whole Church of which no footsteps at all appear we must further enquire by what right or authority this is done for the authority of the Church being given it by Christ it cannot be given from it self without his commission for doing it Which if we stay till it can be produced in this case we may stay long enough before we see any such Infallible
less de fide because it is contradicted by some since it is founded on the promises of Christ concerning the Church Since therefore the Pope himself is but Filius Ecclesiae and the Church is Sponsa Christi they say It is unreasonable that the Son of the Church should not be subject to the Spouse of Christ. If therefore these promises concerning the Church inferr an Infallibility in it and that Infallibility be in a General Council as representing the Church it follows thence that Councils must be in themselves Infallible whether confirmed by the Pope or no. And we may see how little this Opinion of Infallibility of General Councils is like to stand between them by the Answers which are given by those of the other party who makâ—â—he Popes Confirmation necessary to the Infallibility of the Council For Canus expresly saith That the Council is said to be Infallible in no other sense than the Church is i. e. in those things wherein all agreed and not the major part Bellarmin likes not this For saith he if the major part of the Council erre the Council must of necessity erre for that which properly belongs to the Council is Passing judgement in matter of Faith or making Decrees now if that were not the lawful Decree of the Council which is made by the major part there never could be a lawful Decree for none passes without some dissenting and therefore he denies that the Council doth fully represent the Church without the Pope So that on both sides we see how pregnant these proofs are for the Councils Infallibility when one saith That if they be understood of the Church the Councils Infallibility doth not want the Popes Confirmation the other to make the Popes Confirmation necessary denies such an absolute representation of the Church in the Council If then the Council doth represent the Church it is Infallible although not confirmed by the Pope if it doth not then the promises made to the Church cannot belong to the General Council Thus I have shewed you how far these places concerning as you say the Infallibility of the Church are from proving the Infallibility of General Councils But though these general places concerning the Church may not so clearly prove the Infallibility of General Councils yet you say There are some particular places to this purpose Which are Mat. 18.20 and Act. 15.28 Which not having been handled already I must follow you more closely in the examination of them The first place is Mat. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them The substance of the argument from this place his Lordship thus repeats from Bellarmin The strength of the argument is not taken from these words alone but as they are continued with the former and that the argument is drawn à minori ad majus from the less to the greater thus If two or three gathered in my name do alwaies obtain that which they ask at Gods hands viz. wisdom and knowledge of those things which are necessary for them How much more shall all the Bishops gathered together in Council alwaies obtain wisdom and knowledge to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church To which his Lordship answers That there is very little strength in these words either considered alone being generally interpreted by the Fathers of consent in prayer or with the argument à minori ad majus 1. Because though that argument hold in natural or necessary things yet not in voluntary or promised things or things which depend upon their institution 2. Because it follows not but where and so far as the thing upon which the argument is founded agrees to the less Now this Infallibility doth not belong to the lesser Congregation and therefore cannot be inferred as to the greater 3. Because it depends upon conditions here supposed of being gathered together in the name of Christ and therefore supposing Infallibility promised these conditions here implied must be known before such a Congregation can be known to be Infallible 4. Because Christs promise of presence in the midst of them is only to grant what he shall find to be fit for them not infallibly whatsoever they shall think fit to ask for themselves 5. Because Gregory de Valentiâ and Stapleton confess that this place doth not properly belong to prove an Infallible certainty of any sentence in which more agree in the name of Christ but to the efficacy of consent for obtaining that which more shall pray for in the name of Christ if at least that be for their souls health For else it would hence follow that not only the definition of a General Council but even of a Provincial nay of two or three Bishops gathered together is valid and that without the Popes consent The utmost I can make of your reply to these Answers lyes in this That you grant that primarily and directly our Saviour doth not intend that particular Infallibility and this is that which Gregory and Stapleton assert but only that he signified in general that he would be present with his Church and all faithful people gathered together in his name so often and so far as their necessities required his presence they duly imploring it But yet the argument holds for the Infallibility of General Councils and not National or Provincial because the necessities of the Church require one and not the other and that it will follow à minori ad majus in things promised as well as natural where the motive is increased and neither goodness nor power wanting in the promiser But all this depends on a false supposition viz. that there is a necessity of Infallibility to continue in the Church and that all persons are bound to believe the Decrees of the Councils to be the Infallible Oracles of truth but we say neither of these are necessary in the Church and therefore you have no ground to extend this promise of Christs presence to the Infallibility of Councils For you are not to extend the power and goodness of Christ as far as you shall judge fitting but as far only as he hath promised to extend it For otherwise it would be far more for the peace and unity of the Church if every particular Congregation had this Infallibility than if only General Councils had it Because by that means many disputes about the authority calling and proceedings of General Councils would be prevented Nay it might be extended much further for by this argument from the goodness and power of Christ you might for all that I can see inferr with more force that every true Christian should be Infallible and so there be no need of any Councils at all For whatever argument you can produce why Christ's goodness should extend to make Councils Infallible it will much more hold as to the other for the peace and unity of the Church would be far better secured
this way If you say that experience shews Christ never intended this by the errours of particular men in all ages To the same purpose we answer you as to Councils that large experience shews that when Bishops have solemnly met in Council they have been grosly deceived as you confess in all the Arrian Councils If your argument would have ever held from the power and goodness of Christ Would it not have held at that time when so great a matter of Faith was under debate If Christ therefore suffered so many Bishops so grosly to erre in a matter of such importance wherein the Church was so highly concerned How can you inferr from his power and goodness that he will never suffer General Councils to erre If you answer That these erred for not observing the conditions requisite in order to Christs hearing them viz. that they were not met in the name of Christ did not come without prejudice nor rely on Divine Assistance I pray take the same Answer as to all other Councils that we cannot know that Christ hears them or that they are Infallible till we are assured of their performance of the conditions requisite in order to that Infallibility And when you can assure us that such a Council met together in the name of Christ and came meerly with a desire to find out truth and relyed wholly on his assistance for it we do not so much distrust the power and goodness of Christ as to think he will suffer them to be deceived For we know upon those conditions he will not suffer any good man to erre much less an Assembly of them met in a General Council But here you have the hardest task of all lying upon you which is to prove that a General Council hath observed all these conditions without which nothing can be inferred from this place as to Christs being in any sense in the midst of them The last place mentioned for the Infallibility of General Councils is that Act. 15.28 Where the Apostles say of themselves and the Council held by them It seems good to the Holy Ghost and to us And saith his Lordship they might well say it For they had infallibly the assistance of the Holy Ghost and kept close to his direction But there is a great deal of difference between them and succeeding Councils who never arrogated this to their definitions though they presumed of the assistance of the Holy Ghost and though that form might be used yet they did not assume such an Infallibility to themselves as the Apostles had And therefore it is little less than blasphemy in Stapleton to say That the Decrees of Councils are the very Oracles of the Holy Ghost And that all Councils are not so Infallible as was this of the Apostles nor the causes handled in them as there they were is manifest by the ingenuous confession of Ferus to that purpose This is the substance of his Lordships Answer to this place Which you think to take off by saying That there 's no essential difference between the certainty of the things determined by the Apostles and those decided by a General Council confirmed by the Roman Bishop and though after-Councils use not the same expression in terms yet they do it in effect by enjoyning the belief of their decisions under the pain of Anathema If this be the meaning of the Anathema's of Councils there had need indeed be no great difference between the Apostles Decrees and theirs But this had need be very well proved and so it is by you for you produce several expressions of Cyril Athanasius Austin Leo Gregory and some others out of Bellarmin in which they magnifie the Decrees of General Councils calling them a Divine Oracle a Sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost not to be retracted and some others to the same purpose by which you vindicate Stapleton and tell us he said no more than the Fathers had done before him Yet all this is far from any vindication of Stapleton or proving your assertion as to the equal certainty of the Decrees of Councils and of the Apostles For the ground of all those expressions and several others of the same nature was not the supposition of any inherent Infallibility in the Decrees of General Councils but their great assurance of the truth of that Doctrine which was determined by those first General Councils For although I am far enough from believing the Council of Trent Infallible yet if that had determined the same points of Faith which were determined in the first four General Councils and nothing else I might have said That the Decree of that Council was a Holy and Divine Oracle a Sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost c. not that I thought the Council in the least Infallible in determining these things but that they were of themselves Divine Truths which the Council determined And in this sense Athanasius might well term the definition of the Nicene-Council against Arius the word of our Lord which endureth for ever and Constantine stile it a coelestial mandate and Gregory might reverence the four first Councils as the four Gospels though Bellarmin tells you that expression must be taken in a qualified sense yet all these and any other of a like nature I say import no more than that they were fully assured the matters decreed by them were revealed by God in his Word and not that they believed that they became such holy and divine Oracles meerly by the Councils definition For the contrary might be abundantly manifested by many expressions in them quite to another purpose and if instead of all the rest you will but read Athanasius and Hilary concerning Councils you will find your self strangely deceived if you believed they ever thought them Infallible What you add afterwards that it is sufficient that there be a real Infallibility though not like to that of the Apostles will not be sufficient for me till you can shew me the degrees of Infallibility for I will promise you if you can once prove that Councils are really Infallible I shall not stick to say That they are alike Infallible with the Apostles As for your discarding Ferus as a prohibited Authour it only shews the great integrity of the man who spoke too much truth to be born by the tender ears of the Roman Inquisition Before I had proceeded any further I had thought because of a former promise to have looked back to the place where you speak in vindication of the decretal Epistles but because you only referr to Turrianus his defence of them I shall only return you an equal courtesie and referr you to the abundantly sufficient Answer to him by David Blondel One would have thought you should have been ashamed of so notorious an imposture as those decretal Epistles are but we see what shifts a bad cause puts you upon that such men as Ferus Cassander Erasmus are under an Index Expurgatorius but the
decretal Epistles must be still justified but he that doth not see the reasons of these proceedings wants a greater Index Expurgatorius for his brains than ever they did for their Books We return therefore to our present subject and having manifested how far the Infallibility of General Councils is from being grounded on the veracity of Divine promises as you pretend without ground we now proceed to the consent of the Church as to this subject which his Lordship speaks to in the next Consideration Which is That all agree that the Church in general can never err from the Faith necessary to salvation but there is not the like consent that General Councils cannot err Whether Waldensis asserting that General Councils may err speak of such Councils as are accounted unlawful or no is not much material since as his Lordship sayes The Fathers having to do with so many Hereticks and so many of them opposing Church authority did never in the condemnation of those Hereticks utter this proposition That a General Council cannot err And supposing that no General Council had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not have followed that it is therefore Infallible and cannot err And to shew that St. Augustin puts a manifest difference between the rules of Scripture and the definitions of men he produceth that noted place in him wherein he so fully asserts the prerogative of Scripture above all the writings of men or definitions of Councils Which because it will be often refer'd to I have cited at large in the margin but his Lordship gives the sum of it in these words That whatsoever is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the letters of Bishops may not only be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise then they or by National Councils and National Councils by Plenary or General And even Plenary Councils themselves may be amended the former by the latter From whence he inferrs That it seems it was no news with St. Austin that a General Council might err and therefore be inferiour to the Scripture which may neither be doubted nor disputed where it affirms And if it be so with the definition of a Council too where is then the Scriptures Prerogative But his Lordship adds That there is much shifting about this place but it cannot be wraft off And therefore undertakes punctually to answer all the evasions of Stapleton and Bellarmin who have taken most pains about it But before you come to particular answers you are resolved to make your way through them by a more desperate attempt which is to prove that it cannot be St. Austins meaning in this place that general Councils may err in their definitions of Faith because then St. Austin must contradict himself because he delivers the contrary in other places This is indeed to the purpose if you go through with your undertaking but we must examine the places The first is l. 1. c. 7. de baptism c. Donatist where you say he expresly teacheth that no doubt ought to be made of what is by full decree established in a General Council But here a great doubt may justly be made Whether ever you searched this place or no for if you had you would have had little heart to produce it to this purpose For St. Augustin is there giving an account why he would not insist upon any humane authorities but bring certain evidence out of Scripture for what he said and the reason he gives for it is because in the former times of the Church before the Schism of Donatus brake forth the Bishops and particular Councils did differ from each other about the Question in hand viz. rebaptizing Hereticks untill that by a General Council of the whole world that which was most soundly held etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur was confirmed the disputes being taken away The utmost that can be drawn hence is that when this Controversie was decided by a General Council the disputes were ended among the Catholick Bishops But by what arts can you hence draw that St. Austin thought the Council Infallible in its definitions When the business came to be argued in a free Council by the dissenting parties and they more fully understood each other and agreed upon one sentence St. Austin sayes the former doubts were taken off that is the reasons and Scriptures produced on the other side satisfied them but he doth not say that no doubt is to be made of what is by full Decree established in a General Council but that no doubts were made after it But if you say There could be no agreement unless the Councils definition were supposed Infallible you speak that which is contrary to the sense and experience of the world and even of that general Council where this decree is supposed by Bellarmin to be made viz. the Council of Nice For Will you say the Council was Infallible in deciding the time of keeping Easter because after that Council the Asian Bishops submitted to the custom of other Churches Is there no way imaginable to convince men but by Infallibility If there be their doubts may be taken away by a General Council and yet that Council not be supposed Infallible For if St. Augustin had meant so nothing had been more pertinent then to have insisted on the decree of that Council and yet he there leaves it and calls all arguments of that nature humane arguments and therefore saith ex Evangelio profero certa documenta I bring certain evidences out of the Gospel Which words doubtless he would never have so immediately subjoyned to his former concerning a General Council if he had judged it Infallible or its decrees as certain as the Scripture In your second place l. 7. c. 5. there is nothing hath any shadow of pertinency to your purpose that which I suppose you may mean is l. 5. c. 17. where what he said before was decreed by a General Council he after saith was the judgement of the Holy Catholick Church from whence you may indeed infer that the Catholick Church did approve that decree of the Council but how it proves it Infallible I cannot understand Your last place is one sufficiently known to be far enough from your purpose Ep. 118. ad Januar. where he saith In case of indifferent rites it is insolent madness to oppose the whole Church but you are an excellent disputant who can hence infer that therefore General Councils are Infallible in their definitions in matters of Faith For any thing then you have brought to the contrary St. Austin is far enough from the least danger of contradicting himself But if you could prove that he were of your mind that the definitions of Councils are Infallible as well as the Scriptures never did any man more expresly contradict himself then St. Augustin must do in a multitude
as well as of the Laws of other Courts before private men can take liberty to refuse obedience Therefore he concludes That this seems most fit and necessary for the peace of Christendom unless in case the errour be manifest and intolerable or that the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour neglect or refuse to call a Council to examine it and there come in National and Provincial Councils to reform for themselves These words contain the full account of his Lordships opinion which you charge with so many interclashings and inconveniences The first of which is That it tends only to oblige all the members of the Church to an Vnity in errour against Scripture and demonstration during their whole lives or rather to the worlds end since such an Utopian rectifying Council as the Bishop here fancies is morally impossible ever to be had and therefore you call it a strange not not say an impious doctrine advanced without authority of Gods Word or Antiquity nay contrary to all solid reason This being a charge of the highest nature and manag'd with such unmeasurable confidence we must somewhat further enquire into the grounds of his Lordships opinion to see whether it be guilty of these crimes or no. There are three things therefore must be cleared in order to his Lordships Vindication 1. The design of his Discourse 2. The suppositions he makes as to the proceedings of the Council 3. The obligation of its decrees supposing that it should err 1. The design of his discourse is to be considered which is to remedy a supposable inconvenience and to provide for the Churches peace For the first question in debate was Whether a General Council might err or no. In which his Lordship gives sufficient evidence from Scripture Antiquity and Reason that it might But then here comes an inconvenience to be removed for his Adversary objects What are we then nearer to Vnity after a Council hath determin'd supposing it may err To this his Lordship suits his Answer wherein we ought to consider that the inconvenience objected is on his Lordships suppositions one of the rara contingentia and such a one ought not to destroy a principle of Government in all other cases useful and necessary For there cannot possibly be any way thought of for peace and Government but there may be a supposition made of some notable inconvenience but that not being necessary nor immediately consequent upon it but something which may happen and far more probably may not it ought not to hinder the obtaining of that which is generally both useful and necessary To give you a parallel case to this It is granted on all hands that the civil authority of a Nation is Fallible and therefore we may suppose it actually to err and that so far as to bind men by Law to something in it self unlawful Will you say now that the intent of civil authority is to bind men necessarily to sin I hope you will not but by this you may easily see the fallacy of your arguing against his Lordship for it is an Inconvenience indeed supposable but not at all necessary if he had said indeed that General Councils must necessarily err your Argument had been strong against him but as it is it hath no more force against his assertion then the supposition before made hath against civil authority For that case may be easily put that such a Law may pass but doth this hinder men from their obligation to duty and submission to a just authority or Will you have men presently to renounce obedience and to repeal such a Law themselves and not rather in all wayes of duty and reverence to authority make known their just complaints and desire a redress by the hands of Supream authority And this is all which his Lordship aims at that in case a General Council should err which is not easily imaginable upon his suppositions it tends more to the Churches peace for private men not to oppose the Decrees of it but to endeavour that another General Council be called to repeal it and till then to preserve the Churches peace supposing the errour not manifest or intolerable In this case then there are two inconveniences put the one of them is That when a Council is supposed to err every particular man may be at liberty to oppose the Decrees of it and so put the Church into confusion the other is That though private men may know it to be an errour yet they should be patient till the Church by another Council may repeal it now these two inconveniences being laid together the question is Which is the greater His Lordship with a great deal of reason judges the former to be because in the latter case it is only a silencing of some less necessary truth for some time but in the other it is an exposing the Church to the fury of mens turbulent Spirits But that which shews the unreasonableness of your objection That this is the way to bind the Church to an union in errour is that this doth not necessarily follow from his Lordships opinion but is only a case supposable and no rare Inconvenience ought to prejudice a general good And the peace of the Church in such a case ought to be preferred before private mens satisfaction But this will further appear if we consider secondly the Suppositions his Lordship makes for by that we shall see how rarely incident this case is for I hope the supposing that a General Council may erre doth not suppose that it must necessarily erre and granting those things which are supposed by him it is a rare case that it should erre For these things are by him supposed 1. That it must be a Council lawfully called and ordered and so not such Councils as that of Trent was or any like it wherein the Pope gives only a General Summons and that it must be called a General Council on that account how few Bishops soever appear in it nay though the far greatest part of the Christian world be excluded from it but it must be such a Council as may be acknowledged to be General by the general Consent of the Christian world For that we would make our Judge in the case as it was in the four first General Councils Not that we would stand upon Bishops being actually present from every particular Church but that such a number be present from the greatest Churches as may make it not be suspected to be meerly a Faction packed together for the Interess of some potent Prelate but that they do so indifferently meet from all parts that there may be no just ground of suspicion that they design any thing but the common good of the Christian world And therefore we acknowledge the first four General Councils to be truly such in our present sense neither do we quarrel at them because so few Bishops were present who lived out of the Roman Empire for
supposing the Church at the same freedom from particular Interesses that it was then and so great a number of Bishops assembled together we look on it to be so great and awful a Representation that its determinations ought not to be opposed by any factious or turbulent Spirits And in case some Bishops be not present from some Churches whether Eastern or Western yet if upon the publishing those Decrees they be universally accepted that doth ex post-facto make the Council truly Occumenical By this you see what we mean by a General Council And for the calling of it though we say it should be by the consent of the chief Patriarchs yet the right and custom of the ancient Church clearly carries it that it ought to be summoned by the authority of Christian Princes for nothing can be more evident to such who will not shut their eyes against the clearest evidence than that the first General Councils before the Pope had got the better of the Emperours were summoned by the Emperours command and authority and since the division of the Empire into so many Kingdoms and Principalities the consent of Christian Princes is necessary on the same grounds Neither ought it only to be a General Council and lawfully called but lawfully ordered too viz. that no Prelate challenge himself such a Presidency not in but over the Council that his Instructions must be looked on as the only Chart they must steer their course by and that nothing be debated but proponentibus Legatis as it was at Trent for these things take away utterly that Freedom which is necessary for a General Council And therefore his Lordship justly requires 2. That the Council do proceed lawfully which it cannot do if it be over-awed as the second Ephesine was by Dioscorus and his party or if practices be used as at Ariminum but there must be the greatest freedom in debates no canvasing for votes but every one suffered to deliver his judgement without prejudice or partiality that those who give their judegements deliver their reasons before and not only appear in Pontificalibus to give their Placet That the Bishops present be men of unquestionable abilities and generally presumed to be well acquainted with the matters to be debated there For otherwise nothing would be more easie than for the more subtil men under ambiguous expressions and fair pretences to bring over a great number of the rest to them who want either judgement or learning enough to discern their designs And this is supposed to be the case of the Council at Ariminum where the Occidental Bishops for want of learning were over-reached by the subtilty of the Arrian party 3. His Lordship supposes That this Council keeps it self to Gods Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own For in so doing they commit an errour in the first Concoction which will be incorrigible afterwards And this is not only reasonable but just and necessary because nothing can be a Rule of Faith but what is of immediate divine Revelation and this hath been the practice of the first General Councils which never owned or proceeded by any other Rule of Faith but this These things being supposed May we not justly say That an erring determination of such a Council so proceeding is a rare case Since we believe that God will not deny to any particular person who doth sincerely seek it the knowledge of his truth much less may we think he will do it to such an awful Representation of the Church when assembled together purposely for finding out that truth which may be of so great consequence to the Christian world For both the truth of Gods promises the goodness of God to his people and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Council should not be guilty of any notorious errour But because we deny not but such a Council is fallible therefore we grant the case may be put that such a Council may erre and the Question is What is to be done then Whether every particular person may oppose such a determination or submit till another Council reverse the Decrees of it His Lordship asserts the latter and so we come to the effect of such an erring Decree which was the third thing to be spoken to As to which these things must be considered 1. That he doth not assert that men are bound to believe the truth of that Decree but not openly to oppose it For so he speaks expresly of external obedience and at least so far as it consists in silence patience and forbearance yielded to it And therefore you are greatly deceived when with such confidence you assert That this obliges all the members of the Church to unity in errour for that is only consequent upon your principle that the Decrees of General Councils are to be believed by an internal Assent for this indeed would necessarily oblige them to unity in errour but the most that is consequent on his Lordships Opinion is that in such cases wherein a General Council hath erred men ought rather to be silent for a time as to some truth than to break the Churches peace In the mean time he doth not deny but that men may be bound to follow their own judgements in the discovery of truth nay and they may use all means consistent with the Churches peace to promote that truth for he allows that just complaints may be made to the Church for reversing the decrees of the former Council and this cannot be without discovering the errour of that Council And I hope this liberty of dissent and just complaint is sufficient to keep all the members of the Church from being united in Errour And I pray Sir What cause is there now for such hideous out-cryes that this is such a strange and impious Doctrine against Scripture Antiquity and solid Reason which appears for all that I can see very just and reasonable taking it in the way which he explains himself in But whereas you object That this will keep men in errour to the worlds end because such a Council is morally impossible it is easie to shew you that if the rectifying Council be impossible the General erring Council is equally impossible therefore there is no danger coming that way neither And that such General Councils are grown such morally impossible things we may in a great measure thank your Church for it which hates as much such a true rectifying Council as you call it as the Court of Rome does a thorow Reformation For all your design is to perswade men that those only are General Councils which have the Popes Summons and wherein he rules and in effect does all and to perswade men to believe the Decrees of such Councils is the most effectual way in the world to unite men in the belief of errours to the worlds end For as long as the Popes Interest can carry it to be sure all rectifying Councils shall be
erred yet we have yielded so much to you as to disprove what you have in general brought for the one before we come to meddle with the other But that being dispatched we come to a more short and compendious way of overthrowing your Infallibility by shewing the palpable falsity of such principles which must be owned by you as Infallible truths because defined by General Councils confirmed by the Pope Whereof The first in the Endictment as you say is that of the Priests Intention defined by the Councils of Florence and Trent both of them confirmed by the Pope to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament Concerning this there are two things to be enquired into 1. Whether this doth not render all pretence of Infallibility with you a vain and useless thing 2. Whether it be not in it self an errour We must begin with the first of these for that was the occasion of his Lordships entering upon it for he was shewing That your claim of Infallibility is of no use at all for the settling of Truth and Peace in the Church because no man can either know or believe this Infallibility It cannot be believed with Divine Faith having no foundation either in the written Word of God or Tradition of the Catholick Church and no humane Faith can be sufficient in order to it But neither can it be believed or known upon that decree of the Councils of Florence and Trent that the intention of the Priest is necessary to the validity of a Sacrament And lest you should think I represent his Lordships words too much with advantage I will take his Argument in the words you have summed it up in which are these Before the Church or any particular man can make use of the Popes Infallibility that is be settled and confirmed in the Truth by means thereof he must either know or upon sure grounds believe that he is Infallible But sayes the Bishop this can only be believed of him as he is S. Peters Successour and Bishop of Rome of which it is impossible in the relatours opinion for the Church or any particular man to have such certainty as is sufficient to ground an Infallible belief Why because the knowledge and belief of this depends upon his being truly in Orders truly a Bishop truly a Priest truly Baptized none of all which according to our principles can be certainly known and believed because forsooth the intention of him that administred these Sacraments to the Pope or made him Bishop Priest c. can never be certainly known and yet by the Doctrine of the Councils of Florence and Trent it is of absolute necessity to the validity of every one of these Sacraments so as without it the Pope were neither Bishop nor Priest Thus I grant you have faithfully sum'd up his Lordships Argument we must now see with what courage and success you encounter it Your first Answer is That though it be level'd against the Popes Infallibility yet it hath the same force against the Infallibility of the whole Church in points fundamental for we cannot be Infallibly sure there is such a number of Baptized persons to make a Church By this we see how likely you are to assoil this difficulty who bring it more strongly upon your self without the least inconvenience to your adversary For I grant it necessarily follows against the pretence of any Infallibility whether in Church Councils or Pope as being a certain ground for Faith for all these must suppose such a certainty of the due administration of Sacraments which your Doctrine of Intention doth utterly destroy For these two things are your principles of Faith that there can be no certainty of Faith without present Infallibility of the Church and that in order to the believing this testimony Infallible there must be such a certainty as is ground sufficient for an Infallible belief Now How is it possible there can be such when there can be no certainty of the Being of a Church Council or Pope from your own principles For when the only way of knowing this is a thing not possible to be evidenced to any one in any way of Infallible certainty viz. the intention of the Priest you must unavoidably destroy all your pretence of Infallibility For To what purpose do you tell me that Pope or Councils are Infallible unless I may be Infallibly sure that such decrees were passed by Pope and Council I cannot be assured of that unless I be first assured that they were Baptized persons and Bishops of the Church and for this you dare not offer at Infallible certainty and therefore all the rest is useless and vain So that while by this Doctrine of the intention of the Priest for the validity of the Sacraments you thought to advance higher the reputation of the Priesthood and to take away the assurance of Protestants as to the benefits which come by the use of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper you could not have asserted any thing more really pernicious to your selves than this Doctrine is So strange an incogitancy was it in those Councils to define it and as great in those who defend it and yet at the same time maintain the necessity of a present Infallibility in the Church and General Councils For can any thing be more rational then to desire the highest assurance as to that whose decrees I am to believe Infallible And yet at the last you confess we can have but a moral certainty of it and that of the lowest degree the utmost ground of it being either the testimony of the Priest himself or that we have no ground to suspect the contrary Now what unreasonable men are you who so much to the dishonour of Christian Religion cry out upon the rational evidence of the truth of it as an uncertain principle and that Protestants though they assert the highest degree of actual certainty cannot have any Divine Faith because they want the Churches Infallible testimony and yet when we enquire into this Infallible Testimony you are fain to resolve it into one of the most uncertain and conjectural things imaginable For what can I have less ground to build my Faith upon than that the Priest had at least a virtual intention to do as the Church doth Whom must I believe in this case and whereon must that Faith be grounded On the Priests Testimony But how can I be assured but that he who may wander in his intention may do so in his expression too Or must I do it because I have no reason to suspect the contrary how can you assure me of that that I have no reason to suspect the contrary no otherwise then by telling me that the Priest is a man of that honesty and integrity that he cannot be supposed to do such a thing without intention So that though I were in Italy or Spain where some have told us it is no hard matter to meet with Jews
Council it was a lawful Council or it doth not if it doth To what purpose doth it define it self to be a lawful Council if it doth not then we shall doubt of that Decree whereby it defines it self to be so for if I doubt whether the Council were lawful before that Decree I doubt likewise whether it might not err in passing that Decree And therefore he grants that no more than moral certainty or historical Faith is requisite in order to it Now this Argument of Bellarmins holds with equal strength if not more against you for you derive the lawfulness of the Council from its Infallibility and that Infallibility from the Councils definition Thus therefore I argue Either it doth appear that the Council was Infallible before that definition or it doth not If it appears to be Infallible before then its Infallibility is not known by that definition If it doth not How can I know it to be Infallible by it For as I doubt whether it was Infallible before it so I must doubt whether it was Infallible in it and consequently it is impossible I should believe it Infallible because it defines it self to be so Neither do you at all salve this by calling it only an implicite definition for whether it be implicite or explicite it is all one since that definition is made the ground why we must believe the Council to be Infallible And of all men in the world you seem the strangest in this that you declaim with so much vehemency against those who believe the Scriptures to be Infallible for themselves and yet assert that Pope and General Councils are to be believed Infallible because they define themselves to be so Than which no greater absurdity can be well imagin'd For they who assert that the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves do not thereby mean that they are to be believed Infallible meerly because they say they are Infallible but that out of the Scriptures such Arguments may be brought as may sufficiently prove that they come from God But when you say that Pope and General Councils are to be believed Infallible because of their implicite definition that they are so you can mean nothing else but that they are Infallible because they take upon them to be Infallible for that is all I can understand by your implicite definition for if they should decree they were Infallible that were an explicite definition But yet how should this implicite definition be known for it must be some way certainly known or else we can never believe that they are Infallible upon that account Which way then must we understand that they implicitely define it Is it by their meeting debating decreeing matters of Faith that cannot be for Councils have done all these which are acknowledged to have erred Is it by Pope and Council joyning together but how can that be unless I know before that when Pope and Council joyn they are Infallible If this then be all the way to prove that Pope and Council are true Bishops because Infallible and they are Infallible because they define themselves to be so I see there is an absolute necessity of a mans putting out the eye of his reason if ever he hopes to see Pope and Councils Infallible But further yet there is more absurdity still if more can be imagin'd in this excellent Answer for here is a new Labyrinth for our Authour to sport himself in For we are to believe a Council to consist of lawful Bishops because they are Infallible and yet his only way to prove them Infallible is by supposing that they consist of lawful Bishops For I ask Whether all persons meeting together in Council are Infallible No. Are all Bishops of Protestant and the Greek and other Churches besides the Roman assembled in Council Infallible No. Must it not then be supposed that the Bishops are lawful Bishops before they can implicitely define themselves Infallible And if their lawfulness must be supposed before their Infallibility they cannot first be proved to be Infallible before we can know Whether they were lawful Bishops or no. And we cannot know them to be lawful Bishops unless we knew the intention of the Priest and therefore it remains proved with evidence equal to a demonstration that your certainty of your Churches Infallibility can be no greater than that you have of the Priests intention in the administration of Sacraments And by this it appears how absurdly you go about to compare the case of Pope and Council with that of the Prophets and Apostles of old For you challenge not an Infallibility by immediate inspiration but such as is constantly resident in the Church by vertue of some particular promises which must suppose the persons in whom it lodges to be actually members of the Church And therefore all the proof of their Infallibility depends upon the certainty of that which you can never satisfie any rational men in but I hope you will not say it was so in the Prophets and Apostles Besides God never sent any persons with a message from himself to the world but he gave the world sufficient evidence in point of reason that He sent them either by Miracles the Testimony of other Prophets who wrought them or some other satisfactory way to humane reason as I have elsewhere proved at large But there is no such thing in your case no rational evidence at all is offered but we must believe the Council lawful because Infallible and we must believe it Infallible because it defines itself to be so Neither is it possible to conceive that any man should believe whatever the Prophet or Apostle said to be Infallibly true unless he were before convinced that they were Infallible who spake it But for this you have a further Answer That it is not necessary to believe the Infallibility of the proposer viz. prioritate temporis in respect of time and afterwards the Infallibility of the Doctrine he proposeth but it sufficeth to believe it first prioritate naturae so as the Infallibility of the teacher be presupposed to the Infallibility of his Doctrine But what this makes to your purpose I understand not For it is not the time but the evidence we enquire for or the ground on which we are to believe the proposer Infallible Whether it must not be something else besides the implicite defining himself to be Infallible You assert that to be a sufficient ground in the case of Pope and Councils and I pray Will it not be as sufficient in the case of a Quaker or Enthusiast May not they as well pretend this that they are Infallible and if you ask them what evidence they have for it they may tell you just the same that Pope and Council have to be so for as they implicitely define themselves to be Infallible so do they So that talk what you will of private Spirits and Enthusiasms I know none lay so great a foundation for them as you do upon
wine nor communicated under the form of wine as 't is certain they frequently did in S. Leo 's time and after But you have very unhappily light of this for your first proof which is so evident against you For Leo who mentions the Manichees communicating in Catholick Churches tells the Catholicks What way they might discern them from themselves viz. that though they received the bread yet they refused the wine by which saith he you may discover their sacrilegious hypocrisie and by that means they may be expelled out of the society of Catholicks You were therefore very ill advised to make choice of this for your argument which makes it plain that all Catholicks did receive in both kinds and that the Manichees might be thereby known that they did not And if it were the custom for the Catholicks sometimes to receive in both kinds and sometimes not which is all the shift Bellarmin hath and the Manichees not at all this could be no note of distinction between them for although the Manichees might not receive at one time they could not tell but they might at another Now Leo's intention being to give such a note of distinction that they might not receive at all among them it evidently follows that all the Catholicks did constantly receive in both kinds and that they were only Manichees who did abstain from the Cup. For that Story which Bellarmin insists on and you referr to of the woman who being a Macedonian Heretick yet pretending to communicate with the Catholicks had the bread which her Maid brought with her and which she took instead of the Eucharist turned into a stone in her mouth upon which she runs presently to the Bishop and with tears confessed her fault as we take it wholly upon the Faith of Sozomen from whom Nicephorus transcribes it so I cannot imagine what it proves for your purpose unless it be that they in whose mouths the bread turns into a stone too will hardly have patience till the Cup be administred to them For so both Sozomen and Nicephorus relate it that immediately upon her feeling it to be a stone she ran to the Bishop and shewed him the stone acknowledging with tears her miscarriage But besides this you bring several Instances from the Communion of Hermites in the wilderness of travellers on their journeys of sick persons in their beds and private Communions in houses and lastly little Children in the Church and at home in their Cradles which communicated in form of wine only And Are not all these invincible proofs that there was a publick solemn administration of the Communion in one kind publickly allowed in Churches in all times When you can prove that the Communion of Hermites was in the Church or that they did not receive as well the wine as the bread in the wilderness or that such Communion was approved by the Church That the Communion of Travellers was not meer Communion in Prayers as Baronius and Albaspinaeus assert without any participation of the Eucharist at all or if it were that it was only a participation in one kind against which Albaspinaeus gives many reasons That the Communion of the sick was without wine when Justin Martyr saith That both bread and wine were sent to the absent when Eusebius tells us That the bread given to Serapion was dipt when S. Hierom saith of Exuperius That he preserved the blood in a glass for the use of the sick That Private Communions were without wine since Gregory Nazianzen saith his Sister Gorgonia preserved both the symbols of the body and blood of Christ and Albaspinaeus confesses that one might be carried home as well as the other or that these were approved by the Church since Durantus saith That the use of Private Communions coming up by persecutions were abrogated afterwards and are expresly condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta about the year 381. and the first Council of Toledo about A. D. 400. Lastly that the Communion of Infants was only in one kind either in the Church or at home or that this Communion of Infants which the Council of Trent condemns was a due administration of the Eucharist When I say you have proved all these things the utmost you can hence inferr is only that in some rare cases and accidental occasions Communion in one kind was allowed of But what is all this to the proving that the stated solemn administration of the Eucharist in one kind was ever practised much less allowed within a thousand years after Christ. And yet if you could prove that you fall short of vindicating your Church unless you add this which you never so much as touch at viz. That it was ever in all that time thought lawful to forbid the celebration of the Eucharist in both kinds Prove but this which is your only proper task and I say as his Lordship doth in another case You shall be my Apollo for ever We proceed to a fourth errour which is the Invocation of Saints defined by the Council of Trent As to which that which his Lordship saith may be reduced to three things 1. That those expressions of the Fathers which seem most to countenance it are but Rhetorical flourishes 2. That the Church then did not admit of the Invocation of Saints but only of the commemoration of Martyrs 3. That the Doctrine of the Roman Church makes the Saints more then Mediatours of Intercession To these three I shall confine my discourse on this subject and therefore shall follow you close in your Answers to them For the first When you are proving that the Fathers expressions were not Rhetorical flourishes you would fain have your own accounted so For say you How can it seem to any that duly considers it but most extreamly partial and strange to term so many exhortations so many plain and positive assertions so many Instances Examples Histories Reports and the like which the Fathers frequently use and afford in this kind and that upon occasions wherein dogmatical and plain delivery of Christian Doctrine and truth is expected nothing but flourishes of wit and Rhetorick And after you call these meer put-off's as before you had said That when any thing in the Fathers is against us then it is Rhetorick only when against you then it is dogmatical and the real sense of the Fathers But these are only General words fit only to deceive such who believe bold affirmations sooner then solid proofs This is a thing must be tryed by particulars because it is on both sides acknowledged that the Fathers did many times use their Rhetorick and that such things are uttered by them in their Panegyrical Orations especially which will not abide a severe tryal Doth not Bellarmin confess that St. Chrysostome doth often hyperbolize and Sixtus Senensis say as much of others that in the heat of their discourses they are carried beyond what they would have said in a strict debate But who are better
That Saints are not only to be invocated because of their prayers to God but because God bestows many blessings on us eorum merito gratiâ by their merits and favour and after adds Rogaâ—i peccatorum veniam impetrabunt conciliabunt nobis Dei gratiam Being asked they will obtain the pardon of sin and procure for us the savour of God And What can be more said concerning Christ himself Although therefore you say never so much That your prayers are made to the Saints through the merits of Christ and that you conclude all your prayers per Christum Dominum nostrum yet all this cannot clear you from offering the greatest dishonour to the merits and intercession of Christ since it is plain you rely on the Saints merits in order to the obtaining the Blessings you pray for But say you If the Saints being rewarded in Heaven for their merits be not injurious to the fulness of Christâ— merits Why should their being heard by virtue of those merits when they pray to God for us through Christ or our desire that they may be heard for them be thought injurious to Christs merits To which I answer Those merits which you suppose in Saints when they are rewarded in Heaven have either an equal proportion with the reward they receive or not If not then they cease to be merits and the giving the reward though an act of Justice the Promise supposed yet in it self is wholly an act of Grace and Favour if they have then the full recompence is received by that reward and nothing further can be obtained for others on their account But in the sense it is to be suspected you take merits in we as well assert that the proportioning the reward in Heaven to the merits of Saints is injurious to the fulness of Christs merits as their obtaining mercies for others by reason of them Only this latter adds to the dishonour in that there is not only supposed a proportion between Heaven and them but as though that were not enough a further efficacy is attributed to them for obtaining mercies for others too His Lordship therefore does not go about to pervert the sense of the prayers used in your Missal but the plain words and sense of them evidently shew how contrary they are to Christian Doctrine and Piety Bellarmin's saying that the Saints may in some sense be called our Redeemers cannot be vindicated by that saying of S. Paul That he became all things to all men that he might save some because salvation respects the effect of Christs death the promotion of which may in some sense be attributed to the Instruments of it such as S. Paul was here on Earth but Redemption respects the merits by which that effect was obtained and so belongs wholly to Christ and cannot be attributed to any Saints either in Earth or Heaven When you can prove that any subordinate Instruments of Gods Power are called Numina you may then excuse Bellarmin for calling the Saints so but that is so incongruous a sense of the word that it needs no confutation We are now come to the last Errour which his Lordship here charges your pretended General Councils with which is concerning Adoration of Images Of which his Lordship sayes That the Ancient Church knew it not And the Modern Church of Rome is too like to Paganism in the practice of it and driven to scarce intelligible subtilties in her servants writings that defend it And this without any care had of millions of souls unable to understand her subtilties or shun her practice Here you say The Bishop is very bitter but no more than the nature of the thing required All the Answer you return to this lyes in these things 1. That the Church of Rome teaches nothing concerning the Worship of Images but what the second Council of Nice did nine hundred years ago which is that they must be had in Veneration and due Reverence but not have Divine Worship given to them 2. That Images were in common Vse and Veneration too amongst Christians in the Ancient Church 3. That what abuses are crept in are not to be imputed to the Church but to particular persons This is the substance of what you say to the end of the Chapter as to which a brief Answer will suffice because I design not a full handling the Question of the worship of Images If that which you say in the first place be true it doth the more prove that which his Lordship intends viz. that not one barely but two of those you own to be General Councils have erred in this particular If either those Councils or you had intended to have dealt fairly and honestly with the world they and you should have declared what that Veneration and Reverence is which is due to Images What difference you put between that and the Worship due to God and Whether the same pretences and excuses would not as well have justified the Pagan Idolatries For this was it which his Lordship charged you with that you came too near Paganism in your practice But as to this you answer nothing but that if you do so did the Council of Nice too But Is that a sufficient excuse for you It is well enough known What kind of Council that was How much it was opposed by the Synod of Frankford How many persons both in the Eastern and Western Churches declared themselves against the Doctrine of it But What a pitiful plea is it for you to say That the Council of Trent had silenced all calumnies by saying That you attribute no Divinity to the Images but only worship them with such honour and reverence as is due to them Would not any considerate Heathens have said as much as this is But the Question is Whether that Veneration of them which is used by you towards Images be due to them or no This you should have undertaken and set the distinct limits between the worship due to God and that which is given to these You should have proved that this is no prohibited way of worship for if it be it can in no sense be due to them For since God may determine the modes of his own worship what he hath forbidden in his service becomes unlawful and so long as that command continues in force all acts of worship contrary to it are a positive kind of Idolatry For as there is a kind of Natural Idolatry lying in the worship of false Gods instead of the true so there is that which may be called Positive Idolatry which is a worshipping God in a way or manner which he hath forbidden From whence the Israelites in the Golden Calf and the Ten Tribes in the worship of the Calves at Dan and Bethel are charged with Idolatry although they acknowledged the true God and designed that for a Relative worship to him If it were so then you should have shewed us How it comes to be otherwise
their ship upon a rock because some have escaped upon a plank notwithstanding So that considering on what terms we grant this possibility of salvation this Concession of ours can be no Argument at all to judge yours to be the safer way and if upon the same terms you deny it to us it shews how much more unsafe your way is where there is so much of Interess and so little Charity But you attempt to prove against all Protestants whatsoever that yours is the safer way to salvation Your first Argument in short is Because we grant that you may be saved upon our own principles but you deny that we may be saved upon yours And what is there more in this Argument but a multitude of words to little purpose then there is in that which his Lordship examines For the main force of it lyes in this That is the safest way which both parties are agreed in and therefore although you would have your Major proposition put out of all doubt yet that wants more proof then I doubt you are able to give it For although we grant Men may be saved who have true Faith Repentance and a holy Conversation without any such Sacrament of Pennance which you make necessary for conveying the grace of Justification yet What security can thence come to a man in the choice of his Religion since we withall say That where there is a continuance in the corruptions and errours of your Church it is hard to conceive there should be that Faith and Repentance which we make necessary to Salvation You go therefore on a very false supposition when you take it for granted that we acknowledge that all those whom you admit to your Sacrament of Pennance have all things upon our own principles which are necessary to Salvation And so your Minor is as false as your Major uncertain viz. That many are saved in the Roman Church according to the principles which are granted on both sides But you would seem to prove That all admitted by you at death to the Sacrament of Pennance as you call it have all things necessary to Salvation upon Protestant principles because you say That Faith Hope true Repentance and a purpose of Amendment are necessary to the due receiving the Sacrament of Pennance and these are all which Protestants make necessary to Salvation But supposing that Is it necessary that all those things must be in them which make the necessary requisites to this Sacrament of yours Do none receive this unworthily as many do a far greater Sacrament than this granting it to be any at all It seems Salvation is very easie to be had in your Church then for this Sacrament is supposed by you to be given to men upon their death-beds when you say It cannot be supposed that men will omit any thing necessary for the attaining Salvation and by vertue of this Sacrament they receive the grace of Justification whereby of sinners they are made the Sons of God and heires of eternal life But I assure you we who believe Men must be saved only by the terms of the Gospel make no such easie matter of it as you do we profess the necessity of a through-renovation of heart and life to be indispensable in order to happiness for without holiness no man shall see the Lord and although we take not upon us to judge the final estate of men whose hearts we know not yet the Gospel gives us very little ground to think that such who defer the work of their Salvation to their death-beds shall ever attain to it The main design of Christian Religion being The turning mens souls from sin to God in order to the serving him in this world that they may be happy in another For if Salvation depended on no more then you require the greatest part of the Gospel might have been spared whose great end is to perswade men to holiness of heart and life It is not a meer purpose of amendment when men can sin no longer that we make only necessary to Salvation But so hearty a repentance of sin past as to carry with it an effectual reformation without this men may flatter themselves into their own ruine by your Sacraments of Pennance and such contrivances of men but there can be no grounded hopes of any freedom from eternal misery And their Faith too must be as weak as their Repentance shallow who dare venture their souls into another world upon no better security than that By receiving the Sacrament of Pennance they are made the Sons of God and heirs of eternal life But you betray men into stupid ignorance and carelesness as to their eternal Salvation and then deal most unfaithfully with them by telling them that a death-bed Repentance will suffice them and the Sacrament of Pennance will presently make them heirs of eternal life So that although your Doctrine be very unreasonable and your Superstitions very gross yet this unfaithfulness to the souls of men makes all true lovers of Christian Religion and of the Salvation of mens souls more averse from your Doctrine and Practises then any thing else whatsoever For what can really be more pernicious to the world then to flatter them into the hopes of Salvation without the performance of those things which if the Gospel be true are absolutely necessary in order to it How quietly do you permit the most stupid ignorance in such who are the zealous practisers of your fopperies and superstitions What excellent arts have you to allure debauches upon their death-beds to you by promising them that in another world which our principles will not allow us to do How many wayes have you to get the pardon of sin or at least to delude people with the hopes of it without any serious turning from sin to God What do your Doctrines of the sufficiency of bare contrition and the Sacraments working grace ex opere operato of Indulgences Satisfactions regulating the intention and the like tend to but to supersede the necessity of a holy life And at last you exchange the inward hatred and mortification of sin for some external severities upon mens bodies which is only beating the servant for the Masters fault So that it is hard to imagine any Doctrine or way of Religion which owns Christianity which doth with more apparent danger to the souls of men undermine the foundations of Faith and Obedience than yours doth And as I have at large shewed the former How destructive your principles are to the grounds of Faith so it hath been fully and lately manifested by a learned Bishop of our Church What Doctrines and practises are allowed in your Church which in themselves or their immediate consequences are direct impieties and give warranty to a wicked life Which being so of your own side we must see what reasons you give for your most uncharitable Censure That there are very few or none among Protestants that escape damnation And
weakness of your Argument For the crimes of Schism and unsoundness of Faith are still as chargeable upon you though we may grant a possibility of Salvation to some in your Church And I cannot possibly discern any difference between the judgment of the Catholicks concerning the Donatists and ours concerning you for if they judged the Donatists way very dangerous because of their uncharitableness to all others so do we of yours but if they notwithstanding that hoped that the misled people among them might be saved that is as much as we dare say concerning you And you very much mistake if you think the contrary For his Lordship no where saith as you would seem to impose upon him That a man may live and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall hinder salvation whatsoever motives he may know to the contrary But on the other side he plainly saith That he that lives in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and dye in it is presumed to believe as that Church believes And he that doth so I will not say is as guilty but guilty he is more or less of the Schism which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together And of all her damnable opinions too and all other sins also which the Doctrine and mis-belief of that Church leads him into Judge you now I pray Whether we think otherwise of those in your Church than the Orthodox did of the Donatists So that if the Argument doth hold for you it would as well have held for them too And therefore his Lordship well inferrs That this Principle That where two parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both parties agree or which the adversary confesses may lead men by your own confession into known and damnable Schism and Heresie for such you say the Donatists were guilty of And such his Lordship saith there is great danger of in your Church too for saith he in this present case there 's peril great peril of damnable both Schism and Heresie and other sins by living and dying in the Roman Faith tainted with so many superstitions as at this day it is and their tyranny to boot I pray now bethink your self What difference is there between the Orthodox judgement of the Donatists and ours concerning your Church And therefore the comparison between Petilian the Donatist and his Lordships adversary holds good still for all your Answer depends upon a mistake of Protestants granting a possibility of Salvation as I have already shewed you And in what way soever you limit this agreement you cannot possibly avoid but that it would equally hold as to the Donatists too for the concession was then as great in order to Salvation as it is now But you say Whether he asserts it or no it must needs follow from the Bishops Principles that there can be no peril of damnation by living and dying in the Roman Church because he professedly exempts the Ignorant and grants as much of those who do wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to the gross superstitions of the Roman Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and live accordingly From whence you argue That if neither voluntary nor involuntary superstition can hinder from Salvation then there is confessedly no peril of damnation in your Church And yet his Lordship saith All Protestants unanimously agree in this That there is great peril of damnation for any man to live and dye in the Roman Perswasion And therefore saith he that is a most notorious slander where you say that they which affirm this peril of damnation are contradicted by their own more learned Brethren By which we see the unjustice of your proceeding in offering to wrest his Lordships words contrary to his express meaning and since all your Argument depends upon your adversaries confession you ought to take that confession in the most clear and perspicuous terms and to understand all obscure expressions suitably to their often declared sense Which if you had attended to you would never have undertaken to prove that this Lordship grants that there is no peril of damnation in your Church which he so often disavows and calls it a most notorious slander and a most loud untruth which no ingenuous man would ever have said And even of those persons whom he speaks most favourably of he saith That although they wish for the abolishing the superstitions in use yet all he grants them is a possibility of Salvation but with extreme hazard to themselves by keeping close to that which is superstition and comes so near Idolatry Are these then such expressions which import no peril of damnation in the Roman Church And therefore when he speaks of the possibility of the Salvation of such who associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church he declares sufficiently that he means it not of those who do in heart approve of them but only of such who though they are convinced they are gross superstitions yet think they may communicate with those who use them as long as they do not approve of them Which errour of theirs though he looks on it as dangerous yet not as wholly destructive of Salvation But since your Answer to this is That he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to your Church and Communion you are not aware How much thereby you take off from the Protestants Confession since those whom we contend for a possibility of Salvation for are such only whom you deny to be of your Churches Communion and so the Argument signifies much less by your confession than it did before Thus we see how this Argument upon the same terms you manage it against us would have held as well in the behalf of the Donatists against the Communion of the Catholick Church For what other impertinencies you mix here and there it is time now to pass them over since the main grounds of them have been so fully handled before We therefore proceed to the second Answer his Lordship gives to this Argument viz. That if the Principle on which it stands doth hold it makes more for the advantage of Protestants than against them For if that be safest which both parties are agreed in then 1. You are bound to believe with us in the point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England that in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ truly and really and of all the benefits of his passion Your Roman Catholicks add a manner of this presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this consent it is safer communicating with the Church of England than with the
and such as are capable of such easie impressions as these are His Lordship from that which was expressed comes to that which was implyed in this Argument viz. That we cannot be saved because we are out of the Church As to which he saith We are not out of the Catholick Church because not within the Roman For the Roman Church and the Church of England are but two distinct members of that Catholick Church which is spread over the face of the earth If you can prove that Rome is properly the Catholick Church it self speak out and prove it This you say you have done already but how poorly let the Reader judge But when you add That in the day of account the Roman Church will be found not an elder Sister but a Mother it will be well for her if it prove not only in the sense wherein Babylon the Great is called so viz. the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth The Controversie you tell us goes on touching Roman Catholicks Salvation and we must follow it though without breaking it into several Chapters as you do that so we may lay together all that belongs to the same subject And here his Lordship distinguishes the case of such whose calling and sufficiency gives them a greater capacity for understanding the Truth and such whom as S. Augustin speaks the simplicity of believing makes safe So that there 's no Question saith he but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church when their leaders unless they repented before death were lost Which he understands of such Leaders as refuse to hear the Churches instruction or to use all the means they can to come to the knowledge of the Truth For if they do this erre they may but Hereticks they are not as is most manifest in S. Cyprian 's case of Re-baptization But when Leaders add Schism to Heresie and Obstinacy to both they are lost without Repentance while many that succeed them in the errour only without obstinacy may be saved That is in case they hold these errours not supinely not pertinaciously not uncharitably not factiously i. e. in case all endeavours be used after Truth and Peace and all expressions of Charity shewed to all who retain an internal Communion with the whole visible Church of Christ in the fundamental points of Faith Such as these he confesses to be in a state of Salvation though their mis-leaders perish This is the summ of his Lordships discourse Which you call a heavy doom against all the Roman Doctors in general for what you say before is a meer declamation and repetition of what hath been often examined But you ask How could they be all lost who by the Bishops own Principles were members of the true visible Church of Christ by reason of their being baptized and holding the Foundation But Doth his Lordship say that all such as are within the Church are undoubtedly saved For he only faith That no man can be said simply to be out of the visible Church that is baptized and holds the Foundation The most then that can be inferred meerly from being within the Church is only the possibility of Salvation notwithstanding which I suppose you will not deny but many who have a possibility of Salvation may yet certainly perish For many may hold the Foundation it self doctrinally who may not hold it savingly and therefore it is a pitiful inference because he grants they are members of the Church therefore it follows from his Principles they cannot be lost But you are in a very sad condition if you have no other ground for your Salvation but being members of that which you account the Catholick Church When Christ himself saith Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away How much more such who have nothing else to plead for their Salvation but that they are in the Church It is not therefore the bare doctrinal holding that Faith which makes them members of the Church which can give them a title to Salvation unless all sincere endeavours be used to find out what the will of God is and to practise it when it is known But you say Your leaders did not refuse the Churches instructions for they taught as the Church taught for many hundred years together and What other means could they be bound to use than they did to come to the knowledge of the Truth Yes there were other means which they most supinely neglected themselves and most dangerously with-held from others viz. the plain and undoubted word of God which is the only Infallible Rule of Faith And let any Church whatsoever teach against this it must incurr the same Anathema which S. Paul pronounces against an Angel from Heaven if he teaches any other Doctrine Did those then take care of their own and others souls whose greatest care was to lock the Scripture up from the view of the people and minded it so little themselves which yet alone is able to make men wise to Salvation But you take the greatest advantage of his vindication of S. Cyprian and his followers for therein you say He vindicates more the Roman Catholick Doctors who had alwaies the universal practice of the Church on their side which they opposed and condemns Protestants because if S. Cyprian 's followers were in such danger for opposing the whole Church so must they be too who you say have opposed the Churches Instruction given them by the voice of a General Council But Who is so blind as not to discern that all this proceeds upon a palpable begging the Question viz. that the whole Church is of your side and against us which I have so often discover'd to be a notorious falshood that there is no necessity at all here to repeat it But if we grant you that liberty to suppose your selves to be the whole and only Church you will not more easily acquit all your Doctors than condemn Protestants both teachers and people However by this we see that you have no other way to do the one or the other but by supposing what you can never prove and which none in their wits will ever grant you The greatest part of the thirty seventh Paragraph in his Lordships Book is you say taken up with personal matters and matters of fact in which you will not interpose and you might as well have spared your pains in that which you touch at since they are spent only upon a bare asserting the Greek Church to be guilty of fundamental errours which we have at large disproved at the very beginning but as his Lordship sayes you labour indeed but like a horse in a Mill no farther at night than at noon the same thing over and over again and so we find it almost to the end of your Book and as vain an attempt to clear your Church from any errour endangering Salvation For Whether the errours of your Church be
fundamental in themselves or only by reduction and consequence Whether you hold all fundamental points literally or no yet if we prove you guilty of any gross dangerous and damnable errours as his Lordship asserts you are that will be abundantly sufficient to our purpose that Yours cannot possibly be any safe way to Salvation And although we should grant your Church right in the exposition of the three Creeds yet if you assert any other errours of a dangerous nature your right exposition of them cannot secure the souls of men from the danger they run themselves upon by embracing the other So much for the Argument drawn from the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church CHAP. V. The Safety of the Protestant Faith The sufficiency of the Protestant Faith to Salvation manifested by disproving the Cavils against it C's tedious Repetitions passed over The Argument from Possession at large consider'd No Prescription allowable where the Law hath antecedently determined the right Of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition That contrary to the received Doctrine of the Roman Church and in it self unreasonable The Grounds of it examined The ridiculousness of the Plea of bare Possession discovered General Answers returned to the remaining Chapters consisting wholly of things already discussed The place of S. Cyprian to Cornelius particularly vindicated The proof of Succession of Doctrine lyes on the Romanists by their own Principles ALthough this Subject hath been sufficiently cleared in the Controversie concerning the resolution of Faith yet the nature of our task requires that we so far resume the debate of it as any thing undiscussed already offers it self to consideration For I cannot think it a civil way of treating the Reader to cloy him with Tautologies or Repetitions nor can I think it a way to satisfie him rather by some incidental passages than by a full and free debate In all those things then which we have had occasion to handle already I shall remit the Reader to the precedent discourses but whatever hath the face of being new and pertinent I shall readily examine the force of it The occasion of this fresh Debate was a new Question of the Lady Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith In answering whereof you say The parties conferring are put into new heats Vpon my soul said the Bishop you may Vpon my soul said Mr. Fisher there 's but one saving Faith and that 's the Roman Since the confidence seems equal on both sides we must examine Which is built on the stronger reason And his Lordship's comes first to be examined which he offers very freely to examination For saith he to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church to receive the four great General Councils so much magnified by Antiquity to believe all points of Doctrine generally received as fundamental in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and dye cannot but give Salvation And therefore saith he I went upon sure ground in the adventure of my soul upon that Faith Besides in all the points controverted between us I would fain see any one point maintain'd by the Church of England that can be proved to depart from the foundation You have many dangerous errours about the very foundation in that which you call the Roman Faith but there I leave you to look to your own soul and theirs whom you seduce Thus far his Lordship Two things you seem to answer to this 1. That such a Faith may not be sufficient 2. That ours is not such a Faith 1. That such a Faith may not be sufficient because you suppose it necessary to believe the Infallibility of the present Church and General Councils But that we are now excused from a fresh enquiry into but you would seem to inferr it from his own principles of submission to General Councils But by what peculiar Arts you can thence draw that some thing else is necessary to be believed in order to Salvation besides what hath been owned as Fundamentals in all ages I am yet to learn And sure you were much to seek for Arguments when you could not distinguish between the necessity of external submission and internal assent But the second is the main thing you quarrel with viz. That the English-Protestant Faith is really and indeed such a Faith and this you undertake at large to disprove You ask first Whether we believe all Scripture or only a part of it we answer All without exception that is Scripture i. e. hath any evidence that ever it was of Divine Revelation In this you say we profess more then we can make good seeing we refuse many books owned for Canonical by the Primitive Church and imbrace some which were not But in both you assert that which we are sure you are never able to defend since we are content to put it upon as fair a tryal as you can desire viz. That the Church of England doth fully agree with the Primitive Church as to the Canon of Scripture Which hath been already made good by the successful diligence of a learned Bishop of our Church to whom I refer you either for satisfaction or confusion But you are the men whose bare words and bold affirmations must weigh more then the greatest evidence of reason or Antiquity You love to pronounce where you are loath to prove and think to bear men down with confidence where you are afraid to enter the lists But our Faith stands not on so sandy a Foundation to be blown down with your biggest words which have that property of wind in them to be leight and loud When you will attempt to prove that the Books call'd Apocrypha have had an equal testimony of Divine Authority with those we receive into the Canon of Scripture you may meet with a further Answer upon that Subject Just as much you say to disprove our believing Scripture and the Creeds in the Primitive Church For you say The Fathers oppose us we deny it you say The Councils condemn us we say and prove the contrary You offer again at some broken evidences of the Popes Supremacy from Councils and Fathers but those have been discussed already and the sense of the Church at large manifested to be contrary to it But I fear your matters lye very ill concocted upon your stomack you bring them us so often up but I am not bound to dance in a circle because you do so And therefore I proceed but when I hope to do so you pull me back again to the Infallibility of Councils and the Church the question of Fundamentals and the Greek Church and scarce a page between but in comes again the Popes Supremacy as fresh as if it had been never handled before But I assure you after this rate I wonder you ever came to an end for you might have writ all your life time after that manner For the
decretal Epistles those impregnable testimonies St. Cyprian Optatus Hierom Austin the Council of Sardica Ephesus Chalcedon and all the baffled and impertinent proofs you could think on must be pressed to do new service though they had run out of the Field before And this you call a General Consent of the Fathers of the Primitive Church but I must beg the Reader not to be scared with these vizards for if he touches them they fall off and then you will see them blush that they are so often abused to so ill an end But this is not the only subject viz. the Popes Supremacy which you give us so often over but within a page or two following enter again worship of Images with as much ceremony as if it had never appeared but till you have Answered what I have said already all that you have here is vain and impertinent in the next page enter Transubstantiation in the following enter again Infallibility of Councils Resolution of Faith Apocrypha books Fundamentals Communion in one kind c. to the end of the Chapter In all which I find but two things new the one about Purgatory which we shall meet with again and the other you call a Note only by the way but it is so rare a one it ought to be considered Which is That Protestants ought to prove their Faith agreeable to that of the Primitive Church by special undeniable evidence but they have not the like reason to require it of you Catholicks good reason for it but you say not that you are unable to do it no who would ever suspect that who reads your book but because you are in full and quiet possession of your Faith Religion Church c. by immemorial tradition and succession from your Ancestours that you do upon that sole ground of quiet possession justly prescribe against your Adversaries And your plea you say must in all Law and equity be admitted for good till they do by more pregnant and convincing arguments disprove it and shew that your possession is not bonae fidei but gain'd by force or fraud or some other wrongful and unallowed means To this because I have not yet considered it I shall now return the suller Answer And it appears that the proof lyes upon you For they who challenge full and quiet possession by vertue of immemorial tradition and succession from their Ancestours ought to produce the conveyance of that tradition from him who alone could invest them in that possession For although this title of possession be of late so much insisted on by those who see the weakness of other Arguments and are ashamed to use them yet whosoever throughly searches it will find it as weak and ridiculous as any other For it is plain in this case the full right depends not upon meer occupancy but a title must be pleaded to shew that the possession is bonae fidei so that the Question comes from the bare possession to the goodness of the title and the validity of it in justice and equity Your title then is immemorial tradition from your Ancestours but here several things are to be contested before your prescription be allowed 1. That no antecedent Law hath determin'd contrary to what you challenge by vertue of possession For if it hath no prescription is allowable in it For prescription can only take place where the Law allows a liberty for prescription but if the Law hath antecedently determin'd against it possession signifies nothing but the liberty to make good the Title Would any man be so mad as to think that prescription of threescore years would have been sufficient in the Judaical Law when all possessions were to return to their first owners by Law at every year of Jubilee So then the matter to be enquired here is What liberty of prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ for since he hath made Laws to Govern his Church by it is most sensless pleading prescription till you have particularly examin'd how far such prescription is allowed by him Let us then suppose that any of the matters in difference between us are one way or other determined by him viz. Whether the Bishop of Rome be Head of the Church or no Whether the present Church be Infallible or no. What do you say Hath he determined these things or hath he not If he hath determined them one way or other it is to no purpose in the world to plead possession or prescription for these signifie nothing against Law So that the question must be wholly removed from the plea of possession and it must be tryed upon this issue Whether Christ by his Law hath determined on your side or ours It may be you will tell me That in this case prescription interprets Law and that the Churches possession argues it was the will of Christ. But still the proof lyes upon your side since you run your self into new bryars for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law but by the practise of the Church and which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all That the Church cannot come into the possession of any thing but what was originally given her by the Legislator Which is a task necessarily incumbent on you to prove and I suppose you will find so much difficulty in it that you had as good run back to Super hanc Petram and Pasce oves as undertake to manage it He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim possession by an undue title must prove it impossible that the Church should ever be deceived And herein we see the excellent way of this proof For suppose the matter in dispute be the Roman Churches Infallibility this you say you are in possession of though that be the thing in question well we will suppose it that we may discern your proofs I demand then On what account do you challenge this you say By prescription I further ask How you prove this prescription sufficient you say Because the Church cannot challenge any thing but what belongs to her I demand a proof of that your Answer must be Because the Church cannot be deceived so that the proof at last comes to this The Church is Infallible because she is Infallible Well but suppose this Infallibility challenged be only an Infallibility of Tradition and not a Doctrinal Infallibility in either Pope or Councils Yet still I am as unsatisfied as ever For I ask Whether am I bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be Infallible Yes On what account am I bound to believe it Because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former age believed nor that in the preceding and so up till the time of Christ. But 1. How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it received it from the former Church What
Proposition it is understood of all those common fundamental Truths which the Christian Church of all ages hath been agreed in And the saying There is but one saving Faith is of the same sense with the saying There is but one true Religion in the world The substance of what you would inferr from the saying of Athanasius his Creed Which if a man keeps whole and inviolate as you would have it is this That a man is equally bound to believe every Article of Faith But you cannot mean that it is simply necessary to do it for that you disclaim elsewhere by your distinction of things necessary from the matter and the formal reason of Faith and therefore it can only be meant of such to whom those objects of Faith are sufficiently proposed and so far we acknowledge it too that it is necessary to Salvation for every man to believe that which he is convinced to be an object of Faith For otherwise such persons must call in question God's Veracity but if you would hence make it necessary to believe all that your Church proposes for matter of Faith you must prove that whatever your Church delivers is as infallibly true as if God himself spake and when you can perswade us of this we shall believe whatever is propounded by her When you say We cannot believe all Articles of Faith on the same formal reason because we deny the Churches Infallibility it is apparent that you make the Churches testimony the formal reason of Faith and that you are bound to prove the Church absolutely Infallible before we can believe any thing on her account Neither doth it follow Because we deny that therefore we pick and chuse our Faith for we believe all without reservation which you or any man can convince us was ever revealed by God As to what at large occurrs here again about the Infallibility of Councils there is nothing but what hath been sufficiently answered on that subject and so reserving the Question of Purgatory which is here brought in by his Lordship as a further Instance of the errours of General Councils I pass on to the two last Chapters In which we meet again with the objected inconveniencies from questioning the Infallibility of the Church and Councils That then Faith would be uncertain and private persons might judge of Councils and if they may erre in one they may erre in all as fresh as if they had never been heard of before Only the Argument from Rom. 10.15 That because none can preach except they be sent therefore the present Church is Infallible is both new and excellent on which account I let it pass If your Church with all her Infallibility can do no more as you confess in reference to Heresies but only secure the faithful members of the Church who have due care of themselves and perform their duty well towards their lawful Pastors you have little cause to boast of the great priviledge of it and as little reason to contend for the necessity of it since so much is done without it and on surer grounds by the Scriptures and the use of other means which fall short of Infallibility In the beginning of your last Chapter we have a large dispute concerning S. Cyprian's meaning in his 45. Epistle to Cornelius where he speaks of the root and matrix of the Catholick Church viz. Whether by that the Roman Church be understood or no His Lordship saith Not and gives many reasons for it you maintain the contrary but the business may be soon decided upon a true state of the occasion of writing that Epistle Which in short was this It seems Letters had been sent in the name of Polycarp Bishop of the Colony of Adrumyttium directed to Cornelius at Rome but Cyprian and Liberalis coming thither and acquainting the Clergy there with the resolution of the African Bishops to suspend communion either with Cornelius or Novatianus till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus who were sent on purpose to give an account of the proceedings there the Clergy of Adrumyttium upon this writing to Rome direct their Letters not to Cornelius but to the Roman Clergy Which Cornelius being it seems informed by some as though it were done by S. Cyprian's Counsel takes offence at and writes to Cyprian about it Who gives him in this Epistle the account of it that it was only done that there might be no dissent among themselves upon this difference at Rome and that they only suspended their sentence till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus who might either bring them word that all was composed at Rome or else satisfie them Who was the lawfully ordained Bishop And therefore as soon as they understood that Cornelius was the lawful Bishop they unanimously declare for him and order all Letters to be sent to him and that his communion should be embraced This is the substance of that Epistle But it seems Cornelius was moved at S. Cyprian's suspending himself as though it were done out of dis-favour to him which Cyprian to clear himself of tells him That his design was only to preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church For saith he we gave this advice to all those who the mean time had occasion to sail to Rome ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem agnoscerent tenerent that they would acknowledge and hold to the root and matrix of the Catholick Church by which his Lordship understands the Vnity of the Church Catholick you the particular Church of Rome But it is apparent the meaning of this Counsel was to prevent their participation in the Schism So that if upon their coming to Rome the Schismatical party was evidently known from the other which they might I grant soon understand there by the circumstances of affairs they should joyn themselves with that part which preserved the Vnity of the Catholick Church Which I take to be the true meaning of S. Cyprian But in case the matter should prove disputable at Rome and the matter be referred to other Churches then by virtue of this advice they were bound to suspend their communion with either party till the Catholick Church had declared it self By this account of the business all your Arguments come to nothing for they only prove that which I grant viz. That in case it appeared at Rome Which was the Catholick party they were to communicate with it but this was not because the Catholick party at Rome was the root and matrix of the Catholick Church for on that account the party of Novatianus might have been so too if Novatianus had been lawful Bishop but their holding to the root of the Catholick Church would oblige them to communicate only with that part which did preserve the Vnity of it For the Controversie now at Rome was between two parties both challenging an equal right and therefore if S. Cyprian had only advised them to communicate with the Roman
Church because that was the root and matrix of the Catholick Church his advice had signified nothing for the Question was not between the Church of Rome and other Churches in which case it might have been pertinent to have said they should adhere to the Church of Rome because that was the root c. But when the difference was at Rome it self between two Bishops there this reason had been wholly impertinent for the only reason proper in this case must be such as must discriminate the one party from the other which this could not do because it was equally challenged by them both And had belonged to one as well as the other in case Novatianus had proved the lawful Bishop and not Cornelius And therefore the sense of Cyprian's words must be such as might give direction which party to joyn with at Rome on which account they cannot import any priviledge of the Church of Rome over other Churches but only contain this advice that they should hold to the Vnity of the Catholick Church and communicate only with that party which did it This reason is so clear and evident to me that this place cannot be understood of any priviledge of the Church of Rome above other Churches that if there were nothing else to induce me to believe it this were so pregnant that I could not resist the force of it But besides this his Lordship proves that elsewhere S. Cyprian speaks in his own person with other Catholick Bishops nos qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus we who hold the head and root of one Church by which it appears he could not make the Church of Rome the root and matrix of the Catholick this being understood of the Vnity and Society of the Catholick Church without relation to the Church of Rome and S. Cyprian writes to Cornelius that they had sent Caldonius and Fortunatus to reduce the Church of Rome to the Vnity and Communion of the Catholick Church and because no particular Church can be the root of the Catholick and if any were Jerusalem might more pretend to it than Rome and because S. Cyprian and his Brethren durst not have suspended their communion at all if they had looked on the Church of Rome as the root and matrix of the Catholick as Baronius confesses they did all which things are largely insisted on by his Lordship and do all confirm that hereby was not meant any Authority or Priviledge of the Church of Rome above other Apostolical Churches which in respect of the lesser Churches which came from them are called Matrices Ecclesiae by Tertullian and others But you are still so very unreasonable that though no more be said of the Church of Rome than might be said of any other Apostolical Church yet because it is said of the Church of Rome it must import some huge Authority which if it had been said of any other would have been interpreted by your selves into nothing For so do you deal with us here for because it is said that they who joyned with Cornelius did preserve the Unity of the Catholick Church therefore it must needs be understood that the Roman Church is the root of the Catholick But he must have a very mean understanding that can be swayed by such trifles as these are For Was there not a Catholick and Schismatical party then at Rome and if they who joyned with Novatianus did separate from the Catholick Church then they who were in communion with Cornelius must preserve the Vnity of it And Would not this Argment as well prove the Catholick party at Carthage to be the root and matrix of the Catholick Church as well as at Rome But such kind of things must they deal with who are resolved to maintain a cause and yet are destitute of better means to do it with So that I cannot find any thing in all your Answer but what would equally hold for any other Church at that time which was so divided as Rome was considering the great care that then was used to preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church And what particularly S. Cyprian's apprehension was concerning the Nature and Vnity of the Catholick Church we have at large discoursed already to which place we referr the Reader if he desires any further satisfaction Your whole N. 5. depends on personal matters concerning the satisfaction of the Lady's conscience but if you would thence inferr That she did well to desert the Protestant Communion you must prove that it can be no sin to follow the dictates of an erroneous conscience For such we say it was in her and you denying it all this discourse signifies nothing but depends on the truth of the matters in controversie between us But you most notoriously impose on his Lordship when because he asserts the possibility of Salvation of some in your Church you would make him say That it is no sin to joyn with your Church You might as well say Because he hopes some who have committed Adultery may be saved therefore it is no sin to commit Adultery So that while you are charging him falsly for allowing dissimulation you do that which is more in saying that which you cannot but know to be a great untruth If our Religion be not the same with yours as you eagerly contend it is not let it suffice to tell you that our Religion is Christianity let yours be what it will And if it please you better to have a name wholly distinct from us yours shall be called the Roman Religion and ours the Christian. If you judge us of another Religion from yours because we do not believe all that you do we may judge you to have a different Religion from the Christian because you impose more by your own confession to be believed as necessary in order to Salvation than ever Christ or the Apostles did And certainly the main of any Religion consists in those things which are necessary to be believed in it in order to eternal happiness In your following discourse you are so far from giving us any hopes of peace with your Church that you plainly give us the reason why it is vain to expect or desire it which is that if your Church should recede from any thing it would appear she had erred and if that appears farewell Infallibility and then if that be once gone you think all is gone And while you maintain it we are so far from hoping any peace with you that the Peace of Christendom may still be joyned in the Dutchmans Sign with the quadrature of the circle and the Philosophers Stone for the sign of the three hopelesse things How far we are bound to submit to General Councils hath been so fully cleared already that I need not go about here to vindicate his Lordships Opinion from falsity or contradiction both which you unreasonably charge it with and that still from no wiser a
he ever speak so concerning the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ which you parallel with Purgatory What would men have thought of him if he had said of either of those Articles It is not incredible they may be true and it may be enquired into whether they be or no Whatever then St. Austins private opinion was we see he delivers it modestly and doubtfully not obtruding it as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition if any be And the very same he repeats in his Answer to the first Question of Dulcitius so that this was all that ever he asserted as to this Controversie What you offer to the contrary from other places of St. Austin shall be considered in its due place 4. Where any of the Fathers build any Doctrine upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture we have no further reason to believe that Doctrine then we have to believe that it is the meaning of those places So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of the Scriptures which they and we both rely upon For since they pretend themselves to no greater evidence of the truth of the Doctrine then such places do afford it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father but the evidence of the place it self Unless it be evident some other way that there was an universal Tradition in the Church from the Apostles times concerning it and that the only design of the Father was to apply some particular place to it But then such a Tradition must be cleared from something else besides the sense of some ambiguous places of Scripture and that Tradition manifested to be Vniversal both as to time and place These things being premised I now come particularly to examine the evidence you bring That all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory from the Apostles times and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be And as you follow Bellarmin in your way of proving it so must I follow you and he divides his proofs you say into two ranks First Such who affirm prayer for the dead 2. Such who in the successive ages of the Church did expresly affirm Purgatory First with those who affirm prayer for the dead Which you say doth necessarily infer Purgatory whatever the Bishop vainly insinuates to the contrary The Question then between us is Whether that prayer for the dead which was used in the ancient Church doth necessarily inferr that Purgatory was then acknowledged This you affirm for say you If there were no other place or condition of being for departed souls but either Heaven or Hell surely it were a vain thing to pray for the dead especially to pray for the remission of their sins or for their refreshment ease rest relaxation of their pains as Ancients most frequently do From whence you add that Purgatory is so undenyably proved that the Relator finding nothing himself sufficient to Answer was forced to put us off to the late Primate of Armagh 's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge Which you say You have perused and find only there that the Authour proves that which none of you deny viz. That the prayers and commemorations used for the dead had reference to more souls than those in Purgatory But you attempt to prove That the nature and kind of those prayers do imply that they were intended for other ends than meerly that the body might be glorified as well as the soul and to praise God for the final happy end of the deceased Whereas that Answerer of the Jesuite would you say by his allegations insinuate to the Reader a conceit that it was used only for those two reasons and no other Which you say you must needs avouch to be most loudly untrue and so manifestly contrary to the Doctrine and practise of the Fathers as nothing can be more A high charge against two most Reverend and learned Primates together against the one as not being able to Answer and therefore turning it off to the other against the other for publishing most loud untruths instead of giving a true account of the grounds of the Churches practise It seems you thought it not honour enough to overcome one unless you led the other in triumph also but you do neither of them but only in your own fancy and imagination And never had you less cause to give out such big words then here unless it were to amuse the spectatours that they might not see how you fall before them For it was not the least distrust of his sufficiency to Answer which made his Lordship to put it oft to the Primate of Armagh but because he was prevented in it by him Who as he truly saith had very learnedly and at large set down other reasons which the Ancients gave for prayer for the dead without any intention to free them from Purgatory Which are not only different from but inconsistent with the belief of Purgatory for the clearing of which and vindicating my Lord Primate from your calumnies rather then answers it will be necessary to give a brief account of his Discourse on that subject He tells us therefore at first That we are here prudently to distinguish the Original institution of the Church from the private opinions of particular Doctors which waded further herein then the general intendment of the Church did give them warrant Now he evidently proves that the memorials oblations and prayers made for the dead at the beginning had reference to such as rested from their labours and not unto any souls which were thought to be tormented in that Vtopian Purgatory whereof there was no news stirring in those dayes This he gathers first by the practise of the ancient Christians laid down by the Authour of the Commentaries on Job who saith The memorials of the Saints were observed as a memorial of rest to the souls departed and that they therein rejoyced for their refreshing St. Cyprian saith they offered Sacrifices for them whom he acknowledgeth to have received of the Lord Palms and Crowns and in the Authour of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the party deceased is described by him to have departed this life replenished with Divine joy as now not fearing any change to worse being come unto the end of all his labours and publickly pronounced to be a happy man and admitted into the society of the Saints and yet the Bishop prayes that God would forgive him all his sins he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and band of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob into the place from whence pain and sorrow and sighing flyeth And Saint Chrysostom shews that the funeral Ordinances of the Church were appointed to admonish the living that the parties deceased were in a state of joy and not of grief and
believe him he did as much want all moral means for finding out the truth as another since he so ingenuously confessed at another audience That he was old and had never studied Divinity But What need he to do it that could so easily be inspired by kneeling at the feet of a Crucifix Your Doctrine then would not be very well taken at Rome that General Councils are a necessary Medium to his Holiness in order to the definition of matters of Faith No more would your following Distinction in vindication of Stapleton That though the Pope acquires no new power or certainty of judgement by the presence of a General Council and there is something thereby which conduceth to the due exercise of that power So that it must be an usurpation or undue exercise of power for the Pope to offer to define without a General Council I know not what liberty you have to write these things among us but if you were at Rome you durst not venture to do it Your saying that Bellarmin only sayes That the firmness of a Council in regard of us depends wholly on the Popes Confirmation argues you had very little to say For What firmness hath a Council at all in this dispute but in regard of us since you look on men as obliged to believe the Decrees of it Infallible And if the Decrees had any Infallibility from the Council that might make them firm in regard of us as well as the Pope But you object to your self That if the Pope be Infallible without the Council and the Council subject to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the Infallibility of General Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council To which you answer That the assertors of that Opinion of whom you must be one if you know what you say may say that Christ hath made two promises to his Church the one to assist her Soveraign Head and Pastor to make him Infallible another to assist General Councils to make them so But What need this latter if the former be well proved For if the Head be Infallible by vertue of a promise from Christ he must be Infallible whether in Council or out of it And therefore it is a ridiculous shift to say The Pope hath one promise to make him Infallible in a General Council ano-to make him so out of it But I commend you that since you thought one would not hold you would have two strings for the Popes Infallibility And it is but adding a third promise to the Church in general and then your threefold cord may be surely Infallible You give many Reasons but none so convincing as Experience Why the Popes should not be Impeccable and if you search Scripture Antiquity and Reason you may find as much why he should not be Infallible For that of the necessity of one and not the other for the Church is of your own devising it having been sufficiently proved that the certainty of Faith doth not at all depend upon the Popes or your Churches or Councils Infallibility And it seems still very strange to all who know the doctrine and promises of Christianity and that the promotion of Holiness is the great design of it and that Faith signifies nothing without Obedience and that the Spirit of God is a Spirit of Holiness as well as Truth that you dare challenge such an assistance of the Divine Spirit as may make your Popes Infallible who have led lives quite contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Nay such lives as his Lordship saith as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality or other gross impiety if their own historians be true Your vindication of Pope Liberius his submitting his judgement to Athanasius because the Pope had passed no definition ex Cathedrâ in the business hath no strength at all unless you first prove that the Popes definitions ex Cathedrâ were held Infallible then which none would ever believe that read the passage which his Lordship cites out of Liberius his Epistle to Athanasius For as he saith The Pope complemented exceeding low that would submit his unerring judgement to be commanded by Athanasius who he well knew could erre Whether S. Ambrose in his Epistle meddles with any doctrinal definitions or only with some difficulties which that year happened about the observation of Easter the fourteenth of the first month falling on the Lords day is not very material to our purpose But that it was something else besides Astronomical definitions which I know what S. Ambrose's excellency was in might easily appear if you had read the Epistle So that you might have spared your large account of the Paschal Letters sent by the Bishops of Alexandria about the keeping of Easter which are no great novelties to such who are at all acquainted with Antiquity and given us a fuller account why in such a matter of dispute about the right of the day to be kept that year the Roman Bishops should not rather have stood to the Popes definition than write to S. Ambrose if it had been then taken for granted that the Pope was Infallible But I might as well have passed by this testimony of S. Ambrose as you do that of Lyra which is so express for the Erring and Apostatizing of several Popes that you thought the best Answer to it were to let it alone However you come off with the story of Peter Lombard which is not of that consequence to require any further examination of the truth of it I am sure you are hard put to it in the case of Honorius when you deny that Honorius did really maintain the Monothelites Heresie and excuse the Councils Sentence by saying it was only in case of mis-information Since it manifestly appears by the sixth Synod action 13. that they condemned his Epistle written to Sergius as containing heretical and pernicious Doctrine in it And in the seventh Synod he is reckoned up with Arrius Macedonius Eutyches Dioscorus and the rest of condemned Hereticks among whom he is likewise reckoned by Leo 2. in his Epistle to Constantine Which evidence is so great that Canus wonders at those who would offer to vindicate him And in the mean time you provide excellent moral means for the Pope to judge of matters of Faith by in General Councils if they may be guilty of so gross mis-information as you suppose here in the case of Honorius and not one barely but three successively the sixth seventh and eighth and the whole Church from their time till Albertus Pighius who first began to defend him For conclusion of this point his Lordship would fain know since this had been so plain so easie a way either to prevent all divisions about the Faith or to end all Controversies did they arise why this brief but most necessary proposition The Bishop of Rome
cannot erre in his judicial determinations concerning Faith is not to be found either in letter or sense in any Scripture in any Council or in any Father of the Church for the full space of a thousand years and more after Christ To this you answer 1. That in the sense wherein Catholicks maintain the Popes Infallibility to be a matter of necessary belief to all Christians it is found for sense both in Scripture Councils and Fathers as you say you have proved in proving the Infallibility of General Councils of which he is the most principal and necessary member So then when we enquire for the Infallibility of General Councils we are sent to the Pope for his Confirmation to make them so but when we enquire for the Popes Infallibility we are sent back again to the Councils for the proof of it And they are hugely to blame if they give not an ample testimony to the Pope since he can do them as good a turn But between them both we see the greatest reason to believe neither the one nor the other to be Infallible But 2. You would offer at something too for his personal Infallibility in which I highly commend your prudence that you say You will omit Scripture and you might as well have omitted all that follows since you say only That the testimonies you have produced seem to do it in effect and at last say That it is an Assertion you have wholly declined the maintaining of and judge it expedient to do so still And you may very well do so if there be no better proofs for it than those you have produced but however we must examine them Doth not the Council of Chalcedon seem to say in effect that the Pope is Infallible when upon the reading of his Epistle to them in condemnation of the Eutychian Heresie the whole Assembly of Prelates cry out with acclamation and profess that S. Peter who was Infallible spake by the mouth of Leo and that the Pope was interpreter of the Apostles voice You do well to use those cautious expressions of seeming to say in effect for it would be a very hard matter to imagine any such thing as the Popes Infallibility in the highest expressions used by the Council of Chalcedon For after the reading of Leo's Epistle against Eutyches and many testimonies of the Fathers to the same purpose the Council begins their acclamations with these words This is the Faith of the Fathers this is the Faith of the Apostles all who are orthodox hold thus And after it follows Peter by Leo hath thus spoken the Apostles have taught thus Which are all the words there extant to that purpose And Is not this a stout argument for the Popes personal Infallibility For What else do they mean but only that Leo who succeeded in the Apostolical See of S. Peter at Rome did concurr in Faith with S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles But Do they say that it was impossible that Leo should erre or that his judgement was Infallible or only that he owned that Doctrine which was Divine and Apostolical And the Council of Ephesus your next testimony hath much less than this even nothing at all For the Council speaks not concerning S. Peter or the Pope in the place by you cited only one of the Popes officious Legats Philip begins very formally with S. Peter's being Prince and Head of the Apostles c. and that he to this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lives in his successours and passeth judgement Is it not a very good Inference from hence that the Council acknowledged the Popes personal Infallibility because one of the Popes Legats did assert in the Council that S. Peter lived and judged by the Pope And yet Might not this be done without his personal Infallibility in regard of his succession in that See which was founded by S. Peter But you are very hard driven when you are fain to take up with the Sentence of a Roman Priest instead of a General Council and any judgement in matters of Faith instead of Infallibility Your other testimonies of S. Hierom S. Augustine and S. Cyprian have been largely examined already and for the remaining testimonies of four Popes you justly fear it would be answered that they were Popes and spake partially in their own cause And you give us no antidote against these fears but conclude very warily That you had hitherto declined the defence of that Assertion and professed that it would be sufficient for Protestants to acknowledge the Pope Infallible in and with General Councils only But as we see no reason to believe General Councils at all Infallible whether with or without the Pope so neither can we see but if the Infallibility of the Council depends on the Popes Confirmation you are bound to defend the Popes personal Infallibility as the main Bulwark of your Church CHAP. III. Of the errours of pretended General Councils The erroneous Doctrine of the Church of Rome in making the Priests intention necessary to the essence of Sacraments That principle destructive to all certainty of Faith upon our Authours grounds The absurdity of asserting that Councils define themselves to be Infallible Sacramental actions sufficiently distinguished from others without the Priests Intention Of the moral assurance of the Priests Intention and the insufficiency of a meer virtual Intention The Popes confirmation of Councils supposeth personal Infallibility Transubstantiation an errour decreed by Pope and Council The repugnancy of it to the grounds of Faith The Testimonies brought for it out of Antiquity examin'd at large and shewed to be far from proving Transubstantiation Communion in one kind a violation of Christs Institution The Decree of the Council of Constance implyes a non obstante to it The unalterable nature of Christs Institution cleared The several evasions considered and answered No publick Communion in one kind for a thousand years after Christ. The indispensableness of Christs Institution owned by the Primitive Church Of Invocation of Saints and the Rhetorical expressions of the Fathers which gave occâ—sion to it No footsteps of the Invocation of Saints in the three first Centuries nor precept or example in Scripture as our Adversaries confess Evidences against Invocation of Saints from the Christians Answers to the Heathens The worship of Spirits and Heroes among the Heathens justifiable on the same grounds that Invocation of Saints is in the Church of Rome Commemoration of the Saints without Invocation in S. Augustins time Invocation of Saints as practised in the Church of Rome a derogation to the merits of Christ. Of the worship of Images and the near approach to Pagan Idolatry therein No Vse or Veneration of Images in the Primitive Church The Church of Rome justly chargeable with the abuses committed in the worship of Images ALthough nothing can be more unreasonable then to pretend that Church Person or Council to be Infallible which we can prove to have actually