sure they would not have done if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keyes or any other act of Christ was preferred before them Yea t is wonderful that when as our Adversaries say this contention came before Christ four several times he would never intimate to them that which was so necessary to prevent Schism that he intended St. Peter for the chief when those that contended for it so strongly and especially their Followers were not likely to afford it him without some express from Christ In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14 he tells us P. 71. s 6. That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Churches building and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saith the same that Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power Thus he but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions for out of these I argue ad hominem 1. The same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles ergo The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter 2. St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him ergo The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church and consequently every member beside themselves Now then either Christ who gave them this power gave them a liberty to exercise it or forbad them the external administration of it If the first then was there no subordination in the exercise of this power to Peter unless the same person can be sub and equal too If the second then did he give them it perfectly in vain for Authority can be to no end but to exercise it on those over whom t is given Nay t is a contradiction to say a man hath power over another when he cannot exercise it de jure when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition Yea 3 how have they equal power not to speak of honour whereof one may exercise authority over the world the other may not by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop Well but saith our Author we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves then it follows Ibid. We grant therefore as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers that all the Apostles and all Bishops their successours enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either but for the external administration there may be and alwayes was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same Authority both among Apostles Ibid. and Bishops Answ He did wisely to add let him not find fault with this distinction for t is as lyable to exception as any can be For 1. What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71. Is it that Christ gave him the name of a Rock surely no seeing we have it acknowledged that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church and consequently equally Rocks for Peter is therefore so because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him or because he was one upon which the Church was to be founded Yea further among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other and that is Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is appropriated to him Eph. 2.20 And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone or foundation which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also Yea lastly Peter is not called a Rock as the Romanists would have him for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built and Peter was a member of that Church it would follow hence that Peter and all the Popes his Successours must be built upon themselves Evident is that of St. Serm. 13. de verbis Domini Austin Vpon that Rock which thou confessedst will I build my Church that is upon my self upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And again in his Retractations L. 1. C. 21. 't is not said Thou art Petra but thou art Petrus Petra autem erat Christus Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference seeing in the Greek which is Authentick it is observed quem confessus est Simon 2. Is it because he is alwaies in the Gospel placed first and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Alas 't is otherwise for we find Joh. 1.44 The City of Andrew and Peter Mark 16.7 The Disciples and Peter and what is it to the purpose that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists when almost alwaies he is put last in the Epistles 1 Cor. 3.22 Chap. 9.5 Or in the midst as Gal. 2.9 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles is no argument of their different Authority is evident from this that albeit there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet are they not placed next to Peter And then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it cannot give him this supremacy for it is afterwards promised to him you say Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys c. It being then afterward promised cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. We know that all the time of Christs life John had the dignity of place next Christ for he was the Disciple whom he loved and who lay in his bosom and therefore Peter had not the superiority For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or priority of place yea it is sufficiently evident that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John as of St. Peter in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter against Peters 3. We say that notwithstanding his contradiction Peter is called first Pag. 73. either because of his zeal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in confessing Christ or because he was the Apostle first called or else only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a numeral Or if it intimate any priority 't is of order not of superiority as we have proved Nor 3 Was this power of Administration given him See Mr. C. pag. 73. because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too and that they
Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
were to do it indefinitely appears because they are sent by him to all Nations not fixt to any part of his flock Yea I demand whether when St. Paul Act. 20. gave commandment to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock over which Christ had made them overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he might not have charged them in these words feed the sheep of Christ Whether seeing he had a Commission to go teach all Nations common to him with the rest he might not indefinitely have constituted Bishops and given them this charge or whether he that had this indefinite power of commanding others were not an indefinite Pastor and had not a commission of feeding Christs Sheep or Lambs which is all that is affirmed of St. Peter If therefore what was given to St. Peter was likewise conferr'd upon all the rest how can it be that hence a supremacy of St. Peter above the rest of the Apostles should be concluded And whereas 't is argued that St. Peter is constituted Pastor of Christs flock indefinitely and therefore of the Apostles seeing they are Christs Sheep may it not with equal reason be concluded that seeing the Apostles had commission given to teach all Nations and every creature they were commissionated teachers of St. Peter and he ought to be subject to them as a Disciple to his Teacher Yea the argument is more forcible seeing here we have mention made of every creature whereas St. Peter is not bid to feed all Christs Sheep De Agon Christi c. 30. Add to this the suffrage of St. Austin Cum dicitur Petro ad omnes dicitur Pasce oves meas Nor Mr. C. p. 73. 4. In that he had the power of the Keys assigned to him it being manifest that the same power was given to the rest of the Apostles Matth. 18.18 Thus Origen in Matth. Hom. 1. Were the Keys given by Christ to Peter only no this is common to them all for when in the Gospel of St. John Jesus said to his Disciples Receive the Holy Ghost he constituted them all such as was Peter to which Testimony may be added Hieron Ambrose Cyprian Hilary Austin Theophylact Leo Euthym. Bed Anselm Hugo Lyran and the Council of Colen All which you may see in the Learned Crackenthorp de Eccl. Angl. c. 22. s 6. Nor Mr. C. ib. 5. From this that St. Peter was made the Minister of Circumcision for so was St. Paul of the Uncircumcision or the Gentiles who yet will not be allowed to have this external administration Ibid. And to talk of a dedication of St. Pauls office by St. Peters going to Cornelius a Proselyte when St. Paul was at Tarsus is so weak a proof of his supremacy over him that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think it needs a confutation Especially if it be considered that notwithstanding this St. Lib. 1. de prov Dei Hom. 8. de laud. Pauli Hom. 2. ad Rom. Hem. 18. ad Rom. Hom. 25. in 2. ad Corin. V. de Crak ubi supra Chrysostom will tell us That there was none greater than blessed St. Paul nay nor equal to him That he as another Aaron was anointed Priest over the whole world That he was a Pillar of the Church more firm not only than Peter but than any stone rock or iron To whom the universal dispensation through the whole world was committed And which is most observable that he governed the whole world as one house or one ship In which ship as St. Ambrose tells us Christ is the foundation the Father is the Pilot the Holy Spirit Proram servat and which the twelve Apostles as her bank of Oares bring into the Haven So that here is no peculiar place assigned to St. Peter Now then these things being so I argue thus Either in these places our Saviour did give St. Peter this external administration or he did not if he did then it follows evidently that he gave the same power to the Apostles also seeing what he gave to St. Peter we have proved he gave to them if not then let them tell us where Christ gave this power to St. Peter and what more likely arguments can be produced to conclude it 2. It is manifest 1. That Christ immediately constituted Apostles and that they received not their Apostleship from St. Peter for he saith have not I chosen you twelve Joh. 6.70 Joh. 20.21 as my Father sent me so send I you 2. It is manifest that Christ gave supream jurisdiction to the whole company of Apostles and this your Bellarmine confesseth De Pontis l. 4. c. 23. yea that he gave them all power whether external or internal yea he proves it too 1. Because he saith as my Father sent me so send I you whosesoever sins ye remit c. But now saith he Christ without all controversie was sent with full and absolute power and therefore his Apostles must be so and this Exposition or Argument from the place he backs with the Fathers and Maldonate with Jansenius say the like 2. In locum He proves it hence that the Apostle St. Paul making mention of the distinct orders of officers in the Church doth it thus first Apostles secondarily Teachers thirdly Prophets c. And this he doth when his design is to shew that some part of the Church hath more abundant honour than the rest and having done so puts the question Are all Apostles can they all plead to equal power with them Now had there been one supream over the Apostles why doth he say in general first Apostles when 't is his design to speak of the degrees which God had placed in the Church why doth he leave out the chief Certainly if the Apostles were all first Chilling to me it is very probable that no one was before the other for by first all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sence the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must be before every one of the rest or if you say that all the Apostles were before all other Pastors but St. Peter first of all then why doth not the Apostle say first St. Peter then the rest of the Apostles and therefore they must be first in the other sence and therefore no man and therefore not St. Peter must be before them Bellarmine elsewhere saith that St. Paul speaks not of the Hierarchy of the Church but of those that were indowed with extraordinary gifts and that therefore he leaves out St. Peter But 1. What doth he think of Teachers were they extraordinary persons 2. If this be the reason why have we no mention of him Eph. 4.11 where we have Pastors Evangelists Prophets Apostles without any distinction set over us till we all come in the unity of faith unto perfect men 3. He proves it because they had commission from Christ to go
teach all Nations and out of those whom they taught to ordain some Pastors whereever they came which shews they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ and a power to exercise it and so much for the second proposition 3. Hence it follows that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter for Par in parem non habet potestatem Now to restrain anothers power as to its exercise is evidently to exercise power over him And hence it follows that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter And indeed that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet not exercise one act of it upon them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for 24 years should exercise no act of regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it as strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to and yet the Apostles after these words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man No less a wonder was it that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself as that 1. Mentioning him often he should do it without any title of honour yea further that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles How is it that the other Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gentiles Act. 11.23 so that he is compelld to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James 4. See Mr. C. p. 71. The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all for he saith only this that Quoad ministerium viz. as to Preaching Administring the Sacraments Absolving and Remitting and such things which are done by Pastors and carrying not Jurisdiction in them but Ministry or Service they are equal but Quoad Politiam as to Government they are unequal and what is this to the purpose Mr. C. p. 72. Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter For 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop as Dr. Feild and Dr. Hammond will tell him 2. If he be said to have it 't were ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Diocesses are of equal Authority Jurisdiction or Power with him seeing he hath Power over them which Par in parem non habet To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures Whereas 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion nay the words seem unconsistent with it for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter bid him seed his sheep told him that what he bound should be so and that upon him he would build his Church he presently adds That he did this Pari consertio praediti houoris potestatis sed exordium ab uaitate proficiscitur albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem and so intended not any superiority in him above the rest but only to shew the necessity of unity And then for St. Jerome he doth not only say that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles and that one City though Rome it self is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild p. 548. In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Pauls Epistle to the Galathians we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for And 1. Whereas he mentions James Cephas and John and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superiour to the rest because he mentions him in the middle for if this be a sufficient evidence of his Supremacy that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles why should it not be as good a plea against it that the Apostle St. Paul when speaking of the chiefest Apostles should not do so 2. Why doth he mention them all as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and put no difference betwixt them if indeed St. Peter were Superiour to them especially if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them if we may believe St. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecum Aquinas Hugo Salmero Justinian Cornelius a Lapide and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting no difference at all betwixt them And that 3. This being evidently his scope to shew that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision because these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plâ—ased to admit of it and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles whose Authority they urged against him had St. Peter been constituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles how had it concerned his design to have told us not thus in general these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in particular that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy and perswades me to believe with the Doctor that St. James and St. John were St. Peters Peers Again ver 7. the Apostle tells us that even these Pillars saw it evident that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the circumcision was to St. Peter and that hereupon it was agreed that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Jews or circumcision Now 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul was it not by Christ by him that wrought effectually in them both ver 8. Now then if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision to St. Peter the circumcision is it not evident that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Vice-Roy in Ireland or Scotland the inferior Governors under him yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him sicut Petro circumcisio In locum Ibid. whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with
must be but one Episcopal Chair in the World all the Apostles saith Cyprian are Pastors but the Flock of Christ is but one which they are to feed with unanimous consent there is but one Body of the Church one Spirit one Hope of our Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God this unity all men must endeavour to keep especially Bishops that they may make it appear that there is but one Episcopal Commission in the Christian Church cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur whereof every one indifferently and in equal sort hath his part Here is nothing that proveth the universality of the Papal power but this place most plainly overthroweth it for Cyprian teacheth that Christ meant to give equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles and the reason why intending no more to one than to the rest yet he more especially directed his speech to one than to the rest was only to shew that there must be an unity in the Church which He settled in that beginning with one from him he proceeded to the rest not meaning that the rest should receive any thing from him but that from himself immediately they should receive that in the second place which he had first and that they should receive the same Commission together with him into which he was put first that they might know him to be the first of their Company for it cannot consist saith he either with truth with the opinion of St. Cyprian or of our Adversaries themselves that the rest of the Apostles received their Ministerial Power from Peter and were subject to him as to an Head and absolute Commander over them seeing he saith expresly that they were the same that Peter was and equal to him both in honour and power and besides both in this book and in many other places he is wont to derive the original of Schisms and Heresies from the intrusion of men into places without due admittance and allowance of them that in a kind of coherent concord rule and govern the Church and never from the resistance of one Supream Commander set over all Well then to the places objected upon that one viz. St. Peter he builds his Church we Answer in the words of St. Jerome preceding The Church was built upon St. Peter but yet true it is the same thing is done upon others and the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But you will say that St. Jerome there asserts That among the twelve one was chosen Cont. Jovin l. 2. that an head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away which seems to advance St. Peter above the rest Answ Not as to any thing of Authority for then St. Jerome would contradict himself when he saith that the Church was founded ex aequo upon the twelve so that his meaning is that before the Apostles were sent over the World and whilst they made up one particular company for better orders sake he was chosen Head that so things might be done communi concilio and there might be no Schism between them 2. He tells us this was given to Peter quia Petrus crat senior which being but a personal advantage cannot be applyed to the benefit of the Romanist who is to prove the Popes Supremacy and not only the Primacy of St. Peter not to mention that these words are not St. Jeroms but Jovinians and speak not of a plenitude of Power but only Primacy with many other Answers which you have in Dr. Ham. Sch. dis p. 238. And for the second citation from St. Cyprian Sect. 13 that he who forsakes the Chair of St. Peter upon which the Church is founded cannot think that he is in the Church Lib. 12 de Oec Pont. c. 5. s 3. He might have learned from Chamier that it is a meer gloss crept into the Text and not to be found in some Editions but if it could deserve an Answer the learned Dr. Field will inform him That St. Cyprian by that Chair intendeth not one particular Chair appointed for a General Teacher of all the World to sit in but the joynt commission unity and consent of all Pastors which is and must be such as if they did all sit in one Chair which sense of one Chair founded upon Peter you may find in the same Cyprian ad universam plebem Lib. ep 8 where he urgeth the unity of the Church and Chair not to shew that obedience was to be given to the Church of Rome but to shew that against them that are lawfully placed in a Bishoprick with consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity others may not be admitted and that they who by any other means get into places of Ministry then by consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity among themselves are in truth and indeed no Bishops at all And this is a sufficient Answer to that passage of Optatus cont Sect. 14 This would have perfect truthâ— in it saith Dr. Ham. Sch dis p. 192 had it been spoken of any other plantations of the Apostles the Chair of St. John in Asia c Seeing the meaning of the Chair doth evidently signifie the Church brought down by succession from the Apostles which the Donatists could not pretend to see him exactly scanning the whole place p. 190 192 193. Parmen l. 2. At Rome a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one his particular Chair And sure you could not be ignorant of the Answer returned to the passage by the incomparable Chillingworth viz. The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their Faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular now Optatus going upon St. Cyprians above mentioned grounds of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatickâ— for so doing and he proves it by this Argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City for in other places others had Chairs beside St. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatick who against that one single Châ—ir erects another Vnderstand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it We pass on to St. Chrysostome from whom two sentences are pressed for the service of the Pope but to the first I return a Non est inventus after twice reading the third Hom. cited by him * In Act. Apost c. 1.4 I can find nothing like the words produced In the second is evident prevarication for having told us that these words Follow me shewed his special care he had of St. Peter he adds How then was it may some say that St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this I Answer saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is
Socinians because it makes reason the Judge as the Romanists would fain perswade us but because it makes it the rule of Faith and believes nothing for a truth but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence that it is whereas nothing is more evident then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being Though I have been already too tedious in this instance yet because I had rather offend by tediousness or any thing rather then disingenuity I must venture a very short digression to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians When then I charge this principle upon them I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves for I must profess I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings they will not avow that they reject manifestly revealed Truths because they seem contradict on s but on the contrary that they believe not contradictions because not manifestly revealed and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity not in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture and then after this they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason and so their principle runs thus That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture and is contradictory to reason is not to be believed and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime as there is in the last there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is I have stayed the longer upon this particular because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it for whereas they object that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith how then can we make them Judges of our Faith from the the preceding instance we Reply That we even then place reason on the Bench when we seem to dethrone it and at the same time make it an Umpire when we make it a Captive But in the last place to come nearer our present purpose and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons If my enquiry were Whether the Roman Church or the reformed Churches were the true Church here neither the Romish Church nor ours must be judge seeing they both pretend to it and both are the purest to themselves How then shall I know which is really so only by examining both their pleas and then that which I judge to be purest do I adhere to When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church he either did it upon motives of reason or not if not it was a brutish unreasonable act but if he did then did he enter into the Roman Communion because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church and when he believes his Church infallible he either hath reason for his belief or he hath not if he hath not then again is his belief irrational uncertain and absurd if he hath then he believes his Church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons such as they are why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties unless he become a meer brute his own private reason will rule him and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate that unless every mans reason be his guide he must follow chance and uncertainty Before I pass hence to avoid captious mistakes be pleased to note that when I make every mans reason his guide I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit but rather imply it because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths then without its illumination we could have discerned and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes for their folly is the same though not in the same instance viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides and such as they cannot know unless from their reasons which they dare not trust but may be meer delusions and impostures Now the only exception Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason is that its fallible and so may deceive and misguide us But 1. If this impeachment be valid then le ts renounce our reasons and with one consent turn Scepticks how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four that the whole is more then a part that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist I must not trust the judgement of my reason for that may deceive saith Mr. Cressey what then must I confide in must I appeal to a General Council whether two and two make four 2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason Yes you will answer to the Church but if my reason being fallible may misguide me why may it not when it conducts me to the Church especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives if I may not trust my reason why should I trust it here Again if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my reason and I have no certainty of it but from my reason then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance then in the conduct of my reason for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation if then my reason be too weak to trust to much more that which is built upon it 3. What 's your meaning when you object that reason is fallible is it this that its possible we may be deceived by it but then 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules its impossible to erre because they are certain and infallibly true But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests they may so and so they may the Churches Authority and may not the Church abuse her Authority will Christ violently force her into truth Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men
Church doth it follow that it shall not prevail against any particular Church the Greek Church was once a true Church in your esteem but now you say t is poisoned and destroyed by Heresie If then this promise was made to no particular Church why must it be so applyed to your own particular Church Before you use this Argument to any purpose first prove yours to be the Universal Church but of this you presume it s a sad symptome of the weakness of your cause when you build it upon beg'd and ungranted presumptions and still suppose your most difficult and material dispute to be granted Ar. 5. He hath commanded that whoever shall not obey his Church Sect. 15 shall be cut off from his body as an Heathen and a Publican therefore Anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren therefore if disobedience to such decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to the decisions of the Universal Church called by the Apostles the pillar and ground of truth made for the composing of publick debates about the common faith Answ 1. Because his very objection hath furnished us with a superfluity of Answers it will be superfluous to Criticize in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by not applying it to any established Christian Government when it may be and by many Interpreters is referred to the Colledge or Assembly of the Elders among the Jews by others to any multitude by agreement convened as Justin Martyr Paraphraseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so may be equivalent with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5.20 and then what 's all this to the Churches Authority but let this go 2. What 's this to Infallibility will he infer that particular Churches are infallible because their Decisions must be submitted to if he will then he proves what himself will deny and constitutes us infallible Judges at home without recourse to Oecumenical Councils but if he doth not then how enormous is his deduction because the Decisions of particular Churches which are granted to be fallible must be obeyed therefore the Church of Rome is infallible 3. Our Saviour enjoyned them obedience to the commands of the Scribes and Pharisees are they infallible too children are commanded Prov. 6. to be subject to their Parents in all things are all Fathers too therefore infallible we must obey the commands of Kings and Princes cannot they err neither and is not the inference as concluding We are bound to obey Parents and Governours ergo they are infallible as because we are bound to obey the Church therefore that is infallible 4. The judgement of the Church that must here be submitted to is about quarrels and injuries among Brethren but doth it follow that because the Church may be Judge of our quarrels that it may be Judge of our faith too if it do we will have all decided by our Judges of Assize without going to Rome its time now you should have learn'd the difference of submitting to the determinations of Judges in matters of right between man and man from assenting to their decrees in matters of faith between God and man 5. The Greek Church saith she is the true Church and you are Hereticks but to your selves you are the true Church and she is Heretical How shall I know to which of your Churches this Text directs me why is it not as cogent to drive me to them as to you if they tell me as you do that unless I obey the Church that is their Church I cease to be a Christian how shall I answer them if you can teach me you will but teach me how to answer you Ar. Sect. 16 6. The belief of the Churches unity is an unchangeable Article of our Creed therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve unity which is an unappealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church A. Not to repeat that we have as soveraign a remedy to preserve unity without an infallible Authority as you have with it We believe the Churches unity yet believe too that this is only an unity of faith and an agreement in the essentials of Religion we are all but one in Christianity and so one Church But should we believe such an unity in the Church as that it should have no diversity of opinions as you would perswade us we must believe against experience for unless we will unchurch all parties but our own which would be a most uncharitable presumption we must acknowledge a diversity of opinions in the true Church and so not make unity of judgement in the Church an Article of faith And if there were no Church without it then your selves must be unchurched seeing you cannot deny but that there be variety of differing opinions among your selves even about the very means to preserve unity Urge us not then with this Argument any more till you can prove that we believe any other unity in the Church beside an unity and agreement in the Christian faith and that you are any more then so one among your selves Now let all that 's rational judge whether we have reason to believe your Commission Divine when you can exhibite no better Credentials for it then these which we have so clearly evinced to be meer blancks and so your selves who pretend from their validity to be esteemed as infallible Commissaries authorised from Heaven to be most notorious cheats and impostors By these Answers Sect. 17 to which it were easie to add hundreds more I hope t is clear that we are able to evacuate all pretences for their Churches infallibility Mr. C. p. 101. without flying to that miserable shift which you most disingenuously fasten on Mr. Chillingworth viz. That all these promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church Governours I say disingenuously For 1. Why did you not refer us to the page in Mr. Part 1. c 2. p. 86. Chillingworth only that your abuse of that worthy person might escape unknown For 2. Mr. Chillingworths Answer is that suppose God had promised to assist the Roman Church for the delivery of true Scripture would it follow thence that he had obliged himself to teach them this true sense of Scripture not only sufficiently but irresistibly he gave the children of Israel a fire to lead them by night and a pillar of cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them what then if your Church will not follow Gods guidance is he not free from his promise and yet you in an errour too do not call this a shift but shew that it is so 3. That you may see Mr. Chillingworth could answer you without this shift read and confute if you can the next immediately ensuing words What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the
Ministers a vow of Celibacy which is a snare the Celebration of the Sacrament in one kinde which is open Sacriledge the reading of Divine Service in an unknown tongue which bids continual defiance to the Apostle there is a necessity of our separation from her and consequently our departure cannot be Schismatical This being so Sect. 4 how inconsiderate is that of Mr. C. though it were far more probable that the Catholick Church Mr. C. p. 232. had been guilty of Innovation in all the points mentioned by the Dr. yet since by the Protestants confession those points are not fundamental their voluntary separating themselves from her communion will be in Gods esteem very Schisme For seeing his Church requires the profession of these Innovations which the Dr. mentioned as the truths of Christ and the practise of such of them as are unlawful and contradictory to the word of God as the Dr. every where asserts he apparently affirms that albeit it be required of us to beleive what we count an errour which is impossible to assert an Innovation to be the truth of Christ which is to lye to practise what we deem unlawful and forbidden by God which is to live continually in Hypocrisie and disobedience to the revealed will of God yet cannot these conditions bee refused but we must incur the guilt of Schisme And seeing God strictly requires us to avoid this guilt he must consequently enjoyn us to lye to live in continual Hypocrisie and disobedience to his will as being necessary to this end albeit he hath every where denounced damnation upon persons guilty of these crimes which is horribly blasphemous And yet this is the evident result of two other passages of his Book As 1. Where he saith Mr. C. p. 259. that albeit the Sanhedrim should command any thing not fundamental contrary to the sense of the Law the Jews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of judgement and internal assent to such commands that they are agreeable to Gods law because it would bee utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the subject beleived to be contrary to Gods law Ans And sure it may be reasonably thought that amongst so many thousands of learned Rabbies which the Jewish Nation did afford some might believe that to bee contrary to Gods law which indeed was so and then poor creatures they must be obliged upon the utmost penalty to an impossibility viz. of yeilding internal assent to that as agreeable to Gods law which they beleived to bee contrary thereunto is it not wonderful that the decision of seventy persons contrary to Gods law to the belief of which all Jury was obliged should not only disanul the obligation of seven hundred thousand of giving credit to that law but force them upon the utmost penalty to beleive the contrary that he who pronounceth such a woe upon those who say Ezek. 13. the Lord saith when he hath not said it should yet enjoyn his people upon the penalty of the greatest woe to say so too That he who sends them to the Law and to the testimonies telling them that those who speak contrary unto them have no truth in them should yet oblige the same persons upon the utmost penalty to embrace decisions contrary to these laws and testimonies as the truths of God Credat Judaeus Apella Now the reasonableness of this command of God appears saith he in this Sect. 5 Ibid. that it was a less evil and inconvenience that some legal precepts of no great importance should be transgressed then that contentions and disputes should be endless Answ God doth not esteem so lightly of his precepts as Mr. C. but hath severely animadverted upon those who violated them in smaller matters as his breach upon Uzzah and the sons of Aaron doth evince 2. How unwarrantable is it to plead an inconvenience against a Precept for whereas hee talks of a command we shall consider that pretence hereafter might not the greatest Rebels who pretend Religion for their Rebellion plead with parity of reason 't is a less evil and inconvenience that some petty precepts of subjection to Governours should be transgressed then that Religion should bee hazzarded But 3. What is this but tacitly to suppose that to obey God in every thing and to keep close to his precepts were the way to make contentions endless or that if the disobeying of any of Gods precepts might conduce to the ending of contentions we might do so in pursuit of such an end And is not this apparently to do evil that good may come on it to say that God hath need of our lye and disobedience to preserve the unity of his Church The like wee have pag. Sect. 6 206. sect 14. where he tells us that albeit upon supposition of the Churches fallibility in non fundamentals she should erre in such decisions which he is pleased to call not much concerning and by consequence our assent would be erronious yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenced with the most acceptable virtue of obedâ—ence love of peace and unity which accompanies it Answ Let him not talk of obedience till he can shew a precept something from God which obligeth us to beleive an errour or to tell a lye when their Church commands us To disobey God and play the Hypocrites that we may perform obedience to her injunctions to deny his truths out of humility and to purchase peace and unity by these means 2. Seeing fundamentals that is doctrines See Mr. C. c. 19. sect 6. without an explicite belief whereof none can be saved are very few doth not this lay us open to a necessity of dis-beleeving the greatest part of the Word of God yea of assenting to what is contrary to it if the Church of Rome shall happen to make such decisions and is this agreeable to Gods frequent injunctions to try all things and hold fast the truth And whereas he further tells us Sect. 7 that both truth and errour in such things lyes only on the Churches Ibid. and not at all on their account This cannot bee built upon any other foundation then this that wee are obliged to follow the dictates of the Church of Rome or else it is impertinent to our discourse of Schisme though contrary in our judgements to reason and the Word of God which is the very thing in question 2. If this be truth why doth Christ call us out of Babylon least we should be partakers of her sin and consequently from any other assembly with which wee cannot communicate without sin seeing their sins whether they be erronious practises or opinions lie only on their account not ours Seeing therefore it is evidenced 2 Proposition that we are free from the guilt of Schisme it follows undeniably Sect. 8 that the Church of Rome must bee the Schismatick as sus-spending her Communion upon conditions unlawful and unjust and this
so If you say he is infallible not in decrecing but in this that hee shall not confirm an errour I Answ This assertion implies either that the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot erre and then the veriest Idiot may bee stiled infallible as well as a General Council because the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot confirm what he erroniously dictates Or 2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils only hee is unerrable and then pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time where is that Scripture or single passage of any Father that albeit the Pope may erre in decreeing any matter of faith yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council hee cannot Ede tabulas but if not one Iota in scripture reason or antiquity for this how can I be assured that it is so and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon As for scripture what place can they bring but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church doth hee say that the Pope may fail in manners but shall not in doctrines of Faith or in decreeing Doctrines of faith but not in confirming them or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome Yea 2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter was Peter then summus pontifex or not If not then doth not this concern him in that relation and consequently neither those that succeed him if he was then what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail Neither is there any thing to the purpose in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For 1. Is here one sillable of the Pope or infallibility or if there were is there any thing of it for the Pope more then for the Church why then did our Author produce it for the Church and if touching the Pope is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils then in decreeing doctrines of faith And as for antiquity had this been taught in the Primitive times could they have avoided this argument The Pope hath confirmed this Ergo 'tis true this Council was approved by the Pope Ergo 'tis infallible but there is not one sillable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature Again if the Pope must be included may not the Pope and Council run counter and what shall wee do then what shall we do in a time of Schism when there are several pretenders to the Popedome as frequently there have been to whom then must we hearken how shall we know which of these is the true Pope if a Council must decide it as indeed none else can either the Council is fallible and may determine wrong or infallible and then it is so without the Pope And so the assertion I dispute against is deserted and another taken up of which anon Again suppose any Popes misdemeanours be to be judged of as for example whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peters chair by Simony in this case the Pope cannot bee Judge and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible how can wee know whether their determination bee aright seeing it may as well bee wrong Further tell me how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope If he came in by Simony he is none and how is it possible for me to know that seeing some have been Simonaical how can I be certain that many others have not been so too and if so then not only all fallibility is ceased but your succession too For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope can be no Cardinals and if so then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil could be no Pope his Cardinals no Cardinals neither could the Popes created since by those Cardinals bee truly such so that from his time your Church hath been without a lawful universal head Again how shall I bee certain that the Popes election is legal for unless it be so your selves deny him to be Pope when sometimes the People sometimes the Clergy chose him sometimes both in one age the Emperour in another the Cardinals in a third a General Council Further I might ask you how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptiz'd for if he was not by your own principles hee can be no Pope and that he was I cannot be certain unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptized him and the Bishop that ordained him and though I did know what cannot be known their intentions yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons that Baptized and Ordained them and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth in his second chap. which 't is impossible you should ever bee able to solve But I am opprest with copiousnesse of Argument and therefore must break off from this member to the next 2. Again therefore if you say Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope Then 1. p. 51. sect 8. You contradict your self in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons for if they be infallible are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible 2. How shall wee know whether the Pope or Council be supreme when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way the council of Lateran the other way So the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels the first of Lateran denies it Can infallible persons contradict each other Who must bee the Members of this Council whether onely Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons too upon what certain account do you shut out Presbyters if you admit onely Bishops or if you require that Presbyters be called to the Council what certain grounds can you produce for it Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils especially when the Scripture tells us that in the Council which was called about circumcision mention is made not onely of Apostles but of the Elders of the Church and of the Brethren Acts 15.23 Bellarm. Saith indeed that this multitude was called not to consent and judge but onely to consent But upon what authority doth hee build this interpretation Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies add and distinguish where no other Scripture no circumstance or context leads us to it but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus It hath pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Further why must Bishops bee called to it out of one Countrey and not our of another why will so many out of this Kingdome suffice What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally
the plaguy Lutheran Heresie Lastly Mr. C. ibid. hee adds that the Doctrines of this Council are now actually embraced by all Catholick congregations i.e. all Papists wherefore by the Arch Bishops concessions viz. that when the decisions of a General Council are embraced by the universal Church spread throughout the world they are infallible they are to be esteemed infallibly true Which Argument is built upon this supposition that the Arch-Bishop even when defending the reformed Churches against the imputations of the Church of Rome should yet acknowledge her to be the universal Church of God CHAP. XXII Absolute submission not due to Patriarchical Councils sect 1. The Reason of it sect 2 3. Mr. C ' s. Arguments for it Answered sect 4. Nothing can thence be inferred against us sect 5. A Judgement of discretion must be allowed to private men sect 6. The reasons of it sect 7 8. THe sixth Proposition shall be this Sect. 1 That we are not obliged to yeild obedience to the decrees of Patriarchical Councils 6 Proposition but may reject them when ever they contradict the word of God For the eviction of this which is the main Pillar of our Authors Fabrick I will premise 1. That such Councils are not infallible this is evident from the contradictions of them to each other thus the Council of Constance defined a General Council to be superiour to the Pope that of Lateran the contrary the second Council of Nice decreed for Images the Council of Constantinople contradicted that from the evident errours determined by them thus the corporiety of Angels by that of Nice the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Arrian Councils at Ariminum Seleucia and elsewhere from the want of any promise of infallibility from the appeals permitted from them to a General Council the correcting and nulling their decrees by that higher power and many other things 2. That such conventions of men thus fallible Sect. 2 may obtrude Heretical opinions and unlawful practises upon the Churches which are members of that Patriarchate seeing they may and often do obtrude upon others their decrees which by reason of their fallibility may bee Heretical and unjust Yea further the decrees of one Patriarchical Council may be contradictory to another and consequently if the National Churches of these Patriarchates bee bound to assent unto them they must bee bound to bee Schismaticks even in the judgement of the Church of Rome thus V. G. the Council of Trent hath decreed for communion in one kinde celibacy of Priests the worship of God in an unknown tongue the Council of Lateran for the supremacy of the Pope over a General Council now let the Patriarcks of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and other of the Eastern Church assemble such a Council would they not undoubtedly decree the contrary to all these and then according to Mr. C's own rule must not all the National Churches under them be bound to contradict the decrees of the Trent Council and consequently to be Schismaticks yea if Provincial Churches may not examine the decrees of such fallible conventions must they not lye under a necessity of asserting any errour or practising what ever they define though never so contradictory to the law of God Once more it cannot be denied but that the Arrian Councils at Ariminum and Seleucia were at least Patriarchical or equivalent to such and will you add that therefore every Province from whence they were convened were bound to submit to their determinations You will say no because they contradicted the General Council held at Nice Ans True but doth not your Rule assure us that former plenary Councils may be corrected by those that follow and were not the Bishops at Ariminum more numerous then those at Nice 2. What if this of Ariminum had been assembled before the Nicene Council must Arrianisme then have commenced Orthodox VVas there any impossibility but it might have been so He that permitted Arrianisme then to triumph might have done it if he pleased in the former Centuries Lastly Sect. 3 is there any impossibility that the lesser part of a Patriarchate should bee Orthodox and the greater Schismatical and erronious and sticklers for that which God hath contradicted in his Word In this case may not any body see whether a patriarchical Synod will encline and must the Orthodox party then bee necessitated to convene when called to such a Synod and to assent to their determinations and practise contrary to what God requires in his Word Thus in the Trent Council matters stood and they openly professed they came to extirpate and condemn the Plaguy heresie as they called it of the Lutherans By these things wee may see what we are to think of this axiom of our Antagonist Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 237. viz. That if any law custome or doctrine in any Diocesse bee discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province or any Provincial law what is in force in the Patriarchate such a law ought not to be made or being made ought to be repealed Now apply these former instances to the Rule and it will follow that if any Province in the Eastern Churches should acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope and decree Communion in one kind legitimate c. They were bound to alter such Doctrines and decrees and consequently bound to refuse the conditions of Communion tendered to them by the Church of Rome Thus again under the Old Testament when the ten Tribes departed from the Worship of God in the place appointed by himself and set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel it was unlawful for the Tribe of Judah to practise the contrary much more to hold it unlawful so to transgress the Law of God more yet to decree it to be so and had the lesser convention of twenty three determined for Christ and held him the Messias that was to come had they given him the veneration due unto him yea decreed it should be so all this must necessarily have been nulled by the contrary decrees of the greater Sanhedrim The onely Argument which hee useth to uphold this fundamental Rule as hee is pleased to call it Mr. C. p. 246. is that if a Provincial Synod could disannul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we professe in our Creed unam Catholicam Which Syllogistically runs thus if there bee one Catholick Church then must a National Synod bee subject to a Patriarchal But the first is true the sequel depends upon this assertion that without such subjection there could not be one Catholick Church Answ This is manifestly untrue For that cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church which may be sinful but such may be the submission of a National Church to the decrees of a Patriarchal as our instances sufficiently declare Again