is due only to the Creatour And therefore I cannot but wonder at those who would make this only of the same nature with our desiring Fellow-Christians to pray for us For is there no difference between a mans intreating a Courtier to present his Petition to the King and his falling down on his Knees to him with all the ceremony due to the King himself and then put it off with saying that in all that he only desired him to sue to his Majesty in his behalf Although therefore we condemn not the solemn praying to God not only to hear the prayers of the Church Militant but of that part of it which is triumphant in behalf of the other in General yet this falls far short of solemn addresses in places of Divine worship and in Sacred offices to the Saints that they would pray for us This is it which as to that you call virtual Invocation you should have proved out of St. Austin and yet even that falls much short of that direct and formal Invocation which is both used and allowed in the Church of Rome But you offer at a further proof of a direct Ora pro nobis in St. Austin For say you St. Austin doth profess it to be the General custom of Christians in their recommending themselves to the Saints to say Memor esto nostrî which surely no man will contend to signifie less than ora pro nobis I grant it signifies as much where St. Austin uses it but if you had consulted the place you might easily have seen how wholly impertinent it is to your purpose For St. Austin speaks not at all there of Saints departed but of them living and that it was a common thing among Christians to say to any one of them Memor esto meî Remember me in your prayers which appears by the whole scope of that Chapter where he speaks of giving alms and the effect of them on those who received them in making them mindful of them It cannot be denyed but some of them did use such expressions to those who were near their Martyrdom but still this only shews the requesting it of them when they were sure they heard them but it proves not any solemn Invocations of them when they were dead But if we should grant that there are expressions intimating a desire that Saints in Heaven should pray for them which is the utmost you can make of the citation out of the Sermon on St. Stephen which with the rest de Sanctis is vehemently suspected and the other on Job is counterfeit yet there is a great deal of difference to be put between such a calling upon Martyrs of whom only St. Austin speaks out of a desire of their prayers and a solemn and direct praying to them in the most Sacred offices and publick devotions which is used and approved in your Church For whatever there might be of private devotion not to call it superstition this way in St. Austins time in desiring the prayers of departed Saints whom they could have no ground at all to believe they heard them yet you can bring no evidence of any use of this in the publick offices of the Church much less of that direct Invocation which we most of all charge your Church with That then which began in meer hypothetical addresses went somewhat further when they began to grow more confident that in some extraordinary way or other the Saints heard them but still this kept it self within the bounds of the cultus dilectionis societatis that respect which arose from Love and Communion but it was a good while after before it obtained a place in the publick Offices and yet longer before it came to that height of Religious Invocation which is more practised then pleaded for in the Church of Rome For although great endeavours be used to smooth over these gross abuses with fair distinctions of relative and absolute direct and indirect worship yet the general practise is uncapable of being palliated by these narrow coverings there being the most formal and direct Invocations used to Saints for spiritual and temporal blessings Which being allowed of in common practise and the most sacred Offices can never be excused from as great Idolatry as the Heathens were guilty of in the worship of their Inferiour Deities I conclude this therefore with that of Spalatensis Religious Invocation of Saints is Heathenism and meer civil Invocation of them though not so bad is yet dangerous And therefore Wicelius justly saith That the Invocation of Saints is to be cast out of the Church because it ascribes Gods honour and attributes to his creatures and derogates from the office and glory of Christ by making Saints Mediatours and Intercessours Which is that we now come to consider For as his Lordship saith When the Church prayed to God for any thing she desired to be heard for the mercies and the merits of Christ not for the merits of any Saints whatsoever For I much doubt this were to make the Saints more then Mediatours of Intercession which is all that you will acknowledge you allow to the Saints For I pray is not by the Merits more then by the Intercession Did not Christ redeem us by his merits And if God must hear our prayers for the merits of the Saints how much fall they short of sharers in the mediation of Redemption Such prayers as these the Church of Rome makes at this day and they stand not without great scandal to Christ and Christianity used and authorized to be used in the Missal To this you Answer in two things 1. That such prayers as these are used in Scripture 2. That they are no derogation to the merits of Christ. For the first you say Solomon Psal. 132. pray's to God to hear him in effect for the merits of his Father David deceased when he saith Memento Domine David omnis mansuetudinis ejus Lord remember David and all his meekness c. This you say cannot be understood of Gods Covenant and promise made to David as Protestants vainly pretend but of Davids piety and vertue by which he was acceptable to God For which reason he adds again For thy servant Davids sake turn not away the face of thine Anointed The like was done by Daniel Moses Hieremias and other Prophets praying unto God and desiring their petitions might be heard for Abraham for Isaac for Israels sake and for the sakes of other Holy men who had lived before and been in their times persons acceptable to God And for this you quote St. Austin and Chrysostome So far you have very fairly rendred Bellarmin exactly in English But we are yet to seek Why all those expressions in Scripture are not to be understood of the Covenant and Promise God made with those persons who are mentioned by you For it is considerable that you instance in none but such whom God had made an express Covenant with as with 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
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-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-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
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-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
nothing new to our consideration But at last we are come to a man who did in good earnest believe Purgatory and was the first of any name in the Church who did so and that is Gregory 1. But whosoever reads in his Dialogues the excellent arguments he builds it on and confirms it with will find as much reason to pitty his superstition and credulity as to condemn his Doctrine And after this time his Lordship saith truly Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffer'd to cool again and in the after-ages more were frighted then led by proof into the belief of it And although amidst the variety of judgements among the Fathers concerning the state of the dead not one of them affirmed your Doctrine of Purgatory before Gregory 1 yet by all means you will needs have it to have been still owned as an Apostolical Tradition and an Article of Faith But I commend you that knowing the weakness of the arguments brought from the Fathers and Scripture you at last take Sanctuary in the Churches Definition on the account of which you say We are as much bound to believe it as any other Article of Faith yea as the Trinity or Incarnation it self But this holds for none but only those who so little understand the grounds of their Religion as to believe it on the account of your Churches Infallibility which is so far from being any ground of Faith that if we had nothing more certain then that to establish our Faith upon you would be so far from making men believe Purgatory on that account that you would sooner make them question whether there were either Heaven or Hell But though your Church be so far from Infallibility that we have found her guilty of many Errours yet the Word of God abideth for ever which alone is the sure Foundation for our Faith to rest upon And so I conclude with your own Prayer I beseech God to give all men light to see this Truth and Grace to assent unto it to the end that by living in the militant Church in the Vnity of Faith we may come at last to meet in Glory in the triumphant Church of Heaven which we may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory world without end FINIS §. 1. 1 Joh. 1.1 3. Mark 16.14 §. 2. P. 1. P. 2. §. 3. P. 2. P. 2. sect 2. P. 3. sect 3. n. 2. Page 3 §. 4. Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram Ecclesiam Principalem c. nec cogitare eos esse Romanos ad quos pâ—rfidea habere non potest accessum Cypr. l. 1. c. 3. Scito Romanam fidem ejusmodi praestigias non recipere Hierony Apol. 3. c. Ruff. Roma semper fidem retinet Greg. Nazianz. carm de vitâ suâ Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. l. 4. c. 4. sect 1. Pag. 4. §. 5. P. 21. sect 4. P. 5. n. 4. P. 25. n. 17. sect 5. §. 6. P. 6. n. 4. §. 7. Joh. 15.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Athanas. ep ad Sâ—rapion p. 357. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. De Spir. Sancto c. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Greg. Nazian orat 37. p. 597. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 23. Tom. 1 p. 426 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Paschal 12. Tom. 5. p 2. Dogm Theol. de Trinit l. 7. c. 13 14 Tom. 2 §. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. c. Serapi ubi supr Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg p. 217. c. Res. 2. Patriarch Concil Florent sess 19 20 21 c. Arcudii opuscula aurea V. ep Cyrilli Patriarch ad Joh. Utenbogard inter epistol Remonstrant p. 402. V. Lâ—onis Allatii Graeciam Orthodox Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. ep ad Epictet Tom 1. p. 562. Greg. Nazian ep 2. ad Cled Concil Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p. 357. Tom. 2. Binii ed. Paris 1636. Concil Florent sess 5. p. 587. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. p. 366. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Act. 5. Concil Florent Asâ— 5. p. 590. §. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Alexan. Tom. 6. edit Paris p. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg Resp. 2. Patriarch p. 202. Gregorius Palamas c. 1. apud Petavium Dogmat. Theolog de Trin. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sess. 19. Ubi supra Spalatens de Rep. Eccles. Tom. 3. l. 7. c. 10. sect 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Acta Concil Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p 360. Petav. ubi supra Acta Theolog. Wirtenb p. 350. c. Resp. 3. Patriarch Cyril ep ad Utenbogard p. 403. §. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret c. Cyril Anathemat Tom. 4. p. 718. ed. Sirmond Concil Ephes. part 3· p. 497. ed. Bin. Cyril Tom. 6. p. 229. Dogmat. Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. c. 1. Concil Ephes. Part. 2. Act. 1. p. 177. Part 3. p. 596. Part. 3. p. 581. §. 11. Concil Florenâ— sess 5. p. 593. Pithaeus Opus de proces S.S. p. 26. Petav. Dogm Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 1. Baron Annal. ad An. 809. Sirmond Concil Gallic Tom. 2. p. 256 257. Quisquis ad hoc sensu subtiliori pertingere potest id scire aut ita sciens credere noluerit salvus esse non poterit Sunt enim multa è quibus istud unum est sacrae fidei altiora mysteria ad quorum indagationem pertingere multi valent multi verò aut aetatis quantitate aut intelligentiae qualitate praepediti non valent ideò ut praediximus qui potuerit noluerit salvus esse non potuerit Apud Sirmond ubi supra §. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius ep 7. p. 51. Opuscul edit Lutet 1609. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg Resp. 2. Patriarch p. 213 214. §. 13. Sylvester Sguropul Histor. Concil Florent sect 2. c. 10. Sect. 2. c. 12. C. 17 18. Sect. 6. c. 1. Sect. 3. c. 12. Sect. 3. c. 3. C. 4. Cap. 12. C. 11. C. 15. Sect. 6. c. 3. Sect. 8. c. 12. C. 13. C. 14. C 16. C. 18. Sect. 9. c. 4. C. 5. C. 8. C. 9. C. 10. Sect. 10. c. 1. C. 4. §. 14. P. 6. Sect. 9. n. 1. p. 24. §. 15. P. 7. n. 5. Theophylact. in Joh. 3.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact. in Joh. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. Damascenus de Trinit c. 8. l. 1. de Orthodoxa fide c. 11. Acta Theolog. Wirteab p. 220. P. 8. Sum. 1. q 36. aâ—t 2. Vasquez in Thoâ— To. 2. dis 146. c. 7. Petavius dogm Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist. Concil Florent sect 8. c. 15. p. 239. Eadmer de vita Anselm l. 2. Malmesbu de
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
but the sentence of the Pope Infallible nay more Infallible than it For any General Council may erre with you if the Pope confirm it not So belike this Infallibility rests not in the representative body the Council nor in the whole body the Church but in your Head of the Church the Pope of Rome And if this be so To what end such a trouble for a General Council or Where in are we neerer to unity if the Pope confirm it not To this you answer 1. That a General Council is not held by you to be Infallible at all unless it involve the Pope or his Confirmation and so there is but one Infallibility viz. of the Pope presiding in and confirming of the votes of a General Council 2. You confess there are two different Opinions among you the first and more common is that the Pope even without a General Council is Infallible in his definitions of Faith when he teaches the whole Church the second is that he is not Infallible in his definitions save only where he defines in and with a General Council Now the Bishop you say takes no notice of the second Opinion but only of the first as though that were the Opinion of all Catholick Doctors But for your part you will not meddle much with any matters of private Opinion or dispute and therefore you will briefly pass over what his Lordship saith further and only correct some mistakes of his But whereas you pretend it only necessary to believe that Pope and Council together are Infallible for this all Catholicks are agreed in but whether the Pope be Infallible without a Council or no you leave it as matter of dispute I shall manifest how great a cheat you put upon the world by this Assertion in these two things 1. That there is no such agreement among your selves in this common principle as you pretend 2. That from the making the Popes Confirmation necessary to the Infallibility of the Council you must make the Pope Infallible without a Council 1. Whereas you pretend such a consent among all Catholicks in this common principle That Pope and Council are Infallible together it is evident that there is no such thing For 1. Some among you have asserted that the representative body of the Church is not at all the subject of Infallibility but the diffusive For Occham contends at large That the priviledge of Infallibility belongs only to the whole Militant Church and neither to the Pope nor General Council nor body of the Clergy And so likewise doth Petrus de Alliaco Cusanus Antoninus of Florence Panormitan Nicolaus de Clemangis Franciscus Mirandula and others whose words you may find at large in some of your Writers and therefore I forbear repeating them 2. Some assert that Councils are no further Infallible than they adhere to Vniversal Tradition and you cannot be ignorant who they are at this day among you who assert this doctrine 3. Some further say That Councils are in themselves Infallible and therefore must be so whether the Pope confirm them or no. And this opinion however now you say it be not so common as the other yet it is certain that before the Council of Lateran under Leo 10. it was much the more common opinion as appears by the Councils of Constance and Basil. And that there is an irreconcilable difference between the Authours of this Opinion and those who make the Popes Confirmation necessary to the Infallibility of a General Council I shall prove out of Bellarmin himself from the state of the Question and the Arguments he urges against it Bellarmin tells us The first occasion of this Controversie was about the deposition of Popes viz. whether the Pope might against his consent be judged condemned and deposed by the Council and therefore saith he They are mistaken who think the Question is Whether the Council with the Pope be greater than the Pope without a Council for it cannot be conceived he should give consent to his own deposition And this he proves from the Council at Basil who defined their Council to be above the Pope at that time when neither the Pope nor his Legats were present And this Council of Basil in their Synodal Epistle declare a General Council as representing the Vniversal Church to be Infallible when at the same time they assert That Popes have fallen into Heresie Now Can any one possibly imagine these men should believe the Popes Confirmation to be necessary to the Councils Infallibility who suppose the Pope may be an Heretick at the same time in which a Council may be Infallible And when they assert it to belong to the Council only to pronounce Whether the Pope be guilty of Heresie or no Those therefore who contend for the Councils Authority above the Pope do not at all look at the Popes Confirmation as necessary to make the Decrees Infallible though some of them may to make them Canonical For there lyes one of your fallacies because they look on the Pope as Ministerial Head of the Church therefore to make Canons to be valid they may judge it in most cases necessary that the Pope confirm the Decrees but yet they do not suppose this Confirmation doth at all make them Infallible but whether the Pope had confirmed them or no they had been Infallible however So that you cannot say That it is a principle of Faith among you that Pope and Council together are Infallible for those of this opinion make it a principle of Faith that the Council in it self is Infallible and consequently whether it be confirmed by the Pope or no. And therefore Bellarmin saith Their opinion is That in case the Pope be dead deposed or refuseth to come to the Council the Council is not at all the less perfect but that it hath full power to make definitions in matters of Faith And when he comes to urge against this Opinion one of his arguments is that from hence it follows That the Council would not at all need the Popes Confirmation and another That Councils without the Pope may erre in Decrees of Faith for which he instanceth in the Councils of Sirmium Milan Ariminum Ephesus c. Neither saith he can it be answered that these Councils erred because they were unlawful Councils for the most of them wanted nothing but the Popes consent and the second Ephesine Council was just such another as that of Basil. From which disputation of Bellarmin it is both clear that those who make Councils above the Pope do not judge the Popes Confirmation necessary and those who judge it necessary do not suppose the Council Infallible without it So that you are either deceived your self or would deceive others when you would make them believe that there is but one Infallibility asserted by you whereas nothing can be more evident than that two distinct subjects of Infallibility are asserted in your Church some placing it in the Council without