Conclusion of it though our Compiler is so sly in the translating of it as if the Canon meant onely that the Bishop of Rome should govern the Vniversal Church according to the Acts of General Councils and to the Holy Canons whereas it is plain this Canon speaks not of the Exercise but of the Original of the Pope's Power and of the Testimonies for it in the Acts and Canons of the General Councils but F. Alexandre himself taught our Compiler to translate thus n Dissertatio quarta Par. prima Sec. prim p. 398. and truly I think he ought to have the Reputation of first finding the Gallican Liberties in this Definition of the Council of Florence which Council was not usually thought to have been such a friend to the Gallican Liberties witness what the Cardinal of Lorrain is said to have spoken of it in just such another Council at Trent but the Men of this age are strangely set upon making new discoveries this age found out that the Libri Carolini nor the Council of Frankfort were not against the Image-council of Nice that Bertram was as true a man for Transubstantiation as Paschasius Radbertus that first in all probability forged it and our Nat. Alexandre must come in for his share for discovering that greatest thing the French Clergy are so earnest upon in this Definition of the Council of Florence SECT II. The places of Scripture that are urged by the Church of Rome to prove the Divine Institution of the Pope's Supremacy are very few that of St. Matthew with another from St. John Nat. Alexandre our Compiler's Guide doth insist upon them for the proof of the Pope's Supremacy One would expect that they should be very clear and very full Texts that are brought to confirm such a Portentous Authority as the Papal Supremacy appears to be St. Matthew doth relate o Matth. 16.18 19. that upon St. Peter's having confessed our Saviour to be the Son of the living God our Saviour should say unto him Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. Here they tell us that our Saviour built his Church upon St. Peter who is the Rock mentioned here and that he was thereupon invested with all Church power the power of the Keyes which power and government was by him deposited with his Successours the Bishops of Rome In answer to this we say that there is nothing extraordinary or particular for St. Peter here because He is not the Rock mentioned here nor had the power of the Keyes committed to him any otherwise than in common with the rest of his fellow-Apostles as our Saviour put the Question to all the Apostles so St. Peter answering it in the name of them all had the promise of or received this power of the Keyes in behalf of them all and for their common use of them Since then this place of Scripture is not sufficiently evident or clear for the purpose both parties claiming an interest in it for their contrary senses and we avouching that it is absolutely against St. Peter's being either Rock or having any particular extraordinary power if it be considered with its relation to the context before and to the rest of the Gospels and Epistles either this passage of St. Matthew as obscure must be set aside as useless towards the proof of a Supremacy or They of the Church of Rome must convince us that the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers did always interpret this place of Scripture in favour of St. Peter's Supremacy This thing one would think they were very able to doe since they are so ready to say they can and to assert that the Fathers did unanimously interpret the Rock mentioned in this passage to be the Person of St. Peter Thus our Compiler p Nubes Test p. 22. very gravely tells us that the Fathers teach that Christ built his Church upon Peter and this F. Alexandre had taught him to say who certainly had considered the thing very well when he q Dissert 4. P. 1. Sec. 1. p. 274. tells us that the Fathers did with a Nemine contradicente r Quocirca Sancti Patres Communi suffragio c. Ibid. p. 274. interpret the Rock to be meant of St. Peter Ignorance among all people is allowed to alleviate a crime and a blind-fold implicit transcribing of a Writer's sense must be allowed to be very near allyed unto it or else our Compiler ought to be treated as a person guilty of very disingenuous and unjust behaviour towards the memory of the Fathers F. Alexandre however who taught our Compiler to publish so gross an untruth is by no means excusable for should we allow him to be ignorant in the Fathers own writings and to have transcribed this bold untruth out of Bellarmine Å¿ Accedat speaking of Peter 's being the Rock consensus Ecclesiae totius Graecorum ac Latinorum Patrum c. Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. or some other of their Writers yet He cannot be ignorant I am sure how fully his learned Countrey-man the famous Monsieur Launoy hath examined the sense of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers upon this Text of St. Matthew how distinctly he hath put down the four different Interpretations of the Rock in this Text the first of which makes it to be the Person of St. Peter the second makes it to be all the Apostles with their Successours the third teaches that it is the Faith confessed by St. Peter and the last that the Rock here is the Person of Christ himself t Launoii Epist ad Guil. Voellum apud Part. 5. Epistolarum p. 4 11 18 38. Natalis Alexandre cannot but know how invincibly this most learned Sorbonist hath shewn that the Generality of Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers are for the third Interpretation which makes the Faith confessed by St. Peter and not St. Peter himself to be the Rock on which Christ's Church was built that a great many are for the fourth Interpretation that says the Rock was Christ himself This last Interpretation falling in with the third for Christ or the Faith confessed concerning Christ come to the same thing may be with most reason called the unanimous Consent of the Church-Interpreters that the rock here is not Peter whenas there are but a few of those Fathers for the first Interpretation and most of their expressions capable of the second and not inconsistent with the third Interpretation So that if the Interpretations of above fifty Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we muster no fewer than eleven Popes and two Synods are to be admitted against that of three or four Fathers We are sufficiently secured that the Interpretation of the Rock in this Text its being the Faith confessed by St.
Peter concerning Christ which is espoused by the Church of England is true and Catholick that to interpret it of St. Peter's person is to contradict the Stream of Catholick Antiquity and consequently that there is no ground from this Text of St. Matthew for the Supremacy of St. Peter or the Bishops of Rome I suppose it will not be expected here that I should set down all these numerous Authorities which the excellent Launoy hath with so much industry collected to prove that by the Rock in this Text is meant the Faith confessed by St Peter I will onely put down one or two passages of the Fathers omitted by him that the World may see that that excellent Person hath not exhausted the Subject nor produced all the Proofs of those Authours whom He sets down The first shall be Epiphanius omitted by Launoy who brings in our Saviour saying to St. Peter That upon this Rock of unshaken u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. adv Haer. L. 2. T. 1. p. 500. Edit Par. Petav. 1622. Faith I will build my Church St. Chrysostom tells us that our Saviour said upon this Rock not upon Peter for he built his Church not upon the man Peter but upon the Faith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrys Sermo de Pentecoste p. 233. in T. 6. Edit Ducael 1636. which He had confessed As to the latter part of this passage from St. Matthew to wit about the promise made to St. Peter of having the Keyes bestowed upon him I am sure it is very far from doing the Romanists any service since it is abundantly plain that when our Saviour after his Resurrection came to perform the promise he had made here He did bestow the Power of the Keyes equally among the Apostles without preserring one Apostle above another or giving to one a greater share in the Vse of the Keyes than to the rest so that if St. John's Gospel be but as Authentick as St. Matthew's we are fully secured that this Power of the Keyes was equally given in Saint John x S. John 20.21 22 23. and therefore equally promised in St. Matthew to all the Apostles It were very easie to shew from abundance of the Fathers Expressions that there is nothing in this promise peculiar to St. Peter Origen tells us that what was promised here was common to the rest of the Apostles y Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves regni coelorum caeterisque quoque commune est c. Orig. Tr. 1. in Matt. p. 39. Edit Freb. 1530. and Saint Austin informs us somewhere as I have met with it quoted that as St. Peter made the Confession in the name and as the mouth of all the Apostles so He received this promise in the behalf of all as representing them all But if any contend that this promise was performed assoon as spoken and therefore that there was something extraordinary and particular to St. Peter here since he is here invested with those Keyes which the rest of the Apostles had nothing to doe with nor were admitted to any share in them till just before our Saviour his Ascension our Answer is very ready that the rest of the Apostles did certainly here receive the same power of the Keyes that they will have St. Peter invested with because in the next Chapter but one a Matth. 18.17 18. to this our Saviour speaks to all the Apostles as already invested with this power of the Keyes which Assertion of ours the Generality of the Fathers are so far from opposing that the abovenamed b In Ep. ad Vallantium Learned Sorbonist Monsieur Launoy hath with prodigious pains demonstrated that St. Peter did receive the power of the Keyes in the name of the Apostles their Successours and the whole Church and that the Catholick Church is the proximate Subject of all church-Church-power This he hath evidenced from the concurrent Authority of at least c Launoii Ep. ad Hadrian Vallantium in Par. secunda Epp. seventy Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we find eight Councils three Vniversities one Learned King our Henry the Eighth eleven Popes and two Rituals from above two hundred Testimonies as I think I may safely say it out of these Writings So that if these passages from St. Matthew about the Rock and the Power of the Keyes be not invincibly demonstrated to be directly contrary to the Romish Pretensions and their urging St. Matthew's Expressions for their Popes Supremacy be not hence proved to be extravagantly unreasonable and perfectly groundless I must e'en say that it is utterly impossible for the wisest man in the World to prove any thing even from the best Evidences and that the Decree of their Council of Trent That Scripture be interpreted by the unanimous consent of Fathers is the foolishest order in the World if so many and so great Testimonies be not able to rescue these two passages of St. Matthew from the abusive Interpretations of the Popes Vpholders The other place of Scripture alledged by them to prove the Divine Institution of St. Peter's Supremacy is that of St. John d S. Joh. 21.15 16 17. wherein our Saviour bids St. Peter thrice to feed his Sheep and Lambs From this place they say F. Alexandre among the rest that the chief care of the Church and a sacred Principality in it over all conditions aswell Apostles as others was conferred upon St. Peter by our Saviour but this is much easier said than proved since the natural sense and a fair interpretation of the words extends no farther than a repeated command of feeding Christ's Flock which hath nothing of extraordinary in it since the rest of the Apostles had had the same Injunctions though not in the same terms laid upon them and farther if this place must be forced to settle something upon St. Peter it will make him not the chief but the sole Pastour of the Catholick Church since here just before his Ascension our Saviour gives his Commands and commits the Charge of his whole Flock to St. Peter alone and this is the sense wherein the Council of Florence seems to have taken these words in St. John when in the Canon I set down above it defines that the full or whole power of feeding P. 9. ruling and governing the whole Church was given to the Pope in St. Peter If this be their sense therefore I desire to know of these men what is become of the charge given to the rest of the Apostles of going to teach which is the same with feeding all Nations which includes old and young Sheep and Lambs I would be informed also what there is more either of Authority or Charge in this passage than in that general Commission in St. Matthew e Matth. 28.19 20. and farther I would fain know whether this Commission here about feeding the Sheep and Lambs doth cancell that solemn and general one to all the Apostles in the Chapter next
Text of St. Austin which runs thus nec eo ad adoranda daemonia non servio lapidibus sed tamen in parte Donati sum I wonder why F. Alexandre should be so much afraid of this passage though we do object to his Church as a most grievous crime the giving religious worship to Saints and Angels and their Images yet he cannot but know that we do not lay to their charge the worshiping of Devils which we are very glad our selves that we cannot doe But I begin to suspect strongly that Father Alexandre and our Compiler are very near a-kin that our Compiler hath made the same use of N. Alexandre that Alexandre himself hath done of others that which inclines me very much to this Opinion is that Father Alexandre never tells us that I have observed what Editions of the Fathers he used nor quotes the page where one may find his quoted passage above once in five hundred passages I believe through all his Volumes CHAP. II. Concerning the Pope's Supremacy SECT I. AFter twenty pages spent about matters that do not at all concern our present Controversie we are come to that which must be allowed not onely to be a Controversie but the greatest of any that are now on foot in the World and which hath been and is the cause of all those tyrannical pretensions and uncanonical impositions which do at present divide the Christian World. The Pope's Supremacy is that point which the Members of the Church of Rome especially the Vltramontaines are so carefull to defend and we of the Reformation to oppose Our Compiler being now come to a point of debate doth not forget his art of palliating which was so very serviceable to him in his Misrepresentations and Representations of Popery He cannot but know and therefore ought to have avoided it that this loose talk about Successor of Peter and Centre of Catholick Communion does not reach the Pretensions of the Bishops of Rome nor fully and fairly declare what Power Jurisdiction and Authority in and over the Catholick Church those Bishops challenge as their right To let him see how loosely he manages this debate betwixt us I can with putting in two or three necessary words subscribe to all our Compiler says for the Pope and yet be as far from owning the Pope's Supremacy as the Church of England is or ever was The Fathers teach Nub. Testium p. 22. says our Compiler that Christ built his Church upon Peter so say I too if by Fathers here be meant two or three of them and not the Fathers unanimously as he hath it before or generally That the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter is what I can also grant and that That See is the Centre of the Catholick Communion if I may but put in here what is absolutely necessary while possessed by an Orthodox Bishop and that whosoever separates himself from it I add professing the true Faith and possessed by a Catholick Bishop is guilty of Schism I can I say subscribe though I do not to all this without any Obligation in the least of believing the Pope's Supremacy all that our Compiler puts down here reaching no farther than a Primacy of Order does not at all suppose in the Popes any Jurisdiction or Authority over the Catholick Church Since then our Compiler seems to be afraid of setting down a true account of this Controversie betwixt us by mincing the matter so much about the Pope's power I must borrow of him his last Quotation under this head the Canon of the Council of Florence and set that down as the true account of their Doctrine concerning the Pope's power and then not onely shew our reasons why we dare not submit to it but that all the Testimonies our Compiler hath put down from F. Alexandre except two or three under this head do not prove the Pope's Supremacy as it is stated by their General Council of Florence m Diffinimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem tenere Primatum ipsum Pontificem Romanum Successorem esse Beati Petri Principis Apostolorum verum Christi Vicarium totiúsque Ecclesiae Caput omnium Christianorum Patrem ac Doctorem existere ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam à Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse quemadmodum etiam in Gestis Oecumenicorum Conciliorum in Sacris Canonibus continetur Concil Florent Pars 2. Collatio 22. p. 1136. Edit Cossart We define says the Canon that the Holy Apostolick See and Bishop of Rome is invested with the Primacy over the whole World and that the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter Prince of the Apostles and that he is the true Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that the full power of feeding ruling and governing the whole Church was given to him in St. Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ as it is expressed or contained in the Acts of General Councils and in the Holy Canons The Reader will very easily see what a great difference there is betwixt this account of the Pope's Supremacy and that set down by our Compiler and yet this Gentleman would be thought to be an exact Stater of the Controversie betwixt us and to have represented fairly what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning their Popes Power and Jurisdiction I hope I am out of the danger of being made a Misrepresenter while I charge that onely upon them as their Doctrine which hath been defined by one of their General Councils which is the greatest strength and countenance that any Doctrine is capable of among them This then being the true state of their Doctrine concerning their Popes Power or Supremacy and that which I would call naked Popery I am sure I have Commission from the Church of England to declare that she cannot without betraying the Rights of all Bishops and the Interest of the Catholick Church espouse the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy which we of her Communion do believe is altogether without foundation either from Scripture or Primitive Antiquity It will not be consistent with that brevity I have confined my self to in this Answer to go through our several arguments against this usurped Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome I am onely desirous to consider in short whence they have this their extraordinary Power which they do as extraordinarily contend for there are but Three Sources whence they can pretend to derive it either that it is from the Law of God set down in the Scriptures or from the Laws of the Vniversal Church to be seen in her Code or lastly from the favour and authority of secular Princes the first of these is that which they commonly claim and insist upon the second is what this Canon of the Florentine Council doth challenge also in the
restoring him to his Apostolical Function from which he might seem to have fallen by his grievous denyal of his Master I have thus proceeded through all the places that are alledged for to ground the Papal Supremacy upon Scripture I think I have abundantly shewn that none of these three places does in the least favour such pretensions since not onely the comparing these with other places of Scripture but the almost Vnanimous Consent of Primitive Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers who interpret them in favour of all the Apostles against St. Peter does prove to the perfect silencing of these pretensions that such a Supremacy hath no foundation in Scripture and if it hath none there it is in a sad condition since if Christ himself did not make the Bishop of Rome his Vicar all the General Councils in the World together cannot make him such I am sure St. Luke who tells Theophilus t Acts 1.1 2. that he drew up his former Treatise about all that our Saviour did till his Ascension does no where tell us that he did this but does in the next verse tell us in effect that he did the direct contrary while he speaks of his charges to the Apostles whom he had chosen I cannot omit the observing here that as none of these places of Scripture do prove any Supremacy for St. Peter so neither do they prove any Primacy or Prerogative for him as they equally concerned all the Apostles so they equally distribute any honour among them without preferring one above another This Observation I do make for the sake of those Gentlemen in France especially who though they have with unanswerable arguments baffled the extravagant pretensions of the Romish Courtiers yet do allow the Bishop of Rome to be Christ's Vicar instated by him in the Primacy over the whole Church I would onely recommend to such the Consideration of the Fathers Interpretations of the places of Scripture cited above and these three short passages in Antiquity the first from St. Cyprian who speaking about the nature and government of the Catholick Church says that there is but one Episcopacy in it whereof every particular Bishop of the Catholick Church had an equal share and the full power of that Function u Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cyprianus de Vnit Eccl. p. 108. Edit Oxon. The second is St. Chrysostom's who speaking of the Apostles tells us that they were all ordained Princes or Primatâ—â— If any would have it so by our Saviour * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysost Tom. 8. p. 115. Edit Savil. not temporal Princes to receive each his Nation or City but spiritual Princes intrusted IN COMMON ALL TOGETHER with the Care and Government of the Catholick Church throughout the World. The last shall be that of a Pope himself which is more with some people than the Authority of a Thousand Fathers and let it be so here who in an Epistle to a Bishop of Arles compares Episcopacy to the Trinity x Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar cujus Vna est atque Indivisa Potestas Vnum sit per diversos Antistites Sacerdotium Symach Ep. 1. ad Aeonium Arel apud T. 4. Concil p. 1291. Edit Cossart and says that as in the Trinity there is but one inseparable power so Episcopacy is but ONE though in the hands of particular Bishops I hope those that own the Athanasian Creed where we are taught that in the Trinity no person is greater or less than another but that the three Persons are co-equal will for the future believe with Pope Symmachus that in the Episcopal Office no Bishop is greater or less than another but that all the Bishops in the world are co-equal and then I am sure all Christians will believe with us that there was no Superiority nor Supremacy nor Primacy communicated by our blessed Saviour unto any one of his Twelve Apostles SECT III. Having fully ruined their pretensions from the Holy Scriptures for the Supremacy I come next to inquire whether the Laws of the Vniversal Church have declared the successive Bishops of Rome to be Christ's Vicars to have the Primacy over the whole World to be Heads of the Vniversal Church and to have the plenary power of governing and feeding the whole Church What Laws the primitive Church for the first six Centuries made for the Government and Discipline of the Catholick Church are to be found in the Code of the Canons of the Vniversal Church consisting of the Canons of the four Oecumenical Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon and of the five diocesan Synods of Ancyra of Gangra of Antioch of Ncocaesarea and of Laodicea confirmed and admitted by the Council of Chalcedon to be part of the Laws of the Vniversal Church and afterwards by the Emperour Justinian in Novel Const 231. de Can. Eccl. We desire therefore to be informed how many of these Canons which were-looked upon as of Sacred Authority not onely by the Emperour Justinian in the Novel just cited but by a Pope Gregory the Great a Et sic quatuor Synodos Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae sicut quatuor Libros Sancti Evangelii recipimus Greg. M. Ep. 49. l. 2. p. 717. Edit Froben 1564. or which of them do constitute the Bishop of Rome Primate over the whole World or Vicar of Christ or Head of the whole Church or Father and Doctour of all Christians or do confess that Christ had intrusted him with the plenary Power of governing the Vniversal Church I will not trouble my self to shew in particular how such and such Canons place the Discipline of the Church in Provincial or Diocesan Synods any one that looks into them will see these things evident enough they therefore that talk of those Canons making the Bishop of Rome supreme must either be such as never read them or are men of no conscience and integrity To put a quick end to this pretence though I will not challenge our Compiler because he perchance does not know what the Code of the Vniversal Church means yet I do here challenge all the Romish Priests in England to shew me but one Canon in this Code b Published by Justel which hath so great a number no fewer than two hundred and seven Canons in it that does constitute the Bishop of Rome Primate over the whole World Head of the Catholick Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians or confer upon him the full power of governing the whole Church nay farther I challenge them to produce any Canon or Canons hence that do assert that the Bishop of Rome is Primate over the whole World Vicar of Christ Head of the whole Church Doctour of all Christians and that he had the whole power of governing the Vniversal Church committed to him in St. Peter by our blessed Saviour I will make one step farther I challenge all of them to shew those Canons or
that Canon in this Code of the universal Church which does suppose the Bishop of Rome to be either Primate over the World Vicar of Christ Head of the whole Church Doctour of all Christians or to have had the plenary power of governing the whole Church given him by Christ This challenge so fair so plain and so full I leave to the Reverend Fathers Consideration and in the mean time I will take the liberty since I have very good grounds for it to declare and assert to their as well as our people that there is no Law of the Catholick Church for the first six hundred years nor ever a Canon in the Code of the Laws of the universal Church that does either constitute or assert or suppose the Bishop of Rome to be that Primate Vicar Head Doctour and universal Pastour which the Council of Florence says he is and that the Council of Florence founding their Definition for the Pope's Supremacy upon the Acts and Canons of General Councils were notoriously guilty either of ignorance or of forgery either of which is more than sufficient to ruine their having any esteem from us and as for the Title of Vicar of Christ which they do now glory so much in One of their own Communion the Learned Monsieur Launoy c Launoii Ep. ad Mich. Marollium p. 29. apud Par. 3. Epp. assures us that for above a thousand years after Christ there was scarce a Bishop of Rome to be met with who either said he was or wrote himself Vicar of Christ so far were they in those days from thinking themselves to be the true or onely Vicars of Christ their custome then being to write themselves Vicars of St. Peter SECT IV. These are some of the Reasons why we cannot believe or submit to the Papal Supremacy if neither Scripture nor the Laws of the universal Church be for it we believe it is no crime in us not to be for it if both Scripture and those Canons be directly against it as it hath in part and might have been more fully shewn it certainly is no sin in us to be against it too nay so far from being a sin that it would be a very great one not to be so It will appear by this time I believe needless to most people to examine what our Compiler from F. Alexandre does produce from Antiquity to help out this groundless Supremacy one advantage I hope I shall reap from what hath been observed hitherto on this head that I need not at all be copious in the refuting his Testimonies which are brought to prove a Supremacy from St. Peter's being called by some Rock of the Church and Prince of the Apostles from Appeals being made to the Bishops of Rome and from the necessity of their confirming all Councils to make them obligatory to the Church I shall inform the Reader before I begin with the particular Testimonies of our Compiler that they are generally stolen from Natalis Alexandre's fourth Dissertation in his Pars prima Seculi primi His first Testimony from Irenaeus is of no use a Nubes Test p. 22. ex Nat. Alexand. p. 297. since it onely proves that there was a Church planted at Rome by the joint endeavours of St. Peter and St. Paul which passage makes directly against a Supremacy except our Compiler can prove that St. Peter and St. Paul were but one individual man as to the potentior Principalitas there they have been told often enough that it relates to the Civil State Rome being the Imperial City whither business brought all people Christians as well as others The next obscure passage from Optatus b Nub. Testium p. 23 24. Nat. Alex. Pars secunda Seculi quarti p. 225. cum Pars prima Seculi primi p. 283. doth indeed seem to prove that there is but one Cathedra in the World possessed by St. Peter and after him by his Successours at Rome but I have these objections against Optatus taken in this sense first that he is made to contradict himself since in his first Book against this same Parmenian c Nec Caecilianus recessit à Cathedra Petri vel Cypriani sed Majorinus Opt. Milev l. 1. c. Parmen p. 38. Edit Paris 1631. he speaks of the Cathedra of St. Cyprian aswell as of that of St. Peter and in the same Book against the same Schismatick shewing how the people stuck to Caecilian against Majorinus he tells him d Conferta erat Ecclesia populis plena erat Cathedra Episcopalis erat Altare loco suo in quo pacifici Episcopi retro temporis obtulerunt Cyprianus Lucianus caeteri sic exitum est foras Altare contra Altare erectum est Idem l. 1. contr Parmen p. 41 42. that the Church was full of people where the Episcopal Cathedra was and the Altar whereon Cyprian Lucian and other peaceable Bishops had offered that the Donatists were Schismaticks who separated from the Church and set up Altar against Altar Secondly That he is made to contradict all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World and every of these Bishops to be Successours to the Apostles who had committed to them in common by our Saviour the Care and Government of the Catholick Church as I have fully shewn above I will name but one Father and he an African too Tertullian who bids c Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Philippos Thessalonicenses Ephesum Romam Tert. de Praescrip c. Haeret. c. 36. the Hereticks take a view of all the Apostolick Churches in which the very Chairs the Apostles used are possessed by the Bishops in their several places after which he reckons Corinth and Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus and Rome it self So that I think it plain enough that there were other Cathedra's besides that at Rome and therefore that cannot be the onely one and this makes me farther wonder at what Optatus talks about the Vnity of this Chair at Rome being such as that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves I cannot but say that this obscure passage is false as well as groundless and that if Optatus wrote it himself which some question Illyricus f Flacii Illyrici Catalogus Testium Verit. l. 4. p. 194. F. Genevae 1608. for one in his Catalogus Testium Veritatis he had very little considered the Scriptures and Fathers before him and I hope it is no crime to affirm this of him who gives such a reason for St. Peter's being called Cophas who does swerve from the ancienter Fathers so very much in giving the Succession of the Bishops of Rome and which is more doth faulter in his account of the Donatists Schism a thing which begun so near his own time and does confound the two Donatus's as Monsieur
d'Aubespine owns in his third Observation upon him but enough of this passage I will onely observe farther that as Optatus calls St. Peter Head of all the Apostles so do others give as great Titles and as honourable Compellations to other Apostles Hesychius for example as Photius hath it Cod. 275. calls St. James the Bishop of Jerusalem Head of the Apostles g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Photii Biblioth Cod. 275. p. 1525. Edit Haeschel 1612. I must also tell our Compiler that Socius in this passage is a little more than Contemporary Optatus calls the Bishop Syricius our Fellow-bishop which was a very rude thing to one so much a Prince above them and a false one too if there were but one Cathedra and consequently but one Bishop in the World Syricius at Rome The four next little passages from St. Cyprian h Nubes Test p. 24 25. Nat. Alex. p. 276 293. the first of which is directly against our Compiler have been sufficiently considered in the Interpretations of the Rock in St. Matthew I shall not trouble my self with saying much to his Synodical Epistle of i Nubes Test p. 25. Nat. Alex. p. 290. the Sardican Synod which was for giving to the Bishop of Rome a power of granting the revision of causes already judged in the Provincial Synods this very attempt of this Synod is sufficient to shew that the Bishop of Rome had no such a power before that time I will not enlarge here though I easily might he that desires to see the Romish Pretensions for Appeals founded upon the third fourth and fifth Canons of this Western Synod sufficiently baffled ought to consult our Excellent and most Learned Dean of St Paul's Origines Britanicae k Ch. 3. p. 142 143 c. and after him the very Learned Du Pin in his second Historical Dissertation l De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disciplina Dissertationes Historicae Sect. 3. p. 103 104 c. at Paris 1686. I will onely say that this Synod's Canons were admitted to no Authority in the Church because they were not admitted into the Code of the universal Church which is answer sufficient to our Compiler who pretends to prove this Supremacy from the first six Centuries I will onely remark that if the Sardican Synod could or did take away from Constantius the Emperour the power of granting the revising and rehearing of Causes which had been already judged in Provincial Synods because he was an Arian It should not upon the same reasons have granted or given that power to the Bishops of Rome since the very next Bishop to Julius turned Arian Liberius who confirmed the Council of Sirmium and during his Exile before his Arianism Felix who was put into his place was an Arian also as St. Hierom doth assure us m D. Hieron Catalogus Scriptorum Illustr in Acacio p. 297 298. T. 1. Edit Basil 1565. so that in endeavouring to avoid one Rock they split upon another The best answer any one can make for these their Canons is that they were onely a present temporary provision limited to Julius his time who was a Catholick against Constantius who was an Arian The next instance n Nubes Test p. 25. Nat. Alex. p. 298. about Irenaeus his writing to Victor with F. Alexandre's silly Remarks before and after it is so far from being for that it is one of the clearest instances in Antiquity against the Pope's Supremacy When the Controversie about the celebration of Easter began to grow warm there were several Synods gathered about it in Palestine Pontus o Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Edit Vales Rome France and other places and from them all together not from the Bishop of Rome or his Synod did proceed p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. the Ecclesiastical Rule of celebrating Easter onely on the Lord's day This Rule or Determination it is probable Victor was desired to transmit to the Asiaticks thereby to bring them to a consent in practice in this Thing The Asiaticks refused upon the grounds set down in Polycrates his Letter to the Bishop and Church of Rome which was so highly resented by Victor that he immediately does that which he seems to have threatned them with before in his Letter to them and excommunicates the Asiatick Churches This practice of his was so far from being consented to or approved by those Bishops who were agreeing with him about the matter of the time of keeping Easter that they all immediately q Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 24. fell upon him for his extravagant irregular action and do not onely exhort him as Valesius translates but command him as I think a compound from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be translated to mind those things that are for promoting Peace Vnity and Charity towards their neighbours and Eusebius tells us in the same place that several of those Letters were to be seen in his time wherein the Bishops had so severely checkt and reprehended this Bishop of Rome and he puts down part of that from Irenaeus which F. Alexandre and our Compiler make use of I think this behaviour does not very clearly prove the Supremacy of the Pope and this would certainly have been very unaccountable carriage towards Christ's True Vicar who had full power of governing the whole Church the truth is they knew of no such person in those days he was not born into the world till near a Thousand years after them But says our Compiler from F. Alexandre and this is a pert saying among a great many among us Irenaeus does not deny the Bishop of Rome's power of Excommunicating the Asiaticks it is true he does not and which is more he could not since every Bishop in the Catholick Church and therefore he at Rome among the rest might deny to communicate with any other Bishop or Church against which they thought they had sufficient reason for such a suspension of Communion One thing however I would commend to his and F. Alexandre's consideration and that is that this Action of Victor's was so little valued in the Catholick Church that it does not appear that any Christians did thereupon refuse Communion with the Asiaticks which is a great commendation truly of that Bishop's management but a certain evidence of the Opinion of the Ecclesiasticks of those days concerning the Bishop of Rome's Power The next Quotation r Nubes T. p. 25 26. from St. Basil's Comments ad cap. 2. Isaiae is not from F. Alexandre so that here our Compiler doubtless would take it amiss if he be not allowed to have something of his own and to have perused St. Basil for example but the great unhappiness is that he must not be allowed it since he either borrowed this passage from some other friend or made it himself there being no such passage in that Commentary of this Father upon the second of Isaiah and
Censuram Hungaricam Quatuor Propositionum Cleri Gallicanâ— p. 16. in Richerius's Vindiciae Doctrinae Majorum Scholae Parisiensis of Hungary that there is nothing so directly contrary to the most plain words of Scripture to the most evident Testimonies of the Fathers and the Practice of the whole Catholick Church for above a thousand years as the Doctrine of the Pope's having sole power in Judging Controversies of Faith so that I hope if I cannot those Authorities may convince our Compiler that he had better let this Testimony alone I will pass the two next Testimonies and tell our Compiler that as to the Council of Constantinople they did not submissively desire as our Compiler b Nub. Test p. 46. Nat. Alex. p. 306. and F. Alexandre do most falsly assert they did the Confirmation of their Decrees from Damasus Bishop of Rome there is nothing in this Epistle of Damasus to ground such a thing on and which is more it is certain that they did desire of the Emperour Theodosius c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prosphoneticus Concilii C. P nd Imper. Theodosio in T. 2. Concil p. 945. Edit Cossart who had convened this Council that H E would confirm their Decrees Thus I have gone through all the Testimonies collected by our Compiler and instead of answering the last to wit the Definition of the Council of Florence in the method I have done those hitherto I will conclude against it that as I have shewn above that there was no ground from Scripture nor Canon of the Vniversal Church that did in the least countenance what the Council of Florence did define concerning the Pope so neither doth any of the instances pickt up by our Compiler confirm or illustrate that Decree and therefore we have reason to say that the Pope's Supremacy had neither countenance nor being during the first five hundred years after our Saviour CHAP. III. Concerning Tradition SECT I. THE business of Tradition is that which our Compiler undertakes next to defend I cannot understand to what purpose He takes so much pains to tell us the Gnosticks Heresie with that of the Marcionites and Valentinians since I hope none of those Heresies are chargeable now upon us no not that worship of Images which was among the Gnosticks and is to be heard of in a Church now in the World We could wish all our Neighbours were as far from any thing bordering on those Heresies we do heartily desire that as they do not believe in Thirty Gods with the Valentinians so they were as far from having thrice thirty Objects of Religions Worship I heartily wish our Compiler had read that second Chapter of Saint Irenaeus his third Book against the Hereticks which he a Nubes Testium p. 48. Nat. Alex. Dissertatio decima sexta adversus Valentinianâ—â— c. in Par. secunda Seculi secundi p. 349. from F. Alexandre quotes to a very false purpose if either He or F. Alexandre himself had read this third Book of Irenaeus had read but this second Chapter nay more but the very Title of it our Compiler would not have talked so sillily about those Hereticks rejecting the received Doctrines and Practices of the Church because they pretended they were not in Scripture nor F. Alexandre b Nat. Alex. Ibidem p. 348. Praenotandum tertio hanc fuisse Veterum Haereticorum indolem ut solas ad Scripturas provocarent have put down such an egregious falshood as to say the Hereticks in defence of their Tenets appealed onely to Scripture when the very Title of this Chapter in Irenaeus tells us that the Hereticks would be ruled neither by Scripture nor Tradition in their Disputes with the Church * Quod neque Scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici Titulus c. 2. l. 3. Irenael adv Haereses I will set down here the beginning of the Chapter it self because it is so like the prattle of a sort of people now in the World who would be very angry to be called Hereticks When says Irenaeus c Cùm enim ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate quia variè sint dictae quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesci ant Traditionem Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem D. Irenaeus adv Haereses l. 3. c. 2. Edit Fevardent you argue against these Hereticks from the Scriptures themselves they quickly fall to accusing them that They are not right that they are not of Authority a Romanist would have added without our Church's approbation that things are set down variously and that there is no finding the Truth out of them by those who are ignorant of Tradition since It was delivered by Word of mouth not by Writing But to proceed to his new point of Controversie d Nubes Test p. 48. Nat. Alexan. p. 351. our Compiler tells us that the Fathers maintain that the Tradition of the Catholick Church is to be received and that Her Constitutions and Practices are not to be rejected though not found expresly in Scripture How loose a Writer our Compiler is the World hath been sufficiently informed by the Answers to his other pieces in this point He is resolved to act the same person while he so gingerly puts down part of the Debate betwixt us and suppresses the rest of it To state therefore the Controversie about Tradition if there really be any betwixt us He should not have put down that for the account of the Debate herein betwixt us which is agreed to by both sides nor should have omitted that wherein we really disagree and that is about the Scriptures being a certain and perfect Rule of Faith without the help of Tradition which the Council of Trent hath made to be of Equal Authority with the Scripture What our Compiler hath set down is no Controversie betwixt us since we do declare that the Tradition of the Catholick Church is to be received we do own that by This we received the Holy Scriptures and know how to separate the Scriptures from Apocryphal or Supposititious Writings and we profess also that we are willing and ready to receive any Doctrine not written that hath as perpetual unanimous and certain a Tradition as the Doctrines written in Scripture have that we onely wait for their proving that any of those Doctrines they would obtrude upon us have been thus Vniversally delivered so that herein is no Controversie betwixt us and if by Constitutions our Compiler means those about Matters of Discipline and Government and by Practices the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church He knows or least ought to know that it is the Doctrine of our Church that there is no necessity of express Scripture for the Constitutions and Practices which she enjoins in order to the more regular and decent service of God. So that here