Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.

CHAP. IV. (Book 6)

The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Pope Boniface the Third his Predeces∣sors, viz. St. Gregory, P. Pela∣gius, P. Felix, P. Gelasius, P. Leo. The 28th, Canon of Chal∣cedon illegal. Of the 2d. Canon of the first Council of Constan∣tinople.

1. BEing now to demonstrate (more than a Primacy of Order) a pri∣macy of Iurisdiction in the Predecessors of Boniface the Third, extending it self to all Christians, all particular Prelates and Churches: yet a Supremacy not unlimited,

(for then General Councils, would be useless) but sufficient to preserve unity in the Church: I will first, to make it appear reasonable, de∣clare the ground of the necessity of it, which in brief is, as the Preacher will find by the succeeding Testimonies of the Fathers; be∣cause, since General Councils (the only abso∣lute Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical) either for want of agreement among Princes, or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Pre∣lates, or great expences, &c. can very seldom be summon'd, it would be impossible, with∣out an Ordinary, constant, standing Supreme Authority in the Church, to prevent Schisms, that is, it is impossible the Church should sub∣sist.

2. For what effect against Schism can be expected from a meer Primacy of Order, a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a sitting at the upper end of the Table, a priviledge to speak first, or to collect Votes? Therefore for a Protestant to deny a Primacy of Iurisdiction to be necessary to con∣serve unity, as in a National Church, so in the Vniversal, is to give up his own cause to the Presbyterians. For all the subtilty of human wit, without such a Concession, can never answer the arguing thus,* 1.1 If (according to the Doctrin of the Fathers) there be a nec••ssity of setting up one Bishop ••ver many Fresbyters for preventing Schism: there is (say they) as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop ••ver many Bishops, and one Patriark over many

Arch-Bishops, and one Pope over all; unlesse men will imagin that there is a danger of Schism only among Presbyters, and not among Bishops, Arch-bishops, &c. which is contrary to reason, truth, hi∣story, and experience. But what expedient now, without such a primacy of Iurisdiction, can the Presbyterians find out against the mis∣chief of Schism? Truly no other, but by re∣jecting that Article of the Creed in which we professe the (certainly visible) unity of the Ca∣tholic Church, that is, by believing that Schism i•• no such ill thing, as that much care needs be used to prevent it. But surely English Protestants, not having blotted out of their Creed that Article, since they acknowledge the constituting one Bishop necessary to the unity of a Diocesse &c. will find great difficulty to shew a reason why one Governor is not as ne∣cessary to the ••nity of the whole Church, to which only both unity and Indefectibility is promised, and without which, the unity of Provinces or Dioceses are but factions.

3. Certain it is, that the antient Fathers thought so, as shall be shewed. And because new opinions arising do naturally cause de∣bates and contentions, from what causes so∣ever they flow, and contentions are apt to generate Schisms, since likewise Ecclesiastical Lawes are made to be observed every where, if any particular Church were Independent of the whole, there could be no remedy against Di∣visions; hence it is, that the Holy Fathers do

assert the necessity of a Supream Authority, and assign thereto these Acts. 1. Either to de∣termine, or at least silence Disputes about o∣pinions. 2. In those which are called majores causae, (as wrongful Depositions of Bishops, &c.) either by appeals or consultations to restore the Persons wrong'd, and punish the wrong-doers. 3. To take care that Discipline, establish'd by received canons, be e∣very where observ'd. 4. To judge when there is a necessity of convening in General Councils, and thereupon to summon all Bi∣shops, and, as far as the Authority of a common Spiritual Father may extend, to oblige Princes to permit their respective Bishops to meet.

4. These things thus premised, now fol∣low the Proofs demonstrating, that, before Boniface the thirds time, suck like Acts of a Supream Authority were practised by his Prede∣cessors, and submitted to generally in the Church. I must not write a Volume, there∣fore I will select a few examples in all Ages, which will at least recompence the Doctors Anti-quotations, and when he shall require it, many, many more shall be added.

5. To proceed therefore ascendendo;* 1.2 St. Gregory the Great, Predecessor of Boniface the third, though he would not admit an Vniver∣sal Episcopacy, yet at the same time he chal∣lenged and exercised an Vniversal Superinten∣dency: Hence,* 1.3 saies he, tis notorious that the See A∣postolic by Divine institution is preferr'd before all

Churches. And again more fully; The care* 1.4 of the Church was committed to the holy Apostle, and Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter: The care and principality of the Vniversal Church was com∣mitted to him, and yet he is not called the Vniver∣sal Apostle. Again, writing to the Bishop of Syracusa, If any fault be found in any Bishops,* 1.5 I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See Apo∣stolic: But when no fault exacts it, we are all, in regard of humility, equal. And this subjection, saies he elsewhere,* 1.6 both our most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our Brother (John) Bishop of the same City do frequently protest. And in an Epistle to Natalis,* 1.7 Bishop of Salona, If, saith he, any of the four Patriarks had committed such an act, so great a disobedience would not have passed without great scandal. Moreover in another Epistle he declares how he had reversed the judgment of the Church of Constaninople a∣gainst a Priest of Chalcedon, where he saies,* 1.8 Dost not thou know that in the cause of John the Priest against our Brother and Collegue, John of Constantinople, he, according to the Canons, had recourse to the See Apostolic, and that the cause was determined by our Sentence? A world of like examples more may be added: And in these a primacy of Iurisdiction is manifest, which therefore by his own confession is no Vsurpa∣tion.

6. In the next place the immediate Prede∣cessor of St. Gregory,* 1.9 Pope Pelagius the Second, in the very same Epistle, in which he con∣demns

the presumptuous Title of Vniversal Bishop, assumed by Iohn of Constantinople, hath this passage, writing to the Eastern Bishops,* 1.10 The Apostolic See is inform'd that John Bishop of Constantinople out of this his presumption hath convoked you to a Synod, whereas the authority of assembling general Synods is by a special priviledge deliver'd to the Apostolic See of St. Peter; neither can we read of any Synod esteem'd to be ratified, which was not establisht on the Apostolic Authority. Therefore whatever you have decreed in your fore∣said Conventicle, by the Authority of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the Speech of our Sa∣viour, who gave to Blessed Peter the power of bind∣ing and loosing, I do command all things determi∣ned by you to be void and repealed, &c.

Again his,* 1.11 not immediate, Predecessor, Pope Gelasius is a yet more full and convincing witnesse to the Popes Vniversal Iurisdiction, upon this occasion. Pope Felix the second,* 1.12 who possessed St. Peters Chair next before him, had been appealed and complain'd to by Iohn Patriark of Alexandria, unjustly dis∣possess'd by Peter an Eutichian, whom the Pope in a Synod of 42. Bishops excommunicated. Moreover, upon the complaints of the same Iohn, he cited Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to appear: And upon his contumacy excom∣municated him likewise in this Form: Take notice, saies he, that thou art deprived of Sacerdo∣tal honor, and Catholic Communion, and moreover, that thou art segregated from the number of the

Faithful, having lost both the Name and Office of Priestly Ministery, being condemned by us by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and Apostolic Authori∣••y. Yet this Sentence, not having been, as the former was, denounced in a Synod, some Ea∣stern Bishops found fault with it. Whereupon his next Successor Pope Gelasius justifies his proceedings in an Epistle to the Bishop of Dar∣dania,* 1.13 he shews that when any Heretic has bin once condemned by a Synod, (as Sabellius, &c.) there was need of convoking new Synods for the condemning his Followers: And that this was the case of Acacius, who communi∣cated with Peter and Timotheus, Bishops of A∣lexandria, Eutychians, which Heresie had been condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. In consequence whereto he adds these Words: Neither do we omit to signifie, which the whole Church all the world over knows very well, that the See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter, has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the Sen∣tences of any Bishops whatsoever, as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church, neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgment: Seeing the Canons have ordain'd that appeals should be made to it from every part of the World. Are these now marks onely of a Primacy of Order, and not Supremacy of Iu∣risdiction?

7. We will next enlarge a step to Pope Leo the Great,* 1.14 who began his Seat in the year 440.* 1.15 and in whose time the General Council of Chal∣cedon

was assembled. How couragious and constant an Assertor he was of his Supream Iurisdiction, most of his Epistles witnesse, and almost all Protestant Controver••ists complain. He in his 53d.* 1.16 Epistle to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople; in the 54th. to the Emperor Marcianus;* 1.17 and the 55th. to the Empresse Pul∣cheria,* 1.18 vindicates the Derivation of his Au∣thority, not from the Imperial City, but St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles.

8. Therefore, whereas the Preacher calls to witnesse the famous Canon of Chalcedon,* 1.19 decree∣ing to the Bishop of Constantinople an equality of priviledges with the Bishop of Rome; not for any other reason then its having the good hap to be one of the two Imperial Cities. If he had had a mind to dealingenuously, he would have cal'd it an infamous Canon surreptitiously made, saith Liberatus, after the departure of the Iudges,* 1.20 the Senate, and of the Legats of the See Apostolic; and entirely nullyfied by the protestation of the said Legats,* 1.21 and the Sentence of Pope Leo, without whose consent, according to the antient traditionary Law, nothing made in any Council could oblige the Church. A Canon this was, so despised during that whole Age and more, that the memory of it only remained in the Acts of that Council, but it was not inserted among the other Canons, for as it appears by the most antient Greek and Latin Copies of that Council, by the collection of Dionisius Exiguus,* 1.22 and by the Testimony of Theodoret

Anagnostes a Grecian, the Council of Chalcedo•• publisht only twenty seven Canons, whereas now this is reckoned the 28th.

Lastly, A Canon this was, that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople (by whose brig••ing with some Bishops, and violence to others it was compiled) was himself both ashamed and sorrow for it,* 1.23 as appears by St. Leo's an∣swer to him: And of which Pope Gelasius forty years after affirms,* 1.24 That the See Aposto∣lic never consented to it, the Emperor never imposed it; Anatolius never made use of it, and the whole matter was put in the power of the See Apostolic: And therefore what the same See confirm'd, re∣mained in force, and that which it receiv'd not, could not have any firmnesse.

9. Now because this enormous Canon was pretended to be only a renewing of a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople,* 1.25 observe the false dealing of that Bishop and his Clergy, in citing that Canon. For whereas it was thus conceived, Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) pre∣rogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome:* 1.26 These renewers of this Canon at Chalcedon, fraudulently thrust in the words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] equal priviledges: As if, excepting only the sitting in the second Chair, he was to enjoy in the Church all the prerogatives of the See A∣postolick: A fancy which never entred into the minds of those former Bishops. And in∣deed de facto after the fourth Council of Chal∣cedon,

the new Patriark, by vertue of the ex∣otic power given him, presumed to summon all the other Patriarks and Bishops in the East to a Council; An attempt repressed by Pope Leo.

And no doubt when afterward the usur∣ped the Title of Oecumenical Bishop, they would not fear to give the same Title of Oe∣cumenical to their Councils too.

10. And as for the second Canon of that Council of Constantinople quoted in the Mar∣gin of the Sermon,* 1.27 whereby the Eastern Pa∣triarks are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiastical af∣fairs beyond the limits of their Provinces, what is this to the Bishop of Rome? He is not so much as named nor thought of in that Canon: Neither was there ever any received Council in Gods Church that excluded him from an uni∣versal Iurisdiction which the Doctor sees was ••rcised by so many Popes at and after the Council of Chalcedon, and he will see more be∣fore it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ius Divinum Ministr. Evang. in App••••d. prep. 5.
• * 1.2

  A. D. 590.
• * 1.3

  Greg. M. lib. 2. all Indict. 11. Ep. 3.
• * 1.4

  Idem. lib. 7. jud. 2. Epist. 64.
• * 1.5

  Id. lib. 7. jud. 2: Epist. 64.
• * 1.6

  Id. l. 2. Indict. 2. Ep. 63.
• * 1.7

  Id. l. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 37.
• * 1.8

  Id. l. 5. Indict. 14. Ep. 24.
• * 1.9

  A. D. 577.
• * 1.10

  Pelag. 2. Ep. ••.
• * 1.11

  A. D. 494.
• * 1.12

  A. D. 484.
• * 1.13

  Felix 2. in Ep. ad Episc. Dard.
• * 1.14

  A. D. 440.
• * 1.15

  A. D. 451.
• * 1.16

  Leo M. in Ep. 53.
• * 1.17

  Idem. Ep. 54.
• * 1.18

  Idem Ep. 55.
• * 1.19

  Serm. pag. 19.
• * 1.20

  Liberat in Brev. cap. 13.
• * 1.21

  Socrat. Hist. l. 2. c. 5.
• * 1.22

  Theodor. Anag. in Syng. Can.
• * 1.23

  Leo. Ep. 55. ad Anat.
• * 1.24

  Gelas P. Tom. de Anathem. Vinc.
• * 1.25

  A. D. 381.
• * 1.26

  Conc. Constanti∣nop. 1. Can. 3.
• * 1.27

  Serm. pag. 18▪ Concil. Const. 1. Can. 2.