To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
1. Whether Protestants, beside reforming themselves, did not condemn the Church of errour in Faith. 2. That St. Peter had a larger and higher Power over the Church of Christ, then the rest of the Apostles. 3. The History, or matter of Fact, touching the Donatists appealing to the Emperor, related; and how little it advantages the Bishop or his party. 4. St. Gregories Authority concerning the question of Appeals, and
the Civil Law, notably wrested by the Bishop. 5. St. Wilfrid, Arch∣bishop of York, twice appealed to Rome, and was twice restor'd to his Bishoprick, by vertue of the Popes Authority. 6. The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman 7. St. Peters placing his Sea at Rome, no ground of his Successors Supremacy. 8. Why the Em∣perours for some time ratified the Popes Election. 9. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden by the Canons to appeal to Rome. 10. The Pope never accus'd by the Ancients of falsifying the Canons; and that he might justly cite the Canons of Sardica, as Canons of the Council of Nice.
BY the precedent Discourse it appears, that the Bishops main task, for a long time, hath been to prove, that the General Church may erre, and stand in need of Reformation in matters of Faith: this be∣ing * 1.1 the thing, which A. C. most constantly denyes. But his Lord∣ship finding the proof of this not so easie, by little and little was fain to slide into another question, concernig the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves, thinking by this to Authorize the pretended Reformation of his particular English Church. To this purpose were his many Allegations of the Councils of Carthage, Rome, Gangres, Toledo, &c. § 24. num. 5. which how they succeeded, the Reader may easily have perceiv'd by our Answers in the prece∣dent Chapter.
1. He goes on with his wonted Art: which is, to alledge his Adversary with not overmuch sincerity. A. C. treating the above∣said question touching the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves, and not denying, but in some cases particular Churches may reform what is amiss even in matter of Faith, for greater caution, addes these express words, (pag. 58.) WHEN THE NEED (of Reformation) IS ONELY QUESTIONABLE, particular Pa∣stours and Churches may not condemn others of Errour in Faith. But these words, when the need is onely questionable, the Bishop thinks fit to leave out: to what end, but to have some colour to contradict his Adversary, and abuse his Reader?
Let us now see whether his Lordships party be far from judging and condemning other Churches, as he seems to make them by his simile. A man that lives religiously (sayes he) doth not by and by sit in judgement, and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers. But yet while he is silent, his very life condemns them. First of all, Who are these men that live so religiously? They, who to propagate the Gospel the better marry Wives, contrary to the Canons, and bring (for∣sooth) Scripture for it * 1.2 Non est bonum esse hominem solum; and again, † 1.3 Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi? Who are these men (I say) that live so religiously? They, who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women; They, who cast Al∣tars to the ground; They, who partly banish Priests, partly put them to death; They, who deface the very Tombs of Saints, and will not permit them to rest even after they are dead. These are the men who live so religiously. But who are (according to his Lordship) prophane Livers? They, who stick close to St. Peter and his Successors; They, who for the Catholique Faith endure most willingly Sequestrations,
Imprisonments, Banishments, Death it self; They, in a word, who suffer Persecution for Righteousness. These, in his Lordships opinion, are Prophane Livers.
I return now to the Relatours men, that live so religiously. Do these men never condemn the Catholique Church, but by their ver∣tuous lives, which you have seen? Surely they condemn her not onely by quite dissonant lives, but also by word of mouth, by their pens, nay by publick and solemn Censures. Witness (to go no fur∣ther) the Protestant Church of England, Artic. 19. where she con∣demns of errour not onely the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria, but even of Rome it self. Again Rogers in his allowed Analyse and * 1.4 Comment upon the said Article, pronounces that the Church of Rome hath not onely shamefully err'd in matters of Faith, but that the whole visible Church may likewise erre from time to time, and hath err'd in doctrine, as well as conversation. Do they not say, Artic. 21. that General Councils may erre, and have err'd, even in things pertaining to God? Do they not pronounce of Purgatory, Praying to Saints, Wor∣ship of Images and Reliques &c. Artic. 22. of Transubstantiation, Artic. 28. and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, Artic. 31. respectively, that they are fond things, vainly invented by men, contrary to Gods Word, Blasphemous Fables, and dangerous Deceits? Though it be as clear as the sun at noon-day, that both these and many other points, deny'd and rejected by Protestants, were the doctrine and practise, not onely of the Roman, but of the whole Church near upon a thousand years together, even by the confession of Protestants. Is this onely to reform themselves, and not to condemn other Churches: otherwise then by silence and example? Do not all other Protestant a 1.5 Confessions of Faith speak the same language? Do they not all take upon them, with a more then censorious presumption, to condemn the Doctrine and practise of the Roman Catholique, that is, of the whole true Church of Christ, in the same and divers other contested points?
2. A. C. therefore well mindes us, that in all matters of difficulty * 1.6 belonging to Faith, particular Churches should have recourse to the Church of Rome, (as Irenaeus intimates) which hath a more powerful Prin∣cipality; * 1.7 and to her Bishop, who is chief Pastour of the whole Church, as being St. Peters Successour, to whom Christ promis'd the Keyes, Math. 16. for whom he pray'd that his Faith might not fail, Luke 22. and whom he charg'd to Feed and Govern his Flock, John 21. which (saith A. C.) he shall never refuse to do in such sort, as that his neglect shall be a just cause for any particular man, or Church, under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith, to make a Schisme, or Separation, from the whole Gene∣ral Church. In answer to this the Bishop tells us, the Roman Church hath indeed a more powerful Principality, then any other particular Church, but not from Christ: which is contrary to St. * 1.8 Austin, or rather to the whole Council of Milevis, who in their Epistle to Innocent the first pro∣fesse, that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture, and consequently proceeds from Christ. Se∣condly, he sayes the Patriarchs were all as even, and equal for any
Principality of Power, as the Apostles were. But this is first Equivocal, the Apostles themselves were not in all respects equal, or of even Au∣thority. They had a Superiour among them, viz. Saint Peter. 'Tis true indeed, except St. Peter, they were are all equal among them∣selves; every one of them had equal mission unto, and Jurisdiction over the whole Church, and none of them any Authority preceptive or coercive over another: whereas St. Peter, together with his Autho∣rity Apostolical over the whole Church, (which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles) had also Jurisdiction and Authority, over the Apostles themselves, as being, in the number of Christs sheep, committed to his charge by our Saviour, John 21. as is clear in all Antiquity.
Secondly, 'tis contrary to the Council of Nice. In the third Ca∣non * 1.9 whereof, which concerns the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs, the Authority (or Principality, if you will) of the Bishop of Rome is made the patern, or model of that Authority and Jurisdiction, which the Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops. The words of the Canon are these. Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus, qui sub potestate ejus sunt, sicut ille, qui tenet Sedem Romae, CAPUT ESTET PRINCEPS OMNIUM PATRIARCHARUM.
The Patriarch (say they) is in the same manner over all those, that are under his Authority, as He, who holds the Sea of Rome, is Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs. And in the same Canon the Pope is afterward stiled, Petro similis & Autoritate par, (resembling Saint Peter, and, his equal in Authority.)This also the practise of the Church shews; which is alwayes the best Expositour and Assertour of the Canons. For not onely the Popes Confirmation was requi∣red to all new-elected Patriarchs, but it belong'd likewise to him to depose unworthy ones, and restore the unjustly deposed by others. We read of no less then a 1.10 eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome. Sixtus the third deposed also Po∣lychronius Bishop of Jerusalem, as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie. On the contrary b 1.11 Athanasius Pa∣triarch of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople were by Julius the first restored to their respective Seas, having been unjustly expell'd by Hereticks. The same might be said of divers others; over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority: which he could never have done, upon any other ground, then that of divine Right, and as being generally acknowledg'd St. Peters Successour in the Go∣vernment of the whole Church.
St. Austin therefore said well, c 1.12 in Romanâ Ecclesiâ semper Aposto∣licae Cathedrae viguit Principatus, (in the Roman Church the Principa∣lity of the Apostolique Chair hath alwayes flourisht.) Here the Bishop will have some other Apostolique Chairs, like this of Rome, viz. equal * 1.13 to it in Authority. But this he does, partly to level the Dignity of the Roman Sea, contrary to St. Austin, and all Antiquity, and partly to make way to some other pretty perversions of the same Father. For we must know, he is now entring upon that main question con∣cerning the Donatists of Africk; of whose proceedings the whole forecited Epistle of St. Austin treateth: and therefore (to make our
answer to his objections more compendious and clear) it will not be amiss, in the first place, to state that business by way of Narrative, and matter of Fact onely; which I shall briefly do out of St. Austin, and Optatus Milevitanus. Thus then it was.
3. The Donatists of Africk finding themselves sharply oppos'd by Caecilianus, Arch-bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa, by way of revenge d 1.14 accuse him of having in time of Persecution deliver'd up the Holy Scriptures, with other Sacred Utensils of the Church, into the possession of the Heathens; which was accounted a most capital crime amongst Christians. They added to their accusation, that he was made Bishop by one guilty of the same crime, viz. by Felix Bishop of Aptung; and they prosecuted the business so hotly, that by a Synod of seventy African Bishops Caecilian was condemn'd, and outed of his Bishoprick. But he, making no great reckoning of the sentence, as being condemn'd absent and unheard, and knowing him∣self to be in Communion with the Roman Church, the Donatists are forced to prosecute their charge against him in other Churches be∣yond Sea. But not daring to appear at Rome, or at least knowing it would be to little purpose, they address themselves to the Emperour e 1.15 Constantin, and desire him to command their cause to be heard by some Bishops of the Gaules in France, where the Emperour then resi∣ded. But the Emperour was so far from favouring them f 1.16, that he shew'd a great dislike of their proceedings, telling them g 1.17 exprefly, that it belong'd not to him, neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops. Nevertheless knowing very well the turbu∣lent disposition of Schismatiques, and perceiving they meant not to acquiesce in the sentence of any Ecclesiastical Tribunal, to which they were immediately subject, he thought good to take a middle way: which was to send them to Rome, there to be heard and judged by the Pope, to whom the cause did most properly belong; h 1.18 but yet to comply a little with the Donatists, he sent along with them some Bishops of the Gaules, in whom they more confided, and whom they had already demanded to be their Judges; intending that these French Bishops should hear the Donatists cause together with the Pope, and determine therein what they should finde to be right. Nei∣ther did Melchiades (the Pope) refuse them; but for the greater solem∣nity of the judgement and satisfaction of the parties, adjoyned to them i 1.19 fifteen other Italian Bishops, and so proceeded to the hearing of the Cause. But behold the issue! After a full hearing of all par∣ties the Donatists were k 1.20 condemn'd; Caecilianus, Felix, and some other African Bishops of their party were justifi'd and acquitted.
The Schismatiques being thus condemn'd at Rome, and even by those Bishops of the Gaules, whom they had chosen for Judges, by way of Appeal address themselves again to the Emperour; which the pious Prince took so hainously, that (as Optatus Milevitanus re∣ports) he cry'd out against them to this purpose, m 1.21 O the audacious folly and madness of these men! See; They have here exhibited an Ap∣peal (being themselves Bishops, and in a cause of Bishops) just as Infidels use to do in their own causes. Nevertheless being at length as it were forced by their n 1.22 obstinate importunity, he condescends they should
be heard once again, not as admitting their appeal, or deporting him∣self in the business as their competent Judge; but chiefly for their further conviction o 1.23 and to inform himself of the cause of Felix Bi∣shop of Aptung, which the Donatists pretended had not been duly heard at Rome. Whereupon a Council of two hundred Bishops was assembled at p 1.24 Arles, where the Popes Legates were present, as also the three Bishops of the Gaules, and some of the Italian Bishops, who had already pronounced sentence in the cause at Rome. To be short, the Donatists are in this Council likewise q 1.25 condemn'd, but not qui∣eted; for with an impudence proper to such people, and to be paral∣lel'd onely with their fellow Schismatiques, they run the third time to the Emperour, and will not be satisfied, unless he condescend to hear them in person. What should the Emperour do? He had al∣ready protested against this, as of it self unlawful, but there was no remedy; the Schismatiques will not let him rest until he hear them. Wherefore having first r 1.26 promised to ask the Bishops pardon, he consents to this also; hears them, and s 1.27 condemns them with his own mouth.
This is the true and real story of the Donatists proceedings; from whence his Lordship brings several objections against the Popes Supremacy, which we are now to examine. First he would have us observe, that the Roman Prelate came not in, till the Donatists had leave gi∣ven them by the African Prelates, to be heard by forreign Bishops. But this proves rather the justice and moderation of the Roman Prelate, that he came not in before it was due time, and the matter orderly brought before him. For though the cause did most properly belong to the Popes Cognizance, yet was it first to be heard and decided by the Bishops of the Province, where the cause first sprang up. The Pope was not to meddle with it, otherwise then by way of regular Appeal, unless (perchance) he had seen the Provincial Bishops to have neg∣lected it, or been unable effectually to determine it. Secondly, he abuses St. Austin in making him say, that the African Bishops gave the * 1.28 Donatists leave to be heard by forreign Bishops. Whereas there is no such leave mention'd, or insinuated by St. Austin in all that Epistle. What he sayes is onely his own private advise, viz. that if any of them had convincing proofs of ought that was criminal in the Ca∣tholique Bishops of Africa, for which they fear'd to communicate with them, they should apply themselves to the Transmarine Bi∣shops, and especially to the Bishop of Rome, and there make their complaints: which is not a dispensing with them to do something, which otherwise they might not do, (as the Bishop would have it thought) much less is it a license, or dispensation, given them by the African Bishops sitting in Council; but onely a private exhortation, and counsel of t 1.29 St. Austin himself, requiring them to do what according to the Canons was to be done in such a case.
His second objection is, that if the Pope had come in without this leave, to judge the Donatists cause, it had been an usurpation in him.
But this is grounded partly upon his own false supposition, that such leave was given, and partly upon an affected mistake, or mis-translati∣on of the words usurpare and usurpavit. For 'tis evident, in the first part of the sentence St. Austin speaks not in his own person, but in the per∣son of the Donatists, as making an objection to himself in their behalf. u 1.30 An fortè non debuit, &c. (the words you have in the margin at large) Ought not, per∣chance, Melchiades, Bishop of the Roman Church, with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops, to challenge to himself that judge∣ment? &c. Whereas, the Bishop by his englishing the words makes St. Austin po∣sitively say, peradventure Melchiades ought not (of right) to have chal∣lenged (or usurp'd) to himself that judgement: which surely was a no∣torious winding in his Labyrinth. For it makes that to be a Negative in St. Austins sense, which doubtless in his true meaning was an Af∣firmative; and by asking, will you Donatists say he ought not to do this, he by consequence and in effect said, that he ought to do it. For the second part of the Speech, where St. Austin answers the objection, 'tis no less clear, that he speaks per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by way of condescen∣dence to his Adversaries manner of speaking, the better to mollifie them, which is oftentimes practis'd in Rhetorick; and not as ac∣knowledging, that it could be any real usurpation in the Pope, to take cognizance of such a cause without leave given. And if our Adver∣saries think not this true, let them tell us, who, but our Saviour Christ and the Canons of the Universal Church, gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius, and those many other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church, which most certainly he did both hear and judge effectually, no man (no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffer'd by his judgement) complaining, or accusing him of usurpation.
Thirdly, he alledges, that other Bishops were made Judges with the Pope, and that by the Emperours power, which the Pope will now least of all endure. I answer first, the Bishops sent by the Emperour were onely three; an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence: and the Pope to shew his Authority, that he was not to be prescrib'd by any in this cause, added to these three, fifteen other Bishops of Italy, to be his Colleagues and Assistants in the business. Secondly I answer, the Emperour in sending those Bishops together with the Donatists to Rome, did nothing by way of Authority, or Command, but of Media∣tion, as using his Interest with the Pope; which he might do without breach of the Canons. What he did afterward, he openly protested to be in it self unlawful, and not belonging to him; he did it therefore onely in condescendence to the Donatists importunity, and would have askt the Bishops pardon for it, as x 1.31 S. Austin witnesses: whose sentence y 1.32 here lamely cited by the Bishop, is far from proving his intent, viz. that the judgement of this cause was a thing properly belonging to the Emperours Authority. Nor doth it concern us at all, that the Emperour gave sentence in the business; since being wrought to it by the importunity of the Donatists, he was bound in conscience, to act
the part of a just Judge, and pronounce a right sentence: which as he finally did, in condemning these Schismaticks, as we said above, so no doubt it is all St. Austin means by the words alledged.
4. His Deductions from the Civil Law are no better. For first, suppose that an inferiour Prelate could not appeal from the sentence of his Patriarch; yet when the Patriarchs themselves have differen∣ces one with another, must there not according to the rules of good Government, be some higher ordinary Tribunal, where such causes may be heard and determined? I say Ordinary. For it would be a manifest defect, if that which is the extraordinary High Court of Ecclesiastical Justice, viz. a General Council, should be of necessity assembled for every particular difference between Patriarchs. Se∣condly, what the Law sayes, is rightly understood, and must be ex∣plicated of Inferiour Clerks onely; who were not (of ordinary course) to appeal further then the Patriarch, or the Primate of their Province; for so the z 1.33 Council of Africk determines. But 'tis even a 1.34 there acknowledg'd that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome. The same explication is to be given to the Text of St. Gregory, viz. that he speaks of Inferiour Clerks, since Bishops were ever accustomed to ap∣peal to the Pope. But I wonder his Lord∣ship would expose to view the following words of St. b 1.35 Gregory; Where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch, even In∣feriour Clerks, when they appeal, must have their recourse to the Sea Apostolique. Then surely it follows, the Bishop of Romes Jurisdicti∣on is not onely over the Western or Southern Provinces, (as the Rela∣tour limits it, pag. 168.) but over the whole Church, whither the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and Patriarchs never extended. Nei∣ther could such Appeals be just, if the Bishop of Rome were not the Lawful Superiour and Judge of all the Bishops of Christendome; it being confest, that no Juridical Appeal can be made, but from an in∣feriour to a superiour Judge.
To those words of St. Gregory, quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est, wherein he intimates the reason, why Appeals should be brought, from all parts of Christendome, to the Sea Apostolique, his Lordship thinks it best to use this evasion. I have said enough to that (saith he) in divers parts of this discourse. But in what parts hitherto I cannot finde, though I have us'd some diligence in the search. I could there∣fore wish he had spoken something to it here, where he had so fair an occasion. I onely say this. If the Roman Sea be the Head of all Churches, (as St. Gregory sayes it is) surely it hath Authority over all Churches.
His Lordship, as long as he stands upon the Roman ground, stands upon thorns, and therefore makes a step, or rather a leap, from the Church of Rome, to the Church of England; with whose Enco∣miums given heretofore by Antiquity, he is much pleas'd. But what those Antient times of Church Government were, wherein Brittain was
never subject to the Sea of Rome, we desire should be prov'd, and not meerly said.
I should not have envy'd his Lordships happiness (much less the honour of his Sea) had he and all his worthy Predecessours (as he calls them) since St. Austin, been enobled with the Eminence of Patriarks: yet I see no reason, why a velut Patriarcha, pronounc'd by the Pope by way of Encomium onely, upon a particular occasion, should be of force to make Canterbury a Patriarchal Sea. Similies fall alwayes short of the thing it self. Again it imports little, that there was a Primate in Brittain; for that onely proves, that inferiour Clerks might not ordinarily appeal from him to Rome: but that Brittain was not subject to the Roman Sea, or that the Brittish Bishops did not (as oc∣sion requir'd) freely and continually appeal to Rome, it doth not prove; yea the contrary is manifest by all the monuments of the Brittish Church. What ever is meant by the words in Barbarico, cited by his Lordship out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae, certain it is, that whoever were under the government of the Patriarch of Constantinople, were not exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of Rome; nei∣ther ought the Relatour to suppose it, unless he had first prov'd, that the said Patriarch had been himself legally exempt, or not subject to the Pope: which he neither offers to do, nor can it be done; nay the contrary is evident.
5. To me truly it seems very strange, his Lordship should be so little acquainted with the Ecclesiastical History of England, as to af∣firm so confidently, that in ancient times Brittain was never subject to Rome; meaning in Ecclesiastical matters. For (to instance in the very business of Appeals) doth not a 1.36 Venerable Bede tell us, that in King Egfrids time (which was about the Year of our Lord 673.) St. Wil∣frid, Archbishop of York, being unjustly depriv'd of his Bishoprick, appeal'd to the Sea Apostolique, was heard by Pope Agatho in the presence of many other Bishops, and by their unanimous Sentence was pronounced innocent? Was he not restor'd again to his Bishop∣rick by vertue of that sentence? Doth not the same Authour affirm, that being the second time expell'd his Sea, he did the second time al∣so appeal to Rome, and was likewise acquitted, upon a full hearing of his cause, in the presence of his adversaries? Was there not, upon his second return into England, a Synod of Bishops call'd in obedience to the Popes order; in which, by the general vote of all the good Bi∣shop was again restor'd? Is this no Evidence of Romes Authority over England in ancient times? 'Tis now almost a thousand yeares since Bede wrote, and doubtless his History is one of the most Au∣thentick we have: he being a most holy and learned man.
Again, is it not manifest out of him, that even the Primitive Ori∣ginal Institution of our English Bishopricks was from Rome? See the Letter of Pope Gregory the first to St. Austin our English Apostle, which Bede reports in these words; b 1.37—Quia nova Anglorum Ec∣clesia ad omnipotentis Dei gratiam, codem Domino largiente, et Te labor ante, perducta est, &c. Seeing by the goodness of God (saith he) and your in∣dustry, the new English Church is brought unto the Faith of Christ, we grant to you the use of the PALL (the proper Badge, or Sign, of Ar∣chiepiscopal
Dignity) to wear it when you say MASS: and we conde∣scend, that you ordain twelve Bishops under your Jurisdiction; yet so, that the Bishop of London be consecrated hereafter by a Synod of his own Bishops, and receive the PALL from this Holy Apostolical Sea, wherein 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , by the Authority of God, do now serve. Our will likewise is, that you send a Bishop to York; to whom we intend also to give the PALL (that is, to make him an Archbishop:) But TO YOU shall be subject, not onely the Bishops you make, and he of York, but all the Bishops of Brittain. Behold here the Original Charter (as I may say) of the Primacy of Canterbury; in this Letter and Mandate of the Pope it is founded: Nor can it with any colour of reason be drawn from other Origin. By vertue of this Grant, have all the succeeding Bishops of that Sea, enjoy'd the Dignity and Authority of Primates in this Nation: which is a thing so out of question, that truly I see not how 'tis pos∣sible either to excuse the Relatours gross ignorance, if he knew it not; or his great ingratitude, if knowing it, he would be so unworthy as to belye his own knowledge, and dissemble his obligations to that Pope, who had done so much for the Sea of Canterbury.
6. In the following pages his Lordship spends not a few lines in * 1.38 vain, labouring to prove a Separation of the African Church from that of Rome; chiefly out of two Instruments, found in several Editions of the Councils, which seem to testifie as much. One is an Epistle, or Supplication rather, which Eulalius Bishop of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is suppos'd to have written to Pope Boniface the second, in the name of the African Church, desiring a Reconciliation with the Roman, and disclaiming the Separation made between them for many years before. The other is an Epistle of the same Pope Boniface the second to Eulalius Patri∣arch of Alexandria, wherein he imparts the good news of the African Churches Submission, and Reconciliation with the Roman, and re∣joyces with him upon the occasion. But I answer, As the Bishop himself stands not to maintain the Credit of these Epistles (which he knows to be generally question'd by Catholiques) nor answer the exceptions, which Baronius and Bellarmin bring against them; so the * 1.39 use he makes of them is to very little purpose.
To the first part of his Dilemma, viz. If the said Instruments be false, then Pope Boniface the second, and his Accomplices at Rome, or some for them, are notorious forgers &c. We deny the consequence; there is no necessity to affirm, that either Boniface the second, or his Accom∣plices, were forgers of these pretended Instruments; but rather the contrary: In regard such a forgery would presently have been dis∣cover'd and exclaim'd against; seeing in that Popes time no such man as Eulalius was Bishop of Alexandria, but one Timotheus, an Here∣tique, * 1.40 and great opposer of the Roman Church. Neither could the other Eulalius he speaks of, be then a Catholique Bishop of Carthage; it being a time when there was not one Catholique Bishop in all Africk.
As to his closing words or some for them, if he mean they did it by the Popes consent, 'tis answer'd under the word Accomplices: but if he intend no more, but that they were forged by some body, 'tis very true; but what will it concern the Roman Sea, if some other feign an
Epistle in the Popes name? Were there not some that feign'd Epistles, and other writings in the Apostles names? was that the Apostles fault? or did it bring any just prejudice either to the Authority, or Integrity of their writings?
To the second part, viz. If these Instruments be true, then the Church of Africk did separate from the Roman, and the Separation continued for above a hundred years. I answer, Till it be evinced, that these Instru∣ments are true, we cannot suffer by them: but his Lordship is so far from offering at this, that he doth not so much as positively affirm it. He shews us indeed, several Editions of the Councils, wherein these Instruments are inserted. But it is well known, that the Editions of Councils cited by the Bishop, have many other Apocryphal and un∣authentique writings inserted in them besides these. The reason of this may be, because the Compilers of those times did not take upon them to be Censurers of what they found upon ancient Record, but onely to be faithful Publishers of the Records. Whence it is, that as they did not except against these Instruments, (no more then against others of like nature) so neither did they expresly approve them; but meerly publish'd what they found upon Record, leaving the further scrutiny to the learned. But as for the Schismatical Separation of the Afri∣can Church from the Roman, argued out of the said Instruments, 'tis inconsistent with the truth of Story, and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances, which prove, that the Africans, notwith∣standing the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage touching matter of Appeals, were alwayes in true Catholique Communion with the Roman Church, even during the term of this pretended Sepa∣ration.
Witness, in the first place, St. Austin himself, who though he were present, and subscrib'd (as 'tis most probable) to that Epistle of the Council of Carthage, which gave all the offence, yet after his death Pope Celestin in his Epistle to the Bishops of France, using many ex∣pressions of high commendation, professeth a 1.41 that he both liv'd and dyid in the Communion of the Roman church Witness likewise b 1.42 Pope Leo the first, who for some time of the said pretended Separation, had his Legats in. Africk, ordering Ecclesiastical matters there; and re∣ceiv'd Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing unto him. Witness al∣so Eugenius, a Catholique Bishop of Carthage, who in his answer to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , requiring a Disputation with him, touching matters of Faith, c 1.43 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches, and that he ought not to enter into dispute with any concerning such matters, without first consulting that Church. Witness Fulgentius, another of the most eminent Bishops of the African Church, living also within the said term; whose testimony is already cited, Chap. 10. §. 5. pag. 131, 132. Witness the two African Bishops, Restitutus and Octavius, who were present at the Council of Rome, under d 1.44 Pope Hilarius about the Year 467. and subscrib'd the Canons: one whereof was, That none ought to violate the Constitutions of the Nicen Council, nor the Deorees of the Apostolique Sea. Witness further Pope Gregory him∣self, e 1.45 who in several of his Epistles acknowledges the Bishop of Car∣thage, and other African Bishops, to have been at that time in Com∣munion
with him; yea particularly praises them for their respects to the Sea Apostolique; and asserts his own right of receiving Appeals from all parts of Christendom, as necessity requires. Witness final∣ly no less then two hundred African Bishops at once, who being banish'd into Sicily for the Catholique Faith, by the Arrian King Gelimer, f 1.46 Symmachus Papa, (saith Paulus Diaconus) UT SUA MEM∣BRA, suis sumptibus aluit ac fovit liberalissimè; Pope Symmachus maintain'd them most liberally at his own charge, as members of his own body: which is a convincing argument, that he held them not for Schismatiques.
7. In the next Paragraph, the Bishop by a long discourse founded more upon his own conjectural presumptions, then any thing else, undertakes to shew, how the Popes rose by degrees to that height of Authority, * 1.47 which Protestants cannot endure to see; in which discourse having first asper'st St. Hierome as being no great friend to Bishops, (which is both false and injurious to the reputation of so holy a Doctour) at last he delivers his own assertion, which is, That the very Fountain of Papall Greatness was the Popes residence in the great Imperial City. But we have often shew'd a far different Fountain thereof, viz. the Ordi∣nance of Christ, making St. Peter Head of his Universal Church, in that Text of the Gospel, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, &c. ac∣cording to the common Exposition of Fathers; is it reason then, we should take the Relatours bare word for it without proof? Well, but Precedency (saith he) is one thing, and Authority another; thereby insinuating that under the reign of Constantin the Bishop of Rome had onely Precedency, or Priority of place in publique Assemblies before other Prelats, by reason of his residence in the Imperial City, with∣out any proper Authority, or Jurisdiction over them. But we have often evidenc'd the contrary.
8. After a slight glance at the Levity of the Eastern, and Arro∣gancy of the Western Bishops, (wherein the Pope is no more con∣cern'd then all other Prelats of the West) he tells us of the Obedience Popes did anciently shew towards the Emperours; enduring (saith he) their Censures and Judgements; and accepting the ratification of their Election to the Popedom, at the Emperours hands. We con∣fess all this. They endured the Emperours Censures, just in the same manner, as all other oppressed persons are forc'd to endure the judge∣ment of their oppressors. But let all his Lordships party shew us one just judgement, that an Emperour ever pronounced against the Pope. They accepted the ratification of their Election at the Emperours hands: but surely that (except in some few cases; where wicked Emperors ap∣parently tyranniz'd over them, and by force compell'd them to do what they pleas'd, contrary to Law and Custom) was no more then this. The Emperour being duly inform'd, that such or such a person was Canonically chosen Pope, there issued forth of course some De∣claration, or other Authentick Act from the Emperour, whereby he gave notice thereof to the principal Judicatures and Prefect ships of the Empire, requiring them, upon all occasions, to acknowledge the said Elected person for Pope. A thing very proper for the Em∣perour to do, as the state of the Empire then stood, as was also ob∣serv'd
in the Election of most of the chief Prelats and Officers of the Empire. But his Lordship was much mistaken, if under the notion of ratifying the Popes Election he thought the Emperours had ever any just power to make whom they pleased Pope: never any good Em∣perour pretended to more, then to see that the Election were Cano∣nical: which, in a matter so highly concerning the peace of the Em∣pire, could not with equity be deny'd them. But had any Empe∣rours refus'd to ratifie the Election of a Pope Canonically chosen, no man but a stranger in Ecclesiastical History, can doubt, but all good Christians would in such case, have adher'd to the said Pope, and not to him the Emperour should have obtruded upon them. We also grant, that so long as the Pope remain'd a Subject of the Empire, this custome continued: but being afterward declar'd free from that subjection, the reason ceased, and the custome with it. See Gratian. Decret. Can. Ego Ludovicus. Dist. 63. & Can. Constitutio, Dist. eâdem where the Emperours themselves renounce it.
After this, to prove that the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria were grown so ambitious, that they could hardly contain themselves with∣in the ordinary bounds of their own Jurisdictions, the Relatour cites us three Greek words out of Socrates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifie beyond their Priestly Power, or Office: to which I might well supersede the answer; since he quotes not the place of his Author; which, it's more then probable he industriously omitted. Yet the place (after some search) we have found, Lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11. and must needs say, 'tis such a place as clearly shews, not onely that Socrates was an enemy of the Roman Church, and a favourer of Heretiques, (as divers good Authours charge him) but that even the Bishop himself was not so great a friend to Truth and Ingenuity as he ought. For certainly the Historian utters the alledged words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meerly out of spleen against the said Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria, a 1.48 for not suffering the Novatian Heretiques to exercise pub∣liquely the profession of their Heresie in Catholique Churches: for which how little it became his Lordship first to tax them of pride; and then to palliate his injurious cen∣sure with the testimony of such an Authour, let any man judge. But all's lawful with some men, that's done, or spoken against the Roman Church. Billius his observation of the Western Bishops objecting Levity to the Eastern; and of these retorting Arrogancy to those of the West, proves just as much, as the Testimony of one Adversary against an∣other; and whether the world by this took notice of the Popes ambition, or not, sure I am, there's no unbyassed Judgement, but will take notice our Adversary is very destitute of solid proofs, who fills his pages onely with such impertinencies as these.
9. His main design is to overthrow the Popes Supremacy, by shewing it was not lawful to appeal to Rome. But Catholique Au∣thors frame an unanswerable Argument for his Supremacy even from the contrary, thus; It was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome in Ec∣clesiastical affairs from all the parts of Christendome: therefore (say they) the Pope must needs be Supream Judge in Ecclesiastical matters.
This is evidenc'd out of the fourth and seventh Canons of the Coun∣cil of Sardica, accounted anciently an Appendix of the Council of Nice, and often cited as the same with it. I deny not but some anci∣ent Authors may speak against too frequent appealing to Rome, and declining ordinary Jurisdiction, especially where the crimes were ma∣nifest, and all just proceedings towards delinquent parties observ'd: as who doubts, but in Civil causes there may be just ground of com∣plaint against the like appeals, especially, if the Courts, to which the Cause is remov'd by Appeal, be very remote? but withall, who sees not that such accidental complaints do rather confirm, then weaken, the confess'd Authority and Right of such Superiour Courts, to re∣ceive and determine Causes of Appeal?
To prevent, as much as might be, all occasion of Complaints in this kinde, the Council of Sardica provided this expedient, that no Eccle∣siasticks under the degree of Bishops should usually be allow'd to ap∣peal to Rome: which may easily serve to reconcile all seeming contra∣diction in Authours touching this matter. And it must be observ'd, that though the Canons prohibit Priests, and inferiour Clergy-men to appeal out of their own Province, yet they forbid not the Pope to call what causes of theirs he sees necessary, before him: although in∣deed in the business of Apiarius the Pope, properly speaking, did neither call him out of his own Province to be heard by himself, nor yet admitted his appeal, but remanded him back to his proper Judges, with command they should hear his cause once again, and do him right, in case it were found, that any injustice had been used towards him in the former Sentence. However Bishops were never prohibi∣ted the liberty of appealing to Rome, by any Ecclesiastical Canon whatever. 'Tis true indeed, the Africans, in their Epistle above∣mention'd, thought good, by way of Argument and Deduction, to extend the Canon prohibiting Appeals, even unto Bishops causes: but the general custome of the Church was ever against them, as is manifest by what hath been said.
10. The Fathers in the sixth Council of Carthage petition'd (I con∣fess) the Pope not easily to give ear to those, who appeal'd to Rome from Africk, especially where the crimes were manifest. They ex∣cept also against the manner of proceeding in the case of Apiarius, and some others: in which the Popes Legats, sent into Africk, car∣ried not themselves as Judges, but rather as Patrons and Advocates of the appealers. Wherefore the Prelates at that Council request his Holiness, he would rather please to give power to some in Africk to end such causes, then send from Rome such as should give encourage∣ment to Delinquents, ne fumosum Typhum Saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi videretur inducere; Lest otherwise (say they) his Holiness should seem to introduce the swelling pride, or haughtiness, of the world into the Church of Christ, which ought to be the School and Mistress of Humility.
We confess also, that in the times of Pope Zosimus, Boniface the first, and Pope Celestin, there was much searching into the Records of the Nicen Council, to finde the matter of Appeals therein decided. The occasion was this, Pope Zosimus to shew his proceedings in that af∣fair to be not onely just, but Canonical, had, by a little mistake (the
errour, probably, being rather his Secretaries, then his own) cited the Council of Nice for his Right touching Appeals; whereas it should have been the Council of Sardica; in the Canons whereof that Power is clearly allow'd the Pope. Now this Council of Sardica, being ra∣ther an Appendix of the Council of Nice then otherwise, and called presently after it; consisting likewise for the most part of the same Prelates, and assembled for no other end, but to confirm the Faith of the Nicen Council, and supply some Canons necessary for the Disci∣pline of the Church, what matters it, that such a mis-citation, of one Council for another, happened? or how does it prejudice the Popes right? Did the African Fathers, or any other Catholique Authour of succeeding ages, ever charge the Pope with falsifying the Canons, upon this account, as Protestants now do? let them shew this, if they can.
§ 25. n. 7.
Gen. 2. 18.
1 Cor. 9. 5.
See Rogers on the thirty nine Articles.
See the Book call'd Corpus Con∣sessionum, in every Contro∣verted Arti∣cle.
Ibidem. n. 8.
Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3.
Arbitramur—adjuvante 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Domini nostri Jesu Christi—Authoritati Sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum Authoritate depromptae, facilius eos, qui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perversa & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sentiuns, esse cessuros. D. Aug. epist. 92.
Edit. Binii Arabic.
Nicol. Pap. cpist. ad Michael. Im∣perat.
Zozomen lib. 3. cap. 7.
Aug. epist. 162.
Ibid. n. 10.
D. Aug. epist. 162.
Optat. Mi∣lev. lib 1. cont. Parmen.
D. Aug. cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap 92.
Aug. epist. 166.
Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 5.
D. Aug. epist. 166. Optat. Milev. lib. 1. contr. Parmen.
D. Aug. de unic. Bap∣tism. contr. Petil. cap. 16. D. Aug. in Brevic. collat: Carth. part. 3.
Optat. Milevit. lib. 1.
D. Aug. epist. 162.
Epist. Con∣stantin. ad E∣pisc. Cathol. in fine Gestor. in purgat. Cae∣cil. & Felicis.
D. Aug. epist. 60 & 162. & lib. de unic. Baptism. cap. 16.
Epist. Concil. Arela∣tens. 1.
D. Aug. epist. 162.
D. Aug. in Brevic. Collat. Car∣thag. parte 3. col. 589, 590, 591.
§ 25. n. 10.
Si aliqui in vobis sunt, qui certa ipsorum crimina ita noverint ut ea facile valeant convincere, & talibus communicare formidant, PERGANT ad fratres nostros Transmarinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopos, & ibi prius de ipsorum factis & contumaciâ conquerantur, quod ad judicium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Africanorum malè sibi conscii venire noluerunt; ut ibi illis denuncietur ut veniant, ibique objectis respondeant. D. Aug. epist. 162.
An fortè non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melciades Episcopus cum Collegis Transmarinis il∣lud sibi usurpare judicium, quod ab Afris Scptu∣aginta, ubi primas Tigisitanus praesedit, fuerit terminatum? Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit: ro∣gatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos, quicum eo sederent, & de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illâ causâ quod justum videretur, statuerent. D. Aug. ibidem.
V. Aug. epist. 162. & 166. ubi supra.
Ad cujus curam, de quā rationem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 redditurus est, res illa maxi∣mè 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , D. Aug. epist. 162.
Concil. African. Can. 101.
Vt Roman liceat Epscopis provocare; & ut Clericorum causae apud suarum Provincia∣rum Episcopos finiantur, jam priore anno, etiam literis uostris ad eundem venerabilis memoriae Zozymum Episcopum datis, infinuari curavimus, &c. Concil. African. epist. ad Bonifac. Pap. to which St. Austin subscribed.
Si dictum fuerit, quod nec Metropolita∣num nec Patriarcham habeat, dicendum est, quod à Sede Apostolocâ, quae omnium Ecclesiarum Ca∣put est, causa audienda est. D. Greg. lib. 11. Indict. 6. epist. 54.
Bed. lib 5. Eccles. Hist. cap. 20.
Bed lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eecl. Hist. cap. 19.
§. 25. n. 11.
Baron. ad Ann. 419. n. 92, 93. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pout. cap. 25. in fin.
Baron. ubi suprà.
Celestin. Epist. ad Epise. Gal.
〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epist. 87. ad Episcop. Mauritan.
Victor. Vticens lib. 2. de persecut. Vandal.
Binius Tom. 3. Conc. Edit. Colon.
D. Greg. lib. 1. epist. 72, 75. lib. 7. epist. 32. &c.
Paul., Di∣ac. lib. 17. de Gest. Roman.
Ibid. n. 12.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Socrat. lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11.