Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

thank him for Calling them to a Council as his Mem. bers : And Damafus in his Answer stiles them his molt honourable Children. Apud Theod. L. 5. Hist. C. 9.10.

In the General Council of Ephesus Pope Celestine's Legate cold the Council that his Majter was their Head, and the Succeffor of St Peter , whose place and Anshority the Bishop of Rome held. Against which not one in the Council made the least Objection. Act. 2. T. 3. Conc. p. 619. A&t. 3. p. 626.

Lastly, the General Council of Calcedon in it's Synodical Letter to Pope Leo, after having told him, that they were an Assembly of 520 Bishops over whom he had presided as HEAD, they complain of the Insolence of Diofcorus Patriarch of Alexandria in these Terms. Moreover he let loose his Madneß even against him, who was by our Saviour entrusted with the Care of the Vineyard ; that is, against your Apoftolical Highnes. And they conclude with defiring the Pope to honour their Judgment with his Decree. Conc. Calced. ir Epist. ad Leonem. Tom. 4. If this be not Owning the Pope's Supremacy, no King was ever own'd by his Subjects. And 'tis to be observed, that these are three of the four General Councils approved and received by the Church of England.

Add to all this the above-mention'd Testimony of Sc Gregory declaring it to be a Thing, which no Body doubted of, viz. that Constantinople was subject to the Apostolick See. L. 9. Epist. 59.p.976. And both St Cyprian and St Austin two African Bishops, whom I have already quoted for the Supremacy, both of St Peter and his successors, are authentick Witnesses, that the Affrican Churches acknowledg'd both the one and the other,

[ocr errors]

Whether the Church in Communion with the See of Rome never was one Half of the great Body of Chrif

tians in the World?

G.
Ut your Lordship has not yet taken

any

No. cice of my Saying, that the Church of Rome peither is, nor ever was one Half of the great Body of Christians in the World.

L. Sr, that's the third Falsehood I have accused you of. And I shall observe certain Epocha's of Time in order to make good my Charge, and place it in the clearest Light.

First then, when St Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, which was is Years after St Peter had fix'd his Episcopal Seat at Rome , 'ris undeniable, that the great Body of Christians all the World over was in Communion with that See. For otherwise he could not have told them, that he thanked God, for that their Faith was spoken throughout the whole World. Rom. 1. V.8. And tho there were several Herefies broach'd in the three first Centuries, the great Body of Chris. tians was always closely united to the 'Bishop of Rome as to it's Head: Witness St Irenaus, who wrote in the 2d Century thus. For to this Church by Reason of it's most powerful Principality it is necessary that all Churches have Recourse, that is, the Faithful on all sie des. L. 3. C. 3. 'Tis therefore false that there never was a Time, wherein the Church in Communion with the See of Rome was one Half of the great Body of Christians in the World.

2. The first great General Council of Nice was certainly in Communion with Pope Sylvester. And was chat August Assembly the Representatives of not

Are Half of the great Body of Christians in the World ?

3. The Greek Schism began only in the gth Century, and since a Schism is nothing else but a Breach of Communion, it follows, that the whole Greek Church was before that Schism in Communion with the Church of Rome. I desire you then to let me know, in what Communion the Great Body of Christians was before that fatal Rupture , if the Church in Communion with the See of Rome was not one Half of that Body! I assure you, Sr, unless you can answer me this Question, you'l be in Danger of Passing for a very unfaithful Stater of Cafes.

But 4thly, and lastly, to come down nearer to the Epocha of the Reformation, how will

your

Words agree with Martin Luther's primo solus eram, at first I was alone? ( Preface to his works ] Or with Cabvin's Saying Epist. 141. that the Reformid Churches broke off from the Communion of the whole World, à toto Orbe Difcefsionem facere coacti sumus? Or finally, with your Homily-Book : the Authority whereof is lo great amongst you, that the 35th Article orders it to be read in Churches, as containing a Godly and wholesome Doctrine.

Now the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry 3d Part London 1687. pag. 251. has these remarkable Words. Laity and Clergy , Learned and Unlearned, all Ages, Sects and Degrees of Men, Women and Children of whole Christendom have been at once drown'd in abominable Idolatry ---- and that for the Space of 800 Tears and more. If this be Godly and Wholesome Doctrine, viz. that whole Christendom was for Soo Years drown'd in abominable Idolatry ( whereby Popery according to Protestant Language is plainly mark'd out) then your asserting, that the Church in Commution with the See of Rome, never was one Half of the great Body of Christians, which is a far Contradice

tion to it , is not only false , but ungodly and pernia cious Doctrine.

ADVERTISEMENT.

It appears plainly from this and the 2 former Sections,

how much there was to be said to the Gentleman's Last Words CS. pag. 19. 20. yet the good peaceable Lord only answer'd this one Line to it. L. But those other Churches do not communicate with each

p. 20. to which the Gentleman replies thus.

other.

js G.

N

Or Rome with any of them. So that she

stands by herself, as other Churches do. » And the molt irreconcilably of any.

Because by is her Principles she cannot communicate with any,

who will not own her · Supremacy. Which as it » never was done by the greatest Part of the Catho- , » lick Church, so there is little Appearance that it » ever will be : for it is observable that no Nation, jo that broke off from Rome , did ever return to her » again. It is a hard Matter for one that has esca

ped out of a Snare, to be inveigled chicher again. in so that it is very visible Rome has been upon the

losing Hand about these 200 Years past. And that » not only as to those, who have quite forsaken » her, but as to the Change of Principles, and Low

ring her Supremacy, and Infallibility amongst those » who still remain in her Communion; which I shall » shew your Lordship presently ; and that Old and » New Popery are very different Things, and that » Rome itself has in some Measure been reform'd by » our R formation, pag. 20.

C. Sr, I shall give a very brief Answer to the good.natured Things you have said. First, you tell De, that she Church of Rome stands by herself as other

Churches

Churches do. She do's so: and 'tis much better to be alone, than in bad Company. Nay the truc Church must stand by herself, whether she will or no : because she would not be the true Church, if Herericks were in her Communion. Thus Heaven will stand by itself for all Eternity, excluding every Thing that is defiled. But I hope this is no Exception against it. zly, you say, that by her Principles

. she cannot communicate with

any,

who will not own her Supremacy. Very true, Sr. But you add immediately, that this was never done by the greatest Part of the Catholick Church; which is false. For Hereticks and Schifmaticks (whom you mean by your greatest Part of the Catholick Church) are no Part of her, as I have fully proved, and shall prove farther hereafter 1. p. $.54. However I shall ñow ask a few Questions to lead you to a clear Sighư of your Mistake. Pray, Sr, is not Schifm a Breach of Communion ?

G. Who doubts it?

L. And can Communion be broke, where there nem ver was any?

G. No, My Lord. For as a Breach of Peace fupposes that there was a Peace, so a Breach of Cor. munion must necessarily suppose that there was a Com. manion.

L. Very good , Sr. And did not then the Greek Church, and all other Churches now Reform'd communicate with the See of Rome , before they forsook her Communion ? 6. I cannot deny it. But what do

you

inferr from thence ?

L. Sr, I inferr first, that therefore all these Chur. ches once own'd the Supremacy of the See of Rome : Because according to your own Saying, the Church of Rome cannot communicate with

any,

who will not own ker Supremacy. And I inferr 2dly, that you contra

м

« AnteriorContinuar »