IV. Bishops by an uninterrupted succession; and many English Discourse Bishops have received their orders mediately or immediately from the British Bishops. sistent with the Divine right of the Papacy.] I said most truly, that "before he can allege the authority [The Sardican caof the Council of Sardica" for appeals to Rome, "he must non inconrenounce the Divine institution of the Papacy," or at least the Divine right of the Bishop of Rome to the Papacy; "because that canon submitted it to the good pleasure' of the Fathers, and grounded it upon the memory of St. Peter,' not the institution of Christi." The reason of this consequence is most evident. For the Council of Sardica would not nor could have submitted that, which is the Pope's right "by Christ's own ordination," to the good pleasure' of the Fathers, whether he should have it or not; nor would have assigned their respect to "the memory of St. Peter" for a ground of that, for which they had the commandment of Christ-but the Council of Sardica did submit the Pope's right to receive appeals to the good 'pleasure' of the Fathers, "Placetne"-"doth it please you that we honour the memory of St. Peter?"-therefore they did not hold this right of the Pope to receive appeals to be due to the Pope "by Christ's own ordinance" or commandment. This he is pleased to call "a flat falsification of the Council, there being not a word in it either concerning Papal power itself or its institution, but concerning appeals only k." I am grown pretty well acquainted with his "falsifications." Did I say there was any thing in the Council "concerning the Papacy" or "institution of it?" If I did, let him tell us where and when, or else it is his own "falsification." But by his own confession there is something in the Council "concerning appeals" to the Pope; and this is submitted by the Council to the good 'pleasure' of the Fathers, and no higher ground assigned for it than the respect to "the memory of St. Peter:”—yet this right of receiving appeals is made by him and all his partakers an essential branch of Papal power:-therefore, if he and his partakers say true, the Council of Sardica did submit an essential branch of Papal power (or Papal power i [Reply to S. W., sect. 4; above p. 301 from Concil. Sardic. can. 3, ap. Labb., Concil., tom. ii. pp. 628, 629.] [Schism Dispatched, sect. 4. pp. 537, 538.] PART in part) to the good 'pleasure' of the Fathers; which is as much as to say, they held it not to be of Divine institution. By this time I hope he understandeth my meaning better. [British He presumeth, that some British Bishops sate in the Bishops in the Council Council of Sardica1; it may be Athanasius intimateth as of Sardica.] much". He presumeth, that "they assented to" the Sardican canon about appeals". It may be, or it may not be. I should rather assent to their voting to acquit Athanasius, who testifieth of them that they were right to the Nicene Faith.' But, surely, among all the subscribers in the Sardican Council there is not one British Bishop named P. And in the synodal letters of the Council itself, wherein they reckon all the provinces, Britain is not named a. But what is the right of receiving appeals to an universal monarchy, or the decree of the Council to "Christ's own ordination ?" If we would be contented to abrogate our old laws and give the Bishop of Rome leave to execute that power which the Sardican Fathers did give him, he would scorn it; and much more their manner of giving it,-" Si vobis placet”—“If it please you," or, "if it seem good to your charity, let us honour the memory of St. Peter," as both the Latin and Greek edition have it ". [How far the Coun neral Coun cil.] I said, that "the Council of Sardica was no general Council of Sar- cil after the Eastern Bishops were departeds;" not out of any dica a geill will to Athanasius, or favour to the Arians (as for Arianism, the Sardican Fathers did no more than the Nicene had done before them), but out of another consideration-because the presence of the five great Patriarchs with their respective Bishops, or at least the greater part of them, was evermore held necessary to the being of a general Council; as Bellarmine himself confesseth, that "the seventh synod judged the Council of Constantinople against images to have been no general Council, because it had not Patriarchs IV. enough." If the Council of Sardica had been a general Discourse 374 Council, why do St. Gregory the Great", Isidore, and Venerable Bede, quite omit it out of the number of general Councils? Why did St. Austin, Alypius 2, and the African Fathers, slight it? And (which is more than all this) why do the Eastern Church not reckon it among their seven general Councils, nor the Western Church among their eight first general Councils d? To conclude, why did the English Church leave the Sardican Council out of the number of general Councils, in the Synod of Hedtfeld in the year 680, and embrace only these for general Councils until that day-the Council of Nice, the first of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon, and the second of Chalcedone? Here he may see a plain reason, why I say the Council of Sardica was never "incorporated into the English laws." I would know whether he or I be of the old English religion in this point. The five first general Councils were incorporated into the law of England; but the Council of Sardica was none of them; therefore no general Council. I have given him a further account concerning this Council Sect. i. c. 7f; to which I refer him. nons of the Sardican never re I said, and I said most truly, that "the canons of the [The caSardican Council" touching appeals "were never received in England, nor incorporated into our English laws." For Council proof hereof, I bring him an evident demonstration out of ceived in England.] the fundamental law of England, as it is recorded in that famous Memorial of Clarendon; All appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop failed to do justice, the last complaint must be to the king, note a; see also the history of this Coun- [See Smith, De Eccl. Græc. Hodiern. p. 169. f [Above, pp. 440, 441.] [See above, sect. i. c. 1. pp. 374, 375. p. 301.] PART [Contra dicted by the gene ral Council of Chalce don.] to give order for redress h.' Our ancestors had not so much respect for Pope Julius, nor thought appeals to Rome any honour to "the memory of St. Peter." He I said, the canon of the Council of Sardica was contradicted" after "by the great Council of Chalcedon." rejoineth, that I "neither thought the words worth citing, nor the canon where the abrogation of the Sardican canon is found worth mentioning." Pardon me, I said nothing of " abrogation," but I did say it "contradicted" it; and for proof of the truth of what I said, take the very words of two canons of that Council,"But if a clerk have a cause against his own Bishop, or against another Bishop, let him be judged by the synod of the province; but if a Bishop or a clerk have a complaint against the Metropolitan of the same province, let him repair either to the primate of the diocese, or the see of the royal city of Constantinople, and let him be judged there'" We see every "primate," that is to say, every Patriarch in general in his own diocese or Patriarchate, and the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular out of his own diocese, is equalled by the Council of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome. The same in effect is decreed in the seventeenth canon, that if there shall happen any difference concerning the possessions of the Churches, "it shall be lawful to them who affirm themselves to be grieved to suc before the holy synod of the province; but if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan, let him be judged by the primate of the diocese or by the Holy See of Constantinople "." I have read those silly evasions, which your greatest scholars are forced to make use of, for answers to these downright canons. Sometimes by " primate of the diocese" (which signifieth all Patriarchs) they understand the Pope ". Do men use such improper expressions, which no man can understand, in penning of laws? Is it not a great condescension for the visible monarch of all Christendom to stoop to so mean a title as "the primate" of one single IV. "diocese?" But, alas, it will do him no good: for if it were DISCOURSE taken in this sense, it were the most unjust canon in the world, to deprive all Patriarchs of their Patriarchal jurisdiction except the Patriarch [s] of Rome and Constantinople. The Council which is so careful to preserve the Bishop his right, and the Metropolitan his right, could not be so careless to destroy Patriarchal right; or the Patriarchs themselves, who were present at the making of this canon, so stupid to join in it. At other times they tell us that this is to be understood only of the first instance, not of appeals o. This is weaker and weaker. What hath a Metropolitan to do with private causes of the first instance out of his own Bishopric? What have the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople to do, to judge causes of the first instance in other Patriarchates? The case is clear: if any man be grieved by his Bishop, he may appeal to his Metropolitan and a synod; 375 and if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan, he may appeal to his Patriarch. And if this absurd sense which they imagine were true, yet the Bishop of Constantinople might receive appeals from all parts of the world, as well as the Bishop of Rome. Let them wind, and wrest, and turn things as they can; they shall never be able to reconcile the Papal pretensions with the Council of Chalcedon. cius and I have neither changed my mind nor my note concerning [King LuEleutherius his letter to King LuciusP; I did, I do, esteem Eleutheit to be of dubious faith. So much I intimated-" if it be rius.] not counterfeit." So much he intimated-" as much as we have records in our histories"." Is it necessary with him to inculcate the same doubt over and over, so often as we may take occasion? Thus far then we are of accord; but in the rest we differ wholly. He is positive, "as much as we have records, the Pope's authority doth appears :" I am as positive, as much as we have records, the king's authority doth appear. For if those records be true, Eleutherius left the legislative part to King Lucius and his Bishops'. This was enough to answer him. |