and Schisms very requisite that it should have been expressed in some authentick Record that a particular Law should have been extant concerning it that all posterity should be warned to yield the submission grounded thereon Indeed a matter of so great consequence to the being and welfare of the Church could scarce have scaped from being clearly mentioned somewhere or other in Scripture wherein so much is spoken touching Ecclesiastical Discipline it could scarce have avoided the pen of the first Fathers Clemens Ignatius the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions Tertullian c. who also so much treat concerning the Function and Authority of Christian Governours Nothing can be more strange than that in the Statute-book of the new Jerusalem and in all the Original Monuments concerning it there should be such a dead silence concerning the succession of its chief Magistrate Wherefore no such thing appearing we may reasonably conclude no such thing to have been and that our Adversaries assertion of it is wholly arbitrary imaginary and groundless 14. I might add as a very convincing Argument that if such a succession had been designed and known in old times it is morally impossible that none of the Fathers Origen Chrysostome Augustine Cyril Hierome Theodoret c. in their exposition of the places alledged by the Romanists for the Primacy of Saint Peter should declare that Primacy to have been derived and setled on Saint Peter's Successour a point of that moment if they had been aware of it they could not but have touched as a most usefull application and direction for duty SUPPOSITION III. They affirm That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome COncerning which Assertion we say that it may with great reason be denyed and that it cannot any-wise be assured as will appear by the following Considerations 1. Saint Peter's being Bishop of Rome would confound the Offices which God made distinct for God did appoint first Apostles then Prophets then Pastours and Teachers wherefore Saint Peter after he was an Apostle could not well become a Bishop it would be such an irregularity as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon 2. The Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with instruction and government of the whole world and calling for an answerable care the Apostles being Rulers as Saint Chrysostome saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common entrusted with the whole world but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to one place and requiring a special attendance there Bishops being Pastours who as St. Chrysostome saith do sit and are employed in one place Now he that hath such a general care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular attendance can hardly look well after so general a charge Either of those Offices alone would suffice to take up a whole man as those tell us who have considered the burthen incumbent on the meanest of them the which we may see described in St. Chrysostome's Discourses concerning the Priesthood Baronius saith of Saint Peter that it was his Office not to stay in one place but as much as it was possible for one man to travel over the whole world and to bring those who did not yet believe to the faith but thoroughly to establish believers if so how could he be Bishop of Rome which was an Office inconsistent with such vagrancy 3. It would not have beseemed Saint Peter the prime Apostle to assume the charge of a particular Bishop it had been a degradation of himself and a disparagement to the Apostolical Majesty for him to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome as if the King should become Mayor of London as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras 4. Wherefore it is not likely that Saint Peter being sensible of that superiour charge belonging to him which did exact a more extensive care would vouchsafe to undertake an inferiour charge We cannot conceive that Saint Peter did affect the Name of a Bishop as now men do allured by the baits of wealth and power which then were none if he did affect the Title why did he not in either of his Epistles one of which as they would persuade us was written from Rome inscribe himself Bishop of Rome Especially considering that being an Apostle he hid not need any particular Authority that involving all power and enabling him in any particular place to execute all kinds of Ecclesiastical Administrations there was no reason that an Apostle or Universal Bishop should become a particular Bishop 5. Also Saint Peter's general charge of converting and inspecting the Jews dispersed over the World his Apostleship as Saint Paul calleth it of the Circumcision which required much travel and his presence in divers places doth not well agree to his assuming the Episcopal Office at Rome Especially at that time when they first make him to assume it which was in the time of Claudius who as Saint Luke and other Histories do report did banish all the Jews from Rome as Tiberius also had done before him He was too skilfull a Fisherman to cast his Net there where there were no Fish 6. If we consider Saint Peter's life we may well deem him uncapable of this Office which he could not conveniently discharge for it as History doth represent it and may be collected from divers circumstances of it was very unsetled he went much about the World and therefore could seldom reside at Rome Many have argued him to have never been at Rome which opinion I shall not avow as bearing a more civil respect to ancient Testimonies and Traditions although many false and fabulous relations of that kind having crept into History and common vogue many doubtfull reports having passed concerning him many notorious forgeries having been vented about his travels and acts all that is reported of him out of Scripture having a smack of the Legend would tempt a man to suspect any thing touching him which is grounded onely upon humane Tradition so that the forger of his Epistle to Saint James might well induce him saying If while I do yet survive men dare to feign such things of me how much more will they dare to doe so after my decease But at least the discourses of those men have evinced that it is hard to assign the time when he was at Rome and that he could never long abide there For The time which old Tradition assigneth of his going to Rome is rejected by divers learned men even of the Roman Party He was often in other places sometimes at Jerusalem sometimes at Antioch sometimes at Babylon sometimes at Corinth sometimes probably at each of those places unto which he directeth his Catholick Epistles among which Epiphanius saith that Peter did often visit Pontus and Bithynia And that he seldom
for the like reason Saint Peter might assume the Bishoprick of Rome I answer 1. It is not certain that Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem was an Apostle meaning an Apostle of the primary rank for Eusebius the greatest Antiquary of old times doth reckon him one of the 70 disciples So doth the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions in divers places suppose Hegesippus that most ancient Historian was of the same mind who saith that there were many of this name and that this James did undertake the Church with the Apostles Of the same opinion was Epiphanius who saith that Saint James was the Son of Joseph by another Wife The whole Greek Church doth suppose the same keeping three distinct solemnities for him and the two Apostles of the same name Gregory Nyssene St. Hierome and divers other ancient Writers do concur herein whom we may see alledged by Grotius Dr. Hammond who themselves did embrace the same opinion Valesius Blondel c. Salmasius after his confident manner saith it is certain that he was not one of the twelve I may at least say it is not certain that he was and consequently the objection is grounded on an uncertainty 2. Granting that Saint James was one of the Apostles as some of the Ancients seem to think calling him an Apostle and as divers modern Divines conceive grounding chiefly upon these words of Saint Paul But other of the Apostles saw I none save James the Lord's Brother and taking Apostles there in the strictest sense I answer That the case was peculiar and there doth appear a special reason why one of the Apostles should be designed to make a constant residence at Jerusalem and consequently to preside there like a Bishop For Jerusalem was the Metropolis the Fountain the Centre of the Christian Religion where it had birth where was greatest matter and occasion of propagating the Gospel most people disposed to embrace it resorting thither where the Church was very numerous consisting as St. Luke or Saint James in him doth intimate of divers myriads of believing Jews whence it might seem expedient that a person of greatest Authority should be fixed there for the confirming and improving that Church together with the propagation of Religion among the people which resorted thither the which might induce the Apostles to settle Saint James there both for discharging the Office of an Apostle and the supplying the room of a Bishop there According to him saith Eusebius The Episcopal Throne was committed by the Apostles or our Lord saith Epiphanius did entrust him with his own Throne But there was no need of fixing an Apostle at other places nor doth it appear that any was so fixed especially Saint Peter was uncapable of such an employment requiring settlement and constant attendance who beside his general Apostleship had a peculiar Apostleship of the dispersed Jews committed to him who therefore was much engaged in travel for propagation of the Faith and edifying his Converts every where 3. The greater consent of the most ancient Writers making St. Iames not to have been one of the twelve Apostles it is thence accountable why as we before noted Saint James was called by some ancient Writers the Bishop of Bishops the Prince of Bishops c. because he was the first Bishop of the first See and Mother Church the Apostles being excluded from the comparison Upon these considerations we have great reason to refuse the assertion or scandal cast on Saint Peter that he took on him to be Bishop of Rome in a strict sense as it is understood in this controversie SUPPOSITION V. A father Assertion is this superstructed by consequence on the former That the Bishops of Rome according to God's institution and by original right derived thence should have an Vniversal Supremacy and jurisdiction containing the privileges and prerogatives formerly described over the Christian Church THIS Assertion to be very uncertain yea to be most false I shall by divers considerations evince 1. If any of the former Suppositions be uncertain or false this Assertion standing on those legs must partake of those defects and answerably be dubious or false If either Peter was not Monarch of the Apostles or if his privileges were not successive or if he were not properly Bishop of Rome at his decease then farewell the Romish claim if any of those things be dubious it doth totter if any of them prove false then down it falleth But that each of them is false hath I conceive been sufficiently declared that all of them are uncertain hath at least been made evident The Structure therefore cannot be firm which relieth on such props 2. Even admitting all those Suppositions the inference from them is not assuredly valid For Saint Peter might have an Universal Jurisdiction he might derive it by Succession he might be Bishop of Rome yet no such Authority might hence accrue to the Roman Bishop his Successour in that See For that Universal Jurisdiction might be derived into another Chanel and the Bishop of Rome might in other respects be Successour to him without being so in this As for instance in the Roman Empire before any Rule of Succession was established therein the Emperour was Sovereign Governour and he might dye Consul of Rome having assumed that place to himself yet when he dyed the Supreme Authority did not lapse into the hands of the Consul who succeeded him but into the hands of the Senate and People his Consular Authority onely going to his Successour in that Office So might Saint Peter's Universal Power be transferred unto the Ecclesiastical College of Bishops and of the Church his Episcopal inferiour Authority over the singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province of Rome being transmitted to his Followers in that Chair 3. That in truth it was thus and that all the Authority of Saint Peter and of all other Apostles was devolved to the Church and to the representative Body thereof the Fathers did suppose affirming the Church to have received from our Lord a Sovereign Power This saith St. Cyprian is that One Church which holdeth and possesseth all the power of its Spouse and Lord in this we preside for the honour and unity of this we fight saith he in his Epistle to Jubaianus wherein he doth impugn the proceedings of Pope Stephanus the which Sentence St. Austin appropriateth to himself speaking it absolutely without citing St. Cyprian To this Authority of the Church St. Basil would have all that confess the faith of Christ to submit To which end we exceedingly need your assistence that they who confess the Apostolick faith would renounce the schisms which they have devised and submit themselves henceforth to the Authority of the Church They after the Holy Scripture which saith that each Bishop hath a care of God's Church and is obliged to feed the Church of God and is appointed to edify the body of Christ do suppose the administration
the authority of a Church especially then when no Church did appear to have either Principality or Puissance And that sense may clearly be evinced by the context wherein it doth appear that St. Irenaeus doth not alledge the judicial Authority of the Roman Church but its credible Testimony which thereby became more considerable because Christians commonly had occasions of recourse to it Such a reason of precedence St. Cyprian giveth in another case Because saith he Rome for its magnitude ought to precede Carthage For this reason a Pagan Historian did observe the Roman Bishop had a greater authority that is a greater interest and reputation than other Bishops This reason Theodoret doth assign in his Epistle to Pope Leo wherein he doth highly complement and cajole him for this city saith he is the greatest and the most splendid and presiding over the world and flowing with multitude of people and which moreover hath produced the Empire now governing This is the sole ground upon which the greatest of all ancient Synods that of Chalcedon did affirm the Papal eminency to be founded for to the throne say they of ancient Rome because that was the royal city the Fathers reasonably conferred the privileges the fountain of Papal eminence was in their judgment not any divine Institution not the Authority of Saint Peter deriving it self to his Successours but the concession of the Fathers who were moved to grant it upon account that Rome was the Imperial City To the same purpose the Empress Placidia in her Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith It becometh us to preserve to this city the which is mistress of all lands a reverence in all things This reason had indeed in it much of equity of decency of conveniency it was equal that he should have the preference and more than common respect who was thence enabled and engaged to do most service to Religion It was decent that out of conformity to the State and in respect to the Imperial Court and Senate the Pastour of that place should be graced with repute it was convenient that he who resided in the centre of all business and had the greatest influence upon affairs who was the Emperour's chief Counsellour for direction and Instrument for execution of Ecclesiastical affairs should not be put behind others Hence did the Fathers of the Second General Synod advance the Bishop of Constantinople to the next privileges of honour after the Bishop of Rome because it was new Rome and a Seat of the Empire And the Fathers of Chalcedon assigned equal privileges to the most Holy See of Rome with good reason say they judging that the city which was honoured with the Royalty and Senate and which otherwise did enjoy equal privileges with the ancient Royal Rome should likewise in Ecclesiastical affairs be magnified as it being second after it Indeed upon this score the Church of Constantinople is said to have aspired to the supreme Principality when it had the advantage over old Rome the Empire being extinguished there and sometimes was styled the Head of all Churches It is also natural and can hardly be otherwise but that the Bishop of a chief City finding himself to exceed in wealth in power in advantages of friendships dependencies c. should not affect to raise himself above the level it is an ambition that easily will seise on the most moderate and otherwise religious minds Pope Leo objected it to Anatolius and Pope Gregory to John from his austere life called the Faster Upon the like account it was that the Bishops of other Cities did mount to a preeminency Metropolitane Primatical Patriarchal Thence it was that the Bishop of Alexandria before Constantine's time did acquire the honour of second place to Rome because that City being head of a most rich and populous Nation did in magnitude and opulency as Gregory Nazianzene saith approach next to Rome so as hardly to yield the next place to it Upon that account also did Antioch get the next place as being the most large flourishing commanding City of the East the which as Josephus saith for bigness and for other advantages had without controversie the third place in all the world subject to the Romans and the which St. Chrysostome calleth the head of all cities seated in the East Saint Basil seemeth to call the Church thereof the principal in the world for what saith he can be more opportune to the Churches over the world than the Church of Antioch the which if it should happen to be reduced to concord nothing would hinder but that as a sound head it would supply health to the whole body Upon the same account the Bishop of Carthage did obtain the privilege to be standing Primate of his Province although other Primacies there were not fixed to places but followed Seniority and a kind of Patriarch over all the African Provinces Hence did Caesarea as exceeding in temporal advantages and being the Political Metropolis of Palestine o'ertop Jerusalem that most ancient noble and venerable City the source of our Religion It was indeed the general Rule and practice to conform the privileges of Ecclesiastical dignity in a proportion convenient to those of the secular Government as the Synod of Antioch in express terms did ordain the ninth Canon whereof runneth thus The Bishops in every Province ought to know that the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis doth undertake the care of all the Province because all that have business do meet together in the Metropolis whence it hath been ordained that he should precede in honour and that the Bishops should doe nothing extraordinary without him according to a more ancient Canon holding from our Fathers that is according to the 34th Canon of the Apostles It is true that the Fathers do sometimes mention the Church of Rome being founded by the two great Apostles or the succession of the Roman Bishop to them in Pastoral charge as a special ornament of that Church and a congruous ground of respect to that Bishop whereby they did honour the memory of Saint Peter but even some of those who did acknowledge this did not avow it as a sufficient ground of preeminence none did admit it for an argument of authoritative Superiority St. Cyprian did call the Roman See the chair of Saint Peter and the principal Church yet he disclaimed any authority of the Roman Bishops above his brethren Firmilian did take notice that Pope Stephanus did glory in the place of his Bishoprick and contend that he held the succession of Peter yet did not he think himself thereby obliged to submit to his authority or follow his judgment but sharply did reprehend him as a favourer of Hereticks an authour of Schisms and one who had cut himself off from the communion of his brethren The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did confess that in writings all did willingly honour the Roman
Prelate is nothing else but one that sustaineth the person of Christ. St. Chrysostome We have received the commission of Ambassadours and come from God for this is the dignity of the Episcopal Office It behoveth us all who by divine authority are constituted in the Priesthood to prevent c. Wherefore the ancient Bishops did all of them take themselves to be Vicars of Christ not of the Pope and no less than the proudest Pope of them all whence it was ordinary for them in their addresses and compellations to the Bishop of Rome and in their speech about him to call him their Brother their Collegue their Fellow-minister which had not been modest or just if they had been his Ministers or Shadows Yea the Popes themselves even the highest and haughtiest of them who of any in old times did most stand on their presumed preeminence did yet vouchsafe to call other Bishops their Fellow-bishops and Fellow-ministers Those Bishops of France with good reason did complain of Pope Nicholas I. for calling them his Clerks whenas if his pride had suffered him he should have acknowledged them for his Brethren and Fellow-bishops In fine the ancient Bishops did not alledge any Commission from the Pope to warrant their Jurisdiction but from God If Moses his Chair were so venerable that what was said out of that ought therefore to be heard how much more is Christ's Throne so we succeed him from that we speak since Christ has committed to us the ministery of reconciliation That which is committed to the Priest 't is onely in God's power to give Since we also by the mercy of Christ our King and God were made Ministers of the Gospel This is a modern dream born out of Ambition and Flattery which never came into the head of any ancient Divine It is a ridiculous thing to imagine that Cyprian Athanasius Basil Chrysostome Austin c. did take themselves for the Vicegerents or Ministers of the Popes if they did why did they not so frequent occasion being given them in all their Volumes ever acknowledge it why cannot Bellarmine and his Complices after all their prolling shew any passage in them importing any such acknowledgment but are fain to infer it by far-fetched Sophisms from Allegations plainly impertinent or frivolous The Popes indeed in the Fourth Century began to practise a fine trick very serviceable to the enlargement of their power which was to confer on certain Bishops as occasion served or for continuance the title of their Vicar or Lieutenant thereby pretending to impart Authority to them whereby they were enabled for performance of divers things which otherwise by their own Episcopal or Metropolitical power they could not perform By which device they did engage such Bishops to such a dependence on them whereby they did promote the Papal Authority in Provinces to the oppression of the ancient Rights and Liberties of Bishops and Synods doing what they pleased under pretence of this vast power communicated to them and for fear of being displaced or out of affection to their favourer doing what might serve to advance the Papacy Thus did Pope Celestine constitute Cyril in his room Pope Leo appointed Anatolius of Constantinople Pope Felix Acacius of Constantinople Pope Hormisdas Epiphanius of Constantinople Pope Simplicius to Zeno Bishop of Seville We thought it convenient that you should be held up by the vicariat authority of our See So did Siricius and his Successours constitute the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their Vicars in the Diocese of Illyricum wherein being then a member of the Western Empire they had caught a special jurisdiction to which Pope Leo did refer in those words which sometimes are impertinently alledged with reference to all Bishops but concern onely Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica We have entrusted thy Charity to be in our stead so that thou art called into part of the solicitude not into plenitude of the authority So did Pope Zozimus bestow a like pretence of Vicarious power upon the Bishop of Arles which city was the seat of the temporal Exarch in Gaule So to the Bishop of Justiniana prima in Bulgaria or Dardania Europaea the like privilege was granted by procurement of the Emperour Justinian native of that place Afterwards temporary or occasional Vicars were appointed such as Austin in England Boniface in Germany who in virtue of that concession did usurp a paramount authority and by the exercise thereof did advance the Papal interest depressing the authority of Metropolitanes and provincial Synods So at length Legates upon occasion dispatched into all Countries of the West came to doe there what they pleased using that pretence to oppress and abuse both Clergy and people very intolerably Whence divers Countries were forced to make legal provisions for excluding such Legates finding by much experience that their business was to rant and domineer in the Pope's name to suck money from the People and to maintain luxurious pomp upon expence of the Countries where they came Of this John XXII doth sorely complain and decrees that all people should admit his Legates under pain of interdicts In England Pope Paschal finds the same fault in his letter to King Henry I. Nuncio's or letters from the Apostolick See unless by your Majestie 's command are not thought worthy any admittance or reception within your jurisdiction none complains thence none appeals thence for judgment to the Apostolick See The Pope observing what authority and reverence the Archbishops of Canterbury had in this Nation whereby they might be able to check his attempts did think good to constitute those Archbishops his Legates of course Legatos natos that so they might seem to exercise their Jurisdiction by authority derived from him and owing to him that mark of favour or honour with inlargement of power might pay him more devotion and serve his interests Bellarmine doth from this practice prove the Pope's Sovereign power but he might from thence better have domonstrated their great cunning It might from such extraordinary designation of Vicegerents with far more reason be inferred that ordinarily Bishops are not his Ministers XI It is the privilege of a Sovereign that he cannot be called to account or judged or deposed or debarr'd communion or any-wise censured and punished for this implyeth a contradiction or confusion in degrees subjecting the superiour to inferiours this were making a river run backwards this were to damm up the fountain of justice to behead the State to expose Majesty to contempt Wherefore the Pope doth pretend to this privilege according to those Maxims in the Canon Law drawn from the sayings of Popes either forged or genuine but all alike obteining authority in their Court. And according to what P. Adrian let the 8 th Synod know because says he the Apostolick Church of Rome stoops not to the judgment of lesser Churches They cite also three old Synods of Sinuessa
from a stupid Easiness in admitting such a Lieutenancy to our Lord if we do not see exhibited to us manifest and certain Patents assuring its Commission to us We should love the Church better than to yield up its Liberty to the will of a Pretender upon slight or no ground Their boldly claiming such a Power their having sometime usurped such a Power will not excuse them or us Nor will precarious Assumptions or subtile Distinctions or blind Traditions or loose Conjectures serve for probations in such a case § XIX Such demands they cannot wholly balk wherefore for satisfaction to them not finding any better plea they hook in Saint Peter affirming that on him by our Lord there was instated a Primacy over his brethren all the Apostles and the Disciples of our Lord importing all the Authority which they claim and that from him this Primacy was devolved by succession to the Bishops of Rome by right indefectible for all future Ages Which Plea of theirs doth involve these main Suppositions I. That Saint Peter had a Primacy over the Apostles II. That Saint Peter 's Primacy with its Rights and Prerogatives was not personal but derivable to his Successours III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease V. That the Bishops of Rome according to God's institution and by original right derived thence should have an Vniversal Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Christian Church VI. That in fact the Roman Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Sovereign Power VII That this Power is indefectible and unalterable The truth and certainty of these Propositions we shall in order discuss so that it may competently appear whether those who disclaim these Pretences are as they are charged guilty of Heresie and Schism or they rather are liable to the imputations of Arrogancy and Iniquity who do obtrude and urge them A TREATISE OF THE Pope's Supremacy MATTH 10.2 Now the names of the twelve Apostles were these the first Simon who is called Peter AMONG the Modern Controversies there is scarce any of greater consequence than that about Universal Supremacy which the Bishop of Rome claimeth over the Christian Church the assertion whereof on his side dependeth upon divers Suppositions namely these I. That Saint Peter by our Lord's appointment had a Primacy implying a Sovereignty of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Apostles II. That the Rights and Prerogatives of this Sovereignty were not personal but derivable and transmitted to Successours III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease V. That hence of Right to the Bishops of Rome as Saint Peter 's Successours an Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ doth appertain VI. That in Fact the said Bishops continually from Saint Peter 's time have enjoyed and exercised this Power VII That this Power is indefectible such as by no means can be forfeited or fail In order to the discussion and resolution of the first Point I shall treat upon the Primacy of Saint Peter endeavouring to shew what Primacy he was capable of or might enjoy what he could not pretend to nor did possess SUPPOSITION I. The first Supposition of those who claim Universal Jurisdiction to the Pope over the Church is That Saint Peter had a primacy over the Apostles IN order to the resolution of this Point we may consider that there are several kinds of Primacy which may belong to a person in respect of others for there are 1. A Primacy of Worth or Personal Excellency 2. A Primacy of Reputation and Esteem 3. A Primacy of Order or bare Dignity and Precedence 4. A Primacy of Power or Jurisdiction To each of these what title Saint Peter might have let us in order examine I. As for the first of these a Primacy of Worth or Merit as some of the Ancients call it we may well grant it to Saint Peter admitting that probably he did exceed the rest of his Brethren in personal endowments and capacities both natural and moral qualifying him for the discharge of the Apostolical Office in an eminent manner particularly that in quickness of apprehension in boldness of spirit in readiness of speech in charity to our Lord and zeal for his Service in resolution activity and industry he was transcendent may seem to appear by the tenour of the Evangelical and Apostolical Histories in the which we may observe him upon all occasions ready to speak first and to make himself the mouth as the Fathers speak of the Apostles in all deliberations nimble at propounding his advice in all undertakings forward to make the onset being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always hot and eager always prompt and vigorous as S. Chrysostome often affirmeth concerning him these things are apparent in his demeanour and it may not be amiss to set down some instances When our Lord observing the different apprehensions men had concerning him asked the Apostles but whom say ye that I am up starteth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he skippeth forth and preventeth the rest crying Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God The other Apostles were not ignorant of the Point for they at their Conversion did take Jesus for the Messias which even according to the common Notion of the Iews did imply his being the Son of God Nathanael that is Saint Bartholomew as is supposed had in terms confessed it the whole company upon seeing our Lord walk on the Sea had avowed it Saint Peter before that in the name of them all had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have believed and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of the living God They therefore had the same Faith but he from a special alacrity of spirit and expedition in utterance was more forward to declare it He was more hot saith St. Greg. Naz. than the rest at acknowledging Christ. When our Saviour walked on the Sea who but He had the Faith and the Courage to venture on the Waters towards him When our Lord was apprehended by the Souldiers presently up was his spirit and out went his Sword in defence of him When our Lord predicted that upon his coming into trouble all the Disciples would be offended and desert him he was ready to say Though all men shall be offended because of thee yet will I never be offended and Though I should dye with thee yet will I not deny thee such was his natural courage and confidence When our Lord was discoursing about his Passion he suddenly must be advising in the case and urging him to spare himself upon which St. Chrysostome biddeth us to consider not that his answer was unadvised but that it came from a genuine and fervent affection And at the Transfiguration he
by Pope Cornelius by Pope Innocent the First and others that two Bishops should preside together in one City This was condemned with good reason for this on the Churches part would be a kind of spiritual Polygamy this would render a Church a monster with two heads this would destroy the end of Episcopacy which is unity and prevention of Schisms But if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome this irregularity was committed for the same Authority upon which Saint Peter's Episcopacy of Rome is built doth also reckon Saint Paul Bishop of the same the same Writers do make both Founders and Planters of the Roman Church and the same call both Bishops of it wherefore if Episcopacy be taken in a strict and proper sense agreeable to this Controversie that rule must needs be infringed thereby Irenaeus saith that the Roman Church was founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Dionysius of Corinth calleth it the plantation of Peter and Paul Epiphanius saith that Peter and Paul were first at Rome both Apostles and Bishops so Eusebius implyeth saying that P. Alexander derived a succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Donys Corinth apud Euseb. 2.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eus. 4.1 Wherefore both of them were Roman Bishops or neither of them In reason and rule neither of them may be called so in a strict and proper sense but in a larger and improper sense both might be so styled Indeed that Saint Paul was in some acception Bishop of Rome that is had a Supreme superintendence or inspection of it is reasonable to affirm because he did for a good time reside there and during that residence could not but have the chief place could be subject to no other He saith Saint Luke did abide two whole years in his own hired house and received all that entred in unto him preaching the Kingdom of God and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence no man forbidding him It may be enquired if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome how he did become such did our Lord appoint him such did the Apostles all or any constitute him did the people elect him did he put himself into it of none of these things there is any appearance nor any probability Non constat SUPPOSITION IV. They affirm That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease AGainst which Assertions we may consider 1. Ecclesiastical Writers do affirm that Saint Peter either alone or together with Saint Paul did constitute other Bishops wherefore Saint Peter was never Bishop or did not continue Bishop there Irenaeus saith that the Apostles founding and rearing that Church delivered the Episcopal Office into the hands of Linus if so how did they retain it in their own hands or persons could they give and have Tertullian saith that Saint Peter did ordain Clement In the Apostolical Constitutions a very ancient Book and setting forth the most ancient Traditions of the Church the Apostles ordering Prayers to be made for all Bishops and naming the principal do reckon not St. Peter but Clement Let us pray for our Bishop James for our Bishop Clemens for our Bishop Evodius c. These reports are consistent and reconciled by that which the Apostolical Constitutions affirm that Linus was first ordained Bishop of the Roman Church by Paul but Clemens after the death of Linus by Peter in the second place Others between Linus and Clemens do interpose Cletus or Anacletus some taking these for one others for two persons which doth not alter the case Now hence we may infer both that Saint Peter never was Bishop and upon supposition that he was that he did not continue so For 2. If he had ever been Bishop he could not well lay down his Office or subrogate another either to preside with him or to succeed him according to the ancient Rules of Discipline and that which passed for right in the Primitive Church This practice Pope Innocent I. condemned as irregular and never known before his time We saith he in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople never have known these things to have been adventured by our Fathers but rather to have been hindred for that none hath power given him to ordain another into the place of one living He did not it seems consider that Saint Peter had used such a power Accordingly the Synod of Antioch to secure the tradition and practice of the Church which began by some to be infringed did make this Sanction that it should not be lawfull for any Bishop to constitute another in his room to succeed him although it were at the point of death 3. But supposing Saint Peter were Bishop once yet by constituting Linus or Clemens in his place he ceased to be so and devested himself of that place for it had been a great irregularity for him to continue Bishop together with another That being in St. Cyprian's judgment the Ordination of Linus had been void and null for seeing saith that H. Martyr there cannot after the first be any second whoever is after one who ought to be sole Bishop he is not now second but none Upon this ground when the Emperour Constantius would have procured Felix to sit Bishop of Rome together with Pope Liberius at his return from Banishment after his complyance with the Arians the people of Rome would not admit it exclaiming One God one Christ one Bishop and whereas Felix soon after that dyed the Historian remarketh it as a special providence of God that Peter's Throne might not suffer infamy being governed under two Prelates he never considered that Saint Peter and Saint Paul Saint Peter and Linus had thus governed that same Church Upon this account St. Austin being assumed by Valerius with him to be Bishop of Hippo did afterward discern and acknowledge his errour In fine to obviate this practice so many Canons of Councils both general and particular were made which we before did mention 4. In sum when Saint Peter did ordain others as story doth accord in affirming either he did retain the Episcopacy and then beside need reason and rule there were concurrently divers Bishops of Rome at one time or he did quite relinquish and finally divorce himself from the Office so that he did not dye Bishop of Rome the which overturneth the main ground of the Romish pretence Or will they say that Saint Peter having laid aside the Office for a time did afterward before his death resume it then what became of Linus of Cletus of Clemens were they dispossessed of their place or deposed from their function would Saint Peter succeed them in it this in Bellarmine's own judgment had been plainly intolerable 5. To avoid all which difficulties in the case and
of Ecclesiastical Affairs concerning the publick state of the Church the defence of the common Faith the maintenance of order peace and unity jointly to belong unto the whole body of Pastours according to that of St. Cyprian to Pope Stephanus himself Therefore most dear brother the body of Priests is copious being joined together by the glue of mutual concord and the bond of unity that if any of our College shall attempt to make heresie and to tear or waste the flock of Christ the rest may come to succour and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may recollect the sheep into the flock And again Which thing it concerns us to look after and redress most dear brother who bearing in mind the divine clemency and holding the scales of the Church-government c. So even the Roman Clergy did acknowledge For we ought all of us to watch for the body of the whole Church whose members are digested through several Provinces Like the Trinity whose power is one and undivided there is one Priesthood among divers Bishops So in the Apostolical Constitutions the Apostles tell the Bishops that an universal Episcopacy is entrusted to them So the Council of Carthage with St. Cyprian Clear and manifest is the mind and meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ sending his Apostles and affording to them alone the power given him of the Father in whose room we succeeded governing the Church of God with the same power Christ our Lord and our God going to the Father commended his Spouse to us A very ancient Instance of which administration is the proceeding against Paulus Samosatenus when the Pastours of the Churches some from one place some from another did assemble together against him as a pest of Christ's flock all of them hastning to Antioch where they deposed exterminated and deprived him of communion warning the whole Church to reject and disavow him Seeing the Pastoral charge is common to us all who bear the Episcopal Office although thou fittest in a higher and more eminent place Therefore for this cause the Holy Church is committed to you and to us that we may labour for all and not be slack in yielding help and assistence to all Hence Saint Chrysostome said of Eustathius his Bishop For he was well instructed and taught by the grace of the Holy Spirit that a President or Bishop of a Church ought not to take care of that Church alone wherewith he is entrusted by the Holy Ghost but also of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world They consequently did repute Schism or Ecclesiastical Rebellion to consist in a departure from the consent of the body of the Priesthood as St. Cyprian in divers places doth express it in his Epistles to Pope Stephen and others They deem all Bishops to partake of the Apostolical Authority according to that of St. Basil to St. Ambrose The Lord himself hath translated thee from the Judges of the Earth unto the Prelacy of the Apostles They took themselves all to be Vicars of Christ and Judges in his stead according to that of St. Cyprian For Heresies are sprung up and Schisms grown from no other ground nor root but this because God's Priest was not obeyed nor was there one Priest or Bishop for a time in the Church nor a Judge thought on for a time to supply the room of Christ. Where that by Church is meant any particular Church and by Priest a Bishop of such Church any one not bewitched with prejudice by the tenour of Saint Cyprian's discourse will easily discern They conceive that our Saviour did promise to Saint Peter the Keys in behalf of the Church and as representing it They suppose the combination of Bishops in peaceable consent and mutual aid to be the Rock on which the Church is built They alledge the Authority granted to Saint Peter as a ground of claim to the same in all Bishops jointly and in each Bishop singly according to his rata pars or allotted proportion Which may easily be understood by the words of our Lord when he says to blessed Peter whose place the Bishops supply Whatsoever c. I have the sword of Constantine in my hands you of Peter said our great King Edgar They do therefore in this regard take themselves all to be Successours of Saint Peter that his power is derived to them all and that the whole Episcopal Order is the Chair by the Lord's voice founded on Saint Peter thus St. Cyprian in divers places before touched discourseth and thus Firmilian from the Keys granted to Saint Peter inferreth disputing against the Roman Bishop Therefore saith he the power of remitting sins is given to the Apostles and to the Churches which they being sent from Christ did constitute and to the Bishops which do succeed them by vicarious ordination 4. The Bishops of any other Churches founded by the Apostles in the Fathers style are Successours of the Apostles in the same sense and to the same intent as the Bishop of Rome is by them accounted Successour of Saint Peter the Apostolical power which in extent was universal being in some sense in reference to them not quite extinct but transmitted by succession yet the Bishops of Apostolical Churches did never claim nor allowedly exercise Apostolical Jurisdiction beyond their own precincts according to those words of St. Hierome Tell me what doth Palestine belong to the Bishop of Alexandria This sheweth the inconsequence of their discourse for in like manner the Pope might be Successour to Saint Peter and Saint Peter's universal power might be successive yet the Pope have no singular claim thereto beyond the bounds of his particular Church 5. So again for instance Saint James whom the Roman Church in her Liturgies doth avow for an Apostle was Bishop of Jerusalem more unquestionably than Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome Jerusalem also was the root and the mother of all Churches as the Fathers of the Second General Synod in their Letter to Pope Damasus himself and the Occidental Bishops did call it forgetting the singular pretence of Rome to that Title Yet the Bishops of Jerusalem Successours of Saint James did not thence claim I know not what kind of extensive Jurisdiction yea notwithstanding their succession they did not so much as obtain a metropolitical Authority in Palestine which did belong to Caesarea having been assigned thereto in conformity to the Civil Government and was by special provision reserved thereto in the Synod of Nice whence St. Jerome did not stick to affirm that the Bishop of Jerusalem was subject to the Bishop of Caesarea for speaking to John Bishop of Jerusalem who for compurgation of himself from errours imputed to him had appealed to Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria he saith Thou hadst rather cause molestation to ears possessed than render honour to thy Metropolitan that is to the Bishop of Caesarea By which
Discipline should never insist upon the duty of Obedience to the Pope or charge those Schismaticks with their rebellion against him or alledge his Authority against them If we consider that the Pope was Bishop of the Imperial City the Metropolis of the World that he thence was most eminent in rank did abound in wealth did live in great splendour and reputation had many dependences and great opportunities to gratify and relieve many of the Clergy that of the Fathers whose Volumes we have all well affected towards him divers were personally obliged to him for his support in their distress as Athanasius Chrysostome Theodoret or as to their Patrons and Benefactours as St. Hierome divers could not but highly respect him as Patron of the cause wherein they were engaged as Basil Gregory Nazianzene Hilary Gregory Nyssene Ambrose Austin some were his partizans in a common quarrel as Cyril divers of them lived in places and times wherein he had got much sway as all the Western Bishops that he had then improved his Authority much beyond the old limits that all the Bishops of the Western or Latine Churches had a peculiar dependence on him especially after that by advantage of his Station by favour of the Court by colour of the Sardican Canons by voluntary deferences and submissions by several tricks he had wound himself to meddle in most of their chief Affairs that hence divers Bishops were tempted to admire to court to flatter him that divers aspiring Popes were apt to encourage the commenders of their Authority which they themselves were apt to magnifie and inculcate considering I say such things it is a wonder that in so many voluminous discourses so little should be said favouring this pretence so nothing that proveth it so much that crosseth it so much indeed as I hope to shew that quite overthroweth it If it be asked how we can prove this I answer that beside who carefully peruseth those old Books will easily see it we are beholden to our Adversaries for proving it to us when they least intended us such a favour for that no clear and cogent passages for proof of this pretence can be thence fetched is sufficiently evident from the very allegations which after their most diligent raking in old Books they produce the which are so few and fall so very short of their purpose that without much stretching they signifie nothing 28. It is monstrous that in the Code of the Catholick Church consisting of the decrees of so many Synods concerning Ecclesiastical order and discipline there should not be one Canon directly declaring his Authority nor any mention made of him except thrice accidentally once upon occasion of declaring the Authority of the Alexandrine Bishop the other upon occasion of assigning to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place of honour and equal privileges with him If it be objected that these discourses are negative and therefore of small force I answer that therefore they are most proper to assert such a negative proposition for how can we otherwise better shew a thing not to be than by shewing it to have no footstep there where it is supposed to stand how can we more clearly argue a matter of right to want proof than by declaring it not to be extant in the Laws grounding such right not taught by the Masters who profess to instruct in such things not testifyed in records concerning the exercise of it such arguments indeed in such cases are not merely negative but rather privative proving things not to be because not affirmed there where in reason they ought to be affirmed standing therefore upon positive Suppositions that Holy Scripture that general tradition are not imperfect and lame toward their design that ancient Writers were competently intelligent faithfull diligent that all of them could not conspire in perpetual silence about things of which they had often fair occasion and great reason to speak In fine such considerations however they may be deluded by Sophistical Wits will yet bear great sway and often will amount near to the force of demonstration with men of honest prudence However we shall proceed to other discourses more direct and positive against the Popish Doctrine II. Secondly we shall shew that this pretence upon several accounts is contrary to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture 1. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture by assigning to another the prerogatives and peculiar Titles appropriated therein to our Lord. The Scripture asserteth him to be our onely Sovereign Lord and King To us saith it there is one Lord and One King shall be King over them who shall reign over the house of David for ever and of his Kingdom there shall be no end who is the onely Potentate the King of Kings and Lord of Lords the One Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy The Scripture speaketh of one Arch-Pastour and great Shepherd of the Sheep exclusively to any other for I will said God in the Prophet set up one Shepherd over them and he shall feed the Sheep and There saith our Lord himself shall be one Fold and one Shepherd who that shall be he expresseth adding I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for the Sheep by Pope Boniface his good leave who maketh Saint Peter or himself this Shepherd The Scripture telleth us that we have one High-Priest of our Profession answerable to that one in the Jewish Church his Type The Scripture informeth us that there is but one Supreme Doctour Guide Father of Christians prohibiting us to acknowledge any other for such Ye are all Brethren and call ye not any one Father upon Earth for one is your Father even he that is in Heaven Neither be ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ. Good Pope Gregory not the seventh of that name did take this for a good argument for What therefore dearest Brother said he to John of Constantinople wilt thou say in that terrible trial of the Judge who is coming who dost affect to be called not onely Father but General Father in the World The Scripture representeth the Church as a building whereof Christ himself is the chief Corner-stone as a Family whereof he being the Pater-familias as all others are fellow-servants as one Body having one Head whom God hath given to be Head over all things to the Church which is his Body He is the One Spouse of the Church which title one would think he might leave peculiar to our Lord there being no Vice-husbands yet hath he been bold even to claim that as may be seen in the Constit. of Pope Greg. X. in one of their General Synods It seemeth therefore a Sacrilegious arrogance derrogating from our Lord's Honour for any man to assume or admit those Titles of Sovereign of the Church Head of the Church our Lord Arch-Pastour Highest-Priest Chief Doctour Master Father Judge of Christians upon what
formally in express terms asserting it Thus when Felicissimus and his Complices being rejected by St. Cyprian did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius for his communion and countenance St. Cyprian affirmed that to be an irregular and unjust course subjoining Except to a few desperate and wicked persons the authority of the Bishops constituted in Africk who have already judged of them do seem less that is inferiour to any other Authority particularly to that of Rome unto which they had recourse what other meaning could he have doth not his Argument require this meaning Another instance is that of the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod being 97 Bishops the which St. Hilary calleth a Synod of Saints congregated the Decrees whereof the Catholick Church did admit into its Code and the Canons whereof Popes have called Venerable these in their Epistle to Pope Julius complaining of his demeanour in the case of Athanasius did flatly assert to themselves an equality with him They did not as Sozomen reciteth out of their Epistle therefore think it equal that they should be thought inferiours because they had not so big and numerous a Church That Pope himself testifieth the same in his Epistle to them extant in the second Apology of Athanasius If saith he ye do truly conceive the honour of Bishops to be equal and the same and ye do not as ye write judge of Bishops according to the magnitude of Cities which assertion of theirs so flatly thwarting Papal Supremacy he doth not at all confute yea not so much as contradict and therefore reasonably may be interpreted to yield consent thereto the rule He that holdeth his peace seemeth to consent never holding better than in this case when his copyhold was so nearly touched indeed he had been very blameable to wave such an occasion of defending so important a Truth or in letting so pestilent an Errour to pass without correction or reproof After the Pope had climbed higher than at that time upon the ladders of dissention and disorders in the Church yet he was reproved by Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople for preferring himself before his Brethren as we may collect from those words of a zealous Pope We desire not to be placed above others as you say so much as to have fellowship holy and well-pleasing to God with all the faithfull That Pope Gregory I. did not hold himself superiour to other Bishops many sayings of his do infer for in this he placeth the fault of the Bishop of Constantinople which he so often and so severely reprehendeth that he did prefer himself before and extoll himself above other Bishops And would he directly assume that to himself which he chargeth on another although onely following his position by consequence And when Eulogius the Bishop of Alexandria had complementally said sicut jussistis As you commanded He doth thus express his resentment That word of command I desire you let me not hear because I know who I am and who you are by place ye are my brethren in goodness fathers I did not therefore command but what seem'd profitable I hinted to you That many such Instances may not be alledged out of Antiquity the reason is because the ancient Popes did not understand this Power to belong to them and therefore gave no occasion for Bishops to maintain their honour or were more just prudent and modest than to take so much upon them as their Successours did upon frivolous pretences VIII The style used by the primitive Bishops in their applications to the Roman Bishop doth signify that they did not apprehend him their Sovereign but their equal Brother Collegue Fellow-bishop are the terms which St. Cyprian doth use in speaking about the Roman Bishops his contemporaries Fabianus Cornelius Lucius Stephanus and in his Epistles to the three last of them nor doth he ever use any other importing higher respect due to them as indeed his practice demonstrateth he did not apprehend any other due or that he did take them for his Superiours in Office Know now brother was the compellation of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria to Pope Stephanus The Synod of Antioch which rejected Paulus Samosatenus inscribeth its Epistle to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome and Maximus and all our Fellow-ministers through the world The old Synod of Arles directeth their Epistle to Signiour Sylvester their brother Athanasius saith These things may suffice which have been written by our beloved and Fellow-minister Damasus Bishop of great Rome Marcellus inscribed to Pope Julius to his Most blessed Fellow-minister So Cyril spake of Pope Celestine I. Our brother and Fellow-minister the Bishop of Rome So St. Basil and his Fellow-bishops of the East did inscribe their Epistle To the beloved of God and our most holy brethren and Fellow-ministers the unanimous Bishops through Italy and France In this style do the Fathers of Sardica salute Pope Julius those of Constantinople Pope Damasus those of Ephesus Pope Celestine I. our brother and Fellow-minister Celestine those of Carthage Pope Celestine I. in the very same terms wherein St. Austin doth salute Maximinus a Donatist Bishop Signiour my beloved and most honoured brother The Oriental Bishops Eustathius Theophilus and Silvanus did inscribe their Remonstrance to Pope Liberius To Signiour our brother and Fellow-minister Liberius So John of Antioch to Nestorius writeth to my Master The Synod of Illyricum call Elpidius Our seniour and Fellow-minister In which Instances and some others of later date we may observe that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Dominus was then as it is now barely a term of civility being then usually given to any person of quality or to whom they would express common respect so that St. Chrysostome in his Epistles commonly doth give it not onely to meaner Bishops but even to Priests and St. Austin doth thus salute even Donatist Bishops reflecting thereon thus Since therefore by charity I serve you in this Office of writing letters to you I do not improperly call you Master for the sake of our one true Master who has commanded us so to doe my most honour'd Master now therefore having with me my most honour'd Signiour and most reverend Presbyter c. my most honour'd Master Asyncritus the elder Pope Celestine himself did salute the Ephesine Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 masters brethren Even in the VI. Council Thomas Bishop of Constantinople did inscribe according to the old style to Pope Vitalianus his brother and Fellow-minister The French Bishops had good reason to expostulate with Pope Nicholas I. You may know that we are not as you boast and brag your Clerks whom if pride would suffer you ought to acknowledge for your brethren and Fellow-bishops Such are the terms and titles which primitive integrity when they meant to speak most kindly and respectfully did allow to the Pope being the same which all Bishops did give to one another as
Authority whenas the actions of such Fathers and their discourses upon other occasions do manifest their serious judgment to have been directly contrary to his pretences wherefore the Emperour of Constantinople in the Florentine Synod had good reason to decline such sayings for arguments for if saith he any of the Saints doth in an Epistle honour the Pope shall he take that as importing privileges 9. Good men commonly out of charitable simplicity meekness modesty and humility love of peace and aversness from contention are apt to yield to the encroachments of those who any-wise do excell them and when such men do yield others are ready to follow their example Bad men have little interest to resist and no heart to stand for publick good but rather strike in presently taking advantage by their compliance to drive a good market for themselves Hence so many of all sorts in all times did comply with Popes or did not obstruct them suffering them without great obstacle to raise their power 10. If in such cases a few wise men do apprehend the consequences of things yet they can doe little to prevent them They seldom have the courage with sufficient zeal to bustle against encroachments fearing to be overborn by its stream to lose their labour and vainly to suffer by it If they offer at resistence it is usually faint and moderate whereas power doth act vigorously and push it self forward with mighty violence so that it is not onely difficult to check it but dangerous to oppose it Ambiguity of words as it causeth many debates so yieldeth much advantage to the foundation and amplification of power for whatever is said of it will be interpreted in favour of it and will afford colour to its pretences Words innocently or carelesly used are by interpretation extended to signifie great matters or what you please For instance The word Bishop may import any kind of superintendency or inspection hence Saint Peter came to be reckoned Bishop of Rome because in virtue of his Apostolical Office he had inspection over that Church founded by him and might exercise some Episcopal acts The word Head doth signifie any kind of eminency the word Prince any priority the word to preside any kind of superiority or preeminence hence some Fathers attributing those names to Saint Peter they are interpreted to have thought him Sovereign in power over the Apostles And because some did give like terms to the Pope they infer his Superiority in power over all Bishops notwithstanding such Fathers did express a contrary judgment The word Successour may import any derivation of power hence because Saint Peter is said to have founded the Church of Rome and to have ordained the first Bishop there the Pope is called his Successour The word Authority doth often import any kind of influence upon the opinions or actions of men grounded upon eminence of place worth reputation or any such advantage Hence because the Pope of old sometimes was desired to interpose his authority they will understand him to have had right to command or judge in such cases although authority is sometimes opposed to command as where Livy saith that Evander did hold those places by authority rather than by command and Tacitus of the German Princes saith They are heard rather according to their authority of persuading than power of commanding The word Judge saith Canus is frequently used to signifie no more than I do think or conceive whereby he doth excuse divers Popes from having decreed a notable errour for Alexander III. says of them that they judged that after a matrimony contracted not consummated another may be valid that being dissolved Yet if the Pope is said to have judged so or so in any case it is alledged for a certain argument of proper Jurisdiction 11. There is a strange inchantment in words which being although with no great colour of reason assumed do work on the fancies of men especially of the weaker sort Of these power doth ever arrogate to it self such as are most operative by their force sustaining and extending it self So divers prevalent Factions did assume to themselves the name of Catholick and the Roman Church particularly hath appropriated that word to it self even so as to commit a Bull implying Rome and the Universe to be the same place and the perpetual canting of this Term hath been one of its most effectual charms to weak people I am a Catholick that is an Vniversal therefore all I hold is true this is their great Argument The words Successour of Peter Apostolick See Prima Sedes have been strongly urged for Arguments of Papal Authority the which have beyond their true force for indeed they signifie nothing had a strange efficacy upon men of understanding and wisedom 12. The Pope's power was much amplified by the importunity of persons condemned or extruded from their places whether upon just accounts or wrongfully and by faction for they finding no other more hopefull place of refuge and redress did often apply to him for what will not men doe whither will not they go in straits Thus did Marcion go to Rome and sue for admission to communion there So Fortunatus and Felicissimus in St. Cyprian being condemned in Africk did fly to Rome for shelter of which absurdity St. Cyprian doth so complain So likewise Martianus and Basilides in St. Cyprian being outed of their Sees for having lapsed from the Christian profession did fly to Stephen for succour to be restored So Maximus the Cynick went to Rome to get a confirmation of his election at Constantinople So Marcellus being rejected for Heterodoxy went thither to get attestation to his Orthodoxy of which St. Basil complaineth So Apiarius being condemned in Africk for his crimes did appeal to Rome And on the other side Athanasius being with great partiality condemned by the Synod of Tyre Paulus and other Bishops being extruded from their Sees for Orthodoxy St. Chrysostome being condemned and expelled by Theophilus and his complices Flavianus being deposed by Dioscorus and the Ephesine Synod Theodoret being condemned by the same did cry out for help from Rome Chelidonius Bishop of Resanon being deposed by Hilarius of Arles for crimes did fly to Pope Leo. Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople being extruded from his See by Photius did complain to the Pope 13. All Princes are forward to heap honour on the Bishop of their Imperial City it seeming a disgrace to themselves that so near a relation be an inferiour to any other who is as it were their Spiritual Pastour who is usually by their special favour advanced The City it self and the Court will be restless in assisting him to climb Thus did the Bishop of Constantinople arise to that high pitch of honour and to be Second Patriarch who at first was a mean Suffragan to the Bishop of Heraclea this by the Synods of Constantinople and Chalcedon is assigned for the reason of his advancement And
express it by I confirm I define I decree But the effectual confirmation of Synods which gave them the force of Laws was in other hands and depended on the Imperial Sanction So Justinian affirmeth generally All these things at diverse times following our above-named predecessours of pious memory corroborated and confirm'd by their Laws what each Council had determin'd and expell'd those Hereticks who attempted to resist the definitions of the aforesaid four Councils and disturb the Churches So particularly Constantine as Athanasius himself reporteth did by Law confirm the decrees of the great Synod of Nice and Eusebius assureth the same He saith he did ratifie the decrees of the Synod by his authority His Letters are extant which he sent about the world exhorting and requiring all to conform to the constitutions of that Synod So Theodosius did confirm the Decrees of the Second General Synod adding saith Sozomen his confirmatory suffrage to their decree the which he did at the supplication of the Fathers addressed to him in these terms We therefore do beseech your Grace that by your pious Edict the sentence of the Synod may be authorized that as by the letters of convocation you did honour the assembly so you would also confirm the result of things decreed The third General Synod was also confirmed by Theodosius II. as Justinian telleth us The above-named Theodosius of pious memory maintaining what had been so justly determined against Nestorius and his impiety made his condemnation valid And this Emperour asserted this privilege to himself as of right and custom belonging to him writing to the Synod in these words for all things so as may please God without contentiousness and with truth being examined ought so to be established by our religiousness The other abortive Synod at Ephesus was also confirmed by Theodosius Junior as Dioscorus in his defence alledged in these words which shew the manner of practice in this case We then indeed did judge the things which were judged the whole Synod did accord with us and gave verdict by their own votes and subscribed and they were referred to the most religious Emperour Theodosius of happy memory and he did by a general Law confirm all things judged by the Holy and Oecumenical Synod So also did the Emperour Marcian confirm the Synod of Chalcedon as himself telleth us in his Royal Edict We saith He having by the sacred Edict of our serenity confirmed the Holy Synod did warn all to cease from disputes about religion with which Pope Leo signifieth his compliance in these terms But because by all means your piety and most religious will must be obeyed I have willingly approv'd the Synodical Constitutions about confirming the Catholick faith and condemning hereticks which pleased me Justinian did with a witness confirm the Fifth Synod punishing with banishment all who would not submit to its determinations In the Sixth Synod the Fathers did request the Emperour according to custom to confirm its definitions in these very words To what we have determined set your Seal your royal ratification by writing and confirmation of them all by your sacred edicts and holy constitutions according to custom We beg that by your sacred signing of it you would give force to what we have defined and subscribed We intreat the power of our Lord guided by God's wisedom to confirm for the great strength and security of the orthodox faith the copies of our determination read in the hearing of your most serene Majesty and subscribed by us that they may be delivered to the five Patriarchal Sees with your pious confirmation Accordingly he did confirm that Synod by his Edict All these things being thus ordered by this Sixth Holy and Oecumenical Synod We decree that none whosoever trouble himself farther about this faith or advance any new inventions about it So he told Pope Leo II. in his Epistle to him This divine and venerable determination the Holy Synod has made to which we also have subscribed and confirmed it by our Religious Edicts exhorting all our people who have any Love for Christ to follow the faith there written Pope Leo tells his name-sake Leo the Emperour That he must always remember that the Imperial power was given him not onely to rule the world but more especially to protect the Church So by long prescription commencing with the first General Synod did the Emperour enjoy this Prerogative and with good reason He having an unquestionable warrant and obligation to promote the welfare of the Church designed by those Conventions He being the Guardian of Concord among his Subjects and protectour of their Liberties which might be nearly concerned in Conciliar proceedings the power of enacting Laws being an incommunicable branch of Sovereign Majesty He alone having power committed to him able to enforce the observance of Decrees without which they would in effect signifie little Because also commonly the Decrees of Synods did in a manner retrench some part of the Royal Prerogative translating or imparting to others Causes before appropriate to his Jurisdiction as in the case of appeals and of prohibiting addresses to Court ordered in the Sardican and other Synods of exempting Clergymen from secular Jurisdiction from taxes and common burthens c. which ought not to be done without his licence and authority So that the Oriental Bishops had good reason to tell the Emperour that it was impossible without his authority to order the matters under consideration with good law and order It is no-wise reasonable that any other should have this power it being inconsistent with publick peace that in one State there should be two Legislative powers which might clash the one with the other the one enacting Sanctions prejudicial to the interest and will of the other wherefore the Pope being then a Citizen of Rome and a Subject to the Emperour could not have a Legislative power or a negative Vote in Synods but that wholly did belong to the Imperial authority But it is opposed that some Synods have been declared invalid for want of the Pope's confirmation for to the Decrees of the Synod at Ariminum it was excepted that they were null because the Bishop of Rome did not consent to them There could not say the Roman Synod in Theodoret be any prejudice from the number of those assembled in Ariminum it being plain that neither the Roman Bishop whose suffrage ought first to have been received nor Vicentius who for so many years did hold his Episcopacy blameless nor others agreeing to such things To which exception I answer that 1. That which is alledged against the Synod of Ariminum is not the defect of the Pope's confirmation subsequent but of his consent and concurrence before it or in it which is very reasonable because he had a right to be present and to concur in all such Assemblies especially being so eminent a Bishop 2. The same exception every
in their generations accommodating their discourse to the state of times and places 11. It is also to be observed that often the Popes are supposed to speak and constitute things by their own authority which indeed were done by Synods consisting of Western Bishops more closely adhering to that See in regard to those Regions the Decrees of which Synods were binding in those places not so much by virtue of Papal authority as proceeding from the consent of their own Bishops how ready soever He were to assume all to himself pretending those Decrees as precepts of the Apostolical See Whence all the Acts of modern Popes are invalid and do not oblige seeing they do not act in Synod but onely of their own Head or with the advice of a few Partizans about them men linked in common interest with them to domineer over the Church 12. Yet even in the Western Countries in later times their Decrees have been contested when they did seem plainly to clash with the old Canons or much to derogate from the Liberties of Churches nor have there wanted learned Persons in most times who so far as they durst have expressed their dislike of this Usurpation For although the Bishop of Rome be more venerable than the rest that are in the world upon account of the dignity of the Apostolical See yet it is not lawfull for him in any case to transgress the order of Canonical governance for as every Bishop who is of the Orthodox Church and the Spouse of his own See doth intirely represent the Person of our Saviour so generally no Bishop ought pragmatically to act any thing in anothers Diocese 13. In the times of Pope Nicolas I. the Greeks did not admit the Roman Decrees so that Pope in an Epistle to Photius complains that he did not receive the Decrees of the Popes whenas yet they ordained nothing but what the Natural what the Mosaical and what the Law of Grace required And in another Epistle he expostulates with him for saying that they neither had nor did observe the Decrees made by the Holy Popes of the Prime See of the Roman Church 14. That which greatly did advance the Papal Jurisdiction and introduced his Usurpation of obtruding new Decrees on the Church was the venting of the forged Decretal Epistles under the name of Old Popes which when the Pope did alledge for authorizing his practices the French Bishops endeavouring to assert their Privilege did alledge that they were not contained in the whole body of their Canons 15. The power of enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching extoriour Discipline did of old belong to the Emperour And it was reasonable that it should because old Laws might not conveniently sute with the present state of things and the publick welfare because new Laws might condâ—ce to the good of Church and State the care of which is incumbent on him because the Prince is bound to use his power and authority to promote God's Service the best way of doing which may be by framing Orders conducible thereto Accordingly the Emperours did enact divers Laws concerning Ecclesiastical matters which we see extant in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian These things saith the Council of Arles we have decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour desiring his clemency that if any thing be defective it may be supplied by his prudence if any thing be unreasonable it may be corrected by his judgment if any thing be reasonably ordered it may by his help the Divine Grace assisting be perfected We may observe that Popes did allow the validity of Imperial Laws Pope Gregory I. doth alledge divers Laws of divers Emperours concerning Ecclesiastical affairs as authentick and obligatory Rules of practice 16. Divers Churches had particular rights of independency upon all power without themselves Such as the Church of Cyprus in the Ephesine Synod did claim and obtain the confirmation of Such was the ancient Church of Britain before Austin came into England The Welch Bishops are consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids and he himself in like manner is ordained by others who are as it were his Suffragans professing no manner subjection to any other Church V. Sovereign power immediately by it self when it pleaseth doth exercise all parts of Jurisdiction setting it self in the Tribunal or mediately doth execute it by others as its Officers or Commissioners Wherefore now the Pope doth claim and exercise Universal Jurisdiction over all the Clergy requiring of them engagements of strict submission and obedience to him demanding that all causes of weight be referred to him citing them to his bar examining and deciding their causes condemning suspending deposing censuring them or acquitting absolving restoring them as he seeth cause or findeth in his heart He doth encourage people to accuse their pastours to him in case any doth infringe his Laws and Orders But in general that originally or anciently the Pope had no such right appropriate to him may appear by arguments by cross instances by the insufficiency of all pleas and examples alledged in favour of this claim For 1. Originally there was not at all among Christians any Jurisdiction like to that which is exercised in Civil Governments and which now the papal Court doth execute For this our Saviour did prohibit and Saint Peter forbad the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And St. Chrysostome affirmeth the Episcopal power not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ecclesiastical History doth inform us that such a Jurisdiction was lately introduced in the Church as by other great Bishops so especially by the Bishop of Rome For saith Socrates from that time the Episcopacy of Alexandria beyond the Sacerdotal Order did assume a domineering power in affairs The which kind of power the Roman Bishops had long before assumed for saith he the Episcopacy of Rome in like manner as that of Alexandria had already a great while agoe gone before in a domineering power beyond that of the Priesthood At first the Episcopal power did onely consist in Paternal admonition and correption of offenders exhorting and persuading them to amendment and in case they contumaciously did persist in disorderly behaviour bringing them before the Congregation and the cause being there heard and proved with its consent imposing such penance or correction on them as seemed needfull for the publick good or their particular benefit All things saith St. Cyprian shall be examin'd you being present and judging And elsewhere according to your divine suffrages according to your pleasure 2. Originally no one Bishop had any Jurisdiction over another or authority to judge his actions as St. Cyprian who well knew the current judgment and practice of his age in many places doth affirm who particularly doth reflect on the Roman Bishop for presuming to censure his brethren who dissented from him Let us all saith he
then so expresly forbidden by the Canons as afterward Theognis and Theodorus did make Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople Theophilus of Alexandria did ordain St. Chrysostome The Egyptian Bishops surreptitiously did constitute Maximus the Cynick Philosopher Bishop of Constantinople Acacius who had as little to doe there as the Pope did thrust Eudoxius into the throne of Constantinople Meletius of Antioch did constitute St. Gregory Nazianzene to the charge of Constantinople Acacius and Patrophilus extruding Maximus did in his room constitute Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem Pope Leo doth complain of Anatolius that against the Canonical rule he had assumed to himself the Ordination of the Bishop of Antioch 2. To obviate these irregular and inconvenient proceedings having crept in upon the dissensions in Faith and especially upon occasion of Gregory Nazianzene being constituted Bishop of Constantinople by Meletius and Maximus being thrust into the same See by the Egyptians whose Party for a time the Roman Church did countenance the second General Synod did ordain that no Bishop should intermeddle about Ordinations without the bounds of his own Diocese 3. In pursuance of this Law or upon the ground of it the Pope was sometimes checked when he presumed to make a sally beyond his bounds in this or the like cases As when Pope Innocent I. did send some Bishops to Constantinople for procuring a Synod to examine the cause of St. Chrysostome those of Constantinople did cause them to be dismissed with disgrace as molesting a government beyond their bounds 4. Even in the Western parts after that the Pope had wrigled himself into most Countries there so as to obtain sway in their transactions yet he in divers places did not meddle in Ordinations we do not says Pope Leo I. arrogate to our selves a power of ordaining in your Provinces Even in some parts of Italy it self the Pope did not confirm Bishops till the times of Pope Nicholas I. as may be collected from the submission then of the Bishop of Ravenna to that condition that he should have no power to consecrate Bishops canonically elected in the Regio Flaminia unless it were granted him by letters from the Apostolick See And it was not without great opposition and struggling that he got that power other-where than in his original precincts or where the juncture of things did afford him special advantage 5. If Examples would avail to determine Right there are more and more clear Instances of Emperours interposing in the Constitution of Bishops than of Popes As they had ground in Reason and authority in Holy Scripture And Zadock the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar Constantine did interpose at the designation of a Bishop at Antioch in the room of Eustathius Upon Gregory Nazianzene's recess from Constantinople Theodosius that excellent Emperour who would not have infringed right did command the Bishops present to write in paper the names of those whom each did approve worthy to be ordained and reserved to himself the choice of one and accordingly they obeying he out of all that were nominated did elect Nectarius Constantius did deliver the See of Constantinople to Eusebius Nicomediensis Constantius was angry with Macedonius because he was ordain'd without his licence He rejecting Eleusius and Sylvanus did order other to be substituted in their places When before St. Ambrose the See of Milain was vacant a Synod of Bishops there did intreat the Emperour to declare one Flavianus said to the Emperour Theodosius Give forsooth O King the See of Antioch to whom you shall think good The Emperour did call Nestorius from Antioch to the See of Constantinople and he was saith Vincentius Lir. elected by the Emperour's judgment The favour of Justinian did advance Menas to the See of Constantinoâ—â—â— and the same did prefer Eutychius thereto He did put in Pope Vigilius In Spain the Kings had the Election of Bishops by the Decrees of the Council of Toledo That the Emperour Charles did use to confirm Bishops Pope John VIII doth testifie reproving the Archbishop of Virdun for rejecting a Bishop whom the Clergy and people of the City had chosen and the Emperour Charles had confirmed by his consent When Macarius Bishop of Antioch for Monothelitism was deposed in the sixth Synod the Bishops under that throne did request the Presidents of the Synod to suggest another to the Emperour to be substituted in his room In Gratian there are divers passages wherein Popes declared that they could not ordain Bishops to Churches even in Italy without the Emperour's leave and licence As indeed there are also in later times other Decrees made by Popes of another kidney or in other junctures of affairs which forbid Princes to meddle in the elections of Bishops as in the seventh Synod and in the eighth Synod as they call it upon occasion of Photius being placed in the See of Constantinople by the power of the Court. And that of Pope Nicholas I. By which discordance in practice we may see the consistence and stability of Doctrine and Practice in the Roman Church The Emperours for a long time did enjoy the privilege of constituting or confirming the Popes for says Platina in the Life of Pelagius II. nothing was then done by the Clergy in electing a Pope unless the Emperour approv'd the election He did confirm P. Gregory I. and P. Agatho Pope Adrian with his whole Synod did deliver to Charles the Great the right and power of electing the Pope and ordaining the Apostolick See He moreover defined that Archbishops and Bishops in every Province should receive investiture from him and that if a Bishop were not commended and invested by the King he should be consecrated by none and whoever should act against this Decree him he did noose in the band of anathema The like privilege did Pope Leo VIII attribute to the Emperour Otho I. We give him says he for ever power to ordain a successour and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See and change Archbishops c. And Platina in his Life says That being weary of the inconstancy of the Romans he transferr'd all authority to chuse a Pope from the Clergy and people of Rome to the Emperour Now I pray if this power of confirming Bishops do by Divine Institution belong to the Pope how could he part with it or transfer it on others Is not this a plain renunciation in Popes of their Divine pretence 6. General Synods by an authority paramount have assumed to themselves the constitution and confirmation of Bishops So the Second General Synod did confirm the Ordination of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople and of Flavianus Bishop of Antioch this Ordination say they the Synod generally have admitted although the Roman Church did not approve the Ordination of Nectarius and for a long time after did oppose that of Flavianus So the Fifth Synod it seemeth did confirm the Ordination of
sense of good men in all times XVIII It is a Prerogative of Sovereign power to Erect Translate Spiritual Presidencies Wherefore this the Pope claimeth Cum ex illo c. But at first he had nothing to doe therein except in his own Province or Diocese As Christianity did grow and enter into Cities so the neighbour Bishops did ordain Bishops there Princes often as they did endow so they did erect Episcopal Sees and did as was sutable change places Pope Paschal II. doth by complaining attest to this writing to the Archbishop of Poland What shall I say of the translations of Bishops which among you are presumed to be made not by Apostolick authority but the King's command XIX It is a great Prerogative of Sovereignty to impose Taxes on the Clergy or People Wherefore the Pope doth assume this as for instance that Decree of Pope Innocent IV. in the First Synod of Lions By the common consent of the Council we ordain that all the Clergy as well those who are under authority as the Prelates pay for three years a twentieth part of their Ecclesiastical revenues towards the assistence of the holy Land into the hands of those who shall be thereto appointed by the prudence of the Apostolick See and let all know that this they are bound faithfully to doe under pain of excommunication But Antiquity knew no such Impositions when the Church the Clergy the Poor were maintained and relieved by voluntary Offerings or Obventions Even the invidious splendour of the Roman Bishop was supported by the Oblations of Matrons as Marcellinus observeth This is an encroachment upon the right of Princes unto whom Clergy-men are Subjects and bound to render tribute to whom tribute belongeth SUPPOSITION VII A farther grand Assertion of the Roman Party is this That the Papal Supremacy is indefectible and unalterable BUT good reasons may be assigned why even supposing that the Pope had an Universal Sovereignty in virtue of his Succession to Saint Peter conferred on him it is not assuredly consequent that it must always or doth now belong to him For it might be settled on him not absolutely but upon conditions the which failing his authority may expire It might be God's will that it should onely continue for a time And there are divers ways whereby according to common rules of justice he might be disseised thereof 1. If God had positively declared his will concerning this Point that such a Sovereignty was by him granted irrevocably and immutably so that in no case it might be removed or altered then indeed it must be admitted for such but if no such declaration doth appear then to assert it for such is to derogate from his power and providence by exemption of this case from it It is the ordinary course of providence so to confer power of any kind or nature on men as to reserve to himself the liberty of transferring it qualifying it extending or contracting it abolishing it according to his pleasure in due seasons and exigencies of things Whence no humane power can be supposed absolutely stable or immovably fixed in one person or place 2. No power can have a higher source or firmer ground than that of the Civil Government hath for all such power is from heaven and in relation to that it is said There is no power but from God the powers that are are ordained by God But yet such power is liable to various alterations and is like the Sea having ebbs and flows and ever changing its bounds either personal or local Any temporal Jurisdiction may be lost by those revolutions and vicissitudes of things to which all humane Constitutions are subject and which are ordered by the will and providence of the most High who ruleth in the Kingdom of men appointing over it whom he pleaseth putting down one and setting up another Adam by God's appointment was Sovereign of the world and his first-born Successours derived the same power from him yet in course of time that order hath been interrupted and divers independent Sovereignties do take place Every Prince hath his authority from God or by virtue of Divine Ordination within his own Territory and according to God's Ordinance the lawfull Successour hath a right to the same authority yet by accidents such authority doth often fail totally or in part changing its extent Why then may not any Spiritual power be liable to the same vicissitudes why may not a Prelate be degraded as well as a Prince why may not the Pope as well as the Emperour lose all or part of his Kingdom Why may not the Successour of Peter no less than the Heir of Adam suffer a defaileur of Jurisdiction That Spiritual Corporations Persons and Places are subject to the same contingences with others as there is like reason to suppose so there are Examples to prove God removed his Sanctuary from Shiloh Go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh where I set my name at first c. He deserted Jerusalem He removeth the Candlesticks He placed Eli of the Family of Ithamar in the High-Priesthood and displaced his Race from it I said indeed saith God that thy house and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever but now the Lord saith Be it far from me c. 3 The reason and exigency of things might be sufficient ground for altering an Universal Jurisdiction for when it should prove very inconvenient or hurtfull God might order such an alteration to happen and men be obliged to allow it As God first did institute one Universal Monarchy but that form upon the multiplication of mankind and peopling of the earth proving incommodious providence gave way for its change and the setting up of particular Governments to which men are bound to submit So God might institute a singular Presidency of the Church but when the Church grew vastly extended so that such a Government would not conveniently serve the whole he might order a division in which we should acquiesce 4. It hath ever been deemed reasonable and accordingly been practised that the Church in its exteriour form and political administrations should be suted to the state of the world and Constitution of worldly Governments that there might be no clashing or disturbance from each to other Wherefore seeing the World is now settled under so many Civil Sovereignties it is expedient that Ecclesiastical Discipline should be so modelled as to comply with each of them And it his reasonable that any pretence of Jurisdiction should veil to the publick good of the Church and the World That it should be necessary for the Church to retain the same form of policy or measure of power affixed to persons or places can no-wise be demonstrated by sufficient proof and it is not consistent with experience which sheweth the Church to have subsisted with variations of that kind There hath in all times been found much reason or necessity to make alterations
Rome This hath been the Doctrine of divers Popes Which not onely the Apostolical Prelate but any other Bishop may doe viz. discriminate and severe any men and any place from the Catholick communion according to the rule of that fore-condemned heresie Faith is universal common to all and belongs not onely to Clergymen but also to Laicks and even to all Christians Therefore the sheep which are committed to the cure of their Pastour ought not to reprehend him unless he swerve and go astray from the right faith 15. That this was the current opinion common practice doth shew there being so many instances of those who rejected their Superiours and withdrew from their communion in case of their maintaining errours or of their disorderly behaviour such practice having been approved by General and Great Synods as also by divers Popes When Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople did introduce new and strange Doctrine divers of his Presbyters did rebuke him and withdraw communion from him which proceeding is approved in the Ephesine Synod Particularly Charisius did assert this proceeding in those remarkable words presented to that same Synod 'T is the wish and desire of all well affected persons to give always all due honour and reverence especially to their spiritual Fathers and Teachers but if it should so happen that they who ought to teach should instill unto those who are set under them such things concerning the faith as are offensive to the ears and hearts of all men then of necessity the order must be inverted and they who teach wrong Doctrine must be rebuked of those who are their inferiours Pope Celestine I. in that case did commend the people of Constantinople deserting their Pastour Happy flock said he to whom the Lord did afford to judge about its own Pasture St. Hierome did presume to write very briskly and smartly in reproof of John Bishop of Hierusalem in whose Province he a simple Presbyter did reside Who makes a schism in the Church we whose whole house in Bethlehem communicate with the Church or thou who either believest aright and proudly concealest the truth or art of a wrong belief and really makest a breach in the Church Art thou onely the Church and is he who offendeth thee excluded from Christ Malchion Presbyter of Antioch disputed against Paulus Samosatenus his Bishop Beatus Presbyter confuted his Bishop Elipandus of Toledo But if the Rectour swerve from the faith he is to be reproved by those who are under him 16. The case is the same of the Pope for if other Bishops who are reckoned Successours of the Apostles and Vicars of Christ within their precinct if other Patriarchs who sit in Apostolical Sees and partake of a like extensive Jurisdiction by incurring heresie or schism or committing notorious disorder and injustice may be deprived of their Authority so that their Subjects may be obliged to forsake them then may the Pope lose his for truth and piety are not affixed to the Chair of Rome more than to any other there is no ground of asserting any such Privilege either in Holy Scripture or in old Tradition there can no promise be alledged for it having any probable shew that of Oravi pro te being a ridiculous pretence it cannot stand without a perpetual miracle there is in fact no appearance of any such miracle from the ordinary causes of great errour and impiety that is ambition avarice sloth luxury the Papal state is not exempt yea apparently it is more subject to them than any other all Ages have testified and complained thereof 17. Most eminent persons have in such cases withdrawn communion from the Pope as other-where we have shewed by divers Instances 18. The Canon Law it self doth admit the Pope may be judged if he be a Heretick Because he that is to judge all persons is to be judged of none except he be found to be gone astray from the faith The supposition doth imply the possibility and therefore the case may be put that he is such and then he doth according to the more current Doctrine ancient and modern cease to be a Bishop yea a Christian Hence no obedience is due to him yea no communion is to be held with him 19. This in fact was acknowledged by a great Pope allowing the condemnation of Pope Honorius for good because he was erroneous in point of Faith for saith he in that which is called the Eighth Synod although Honorius was anathematized after his death by the Oriental Bishops it is yet well known that he was accused for heresie for which alone it is lawfull for inferiours to rise up against superiours Now that the Pope or Papal succession doth pervert the truth of Christian Doctrine in contradiction to the Holy Scripture and Primitive Tradition that he doth subvert the practice of Christian piety in opposition to the Divine commands that he teacheth falshoods and maintaineth impieties is notorious in many particulars some whereof we shall touch We justly might charge him with all those extravagant Doctrines and Practices which the high flying Doctours do teach and which the fierce Zealots upon occasion do act for the whole succession of Popes of a long time hath most cherished and encouraged such folks looking squintly on others as not well affected to them But we shall onely touch those new and noxious or dangerous positions which great Synods managed and confirmed by their Authority have defined or which they themselves have magisterially decreed or which are generally practised by their influence or countenance It is manifest that the Pope doth support and cherish as his special Favourites the Venters of wicked Errours such as those who teach the Pope's infallibility his power over temporal Princes to cashier and depose them to absolve subjects from their allegiance the Doctrine of equivocation breach of faith with hereticks c. the which Doctrines are heretical as inducing pernicious practice whence whoever doth so much as communicate with the maintainers of them according to the principles of ancient Christianity are guilty of the same crimes The Holy Scripture and Catholick Antiquity do teach and injoin us to worship and serve God alone our Creatour forbidding us to worship any Creature or Fellow-servant even not Angels For I who am a Creature will not endure to worship one like to me But the Pope and his Clients do teach and charge us to worship Angels and dead men yea even to venerate the reliques and dead bodies of the Saints The Holy Scripture teacheth us to judge nothing about the present or future state of men absolutely before the time untill the Lord come who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of hearts and then each man shall have praise of God But the Pope notoriously in repugnance to those precepts anticipating God's judgment and arrogating to himself a knowledge requisite thereto doth presume to determine
Aeneas Sylvius his Account hereof Ibid. Catholick How much the abuse of that Word hath conduced to the Pope's Pretences 264. Censures Ecclesiastical Censures the great advantages made from them by the Pope 182. Ceremonies Why multitude of them in the Church of Rome 139. Charity Want thereof in the Church of Rome 286. Charity among Christians 299 301. breach thereof denominates a man to be no Christian 300. Charity to the Poor of other Churches in primitive Times no Argument of Unity of Church Government 320. Church Unity thereof 293. The various acceptations of the Word Church 294. The Titles and Privileges thereof 295. Church Government and Discipline in ancient times 162 c. Church Government No necessity of one kind onely of external Admistration thereof 306 307. The contrary shewed to be most proper and convenient in seq Church of Rome An Account of them who by voluntary Consent or Command of Princes do adhere in Confederation to the Church of Rome 325. Civil Magistrates Authority 271. Clergy Romish Clergy's Exemption from secular Jurisdiction whence 138. Communion Church Communion 296. Community of Men on several accounts may be termed One 297. Confession Auricular Confession 139. Confirmation of Magistrates belongs not to the Pope 269. Conscience The Usurpations made thereupon by the Popish Doctrines 288. Constantine M. His Judgment of Eusebius 86. No General Synod before his Reign 185. Controversies in the Church how in ancient times determined 115 149 264 303 304. Council of Trent Their Character 2. Enjoyned the Pope's Supremacy should not be disputed 18. Councils Their Authority above the Pope's 25. Councils Their Infallibility why pretended 139. Councils General Councils which so esteemed 188 first called by the Emperours ibid. when first celebrated 209 Use of them proves not there was Unity of Government in the Primitive Church 320 the proper occasion of General Councils assigned ibid Cup in the Sacrament why with-holden from the Laity 139. S. Cyprian's Account of S. Peter's primacy of Order 33 his Epistle concerning the deposing Marcianus examined 235 c. S. Cyril's supplying the Place of P. Celestine in the General Council 203 204. Cyril of Hierusalem the first according to Socrates who did introduce Appeals 249. D. POpe Damasus An Epistle of his in Theodoret whence Bellarmine's pretence for the Pope's Supremacy adjudged spurious 156 157. Decrees of Popes when contested against the ancient Canons 214. Whence their new Decrees introduced ibid. Decretal Epistles Their forgery and great advantage to the Church of Rome 184. Discipline and Order of the Primitive Church 211. Discipline The enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws about the same belong'd of old to Emperours 214. Discipline of the Church 305. main Form thereof not to be violated ibid. Dispensations 184. the Pope no power to grant them 270 281. Dissentions The Mischiefs arising from them 175 18â— The Profits accrewing from hence to the Romanists ibid. Dissentions How reconciled among Christians 323. E. ECclesiastical Jurisdiction not impugn'd by disclaiming S. Peter's Superiority 40. Emperours not Popes did first conâ—â—â—gate General Synods 185. Testimonies of Popes owning the same 193. Emperours themselves or Honourable Persons authorized by them did heretofore preside in General Synods 203. Empires Their Original and Increase 174. Episcopacy The Ends assigned of that Order 87. Eusebius Constantine M. his Character of him 86. Excommunicated Persons not admitted into Communion by other Churches 305 324 325. Exemptions The Pope no Power to grant them 270. F. FAith Unity of the Church preserved by it 299. Fathers What regard to be given to their account of S. Peter's Primacy of Order or bare Dignity 32. Fathers A Censure of their Writings 71. Bellarmine's account of the same ibid. The latter Fathers most guilty in Expressions 72. Fathers A Character of their Writings 119. Feed my sheep The Romish Interpretation rejected and the true established ibid. G. GLosses of the Romanists on Scripture 70 their Corruptions and Partiality herein 73. Gregory M. his Character and Authority against the Pope 123. H. HEresie of Simony Popes guilty of it 266. Hereticks How confuted in ancient times 115 c. Humility strictly enjoyned to Christ's Apostles and Followers 39. I. JEsuites Their Character 182. Jesus according to common notion of the Jews did imply his being the Son of God 30. Ignorance of Popes in Divinity 267. Ignorance How serviceable to the Church of Rome 182. Image Worship 139 280. Indulgences 184. Infallibility Pretence to it the greatest Tyranny 137. Whence pretended 139. The mother of Incorrigibility and Corruption of Manners 140. v. 265. Inspiration The Popes and Synods bold pretensions to it 286. Jurisdiction Universal Jurisdiction over the Clergy the Pope's Presumption herein and when begun 215. Jurisdiction Temporal and Ecclesiastical nature thereof 271. K. KEys Power thereof as also all other Authority communicated to all the Apostles equally 42 64. Kings have the Power onely of calling General Councils 191. The unreasonableness of the contrary 192. v. Emperours L. LEgends of the Church of Rome the Profits arising from them 184. Laws Ecclesiastical Laws In whose Power to enact them 212. The Pope subject to them ibid. M. MArriage The Romanists abuse thereof 284. Why forbidden to their Priests 139. Mass. Doctrine thereof ibid. Merit Doctrine thereof in the Chur. of Rome 138 286. Miracles Why pretended to by the Romanists 139. Monarchy Universal Monarchy not politick nor convenient 130 neither in Church nor State 152. Monarchy less subject to abuse than other ways of Government 315. Monastries why exempted by the Pope from secular Jurisdiction 138. Monkery 140. N. POpe Nicholas the first who excommunicated Princes secundum Bodin 146. O. OAth of Bishops of Rome at their Election 22. Obedience Blind Obedience 177. Order and Discipline of the Primitive Church 211. v. Discipline Ordination Priority therein did anciently ground a Right to Precedence 34. Orthodox Who such in the Primitive Church 299. P. PAstours of the Church Their duty to maintain Peace and Charity 304. Patriarchs not an higher Order than Primates 169 their Institution and Authority 170 171. Peace to be inviolable among Christians 301 the Sacraments conducive to the same 302 as also Convocation of Synods ibid. S. Peter in personal accomplishments most eminent among the Apostles 32 It is probable he was first called to the Apostolical office 33 his Zeal and Activity 30 34 his Superiority in Power rejected 35 was no Priest at the Celebration of our Lord's Supper contra Concil Trid. 36 not Bishop of Rome 82 whether ever at Rome 83 whence his Primacy asserted 27. Popes Supremacy The Controversies about it 1 The great Disturbances it hath caused 2 pretended authority to depose Princes 3 their behaviour according to their circumstances 17 pretended Supremacy in Spirituals 20 their imperious arbitrary Government 40 the insolent Titles given them 41 no Judge of Controversies 115 c. their Character before and after Constantine 142 Usurpation on Princes 145 Causes of the growth of pretended Supremacy 172
bounds of Papal Authority This disagreement of the Roman Doctours about the nature and extent of Papal Authority is a shrewd prejudice against it If a man should sue for a piece of Land and his Advocates the notablest could be had and well payed could not find where it lieth how it is butted and bounded from whom it was conveyed to him one would be very apt to suspect his Title If God had instituted such an Office it is highly probable we might satisfactorily know what the Nature and Use of it were the Patents and Charters for it would declare it Yet for resolution in this great Case we are left to seek they not having either the will or the courage or the power to determine it This insuperable Problem hath baffled all their infallible methods of deciding Controversies their Traditions blundering their Synods clashing their Divines wrangling endlesly about what kind of thing the Pope is and what Power he rightly may claim There is saith a great Divine among them so much controversie about the plenitude of Ecclesiastical Power and to what things it may extend it self that few things in that matter are secure This is a plain argument of the impotency of the Pope's power in judging and deciding Controversies or of his Cause in this matter that he cannot define a Point so nearly concerning him and which he so much desireth an Agreement in that he cannot settle his own Claim out of doubt that all his Authority cannot secure it self from contest So indeed it is that no Spells can allay some Spirits and where Interests are irreconcilable Opinions will be so Some Points are so tough and so touchy that no-body dare meddle with them fearing that their resolution will fail of success and submission Hence even the anathematizing Definers of Trent the boldest undertakers to decide Controversies that ever were did wave this Point the Legates of the Pope being injoined to advertise That they should not for any cause whatever come to dispute about the Pope's Authority It was indeed wisely done of them to decline this Question their Authority not being strong enough to bear the weight of a Decision in favour of the Roman See against which they could doe nothing according to its Pretences as appeareth by one clear instance For whereas that Council took upon it incidentally to enact that any Prince should be excommunicate and deprived of the dominion of any City or place where he should permit a Duel to be fought the Prelates of France in the Convention of Orders Anno 1595. did declare against that Decree as infringing their King's Authority It was therefore advisedly done not to meddle with so ticklish a point But in the mean time their Policy seemeth greater than their Charity which might have inclined them not to leave the world in darkness and doubt and unresolved in a Point of so main importance as indeed they did in others of no small consequence disputed among their Divines with obstinate Heat viz. The Divine Right of Bishops the Necessity of Residence the immaculate Conception c. The Opinions therefore among them concerning the Pope's Authority as they have been so they are and in likelihood may continue very different § II. There are among them those who ascribe to the Pope an universal absolute and boundless Empire over all Persons indifferently and in all Matters conferred and settled on him by Divine immutable sanction so that all men of whatever degree are obliged in conscience to believe whatever he doth authoritatively dictate and to obey whatever he doth prescribe So that if Princes themselves do refuse obedience to his will he may excommunicate them cashier them depose them extirpate them If he chargeth us to hold no Communion with our Prince to renounce our Allegeance to him to abandon oppose and persecute him even to death we may without scruple we must in duty obey If he doth interdict whole Nations from the exercise of God's Worship and Service they must comply therein So that according to their conceits he is in effect Sovereign Lord of all the World and superiour even in Temporal or Civil matters unto all Kings and Princes It is notorious that many Canonists if not most and many Divines of that Party do maintain this Doctrine affirming that all the Power of Christ the Lord of Lords and King of Kings to whom all Power in Heaven and Earth doth appertain is imparted to the Pope as to his Vice-gerent This is the Doctrine which almost 400 years agoe Augustinus Triumphus in his egregious Work concerning Ecclesiastical Power did teach attributing to the Pope an incomprehensible and infinite Power because great is the Lord and great is his Power and of his Greatness there is no end This is the Doctrine which the leading Theologue of their Sect their Angelical Doctour doth affirm both directly saying that in the Pope is the top of both Powers and by plain consequence asserting that when any one is denounced excommunicate for Apostasie his Subjects are immediately freed from his dominion and their Oath of Allegeance to him This the same Thomas or an Authour passing under his name in his Book touching the Rule of Princes doth teach affirming that the Pope as Supreme King of all the world may impose taxes on all Christians and destroy Towns and Castles for the preservation of Christianity This as Card. Zabarell near 300 years agoe telleth us is the Doctrine which for a long time those who would please Popes did persuade them that they could doe all things whatever they pleased yea and things unlawfull and so could doe more than God According to this Doctrine then current at Rome in the last Laterane Great Synod under the Pope's nose and in his ear one Bishop styled him Prince of the World another Oratour called him King of Kings and Monarch of the Earth another great Prelate said of him that he had all Power above all Powers both of Heaven and Earth And the same roused up Pope Leo X. in these brave terms Snatch up therefore the two-edged sword of Divine Power committed to thee and injoyn command and charge that an universal Peace and Alliance be made among Christians for at least 10 years and to that bind Kings in the fetters of the great King and constrain Nobles by the iron manacles of Censures for to thee is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth This is the Doctrine which Baronius with a Roman confidence doth so often assert and drive forward saying that there can be no doubt of it but that the Civil Principality is subject to the Sacerdotal and that God hath made the Political Government subject to the Dominion of the Spiritual Church § III. From that Doctrine the Opinion in effect doth not differ which Bellarmine voucheth for the common Opinion of Catholicks that by reason of the Spiritual Power the Pope at least indirectly hath a Supreme
sayings to that purpose by suggestion of Hildebrand by whom he was much governed Pope Stephanus VI. told the Emperour Basilius that he ought to be subject with all veneration to the Roman Church Pope John VIII or IX did pretend Obedience due to him from Princes and in default thereof threatned to excommunicate them Pope Nicolas I. cast many imperious sayings and threats at King Lotharius these among others We do therefore by Apostolical authority under obtestation of the Divine judgment injoin to thee that in Triers and Colen thou shouldst not suffer any Bishop to be chosen before a report be made to our Apostleship Was not this satis pro imperio And again That being compelled thou mayst be able to repent know that very soon thou shalt be struck with the Ecclesiastical Sword so that thou mayst be afraid any more to commit such things in God's holy Church And this he suggesteth for right Doctrine that Subjection is not due to bad Princes perverting the Apostle's words to that purpose Be subject to the King as excelling that is saith he in vertues not in vices whereas the Apostle meaneth eminency in power Pope Gregory VII doth also alledge Pope Zachary who saith he did depose the King of the Franks and did absolve all the French from the Oath of fidelity which they had taken unto him not so much for his iniquities as because he was unfit for such a Power This indeed was a notable act of jurisdiction if Pope Gregory's word may be taken for matter of fact but divers maintain that Pope Zachary did onely concur with the rebellious deposers of King Chilperick in way of advice or approbation not by authority It was pretty briskly said of Pope Adrian I. We do by general decree constitute that whatever King or Bishop or Potentate shall hereafter believe or permit that the Censure of the Roman Pontifes may be violated in any case he shall be an execrable Anathema and shall be guilty before God as a betrayer of the Catholick Faith Constitutions against the Canons and Decrees of the Bishops of Rome or against good manners are of no moment Before that Pope Gregory II. because the Eastern Emperour did cross the worship of Images did withdraw Subjection from him and did thrust his Authority out of Italy He saith Baronius did effectually cause both the Romans and Italians to recede from Obedience to the Emperour This was an act in truth of Rebellion against the Emperour in pretence of Jurisdiction over him for how otherwise could he justify or colour the fact So as Baronius reflecteth he did leave to posterity a worthy example forsooth that Heretical Princes should not be suffered to reign in the Church of Christ if being warned they were found pertinacious in errour And no wonder he then was so bold seeing the Pope had obtained so much respect in those parts of the World that as he told the Emperour Leo Is. all the Kingdoms of the West did hold Saint Peter as an earthly God of which he might be able to seduce some to uphold him in his rebellious practices This is the highest source as I take it to which this extravagant Doctrine can be driven For that single passage of Pope Felix III. though much ancienter will not amount to it It is certain that in causes relating to God 't is the safest course for you that according to his institution ye endeavour to submit the will of the King to the Priests c. For while the Emperour did retain any considerable Authority in Italy the Popes were better advised than to vent such notions and while they themselves did retain any measure of pious or prudent Modesty they were not disposed to it And we may observe divers Popes near that time in word and practice thwarting that practice For instance Pope Gelasius a vehement stickler for Papal Authority doth say to the Emperour Anastasius I as being a Roman born do love worship reverence thee as the Roman Prince And he saith that the Prelates of Religion knowing the Empire conferr'd on him by Divine Providence did obey his Laws And otherwhere he discourseth that Christ had distinguished by their proper acts and dignities the offices of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power that one should not meddle with the other so disclaiming Temporal Power due to himself being content to scrue up his Spiritual Authority After him as is well known Pope Gregory I. as became a pious and good man did avow the Emperour for his Lord by God's gift superiour to all men to whom he was subject whom he in duty was bound to obey and supposed it a high presumption for any one to set himself above the honour of the Empire by assuming the title of Universal Bishop After him Pope Agatho in the Acts of the sixth General Council doth call the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus his Lord doth avow himself together with all Presidents of the Churches servants to the Emperour doth say that his See and his Synod were subject to him and did owe Obedience to him Presently after him Pope Leo II. who confirmed that General Synod doth call the Emperour the prototype Son of the Church and acknowledgeth the body of Priests to be servants meanest servants of his Royal Nobleness After him Pope Constantine the immediate Predecessour of Pope Greg. II. when the Emperour did command him to come to Constantinople The most holy man saith Anastasius in his Life did obey the Imperial Commands Yea Pope Gregory II. himself before his defection when perhaps the circumstances of time did not animate him thereto did in his Epistle to Leo Isaurus acknowledge him as Emperour to be the Head of Christians and himself consequently subject to him This Gregory therefore may be reputed the Father of that Doctrine which being fostered by his Successours was by Pope Gregory VII brought up to it s robust pitch and stature I know Pope Gregory VII to countenance him doth alledge Pope Innocent I. excommunicating the Emperour Arcadius for his proceeding against St. Chrysostome and the Writers of St. Chrysostome's Life with others of the like age and credit do back him therein But seeing the Historians who lived in St. Chrysostome's own time and who write very carefully about him do not mention any such thing seeing that being the first Act in the kind must have been very notable and have made a great noise seeing that story doth not sute with the tenour of proceedings reported by those most credible Historians in that case seeing that fact doth no-wise sort to the condition and way of those Times that report cannot be true and it must be numbred among the many fabulous narrations devised by some wanton Greeks to set out the Life of that excellent Personage The same Pope doth also alledge St. Gregory M. denouncing Excommunication and Deprivation of honour to all Kings Bishops Judges
c. who should violate the Privilege granted to the Monastery of St. Medard But this as are many such Privileges is a rank Forgery unworthily imposed on P. Gregory that prudent meek and holy man much to his wrong and disgrace which I will not be at trouble to confute having shewed St. Gregory to have been of another judgment and temper than to behave himself thus toward Princes and seeing that task is abundantly discharged by that very learned man Monsieur Launoy Indeed upon this occasion to digress a little farther it doth not seem to have been the opinion of the ancient Popes that they might excommunicate their Sovereign Princes for if they might why did they forbear to exercise that power when there was greatest reason and great temptation for it Why did not Pope Julius or Pope Liberius excommunicate Constantius the great Favourer of the Arians against whom Athanasius St. Hilary and Lucifer Calar do so earnestly inveigh calling him Heretick Antichrist and what not How did Julian himself escape the censure of Pope Liberius Why did not Pope Damasus thunder against Valens that fierce Persecutour of Catholicks Why did not Damasus censure the Empress Justina the Patroness of Arianism Why did not Pope Siricius censure Theodosius I. for that bloudy fact for which St. Ambrose denied him the Communion How was it that Pope Leo I. that stout and high Pope had not the heart to correct Theodosius Junior in this way who was the supporter of his adversary Dioscorus and the obstinate protectour of the second Ephesine Council which that Pope so much detested Why did that Pope not rather compell that Emperour to reason by censures than supplicate him by tears How did so many Popes connive at Theodorick and other Princes prosessing Arianism at their door Wherefore did not Pope Simplicius or Pope Felix thus punish the Emperour Zeno the supplanter of the Synod of Chalcedon for which they had so much zeal Why did neither Pope Felix nor Pope Gelasius nor Pope Symmachus nor Pope Hormisdas excommunicate the Emperour Anastasius yea did not so much Pope Gelasius saith as touch his name for countenancing the Oriental Bishops in their Schism and refractory Non-compliance with the Papal Authority Those Popes did indeed clash with that Emperour but they expresly deny that they did condemn him with others whom he did favour We saith Pope Symmachus did not excommunicate thee O Emperour but Acacius If you mingle your self you are not excommunicated by us but by your self And If the Emperour pleaseth to join himself with those condemned saith Pope Gelasius it cannot be imputed to us Wherefore Baronius doeth ill in affirming Pope Symmachus to have anathematized Anastasius whereas that Pope plainly denied that he had excommunicated him yea denied it even in those words which are cited to prove it being rightly read for they are corruptly written in Baronius and Binius Ego which hath no sense or one contradictory to his former assertion being put for Nego which is good sense and agreeable to what he and the other Popes do affirm in relation to that matter Why do we not reade that any Pope formally did excommunicate though divers did zealously contradict and oppose the Princes who did reject Images In fine a noble Bishop above 500 years agoe did say I reade and reade again the Records of the Roman Kings and Emperours and I no-where find that any of them before this was excommunicated or deprived of his Kingdom by the Roman Pontife Surely therefore the ancient Popes did either not know their Power or were very negligent of their Duty Such have been the Doctrine and behaviour of Popes in reference to their Power § V. This Doctrine of the Pope's Universal Power over all Persons in all Matters may reasonably be supposed the sentiment of all Popes continually for a long time even for more than 500 years unto this present day For 1. If this Doctrine be false it implieth no slight Errour but one of a very high nature and most dangerous consequence which involveth great arrogance and iniquity which tendeth to work enormous wrongs and grievous mischiefs whence if any Pope should conceâ—ve it false he were bound openly to disclaim to condemn to refute it lest the authority of his Predecessours and his connivence should induce others into it or settle them in it as it is in regard to Pope Honorius charged upon P. Leo II. who did not as it became the Apostolical Authority extinguish the flame of Heretical doctrine beginning but did by neglecting cherish it In such a case a Pope must not be silent For No small danger said P. Gelasius lieth upon Popes in being silent about what agreeth to the service of God and If saith P. Paschal a Pope by his silence doth suffer the Church to be polluted with the gall of bitterness and root of impiety he should no-wise be excusable before the Eternal Judge and Errour saith P. Felix III. which is not resisted by those in eminent office is approved and Truth which is not defendâ—d is oppressed and He is not free from suspicion of a close society in mischief who ceaseth to obviate it and We saith P. Gregory I. do greatly offend if we do hold our peace at things that are to be corrected But all Popes since the time specified have either openly declared for this Doctrine or have been silent and so have avowed it by tacit consent 2. Any Pope disapproving that Tenent were bound to renounce communion with those that hold and profess it or at least to check and discountenance it But on the contrary they have suffered it to be maintained in their presence and audience and have hugged that sort of men with especial favour as their most affectionate and sure friends they have suspected discountenanced and frowned on those who have shewed dislike of it Those men indeed who vouch this Doctrine may reasonably be deemed to doe it as accomplices with the Popes on purpose to gratifie and curry favour with them in hopes of obtaining reward and preferment of them for it 3. The chief Authours and most zealous Abettors of these notions Popes Synods Doctours of the School have continually passed for most authentick Masters of Divinity and have retained greatest authority in the Church governed and guided by the Pope 4. The Decrees containing them do stand in their Canon-Law and in their Collections of Synods without any caution or mark of dislike which is a sufficient indication of their constant adherence to this Doctrine 5. The common style of the Papal Edicts or Bulls doth import their sense which is imperious in regard to all persons without exception Let no man say they presume to infringe this our will and command c. 6. Popes of all tempers and qualifications even those who have passed for the most wise and moderate among them have been ready to practise according to those principles when
occasion did invite and circumstances of things did permit interdicting Princes absolving Subjects from their Allegeance raising or encouraging Insurrections as appeareth by their transactions not long since against our Princes and those of France which shews the very See imbued with those Notions 7. They do oblige all Bishops most solemnly to avow this Doctrine and to engage themselves to practise according to it For in the Oath prescribed to all Bishops they are required to avow that they will observe the Apostolical commands with all their power and cause them to be observed by others that they will aid and defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of Saint Peter against every man that they will to their power persecute and impugn Hereticks Schismaticks and Rebels to the Pope or his Successours without any exception which was I suppose chiefly meant against their own Prince if occasion should be together with divers other points importing their acknowledgment and abetting the Pope's universal Domination These horrible Oaths of Bishops to the Pope do seem to have issued from the same shop with the high Hildebrandine dictates for the Oath in the Decretals is ascribed to Pope Gregory I suppose Greg. VII And in the sixth Roman Synod under Greg. VII there is an Oath of like tenour exacted from the Bishop of Aquileia perhaps occasionally which in pursuance of that example might be extended to all And that before that time such Oaths were not imposed doth appear from hence that when P. Paschal II. did require them from some great Bishops the Bishop of Palermo and the Archbishop of Poland they did wonder and boggle at it as an uncouth Novelty nor doth the Pope in favour of his demand alledge any ancient precedent but onely proposeth some odd reasons for it You have signified unto me most dear Brother that the King and his Nobles did exceedingly wonder that an Oath with such a condition should be every-where offered you by my Commissioners and that you should take that Oath which I had written and they tendered to you § VI. All Romanists in consistence with their Principles do seem obliged to hold this opinion concerning the Pope's Universal Power For seeing many of their standing Masters and Judges of Controversies have so expresly from their Chair declared and defined it all the Row for many Ages consenting to it and countenancing it not one of them having signified any dissent or dislike of it And considering that if in any thing they may require or deserve belief it is in this point for in what are they more skilfull and credible than about the nature of their own Office What saith Bellarmine wisely may they be conceived to know better than the Authority of their own See Seeing it hath been approved by their most great and famous Councils which they hold Universal and which their adored Synod of Trent doth alledge for such the Laterane under P. Innocent III. that of Lions under P. Innocent IV. the other Laterane under P. Leo X. Seeing it hath been current among their Divines of greatest vogue and authority the great Masters of their School Seeing by so large a consent and concurrence during so long a time it may pretend much better than divers other Points of great importance to be confirmed by Tradition or Prescription Why should it not be admitted for a Doctrine of the Holy Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches How can they who disavow this Notion be true Sons of that Mother or faithfull Scholars of that Mistress How can they acknowledge any Authority in their Church to be infallible or certain or obliging to assent How can they admit the Pope for authentick Judge of Controversies or Master of Christian Doctrine or in any Point credible who hath in so great a matter erred so foully and seduced the Christian world whom they desert in a Point of so great consideration and influence on practice whom they by virtue of their dissent from him in this Opinion may often be obliged to oppose in his proceedings How can they deny that bad Doctrines might creep in and obtain sway in the Church by the interest of the Pope and his Clients How can they charge Novelty or Heterodoxy on those who refuse some Dictates of Popes of Papal Councils of Scholastick Divines which stand upon no better grounds than those on which this Doctrine standeth Why hath no Synod of the many which have been held in all parts of Christendom clearly disclaimed this Opinion but all have let it slip or have seemed by silence to approve it Yea how can the Concord and Unity of that Church well consist with a Dissent from this Doctrine For No man apprehending it false seemeth capable with good conscience to hold Communion with those who profess it for upon supposition of its falshood the Pope and his chief adherents are the teachers and abettours of the highest violation of Divine Commands and most enormous sins of Usurpation Tyranny Imposture Perjury Rebellion Murther Rapine and all the villanies complicated in the practical influence of this Doctrine It seemeth clear as the Sun that if this Doctrine be an Errour it is one of the most pernicious Heresies that ever was vented involving the highest Impiety and producing the greatest Mischief For If he that should teach Adultery Incest Simony Theft Murther or the like Crimes to be lawfull would be a Heretick how much more would he be such that should recommend Perjury Rebellion Regicide things inducing Wars Confusions Slaughters Desolations all sorts of Injustice and Mischief as Duties How then can any man safely hold Communion with such persons May we not say with P. Symmachus that to communicate with such is to consent with them with P. Gelasius that it is worse than ignorance of the truth to communicate with the enemies of truth and that He who communicateth with such an Heresie is worthily judged to be removed from our society § VII Yet so loose and slippery are the Principles of the Party which is jumbled in adherence to the Pope that divers will not allow us to take this Tenent of Infinite Power to be a Doctrine of their Church for divers in that Communion do not assent to it For there is a sort of Hereticks as Bellarmine and Baronius call them sculking every-where in the bosome of their Church all about Christendom and in some places stalking with open face who restrain the Pope's Authority so far as not to allow him any Power over Sovereign Princes in Temporal affairs much less any power of depriving them of their Kingdoms and Principalities They all are branded for Hereticks who take from the Church of Rome and the See of Saint Peter one of the two Swords and allow onely the Spiritual This Heresie Baronius hath nominated the Heresie of the Politicks This Heresie a great Nation otherwise sticking to the Roman Communion doth stiffly maintain not enduring the
Papal Sovereignty over Princes in Temporals to be preached in it There were many persons yea Synods who did oppose Pope Hildebrand in the birth of his Doctrine condemning it for a pernicious Novelty and branding it with the name of Heresie as we before shewed Since the Hildebrandine Age there have been in every Nation yea in Italy it self divers Historians Divines and Lawyers who have in elaborate Tracts maintained the Royal Sovereignty against the Pontifical This sort of Hereticks are now so much encreased that the Hildebrandine Doctrine is commonly exploded Which by the way sheweth that the Roman Party is no less than others subject to change its sentiments Opinions among them gaining and losing vogue according to circumstances of time and contingencies of things § VIII Neither are the adherents to the Roman Church more agreed concerning the extent of the Pope's Authority even in Spiritual matters For although the Popes themselves plainly do claim an absolute Supremacy in them over the Church although the stream of Divines who do flourish in favour with them doth run that way although according to their principles if they had any principles clearly and certainly fixed that might seem to be the Doctrine of their Church Yet is there among them a numerous party which doth not allow him such a Supremacy putting great restraints to his Authority as we shall presently shew And as the other party doth charge this with Heresie so doth this return back the same imputation on that § IX That their Doctrine is in this matter so various and uncertain is no great wonder seeing Interest is concerned in the question and Principles are defective toward the resolution of it 1. Contrary Interests will not suffer the Point to be decided nor indeed to be freely disputed on either hand On one hand the Pope will not allow his Prerogatives to be discussed according to that maxime of the great Pope Innocent III. When there is a question touching the Privileges of the Apostolick See we will not that others judge about them Whence as we before touched the Pope did peremptorily command his Legates at Trent in no case to permit any dispute about his Authority On the other hand the French will not permit the Supremacy of their King in Temporals or the Privileges of their Church in Spirituals to be contested in their Kingdom Nor we may suppose would any Prince admit a Decision prejudicial to his Authority and welfare subjecting and enslaving him to the will of the Roman Court. Nor we may hope would any Church patiently comport with the irrecoverable oppression of all its rights and liberties by a peremptory establishment of Papal Omnipotency 2. Nor is it easie for their Dissentions to be reconciled upon Theological grounds and authorities to which they pretend deference For not onely their Schools and Masters of their Doctrine do in the case disagree but their Synods do notoriously clash § X. Yea even Popes themselves have shifted their pretences and varied in style according to the different circumstances of time and their variety of humours designs interests In time of prosperity and upon advantage when they might safely doe it any Pope almost would talk high and assume much to himself but when they were low or stood in fear of powerfull contradiction even the boldest Popes would speak submissly or moderately As for instance Pope Leo I. after the second Ephesine Synod when he had to doe with Theodosius II. did humbly supplicate and whine pitifully but after the Synod of Chalcedon having got the Emperour favourable and most of the Bishops complacent to him he ranted bravely And we may observe that even Pope Gregory VII who did swagger so boisterously against the Emperour Henry was yet calm and mild in his contests with our William the Conquerour who had a spirit good enough for him and was far out of his reach And Popes of high spirit and bold face such as Leo I. Gelasius I. Nic. I. Gregory II. Gregory VII Innocent III. Boniface VIII Julius II. Paul IV. Sixtus V. Paulus V. c. as they did ever aspire to scrue Papal authority to the highest peg so would they strain their language in commendation of their See as high as their times would bear But other Popes of meeker and modester disposition such as Julius I. Anastasius II. Gregory I. Leo II. Adrian VI. c. were content to let things stand as they found them and to speak in the ordinary style of their times yet so that few have let their Authority to goe backward or decline We may observe that the pretences and language of Popes have varied according to several periods usually growing higher as their State grew looser from danger of opposition or controll In the first times while the Emperours were Pagans their pretences were suted to their condition and could not soar high they were not then so mad as to pretend to any Temporal Power and a pittance of Spiritual eminency did content them When the Empire was divided they could sometimes be more haughty and peremptory as being in the West shrowded under the wing of the Emperours there who commonly did affect to improve their Authority in competition to that of other Bishops and at distance from the reach of the Eastern Emperour The cause of Athanasius having produced the Sardican Canons concerning the Revision of some causes by the Popes by colour of them they did hugely enlarge their Authority and raise their style especially in the West where they had great advantages of augmenting their Power When the Western Empire was fallen their influence upon that part of the Empire which came under protection of the Eastern Emperours rendring them able to doe service or disservice to those Emperours they according to the state of Times and the need of them did talk more big or more tamely Pope Boniface III. having by compliance with the Usurper Phocas obtained a declaration from him concerning the Headship of the Roman Church did make a considerable step forward toward the height of Papal Greatness After that Pope Greg. II. had withdrawn Italy from the Oriental Empire and Rome had grown in a manner loose and independent from other secular powers in the confusions of the West the Pope interposing to arbitrate between Princes trucking and bartering with them as occasion served for mutual aid and countenance did grow in Power and answerably did advance his pretences The spurious Decretal Epistles of the ancient Popes which asserted to the Pope high degrees of Authority being foisted into mens hands and insensibly creeping into repute did inspire the Pope with confidence to invade all the ancient Constitutions Privileges and Liberties of Churches and having got such interest every-where he might say what he pleased no Clergy-man daring to check or cross him Having drawn to himself the final decision of all Causes having got a finger in disposal of all Preferments having by Dispensations Exemptions and Grants of privileges tyed
to him so many Dependents what might not he say or doe Pope Gregory VII being a man of untameable Spirit and taking advantage from the distractions and corruptions of his Times did venture to pull a feather with the Emperour and with success having mated him did set up a peremptory claim to Sovereignty over all Persons in all Causes In his footsteps his Successours have trodden being ever ready upon occasion to plead such a title and to practise according to it No Pope would foregoe any Power which had been claimed by his Predecessours And Popes would ever be sure to have dancers after their pipe numberless abetters of their pretences No wonder then that persons deferring much regard to the Authority of Popes and accommodating their conceits to the Dictates of them or of persons depending on them should in their opinions vary about the nature and extent of Papal Authority it having never been fixed within certain bounds or having in several Ages continued the same thing § XI Wherefore intending by God's help to discuss the pretended Authority of the Pope and to shew that He by no Divine institution and by no immutable right hath any such Power as he doth claim by reason of this perplexed variety of Opinions I do find it difficult to state the Question or to know at what distinct mark I should level my Discourse § XII But seeing his pretence to any Authority in Temporals or to the Civil Sword is so palpably vain that it hardly will bear a serious dispute having nothing but impudence and sophistry to countenance it seeing so many in the Roman Communion do reject it and have substantially confuted it seeing now most are ashamed of it and very few even among those Sects which have been its chief Patrons will own it seeing Bellarmine himself doth acknowledge it a Novelty devised about 500 years ago in St. Bernard's time seeing the Popes themselves what-ever they think dare now scarce speak out and forbear upon sufficient provocation to practise according to it I shall spare the trouble of meddling with it confining my Discourse to the Pope's Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs the pretence whereto I am persuaded to be no less groundless and no less noxious than the other to Christendom the which being overthrown the other as superstructed on it must also necessarily fall § XIII And here the Doctrine which I shall contest against is that in which the Cordial partizans of that See do seem to consent which is most common and current most applauded and countenanced in their Theological Schools which the Popes themselves have solemnly defined and declared for standing law or rule of jurisdiction which their most authentick Synods whereby their Religion is declared and distinguished from others have asserted or supposed which the tenour of their Discipline and Practice doth hold forth which their Clergy by most solemn professions and engagements is tied to avow which all the Clients and Confidents of Rome do zealously stand for more than for any other point of Doctrine and which no man can disclaim without being deemed an enemy or a prevaricator toward the Apostolick See § XIV Which Doctrine is this That in the words of the Florentine Synod's Definition the Apostolical Chair and the Roman High-Priest doth hold a Primacy over the Vniversal Church and that the Roman High-Priest is the Successour of Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the true Lieutenant of Christ and the Head of the Church and that he is the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that unto him in Saint Peter full Power is committed to feed and direct and govern the Catholick Church under Christ according as is contained in the Acts of General Councils and in the Holy Canons That in the words of Pope Leo X. approved by the Laterane Synod Christ before his departure from the world did in solidity of the Rock institute Peter and his Successours to be his Lieutenants to whom it is so necessary to obey that who doth not obey must die the death That to the Pope as Sovereign Monarch by Divine Sanction of the whole Church do appertain Royal Prerogatives Regalia Petri the Royalties of Peter they are called in the Oath prescribed to Bishops Such as these which follow To be Superiour to the whole Church and to its Representative a General Synod of Bishops To convocate General Synods at his pleasure all Bishops being obliged to attend upon summons from him To preside in Synods so as to suggest matter promote obstruct over-rule the debates in them To confirm or invalidate their Determinations giving life to them by his assent or subtracting it by his dissent To define Points of Doctrine or to decide Controversies authoritatively so that none may presume to contest or dissent from his Dictates To enact establish abrogate suspend dispense with Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons To relax or evacuate Ecclesiastical Censures by indulgence pardon c. To void Promises Vows Oaths Obligations to Laws by his Dispensation To be the Fountain of all Pastoral Jurisdiction and Dignity To constitute confirm judge censure suspend depose remove restore reconcile Bishops To confer Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices by paramount Authority in way of Provision Reservation c. To exempt Colleges Monasteries c. from Jurisdiction of their Bishops and ordinary Superiours To judge all persons in all Spiritual Causes by calling them to his cognizance or delegating Judges for them with a final and peremptory Sentence To receive Appeals from all Ecclesiastical Judicatories and to reverse their Judgments if he findeth cause To be himself unaccountable for any of his doings exempt from judgment and liable to no reproof To erect transfer abolish Episcopal Sees To exact Oaths of Fealty and Obedience from the Clergy To found Religious Orders or to raise a Spiritual Militia for propagation and defence of the Church To summon and commissionate Souldiers by Croisade c. to fight against Infidels or persecute Infidels Some of these are expressed others in general terms couched in those words of P. Eugenius telling the Greeks what they must consent unto The Pope said he will have the Prerogatives of his Church and he will have Appeals to him and to feed all the Church of Christ as Shepherd of the Sheep Beside these things that he may have authority and power to convoke General Synods when need shall be and that all the Patriarchs do yield to his will That the Pope doth claim assume and exercise a Sovereignty over the Church endowed with such Prerogatives is sufficiently visible in experience of fact is apparent by the authorized dictates in their Canon-law and shall be distinctly proved by competent allegations when we shall examine the branches of this pretended Authority In the mean time it sufficeth to observe that in effect all Clergy-men do avow so much who bonâ fide and without prevarication do submit to take the Oaths and Engagements prescribed to them
superiour to Saint Paul but his Collegue and equal in Authority although precedeing him in standing repute and other advantages then Saint Paul's free proceeding toward him was not onely warrantable but wholesome and deserving for edification to be recited and recorded as implying an example how Collegues upon occasion should with freedom and sincerity admonish their Brethren of their errours and faults Saint Peter's carriage in patiently bearing that correption also affording another good pattern of equanimity in such cases to which purpose S. Cypr. alledged and approved by S. Austin doth apply this passage for saith he neither Peter whom the Lord first chose and upon whom he built his Church when Paul afterward contested with him about circumcision did insolently challenge or arrogantly assume any thing to himself so as to say that he did hold the primacy and that rather those who were newer and later Apostles ought to obey him neither despised he Saint Paul because he was before a persecutour of the Church but he admitted the counsel of truth and easily consented to the lawfull course which Saint Paul did maintain yielding indeed to us a document both of concord and patience that we should not pertinaciously love our own things but should rather take those things for ours which sometimes are profitably and wholesomely suggested by our Brethren and Collegues if they are true and lawfull this St. Cyprian speaketh upon supposition that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were equals or as he calleth them Collegues and Brethren in rank co-ordinate otherwise St. Cyprian would not have approved the action for he often severely doth inveigh against Inferiours taking upon them to censure their Superiours What tumour saith he of pride what arrogance of mind what inflation of heart is it to call our Superiours and Bishops to our cognisance St. Cyprian therefore could not conceive Saint Peter to be Saint Paul's Governour or Superiour in Power he doth indeed plainly enough in the forecited words signifie that in his judgment Saint Peter had done insolently and arrogantly if he had assumed any obedience from Saint Paul St. Austin also doth in several places of his Writings make the like application of this passage The ancient Writer contemporary to St. Ambrose and passing under his name doth argue in this manner Who dared resist Peter the first Apostle to whom the Lord did give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but another such an one who in assurance of his election knowing himself to be not unequal to him might constantly disprove what he had unadvisedly done It is indeed well known that Origen and after him St. Chrysostome and St. Hierome and divers of the Ancients beside did conceive that Saint Paul did not seriously oppose or tax Saint Peter but did onely doe it seemingly upon confederacy with him for promoting a good design This interpretation however strained and earnestly impugned by Saint Austin I will not discuss but onely shall observe that it being admitted doth rather strengthen than weaken our discourse for if Saint Peter were Saint Paul's Governour it maketh Saint Peter to have consented to an act in all appearance indecent irregular and scandalous and how can we imagine that Saint Peter would have complotted to the imparing his own just Authority in the eye of a great Church doth not such a condescension imply in him a disavowing of Superiority over Saint Paul or a conspiracy with him to overthrow good Order To which purpose we may observe that St. Chrysostome in a large and very elaborate discourse wherein he professeth to endeavour an aggravation of the irregularity of Saint Paul's dâ—meanour if it were serious doth not lay the stress of that aggravation upon Saint Paul's opposing his lawfull Governour but his onely so treating a Co-apostle of such eminency neither when to that end he designeth to reckon all the advantages of Saint Peter beyond Saint Paul or any other Apostle doth he mention this which was chiefly material to his purpose that he was Saint Paul's Governour which observations if we do carefully weigh we can hardly imagine that St. Chrysostome had any notion of Saint Peter's Supremacy in relation to the Apostles In fine the drift of Saint Paul in reporting those passages concerning himself was not to disparage the other Apostles nor merely to commend himself but to fence the truth of his Doctrine and maintain the liberty of his Disciples against any prejudice that might arise from any authority that might be pretended in any considerable respects superiour to his and alledged against them to which purpose he declareth by arguments and matters of fact that his Authority was perfectly Apostolical and equal to the greatest even to that of Saint Peter the prime Apostle of Saint John the beloved Disciple of Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem the judgment or practice of whom was no law to him nor should be to them farther than it did consist with that Doctrine which he by an independent Authority and by special revelation from Christ did preach unto them He might as St. Chrysostome noteth have pretended to some advantage over them in regard that he had laboured more abundantly than them all but he forbeareth to do so being contented to obtain equal advantages Well therefore considering the disadvantage which this passage bringeth to the Roman pretence might this History be called by Baronius a History hard to be understood a stone of offence a rock of scandal a rugged place which Saint Austin himself under favour could not pass over without stumbling It may also be considered that Saint Paul particularly doth assert to himself an independent authority over the Gentiles co-ordinate to that which Saint Peter had over the Jews the which might engage him so earnestly to contest with Saint Peter as by his practice seducing those who belonged to his charge the which also probably moved him thus to assert his authority to the Galatians as being Gentiles under his care and thence obliged especially to regard his authority They saith Saint Paul knowing that I was entrusted with the Gospel of uncircumcision as Peter was entrusted with that of circumcision gave unto me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship the which words do clearly enough signifie that he took himself and that the other Apostles took him to have under Christ an absolute charge subordinate to no man over the Gentiles whence he claimeth to himself as his burthen the care of all the Churches he therefore might well contest for their liberty he might well insist upon his authority among them Thus did St. Chrysostome understand the case for Christ saith he committed the Jews to Peter but set Paul over the Gentiles and He saith that great Father farther doth shew himself to be equal to them in dignity and compareth himself not onely to the others but even to the ring-leader shewing that each did enjoy equal dignity
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal in honour to Saint Peter as we before shewed The like we declared of St. Hierome St. Cyril c. And as for St. Cyprian who did allow a Primacy to Saint Peter nothing can be more evident than that he took the other Apostles to be equal to him in power and honour The like we may conceive of St. Austin who having carefully perused those Writings of St. Cyprian and frequently alledging them doth never contradict that his sentiment Even Pope Gregory himself acknowledgeth Saint Peter not to have been properly the Head but onely the first member of the universal Church all being members of the Church under one head 6. If Pope Leo I. or any other ancient Pope do seem to mean farther we may reasonably except against their Opinion as being singular and proceeding from partial affection to their See such affection having influence on the mind of the wisest men according to that certain maxime of Aristotle every man is a bad Judge in his own case 7. The Ancients when their subject doth allure them do adorn other Apostles with the like titles equalling those of Saint Peter and not well consistent with them according to that rigour of sense which our adversaries affix to the commendations of Saint Peter The Epistle of Clemens Rom. to Saint James an Apocryphal but ancient Writing calleth St. James our Lord's Brother The Bishop of Bishops the Clementine Recognitions call him the Prince of Bishops Ruffinus in his translation of Eusebius The Bishop of the Apostles St. Chrysost. saith of him that he did preside over all the Jewish believers Hesychius Presbyter of Jerusalem calleth him the chief Captain of the New Jerusalem the Captain of Priests the Prince of the Apostles the top among the Heads c. The same Hesychius calleth Saint Andrew the first-born of the Apostolical Choire the first setled pillar of the Church the Peter before Peter the foundation of the foundation the first-fruits of the beginning c. St. Chrysostome saith of Saint John that he was a pillar of the Churches through the world he that had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. But as occasion of speaking about Saint Paul was more frequent so the elogies of him are more copious and indeed so high as not to yield to those of Saint Peter He was saith St. Chrysostome the ringleader and guardian of the Choire of all the Saints He was the tongue the teacher the Apostle of the world He had the whole world put into his hands and took care thereof and had committed to him all men dwelling upon Earth He was the light of the Churches the foundation of Faith the pillar and ground of Truth He had the patronage of the World committed into his hands He was better than all men greater than the Apostles and surpassing them all Nothing was more bright nothing more illustrious than he None was greater than he yea none equal to him Pope Gregory I. saith of Saint Paul that he was made head of the Nations because he obtained the principate of the whole Church These Characters of Saint Paul I leave them to interpret and reconcile with those of Saint Peter 8. That the Fathers by calling Saint Peter Prince Chieftain c. of the Apostles do not mean Authority over them may be argued from their joining Saint Paul with him in the same appellations who yet surely could have no Jurisdiction over them and his having any would destroy the pretended Ecclesiastical Monarchy St. Cyril calleth them together Patrons or Presidents of the Church St. Austin or St. Ambr. or Max. calleth them Princes of the Churches The Popes Agatho and Adrian in their General Synods call them the ring-leading Apostles The Popes Nicholas I. and Gregory VII c. call them Princes of the Apostles St. Ambrose or St. Austin or St. Maximus Taur chuse you which doth thus speak of them Blessed Peter and Paul are most eminent among all the Apostles excelling the rest by a kind of peculiar prerogative but whether of these two be preferred before the other is uncertain for I count them to be equal in merit because they are equal in suffering c. To all this discourse I shall onely adde that if any of the Apostles or Apostolical men might claim a presidency or authoritative headship over the rest Saint James seemeth to have the best title thereto for Jerusalem was the mother of all Churches the fountain of the Christian Law and Doctrine the See of our Lord himself the chief Pastour He therefore who as the Fathers tell us was by our Lord himself constituted Bishop of that City and the first of all Bishops might best pretend to be in special manner our Lord's Vicar or Successour He saith Epiphanius did first receive the Episcopal Chair and to him our Lord first did entrust his own Throne upon Earth He accordingly did first exercise the Authority of presiding and moderating in the first Ecclesiastical Synod as St. Chrysostome in his Notes thereon doth remark He therefore probably by Saint Paul is first named in his report concerning the passages at Hierusalem and to his orders it seemeth that Saint Peter himself did conform for 't is said there that before certain came from Saint James he did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come he withdrew Hence in the Apostolical Constitutions in the Prayer prescribed for the Church and for all the Governours of it the Bishops of the principal Churches being specified by name Saint James is put in the first place before the Bishops of Rome and of Antioch Let us pray for the whole Episcopacy under Heaven of those who rightly dispense the word of thy Truth and let us pray for our Bishop James with all his Parishes let us pray for our Bishop Clemens and all his Parishes let us pray for Evodius and all his Parishes Hereto consenteth the Tradition of those ancient Writers afore cited who call Saint James the Bishop of Bishops the Bishop of the Apostles c. SUPPOSITION II. I proceed to examine the next Supposition of the Church Monarchists which is That Saint Peter's Primacy with its Rights and Prerogatives was not personal but derivable to his Successours AGainst which Supposition I do assert that admitting a Primacy of Saint Peter of what kind or to what purpose soever we yet have reason to deem it merely personal and not according to its grounds and its design communicable to any Successours nor indeed in effect conveyed to any such It is a rule in the Canon Law that a personal Privilege doth follow the Person and is extinguished with the Person and such we affirm that of St. Peter for 1. His Primacy was grounded upon personal acts such as his chearfull following of Christ his faithfull confessing of Christ his resolute adherence to Christ his embracing
special Revelations from God or upon personal graces his great Faith his special love to our Lord his singular zeal for Christ's Service or upon personal gifts and endowments his courage resolution activity forwardness in apprehension and in speech the which advantages are not transient and consequently a preeminency built on them is not in its nature such 2. All the pretence of Primacy granted to Saint Peter is grounded upon words directed to Saint Peter's Person characterized by most personal adjuncts as name parentage and which exactly were accomplished in Saint Peter's personal actings which therefore it is unreasonable to extend farther Our Lord promised to Simon Son of Jona to build his Church on him accordingly in eminent manner the Church was founded upon his Ministery or by his first preaching testimony performances Our Lord promised to give him the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom this Power Saint Peter signally did execute in converting Christians and receiving them by Baptism into the Church by conferring the Holy Ghost and the like administrations Our Lord charged Simon Son of Jonas to feed his Sheep this he performed by preaching writing guiding and governing Christians as he found opportunity wherefore if any thing was couched under those promises or orders singularly pertinent to Saint Peter for the same reason that they were singular they were personal for These things being in a conspicuous manner accomplished in St. Peter's Person the sense of those words is exhausted there may not with any probability there cannot with any assurance be any more grounded on them whatever more is inferred must be by precarious assumption and justly we may cast at those who shall infer it that exposâ—ulation of Tertullian What art thou who dost overturn and change the manifest intention of our Lord personally conferring this on Peter 3. Particularly the grand promise to Saint Peter of founding the Church on him cannot reach beyond his person because there can be no other foundations of a Society than such as are first laid the successours of those who first did erect a Society and establish it are themselves but superstructures 4. The Apostolical Office as such was personal and temporary and therefore according to its nature and design not successive or communicable to others in perpetual descendence from them It was as such in all respects extraordinary conferred in a special manner designed for special purposes discharged by special aids endowed with special privileges as was needfull for the propagation of Christianity and founding of Churches To that Office it was requisite that the Person should have an immediate designation and commission from God such as Saint Paul so often doth insist upon for asserting his title to the Office Paul an Apostle not from men or by man not by men saith St. Chrysostome this is a property of the Apostles It was requisite that an Apostle should be able to attest concerning our Lord's Resurrection or Ascension either immediately as the twelve or by evident consequence as Saint Paul thus Saint Peter implyed at the choice of Matthias wherefore of those men which have companyed with us must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the Resurrection and Am I not saith Saint Paul an Apostle have I not seen the Lord according to that of Ananias The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will and see that just one and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth for thou shalt bear witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard It was needfull also that an Apostle should be endowed with miraculous gifts and graces enabling him both to assure his Authority and to execute his Office wherefore Saint Paul calleth these the marks of an Apostle the which were wrought by him among the Corinthians in all patience or perseveringly in signs and wonders and mighty deeds It was also in St. Chrysostome's opinion proper to an Apostle that he should be able according to his discretion in a certain and conspicuous manner to impart Spiritual Gifts as Saint Peter and Saint John did at Samaria which to doe according to that Father was the peculiar gift and privilege of the Apostles It was also a privilege of an Apostle by virtue of his commission from Christ to instruct all Nations in the Doctrine and Law of Christ He had right and warrant to exercise his function every where His charge was universal and indefinite the whole world was his Province he was not affixed to one place nor could be excluded from any he was as St. Cyril calleth him an Oecumenical Judge and an Instructour of all the Subcelestial World Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner according to discretion as being guided by infallible assistence to the which they might upon occasion appeal and affirm It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us Whence their Writings have passed for inspired and therefore Canonical or certain Rules of Faith and Practice It did belong to them to found Churches to constitute Pastours to settle orders to correct offences to perform all such Acts of Sovereign Spiritual Power in virtue of the same Divine assistence according to the Authority which the Lord had given them for edification as we see practised by Saint Paul In fine the Apostleship was as St. Chrysostome telleth us a business fraught with ten thousand good things both greater than all privileges of grace and comprehensive of them Now such an Office consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers which were requisite for the foundation of the Church and the diffusion of Christianity against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages which it then needs must encounter was not designed to continue by derivation for it containeth in it divers things which apparently were not communicated and which no man without gross imposture and hypocrisie could challenge to himself Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicate it they did indeed appoint standing Pastours and Teachers in each Church they did assume Fellow-labourers or Assistents in the work of Preaching and Governance but they did not constitute Apostles equal to themselves in Authority Privileges or Gifts For who knoweth not saith St. Austin that principate of Apostleship to be preferred before any Episcopacy and the Bishops saith Bellarmine have no part of the true Apostolical Authority Wherefore Saint Peter who had no other Office mentioned in Scripture or known to Antiquity beside that of an Apostle could not have properly and adequately any Successour to his Office but it naturally did expire with his Person as did that of the other Apostles 5. Accordingly whereas the other Apostles as such had no Successours the Apostolical Office not being propagated the Primacy of Saint Peter whatever it were whether of Order or Jurisdiction in regard to his Brethren did cease with him for when there were no Apostles extant there could be no Head or Prince of
the Apostles in any sense 6. If some privileges of Saint Peter were derived to Popes why were not all why was not Pope Alexander VI. as holy as Saint Peter why was not Pope Honorius as found in his private judgment why is not every Pope inspired why is not every Papal Epistle to be reputed Canonical why are not all Popes endowed with power of doing miracles why doth not the Pope by a Sermon convert thousands why indeed do Popes never preach why doth not he cure men by his shadow he is say they himself his shadow what ground is there of distinguishing the privileges so that he shall have some not others where is the ground to be found 7. If it be objected that the Fathers commonly do call Bishops Successours of the Apostles to assoil that objection we may consider that whereas the Apostolical Office virtually did contain the functions of Teaching and ruling God's people the which for preservation of Christian doctrine and edification of the Church were requisite to be continued perpetually in ordinary standing Offices these indeed were derived from the Apostles but not properly in way of succession as by univocal propagation but by Ordination imparting all the power needfull for such Offices which therefore were exercised by persons during the Apostles lives concurrently or in subordination to them even as a Dictatour at Rome might create inferiour Magistrates who derived from him but not as his Successours for as Bellarmine himself telleth us there can be no proper succession but in respect of one preceding but Apostles and Bishops were together in the Church The Fathers therefore so in a large sense call all Bishops Successours of the Apostles not meaning that any one of them did succeed into the whole Apostolical Office but that each did receive his power from some one immediately or mediately whom some Apostle did constitute Bishop vesting him with Authority to feed the particular Flock committed to him in way of ordinary charge according to the sayings of that Apostolical person Clemens Rom. The Apostles preaching in Regions and Cities did constitute their first Converts having approved them by the Spirit for Bishops and Deacons of those who should afterward believe and having constituted the foresaid Bishops and Deacons they withall gave them farther charge that if they should dye other approved men successively should receive their Office thus did the Bishops supply the room of the Apostles each in guiding his particular charge all of them together by mutual aid conspiring to govern the whole Body of the Church 8. In which regard it may be said that not one single Bishop but all Bishops together through the whole Church do succeed Saint Peter or any other Apostle for that all of them in union together have an universal Sovereign Authority commensurate to an Apostle 9. This is the notion which St. Cyprian doth so much insist upon affirming that the Bishops do succeed Saint Peter and the other Apostles by vicarious ordination that the Bishops are Apostles that there is but one chair by the Lord's word built upon one Peter One undivided Bishoprick diffused in the peacefull numerosity of many Bishops whereof each Bishop doth hold his share One Flock whom the Apostles by unanimous agreement did feed and which afterward the Bishops do feed having a portion thereof allotted to each which he should govern So the Synod of Carthage with St. Cyprian So also St. Chrysostome saith that the Sheep of Christ were committed by him to Peter and to those after him that is in his meaning to all Bishops 10. Such and no other power Saint Peter might devolve on any Bishop ordained by him in any Church which he did constitute or inspect as in that of Antioch of Alexandria of Babylon of Rome The like did the other Apostles communicate who had the same power with Saint Peter in founding and settling Churches whose Successours of this kind were equal to those of the same kind whom St. Peter did constitute enjoying in their several precincts an equal part of the Apostolical power as St. Cyprian often doth assert 11. It is in consequence observable that in those Churches whereof the Apostles themselves were never accounted Bishops yet the Bishops are called Successours of the Apostles which cannot otherwise be understood than according to the sense which we have proposed that is because they succeeded those who were constituted by the Apostles according to those sayings of Irenaeus and Tertullian we can number those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles and their Successours and All the Churches do shew those whom being by the Apostles constituted in the Episcopal Office they have as continuers of the Apostolical seed So although Saint Peter was never reckoned Bishop of Alexandria yet because 't is reported that he placed Saint Mark there the Bishop of Alexandria is said to succeed the Apostles And because Saint John did abide at Ephesus inspecting that Church and appointing Bishops there the Bishops of that See did refer their Origine to him So many Bishops did claim from Saint Paul So St. Cyprian and Firmilian do assert themselves Successours of the Apostles who yet perhaps never were at Carthage or Caesarea So the Church of Constantinople is often in the Acts of the Sixth General Council called this great Apostolick Church being such Churches as those of whom Tertullian saith that although they do not produce any of the Apostles or Apostolical men for their authour yet conspiring in the same faith are no less for the consanguinity of doctrine reputed Apostolical Yea hence St. Hierome doth assert a parity of merit and dignity Sacerdotal to all Bishops because saith he all of them are Successours to the Apostles having all a like power by their ordination conferred on them 12. Whereas our Adversaries do pretend that indeed the other Apostles had an extraordinary charge as Legates of Christ which had no succession but was extinct in their persons but that Saint Peter had a peculiar charge as ordinary Pastour of the whole Church which surviveth To this it is enough to rejoyn that it is a mere figment devised for a shift and affirmed precariously having no ground either in Holy Scripture or in ancient Tradition there being no such distinction in the Sacred or Ecclesiastical Writings no mention occurring there of any Office which he did assume or which was attributed to him distinct from that extraordinary one of an Apostle and all the Pastoral charge imaginable being ascribed by the Ancients to all the Apostles in regard to the whole Church as hath been sufficiently declared 13. In fine If any such conveyance of power of power so great so momentous so mightily concerning the perpetual state of the Church and of each person therein had been made it had been for general direction and satisfaction for voiding all doubt and debate about it for stifling these pretended Heresies
was at Rome may well be collected from St. Paul's Writings for he writing at different times one Epistle to Rome and divers Epistles from Rome that to the Galatians that to the Ephesians that to the Philippians that to the Colossians and the Second to Timothy doth never mention him sending any salutation to him or from him Particularly Saint Peter was not there when Saint Paul mentioning Tychicus Onesimus Aristarchus Marcus and Justus addeth these alone my fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God who have been a comfort unto me He was not there when Saint Paul said at my first defence no man stood with me but all men forsook me He was not there immediately before Saint Paul's death when the time of his departure was at hand when he telleth Timothy that all the brethren did salute him and naming divers of them he omitteth Peter Which things being considered it is not probable that Saint Peter would assume the Episcopal Chair of Rome he being little capable to reside there and for that other needfull affairs would have forced him to leave so great a Church destitute of their Pastour 7. It was needless that he should be Bishop for that by virtue of his Apostleship involving all the power of inferiour degrees he might whenever he should be at Rome exercise Episcopal Functions and Authority What need a Sovereign Prince to be made a Justice of Peace 8. Had he done so he must have given a bad example of Non-residence a practice that would have been very ill relished in the Primitive Church as we may see by several Canons interdicting offences of kin to it it being I think then not so known as nominally to be censured and culpable upon the same ground and by the sayings of Fathers condemning practices approaching to it Even latter Synods in more corrupt times and in the declension of good Order yet did prohibit this practice Epiphanius therefore did well infer that it was needfull the Apostles should constitute Bishops resident at Rome It was saith he possible that the Apostles Peter and Paul yet surviving other Bishops should be constituted because the Apostles often did take journeys into other Countries for preaching Christ but the City of Rome could not be without a Bishop 9. If Saint Peter were Bishop of Rome he thereby did offend against divers other good Ecclesiastical Rules which either were in practice from the beginning or at least the reason of them was always good upon which the Church did afterward enact them so that either he did ill in thwarting them or the Church had done it in establishing them so as to condemn his practice 10. It was against Rule that any Bishop should desert one Church and transfer himself to another and indeed against Reason such a relation and endearment being contracted between a Bishop and his Church which cannot well be dissolved But Saint Peter is by Ecclesiastical Historians reported and by Romanists admitted to have been Bishop of Antioch for seven years together He therefore did ill to relinquish that Church that most ancient and truly Apostolick Church of Antioch as the Constantinopolitan Fathers call'd it and to place his See at Rome This practice was esteemed bad and of very mischievous consequence earnestly reproved as heinously criminal by great Fathers severely condemned by divers Synods Particularly a transmigration from a lesser and poorer to a greater and more wealthy Bishoprick which is the present case was checked by them as rankly savouring of selfish ambition or avarice The Synod of Alexandria in Athanasius in its Epistle to all Catholick Bishops doth say that Eusebius by passing from Berytus to Nicomedia had annulled his Episcopacy making it an adultery worse than that which is committed by marriage upon divorce Eusebius say they did not consider the Apostle's admonition Art thou bound to a wife do not seek to be loosed for if it be said of a woman how much more of a Church of the same Bishoprick to which one being tyed ought not to seek another that he may not be found also an adulterer according to the Holy Scripture Surely when they said this they did forget what Saint Peter was said to have done in that kind as did also the Sardican Fathers in their Synodical Letter extant in the same Apology of Athanasius condemning translations from lesser Cities unto greater Dioceses The same practice is forbidden by the Synods of Nice I. of Chalcedon of Antioch of Sardica of Arles I. c. In the Synod under Mennas it was laid to the charge of Anthimus that having been Bishop of Trabisond he had adulterously snatched the See of Constantinople against all Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons Yea great Popes of Rome little considering how peccant therein their Predecessour Pope Peter was Pope Julius and Pope Damasus did greatly tax this practice whereof the latter in his Synod at Rome did excommunicate all those who should commit it In like manner Pope Leo I. These Laws were so indispensable that in respect to them Constantine M. who much loved and honoured Eusebius acknowledging him in the common judgment of the world deserving to be Bishop of the whole Church did not like that he should accept the Bishoprick of Antioch to which he was invited and commended his waving it as an act not onely consonant to the Ecclesiastical Canons but acceptable to God and agreeable to Apostolical Tradition so little aware was the good Emperour of Saint Peter being translated from Antioch to Rome In regard to the same Law Gregory Nazianzene a person of so great worth and who had deserved so highly of the Church at Constantinople could not be permitted to retain his Bishoprick of that Church to which he had been call'd from that small one of Sasima The Synod saith Sozomen observing the ancient laws and the Ecclesiastical rule did receive his Bishoprick from him being willingly offered no-wise regarding the great merits of the person the which Synod surely would have excluded Saint Peter from the Bishoprick of Rome and it is observable that Pope Damasus did approve and exhort those Fathers to that proceeding We may indeed observe that Pope Pelagius II. did excuse the translation of Bishops by the example of Saint Peter for who ever dareth to say argueth he that Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles did not act well when he changed his See from Antioch to Rome But I think it more adviseable to excuse Saint Peter from being Authour of a practice judged so irregular by denying the matter of Fact laid to his charge 11. It was anciently deemed a very irregular thing contrary saith St. Cyprian to the Ecclesiastical disposition contrary to the Evangelical Law contrary to the unity of Catholick Institution a Symbol saith another Ancient Writer of dissention and disagreeable to Ecclesiastical Law which therefore was condemned by the Synod of Nice
instance we may discern what little consideration sometimes was had of personal or topical succession to the Apostles in determining the extent of Jurisdiction and why should the Roman Bishop upon that score pretend more validly than others 6. Saint Peter probably e'er that he came at Rome did found divers other Churches whereof he was paramount Bishop or did retain a special superintendency over them particularly Antioch was anciently called his See and he is acknowledged to have sate there seven years before he was Bishop of Rome Why therefore may not the Bishop of Antioch pretend to succeed Saint Peter in his universal Pastourship as well as his younger brother of Rome why should Evodius ordained by Saint Peter at Antioch yield to Clemens afterward by him ordained at Rome Antioch was the first-born of Gentile Churches where the name of Christians was first heard Antioch was as the Constantinopolitan Fathers called it the most ancient and truly Apostolical Church Antioch by virtue of Saint Peter's sitting there or peculiar relation to it was according to their own conceits the principal See Why therefore should Saint Peter be so unkind to it as not onely to relinquish it but to debase it not onely transferring his See from it but devesting it of the privilege which it had got Why should he prefer before it the City of Rome the mystical Babylon the mother of abominations of the earth the Throne of Satan's Empire the place which did then most persecute the Christian Faith and was drunk with the bloud of the Saints 7. The ground of this preference was say they Saint Peter's Will and they have reason to say so for otherwise if Saint Peter had died intestate the Elder Son of Antioch would have had best right to all his goods and dignities But how doth that Will appear in what Tables was it written in what Registers is it extant in whose presence did he nuncupate it it is no-where to be seen or heard of Neither do they otherwise know of it than by reasoning it out and in effect they say onely that it was fit he should will it but they may be mistaken in their divinations and perhaps notwithstanding them Saint Peter might will as well to his former See of Antioch as to his latter of Rome 8. Indeed Bellarmine sometimes positively and briskly enough doth affirm that God did command Saint Peter to fix his See at Rome but his proofs of it are so ridiculously fond and weak that I grudge the trouble of reciting them and he himself sufficiently confuteth them by saying other-where It is not unprobable that our Lord gave an express command that Peter should so fix his See at Rome that the Bishop of Rome should absolutely succeed him He saith it is not improbable if it be no more than so it is uncertain it may be a mere conjecture or a dream It is much more not-unprobable that if God had commanded it there would have been some assurance of a command so very important 9. Antioch hath at least a fair plea for a share in Saint Peter's Prerogatives for it did ever hold the repute of an Apostolical Church and upon that score some deference was paid to it why so if Saint Peter did carry his See with all its Prerogatives to another place But if he carried with him onely part of his Prerogative leaving some part behind at Antioch how much then I pray did he leave there why did he divide unequally or leave less than half if perchance he did leave half the Bishop of Antioch is equal to him of Rome 10. Other persons also may be found who according to equal judgment might have a better title to the succession of Peter in his Universal Authority than the Pope having a nearer relation to him than he although his Successour in one charge or upon other equitable grounds For instance Saint John or any other Apostle who did survive Saint Peter for if Saint Peter was the Father of Christians which Title yet our Saviour forbiddeth any one to assume Saint John might well claim to be his eldest Son and it had been a very hard case for him to have been postponed in the succession it had been a derogation to our Lord 's own choice a neglect of his special affection a disparagement of the Apostolical Office for him to be subjected to any other neither could any other pretend to the like gifts for management of that great charge 11. The Bishop of Jerusalem might with much reason have put in his claim thereto as being Successour of our Lord himself who unquestionably was the High-priest of our Profession and Archbishop of all our Souls whose See was the Mother of all Churches wherein St. Peter himself did at first reside exercising his Vicarship If our Lord upon special accounts out of course had put the Sovereignty into Saint Peter's hands yet after his decease it might be fit that it should return into its proper chanel This may seem to have been the judgment of the times when the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions did write who reporteth the Apostles to have ordered Prayers to be made first for James then for Clement then for Evodius 12. Equity would rather have required that one should by common consent and election of the whole Church be placed in Saint Peter's room than that the Bishop of Rome by election of a few Persons there should succeed into it As the whole body of Pastours was highly concerned in that Succession so it was reasonable that all of them should concur in designation of a Person thereto it is not reasonable to suppose that either God would institute or Saint Peter by will should devise a course of proceeding in such a case so unequal and unsatisfactory If therefore the Church considering this equity of the case together with the expediency of affairs in relation to its good should undertake to chuse for its self another Monarch the Bishop of another See who should seem fitter for the place to succeed into the Prerogatives of Saint Peter that Person would have a fairer title to that Office than the Pope for such a Person would have a real title grounded on some reason of the case whenas the Pope's pretence doth onely stand upon a positive Institution whereof he cannot exhibit any Certificate This was the mind of a great man among themselves who saith that if possibly the Bishop of Triers should be chosen for Head of the Church For the Church has free power to provide its self a Head Bellarmine himself confesseth that if Saint Peter as he might have done if he had pleased should have chosen no particular See as he did not for the first five years then after Peter's death neither the Bishop of Rome nor of Antioch had succeeded but he whom the Church should have chosen for it self Now if the Church upon that supposition would have
had such a right it is not probable that Saint Peter by his fact would have deprived it thereof or willingly done any thing in prejudice to it there being apparently so much equity that the Church should have a stroke in designation of its Pastour In ancient times there was not any small Church which had not a suffrage in the choice of its Pastour and was it fitting that all the Church should have one imposed on it without its consent If we consider the manner in ancient time of electing and constituting the Roman Bishop we may thence discern not onely the improbability but iniquity of this pretence how was he then chosen was it by a General Synod of Bishops or by Delegates from all parts of Christendom whereby the common interest in him might appear and whereby the World might be satisfied that one was elected fit for that high Office No he was chosen as usually then other particular Bishops were by the Clergy and People of Rome none of the World being conscious of the proceeding or bearing any share therein Now was it equal that such a power of imposing a Sovereign on all the grave Bishops and on all the good people of the Christian world should be granted to one City Was it fitting that such a charge importing advancement above all Pastours and being entrusted with the welfare of all Souls in Christendom should be the result of an election liable to so many defects and corruptions which assuredly often if not almost constantly would be procured by ambition bribery or partiality would be managed by popular faction and tumults It was observed generally of such Elections by Nazianzene that Prelacies were not rather by vertue than by naughtiness and that Episcopal Thrones did not rather belong to the more worthy than to the more powerfull And declaring his mind or wish that Elections of Bishops should rest onely or chiefly in the best men not in the wealthiest and mightiest or in the impetuousness and unreasonableness of the people and among them in those who are most easily bought and bribed whereby he intimateth the common practice and subjoineth but now I can hardly avoid thinking that the popular or civil governances are better ordered than ours which are reputed to have divine grace attending them And that the Roman Elections in that time were come into that course we may see by the relation and reflexions of an honest Pagan Historian concerning the Election of Pope Damasus contemporary of Gregory Nazianz. Damasus saith he and Vrsinus above humane measure burning with desire to snatch the Episcopal See did with divided parties most fiercely conflict in which conflict upon one day in the very Church 130 persons were slain so did that great Pope get into the Chair thus as the Historian reflecteth the wealth and pomp of the place naturally did provoke ambition by all means to seek it and did cause fierce contentions to arise in the choice whence commonly wise and modest persons being excluded from any capacity thereof any ambitious and cunning man who had the art or the luck to please the multitude would by violence obtain it which was a goodly way of constituting a Sovereign to the Church Thus it went within three ages after our Lord and afterwards in the declensions of Christian simplicity and integrity matters were not like to be mended but did indeed rather grow worse as beside the reports and complaints of Historians how that commonly by ambitious prensations by Simoniacal corruptions by political bandyings by popular factions by all kinds of sinister ways men crept into the place doth appear by those many dismal Schisms which gave the Church many pretended Heads but not one certain one as also by the result of them being the choice of persons very unworthy and horribly flagitious If it be said that the Election of a Pope in old times was wont to be approved by the consent of all Bishops in the world according to the testimony of St. Cyprian who saith of Cornelius that he was known by the testimony of his fellow-Bishops whose whole number through all the world did with peacefull unanimity consent I answer that this consent was not in the Election or antecedently to it that it was onely by Letters or messages declaring the Election according to that of St. Cyprian that it was not any-wise peculiar to the Roman Bishop but such as was yielded to all Catholick Bishops each of whom was to be approved as St. Cyprian saith by the testimony and judgment of his Collegues that it was in order onely to the maintaining fraternal communion and correspondence signifying that such a Bishop was duly elected by his Clergy and People was rightly ordained by his neighbour Bishops did profess the Catholick Faith and was therefore qualified for communion with his Brethren such a consent to the Election of any Bishop of old was given especially upon occasion and when any question concerning the right of a Bishop did intervene whereof now in the Election of a Pope no footstep doth remain We may also note that the Election of Cornelius being contested he did more solemnly acquaint all the Bishops of the world with his case and so did obtain their approbation in a way more than ordinary 13. If God had designed this derivation of Universal Sovereignty it is probable that he would have prescribed some certain standing immutable way of Election and imparted the right to certain Persons and not left it at such uncertainty to the chances of time so that the manner of Election hath often changed and the power of it tossed into divers hands And though in several times there have been observed several ways as to the Election of the Roman Pontifs according as the necessity and expediency of the Church required Of old it was as other Elections managed by nomination of the Clergy and suffrage of the People Afterward the Emperours did assume to themselves the nomination or approbation of them For then nothing was done by the Clergy in the choice of the Pope unless the Emperour had approv'd his Election But he seeing the Prince's consent was required sent Messengers with Letters to intreat Mauritius that he would not suffer the Election made by the Clergy and People of Rome in that case to be valid Leo VIII being tired out with the inconstancy of the Romans transferred the whole power and authority of chusing the Pope from the Clergy and People of Rome to the Emperour At some times the Clergy had no hand in the Election but Popes were intruded by powerfull Men or Women at their pleasure Afterwards the Cardinals that is some of the chief Roman Clergy did appropriate the Election to themselves by the Decree of Pope Nicholas II. in his Lateran Synod Sometimes out of course general Synods did assume the Choice to themselves as at Constance Pisa and Basil.
add If an Angel from Heaven should tell you beside what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be anathema in which words we have St. Austin's warrant not onely to refuse but to detest this Doctrine which being nowhere extant in Law or Gospel is yet obtruded on us as nearly relating both to Christ and his Church as greatly concerning both our Faith and Practice 2. To enforce this Argument we may consider that the Evangelists do speak about the propagation settlement and continuance of our Lord's Kingdom that the Apostles do often treat about the state of the Church and its edification order peace unity about the distinction of its Officers and Members about the qualifications duties graces privileges of Spiritual Governours and Guides about prevention and remedy of Heresies Schisms Disorders upon any of which occasions how is it possible that the mention of such a Spiritual Monarch who was to have a main influence on each of those particulars should wholly escape them if they had known such an one instituted by God In the Levitical Law all things concerning the High-Priest not onely his Designation Succession Consecration Duty Power Maintenance Privileges but even his Garments Marriage Mourning c. are punctually determined and described and is it not wonderfull that in the many descriptions of the New-Law no mention should be made concerning any Duty or Privilege of its High-Priest whereby he might be directed in the administration of his Office and know what observance to require 3. Whereas also the Scripture doth inculcate duties of all sorts and doth not forget frequently to press duties of respect and obedience toward particular Governours of the Church is it not strange that it never should bestow one precept whereby we might be instructed and admonished to pay our duty to the Universal Pastour especially considering that God who directed the Pens of the Apostles and who intended that their Writings should continue for the perpetual instruction of Christians did foresee how requisite such a precept would be to secure that duty for if but one such precept did appear it would doe the business and void all contestation about it 4. They who so carefully do exhort to honour and obey the temporal Sovereignty how come they so wholly to wave urging the no less needfull obligations to obey the Spiritual Monarch while they are so mindfull of the Emperour why are they so neglectfull of the Pope insomuch that divers Popes afterward to ground and urge obedience to them are fain to borrow those precepts which command obedience to Princes accommodating them by analogy and inference to themselves 5. Particularly Saint Peter one would think who doth so earnestly injoin to obey the King as Supreme and to honour him should not have been unmindfull of his Successours or quite have forborn to warn Christians of the respect due to them surely the Popes afterward do not follow him in this reservedness for in their Decretal Epistles they urge nothing so much as obedience to the Apostolical See 6. One might have expected something of that nature from St. Paul himself who did write so largely to the Romans and so often from Rome that at least some word or some intimation should have dropped from him concerning these huge Rights and Privileges of this See and of the regard due to it Particularly then when he professedly doth enumerate the Offices instituted by God for standing use and perpetual duration for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Vnity of Faith c. He commendeth them for their Faith which was spoken of through the whole world yet giveth them no advantage above others as St. Chrysostome observeth on those words for obedience to the Faith among all Nations among whom also are ye this saith St. Chrysostome he saith to depress their conceit to void their haughtiness of mind and to teach them to deem others equal in Dignity with them When He writeth to that Church which was some time after Saint Peter had setled the Popedom he doth onely style them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Saints and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beloved of God which are common adjuncts of all Christians He saith their Faith was spoken of generally but of the fame of their Authority being so spread he taketh no notice that their obedience had come abroad to all men but their commands had not it seemeth come anywhere He wrote divers Epistles from Rome wherein he resolveth many cases debated yet never doth urge the Authority of the Roman Church for any point which now is so ponderous an Argument 7. But however seeing the Scripture is so strangely reserved how cometh it to pass that Tradition is also so defective and staunch in so grand a case We have in divers of the Fathers particularly in Tertullian in St. Basil in St. Hierome Catalogues of Traditional Doctrines and Observances which they recite to assert Tradition in some cases supplemental to Scripture in which their purpose did require that they should set down those of principal moment and they are so punctual as to insert many of small consideration how then came they to neglect this concerning the Papal Authority over the whole Church which had been most pertinent to their design and in consequence did vastly surpass all the rest which they do name 8. The designation of the Roman Bishop by succession to obtain so high a degree in the Church being above all others a most remarkable and noble piece of History which it had been a horrible fault in an Ecclesiastical History to slip over without carefull reporting and reflecting upon it yet Eusebius that most diligent Compiler of all passages relating to the original Constitution of the Church and to all transactions therein hath not â—ne word about it who yet studiously doth report the Successions of the Roman Bishops and all the notable occurrences he knew concerning them with favourable advantage 9. Whereas this Doctrine is pretended to be a Point of Faith of vast consequence to the subsistence of the Church and to the Salvation of men it is somewhat strange that it should not be inserted into any one ancient Summary of things to be believed of which Summaries divers remain some composed by publick consent others by persons of Eminency in the Church nor by fair and forcible consequence should be deducible from any Article in them especially considering that such Summaries were framed upon occasion of Heresies springing up which disregarded the Pope's Authority and which by asserting it were plainly confuted We are therefore beholden to Pope Innocent III. and his Laterane Synod for first Synodically defining this Point together with other Points no less new and unheard of before The Creed of Pope Pius IV. formed the other day is the first as I take it
which did contain this Article of Faith 10. It is much that this point of Faith should not be delivered in any of those ancient Expositions of the Creed made by St. Austin Ruffin c. which enlarge it to necessary points of Doctrine connected with the Articles therein especially with that of the Catholick Church to which the Pope's Authority hath so close a connexion that it should not be touched in the Catechetical Discourses of Cyril Ambrose c. that in the Systemes of Divinity composed by Saint Austin Lacâ—antius c. it should not be treated on The world is now changed for the Catechism of Trent doth not overlook so material a Point and it would pass for a lame Body of Theology which should omit to treat on this Subject 11. It is more wonderfull that this Point should never be defined in downright and full terms by any ancient Synod it being so notoriously in those old times opposed by divers who dissented in opinion and discorded in practice from the Pope it being also a Point of that consequence that such a solemn declaration of it would have much conduced to the ruine of all particular Errours and Schisms which were maintained then in opposition to the Church 12. Indeed had this Point been allowed by the main Body of Orthodox Bishops the Pope could not have been so drowsie or stupid as not to have solicited for such a definition thereof nor would the Bishops have been backward in compliance thereto it being in our adversaries conceit so compendious and effectual a way of suppressing all Heresies Schisms and Disorders although indeed later Experience hath shewed it no less available to stifle Truth Justice and Piety The Popes after Luther were better advised and so were the Bishops adhering to his Opinions 13. Whereas also it is most apparent that many persons disclaimed this Authority not regarding either the Doctrines or Decrees of the Popes it is wonderfull that such men should not be reckoned in the large Catalogues of Hereticks wherein Errours of less obvious consideration and of far less importance did place men If Epiphanius Theodoret Leontius c. were so negligent or unconcerned yet St. Austin Philastrius Western men should not have overlooked this sort of desperate Hereticks Aerius for questioning the dignity of Bishops is set among the Hereticks but who got that name for disavowing the Pope's Supremacy among the many who did it It is but lately that such as we have been thrust in among Hereticks 14. Whereas no Point avowed by Christians could be so apt to raise offence and jealousie in Pagans against our Religion as this which setteth up a Power of so vast extent and huge influence whereas no novelty could be more surprizing or startling than the Erection of an Universal Empire over the Consciences and religious Practices of men whereas also this Doctrine could not but be very conspicuous and glaring in ordinary practice it is prodigious that all Pagans should not loudly exclaim against it It is strange that Pagan Historians such as Marcellinus who often speaketh of Popes and blameth them for their luxurious way of living and pompous garb as Zozimus who bore a great spight at Christianity as all the Writers of the Imperial History before Constantine should not report it as a very strange pretence newly started up It is wonderfull that the eager Adversaries of our Religion such as Celsus Porphyrie Hierocles Julian himself should not particularly level their Discourse against it as a most scandalous position and dangerous pretence threatning the Government of the Empire It is admirable that the Emperours themselves enslamed with emulation and suspicion of such an Authority the which hath been so terrible even to Christian Princes should not in their Edicts expresly decry and impugn it that indeed every one of them should not with extremest violence implacably strive to extirpate it In consequence of these things it may also seem strange that none of the Advocates of our Faith Justin Origen Tertullian Arnobius Cyril Austin should be put to defend it or so much as forced to mention it in their elaborate Apologies for the Doctrines and Practices which were reprehended by any sort of Adversaries thereto We may add that divers of them in their Apologies and representations concerning Christianity would have appeared not to deal fairly or to have been very inconsiderate when they profess for their common belief assertions repugnant to that Doctrine as when Tertullian saith We reverence the Emperour as a man second to God and less onely than God when Optatus affirmeth that above the Emperour there is none beside God who made the Emperour and that Donatus by extolling himself as some now do above the Emperour did in so doing as it were exceed the bounds of men that he did esteem himself as God not as a man When St. Chrysostome asserteth the Emperour to be the crown and head of all men upon earth and saith that even Apostles Evangelists Prophets any men whoever are to be subject to the temporal Powers when St. Cyril calleth the Emperour the Supreme top of glory among men elevated above all others by incomparable differences c. When even Popes talk at this rate as Pope Gregory I. calling the Emperour his Lord and Lord of all telling the Emperour that his Competitour by assuming the title of Universal Bishop did set himself above the honour of his Imperial Majesty which he supposeth a piece of great absurdity and arrogance and even Pope Gregory II. doth call that Emperour against whom he afterward rebelled the Head of Christians Whereas indeed if the Pope be Monarch of the Church endowed with the Regalities which they now ascribe to him it is plain enough that he is not inferiour to any man living in real power and dignity wherefore the modern Doctours of Rome are far more sincere or considerate in their Heraldry than were those old Fathers of Christendom who now stick not down-rightly to prefer the Pope before all Princes of the World not onely in Doctrine and Notion but in the Sacred Offices of the Church for in the very Canon of their Mass the Pope together with the Bishop of the Diocese one of his Ministers is set before all Christian Princes every Christian Subject being thereby taught to deem the Pope superiour to his Prince Now we must believe for one Pope hath written it another hath put it in his Decretals and it is current Law that the Papal Authority doth no less surpass the Royal than the Sun doth outshine the Moon Now it is abundantly declared by Papal definition as a point necessary to Salvation that every humane creature neither King nor Kesar excepted is subject to the Roman High-priest Now the mystery is discovered why Popes when summoned by Emperours declined to go in Person to General Synods because it was not tolerable that the Emperour who sometime would be present in Synods
should sit above the Pope as in the pride of his heart he might perhaps offer to do I cannot forbear to note what an ill conceit Bellarmine had of Leo I. and other Popes that they did forbear coming at Synods out of this villainous pride and haughtiness 15. One would admire that Constantine if he had smelt this Doctrine or any thing like it in Christianity should be so ready to embrace it or that so many Emperours should in those times do so some Princes then probably being jealous of their honour and unwilling to admit any Superiour to them It is at least much that Emperours should with so much indulgence foster and cherish Popes being their so dangerous rivals for dignity and that it should be true which Pope Nicholas doth affirm that the Emperours had extolled the Roman See with divers privileges had enriched it with gifts had enlarged it with benefits had done I know not how many things more for it surely they were bewitched thus to advance their concurrent Competitour for Honour and Power one who pretended to be a better man than themselves Bellarmine in his Apology against King James saith that the Pope was vellet nollet constrained to be subject to the Emperours because his Power was not known to them it was well it was not but how could it be concealed from them if it were a Doctrine commonly avowed by Christians it is hard keeping so practical a Doctrine from breaking forth into light But to leave this consideration Farthermore We have divers ancient Writings the special nature matter scope whereof did require or greatly invite giving attestation to this Power if such an one had been known and allowed in those times which yet do afford no countenance but rather much prejudice thereto 16. The Apostolical Canons and the Constitutions of Clement which describe the state of the Church with its Laws Customs and Practices current in the times of those who compiled them which times are not certain but ancient and the less ancient the more it is to our purpose wherein especially the Ranks Duties and Privileges of all Ecclesiastical Persons are declared or prescribed do not yet touch the Prerogatives of this Universal Head or the special respects due to him nor mention any Laws or Constitutions framed by him Which is no less strange than that there should be a Body of Laws or description of the state of any Kingdom wherein nothing should be said concerning the King or the Royal Authority It is not so in our modern Canon-law wherein the Pope doth make utramque paginam we reade little beside his Authority and Decrees made by it The Apostolical Canons particularly do prescribe that the Bishops of each Nation should know him that is first among them and should esteem him the Head and should doe nothing considerable or extraordinary without his advice as also that each one of those Head-bishops should onely meddle with those affairs which concerned his own precinct and the places under it also that no such Primate should doe any thing without the opinion of all that so there may be concord Now what place could be more opportune to mention the Pope's Sovereign Power how could the Canonist without strange neglect pass it over doth he not indeed exclude it assigning the Supreme disposal without farther resort of all things to the arbitration of the whole body of Pastours and placing the maintenance of concord in that course 17. So also the Old Writer under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite treating in several places about the degrees of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was monstrously overseen in omitting the Sovereign thereof In the fifth Chapter of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he professeth carefully to speak of those Orders but hath not a word of this supereminent rank but averreth Episcopacy to be the first and highest of divine Orders in which the Hierarchy is consummated and in his Epistle to Demophilus there is a remarkable place wherein he could hardly have avoided touching the Pope had there been then one in such vogue as now for advising that Monk to gentleness and observance toward his Superiours he thus speaketh Let passion and reason be governed by you but you by the holy Deacons and these by the Priests and the Priests by the Bishops and the Bishops by the Apostles or by their Successours that is saith Maximus those which we now call Patriarchs and if perhaps any one of them shall fail of his duty let him be corrected by those holy persons who are co-ordinate to him why not in this case let him be corrected by the Pope his Superiour but he knew none of an Order superiour to the Apostles Successours 18. Likewise Ignatius in many Epistles frequently describeth the several Ranks of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy extolleth their Dignity and Authority to the highest pitch mightily urgeth the respect due to them yet never doth he so much as mention or touch this Sovereign degree wherein the Majesty of the Clergy did chiefly shine In his very Epistle to the Romans he doth not yield any deference to their Bishop nor indeed doth so much as take notice of him is it not strange he should so little mind the Sovereign of the Church or was it for a sly reason because being Bishop of Antioch he had a pique to his brother Jacob who had supplanted him and got away his birthright The counterfeiter therefore of Ignatius did well personate him when he saith that in the Church there is nothing greater than a Bishop and that a Bishop is beyond all rule and authority for in the time of Ignatius there was no domineering Pope over all Bishops 19. We have some Letters of Popes though not many for Popes were then not very scribacious or not so pragmatical whence to supply that defect lest Popes should seem not able to write or to have slept almost 400 years they have forged divers for them and those so wise ones that we who love the memory of those good Popes disdain to acknowledge them Authours of such idle stuff we have yet some Letters of and to Popes to and from divers eminent Persons in the Church wherein the former do not assume nor the latter ascribe any such power the Popes do not express themselves like Sovereigns nor the Bishops address themselves like Subjects but they treat one another in a familiar way like brethren and equals this is so true that it is a good mark of a spurious Epistle whereof we have good store devised by colloguing Knaves and fathered on the first Popes when any of them talketh in an imperious strain or arrogateth such a Power to himself 20. Clemens Bishop of Rome in the Apostolical times unto the Church of Corinth then engaged in discords and factions wherein the Clergy was much affronted divers Presbyters who had well and worthily behaved themselves were ejected from their Office in a seditious manner did write a very
large Epistle wherein like a good Bishop and charitable Christian brother he doth earnestly by manifold inducements persuade them to charity and peace but no-where doth he speak imperiously like their Prince In such a case one would think if ever for quashing such disorders and quelling so perverse folks who spurned the Clergy it had been decent it had been expedient to employ his Authority and to speak like himself challenging obedience upon duty to him and at their peril How would a modern Pope have ranted in such a case how thundring a Bull would he have dispatched against such outragious contemners of the Ecclesiastical Order how often would he have spoken of the Apostolick See and its Authority we should infallibly have heard him swagger in his wonted style Whoever shall presume to cross our will let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul but our Popes it seemeth have more wit or better mettle than Pope Clement that good Pope did not know his own strength or had not the heart to use it 21. Among the Epistles of St. Cyprian there are divers Epistles of him to several Popes to Cornelius to Lucius to Stephanus in the which although written with great kindness and respect yet no impartial eye can discern any special regard to them as to his Superiours in Power or Pastours in Doctrine or Judges of Practice he reporteth matters to them he conferreth about Points with all freedom he speaketh his sense and giveth his advice without any restraint or awe he spareth not upon occasion to reprove their practices and to reject their opinions he in his addresses to them and discourses of them styleth them Brethren and Collegues and he continually treateth them as such upon even terms When saith he to the Clergy of Rome dearest Brethren there was among us an uncertain rumour concerning the decease of the good man my Collegue Fabianus upon which words Rigaltius had cause to remark How like an equal and fellow-citizen doth the Bishop of Carthage mention the Bishop of Rome even to the Roman Clergy but would not any man now be deemed rude and sawcy who should talk in that style of the Pope Pope Cornelius also to Saint Cyprian hath some Epistles wherein no glimpse doth appear of any Superiority assumed by him But of St. Cyprian's judgment and demeanour toward Popes we shall have occasion to speak more largely in a way more positively opposite to the Roman pretences Eusebius citeth divers long passages out of an Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius Bishop of Antioch against Novatus wherein no mark of this Supremacy doth appear although the magnitude and flourishing State of the Roman Church is described for aggravation of Novatus his Schism and ambition Pope Julius hath a notable long Epistle extant in one of Athanasius's Apologies unto the Bishops assembled at Antioch wherein he had â—he fairest occasion that could be to assert and insist upon this Sovereign Authority they flatly denying and impugning it questioning his proceedings as singular supposing him subject to the Laws of the Church no less than any other Bishop and downrightly affirming each of themselves to be his equal about which Point he thought good not to contend with them but waving pretences to Superiority he justifieth his actions by reasons grounded on the merit of the cause such as any other Bishop might alledge But this Epistle I shall have more particular occasion to discuss Pope Liberius hath an Epistle to St. Athanasius wherein he not onely for his direction and satisfaction doth inquire his opinion about the Point but professeth in complement perchance that he shall obediently follow it Write saith he whether you do think as we do and just so about the true faith that I may be undoubtedly assured about what you think good to command me was not that spoken indeed like a courteous Sovereign and an accomplished Judge in matters of Faith The same Pope in the head of the Western doth write to a knot of Eastern Bishops whom they call their beloved Brethren and fellow Ministers and in a brotherly strain not like an Emperour In the time of Damasus Successour to Liberius St. Basil hath divers Epistles to the Western Bishops wherein having represented and bewailed the wretched state of the Eastern Churches then overborn with Heresies and unsettled by Factions he craveth their charity their prayers their sympathy their comfort their brotherly aid by affording to the Orthodox and sound Party the countenance of their Communion by joining with them in contention for Truth and Peace for that the Communion of so great Churches would be of mighty weight to support and strengthen their Cause giving credit thereto among the People and inducing the Emperour to deal fairly with them in respect to such a multitude of adherents especially of those which were at such a distance and not so immediately subject to the Eastern Emperour for If saith he very many of you do concur unanimously in the same opinion it is manifest that the multitude of consenters will make the doctrine to be received without contradiction and I know saith he again writing to Athanasius about these matters but one way of redress to our Churches the conspiring with us of the Western Bishops the which being obtained would probably yield some advantage to the publick the secular power revering the credibility of the multitude and the people all about following them without repugnance and You saith he to the Western Bishops the farther you dwell from them the more credible you will be to the people This indeed was according to the ancient Rule and Practice in such cases that any Church being oppressed with Errour or distracted with Contentions should from the Bishops of other Churches receive aid to the removal of those inconveniences That it was the Rule doth appear from what we have before spoken and of the Practice there be many instances for so did St. Cyprian send two of his Clergy to Rome to compose the Schism there moved by Novatian against Cornelius so was St. Chrysostome called to Ephesus although out of his Jurisdiction to settle things there so to omit divers instances occurring in History St. Basil himself was called by the Church of Iconium to visit it and to give it a Bishop although it did not belong to his ordinary inspection and he doth tell the Bishops of the Coasts that they should have done well in sending some to visit and assist his Churches in their distresses But now how I pray cometh it to pass that in such a case he should not have a special recourse to the Pope but in so many addresses should onely wrap him up in a community why should he not humbly petition him to exert his Sovereign Authority for the relief of the Eastern Churches laying his charge and inflicting censures on the dissenters why should he
had been then as commonly known and avowed 23. Whereas divers of the Fathers purposely do treat on methods of confuting Hereticks it is strange they should be so blind or dull as not to hit on this most proper and obvious way of referring debates to the decision of him to whose Office of Universal Pastour and Judge it did belong Particularly one would wonder at Vincentius Lirinensis that he on set purpose with great care discoursing about the means of setling points of Faith and of overthrowing Heresies should not light upon this notable way by having recourse to the Pope's Magisterial sentence yea that indeed he should exclude it for he after most intent study and diligent inquiry consulting the best and wisest men could find but two ways of doing it I saith he did always and from almost every one receive this answer that if either I or any other would find out the frauds and avoid the snares of up-start Hereticks and continue sound and upright in the true Faith he should guard and strengthen his Faith God helping him by these two means viz. First by the Authority of the Divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church And again We before have said that this hath always been and is at present the custome of Catholicks that they prove their Faith by these two ways First by Authority of the Divine Canon then by the Tradition of the Vniversal Church Is it not strange that he especially being a Western man living in those parts where the Pope had got much sway and who doth express great reverence to the Apostolick See should omit that way of determining points which of all according to the modern conceits about the Pope is most ready and most sure 24. In like manner Tertullian professeth the Catholicks in his time to use such compendious methods of confuting Hereticks We saith he when we would dispatch against Hereticks for the Faith of the Gospel do commonly use these short ways which do maintain both the order of times prescribing against the lateness of impostours and the Authority of the Churches patronizing Apostolical tradition but why did he skip over a more compendious way than any of those namely standing to the judgment of the Roman Bishop 25. It is true that both he and St. Irenaeus before him disputing against the Hereticks of their times who had introduced pernicious novelties of their own devising when they alledge the general consent of Churches planted by the Apostles and propagated by continual successions of Bishops from those whom the Apostles did ordain in doctrines and practices opposite to those devices as a good argument and so indeed it then was next to a demonstration against them do produce the Roman Church as a principal one among them upon several obvious accounts And this indeed argueth the Roman Church to have been then one competent witness or credible retainer of tradition as also were the other Apostolical Churches to whose Testimony they likewise appeal but what is this to the Roman Bishop's judicial Power in such cases why do they not urge that in plain terms they would certainly have done so if they had known it and thought it of any validity Do but mark their words involving the force of their argumentation When saith Irenaeus we do again after allegation of Scripture appeal to that tradition which is from the Apostles which by successions of Presbyters is preserved in the Churches and That saith Tertullian will appear to have been delivered by the Apostles which hath been kept as holy in the Apostolical Churches let us see what milk the Corinthians did draw from Paul what the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians do reade what also the Romans our nearer neighbours do say to whom both Peter and Paul did leave the Gospel sealed with their Bloud we have also the Churches nursed by John c. Again It is therefore manifest saith he in his Prescriptions against Hereticks that every doctrine which doth conspire with those Apostolical Churches in which the Faith originally was planted is to be accounted true as undoubtedly holding that which the Churches did receive from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God but all other doctrine is to be prejudged false which doth think against the truth of the Churches and of the Apostles and of Christ and of God their argumentation then in short is plainly this that the conspiring of the Churches in doctrines contrary to those which the Hereticks vented did irrefragably signifie those doctrines to be Apostolical which discourse doth no-wise favour the Roman pretences but indeed if we do weigh it is very prejudicial thereto it thereby appearing that Christian Doctrines then in the canvasing of points and assuring tradition had no peculiar regard to the Roman Churche's testimonies no deference at all to the Roman Bishop's Authority not otherwise at least than to the Authority of one single Bishop yielding attestation to tradition 26. It is odd that even old Popes themselves in elaborate tracts disputing against Hereticks as Pope Celestine against Nestorius and Pelagius Pope Leo against Eutyches do content themselves to urge testimonies of Scripture and arguments grounded thereon not alledging their own definitive Authority or using this parlous argumentation I the Supreme Doctour of the Church and Judge of controversies do assert thus and therefore you are obliged to submit your assent 27. It is matter of amazement if the Pope were such as they would have him to be that in so many bulky Volumes of ancient Fathers living through many ages after Christ in those vast treasuries of learning and knowledge wherein all sorts of truth are displayed all sorts of duty are pressed this momentous point of doctrine and practice should nowhere be expressed in clear and peremptory terms I speak so for that by wresting words by impertinent application by streining consequences the most ridiculous positions imaginable may be deduced from their Writings It is strange that somewhere or other at least incidentally in their Commentaries upon the Scripture wherein many places concerning the Church and its Hierarchy do invite to speak of the Pope in their Treatises about the Priesthood about the Unity and Peace of the Church about Heresie and Schism in their Epistles concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs in their Historical narrations about occurrences in the Church in their concertations with heterodox adversaries they should not frequently touch it they should not sometimes largely dwell upon it Is it not marvellous that Origen St. Hilary St. Cyril St. Chrysostome St. Hierome St. Austin in their Commentaries and Tractates upon those places of Scripture Tu es Petrus Pasce oves whereon they now build the Papal Authority should be so dull and drowsie as not to say a word concerning the Pope That St. Austin in his so many elaborate Tractates against the Donatists wherein he discourseth so prolixly about the Church its Unity Communion
pretence or under what distinction soever these pompatick foolish proud perverse wicked profane words these names of singularity elation vanity blasphemy to borrow the Epithets with which Pope Gregory I. doth brand the Titles of Vniversal Bishop and Oecumenical Patriarch no less modest in sound and far more innocent in meaning than those now ascribed to the Pope are therefore to be rejected not onely because they are injurious to all other Pastours and to the People of God's heritage but because they do encroach upon our onely Lord to whom they do onely belong much more to usurp the things which they do naturally signifie is a horrible invasion upon our Lord's Prerogative Thus hath that great Pope taught us to argue in words expressly condemning some and consequently all of them together with the things which they signifie What saith he writing to the Bishop of Constantinople who had admitted the title of Vniversal Bishop or Patriarch wilt thou say to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church in the trial of the last judgment who by the appellation of VNIVERSAL dost endeavour to subject all his Members to thee whom I pray dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word but him who despising the Legions of Angels constituted in fellowship with him did endeavour to break forth unto the top of Singularity that he might both be subject to none and alone be over all who also said I will ascend into heaven and will exalt my throne above the stars for what are thy brethren all the Bishops of the Vniversal Church but the stars of heaven to whom while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thy self and to trample on their name in comparison to thee what dost thou say but I will climb into heaven And again in another Epistle to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he taxeth the same Patriarch for assuming to boast so that he attempteth to ascribe all things to himself and studieth by the elation of pompous speech to subject to himself all the members of Christ which do cohere to One Sole Head namely to Christ. Again I confidently say that whoever doth call himself Universal Bishop or desireth to be so called doth in his elation forerun Antichrist because he pridingly doth set himself before all others If these argumentations be sound or signifie any thing what is the pretence of Vniversal Sovereignty and Pastourship but a piece of Luciferian arrogance who can imagine that even this Pope could approve could assume could exercise it if he did was he not monstrously senseless and above measure impudent to use such discourses which so plainly without altering a word might be retorted upon him which are built upon suppositions that it is unlawfull and wicked to assume Superiority over the Church over all Bishops over all Christians the which indeed seeing never Pope was of greater repute or did write in any case more solemnly and seriously have given to the pretences of his Successours so deadly a wound that no balm of Sophistical interpretation can be able to heal it We see that according to St. Gregory M. our Lord Christ is the one onely Head of the Church to whom for company let us adjoin St. Basil M. that we may have both Greek and Latin for it who saith that according to Saint Paul we are the body of Christ and members one of another because it is manifest that the one and sole truly head which is Christ doth hold and connect each one to another unto concord To decline these allegations of Scripture they have forged distinctions of several kinds of Churches and several sorts of Heads the which evasions I shall not particularly discourse seeing it may suffice to observe in general that no such distinctions have any place or any ground in Scripture nor can well consist with it which simply doth represent the Church as one Kingdom a Kingdom of Heaven a Kingdom not of this world all the Subjects whereof have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heaven or are considered as members of a City there so that it is vain to seek for a Sovereign thereof in this world the which also doth to the Catholick Church sojourning on earth usually impart the name and attributes properly appertaining to the Church most universal comprehensive of all Christians in heaven and upon earth because that is a visible representative of this and we by joining in offices of piety with that do communicate with this whence that which is said of one concerning the Unity of its King its Head its Pastour its Priest is to be understood of the other especially considering that our Lord according to his promise is ever present with the Church here governing it by the efficacy of his Spirit and Grace so that no other corporeal or visible Head of this Spiritual Body is needfull It was to be sure a visible Headship which St. Gregory did so eagerly impugn and exclaim against for he could not apprehend the Bishop of Constantinople so wild as to affect a Jurisdiction over the Church mystical or invisible 2. Indeed upon this very account the Romish pretence doth not well accord with Holy Scripture because it transformeth the Church into another kind of Body than it was constituted by God according to the representation of it in Scripture for there it is represented as a spiritual and heavenly Society compacted by the bands of one faith one hope one Spirit of Charity but this pretence turneth it into a worldly frame united by the same bands of interest and design managed in the same manner by terrour and allurement supported by the same props of force of policy of wealth of reputation and splendour as all other secular Corporations are You may call it what you please but it is evident that in truth the Papal Monarchy is a temporal Dominion driving on worldly ends by worldly means such as our Lord did never mean to institute so that the Subjects thereof may with far more reason than the People of Constantinople had when their Bishop Nestorius did stop some of their Priests from contradicting him say We have a King a Bishop we have not so that upon every Pope we may charge that whereof Anthimus was accused in the Synod of Constantinople under Menas that he did account the greatness and dignity of the Priesthood to be not a spiritual charge of souls but as a kind of politick rule This was that which seeming to be affected by the Bishop of Antioch in encroachment upon the Church of Cyprus the Fathers of the Ephesine Synod did endeavour to nipp enacting a Canon against all such invasions lest under pretext of holy discipline the pride of worldly authority should creep in and what pride of that kind could they mean beyond that which now the Popes do claim and exercise Now do I say after that the Papal Empire hath swollen to such a
bulk whereas so long ago when it was but in its budd and stripling age it was observed of it by a very honest Historian that the Roman Episcopacy had long since advanced into a high degree of power beyond the Priesthood 3. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by destroying that brotherly co-ordination and equality which our Lord did appoint among the Bishops and chief Pastours of his Church He did as we before shewed prohibit all his Apostles to assume any domination or authoritative Superiority over one another the which command together with others concerning the Pastoral function we may well suppose to reach their Successours so did St. Hierome suppose collecting thence that all Bishops by original Institution are equals or that no one by our Lord's order may challenge Superiority over another Whereever saith he a Bishop is whether at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Thanis he is of the same worth and of the same Priesthood the power of wealth or lowness of poverty do not make a Bishop higher or lower but all are Successours of the Apostles where doth not he plainly deny the Bishop of Eugubium to be inferiour to him of Rome as being no less a Successour of the Apostles than he doth he not say these words in way of proof that the authority of the Roman Bishop or Church was of no validity against the practice of other Bishops and Churches upon occasion of Deacons there taking upon them more than in other places as Cardinal Deacons do now which excludeth such distinctions as Scholastical fancies have devised to shift off his Testimony the which he uttered simply never dreaming of such distinctions This consequence St. Gregory did suppose when he therefore did condemn the Title of Vniversal Bishop because it did imply an affectation of Superiority and dignity in one Bishop above others of abasing the name of other Bishops in comparison of his own of extolling himself above the rest of Priests c. This the ancient Popes did remember when usually in their compellation of any Bishop they did style them Brethren Collegues fellow-Ministers fellow-Bishops not intending thereby complement or mockery but to declare their sense of the original equality among Bishops notwithstanding some differences in Order and Privileges which their See had obtained And that this was the general sense of the Fathers we shall afterward shew Hence when it was objected to them that they did affect Superiority they did sometimes disclaim it so did Pope Gelasius I. a zealous man for the honour of his See 4. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture not onely by trampling down the dignity of Bishops which according to St. Gregory doth imply great pride and presumption but as really infringing the Rights granted by our Lord to his Church and the Governours of it For to each Church our Lord hath imposed a Duty and imparted a Power of maintaining divine Truth and so approving it self a pillar and support of truth of deciding Controversies possible and proper to be decided with due temper ultimately without farther resort for that he who will not obey or acquiesce in its Decision is to be as a heathen or publican Of censuring and rejecting Offenders in Doctrine or Demeanour Those within saith Saint Paul to the Church of Corinth do not ye judge But them that are without God judgeth wherefore put away from among your selves that wicked person Of preserving Order and Decency according to that Rule prescribed to the Church of Corinth let all things be done decently and in order Of promoting edification Of deciding Causes All which Rights and Privileges the Roman Bishop doth bereave the Churches of snatching them to himself pretending that he is the Sovereign Doctour Judge Regulatour of all Churches over-ruling and voiding all that is done by them according to his pleasure The Scripture hath enjoyned and empowered all Bishops to feed guide and rule their respective Churches as the Ministers Stewards Ambassadours Angels of God for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edification of the Body of Christ To them God hath committed the care of their People so that they are responsible for their Souls All which Rights and Privileges of the Episcopal Office the Pope hath invaded doth obstruct cramp frustrate destroy pretending without any warrant that their Authority is derived from him forcing them to exercise it no otherwise than as his Subjects and according to his pleasure But of this Point more afterward 5. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by robbing all Christian People of the Liberties and Rights with which by that Divine Charter they are endowed and which they are obliged to preserve inviolate Saint Paul enjoyneth the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage there is therefore a liberty which we must maintain and a power to which we must not submit and against whom can we have more ground to doe this than against him who pretendeth to dogmatize to define Points of Faith to impose Doctrines new and strange enough on our Consciences under a peremptory obligation of yielding assent to them to prescribe Laws as Divine and necessary to be observed without warrant as those Dogmatists did against whom Saint Paul biddeth us to maintain our Liberty so that if he should declare vertue to be vice and white to be black we must believe him some of his Adherents have said consistently enough with his pretences for Against such tyrannical Invaders we are bound to maintain our Liberty according to that Precept of Saint Paul the which if a Pope might well alledge against the proceedings of a General Synod with much more reason may we thereby justify our non-submission to one man's exorbitant domination This is a Power which the Apostles themselves did not challenge to themselves for We saith Saint Paul have not dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy They did not pretend that any Christian should absolutely believe them in cases wherein they had not Revelation general or special from God in such cases referring their Opinion to the judgment and discretion of Christians They say Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed If any man c. which Precept with many others of the like purport injoyning us to examine the truth to adhere unto the received Doctrine to decline heterodoxies and novelties doth signify nothing if every Christian hath not allowed to him a judgment of discretion but is tyed blindly to follow the dictates of another St. Austin I am sure did think this liberty such that without betraying it no man could be obliged to believe any thing not grounded upon Canonical Authority for
to a Donatist his Adversary citing the Authority of St. Cyprian against him he thus replieth But now seeing it is not Canonical which thou recitest with that liberty to which the Lord hath called us I do not receive the opinion differing from Scripture of that man whose praise I cannot reach to whose great learning I do not compare my writings whose wit I love in whose speech I delight whose charity I admire whose martyrdom I reverence This Liberty not onely the Ancients but even divers Popes have acknowledged to belong to every Christian as we shall hereafter shew when we shall prove that we may lawfully reject the Pope as a Patron of Errour and Iniquity 6. It particularly doth thwart Scripture by wronging Princes in exempting a numerous sort of People from subjection to their Laws and Judicatures whereas by God's Ordination and express Command every soul is subject to them not excepting the Popes themselves in the opinion of St. Chrysostome except they be greater than any Apostle By pretending to govern the Subjects of Princes without their leave to make Laws without his permission or confirmation to cite his Subjects out of their Territories c. which are encroachments upon the Rights of God's unquestionable Ministers III. Farther because our Adversaries do little regard any allegation of Scripture against them pretending themselves to be the onely Masters of its sense or of common sense Judges and Interpreters of them we do alledge against them that this pretence doth also cross Tradition and the common Doctrine of the Fathers For 1. Common usage and practice is a good interpreter of Right and that sheweth no such Right was known in the Primitive Church 2. Indeed the state of the Primitive Church did not admit it 3. The Fathers did suppose no Order in the Church by original Right or divine Institution superiour to that of a Bishop whence they commonly did style a Bishop the Highest Priest and Episcopacy the top of Ecclesiastical Orders The chief Priest saith Tertullian that is the Bishop hath the right of giving baptism Although saith St. Ambrose the Presbyters also do it yet the beginning of the Ministery is from the highest Priest Optatus calleth Bishops the tops and Princes of all The Divine Order of Bishops saith Dionysius is the first of Divine Orders the same being also the extreme and last of them for into it all the frame of our Hierarchy is resolved and accomplished This language is common even among Popes themselves complying with the speech then current for Presbyters saith Pope Innocent I. although they are Priests yet have they not the top of High priesthood No man saith P. Zosimus I. against the precepts of the Fathers should presume to aspire to the highest Priesthood of the Church It is decreed saith Pope Leo I. that the Chorepiscopi or Presbyters who figure the sons of Aaron shall not presume to snatch that which the Princes of the Priests whom Moses and Aaron did typifie are commanded to doe Note by the way that seeing according to this Pope's mind after St. Hierome Moses and Aaron did in the Jewish Policy represent Bishops there was none there to prefigure the Pope In those days the Bishop of Nazianzum a petty Town in Cappadocia was an High-priest so Gregory calleth his Father And the Bishop of a poor City in Africk is styled Sovereign Pontif of Christ most blessed Father most blessed Pope and the very Roman Clergy doth call St. Cyprian most blessed and glorious Pope which Titles the Pope doth now so charily reserve and appropriate to himself But innumerable Instances of this kind might be produced I shall onely therefore add two other passages which seem very observable to the enforcement of this discourse St. Hierome reprehending the discipline of the Montanists hath these words With us the Bishops do hold the places of the Apostles with them a Bishop is in the third place for they have for the first rank the Patriarchs of Pepusa in Phrygia for the second those whom they call Cenones so are Bishops thrust down into the third that is almost the last place as if thence Religion became more stately if that which is first with us be the last with them Now doth not St. Hierome here affirm that every Bishop hath the place of an Apostle and the first rank in the Church doth not he tax the advancement of any Order above this may not the Popish Hierarchy most patly be compared to that of the Montanists and is it not equally liable to the censure of St. Hierome doth it not place the Roman Pope in the first place and the Cardinals in the second detruding the Bishops into a third place Could the Pepusian Patriarch or his Cenones either more over-top in dignity or sway by power over Bishops than doth the Roman Patriarch and his Cardinals Again St. Cyprian telleth Pope Cornelius that in Episcopacy doth reside the sublime and divine power of governing the Church it being the sublime top of the Priesthood He saith the Blessed man concerning Pope Cornelius did not suddenly arrive to Episcopacy but being through all Ecclesiastical Offices promoted and having in divine administrations often merited of God did by all the steps of Religion mount to the sublimest pitch of Priesthood where it is visible that St. Cyprian doth not reckon the Papacy but the Episcopacy of Cornelius to be that top of Priesthood above which there was nothing eminent in the Church unto which he passing through the inferiour degrees of the Clergy had attained In fine it cannot well be conceived that the Ancients constantly would have spoken in this manner if they had allowed the Papal Office to be such as now it doth bear it self the which indeed is an Order no less distant from Episcopacy than the rank of a King differeth from that of the meanest Baron in his Kingdom Neither is it prejudicial to this Discourse or to any preceding that in the Primitive Church there were some distinctions and subordinations of Bishops as of Patriarchs Primates Metropolitans common Bishops for These were according to prudence constituted by the Church it self for the more orderly and peaceable administration of things These did not import such a difference among the Bishops that one should domineer over others to the infringing of primitive fraternity or common liberty but a precedence in the same rank with some moderate advantages for the common good These did stand under Authority of the Church and might be changed or corrected as was found expedient by common agreement By virtue of these the Superiours of this kind could doe nothing over their subordinates in an arbitrary manner but according to the regulation of Canons established by consent in Synods by which their influence was amplified or curb'd When any of these did begin to domineer or exceed his limits he was liable to account and correction he was
to defend and advance the Papal Empire What meaneth the Doctrine concerning that middle Region of Souls or Cloister of Purgatory whereof the Pope holdeth the Keys opening and shutting it at his pleasure by dispensation of pardons and indulgences but that he must be Master of the Peoples condition and of their purse What meaneth the treasure of Merits and supererogatory works whereof he is the Steward but a way of driving a trade and drawing money from simple People to his treasury Whither doth the entangling of Folks in perpetual Vows tend but to assure them in a slavish dependance on their interests eternally without evasion or remedy except by favourable dispensation from the Pope Why is the opus operatum in Sacraments taught to confer grace but to breed a high opinion of the Priest and all he doeth Whence did the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation urged with so furious zeal issue but from design to magnify the credit of those who by saying of a few words can make Our God and Saviour and withall to exercise a notable instance of their power over men in making them to renounce their Reason and Senses Whither doth tend the Doctrine concerning the Mass being a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Dead but to engage men to leave in their Wills good sums to offer in their behalf Why is the Cup withholden from the Laity but to lay it low by so notable a distinction in the principal mystery of our Religion from the Priesthood Why is saying private Mass or celebrating the Communion in solitude allowed but because Priests are pay'd for it and live by it At what doth the Doctrine concerning the necessity of auricular Confession aim but that thereby the Priests may have a mighty awe on the Consciences of all People may dive into their secrets may manage their Lives as they please And what doth a like necessary particular Absolution intend but to set the Priest in a lofty state of Authority above the People as a Judge of his condition and dispenser of his Salvation Why do they equal Ecclesiastical Traditions with Scripture but that on the pretence of them they may obtrude whatever Doctrines advantageous to their designs What drift hath the Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of Churches or Councils but that when opportunity doth invite he may call a company of Bishops together to establish what he liketh which ever after must pass for certain truth to be contradicted by none so enslaving the minds of all men to his dictates which always sute to his interest What doth the prohibition of Holy Scripture drive at but a monopoly of knowledge to themselves or a detaining of People in ignorance of truth and duty so that they must be forced to rely on them for direction must believe all they say and blindly submit to their dictates being disabled to detect their errours or contest their opinions Why must the Sacraments be celebrated and publick devotions exercised in an unknown Tongue but that the Priests may seem to have a peculiar interest in them and ability for them Why must the Priesthood be so indispensably forbidden marriage but that it may be wholly untacked from the State and rest addicted to him and governable by him that the Persons and Wealth of Priests may be purely at his devotion To what end is the clogging Religion by multiplication of Ceremonies and Formalities but to amuse the People and maintain in them a blind reverence toward the Interpreters of the dark mysteries couched in them and by seeming to encourage an exteriour shew of Piety or form of godliness to gain reputation and advantage whereby they might oppress the interiour virtue and reality of it as the Scribes and Pharisees did although with less designs Why is the veneration of Images and Reliques the credence of Miracles and Legends the undertaking of Pilgrimages and voyages to Rome and other places more holy than ordinary sprinklings of Holy-water consecrations of baubles with innumerable foppish knacks and trinkets so cherished but to keep the People in a slavish credulity and dotage apt to be led by them whither they please by any sleeveless pretence and in the mean while to pick various gains from them by such trade What do all such things mean but obscuring the native simplicity of Christianity whereas it being represented intelligible to all men would derogate from that high admiration which these men pretend to from their peculiar and profound wisedom And what would men spend for these toys if they understood they might be good Christians and get to Heaven without them What doth all that pomp of Religion serve for but for ostentation of the dignity of those who administer it It may be pretended for the honour of Religion but it really conduceth to the glory of the Priesthood who shine in those pageantries Why is Monkery although so very different from that which was in the ancient times so cryed up as a superlative state of perfection but that it filleth all places with swarms of lusty People who are vowed servants to him and have little else to doe but to advance that Authority by which they subsist in that dronish way of life In fine perusing the Controversies of Bellarmine or any other Champion of Romanism do but consider the nature and scope of each Doctrine maintained by them and you may easily discern that scarce any of them but doth tend to advance the interest of the Pope or of his sworn Vassals Whereas indeed our Lord had never any such design to set up a sort of men in such distance above their brethren to perk over them and suck them of their goods by tricks it onely did charge People to allow their Pastours a competent maintenance for a sober life with a moderate respect as was needfull for the common benefit of God's People whom they were with humility and meekness to instruct and guide in the plain and simple way of Piety This is a grievous inconvenience there being nothing wherein the Church is more concerned than in the preservation of its Doctrine pure and incorrupt from the leaven of hurtfull errours influential on practice 4. The errours in Doctrine and miscarriages in practice which this Authority in favour to it self would introduce would be established immoveably to the irrecoverable oppression of Truth and Piety any reformation becoming impossible while it standeth or so far as it shall be able to oppose and obstruct it While particular Churches do retain their liberty and Pastours their original co-ordination in any measure if any Church or Bishop shall offer to broach any novel Doctrine or Practice of bad import the others may endeavour to stop the settlement or progress of them each Church at least may keep it self sound from contagion But when all Churches and Bishops are reduced into subjection to one Head supported by the guards of his Authority who will dare to contest or be able to withstand what he shall say or doe It
Have they not challenged propriety in both Swords Ecce duo Gladii How many Princes have they pretended to depose and dispossess of their Authority Consider the Pragmatical Sanctions Provisors Compositions Concordats c. which Princes have been forced to make against them or with them to secure their Interest Many good Princes have been forced to oppose them as Henry the Second of England King Lewis the Twelfth of France that Just Prince Pater Patriae Perdam Babylonis nomen How often have they used this as a pretence of raising and fomenting Wars confiding in their Spiritual Arms interdicting Princes that would not comply with their designs for advancing the interests not onely of their See but of their private Families Bodin observeth that Pope Nicholas I. was the first who excommunicated Princes Platina doth mention some before him But it is remarkable that although Pope Leo I. a high spirited Pope Fortissimus Leo as Liberatus calleth him was highly provoked against Theodosius Junior Pope Gelasius and divers of his Predecessours and Followers Pope Gregory II. against Leo Vigilius against Justinian c. yet none of them did presume to excommunicate the Emperours All these dealings are the natural result of this Pretence and supposing it well grounded are capable of a plausible justification for is it not fit seeing one must yield that Temporal should yield to Spiritual Indeed granting the Papal Supremacy in Spirituals I conceive the high flying Zelots of the Roman Church who subject all Temporal Powers to them have great reason on their side for co-ordinate Power cannot subsist and it would be onely an eternal Seminary of perpetual discords The quarrel cannot otherwise be well composed than by wholly disclaiming the fictitious and usurped power of the Pope for Two such Powers so inconsistent and cross to each other so apt to interfere and consequently to breed everlasting mischiefs to mankind between them could not be instituted by God He would not appoint two different Vicegerents in his Kingdom at the same time But it is plain that he hath instituted the civil Power and endowed it with a Sword That Princes are his Lieutenants That in the ancient times the Popes did not claim such Authority but avowed themselves Subjects to Princes 9. Consequently this Pretence is apt to engage Christian Princes against Christianity for they will not endure to be crossed to be depressed to be trampled on This Popes often have complained of not considering it was their own insolence that caused it 10. Whereas now Christendom is split into many parcels subject to divers civil Sovereignties it is expedient that correspondently there should be distinct Ecclesiastical Governments independent of each other which may comply with the respective civil Authorities in promoting the good and peace both of Church and State It is fit that every Prince should in all things govern all his Subjects and none should be exempted from subordination to his Authority As Philosophers and Physicians of the Body so Priests and Physicians of the Soul not in exercising their Function but in taking care that they do exercise it duly for the honour of God and in consistence with publick good otherwise many grievous inconveniences must ensue It is of perillous consequence that foreigners should have authoritative influence upon the Subjects of any Prince or have a power to intermeddle in affairs Princes have a natural Right to determine with whom their Subjects shall have intercourse which is inconsistent with a Right of foreigners to govern or judge them in any case without their leave Every Prince is obliged to employ the power entrusted to him to the furtherance of God's Service and encouragement of all good works as a Supreme power without being liable to obstruction from any other power It would irritate his power if another should be beyond his coercion It is observable that the Pope by intermeddling in the affairs of Kingdoms did so wind himself into them as to get a pretence to be Master of each Princes being his Vassals and Feudatories 11. Such an Authority is needless and useless it not serving the ends which it pretendeth and they being better compassed without it It pretendeth to maintain Truth but indeed it is more apt to oppress it Truth is rather as St. Cyprian wisely observeth preserved by the multitude of Bishops whereof some will be ready to relieve it when assaulted by others Truth cannot be supported merely by humane Authority especially that Authority is to be suspected which pretendeth dominion over our minds What Controversie being doubtfull in it self will not after his Decision continue doubtfull his Sentence may be eluded by interpretation as well as other Testimonies or Authorities The opinion of a man's great wisedom or skill may be the ground of assent in defect of other more cogent Arguments but Authority of Name or Dignity is not proper to convince a man's understanding Men obey but not believe Princes more than others if not more learned than others It pretendeth to maintain Order but how by introducing Slavery by destroying all Rights by multiplying Disorders by hindring Order to be quietly administred in each Countrey It pretendeth to be the onely means of Unity and Concord in Opinion by determining Controversies which its Advocates affirm necessary But how can that be necessary which never was de facto not even in the Roman Church Hath the Pope effected this do all his followers agree in all points do they agree about his Authority Do not they differ and dispute about infinity of questions Are all the points frivolous about which their Divines and Schoolmen dispute Why did not the Council of Trent it self without more adoe and keeping such a disputing refer all to his Oracular Decision Necessary points may and will by all honest people be known and determined without him by the clear Testimony of Scripture by consent of Fathers by General Tradition And other points need not to be determined That he may be capable of that Office he must be believed appointed by God thereto which is a question it self to be decided without him to satisfaction His power is apt no otherwise to knock down Controversies than by depressing Truth not suffering any Truth to be asserted which doth not favour its Interests Concord was maintained and Controversies decided without them in the ancient Church in Synods wherein he was not the sole Judge nor had observable influence The Fathers did not think such Authority needfull otherwise they would have made more use of it A more ready way to define Controversies is for every one not to prescribe to others or to prosecute for then men would more calmly see the Truth and consent It pretendeth to maintain Peace and Unity But nothing hath raised more fierce Dissentions or so many bloudy Wars in Christendom as it It is apt by tyrannical administration to become intolerable and so to break the
Ecclesiastical State to raise Schisms and Troubles It is like to extinguish genuine Charity which is free and uncompelled All the peace and charity which it endureth is by force and compulsion not out of choice and good affection V. The Ancients did assert to each Bishop a free absolute independent Authority subject to none directed by none accountable to none on Earth in the administration of affairs properly concerning his particular Church This is most evident in St. Cyprian's Writings out of which it will not be amiss to set down some passages manifesting the sense and practice of the Church in his time to the satisfaction of any ingenuous mind The Bond of concord abiding and the Sacrament or Doctrine of the Catholick Church persisting undivided every Bishop disposeth and directeth his own acts being to render an account of his purpose to the Lord this he writeth when he was pleading the cause of Pope Cornelius against Novatian but then it seemeth not dreaming of his Supremacy over others But we know that some will not lay down what once they have imbibed nor will easily change their mind but the bond of peace and concord with their Collegues being preserved will retain some peculiar things which have once been used by them in which matter neither do we force any or give law whenas every Prelate hath in the administration of his Church the free power of his will being to render unto the Lord an account of his acting this saith he writing to Pope Stephanus and in a friendly manner out of common respect and single love not out of servile obeisance acquainting him what he and his brethren in a Synod by common consent and authority had established concerning the degradation of Clergy-men who had been ordained by Hereticks or had lapsed into Schism For seeing it is ordained by us all and it is likewise equal and just that each man's cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and to each Pastour a portion of the Flock is assigned which each should rule and govern being to render an account to his Lord those indeed over whom we preside ought not to ramble about this saith he in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius upon occasion of some factious Clergy-men addressing themselves to him with factious suggestions to gain his countenance These things I have briefly written back according to our meanness dear brother prescribing to none nor prejudging that every Bishop should not doe what he thinks good having a free power of his will In which matter our bashfulness and modesty doth not prejudge any one so that every one may not judge as he thinketh and act as he judgeth Prescribing to none so that every Bishop may not resolve what he thinks good being to render an account to the Lord c. It remaineth that each of us do utter his opinion about this matter judging no man nor removing any man if he dissenteth from the right of communion for neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannical terrour driveth his Collegues to a necessity of obeying whenas every Bishop hath upon account of his liberty and authority his own free choice and is no less exempted from being judged by another than he is uncapable to judge another but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who and who alone hath power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting these words did St. Cyprian speak as Proloquntour of the great Synod of Bishops at Carthage and what words could be more express or more full in assertion of the Episcopal Liberties and Rights against almost every branch of Romish pretences He disavoweth the practice of one Bishop excluding another from communion for dissent in opinion about disputable points He rejecteth the pretence that any man can have to be a Bishop of Bishops or superiour to all his Brethren He condemneth the imposing opinions upon Bishops and constraining them to obedience He disclaimeth any power in one Bishop to judge another He asserteth to each Bishop a full liberty and power to manage his own concerns according to his discretion He affirmeth every Bishop to receive his power onely from Christ and to be liable onely to his judgment We may observe that St. Austin in his reflexions upon the passages in that Synod doth approve yea admire that Preface passing high commendations on the smartest passages of it which assert common liberty professing his own conformity in practice to them In this consultation saith he is shewed a pacifick soul overflowing with plenty of charity and We have therefore a free choice of inquiry granted to us by the most mild and most veracious speech of Cyprian himself and Now if the proud and tumid minds of hereticks dare to extoll themselves against the holy humility of this speech than which what can be more gentle more humble Would St. Austin have swallowed those Sayings could he have so much applauded them if he had known a just power then extant and radiant in the World which they do impeach and subvert No I trow he did not know nor so much as dream of any such although the Pope was under his nose while he was discussing that point and he could hardly talk so much of St. Cyprian without thinking of Pope Stephen However let any man of sense honestly reade and weigh those passages considering who did write them to whom he writ them upon what occasions he writ them when he writ them that he was a great Primate of the Church a most holy most prudent most humble and meek person that he addressed divers of them to Bishops of Rome that many of them were touching the concerns of Popes that he writ them in times of persecution and distress which produce the most sober and serious thoughts then let him if he can conceive that all-Christian Bishops were then held subject to the Pope or owned such a power due to him as he now claimeth We may add a contemporary Testimony of the Roman Clergy addressing to St. Cyprian in these words Although a mind well conscious to it self and supported by the vigour of Evangelical discipline and having in heavenly doctrines become a true witness to it self is wont to be content with God for its onely judge and not to desire the praises nor to dread the accusations of another yet they are worthy of double praise who when they know they owe their consciences to God onely as judge yet desire also their actions to be approved by their brethren themselves the which it is no wonder that you brother Cyprian should do who according to your modesty and natural industry would have us not so much judges as partakers of your Counsels Then it seems the College of Cardinals not so high in the instep as they are now did take St. Cyprian to be free and not accountable
for his actions to any other Judge but God That this notion of liberty did continue a good time after in the Church we may see by that Canon of the Antiochene Synod ordaining that every Bishop have power of his own Bishoprick govern it according to the best of his care and discretion and provide for all the Country belonging to his City so as to ordain Priests and Deacons and dispose things aright The Monks of Constantinople in the Synod of Chalcedon said thus We are sons of the Church and have one Father after God our Archbishop they forgot their Sovereign Father the Pope The like notion may seem to have been then in England when the Church of Canterbury was called the common mother of all under the disposition of its Spouse Jesus Christ. VI. The Ancients did hold all Bishops as to their Office originally according to Divine Institution or abstracting from humane Sanctions framed to preserve Order and Peace to be equal for that all are Successours of the Apostles all derive their Commission and Power in the same tenour from God all of them are Ambassadours Stewards Vicars of Christ entrusted with the same Divine Ministeries of instructing dispensing the Sacraments ruling and exercising Discipline to which Functions and Privileges the least Bishop hath right and to greater the biggest cannot pretend One Bishop might exceed another in Splendour in Wealth in Reputation in extent of Jurisdiction as one King may surpass another in amplitude of Territory but as all Kings so all Bishops are equal in Office and essentials of Power derived from God Hence they applied to them that in the Psalm Instead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children whom thou mayst make Princes in all the earth This was St. Hierome's Doctrine in those famous words Whereever a Bishop be whether at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Thenis he is of the same worth and of the same Priesthood the force of wealth and lowness of poverty doth not render a Bishop more high or more low for that all of them are Successours of the Apostles to evade which plain assertion they have forged distinctions whereof St. Hierome surely did never think he speaking simply concerning Bishops as they stood by Divine Institution not according to humane Models which gave some advantages over other That this notion did continue long in the Church we may see by the Elogies of Bishops in later Synods for instance that in the Synod of Compeigne It is convenient all Christians should know what kind of Office the Bishops is who 't is plain are the Vicars of Christ and keep the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And that of the Synod of Melun And though all of us unworthy yet are the Vicars of Christ and Successours of his Apostles In contemplation of which verity St. Gregory Nazianzene observing the declension from it introduced in his times by the ambition of some Prelates did vent that famous exclamation O that there were not at all any presidency or any preference in place and tyrannical enjoyment of prerogatives which earnest wish he surely did not mean to level against the Ordinance of God but against that which lately began to be intruded by men And what would the good man have wished if he had been aware of those pretences about which we discourse which then did onely begin to bud and peep up in the World 1. Common practice is a good Interpreter of common sentiments in any case and it therefore sheweth that in the primitive Church the Pope was not deemed to have a right of Universal Sovereignty for if such a thing had been instituted by God or established by the Apostles the Pope certainly with evident clearness would have appeared to have possessed it and would have sometimes I might say frequently yea continually have exercised it in the first Ages which that he did not at all we shall make I hope very manifest by reflecting on the chief passages occurring then whereof indeed there is scarce any one which duly weighed doth not serve to overthrow the Roman pretence but that matter I reserve to another place and shall propound other considerations declaring the sense of the Fathers onely I shall add that indeed 2. The state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such an universal Sovereignty For that did consist of small bodies incoherently situated and scattered about in very distant places and consequently unfit to be modelled into one political Society or to be governed by one Head Especially considering their condition under Persecution and Poverty What convenient resort for Direction or Justice could a few distressed Christians in Egypt Ethiopia Parthia India Mesopotamia Syria Armenia Cappadocia and other Parts have to Rome what trouble what burthen had it been to seek Instruction Succour Decision of Cases thence Had they been obliged or required to doe so what offences what clamours would it have raised seeing that afterward when Christendom was connected and compacted together when the state of Christians was flourishing and prosperous when passages were open and the best of opportunities of correspondence were afforded yet the setting out of these pretences did cause great oppositions and stirs seeing the exercise of this Authority when it had obtained most vigour did produce so many grievances so many complaints so many courses to check and curb it in Countries feeling the inconveniences and mischiefs springing from it The want of the like in the first Ages is a good Argument that the cause of them had not yet sprung up Christendom could not have been so still if there had been then so meddlesome a body in it as the Pope now is The Roman Clergy in their Epistle to St. Cyprian told him that because of the difficulty of things and times they could not constitute a Bishop who might moderate things immediately belonging to them in their own precincts how much more in that state of things would a Bishop there be sit to moderate things over all the World when as Rigaltius truly noteth the Church being then oppressed with various vexations the communication of Provinces between themselves was difficult and unfrequent Wherefore Bellarmine himself doth confess that in those times before the Nicene Synod the authority of the Pope was not a little hindred so that because of continual persecutions he could not freely exercise it The Church therefore could so long subsist without the use of such Authority by the vigilance of Governours over their Flocks and the friendly correspondence of neighbour Churches And if he would let it alone it might do so still That could be no Divine Institution which had no vigour in the first and best times but an Innovation raised by Ambition VII The Ancients when occasion did require did maintain their equality of Office and Authority particularly in respect to the Roman Bishops not onely interpretatively by practice but directly and
Church as having been from the beginning the School of the Apostles and the Metropolis of Religion although yet from the East the instructours of the Christian Doctrine did go and reside there but from hence they desired not to be deemed inferiours because they did not exceed in the greatness and numerousness of their Church They allowed some regard though faintly and with reservation to the Roman Church upon account of their Apostolical foundation they implied a stronger ground of pretence from the grandeur of that City yet did not they therefore grant themselves to be inferiours at least as to any substantial Privilege importing Authority If by Divine right upon account of his succession to Saint Peter he had such preeminence why are the other causes reckoned as if they could add any thing to God's Institution or as if that did need humane confirmation The pretence to that surely was weak which did need corroboration and to be propp'd by worldly considerations Indeed whereas the Apostles did found many Churches exercising Apostolical authority over them eminently containing the Episcopal why in conscience should one claim privileges on that score rather than or above the rest Why should the See of Antioch that most ancient and truly Apostolical Church where the Christian name began where Saint Peter at first as they say did sit Bishop for seven years be postponed to Alexandria Especially why should the Church of Jerusalem the Seat of our Lord himself the mother of all Churches the fountain of Christian Doctrine the first Consistory of the Apostles enobled by so many glorious performances by the Life Preaching Miracles Death Burial Resurrection Ascension of our Saviour by the first preaching of the Apostles the effusion of the Holy Spirit the Conversion of so many people and Constitution of the first Church and Celebration of the first Synods upon these considerations not obtain preeminence to other Churches but in honour be cast behind divers others and as to Power be subjected to Caesarea the Metropolis of Palestine The true reason of this even Baronius himself did see and acknowledge for that saith he the Ancients observ'd no other rule in instituting the Ecclesiastical Sees than the division of Provinces and the Prerogative before established by the Romans there are very many examples Of which examples that of Rome is the most obvious and notable and what he so generally asserteth may be so applied thereto as to void all other grounds of its preeminence X. The truth is all Ecclesiastical presidencies and subordinations or dependencies of some Bishops on others in administration of spiritual affairs were introduced merely by humane Ordinance and established by Law or Custome upon prudential accounts according to the exigency of things Hence the Prerogatives of other Sees did proceed and hereto whatever Dignity Privilege or Authority the Pope with equity might at any time claim is to be imputed To clear which point we will search the matter nearer the quick propounding some observations concerning the ancient forms of Discipline and considering what interest the Pope had therein At first each Church was settled apart under its own Bishop and Presbyters so as independently and separately to manage its own concernments each was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 governed by its own head and had its own Laws Every Bishop as a Prince in his own Church did act freely according to his will and discretion with the advice of his Ecclesiastical Senate and with the consent of his people the which he did use to consult without being controllable by any other or accountable to any farther than his obligation to uphold the verity of Christian profession and to maintain fraternal communion in charity and peace with neighbouring Churches did require in which regard if he were notably peccant he was liable to be disclaimed by them as no good Christian and rejected from communion together with his Church if it did adhere to him in his misdemeanours This may be collected from the remainders of State in the times of St. Cyprian But because little disjointed and incoherent Bodies were like dust apt to be dissipated by every wind of external assault or intestine faction and peaceable union could hardly be retained without some ligature of discipline and Churches could not mutually support and defend each other without some method of entercourse and rule of confederacy engaging them Therefore for many good purposes for upholding and advancing the common interests of Christianity for protection and support of each Church from inbred disorders and dissentions for preserving the integrity of the faith for securing the concord of divers Churches for providing fit Pastours to each Church and correcting such as were scandalously bad or unfaithfull it was soon found needfull that divers Churches should be combined and linked together in some regular form of Discipline that if any Church did want a Bishop the neighbour Bishops might step in to approve and ordain a fit one that if any Bishop did notoriously swerve from the Christian rule the others might interpose to correct or void him that if any errour or schism did peep up in any Church the joint concurrence of divers Bishops might avail to stop its progress and to quench it by convenient means of instruction reprehension and censure that if any Church were oppressed by persecution by indigency by faction the others might be engaged to afford effectual succour and relief for such ends it was needfull that Bishops in certain precincts should convene with intent to deliberate and resolve about the best expedients to compass them And that the manner of such proceeding to avoid uncertain distraction confusion arbitrariness dissatisfaction and mutinous opposition should be settled in an ordinary course according to rules known and allowed by all In defining such precincts it was most natural most easie most commodious to follow the divisions of Territory or Jurisdiction already established in the Civil State that the Spiritual administrations being in such circumstances aptly conformed to the Secular might go on more smoothly and expeditely the wheels of one not clashing with the other according to the judgment of the two great Synods that of Chalcedon and the Trullane which did ordain that if by Royal authority any city be or should hereafter be re-established the order of the churches shall be according to the civil and publick form Whereas therefore in each Nation or Province subject to one Political Jurisdiction there was a Metropolis or Head-city to which the greatest resort was for dispensation of Justice and dispatch of principal Affairs emergent in that Province it was also most convenient that also the determination of Ecclesiastical matters should be affixed thereto especially considering that usually those places were opportunely seated that many persons upon other occasions did meet there that the Churches in those Cities did exceed the rest in number
in opulency in ability and opportunity to promote the common interest in all kinds of advantages Moreover because in all Societies and Confederacies of men for ordering publick affairs for the settling things in motion for effectual dispatch for preventing endless dissentions and confusions both in resolving upon and executing things it is needfull that one person should be authorized to preside among the rest unto whom the power and care should be entrusted to convoke Assemblies in fit season to propose matters for consultation to moderate the debates and proceedings to declare the result and to see that what is agreed upon may be duly executed Such a charge then naturally would devolve it self upon the Prelate of the Metropolis as being supposed constantly present on the place as being at home in his own seat of presidence and receiving the rest under his wing as incontestably surpassing others in all advantages answerable to the secular advantages of his City for that it was unseemly and hard if he at home should be postponed in dignity to others repairing thither for that also commonly he was in a manner the spiritual Father of the rest Religion being first planted in great Cities and thence propagated to others so that the reverence and dependence on Colonies to the mother City was due from other Churches to his See Wherefore by consent of all Churches grounded on such obvious reason of things the presidency in each Province was assigned to the Bishop of the Metropolis who was called the first Bishop the Metropolitane in some places the Primate the Archbishop the Patriarch the Pope of the Province The Apostolical Canons call him the first Bishop which sheweth the Antiquity of this Institution the African Synods did appoint that name to him as most modest and calling him Primate in that sense other ancient Synods style him the Metropolite and to the Metropolites of the principal Cities they gave the Title of Archbishop The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria peculiarly were called Popes although that name was sometimes deferred to any other Bishop During this state of things the whole Church did consist of so many Provinces being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 independent on each other in Ecclesiastical administrations each reserving to it self the constitution of Bishops the convocation of Synods the enacting of Canons the decision of Causes the definition of Questions yet so that each Province did hold peacefull and amicable correspondence with others upon the like terms as before each 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Episcopal precinct did hold intercourse with its neighbours And whoever in any Province did not comply with or submit to the Orders and Determinations resolved upon in those Assemblies was deemed a schismatical contentious and contumelious person with good reason because he did thwart a Discipline plainly conducible to publick good because declining such judgments he plainly shewed that he would admit none there not being any fairer way of determining things than by common advice and agreement of Pastours because he did in effect refuse all good terms of communion and peace Thus I conceive the Metropolitical governance was introduced by humane prudence following considerations of publick necessity or utility There are indeed some who think it was instituted by the Apostles but their Arguments do not seem convincing and such a constitution doth not as I take it well sute to the state of their times and the course they took in founding Churches Into such a Chanel through all parts of Christendom though with some petty differences in the methods and measures of acting had Ecclesiastical administrations fallen of themselves plain community of reason and imitation insensibly propagating that course and therein it ran for a good time before it was by general consent and solemn sanction established The whole Church then was a Body consisting of several confederations of Bishops acting in behalf of their Churches under their respective Metropolitanes who did manage the common affairs in each Province convoking Synods at stated times and upon emergent occasions in them deciding Causes and Controversies incident relating to faith or practice framing Rules serviceable to common Edification and decent uniformity in God's service quashing Heresies and Schisms declaring truths impugned or questioned maintaining the harmony of communion and concord with other Provinces adjacent or remote Such was the state of the Church unto which the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions do refer answerable to the times in which they were framed and which we may discern in the practice of ancient Synods Such it did continue when the great Synod of Nice was celebrated which by its authority presumed to represent the authority of all Bishops in the World who were summoned thereto backed by the Imperial Authority and Power did confirm those Orders as they found them standing by more general custome and received Rules in most Provinces reducing them into more â—â—â—orm practice so that what before stood upon reason customary usage particular consent by so august sanction did become universal Law and did obtain so great veneration as by some to be conceived everlastingly and immutably obligatory according to those maximes of Pope Leo. It is here farther observable that whereas divers Provinces did hold communion and entercourse so that upon occasion they did by their formed Letters render to one another an account of their proceedings being of great moment especially of those which concerned the general state of Christianity and common faith calling when need was for assistence one of other to resolve points of faith or to settle order and peace there was in so doing a special respect given to the Metropolites of great Cities and to prevent dissensions which naturally ambition doth prompt men to grounded upon degrees of respect an Order was fixed among them according to which in subscriptions of Letters in accidental congresses and the like occasions some should precede others that distinction being chiefly and commonly grounded on the greatness splendour opulency of Cities or following the secular dignity of them whence Rome had the first place Alexandria the second Antioch the third Hierusalem the fourth c. Afterward Constantine having introduced a new partition of the Empire whereby divers Provinces were combined together into one Territory under the regiment of a Vicar or a Lieutenant of a Praefectus-praeterio which Territory was called a Diocese the Ecclesiastical state was adapted in conformity thereto new Ecclesiastical Systems and a new sort of spiritual Heads thence springing up so that in each Diocese consisting of divers Provinces an Ecclesiastical Exarch otherwise sometimes called a Primate sometimes a Diocesan sometimes a Patriarch was constituted answerable to the Civil Exarch of a Diocese who by such constitution did obtain a like Authority over the Metropolitanes of Provinces as they had in their Province over the Bishops of Cities so that it appertained to them to call together the Synods of the whole Diocese to preside
in them and in them to dispatch the principal affairs concerning that precinct to ordain Metropolitanes to confirm the Ordinations of Bishops to decide Causes and Controversies between Bishops upon appeal from Provincial Synods Some conceive the Synod of Nice did establish it but that can hardly well be for that Synod was held about the time of that division after that Constantine was setled in a peacefull enjoyment of the Empire and scarce could take notice of so fresh a change in the State that doth not pretend to innovate but professeth in its sanctions specially to regard ancient custome saving to the Churches their privileges of which they were possessed that onely mentioneth Provinces and representeth the Metropolitanes in them as the chief Governours Ecclesiastical then being that constituteth a peremptory decision of weighty causes in Provincial Synods which is inconsistent with the Diocesan Authority that taketh no notice of Constantinople the â—rincipal Diocese in the East as seat of the Empire and the Synod of Antioch insisting in the footsteps of the Nicene doth touch onely Metropolitanes Can. 19. and the Synod of Laodicea doth onely suppose that Order In fine that Synod is not recorded by any old Historian to have framed such an alteration which indeed was so considerable that Eusebius who was present there could not well have passed it over in silence Of this opinion was the Synod of Carthage in their Epistle to Pope Celestine I. who understood no jurisdiction but that of Metropolitanes to be constituted in the Nicene Synod Some think the Fathers of the Second General Synod did introduce it seeing it expedient that Ecclesiastical administrations should correspond to the Political for they did innovate somewhat in the form of Government they do expresly use the new word Diocese according to the civil sense as distinct from a Province they do distinctly name the particular Dioceses of the Oriental Empire as they stood in the civil establishment they do prescribe to the Bishops in each Diocese to act unitedly there not skipping over the bounds of it they order a kind of appeal to the Synod of the Diocese prohibiting other appeals The Historians expresly do report of them that they did distinguish and distribute Dioceses that they did constitute Patriarchs that they did prohibit that any of one Diocese should intrude upon another But if we shall attently search and scan passages we may perhaps find reason to judge that this form did soon after the Synod of Nice creep in without any solemn appointment by spontaneous assumption and submission accommodating things to the Political course the great Bishops who by the amplification of their City in power wealth and concourse of people were advanced in reputation and interest assuming such authority to themselves and the lesser Bishops easily complying And of this we have some Arguments Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem being deposed and extruded by Acacius Metropolitan of Palestine did appeal to a greater Judicatory being the first as Socrates noteth who ever did use that course because it seemeth there was no greater in being till about that time which was some years before the Synod of Constantinople in which there is a mention of a greater Synod of the Diocese There was a convention of Bishops of the Pontick Diocese at Tyana distinguished from the Asian Bishops whereof Eusebius of Caesarea is reckoned in the first place as President in the time of Valens Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople is said by the Synod of Chalcedon to have presided in the Synod of Constantinople A good Argument is drawn from the very Canon of the Synod of Constantinople it self which doth speak concerning Bishops over Dioceses as already constituted or extant not instituting that Order of Bishops but supposing it and together with an implicit confirmation regulating practice according to it by prohibiting Bishops to leap over the bounds of their Diocese so as to meddle in the affairs of other Dioceses and by ordering appeals to the Synod of a Diocese Of Authority gained by such assumption and concession without law there might be produced divers instances As particularly that the See of Constantinople did assume to it self Ordination and other acts of Jurisdiction in three Dioceses before any such power was granted to it by any Synodical Decree the which to have done divers instances shew some whereof are alledged in the Synod of Chalcedon as St. Chrysostome of whom it is there said That going into Asia he deposed fifteen Bishops and consecrated others in their room He also deposed Gerontius Bishop of Nicomedia belonging to the Diocese of Pontus Whence the Fathers of Chalcedon did aver That they had in a Synod confirmed the ancient custome which the Holy Church of God in Constantinople had to ordain Metropolitanes in the Asian Pontic and Thracian Dioceses The which custome consistent with reason and becoming the dignity of the Empire and gratefull to the Court that great Synod did establish although the Roman Church out of jealousie did contest and protest against it But the most pertinent instances are those of the Roman Alexandrine and Antiochene Churches having by degrees assumed to themselves such power over divers Provinces in imitation of which Churches the other Diocesan Bishops may well be thought to have enlarged their Jurisdiction This form of government is intimated in the Synod of Ephesus by those words in which Dioceses and Provinces are distinguished and the same shall be observed in all Dioceses and all Provinces every were However that this form of Discipline was perfectly setled in the times of the Fourth General Synod is evident by two notable Canons thereof wherein it is decreed that if any Bishop have a controversie with his Metropolitan of his Province he shall resort to and be judged by the Exarch of the Diocese or by the See of Constantinople This was a great privilege conferred on the Bishop of Constantinople the which perhaps did ground to be sure it did make way for the plea of that Bishop to the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Vniversal Bishop which Pope Gregory did so exagitate and indeed it soundeth so fairly toward it that the Pope hath nothing comparable to it to alledge in favour of his pretences this being the Decree of the greatest Synod that ever was held among the Ancients where all the Patriarchs did concur in making these Decrees which Pope Gregory did reverence as one of the Gospels If any ancient Synod did ever constitute any thing like to Vniversal Monarchy it was this wherein a final determination of greatest Causes was granted to the See of Constantinople without any exception or reservation I mean as to semblance and the sound of words for as to the true sense I do indeed conceive that the Canon did onely relate to causes emergent in the Eastern parts and probably it did onely respect the three Dioceses of Asia Pontus and Thrace which were
immediately subjected to his Patriarchal Jurisdiction Pope Nicholas I. doth very jocularly expound this Canon affirming that by the Primate of the Diocese is understood the Pope Diocese being put by a notable figure for Dioceses and that an appeal is to be made to the Bishop of Constantinople onely by permission in case the Party will be content therewith We may note that some Provincial Churches were by ancient custome exempted from dependence on any Primacy or Patriarchate Such an one the Cyprian Church was adjudged to be in the Ephesine Synod wherein the privileges of such Churches were confirmed against the invasion of greater Churches and to that purpose this general Law enacted Let the same be observ'd in all Dioceses and Provinces every where that none of the Bishops most beloved of God invade another Province which did not formerly belong to him or his Predecessours and if any one have invaded one and violently seiz'd it that he restore it Such a Church was that of Britain anciently before Austin did introduce the Papal Authority here against that Canon as by divers learned Pens hath been shewed Such was the Church of Africk as by their Canons against transmarine appeals and about all other matters doth appear It is supposed by some that Discipline was scrued yet one peg higher by setting up the Order of Patriarchs higher than Primates or Diocesan Exarchs but I find no ground of this supposal except in one case that is of the Bishop of Constantinople being set above the Bishops of Ephesus Caesarea and Heraclea which were the Primates of the three Dioceses It is a notable fib which Pope Nicholas II. telleth as Gratian citeth him That the Church of Rome instituted all Patriarchal Supremacies all Metropolitan Primacies Episcopal Sees all Ecclesiastical Orders and Dignities whatsoever Now things standing thus in Christendom we may concerning the interest of the Roman Bishop in reference to them observe 1. In all these transactions about modelling the spiritual Discipline there was no Canon established any peculiar Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome onely the 2. Synod of Nice did suppose that he by custome did enjoy some Authority within certain precincts of the West like to that which it did confirm to the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt and the Countries adjacent thereto 3. The Synods of Constantinople did allow him honourary privileges or precedence before all other Bishops assigning the next place after him to the Bishop of Constantinople 4. In other privileges the Synod of Chalcedon did equall the See of Constantinople to the Roman 5. The Canons of the two First and Fourth General Synods ordering all affairs to be dispatched and causes to be determined in Metropolitan or Diocesan Synods do exclude the Roman Bishop from meddling in those concerns 6. The Popes out of a humour natural to them to like nothing but what they did themselves and which served their Interests did not relish those Canons although enacted by Synods which themselves admitted for Oecumenical That subscription of some Bishops made above sixty years since as you boast does no whit favour your persuasion a subscription never transmitted to the knowledge of the Apostolick See by your Predecessours which from its very beginning being weak and long since ruinous you endeavour now too late and unprofitably to revive So doth Pope Leo I. treat the Second Great Synod writing to Anatolius and Gregory speaking of the same says That the Roman Church has not the acts of that Synod nor receiv'd its Canons 7. Wherefore in the West they did obtain no effect so as to establish Diocesan Primacies there The Bishops of Cities which were Heads of Dioceses either did not know of these Canons which is probable because Rome did smother the notice of them or were hindred from using them the Pope having so winded himself in and got such hold among them as he would not let go 8. It indeed turned to a great advantage of the Pope in carrying on his Encroachments and enlarging his worldly Interests that the Western Churches did not as the Eastern conform themselves to the Political frame in embracing Diocesan Primacies which would have engaged and enabled them better to protect the Liberties of their Churches from Papal Invasions 9. For hence for want of a better the Pope did claim to himself a Patriarchal authority over the Western Churches pretending a right of calling to Synods of meddling in Ordinations of determining Causes by appeal to him of dictating Laws and Rules to them against the old rights of Metropolitans and the later Constitutions for Primacies Of this we have an Instance in St. Gregory where he alledging an Imperial Constitution importing that in case a Clergy-man should appeal from his Metropolitan the cause should be referred to the Archbishop and Patriarch of that Diocese who judging according to the Canons and Laws should give an end thereto doth consequentially assume an appeal from a Bishop to himself adjoyning If against these things it be said that the Bishop had neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch it is to be said that this cause was to be heard and decided by the Apostolical See which is the head of all Churches 10. Having got such advantage and as to extent stretched his Authority beyond the bounds of his sub-urbicarian precincts he did also intend it in quality far beyond the privileges by any Ecclesiastical Law granted to Patriarchs or claimed or exercised by any other Patriarch till at length by degrees he had advanced it to an exorbitant omnipotency and thereby utterly enslaved the Western Churches The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch or Primate to call a Synod of the Bishops in his Diocese and with them to determine Ecclesiastical Affairs by majority of suffrages but he doth not doe so but setting himself down in his Chair with a few of his Courtiers about him doth make Decrees and Dictates to which he pretendeth all must submit The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch to ordain Metropolitans duly elected in their Dioceses leaving Bishops to be ordained by the Metropolitans in their Provincial Synods but he will meddle in the Ordination of every Bishop suffering none to be constituted without his confirmation for which he must soundly pay The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch with the advice and consent of his Synod to make Canons for the well ordering his Diocese but he sendeth about his Decretal Letters composed by an infallible Secretary which he pretendeth must have the force of Laws equal to the highest Decrees of the whole Church The ancient Order did suppose Bishops by their Ordination sufficiently obliged to render unto their Patriarch due observance according to the Canons he being liable to be judged in a Synod for the transgression of his duty but he forceth all Bishops to take the most slavish oaths of obedience to him that can be imagined The ancient Order did appoint that Bishops accused for
and unextinguishable by any humane power and thence is not as all other power subject to revolutions Hence like Achilles it is hardly vincible because almost immortal If it be sometime rebuffed or impaired it soon will recover greater strength and vigour The Popes derive their Authority from Divine Institution and their weapons always are sentences of Scripture they pretend to dispense remission of sins and promise heaven to their abettours They excommunicate curse and damn the opposers of their designs They pretend they never can lose any power that ever did belong to their See they are always stiff and they never recede or give back The privileges of the Roman Church can sustain no detriment 4. Power is easily attained and augmented upon occasion of dissentions Each faction usually doth make it self a Head the chief in strength and reputation which it can find inclinable to favour it and that Head it will strive to magnifie that he may be the abler to promote its cause and if the cause doth prosper he is rewarded with accession of Privileges and Authority Especially those who were oppressed and find relief by his means do become zealously active for his aggrandisement Thus usually in civil broils the Captain of the prevalent Party groweth a Prince or is crowned with great Privileges as Caesar Octavian Cromwell c. So upon occasion of the Arian faction and the oppression of Athanasius Marcellus Paulus and other Bishops the Pope who by their application to him had occasion to head the Catholick Party did grow in power for thereupon the Sardican Synod did decree to him that Privilege which he infinitely enhanced and which became the main engin of rearing himself so high And by his interposal in the dissensions raised by the Nestorians the Pelagians the Eutychians the Acatians the Monothelites the Image-worshippers and Image-breakers c. his authority was advanced for he adhering in those causes to the prevailing Party was by them extolled obtaining both reputation and sway 5. All power is attended by dependencies of persons sheltred under it and by it enjoying subordinate advantages the which proportionably do grow by its encrease Such persons therefore will ever be inciting their Chief and Patron to amplifie his power and in aiding him to compass it they will be very industriously resolutely and steadily active their own interest moving them thereto Wherefore their mouths will ever be open in crying him up their heads will be busie in contriving ways to further his interests their care and pains will be employed in accomplishing his designs they with their utmost strength will contend in his defence against all oppositions Thus the Roman Clergy first then the Bishops of Italy then all the Clergy of the West became engaged to support to fortifie to enlarge the Papal authority they all sharing with him in domination over the Laity and enjoying wealth credit support privileges and immunities thereby Some of them especially were ever putting him on higher pretences and furthering him by all means in his acquist and maintenance of them 6. Hence if a Potentate himself should have no ambition nor much ability to improve his power yet it would of it self grow he need onely be passive therein the interest of his partisans would effect it so that often power doth no less thrive under sluggish and weak Potentates especially if they are void of goodness than under the most active and able Let the Ministers alone to drive on their interest 7. Even persons otherwise just and good do seldom scruple to augment their power by undue encroachment or at least to uphold the usurpations of their foregoers for even such are apt to favour their own pretences and afraid of incurring censure and blame if they should part with any thing left them by their Predecessours They apprehend themselves to owe a dearness to their place engaging them to tender its own weal and prosperity in promoting which they suppose themselves not to act for their own private interest and that it is not out of ambition or avarice but out of a regard to the grandeur of their Office that they stickle and bustle and that in so doing they imitate Saint Paul who did magnifie his office They are encouraged hereto by the applause of men especially of those who are allied with them in interest and who converse with them who take it for a Maxime Boni Principis est ampliare imperium The extenders of Empire are admired and commended however they doe it although with cruel Wars or by any unjust means Hence usually the worthiest men in the world's eye are greatest enlargers of power and such men bringing appearances of vertue ability reputation to aid their endeavours do most easily compass designs of this nature finding less obstruction to their attempts for men are not so apt to suspect their integrity or to charge them with ambition and avarice and the few who discern their aims and consequences of things are overborn by the number of those who are favourably conceited and inclined toward them Thus Julius I. Damasus I. Innocent I. Gregory I. and the like Popes whom History representeth as laudable persons did yet confer to the advancement of Papal grandeur But they who did most advance that interest as Pope Leo I. Gelasius I. Pope Nicholas I. Pope Gregory VII in the esteem of true zelots pass for the best Popes Hence the distinction between a good Man a good Prince a good Pope 8. Men of an inferiour condition are apt to express themselves highly in commendation of those who are in a superiour rank especially upon occasion of address and intercourse which commendations are liable to be interpreted for acknowledgments or attestations of right and thence do sometimes prove means of creating it Of the generality of men it is truly said that it doth fondly serve fame and is stonn'd with titles and images readily ascribing to Superiours whatever they claim without scanning the grounds of their title Simple and weak men out of abjectedness or fear are wont to crouch and submit to any thing upon any terms Wise men do not love brangling nor will expose their quiet and safety without great reason thence being inclinable to comply with greater persons Bad men out of design to procure advantages or impunity are prone to flatter and gloze with them Good men out of due reverence to them and in hope of fair usage from them are ready to complement them or treat them with the most respectfull terms Those who are obliged to them will not spare to extoll them paying the easie return of good words for good deeds Thus all men conspire to exalt power the which snatcheth all good words as true and construeth them to the most favourable sense and alledgeth them as verdicts and arguments of unquestionable right So are the complements or terms of respect used by Hierome Austin Theodoret and divers others toward Popes drawn into Argument for Papal
how ready the Emperours were to promote the dignity of that Bishop we see by many of their Edicts to that purpose as particularly that of Leo. So for the honour of their City the Emperours usually did favour the Pope assisting him in the furtherance of his designs and extending his Privileges by their Edicts at home and Letters to the Eastern Emperours recommending their affairs So in the Synod of Chalcedon we have the Letters of Valentinian together with those of Placidia and of Eudoxia the Empresses to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo for retractation of the Ephesine Synod wherein they do express themselves engaged to maintain the honour of the Roman See Seeing that saith Placidia Mother of Theodosius it becometh us in all things to preserve the honour and dignity of this chief City which is the Mistress of all others So Pope Nicholas confesseth that the Emperours had extolled the Roman See with divers privileges had enriched it with gifts had enlarged it with benefits or benefices c. 14. The Popes had the advantage of being ready at hand to suggest what they pleased to the Court and thereby to procure his Edicts directed or dictated by themselves in their favour for extending their power or repressing any opposition made to their encroachments Baronius observeth that the Bishops of Constantinople did use this advantage for their ends for thus he reflecteth on the Edict of the Emperour Leo in favour of that See These things Leo but questionless conceived in the words of Acacius swelling with pride And no less unquestionably did the Popes conceive words for the Emperour in countenance of their Authority Such was the Edict of Valentinian in favour of Leo against Hilarius Bishop of Arles in an unjust cause as Binius confesseth who contested his Authority to undo what was done in a Gallicane Synod And we may thank Baronius himself for this Observation By this Reader thou understandest that when the Emperours ordained Laws concerning Religion they did it by transcribing and enacting the Laws of the Church upon the admonition of the Holy Bishops requiring them to doe their duty It was a notable Edict which Pope Hilarius alledgeth It was also decreed by the Laws of Christian Princes that whatsoever the Bishop of the Apostolick See should upon examination pronounce concerning Churches and their Governours c. should with reverence be received and strictly observed c. Such Edicts by crafty suggestions being at opportune times from easie and unwary Princes procured did hold not being easily reversed and the Power which the Pope once had obtained by them he would never part with fortifying it by higher pretences of Divine immutable right The Emperour Gratian having gotten the World under him did order the Churches to those who would communicate with Pope Damasus This and the like countenances did bring credit and authority to the Roman See 15. It is therefore no wonder that Popes being seated in the Metropolis of the Western Empire the head of all the Roman State should find interest sufficient to make themselves by degrees what they would be for they not onely surpassing the Provincial Bishops in wealth and repute but having power in Court who dared to pull a feather with them or to withstand their encroachments What wise man would not rather bear much than contest upon such disadvantages and without probable grounds of success 16. Princes who favoured them with such concessions and abetted their undertakings did not foresee what such encrease of power in time would arise to or suspect the prejudice thence done to Imperial Authority They little thought that in virtue thereof Popes would check and mate Princes or would claim superiority over them for the Popes at that time did behave and express themselves with modesty and respect to Emperours 17. Power once rooted doth find seasons and favourable junctures for its growth the which it will be intent to embrace The confusions of things the eruptions of Barbarians the straits of Emperours the contentions of Princes c. did all turn to account for him and in confusion of things he did snatch what he could to himself The declination and infirmity of the Roman Empire gave him opportunity to strengthen his interests either by closing with it so as to gain somewhat by its concession or by opposing it so as to head a Faction against it As he often had opportunity to promote the designs of Emperours and Princes so those did return to him encrease of Authority so they trucked and bartered together For when Princes were in straits or did need assistence from his reputation at home to the furtherance of their designs or support of their interest in Italy they were content to honour him and grant what he desired as in the case of Acacius which had caused so long a breach the Emperour to engage Pope Hormisdas did consent to his will And at the Florentine Synod the Emperour did bow to the Pope's terms in hopes to get his assistence against the Turks When the Eastern Emperours by his means chiefly were driven out of Italy he snatched a good part of it to himself and set up for a Temporal Prince When Princes did clash he by yielding countenance to one side would be sure to make a good market for himself for this pretended Successour to the Fisherman was really skilled to angle in troubled Waters They have been the incendiaries of Christendom the kindlers and fomenters of War And would often stir up Wars and inclining to the stronger part would share with the Conquerour as when he stirr'd up Charles against the Lombards They would upon spiritual pretence be interposing in all affairs He did oblige Princes by abetting their Cause when it was unjust or weak his spiritual Authority satisfying their Conscience whence he was sure to receive good acknowledgment and recompence As when he did allow Pepin's usurpation He pretended to dispose of Kingdoms and to constitute Princes reserving obeisance to himself Gregory VII granted to Robert Guislard Naples and Sicily beneficiario jure Innocent II. gave to Roger the title of King There is scarce any Kingdom in Europe which he hath not claimed the Sovereignty of by some pretence or other Princes sometime for quiet sake have desired the Pope's consent and allowance of things appertaining of right to themselves whence the Pope took advantage to claim an original right of disposing such things The proceeding of the Pope upon occasion of Wars is remarkable when he did enter League with a Prince to side with him in a War against another he did covenant to prosecute the Enemy with Spiritual Arms that is with Excommunications and Interdicts engaging his Confederates to use Temporal Arms. So making Ecclesiastical Censures tools of Interest When Princes were in difficulties by the mutinous disposition of Princes the emulation of Antagonists he would as served his interest interpose hooking in some advantage
to himself In the tumults against our King John he struck in and would have drawn the Kingdom to himself He would watch opportunity to quarrel with Princes upon pretence they did intrench on his Spiritual Power as about the point of the investiture of Bishops and receiving homage from them Gregory VII did excommunicate Henry III. Anno 1076. Calixtus II. Henry IV. Anno 1120. Adrian IV. Frederick Anno 1160. Celestinus III. Henry V. Anno 1195. Innocent III. Otho Anno 1219. Honorius III. and Gregory IX Frederick II. Anno 1220. Innocent IV. in the Ludg. Conc. 1245. 18. The ignorance of times did him great service for then all the little Learning which was being in his Clients and Factours they could instill what they pleased into the credulous People Then his Dictates would pass for infallible Oracles and his Decrees for inviolable Laws whence his veneration was exceedingly encreased 19. He was forward to support factious Church-men against Princes upon pretence of spiritual Interest and Liberty And usually by his importunity and arts getting the better in such contests he thereby did much strengthen his Authority 20. He making himself the Head of all the Clergy and carrying himself as its Protectour and Patron did ingage thereby innumerable most able heads tongues and pens who were devoted to maintain whatever he did and had little else to doe 21. So great a Party he cherished with exorbitant Liberties suffering none to rule over them or touch them beside himself 22. He did found divers Militias and bands of spiritual Janisaries to be Combatants for his Interests who depending immediately upon him subsisting by his Charters enjoying exemptions by his authority from other Jurisdictions being sworn to a special obeisance of him were entirely at his devotion ready with all their might to advance his Interests and to maintain all the pretences of their Patron and Benefactour These had great sway among the People upon account of their religious guises and pretences to extraordinary heights of sanctimony austerity contempt of the World And learning being mostly confined to them they were the chief Teachers and Guides of Christendom so that no wonder if he did challenge and could maintain any thing by their influence They did cry up his Power as superiour to all others They did attribute to him titles strangely high Vice-god Spouse of the Church c. strange attributes of Omnipotency Infallibility c. 23. Whereas Wealth is a great sinew of Power he did invent divers ways of drawing great store thereof to himself By how many tricks did he proll money from all parts of Christendom as by Dispensations for Marriage within degrees prohibited or at uncanonical times for Vows and Oaths for observance of Fasts and Abstinences for Pluralities and incompatible Benefices Non-residences c. Indulgences and Pardons and freeing Souls from the pains of Purgatory Reservations and provisions of Benefices not bestowed gratÃs Consecrated Presents Dei's Swords Roses c. Confirmations of Bishops sending Palls Appeals to his Court. Tributes of Peter-pence Annates Tithes introduced upon occasion of Holy Wars and continued Playing fast and loose tying knots and undoing them for gain Sending Legates to drein places of money Commutations of Penance for money Inviting to Pilgrimage at Rome Hooking in Legacies What a mass of Treasure did all this come to what a Trade did he drive 24. He did indeed easily by the help of his mercenary Divines transform most Points of Divinity in accommodation to his interests of Power Reputation and Gain 25. Any pretence how slender soever will in time get some validity being fortified by the consent of divers Authours and a current of sutable practice Any story serving the designs of a Party will get credit by being often told especially by Writers bearing a semblance of gravity whereof divers will never be wanting to abet a flourishing Party 26. The Histories of some Ages were composed onely by the Popes Clients Friars and Monks and such People which therefore are partial to him addicted to his interests and under awe of him For a long time none dared open his mouth to question any of his pretences or reprehend his practices without being called Heretick and treated as such 27. Whereas the Pope had two sorts of Opposites to subdue temporal Princes and Bishops his business being to o'ertop Princes and to enslave all Bishops or to invade and usurp the rights of both he used the help of each to compass his designs on the other by the Authority of Princes oppressing Bishops and by the assistence of Bishops mating Princes 28. When any body would not doe as he would have them he did incessantly clamour or whine that Saint Peter was injured 29. The forgery of the Decretal Epistles wherein the ancient Popes are made expresly to speak and act according to some of his highest pretences devised long after their times and which they never thought of good men did hugely conduce to his purpose authorising his encroachments by the suffrage of ancient Doctrine and Practice a great part of his Canon-law is extracted out of these and grounded on them The Donation of Constantine fictitious Acts of Councils and the like counterfeit stuff did help thereto the which were soon embraced as we see in Pope Gregory II. As also Legends Fables of Miracles and all such deceivableness of unrighteousness 30. Popes were so cunning as to form grants and impute that to Privileges derived from them which Princes did enjoy by right or custome 31. Synods of Bishops called by him at opportune seasons consisting of his Votaries or Slaves None dared therein to whisper any thing to the prejudice of his Authority He carried whatever he pleased to propose without check or contradiction Who dared to question any thing done by such numbers of Pastours styling themselves the Representative of Christendome 32. The having hampered all the Clergy with strict Oaths of universal obedience to him beginning about the times of Pope Gregory VII did greatly assure his power 33. When intolerable oppressions and exactions did constrain Princes to struggle with him if he could not utterly prevail things were brought to composition whereby he was to be sure for that time a gainer and gained establishment in some Points leaving the rest to be got afterward in more favourable junctures Witness the Concordates between Henry II. and P. Alex. III. Anno 1172. Edw. III. and P. Greg. XI Anno 1373. Henry V. and P. Mart. V. Anno 1418. 34. When Princes were fain to curb their exorbitances by Pragmatical Sanctions they were restless till they had got those Sanctions revoked And when they found weak Princes or any Prince in circumstances advantaging their design they did obtain their end So Pope Leo X. got Lewis XI to repeal the Pragmatical Sanctions of his Ancestours 35. The power he did assume to absolve men from Oaths and Vows to dispence with prohibited Marriages c. did not
onely bring much grist to his Mill but did enable him highly to oblige divers persons especially great ones to himself For to him they owed the quiet of their Conscience from scruples To him they owed the satisfaction of their desires and legitimation of their issue and title to their possessions 36. So the device of Indulgences did greatly raise the veneration of him for who would not adore him that could loose his bands and free his Soul from long and grievous pains SUPPOSITION VI. The next Supposition is this That in Fact the Roman Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Sovereign Power THIS is a Question of Fact which will best be decided by a particular consideration of the several Branches of Sovereign Power that so we may examine the more distinctly whether in all Ages the Popes have enjoyed and exercised them or not And if we survey the particular Branches of Sovereignty we shall find that the Pope hath no just title to them in reason by valid Law or according to ancient practice whence each of them doth yield a good argument against his pretences 1. If the Pope were Sovereign of the Church he would have power to convocate its supreme Councils and Judicatories and would constantly have exercised it This power therefore the Pope doth claim and indeed did pretend to it a long time since before they could obtain to exercise it It is manifestly apparent saith Pope Leo X. with approbation of his Laterane Synod that the Roman Bishop for the time being as who hath authority over all Councils hath alone the full right and power of indicting translating and dissolving Councils and long before him To the Apostolical authority said Pope Adrian I. by our Lord's command and by the merits of Saint Peter and by the decrees of the Holy Canons and of the Venerable Fathers a right and special power of convocating Synods hath many-wise been committed and yet before him The authority saith Pope Pelagius II. of convocating Synods hath been delivered to the Apostolical See by the singular privilege of Saint Peter But it is manifest that the Pope cannot pretend to this power by virtue of any old Ecclesiastical Canon none such being extant or produced by him Nor can he alledge any ancient custome there having been no General Synod before Constantine and as to the practice from that time it is very clear that for some Ages the Popes did not assume or exercise such a power and that it was not taken for their due Nothing can be more evident and it were extreme impudence to deny that the Emperours at their pleasure and by their authority did congregate all the first General Synods for so the oldest Historians in most express terms do report so those Princes in their Edicts did aver so the Synods themselves did declare The most just and pious Emperours who did bear greatest love to the Clergy and had much respect for the Pope did call them without scruple it was deemed their right to doe it none did remonstrate against their practice the Fathers in each Synod did refer thereto with allowance and commonly with applause Popes themselves did not contest their right yea commonly did petition them to exercise it These things are so clear and so obvious that it is almost vain to prove them I shall therefore but touch them In general Socrates doth thus attest to the ancient practice We saith he do continually include the Emperours in our history because upon them ever since they became Christians Ecclesiastical affairs have depended and the greatest Synods have been and are made by their appointment and Justinian in his prefatory type to the Fifth General Council beginneth thus It hath been ever the care of Pious and Orthodox Emperours by the assembling of the most religious Bishops to cut off Heresies as they did spring up and by the right faith sincerely preached to keep the Holy Church of God in peace and to doe this was so proper to the Emperours that when Ruffin did affirm Saint Hilary to have been excommunicated in a Synod Saint Hierome to confute him did ask tell me What Emperour did command this Synod to be congregated implying it to be illegal or impossible that a Synod should be congregated without the Imperial command Particularly Eusebius saith of the first Christian Emperour that as a common Bishop appointed by God he did summon Synods of God's Ministers so did he command a great number of Bishops to meet at Arles for decision of the Donatists cause so did he also command the Bishops from all quarters to meet at Tyre for examination of the affairs concerning Athanasius and that he did convocate the great Synod of Nice the first and most renowned of all General Synods all the Historians do agree he did himself affirm the Fathers thereof in their Synodical remonstrances did avow as we shall hereafter in remarking on the passages of that Synod shew The same course did his Son Constantius follow without impediment for although he was a favourer of the Arian Party yet did the Catholick Bishops readily at his call assemble in the great Synods of Sardica of Ariminum of Seleucia of Sirmium of Milan c. Which he out of a great zeal to compose dissentions among the Bishops did convocate After him the Emperour Valentinian understanding of dissensions about divine matters to compose them did indict a Synod in Illyricum A while after for settlement of the Christian State which had been greatly disturbed by the Persecution of Julian and of Valens and by divers Factions Theodosius I. did command saith Theodoret the Bishops of his Empire to be assembled together at Constantinople the which meeting accordingly did make the Second General Synod in the congregation of which the Pope had so little to doe that Baronius saith it was celebrated against his will Afterwards when Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople affecting to seem wiser than others in explaining the mystery of Christ's Incarnation had raised a jangle to the disturbance of the Church for removing it the Emperour Theodosius II. did by his edict command the Bishops to meet at Ephesus who there did celebrate the Third General Council in the beginning of each Action it is affirmed that the Synod was convocated by the Imperial decree the Synod it self doth often profess it the Pope's own Legate doth acknowledge it and so doth Cyril the President thereof The same Emperour upon occasion of Eutyches being condemned at Constantinople and the stirs thence arising did indict the Second General Synod of Ephesus which proved abortive by the miscariages of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria as appeareth by his Imperial Letters to Dioscorus and the other Bishops summoning them to that Synod We have decreed that the most holy Bishops meeting together c. After the same manner the other most reverend Bishops were written to to come
to the Synod And as Pope Leo doth confess calling it the council of Bishops which you Theodosius commanded to be held at Ephesus The next General Synod of Chalcedon was convocated by the authority of the Emperour Marcian as is expressed in the beginning of each Action as the Emperour declareth as the Synod it self in the front of its definition doth avow the holy great and Oecumenical Synod gather'd together by the grace of God and the command of our most dread Emperours c. has determin'd as follows The Fifth General Synod was also congregated by the authority of Justinian I. and the Emperour's Letter authorizing it beginneth as we saw before with an Assertion backed with a particular enumeration that all former great Synods were called by the same power the Fathers themselves do say that they had come together according to the will of God and the command of the most pious Emperour So little had the Pope to doe in it that as Baronius himself telleth us it was congregated against his will or with his resistence The Sixth General Synod at Constantinople was also indicted by the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus as doth appear by his Letters as is intimated at the entrance of each Action as the Synod doth acknowledge as Pope Leo II. in whose time it was concluded doth affirm The Synod in its definition as also in its Epistle to Pope Agatho doth inscribe it self The Holy and Oecumenical Synod congregated by the grace of God and the altogether religious Sanction of the most pious and most faithfull great Emperour Constantine and in their definition they say By this doctrine of peace dictated by God our most gracious Emperour through the divine wisedom being guided as a defender of the true faith and an enemy to the false having gather'd us together in this holy and Oecumenical Synod has united the whole frame of the Church c. In its acclamatory Oration to the Emperour it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Act. 18. p. 271. We all acquiescing in your most sacred commands both the most holy President of Rome the most ancient and Apostolical city and we the least c. These are all the great Synods which posterity with clear consent did admit as General for the next two have been disclaimed by great Churches the Seventh by most of the Western Churches the Eighth by the Eastern so that even divers Popes after them did not reckon them for general Councils and all the rest have been onely Assemblies of Western Bishops celebrated after the breach between the Oriental and Occidental Churches Yet even that Second Synod of Nice which is called the Seventh Synod doth avow it self to have convened by the Emperour's command and in the front of each Action as also of their Synodical definition the same style is retained Hitherto it is evident that all General Synods were convocated by the Imperial authority and about this matter divers things are observable It is observable in how peremptory a manner the Emperours did require the Bishops to convene at the time and place appointed by them Constantine in his Letter indicting the Synod of Tyre hath these words If any one presuming to violate our command and sense c. Theodosius II. summoneth the Bishops to the Ephesine Synod in these terms We taking a great deal of care about these things will not suffer any one if he be absent to go unpunish'd nor shall he find excuse either with God or us who presently without delay does not by the time set appear in the place appointed In like terms did he call them to the Second Ephesine Synod If any one shall chuse to neglect meeting in a Synod so necessary and gratefull to God and by the set time do not with all diligence appear in the place appointed he shall find no excuse c. Marcian thus indicteth the Synod of Nice after by him translated to Chalcedon It properly seemeth good to our clemency that an holy Synod meet in the city of Nice in the Province of Bithynia Again we may observe that in the Imperial Edicts or Epistles whereby Councils effectually were convened there is nothing signified concerning the Pope's having any authority to call them it is not as by licence from the Pope's Holiness but in their own Name and Authority they Act which were very strange if the Popes had any plea then commonly approved for such a power As commonly Emperours did call Synods by the suggestion of other Bishops so again there be divers instances of Popes applying themselves to the Emperours with petitions to indict Synods wherein sometimes they prevailed sometimes they were disappointed so Pope Liberius did request of Constantius to indict a Synod for deciding the cause of Athanasius Ecclesiastical judgments said he as Theodoret reports should be made with great equity wherefore if it please your piety command a Judicatory to be constituted and in his Epistle to Hosius produced by Baronius he saith Many Bishops out of Italy met together who together with me had beseecht the most Religious Emperour that he would command as he had thought fit the Council of Aquileia to meet So Pope Damasus having a desire that a General Synod should be celebrated in Italy for repressing Heresies and Factions then in the Church did obtain the Imperial Letters for that purpose directed to the Eastern Bishops as they in their Epistle to the Western Bishops do intimate But because expressing a brotherly affection toward us ye have called us as your own members by the most pious Emperour's Letters to that Synod which by the will of God ye are gathering at Rome It is a wonder that Bellarmine should have the confidence to alledge this passage for himself So again Pope Innocent I. being desirous to restore Saint Chrysostome did as Sozomen telleth us send five Bishops and two Priests of the Roman Church to Honorius and to Arcadius the Emperour requesting a Synod with the time and the place thereof in which attempt he suffered a repulse for the Courtiers of Arcadius did repell those Agents as troubling another government which was beyond their bounds or wherein the Pope had nothing to doe that they knew of So also Pope Leo I. whom no Pope could well exceed in zeal to maintain the Privileges and advance the eminence of his See did in these terms request Theodosius to indict a Synod whence if your piety shall vouchsafe consent to our suggestion and supplication that you would command an Episcopal Council to be held in Italy soon God aiding may all scandals be cut off upon this occasion the Emperour did appoint a Council not in Italy according to the Pope's desire but at Ephesus the which not succeeding well Pope Leo again did address to Theodosius in these words All the Churches of our parts all Bishops with groans and tears do supplicate your Grace
that you would command a General Synod to be celebrated within Italy to which request although back'd with the desire of the Western Emperour Theodosius would by no means consent for as Leontius reporteth when Valentinian being importuned by Pope Leo did write to Theodosius II. that he would procure another Synod to be held for examining whether Dioscorus had judged rightly or no Theodosius did write back to him saying I shall make no other Synod The same Pope did again of the same Emperour petition for a Synod to examin the cause of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Let your clemency saith he be pleased to grant an Vniversal Council to be held in Italy as with me the Synod which for this cause did meet at Rome doth request Thus did that Pope continually harp upon one string to get a General Synod to be celebrated at his own doors but never could obtain his purpose the Emperour being stiff in refusing it The same Pope with better success as to the thing though not as to the place did request of the Emperour Marcian a Synod for he concurring in opinion that it was needfull did saith Liberatus at the petition of the Pope and the Roman Princes command a General Council to be congregated at Nice Now if the Pope had himself a known right to convocate Synods what needed all this application or this supplication to the Emperours would not the Pope have endeavoured to exercise his Authority would he not have clamoured or whined at any interruption thereof would so spiritfull and sturdy a Pope as Leo have begged that to be done by another which he had authority to doe of himself when he did apprehend so great necessity for it and was so much provoked thereto would he not at least have remonstrated against the injury therein done to him by Theodosius All that this daring Pope could adventure at was to wind in a pretence that the Synod of Chalcedon was congregated by his consent for it hath been the pleasure of whom I pray that a General Council should be congregated both by the command of the Christian Princes and with the consent of the Apostolick See saith he very cunningly yet not so cunningly but that any other Bishop might have said the same for his See This power indeed upon many just accounts peculiarly doth belong to Princes It suteth to the dignity of their state it appertaineth to their duty they are most able to discharge it They are the Guardians of publick tranquillity which constantly is endangered which commonly is violated by dissensions in religious matters whence we must pray for them that by their care we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty they alone can authorize their Subjects to take such Journeys or to meet in such Assemblies they alone can well cause the expences needfull for holding Synods to de exacted and defrayed they alone can protect them can maintain Order and Peace in them can procure Observance to their Determinations they alone have a Sword to constrain resty and refractory persons and in no cases are men so apt to be such as in debates about these matters to convene to confer peaceably to agree to observe what is settled They as nursing Fathers of the Church as Ministers of God's Kingdom as encouragers of good works as the Stewards of God entrusted with the great Talents of Power Dignity Wealth enabling them to serve God are obliged to cause Bishops in such cases to perform their duty according to the example of good Princes in Holy Scripture who are commended for proceedings of this nature for so King Josias did convocate a General Synod of the Church in his time then saith the Text the King sent and gathered together all the Elders of Judah and Jerusalem In this Synod he presided standing in his place and making a covenant before the Lord its Resolutions he confirmed causing all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to that Covenant and he took care of their Execution making all present in Israel effectually to serve the Lord their God So also did King Hezekiah gather the Priests and Levites together did warn did command them to doe their duty and reform things in the Church My Sons said he be not now negligent for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him to serve him and that ye should minister unto him and burn incense Beside them none other can have reasonable pretence to such a Power or can well be deemed able to manage it so great an Authority cannot be exercised upon the Subjects of any Prince without eclipsing his Majesty infringing his natural right and endangering his State He that at his pleasure can summon all Christian Pastours and make them trot about and hold them when he will is in effect Emperour or in a fair way to make himself so It is not fit therefore that any other person should have all the Governours of the Church at his beck so as to draw them from remote places whither he pleaseth to put them on long and chargeable Journeys to detain them from their charge to set them on what deliberations and debates he thinketh good It is not reasonable that any one without the leave of Princes should authorize so great conventions of men having such interest and sway it is not safe that any one should have such dependencies on him by which he may be tempted to clash with Princes and withdraw his Subjects from their due obedience Neither can any success be well expected from the use of such Authority by any who hath not Power by which he can force Bishops to convene to resolve to obey whence we see that Constantine who was a Prince so gentle and friendly to the Clergy was put to threaten those Bishops who would absent themselves from the Synod indicted by him at Tyre and Theodosius also a very mild and religious Prince did the like in his summoning the two Ephesine Synods We likewise may observe that when the Pope and Western Bishops in a Synodical Epistle did invite those of the East to a great Synod indicted at Rome these did refuse the journey alledging that it would be to no good purpose so also when the Western Bishops did call those of the East for resolving the difference between Flavianus and Paulinus both pretending to be Bishops of Antioch what effect had their summons and so will they always or often be ready to say who are called at the pleasure of those who want force to constrain them so that such Authority in unarmed hands and God keep Arms out of a Pope's hands will be onely a source of discords Either the Pope is a Subject as he was in the first times and then it were too great a presumption for him to claim such a power over his fellow-Subjects in prejudice to his Sovereign nor indeed did he presume so far untill he
the Pope with him in his actings He thereby might pretend to the first place of sitting and subscribing which kind of advantages it appeareth that some Bishops had in Synods by the virtue of the like substitution in the place of others but he thence could have no authoritative Presidency for that the Pope himself could by no delegation impart having himself no title thereto warranted by any Law or by any Precedent that depended on the Emperour's will or on the Election of the Fathers or on a tacit regard to personal eminence in comparison to others present This distinction Evagrius seemeth to intimate when he saith that the divine Cyril did administer it and the place of Celestine where a word seemeth to have fallen out and Zonaras more plainly doth express saying that Cyril Pope of Alexandria did preside over the Orthodox Fathers and also did hold the place of Celestine and Photius Cyril did supply the seat and the person of Celestine If any latter Historions do confound these things we are not obliged to comply with their ignorance or mistake Indeed as to Presidency there we may observe that sometime it is attributed to Cyril alone as being the first Bishop present and bearing a great sway sometimes to Pope Celestine as being in representation present and being the first Bishop of the Church in Order sometimes to both Cyril and Celestine sometimes to Cyril and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus who as being very active and having great influence on the proceedings are styled the Presidents and Rulers of the Synod The which sheweth that Presidency was a lax thing and no peculiarity in right or usage annexed to the Pope nor did altogether depend on his grant or representation to which Memnon had no title The Pope himself and his Legats are divers times in the Acts said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit together with the Bishops which confidence doth not well comport with his special right to Presidency Yea it is observable that the Oriental Bishops which with John of Antioch did oppose the Cyrillian Party in that Synod did charge on Cyril that he as if he lived in a time of Anarchy did proceed to all irregularity and that snatching to himself the Authority which neither was given him by the Canons nor by the Emperours Sanctions did rush on to all kind of disorder and unlawfulness whence it is evident that in the judgment of those Bishops among whom were divers worthy and excellent persons the Pope had no right to any authoritative Presidency This word Presidency indeed hath an ambiguity apt to impose on those who do not observe it for it may be taken for a privilege of Precedence or for Authority to govern things the first kind of presidence the Pope without dispute when present at a Synod would have had among the Bishops as being the Bishop of the first See as the Sixth Synod calleth him and the first of Priests as Justinian called him and in his absence his Legates might take up his Chair for in General Synods each See had its Chair assigned to it according to its order of dignity by custom And according to this sense the Patriarchs and chief Metropolitans are also often singly or conjunctly said to preside as sitting in one of the first Chairs But the other kind of Presidency was as those Bishops in their complaint against Cyril do imply and as we shall See in practice disposed by the Emperour as he saw reason although usually it was conferred on him who among those present in dignity did precede the rest this is that authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Syrian Bishops complained against Cyril for assuming to himself without the Emperour's warrant and whereof we have a notable Instance in the next General Synod at Ephesus For In the Second Ephesine Synod which in design was a General Synod lawfully convened for a publick cause of determining truth and settling peace in the Church but which by some miscarriages proved abortive although the Pope had his Legates there yet by the Emperour's order Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria did preside We said Theodosius in his Epistle to him do also commit to thy godliness the authority and the preeminency of all things appertaining to the Synod now assembled and in the Synod of Chalcedon it is said of him that he had received the authority of all affairs and of judgment and Pope Leo I. in this Epistle to the Emperour saith that Dioscorus did challenge to himself the principal place insinuating a complaint that Dioscorus should be preferred before him although not openly contesting his right The Emperour had indeed some reason not to commit the Presidency to Pope Leo because he was looked upon as prejudiced in the cause having declared in favour of Flavianus against Eutyches whence Eutyches declined his Legate's interessing in the judgment of his cause saying they were suspected to him because they were entertained by Flavianus with great regard And Dioscorus being Bishop of the next See was taken for more indifferent and otherwise a person however afterward it proved of much integrity and moderation He did saith the Emperour shine by the grace of God both in honesty of life and orthodoxy of faith and Theodoret himself before those differences arose doth say of him that he was by common fame reported a man adorned with many other kinds of vertue and that especially he was celebrated for his moderation of mind It is true that the Legates of Pope Leo did take in dudgeon this preferment of Dioscorus and if we may give credence to Liberatus would not sit down in the Synod because the presession was not given to their Holy See and afterwards in the Synod of Chalcedon the Pope's Legate Paschasinus together with other Bishops did complain that Dioscorus was preferred before the Bishop of Constantinople but notwithstanding those ineffectual mutinies the Emperour's will did take place and according thereto Dioscorus had although he did not use it so wisely and justly as he should the chief managery of things It is to be observed that to other chief Bishops the Presidency in that Synod is also ascribed by virtue of the Emperour's appointment Let the most reverend Bishops say the Imperial Commissaries in the Synod of Chalcedon to whom the authoritative management of affairs was by the Royal Sovereignty granted speak why the Epistle of the most Holy Archbishop Leo was not read and You say they again to whom the power of judging was given and of Dioscorus Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem Thalassius of Caesarea Eusebius of Ancyra Eustathius of Beristus Basilius of Selencia it is by the same Commissioners said that they had recieved the authority and did govern the Synod which was then and Elpidius the Emperour's Agent in the Ephesine Synod it self did expresly style them Presidents and Pope Leo himself calleth them Presidents and Primates of the Synod Whence it
appeareth that at that time according to common opinion and practice authoritative Presidency was not affixed to the Roman Chair In the Synod of Chalcedon Pope Leo did indeed assume to himself a kind of Presidency by his Legates and no wonder that a man of a stout and ardent Spirit impregnated with high conceits of his See and resolved with all his might to advance its interests as his Legates themselves did in effect declare to the world should doe so having so favourable a time by the misbehaviour of Dioscorus and his adherents against whom the Clergy of Constantinople and other Fathers of the Synod being incensed were ready to comply with Leo who had been the Champion and Patron of their Cause in allowing him extraordinary respect and whatever advantages he could pretend to Yet in effect the Emperour by his Commissioners did preside there they propounding and allowing matters to be discussed moderating debates by their interlocution and driving them to an issue maintaining order and quiet in proceedings performing those things which the Pope's Legates at Trent or otherwhere in the height of his power did undertake To them supplicatory addresses were made for succour and redress by persons needing it as for instance Command said Eusebius of Dorylaeum that my supplications may be read Of them leave is requested for time to deliberate Command saith Atticus in behalf of other Bishops that respite be given so that within a few days with a calm mind and undisturbed reason those things may be formed which shall be pleasing to God and the Holy Fathers Accordingly they order the time for consultation Let said they the hearing be deferred for five days that in the mean time your Holiness may meet at the house of the most Holy Archbishop Anatolius and deliberate in common about the faith that the doubtfull may be instructed They were acknowledged Judges and had thanks given them for the issue by persons concerned I said Eunomius Bishop of Nicomedia do thank your Honour for your right judgment And in the cause between Stephanus and Bassianus concerning their title to the Bishoprick of Ephesus they having declared their sense the Holy Synod cryed this is right judgment Christ hath decided the case God judgeth by you And in the result upon their declaring their opinion the whole Synod exclaimed This is a right judgment this is a pious order When the Bishops transported with eagerness and passion did tumultuously clamour they gravely did check them saying These vulgar exclamations neither become Bishops nor shall advantage the parties In the great contest about the privileges of the Constantinopolitan See they did arbitrate and decide the matter even against the sense and endeavours of the Pope's Legates the whole Synod concurring with them in these acclamations this is a right sentence we all say these things these things please us all things are duely ordered let 〈◊〉 things ordered be held The Pope's Legates themselves did avow this authority in them for If said Paschasinus in the case of the Egyptian Bishops your authority doth command and ye injoin that somewhat of humanity be granted to them c. And in another case If said the Bishops supplying the place of the Apostolical See your Honours do command we have an information to suggest Neither is the Presidency of these Roman Legates expressed in the Conciliar Acts but they are barely said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to concur and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit together with the other Fathers and accordingly although they sometimes talked high yet it is not observable that they did much there their Presidency was nothing like that at Trent and in other like Papal Synods It may be noted that the Emperour's Deputies are always named in the first place at the entrance of the Acts before the Pope's Legates so that they who directed the Notaries were not Popish In effect the Emperour was President though not as a Judge of Spiritual matters yet as an Orderer of the Conciliar transactions as the Synod doth report it to Leo the faithfull Emperours said they did preside or govern it for good order sake In the Fifth General Synod Pope Vigilius indeed was moved to be present and in his way to preside but he out of state or policy declined it wherefore the Patriarch of Constantinople was the Ecclesiastical President as in the beginning of every Collation doth appear whence clearly we may infer that the Pope's Presidency is no-wise necessary to the being of a General Council In the Sixth General Synod the Emperour in each Act is expesly said to preside in person or by his Deputies although P. Agatho had his Legates there In the Synod of Constance sometimes the Cardinal of Cambray sometimes of Hostia did preside by order of the Synod it self and sometime the King of the Romans did supply that place so little essential was the Pope's Presidency to a Council deemed even then when Papal authority had mounted to so high a pitch Nor is there good reason why the Pope should have this privilege or why this Prerogative should be affixed to any one See so that if there be cause as if the Pope be unfit or less fit if Princes or the Church cannot confide in him if he be suspected of prejudice or partiality if he be party in causes or controversies to be decided if he do himself need correction Princes may not assign or the Church with allowance of Princes may not chuse any other President more proper in their judgment for that charge in such cases the publick welfare of Church and State is to be regarded Were an Erroneous Pope as Vigilius or Hâ—â—orius fit to govern a Council gathered to consult about defining Truth in the matter of their Errour Where a Lewd Pope as Alexander VI John XII Paul III innumerable such scandalously vitious worthy to preside in a Synod convocated to prescribe strict Laws of Reformation Were a Furious Pugnacious Pope as Julius II apt to moderate an Assembly drawn together for settlement of Peace Were a Pope engaged in Schism as many have been a proper Moderatour of a Council designed to suppress Schism Were a Gregory VII or an Innocent IV or a Boniface VIII an allowable manager any where of Controversies about the Papal Authority Were now indeed any Pope fit to preside in any Council wherein the Reformation of the Church is concerned it being notorious that Popes as such do most need Reformation that they are the great obstructours of it that all Christendom hath a long time a Controversie with them for their detaining it in bondage In this and many other cases we may reject their Presidency as implying iniquity according to the Rule of an old Pope I would know of them where they would have that judgment they pretend examin'd what by themselves that the same may be adversaries witnesses and judges to such
judgment as this even humane affairs are not to be trusted much less the integrity of the divine Law It is not reasonable that any person should have such a Prerogative which would be an engine of mischief for thereby bearing sway in general Assemblies of Bishops he would be enabled and irresistibly tempted to domineer over the world to abuse Princes and disturb States to oppress and enslave the Church to obstruct all Reformation to enact Laws to promote and establish Errours serviceable to his Interest the which effects of such power exercised by him in the Synod of Trent and in divers other of the later General Synods experience hath declared III. If the Pope were Sovereign of the Church the Legislative power wholly or in part would belong to him so far at least that no Synod or Ecclesiastical Consistory could without his consent determine or prescribe any thing His approbation would be required to give life and validity to their Decrees He should at least have a negative so that nothing might pass against his will This is a most essential ingredient of Sovereignty and is therefore claimed by the Pope who long hath pretended that no Decrees of Synods are valid without his consent and confirmation But the Decrees made by the Holy Popes of the chief See of the Roman Church by whose authority and sanction all Synods and holy Councils are strengthened and established why do you say that you do not receive and observe them Lastly as you know nothing is accounted valid or to be receiv'd in universal Councils but what the See of Saint Peter has approv'd so on the other side whatever she alone has rejected that onely is rejected We never read of any Synod that was valid unless it were confirm'd by the Apostolick authority We trust no true Christian is now ignorant that no See is above all the rest more oblig'd to observe the Constitution of each Council which the consent of the universal Church hath approv'd than the prime See which by its authority confirms every Synod and by continued moderating preserves them according to its principality c. But this pretence as it hath no ground in the Divine Law or in any old Canon or in primitive Custom so it doth cross the sentiments and practice of Antiquity for that in ancient Synods divers things were ordained without the Pope's consent divers things against his pleasure What particular or formal confirmation did Saint Peter yield to the Assembly at Jerusalem That in some of the first General Synods he was not apprehended to have any negative voice is by the very tenour and air of things or by the little regard expressed toward him sufficiently clear There is not in the Synodical Epistles of Nice or of Sardica any mention of his confirmation Interpretatively all those Decrees may be supposed to pass without his consent which do thwart these pretences for if these are now good then of old they were known and admitted for such and being such we cannot suppose the Pope willingly to have consented in derogation to them Wherefore the Nicene Canons establishing Ecclesiastical administrations without regard to him and in authority equalling other Metropolitans with him may be supposed to pass without his consent The Canons of the Second General Council and of all others confirming those as also the Canons of all Synods which advanced the See of Constantinople his Rival for Authority above its former state first to a proximity in Order then to an equality of Privileges with the See of Rome may as plainly contrary to his interest and spirit be supposed to pass without his consent And so divers Popes have affirmed if we may believe Pope Leo as I suppose the Canons of the Second Council were not transmitted to Rome they did therefore pass and obtain in practice of the Catholick Church without its consent or knowledge Pope Gregory I. saith that the Roman Church did not admit them wherein it plainly discorded with the Catholick Church which with all reverence did receive and hold them and in despight to the Canon of that Synod advancing the Royal City to that eminency Pope Gelasius I. would not admit it for so much as a Metropolitan See O proud insolency O contentious frowardness O rebellious contumacy against the Catholick Church and its peace Such was the humour of that See to allow nothing which did not sute with the interest of its Ambition But farther divers Synodical Decrees did pass expresly against the Pope's mind and will I pass over those at Tyre at Antioch at Ariminum at Constantinople in divers places of the East the which do yet evince that commonly there was no such Opinion entertained of this privilege belonging to the Pope and shall instance onely in General Synods In the Synod of Chalcedon equal privileges were assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople as the Bishop of Rome had this with a general concurrence was decreed and subscribed although the Pope's Legates did earnestly resist clamour and protest against it The Imperial Commissioners and all the Bishops not understanding or not allowing the Pope's negative voice And whereas Pope Leo moved with a jealousie that he who thus had obtained an equal rank with him should aspire to get above him did fiercely dispute exclaim inveigh menace against this Order striving to defeat it pretending to annull it labouring to depress the Bishop of Constantinople from that degree which both himself and his Legates in the Synod had acknowledged due to him In which endeavour divers of his Successours did imitate him Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum said I have willingly subscrib'd because I have read this Canon to the most holy Pope of Rome the Clergy of Constantinople being present and he receiv'd it Yet could not he or they accomplish their design the veneration of that Synod and consent of Christendom overbearing their opposition the Bishop of Constantinople sitting in all the succeeding General Synods in the second place without any contrast so that at length Popes were fain to acquiesce in the Bishop of Constantinople's possession of the second place in dignity among the Patriarchs In the Fifth General Synod Pope Vigilius did make a Constitution in most express terms prohibiting the condemnation of the three Chapters as they are called and the anathematization of persons deceased in peace of the Church We dare not our selves says he condemn Theodorus neither do we yield to have him condemn'd by any other and in the same Constitution he orders and decrees That nothing be said or done by any to the injury or discredit of Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus a man most approv'd in the Synod of Chalcedon and the same says he have the Decrees of the Apostolical See determined that no man pass a new judgment upon persons dead but leave them as death found them Lastly by that Constitution he specially provides that as he had before said nothing might
Bishop might alledge all having a like right and common interest to Vote in those Assemblies 3. Accordingly the dissent of other Bishops particularly of those eminent in dignity or merit is also alledged in exception which had been needless if his alone dissent had been of so very peculiar force 4. The Emperour and many other Bishops did not know of any peculiar necessity of his confirmation Again it may be objected that Popes have voided the Decrees of General Synods as did Pope Leo the Decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon concerning the Privileges of the Constantinopolitan See in these blunt words But the agreements of Bishops repugnant to the Holy Canons made at Nice your faith and piety joyning with us we make void and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Saint Peter by a general determination we disanull and in his Epistle to those of that Synod For however vain conceit may arm it self with extorted compliances and think its wilfulness sufficiently strengthened with the name of Councils yet whatever is contrary to the Canons of the above-nam'd fathers will be weak and void Lastly in his Epistle to Maximus Bishop of Antioch he says He has such a reverence for the Nicene Canons that he will not permit or endure that what those holy fathers have determined be by any novelty violated This behaviour of Pope Leo although applauded and imitated by some of his Successours I doubt not to except against in behalf of the Synod that it was disorderly factious and arrogant proceeding indeed from ambition and jealousie the leading act of high presumption in this kind and one of the seeds of that exorbitant ambition which did at length overwhelm the dignity and liberty of the Christian Republick Yet for somewhat qualifying the business it is observable that he did ground his repugnancy and pretended annulling of that Decree or of Decrees concerning Discipline not so much upon his authority to cross General Synods as upon the inviolable firmness and everlasting obligation of the Nicene Canons the which he although against the reason of things and rules of Government did presume no Synod could abrogate or alter In fine this opposition of his did prove ineffectual by the sense and practice of the Church maintaining its ground against his pretence It is an unreasonable thing that the opinion or humour of one man no wiser or better commonly than others should be preferred before the common agreement of his brethren being of the same Office and Order with him so that he should be able to overthrow and frustrate the result of their meetings and consultations when it did not square to his conceit or interest especially seeing there is not the least appearance of any right he hath to such a Privilege grounded in Holy Scripture Tradition or Custom for seeing that Scripture hath not a syllable about General Synods seeing that no Rule about them is extant in any of the first Fathers till after 300 years seeing there was not one such Council celebrated till after that time seeing in none of the First General Synods any such Canon was framed in favour of that Bishop what ground of right could the Pope have to prescribe unto them or thwart their proceedings Far more reason there is in conformity to all former Rules and Practice that he should yield to all his Brethren than that all his Brethren should submit to him and this we see to have been the judgment of the Church declared by its Practice in the cases before touched IV. It is indeed a proper endowment of an absolute Sovereignty immediately and immutably constituted by God with no terms or rules limiting it that its will declared in way of Precept Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws the Abrogation of them the Dispensation with them should be observed This Privilege therefore in a high strein the Pope challengeth to himself asserting to his Decrees and Sentences the force and obligation of Laws so that the body of that Canon Law whereby he pretendeth to govern the Church doth in greatest part consist of Papal Edicts or Decretal Epistles imitating the Rescripts of Emperours and bearing the same force In Gratian we have these Aphorisms from Popes concerning this their Privilege No person ought to have either the will or the power to transgress the precepts of the Apostolick See Those things which by the Apostolick See have at several times been written for the Catholick faith for sound doctrines for the various and manifold exigency of the Church and the manners of the faithfull how much rather ought they to be preferr'd in all honour and by all men altogether upon all occasions whatsoever to be reverently received Those Decretal Epistles which most holy Popes have at divers times given out from the City of Rome upon their being consulted with by divers Bishops we decree that they be received with veneration If ye have not the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome ye are to be accused of neglect and carelesness but if ye have them yet observe them not ye are to be chidden and rebuk'd for your temerity All the Sanctions of the Apostolick See are so to be understood as if confirm'd by the voice of Saint Peter himself Because the Roman Church over which by the will of Christ we do preside is proposed for a mirrour and example whatsoever it doth determine whatsoever that doth appoint is perpetually and irrefragably to be observed by all men We who according to the plenitude of our power have a right to dispense above Law or right This See that which it might doe by its sole authority it is often pleased to define by consent of its Priests But this power he doth assume and exercise merely upon Usurpation and unwarrantably having no ground for it in original right or ancient practice Originally the Church hath no other General Law-giver beside our one Lord and one Law-giver As to practice we may observe 1. Anciently before the First General Synod the Church had no other Laws beside the Divine Laws or those which were derived from the Apostles by Traditional custom or those which each Church did enact for it self in Provincial Synods or which were propagated from one Church to another by imitation and compliance or which in like manner were framed and setled Whence according to different Traditions or different reasons and circumstances of things several Churches did vary in points of Order and Discipline The Pope then could not impose his Traditions Laws or Customs upon any Church if he did attempt it he was liable to suffer a repulse as is notorious in the case when Pope Victor would although rather as a Doctour than as a Law-giver have reduced the Churches of Asia to conform with the Roman in the time of celebrating Easter wherein he found not onely stout resistence but sharp reproof In St. Cyprian's time every Bishop had a free power according to his discretion
to govern his Church and it was deemed a tyrannical enterprise for one to prescribe to another or to require obedience from his Collegues as otherwhere by many clear allegations out of that Holy man we have shewed For none of us saith he makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by a tyrannical terrour compels his Collegues to a necessity of obedience since every Bishop according to the licence of his own liberty and power hath his own freedom and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another If any new Law were then introduced or Rule determined for common practice it was done by the general agreement of Bishops or of a preponderant multitude among them to whom the rest out of modesty and peaceableness did yield complyance according to that saying of the Roman Clergy to Saint Cyprian upon occasion of the debate concerning the manner of admitting lapsed persons to communion that Decree cannot be valid that hath not the consent of the major part The whole validity of such Laws or Rules did indeed wholly stand upon presumption of such consent whereby the common liberty and interest was secured 2. After that by the Emperours Conversion the Church enjoying secular protection and encouragement did reduce it self as into a closer union and freer communication of parts so into a greater uniformity of practice especially by means of great Synods wherein the Governours and Representatives of all Churches being called unto them and presumed to concur in them were ordained Sanctions taken to oblige all The Pope had indeed a greater stroke than formerly as having the first place in order or privilege of honour in Ecclesiastical Assemblies where he did concur yet had no casting Vote or real advantage above others all things passing by majority of Vote This is supposed as notorious in the Acts of the Fifth Council This say they is a thing to be granted that in Councils we must not regard the interlocution of one or two but those things which are commonly defined by all or by the most So also in the Fifth Council George Bishop of Constantinople saith that seeing every where the Council of the multitude or of the most doth prevail it is necessary to anathematize the persons before mentioned 3. Metropolitan Bishops in their Provinces had far more power and more surely grounded than the Pope had in the whole Church for the Metropolitans had an unquestioned authority settled by custome and confirmed by Synodical Decrees yet had not they a negative voice in Synodical debates for it is decreed in the Nicene Synod that in the designation of Bishops which was the principal affair in Ecclesiastical administrations plurality of votes should prevail It is indeed there said that none should be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the opinion of the Metropolitan but that doth not import a negative voice in him but that the transaction should not pass in his absence or without his knowledge advice and suffrage for so the Apostolical Canon to which the Nicene Fathers there did allude and refer meaning to interpret it doth appoint that the Metropolitan should doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the opinion of all that is without suffrage of the most concluding all for surely that Canon doth not give to each one a negative voice And so the Synod of Antioch held soon after that of Nice which therefore knew best the sense of the Nicene Fathers and how the custome went doth interpret it decreeing that a Bishop should not be ordained without a Synod and the presence of the Metropolitan of the Province in which Synod yet they determine that plurality of votes should carry it no peculiar advantage in the case being granted to the Metropolitan Seeing therefore Provincial Synods were more ancient than General and gave pattern to them if we did grant the same privilege to the Pope in General Synods as the Metropolitans had in Provincial which yet we cannot do with any good reason or ground yet could not the Pope thence pretend to an authority of making Laws by himself 4. It was then a passable opinion that He as one was in reason obliged to yield to the common judgment of his Collegues and Brethren as the Emperour Constantius told Pope Liberius that the Vote of the plurality of Bishops ought to prevail 5. When Pope Julius did seem to cross a rule of the Church by communicating with persons condemned by Synods the Fathers of Antioch did smartly recriminate against him shewing that they were not to receive Canons from him 6. So far was the Pope from prescribing Laws to others that he was looked upon as subject to the Laws of the Church no less than others as the Antiochene Fathers did suppose complaining to Pope Julius of his transgressing the Canons the which charge he doth not repell by pretending exemption but by declaring that he had not offended against the Canons and retorting the accusation against themselves as the African Fathers supposed when they told Pope Celestine that he could not admit persons to communion which had been excommunicated by them that being contrary to a Decree of the Nicene Synod as the Roman Church supposed it self when it told Marcian that they could not receive him without leave of his Father who had rejected him This the whole tenour of Ecclesiastical Canons sheweth they running in a general style never excepting the Pope from the Laws prescribed to other Bishops 7. The privilege of dispensing with Laws had then been a strange hearing when the Pope could in no case dispense with himself for infringing them without bringing clamour and censure upon him 8. It had indeed been a vain thing for Synods with so much trouble and solemnity to assemble if the Pope without them could have framed Laws or could with a puff of his mouth have blown away the results of them by dispensation 9. Even in the growth of Papal Dominion and after that the Seeds of Roman ambition had sprouted forth to a great bulk yet had not Popes the heart or face openly to challenge power over the universal Canons or exemption from them but pretended to be the chief observers guardians defenders and executours of them or of the Rights and Privileges of Churches established by them for while any footsteps of ancient liberty simplicity and integrety did remain a claim of paramount or lawless Authority would have been very ridiculous and very odious Pope Zosimus I. denieth that he could alter the Privileges of Churches 10. If they did talk more highly requiring observance to their Constitutions it was either in their own precinct or in the Provinces where they had a more immediate jurisdiction or in some corners of the West where they had obtained more sway and in some cases wherein their words were backed with other inducements to obedience for the Popes were commonly wise
expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who onely hath power to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of what we doe 3. Even the community of Bishops did not otherwise take notice of or intermeddle with the proceedings of any Bishop in his precinct and charge except when his demeanour did concern the general state of the Church intrenching upon the common faith or publick order and peace In other cases for one or more Bishops to meddle with the proceedings of their brother was taken for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pragmatical intrusion upon anothers business and an invasion of that Liberty which did belong to each Bishop by the grant of our Lord and the nature of his Office As by those passages of St. Cyprian and the declaration of the Synod with him doth appear 4. In cases needing decision for the publick good of the Church the Law and custom of the Church confirmed by the Nicene Synod did order that jurisdiction should be exercised and all causes finally determined in each Province so that no regard is had to the Pope no exception in favour of him being expressed or implyed The which Constitution if we believe Pope Leo himself cannot in any case by any power be revoked or infringed That is most expresly confirmed by the Synod of Antioch in the Code of the Universal Church If any Bishop accused of certain crimes shall be condemned by all the Bishops in the Province and all shall unanimously vote against him he shall not be judged again by others but the unanimous sentence of the Bishops of the Province shall remain valid Here is no consideration or exception from the Pope 5. Accordingly in practice Synods without regard or recourse to the Pope did judge Bishops upon offences charged against them 6. The execution of those judgments was entrusted to Metropolitan Bishops or had effect by the peoples consent for it being declared that any Bishop had incurred condemnation the people did presently desert him Every Bishop was obliged to confer his part to the execution as Pope Gelasius affirmeth 7. If the Pope had such judicial power seeing there were from the beginning so many occasions of exercising it there would have been extant in History many clear instances of it but few can be alledged and those as we shall see impertinent or insufficient 8. Divers Synods great and smaller did make Sanctions contrary to this pretence of the Pope appointing the decision of Causes to be terminated in each Diocese and prohibiting appeals to him which they would not have done if the Pope had originally or according to common law and custom a supreme judicial power 9. The most favourable of ancient Synods to Papal interest that of Sardica did confer on the Pope a power qualified in matter and manner of causing Episcopal causes to be revised which sheweth that before he had no right in such cases nor then had an absolute power 10. The Pope's power of judging Bishops hath been of old disclaimed as an illegal and upstart encroachment When the Pope first nibbled at this bait of ambition St. Cyprian and his Bishops did reprehend him for it The Bishop of Constantinople denied that Pope Gelasius alone might condemn him according to the Canons The Pope ranteth at it and reasoneth against it but hath no material argument or example for it concerning the Papal authority peculiarly beside the Sardican Canon 11. The Popes themselves have been judged for Misdemeanour Heresie Schism as hereafter we shall shew 12. The Popes did execute some judgments onely by a right common to all Bishops as Executours of Synodical Decrees 13. Other Bishops did pretend to Judicature by Privilege as Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem did pretend that to him did belong the Judgment of the Bishop of Antioch 14. The Popes were subject to the Emperours who when they pleased did interpose to direct or qualifie all Jurisdiction commanding the Popes themselves wherefore the Popes were not Judges Sovereign but subordinate Pope Gregory I. did refer the great Question about the title of Oecumenical Bishop to the judgment of the Emperour Mauricius These things will more fully appear in the discussion of the particulars concerning the chief Branches of Jurisdiction more especially under the Tenth Branch of Sovereignty They alledge that passage of Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius That the most blessed Bishop of Rome to whom Antiquity hath given a Priesthood over all hath a See and Power to judge both of Faith and Priests This was suggested by Pope Leo and his adherents to the young Emperour but it signifieth no more but that in the Judgment of Priests as of Faith he was to have his share or at most to be a leading person therein Theodosius a mature grave pious Prince did not regard that pretence of Leo nor the appeal of Flavianus VI. To the Sovereign of any State belongeth the Choice Constitution Confirmation Commissionating of all inferiour Magistrates that none uncapable unworthy or unfit for Offices or disaffected to the State be entrusted with the management of Affairs Wherefore the Pope doth claim and exercise these Prerogatives so far as he can pretending at least that no Bishop can be constituted without his designation or his licence and his confirmation of the nomination collation or election And these Privileges by the great Advocates are upon highest terms asserted to him In this matter may be distinguished 1. The Designation of the Person by Election or otherwise 2. The Confirmation of that 3. The Ordination or Consecration of him to his Office the which conferreth on him his Character and Authority 4. The Authority by which he acteth Into all these the Pope hath intruded himself and he will have a finger in them 1. He gladly would have drawn to himself the collation and disposal of all Benefices challenging a general right to dispose of all at his pleasure but not having been able wholly to deprive Princes and Patrons of their Nominations and Corporations of their Election yet he hath by Reservations Provisions Collations of Vacancies apud Sedem Resignations Devolutions and other such tricks extremely encroached on the rights of all to the infinite vexation damage and mischief of Christendom 2. He pretendeth that no Bishop shall be ordained without his Licence 3. He obligeth the person Ordained to swear obedience to him 4. He pretendeth that all Bishops are his Ministers and Deputies But no such Privileges have any foundation or warrant in Holy Scripture in Ancient Doctrine or in Primitive Usage they are all Encroachments upon the original Rights and Liberties of the Church derived from Ambition and Avarice subsisting upon Usurpation upheld by Violence This will appear from a Survey of Ancient Rules and Practices concerning this matter The first constitution after our Lord's decease of an Ecclesiastical person was that of Matthias into the vacant Apostolate or Bishoprick
consent of the order and people be observed let him who is to preside over all be chosen by all And Pope Nicholas I. Because we know the custom of your Royal City that none can arrive at the top of the highest Priestly power without the assent of the Ecclesiastical people and the Emperour's suffrage Now in all these proceedings it is most apparent that there was no regard had to the Pope or any thought of him out of his particular Territory which he had as Metropolitan or afterward as Primate in some parts of the West No where else had he the least finger in the Constitution of a Bishop any where through the whole Church no not of the least Clergy-man When by Saint Cyprian so largely and punctually the manner of Constituting Bishops is declared when the Nicene Canons and those of other Synods do so carefully prescribe about the Ordination of them when so many reports concerning the Election of Bishops do occur in History why is there not a tittle of mention concerning any special interest of the Roman Bishops about them So true is that of Alb. Crantzius There was no need then of Apostolical confirmation it was sufficient if the Election were approv'd by the Archbishop now the Church of Rome has assum'd to her self the rights of all Churches We may by the way observe that in the first times they had not so much as an absolute power of ordaining a Presbyter in the Church of his own City without leave of the Clergy and People as may be inferred from that passage in Eusebius where Pope Cornelius relateth that the Bishop who ordained Novatus being hindred from doing it by all the Clergy and by many of the Laity did request that it might be granted to him to ordain that one person and he that so hardly could ordain one Priest in his own Church what authority could he have to constitute Bishops in all other Churches To all these Evidences of Fact our Adversaries do oppose some Instances of Popes meddling in the Constitution of Bishops as Pope Leo I saith that Anatolius did by the favour of his assent obtain the Bishoprick of Constantinople The same Pope is alledged as having confirmed Maximus of Antioch The same doth write to the Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicar that he should confirm the Elections of Bishops by his authority He also confirmed Donatus an African Bishop we will that Donatus preside over the Lord's flock upon condition that he remember to send us an account of his faith Also Gregory I. doth complain of it as of an inordinate Act that a Bishop of Salonae was ordained without his knowledge Pope Damasus did confirm the Ordination of Peter Alexandrinus The Alexandrians saith Sozomen did render the Churches to Peter being returned from Rome with the Letters of Damasus which confirmed both the Nicene Decrees and his Ordination But what I pray doth Confirmation here signifie but approbation for did he otherwise confirm the Nicene Decrees did they need other confirmation To the former Instances we answer that being well considered they do much strengthen our Argument in that they are so few so late so lame so impertinent for if the Pope had enjoyed a power of constituting Bishops more instances of its exercise would have been producible indeed it could not be but that History would have been full of them the constitution of Bishops being a matter of continual use and very remarkable At least they might have found one Instance or other to alledge before the time of that busie Pope Leo in whose time and by whose means Papal Authority began to overflow its banks And those which they produce do no-wise reach home to the point Anatolius did obtain the Bishoprick of Constantinople by the help of the Emperour and by the assent of the Pope's favour what then Anatolius being put into that See in the room of Flavianus by the influence of Dioscorus whose Responsal he had been and having favoured the Eutychian Faction Pope Leo might thence have had a fair colour to disavow him as uncapable of that Function and Dignity he being so obnoxious both having such a flaw in his Ordination and having been guilty of great faults adherence to the party of Dioscorus and irregularly ordaining the Bishop of Antioch but he out of regard to the Emperour's intervention did acknowledge Anatolius for Bishop this was the favourable assent with which he upbraideth Anatolius having displeased him and what doth this signifie Again Pope Leo did not reject Maximus Bishop of Antioch from communion nor disclaimed his Ordination although liable to exception what then is this a confirmation of him No such matter it was onely which in such a vixonely Pope was a great favour a forbearance to quarrel with him as not duely ordained which any other Bishop might have done If a Pope had a flaw in his Ordination another Bishop might refuse him Again Pope Leo did injoin the Bishop of Thessalonica to confirm Ordinations what is that to the purpose It belonged to that Bishop as a Metropolitan by the Canons to confirm those in his Province or as a Primate to confirm those in his Diocese It belonged to him as the Pope's Vicar in those Territories to which the Pope had stretched his Jurisdiction to execute the Pope's Orders but what is this to Universal Authority It is certain that Illyricum was then in a more special manner subjected to the Pope's Jurisdiction than any of the other Eastern Churches what therefore he did there cannot be drawn into consequence as to other places The same may be said in answer to the complaint of Pope Gregory and to any the like Instances Moreover surreptitious presumptuous pragmatical intrusions or usurpations of power do not suffice to found a right in this or any other case to which purpose and wholly to invalidate any such pleas these Observations may be considered 1. There do occur divers Instances of Bishops who did meddle in Ordinations of other Bishops so as to bear great stroke in constituting them who did not thereby pretend to Universal Jurisdiction and it would be extremely ridiculous thence to infer they had any reasonable claim thereto Thus it was objected to Athanasius that he presum'd to ordain in Cities which did not belong to him Eusebius of Constantinople did obtrude Eusebius Emissenus to be Bishop of Alexandria Eustathius of Antioch did ordain Evagrius Bishop of Constantinople Euzoius delivered unto Lucius the Bishoprick of Alexandria Lucifer a Sardinian Bishop did ordain Paulinus Bishop of Antioch they for a Salvo say as the Pope's Legate but upon what ground or testimony why did not Historians tell us so much The Pope had then been hissed at if he had sent Legates about such errands it was indeed out of presumption and pragmatical zeal to serve a party then ordinary in persons addicted to all parties right and wrong it not being
disorderly Behaviour notoriously incurred they deemed incapable of the Office presuming their places ipso facto void This Pope Gelasius I. proposed for a Rule That not onely a Metropolitan but every other Bishop hath a Right to separate any persons or any place from the Catholick Communion according to the Rule by which his heresie is already condemned And upon this account did the Popes for so long time quarrel with the See of Constantinople because they did not expunge Acacius from the roll of Bishops who had communicated with Hereticks So did Saint Cyprian reject Marcianus Bishop of Arles for adhering to the Novatians So Athanasius was said to have deposed Arian Bishops and substituted others in their places So Acacius and his Complices deposed Macedonius and divers other Bishops And the Bishops of those times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 factiously applying a Rule taken for granted then deposed one another So Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem deposed Athanasius So Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned to depose Alexander of Constantinople if he would not admit Arius to communion Acacius and his Complices did extrude Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem He also deposed and expelled Cyril of Jerusalem and deposed many other Bishops at Constantinople Cyril deposed Nestorius and Nestorius deposed Cyril and Memnon Cyril and Juvenalis deposed John of Antioch John of Antioch with his Bishops deposed Cyril and Memnon Yea after the Synod of Ephesus John of Antioch gathering together many Bishops did depose Cyril Stephanus concerning Bassianus Because he had entred into the Church with swords therefore he was expelled out of it again by the holy Fathers both by Leo of Rome the Imperial City and by Flavianus by the Bishop of Alexandria and also by the Bishop of Antioch Anatolius of Constantinople did reject Timotheus of Alexandria Acacius Bishop of Constantinople did reject Petrus Fullo 3. St. Cyprian doth assert the power of Censuring Bishops upon needfull and just occasion to belong to all Bishops for maintenance of common Faith Discipline and Peace Therefore saith he writing to Pope Stephanus himself dear brother the body of Bishops is copious being coupled by the glue of concord and the band of unity that if any of our College shall attempt to frame a heresie or to tear and spoil the flock of Christ the rest may succour and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may gather together the sheep of our Lord into the flock The like Doctrine is that of Pope Celestine I. in his Epistle to the Ephesine Synod In matter of Faith any Bishop might interpose Judgment Theophilus did proceed to condemn the Origenists without regard to the Pope Epiphanius did demand satisfaction of John of Jerusalem 4. This common right of Bishops in some cases is confirmed by the nature of such Censures which consisted in disclaiming persons notoriously guilty of Heresie Schism or Scandal and in refusing to entertain communion with them which every Bishop as entitled to the common Interests of Faith and Peace might do 5. Indeed in such a case every Christian had a right yea an obligation to desert his own Bishop So John of Hierusalem having given suspicion of Errour in Faith St. Epiphanius did write Letters to the Monks of Palestine not to communicate with him till they were satisfied of his Orthodoxy Upon which account St. Hierome living in Palestine did decline communication with the Patriarch thereof asking him if it were any where said to him or commanded that without satisfaction concerning his faith they were bound to maintain communion with him So every Bishop yea every Christian hath a kind of Universal Jurisdiction 6. If any Pope did assume more than was allowed in this case by the Canons or was common to other Bishops of his rank it was an irregularity and an usurpation Nor would Examples if any were producible serve to justifie him or to ground a right thereto any more than the extravagant proceedings of other pragmatical and factious Bishops in the same kind whereof so many instances can be alledged can assert such a power to any Bishop 7. When the Pope hath attempted in this kind his power hath been disavowed as an illegal upstart pretence 8. Other Bishops have taken upon them when they apprehended cause to discard and depose Popes So did the Oriental Faction at Sardica depose Pope Julius for transgressing as they supposed the Laws of the Church in fostering hereticks and criminal persons condemned by Synods So did the Synod of Antioch threaten Deposition to the same Pope So did the Patriarch Dioscorus make shew to reject Pope Leo from communion So did St. Hilary anathematize Pope Liberius 9. Popes when there was great occasion and they had a great mind to exert their utmost power have not yet presumed by themselves without joint authority of Synods to condemn Bishops so Pope Julius did not presume to depose Eusebius of Nicomedia his great Adversary and so much obnoxious by his patronizing Arianism Pope Innocent did not censure Theophilus and his Complices who so irregularly and wrongfully had extruded St. Chrysostome although much displeased with them but endeavoured to get a General Synod to doe the business Pope Leo I. though a man of spirit and animosity sufficient would not without assistence of a Synod attempt to judge Dioscorus who had so highly provoked him and given so much advantage against him by favouring Eutyches and persecuting the Orthodox Indeed often we may presume that Popes would have deposed Bishops if they had thought it regular or if others commonly had received that opinion so that they could have expected success in their attempting it But they many times were angry when their horns were short and shewed their teeth when they could not bite 10. What has been done in this kind by Popes jointly with others or in Synods especially upon advantage when the cause was just and plausible is not to be ascribed to the authority of Popes as such It might be done with their influence not by their authority so the Synod of Sardica not Pope Julius cashiered the enemies of Athanasius so the Synod of Chalcedon not Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus so the Roman Synod not Pope Celestine checked Nestorius and that of Ephesus deposed him The whole Western Synod whereof he was President had a great sway 11. If Instances were Arguments of Right there would be other pretenders to the Deposing power Particular Bishops would have it as we before shewed 12. The People would have the power for they have sometimes deposed popes themselves with effect So of Pope Constantine Platina telleth us at length he is deposed by the people of Rome being very much provoked by the indignity of the matter 13. There are many Instances of Bishops being removed or deposed by the Imperial authority This power was indeed necessarily annexed to the Imperial dignity for all Bishops being Subjects
of the Emperour he could dispose of their persons so as not to suffer them to continue in a place or to put them from it as they demeaned themselves to his satisfaction or otherwise in reference to publick utility It is reasonable if they were disloyal or disobedient to him that he should not suffer them to be in places of such influence whereby they might pervert the people to disaffection It is fit that he should deprive them of temporalties The example of Solomon deposing Abiathar Constantine M. commanded Eusebius and Theogonius to depart out of the Cities over which they presided as Bishops Constantius deposed Paulus of Constantinople Constantius ejected all that would not subscribe to the Creed of Ariminum The Emperour Leo deposed Timotheus Aelurus for which Pope Leo did highly commend and thank him The Emperours discarded divers Popes Constantius banished Pope Liberius and caused another to be put in his room Otho put out John the Twelfth Justinian deposed Pope Silverius and banished Pope Vigilius Justinian banished Anastasius Bishop of Antioch extruded Anthimus of Constantinople and Theodosius of Alexandria Neither indeed was any great Patriarch effectually deposed without their power or leave Flavianus was supported by Theodosius against the Pope Dioscorus subsisted by the power of Theodosius Junior The Deposition of Dioscorus in the Synod of Chalcedon was voted with a reserve of If it shall please our most sacred and pious Lord. In effect the Emperours deposed all Bishops which were ordained beside their general Laws as Justinian having prescribed conditions and qualifications concerning the Ordinations of Bishops subjoineth But if any Bishop be ordained without using our forementioned Constitution we command you that by all means he be removed from his Bishoprick 14. The Instances alledged to prove the Pope's Authority in this case are inconcludent and invalid They alledge the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles concerning whom for abetting Novatianism St. Cyprian doth exhort Pope Stephanus that he would direct Letters to the Bishops of Gaul and the people of Arles that he being for his schismatical behaviour removed from communion another should be substituted in his room The Epistle grounding this Argument is questioned by a great Critick but I willingly admit it to be genuine seeing it hath the style and spirit of St. Cyprian and suteth his Age and I see no cause why it should be forged wherefore omitting that defence I answer that the whole matter being seriously weighed doth make rather against the Pope's cause than for it for if the Pope had the sole or Sovereign authority of rejecting Bishops why did the Gaulish Bishops refer the matter to St. Cyprian why had Marcianus himself a recourse to him St. Cyprian doth not ascribe to the Pope any peculiar authority of Judgment or Censure but a common one which himself could exercise which all Bishops might exercise It is saith he our part to provide and succour in such a case for therefore is the body of Priests so numerous that by joint endeavour they may suppress heresies and schisms The case being such St. Cyprian earnestly doth move Pope Stephanus to concur in exercise of Discipline on that Schismatick and to prosecute effectually the business by his Letters persuading his fellow-Bishops in France that they would not suffer Marcianus to insult over the College of Bishops for to them it seemeth the transaction did immediately belong To doe thus St. Cyprian implieth and prescribeth to be the Pope's special duty not onely out of regard to the common Interest but for his particular concernment in the case that schism having been first advanced against his Predecessours St. Cyprian also if we mark it covertly doth tax the Pope of negligence in not having soon enough joined with himself and the community of Bishops in censuring that Delinquent We may add that the Church of Arles and Gaul being near Italy the Pope may be allowed to have some greater sway there than otherwhere in more distant places so that St. Cyprian thought his Letters to quicken Discipline there might be proper and particularly effectual These things being duly considered what advantage can they draw from this Instance doth it not rather prejudice their cause and afford a considerable objection against it We may observe that the strength of their argumentation mainly consisteth in the words quibus abstento the which as the drift of the whole Epistle and parallel expressions therein do shew do signifie no more than quibus efficiatur ut abstento which may procure him to be excomunicated not quae contineant abstentionem which contain excommunication as P. de Marca glosseth although admitting that sense it would not import much seeing onely thereby the Pope would have signified his consent with other Bishops wherefore de Marca hath no great cause to blame us that we do not deprehend any magnificent thing in this place for the dignity of the Papal See indeed he hath I must confess better eyes than I who can see any such mighty things there for that purpose As for the substitution of another in the room of Marcianus that was a consequent of the excommunication and was to be the work of the Clergy and people of the place for when by common judgment of Catholick Bishops any Bishop was rejected the people did apply themselves to chuse another I adjoin the Resolution of a very learned writer of their communion in these words In this case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles if the right of excommunication did belong solely to the Bishop of Rome wherefore did Faustinus Bishop of Lyons advertise Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who was so far distant concerning those very things touching Marcianus which both Faustinus himself and other Bishops of the same Province had before sent word of to Stephen Bishop of Rome who lived nearest being moreover of all Bishops the chief It must either be said that this was done because of Stephen's negligence or what is more probable according to the discipline then used in the Church that all Bishops of neighbouring places but especially those presiding over the most eminent Cities should join their Counsels for the welfare of the Church and that Christian Religion might not receive the least damage in any of its affairs whatsoever Hence it was that in the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles the Bishop of Lyons writ Letters to the Bishop of Rome and Carthage and again that the Bishop of Carthage as being most remote did write to the Bishop of Rome as being his brother and Collegue who by reason of his propinquity might more easily know and judge of the whole matter The other Instances are of a later date after the Synod of Nice and therefore of not so great weight yea their having none more ancient to produce doth strongly make against the antiquity of this right it being strange that no memory should be of any deposed
thereby for above three hundred years but however such as they are they do not reach home to the purpose They alledge Flavianus Bishop of Antioch deposed by Pope Damasus as they affirm But it is wonderfull they should have the face to mention that Instance the story in short being this The great Flavianus a most worthy and Orthodox Prelate whom St. Chrysostome in his Statuary Orations doth so highly commend and celebrate being substituted in the place of Meletius by the Quire of Bishops a party did adhere to Paulinus and after his decease they set up Evagrius ordaining him as Theodoret who was best acquainted with passages on that side of Christendom reporteth against many Canons of the Church Yet with this party the Roman Bishops not willing to know any of these things three of them in order Damasus Siricius Anastasius did conspire instigating the Emperour against Flavianus and reproaching him as supporter of a Tyrant against the Laws of Christ. But the Emperour having called Flavianus to him and received much satisfaction in his demeanour and discourse did demand and settle him in his place The Emperour saith Theodoret wondring at his courage and his wisedom did command him to return home and to feed the Church committed to him at which proceeding when the Romans afterward did grumble the Emperour gave them such reasons and advices that they complyed and did entertain communion with Flavianus It is true that upon their suggestions and clamours the Emperour was moved at first to order that Flavianus should go to Rome and give the Western Bishops satisfaction but after that he understood the quality of his plea he freed him of that trouble and without their allowance settled him in his See Here is nothing of the Pope's deposing Flavianus but of his embracing in a Schism the side of a Competitour it being in such a case needfull that the Pope or any other Bishop should chuse with whom he must communicate and consequently must disclaim the other in which choice the Pope had no good success not deposing Flavianus but vainly opposing him wherefore this allegation is strangely impertinent and well may be turned against them Indeed in this Instance we may see how fallible that See was in their judgment of things how rash in taking parties and somenting discords how pertinacious in a bad cause how peevish against the common sense of their brethren especially considering that before this opposition of Flavianus the Fathers of Constantinople had in their Letter to Pope Damasus and the Occidental Bishops approved and commended him to them highly asserting the legitimateness of his Ordination In fine how little their authority did avail with wise and considerate persons such as Theodosius M. was De Marca representeth the matter somewhat otherwise out of Socrates but take the matter as Socrates hath it and it signifieth no more than that both Theophilus and Damasus would not entertain communion with Flavianus as being uncapable of the Episcopal Order for having violated his Oath and caused a division in the Church of Antioch what is this to judicial Deposition and how did Damasus more depose him than Theophilus who upon the same dissatisfaction did in like manner forbear communion whenas indeed a wiser and better man than either of them St. Chrysostome did hold communion with him and did at length saith Socrates not agreeing with Theodoret reconcile him to them both They alledge the Deposition of Nestorius But who knoweth not that he was for heretical Doctrine deposed in and by a General Synod Pope Celestine did indeed threaten to withdraw his communion if he did not renounce his errour But had not any other Bishop sufficient authority to desert a perverter of the Faith Did not his own Clergy doe the same being commended by Pope Celestine for it Did not Cyril in writing to Pope Celestine himself affirm that he might before have declared that he could not communicate with him Did Nestorius admit the Pope's judgment no as the Papal Legates did complain He did not admit the constitution of the Apostolical Chair Did the Pope's Sentence obtain effect No not any for notwithstanding his threats Nestorius did hold his place till the Synod the Emperour did severely rebuke Cyril for his fierceness and implicitly the Pope and did order that no change should be made till the Synod should determine in the case not regarding the Pope's judgment So that this instance may well be retorted or used to prove the insignificancy of Papal authority then They alledge also Dioscorus of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo but the case is very like to that of Nestorius and argueth the contrary to what they intend He was for his misdemeanours and violent countenancing of heresie solemnly in a General Synod accused tried condemned and deposed the which had long before been done if in the Pope his professed and provoked Adversary there had been sufficient power to effect it Bellarmine also alledgeth Pope Sixtus III. deposing Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem But no such Polychronius is to be found in the Registers of Bishops then or in the Histories of that busie time between the two great Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the Acts of Sixtus upon which this allegation is grounded have so many inconsistences and smell so rank of forgery that no conscionable nose could endure them and any prudent man as Binius himself confesseth would assert them to be spurious Wherefore Baronius himself doth reject and despise them who gladly would lose no advantage for his Master Yet Pope Nicholas I. doth precede Bellarmine in citing this trash no wonder that being the Pope who did avouch the wares of Isidore Mercator They alledge Timotheus the Usurper of Alexandria deposed by Pope Damasus and they have indeed the sound of words attesting to them These are Heads upon which the B. Damasus deposed the Hereticks Apolinarius Vitalius and Timotheus The truth is that Apolinarius with divers of his Disciples in a great Synod at Rome at which Petrus Bishop of Alexandria together with Damasus was present was condemned and disavowed for heretical Doctrine whence Sozomen saith that the Apolinarian Heresie was by Damasus and Peter at a Synod in Rome voted to be excluded from the Catholick Church On which account if we conclude that the Pope had an authority to depose Bishops we may by like reason infer that every Patriarch and Metropolitan had a power to doe the like there being so many Instances of their having condemned and disclaimed Bishops supposedly guilty of heresie as particularly John of Antioch with his convention of Oriental Bishops did pretend to depose Cyril and Memnon as guilty of the same Apolinarian heresie alledging that to exscind them was the same thing as to settle Orthodoxy The which Deposition was at first admitted by the Emperour The next Instance is of Pope Agapetus in Justinian's time for so deep into time is
no more than acknowledging a person although rejected by undue Sentence to be de jure worthy of communion and capable of the Episcopal Office upon which may be consequent an Obligation to communicate with him and to allow him his due Character according to the Precept of Saint Paul Follow righteousness faith charity peace with them that call upon the Lord with a pure heart This may be done when any man notoriously is persecuted for the Truth and Righteousness Or when the iniquity and malice of pretended Judges are apparent to the oppression of Innocence Or when the Process is extremely irregular as in the cases of Athanasius of St. Chrysostome And this is not an act of Jurisdiction but of Equity and Charity incumbent on all Bishops And there are promiscuous Instances of Bishops practising it Thus Socrates saith that Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem did restore communion and dignity to Athanasius And so Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch being reconciled and reduced to a good understanding of each other did restore to each other their Sees rescinding the Censures which in heat they had denounced each on other Which sheweth that Restitution is not always taken for an act of Jurisdiction wherein one is Superiour to another for those persons were in rank and power co-ordinate 2. Restitution sometime doth import no more than a considerable influence toward the effects of restoring a person to communion or Office no judicial act being exercised about the case The Emperour writing that Paulus and Athanasius should be restor'd to their Sees availed nothing That was a Restitution without effect Thus a Pope's avowing the Orthodoxy or Innocence or Worth of a person after a due information about them by reason of the Pope's eminent rank in the Church and the regard duely had to him might sometimes much conduce to restore a person and might obtain the name of Restitution by an ordinary scheme of speech 3. Sometimes persons said to be restored by Popes are also said to be restored by Synods with regard to such instance or testimony of Popes in their behalf In which case the Judicial Restitution giving right of Recovery and completion thereto was the act of the Synod 4. When Cases were driven to a legal debate Popes could not effectually resolve without a Synod their single acts not being held sufficiently valid So notwithstanding the Declarations of Pope Julius in favour of Athanasius for the effectual resolution of his case the great Synod of Sardica was convened So whatever Pope Innocent I. did endeavour he could not restore St. Chrysostome without a General Synod Nor could Pope Leo restore Flavianus deposed in the Second Ephesine Synod without convocation of a General Synod the which he did so often sue for to the Emperour Theodosius for that purpose Pope Simplicius affirmed that Petrus Moggus having been by a common decree condemned as an adulterer or Usurper of the Alexandrian See could not without a common Council be freed from condemnation 5. Particular instances do not ascertain right to the Person who assumeth any power for busie bodies often will exceed their bounds 6. Emperours did sometimes restore Bishops Constantine as he did banish Eusebius of Nicomedia and others so he did revoke and restore them so says Socrates They were recall'd from banishment by the Emperour's command and receiv'd their Churches Theodosius did assert to Flavianus his right whereof the Popes did pretend to deprive him which did amount to a Restitution at least to the Romanists who do assert Flavianus to be deposed by the Popes Instantius and Priscillianus were by the rescript of the Emperour Gratianus restored to their Churches Justinian did order Pope Silverius to be restored in case he could prove his Innocence 7. Commonly Restitution was not effectual without the Emperour's consent whence Theodoret although allowed by the great Synod did acknowledge his Restitution especially due to the Emperour as we shall see in reflecting on his case Now to the particular Instances produced for the Pope we answer 1. They pretend that Pope Stephanus did restore Basilides and Martialis Spanish Bishops who had been deposed for which they quote St. Cyprian's Epistle where he says Basilides going to Rome imposed upon our Collegue Stephen who lived a great way off and was ignorant of the truth of the matter seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bishoprick from which he had justly been deposed But we answer The Pope did attempt such a Restitution by way of Influence and Testimony not of Jurisdiction wherefore the result of his act in St. Cyprian's judgment was null and blameable which could not be so deemed if he had acted as a Judge for a favourable Sentence passed by just Authority is valid and hardly liable to Censure The Clergy of those places notwithstanding that pretended Restitution did conceive those Bishops uncapable and did request the judgment of St. Cyprian about it which argueth the Pope's judgment not to have been peremptory and prevalent then in such cases St. Cyprian denieth the Pope or any other person to have power of restoring in such a case and exhorteth the Clergy to persist in declining the communion of those Bishops Well doth Rigaltius ask why they should write to St. Cyprian if the judgment of Stephanus was decisive and he addeth that indeed the Spaniards did appeal from the Roman Bishop to him of Carthage No wonder seeing the Pope had no greater authority and probably St. Cyprian had the fairer reputation for wisedom and goodness Considering which things what can they gain by this Instance which indeed doth considerably make against them 2. They alledge the Restitution of Athanasius and of others linked in cause with him by Pope Julius He says Sozomen as having the care of all by reason of the dignity of his See restored to each his own Church I answer the Pope did not restore them judicially but declaratively that is declaring his approbation of their right and innocence did admit them to communion Julius in his own Defence did alledge that Athanasius was not legally rejected so that without any prejudice to the Canons he might receive him and the doing it upon this account plainly did not require any Act of Judgment Nay it was necessary to avow those Bishops as suffering in the cause of the common Faith Besides the Pope's proceeding was taxed and protested against as irregular nor did he defend it by virtue of a general power that he had judicially to rescind the acts of Synods And lastly the Restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops had no complete effect till it was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica backed by the Imperial authority which in effect did restore them This instance therefore is in many respects deficient as to their purpose 3. They produce Marcellus being restored by the same Pope Julius But that Instance beside the forementioned defects hath this that the
be deaf to the complaints of the whole World or make as if you were so why sleep you when will the consideration of so great confusion and abuse in appeals awake in you they are made without right or equity without due order and against custome Neither place nor manner nor time nor cause nor person are considered they are every where made lightly and for the most part unjustly with much more passionate language to the same purpose But in the Primitive Church the Pope had no such power 1. Whereas in the first times many causes and differences did arise wherein they who were condemned and worsted would readily have resorted thither where they might have hoped for remedy if Rome had been such a place of refuge it would have been very famous for it and we should find History full of such examples whereas it is very silent about them 2. The most ancient Customs and Canons of the Church are flatly repugnant to such a power for they did order causes finally to be decided in each Province So the Synod of Nice did Decree as the African Fathers did alledge in defence of their refusal to allow appeals to the Pope The Nicene decrees said they most evidently did commit both Clergymen of inferiour degrees and Bishops to their Metropolitans So Theòph in his Epistle I suppose you are not ignorant what the Canons of the Nicene Council command ordaining that a Bishop should judge no cause out of his own district 3. Afterward when the Diocesan administration was introduced the last resort was decreed to the Synods of them or to the Primates in them all other appeals being prohibited as dishonourable to the Bishops of the Diocese reproaching the Canons and subverting Ecclesiastical Order To which Canon the Emperour Justinian referred For it is decreed by our Ancestours that against the Sentence of these Prelates there should be no Appeal So Constantius told Pope Liberius that those things which had a form of Judgment past on them could not be rescinded This was the practice at least in the Eastern parts of the Church in the times of Justinian as is evident by the Constitutions extant in the Code and in the Novels 4. In derogation to this pretence divers Provincial Synods expresly did prohibit all Appeals from their decisions That of Milevis Let them appeal onely to African Councils or the Primates of Provinces and he who shall think of appealing beyond Sea let him be admitted into communion by none in Africk For if the Nicene Council took this care of the inferiour Clergy how much more did they intend it should relate to Bishops also 5. All persons were forbidden to entertain communion with Bishops condemned by any one Church which is inconsistent with their being allowed relief at Rome 6. This is evident in the case of Marcion by the assertion of the Roman Church at that time 7. When the Pope hath offered to receive Appeals or to meddle in cases before decided he hath found opposition and reproof Thus when Felicissimus and Fortunatus having been censured and rejected from communion in Africk did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius with supplication to be admitted by him Saint Cyprian maintaineth that fact to be irregular and unjust and not to be countenanced for divers reasons Likewise when Basilides and Martialis being for their crimes deposed in Spain had recourse to Pope Stephanus for Restitution the Clergy and People there had no regard to the judgment of the Pope the which their resolution Saint Cyprian did commend and encourage When Athanasius Marcellus Paulus c. having been condemned by Synods did apply themselves for relief to Pope Julius the Oriental Bishops did highly tax this course as irregular disclaiming any power in him to receive them or meddle in their cause Nor could Pope Julius by any Law or Instance disprove their plea Nor did the Pope assert to himself any peculiar authority to revise the Cause or otherwise justifie his proceeding than by right common to all Bishops of vindicating Right and Innocence which were oppressed and of asserting the Faith for which they were persecuted Indeed at first the Oriental Bishops were contented to refer the cause to Pope Julius as Arbitratour which signifieth that he had no ordinary right but afterward either fearing their Cause or his Prejudice they started and stood to the canonicalness of the former decision The contest of the African Church with Pope Celestine in the Cause of Apiarius is famous and the Reasons which they assign for repelling that Appeal are very notable and peremptory 8. Divers of the Fathers alledge like reasons against Appeals Saint Cyprian alledgeth these 1. Because there was an Ecclesiastical Law against them 2. Because they contain iniquity as prejudicing the right of each Bishop granted by Christ in governing his flock 3. Because the Clergy and People should not be engaged to run gadding about 4. Because Causes might better be decided there where witnesses of fact might easily be had 5. Because there is every where a competent authority equal to any that might be had otherwhere 6. Because it did derogate from the gravity of Bishops to alter their Censure Pope Liberius desired of Constantius that the Judgment of Athanasius might be made in Alexandria for such reasons because there the accused the accusers and their defender were St. Chrysostome's Argument against Theophilus meddling in his case may be set against Rome as well as Alexandria 9. St. Austin in matter of appeal or rather of reference to candid Arbitration more proper for Ecclesiastical causes doth conjoin other Apostolical Churches with that of Rome For the business says he was not about Priests and Deacons or the inferiour Clergy but the Collegues Bishops who may reserve their cause entire for the judgment of their Collegues especially those of the Apostolical Churches He would not have said so if he had apprehended that the Pope had a peculiar right of revising Judgments 10. Pope Damasus or rather Pope Siricius doth affirm himself incompetent to judge in a case which had been afore determined by the Synod of Capua but says he since the Synod of Capua has thus determined it we perceive we cannot judge it 11. Anciently there were no Appeals properly so called or jurisdictional in the Church they were as Socrates telleth us introduced by Cyril of Hierusalem who first did appeal to a greater Judicature against Ecclesiastical rule and custome This is an Argument that about that time a little before the great Synod of Constantinople greater Judicatories or Diocesan Synods were established whenas before Provincial Synods were the last resorts 12. Upon many occasions Appeals were not made to the Pope as in all likelihood they would have been if it had been supposed that a power of receiving them did belong to him Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to the Emperour The Donatists did not appeal to the Pope
and proving ineffectual These are all the Instances which the first three hundred years did afford so that all that time this great Privilege lay dormant He alledgeth the recourse of Athanasius to Pope Julius but this was not properly to him as to a Judge but as to a fellow-Bishop a friend of truth and right for his succour and countenance against persecutours of him chiefly for his Orthodoxy The Pope did undertake to examine his Plea partly as Arbitratour upon reference of both Parties partly for his own concern to satisfie himself whether he might admit him to communion And having heard and weighed things the Pope denied that he was condemned in a legal way by competent Judges and that therefore the pretended Sentence was null and consequently he did not undertake the cause as upon Appeal But whereas his proceeding did look like an exercise of Jurisdiction derogatory to a Synodical resolution of the case he was opposed by the Oriental Bishops as usurping an undue power Unto which charge he doth not answer directly by asserting to himself any such authority by Law or Custome but otherwise excusing himself In the issue the Pope's Sentence was not peremptory untill upon examining the merits of the cause it was approved for just as to matter by the Synod of Sardica These things otherwhere we have largely shewed and consequently this Instance is deficient He alledgeth St. Chrysostome as appealing to Pope Innocent I. but if you reade his Epistles to that Pope you will find no such matter he doth onely complain and declare to him the iniquity of the process against him not as to a Judge but as to a friend and fellow-Bishop concerned that such injurious and mischievous dealings should be stopped requesting from him not judgment of his cause but succour in procuring it by a General Synod to which indeed he did appeal as Sozomen expresly telleth us and as indeed he doth himself affirm Accordingly Pope Innocent did not assume to himself the judgment of his cause but did endeavour to procure a Synod for it affirming it to be needfull why so if his own Judgment according to his Privilege did suffice why indeed did not Pope Innocent being well satisfied in the case yea passionately touched with it presently summon Theophilus and his adherents undertaking the Trial did Pope Nicholas I. proceed so in the case of Rhotaldus why was he content onely to write Consolatory Letters to him and to his people not pretending to undertake the decision of his cause If the Pope had been endowed with such a Privilege it is morally impossible that it should not have shone forth clearly upon this occasion it could hardly be that St. Chrysostome himself should not in plain terms avow it that he should not formally apply to it as the most certain and easie way of finding relief that he should not earnestly mind and urge the Pope to use his Privilege why should he speak of that tedious and difficult way of a General Synod when so short and easie a way was at hand but the truth is he did not know any such power the Pope had by himself St. Chrysostome rather did conceive all such foreign Judicatures to be unreasonable and unjust for the Argument which he darteth at Theophilus doth as well reach the Papal Jurisdiction upon Appeals for It was saith he not congruous that an Egyptian should judge those in Thrace why not an Egyptian as well as an Italian and If saith he this custome should prevail and it become lawfull for those who will to go into the Parishes of others even from such distances and to cast out whom any one pleaseth doing by their own authority what they please know that all things will go to wreck Why may not this be said of a Roman as well as of an Alexandrian St. Chrysostome also we may observe did not onely apply himself to the Pope but to other Western Bishops particularly to the Bishops of Milain and Aquileia whom he called Beatissimi Domini did appeal to them He alledgeth Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople appealing to Pope Leo but let us consider the story Flavianus for his Orthodoxy or upon other accounts very injuriously treated and oppressed by Dioscorus who was supported by the favour of the Imperial Court having in his case no other remedy did appeal to the Pope who alone among the Patriarchs had dissented from those proceedings The Pope was himself involved in the cause being of the same persuasion having been no less affronted and hardly treated considering their power and that he was out of their reach and condemned by the same Adversaries To him therefore as to the leading Bishop of Christendom in the first place interested in defence of the common Faith together with a Synod not to him as sole Judge did Flavianus appeal He saith Placidia in her Letter to Theodosius did appeal to the Apostolick See and to all the Bishops of these parts that is to the rest of Christendom which were not engaged in the Party of Dioscorus and to whom else could he have appealed Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith that he did appeal according to the manner of Synods and whatever those words signifie that could not be to the Pope as a single Judge for before that time in whatever Synod was such an appeal made what custome could there be favourable to such a pretence But what his Appeal did import is best interpretable by the proceeding consequent which was not the Pope's assuming to himself the Judicature either immediately or by delegation of Judges but endeavouring to procure a General Synod for it the which endeavour doth appear in many Epistles to Theodosius and to his Sister Pulcheria soliciting that such a Synod might be indicted by his order All the Bishops saith Pope Leo with sighs and tears do supplicate your Grace that because our Agents did faithfully reclaim and Bishop Flavianus did present them a libel of appeal you would command a General Synod to be celebrated in Italy Dioscorus and his Party would scarce have been so silly as to condemn Flavianus if they had known which if it had been a case clear in law or obvious in practice they could not but have known that the Pope who was deeply engaged in the same cause had a power to reverse and revenge their proceedings Nor would the good Emperour Theodosius so pertinaciously have maintained the proceedings of that Ephesine Synod if he had deemed the Pope duly Sovereign Governour and Judge or that a right of ultimate Decision upon Appeal did appertain to him Nor had the Pope needed to have taken so much pains in procuring a Synod if he could have judged without it Nor would Pope Leo a man of so much spirit and zeal for the dignity of his See have been so wanting to the maintenance of his right as not immediately to have
proceeded unto Trial of the Cause without precarious attendence for a Synod if he thought his pretence to such Appeals as we now speak of to have been good or plausible in the world at that time The next case is that of Theodoret. His words indeed framed according to his condition needing the patronage of Pope Leo being then high in reputation do sound favourably but we abstracting from the sound of words must regard the reason of things His words are these I expect the suffrage of your Apostolick See and beseech and earnestly entreat your holiness to succour me who appeal to your right and just Judicature He never had been particularly or personally judged and therefore did not need to appeal as to a Judge nor therefore is his application to the Pope to be interpreted for such but rather as to a charitable succourer of him in his distress by his countenance and endeavour to relieve him He onely was supposed erroneous in Faith and a perillous abettour of Nestorianism because he had smartly contradicted Cyril which prejudice did cause him to be prohibited from coming to the Synod of Ephesus and there in his absence to be denounced Heterodox His Appeal then to the Pope having no other recourse in whom he did confide finding him to concur with himself in opinion against Eutychianism was no other than as the word is often used in common speech when we say I appeal to your judgment in this or that case a referring it to the Pope's consideration whether his Faith was sound and Orthodox capacitating him to retain his Office the which upon his explication and profession thereof presented in terms of extraordinary respect and deference the Pope did approve thereby as a good Divine rather than as a formal Judge acquitting him of Heterodoxy the which approbation in regard to the great opinion then had of the Pope's skill in those points and to the favour he had obtained by contesting against the Eutychians did bear great sway in the Synod so that although not without opposition of many and not upon absolute terms he was permitted to sit among the Fathers of Chalcedon Observations 1. We do not reade of any formal Trial the Pope made of Theodoret's case that he was cited that his Accusers did appear that his Cause was discussed but onely a simple approbation of him 2. We may observe that Theodoret did write to Flavianus in like terms We entreat your holiness to fight in behalf of the faith which is assaulted and to defend the Canons which are trampled under foot 3. We may observe that Theodoret expecting this favour of Pope Leo and thence being moved to commend the Roman See to the height and to reckon its special advantages doth not yet mention his Supremacy of Power or Universality of Jurisdiction For those words it befitteth you to be prime in all things are onely general words relating to the advantages which he subjoineth of which he saith for your throne is adorned with many advantages in a florid enumeration whereof he passeth over that of peculiar Jurisdiction he nameth the magnitude splendour majesty and populousness of the City the early faith praised by Saint Paul the Sepulchres of the two great Apostles and their decease there but the Pope's being Universal Sovereign and Judge which was the main advantage whereof that See could be capable he doth not mention why because he was not aware thereof else surely he would not have passed it in silence 4. We may also observe that whatever the opinion of Theodoret was now concerning the Pope's power he not long before did hardly take him for such a Judge when he did oppose Pope Celestine concurring with Cyril at the first Ephesine Synod He then indeed looking on Pope Celestine as a prejudiced Adversary did not write to him but to the other Bishops of the West as we see by those words in his Epistle to Domnus And we have written to the Bishops of the West about these things to him of Milain I say to him of Aquileia and him of Ravenna testifying c. 5. Yea we may observe that Theodoret did intend with the Emperour's leave to appeal or refer his cause to the whole body of Western Bishops as himself doth express in those words to Anatolius I do pray your magnificence that you would request this favour of our dread Sovereign that I may have recourse to the West and may be judged by the most religious and holy Bishops there Bellarmine farther doth alledge the appeal of Hadrianus Bishop of Thebes to Pope Gregory I. the which he received and asserted by excommunicating the Archbishop of Justiniana Prima for deposing Hadrianus without regard to that appeal I answer 1. The example is late when the Popes had extended their power beyond the ancient and due limits those Maxims had got in before the time of that worthy Pope who thought he might use the power of which he found himself possessed 2. It is impertinent because the Bishop of Justiniana had then a special dependence upon the Roman See from whence an Universal Jurisdiction upon appeal cannot be inferred 3. It might be an Usurpation nor doth the opinion or practice of Pope Gregory suffice to determine a question of right for good men are liable to prejudice and its consequences To these Instances produced by Bellarmine some add the Appeal of Eutyches to Pope Leo to which it may be excepted that if he did appeal it was not to the Pope solely but to him with the other Patriarchs so it is expresly said in the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod His deposition being read he did appeal to the Holy Synod of the most Holy Bishop of Rome and of Alexandria and of Jerusalem and of Thessalonica the which is an argument that he did not apprehend the right of receiving Appeals did solely or peculiarly belong to him of Rome Liberatus saith that Johannes Talaida went to Calendion Patriarch of Antioch and taking of him intercessory Synodical Letters appeal'd to Simplicius Bishop of Rome as Saint Athanasius had done and persuaded him to write in his behalf to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople In regard to any more Instances of this kind we might generally propose these following considerations 1. It is no wonder that any Bishop being condemned especially in causes relating to Faith or common Interest should have recourse to the Roman Bishop or to any other Bishop of great authority for refuge or for relief which they may hope to be procured by them by the influence of their reputation and their power among their dependents 2. Bad men being deservedly corrected will absurdly resort any whither with mouths full of clamour and calumny if not with hope of relief yet with design of revenge as did Marcion as did Felicissimus as did Apiarius to the Pope 3. Good men being abused will express some resentment and complain of their wrongs where they may
presume of a fair and favourable hearing so did Athanasius Flavianus St. Chrysostome Theodoret apply themselves to the same Bishops flourishing in so great reputation and wealth So did the Monks of Egypt Ammonius and Isidorus from the persecutions of Theophilus fly to the protection and succour of St. Chrysostome which gave occasion to the troubles of that incomparable Personage the which is so illustrious an instance that the words of the Historian relating it deserve setting down They jointly did endeavour that the trains against them might be examined by the Emperour as Judge and by the Bishop John for they conceived that he having conscience of using a just freedom would be able to succour them according to right but he did receive the men applying to him courteously and treated them respectfully and did not hinder them from praying in the Church He also writ to Theophilus to render communion to them as being Orthodox and if there were need of judging their case by law that he would send whom they thought good to prosecute the cause If this had been to the Pope it would have been alledged for an Appeal and it would have had as much colour as any Instance which they can produce 4. And when men either good or bad do resort in this manner to great friends it is no wonder if they accost them in highest terms of respect and with exaggerations of their eminent advantages so inducing them to regard and favour their cause 5. Neither is it strange that great persons favourably should entertain those who make such addresses to them they always coming crouching in a suppliant posture and with fair pretences it being also natural to men to delight in seeing their power acknowledged and it being a glorious thing to relieve the afflicted for Eminence is wont to incline toward infirmity and with a ready good will to take part with those who are under So when Basilides when Marcellus when Eustathius Sebastenus when Maximus the Cynick when Apiarius were condemned the Pope was hasty to engage for them more liking their application to him than weighing their cause 6. And when any person doth continue long in a flourishing estate so that such addresses are frequently made to him no wonder that an opinion of lawfull power to receive them doth arise both in him and in others so that of a voluntary Friend he become an authorized Protectour a Patron a Judge of such persons in such cases X. The Sovereign is fountain of all Jurisdiction and all inferiour Magistrates derive their Authority from his warrant and Commission acting as his Deputies or Ministers according to that intimation in St. Peter whether to the King as Supreme or to Governours as sent by him Accordingly the Pope doth challenge this advantage to himself that he is the fountain of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction pretending all Episcopal power to be derived from him The rule of the Church saith Bellarmine is Monarchical therefore all authority is in one and from him is derived to others the which Aphorism he well proveth from the form of creating Bishops as they call it We do provide such a Church with such a person and we do prefer him to be Father and Pastour and Bishop of the said Church committing to him the administration in temporals and spirituals in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Pope Pius II. in his Bull of Retractation thus expresseth the sense of his See In the militant Church which resembleth the triumphant there is one moderatour and Judge of all the Vicar of Jesus Christ from whom as from the Head all power and authority is derived to the subject members the which doth immediately flow into it from the Lord Christ. A Congregation of Cardinals appointed by Pope Paulus III. speaking after the style and sentiments of that See did say to him Your Holiness doth so bear the care of Christ's Church that you have very many Ministers by which you manage that care these are all the Clergy on whom the service of God is charged especially Priests and more especially Curates and above all Bishops Durandus Bishop of Mande according to the sense of his Age saith The Pope is head of all Bishops from whom they as members from an head descend and of whose fulness all receive whom he calls to a participation of his care but admits not into the fulness of his power This pretence is seen in the ordinary Titles of Bishops who style themselves Bishops of such a place By the grace of God and of the Apostolick See O shame The men of the Tridentine Convention those great betrayers of the Church to perpetual slavery and Christian truth to the prevalency of falshood till God pleaseth do upon divers occasions pretend to qualifie and empower Bishops to perform important matters originally belonging to the Episcopal Function as the Pope's Delegates But contrariwise according to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture and the sense of the Primitive Church the Bishops and Pastours of the Church do immediately receive their Authority and Commission from God being onely his Ministers The Scripture calleth them the Ministers of God and of Christ so Epaphras so Timothy in regard to their Ecclesiastical function are named the Stewards of God the Servants of God Fellow-servants of the Apostles The Scripture saith that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to feed the Church of God that God had given them and constituted them in the Church for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that is to all effects and purposes concerning their Office for the work of the Ministery comprizeth all the duty charged on them whether in way of Order or of Governance as they now do precariously and groundlesly in reference to this case distinguish And edifying the body doth import all the designed effects of their Office particularly those which are consequent on the use of Jurisdiction the which Saint Paul doth affirm was appointed for edification according saith he to the authority which God hath given me for edification and not for destruction They do preside in the Lord. They allow no other Head but our Lord from whom all the body c. The Fathers clearly do express their Sentiments to be the same St. Ignatius saith that the Bishop doth preside in the place of God and that we must look upon him as our Lord himself or as our Lord 's Representative that therefore we must be subject to him as unto Jesus Christ. St. Cyprian affirmeth each Bishop to be constituted by the judgment of God and of Christ and that in his Church he is for the present a Judge in the place of Christ and that our Lord Jesus Christ one and alone hath a power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting St. Basil A
or inferiour to a Senate or any Assembly in his Territory Therefore the Pope doth claim a Superiority over all Councils pretending that their determinations are invalid without his consent and confirmation that he can rescind or make void their Decrees that he can suspend their Consultations and translate or dissolve them And Baronius reckons this as one errour in Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes that he held as if the canons of councils were of greater authority in the Church of God than the decrees of Popes which says he how absurd and unreasonable an opinion it is c. That the authority of the Apostolick See in all Christian Ages has been preferred before the universal Church both the canons of our predecessours and manifold tradition do confirm This is a question stiffly debated among Romanists but the most as Aeneas Sylvius afterward Pope Pius II. did acutely observe with good reason to adhere to the Pope's side because the Pope disposeth of Benefices but Councils give none But in truth anciently the Pope was not understood Superiour to Councils for greater is the authority of the world than of one city says St. Hierome He was but one Bishop that had nothing to doe out of his precinct He had but his Vote in them He had the first Vote as the Patriarch of Alexandria the second of Antioch the third but that order neither gave to him or them any advantage as to decision but common consent or the suffrages of the majority did prevail He was conceived subject to the Canons no less than other Bishops Councils did examine matters decreed by him so as to follow or forsake them as they saw cause The Popes themselves did profess great veneration and observance of Conciliar Decrees Pope Leo I. did oppose a Canon of the Synod of Chalcedon not pretending his Superiority to Councils but the inviolability of the Nicene Canons but it notwithstanding that opposition did prevail Even in the dregs of times when the Pope had clambred so high to the top of power this Question in great numerous Synods of Bishops was agitated and positively decided against him both in Doctrine and practice The Synod of Basil affirmeth the matter of these Decrees to be a verity of the Christian faith which whoever doth pertinaciously resist is to be deemed a heretick Those Fathers say that none of the skilfull did ever doubt of this truth that the Pope in things belonging to faith was subject to the judgment of the same General Councils that the Council has an authority immediately from Christ which the Pope is bound to obey Those Synods were confirmed by Popes without exception of those determinations Great Churches most famous Vniversities a mighty store of learned Doctours of the Roman Communion have reverenced those Councils and adhered to their Doctrine Insomuch that the Cardinal of Lorrain did affirm him to be an Heretick in France who did hold the contrary These things sufficiently demonstrate that the Pope cannot pretend to Supremacy by universal Tradition and if he cannot prove it by that how can he prove it not surely by Scripture nor by Decrees of ancient Synods nor by any clear and convincing reason XV. The Sovereign of the Church is by all Christians to be acknowledged the chief Person in the world inferiour and subject to none above all commands the greatest Emperour being his Sheep and Subject He therefore now doth pretend to be above all Princes Divers Popes have affirmed this Superiority They are allowed and most favoured by him who teach this Doctrine In their Missal he is preferred above all Kings being prayed for before them But in the primitive times this was not held for St. Paul requires every soul to be subject to the higher powers Then the Emperour was avowed the first person next to God To whom says Tertullian they are second after whom they are first before all and above all Gods Why c. we worship the Emperour as a man next to God and less onely than God And Optatus since there is none above the Emperour but God who made him while Donatus extolleth himself above the Emperour he raises himself as it were above humanity and thinks himself to be God and not Man For the King is the top and head of all things on earth Then even Apostles Evangelists Prophets all men whoever were subject to the Emperour The Emperours did command them even the blessed Bishops and Patriarchs of old Rome Constantinople Alexandria Theopolis and Jerusalem Divers Popes did avow themselves subject to the Emperour XVI The Confirmation of Magistrates elected by others is a Branch of Supremacy which the Pope doth assume Baronius saith that this was the ancient custome and that Pope Simplicius did confirm the Election of Calendion Bishop of Antioch Meletius confirm'd the most holy Gregory in the Bishoprick of Constantinople But the truth is that anciently Bishops being elected did onely give an account of their choice unto all other Bishops especially to those of highest rank desiring their approbation and friendship for preservation of due communion correspondence and peace So the Synod of Antioch gave account to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria and all their Fellow-ministers throughout the world c. of the election of Domnus after Paulus Samosatenus So the Fathers of Constantinople acquainted Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops with the Constitution of Nectarius Flavianus c. This was not to request Confirmation as if the Pope or other Bishops could reject the Election if regular but rather to assure whom they were to communicate with We have say the Fathers of the Synod against Paulus Samosatenus signified this our chusing of Domnus into Paulus his room that you may write to him and receive letters of communion from him And St. Cyprian That you and our Collegues may know to whom they may write and from whom they may receive letters Thus the Bishops of Rome themselves did acquaint other Bishops with their Election their Faith c. So did Cornelius whom therefore St. Cyprian asserteth as established by the consent and approbation of his Collegues When the place of Peter and the Sacerdotal Chair was void which by God's will being occupied and with all our consents confirmed c. and the testimony of our Fellow-bishops the whole number of which all over the world unanimously consented The Emperour did confirm Bishops as we see by that notable passage in the Synod of Chalcedon where Bassianus Bishop of Ephesus pleading for himself saith Our most religious Emperour knowing these things presently ratified it and by a memorial published it confirming the Bishoprick afterwards he sent his rescript by Eustathius the Silentiary again confirming it XVII It is a Privilege of Sovereigns to grant Privileges Exemptions Dispensations This he claimeth but against the Laws of God and Rights of Bishops Against the Decrees of Synods against the
as well in the places and bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as of Secular Empire Wherefore Saint Peter's Monarchy reason requiring might be cantonized into divers spiritual Supremacies and as other Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions have been chopp'd and chang'd enlarged or diminished removed and extinguished so might that of the Roman Bishop The Pope cannot retain power in any State against the will of the Prince he is not bound to suffer correspondences with Foreigners especially such who apparently have interests contrary to his honour and the good of his people 5. Especially that might be done if the continuance of such a Jurisdiction should prove abominably corrupt or intolerably grievous to the Church 6. That power is defectible which according to the nature and course of things doth sometime fail But the Papal Succession hath often been interrupted by contingencies of Sedition Schism Intrusion Simoniacal Election Deposition c. as before shewed and is often interrupted by Vacancies from the death of the Incumbents 7. If leaving their dubious and false suppositions concerning Divine Institution Succession to Saint Peter c. we consider the truth of the case and indeed the more grounded plea of the Pope that Papal preeminence was obtained by the wealth and dignity of the Roman City and by the collation or countenance of the Imperial authority then by the defect of such advantages it may cease or be taken away for when Rome hath ceased to be the Capital City the Pope may cease to be Head of the Church When the Civil powers which have succeeded the Imperial each in its respective Territory are no less absolute than it they may take it away if they judge it fit for whatever power was granted by humane Authority by the same may be revoked and what the Emperour could have done each Sovereign power now may doe for it self An indefectible power cannot be settled by man because there is no power ever extant at one time greater than there is at another so that whatever power one may raise the other may demolish there being no bounds whereby the present time may bind all posterity However no humane Law can exempt any Constitution from the providence of God which at pleasure can dissolve whatever man hath framed And if the Pope were devested of all adventitious power obtained by humane means he would be left very bare and hardly would take it worth his while to contend for Jurisdiction 8. However or whencesoever the Pope had his Authority yet it may be forfeited by defects and defaults incurred by him If the Pope doth encroach on the rights and liberties of others usurping a lawless domination beyond reason and measure they may in their own defence be forced to reject him and shake off his yoke If he will not be content to govern otherwise than by infringing the Sacred Laws and trampling down the inviolable Privileges of the Churches either granted by Christ or established by the Sanctions of General Synods he thereby depriveth himself of all Authority because it cannot be admitted upon tolerable terms without greater wrong of many others whose right out-weigheth his and without great mischief to the Church the good of which is to be preferred before his private advantage This was the Maxime of a great Pope a great stickler for his own dignity for when the Bishop of Constantinople was advanced by a General Synod above his ancient pitch of dignity that Pope opposing him did say that whoever doth affect more than his due doth lose that which properly belonged to him the which Rule if true in regard to another's case may be applied to the Pope for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again On such a supposition of the Papal encroachment we may return his words upon him It is too proud and immoderate a thing to stretch beyond ones bounds and in contempt of antiquity to be willing to invade other mens right and to oppose the Primacies of so many Metropolitans on purpose to advance the dignity of one For the privileges of Churches being instituted by the Canons of the holy Fathers and fixt by the Decrees of the venerable Synod of Nice cannot be pluckt up by any wicked attempt nor altered by any innovation Far be it from me that I should in any Church infringe the Decrees of our Ancestours made in favour of my Fellow-priests for I do my self injury if I disturb the rights of my brethren The Pope surely according to any ground of Scripture or Tradition or ancient Law hath no Title to greater Principality in the Church than the Duke of Venice hath in that State Now if the Duke of Venice in prejudice to the publick right and liberty should attempt to stretch his power to an absoluteness of command or much beyond the bounds allowed him by the constitution of that Common-wealth he would thereby surely forfeit his Supremacy such as it is and afford cause to the State of rejecting him the like occasion would the Pope give to the Church by the like demeanour 9. The Pope by departing from the Doctrine and Practice of Saint Peter would forfeit his Title of Successour to him for in such a case no succession in place or in name could preserve it The Popes themselves had swerved and degenerated from the example of Peter They are not the Sons of the Saints who hold the places of the Saints but they that doe their works Which place is rased out of St. Hierome They have not the inheritance of Peter who have not the faith of Peter which they tear asunder by ungodly division So Gregory Nazianzene saith of Athanasius that he was Successour of Mark no less in piety than presidency the which we must suppose to be properly succession otherwise the Mufti of Constantinople is Successour to St. Andrew of St. Chrysostome c. the Mufti of Jerusalem to St. James If then the Bishop of Rome instead of teaching Christian Doctrine doth propagate Errours contrary to it If instead of guiding into Truth and Godliness he seduceth into Falshood and Impiety If instead of declaring and pressing the Laws of God he delivereth and imposeth Precepts opposite prejudicial destructive of God's Laws If instead of promoting genuine Piety he doth in some instances violently oppose it If instead of maintaining true Religion he doth pervert and corrupt it by bold Defalcations by Superstitious additions by Foul mixtures and alloys If he coineth new Creeds Articles of Faith new Scriptures new Sacraments new Rules of Life obtruding them on the Consciences of Christians If he conformeth the Doctrines of Christianity to the Interests of his Pomp and Profit making gain godliness If he prescribe Vain Profane Superstitious ways of Worship turning Devotion into Foppery and Pageantry If instead of preserving Order and Peace he fomenteth Discords and Factions in the Church being a Make-bate and Incendiary among
Christians If he claimeth exorbitant Power and exerciseth Oppression and tyrannical Domination over his Brethren cursing and damning all that will not submit to his Dictates and Commands If instead of being a Shepherd he is a Wolf worrying and tearing the Flock by cruel Persecution He by such behaviour ipso facto depriveth himself of Authority and Office He becometh thence no Guide or Pastour to any Christian there doth in such case rest no obligation to hear or obey him but rather to decline him to discost from him to reject and disclaim him This is the reason of the case this the Holy Scripture doth prescribe this is according to the Primitive Doctrine Tradition and Practice of the Church For 10. In reason the nature of any spiritual Office consisting in Instruction in Truth and Guidance in Vertue toward attainment of Salvation if any man doth lead into pernicious Errour or Impiety he thereby ceaseth to be capable of such Office As a blind man by being so doth cease to be a Guide and much more he that declareth a will to seduce for Who so blind as he that will not see No man can be bound to follow any one into the ditch or to obey any one in prejudice to his own Salvation to die in his iniquity Seeing God saith in such a case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrines the Precepts of men They themselves do acknowledge that Hereticks cease to be Bishops and so to be Popes Indeed they cease to be Christians for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a one is subverted 11. According to their Principles the Pope hath the same relation to other Bishops and Pastours of the Church which they have to their people he being Pastour of Pastours But if any Pastour should teach bad Doctrine or prescribe bad Practice his people may reject and disobey him therefore in proportion the Pastours may desert the Pope misguiding or misgoverning them In such cases any Inferiour is exempted from obligation to comply with his Superiour either truly or pretendedly such 12. The case may be that we may not hold communion with the Pope but may be obliged to shun him in which case his Authority doth fail and no man is subject to him 13. This is the Doctrine of the Scripture The High Priest and his fellows under the Jewish Oeconomy had no less Authority than any Pope can now pretend unto they did sit in the Chair of Moses and therefore all their True Doctrines and Lawfull Directions the people were obliged to learn and observe but their false Doctrines and impious Precepts they were bound to shun and consequently to disclaim their Authority so far as employed in urging such Doctrines and Precepts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them alone saith our Saviour they are blind leaders of the blind Under the Christian dispensation the matter is no less clear our Lord commandeth us to beware of false Prophets and to see that no man deceive us although he wear the cloathing of a Sheep or come under the name of a Shepherd coming in his name Saint Paul informeth us that if an Apostle if an Angel from heaven doth preach beside the old Apostolical Doctrine introducing any new Gospel or a Divinity devised by himself he is to be held accursed by us He affirmeth that even the Apostles themselves were not Lords of our faith nor might challenge any power inconsistent with the maintenance of Christian Truth and Piety We saith he can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth the which an ancient Writer doth well apply to the Pope saying that he could doe nothing against the truth more than any of his Fellow-priests could doe which S. Paul did in practice shew when he resisted Saint Peter declining from the truth of the Gospel He chargeth that if any one doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach heterodoxies we should stand off from him that if any brother walketh disorderly and not according to Apostolical tradition we should withdraw from him that if any one doth raise divisions and scandals beside the doctrine received from the Apostles we should decline from him that we are to refuse any heretical person He telleth us that grievous Wolves should come into the Church not sparing the flock that from among Christians there should arise men speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them but no man surely ought to follow but to shun them These Precepts and Admonitions are general without any respect or exception of Persons great or small Pastour or Lay-man nay they may in some respect more concern Bishops than others for that they declining from truth are more dangerous and contagious 14. The Fathers in reference to this case do clearly accord both in their Doctrine and Practice St. Cyprian telleth us that a people obedient to the Lord's commandments and fearing God ought to separate it self from a sinfull Bishop that is from one guilty of such sins which unqualifie him for Christian Communion or Pastoral charge and Let not addeth he the common people flatter it self as if it could be free from the contagion of guilt if it communicate with a sinfull Bishop whose irreligious Doctrine or Practice doth render him uncapable of communion for how saith he otherwhere can they preside over integrity and continence if corruptions and the teaching of vices do begin to proceed from them They who reject the commandment of God and labour to establish their own tradition let them be strongly and stoutly refused and rejected by you St. Chrysostome commenting on Saint Paul's words If I or an Angel saith that Saint Paul meaneth to shew that dignity of persons is not to be regarded where truth is concerned that if one of the chief Angels from heaven should corrupt the Gospel he were to be accursed that not onely if they shall speak things contrary or overturn all but if they preach any small matter beside the Apostolical doctrine altering the least point whatever they are liable to an anathema And other-where very earnestly persuading his Audience to render due respect and obedience to there Bishop he yet interposeth this exception If he hath a perverse opinion although he be an Angel do not obey him but if he teacheth right things regard not his life but his words Ecclesiastical Judges as men are for the most part deceived For neither are Catholick Bishops to be assented to if peradventure in any case they are mistaken so as to hold any thing contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God If there be any Church which rejects the faith and does not hold the fundamentals of the Apostolical doctrine it ought to be forsaken lest it infect others with its heterodoxy If in such a case we must desert any Church then the Roman if any Church then much more any Bishop particularly him of
any of the dissenting Parties to the Judgment of such Authority Indeed if such an Authority had then been avowed by the Christian Churches it is hardly conceivable that any Schisms could subsist there being so powerfull a Remedy against them then notably visible and most effectual because of its fresh Institution before it was darkned or weakned by Age. Whereas the Apostolical Writings do inculcate our Subjection to one Lord in Heaven it is much they should never consider his Vicegerent or Vicegerents upon Earth notifying and pressing the Duties of Obedience and Reverence toward them There are indeed Exhortations to honour the Elders and to obey the Guides of particular Churches but the Honour and Obedience due to those Paramount Authorities or Universal Governours is passed over in dead silence as if no such thing had been thought of They do expresly avow the Secular Pre-eminence and press Submission to the Emperour as Supreme why do they not likewise mention this no less considerable Ecclesiastical Supremacy or enjoin Obedience thereto why Honour the King and be subject to Principalities so often but Honour the Spiritual Prince or Senate doth never occur If there had been any such Authority there would probably have been some intimation concerning the Persons in whom it was setled concerning the Place of their residence concerning the Manner of its being conveyed by Election Succession or otherwise Probably the Persons would have some proper Name Title or Character to distinguish them from inferiour Governours that to the Place some mark of Pre-eminence would have been affixed It is not unlikely that somewhere some Rules or Directions would have been prescribed for the management of so high a Trust for preventing Miscarriages and Abuses to which it is notoriously liable It would have been declared Absolute or the Limits of it would have been determined to prevent its enslaving God's heritage But of these things in the Apostolical Writings or in any near those times there doth not appear any footstep or pregnant intimation There hath never to this day been any place but one namely Rome which hath pretended to be the Seat of such an Authority the Plea whereof we largely have examined At present we shall onely observe that before the Roman Church was founded there were Churches otherwhere there was a great Church at Jerusalem which indeed was the Mother of all Churches and was by the Fathers so styled however Rome now doth arrogate to her self that Title There were issuing from that Mother a fair Offspring of Churches those of Judaea of Galilaea of Samaria of Syria and Cilicia of divers other places before there was any Church at Rome or that Saint Peter did come thither which was at least divers years after our Lord's Ascension Saint Paul was converted after five years he went to Hierusalem then Saint Peter was there after fourteen years thence he went to Hierusalem again and then Saint Peter was there after that he met with Saint Peter at Antioch Where then was this Authority seated How then did the political Unity of the Church subsist Was the Seat of the Sovereign Authority first resident at Jerusalem when Saint Peter preached there Did it walk thence to Antiochia fixing it self there for seven years Was it thence translated to Rome and setled there ever since Did this roving and inconstancy become it 5. The primitive State of the Church did not well comport with such an Unity For Christian Churches were founded in distant places as the Apostles did find opportunity or received direction to found them which therefore could not without extreme inconvenience have resort or reference to one Authority any where fixed Each Church therefore separately did order its own Affairs without recourse to others except for charitable Advice or Relief in cases of extraordinary difficulty or urgent need Each Church was endowed with a perfect Liberty and a full Authority without dependence or subordination to others to govern its own Members to manage its own Affairs to decide Controversies and Causes incident among themselves without allowing Appeals or rendring Accounts to others This appeareth by the Apostolical Writings of Saint Paul and Saint John to single Churches wherein they are supposed able to exercise spiritual Power for establishing Decency removing Disorders correcting Offences deciding Causes c. 6. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Liberty of Churches doth appear to have long continued in practice inviolate although tempered and modelled in accommodation to the circumstances of place and time It is true that if any Church did notoriously forsake the Truth or commit Disorder in any kind other Churches did sometime take upon them as the Case did move to warn advise reprove it and to declare against its proceedings as prejudicial not onely to the welfare of that Church but to the common interests of Truth and Peace but this was not in way of commanding Authority but of fraternal Solicitude or of that Liberty which Equity and Prudence do allow to Equals in regard to common good So did the Roman Church interpose in reclaiming the Church of Corinth from its Disorders and Seditions So did Saint Cyprian and Saint Denys of Alex. meddle in the Affairs of the Roman Church exhorting Novatian and his Adherents to return to the Peace of their Church It is also true that the Bishops of several adjacent Churchs did use to meet upon Emergencies concerning the maintenance of Truth Order and Peace concerning Settlement and Approbation of Pastours c. to consult and conclude upon Expedients for attaining such Ends this probably they did at first in a free way without rule according to occasion as Prudence suggested but afterwards by confederation and consent those Conventions were formed into method and regulated by certain Orders established by consent whence did arise an Ecclesiastical Unity of Government within certain Precincts much like that of the United States in the Netherlands the which course was very prudential and usefull for preserving the Truth of Religion and Unity of Faith against heretical Devices springing up in that free age for maintaining Concord and good Correspondence among Christians together with an Harmony in Manners and Discipline for that otherwise Christendom would have been shattered and crumbled into numberless Parties discordant in Opinion and Practice and consequently alienated in Affection which inevitably among most men doth follow Difference of Opinion and Manners so that in short time it would not have appeared what Christianity was and consequently the Religion being overgrown with Differences and Discords must have perished Thus in the case about admitting the Lapsi to Communion Saint Cyprian relates when the persecution of Decius ceased so that leave was now given us to meet in one place together a considerable number of Bishops whom their own faith and God's protection had preserved sound and entire from the late Apostasie and Persecution being assembled we deliberated of the composition of the matter with wholsome moderation
offices of humanity toward their subjects travelling or trading any where in the World common Reason doth require such things But may common Unity of Polity from hence be inferr'd Arg. X. The effectuâ—â— Preservation of Unity in the primitive Church is alledged as a strong Argument of its being united in one Government Answ. 1. That Unity of Faith and Charity and Discipline which we admit was indeed preserved not by influence of any one Sovereign Authority whereof there is no mention but by the concurrent vigilance of Bishops declaring and disputing against any Novelty in Doctrine or Practice which did start up by their adherence to the Doctrine asserted in Scripture and confirmed by Tradition by their aiding and abetting one another as Confederates against Errours and Disorders creeping in Answ. 2. The many Differences which arose concerning the Observation of Easter the Re-baptization of Hereticks the Reconciliation of Revolters and scandalous Criminals concerning the decision of Causes and Controversies c. do more clearly shew that there was no standing common Jurisdiction in the Church for had there been such an one recourse would have been had thereto and such Differences by its Authority would easily have been quashed Arg. XI Another Argument is grounded on the Relief which one Church did yield to another which supposeth all Churches under one Government imposing such Tribute Answ. 1. This is a strange Fetch as if all who were under obligation to relieve one another in need were to be under one Government Then all Mankind must be so Answ. 2. It appeareth by St. Paul that these Succours were of free Charity Favour and Liberality and not by Constraint Arg. XII The use of Councils is also alledged as an Argument of this Unity Answ. 1. General Councils in case Truth is disowned that Peace is disturbed that Discipline is loosed or perverted are wholsome Expedients to clear Truth and heal Breaches but the holding them is no more an Argument of political Unity in the Church than the Treaty of Munster was a sign of all Europe being under one civil Government Answ. 2. They are extraordinary arbitrary prudential means of restoring Truth Peace Order Discipline but from them nothing can be gathered concerning the continual ordinary State of the Church Answ. 3. For during a long time the Church wanted them and afterwards had them but rarely For the first three hundred years saith Bell. there was no general assembly afterwards scarce one in a hundred years And since the breach between the Oriental and Western Churches for many Centenaries there hath been none Yet was the Church from the beginning One till Constantine and long afterwards Answ. 4. The first General Councils indeed all that have been with any probable shew capable of that denomination were congregated by Emperours to cure the Dissentions of Bishops what therefore can be argued from them but that the Emperours did find it good to settle Peace and Truth and took this for a good mean thereto Alb. Pighius said that General Councils were an invention of Constantine and who can confute him Answ. 5. They do shew rather the Unity of the Empire than of the Church or of the Church as National under one Empire than as Catholick for it was the State which did call and moderate them to its Purposes Answ. 6. It is manifest that the congregation of them dependeth on the permission and pleasure of secular Powers and in all equity should do so as otherwhere is shewed Answ. 7. It is not expedient that there should be any of them now that Christendom slandeth divided under divers temporal Sovereignties for their Resolutions may intrench on the Interests of some Princes and hardly can they be accommodated to the Civil Laws and Customs of every State Whence we see that France will not admit the Decrees of their Tridentine Synod Answ. 8. There was no such inconvenience in them while Christendom was in a manner confined within one Empire for then nothing could be decreed or executed without the Emperour's leave or to his prejudice Answ. 9. Yea as things now stand it is impossible there should be a free Council most of the Bishops being sworn Vassals and Clients to the Pope and by their own Interests concerned to maintain his exorbitant Grandeur and Domination Answ. 10. In the opinion of St. Athanasius there was no reasonable cause of Synods except in case of new Heresies springing up which may be confuted by the joint consent of Bishops Answ. 11. As for particular Synods they do onely signifie that it was usefull for neighbour Bishops to conspire in promoting Truth Order and Peace as we have otherwhere shewed Councils have often been convened for bad Designs and been made Engines to oppress Truth and enslave Christendom That of Antioch against Athanasius of Ariminum for Arianism The second Ephesine to restore Eutyches and reject Flavianus The second of Nice to impose the Worship of Babies The Synod of Ariminum to countenance Arians So the fourth Synod of Laterane sub Inn. III. to settle the prodigious Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the wicked Doctrine of Papal Authority over Princes The first Synod of Lions to practise that hellish Doctrine of Deposing Kings The Synod of Constance to establish the maime of the Eucharist against the Calistines of Bohemia The Laterane under Leo X. was called as the Arch-bishop of Patras affirmed for the Exaltation of the Apostolical See The Synod of Trent to settle a raff of Errours and Superstitions Obj. II. It may farther be objected that this Doctrine doth favour the Conceits of the Independents concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline I answer No. For 1. We do assert that every Church is bound to observe the Institutions of Christ and that sort of Government which the Apostles did ordain consisting of Bishops Priests and People 2. We avow it expedient in conformity to the primitive Churches and in order to the maintenance of Truth Order Peace for several particular Churches or Parishes to be combined in political Corporations as shall be found convenient by those who have just Authority to frame such Corporations for that otherwise Christianity being shattered into numberless shreds could hardly subsist and that great Confusions must arise 3. We affirm that such Bodies having been established and being maintained by just Authority every man is bound to endeavour the upholding of them by Obedience by peaceable and compliant Demeanour 4. We acknowledge it a great Crime by factious behaviour in them or by needless separation from them to disturb them to divide them to dissolve or subvert them 5. We conceive it fit that every People under one Prince or at least of one Nation using the same Language Civil Law and Fashions should be united in the bands of Ecclesiastical Polity for that such a Unity apparently is conducible to the peace and welfare both of Church and State to the furtherance of God's worship and
Service to the edification of People in Charity and Piety by the encouragement of secular Powers by the concurrent advice and aid of Ecclesiastical Pastours by many advantages hence arising 6. We suppose all Churches obliged to observe friendly communion and when occasion doth invite to aid each other by assistence and advice in Synods of Bishops or otherwise 7. We do affirm that all Churches are obliged to comply with lawfull Decrees and Orders appointed in Synods with consent of their Bishops and allowed by the Civil Authorities under which they live As if the Bishops of Spain and France assembling should agree upon Constitutions of Discipline which the Kings of both those Countries should approve and which should not thwart God's Laws both those Churches and every man in them were bound to comply in observance of them From the Premisses divers Corollaries may be deduced 1. Hence it appeareth that all those clamours of the pretended Catholicks against other Churches for not submitting to the Roman Chair are groundless they depending on the supposition that all Churches must necessarily be united under one Government 2. The Injustice of the Adherents to that See in claiming an Empire or Jurisdiction over all which never was designed by our Lord heavily censuring and fiercely persecuting those who will not acknowledge it 3. All Churches which have a fair settlement in several Countries are co-ordinate neither can one challenge a Jurisdiction over the other 4. The nature of Schism is hence declared viz. that it consisteth in disturbing the Order and Peace of any single Church in withdrawing from it Obedience and Compliance with it in obstructing good Correspondence Charity Peace between several Churches in condemning or censuring other Churches without just cause or beyond due measure In refusing to maintain Communion with other Churches without reasonable cause whence Firmilian did challenge P. Stephanus with Schism 5. Hence the right way of reconciling Dissentions among Christians is not affecting to set up a political Union of several Churches or subordination of all to one Power not for one Church to enterprize upon the Liberty of others or to bring others under it as is the practice of the Roman Church and its Abettors but for each Church to let the others alone quietly enjoying its freedom in Ecclesiastical Administrations onely declaring against apparently hurtfull Errours and Factions shewing Good-will yielding Succour Advice Comfort upon needfull occasion according to that excellent Advice of the Constantinopolitane Fathers to the Pope and Western Bishops after having acquainted them with their proceedings towards the conclusion they thus exhort them We having in a legal and canonical way determined these Controversies do beseech your Reverence to congratulate with us your Charity spiritually interceding the fear of the Lord also compressing all humane affection so as to make us to prefer the edification of the Churches to all private respect and favour toward each other for by this means the word of faith being consonant among us and Christian Charity bearing sway over us we shall cease from speaking after that manner which the Apostle condemns I am of Paul and I am of Apollos but I am of Cephas for if we all do appear to be of Christ who is not divided amongst us we shall then through God's grace preserve the body of the Church from Schism and present our selves before the throne of Christ with boldness 6. All that withdraw their communion or obeysance from particular Churches fairly established unto which they do belong or where they reside do incur the guilt of Schism for such persons being de Jure subject to those particular Churches and excommunicating themselves do consequentially sever themselves from the Catholick Church they commit great wrong toward that particular Church and toward the whole Church of Christ. 7. Neither doth their pretence of joining themselves to the Roman Church excuse them from Schism for the Roman Church hath no reason or right to admit or to avow them it hath no power to exempt or excuse them from their duty it thereby abetteth their Crime and involveth it self therein it wrongeth other Churches As no man is freed from his Allegiance by pretending to put himself under the protection of another Prince neither can another Prince justly receive such disloyal Revolters into his Patronage It is a Rule grounded upon apparent Equity and frequently declared by Ecclesiastical Canons that no Church shall admit into its protection or communion any persons who are excommunicated by another Church or who do withdraw themselves from it for Self-excommunication or Spiritual felony de se doth involve the Churches Excommunication deserving it and preventing it Which Canon as the African Fathers do alledge and expound it doth prohibit the Pope himself from receiving persons rejected by any other Church So when Marcion having been excommunicated by his own Father coming to Rome did sue to be received by that Church into communion they refused telling him that they could not doe it without the consent of his Reverend Father between whom and them there being one faith and one agreement of mind they could not doe it in opposition to their worthy fellow-labourer who was also his Father St. Cyprian refused to admit Maximus sent from the Novatian party to communion So did P. Cornelius reject Felicissimus condemned by St. Cyprian without farther inquiry It was charged upon Dioscorus as a heinous misdemeanour that he had against the Holy Canons by his proper authority received into communion persons excommunicated by others The African Synod at the suggestion of St. Austin decreed that if it happen'd that any for their evil deeds were deservedly expell'd out of the Church and taken again into communion by any Bishop or Priest whosoever that he also who received him should incur the same penalty of Excommunication The same is by latter Papal Synods decreed The Words of Synesius are remarkable He having excommunicated some cruel Oppressours doth thus recommend the case to all Christians Upon which grounds I do not scruple to affirm the Recusants in England to be no less Schismaticks than any other Separatists They are indeed somewhat worse for most others do onely forbear communion these do rudely condemn the Church to which they owe Obedience yea strive to destroy it they are most desperate Rebels against it 8. It is the Duty and Interest of all Churches to disclaim the Pretences of the Roman Court maintaining their Liberties and Rights against its Usurpations For Compliance therewith as it doth greatly prejudice Truth and Piety leaving them to be corrupted by the ambitious covetous and voluptuous Designs of those men so it doth remove the genuine Unity of the Church and Peace of Christians unless to be tyed by compulsory Chains as Slaves be deemed Unity or Peace 9. Yet those Churches which by the voluntary consent or command of Princes do adhere in confederation to the Roman
Church we are not merely upon that score to condemn or reject from communion of Charity or Peace for in that they do but use their Liberty 10. But if such Churches do maintain impious Errours if they do prescribe naughty Practices if they do reject Communion and Peace upon reasonable terms if they vent unjust and uncharitable Censures if they are turbulent and violent striving by all means to subdue and enslave other Churches to their will or their dictates if they damn and persecute all who refuse to be their Subjects in such cases we may reject such Churches as heretical or schismatical or wickedly uncharitable and unjust in their Proceedings A TABLE of the AUTHOURS quoted in the Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy and Vnity of the Church A. S. AMbrosius 155. in Luc. 277. de Poen 274. de Sac. 128. Anastasius in vit Joh. 204.210 Anton. de Concil Pis. 24. Anselmus in Joh. 60. Apost Can. 324. Aquinas Tho. 278. Arist. Pol. 131.142.314 S. Athanas. Disp. contra Arium 3. Athanas. 73.115.148.155.202 Athanas. de Syn. 321. August Triumph 3. S. Augustinus contra Crescon 48.53.127.133 Idem de Unit. Eccles. 26.123.250.251.277.296.301.307 Ep. 128.155.249.155.305.314 in S. Joh. 31. contra Don. 54. de Bapt. 150.300 in Psal. 296. contra Jul. 223. B. BAlusius 170. Not. ad Agorbard 26. Baronius 5.10.82.142.151.161.122.180.187.203.216.232.234.239.241.151.256.215.264.318 S. Basil. 68.115.246.264 Epist. 61.160.244 in Is. 61. de Judicio Dei 33. Bellarminus 2.3.15.51.59.69.71.137.148.153.193.256.269.257.261.287.321 S. Bernardus 141.145.281 de Consid. 40.265 Binius 6.8.52.65.152.192.265.277.325 Bochell 2. Bodin de Rep. 147. Bullae Variorum P. 5. c. C. CAmd Hist. 5. Canon Apost 164.178.241 Cajet in 1 Cor. 284. Canus 6. Celest. ad Cyril 203.213 Chrysol 62. S. Chrysostomus 30.31.32.63.67.74.75.82.264.269.281.313 Idem in Ephes. 40. in Act. Apost 44.45 in S. Joh. 49. in Galat. ibid. 55. Ep. 135.159 in Colos. 283. in 1 Cor. 301. Claudianus 132. Clemens ad Corinth 48.58.113 S. Clemens Alex. 118.297.299.308 Clemens Alex. apud Euseb. 57. Cod. Afr. 164.241.248 Cod. Lib. 1.179 Concilium Ant. Bas. 25.264.132.135.141.267.268 Chalced. 165.166.163.225.135.136.248.270.303.202.203.204.205.206.121 Sard. 84.233 Trid. 2.7.135.136.280.283.285.286.230 Lat. 41.136.185.281.325 Ludg. 146. Tolet. 227. Nic. 241.121 Trull 84. Eph. 234.278.155 Florent 21. Cons. 25.330.121.248 Miler 248. Carth. ibid. Conc. sub Men. 85.231 Const. Apost 230. Card. Cusanus de Conc. Carth. 43. S. Cyprianus 149.150.150.252.263.269 de Unit. Eccles. 58.62 in Conc. Carth. 211.216 Ep. 54.71.67.79.113.115.124.125.129.153.157.158.162.229.232.235.243.248.249.276.277.269.301.302.304.305.312.315.318.323 S. Cyril 68.78.282 D. DAmasi P. Ep. Distinct. 228 c. Durandus 263. Dionysius de Eccl. Hier. 58. E. EAdmeri Hist. 182.270 S. Epiphan 83.252 Haer. 34.51.324.298.308 Erasmi Praefat. ad Hieron 288. Evag. 239.240 Euseb. 158.173.273.202 Hist. 32.73.298.318 de Vit. Const. 86.186.304.305.306 F. FAC. Hermian 276. Florus 131. G. POpe Gelas. distinc 58. Ep. Georg. Alex. vita Chrys. 12. Gervas Dorob apud Twisd 151. Grat. Dist. 10.41 Greg. Decret 15. Greg Past. 53. Greg. M. Ep. 122.124.125.265.225.169 S. Greg. Naz. 130.152.159.257 Guicc 136.143 Gunth Lig. 180. H. HEgesippus apud Euseb. 57. Hesychius apud Photium 46. Hieron adv Evagr. 152.125 Hieron Ep. 129. S. Hier. in Matt. 33. in Jovin 42. Hilar. de Trin. 35. Hilar. 153.155.213 Hist. Trident. 321. Horat. 177. I. IGnat ad Trall 294. S. Iren. 87.88.119.158.299.311.316.318 Joseph de Bello Jud. 160. Isid. Dist. 169. Isid. Hispal 128.58 Isid. Pelusiot 130. Justini Cod. 204. Justini Novell 235. L. LActantius 35. Lateran Concil 46. Launoius 12.116.185 P. Leo Ep. 126.273.204.205.208.209.225.230.225.254 Livius 178. M. MAchivel 144. De Marc. 170. Marsil Patav. 17. Matt. Paris 6.7.182.183.192.251.262.265 Memor Hist. de 5 Propos. 267. N. POpe Nic. Ep. 174.175.200.210 O. OCcam 17. Optat. lib. 2.303 Orient Relat. ad Imper. Act. 208. Orig. in Matt. 62. Otho Frising Chron. 13. P. POpe Pash Ep. apud Eadmer 261.262 Pelag. Ep. 123.201.86 Petr. ad Jacob. 83. Photius 33.42 Pighius de Hier. 265. Platina de Vit. Pont. 8.28.41.145.150.215.228 Plut. in Pyrr 174. Prudent in Apotheos 290. R. RIgalt in Cypr. Ep. 60. 157.237 Ruffinus 170. S. SEnec de Benef. Sigeberti Chron. 9. Sleid. 139.141 Socrates Sozom. 12.87.120.173.186.167.208.216.234.242.226.232.252.253.256 Spalatens 5. Suetonius 83. P. Symac Ep. 325. Synes Ep. 325. Synod Ant. 157.216.312.231 Ansel. 85. Bas. 133.314 Chalc. 158 159.167.168.184.231·233.245.254.257.264 Const. 165.159 Eph. 168. Trull 201. Nic. 164.166.231 Flor. 177. Laod. 166. Sard. 324. T. TAcitus 131.142 Ann. 174. de Morib Germ. 178. Tertullianus 26.50.58.63.67.77.80.118.119.164.298.216.269.280.282.294.297.309.318 Theod. 156.161.166.187.208.227.229.237.238.255.256.323 Theoph. in Matth. 33.253 Tho. Aq. 3.6 Tho. Cajet Orat. 267. Thorn 318. Thuan. 146. Tort. Tort. 147. Trid. Concil 41. Twisd 184. V. VAles in Euseb. 310. P. Vrb. Ep. 7. Vsserius 242.315 Z. ZAbarellus 4. Zozomen 117.131.161.213.225.227.232.239.250 A TABLE OF Things or the Chief Matters contained in the Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy and of the Vnity of the Church A. ABsolution Particular Absolution why allowed in the Church of Rome 139. Anacletus and Cletus by some thought to be the same 88. Anathema's of the Romanists 289. Angels Popish Doctrine of worshipping them contrary to Scripture 280. Apostles Which the Elder 34. That Office of the greatest Authority in the Primitive Church 37. This Authority of their Office they frequently assert never Superiority over one another 50. Their manner of Life ibid. Their Equality attested by the Fathers and plain from Scripture 57 59. Their extraordinary Privileges and miraculous Powers not successive nor communicable 78. Appeals to the Pope disclaimed 248 249. B. S. BAsil His Authority against the Pope's Supremacy 123. Bishops How to discharge their Office 40. In what sense said to be Successours of the Apostles 79. All Bishops styled Clavigeri by the Council of Compeigne 65. Their Residence and Translation 84 85. The Highest Order in the Church 128. Their Equality notwithstanding some Differences in Order and Privileges 125 129 151. An Answer to such who object They had a Power as well as Emperours to call General Councils 193. Metropolitan Bishops in their Provinces had far more Power and more truly grounded than the Pope had in the whole Church 212. What kind of Authority they had heretofore in Synods ibid. Their Ordination in whose Power Their Authority and Rights 215 216. Constitution of them not in the Power of the Pope but Emperour 225. Nor Censuring them in the power of the Pope 231 232. No power in the Pope to depose them 233 The contrary Assertions examined and confuted in seq v. 241. Confirmation of them belongs not to the Pope 269. Bishops and Pastours Their Authority in Church Government in the Primitive Church 312 313. Their Character ibid. C. CAnon Law The vain pretence for the Obligation thereof 210. Canons Ancient Canons their silence concerning the Pope's Authority 120 121. Canons Universal Canons Popes no Power to alter them nor Exemption from them 213 their policy herein ibid. contrary Opinion from whence arising ibid. Canons of Popes why set above General Councils 268.
173 did not claim a Power of summoning General Councils till they had in a manner shaken off Subjection to the Emperour 192 no more authority in Councils than Patriarchs and other Clergy 193 Supremacy not indefectible and unalterable 271 a Character of them and their Usurpations 200 314 315 Supremacy disclaimed 309. Power Worldly Power 174 Description thereof and how much it hath advanced the Pope's Usurpations ibid. Pragmatical Sanctions 184. Presidency of the Pope no wise necessary to the being of a General Council 199. Presidency Some imposed upon by the ambiguity of that word 204. Presidencies Spiritual Presidencies To erect and translate them a Prerogative of Sovereign Power 270. Presidents in Councils appointed by Popes of no authority 203. Priests why forbidden Marriage by the Church of Rome 139. Primacy Three kinds thereof 30. Primacy in S. Peter neither personal nor successive 76. Primacy of S. John and S. James have more specious Titles than of S. Peter 70 74. Primacies Diocesan Primacies the Pope's great gain in the W. Churches not embracing that Discipline 170. Privileges The Pope no Power to grant them 270. Provincial Synods When Appeals were first made from them 250. Purgatory Whence invented 138. R. REliques among the Ro. 139. Remission of Sins The Popish Doctrines and Errours about it 280 281. Restitution of Bishops not an Act of Jurisdiction never in the power of the Pope 242 c. pretended Examples shewed to be invalid in seq Residence of Bishops 84 their Translation 85. Revelation Divine Revelation made by the Apostles the onely ground of absolute Belief 127. Rock S. Peter being so called examined 59. Romanists An Enumeration of some of their Errours 138 c. Romanists in England Schismaticks 325. A farther Character of them ibid. Romish Church vainly pretends to greatest Antiquity 310. S. SAcraments The Opus operatum therein among the Romanists 138 why celebrated by them in an unknown tongue 139 their farther abuse thereof 285 286. Saints Papists Doctrine of worshipping them contrary to Scripture 280. Schism Nature thereof 323 the Persons guilty of it ibid. Scripture The onely Rule for our Belief 35. Scriptures Prohibiting of them whence 139 283 and Teaching them in an unknown tongue ibid. Separations in the Church The Mischiefs of them 322. Simony Popes guilty of it 266. Sovereignty The particular branches thereof considered and Popes vain Pretences to the same 185. Spirit v. Inspiration Synod No General Synod before Constantine M. 185. Synods In Ancient Synods divers Things were ordained without the Pope's consent divers against his pleasure 201 208 Instances hereof in seq Synods No Rule extant about them in the first Fathers till after 300 years 209. Synods Their Decrees and Acts by whom ratified 204 205 206. Synods Romish Synods and Enthusiasts compared 286. T. TAxes Imposing them on Clergy or People not in the power of the Pope 270. Tradition in some matters very uncertain and contradictory 34. Traditions of the Church of Rome 139. Traditions Oral Traditions 283. Tradition Universal Tradition disowns the Pope's Supremacy 268. Transubstantiation 139. Trent Council Character thereof 259. V. UNity of the Church mentioned in the Constantinopolitan Creed not of external Policy 316. Vnity Preservation thereof in the Primitive Church no Argument of its being united in one Government 320. Vows in the Church of Rome why imposed 138. W. WEalth how procured by the Church of Rome 183. Words False Interpretations of words how much contributing to the growth of the Church of Rome The End of the First Volume Agitur de summa rei Christianae Bell. Praef. de Rom. Pont. Vpon this one Point the very sum and substance of Christianity depends Tanta est inter Doctores controversia de plenitudine Ecclesiasticae potestatis ad quae se extendat ut pauca sint in ea materia secura Almain de Auct Eccl. cap. 3. di avertire Che non si venga mai per qual causa si sia alla disputa dell Autorita di Papa Concil Trid. lib. 2. p. 159. Hic articulus est contra authoritatem Regis qui non potest privari suo dominio temporali respectu cujus nullum superiorem recognoscit Bochell lib. 5. tit 20. cap. 45. This Article is against the authority of the King who cannot be deprived of his Temporal Dominion wherein he acknowledges no Superiour Prima sententia est summum Pontificem jure divino habere plenissimam potestatem in universum orbem terrarum tam in rebus Ecclesiasticis quam Civilibus Ità docent Aug. Triumphus Alvarus Pelagius Panormitanus Hostiensis Silvester alii non pauci Bell. 5.1 The first Opinion is that the Pope hath a most full Power over the whole world both in Ecclesiastical and Civil affairs This is the Doctrine of Aug. Triumphus c. and of many others Scripsit egregiam summam de Potestate Ecclesiae Bell. de Script Anno 1301. Error est non credere Pontificem Rom. Vniversalis Ecclesiae Pastorem Petri Successorem Christi Vicarium supra temporalia spiritualia Vniversalem non habere Primatum in quem quandoque multi labuntur dictae potestatis ignorantiâ quae cùm sit infinita eò quòd magnus est Dominus magna virtus ejus magnitudinis ejus non est finis omnis creatuâ— intellectus in ejus perscrutatione invenitur deficere Aug. Triumph de Potest Eccl. in praef ad P. Joh. XXII Thomas in fine Secun Sentent dicit in Papa esse apicem utriusque Potestatis Bell. 5.1 Quum quis per sententiam denunciatur propter Apostasiam excommunicatus ipso facto ejus subditi à dominio juramento fidelitatis ejus liberati sunt Th. 2. Secund. qu. 12. art 2. S. Thomas in lib. 3. de Regim Princ. cap. 10. 19. affirmat summum Pontificem jure divino habere spiritualem temporalem Potestatem ut supremum totius mundi Regem adâ—ò 〈◊〉 etiam taleas omnibus Christianis possit imponere civitatis ac castra destruere pro conservatione Christianitatis Bell. 5.5 Quae jura sunt notanda quia malè considerata sunt per multos assentatores qui voluerunt placere Pontificibus per multa retro tempora usque ad hodierna suaserunt eis quòd omnia possent sic quòd facerent quicquid liberet etiam illicita sic plus quà m Deus Zabar de Schism Orbis Princeps Episc. Spal Sess. 1. p. 24. Regum Rex Orbis terrarum Monarcha Del Rio Sess. 8. p. 87. Virum in quo erat Potestas supra omnes Potestates â—am coeli quà m terrae Episc. Patrac Sess. 10. p. 132. Arripe ergò gladium Divinae Potestatis tibi creditum his acutum jube impera manda ut Pax universalis Colligatio per decennium inter Christianos ad minus fiat Reges ad id in compedibus magni Regis liga Nobiles in manicis ferreis Censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis Potestas in coelo
the greater take care of the less from this diversity there might arise one frame of concord and all offices be daily administred * Primas Provinciae Cod. Afr. Can. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Apost 27. The Bishops of each Nation ought to know who is chief among them Cod. Afr. Can. 39. Dist. 99. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Nic. Can. 18. Can. Apost 38. Tertull. de Jej. cap. 13. Syn. Nic. Can. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Ant. Can. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synod Constant. Theod. 5.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 20. Zos. lib. 2. p. 63. Sextus Rufus Brev. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 388. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. Orient ad Rusum in Syn. Eph. p. 396. Dist. 99. cap. 1 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Chalc. Act. 2. p. 211. Ephesi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evag. 3.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zon. ad 28. Can. Chalc. Novell 137. cap. 5. 123. cap. 10. P. Greg. I. Ep. 11 56. Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est id est in Patriarchis Archiepiscopis Metropolitanis atque Episcopis Isid. dist 21. cap. 1. Dionysius Ex. translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primatem in Syn. Chalc. Can. 9 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Laod. Can. 12. That Bishops should be constituted by the judgment of the Metropolitanes and the neighbouring Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Const. Can. 6. But if it so happen that the Bishops of any Province cannot rectify those things which are laid to the charge of a Bishop they shall then go to a greater Synod of the Bishops of that Diocese met together for that purpose The Fathers of Constantinople in their Synodick Epistle distinguish the Province and Diocese of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. 5.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. 5.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Epist. 86. ad Flavianum For says Theodoret the Blessed Fathers meeting together in the Imperial City distinguish'd Dioceses agreeably to what the Nicene Fathers had done and allotted to every Diocese what belonged to it on the contrary charging that no one of one Diocese should encroach upon another Theod. 2.26 Soz. 4.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. 2.40 Sozom. 6.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in prosphonetico ad Imper. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. p. 463. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Chalc. Act. 11. p. 411. Sozom. 8.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Chalc. in Epist. ad P. Leonem Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. p. 462 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Eph. Can. 8. There is mention of Dioceses in Strabo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Chalc. Can. 19 17. Quem autem Primatem Dioeceseos S. Synodus dixerit praeter Apostoli primi Vicarium nullus penitus intelligitur None can understand whom the Holy Synod should call Primate of a Diocese except the Vicar of the prime Apostle Tantundem valet dixisse Primatem Dioeceseos quantum si perhibuisset Dioeceseon P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. p. 507. To say the Primate of a Diocese is as much as to say of Dioceses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Eph. Can. 8. Isid. dist 2. cap. 1. Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apices sive Metropoleâ—n Primatus aut Episcopatuum Cathedras vel Ecclesiarum cujuslibet Ordinis Dignitates instituit Romana Ecclesia P. Nich. II. Dist. 22. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Ch. Act. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Persuasioni enim tuae in nullo penitus suffragatur quorundam Episcoporum ante sexaginta ut jactas annos facta subscriptio nunquámque à praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Seais transmissa notitiam cui ab initio sui caducae dudúmque collapsae sera nunc inutilia subjicere somenta voluisti P. Leo. Ep. 53. ad Anatol. Vid. Ep. 54 55 61. Romana autem Ecclesia eosdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet nec accepit Greg. M. Ep. 6.31 ad Eulog Alex. N. A Roman Synod Anno 378. consisting of Italian Bishops did give the Pope such a privilege as the Synod of Constantinople did to the Bishop of that See Marc. de Primat p. 103. ex app Cod. Theodos. vide Baron But there is difference between a General Synod and an Italian Synod and what had an Italian Synod to prescribe to all the Provinces of the Roman Empire or rather of the West P. Greg. I. Ep. 7 8. Balusius thinketh that Hilarius of Arles did pretend and offer at this Primatical power apud Marc. 5.32 but P. Leo did mainly check and quash his attempt Contra haec si dictum fuerit quia nec Metropolitam habuit nec Patriarcham dicendum est quia à Sede Apostolica quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat Greg. I. Ep. 11.56 Ruffin Hist. 1.6 Isid. in dist 21. cap. 1. Vid. de Marc. lib. 7. cap. â— 5. De pusillo crescere P. Leo. Ep. 55. Quid illi satisfaciet siâ—tantae urbiâ— magnificentia claritudo non sufficit Leo Ep. 55. Euseb. 6.43 Anno 254. Oblationibus matronarum ditati Amm. Marc. l. 27. p. 337. Anno 367. Circumspectè vestiti Amm. Marc. l. 27. p. 337. Anno 367. Euseb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. 7.11 Socr. 7.7 Matt. 13.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. in Pyrrh Subrependi occasiones non praetermittit ambitio P. Leo I. Ep. 62. Faciliùs crescit dignitas quà m incipit Sen. Ep. 101. Primae dominandi speâ— in arduo ubi sis ingressus adsunt studia ministri Tacit. Ann. 4. p. 143. Dist. 21. cap. 2 3. Privilegia Romanae Ecclesiae nullum possunt sustinere detrimentum P. Nic. I. Ep. 36. 32 Sixtus V. qui famae servit ineptus Ac stupet in titulis imaginibus Hor. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Flor. Sess. 25. p. 848. Ità de vocabulorum occasionibus plurimùm quaestiones subornantur sicut de verborum in communionibus Tertull. de Resur Carn 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Apost 34. Quia duobus Episcopis quorum eâ tempestate summa authoritas erat non illuserat Sulp. Sev. 2.63 Because he had not deluded the two Bishops who had the greatest authority in those times Non mediocris authoritatis Episcopus Carthag Aug. Epist. 162. The Bishop of Carthage was of no mean authority audiuntur authoritate suadendi potiùs quà m jubendi potestate Tac. de mor. Germ. p. 640. Evander ea authoritate magìs quà m imperio retinebat loca Liv. 1. Verbum Judico frequenter in ea significatione usurpatur ut idem sit quod sentio seu opinor Can. loc 6. cap. 8. comp lib. 6.1 ut ad Domini mei tanti Pontificis