instances which follow In the designation of a new Apostle to supply the place of Judas he did indeed suggest the matter and lay the case before them he first declared his sense but the whole company did chuse two and referred the determination of one to lot or to God's arbitration At the institution of Deacons the twelve did call the multitude of disciples and directed them to elect the persons and the proposal being acceptable to them it was done accordingly they chose Stephen c. whom they set before the Apostles and when they had prayed they layd their hands on them In that important transaction about the observance of Mosaical Institutions a great stir and debate being started which Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas by disputation could not appease what course was then taken did they appeal to Saint Peter as to the Supreme Dictatour and Judge of Controversies not so but they sent to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem to enquire about the question when those great messengers were arrived there they were received by the Church and the Apostles and Elders and having made their report the Apostles and Elders did assemble to consider about that matter In this assembly after much debate passed and that many had freely uttered their sense Saint Peter rose up with Apostolical gravity declaring what his reason and experience did suggest conducing to a resolution of the point whereto his words might indeed be much available grounded not onely upon common reason but upon special revelation concerning the case whereupon Saint James alledging that revelation and backing it with reason drawn from Scripture with much authority pronounceth his judgment Therefore saith he I judge that is saith St. Chrysostome I authoritatively say that we trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned to God but that we write unto them c. And the result was that according to the proposal of Saint James it was by general consent determined to send a decretal Letter unto the Gentile Christians containing a Canon or advice directive of their practice in the case It then seemed good to or was decreed by the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send and the Letter ran thus The Apostles and Elders and Brethren to the Brethren of the Gentiles Now in all this action in this leading precedent for the management of things in Ecclesiastical Synods and consistories where can the sharpest sight descry any mark of distinction or preeminence which Saint Peter had in respect to the other Apostles did Saint Peter there any-wise behave himself like his pretended Successours upon such occasions what authority did he claim or use before that Assembly or in it or after it did he summon or convocate it no they met upon common agreement did he preside therein no but rather Saint James to whom saith Saint Chrysostome as Bishop of Jerusalem the government was committed did he offer to curb or check any man or to restrain him from his liberty of discourse there no there was much disputation every man frankly speaking his sense did he more than use his freedom of speech becoming an Apostle in arguing the case and passing his vote no for in so exact a relation nothing more doth appear did he form the definitions or pronounce the Decree resulting no Saint James rather did that for as an ancient Authour saith Peter did make an Oration but Saint James did enact the Law was beside his suffrage in the debate any singular approbation required from him or did he by any Bull confirm the Decrees no such matter these were devices of ambition creeping on and growing up to the pitch where they now are In short doth any thing correspondent to Papal pretences appear assumed by Saint Peter or deferred to him If Saint Peter was such a man as they make him how wanting then was he to himself how did he neglect the right and dignity of his Office in not taking more upon him upon so illustrious an occasion the greatest he did ever meet with How defective also were the Apostolical College and the whole Church of Jerusalem in point of duty and decency yielding no more deference to their Sovereign the Vicar of their Lord Whatever account may be framed of these defailances the truth is that Saint Peter then did know his own place and duty better than men do know them now and the rest as well understood how it became them to demean themselves St. Chrysostome's reflexions on those passages are very good that indeed then there was no fastuousness in the Church and the souls of those primitive Christians were clear of Vanity the which dispositions did afterward spring up and grow rankly to the great prejudice of Religion begetting those exorbitant pretences which we now disprove Again when Saint Peter being warned from Heaven thereto did receive Cornelius a Gentile Souldier unto Communion divers good Christians who were ignorant of the warrantableness of that proceeding as others commonly were and Saint Peter himself was before he was informed by that special revelation did not fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contest with him about it not having any notion as it seemeth of his Supreme unaccountable Authority not to say of that infallibility with which the Canonists and Jesuits have invested him unto whom Saint Peter rendreth a fair account and maketh a satisfactory Apology for his proceedings not brow-beating those audacious contenders with his Authority but gently satisfying them with reason But if he had known his Power to be such as now they pretend it to be he should have done well to have asserted it even out of good-will and Charity to those good Brethren correcting their errour and checking their misdemeanour shewing them what an enormous presumption it was so to contend with their Sovereign Pastour and Judge Farther so far was Saint Peter from assuming Command over his Brethren that he was upon occasion ready to obey their Orders as we may see by that passage where upon the conversion of divers persons in Samaria it is said that the Apostles hearing it did send to them Peter and John who going down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost The Apostles sent him that had he been their Sovereign would have been somewhat unseemly and presumptuous for Subjects are not wont to send their Prince or Souldiers their Captain to be sent being a mark of inferiority as our Lord himself did teach A servant said he is not greater than his Lord nor he that is sent greater than he that sent him Saint Luke therefore should at least have so expressed this passage that the Apostles might have seemed to keep their distance and observed good manners if he had said they beseeched him to go that had sounded well but they sent him is harsh if he were Dominus noster Papa as the modern Apostles of Rome
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
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
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
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
perplexities in story it is reasonable to understand those of the Ancients who call Peter Bishop of Rome and Rome the place the Chair the See of Peter as meaning that he was Bishop or Superintendent of that Church in a large sense because he did found the Church by converting men to the Christian Faith because he did erect the Chair by ordaining the first Bishops because he did in virtue both of his Apostolical Office and his special parental relation to that Church maintain a particular inspection over it when he was there which notion is not new for of old Ruffinus affirmeth that he had it not from his own invention but from Tradition of others Some saith he inquire how seeing Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clement Clement himself writing to James could say that the See was delivered to him by Peter whereof this reason has been given us viz. that Linus and Cletus were indeed Bishops of Rome before Clement but Peter being yet living viz. that they might take the Episcopal charge but he fulfill'd the Office of the Apostleship 6. This notion may be confirmed by divers observations It is observable that the most ancient Writers living nearest the fountains of Tradition do not expresly style Saint Peter Bishop of Rome but onely say that he did found that Church instituting and ordaining Bishops there as the other Apostles did in the Churches which they setled so that the Bishops there in a large sense did succeed him and deriving their power from his ordination and supplying his room in the instruction and governance of that great Church Yea their words if we well mark them do exclude the Apostles from the Episcopacy Which words the later Writers who did not foresee the consequence nor what an exorbitant superstructure would be raised on that slender bottom and who were willing to comply with the Roman Bishops affecting by all means to reckon Saint Peter for their predecessour did easily catch and not well distinguishing did call him Bishop and St. Paul also so making two Heads of one Church 7. It is also observable that in the recensions of the Roman Bishops sometimes the Apostles are reckoned in sometimes excluded So Eusebius calleth Clemens the third Bishop of Rome yet before him he reckoneth Linus and Anacletus And of Alexander he saith that he deduced his Succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul that is excluding the Apostles And Hyginus is thus accounted sometime the eighth sometime the ninth Bishop of Rome The same difference in reckoning may be observed in other Churches for instance although Saint Peter is called no less Bishop of Antioch than of Rome by the Ancients yet Eusebius saith that Evodius was first Bishop of Antioch and another bids the Antiocheans remember Evodius who was first entrusted with the Presidency over them by the Apostles Other instances may be seen in the Notes of Cotellerius upon the Apostolical Constitutions where he maketh this general Observation 'T is an usual custome with the Apostles according to their Power ordinary or extraordinary Episcopal or Apostolical to prefix c. but it was needless to suppose these two Powers when one was sufficient it virtually containing the other This is an Argument that the Ancients were not assured in opinion that the Apostles were Bishops or that they did not esteem them Bishops in the same notion with others 8. It is observable that divers Churches did take denomination from the Apostles and were called Apostolical Thrones or Chairs not because the Apostles themselves did sit Bishops there but because they did exercise their Apostleship in teaching and in constituting Bishops there who as Tertullian saith did propagate the Apostolical seed So was Ephesus esteemed because Saint Paul did found it and ordain Timothy there and because Saint John did govern and appoint Bishops there So was Smyrna accounted because Polycarpus was setled there by the Apostles or by Saint John So Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem had a controversie about metropolitical rights with Acacius Bishop of Caesarea as presiding in an Apostolical See So Alexandria was deemed because Saint Mark was supposed by the appointment of Saint Peter to sit there So were Corinth Thessalonica Philippi called by Tertullian because Saint Paul did found them and furnish them with Pastours in which respect peculiarly the Bishops of those places were called Successours of the Apostles So Constantinople did assume the title of an Apostolical Church probably because according to tradition St. Andrew did found that Church although Pope Leo I. would not allow it that appellation Upon the same account might Rome at first be called an Apostolical See although afterward the Roman Bishops did rather pretend to that denomination upon account of Saint Peter being Bishop there and the like may be said of Antioch 9. It is observable that the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions reciting the first Bishops constituted in several Churches doth not reckon any of the Apostles particularly not Peter or Paul or John 10. Again any Apostle wherever he did reside by virtue of his Apostolical Office without any other designation or assumption of a more special Power was qualifyed to preside there exercising a Superintendency comprehensive of all Episcopal functions so that it was needless that he should take upon himself the character or style of a Bishop This beside the tenour of ancient Doctrine doth appear from the demeanour of Saint John who never was reckoned Bishop of Ephesus nor could be without displacing Timothy who by Saint Paul was constituted Bishop there or succeeding in his room yet he abiding at Ephesus did there discharge the Office of a Metropolitan governing the Churches and in the adjacent Churches here constituting Bishops there forming whole Churches otherwhere allotting to the Clergy Persons designed by the Spirit Such Functions might Saint Peter execute in the parts of Rome or Antioch without being a Bishop and as the Bishops of Asia did saith Tertullian refer their original to Saint John so might the Bishops of Italy upon the like ground refer their original to Saint Peter It is observable that whereas Saint Peter is affirmed to have been Bishop of Antioch seven years before his access to Rome that is within the compass of Saint Luke's story yet he passeth over a matter of so great moment as St. Hierome observeth I cannot grant that if Saint Luke had thought Peter Sovereign of the Church and his Episcopacy of a place a matter of such consequence he would have slipped it over being so obvious a thing and coming in the way of his story He therefore I conceive was no Bishop of Antioch although a Bishop at Antioch 11. If in objection to some of these discourses it be alledged that Saint James our Lord 's near Kinsman although he was an Apostle was made Bishop of Jerusalem and that
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
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
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
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
may be seen in all solemn addresses and reports concerning them which is an Argument sufficiently plain that Bishops in those times did not take themselves to be the Pope's Subjects or his inferiours in Office but his fellows and mates co-ordinate in rank Were not these improper terms for an ordinary Gentleman or Nobleman to accost his Prince in yet hardly is there such a distance between any Prince and his Peers as there is between a modern Pope and other Bishops It would now be taken for a great arrogance and sawciness for an underling Bishop to address to the Pope in such language or to speak of him in that manner which is a sign that the World is altered in its notion of him and that he beareth a higher conceit of himself than his primitive Ancestours did Now nothing but Beatissimus Pater most Blessed Father and Dominus noster Papa our Lord the Pope in the highest sense will satisfy him Now a Pope in a General Synod in a solemn Oration could be told to his face that the most Holy Senate of Cardinals had chosen a Brother into a Father a Collegue into a Lord. Verily so it is now but not so anciently In the same ancient times the style of the Roman Bishops writing to other Bishops was the same he calling them Brethren and Fellow-ministers So did Cornelius write to Fabius of Antioch beloved brother so did he call all other Bishops be it known to all our Fellow-bishops and brethren So Julius to the Oriental Bishops To our beloved brethren So Liberius to the Macedonian Bishops To our beloved brethren and Fellow-ministers and to the Oriental Bishops To our brethren and Fellow-bishops So Damasus to the Bishops of Illyricum So Leo himself frequently in his Epistles So Pope Celestine calleth John of Antioch Most honoured brother to Cyril and to Nestorius himself Beloved brother to the Fathers of Ephesus Signiours brethren Pope Gelasius to the Bishops of Dardania Your brotherhood St. Gregory to Cyriacus Our brother and Fellow-priest Cyriacus If it be said the Popes did write so then out of condescension or humility and modesty it may be replied that if really there was such a difference as is now pretended it may seem rather affectation and indecency or mockery for it would have more become the Pope to maintain the majesty and authority of his place by appellations apt to cherish their reverence than to collogue with them in terms void of reality or signifying that equality which he did not mean But Bellarmine hath found out one instance which he maketh much of of Pope Damasus who writing not as he alledgeth to the Fathers of Constantinople but to certain Eastern Bishops calleth them most honoured sons That whole Epistle I do fear to be foisted into Theodoret for it cometh in abruptly and doth not much become such a man and if it be supposed genuine I should suspect some corruption in the place for why if he writ to Bishops should he use a style so unsutable to those times and so different from that of his Predecessours and Successours why should there be such a disparity between his own style now and at other times for writing to the Bishops of Illyricum he calleth them beloved brethren why then is he so inconstant and partial as to yield these Oriental Bishops less respect wherefore perhaps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was thrust in for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or perhaps the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was intruded and he did write to Lay-men those who governed the East who well might be called most honoured sons otherwise the Epithet doth not seem well to sute but however a single example of arrogance or stateliness or of what shall I call it is not to be set against so many modest and mannerly ones In fine that this salutation doth not always imply Superiority we may be assured by that inscription of Alexander Bishop of Thessalonice to Athanasius of Alexandria To my beloved Son and unanimous Collegue Athanasius IX The ground of that eminence which the Roman Bishop did obtain in the Church so as in order to precede other Bishops doth shake this pretence The Church of Rome was indeed allowed to be the principal Church as St. Cyprian calleth it but why was it preferred by Divine Institution no surely Christianity did not make Laws of that nature or constitute differences of places Was it in regard to the succession of St. Peter no that was a slim upstart device that did not hold in Antioch nor in other Apostolical Churches But it was for a more substantial reason the very same on which the dignity and preeminency of other Churches was founded that is the dignity magnitude opulency opportunity of that City in which the Bishop of Rome did preside together with the consequent numerousness quality and wealth of his flock which gave him many great advantages above other his Fellow-bishops It was saith Rigaltius called by St. Cyprian the principal Church because constituted in the principal City That Church in the very times of severest persecutions by the providence of God as Pope Cornelius said in his Epistle to Fabius had a rich and plentifull number with a most great and innumerable people so that he reckoneth forty four Presbyters seven Deacons in imitation of the number in the Acts seven Sub-deacons forty two Acoluthi fifty two others of the inferiour Clergy and above fifteen hundred Alms-people To that Church there must needs have been a great resort of Christians going to the seat of the Empire in pursuit of business as in proportion there was to each other Metropolis according to that Canon of the Antiochene Synod which ordered that the Bishop of each Metropolis should take care of the whole Province because all that had business did resort to the Metropolis That Church was most able to yield help and succour to them who needed it and accordingly did use to doe it according to that of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth in his Epistle to Bishop Soter of Rome This saith he is your custome from the beginning in divers ways to doe good to the brethren and to send supplies to many Churches in every city so refreshing the poverty of those who want Whence it is no wonder that the Head of that Church did get most reputation and the privilege of precedence without competition To this Church said Irenaeus it is necessary that every Church that is the faithfull who are all about should resort because of its more powerfull principality what is meant by that resort will be easie to him who considereth how men here are wont to go up to London drawn thither by interests of Trade Law c. What he did understand by more powerfull principality the words themselves do signifie which exactly do agree to the Power and Grandure of the Imperial City but do not well sute to
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
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
of Judas wherein upon Saint Peter's motion all the disciples present did by consent present two out of whom God himself did elect one by determining the lot to fall upon Matthias so that this designation being partly humane partly divine so far as it was humane it went by free election of the whole fraternity and Saint Peter beside generally suggesting the matter to be done did assume nothing peculiar to himself The next constitution we meet with is that of Deacons to assist the Apostles and Elders in discharge of inferiour Offices wherein the Apostles did commit the designation of the persons to the multitude of the disciples who elected them and presented them to the Apostles who by prayer and laying on of hands did ordain them Nor had Saint Peter in this action any particular stroke As to the Constitution of Bishops in the first Apostolical times the course was this The Apostles and Apostolical persons who were authorized by the Apostles to act with their power and in their stead did in Churches founded by them constitute Bishops such as divine inspiration or their grace of discretion did guide them to So did Saint John in Asia setting those apart for the Clergy whom the Spirit had markt out This was not done without the consent of the Christian people as Clemens Romanus telleth us in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians But he doth not acquaint us although he were himself Bishop of Rome that the Pope had any thing to doe in such Constitutions or in confirmations of them the whole Church saith he consenting Why doth he not add for his own sake and the Pope confirming In the next times when those extraordinary persons and faculties had expired when usually the Churches planted were in situation somewhat incoherent and remote from each other upon a vacancy the Clergy and people of each Church did elect its Bishop in which action commonly the Clergy did propound and recommend a person or persons and the people by their consent approve or by their suffrages elect one a strict examination of his Life and Doctrine intervening the which Order Tertullian briefly doth intimate in those words The Presidents of the Church are certain Elders well approved who have obtained that honour not by price but by proof It may be enquired how a Bishop then was Ordained in case his City was very remote from any other Churches Did they send for Bishops from distant places to Ordain him Or did the Presbyters of the place lay their hands on him Or did he receive no other Ordination than that he had before of Presbyter Or did he abide no Bishop till opportunity did yield Bishops to Ordain him Or did providence order that there should be no such solitary Churches The ancient Commentatour contemporary to St. Ambrose and bearing his name did conceive that upon decease of a Bishop the elder of the Presbyters did succeed into his place Whence had he this out of his invention and conjecture or from some Tradition and History Afterward when the Faith was diffused through many Provinces that Churches grew thick and close the general practice was this The neighbour Bishops being advertised of a vacancy or want of a Bishop did convene at the place then in the Congregation the Clergy of the place did propound a person yielding their attestation to his fitness for the charge which the people hearing did give their suffrages accepting him if no weighty cause was objected against him or refusing him if such cause did appear Then upon such recommendation and acceptance the Bishops present did adjoin their approbation and consent then by their devotions and solemn laying on of their hands they did Ordain or Consecrate him to the Function Of this course most commonly practised in his time we have divers plain Testimonies in St. Cyprian the best Authour extant concerning these matters of ancient Discipline For which reason saith he that from divine tradition and Apostolical observation is to be observed and held which also is with us and almost through all Provinces kept that for duely celebrating ordinations unto that people for whom a Bishop is ordained all the neighbour Bishops of the same Province or people should resort and a Bishop should be chosen the people being present which most fully knoweth the life of each one and hath from his conversation a thorough insight into his practice the which we see done with you in the ordination of our Collegue Sabinus that by the suffrage of all the fraternity and by the judgment of all the Bishops which had assembled in the presence and had sent letters to you about him the Bishoprick should be deferr'd to him Again A people obedient to the Lord's commands and fearing God ought to separate it self from a wicked Bishop such a notoriously wicked Bishop as those were of whom he treateth who had renounced the Faith and not to mingle it self with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest seeing especially that it hath a power either to chuse worthy Priests or to refuse those who are unworthy the which also we see to descend from divine authority that a Bishop should be chosen the people being present before the eyes of all and that he who is worth and fit should be approved by publick judgment and testimony Again when saith he concerning himself a Bishop is substituted in the place of one deceased when he is peaceably chosen by the suffrage of all the people and whom if according to the divine instructions the whole fraternity would obey no man would move any thing against the College of Priests none after the divine judgment after the suffrage of the people after the consent of the fellow-Bishop would make himself judge not indeed of the Bishop but of God Again Cornelius was made Bishop by the judgment of God and his Christ by the testimony of almost all the Clergy by the suffrage of the people being then present and by the College of Priests ancient and good men and Cornelius being in the Catholick Church ordained by the judgment of God and by the suffrage of the Clergy and people Again When a Bishop is once made and is approved by the testimony and the judgment of his Collegues and of the people The Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions thus in the person of Saint Peter very fully and clearly describeth the manner of Ordination of Bishops in his times After one of the chief Bishops present has thus prayed the rest of the Priests with all the people shall say Amen and after the prayer one of the Bishops shall deliver the Eucharist into the hands of the person ordained and that morning he shall be plac'd by the rest of the Bishops in his Throne all of them saluting him with a kiss in the Lord. After the reading of the Law and Prophets of our Epistles the Acts and Gospel he who is ordained shall salute the
Church with these words The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God the Father and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen And let all answer And with thy spirit After which words let him exhort the people Thus it was then in a practice so obvious and observable that a Pagan Emperour took good notice of it and chose to imitate it in constituting the Governours of Provinces and other Officers When saith Lampridius of Alexander Severâ—s he would either give rulers to Provinces or make presidents or ordain procuratours he set up their names exhorting the people if they had any thing against them to prove it by manifest evidence if they could not make their accusation good they were to die for it and he said 't would be hard not to doe that in the choice of Governours of Provinces to whom the lives and fortunes of men were entrusted which the Christians and Jews did in setting up those who were to be ordained Priests Afterward in process of time when the gaps of distance being filled up and Christendom becoming one continued Body Ecclesiastical Discipline was improved into a more complete shape for Constitution of a Bishop all the Bishops of a Province did convene or such as could with convenience the others signifying their mind by writing and having approved him who was recommended by the Clergy and allowed by the people they did ordain him the Metropolitan of the Province ratifying what was done So the Nicene Synod regarding the practice which had commonly obtained did appoint with a qualification to be generally observed It is most fit say they that a Bishop be constituted by all Bishops in the Province but if this be hard either because of urgent necessity or for the length of the way then three of the body being gathered together those also who are absent conspiring in opinion and yielding their consent in writing let the Ordination be performed but let the ratification of what is done be assigned to the Metropolite in each Province In this Canon the which is followed by divers Canons of other Synods there is no express mention concerning the interest of the Clergy and people in election of the Bishops but these things are onely passed over as precedaneous to the Constitution or Ordination about which onely the Fathers did intend to prescribe supposing the election to proceed according to former usual practice That we ought thus to interpret the Canon so that the Fathers did not intend to exclude the people from their choice doth appear from their Synodical Epistle wherein they Decree concerning Bishops constituted by Meletius who returning to communion with the Church did live in any City that If any Catholick Bishop should happen to die then should those who were already received ascend into the honour of him deceased in case they should appear worthy and the people should chuse the Bishop of Alexandria withall adding his suffrage to him and his confirmation the which words with sufficient evidence do interpret the Canon not to concern the Election but the Ordination of Bishops Thus the Fathers of the second General Synod plainly did interpret this Canon by their proceeding for they in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops did assure him that they in the Constitution of Bishops for the principal Eastern Sees had followed this Order of the Synod of Nice together with the ancient law of the Church in agreement whereto they had ordained Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople with common consent under the eyes of the most religious Emperour Theodosius and of all the Clergy the whole City adjoining also its suffrage and that for Antioch the Bishops of the Province and of the Eastern Diocese concurring had canonically ordained Flavianus Bishop the whole Church consenting as with one voice to honour the person Indeed the practice generally doth confirm this the People every where continuing to elect their Bishop So did the people of Alexandria demand Athanasius for their Bishop So Pope Julius did complain that Gregory was intruded into the place of Athanasius not being required by the Presbyters not by the Bishops not by the People So Gregory Nazianzene describeth the Elections of Bishops in his times to be carried by the power of wealthy men and impetuousness of the people So Austin intimateth the same in his Speech about designation of a Successour to himself I know says he that after the decease of Bishops the Churches are wont to be disturbed by ambitious and contentious men So the tumults at Antioch in chusing a Bishop after Eustathius at Rome after Liberius at Constantinople after Alexander at Milain when St. Ambrose was chosen So Stephanus Bishop of Ephesus in justification of himself saith Me forty Bishops of Asia by the suffrage of the most noble and of the substantial Citizens and of all the most reverend Clergy and of all the rest of the whole City did Ordain and his Competitour Bassianus Me with great constraint and violence the people and the Clergy and the Bishops did install In the Synod of Chalcedon Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra saith that the whole City of Gangra did come to him bringing their suffrages Posidius telleth us of St. Austin that in ordaining Priests and Clergymen he deemed the greater consent of Christians and the custom of the Church was to be followed So Celestine the First Let no Bishop be given them against their wills let the consent and request of the Clergy the people and the order be expected and Pope Leo the First When there shall be an election of a Bishop let him be preferr'd who has the unanimous consent of the Clergy and people so that if the votes be divided and part for another person let him by the judgment of the Metropolitan be preferr'd whose merits and interest are greatest onely that none may be ordained against their wills or without their desire lest the unwilling people contemn or hate a Bishop whom they never desired and become less religious than they ought because they could not have such a Bishop as they would And in other of his Epistles There is no reason that they should be accounted Bishops who were neither chosen by the Clergy nor desired by the people nor with the Metropolitan's order consecrated by the Provincial Bishops Certainly the desires of the Citizens and the testimonies of the people should have been expected with the judgment of the honourable and the choice of the Clergy which in the Ordinations of Priests use to be observ'd by those who know the rules of the Fathers When peaceably and with such concord as God loves he who is to be a teacher of peace is ordained by the agreement of all Let Priests who are to be ordained be required peaceably and quietly let the subscription of the Clergy the testimony of the honourable the
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
Theophanius Bishop of Antioch So the Synod of Pisa did constitute Pope Alexander V. that of Constance Pope Martin V. that of Basil Pope Felix V. 7. All Catholick Bishops in old times might and commonly did confirm the Elections and Ordinations of Bishops to the same effect as Popes may be pretended to have done that is by signifying their approbation or satisfaction concerning the orthodoxy of their Faith the attestation of their Manners the legality of their Ordination no canonical Impediment and consequently by admitting them to communion of peace and charity and correspondence in all good Offices which they express by returning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in answer to their Synodical communicatory Letters Thus did St. Cyprian and all the Bishops of that Age confirm the Ordination of Pope Cornelius being contested by Novatian as St. Cyprian in terms doth affirm When the See of Saint Peter the Sacerdotal Chair was vacant which by the will of God being occupied and by all our consents confirm'd c. to confirm thy Ordination with a greater authority To which purpose each Bishop did write Epistles to other Bishops or at least to those of highest rank acquainting them with his Ordination and enstallment making a profession of his Faith so as to satisfie them of his capacity of the Function 8. But Bishops were complete Bishops before they did give such an account of themselves so that it was not in the power of the Pope or of any others to reverse their Ordination or dispossess them of their places There was no confirmation importing any such matter this is plain and one instance will serve to shew it that of Pope Honorius and of Sergius Bishop of Constantinople who speak of Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem that he was constituted Bishop before their knowledge and receipt of his Synodical Letters 9. If the designation of any Bishop should belong to the Pope then especially that of Metropolitans who are the chief Princes of the Church but this anciently did not belong to him In Africk the most ancient Bishop of the Province without election did succeed into that dignity Where the Metropoles were fixed all the Bishops of the Province did convene and with the consent of Clergy persons of quality and the commonalty did elect him So was St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage elected So Nectarius of Constantinople Flavianus of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem as the Fathers of Constantinople tell us So Stephanus and Bassianus rival Bishops of Ephesus did pretend to have been chosen as we saw before And for Confirmation there did not need any there is no mention of any except that Confirmation of which we spake a consequent approbation of them from all their fellow-Bishops as having no exception against them rendring them unworthy of communion In the Synod of Chalcedon it was defined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal Privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet it is expresly cautioned there that he shall not meddle in Ordination of Bishops in any Province that being left to the Metropolitan For a good time even in the Western parts the Pope did not meddle with the Constitution of Metropolitans leaving the Churches to enjoy their Liberties Afterwards with all other Rights he snatched the Collation Confirmation c. of Metropolitans VII Sovereigns have a power to Censure and Correct all inferiour Magistrates in proportion to their Offences and in case of great misdemeanour or of incapacity they can wholly discharge and remove them from their Office This Prerogative therefore He of Rome doth claim as most proper to himself by Divine Sanction God Almighty alone can dissolve the spiritual marriage between a Bishop and his Church Therefore those three things premised the Confirmation Translation and Deposition of Bishops are reserved to the Roman Bishop not so much by Canonical Constitution as by Divine Institution This power the Convention of Trent doth allow him thwarting the ancient Laws and betraying the Liberties of the Church thereby and endangering the Christian Doctrine to be inflected and corrupted to the advantage of Papal Interest But such a power anciently did not by any Rule or Custom in a peculiar manner belong to the Roman Bishop Premising what was generally touched about Jurisdiction in reference to this Branch we remark 1. The exercising of Judgment and Censure upon Bishops when it was needfull for general good was prescribed to be done by Synods Provincial or Patriarchal Diocesan In them Causes were to be discussed and Sentence pronounced against those who had deviated from saith or committed misdemeanours So it was appointed in the Synod of Nice as the African Synod wherein St. Austin was one Bishop did observe and urge in their Epistle to Pope Celestine in those notable words Whether they be Clergy of an inferiour degree or whether they be Bishops the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed them to the Metropolitans charge for they have most prudently and justly discerned that all matters whatsoever ought to be determined in the places where they do first begin and that the grace of the holy spirit would not be wanting to every particular Province The same Law was enacted by the Synod of Antioch by the Synods of Constantinople Chalcedon c. Thus was Paulus Samosatenus for his errour against the Divinity of our Lord and for his scandalous demeanour deposed by the Synod of Antioch Thus was Eustathius Bishop of Antioch being accused of Sabellianism and of other faults removed by a Synod of the same place the which Sentence he quietly did bear Thus another Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia for his uncouth garb and fond conceits against marriage was discarded by the Synod of Gangra Thus did a Synod of Constantinople abdicate Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra for heterodoxy in the point concerning our Lord's Divinity For the like cause was Photinus Bishop of Sirmium deposed by a Synod there gathered by the Emperour's command So was Athanasius tryed and condemned although unjustly as to the matter and cause by the Synod of Tyre So was St. Chrysostome although most injuriously deposed by a Synod at Constantinople So the Bishops at Antioch according to the Emperour's order deposed Stephanus Bishop of that place for a wicked contrivance against the fame of Euphratas and Vincentius In all these Condemnations Censures and Depositions of Bishops whereof each was of high rank and great interest in the Church the Bishop of Rome had no hand nor so much as a little finger All the proceedings did go on supposition of the Rule and Laws that such Judgments were to be passed by Synods St. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deposed fifteen Bishops 2. In some case a kind of deposing of Bishops was assumed by particular Bishops as defenders of the Faith and executours of Canons their Deposition consisting in not allowing those to be Bishops whom for erroneous Doctrine or
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 Antioch VI. Now because in the transacting of these things the Pastours have the chief hand and act in behalf of the Churches which they inspect therefore is the Church united also by their consent in Doctrine their agreement in Peace their maintaining entercourse their concurrence to preserve Truth and Charity We ought all to be vigilant and carefull for the body of the whole Church where members are dispersed through many several Provinces Seeing the Church which is one and Catholick is not rent nor divided but truly knit and united together by the bond of Priests united one to another This agrees with the modesty and discipline and the very life of all that many of the Bishops meeting together might order all things in a religious way by common advice That since it having pleased God to grant us peace we begin to have greater meetings of Bishops we may also by your advice order and reform every thing Which that with the rest of our Collegues we may stedfastly and firmly administer and that we may keep the peace of the Church in the unanimity of concord the divine favour will vouchsafe to accomplish A great number of Bishops we met together Bishops being chosen did acquaint other Bishops with it It was sufficient saith St. Cyprian to Cornelius that you should by your Letters acquaint us that you were made a Bishop Declare plainly to us who is substituted at Arles in the room of Marcian that we may know to whom we should direct our brethren and to whom we should write All Churches were to ratifie the Elections of Bishops duly made by others and to communicate with those And likewise to comply with all reasonable Acts for Communion To preserve this Peace and Correspondence it was a Law and Custome that no Church should admit to Communion those which were excommunicated by another or who did schismatically divide We are believed to have done the same thing whereby we are found to be all of us associated and joined together by the same agreement in censure and discipline The Decrees of Bishops were sent to be subscribed VII All Christian Churches are one by a specifical Unity of Discipline resembling one another in Ecclesiastical administrations which are regulated by the indispensible Sanctions and Institutions of their Sovereign They are all bound to use the same Sacraments according to the forms appointed by our Lord not admitting any substantial alteration They must uphold that sort of Order Government and Ministery in all its substantial parts which God did appoint in the Church or give thereto as Saint Paul expresseth it it being a temerarious and dangerous thing to innovate in those matters which our Lord had a special care to order and settle Nor can they continue in the Church that have not retained Divine and Ecclesiastical Discipline neither in good conversation nor peaceable life In lesser matters of Ceremony or Discipline instituted by humane prudence Churches may differ and it is expedient they should do so in regard to the various circumstances of things and qualities of persons to which Discipline should be accommodated but no Power ought to abrogate destroy or infringe or violate the main form of Discipline constituted by Divine appointment Hence when some Confessours had abetted Novatianus against Cornelius thereby against a fundamental Rule of the Church necessary for preserving of Peace and Order therein that but one Bishop should be in one Church St. Cyprian doth thus complain of their proceeding To act any thing against the Sacrament of Divine ordination and Catholick unity once delivered makes an adulterate and contrary head out of the Church Forsaking the Lord's Priests contrary to the Evangelical discipline a new Tradition of a sacrilegious Institution starts up There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one See founded upon Peter by the word of the Lord besides one Altar and one Priesthood another Altar cannot be erected nor a new Priesthood ordained Hence were the Meletians rejected by the Church for introducing Ordinations Hence was Aerius accounted a Heretick for meaning to innovate in so grand a point of Discipline as the Subordination of Bishops and Presbyters VIII It is expedient that all Churches should conform to each other in great matters of prudential Discipline although not instituted or prescribed by God for this is a means of preserving Peace and is a Beauty or Harmony For difference of Practice doth alienate Affections especially in common People So the Synod of Nice That all things may be alike ordered in every Diocese it hath seemed good to the holy Synod that men should put up their Prayers to God standing viz. between Easter and Whitsontide and upon the Lord's-day The Church is like the World for as the World doth consist of men all naturally subject to one King Almighty God all obliged to observe his Laws declared by natural Light all made of one bloud and so Brethren all endowed with common Reason all bound to exercise good Offices of Justice and Humanity toward each other to maintain Peace and Amity together to further each other in the prosecution or attainment of those good things which conduce to the Welfare and Security of this present Life even so doth the Church consist of persons spiritually allied professing the same Faith subject to the same Law and Government of Christ's heavenly Kingdom bound to exercise Charity and to maintain Peace toward each other and to promote each others good in order to the future Happiness in Heaven All those kinds of Unity do plainly agree to the universal Church of Christ but the Question is Whether the Church is also necessarily by the design and appointment of God to be in way of external policy under one singular Government or Jurisdiction of any kind so as a Kingdom or Commonwealth are united under the Command of one Monarch or one Senate That the Church is capable of such an Union is not the Controversie that it is possible it should be so united supposing it may happen that all Christians may be reduced to one Nation or one civil Regiment or that several Nations spontaneously may confederate and combine themselves into one Ecclesiastical Commonwealth administred by the same Spiritual Rulers and Judges according to the same Laws I do not question that when in a manner all Christendom did consist of Subjects to the Roman Empire the Church then did arrive near such an Unity I do not at present contest but that such an Union of all Christians is necessary or that it was ever instituted by Christ I cannot grant and for my refusal of that opinion I shall assign divers Reasons 1. This being a Point of great consideration and trenching upon Practice which every one were concerned to know and there being frequent occasions to declare it yet the Holy Scripture doth no where express or intimate
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
c. Which thing also Agrippinus of blessed memory with his other Fellow-bishops who then governed the Church of Christ in the African Province and in Numidia did establish and by the well-weighed examination of the common advice of them all together confirmed it Thus it was the custome in the Churches of Asia as Firmilian telleth us in those words Vpon which occasion it necessarily happens that every year we the Elders and Rulers do come together to regulate those things which are committed to our care that if there should be any things of greater moment by common advice they be determined Yet while things went thus in order to common Truth and Peace every Church in more private matters touching its own particular state did retain its Liberty and Authority without being subject or accountable to any but the common Lord in such cases even Synods of Bishops did not think it proper or just for them to interpose to the prejudice of that Liberty and Power which derived from a higher Source These things are very apparent as by the course of Ecclesiastical History so particularly in that most pretious Monument of Antiquity St. Cyprian's Epistles by which it is most evident that in those times every Bishop or Pastour was conceived to have a double relation or capacity one toward his own Flock another toward the whole Flock One toward his own Flock by virtue of which he taking advice of his Presbyters together with the conscience of his People assisting did order all things tending to particular Edification Order Peace Reformation Censure c. without fear of being troubled by Appeals or being liable to give any account but to his own Lord whose Vicegerent he was Another toward the whole Church in behalf of his People upon account whereof he did according to occasion or order apply himself to confer with other Bishops for preservation of the common Truth and Peace when they could not otherwise be well upheld than by the joint conspiring of the Pastours of divers Churches So that the Case of Bishops was like to that of Princes each of whom hath a free Superintendence in his own Territory but for to uphold Justice and Peace in the World or between adjacent Nations the entercourse of several Princes is needfull The Peace of the Church was preserved by communion of all Parts together not by the subjection of the rest to one Part. 7. This political Unity doth not well accord with the nature and genius of the Evangelical dispensation Our Saviour affirmed that his Kingdom is not of this World and Saint Paul telleth us that it consisteth in a Spiritual influence upon the Souls of men producing in them Vertue Spiritual Joy and Peace It disavoweth and discountenanceth the elements of the world by which worldly designs are carried on and worldly frames sustained It requireth not to be managed by politick artifices or fleshly wisedom but by Simplicity Sincerity Plain-dealing as every Subject of it must lay aside all guile and dissimulation so especially the Officers of it must doe so in conformity to the Apostles who had their conversation in the world and prosecuted their design in simplicity and godly sincerity not with fleshly wisedom but by the grace of God not walking in craftiness or handling the word of God deceitfully c. It needeth not to be supported or enlarged by wealth and pomp or by compulsive force and violence for God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and the weak things of the world to confound the mighty and base despicable things c. that no flesh should gloâ—y in his presence And The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God c. It discountenanceth the imposition of new Laws and Precepts beside those which God hath injoined or which are necessary for order and edification derogating from the Liberty of Christians and from the Simplicity of our Religion The Government of the Christian State is represented purely spiritual administred by meek persuasion not by imperious awe as an humble ministery not as stately domination for the Apostles themselves did not Lord it over mens faith but did co-operate to their joy they did not preach themselves but Christ Jesus to be the Lord and themselves their servants for Jesus It is expresly forbidden to them to domineer over God's people They are to be qualified with Gentleness and Patience they are forbidden to strive and enjoined to be gentle toward all apt to teach patient in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves They are to convince to rebuke to exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine They are furnished with no Arms beside the divine Panoply they bear no sword but that of the Spirit which is the word of God they may teach reprove they cannot compell They are not to be entangled in the cares of this life But supposing the Church was designed to be one in this manner of political regiment it must be quite another thing nearly resembling a worldly state yea in effect soon resolving it self into such an one supposing as is now pretended that its management is committed to an Ecclesiastical Monarch it must become a worldly Kingdom for such a Polity could not be upheld without applying the same means and engines without practising the same methods and arts whereby secular Governments are maintained It s Majesty must be supported by conspicuous Pomp and Phantastry It s Dignity and Power must be supported by Wealth which it must corrade and accumulate by large Incomes by exaction of Tributes and Taxes It must exert Authority in enacting of Laws for keeping its State in order and securing its Interests backed with Rewards and Pains especially considering its Title being so dark and grounded on no clear warrant many always will contest it It must apply Constraint and Force for procuring Obedience and correcting Transgression It must have Guards to preserve its Safety and Authority It must be engaged in Wars to defend its self and make good its Interests It must use Subtilty and Artifice for promoting its Interests and countermine the Policies of Adversaries It must erect Judicatories and must decide Causes with Formality of legal process whence tedious Suits crafty Pleadings Quirks of Law and Pettifoggeries Fees and Charges Extortion and Barretry c. will necessarily creep in All which things do much disagree from the original constitution and design of the Christian Church which is averse from pomp doth reject domination doth not require craft wealth or force to maintain it but did at first and may subsist without any such means I do not say that an Ecclesiastical Society may not lawfully for its support use Power Policy wealth in some measure to uphold or defend it self but that a Constitution needing such things is not Divine or that so far as it doth use them it is