sayings to that purpose by suggestion of Hildebrand by whom he was much governed Pope Stephanus VI. told the Emperour Basilius that he ought to be subject with all veneration to the Roman Church Pope John VIII or IX did pretend Obedience due to him from Princes and in default thereof threatned to excommunicate them Pope Nicolas I. cast many imperious sayings and threats at King Lotharius these among others We do therefore by Apostolical authority under obtestation of the Divine judgment injoin to thee that in Triers and Colen thou shouldst not suffer any Bishop to be chosen before a report be made to our Apostleship Was not this satis pro imperio And again That being compelled thou mayst be able to repent know that very soon thou shalt be struck with the Ecclesiastical Sword so that thou mayst be afraid any more to commit such things in God's holy Church And this he suggesteth for right Doctrine that Subjection is not due to bad Princes perverting the Apostle's words to that purpose Be subject to the King as excelling that is saith he in vertues not in vices whereas the Apostle meaneth eminency in power Pope Gregory VII doth also alledge Pope Zachary who saith he did depose the King of the Franks and did absolve all the French from the Oath of fidelity which they had taken unto him not so much for his iniquities as because he was unfit for such a Power This indeed was a notable act of jurisdiction if Pope Gregory's word may be taken for matter of fact but divers maintain that Pope Zachary did onely concur with the rebellious deposers of King Chilperick in way of advice or approbation not by authority It was pretty briskly said of Pope Adrian I. We do by general decree constitute that whatever King or Bishop or Potentate shall hereafter believe or permit that the Censure of the Roman Pontifes may be violated in any case he shall be an execrable Anathema and shall be guilty before God as a betrayer of the Catholick Faith Constitutions against the Canons and Decrees of the Bishops of Rome or against good manners are of no moment Before that Pope Gregory II. because the Eastern Emperour did cross the worship of Images did withdraw Subjection from him and did thrust his Authority out of Italy He saith Baronius did effectually cause both the Romans and Italians to recede from Obedience to the Emperour This was an act in truth of Rebellion against the Emperour in pretence of Jurisdiction over him for how otherwise could he justify or colour the fact So as Baronius reflecteth he did leave to posterity a worthy example forsooth that Heretical Princes should not be suffered to reign in the Church of Christ if being warned they were found pertinacious in errour And no wonder he then was so bold seeing the Pope had obtained so much respect in those parts of the World that as he told the Emperour Leo Is. all the Kingdoms of the West did hold Saint Peter as an earthly God of which he might be able to seduce some to uphold him in his rebellious practices This is the highest source as I take it to which this extravagant Doctrine can be driven For that single passage of Pope Felix III. though much ancienter will not amount to it It is certain that in causes relating to God 't is the safest course for you that according to his institution ye endeavour to submit the will of the King to the Priests c. For while the Emperour did retain any considerable Authority in Italy the Popes were better advised than to vent such notions and while they themselves did retain any measure of pious or prudent Modesty they were not disposed to it And we may observe divers Popes near that time in word and practice thwarting that practice For instance Pope Gelasius a vehement stickler for Papal Authority doth say to the Emperour Anastasius I as being a Roman born do love worship reverence thee as the Roman Prince And he saith that the Prelates of Religion knowing the Empire conferr'd on him by Divine Providence did obey his Laws And otherwhere he discourseth that Christ had distinguished by their proper acts and dignities the offices of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power that one should not meddle with the other so disclaiming Temporal Power due to himself being content to scrue up his Spiritual Authority After him as is well known Pope Gregory I. as became a pious and good man did avow the Emperour for his Lord by God's gift superiour to all men to whom he was subject whom he in duty was bound to obey and supposed it a high presumption for any one to set himself above the honour of the Empire by assuming the title of Universal Bishop After him Pope Agatho in the Acts of the sixth General Council doth call the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus his Lord doth avow himself together with all Presidents of the Churches servants to the Emperour doth say that his See and his Synod were subject to him and did owe Obedience to him Presently after him Pope Leo II. who confirmed that General Synod doth call the Emperour the prototype Son of the Church and acknowledgeth the body of Priests to be servants meanest servants of his Royal Nobleness After him Pope Constantine the immediate Predecessour of Pope Greg. II. when the Emperour did command him to come to Constantinople The most holy man saith Anastasius in his Life did obey the Imperial Commands Yea Pope Gregory II. himself before his defection when perhaps the circumstances of time did not animate him thereto did in his Epistle to Leo Isaurus acknowledge him as Emperour to be the Head of Christians and himself consequently subject to him This Gregory therefore may be reputed the Father of that Doctrine which being fostered by his Successours was by Pope Gregory VII brought up to it s robust pitch and stature I know Pope Gregory VII to countenance him doth alledge Pope Innocent I. excommunicating the Emperour Arcadius for his proceeding against St. Chrysostome and the Writers of St. Chrysostome's Life with others of the like age and credit do back him therein But seeing the Historians who lived in St. Chrysostome's own time and who write very carefully about him do not mention any such thing seeing that being the first Act in the kind must have been very notable and have made a great noise seeing that story doth not sute with the tenour of proceedings reported by those most credible Historians in that case seeing that fact doth no-wise sort to the condition and way of those Times that report cannot be true and it must be numbred among the many fabulous narrations devised by some wanton Greeks to set out the Life of that excellent Personage The same Pope doth also alledge St. Gregory M. denouncing Excommunication and Deprivation of honour to all Kings Bishops Judges
had been then as commonly known and avowed 23. Whereas divers of the Fathers purposely do treat on methods of confuting Hereticks it is strange they should be so blind or dull as not to hit on this most proper and obvious way of referring debates to the decision of him to whose Office of Universal Pastour and Judge it did belong Particularly one would wonder at Vincentius Lirinensis that he on set purpose with great care discoursing about the means of setling points of Faith and of overthrowing Heresies should not light upon this notable way by having recourse to the Pope's Magisterial sentence yea that indeed he should exclude it for he after most intent study and diligent inquiry consulting the best and wisest men could find but two ways of doing it I saith he did always and from almost every one receive this answer that if either I or any other would find out the frauds and avoid the snares of up-start Hereticks and continue sound and upright in the true Faith he should guard and strengthen his Faith God helping him by these two means viz. First by the Authority of the Divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church And again We before have said that this hath always been and is at present the custome of Catholicks that they prove their Faith by these two ways First by Authority of the Divine Canon then by the Tradition of the Vniversal Church Is it not strange that he especially being a Western man living in those parts where the Pope had got much sway and who doth express great reverence to the Apostolick See should omit that way of determining points which of all according to the modern conceits about the Pope is most ready and most sure 24. In like manner Tertullian professeth the Catholicks in his time to use such compendious methods of confuting Hereticks We saith he when we would dispatch against Hereticks for the Faith of the Gospel do commonly use these short ways which do maintain both the order of times prescribing against the lateness of impostours and the Authority of the Churches patronizing Apostolical tradition but why did he skip over a more compendious way than any of those namely standing to the judgment of the Roman Bishop 25. It is true that both he and St. Irenaeus before him disputing against the Hereticks of their times who had introduced pernicious novelties of their own devising when they alledge the general consent of Churches planted by the Apostles and propagated by continual successions of Bishops from those whom the Apostles did ordain in doctrines and practices opposite to those devices as a good argument and so indeed it then was next to a demonstration against them do produce the Roman Church as a principal one among them upon several obvious accounts And this indeed argueth the Roman Church to have been then one competent witness or credible retainer of tradition as also were the other Apostolical Churches to whose Testimony they likewise appeal but what is this to the Roman Bishop's judicial Power in such cases why do they not urge that in plain terms they would certainly have done so if they had known it and thought it of any validity Do but mark their words involving the force of their argumentation When saith Irenaeus we do again after allegation of Scripture appeal to that tradition which is from the Apostles which by successions of Presbyters is preserved in the Churches and That saith Tertullian will appear to have been delivered by the Apostles which hath been kept as holy in the Apostolical Churches let us see what milk the Corinthians did draw from Paul what the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians do reade what also the Romans our nearer neighbours do say to whom both Peter and Paul did leave the Gospel sealed with their Bloud we have also the Churches nursed by John c. Again It is therefore manifest saith he in his Prescriptions against Hereticks that every doctrine which doth conspire with those Apostolical Churches in which the Faith originally was planted is to be accounted true as undoubtedly holding that which the Churches did receive from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God but all other doctrine is to be prejudged false which doth think against the truth of the Churches and of the Apostles and of Christ and of God their argumentation then in short is plainly this that the conspiring of the Churches in doctrines contrary to those which the Hereticks vented did irrefragably signifie those doctrines to be Apostolical which discourse doth no-wise favour the Roman pretences but indeed if we do weigh it is very prejudicial thereto it thereby appearing that Christian Doctrines then in the canvasing of points and assuring tradition had no peculiar regard to the Roman Churche's testimonies no deference at all to the Roman Bishop's Authority not otherwise at least than to the Authority of one single Bishop yielding attestation to tradition 26. It is odd that even old Popes themselves in elaborate tracts disputing against Hereticks as Pope Celestine against Nestorius and Pelagius Pope Leo against Eutyches do content themselves to urge testimonies of Scripture and arguments grounded thereon not alledging their own definitive Authority or using this parlous argumentation I the Supreme Doctour of the Church and Judge of controversies do assert thus and therefore you are obliged to submit your assent 27. It is matter of amazement if the Pope were such as they would have him to be that in so many bulky Volumes of ancient Fathers living through many ages after Christ in those vast treasuries of learning and knowledge wherein all sorts of truth are displayed all sorts of duty are pressed this momentous point of doctrine and practice should nowhere be expressed in clear and peremptory terms I speak so for that by wresting words by impertinent application by streining consequences the most ridiculous positions imaginable may be deduced from their Writings It is strange that somewhere or other at least incidentally in their Commentaries upon the Scripture wherein many places concerning the Church and its Hierarchy do invite to speak of the Pope in their Treatises about the Priesthood about the Unity and Peace of the Church about Heresie and Schism in their Epistles concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs in their Historical narrations about occurrences in the Church in their concertations with heterodox adversaries they should not frequently touch it they should not sometimes largely dwell upon it Is it not marvellous that Origen St. Hilary St. Cyril St. Chrysostome St. Hierome St. Austin in their Commentaries and Tractates upon those places of Scripture Tu es Petrus Pasce oves whereon they now build the Papal Authority should be so dull and drowsie as not to say a word concerning the Pope That St. Austin in his so many elaborate Tractates against the Donatists wherein he discourseth so prolixly about the Church its Unity Communion
exclaimed against as tyrannical When Primates did begin to swell and encroach good men declared their displeasure at it and wished it removed as is known particularly by the famous wish of Gregory Nazianzene But we are discoursing against a Superiority of a different nature which soundeth it self in the Institution of Christ imposeth it self on the Church is not alterable or governable by it can endure no check or controll pretendeth to be endowed with an absolute power to act without or against the consent of the Church is limited by no certain bounds but its own pleasure c. IV. Farther this pretence may be impugned by many Arguments springing from the nature and reason of things abstractedly considered according to which the exercise of such an Authority may appear unpracticable without much iniquity and great inconvenience in prejudice to the rights of Christian States and People to the interests of Religion and Piety to the peace and welfare of Mankind whence it is to be rejected as a pest of Christendom 1. Whereas all the world in design and obligation is Christian the utmost parts of the earth being granted in possession to our Lord and his Gospel extending to every creature under heaven and may in effect become such when God pleaseth by acceptance of the Gospel whereas it may easily happen that the most distant places on the Earth may embrace Christianity whereas really Christian Churches have been and are dispersed all about the World it is thence hugely incommodious that all the Church should depend upon an Authority resident in one Place and to be managed by one Person the Church being such is too immense boundless uncircumscribed unweildy a bulk to be guided by the inspection or managed by the influence of one such Authority or Person If the whole World were reduced under the Government of one Civil Monarch it would necessarily be ill governed as to Policy to Justice to Peace The skirts or remoter parts from the Metropolis or centre of the Government would extremely suffer thereby for they would feel little light or warmth from Majesty shining at such a distance They would live under small awe of that Power which was so far out of sight They must have very difficult recourse to it for redress of grievances and relief of oppressions for final decision of causes and composure of differences for correction of offences and dispensation of justice upon good information with tolerable expedition It would be hard to preserve peace or quell seditions and suppress insurrections that might arise in distant quarters What man could obtain the knowledge or experience needfull skilfully and justly to give Laws or administer Judgment to so many Nations different in Humour in Language in Customs What mind of man what industry what leisure could serve to sustain the burthen of that care which is needfull to the weilding such an Office How and when should one man be able to receive all the addresses to weigh all the cases to make all the resolutions and dispatches requisite for such a charge If the burthen of one small Kingdom be so great that wise and good Princes do grown under its weight what must that be of all Mankind To such an extent of Government there must be allowed a Majesty and power correspondent the which cannot be committed to one hand without its degeneration into extreme Tyranny The words of Zosimus to this purpose are observable who saith that the Romans by admitting Augustus Caesar to the Government did doe very perillously for If he should chuse to manage the Government rightly and justly he would not be capable of applying himself to all things as were fit not being able to succour those who do lie at greatest distance nor could he find so many Magistrates as would not be ashamed to defeat the opinion conceived of them nor could he sute them to the differences of so many manners Or if transgressing the bounds of Royalty he should warp to Tyranny disturbing the Magistracies overlooking misdemeanours bartering right for money holding the Subjects for slaves such as most Emperours or rather near all have been few excepted then it is quite necessary that the brutish Authority of the Prince should be a publick calamity for then flatterers being by him dignifyed with gifts and honours do invade the greatest commands and those who are modest and quiet not affecting the same life with them are consequently displeased not enjoying the same advantages so that from hence Cities are filled with seditions and troubles And the Civil and Military employments being delivered up to avaritious persons do both render a peaceable life sad and grievous to men of better disposition and do enfeeble the resolution of Souldiers in war Hence St. Austin was of opinion that it were happy for mankind if all Kingdoms were small enjoying a peacefull neighbourhood It is commonly observed by Historians that Rome growing in bigness did labour therewith and was not able to support it self many distempers and disorders springing up in so vast a body which did throw it into continual pangs and at length did bring it to ruine for Then saith St. Austin concerning the times of Pompey Rome had subdued Africk it had subdued Greece and widely also ruling over other parts as not able to bear it self did in a manner by its own greatness break it self Hence that wise Prince Augustus Caesar did himself forbear to enlarge the Roman Dominion and did in his Testament advise the Senate to doe the like To the like inconveniences and much greater in its kind Temporal things being more easily ordered than Spiritual and having secular Authority great advantages of power and wealth to aid it self must the Church be obnoxious if it were subjected to the government of one Sovereign unto whom the maintenance of Faith the potection of Discipline the determination of Controversies the revision of Judgments the discussion and final decision of Causes upon appeal the suppression of disorders and factions the inspection over all Governours the correction of Misdemeanours the constitution relaxation and abolition of Laws the resolution of all matters concerning Religion and the publick State in all Countries must be referred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Shoulders can bear such a charge without perpetual miracle and yet we do not find that the Pope hath any promise of miraculous assistence nor in his demeanour doth appear any mark thereof what mind would not the care of so many affairs utterly distract and overwhelm who could find time to cast a glance on each of so numberless particulars what sagacity of wit what variety of learning what penetrancy of judgment what strength of memory what indefatigable vigour of industry what abundance of experience would suffice for enabling one man to weigh exactly all the controversies of Faith and cases of Discipline perpetually starting up in so many Regions What reach of skill and ability would serve for
Prelate is nothing else but one that sustaineth the person of Christ. St. Chrysostome We have received the commission of Ambassadours and come from God for this is the dignity of the Episcopal Office It behoveth us all who by divine authority are constituted in the Priesthood to prevent c. Wherefore the ancient Bishops did all of them take themselves to be Vicars of Christ not of the Pope and no less than the proudest Pope of them all whence it was ordinary for them in their addresses and compellations to the Bishop of Rome and in their speech about him to call him their Brother their Collegue their Fellow-minister which had not been modest or just if they had been his Ministers or Shadows Yea the Popes themselves even the highest and haughtiest of them who of any in old times did most stand on their presumed preeminence did yet vouchsafe to call other Bishops their Fellow-bishops and Fellow-ministers Those Bishops of France with good reason did complain of Pope Nicholas I. for calling them his Clerks whenas if his pride had suffered him he should have acknowledged them for his Brethren and Fellow-bishops In fine the ancient Bishops did not alledge any Commission from the Pope to warrant their Jurisdiction but from God If Moses his Chair were so venerable that what was said out of that ought therefore to be heard how much more is Christ's Throne so we succeed him from that we speak since Christ has committed to us the ministery of reconciliation That which is committed to the Priest 't is onely in God's power to give Since we also by the mercy of Christ our King and God were made Ministers of the Gospel This is a modern dream born out of Ambition and Flattery which never came into the head of any ancient Divine It is a ridiculous thing to imagine that Cyprian Athanasius Basil Chrysostome Austin c. did take themselves for the Vicegerents or Ministers of the Popes if they did why did they not so frequent occasion being given them in all their Volumes ever acknowledge it why cannot Bellarmine and his Complices after all their prolling shew any passage in them importing any such acknowledgment but are fain to infer it by far-fetched Sophisms from Allegations plainly impertinent or frivolous The Popes indeed in the Fourth Century began to practise a fine trick very serviceable to the enlargement of their power which was to confer on certain Bishops as occasion served or for continuance the title of their Vicar or Lieutenant thereby pretending to impart Authority to them whereby they were enabled for performance of divers things which otherwise by their own Episcopal or Metropolitical power they could not perform By which device they did engage such Bishops to such a dependence on them whereby they did promote the Papal Authority in Provinces to the oppression of the ancient Rights and Liberties of Bishops and Synods doing what they pleased under pretence of this vast power communicated to them and for fear of being displaced or out of affection to their favourer doing what might serve to advance the Papacy Thus did Pope Celestine constitute Cyril in his room Pope Leo appointed Anatolius of Constantinople Pope Felix Acacius of Constantinople Pope Hormisdas Epiphanius of Constantinople Pope Simplicius to Zeno Bishop of Seville We thought it convenient that you should be held up by the vicariat authority of our See So did Siricius and his Successours constitute the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their Vicars in the Diocese of Illyricum wherein being then a member of the Western Empire they had caught a special jurisdiction to which Pope Leo did refer in those words which sometimes are impertinently alledged with reference to all Bishops but concern onely Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica We have entrusted thy Charity to be in our stead so that thou art called into part of the solicitude not into plenitude of the authority So did Pope Zozimus bestow a like pretence of Vicarious power upon the Bishop of Arles which city was the seat of the temporal Exarch in Gaule So to the Bishop of Justiniana prima in Bulgaria or Dardania Europaea the like privilege was granted by procurement of the Emperour Justinian native of that place Afterwards temporary or occasional Vicars were appointed such as Austin in England Boniface in Germany who in virtue of that concession did usurp a paramount authority and by the exercise thereof did advance the Papal interest depressing the authority of Metropolitanes and provincial Synods So at length Legates upon occasion dispatched into all Countries of the West came to doe there what they pleased using that pretence to oppress and abuse both Clergy and people very intolerably Whence divers Countries were forced to make legal provisions for excluding such Legates finding by much experience that their business was to rant and domineer in the Pope's name to suck money from the People and to maintain luxurious pomp upon expence of the Countries where they came Of this John XXII doth sorely complain and decrees that all people should admit his Legates under pain of interdicts In England Pope Paschal finds the same fault in his letter to King Henry I. Nuncio's or letters from the Apostolick See unless by your Majestie 's command are not thought worthy any admittance or reception within your jurisdiction none complains thence none appeals thence for judgment to the Apostolick See The Pope observing what authority and reverence the Archbishops of Canterbury had in this Nation whereby they might be able to check his attempts did think good to constitute those Archbishops his Legates of course Legatos natos that so they might seem to exercise their Jurisdiction by authority derived from him and owing to him that mark of favour or honour with inlargement of power might pay him more devotion and serve his interests Bellarmine doth from this practice prove the Pope's Sovereign power but he might from thence better have domonstrated their great cunning It might from such extraordinary designation of Vicegerents with far more reason be inferred that ordinarily Bishops are not his Ministers XI It is the privilege of a Sovereign that he cannot be called to account or judged or deposed or debarr'd communion or any-wise censured and punished for this implyeth a contradiction or confusion in degrees subjecting the superiour to inferiours this were making a river run backwards this were to damm up the fountain of justice to behead the State to expose Majesty to contempt Wherefore the Pope doth pretend to this privilege according to those Maxims in the Canon Law drawn from the sayings of Popes either forged or genuine but all alike obteining authority in their Court. And according to what P. Adrian let the 8 th Synod know because says he the Apostolick Church of Rome stoops not to the judgment of lesser Churches They cite also three old Synods of Sinuessa
Aeneas Sylvius his Account hereof Ibid. Catholick How much the abuse of that Word hath conduced to the Pope's Pretences 264. Censures Ecclesiastical Censures the great advantages made from them by the Pope 182. Ceremonies Why multitude of them in the Church of Rome 139. Charity Want thereof in the Church of Rome 286. Charity among Christians 299 301. breach thereof denominates a man to be no Christian 300. Charity to the Poor of other Churches in primitive Times no Argument of Unity of Church Government 320. Church Unity thereof 293. The various acceptations of the Word Church 294. The Titles and Privileges thereof 295. Church Government and Discipline in ancient times 162 c. Church Government No necessity of one kind onely of external Admistration thereof 306 307. The contrary shewed to be most proper and convenient in seq Church of Rome An Account of them who by voluntary Consent or Command of Princes do adhere in Confederation to the Church of Rome 325. Civil Magistrates Authority 271. Clergy Romish Clergy's Exemption from secular Jurisdiction whence 138. Communion Church Communion 296. Community of Men on several accounts may be termed One 297. Confession Auricular Confession 139. Confirmation of Magistrates belongs not to the Pope 269. Conscience The Usurpations made thereupon by the Popish Doctrines 288. Constantine M. His Judgment of Eusebius 86. No General Synod before his Reign 185. Controversies in the Church how in ancient times determined 115 149 264 303 304. Council of Trent Their Character 2. Enjoyned the Pope's Supremacy should not be disputed 18. Councils Their Authority above the Pope's 25. Councils Their Infallibility why pretended 139. Councils General Councils which so esteemed 188 first called by the Emperours ibid. when first celebrated 209 Use of them proves not there was Unity of Government in the Primitive Church 320 the proper occasion of General Councils assigned ibid Cup in the Sacrament why with-holden from the Laity 139. S. Cyprian's Account of S. Peter's primacy of Order 33 his Epistle concerning the deposing Marcianus examined 235 c. S. Cyril's supplying the Place of P. Celestine in the General Council 203 204. Cyril of Hierusalem the first according to Socrates who did introduce Appeals 249. D. POpe Damasus An Epistle of his in Theodoret whence Bellarmine's pretence for the Pope's Supremacy adjudged spurious 156 157. Decrees of Popes when contested against the ancient Canons 214. Whence their new Decrees introduced ibid. Decretal Epistles Their forgery and great advantage to the Church of Rome 184. Discipline and Order of the Primitive Church 211. Discipline The enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws about the same belong'd of old to Emperours 214. Discipline of the Church 305. main Form thereof not to be violated ibid. Dispensations 184. the Pope no power to grant them 270 281. Dissentions The Mischiefs arising from them 175 18â— The Profits accrewing from hence to the Romanists ibid. Dissentions How reconciled among Christians 323. E. ECclesiastical Jurisdiction not impugn'd by disclaiming S. Peter's Superiority 40. Emperours not Popes did first conâ—â—â—gate General Synods 185. Testimonies of Popes owning the same 193. Emperours themselves or Honourable Persons authorized by them did heretofore preside in General Synods 203. Empires Their Original and Increase 174. Episcopacy The Ends assigned of that Order 87. Eusebius Constantine M. his Character of him 86. Excommunicated Persons not admitted into Communion by other Churches 305 324 325. Exemptions The Pope no Power to grant them 270. F. FAith Unity of the Church preserved by it 299. Fathers What regard to be given to their account of S. Peter's Primacy of Order or bare Dignity 32. Fathers A Censure of their Writings 71. Bellarmine's account of the same ibid. The latter Fathers most guilty in Expressions 72. Fathers A Character of their Writings 119. Feed my sheep The Romish Interpretation rejected and the true established ibid. G. GLosses of the Romanists on Scripture 70 their Corruptions and Partiality herein 73. Gregory M. his Character and Authority against the Pope 123. H. HEresie of Simony Popes guilty of it 266. Hereticks How confuted in ancient times 115 c. Humility strictly enjoyned to Christ's Apostles and Followers 39. I. JEsuites Their Character 182. Jesus according to common notion of the Jews did imply his being the Son of God 30. Ignorance of Popes in Divinity 267. Ignorance How serviceable to the Church of Rome 182. Image Worship 139 280. Indulgences 184. Infallibility Pretence to it the greatest Tyranny 137. Whence pretended 139. The mother of Incorrigibility and Corruption of Manners 140. v. 265. Inspiration The Popes and Synods bold pretensions to it 286. Jurisdiction Universal Jurisdiction over the Clergy the Pope's Presumption herein and when begun 215. Jurisdiction Temporal and Ecclesiastical nature thereof 271. K. KEys Power thereof as also all other Authority communicated to all the Apostles equally 42 64. Kings have the Power onely of calling General Councils 191. The unreasonableness of the contrary 192. v. Emperours L. LEgends of the Church of Rome the Profits arising from them 184. Laws Ecclesiastical Laws In whose Power to enact them 212. The Pope subject to them ibid. M. MArriage The Romanists abuse thereof 284. Why forbidden to their Priests 139. Mass. Doctrine thereof ibid. Merit Doctrine thereof in the Chur. of Rome 138 286. Miracles Why pretended to by the Romanists 139. Monarchy Universal Monarchy not politick nor convenient 130 neither in Church nor State 152. Monarchy less subject to abuse than other ways of Government 315. Monastries why exempted by the Pope from secular Jurisdiction 138. Monkery 140. N. POpe Nicholas the first who excommunicated Princes secundum Bodin 146. O. OAth of Bishops of Rome at their Election 22. Obedience Blind Obedience 177. Order and Discipline of the Primitive Church 211. v. Discipline Ordination Priority therein did anciently ground a Right to Precedence 34. Orthodox Who such in the Primitive Church 299. P. PAstours of the Church Their duty to maintain Peace and Charity 304. Patriarchs not an higher Order than Primates 169 their Institution and Authority 170 171. Peace to be inviolable among Christians 301 the Sacraments conducive to the same 302 as also Convocation of Synods ibid. S. Peter in personal accomplishments most eminent among the Apostles 32 It is probable he was first called to the Apostolical office 33 his Zeal and Activity 30 34 his Superiority in Power rejected 35 was no Priest at the Celebration of our Lord's Supper contra Concil Trid. 36 not Bishop of Rome 82 whether ever at Rome 83 whence his Primacy asserted 27. Popes Supremacy The Controversies about it 1 The great Disturbances it hath caused 2 pretended authority to depose Princes 3 their behaviour according to their circumstances 17 pretended Supremacy in Spirituals 20 their imperious arbitrary Government 40 the insolent Titles given them 41 no Judge of Controversies 115 c. their Character before and after Constantine 142 Usurpation on Princes 145 Causes of the growth of pretended Supremacy 172
absolute Monarch upon earth for the Power of St. Peter in their opinion was the same which now the Roman Bishop doth challenge to himself over the Pastours and People of God's Church by virtue of succession to him Saint Peter's Power being the base of the Papal and therefore not narrower than its superstructure but what domination comparable to that hath ever been used in the world What Emperour did ever pretend to a rule so wide in extent in regard either to persons or matters or so absolute in effect Who ever beside his Holiness did usurp a command not onely over the external actions but the most inward cogitations of all mankind subjecting the very Minds and Consciences of Men to his dictates his laws his censures Who ever thundred Curses and Damnations on all those who should presume to dissent from his Opinion or to contest his pleasure Who ever claimed more absolute Power in making abolishing suspending Laws or imposing upon men what he pleased under obligation of Conscience and upon extremest penalties What Prince ever used a style more imperious than is that which is usual in the Papal Bulls Let it be lawfull for no man whatever to infringe this expression of our will and command or to goe against it with bold rashness What Domitian more commonly did admit the appellation of Lord than doth the Pope Our most Holy Lord is the ordinary style attributed to him by the Fathers of Trent as if they were his slaves and intended to enslave all Christendom to him Who ever did exempt his Clients and Dependents in all Nations from subjection to Civil Laws from undergoing common burthens and taxes from being judged or punished for their misdemeanours and crimes Who ever claimed a power to dispose of all things one way or other either directly or indirectly to dispose even of Kingdoms to judge Sovereign Princes and to condemn them to depose them from their authority absolving their Subjects from all allegiance to them and exposing their Kingdoms to rapine To whom but a Pope were ever ascribed prerogatives like those of judging all men and himself being liable to no judgment no account no reproof or blame so that as a Papal Canon assureth us let a Pope be so bad as by his negligence and male-administration to carry with him innumerable people to Hell yet no mortal man whatever must presume here to reprove his faults because he being to judge all men is himself to be judged of no man except he be catcht swerving from the Faith which is a case they will hardly suffer a man to suppose possible To whom but to a Pope was such Power attributed by his followers and admitted by himself that he could hear those words applying to him All Power is given to thee in Heaven and in Earth Such Power the Popes are wont to challenge and when occasion serveth do not fail to execute as Successours of St. Peter to whom therefore consequently they ascribe it and sometimes in express terms as in that brave apostrophe of P. Gregory VII the Spirit of which Pope hath possessed his Successours generally Goe to therefore said he directing his Speech to Saint Peter and Saint Paul most Holy Princes of the Apostles and what I have said confirm by your Authority that now at length all men may understand whether ye can bind and loose that also ye can take away and give on Earth Empires Kingdoms and whatever mortal men can have Now if the assuming and exercising such Powers be not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that exalting ones self that being called Rabbi Father Master which our Lord prohibiteth what is so what then can those words signify what could our Lord mean The Authority therefore which they assign to Saint Peter and assume to themselves from him is voided by those Declarations and Precepts of our Lord the which it can hardly be well conceived that our Lord would have proposed if he had designed to constitute Saint Peter in such a Supremacy over his Disciples and Church 7. Surveying particulars we shall not find any peculiar administration committed to Saint Peter nor any privilege conferred on him which was not also granted to the other Apostles Was Saint Peter an Ambassadour a Steward a Minister a Vicar if you please or Surrogate of Christ so were they by no less immediate and express warrant than he for As the Father sent me so also I send you said our Lord presently before his departure by those words as St. Cyprian remarketh granting an equal Power to all the Apostles and We saith Saint Paul are Ambassadours for Christ we pray you in Christ's stead be reconciled to God and So let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God Was Saint Peter a Rock on which the Church was to be founded Be it so but no less were they all for the Wall of Jerusalem which came down from Heaven had twelve foundations on which were inscribed the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb and We saith Saint Paul are all built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Christ himself being the chief Corner stone whence Equally saith St. Hierome the strength of the Church is setled upon them Was Saint Peter an Architect of the Spiritual house as himself calleth the Church so were also they for I saith Saint Paul as a wise Master-builder have laid the Foundation Were the Keys of the Church or of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to him So also were they unto them They had a Power to open and shut it by effectual instruction and persuasion by dispensation of the Sacraments by exercise of Discipline by exclusion of scandalous and heretical Persons Whatever faculty the Keys did import the Apostles did use it in the foundation guidance and government of the Church and did as the Fathers teach impart it to those whom they did in their stead constitute to feed and govern the Church Had Saint Peter a Power given him of binding and loosing effectually So had they immediately granted by our Saviour in as full manner and couched in the same terms If thou shalt bind on Earth it shall be bound in Heaven said our Lord to him and Whatsoever things ye shall bind on Earth they shall be bound in Heaven said the same Divine mouth to them Had he a privilege to remit and retain sins it was then by virtue of that common grant or promise Whos 's soever sins ye remit they shall be remitted and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained Had he power and obligation to feed the Sheep of Christ all or some so had they indefinitely and immediately so had others by Authority derived from them who were nominated Pastours who had this charge laid on them Take heed unto your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost
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
superiour to Saint Paul but his Collegue and equal in Authority although precedeing him in standing repute and other advantages then Saint Paul's free proceeding toward him was not onely warrantable but wholesome and deserving for edification to be recited and recorded as implying an example how Collegues upon occasion should with freedom and sincerity admonish their Brethren of their errours and faults Saint Peter's carriage in patiently bearing that correption also affording another good pattern of equanimity in such cases to which purpose S. Cypr. alledged and approved by S. Austin doth apply this passage for saith he neither Peter whom the Lord first chose and upon whom he built his Church when Paul afterward contested with him about circumcision did insolently challenge or arrogantly assume any thing to himself so as to say that he did hold the primacy and that rather those who were newer and later Apostles ought to obey him neither despised he Saint Paul because he was before a persecutour of the Church but he admitted the counsel of truth and easily consented to the lawfull course which Saint Paul did maintain yielding indeed to us a document both of concord and patience that we should not pertinaciously love our own things but should rather take those things for ours which sometimes are profitably and wholesomely suggested by our Brethren and Collegues if they are true and lawfull this St. Cyprian speaketh upon supposition that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were equals or as he calleth them Collegues and Brethren in rank co-ordinate otherwise St. Cyprian would not have approved the action for he often severely doth inveigh against Inferiours taking upon them to censure their Superiours What tumour saith he of pride what arrogance of mind what inflation of heart is it to call our Superiours and Bishops to our cognisance St. Cyprian therefore could not conceive Saint Peter to be Saint Paul's Governour or Superiour in Power he doth indeed plainly enough in the forecited words signifie that in his judgment Saint Peter had done insolently and arrogantly if he had assumed any obedience from Saint Paul St. Austin also doth in several places of his Writings make the like application of this passage The ancient Writer contemporary to St. Ambrose and passing under his name doth argue in this manner Who dared resist Peter the first Apostle to whom the Lord did give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but another such an one who in assurance of his election knowing himself to be not unequal to him might constantly disprove what he had unadvisedly done It is indeed well known that Origen and after him St. Chrysostome and St. Hierome and divers of the Ancients beside did conceive that Saint Paul did not seriously oppose or tax Saint Peter but did onely doe it seemingly upon confederacy with him for promoting a good design This interpretation however strained and earnestly impugned by Saint Austin I will not discuss but onely shall observe that it being admitted doth rather strengthen than weaken our discourse for if Saint Peter were Saint Paul's Governour it maketh Saint Peter to have consented to an act in all appearance indecent irregular and scandalous and how can we imagine that Saint Peter would have complotted to the imparing his own just Authority in the eye of a great Church doth not such a condescension imply in him a disavowing of Superiority over Saint Paul or a conspiracy with him to overthrow good Order To which purpose we may observe that St. Chrysostome in a large and very elaborate discourse wherein he professeth to endeavour an aggravation of the irregularity of Saint Paul's dâ—meanour if it were serious doth not lay the stress of that aggravation upon Saint Paul's opposing his lawfull Governour but his onely so treating a Co-apostle of such eminency neither when to that end he designeth to reckon all the advantages of Saint Peter beyond Saint Paul or any other Apostle doth he mention this which was chiefly material to his purpose that he was Saint Paul's Governour which observations if we do carefully weigh we can hardly imagine that St. Chrysostome had any notion of Saint Peter's Supremacy in relation to the Apostles In fine the drift of Saint Paul in reporting those passages concerning himself was not to disparage the other Apostles nor merely to commend himself but to fence the truth of his Doctrine and maintain the liberty of his Disciples against any prejudice that might arise from any authority that might be pretended in any considerable respects superiour to his and alledged against them to which purpose he declareth by arguments and matters of fact that his Authority was perfectly Apostolical and equal to the greatest even to that of Saint Peter the prime Apostle of Saint John the beloved Disciple of Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem the judgment or practice of whom was no law to him nor should be to them farther than it did consist with that Doctrine which he by an independent Authority and by special revelation from Christ did preach unto them He might as St. Chrysostome noteth have pretended to some advantage over them in regard that he had laboured more abundantly than them all but he forbeareth to do so being contented to obtain equal advantages Well therefore considering the disadvantage which this passage bringeth to the Roman pretence might this History be called by Baronius a History hard to be understood a stone of offence a rock of scandal a rugged place which Saint Austin himself under favour could not pass over without stumbling It may also be considered that Saint Paul particularly doth assert to himself an independent authority over the Gentiles co-ordinate to that which Saint Peter had over the Jews the which might engage him so earnestly to contest with Saint Peter as by his practice seducing those who belonged to his charge the which also probably moved him thus to assert his authority to the Galatians as being Gentiles under his care and thence obliged especially to regard his authority They saith Saint Paul knowing that I was entrusted with the Gospel of uncircumcision as Peter was entrusted with that of circumcision gave unto me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship the which words do clearly enough signifie that he took himself and that the other Apostles took him to have under Christ an absolute charge subordinate to no man over the Gentiles whence he claimeth to himself as his burthen the care of all the Churches he therefore might well contest for their liberty he might well insist upon his authority among them Thus did St. Chrysostome understand the case for Christ saith he committed the Jews to Peter but set Paul over the Gentiles and He saith that great Father farther doth shew himself to be equal to them in dignity and compareth himself not onely to the others but even to the ring-leader shewing that each did enjoy equal dignity
Church The other Apostles did receive an equal share of honour and power who also being dispersed in the whole world did preach the Gospel and to whom departing the Bishops did succeed who are constituted through the whole world in the Sees of the Apostles By consequence the Fathers do assert this equality when they affirm as we before did shew the Apostolical Office to be absolutely Supreme when also they affirm as afterwards we shall shew all the Apostles Successours to be equal as such and particularly that the Roman Bishop upon account of his succeeding Saint Peter hath no prâ—-eminence above his Brethren for wherever a Bishop be whether at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Thanis he is of the same worth and of the same Priesthood the force of wealth and lowness of poverty doth not render a Bishop more high or more low for that all of them are Successours of the Apostles 19. Neither is it to prudential esteem a despicable consideration that the most ancient of the Fathers having occasion sometimes largely to discourse of Saint Peter do not mention any such Prerogatives belonging to him 20. The last Argument which I shall use against this Primacy shall be the insufficiency of those Arguments and Testimonies which they alledge to warrant and prove it If this Point be of so great consequence as they make it if as they would persuade us the subsistence order unity and peace of the Church together with the Salvation of Christians do depend on it if as they suppose many great points of truth do hang on this pin if it be as they declare a main Article of Faith and not onely a simple errour but a pernicious heresie to deny this primacy then it is requisite that a clear revelation from God should be producible in favour of it for upon that ground onely such points can firmly stand then it is most probable that God to prevent controversies occasions of doubt and excuses for errour about so grand a matter would not have failed to have declared it so plainly as might serve to satisfie any reasonable man and to convince any froward gainsayer but no such revelation doth appear for the places of Scripture which they alledge do not plainly express it nor pregnantly imply it nor can it by fair consequence be inferred from them No man unprepossessed with affection to their side would descry it in them without thwarting Saint Peter's Order and wresting the Scriptures they cannot deduce it from them This by examining their allegations will appear I. They alledge those words of our Saviour uttered by him upon occasion of Saint Peter's confessing him to be the Son of God Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church here say they Saint Peter is declared the Foundation that is the sole Supreme Governour of the Church To this I answer 1. Those words do not clearly signifie any thing to their purpose for they are metaphorical and thence ambiguous or capable of divers interpretations whence they cannot suffice to ground so main a point of Doctrine or to warrant so huge a Pretence these ought to stand upon down-right evident and indubitable Testimony It is pretty to observe how Bellarmine proposeth this Testimony Of which words saith he the sense is plain and obvious that it be understood that under two metaphors the principate of the whole Church was promised as if that sense could be so plain and obvious which is couched under two metaphors and those not very pat or clear in application to their sense 2. This is manifestly confirmed from that the Fathers and Divines both ancient and modern have much differed in exposition of these words Some saith Abulensis say that this rock is Peter others say and better that it is Christ others say and yet better that it is the confession which Peter maketh For some interpret this rock to be Christ himself of whom Saint Paul saith Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ. St. Austin telleth us in his Retractations that he often had expounded the words to this purpose although he did not absolutely reject that interpretation which made Saint Peter the rock leaving it to the Readers choice which is the most probable Others and those most eminent Fathers do take the rock to be Saint Peter's faith or profession Vpon the Rock saith the Prince of Interpreters that is upon the faith of his profession and again Christ said that he would build his Church on Peter's confession and again he or another ancient Writer under his name upon this rock he said not upon Peter for he did not build his Church upon the man but upon his faith Our Lord saith Theodoret did permit the first of the Apostles whose confession he did fix as a prop or foundation of the Church to be shaken Whence Origen saith that every disciple of Christ is the rock in virtue of his agreement with Peter in that holy confession This sense even Popes have embraced Others say that as Saint Peter did not speak for himself but in the name of all the Apostles and of all faithfull people representing the Pastours and people of the Church so correspondently our Lord did declare that he would build his Church upon such faithfull Pastours and Confessours Others do indeed by the rock understand Saint Peter's person but do not thereby expound to be meant his being Supreme Governour of the Apostles or of the whole Church The Divines Schoolmen and Canonists of the Roman Communion do not also agree in exposition of the words and divers of the most learned among them do approve the interpretation of St. Chrysostome Now then how can so great a Point of Doctrine be firmly grounded on a place of so doubtfull interpretation how can any one be obliged to understand the words according to their interpretation which Persons of so good sense and so great Authority do understand otherwise with what modesty can they pretend that meaning to be clear which so perspicacious eyes could not discern therein why may not I excusably agree with St. Chrysostome or St. Austin in understanding the place may I not reasonably oppose their judgment to the Opinion of any Modern Doctours deeming Bellarmine as fallible in his conceptions as one of them why consequently may I not without blame refuse their Doctrine as built upon this place or disavow the goodness of this proof 3. It is very evident that the Apostles themselves did not understand those words of our Lord to signify any grant or promise to Saint Peter of Supremacy over them for would they have contended for the chief place if they had understood whose it of right was by our Lord 's own positive determination would they have disputed about a question which to their knowledge by their Master was
Ecclesiastical State to raise Schisms and Troubles It is like to extinguish genuine Charity which is free and uncompelled All the peace and charity which it endureth is by force and compulsion not out of choice and good affection V. The Ancients did assert to each Bishop a free absolute independent Authority subject to none directed by none accountable to none on Earth in the administration of affairs properly concerning his particular Church This is most evident in St. Cyprian's Writings out of which it will not be amiss to set down some passages manifesting the sense and practice of the Church in his time to the satisfaction of any ingenuous mind The Bond of concord abiding and the Sacrament or Doctrine of the Catholick Church persisting undivided every Bishop disposeth and directeth his own acts being to render an account of his purpose to the Lord this he writeth when he was pleading the cause of Pope Cornelius against Novatian but then it seemeth not dreaming of his Supremacy over others But we know that some will not lay down what once they have imbibed nor will easily change their mind but the bond of peace and concord with their Collegues being preserved will retain some peculiar things which have once been used by them in which matter neither do we force any or give law whenas every Prelate hath in the administration of his Church the free power of his will being to render unto the Lord an account of his acting this saith he writing to Pope Stephanus and in a friendly manner out of common respect and single love not out of servile obeisance acquainting him what he and his brethren in a Synod by common consent and authority had established concerning the degradation of Clergy-men who had been ordained by Hereticks or had lapsed into Schism For seeing it is ordained by us all and it is likewise equal and just that each man's cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and to each Pastour a portion of the Flock is assigned which each should rule and govern being to render an account to his Lord those indeed over whom we preside ought not to ramble about this saith he in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius upon occasion of some factious Clergy-men addressing themselves to him with factious suggestions to gain his countenance These things I have briefly written back according to our meanness dear brother prescribing to none nor prejudging that every Bishop should not doe what he thinks good having a free power of his will In which matter our bashfulness and modesty doth not prejudge any one so that every one may not judge as he thinketh and act as he judgeth Prescribing to none so that every Bishop may not resolve what he thinks good being to render an account to the Lord c. It remaineth that each of us do utter his opinion about this matter judging no man nor removing any man if he dissenteth from the right of communion for neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannical terrour driveth his Collegues to a necessity of obeying whenas every Bishop hath upon account of his liberty and authority his own free choice and is no less exempted from being judged by another than he is uncapable to judge another but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who and who alone hath power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting these words did St. Cyprian speak as Proloquntour of the great Synod of Bishops at Carthage and what words could be more express or more full in assertion of the Episcopal Liberties and Rights against almost every branch of Romish pretences He disavoweth the practice of one Bishop excluding another from communion for dissent in opinion about disputable points He rejecteth the pretence that any man can have to be a Bishop of Bishops or superiour to all his Brethren He condemneth the imposing opinions upon Bishops and constraining them to obedience He disclaimeth any power in one Bishop to judge another He asserteth to each Bishop a full liberty and power to manage his own concerns according to his discretion He affirmeth every Bishop to receive his power onely from Christ and to be liable onely to his judgment We may observe that St. Austin in his reflexions upon the passages in that Synod doth approve yea admire that Preface passing high commendations on the smartest passages of it which assert common liberty professing his own conformity in practice to them In this consultation saith he is shewed a pacifick soul overflowing with plenty of charity and We have therefore a free choice of inquiry granted to us by the most mild and most veracious speech of Cyprian himself and Now if the proud and tumid minds of hereticks dare to extoll themselves against the holy humility of this speech than which what can be more gentle more humble Would St. Austin have swallowed those Sayings could he have so much applauded them if he had known a just power then extant and radiant in the World which they do impeach and subvert No I trow he did not know nor so much as dream of any such although the Pope was under his nose while he was discussing that point and he could hardly talk so much of St. Cyprian without thinking of Pope Stephen However let any man of sense honestly reade and weigh those passages considering who did write them to whom he writ them upon what occasions he writ them when he writ them that he was a great Primate of the Church a most holy most prudent most humble and meek person that he addressed divers of them to Bishops of Rome that many of them were touching the concerns of Popes that he writ them in times of persecution and distress which produce the most sober and serious thoughts then let him if he can conceive that all-Christian Bishops were then held subject to the Pope or owned such a power due to him as he now claimeth We may add a contemporary Testimony of the Roman Clergy addressing to St. Cyprian in these words Although a mind well conscious to it self and supported by the vigour of Evangelical discipline and having in heavenly doctrines become a true witness to it self is wont to be content with God for its onely judge and not to desire the praises nor to dread the accusations of another yet they are worthy of double praise who when they know they owe their consciences to God onely as judge yet desire also their actions to be approved by their brethren themselves the which it is no wonder that you brother Cyprian should do who according to your modesty and natural industry would have us not so much judges as partakers of your Counsels Then it seems the College of Cardinals not so high in the instep as they are now did take St. Cyprian to be free and not accountable
the authority of a Church especially then when no Church did appear to have either Principality or Puissance And that sense may clearly be evinced by the context wherein it doth appear that St. Irenaeus doth not alledge the judicial Authority of the Roman Church but its credible Testimony which thereby became more considerable because Christians commonly had occasions of recourse to it Such a reason of precedence St. Cyprian giveth in another case Because saith he Rome for its magnitude ought to precede Carthage For this reason a Pagan Historian did observe the Roman Bishop had a greater authority that is a greater interest and reputation than other Bishops This reason Theodoret doth assign in his Epistle to Pope Leo wherein he doth highly complement and cajole him for this city saith he is the greatest and the most splendid and presiding over the world and flowing with multitude of people and which moreover hath produced the Empire now governing This is the sole ground upon which the greatest of all ancient Synods that of Chalcedon did affirm the Papal eminency to be founded for to the throne say they of ancient Rome because that was the royal city the Fathers reasonably conferred the privileges the fountain of Papal eminence was in their judgment not any divine Institution not the Authority of Saint Peter deriving it self to his Successours but the concession of the Fathers who were moved to grant it upon account that Rome was the Imperial City To the same purpose the Empress Placidia in her Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith It becometh us to preserve to this city the which is mistress of all lands a reverence in all things This reason had indeed in it much of equity of decency of conveniency it was equal that he should have the preference and more than common respect who was thence enabled and engaged to do most service to Religion It was decent that out of conformity to the State and in respect to the Imperial Court and Senate the Pastour of that place should be graced with repute it was convenient that he who resided in the centre of all business and had the greatest influence upon affairs who was the Emperour's chief Counsellour for direction and Instrument for execution of Ecclesiastical affairs should not be put behind others Hence did the Fathers of the Second General Synod advance the Bishop of Constantinople to the next privileges of honour after the Bishop of Rome because it was new Rome and a Seat of the Empire And the Fathers of Chalcedon assigned equal privileges to the most Holy See of Rome with good reason say they judging that the city which was honoured with the Royalty and Senate and which otherwise did enjoy equal privileges with the ancient Royal Rome should likewise in Ecclesiastical affairs be magnified as it being second after it Indeed upon this score the Church of Constantinople is said to have aspired to the supreme Principality when it had the advantage over old Rome the Empire being extinguished there and sometimes was styled the Head of all Churches It is also natural and can hardly be otherwise but that the Bishop of a chief City finding himself to exceed in wealth in power in advantages of friendships dependencies c. should not affect to raise himself above the level it is an ambition that easily will seise on the most moderate and otherwise religious minds Pope Leo objected it to Anatolius and Pope Gregory to John from his austere life called the Faster Upon the like account it was that the Bishops of other Cities did mount to a preeminency Metropolitane Primatical Patriarchal Thence it was that the Bishop of Alexandria before Constantine's time did acquire the honour of second place to Rome because that City being head of a most rich and populous Nation did in magnitude and opulency as Gregory Nazianzene saith approach next to Rome so as hardly to yield the next place to it Upon that account also did Antioch get the next place as being the most large flourishing commanding City of the East the which as Josephus saith for bigness and for other advantages had without controversie the third place in all the world subject to the Romans and the which St. Chrysostome calleth the head of all cities seated in the East Saint Basil seemeth to call the Church thereof the principal in the world for what saith he can be more opportune to the Churches over the world than the Church of Antioch the which if it should happen to be reduced to concord nothing would hinder but that as a sound head it would supply health to the whole body Upon the same account the Bishop of Carthage did obtain the privilege to be standing Primate of his Province although other Primacies there were not fixed to places but followed Seniority and a kind of Patriarch over all the African Provinces Hence did Caesarea as exceeding in temporal advantages and being the Political Metropolis of Palestine o'ertop Jerusalem that most ancient noble and venerable City the source of our Religion It was indeed the general Rule and practice to conform the privileges of Ecclesiastical dignity in a proportion convenient to those of the secular Government as the Synod of Antioch in express terms did ordain the ninth Canon whereof runneth thus The Bishops in every Province ought to know that the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis doth undertake the care of all the Province because all that have business do meet together in the Metropolis whence it hath been ordained that he should precede in honour and that the Bishops should doe nothing extraordinary without him according to a more ancient Canon holding from our Fathers that is according to the 34th Canon of the Apostles It is true that the Fathers do sometimes mention the Church of Rome being founded by the two great Apostles or the succession of the Roman Bishop to them in Pastoral charge as a special ornament of that Church and a congruous ground of respect to that Bishop whereby they did honour the memory of Saint Peter but even some of those who did acknowledge this did not avow it as a sufficient ground of preeminence none did admit it for an argument of authoritative Superiority St. Cyprian did call the Roman See the chair of Saint Peter and the principal Church yet he disclaimed any authority of the Roman Bishops above his brethren Firmilian did take notice that Pope Stephanus did glory in the place of his Bishoprick and contend that he held the succession of Peter yet did not he think himself thereby obliged to submit to his authority or follow his judgment but sharply did reprehend him as a favourer of Hereticks an authour of Schisms and one who had cut himself off from the communion of his brethren The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did confess that in writings all did willingly honour the Roman
Authority whenas the actions of such Fathers and their discourses upon other occasions do manifest their serious judgment to have been directly contrary to his pretences wherefore the Emperour of Constantinople in the Florentine Synod had good reason to decline such sayings for arguments for if saith he any of the Saints doth in an Epistle honour the Pope shall he take that as importing privileges 9. Good men commonly out of charitable simplicity meekness modesty and humility love of peace and aversness from contention are apt to yield to the encroachments of those who any-wise do excell them and when such men do yield others are ready to follow their example Bad men have little interest to resist and no heart to stand for publick good but rather strike in presently taking advantage by their compliance to drive a good market for themselves Hence so many of all sorts in all times did comply with Popes or did not obstruct them suffering them without great obstacle to raise their power 10. If in such cases a few wise men do apprehend the consequences of things yet they can doe little to prevent them They seldom have the courage with sufficient zeal to bustle against encroachments fearing to be overborn by its stream to lose their labour and vainly to suffer by it If they offer at resistence it is usually faint and moderate whereas power doth act vigorously and push it self forward with mighty violence so that it is not onely difficult to check it but dangerous to oppose it Ambiguity of words as it causeth many debates so yieldeth much advantage to the foundation and amplification of power for whatever is said of it will be interpreted in favour of it and will afford colour to its pretences Words innocently or carelesly used are by interpretation extended to signifie great matters or what you please For instance The word Bishop may import any kind of superintendency or inspection hence Saint Peter came to be reckoned Bishop of Rome because in virtue of his Apostolical Office he had inspection over that Church founded by him and might exercise some Episcopal acts The word Head doth signifie any kind of eminency the word Prince any priority the word to preside any kind of superiority or preeminence hence some Fathers attributing those names to Saint Peter they are interpreted to have thought him Sovereign in power over the Apostles And because some did give like terms to the Pope they infer his Superiority in power over all Bishops notwithstanding such Fathers did express a contrary judgment The word Successour may import any derivation of power hence because Saint Peter is said to have founded the Church of Rome and to have ordained the first Bishop there the Pope is called his Successour The word Authority doth often import any kind of influence upon the opinions or actions of men grounded upon eminence of place worth reputation or any such advantage Hence because the Pope of old sometimes was desired to interpose his authority they will understand him to have had right to command or judge in such cases although authority is sometimes opposed to command as where Livy saith that Evander did hold those places by authority rather than by command and Tacitus of the German Princes saith They are heard rather according to their authority of persuading than power of commanding The word Judge saith Canus is frequently used to signifie no more than I do think or conceive whereby he doth excuse divers Popes from having decreed a notable errour for Alexander III. says of them that they judged that after a matrimony contracted not consummated another may be valid that being dissolved Yet if the Pope is said to have judged so or so in any case it is alledged for a certain argument of proper Jurisdiction 11. There is a strange inchantment in words which being although with no great colour of reason assumed do work on the fancies of men especially of the weaker sort Of these power doth ever arrogate to it self such as are most operative by their force sustaining and extending it self So divers prevalent Factions did assume to themselves the name of Catholick and the Roman Church particularly hath appropriated that word to it self even so as to commit a Bull implying Rome and the Universe to be the same place and the perpetual canting of this Term hath been one of its most effectual charms to weak people I am a Catholick that is an Vniversal therefore all I hold is true this is their great Argument The words Successour of Peter Apostolick See Prima Sedes have been strongly urged for Arguments of Papal Authority the which have beyond their true force for indeed they signifie nothing had a strange efficacy upon men of understanding and wisedom 12. The Pope's power was much amplified by the importunity of persons condemned or extruded from their places whether upon just accounts or wrongfully and by faction for they finding no other more hopefull place of refuge and redress did often apply to him for what will not men doe whither will not they go in straits Thus did Marcion go to Rome and sue for admission to communion there So Fortunatus and Felicissimus in St. Cyprian being condemned in Africk did fly to Rome for shelter of which absurdity St. Cyprian doth so complain So likewise Martianus and Basilides in St. Cyprian being outed of their Sees for having lapsed from the Christian profession did fly to Stephen for succour to be restored So Maximus the Cynick went to Rome to get a confirmation of his election at Constantinople So Marcellus being rejected for Heterodoxy went thither to get attestation to his Orthodoxy of which St. Basil complaineth So Apiarius being condemned in Africk for his crimes did appeal to Rome And on the other side Athanasius being with great partiality condemned by the Synod of Tyre Paulus and other Bishops being extruded from their Sees for Orthodoxy St. Chrysostome being condemned and expelled by Theophilus and his complices Flavianus being deposed by Dioscorus and the Ephesine Synod Theodoret being condemned by the same did cry out for help from Rome Chelidonius Bishop of Resanon being deposed by Hilarius of Arles for crimes did fly to Pope Leo. Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople being extruded from his See by Photius did complain to the Pope 13. All Princes are forward to heap honour on the Bishop of their Imperial City it seeming a disgrace to themselves that so near a relation be an inferiour to any other who is as it were their Spiritual Pastour who is usually by their special favour advanced The City it self and the Court will be restless in assisting him to climb Thus did the Bishop of Constantinople arise to that high pitch of honour and to be Second Patriarch who at first was a mean Suffragan to the Bishop of Heraclea this by the Synods of Constantinople and Chalcedon is assigned for the reason of his advancement And
the Pope with him in his actings He thereby might pretend to the first place of sitting and subscribing which kind of advantages it appeareth that some Bishops had in Synods by the virtue of the like substitution in the place of others but he thence could have no authoritative Presidency for that the Pope himself could by no delegation impart having himself no title thereto warranted by any Law or by any Precedent that depended on the Emperour's will or on the Election of the Fathers or on a tacit regard to personal eminence in comparison to others present This distinction Evagrius seemeth to intimate when he saith that the divine Cyril did administer it and the place of Celestine where a word seemeth to have fallen out and Zonaras more plainly doth express saying that Cyril Pope of Alexandria did preside over the Orthodox Fathers and also did hold the place of Celestine and Photius Cyril did supply the seat and the person of Celestine If any latter Historions do confound these things we are not obliged to comply with their ignorance or mistake Indeed as to Presidency there we may observe that sometime it is attributed to Cyril alone as being the first Bishop present and bearing a great sway sometimes to Pope Celestine as being in representation present and being the first Bishop of the Church in Order sometimes to both Cyril and Celestine sometimes to Cyril and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus who as being very active and having great influence on the proceedings are styled the Presidents and Rulers of the Synod The which sheweth that Presidency was a lax thing and no peculiarity in right or usage annexed to the Pope nor did altogether depend on his grant or representation to which Memnon had no title The Pope himself and his Legats are divers times in the Acts said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit together with the Bishops which confidence doth not well comport with his special right to Presidency Yea it is observable that the Oriental Bishops which with John of Antioch did oppose the Cyrillian Party in that Synod did charge on Cyril that he as if he lived in a time of Anarchy did proceed to all irregularity and that snatching to himself the Authority which neither was given him by the Canons nor by the Emperours Sanctions did rush on to all kind of disorder and unlawfulness whence it is evident that in the judgment of those Bishops among whom were divers worthy and excellent persons the Pope had no right to any authoritative Presidency This word Presidency indeed hath an ambiguity apt to impose on those who do not observe it for it may be taken for a privilege of Precedence or for Authority to govern things the first kind of presidence the Pope without dispute when present at a Synod would have had among the Bishops as being the Bishop of the first See as the Sixth Synod calleth him and the first of Priests as Justinian called him and in his absence his Legates might take up his Chair for in General Synods each See had its Chair assigned to it according to its order of dignity by custom And according to this sense the Patriarchs and chief Metropolitans are also often singly or conjunctly said to preside as sitting in one of the first Chairs But the other kind of Presidency was as those Bishops in their complaint against Cyril do imply and as we shall See in practice disposed by the Emperour as he saw reason although usually it was conferred on him who among those present in dignity did precede the rest this is that authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Syrian Bishops complained against Cyril for assuming to himself without the Emperour's warrant and whereof we have a notable Instance in the next General Synod at Ephesus For In the Second Ephesine Synod which in design was a General Synod lawfully convened for a publick cause of determining truth and settling peace in the Church but which by some miscarriages proved abortive although the Pope had his Legates there yet by the Emperour's order Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria did preside We said Theodosius in his Epistle to him do also commit to thy godliness the authority and the preeminency of all things appertaining to the Synod now assembled and in the Synod of Chalcedon it is said of him that he had received the authority of all affairs and of judgment and Pope Leo I. in this Epistle to the Emperour saith that Dioscorus did challenge to himself the principal place insinuating a complaint that Dioscorus should be preferred before him although not openly contesting his right The Emperour had indeed some reason not to commit the Presidency to Pope Leo because he was looked upon as prejudiced in the cause having declared in favour of Flavianus against Eutyches whence Eutyches declined his Legate's interessing in the judgment of his cause saying they were suspected to him because they were entertained by Flavianus with great regard And Dioscorus being Bishop of the next See was taken for more indifferent and otherwise a person however afterward it proved of much integrity and moderation He did saith the Emperour shine by the grace of God both in honesty of life and orthodoxy of faith and Theodoret himself before those differences arose doth say of him that he was by common fame reported a man adorned with many other kinds of vertue and that especially he was celebrated for his moderation of mind It is true that the Legates of Pope Leo did take in dudgeon this preferment of Dioscorus and if we may give credence to Liberatus would not sit down in the Synod because the presession was not given to their Holy See and afterwards in the Synod of Chalcedon the Pope's Legate Paschasinus together with other Bishops did complain that Dioscorus was preferred before the Bishop of Constantinople but notwithstanding those ineffectual mutinies the Emperour's will did take place and according thereto Dioscorus had although he did not use it so wisely and justly as he should the chief managery of things It is to be observed that to other chief Bishops the Presidency in that Synod is also ascribed by virtue of the Emperour's appointment Let the most reverend Bishops say the Imperial Commissaries in the Synod of Chalcedon to whom the authoritative management of affairs was by the Royal Sovereignty granted speak why the Epistle of the most Holy Archbishop Leo was not read and You say they again to whom the power of judging was given and of Dioscorus Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem Thalassius of Caesarea Eusebius of Ancyra Eustathius of Beristus Basilius of Selencia it is by the same Commissioners said that they had recieved the authority and did govern the Synod which was then and Elpidius the Emperour's Agent in the Ephesine Synod it self did expresly style them Presidents and Pope Leo himself calleth them Presidents and Primates of the Synod Whence it
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
in their generations accommodating their discourse to the state of times and places 11. It is also to be observed that often the Popes are supposed to speak and constitute things by their own authority which indeed were done by Synods consisting of Western Bishops more closely adhering to that See in regard to those Regions the Decrees of which Synods were binding in those places not so much by virtue of Papal authority as proceeding from the consent of their own Bishops how ready soever He were to assume all to himself pretending those Decrees as precepts of the Apostolical See Whence all the Acts of modern Popes are invalid and do not oblige seeing they do not act in Synod but onely of their own Head or with the advice of a few Partizans about them men linked in common interest with them to domineer over the Church 12. Yet even in the Western Countries in later times their Decrees have been contested when they did seem plainly to clash with the old Canons or much to derogate from the Liberties of Churches nor have there wanted learned Persons in most times who so far as they durst have expressed their dislike of this Usurpation For although the Bishop of Rome be more venerable than the rest that are in the world upon account of the dignity of the Apostolical See yet it is not lawfull for him in any case to transgress the order of Canonical governance for as every Bishop who is of the Orthodox Church and the Spouse of his own See doth intirely represent the Person of our Saviour so generally no Bishop ought pragmatically to act any thing in anothers Diocese 13. In the times of Pope Nicolas I. the Greeks did not admit the Roman Decrees so that Pope in an Epistle to Photius complains that he did not receive the Decrees of the Popes whenas yet they ordained nothing but what the Natural what the Mosaical and what the Law of Grace required And in another Epistle he expostulates with him for saying that they neither had nor did observe the Decrees made by the Holy Popes of the Prime See of the Roman Church 14. That which greatly did advance the Papal Jurisdiction and introduced his Usurpation of obtruding new Decrees on the Church was the venting of the forged Decretal Epistles under the name of Old Popes which when the Pope did alledge for authorizing his practices the French Bishops endeavouring to assert their Privilege did alledge that they were not contained in the whole body of their Canons 15. The power of enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching extoriour Discipline did of old belong to the Emperour And it was reasonable that it should because old Laws might not conveniently sute with the present state of things and the publick welfare because new Laws might condâ—ce to the good of Church and State the care of which is incumbent on him because the Prince is bound to use his power and authority to promote God's Service the best way of doing which may be by framing Orders conducible thereto Accordingly the Emperours did enact divers Laws concerning Ecclesiastical matters which we see extant in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian These things saith the Council of Arles we have decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour desiring his clemency that if any thing be defective it may be supplied by his prudence if any thing be unreasonable it may be corrected by his judgment if any thing be reasonably ordered it may by his help the Divine Grace assisting be perfected We may observe that Popes did allow the validity of Imperial Laws Pope Gregory I. doth alledge divers Laws of divers Emperours concerning Ecclesiastical affairs as authentick and obligatory Rules of practice 16. Divers Churches had particular rights of independency upon all power without themselves Such as the Church of Cyprus in the Ephesine Synod did claim and obtain the confirmation of Such was the ancient Church of Britain before Austin came into England The Welch Bishops are consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids and he himself in like manner is ordained by others who are as it were his Suffragans professing no manner subjection to any other Church V. Sovereign power immediately by it self when it pleaseth doth exercise all parts of Jurisdiction setting it self in the Tribunal or mediately doth execute it by others as its Officers or Commissioners Wherefore now the Pope doth claim and exercise Universal Jurisdiction over all the Clergy requiring of them engagements of strict submission and obedience to him demanding that all causes of weight be referred to him citing them to his bar examining and deciding their causes condemning suspending deposing censuring them or acquitting absolving restoring them as he seeth cause or findeth in his heart He doth encourage people to accuse their pastours to him in case any doth infringe his Laws and Orders But in general that originally or anciently the Pope had no such right appropriate to him may appear by arguments by cross instances by the insufficiency of all pleas and examples alledged in favour of this claim For 1. Originally there was not at all among Christians any Jurisdiction like to that which is exercised in Civil Governments and which now the papal Court doth execute For this our Saviour did prohibit and Saint Peter forbad the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And St. Chrysostome affirmeth the Episcopal power not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ecclesiastical History doth inform us that such a Jurisdiction was lately introduced in the Church as by other great Bishops so especially by the Bishop of Rome For saith Socrates from that time the Episcopacy of Alexandria beyond the Sacerdotal Order did assume a domineering power in affairs The which kind of power the Roman Bishops had long before assumed for saith he the Episcopacy of Rome in like manner as that of Alexandria had already a great while agoe gone before in a domineering power beyond that of the Priesthood At first the Episcopal power did onely consist in Paternal admonition and correption of offenders exhorting and persuading them to amendment and in case they contumaciously did persist in disorderly behaviour bringing them before the Congregation and the cause being there heard and proved with its consent imposing such penance or correction on them as seemed needfull for the publick good or their particular benefit All things saith St. Cyprian shall be examin'd you being present and judging And elsewhere according to your divine suffrages according to your pleasure 2. Originally no one Bishop had any Jurisdiction over another or authority to judge his actions as St. Cyprian who well knew the current judgment and practice of his age in many places doth affirm who particularly doth reflect on the Roman Bishop for presuming to censure his brethren who dissented from him Let us all saith he
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
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
of the Emperour he could dispose of their persons so as not to suffer them to continue in a place or to put them from it as they demeaned themselves to his satisfaction or otherwise in reference to publick utility It is reasonable if they were disloyal or disobedient to him that he should not suffer them to be in places of such influence whereby they might pervert the people to disaffection It is fit that he should deprive them of temporalties The example of Solomon deposing Abiathar Constantine M. commanded Eusebius and Theogonius to depart out of the Cities over which they presided as Bishops Constantius deposed Paulus of Constantinople Constantius ejected all that would not subscribe to the Creed of Ariminum The Emperour Leo deposed Timotheus Aelurus for which Pope Leo did highly commend and thank him The Emperours discarded divers Popes Constantius banished Pope Liberius and caused another to be put in his room Otho put out John the Twelfth Justinian deposed Pope Silverius and banished Pope Vigilius Justinian banished Anastasius Bishop of Antioch extruded Anthimus of Constantinople and Theodosius of Alexandria Neither indeed was any great Patriarch effectually deposed without their power or leave Flavianus was supported by Theodosius against the Pope Dioscorus subsisted by the power of Theodosius Junior The Deposition of Dioscorus in the Synod of Chalcedon was voted with a reserve of If it shall please our most sacred and pious Lord. In effect the Emperours deposed all Bishops which were ordained beside their general Laws as Justinian having prescribed conditions and qualifications concerning the Ordinations of Bishops subjoineth But if any Bishop be ordained without using our forementioned Constitution we command you that by all means he be removed from his Bishoprick 14. The Instances alledged to prove the Pope's Authority in this case are inconcludent and invalid They alledge the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles concerning whom for abetting Novatianism St. Cyprian doth exhort Pope Stephanus that he would direct Letters to the Bishops of Gaul and the people of Arles that he being for his schismatical behaviour removed from communion another should be substituted in his room The Epistle grounding this Argument is questioned by a great Critick but I willingly admit it to be genuine seeing it hath the style and spirit of St. Cyprian and suteth his Age and I see no cause why it should be forged wherefore omitting that defence I answer that the whole matter being seriously weighed doth make rather against the Pope's cause than for it for if the Pope had the sole or Sovereign authority of rejecting Bishops why did the Gaulish Bishops refer the matter to St. Cyprian why had Marcianus himself a recourse to him St. Cyprian doth not ascribe to the Pope any peculiar authority of Judgment or Censure but a common one which himself could exercise which all Bishops might exercise It is saith he our part to provide and succour in such a case for therefore is the body of Priests so numerous that by joint endeavour they may suppress heresies and schisms The case being such St. Cyprian earnestly doth move Pope Stephanus to concur in exercise of Discipline on that Schismatick and to prosecute effectually the business by his Letters persuading his fellow-Bishops in France that they would not suffer Marcianus to insult over the College of Bishops for to them it seemeth the transaction did immediately belong To doe thus St. Cyprian implieth and prescribeth to be the Pope's special duty not onely out of regard to the common Interest but for his particular concernment in the case that schism having been first advanced against his Predecessours St. Cyprian also if we mark it covertly doth tax the Pope of negligence in not having soon enough joined with himself and the community of Bishops in censuring that Delinquent We may add that the Church of Arles and Gaul being near Italy the Pope may be allowed to have some greater sway there than otherwhere in more distant places so that St. Cyprian thought his Letters to quicken Discipline there might be proper and particularly effectual These things being duly considered what advantage can they draw from this Instance doth it not rather prejudice their cause and afford a considerable objection against it We may observe that the strength of their argumentation mainly consisteth in the words quibus abstento the which as the drift of the whole Epistle and parallel expressions therein do shew do signifie no more than quibus efficiatur ut abstento which may procure him to be excomunicated not quae contineant abstentionem which contain excommunication as P. de Marca glosseth although admitting that sense it would not import much seeing onely thereby the Pope would have signified his consent with other Bishops wherefore de Marca hath no great cause to blame us that we do not deprehend any magnificent thing in this place for the dignity of the Papal See indeed he hath I must confess better eyes than I who can see any such mighty things there for that purpose As for the substitution of another in the room of Marcianus that was a consequent of the excommunication and was to be the work of the Clergy and people of the place for when by common judgment of Catholick Bishops any Bishop was rejected the people did apply themselves to chuse another I adjoin the Resolution of a very learned writer of their communion in these words In this case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles if the right of excommunication did belong solely to the Bishop of Rome wherefore did Faustinus Bishop of Lyons advertise Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who was so far distant concerning those very things touching Marcianus which both Faustinus himself and other Bishops of the same Province had before sent word of to Stephen Bishop of Rome who lived nearest being moreover of all Bishops the chief It must either be said that this was done because of Stephen's negligence or what is more probable according to the discipline then used in the Church that all Bishops of neighbouring places but especially those presiding over the most eminent Cities should join their Counsels for the welfare of the Church and that Christian Religion might not receive the least damage in any of its affairs whatsoever Hence it was that in the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles the Bishop of Lyons writ Letters to the Bishop of Rome and Carthage and again that the Bishop of Carthage as being most remote did write to the Bishop of Rome as being his brother and Collegue who by reason of his propinquity might more easily know and judge of the whole matter The other Instances are of a later date after the Synod of Nice and therefore of not so great weight yea their having none more ancient to produce doth strongly make against the antiquity of this right it being strange that no memory should be of any deposed
no more than acknowledging a person although rejected by undue Sentence to be de jure worthy of communion and capable of the Episcopal Office upon which may be consequent an Obligation to communicate with him and to allow him his due Character according to the Precept of Saint Paul Follow righteousness faith charity peace with them that call upon the Lord with a pure heart This may be done when any man notoriously is persecuted for the Truth and Righteousness Or when the iniquity and malice of pretended Judges are apparent to the oppression of Innocence Or when the Process is extremely irregular as in the cases of Athanasius of St. Chrysostome And this is not an act of Jurisdiction but of Equity and Charity incumbent on all Bishops And there are promiscuous Instances of Bishops practising it Thus Socrates saith that Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem did restore communion and dignity to Athanasius And so Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch being reconciled and reduced to a good understanding of each other did restore to each other their Sees rescinding the Censures which in heat they had denounced each on other Which sheweth that Restitution is not always taken for an act of Jurisdiction wherein one is Superiour to another for those persons were in rank and power co-ordinate 2. Restitution sometime doth import no more than a considerable influence toward the effects of restoring a person to communion or Office no judicial act being exercised about the case The Emperour writing that Paulus and Athanasius should be restor'd to their Sees availed nothing That was a Restitution without effect Thus a Pope's avowing the Orthodoxy or Innocence or Worth of a person after a due information about them by reason of the Pope's eminent rank in the Church and the regard duely had to him might sometimes much conduce to restore a person and might obtain the name of Restitution by an ordinary scheme of speech 3. Sometimes persons said to be restored by Popes are also said to be restored by Synods with regard to such instance or testimony of Popes in their behalf In which case the Judicial Restitution giving right of Recovery and completion thereto was the act of the Synod 4. When Cases were driven to a legal debate Popes could not effectually resolve without a Synod their single acts not being held sufficiently valid So notwithstanding the Declarations of Pope Julius in favour of Athanasius for the effectual resolution of his case the great Synod of Sardica was convened So whatever Pope Innocent I. did endeavour he could not restore St. Chrysostome without a General Synod Nor could Pope Leo restore Flavianus deposed in the Second Ephesine Synod without convocation of a General Synod the which he did so often sue for to the Emperour Theodosius for that purpose Pope Simplicius affirmed that Petrus Moggus having been by a common decree condemned as an adulterer or Usurper of the Alexandrian See could not without a common Council be freed from condemnation 5. Particular instances do not ascertain right to the Person who assumeth any power for busie bodies often will exceed their bounds 6. Emperours did sometimes restore Bishops Constantine as he did banish Eusebius of Nicomedia and others so he did revoke and restore them so says Socrates They were recall'd from banishment by the Emperour's command and receiv'd their Churches Theodosius did assert to Flavianus his right whereof the Popes did pretend to deprive him which did amount to a Restitution at least to the Romanists who do assert Flavianus to be deposed by the Popes Instantius and Priscillianus were by the rescript of the Emperour Gratianus restored to their Churches Justinian did order Pope Silverius to be restored in case he could prove his Innocence 7. Commonly Restitution was not effectual without the Emperour's consent whence Theodoret although allowed by the great Synod did acknowledge his Restitution especially due to the Emperour as we shall see in reflecting on his case Now to the particular Instances produced for the Pope we answer 1. They pretend that Pope Stephanus did restore Basilides and Martialis Spanish Bishops who had been deposed for which they quote St. Cyprian's Epistle where he says Basilides going to Rome imposed upon our Collegue Stephen who lived a great way off and was ignorant of the truth of the matter seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bishoprick from which he had justly been deposed But we answer The Pope did attempt such a Restitution by way of Influence and Testimony not of Jurisdiction wherefore the result of his act in St. Cyprian's judgment was null and blameable which could not be so deemed if he had acted as a Judge for a favourable Sentence passed by just Authority is valid and hardly liable to Censure The Clergy of those places notwithstanding that pretended Restitution did conceive those Bishops uncapable and did request the judgment of St. Cyprian about it which argueth the Pope's judgment not to have been peremptory and prevalent then in such cases St. Cyprian denieth the Pope or any other person to have power of restoring in such a case and exhorteth the Clergy to persist in declining the communion of those Bishops Well doth Rigaltius ask why they should write to St. Cyprian if the judgment of Stephanus was decisive and he addeth that indeed the Spaniards did appeal from the Roman Bishop to him of Carthage No wonder seeing the Pope had no greater authority and probably St. Cyprian had the fairer reputation for wisedom and goodness Considering which things what can they gain by this Instance which indeed doth considerably make against them 2. They alledge the Restitution of Athanasius and of others linked in cause with him by Pope Julius He says Sozomen as having the care of all by reason of the dignity of his See restored to each his own Church I answer the Pope did not restore them judicially but declaratively that is declaring his approbation of their right and innocence did admit them to communion Julius in his own Defence did alledge that Athanasius was not legally rejected so that without any prejudice to the Canons he might receive him and the doing it upon this account plainly did not require any Act of Judgment Nay it was necessary to avow those Bishops as suffering in the cause of the common Faith Besides the Pope's proceeding was taxed and protested against as irregular nor did he defend it by virtue of a general power that he had judicially to rescind the acts of Synods And lastly the Restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops had no complete effect till it was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica backed by the Imperial authority which in effect did restore them This instance therefore is in many respects deficient as to their purpose 3. They produce Marcellus being restored by the same Pope Julius But that Instance beside the forementioned defects hath this that the
be deaf to the complaints of the whole World or make as if you were so why sleep you when will the consideration of so great confusion and abuse in appeals awake in you they are made without right or equity without due order and against custome Neither place nor manner nor time nor cause nor person are considered they are every where made lightly and for the most part unjustly with much more passionate language to the same purpose But in the Primitive Church the Pope had no such power 1. Whereas in the first times many causes and differences did arise wherein they who were condemned and worsted would readily have resorted thither where they might have hoped for remedy if Rome had been such a place of refuge it would have been very famous for it and we should find History full of such examples whereas it is very silent about them 2. The most ancient Customs and Canons of the Church are flatly repugnant to such a power for they did order causes finally to be decided in each Province So the Synod of Nice did Decree as the African Fathers did alledge in defence of their refusal to allow appeals to the Pope The Nicene decrees said they most evidently did commit both Clergymen of inferiour degrees and Bishops to their Metropolitans So Theòph in his Epistle I suppose you are not ignorant what the Canons of the Nicene Council command ordaining that a Bishop should judge no cause out of his own district 3. Afterward when the Diocesan administration was introduced the last resort was decreed to the Synods of them or to the Primates in them all other appeals being prohibited as dishonourable to the Bishops of the Diocese reproaching the Canons and subverting Ecclesiastical Order To which Canon the Emperour Justinian referred For it is decreed by our Ancestours that against the Sentence of these Prelates there should be no Appeal So Constantius told Pope Liberius that those things which had a form of Judgment past on them could not be rescinded This was the practice at least in the Eastern parts of the Church in the times of Justinian as is evident by the Constitutions extant in the Code and in the Novels 4. In derogation to this pretence divers Provincial Synods expresly did prohibit all Appeals from their decisions That of Milevis Let them appeal onely to African Councils or the Primates of Provinces and he who shall think of appealing beyond Sea let him be admitted into communion by none in Africk For if the Nicene Council took this care of the inferiour Clergy how much more did they intend it should relate to Bishops also 5. All persons were forbidden to entertain communion with Bishops condemned by any one Church which is inconsistent with their being allowed relief at Rome 6. This is evident in the case of Marcion by the assertion of the Roman Church at that time 7. When the Pope hath offered to receive Appeals or to meddle in cases before decided he hath found opposition and reproof Thus when Felicissimus and Fortunatus having been censured and rejected from communion in Africk did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius with supplication to be admitted by him Saint Cyprian maintaineth that fact to be irregular and unjust and not to be countenanced for divers reasons Likewise when Basilides and Martialis being for their crimes deposed in Spain had recourse to Pope Stephanus for Restitution the Clergy and People there had no regard to the judgment of the Pope the which their resolution Saint Cyprian did commend and encourage When Athanasius Marcellus Paulus c. having been condemned by Synods did apply themselves for relief to Pope Julius the Oriental Bishops did highly tax this course as irregular disclaiming any power in him to receive them or meddle in their cause Nor could Pope Julius by any Law or Instance disprove their plea Nor did the Pope assert to himself any peculiar authority to revise the Cause or otherwise justifie his proceeding than by right common to all Bishops of vindicating Right and Innocence which were oppressed and of asserting the Faith for which they were persecuted Indeed at first the Oriental Bishops were contented to refer the cause to Pope Julius as Arbitratour which signifieth that he had no ordinary right but afterward either fearing their Cause or his Prejudice they started and stood to the canonicalness of the former decision The contest of the African Church with Pope Celestine in the Cause of Apiarius is famous and the Reasons which they assign for repelling that Appeal are very notable and peremptory 8. Divers of the Fathers alledge like reasons against Appeals Saint Cyprian alledgeth these 1. Because there was an Ecclesiastical Law against them 2. Because they contain iniquity as prejudicing the right of each Bishop granted by Christ in governing his flock 3. Because the Clergy and People should not be engaged to run gadding about 4. Because Causes might better be decided there where witnesses of fact might easily be had 5. Because there is every where a competent authority equal to any that might be had otherwhere 6. Because it did derogate from the gravity of Bishops to alter their Censure Pope Liberius desired of Constantius that the Judgment of Athanasius might be made in Alexandria for such reasons because there the accused the accusers and their defender were St. Chrysostome's Argument against Theophilus meddling in his case may be set against Rome as well as Alexandria 9. St. Austin in matter of appeal or rather of reference to candid Arbitration more proper for Ecclesiastical causes doth conjoin other Apostolical Churches with that of Rome For the business says he was not about Priests and Deacons or the inferiour Clergy but the Collegues Bishops who may reserve their cause entire for the judgment of their Collegues especially those of the Apostolical Churches He would not have said so if he had apprehended that the Pope had a peculiar right of revising Judgments 10. Pope Damasus or rather Pope Siricius doth affirm himself incompetent to judge in a case which had been afore determined by the Synod of Capua but says he since the Synod of Capua has thus determined it we perceive we cannot judge it 11. Anciently there were no Appeals properly so called or jurisdictional in the Church they were as Socrates telleth us introduced by Cyril of Hierusalem who first did appeal to a greater Judicature against Ecclesiastical rule and custome This is an Argument that about that time a little before the great Synod of Constantinople greater Judicatories or Diocesan Synods were established whenas before Provincial Synods were the last resorts 12. Upon many occasions Appeals were not made to the Pope as in all likelihood they would have been if it had been supposed that a power of receiving them did belong to him Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to the Emperour The Donatists did not appeal to the Pope
but to the Emperour Their Cause was by the Emperour referred not to the Pope singly as it ought to have been and would have been by so just a Prince if it had been his right but to him and other Judges as the Emperour's Commissioners Athanasius did first appeal to the Emperour St. Chrysostome did request the Pope's Succour but he did not appeal to him as Judge although he knew him favourably disposed and the Cause sure in his hand but he appealed to a General Council the which Innocent himself did conceive necessary for decision of that Cause There are in History innumerable Instances of Bishops being condemned and expelled from their Sees but few of Appeals which is a sign that was no approved remedy in common opinion Eutyches did appeal to all the Patriarchs Theodoret did intend to appeal to all the Western Bishops 13. Those very Canons of Sardica the most unhappy that ever were made to the Church which did introduce Appeals to the Pope do yet upon divers accounts prejudice his claim to an original right and do upon no account favour that use of them to which to the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical liberty and good discipline they have been perverted For 1. They do pretend to confer a Privilege on the Pope which argueth that he before had no claim thereto 2. They do qualifie and restrain that Privilege to certain Cases and Forms which is a sign that he had no power therein flowing from absolute Sovereignty for it is strange that they who did pretend and intend so much to favour him should clip his power 3. It is not really a power which they grant of receiving Appeals in all Causes but a power of constituting Judges qualifyed according to certain conditions to revise a special sort of causes concerning the Judgment and Deposition of Bishops Which considerations do subvert his pretence to original and universal Jurisdiction upon Appeals 14. Some Popes did challenge Jurisdiction upon Appeals as given them by the Nicene Canons meaning thereby those of Sardica which sheweth they had no better plea and therefore no original right And otherwhere we shall consider what validity those Canons may be allowed to have 15. The General Synod of Chalcedon of higher authority than that of Sardica derived Appeals at least in the Eastern Churches into another chanel namely to the Primate of each Diocese or to the Patriarch of Constantinople That this was the last resort doth appear from that otherwise they would have mentioned the Pope 16. Appeals in cases of Faith or general Discipline were indeed sometimes made to the consideration of the Pope but not onely to him but to all other Patriarchs and Primates as concerned in the common maintenance of the common Faith or Discipline So did Eutyches appeal to the Patriarchs 17. The Pope even in later times even in the Western parts hath found rubs in his trade of Appeals Consider the scuffle between Pope Nicholas I. and Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes 18. Christian States to prevent the intolerable vexations and mischiefs arising from this practice have been constrained to make Laws against them Particularly England In the Twelfth Age Pope Paschal II. complained of King Henry I. That he deprived the oppressed of the benefit of appealing to the Apostolick See It was one of King Henry I. Laws none is permitted to cry from thence no judgment is thence brought to the Apostolick See Foreign judgments we utterly remove there let the cause be tried where the crime was committed It was one of the Grievances sent to Pope Innocent IV. That Englishmen were drawn out of the Kingdom by the Pope's authority to have their causes heard Nor in after-times were Appeals by Law in any case permitted without the King's leave although sometimes by the facility of Princes or difficulty of times the Roman Court ever importunate and vigilant for its profits did obtain a relaxation or neglect of Laws inhibiting Appeals 19. There were Appeals from Popes to General Councils very frequently Vid. The Senate of Paris after the Concordaâ—s between Lewis XI and Pope Leo X. 20. By many Laws and instances it appeareth that Appellations have been made to the Emperours in the greatest Causes and that without Popes reclaiming or taking it in bad part St. Paul did appeal to Caesar. Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to Aurelianus So the Donatists did appeal to Constantine Athanasius to Constantine The Egyptian Bishops to Constantine Priscillianus to Maximus Idacius to Gratian. So that Canons were made to restrain Bishops from recourse ad Comitatum 21. Whereas they do alledge Instances for Appeal those well considered do prejudice their Cause for they are few in comparison to the occasions of them that ever did arise they are near all of them late when Papal encroachments had grown some of them are very impertinent to the cause some of them may strongly be retorted against them all of them are invalid If the Pope originally had such a right known unquestionable prevalent there might have been producible many ancient clear proper concluding Instances All that Bellarmine after his own search and that of his Predecessours in Controversie could muster are these following upon which we shall briefly reflect adding a few others which may be alledged by them He alledgeth Marcion as appealing to the Pope The truth was that Marcion for having corrupted a Maid was by his own Father Bishop of Sinope driven from the Church whereupon he did thence fly to Rome there begging admittance to communion but none did grant it at which he expostulating they replied We cannot without the permission of thy honourable Father doe this for there is one faith and one concord and we cannot cross thy Father our good fellow-Minister this was the case and issue and is it not strange this should be produced for an Appeal which was onely a supplication of a fugitive criminal to be admitted to communion and wherein is utterly disclaimed any power to thwart the Judgment of a particular Bishop or Judge upon account of unity in common faith and peace should the Pope return the same answer to every Appellant what would become of his Privilege So that they must give us leave to retort this as a pregnant Instance against their pretence He alledgeth the forementioned address of Felicissimus and Fortunatus to Pope Cornelius the which was but a factious circumcursation of desperate wretches the which or any like it St. Cyprian argueth the Pope in law and equity obliged not to regard because a definitive Sentence was already passed on them by their proper Judges in Africk from whom in conscience and reason there could be no Appeal So Bellarmine would filtch from us one of our invincible Arguments against him He also alledgeth the case of Basilides which also we before did shew to make against him his application to the Pope being disavowed by St. Cyprian