est Ipse decoravit sedem in qua Evangelistam discipulum misit Ipse firmavit sedem in qua septem annis quamvis discessurus sedit Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes cui ex authoritate divina tres nunc Episcopi praesident quicquid ego de vobis boni audio hoc mihi imputo Concil Gen. 8. at Constantinople can 21. Quisquis autem tale facinus contra sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare c. By these passages you see he Primacy and Priviledges whatever they were of the Roman Bishop anciently imputed to his Succession in the See of S. Peter and S. Paul and not or not chiefly or only to the Secular eminency of Rome But a chief reason also of the so high advancement of these three cities above all the rest notwithstanding that there were some other Apostolical Seats Hierusalem Ephesus preferable before Alexandria and many other cities more dignified as was urged by the Roman Bishops against that clause in Conc. Chalced. propter imperium civitatis Romae than either Alexandria or Antioch seems to be because these cities in the begining and first spreading of Christianity in those several quarters of the world the East the West and the South were replenished with a much greater number of Christians than others and were the Mother-churches of all the rest These three cities as Dr. Hammond notes Schism 3. c. p. 58. having the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations For the Churches of Asia were converted by Emissaries from Antioch Act. 13.2 4. and those of Egypt c from Alexandria and the Western from Rome Concerning which see the testimony of Innocentius the first Pope A. D. 408. in his Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium quoted before 3. § Tho I do not deny that Alexandria in Egypt having bin the Seat of the Successors of Ptolomy and Antioch in Asia of the Successors of Seleucus and under the Romans being the place of Residence of those their Governors who were set over the adjacent Provinces this might somewhat advance the propagation of Christianity more from these cities of so great resort than from others § 7 In the 2d General Council The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome A. D. 381. Constantinople being now made great by the Seat of the Empire translated thither its Bishop was advanced into a fourth Patriarch and that in the second place next to Rome which thing was also confirmed in the 4. Gen. Conc. Chalced granting him Act. 16. aequa senioris regiae Romae privilegia i.e. as they there and in their Letter to Leo Act. 3 explain themselves to exercise in such a sence as the 2d General Council had decreed before them a Patriarchal authority in ordaining the Metropolitans of certain Provinces and the Bishops also in some others as also to have the last place of Appeal Can. 9. in respect of those parts of the Church with this salvo annexed in behalf of the Roman Bishop omnem quidem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum Canones Antiquae Romae Archiepiscopo conservari and as it is said in the 2d General Concil 5th Can. to which former Canon they refer Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportere primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum propter quod sit Nova Roma tho this priority of the Bishop of Constantinople to Alexandria and Antioch was in this Council of Chalcedon much opposed in the behalf of those two Sees Dioscorus then Bishop of Alexandria being excluded from this Council for Heresy and so at this time uncapable of pleading for himself by Leo the then Bishop of Rome And it seems that the former 5th Canon but now recited made by the Bishops in that part of the 2d General Council which was assembled at Constantinople as also the three other Canons there preceding it which were recited in Concil Chalced. Act. 16. were either unknown or not at all regarded by the other part of the 2d General Council the Western Bishops who were assembled shortly after that time at Rome For thus saith Leo of these Canons or Acts in Ep. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Nunquam a praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Sedis transmissa notitiam and thus his Legats in Conc. Chalced. 16. Act. Quae in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur Neither indeed was any such Canon mentioned by the Constantinopolitan Bishops of the 2d General Council when they writ to Damasus concerning its Acts. See 1. conc Constantinop Nor was this foresaid 5th Canon when most opportunely it might but only the Nicene 6th Canon pleaded by S. Chrysostom against Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria offering to judge and depose him Wherefore Baronius conceives it to be made only by a part of that Council after Timotheus the Bishop of Alexandria was departed thence But however this Patriarch was not long after that contention of Leo's rather by their not contradiction than approbation indulged that honour also by the Roman Bishops themselves doubtless as conceiving it no abridgment of their own authority some Metropolitans being taken from the other Patriarchates The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times and subjected to it The great extent of which Patriarchy in latter times especially if you be curious to know see Dr. Field 3. l. 1. c. where he assigns for one reason of such an enlargment of its jurisdiction the conversion of sundry nations and people to the Christian faith by that Bishops Suffragans and Ministers § 8 Again in the 5th Gen. Council abou A. D. 550. the Bishop of Hierusalem out in honour to the Holy City The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place was made the 5th Patriarch after some honour and respects beyond other Bishops first given or rather wished to him by the Nicene Council see 7. Canon some Bishops both from that of Alexandria and Antioch being translated to his Jurisdiction § 9 Amost these above-named Dignities Ecclesiastical the Metropolitans were to ordain or confirm the Bishops of their Province The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors and the Patriarch was to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans subject unto him either by imposition of hands or by mission of the Pall. See Concil Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Action where advancing the Constantinopolitan Bishop to Patriarchal authority in the second place to Rome they conclude oportere ipsum potestatem habere ordinare Metropolitanos c. ut penes eum sit hunc qui electus est confirmare repudiareve See 8. Gen. Conc. Constant 17. c. See Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. Patriarchs were by the order of the 8. General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And 5.
can And because all these were continued to be used by the Church also under Christian Emperors without asking their leave to decree such things or subjecting them to their authority or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance yet so as without it resolv'd to proceed in the execution thereof as under Heathen as clearly appeared under the the Arian Emperors yet which thing she could not lawfully have done were any of these entrenching upon anothers right For example the 6th Canon of Nice and 5. Can. of Constant Council would have bin an usurpation of an unjust authority if the subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince Upon the same grounds let also those instances collected by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. 7. c. of several Princes and States on many occasions opposing the Pope's authority stand good and be justified so far as he doth not shew these Secular powers to have opposed him in any right belonging to him by Church-canons in Ecclesiastical matters But if in any of those examples they are also found to oppose him in these the proving of such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done Tho also he confesseth that this fact of Hen. 8. in abolishing the usurped as he calls it jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions he cannot fellow abroad See what he saith Vindic. 7. c. p. 184. Neither do such facts as he urgeth to be done abroad hinder such Princes for living still in the external communion with the Church of Rome which facts he urgeth as a defence of the Reformed's necessary relinquishing this communion Again I said That no such Spiritual authority can he conferred or translated to others contrary to such Church Canons c. Else whenever it is not contrary to these Canons I grant that Inferior Councils or Church-governors or also Secular powers with their consent may change and alter many things both in respect of Ecclesiastical persons and affairs therefore many cases concerning the Kings of England with such consent of inferior Councils or Church-governors erecting or translating Bishopricks c. instanc'd in by D. Hammond or Bishop Bramhall are justifiable where any wore not contrary to the Laws of the Church i. e. of superior Councils but in any other examples where such Laws are transgressed either by the Prince or also by their particular Clergy the proving such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done tho such acts were done without any express or present controul Things being thus explain'd I say to give a particular instance of the former proposition No Prince or Emperor Heathen or Christian c. can for his own Dominions dissolve or abrogate the authority concerning Ecclesiastical affairs of those Patriarchs or Primates constituted or confirm'd in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice the Church not commanding obedience to Patriarchs at random or to such as the Secular Prince should set over us but also nominating and constituting from time to time the Sees which had or should have such preeminence if these be since by no other General Council revers'd nor can any who by that Canon is subjected for instance to the Patriarch of Alexandria deny obedience in such Ecclesiastical matters to him without Schism tho his Secular Prince should command the contrary or subject him to another And if these things here said be true then also so far as the Bishop of Rome's Authority is found to be confirm'd in matters Spiritual by the Church's Canons and ancient custom over any Churches Provincial or National it will be Schism for any such Christian Prince or People to oppose it so long till the like Council reverseth it Hence to those three pretended rights of the Roman Bishop over the Church of England whereby Schism is said to be incurr'd mention'd by Dr. Hammond see Schism p. 138. namely his right 1. As St Peter's Successor or 2. By conversion of the Nation to Christianity or 3. By the voluntary concession of Kings I suppose I may add a 4th with his good leave namely his right by ancient Constitutions and Canons of the Church and may rightly affirm that if any such right could be prov'd the English Clergy must be Schismaticks in opposing it tho all the other pretences be overthrown For such a sort of Schism Dr. Hammond mentions p. 66. It may be observ'd indeed in our writers That they freely determine 1. That the Secular Prince hath a just external authority in Ecclesiastical affairs committed to him by God to enforce the execution of the Church's Canons upon all as well Clergy as Laity within his Dominions a thing denied by none 2. Again That the Secular Prince hath no internal Ecclesiastical authority delegated to him by God as to Administer the Sacraments to Absolve Excommunicate c. 3. Again That the Secular Prince hath no just authority to determine any thing concerning Divine Truths or perhaps other Ecclesiastical affairs without the Clergy's help and assistances But whether such Ecclesiastical Determinations or Laws are obligatory when the Prince makes these being assisted only with some small portion of the Clergy and oppos'd by the rest or also by a superior Council or Court Ecclesiastical Or whether the Prince against these provided that he have some lesser number of Clergy on his side may reverse former Canons or enact new to oblige the Clergy and Laity under his Dominion This they seem to me not freely to speak to most what to pass over and some of our later Writers when they are forc'd upon it rather to deny it And indeed neither is there any thing in the Oath of the King's Supremacy except it be in that general clause I will defend all Jurisdictions c. granted nor in the 37 Article of the Church of England which treats of the King's power in Ecclesiasticals that may seem to affirm or determine it For whereas the Oath in general makes the King only supreme Governor in Ecclesiasticals he may be so for some thing and yet not for every thing not therefore the supreme decider of all Divinity controversies And whereas the 34th Article expounds the Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All this he may do and yet be ty'd in all things to the Laws of the Church and to leave to the Church's sole judgment who are evil-doers or Heretical persons c. when any controversie ariseth in Divine matters about the lawfulness of some Practice or truth of some Tenet § 39 Now let us search therefore how far the concessions of Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Hammond may extend to the confirmation of the foresaid assertions The Concessions of B. Bramhall und of Dr. Hammond in this matter The Bishop Vindic. c. 8. p. 232. hath this proposition
THE SECOND and THIRD TREATISES Of the First Part of Ancient CHURCH-GOVERNMENT THE SECOND TREATISE Containing a Discourse of the SUCCESSION OF CLERGY OXFORD Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVIII TO THE READER IN the First Treatise of the First Part of Church-Government Printed A. D. 1662 and Reprinted 1685 is contain'd the Succession of the Apostles to our Lord in his Pastoral Office and the Primacy of St. Peter then the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles their Authority and the Subordination to them of Presbyters In this Second Treatise is discoursed the Indeficiency of the Clergy and of the Evangelical Doctrine deliver'd to them by our Lord. In the Third is contain'd the Subordination of Bishops their several Jurisdictions and tho Primacy and Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 6. l. 7. ought not to do the page should be 14. P. 24. l. 28. Mat. 23.2 3. P. 42. l. 30. Bishop Andrews in answer SUCCESSION OF CLERGY § 1 THese two things having been as I suppose sufficiently prov'd in a Treatise of Ancient Church-Government already published First Our Lord 's deriving his Authority and Pastoral Office here on Earth upon his Apostles and this not with an equal parity Secondly And again the Apostles transferring the same Office to others And this also for preventing Schisms and preserving Order and Peace in the Church done as before not with an exact equality amongst all the Clergy but with a certain preeminence and superiority of some above the rest the Bishops above the Presbyters and this a superiority too not only of precedence or honour which would not have cured Schisms but of Office and Authority I now proceed to shew more at large That Christ hath left the same his Ministers 1. The infallible Preservers of all necessary Faith and the supreme Judges to be submitted-to in all spiritual doubts and controversies 2. These in this their Government independent-on and not dissolvable by any external secular power 3. Firmly united among themselves in one external Profession and Communion not ruinable by any intestine Division § 2 For the first of these I shall shew you 1. That considering men's ordinary frailties and passions there is a clear necessity of such a Judg to decide Controversies resolve Doubts suppress false Doctrines c. And 2. That there hath always been appointed in the Church of God besides the Rule such a Judg both under the Law and under the Gospel and men never left to their own Conduct in Religion § 3 1. A necessity of such a Judg sufficiently appears from this 1. That never any Body of Laws hath been so punctually set down but that many doubts and questions do arise in the practice of it a thing which experience hath verified in as many such Bodies as have been made But 2. Could such a Law be yet that the Canon of Scripture is far from being such as to every part thereof is evident from the many Controversies of Religion that are on foot amongst those who all acknowledg the same Canon and who must be said at least some of them on all sides to be both of quick capacity and sober judgmemt and sufficient integrity seeing that almost whole Nations have thus opposed one another all whose capacities or integrities it were too much uncharitableness and pride to question Here therefore whereas frequently both the contrary parties use to say the Scripture is plain on their own side they both shew that it is difficult and whereas both also could wish an Arbiter of Controversies at least to silence their Adversary they mutually confess One necessary for them both And so long as sober Judgments contradict in their expositions of Scripture tho both should say that the Scripture is clear yet neither can say that in respect of all men it is so And so long there is necessary another Judg besides Scripture especially when none in Religious matters will confess that they contest about a Controtroversie which is not necessary to be decided Indeed this happens ordinarily that some sentences of Scripture seem plain on one side and other sentences thereof plain on another but since all parts of Divine truth must cohere and accord the more plainness in this manner makes it the more difficult And therefore we commonly see that in their not well-comparing of several Scriptures but fastning their thoughts only on some parcel thereof to which their fancy or interest specially guides them the more ignorant are the more confident and lest doubting and they who have least compar'd things soonest decide them And thus those who have the Scriptures the more common and open to each man's comment without dependance on any other Judg than themselves run into great varieties of Opinions and Sects 2 St. Pet. 3.16 takes notice concerning a chief part of the Scriptures and that written purposely for instruction St. Paul's Epistles but not only concerning these but the other Scriptures too see the end of v. 16. that in them there were some things hard to be understood which they that were unlearned and unstable did wrest to their own destruction These things then of consequence the mistaking of which tended to the Mistaker's destruction which yet men even in his days mistook by being unlearned i. e. not well taught in Christianity which teaching they must have from their Pastors and unstable which must be by departing from the Doctrines receiv'd from their Pastors as the words following v. 17. also imply Now I see not why the same accident concerning the same Scriptures should not happen still to the illiterate and unstable disclaiming any other Judg save these Scriptures and conceiting that God's Written Word hath render'd his Ministers useless This is said for the necessity of a Judg in matters of Religion where Scriptures indeed as St. Peter saith of them have some difficulty But 3. Since Controversies may be raised and maintain'd by the peevishness and perversness and passion of a Party even where Scriptures are clear enough here also no less necessary is a Judg juridically to suppress and silence those who irrationally and many times with autocatacrisie thus offend But 4. It is possible also that some very material Controversies there may be in Religion wherein the Scriptures have either been silent or have not spoken to them so expresly and openly but that they must be drawn out from thence by several deductions Here then also some other Judg is necessary § 4 Such a Judg therefore is necessary to be And therefore such a Judg there always hath been appointed by God to be consulted and submitted-to by his people both before the Law Written and under the Law Written and under the Gospel First In the times before the Law Written even from the very infancy of-the World God ever had a Church contradistinct after Adam's Fall of whose Sons as some were good so others were impious to the rest of the world serving God in a publick external Communion and
and ceaseth to be any longer Catholick If then the former or present differences between the Roman and Greek Churches are such as have been by former Church-Authority superior to both Canonically decided and determin'd as suppose by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. or of that of Lions under Gregory X. or that of Florence under Eugenius IV. and the Eastern Churches disobeying these Acts have separated from or thereupon been rejected by the Roman Communion observing them Or again If the Greek Church have made a discession and rent from the Prime Patriarch of the Church and the Chair of St. Peter in denying any of those Priviledges and that Authority which rightly belongs to him over the whole Church of Christ in order to the preserving the perpetual Peace and Unity thereof things which it concerns me not here to determine the Greek Churches by this Separation from the Roman must stand guilty of a Schism from the Catholick Church and cease to be any true Members thereof Neither indeed have these Churches since this Division like wither'd branches retain'd any Dignity Authority Growth or Extent equal to the Roman or such as they had formerly this indeed hap'ning to them from the opression of an open enemy to Christianity but yet perhaps the same also an Instrument of God's displeasure against them § 79 Lastly As for the latest Division of the Reforming Party in the West much-what the same may be said of it as was but now of the Arian It is known when that single person stood alone who began it and it spread afterward by the support of the Secular power against Church-authority and when in its greatest growth but an inconsiderable part in comparison of the Whole Which also hath cast it off from her Communion condemn'd it by her Councils and permits not any of her Members to have any external Communion with it And tho at first by reason both of foreign Invasions from the Turk and many Civil Wars in Christian States it made especially in climates more remote from the residence and superintendency of the chief Hierarchy of the Church a very great and speedy increase yet the vigour of its age may be thought already past and it is a long time that it seems to be in its Wane and decadency expecting still and prophesying to it self the fall of Antichrist till it self by little and little be sunk down into its grave So many parts therefore as fall off once from their union with the main Body can be accounted no longer any members of the Church-Catholick nor yet lawfully continue a Church-Communion or Succession of Clergy among themselves Because there can be but unum Corpus as unus Dominus Christus Eph. 4.5 from which Body any part separated strait withereth and separated from the Body is so also from the Head Christ Tho all among these are not really cut off from the Head or Body that the Church externally separates from it by her Censures Which proceed upon these according to the outward profession which only the Church sees but cannot discern the inward affection and disposition which secretly may still continue some of those to the Body whom her Censures removes from it Such are the invincibly ignorant or those that without malice are involv'd in such Schism especially where the fundamental Faith is not diminish'd by any Heresie added to Schism But tho this plea of Ignorance invincible do seem good and credible for many in the present Greek Churches if these Churches may be concluded Schismatical kept in so much slavery illiterature and darkness yet it is to be fear'd it will fail many in the Reform'd Churches where too much presumption of Knowledg seems to be the chief thing that hath destroy'd their Obedience and Conformity to the whole FINIS THE THIRD TREATISE OF THE FIRST PART OF ANCIENT Church-Government REFLECTING On the late writings of several Learned Protestants Bishop Bramhall Dr. Field Dr. Fern Dr. Hammond and others on this Subject OXFORD Printed in the year M.DC.LXXXVIII CONTENTS SVbordination of Glergy § 1. Three Patriarchs only at the first § 2. The first of these the Bishop of Rome § 3. The extent of his Patriarchate The 2d the Bishop of Alexandria § 4. The 3d. the Bishop of Antioch § 5. From whence their Superiority over other Bishops § 6. The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome § 7. The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place § 8. The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors § 9. Where concerning the authority of the Council of Sardica § 11. A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals § 12. Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary § 14. Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of controversies § 18. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch § 20. The power of Jurisdiction not only Primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops ib. This power exemplified in the Primitive time to the end of the 6th age the days of Gregory the Great § 21 to 31. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum § 22. A Digression concerning the Title of Universalis Epipiscopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops § 26. A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Ravenna and Justiniana prima urged by Dr. Hammond § 30. The authority of this See of Rome by Protestants allowed to be the more orthodox in all other divisions that have bin made from it save only their own § 31. n. 2. By the former clear allegations some other controverted sayings of the Fathers expounded § 32. c. The Protestants ordinary replies to the authorities above cited to me seeming not satisfactory § 36. That such power which was anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome was not exercised by him jointly only with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended § 37. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by the Ecclesiastical Canons and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by any power secular § 38. The concessions of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this matter § 39. Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming invalid § 41. That obedience due may not be withdrawn upon Governors undue claimes § 47. That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Ecclesiastical Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not change them § 48. That Prelats and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Council shall reverse them § 49. Reflections upon what hath him said That the
calls General rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminency of Power and not only a precedence of Rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 29. l. 7. else he would Page 55. l. 80. thro five or six Page 115. l. 3. except that of one or two of his Predecessors CONCERNING ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors § 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth Unity Uniformity and Peace Subordination of Clergy and for the easier suppressing of all Errors and Divisions and for rendring all the Church of God tho dispers'd thro several Dominions but one visible compacted Society we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy 1. Presbyters 2. Bishops 3. Metropolitans and amongst Metropolitans Primates 4. Patriarchs and amongst these Patriarchs a Primate § 2 Of these Patriarchs in the first General Council of Nice held A. D. 325. there were only Three call'd Three Patriarchs only at the first at the first by the common name of Metropolitants tho with a distinct authority from the rest Then by the name of Primates 2. Gen. Con. Const can 2.5 this name also being common to some others Afterward by the name of Patriarchs Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. 8 Gen. Conc. can 10 Neither was this name tho most frequently always applied only to the Patriarchs of the first Sees But we find in the East the Primates of Asia minor Pontus Thrace and many others to the number of nine or ten call'd by Socrates who writ in the fifth Age Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 8. Patriarchs call'd so as well as by the name of Primates in respect of some other Bishops or also Metropolitans subject to them yet which Patriarchs had also a subordination and subjection to some of these prime or major Patriarchs of whom we here speak as appears in the Church-History and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West after A. D. 500. several Primates in France Italy Spain call'd Patriarchs as the Primate of Aquileia Gradus Lions see Conc. Matiscon 2. in praefat Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dixit c. See Greg. Turon 5. hist 10. Paul Diacon l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist l. 11. ep 54. yet over whom the Roman Bishop the major Patriarch of the West exercis'd a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction both before and after that we read this name given to them as will appear hereafter in this discourse and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo and Gregory and other Popes written upon several occasions to divers of them This I note to you that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the authority Now to go forward § 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62. and Dr. Hammond of schism c. 3. p. 51 52. following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 6. one less to be credited in this matter because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated see Anstasius 1. ad Johan Hierosol make very narrow and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarchs whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the other all Syria and the Oriental Churches allowing to the Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy and the Islands of Sicily Sardinia The extent of his Patriarchate and Corsica near adjoining to it But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate superintendency and Metropolitan or Primat-ship contradistinct to other Metropolitans as to that of Millan c. So the Primat of all England hath yet a particular superintendency over one Diocess more than over the rest of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae as he was their Primate or Metropolitan Ruffinus seems to speak and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice Mos antiquus perduret in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habet potestatem quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam caeterasque Provincias honor suus unicuique servetur Ecclesiae may be thought partly to intend it for which consider those words in that 6th Canon caeterasque Provincias compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan 2. Can. and Conc. Ephes 8. can Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus but confirm them not only the Metropolitan but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see more below § 19. from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius a Legat of the See Apostolick in the 4th General Council and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. See below § 25 n. 2. And again on the other side as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae supposing him to be so in some general way of superintendency or for some particular acts and offices as suppose for receiving appeals deciding controversies between the chief Governors of the Churches admitting them to and deposing them from their places obliging them pro tempore with his decrees hinders not but that he may be also a Patriarch a Metropolitan a Bishop in respect of some other more immediate super-intendencies and offices divers from the former which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches but doth not so over others or which also he cannot exercise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches as suppose for ordaining the inferior Bishops and Presbyters and hearing their causes personally officiating in the Word and Sacraments receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof c. Nor again e converso as Cardinal Perron in answer to K. James observes doth his governing only the Roman Province as their Metropolitan or only Italy as their Primate hinder that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch Nor again doth his governing the West as their Patriarch because he was Bishop of Rome the chiefest city of the West hinder that he may not also as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there to one of whom the Jew and to the other the Gentiles were committed Gal. 2.7 9. have some special superintendency over all the Church Jew and Gentile I know § 3. n. 2. it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69. That to have an universal Headship over the Church and to have a
he found him wrongfully Suspended and therefore t is true also that the 6th canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commisit but not in every case unappealably to Superiors as appears by the African Bishop's qualification in that Epistle Ne festinato ne praepropere quoted before As for the several Reasons they give to these it may be replied on the other side That the Patriarch tho he were neither more prudent nor better informed from others in difficult matters nor more assisted from Heaven yet t is probable that such might as having a more choice election both be more knowing and according to the eminency of his place assisted both with a wiser Council and a greater portion of God's Spirit yet must he needs be a less partial Judge in such matters because not so nearly interessed in the cause nor in the persons as the Metropolitan often must be or also other Bishops who live upon the place and are subject to his power That the Provincial Councils which they mention tho their judgment were never so entire were not always to be had and were much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint much rarer yet Councils universal neither of them by reason of the great trouble fit upon every such difference to be called And hence fails that Apology which Dr. Field 5. l. 39 c. p. 563. makes for the Africans in these words The Africans tho within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeals of Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a general Synod of Africk wherein the Primat sate as President for otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus far he Therefore the Africans denying this went against the canons That the canons of the Council of Sardica which the African Bishops then knew not of were sufficient to warrant his receiving of such appeals and if any former African decrees be pleaded against him much more may these of Sardica for him That many cases are not matter of fact where witnesses are necessary but questions de jure where the fact is confessed and that in such no more plea can be made to have them tried at home than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded not to have this matter arbitrated at Jerusalem or Arius of Alexandria at Nice That for the conveniency of hearing witnesses where necessary in such appeals it was ordered indeed anciently that whensoever it could safely be done such causes should be arbitrated in the same or some adjoining Provinces by some Judges either sent thither or there delegated by the Patriarch of which the 7th canon of Sardica seems to take special care in the non-observance of which canons some Roman Bishops perhaps may have bin culpable and caused great affliction to their subjects but yet that other exigencies might occur every cause not being fit to be decided by delegates which required the trial to be at the Patriarchal residency to which the trouble of witnesses must give place which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council see Conc. Sard. can 4. And this grave Assembly we have no reason to think but that they weighed the troubles of such appeals as well as the Africans afterward or we now but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences to avoid greater mischiefs namely in the intervals of Councils schisms and divisions between Provincial and between National Churches by the Church her having thus so many Supremes terminating all Spiritual causes within themselves as there were Provinces or countries Christian See Dr. Field allowing such appeals below § 20. and especially S. Austin Ep. 162. where he justifies the appeal of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage wronged by a Council of 70. Bishops held in Africk whereof was President the Primat of Numidia whose power and authority Dr. Hammond equals to that of Patriarchs Schism 3. c. p. 58. to a transmarine judgment tho Donatus his party much crying out against such appeals and tho it was in a matter meerly of fact namely whether Caecilian was ordained by some who were traditores sacrorum Codicum igni in time of persecution because such judgment was dis-engaged in the quarrel His words are Sibi i.e. Caeciliano videbat apud Ecclesiam transmarinam a privatis inimicitiis ab utraque parte dissensionis alienam incorruptum integrum examen suae causae remanere And again Qui i.e. Caecilianus posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum i.e. in Africk cum se videret Romanae Ecclesiae in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus caeteris terris per communicatorias literas esse conjunctum ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere for all Churches had power to clear and examin his cause in respect of entertaining communion with him and sending their communicatory letters c. tho all Churches had not such power in respect of righting him against his adversaries but only his superior Patriarch Again An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primas Numidiae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurpavit Rogatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent This transmarine judgment here you see S. Austin justifies notwithstanding the Donatists might have used the foresaid § 12. plea of the African Fathers of the 6th Council and of Cyprian especially in the trial of a matter of fact § 15 But concerning this foreign judgment of Caecilians cause before I leave it I must not conceal to you what Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 7. s 10. relates thereof in prejudice of the Pope's authority objecting there That Caecilian had his cause tried indeed by the Bishop of Rome but by him only as the Emperor 's Delegate and not by him singly but with other special Delegates join'd with him that from this judgment an appeal being made by Caecilian's adversaries then the Emperor Constantine so great an honorer of the Church's privileges appointed the Bishop of Arles in France Qui sedet Judex saith he ut post Roman Pontificem quod visum fuerit pronunciet And again an appeal being made from him also 't is further urg'd That the Emperor judg'd the cause after all himself For answer to which I refer you to the relation of this story by St. Augustin against the Donatists Epist 162. where you will find those Assessors to be join'd by the Emperor to the Bishop of Rome ad preces Donatistarum who well knew Melchiades much favouring Caecilian's cause You may see Constantine's Letter to Melchiades and Marcus one of his Assessors in Eus l. 1. c. 5. The Donatists here cast pretending some new evidence requested of the Emperor yet another hearing of their cause upon which dedit Ille
what goes before they say that this preeminence of the Constantinopolitan Bishop is dignitatis only not potestatis To all which I answer 1. That these Canons are capable of another interpretation namely That neither Patriarch nor Primat or Metropolitan should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy or Province coordinate and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs i. e. over which neither by ancient custom nor constitutions of Councils he could claim any such Superiority See the limitation Concil Ephes c. 8. Quae non prius atque ab initio c. and Can. Apostol 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt a clause clause still retained in these canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal Not those of Alexandria with the affairs of Antioch solius Aegypti curam gerant servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae without encroaching upon them or the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch medling with the Ordination of Bishops in the Provinces subjected to them Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace to whom Thrace owed no subjection Again That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the supreme and last Court above any other authority in that Province and exclusively to the judgments of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces which are only coordinate with it See them below § 28. called by Gregory Episcopi alieni Concilii and § 26. this interpretation further confirmed 2. That their interpretation of these canons cannot be true 1. Neither in this that they would make every Province independent and supreme because both the Bishop of Alexandria and of Antioch which are here mentioned had more than one Province subjected unto them yet all called their Diocess or Province taken in a larger sence and the Bishop of Constantinople who is not mentioned or limited in the 2d Canon Conc. Constantinop as others had several of the Provinces here-named as Pontus Asia Thrace subjected to him and that by this very Council For which see Conc. Chalced. Act. 16. Centum quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopi i.e. the Fathers of this Constantipolitan Counci rationabiliter judicantes c Vrbem Constant in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa Roma majestatem habere negotiis his qui de Ponto sunt de Asia Thracia dioecesibus Metropolitanos ordinari a praedictae Constant Sedis sanctissima Ecclesia where these Fathers expound what was meant here by Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae in the words following namely ut unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Dioecesium ordinet suae regionis Episcopos sicut divinis Canonibus i.e. the canons of Nice and these of Constantinople est praeceptum Thus are Pontus and Asia c subjected to the See of Constantinople tho not for the ordaining of their Bishops yet for the ordinations of their Metropolitans and also for Appeals as may be seen in their 9th and 16th canons which seems to be the meaning of that Majestas in Ecclesiasticis negotiis which they gave him post Romam And all this they do after these very canons were first recited in the Council definitionem sanctissimorum Patrum sequentes ubique regulam ea quae nunc relecta sunt i. e. these canons centum quinquaginta Episcoporum c. Which to confirm to you yet farther see the Subscriptions of those Bishops of Asia and Pontus c of one Ego gratum habeo sub sede Constantinopolit esse quoniam ipse ordinavit of another secundum sententiam Patrum 150 voluntate propria subscripsi Therefore the Primacy post Romanam granted by Const Concil Constantinopol to the Bishop thereof was not dignitatis only but potestatis and therefore much more the Primacy of Rome as the Chalcedon Fathers expound these canons But if we say that they misunderstood yet then they have at least sufficiently reversed them and nulled their force because they coming after the other have made a contrary decree which at least in matters of Ecclesiastical constitution annulleth the former 2. Neither is their interpretation true in this viz. That Provincial Councils may finally determin all causes thereof exclusively to all others whatsoever for so they would not be subject to Patriarchal nor Universal Councils nor would any appeals from them at all be lawful contrary to what is said but now Con. Chalc. 9. c. see likewise the can of Sardica and to the known common practice of Antiquity of which hereafter follow many instances and also in the 8th canon of this very Council which they urge as it is extant in Balsamon examinations of matters are remitted from Provincial Councils to a greater Synod of the Diocess Quod si evenerit ut Provinciales Episcopi crimina quae Episcopo intentata sunt corrigere non possunt placuit c tunc ipsos accusatores accedere ad majorem Synodum Dioecesis illius c. 3. It may be answered Whatever these canons mean that one part of this Council sitting at Constantinople the other at Rome they received no confirmation from those at Rome See for this what is said before § 7. And it is observable that tho there is mention made in them of Antioch and Alexandria yet is there none made of the limitations of the Roman or the Western Diocesses no nor yet of limiting the Constantinopolitan Bishops whom they ordered to be the second to Rome for we read not in them Constantinopolitanae Dioecesis Episcopi ea quae ad Constantinopolitanam tantummodo Dioecesim pertinent gubernent Lastly Patriarchs themselves §. 20. n. 1. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch and those who had complaints against them according to Dr. Field's concessions 5. l. 39. c. and 34. c. p. 530. might appeal to and were to be judged by those of their own rank in order before them assisted by inferior Bishops And the Bishop of Rome saith he p. 568. as first in order amongst the Patriarchs assisted with his own Bishops and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty tho these latter I do not always find necessary The power of Jurisdiction not only primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops or present at such judgments as appears in the instances here following might judge any of the other Patriarchs and such as had complaints against them might fly to him and the Synods of Bishops subject to him and the Patriarchs themselves in their distresses might fly to him and such Synods for relief and help Tho saith he of himself alone he had no power to do any thing And 5. l. 52. c. p. 668. when saith he there groweth a difference between the Patriarchs of one See and another or between any of the Patriarchs and the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to them the superior Patriarch not of himself alone but with his Metropolitans and such particular Bishops as are interested may judge and determin the differences between them And 5. l. 34. c. p.
Digneris proinde quid hic sentias declarare quo liquide nobis constet communicare ne nos cum illo oporteat an vero libere eidem denunciare neminem cum illo communicare qui ejusmodi erroneam doctrinam fovet praedicat Again see the great authority that Celestin Bishop of Rome used against the same Nestorius which authority was approved and submitted-to by Cyril and the Alexandrian and also the Ephesine the 3d. General Council Thus Celestin writeth in his Epistle to Cyril Nostrae Sedis authoritate ascita nostraque vice loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententia exequeris nempe ut nisi decem dierum intervallo ab hujus nostroe admonitionis die numerandorum nefariam doctrinam suam conceptis verbis anathematizet c illico Sanctitas tua illi Ecclesioe prospiciat Thus Celestin to Nestorius Post unam alteram admonitionem c nisi nunc tandem quae perverse docuisti per te corrigantur in posterum a nostro consortio ab omnium Christianorum coetu alienum te fore nihil quicquam dubites Upon this thus Cyril and his Alexandrian Council to Nestorius Quod sane nisi juxta tempus in literis Celestini sacratissimi reverendissimique Romanorum Episcopi expressum praestiteris certo scias nullam tibi deinceps cum Episcopis Sacerdotibus Dei consuetudinem nullum sermonem nullum denique inter eos locum futurum esse All which proceedings see approved in the Acts of the Ephesine Council Tom. 2. c. 5. and then see the sentence of the Council against Nestorius running thus Per sacros Canones sanctissimique Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopi Celestini Patris nostri literas lachrymis suffusi pene inviti ad lugubrem hanc sententiam urgemur See the like things related by Evagrius 1. l. 4. c. See the Epistle of S. Chrysostom § 23. n. 6. Bishop of Constantinople in banishment being deposed by a Synod held there appealing to Innocentius Bishop of Rome and sending to him some of his Bishops wherein he bespeaks him thus Quamobrem ne confusio haec omnem quae sub coelo est nationem invadat obsecro ut scribas quod haec tam inique facta absentibus nobis non declinantibus judicium non habeant robur sicut neque natura sua habent illi autem qui adeo impune egisse deprehensi sunt poenae Ecclesiasticarum legum subjaceant Upon which suit the Bishop of Rome called a Synod of his Bishops and pronounced the proceedings of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria to be against the canons and void See Field p. 536. and Epist Innocent apud Binnium And is said by Baronius A.D. 407. who quotes for it many authors Gennadius Nicephorus Glycas to which may be added Georgius Patriarch of Alexandria in the Edit Savil. of Chrysostom 8. Tom. p. 248. after he heard of Chrysostom's death in banishment to have excommunicated both Arcadius the Eastern Emperour and Eudoxia and Theophilus his chief oppressors But this fact is denied by Dr. Field upon the silence of Historians more ancient In Innocentius's letter to Arcadius we find these words Itaque ego minimus peccator cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est segrego rejicio te illam a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri Episcopumetiam omnem aut Clericum ordinis sanctae Christi Ecclesiae qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas dignitate sua excidisse decerno c. The truth of this Epistle I decide not but t is certain that S. Ambrose before this excommunicated the Emperour his Father and if Arcadius his violences to holy Chrysostom his Bishop deserved the like Ecclesiastical censure I know not who after Chrysostom's death could inflict it more properly than the first See which also was defended in it by Honorius brother to Arcadius and Emperour in the West See the Epistle of Theodoret a Syrian Bishop appealing from the 2d Ephesine Council by which he was in absence condemned and deposed as a Nestorian to Leo Bishop of Rome whom he sues to in these terms post tot sudores labores ne in jus quidem vocatus sum condemnatus Ego autem Apostolicae vestrae Sedis expecto sententiam supplico obsecro vestram sanctitatem ut mihi opem ferat justum vestrum rectum appellanti judicium jubeat ad vos accurrere for the Emperour had confined him to Cyrus the place of his Bishoprick ostendere meam doctrinam vestigia Apostolica sequentem And his Epistle to Renatus one of the Bishop of Rome's Legats in the 2d Ephesine Council Te precor ut sanctissimo Archiepiscopo Leoni persuadeas ut Apostolica utatur authoritate jubeatque ad vestrurn Concilium adire Tenet enim sancta ista Sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti orbis Ecclesiarum Habet enim sanctissima Romana Sedes omnem per orbem Ecclesiarum principatum cum multis aliis de causis tum maxime quod haereticae labis immunis permansit this was long after the times of Liberius by which it appears Antiquity imputed no Arrianism to this See Apostolicam gratiam immaculatam servavit Whose cause Pope Leo accordingly judged and cleared him and afterward the General Council of Chalcedon after due examination some there also opposing Theodoret did the like After examination I say For the Pope's and his assistant Bishops sentence it seems was not accounted so authentick and unrepealable that a General Council might not review examin and if seeming to them erroneous reverse it upon which judgment of the Council concurring with his Leo thus answers Theodoret Quae nostro prius ministerio Dominus desinierat universae fraternitatis i. e. of the Council irrefragabili firmavit assensu ut vere a se prodiisse ostenderet quod prius a prima omnium Sede firmatum totius Christiani orbis judicium recepisset ut in hoc quoque capiti membra concordent Nam ne aliarum Sedium ad cam quam caeteris omnibus Dominus statuit praesidere consensus videretur assentatio inventi prius sunt qui de judiciis nostris ambigerent c. See Socrates Eccles Hist 50 l. 15. c. where he speaks thus concerning the reconciling of Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch to the Roman See Theophilus i. e. the Patriarch of Alexandria odio in illum i.e. Flavianum restincto Isidorum Presbyterum misit uti Damasi Siricii it should be saith Baronius animum in Flavianum exulceratum mitigaret doceretque in usu Ecclesiae esse si propter populi concordiam peccatum a Flaviano commissum remitteret Quocirca communione Flaviano ad hunc modum reddita therefore he had bin formerly by the Roman Bishop excommunicated populus Antiochenus ad concordiam reducitur therefore formerly in the want of that communion they had refused some obedience and submission to him After these clear evidences of
because a Synod was not specially summon'd for the purpose especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely City see Gelasius the successor to Felix A. D. 494. his vindication of this act of the Apostolick See without a Council at least an Oecumenial one in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae an Eastern Province not far from Constantinople which Epistle is worth the reading over the rather because some places being urg'd out of it by Bellarmin Dr. Field in his answer to them hath these words Truly there cannot be any better proof against the pretended Supremacy of the Popes than this Epistle In this Epistle then Gelasius pleads thus Sabellium damnavit Synodus nec fuit necesse ut ejus sectatores postea damnarentur singulas viritim Synodos celebrari sed pro tenore constitutionis antiquae cunctos qui vel pravitatis illius vel communionis extitere participes universalis Ecclesia i e. in a Council dixit esse refutandos Considimus quod nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus nullam magis exequi sedem prae ceteris oportere quam primam quae unamquamque Synodum sua authoritate confirmat continuata moderatione custodit pro suo scil Principatu quem Beatus Petrus Apostolus Domini voce perceptum I suppose it should be percepit Ecclesia nihilominus subsequens tenuit semper tenebit Haec i. e. Sedes Apostolica dum Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a veritate Apostolica deviasse diutius ista non credens quippe quem noverat executorem saepe necessariae dispensationis suae i. e. Sedis Apostolicae per triennium fere monere non destitit c. cur tanto tempore dum ista gererentur non ad sedem Apostolicam a qua sibi curam illarum regionum noverat delegatum referre curavit i. e. Acatius Tandem aliquando missis literis profitetur Acatius se Alexandrino Petro quem expetita Apostolicae sedis authoritate executor ipse quoque damnaverat absque sedis Apostolicae notitia communione permixtum Beati autem Petri sedes ne per Acacium in Petri consortiurn duceretur ipsum quoque a sua communione submovit multis modis transgressorum a sua societate fecit alienum Quo tenore Timotheus etiam atque ipse Alexandrinus Petrus qui secundam sedem tenuisse videbuntur non repetita Synodo tantummodo sedis Apostolicae ipso quoque Acacio postulante vel exequente probantur esse damnati Nec plane tacemus quod euncta per mundum novit Ecclesia quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata Pontificum sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habeat resolvendi utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicandi neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare judicio siquidem ad Illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellare aliquem voluerunt ab illa autem nemo sit appellare permissus Sed nec illa praeterimus quod Apostolicae sedi frequenter datum or dictum est ut more majorum etiam sine ulla Synodo precedente solvendi quod Synodus inique damnaverat damnandi nulla existente Synodo quos oportuit habuerit potestatem Sanctae memoriae nihilo minus Johannem Constantinopolitanum i. e. Chrysostomum Synodus etiam Catholicorum Praesulum certe damnaverat quem simili modo sedes Apostolica etiam sola quia non consensit absolvit Itemque S. Flavianum Pontificem Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore quoniam sola Apostolica sedes non consensit absolvit potius quam qui illic receptus fuerat Dioscorum secundae Sedis praesulem sua authoritate damnavit impiam Synodum i.e. sec Ephes non consentiendo summovit sola authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Ponamus tamen etiam si nulla Synodus praecessisset cujus Apost sedes recte fieret exequutrix cum quibus erat de Acacio Synodus ineunda Nunquid cum his qui jam participes tenebantur Acacii per Orientem totum Catholicis sacerdotibus such he calls those who adher'd to the Council of Chalcedon violenter exclusis per exilia diversa relegatis socii evidenter existentes communionis externae i. e. extra Ecclesiam Catholicam prius se ad haec consortia transferrent quam sedis Apostolicae scita consulerent Concilio nec opus erat post primam Synodum nec talibus habere licebat Quae congregatio facta Pontificum i.e. in Italia Occidentalium non contra Chalcedonensem non tanquam nova Synodus contra veterem primamque convenit sed potius secundum tenorem veteris constituti particeps Apostolica exequutionis effecta est ut satis appareat Ecclesiam Catholicam sedemque Apostolicam quia alibi jam omnino non posset ubi potuit cum quibus potuit nihil penitus omisisse quod ad fraternum pertineret pro intemerata fide sincera communione tractatum In this Epistle amongst others two things must not be passed by unobserv'd 1. One That he contends he ought not to call to a Council Bishops condemn'd by and professedly opposing a former General Council which being granted Councils may be rightly call'd General when they consist not of all but only of all Catholick Churches 2. The other That in the final sentencing and determining of greater persons and causes in the Eastern Church the Bishop of Constantinople was employ'd only from him and as his Delegate See the Epistle of Pelagius the 2d Bishop of Rome A.D. 580. Vniversis Episcopis qui illicita vocatione Johannis Constantinopolitani Episcopi ad Constantinopolim convenerunt Wherein he vindicates the authority of the Roman See against John assembling a Council there without his consent and leave and calling himself Universal Bishop seeking to exalt himself above Rome probably from the supreme dignity and great flourishing of that Imperial City in those time in which times also the poor City of Rome laboured under great afflictions and desolations by the Goths Longobards c. whereof Gregory writing to the Empress 4. l. Ep. 34. saith Viginti autem jam septem annos ducimus quod in hac urbe inter Longobardorum gladios vivimus and from the Emperour Mauritius his countenancing him in it Out of which Epistle some words are quoted by S. Gregory his Successor 4. l. Ep. 36. § 26 Now in the forenamed Epistle of Pelagius as he hath these passages Vniversalitatis quoque nomen A Digression concerning the title of Universalis Episcopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops quod sibi illicite usurpavit i.e. Joannes Constant nolite attendere c. Nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur quia si summus Patriarcha tho it were the Patriarch of Rome Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc absit c. Jactantiam tantam sumpsit i. e. Jonannes Constant ita ut universa
more Orthodox my chief intention here was not to declare quo jure such jurisdiction was either claim'd or yeilded to but that de facto that power was so long ago assum'd which being now challeng'd is by our men deny'd and I may add assum'd with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages The Bishops of Rome having patroniz'd no Heresies at all as all the other Patriarchs at some time or other did Such were in the See of Constantinople Macedonius Nestorius Sergius Arch-hereticks in Alexandria Dioscorus the grand Patron of the Eutychians in Antioch Paulus Samosatenus the Father of the Paulianists c. All which Heresies and several other which took root in the East were suppressed and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved by the over-ruling power the threats the censures of this See as any not over-partial Reader of the Ecclesiastical History will easily discern And perhaps I may venture a little further That to this day in the chief point and occasion of breach for which any other Church besides the Reform'd stands divided from the Roman Communion the Reformed do justifie the Roman tenent against those Churches The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was besides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus and the procession of the Holy Ghost as appears by the disputation in the Council of Florence where both Churches the Eastern now falling into some distress heartily sought for an accord almost wholly spent about this point Now in this article the Reform'd do side with the Roman Church and so far also as we allow of any superiority we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan but the Roman Patriarch The chief Doctrine for which the other Orientals as the Assyrian Churches the Jacobites Armenians Cophti Aethiopians Maronites c. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1 c. stand separate from Rome whilst their publick Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek or Roman is either Nestorianism or Eutychianism or Monothelitism imputed unto them in which also the Reformed adhere against them to the Roman judgment The like may be said in the ancienter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches about Easter and with the African and some of the Asian about Rebaptization Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches the Reform'd will grant Rome to have continued orthodox and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her they had been better guided or at least that for those 600 years she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent authority But if it be said again That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power than the instances above shew them anciently to have used I desire to know first before this be examin'd whether we will grant them so much for whilst we complain that they now a-days claim more than is due to them is it not so that we deny them not the more but all And have they done well who have used the Bishops so who have used Kings so upon pretence of their exercising an illegal power § 32 And now by what hath pass'd we may the better judge of the meaning notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them of those places of the ancient Fathers By the instances above judgment may be made of the sense of many other controverted Sayings of the Fathers which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows in Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there how Hereticks may be easily confounded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam i. e. a duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique fideles conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio In qua i. e. in unione adhaesione ad quam Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserv'd in all other Churches Let therefore potentiorem principalitatem if so you can make any sense be referr'd as it is by the Reform'd to the Roman Empire not Church yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apostolical which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this that cannot be apply'd but only to the Church not as seated in the Imperial City but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Of which Church Tertullian de praescript Haereticorum also saith Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt And after him thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Vnit Eccl. Cath. which perhaps seem capable of the exposition which the Reformed give them Nos singulis navigantibus i.e. from Affrick into Italy rationem reddentes scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam agnoscerent tenerent And afterward Ne in urbe in Rome schisma factum animos absentium i.e. of those in Africk incerta opinione confunderet which party they should adhere to placuit ut per Episcopos istic positos African Bishops residing at Rome literae fierent to the African Provinces ut te universi collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter ac charitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent And Epist 52. Antoniano Fratri a Bishop not communicating with Novatianus Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum literarum ad Cornelium the Bishop of Rome Collegam nostrum transmitterem ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sciret te secum hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicare The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose Orat. in Satyr where he saith of his Brother Satyrus about to receive the Communion that percunctatus est Episcopum si cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est si cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret And thus Cyprian again in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato Faelicissimo haereticis who condemn'd in Africk appeal'd to Rome Post ista adhuc insuper navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est a schismaticis Fortunato c. literas ferre nec cogitare eos i. e. tales esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum Add to these in the 46th Epistle the confession of those who return'd to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus made in this form Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae electum a Christo Domino nostro scimus
That no one Bishop nor Council hath any power over another but all Bishops left to their supreme liberty only rationem reddituri Domino of their actions contrary to the universal practice of the Church such superior Councils ordinarily censuring and also anathematizing Bishops or in the judgment of the Reformed who also maintain such subordinations S. Cyprian must be in an error Now in the vacancy of any General or Patriarchal Council the Patriarch at least for his own Patriarchat as Cyprian was within the Roman Patriarchat is the supreme Judge and therefore Cyprian not exempt from all subjection or subordination to Him See for this Dr. Field's concessions before § 18. Supreme judge for the executing of the former Ecclesiastical Canons and preserving of the doctrines formerly established and determined by Councils Supreme Judge thus over Provincial not only Bishops but Councils for from these may be made appeals to him and a confirmation of their decrees is fought for from him See that of Milevis and of Carthage in S. Austin's time before § 23. n. 4. neither ought they to promulgate any doctrine not formerly determined by former Councils against his approbation and consent See before § 22. Therefore Cyprian might not make a contrary Decree to the Western Patriarch so as to necessitate those under his Primacy to the obedience thereof as neither he did But how far on the other side they stand obliged to conform to the judgment of him or also of his Provincial Council when defining any such new point against theirs the case here between Stephen and Cyprian I determin not Especially considering the liberty Cyprian took to dissent from Stephen and considering what Bellarmin de Concil 2. l. 5. c. and before him S. Austin grants that by such dissent he ceased not to be a good Catholick and considering also the liberty S. Ambrose took at least in a ritual of practising contrary to the custom of the Roman Church See de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem i.e. de lotione Pedum non habeat cujus typum in omnibus sequimur formam In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam in omnibus that is which I can reasonably assent to sedtamen nos homines sensum habemus Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur nos recte custodiamus ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum c. But neither is Cyprian's authority whatever he did in this matter nor any decree of an African Council as Dr. Hammond Schism 6. c. p. 128. urgeth a canon of an African Council in Anastasius his time A.D. 401. the 71. in Balsamon the 35. in Crab and Binnius which imports thus much That laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Church to make contrary laws thereunto a sufficient argument clearly to decide this point namely that the African Churches being subject to this Patriarch might promulgate a Doctrine contrary to his judgment For there is no more reason we should justifie Cyprian's or an African Council's authority against the Bishop of Rome and his Council than this Bishop's and his Council's against theirs where if Cyprian for his person were a Martyr for Christ so was Stephen too Especially when we find Cyprian so much erring in the matter of this controversie whilst he saith Epist 74. Pompeio Qui Stephanus haereticorum causam contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur And when we consider the modest and safe grounds Stephen went upon Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est having the former custom of the Church on his side to which St. Cyprian pleads Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris and Epist 71. Quinto Fratri Non est consuetudine perscribendum sed ratione vincendum Whereas in this contest it had bin an happy thing for the Church and had sav'd St. Austin many sheets against the Donatists had he and his Council acquiesc'd in the judgment of their Patriarch Thus much to those places objected out of Cyprian § 35 As for that pretended Canon of the African Council I find the passages in Binnius with whom the Dr. saith Balsamon agrees in setting down this Canon but indeed there is some difference and Balsamon's Translation hardly intelligible otherwise then the Doctor in his Reply to Schism Disarm'd p. 209. relates them The business there consulted upon was about the re-admission of the recanting Donatists not only to the Unity of the Catholick Church but also to the former Dignities which such had held in the Church concerning this a Council had been held already in Italy by Anastasius and his Bishops wherein it was decreed that such Donatists should not be admitted to their former honours and places and a Letter was to this purpose sent to the Africans by Anastasius Concerning which Letter first this Council saith Recitatis epistolis beatissimi Fratris consacerdoti nostri Anastasii quibus nos paternae fraternae charitatis solicitudine sinceritate adhortatus est ut c Gratias agimus Domino nostro quod illi optimo ac sanâ—â—o Antâ—stiti suo tam piam curam pro membris Christi qâ—amvis in divâ—rsitate terrarum sed in una compage corporis const tutâ—s inspirare dignatus est Then in Can. 33. they say onsideratis omnibus c. eligimâ—s cum memoratis hominibus the Donatists leniter pacifice agere upon this reason that so they might reduce together with them many others seduc'd by them Lastly in c. 35. which is the Canon urged they say Itaque placuit ut literae mittantur ad fratres coâ—p scopos nostros i. e. those of the Council which Anastasius had held in Italy maxime ad sedem Apostolâ—cam in qua praesidet memoratus venerabilis Frater Collega noster Anastasius quo noverit habere Aphricam magnam nec ssitatem ut ex ipsis Donatistis quicunque transire voluerint c. in suis honoribus suscipiantur si hoc paci Christianae prodâ—sse visum fuerit i. e. as they explain themselves afterwards in the same Canon that such Clerks of the Donatists should be admitted to their former Dignities upon whose reconcilement depended the gaining and reduction of a multitude also of other Souls who were their followers This then they were to write to the Pope and the Bishops of the Italian Council that such Donatist-leaders might be readmitted not only into the Church's bosom but to their former places They go on Non ut Concilium quod in transmarinis partibus de hac refactum est who had decreed the contrary dissolvatur sed ut illud maneat the Council stand good cirea eos qui sic transire ad Catholicam volunt ut nulla per eos unitatis compensatio procuretur i. e. who do not procure the uniting of many others per quos autem adjuvari manifestis fraternarum animarum of those under the Donatist Clergy's Spiritual Conduct lucris Catholica unitas
visa fuerit non eis obsit quod contra honores eorum in transmarino Concilio statutum est Then contracting what is formerly said they conclude thus id est ut ordinati in parte Donati si ad Catholicam correcti transire voluerint non suscipiantur in honoribus suis secundum transmarinum Concilium exceptis his per quos Catholicae unitati consuletur Now some difference there is between their writing to the Pope and the Bishops of the former Council ne obsit for some and maneat for the rest and their decreeing against the Pope and that Council ne obfuerit for any Now this close is thus English'd by the Doctor our of Balsamon That they that have bin Ordain'd on the part of the Donatists shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod but shall the rather be receiv'd as those that take care for the Catholick Unity How well I leave to your judgment § 36 The Protestants ordinary Replies to these to me seeming not satisfactory Now to these several instances which I have drawn out of the primitive times the answers which are usually made by some for you must expect that nothing is said by any side which is not reply'd to by the other are such as these That such places as speak of the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Bishop speak only of that of Order and Dignity not of Power or Authority Apostolicae Cathedrae Principatus i. e. say they quoad dignitatem non quoad potestatem Rector domus Dei Ecclesiae Catholicoe or universalis Episcopus i.e. say they Vnus erectoribus domus Dei unus ex Episcopis c. That such places as mention appeals to the Bishop of Rome speak of them as made to him non ut ad Judicem sed ut ad ejusdem fidei fautorem ut ejusdem fidei professores in communionem suam admitteret non ob aliquam jurisdicendi authoritatem sed ob amicam communionis ejusdem societatem That the like addresses were made to other Patriarchs and Bishops for their communion and assistance as to him and that his Letters were requested and in behalf of sufferers directed to all parts of Chcistianity not by vertue of any authority he had to correct but by reason of the power he had from the reverence they gave to the dignity of his place every where to perswade That such places of Fathers or Councils as affirm that no publick affairs of the Church may be transacted without the Bishop of Rome are not appropriate therefore only to him but verified as much of the rest of the Patriarchs as of him That those places which mention his censuring excommunicating deposing Clergy that were not under his own Patriarchy speak not of any authoritative or privative excommunication to use the Bishop of Derry's expression Vind. c. 8. by way of jurisdiction excluding such from the communion of Christ but only of a negative in the way of Christian discretion by with-drawing him or his from communion with them for fear of infection for declaring his non-currence with or countenancing of their fault c. There being great difference as Dr. Field observes p. 558. between excommunication properly so nam'd or authoritatively forbidding all men to communicate with such and such and the rejecting only of them from our communion and fellowship And I also confess and grant such negations of communicating with others anciently used and amongst rest used also by the Bishop of Rome who often prohibited his Legates and others from communicating with some other Bishop as with the Bishop of Constantinople when he used the stile of Vniversalis or from going to and being present at their celebration of Divine Service when he did not excommunicate the other nay when also he admitted the ministers of the other and those who communicated with the other to come to his communion and celebration of Divine Service See Gregory 6. l. 31. Ep. to Eulogius and Anastasius indulging this to those who were sent from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople to him But that all the Bishops excommunications of those without his Patriarchy were only such this is the thing denied That the like may be said of his confirming or restoring his fellow-Bishops that it was done not by way of forensical justice but fraternal approbation and that all other Patriarchs used excommunicating deposing acquitting and restoring in the same manner allowing or withdrawing their communion from their fellow-Bishops as they saw fit and that they confirmed the Roman Bishop by their communicatory letters as he them Which things how well they agree with the above said forms of such Ecclesiastical censures and with other practices of the Roman Bishops towards others much differing from the practices of other Patriarchs either towards him or towards others how well they agree with the addresses made from both Church-governors and Councils upon differences and contentions in the Church to Rome addresses not used in the same manner to the other Patriarchs yet would have bin done equally to them also had all Patriarchs bin esteemed in their power equal especially how they agree with what is said § 24. and § 18. upon reviewing the instances I have given I leave to your judgment That the places which speak of his judging causes and inflicting such Ecclesiastical censures c speak not of him singly but as joined with his Western Bishops they meaning by this not some of his Western Bishops only whose assistance the Roman Bishop ordinarily useth in all his judgments but his whole Patriarchal Council That those places which do argue joining-with the Roman to be joinning with the Catholick communion see before § 23. n. 2. and n. 3. and § 32. as it must needs be that if God hath appointed any person or Council as a supreme Guide whom the rest ought to obey such members as do not obey cannot be Catholick are spoken only with respect to such a Roman Bishop at such a time who in their opinion held the true Profession and not that all the Roman Bishops at any time have or shall hold it those who made these expressions accounting the Roman Bishop orthodox and catholick because he then was of such a faith as they approved not the faith orthodox and catholick because it was the faith of the Roman Bishop or which he approved So Spalatensis in answer to the places produced out of S. Hierom. in 23. § saith 4. l. 10. c. 23. n. Quod Hieronymus Damaso hoc est Petri cathedrae consociari velit significat privilegium illius Cathedrae adhuc Hieronymi tempore vigens circa fidei puritatem and 88 n. Quasi dicat quia nunc not perpetuo in terris video Apostolicam doctrinam Romae maxime puram conservari ideo in his dissensionibus volo tibi adhaerere Which answer circularly makes him to judge first in what Church the true doctrine is who is to seek what Church to adhere to to be guided by it to
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if
disliked repealed 2. That tho Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent yet Patriarchal Synods were never nor never well could be so nor find we any set times appointed for calling them as for calling the other so that as t is plain by many former instances that the Patriarch ordinarily did so t is all reason that he should decide some appeals without them tho in some cases extraordinary and of great consequence such Councils also were assembled 3. Since where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone to have bin a practice only of latter times yet they allow this to be done upon very rational grounds observe that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently and again that the practice they justify for Metropolitans in latter times they have much more reason to allow to Patriarchs in all times because the greater the Councils are with the more trouble are they conven'd and lastly that the reformed Metropolitans themselves who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing themselves alone i. e. without their Provincial Synod authorizing their High-commission Court and blaming his Consistory Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceedings without Councils in respect of appeals from their several Provinces the same it is that in the differences and contests of Patriarchs themselves and of other greater Bishops since it is meet for preserving the Church's peace and unity that some person or assembly should have the authority to decide these and since it is unreasonable and for the great trouble thereof not feisible that a General Council or also Patriarchal in all such differences should be assembled the same I say it is that by ancient custom and Ecclesiastical canons hath bin conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council tho granted liable to error He being more eminently honourable than the rest by reason of the larger extent of his Patriarchy of the great power and ancient renown of that City which in Spiritual matters he governed but especially of the two greatest Apostles Peter and Paul there ending their days in the government of that See and leaving him there the Successor of their power Yet is this office of supreme judicature so committed unto him that his judgments only stand in force till such a meeting and may be reviewed and where contrary to former canons reversed by it concerning which see the saying of S. Austin quoted before § 22. Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesie universae Concilium c. and the saying of Zosimus quoted § 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now all Metropolitan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Councils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons or at least to the acting nothing against them if the question be asked who shall judge whether so they do I answer none but a superior Council till which their judgment stands good For as I have largely shewed elsewhere if Litigants once may judge of this when their Judges judge rightly and not against the laws and accordingly may yeild or substract their obedience such obedience is arbitrary In civil Courts Princes or their Ministers are obliged to judge according to or not against the laws of the Kingdom may the litigant therefore reject their judgment when it seems to him contrary to these laws I believe not § 38. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by Ecclesiastical Canon and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by the power Secular Thus much having bin said of the authority and jurisdiction given by Ecclesiastical constitutions and ancient customs and practice to some Ecclesiastical persons above others and amongst them supereminently above all the rest to the Roman Bishop and given to these persons not only as joined with Councils but as single Magistrates in the vacancy thereof in the next place these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted First That whatever authority is thus setled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church concerning the managing of affairs not civil but meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical cannot be annulled and dissolved nor cannot be conferred contrary to the Church's constitutions on any other person by any Secular power neither by Heathen and unbelieving Princes who were enemies to the Church nor by Christian much less because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church and now obliged to obey her laws neither by the one who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity nor by the other who if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical might easily hinder the profession of the Orthodox faith or disturb the Church's peace Thus Grotius a great Lawyer in Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in saeculi negotiis Ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparatum est Nam cum Principes filii sint Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligentur hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And Obedite Praepositis etiam Regibus dictum See this discoursed more largely in Success Clerg § 64 65. 2. And further That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power so established and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed I say here concerning matters Ecclesiastical not Civil therefore let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 129. for me stand good That a Law tho made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes i. e. of that time yet if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that Nation be repealed i. e. by that Prince's Successors provided only That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church the assembling of Synods and decision of controversies of Religion the ordering Church-service and discipline the Ecclesiastical censures upon delinquents and the like for preventing or suppressing of Heresie Schism and Faction and for preserving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice Provided I say that such things be not reckoned amongst civil rights as they may not be because all these were things used by the Church under the heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet could they not have bin lawfully so used if any of these had encroached on civil rights in any of which civil rights the heathen Prince might claime as much lawful power to prohibit them as the Christian
not deserting the Patriarch the things above-named both Royalty and Episcopacy peace in the State and in the Church of such countreys better preserved What former Prince or Clergy of this Kingdom under the Patriarch's obedience take him with all his faults have suffered more than these in our days have done since that yoke broken What subject trained up in his Principles hath bin so disobedient But 2ly Is any one free from a Law or Canon to eject it when he can give some reason that it is inconvenient Or did not the wisdom of those who established such Canons and such subordination to Patriarchs see their jurisdiction for example in respect of Africk to be foreign and weigh the inconveniences thereof as well as we now do but they weighed these together with the benefits serving for preserving unity for doing more entire justice being less engaged for deciding controversies more truly being persons of more eminent wisdom enabled with a more selected Council c. See before § 14. And now have other Nations lost their reason who notwithstanding the foreignness of the jurisdiction in obedience to the Church-canons submit to this power But what if a Patriarch should change the Bible into an Alcoran as he urgeth elsewhere Reply to Bishop of Chalced. should in Spiritual matters misguide us I answer when you can find any to obey who may not be faulty in his government leave the Patriarch and go to him Are we more secure then under the Supremacy of a Secular power or of some other Archbishop What if the Secular power throw down Bishops destroy the publick Liturgies silence the orthodox Ministry c And what if the Archbishop change the Bible or will we be our own Supreams and blot out the name of Canonical obedience § 43 In the next place Dr. Hammond's plea Schism 6. c. p. 115. seems to me not true nor his proofs and instances sufficient and the assertion in the consequences thereof dangerous to the government and unity of the Church Catholick where he saith That it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchats or to translate them from one city to another And therefore saith he whatever title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first plantation of the Gospel here whatever I will therefore suppose his title to have bin from ancient Church-canon and custom whereby he hath bin confirmed Patriarch of the Western Provinces I say not that such a thing was now but suppose such a thing were this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate independently from any foreign Bishop I say this Thesis seems to me very untrue if he mean That Princes may do any such thing by their own just power without the authoritative concurrence of the Church or contrary to her former Canons and ancient Customs as his instancing in Ravenna and Justiniana prima and Carthage and Grado formerly under the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch imply that he means thus For example I say it is not lawful supposing ancient Canons or immemorial custom to use his own word of the Church had made the Roman Bishop Patriarch of the West or of France for the King of France either with or without the consent of his own particular Clergy within his Dominions to erect a new Patriarchate or elect another Patriarch This I think is plain from the Discourse and the Concessions preceding And he seems to say the like himself Answer to Schism Disarm'd p. 164. A power Princes have to erect Metropoles but if it be exercis'd so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Thus he But how it coheres with what else is said there I see not But if secular Princes have such power to set up Patriarchs within their own Dominions I ask whether General Councils have not also the same and that within the same Dominions of Secular Princes Will he deny this power to Councils or at least their power to do it within the Secular Prince's Dominions But then the Church hath no power to do it at all For where are the Church's Subjects for whom she makes Laws as she thinks fit but under the government of some or orther Secular Power But the contrary of these things is most evident and many are her canons to this purpose The Council of Chalcedon the same upon two Canons of which Balsamon founds and by which the Doctor proves this authority of Princes to make Patriarchs did erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy next to Rome which also was done before by Conc. Constant 1. but not confirm'd by the Roman and Occidental Bishops and this not only to an empty Dignity or precedency in place but to a real jurisdiction over some of the Emperor's Provinces to receiving and judging appeals c. see Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. and Can. 9. and 16. And when the Bishop of Rome much opposed this Act of the Council the Emperor then making Constantinople the Seat of his Empire and much desiring the advancement of its Bishop yet appeared not at all in this promoting of him nor claim'd any such right as due to him tho this happen'd long after Valentinian is pretended to have advanc'd Ravenna to a Patriarchship and independency on Rome Nor the Council in their Letter to Leo see Act. 3. pleaded any such power as belonging to the Emperor at all but to themselves only they say Nos carantes tam piissimos Christi amicos Imperatores qui super hoc delectantur quam clarissimum senatum c. and sic enim pii Principes complacebunt c. This power then cannot with any modesty be deny'd to Councils If both of them then have this power and that in the same place as I have shew'd it must be what if they disagree Suppose the one gives Rome jurisdiction over Ravenna the other exempts it and makes Ravenna supreme for it self who must be obey'd If the Prince may reverse what the Council hath done then their Canons in these Spiritual matters are subordinate to his Edicts then Sedes Romana in omnibus per omnia prima Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. holds no longer than during the Emperor's pleasure Then why so much courting Leo's consent for a thing in the Emperor's gift Or doth Dr. Hammond here mean only a power in Princes to make some inferior Patriarchs subordinate not only in Dignity but Jurisdiction to these supreme ones as the name of Patriarchs in some times hath been communicated to inferior Bishops But then this Thesis of his if true will serve little to his purposes as long as he leaves his Patriarchs under the yoke of a superior You see how I cast about and yet cannot set these
Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Rome See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it § 51. That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon § 52. That this Nation owes its Conversion chiefly if not only to the Roman See § 53. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon conversion § 55. The Britains observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals and no argument that they received Christianity from thence § 57. That the English Nation is sufficiently tyed to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils wherein her Prelats have yeilded their consents § 59. Thus the Principle upon which some set the English Clergy and Nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be unsound § 60. That some Rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterward be justly resumed § 61. Dr. Field of the Church Ep. Dedicat SEing the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matters so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examin them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies in the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the Living God which is this pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Grot. Animadv cont Rivet ad Art 7. Rogo eos qui. verum amant ut cum legent Dav. Blondelli viri diligentissimi Librum de Primatu non inpsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed ipsas historias quarum veritatem Blondellus agnoscit animo a factionibus remoto expendant spondeo si id faciant inventuros in quo acquieescant S. Austin de util credendi 16. c. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem iposo Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerum intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine 10. c. Sed inquis Nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quacunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoseendus sit omnesque putas idonâ—os esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam religionem putas who therefore must receive this not from Reason but Authority 12. c. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis utilius ac salubrius esse praeceptis obtemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere 13. c. Recte igitur Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad religionem fides i.e. adhibenda authoritati Ecclesiae persuadeatur ante omnia 8. c. Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manaturaest 12. Quum de religione id est quum de colendo atque intelligendo Deo agitur ii minus sequendi sunt qui nos credere vetant rationem promptissime pollicentes Rivet Apol. Discussio p. 255. Nunc plane ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit cause divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones fatente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium put at ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter insticutum Bishop Bilson in perpet governm of Christ's Church 16. c. Not Antichrist but ancient Councils and Christian Emperors perceiving the mighty trouble and intolerable charges that the Bishops of every Province were put-to by staying at Synods for the hearing and determining of all private matters and quarrels and seeing no cause to imploy the Bishops of the whole world twice every year to sit in judgment about petit and particular strifes and brabbles as well the Prince as the Bishops not to increase the pride of Arcbishops but to settle an indifferent course both for the parties and the Judges referred not the making of Laws and Canons but the execution of them already made to the credit and conscience of the Archbishop To the Fathers leave an Appeal either to the Councils or the Primate of every Nation Mr. Thorndike Epilogue 3. l. 20. c. p. 179. Of the Councils he meaneth those first Councils held in the East how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches and this admission of them what can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their Decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Council of Nice tho the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Councils yet in other occasions they may justly seem to refer themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the Acts of it and then he produceth several instances Whereby saith he it may appear how the Western Churches went always along with that of Rome Which necessarily argueth a singular preeminence in it in regard whereof He the Roman Bishop is stiled the Patriarch of the West during the regular government of the Church and being so acknowledged by K. James of Excellent memory to the Card. Perron may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church who had rather stand divided than own him in that quality Afterward he saith p. 180. That it is unquestionable that all causes that concern the whole Church are to resort to the Church of Rome And p. 181. asks what pretence there could be to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome as such Appeals were setled in the Council of Sardica which Council he there allows and
communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit profanus est c. Ideo hic colleg as tuos Aegyptios Confessores sequor communicating with them Non novi Vitalem Meletium respuo ignoro Paulinum There being much division and distraction in the Church of Antioch under which St. Hierom liv'd between Meletius and Paulinus successively Bishops thereof and Vitalis a Presbyter Cui apud Antiochiam debeam communicare significes decernite si placet obsecro non timebo tres Hypostases dicere si jubetis And in the second Epistle In tres partes scissa Ecclesia ad se rapere me festinat Ego interim clamito si quis Cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est Meletius Vitalis atque Paulinus every one of them tho of several tenents tibi haerere se dicunt possum credere si unus only one of them hoc assereret nunc vero aut duo aut omnes mentiuntur Idcirco obtestor ut mihi literis tuis apud quem in Syria debeam communicare significes Thus S. Hierom. To which Bellarmin adds Erasmus a moderate man his comment upon it videri sibi Hieronymum his verbis asserere omnes Ecclesias subjectas esse Apostolicae Sedi At least it seems in times of schisms and divisions this Father thought it for the season mention'd the safest way to adhere to the Rom. See yet speaks he not of the B. of Rome as judging singly whom he thought liable to Heresie saying in catalogo Scriptorum some such thing of Liberius subscribing Arrianism tho indeed much apology may be made for Liberius in this matter yet not such as can free him from all fault he subscribing only and that when he was tired out with banishment and other cruelties the Sirmian Creed which only omitted Consubstantialis see Part 2. § 41. but of him join'd with his Council or with his Western Bishops Therefore he saith apud vos solos c. and Decernite si placet obsequor c. Therefore the more strict vindicators of the Roman inerrability in matters of Faith take not the Bishop thereof singly and unsynodically as his private judgment may inform or passions incline him especially upon some violence and terrors used as in Liberius it was but as assisted with his Council he weigheth judgeth and defineth such matters see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2 3 4. in a time when a General Council is not nor cannot so conveniently be had In which intervals it may be presum'd Christ is not wanting to the supremest Guide of the Church using what helps he hath at hand considering what he saith Mat. 18.19 20. And Dr. Field in answer to these places of Hierom p. 547. goes thus far Thirdly we say it is more than probable that the whole Western Church shall never lose or forsake the true profession and therefore he may truly be judg'd a prophane person that eateth the Paschal Lamb out of the Communion of the same tho sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an Heretick other of his Collegues continuing faithful But then I ask according to this when-as not none at all or a few but most of his Western Collegues are join'd with the Bishop of Rome in which Communion no instance in Antiquity can shew him to have been Heretical and only a few in the West divided from him which will seem safest to those who will be guided by authority in St. Hierom's opinion to adhere to Cathedra Petri or the Cathedra elsewhere opposing it As for what is urg'd by Dr. Field ibid. out of St. Hierom Epist ad Evagrium to counterbalance these of a deprav'd custom in Rome when-as this was no way patroniz'd by any Episcopal Constitution and of his holding Presbyters and Bishops and again Bishops of Alexandria and Tanais ejusdem meriti sacerdotit when-as he meaneth ratione ordinis not jurisdictionis or jure divino not ecclesiastico for so he saith in the same Epistle Quod postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatum remedium factum est Factum est i. e. by the Apostles or the Councils which sufficiently justifies his allowance of and submission to Patriarchal authority These places seem to me of no force to null or to qualifie his former expressions to Damasus See Optatus who disputes thus l. 2. against the schismatical Donatist Bishops Videndum est qui ubi prior Cathedrâ sederet Negare non potes scire te in Vrbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas Cathedras sibi quisque defenderent ut jam schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram .i. e. Petri alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino Clemens c. Damasus Damaso Siricius hodie qui noster est socius Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordant Vestrae Cathedrae vos originem reddite Sed habere vos in urbe Roma partem aliquam dicitis Quid est hoc quod pars vestra in urbe Roma Episcopum civem habere non potuit Vnde est quod claves regni vobis usurpare contenditis qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus audaciis sacrilegio militatis Probatum est nos esse in Ecclesia sancta Catholica apud quos symbolum Trinitatis est per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est caeteras dotes apud nos esse etiam Sacerdotium c. I hope none will say that Optatus argues thus because St. Peter's Chair happen'd in his times to be orthodox but because he took it for granted that it must be orthodox and so all the Churches join'd to it because St. Peter's Chair See Damasus Epist 5. ad Africanos § 23. n. 3. Instituta esse majorum ut cuncta quae possit aliquam recipere dubitationem ad nos quasi ad caput ut semper fuit consuetudo deferre non dubitetis Of whom thus Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 23. Ex non Apocryphis Damasum primum observo qui talis sui privilegii metionem fecit ipsum vero ad sola majorum instituta refert See the Epistle of Siricius Bishop of Rome A. D. 389 to the Metropolitan Bishop of Tarracon in Spain c. 15. Explicuimus ut arbitror Frater charissime universa quae digesta sunt in querelam ad singulas causas de quibus ad Romanam Ecclesiam utpote ad caput sui corporis retulisti sufficientia quatuor opinor responsa reddidimus Nunc fraternitatis tuae animum ad servandos canones tenenda decretalia constituta magis ac magis invitamus ut haec in omnium coepiscoporum nostrorum perfâ—rri facias notionem ad universos Carthaginenses atque Baeticos Lusitanos atque Gallicos c. See the
Epistle of Zosimus a Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time ad Episc Salonit where prohibiting the admitting of Monks and also Laicks immediately to be Bishops without their passing thro and continuance for some time in inferior Ecclesiastical Functions he saith Hoc autem speeialiter sub Praedecessoribus nostris nuper a nobis interdictum constat literis ad Gallias Hispaniasque transmissis Ad te potissimum scripta direximus quae in omnium fratrum Coepiscoporum nostrorum facies ire notitiam Sciet quisquis hoc postposita Patrum Apostolicae Sedis authoritate neglexerit a nobis districtius vindicandum c. See the Epistles of the African Bishops § 23. n. 4. in the 5th Carthaginian and in the Milevitan Councils held there against Pâ—lagianism amongst whom was S. Austin sent to Pope Innocent I and his Answers to them being amongst S. Austin's Epistles the 90 91 92 93. where the 92. the African Bishops begin thus Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuae munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit talemque in nostris temporibus praestitit ut c. and see the close thereof And in Epistle 90. Hoc itaque gestum Domine Frater Sancte charitati tuae intimandum duximus ut statutis nostroe mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas And S. Austin Retract 2. l. 49. c. speaketh of the same business in this language Postea quam Pelagiana haeresis cum suis authoribus ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanoe prius Innocentio deinde Zosimo cooperantibus Conciliorum Africanorum literis convicta atque damnata est scripsi c. And Possidonius S. Austin's Collegiat in vita August 18. c. thus Et cum iidem Pelagiani perversi Sedi Apostolicae per suam ambitionem eandem perfidiam persuadere conabantur instantissime etiam Conciliis Africanis sanctorum Episcoporum gestum est ut So Papae urbis Romae prius venerabili Innocentio postea sancto Zosimo ejus successori persuaderetur quod illa Secta Catholica fide abominanda damnanda fuisset At illi tantae Sedis Antistites suis diversis temporibus eosdem notantes atque a membris Ecclesiae i. e. Catholicae praecidentes datis literis ad Africanas Orientis Occidentis Ecclesias eos anathematizandos devitandos ab omnibus Catholicis censuerunt Et hoc tale de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae probatum judiâ—ium where he seems to call the Pope's judgment the Catholical etiam pâ—issimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens suis eos legibus damnatos inter haereticos habere debere constituit And see the Bishop of Rome's answers wherein he vindicates the universal authority of that See something of which is quoted before § 21. After which judgment in Africk both Pelagius and Caelestius his chief disciple made their appeals to Rome to Zosimus the Successor of this Innocentius under such forms as these Si forte quispiam ignorantiae error obrepserit vestra sententia corrigatur and Emendari cupimus a te qui Petri fidem sedem tenes and were upon a false relation of their tenants favoured there to the great offence of the African Bishops but afterward also condemned by that See and their condemnation published from thence to all Churches See for what is said the authorities in S. Austin and others quoted by Baronius A.D. 418. See S. Austin contra Julianum 1. l. 2. c. where urging against Julian the testimonies of the Occidental Fathers for Original sin he saith thus An ideo contemnendos putas quia Occidentalis Ecclesiae sunt omnes Puto tibi eam partem orbis sufficere debere in qua primum Apostolorum suorum voluit Dominus gloriosissimo Martyrio coronare Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem beatum Innocentium si audire voluisses jam tunc periculosam juventutem tuam Pelagianis laqueis exuisses Quid enim potuit vir ille Sanctus Africanis respondere Conciliis nisi quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes Romana cum caeteris tenet perseveranter Ecclesia Non est ergo cur provoces ad Orientis Antistites c. See S. Austin's Epistle 261. written to Caelestine Bishop of Rome in his old age as appears in the end of the Epistle si meam senectutem fueris consolatus and probably after the contest of the African Council about Appeals that Council being held 419. and Celestine made Bishop of Rome 423. who outlived S. Austin who died 430. Ludov. de Angelis lib. 4. c. 6. It was written concerning one Antonius for whom S. Austin had procured the Bishoprick of Fussala a place formerly in his own Diocess but being very remote from Hippo he obtained that a new Bishoprick might be erected there which Antonius for some miscarriage being by the neighbouring Bishops of Numidia removed from that Bishoprick yet not utterly degraded had appealed to the Bishop of Rome and had much threatned by this Bishop's power to procure a restorement to his place In this Epistle thus S. Austin beseecheth the Pope Collabora obsecro nobiscum jube tibi quae decreta sunt omnia recitari Existat exemplo ipsa Apostolica Ecclesia judicante vel aliorum judicia firmante quosdam pro culpis nec Episcopali spoliatos honore neque relictos omnimodo impunitos Quia ergo c. subveni hominibus opem tuam in Christi mesericordia poscentibus non sinas ista fieri i.e. Antonius to be restored by force obsecro te per Christi sanguinem per Apostoli Petri memoriam qui Christianorum praepositos Populorum monuit ne violenter dominentur inter Fratres c. This he saith against the Executores Clericos of the Roman See many times using unjust violence but we see he declines not the Bishop of Rome's judgment but hopes to have it favourable to his cause See likewise his Epistle 157. to Optatus wherein he mentions a legation imposed upon him and some other Bishops for some Ecclesiastical affair to Caesarea in Mauritania Quo nos saith he injuncta nobis a venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae Sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat Of which also thus Possidonius Vit. Aug. 14. c. In Coesarinsem Mauritaniae Civitatem venire venerabilis mentoriae Augustinum cum aliis Episcopis Sedis Apostolicae literae compulerunt ad terminandas viz. aliquas Ecclesiae necessitates c which shews what authority the Roman Bishop used over the African in this Fathers time where S. Austin did many good offices for that Province and had successful disputes with Emeritus the Bishop of that city See Possid vit Aug. 14. c. Aug. de gest cum Emerit See the Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria § 23. n. 5. to Celestin Bishop of Rome wherein he saith concerning Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople before condemned by any General Council At quamvis res ita habeat non prius tamen illius communionem confidenter disserere ausi fuimus quam haec ipsa pietati tuae indicaremus