lay all the stress of his hopes on the consent of the Western Bishops why doth he not say a word of the dominion resident in them over all the Church these things are unconceivable if he did take the Pope to be the man our adversaries say he is But St. Basil had other notions for indeed being so wise and good a man if he had taken the Pope for his Sovereign he would not have taxed him as he doth and so complain of him when speaking of the Western Bishops whereof the Pope was the ringleader and most concerned he hath these words occasioned as I conceive by the Bishop of Rome's rejecting that excellent person Meletius Bishop of Antioch What we should write or how to joyn with those that write I am in doubt for I am apt to say that of Diomedes You ought not to request for he is a haughty man for in truth observance doth render men of proud manners more contemptuous than otherwise they are For if the Lord be propitious to us what other addition do we need but if the anger of God continue what help can we have from the Western Superciliousness who in truth neither know nor endure to learn but being prepossessed with false suspicions do now doe those things which they did before in the cause of Marcellus affecting to contend with those who report the Truth to them and establishing Heresie by themselves would that excellent Person the greatest man of his time in reputation for wisedom and piety have thus unbowelling his mind in an Epistle to a very eminent Bishop smartly reflected on the qualities and proceedings of the Western Clergy charging them with pride and haughtiness with a suspicious and contentious humour with incorrigible ignorance and indisposition to learn if he had taken him who was the leader in all these matters to have been his Superiour and Sovereign would he have added the following words immediately touching him I would not in the common name have written to their ringleader nothing indeed about Ecclesiastical Affairs except onely to intimate that they neither do know the truth of things with us nor do admit the way by which they may understand it but in general about their being bound not to set upon those who were humbled with afflictions nor should judge themselves dignifyed by pride a sin which alone sufficeth to make one God's enemy surely this great man knew better what belonged to government and manners than in such rude terms to accost his Sovereign nor would he have given him that character which he doth otherwhere where speaking of his Brother St. Gregory Nyssene he saith he was an unfit Agent to Rome because although his address with a sober man would find much reverence and esteem yet to a haughty and reserved man sitting I know not where above and thence not able to hear those below speaking the truth to him what profit can there be to the publick from the converse of such a man whose disposition is averse from illiberal flattery But these speeches sute with that conceit which St. Basil as Baronius I know not whence reporteth expressed by saying I hate the pride of that Church which humour in them that good man would not be guilty of fostering by too much obsequiousness St. Chrysostome having by the practices of envious men combined against him in a packed assembly of Bishops upon vain surmises been sentenced and driven from his See did thereupon write an Epistle to Pope Innocent I. Bishop of Rome together with his Brethren the Bishops of Italy therein representing his case complaining of the wrong vindicating his innocency displaying the iniquity of the proceedings against him together with the mischievous consequences of them toward the whole Church then requiring his succour for redress yet although the sense of his case and care of his interest were likely to suggest the greatest deference that could be neither the style which is very respectfull nor the matter which is very copious do imply any acknowledgment of the Pope's Supremacy He doth not address to him as to a Governour of all who could by his Authority command justice to be done but as to a brother and a friend of innocence from whose endeavour he might procure relief He had recourse not to his Sovereign power but to his brotherly love He informed his Charity not appealed to his bar He in short did no more than implore his assistence in an Ecclesiastical way that he would express his resentment of so irregular dealings that he would avow communion with him as with an Orthodox Bishop innocent and abused that he would procure his cause to be brought to a fair trial in a Synod of Bishops lawfully called and indifferently affected Had the good man had any conceit of the Pope's Supremacy he would one would think have framed his address in other terms and sued for another course of proceeding in his behalf but it is plain enough that he had no such notion of things nor had any ground for such an one For indeed Pope Innocent in his answer to him could doe no more than exhort him to patience in another to his Clergy and People could onely comfort them declare his dislike of the Adversaries proceedings and grounds signifie his intentions to procure a general Synod with hopes of a redress thence his Sovereign power it seems not availing to any such purposes But what saith he can we doe in such cases a Synodical cognizance is necessary which we heretofore did say ought to be called the which alone can allay the motions of such tempests It is true that the later Popes Siricius Anastasius Innocent Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus c. after the Sardican Council in their Epistles to the Western Bishops over whom they had encroached and who were overpowred by them c. do speak in somewhat more lofty strain but are more modest toward those of the East who could not bear c. 22. Farther It is most prodigious that in the disputes managed by the Fathers against Hereticks the Gnosticks Valentinians Marcionites Montanists Manichees Paulianists Arians c. they should not even in the first place alledge and urge the sentence of the Universal Pastour and Judge as a most evidently conclusive argument as the most efficacious and compendious method of convincing and silencing them Had this point been well proved and pressed then without any more concertations from Scripture tradition reason all Hereticks had been quite defeated and nothing then could more easily have been proved if it had been true when the light of tradition did shine so brightly nothing indeed had been to sense more conspicuous than the continual exercise of such an Authority We see now among those who admit such an Authority how surely when it may be had it is alledged and what sway it hath to the determination of any controversie and so it would have been then if it
had been then as commonly known and avowed 23. Whereas divers of the Fathers purposely do treat on methods of confuting Hereticks it is strange they should be so blind or dull as not to hit on this most proper and obvious way of referring debates to the decision of him to whose Office of Universal Pastour and Judge it did belong Particularly one would wonder at Vincentius Lirinensis that he on set purpose with great care discoursing about the means of setling points of Faith and of overthrowing Heresies should not light upon this notable way by having recourse to the Pope's Magisterial sentence yea that indeed he should exclude it for he after most intent study and diligent inquiry consulting the best and wisest men could find but two ways of doing it I saith he did always and from almost every one receive this answer that if either I or any other would find out the frauds and avoid the snares of up-start Hereticks and continue sound and upright in the true Faith he should guard and strengthen his Faith God helping him by these two means viz. First by the Authority of the Divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church And again We before have said that this hath always been and is at present the custome of Catholicks that they prove their Faith by these two ways First by Authority of the Divine Canon then by the Tradition of the Vniversal Church Is it not strange that he especially being a Western man living in those parts where the Pope had got much sway and who doth express great reverence to the Apostolick See should omit that way of determining points which of all according to the modern conceits about the Pope is most ready and most sure 24. In like manner Tertullian professeth the Catholicks in his time to use such compendious methods of confuting Hereticks We saith he when we would dispatch against Hereticks for the Faith of the Gospel do commonly use these short ways which do maintain both the order of times prescribing against the lateness of impostours and the Authority of the Churches patronizing Apostolical tradition but why did he skip over a more compendious way than any of those namely standing to the judgment of the Roman Bishop 25. It is true that both he and St. Irenaeus before him disputing against the Hereticks of their times who had introduced pernicious novelties of their own devising when they alledge the general consent of Churches planted by the Apostles and propagated by continual successions of Bishops from those whom the Apostles did ordain in doctrines and practices opposite to those devices as a good argument and so indeed it then was next to a demonstration against them do produce the Roman Church as a principal one among them upon several obvious accounts And this indeed argueth the Roman Church to have been then one competent witness or credible retainer of tradition as also were the other Apostolical Churches to whose Testimony they likewise appeal but what is this to the Roman Bishop's judicial Power in such cases why do they not urge that in plain terms they would certainly have done so if they had known it and thought it of any validity Do but mark their words involving the force of their argumentation When saith Irenaeus we do again after allegation of Scripture appeal to that tradition which is from the Apostles which by successions of Presbyters is preserved in the Churches and That saith Tertullian will appear to have been delivered by the Apostles which hath been kept as holy in the Apostolical Churches let us see what milk the Corinthians did draw from Paul what the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians do reade what also the Romans our nearer neighbours do say to whom both Peter and Paul did leave the Gospel sealed with their Bloud we have also the Churches nursed by John c. Again It is therefore manifest saith he in his Prescriptions against Hereticks that every doctrine which doth conspire with those Apostolical Churches in which the Faith originally was planted is to be accounted true as undoubtedly holding that which the Churches did receive from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God but all other doctrine is to be prejudged false which doth think against the truth of the Churches and of the Apostles and of Christ and of God their argumentation then in short is plainly this that the conspiring of the Churches in doctrines contrary to those which the Hereticks vented did irrefragably signifie those doctrines to be Apostolical which discourse doth no-wise favour the Roman pretences but indeed if we do weigh it is very prejudicial thereto it thereby appearing that Christian Doctrines then in the canvasing of points and assuring tradition had no peculiar regard to the Roman Churche's testimonies no deference at all to the Roman Bishop's Authority not otherwise at least than to the Authority of one single Bishop yielding attestation to tradition 26. It is odd that even old Popes themselves in elaborate tracts disputing against Hereticks as Pope Celestine against Nestorius and Pelagius Pope Leo against Eutyches do content themselves to urge testimonies of Scripture and arguments grounded thereon not alledging their own definitive Authority or using this parlous argumentation I the Supreme Doctour of the Church and Judge of controversies do assert thus and therefore you are obliged to submit your assent 27. It is matter of amazement if the Pope were such as they would have him to be that in so many bulky Volumes of ancient Fathers living through many ages after Christ in those vast treasuries of learning and knowledge wherein all sorts of truth are displayed all sorts of duty are pressed this momentous point of doctrine and practice should nowhere be expressed in clear and peremptory terms I speak so for that by wresting words by impertinent application by streining consequences the most ridiculous positions imaginable may be deduced from their Writings It is strange that somewhere or other at least incidentally in their Commentaries upon the Scripture wherein many places concerning the Church and its Hierarchy do invite to speak of the Pope in their Treatises about the Priesthood about the Unity and Peace of the Church about Heresie and Schism in their Epistles concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs in their Historical narrations about occurrences in the Church in their concertations with heterodox adversaries they should not frequently touch it they should not sometimes largely dwell upon it Is it not marvellous that Origen St. Hilary St. Cyril St. Chrysostome St. Hierome St. Austin in their Commentaries and Tractates upon those places of Scripture Tu es Petrus Pasce oves whereon they now build the Papal Authority should be so dull and drowsie as not to say a word concerning the Pope That St. Austin in his so many elaborate Tractates against the Donatists wherein he discourseth so prolixly about the Church its Unity Communion
add If an Angel from Heaven should tell you beside what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be anathema in which words we have St. Austin's warrant not onely to refuse but to detest this Doctrine which being nowhere extant in Law or Gospel is yet obtruded on us as nearly relating both to Christ and his Church as greatly concerning both our Faith and Practice 2. To enforce this Argument we may consider that the Evangelists do speak about the propagation settlement and continuance of our Lord's Kingdom that the Apostles do often treat about the state of the Church and its edification order peace unity about the distinction of its Officers and Members about the qualifications duties graces privileges of Spiritual Governours and Guides about prevention and remedy of Heresies Schisms Disorders upon any of which occasions how is it possible that the mention of such a Spiritual Monarch who was to have a main influence on each of those particulars should wholly escape them if they had known such an one instituted by God In the Levitical Law all things concerning the High-Priest not onely his Designation Succession Consecration Duty Power Maintenance Privileges but even his Garments Marriage Mourning c. are punctually determined and described and is it not wonderfull that in the many descriptions of the New-Law no mention should be made concerning any Duty or Privilege of its High-Priest whereby he might be directed in the administration of his Office and know what observance to require 3. Whereas also the Scripture doth inculcate duties of all sorts and doth not forget frequently to press duties of respect and obedience toward particular Governours of the Church is it not strange that it never should bestow one precept whereby we might be instructed and admonished to pay our duty to the Universal Pastour especially considering that God who directed the Pens of the Apostles and who intended that their Writings should continue for the perpetual instruction of Christians did foresee how requisite such a precept would be to secure that duty for if but one such precept did appear it would doe the business and void all contestation about it 4. They who so carefully do exhort to honour and obey the temporal Sovereignty how come they so wholly to wave urging the no less needfull obligations to obey the Spiritual Monarch while they are so mindfull of the Emperour why are they so neglectfull of the Pope insomuch that divers Popes afterward to ground and urge obedience to them are fain to borrow those precepts which command obedience to Princes accommodating them by analogy and inference to themselves 5. Particularly Saint Peter one would think who doth so earnestly injoin to obey the King as Supreme and to honour him should not have been unmindfull of his Successours or quite have forborn to warn Christians of the respect due to them surely the Popes afterward do not follow him in this reservedness for in their Decretal Epistles they urge nothing so much as obedience to the Apostolical See 6. One might have expected something of that nature from St. Paul himself who did write so largely to the Romans and so often from Rome that at least some word or some intimation should have dropped from him concerning these huge Rights and Privileges of this See and of the regard due to it Particularly then when he professedly doth enumerate the Offices instituted by God for standing use and perpetual duration for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Vnity of Faith c. He commendeth them for their Faith which was spoken of through the whole world yet giveth them no advantage above others as St. Chrysostome observeth on those words for obedience to the Faith among all Nations among whom also are ye this saith St. Chrysostome he saith to depress their conceit to void their haughtiness of mind and to teach them to deem others equal in Dignity with them When He writeth to that Church which was some time after Saint Peter had setled the Popedom he doth onely style them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Saints and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beloved of God which are common adjuncts of all Christians He saith their Faith was spoken of generally but of the fame of their Authority being so spread he taketh no notice that their obedience had come abroad to all men but their commands had not it seemeth come anywhere He wrote divers Epistles from Rome wherein he resolveth many cases debated yet never doth urge the Authority of the Roman Church for any point which now is so ponderous an Argument 7. But however seeing the Scripture is so strangely reserved how cometh it to pass that Tradition is also so defective and staunch in so grand a case We have in divers of the Fathers particularly in Tertullian in St. Basil in St. Hierome Catalogues of Traditional Doctrines and Observances which they recite to assert Tradition in some cases supplemental to Scripture in which their purpose did require that they should set down those of principal moment and they are so punctual as to insert many of small consideration how then came they to neglect this concerning the Papal Authority over the whole Church which had been most pertinent to their design and in consequence did vastly surpass all the rest which they do name 8. The designation of the Roman Bishop by succession to obtain so high a degree in the Church being above all others a most remarkable and noble piece of History which it had been a horrible fault in an Ecclesiastical History to slip over without carefull reporting and reflecting upon it yet Eusebius that most diligent Compiler of all passages relating to the original Constitution of the Church and to all transactions therein hath not â—ne word about it who yet studiously doth report the Successions of the Roman Bishops and all the notable occurrences he knew concerning them with favourable advantage 9. Whereas this Doctrine is pretended to be a Point of Faith of vast consequence to the subsistence of the Church and to the Salvation of men it is somewhat strange that it should not be inserted into any one ancient Summary of things to be believed of which Summaries divers remain some composed by publick consent others by persons of Eminency in the Church nor by fair and forcible consequence should be deducible from any Article in them especially considering that such Summaries were framed upon occasion of Heresies springing up which disregarded the Pope's Authority and which by asserting it were plainly confuted We are therefore beholden to Pope Innocent III. and his Laterane Synod for first Synodically defining this Point together with other Points no less new and unheard of before The Creed of Pope Pius IV. formed the other day is the first as I take it
to defend and advance the Papal Empire What meaneth the Doctrine concerning that middle Region of Souls or Cloister of Purgatory whereof the Pope holdeth the Keys opening and shutting it at his pleasure by dispensation of pardons and indulgences but that he must be Master of the Peoples condition and of their purse What meaneth the treasure of Merits and supererogatory works whereof he is the Steward but a way of driving a trade and drawing money from simple People to his treasury Whither doth the entangling of Folks in perpetual Vows tend but to assure them in a slavish dependance on their interests eternally without evasion or remedy except by favourable dispensation from the Pope Why is the opus operatum in Sacraments taught to confer grace but to breed a high opinion of the Priest and all he doeth Whence did the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation urged with so furious zeal issue but from design to magnify the credit of those who by saying of a few words can make Our God and Saviour and withall to exercise a notable instance of their power over men in making them to renounce their Reason and Senses Whither doth tend the Doctrine concerning the Mass being a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Dead but to engage men to leave in their Wills good sums to offer in their behalf Why is the Cup withholden from the Laity but to lay it low by so notable a distinction in the principal mystery of our Religion from the Priesthood Why is saying private Mass or celebrating the Communion in solitude allowed but because Priests are pay'd for it and live by it At what doth the Doctrine concerning the necessity of auricular Confession aim but that thereby the Priests may have a mighty awe on the Consciences of all People may dive into their secrets may manage their Lives as they please And what doth a like necessary particular Absolution intend but to set the Priest in a lofty state of Authority above the People as a Judge of his condition and dispenser of his Salvation Why do they equal Ecclesiastical Traditions with Scripture but that on the pretence of them they may obtrude whatever Doctrines advantageous to their designs What drift hath the Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of Churches or Councils but that when opportunity doth invite he may call a company of Bishops together to establish what he liketh which ever after must pass for certain truth to be contradicted by none so enslaving the minds of all men to his dictates which always sute to his interest What doth the prohibition of Holy Scripture drive at but a monopoly of knowledge to themselves or a detaining of People in ignorance of truth and duty so that they must be forced to rely on them for direction must believe all they say and blindly submit to their dictates being disabled to detect their errours or contest their opinions Why must the Sacraments be celebrated and publick devotions exercised in an unknown Tongue but that the Priests may seem to have a peculiar interest in them and ability for them Why must the Priesthood be so indispensably forbidden marriage but that it may be wholly untacked from the State and rest addicted to him and governable by him that the Persons and Wealth of Priests may be purely at his devotion To what end is the clogging Religion by multiplication of Ceremonies and Formalities but to amuse the People and maintain in them a blind reverence toward the Interpreters of the dark mysteries couched in them and by seeming to encourage an exteriour shew of Piety or form of godliness to gain reputation and advantage whereby they might oppress the interiour virtue and reality of it as the Scribes and Pharisees did although with less designs Why is the veneration of Images and Reliques the credence of Miracles and Legends the undertaking of Pilgrimages and voyages to Rome and other places more holy than ordinary sprinklings of Holy-water consecrations of baubles with innumerable foppish knacks and trinkets so cherished but to keep the People in a slavish credulity and dotage apt to be led by them whither they please by any sleeveless pretence and in the mean while to pick various gains from them by such trade What do all such things mean but obscuring the native simplicity of Christianity whereas it being represented intelligible to all men would derogate from that high admiration which these men pretend to from their peculiar and profound wisedom And what would men spend for these toys if they understood they might be good Christians and get to Heaven without them What doth all that pomp of Religion serve for but for ostentation of the dignity of those who administer it It may be pretended for the honour of Religion but it really conduceth to the glory of the Priesthood who shine in those pageantries Why is Monkery although so very different from that which was in the ancient times so cryed up as a superlative state of perfection but that it filleth all places with swarms of lusty People who are vowed servants to him and have little else to doe but to advance that Authority by which they subsist in that dronish way of life In fine perusing the Controversies of Bellarmine or any other Champion of Romanism do but consider the nature and scope of each Doctrine maintained by them and you may easily discern that scarce any of them but doth tend to advance the interest of the Pope or of his sworn Vassals Whereas indeed our Lord had never any such design to set up a sort of men in such distance above their brethren to perk over them and suck them of their goods by tricks it onely did charge People to allow their Pastours a competent maintenance for a sober life with a moderate respect as was needfull for the common benefit of God's People whom they were with humility and meekness to instruct and guide in the plain and simple way of Piety This is a grievous inconvenience there being nothing wherein the Church is more concerned than in the preservation of its Doctrine pure and incorrupt from the leaven of hurtfull errours influential on practice 4. The errours in Doctrine and miscarriages in practice which this Authority in favour to it self would introduce would be established immoveably to the irrecoverable oppression of Truth and Piety any reformation becoming impossible while it standeth or so far as it shall be able to oppose and obstruct it While particular Churches do retain their liberty and Pastours their original co-ordination in any measure if any Church or Bishop shall offer to broach any novel Doctrine or Practice of bad import the others may endeavour to stop the settlement or progress of them each Church at least may keep it self sound from contagion But when all Churches and Bishops are reduced into subjection to one Head supported by the guards of his Authority who will dare to contest or be able to withstand what he shall say or doe It
of Rome under Pope Silvester of Rome under Sixtus III. but they are palpably spurious and the learned among them confess it But antiquity was not of this mind for it did suppose him no less obnoxious to judgment and correction than other Bishops if he should notoriously deviate from the faith or violate canonical discipline The Canons generally do oblige Bishops without exception to duty and upon defailance to correction why is not he excepted if to be excused or exempted It was not questioned of old but that a Pope in case he should notoriously depart from the faith or notably infringe discipline might be excommunicated the attempting it upon divers occasions do shew their opinion although it often had not effect because the cause was not just and plausible the truth and equity of the case appearing to be on the Pope's side St. Isidore Pelusiota denieth of any Bishop's office that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an uncontrollable government In the times of Polycrates and Pope Victor the whole Eastern Church did forbear communion with the Pope Firmilian told Pope Stephanus that by conceiting he might excommunicate all other Bishops he had excommunicated himself The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did threaten to excommunicate and depose Pope Julius They did promise to Julius peace and communion if he did admit the deposition of those whom they had expelled and the constitution of those whom they had ordained but if he did resist their decrees they denounced the contrary The Oriental Bishops at Sardica did excommunicate and depose him St. Hilary did anathematize Pope Liberius upon his defection to the Arians Dioscorus did attempt to excommunicate Pope Leo. Acacius of Constantinople renounced the communion of Pope Felix Timotheus Aelurus cursed the Pope The African Bishops did Synodically excommunicate Pope Vigilius Pope Anastasius was rejected by his own Clergy Pope Constantine by the people and so was Pope Leo VIII Divers Bishops of Italy and Illyricum did abstain from the Pope's communion for a long time because they did admit the fifth Synod Photius did excommunicate and depose Pope Nicholas I. Maurus Bishop of Ravenna did anathematize Pope Vitalianus The Emperour Otho II. having with good advice laboured to reclaim Pope John XII without effect did indict a Council calling together the Bishops of Italy by the judgment of whom the life of that wicked man should be judged and the issue was that he was deposed Pope Nicholas I. desired to be judged by the Emperour The fifth Synod did in general terms condemn Pope Vigilius and the Emperour Justinian did banish him for not complying with the decrees of it The sixth and seventh General Synods did anathematize Honorius by name when he was dead because his heresie was not before confuted and they would have served him so if he had been alive Divers Synods that of Worms of Papia of Brescia of Mentz of Rome c. did reject Pope Gregory VII Pope Adrian himself in the VIII Synod so called did confess that a Pope being found deviating from the faith might be judged as Honorius was Gerbertus afterward Pope Sylvester II. did maintain that Popes might be held as Ethnicks and Publicans if they did not hear the Church The Synod of Constance did judge and depose three Popes The Synod of Basil did depose Pope Eugenius affirming that The Catholick Church hath often corrected and judged Popes when they either err'd from the faith or by their ill manners became notoriously scandalous to the Church The practice of Popes to give an account of their faith when they entred upon their office to the other Patriarchs and chief Bishops approving themselves thereby worthy and capable of communion doth imply them liable to judgment Of the neglect of which practice Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople did complain Of this we have for example the Synodical Epistles of Pope Gregory I. XII To the Sovereign in Ecclesiastical affairs it would belong to define and decide controversies in faith discipline moral practice so that all were bound to admit his definitions decisions interpretations He would be the supreme Interpreter of the divine law and Judge of controversies No point or question of moment should be decided without his cognizance This he therefore doth pretend to taking upon him to define points and requiring from all submission to his determinations Nor doth he allow any Synods to decide questions But the ancients did know no such thing In case of Contentions they had no recourse to his judgment they did not stand to his opinion his authority did not avail to quash disputes They had recourse to the Holy Scriptures to Catholick Tradition to reason they disputed and discussed points by dint of argument Irenaeus Tertullian Vincentius Lirinensis and others discoursing of the methods to resolve points of Controversie did not reckon the Pope's authority for one Divers of the Fathers did not scruple openly to dissent from the opinions of Popes nor were they wondred at or condemned for it So Saint Paul did withstand Saint Peter So Polycarpus dissented from Pope Elutherius So Polycrates from Pope Victor So St. Cyprian from Pope Stephen So Dionysius Alex. from Pope Stephen all which persons were renowned for wisedom and piety in their times Highest Controversies were appeased by Synods out of the Holy Scripture Catholick Tradition the Analogy of faith and common Reason without regard to the Pope Divers Synods in Africk and Asia defined the Point about rebaptization without the Pope's leave and against his opinion The Synod of Antioch condemned the doctrine of Paulus Samosatenus without intervention of the Pope before they gave him notice In the Synod of Nice the Pope had very small stroke The General Synod of Const. declared the Point of the Divinity of the H. Ghost against Macedonius without the Pope who did no more than afterward consent This the Synod of Chalcedon in their compellation to the Emperour Marcian did observe The Fathers met in Sardica to suppress the reliques of Arianism communicated their decrees to the Eastern Bishops and they who here discovered the pestilence of Apolinarius made known theirs to the Western The Synod of Africk defined against Pelagius before their informing Pope Innocentius thereof not seeking his judgment but desiring his consent to that which they were assured to be truth Divers Popes have been incapable of deciding Controversies themselves having been erroneous in the questions controverted as Pope Stephanus in part Pope Liberius P. Felix P. Vigilius P. Honorius c. And in our opinion all Popes for many ages It is observable how the Synod of Chalcedon in their allocution to the Emperour Marcian do excuse P. Leo for expounding the faith in his Epistle the which it seems some did reprehend as a novell method disagreeable to the Canons Let not them say they object to us the Epistle of the marvellous Prelate
Rome This hath been the Doctrine of divers Popes Which not onely the Apostolical Prelate but any other Bishop may doe viz. discriminate and severe any men and any place from the Catholick communion according to the rule of that fore-condemned heresie Faith is universal common to all and belongs not onely to Clergymen but also to Laicks and even to all Christians Therefore the sheep which are committed to the cure of their Pastour ought not to reprehend him unless he swerve and go astray from the right faith 15. That this was the current opinion common practice doth shew there being so many instances of those who rejected their Superiours and withdrew from their communion in case of their maintaining errours or of their disorderly behaviour such practice having been approved by General and Great Synods as also by divers Popes When Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople did introduce new and strange Doctrine divers of his Presbyters did rebuke him and withdraw communion from him which proceeding is approved in the Ephesine Synod Particularly Charisius did assert this proceeding in those remarkable words presented to that same Synod 'T is the wish and desire of all well affected persons to give always all due honour and reverence especially to their spiritual Fathers and Teachers but if it should so happen that they who ought to teach should instill unto those who are set under them such things concerning the faith as are offensive to the ears and hearts of all men then of necessity the order must be inverted and they who teach wrong Doctrine must be rebuked of those who are their inferiours Pope Celestine I. in that case did commend the people of Constantinople deserting their Pastour Happy flock said he to whom the Lord did afford to judge about its own Pasture St. Hierome did presume to write very briskly and smartly in reproof of John Bishop of Hierusalem in whose Province he a simple Presbyter did reside Who makes a schism in the Church we whose whole house in Bethlehem communicate with the Church or thou who either believest aright and proudly concealest the truth or art of a wrong belief and really makest a breach in the Church Art thou onely the Church and is he who offendeth thee excluded from Christ Malchion Presbyter of Antioch disputed against Paulus Samosatenus his Bishop Beatus Presbyter confuted his Bishop Elipandus of Toledo But if the Rectour swerve from the faith he is to be reproved by those who are under him 16. The case is the same of the Pope for if other Bishops who are reckoned Successours of the Apostles and Vicars of Christ within their precinct if other Patriarchs who sit in Apostolical Sees and partake of a like extensive Jurisdiction by incurring heresie or schism or committing notorious disorder and injustice may be deprived of their Authority so that their Subjects may be obliged to forsake them then may the Pope lose his for truth and piety are not affixed to the Chair of Rome more than to any other there is no ground of asserting any such Privilege either in Holy Scripture or in old Tradition there can no promise be alledged for it having any probable shew that of Oravi pro te being a ridiculous pretence it cannot stand without a perpetual miracle there is in fact no appearance of any such miracle from the ordinary causes of great errour and impiety that is ambition avarice sloth luxury the Papal state is not exempt yea apparently it is more subject to them than any other all Ages have testified and complained thereof 17. Most eminent persons have in such cases withdrawn communion from the Pope as other-where we have shewed by divers Instances 18. The Canon Law it self doth admit the Pope may be judged if he be a Heretick Because he that is to judge all persons is to be judged of none except he be found to be gone astray from the faith The supposition doth imply the possibility and therefore the case may be put that he is such and then he doth according to the more current Doctrine ancient and modern cease to be a Bishop yea a Christian Hence no obedience is due to him yea no communion is to be held with him 19. This in fact was acknowledged by a great Pope allowing the condemnation of Pope Honorius for good because he was erroneous in point of Faith for saith he in that which is called the Eighth Synod although Honorius was anathematized after his death by the Oriental Bishops it is yet well known that he was accused for heresie for which alone it is lawfull for inferiours to rise up against superiours Now that the Pope or Papal succession doth pervert the truth of Christian Doctrine in contradiction to the Holy Scripture and Primitive Tradition that he doth subvert the practice of Christian piety in opposition to the Divine commands that he teacheth falshoods and maintaineth impieties is notorious in many particulars some whereof we shall touch We justly might charge him with all those extravagant Doctrines and Practices which the high flying Doctours do teach and which the fierce Zealots upon occasion do act for the whole succession of Popes of a long time hath most cherished and encouraged such folks looking squintly on others as not well affected to them But we shall onely touch those new and noxious or dangerous positions which great Synods managed and confirmed by their Authority have defined or which they themselves have magisterially decreed or which are generally practised by their influence or countenance It is manifest that the Pope doth support and cherish as his special Favourites the Venters of wicked Errours such as those who teach the Pope's infallibility his power over temporal Princes to cashier and depose them to absolve subjects from their allegiance the Doctrine of equivocation breach of faith with hereticks c. the which Doctrines are heretical as inducing pernicious practice whence whoever doth so much as communicate with the maintainers of them according to the principles of ancient Christianity are guilty of the same crimes The Holy Scripture and Catholick Antiquity do teach and injoin us to worship and serve God alone our Creatour forbidding us to worship any Creature or Fellow-servant even not Angels For I who am a Creature will not endure to worship one like to me But the Pope and his Clients do teach and charge us to worship Angels and dead men yea even to venerate the reliques and dead bodies of the Saints The Holy Scripture teacheth us to judge nothing about the present or future state of men absolutely before the time untill the Lord come who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of hearts and then each man shall have praise of God But the Pope notoriously in repugnance to those precepts anticipating God's judgment and arrogating to himself a knowledge requisite thereto doth presume to determine
servants But the Papists curse those who although out of humility and modesty will not acknowledge the good works of justified persons to be truly meritorious deserving the encrease of grace eternal life and augmentation of glory so forcing us to use saucy words and phrases if not impious in their sense The Scripture teacheth one Church diffused over the whole world whereof each part is bound to maintain charity peace and communion with the rest upon brotherly terms But the Romanists arrogate to themselves the name and privilege of the onely Church condemning all other Churches beside their own and censuring all for Apostatical who do not adhere to them or submit to their yoke Just like the Donatists who said that the world had apostatized excepting those who upon their own terms did communicate with them onely the communion of Donatus remained the true Church The Holy Scripture biddeth us take care of persons pretending to extraordinary Inspirations charging on the Holy Spirit their own conceits and devices Such have been their Synods boldly fathering their Decrees on God's Spirit And their Pope is infallible by virtue of inspiration communicated to him when he pleaseth to set himself right in his Chair Whence we may take them for bodies of Enthusiasts and Fanaticks the difference onely is that other Enthusiasts pretend singly they conjunctly and by conspiracy Others pretend it in their own direction and defence these impose their dreams on the whole Church If they say that God hath promised his Spirit to his Church it is true but he hath no less plainly and frequently promised it to single Christians who should seek it earnestly of him The ancient Fathers could in the Scriptures hardly discern more than two Sacraments or Mysterious Rites of our Religion by positive Law and Institution of our Saviour to be practised But the Popes have devised others and under uncharitable curses propound them to be professed for such affirming them to confer grace by the bare performance of them Every Clergy-man and Monk is bound by Pius IV. to profess there are just seven of them and the Tridentine Synod anathematizeth all those who do say there are more or fewer although the Ancients did never hit on that number But these our Sacraments both contain grace and also confer it upon those who worthily receive them They require men to believe under a curse that each of those were instituted of Christ and confer grace by the bare performance Particularly they curse those who do not hold matrimony for a Sacrament instituted by Christ and conferring grace What can be more ridiculous than to say that marriage was instituted by Christ or that it doth confer grace Yet with another anathema they prefer Virginity before it and why forsooth is not that another Sacrament And then they must be comparing the worth of these Sacraments condemning those heavily who may conceive them equal as being Divine Institutions If any say that these seven Sacraments are so equal one to another that one is in no respect of more worth than another let him be Anathema The first as it seemeth who reckoned the Sacraments to be seven was Peter Lombard whom the Schoolmen did follow and Pope Eugenius IV. followed them and afterward the Trent men formed it into an Article back'd with an Anathema Upon which rash and peremptory Sentence touching all ancient Divines we may note 1. Is it not strange that an Article of Faith should be formed upon an ambiguous word or a term of art used with great variety 2. Is it not strange to define a Point whereof it is most plain that the Fathers were ignorant were in they never did agree or resolve any thing 3. Yea whereof they speak variously 4. Is it not odd and extravagant to damn or curse people for a point of so little consideration or certainty 5. Is it not intolerable arrogance and presumption to define nay indeed to make an Article of Faith without any manner of ground or colour of Authority either from Scripture or the Tradition of the ancient Fathers The Holy Scripture forbiddeth us to call any man Master upon earth or absolutely to subject our Faith to the dictates of any man It teacheth us that the Apostles themselves are not Lords of our faith so as to oblige us to believe their own inventions It forbiddeth us to swallow whole the Doctrines and Precepts of men without examination of them It forbiddeth us to admit various and strange doctrines But the Pope and Roman Church exact from us a submission to their Dictates admitting them for true without any farther enquiry or discussion barely upon his Authority They who are provided of any Benefices whatever having cure of Souls let them promise and swear obedience to the Roman Church They require of us without doubt to believe to profess to assert innumerable Propositions divers of them new and strange no-wise deducible from Scripture or Apostolical Tradition the very terms of them being certainly unknown to the Primitive Church devised by humane subtilty curiosity contentiousness divers of them being in all appearance to the judgment of common sense uncertain obscure and intricate divers of them bold and fierce divers of them frivolous and vain divers of them palpably false Namely all such Propositions as have been taught by their Great Junto's allowed by the Pope especially that of Trent Moreover all other things delivered defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess and also all things contrary thereunto and all heresies whatsoever condemned and rejected and anathematized by the Church I in like manner do condemn reject and anathematize This is the true Catholick Faith out of which there can be no Salvation This Usurpation upon the Consciences of Christians none like whereto was ever known in the world they prosecute with most uncharitable censures cursing and damning all who do not in heart and profession submit to him obliging all their consorts to join therein against all charity and prudence The Scripture enjoineth us to bear with those who are weak in faith and err in doubtfull or disputable matters But the Popes with cruel uncharitableness not onely do censure all that cannot assent to their devices which they obtrude as Articles of Faith but sorely persecute them with all sorts of punishments even with death it self a practice inconsistent with Christian meekness with equity with reason and of which the Fathers have expressed the greatest detestation They have unwoven and altered all Theology from head to foot and of Divine have made it Sophistical The Pope with his pack of mercenary Clients at Trent did indeed establish a Scholastical or Sophistical rather than a Christian Theology framing Points devised by the idle wits of latter times into Definitions and peremptory Conclusions back'd with Curses and Censures concerning
offices of humanity toward their subjects travelling or trading any where in the World common Reason doth require such things But may common Unity of Polity from hence be inferr'd Arg. X. The effectuâ—â— Preservation of Unity in the primitive Church is alledged as a strong Argument of its being united in one Government Answ. 1. That Unity of Faith and Charity and Discipline which we admit was indeed preserved not by influence of any one Sovereign Authority whereof there is no mention but by the concurrent vigilance of Bishops declaring and disputing against any Novelty in Doctrine or Practice which did start up by their adherence to the Doctrine asserted in Scripture and confirmed by Tradition by their aiding and abetting one another as Confederates against Errours and Disorders creeping in Answ. 2. The many Differences which arose concerning the Observation of Easter the Re-baptization of Hereticks the Reconciliation of Revolters and scandalous Criminals concerning the decision of Causes and Controversies c. do more clearly shew that there was no standing common Jurisdiction in the Church for had there been such an one recourse would have been had thereto and such Differences by its Authority would easily have been quashed Arg. XI Another Argument is grounded on the Relief which one Church did yield to another which supposeth all Churches under one Government imposing such Tribute Answ. 1. This is a strange Fetch as if all who were under obligation to relieve one another in need were to be under one Government Then all Mankind must be so Answ. 2. It appeareth by St. Paul that these Succours were of free Charity Favour and Liberality and not by Constraint Arg. XII The use of Councils is also alledged as an Argument of this Unity Answ. 1. General Councils in case Truth is disowned that Peace is disturbed that Discipline is loosed or perverted are wholsome Expedients to clear Truth and heal Breaches but the holding them is no more an Argument of political Unity in the Church than the Treaty of Munster was a sign of all Europe being under one civil Government Answ. 2. They are extraordinary arbitrary prudential means of restoring Truth Peace Order Discipline but from them nothing can be gathered concerning the continual ordinary State of the Church Answ. 3. For during a long time the Church wanted them and afterwards had them but rarely For the first three hundred years saith Bell. there was no general assembly afterwards scarce one in a hundred years And since the breach between the Oriental and Western Churches for many Centenaries there hath been none Yet was the Church from the beginning One till Constantine and long afterwards Answ. 4. The first General Councils indeed all that have been with any probable shew capable of that denomination were congregated by Emperours to cure the Dissentions of Bishops what therefore can be argued from them but that the Emperours did find it good to settle Peace and Truth and took this for a good mean thereto Alb. Pighius said that General Councils were an invention of Constantine and who can confute him Answ. 5. They do shew rather the Unity of the Empire than of the Church or of the Church as National under one Empire than as Catholick for it was the State which did call and moderate them to its Purposes Answ. 6. It is manifest that the congregation of them dependeth on the permission and pleasure of secular Powers and in all equity should do so as otherwhere is shewed Answ. 7. It is not expedient that there should be any of them now that Christendom slandeth divided under divers temporal Sovereignties for their Resolutions may intrench on the Interests of some Princes and hardly can they be accommodated to the Civil Laws and Customs of every State Whence we see that France will not admit the Decrees of their Tridentine Synod Answ. 8. There was no such inconvenience in them while Christendom was in a manner confined within one Empire for then nothing could be decreed or executed without the Emperour's leave or to his prejudice Answ. 9. Yea as things now stand it is impossible there should be a free Council most of the Bishops being sworn Vassals and Clients to the Pope and by their own Interests concerned to maintain his exorbitant Grandeur and Domination Answ. 10. In the opinion of St. Athanasius there was no reasonable cause of Synods except in case of new Heresies springing up which may be confuted by the joint consent of Bishops Answ. 11. As for particular Synods they do onely signifie that it was usefull for neighbour Bishops to conspire in promoting Truth Order and Peace as we have otherwhere shewed Councils have often been convened for bad Designs and been made Engines to oppress Truth and enslave Christendom That of Antioch against Athanasius of Ariminum for Arianism The second Ephesine to restore Eutyches and reject Flavianus The second of Nice to impose the Worship of Babies The Synod of Ariminum to countenance Arians So the fourth Synod of Laterane sub Inn. III. to settle the prodigious Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the wicked Doctrine of Papal Authority over Princes The first Synod of Lions to practise that hellish Doctrine of Deposing Kings The Synod of Constance to establish the maime of the Eucharist against the Calistines of Bohemia The Laterane under Leo X. was called as the Arch-bishop of Patras affirmed for the Exaltation of the Apostolical See The Synod of Trent to settle a raff of Errours and Superstitions Obj. II. It may farther be objected that this Doctrine doth favour the Conceits of the Independents concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline I answer No. For 1. We do assert that every Church is bound to observe the Institutions of Christ and that sort of Government which the Apostles did ordain consisting of Bishops Priests and People 2. We avow it expedient in conformity to the primitive Churches and in order to the maintenance of Truth Order Peace for several particular Churches or Parishes to be combined in political Corporations as shall be found convenient by those who have just Authority to frame such Corporations for that otherwise Christianity being shattered into numberless shreds could hardly subsist and that great Confusions must arise 3. We affirm that such Bodies having been established and being maintained by just Authority every man is bound to endeavour the upholding of them by Obedience by peaceable and compliant Demeanour 4. We acknowledge it a great Crime by factious behaviour in them or by needless separation from them to disturb them to divide them to dissolve or subvert them 5. We conceive it fit that every People under one Prince or at least of one Nation using the same Language Civil Law and Fashions should be united in the bands of Ecclesiastical Polity for that such a Unity apparently is conducible to the peace and welfare both of Church and State to the furtherance of God's worship and
occasion did invite and circumstances of things did permit interdicting Princes absolving Subjects from their Allegeance raising or encouraging Insurrections as appeareth by their transactions not long since against our Princes and those of France which shews the very See imbued with those Notions 7. They do oblige all Bishops most solemnly to avow this Doctrine and to engage themselves to practise according to it For in the Oath prescribed to all Bishops they are required to avow that they will observe the Apostolical commands with all their power and cause them to be observed by others that they will aid and defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of Saint Peter against every man that they will to their power persecute and impugn Hereticks Schismaticks and Rebels to the Pope or his Successours without any exception which was I suppose chiefly meant against their own Prince if occasion should be together with divers other points importing their acknowledgment and abetting the Pope's universal Domination These horrible Oaths of Bishops to the Pope do seem to have issued from the same shop with the high Hildebrandine dictates for the Oath in the Decretals is ascribed to Pope Gregory I suppose Greg. VII And in the sixth Roman Synod under Greg. VII there is an Oath of like tenour exacted from the Bishop of Aquileia perhaps occasionally which in pursuance of that example might be extended to all And that before that time such Oaths were not imposed doth appear from hence that when P. Paschal II. did require them from some great Bishops the Bishop of Palermo and the Archbishop of Poland they did wonder and boggle at it as an uncouth Novelty nor doth the Pope in favour of his demand alledge any ancient precedent but onely proposeth some odd reasons for it You have signified unto me most dear Brother that the King and his Nobles did exceedingly wonder that an Oath with such a condition should be every-where offered you by my Commissioners and that you should take that Oath which I had written and they tendered to you § VI. All Romanists in consistence with their Principles do seem obliged to hold this opinion concerning the Pope's Universal Power For seeing many of their standing Masters and Judges of Controversies have so expresly from their Chair declared and defined it all the Row for many Ages consenting to it and countenancing it not one of them having signified any dissent or dislike of it And considering that if in any thing they may require or deserve belief it is in this point for in what are they more skilfull and credible than about the nature of their own Office What saith Bellarmine wisely may they be conceived to know better than the Authority of their own See Seeing it hath been approved by their most great and famous Councils which they hold Universal and which their adored Synod of Trent doth alledge for such the Laterane under P. Innocent III. that of Lions under P. Innocent IV. the other Laterane under P. Leo X. Seeing it hath been current among their Divines of greatest vogue and authority the great Masters of their School Seeing by so large a consent and concurrence during so long a time it may pretend much better than divers other Points of great importance to be confirmed by Tradition or Prescription Why should it not be admitted for a Doctrine of the Holy Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches How can they who disavow this Notion be true Sons of that Mother or faithfull Scholars of that Mistress How can they acknowledge any Authority in their Church to be infallible or certain or obliging to assent How can they admit the Pope for authentick Judge of Controversies or Master of Christian Doctrine or in any Point credible who hath in so great a matter erred so foully and seduced the Christian world whom they desert in a Point of so great consideration and influence on practice whom they by virtue of their dissent from him in this Opinion may often be obliged to oppose in his proceedings How can they deny that bad Doctrines might creep in and obtain sway in the Church by the interest of the Pope and his Clients How can they charge Novelty or Heterodoxy on those who refuse some Dictates of Popes of Papal Councils of Scholastick Divines which stand upon no better grounds than those on which this Doctrine standeth Why hath no Synod of the many which have been held in all parts of Christendom clearly disclaimed this Opinion but all have let it slip or have seemed by silence to approve it Yea how can the Concord and Unity of that Church well consist with a Dissent from this Doctrine For No man apprehending it false seemeth capable with good conscience to hold Communion with those who profess it for upon supposition of its falshood the Pope and his chief adherents are the teachers and abettours of the highest violation of Divine Commands and most enormous sins of Usurpation Tyranny Imposture Perjury Rebellion Murther Rapine and all the villanies complicated in the practical influence of this Doctrine It seemeth clear as the Sun that if this Doctrine be an Errour it is one of the most pernicious Heresies that ever was vented involving the highest Impiety and producing the greatest Mischief For If he that should teach Adultery Incest Simony Theft Murther or the like Crimes to be lawfull would be a Heretick how much more would he be such that should recommend Perjury Rebellion Regicide things inducing Wars Confusions Slaughters Desolations all sorts of Injustice and Mischief as Duties How then can any man safely hold Communion with such persons May we not say with P. Symmachus that to communicate with such is to consent with them with P. Gelasius that it is worse than ignorance of the truth to communicate with the enemies of truth and that He who communicateth with such an Heresie is worthily judged to be removed from our society § VII Yet so loose and slippery are the Principles of the Party which is jumbled in adherence to the Pope that divers will not allow us to take this Tenent of Infinite Power to be a Doctrine of their Church for divers in that Communion do not assent to it For there is a sort of Hereticks as Bellarmine and Baronius call them sculking every-where in the bosome of their Church all about Christendom and in some places stalking with open face who restrain the Pope's Authority so far as not to allow him any Power over Sovereign Princes in Temporal affairs much less any power of depriving them of their Kingdoms and Principalities They all are branded for Hereticks who take from the Church of Rome and the See of Saint Peter one of the two Swords and allow onely the Spiritual This Heresie Baronius hath nominated the Heresie of the Politicks This Heresie a great Nation otherwise sticking to the Roman Communion doth stiffly maintain not enduring the
to him so many Dependents what might not he say or doe Pope Gregory VII being a man of untameable Spirit and taking advantage from the distractions and corruptions of his Times did venture to pull a feather with the Emperour and with success having mated him did set up a peremptory claim to Sovereignty over all Persons in all Causes In his footsteps his Successours have trodden being ever ready upon occasion to plead such a title and to practise according to it No Pope would foregoe any Power which had been claimed by his Predecessours And Popes would ever be sure to have dancers after their pipe numberless abetters of their pretences No wonder then that persons deferring much regard to the Authority of Popes and accommodating their conceits to the Dictates of them or of persons depending on them should in their opinions vary about the nature and extent of Papal Authority it having never been fixed within certain bounds or having in several Ages continued the same thing § XI Wherefore intending by God's help to discuss the pretended Authority of the Pope and to shew that He by no Divine institution and by no immutable right hath any such Power as he doth claim by reason of this perplexed variety of Opinions I do find it difficult to state the Question or to know at what distinct mark I should level my Discourse § XII But seeing his pretence to any Authority in Temporals or to the Civil Sword is so palpably vain that it hardly will bear a serious dispute having nothing but impudence and sophistry to countenance it seeing so many in the Roman Communion do reject it and have substantially confuted it seeing now most are ashamed of it and very few even among those Sects which have been its chief Patrons will own it seeing Bellarmine himself doth acknowledge it a Novelty devised about 500 years ago in St. Bernard's time seeing the Popes themselves what-ever they think dare now scarce speak out and forbear upon sufficient provocation to practise according to it I shall spare the trouble of meddling with it confining my Discourse to the Pope's Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs the pretence whereto I am persuaded to be no less groundless and no less noxious than the other to Christendom the which being overthrown the other as superstructed on it must also necessarily fall § XIII And here the Doctrine which I shall contest against is that in which the Cordial partizans of that See do seem to consent which is most common and current most applauded and countenanced in their Theological Schools which the Popes themselves have solemnly defined and declared for standing law or rule of jurisdiction which their most authentick Synods whereby their Religion is declared and distinguished from others have asserted or supposed which the tenour of their Discipline and Practice doth hold forth which their Clergy by most solemn professions and engagements is tied to avow which all the Clients and Confidents of Rome do zealously stand for more than for any other point of Doctrine and which no man can disclaim without being deemed an enemy or a prevaricator toward the Apostolick See § XIV Which Doctrine is this That in the words of the Florentine Synod's Definition the Apostolical Chair and the Roman High-Priest doth hold a Primacy over the Vniversal Church and that the Roman High-Priest is the Successour of Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the true Lieutenant of Christ and the Head of the Church and that he is the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that unto him in Saint Peter full Power is committed to feed and direct and govern the Catholick Church under Christ according as is contained in the Acts of General Councils and in the Holy Canons That in the words of Pope Leo X. approved by the Laterane Synod Christ before his departure from the world did in solidity of the Rock institute Peter and his Successours to be his Lieutenants to whom it is so necessary to obey that who doth not obey must die the death That to the Pope as Sovereign Monarch by Divine Sanction of the whole Church do appertain Royal Prerogatives Regalia Petri the Royalties of Peter they are called in the Oath prescribed to Bishops Such as these which follow To be Superiour to the whole Church and to its Representative a General Synod of Bishops To convocate General Synods at his pleasure all Bishops being obliged to attend upon summons from him To preside in Synods so as to suggest matter promote obstruct over-rule the debates in them To confirm or invalidate their Determinations giving life to them by his assent or subtracting it by his dissent To define Points of Doctrine or to decide Controversies authoritatively so that none may presume to contest or dissent from his Dictates To enact establish abrogate suspend dispense with Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons To relax or evacuate Ecclesiastical Censures by indulgence pardon c. To void Promises Vows Oaths Obligations to Laws by his Dispensation To be the Fountain of all Pastoral Jurisdiction and Dignity To constitute confirm judge censure suspend depose remove restore reconcile Bishops To confer Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices by paramount Authority in way of Provision Reservation c. To exempt Colleges Monasteries c. from Jurisdiction of their Bishops and ordinary Superiours To judge all persons in all Spiritual Causes by calling them to his cognizance or delegating Judges for them with a final and peremptory Sentence To receive Appeals from all Ecclesiastical Judicatories and to reverse their Judgments if he findeth cause To be himself unaccountable for any of his doings exempt from judgment and liable to no reproof To erect transfer abolish Episcopal Sees To exact Oaths of Fealty and Obedience from the Clergy To found Religious Orders or to raise a Spiritual Militia for propagation and defence of the Church To summon and commissionate Souldiers by Croisade c. to fight against Infidels or persecute Infidels Some of these are expressed others in general terms couched in those words of P. Eugenius telling the Greeks what they must consent unto The Pope said he will have the Prerogatives of his Church and he will have Appeals to him and to feed all the Church of Christ as Shepherd of the Sheep Beside these things that he may have authority and power to convoke General Synods when need shall be and that all the Patriarchs do yield to his will That the Pope doth claim assume and exercise a Sovereignty over the Church endowed with such Prerogatives is sufficiently visible in experience of fact is apparent by the authorized dictates in their Canon-law and shall be distinctly proved by competent allegations when we shall examine the branches of this pretended Authority In the mean time it sufficeth to observe that in effect all Clergy-men do avow so much who bonâ fide and without prevarication do submit to take the Oaths and Engagements prescribed to them
time was in all anciently priority in ordination did ground a right to precedence as it is in ours with some exception so might Saint Peter upon this account of being first ordained Apostle obtain such a Primacy 2. Saint Peter also might be the first in age which among Persons otherwise equal is a fair ground of preference for he was a married man and that before he was called as is intimated in Saint Luke and may be inferred from hence that he would not have married after that he had left all and devoted himself to follow our Lord. Upon which account of age St. Hierome did suppose that he was preferred before the beloved Disciple why saith he was not Saint John elected being a Batchelour it was deferred to age because Peter was elder that a youth and almost a boy might not be preferred before men of good age I know that Epiphanius affirmeth St. Andrew to have been the elder Brother but it doth not appear whether he saith it from conjecture or upon any other ground And his Authority although we should suppose it bottomed on tradition is not great tradition it self in such matters being very slippery and often one tradition crossing another 3. The most eminent qualifications of Saint Peter such as we before described might procure to him this advantage They might breed in him an honest confidence pushing him forward on all occasions to assume the former place and thence by custom to possess it for qui sibi fidit Dux regit examen it being in all action as in walking where he that naturally is most vigorous and active doth goe before the rest They might induce others to a voluntary concession thereof for to those who indisputably do excell in good qualities or abilities honest and meek persons easily will yield precedence especially on occasions of publick concernment wherein it is expedient that the best qualified persons should be first seen They probably might also move our Lord himself to settle or at least to insinuate this order assigning the first place to him whom he knew most willing to serve him and most able to lead on the rest in his service It is indeed observable that upon all occasions our Lord signified a particular respect to him before the rest of his Collegues for to him more frequently than to any of them he directed his discourse unto him by a kind of anticipation he granted or promised those gifts and privileges which he meant to confer on them all Him he did assume as Spectatour and Witness of his glorious Transfiguration Him he picked out as Companion and Attendant on him in his grievous Agony His Feet he first washed to him he did first discover himself after his Resurrection as Saint Paul implieth and with him then he did entertain most discourse in especial manner recommending to him the pastoral care of his Church by which manner of proceeding our Lord may seem to have constituted Saint Peter the first in order among the Apostles or sufficiently to have hinted his mind for their direction admonishing them by his example to render unto him a special deference 4. The Fathers commonly do attribute his priority to the merit of his Faith and Confession wherein he did outstrip his Brethren He obtained supereminent glory by the confession of his blessed faith saith St. Hilary Because he alone of all the rest professeth his love John 21. therefore he is preferred above all saith St. Ambrose 5. Constantly in all the Catalogues of the Apostles Saint Peter's name is set in the front and when actions are reported in which he was concerned jointly with others he is usually mentioned first which seemeth not done without carefull design or special reason Upon such grounds it may be reasonable to allow Saint Peter a primacy of order such an one as the Ring-leader hath in a Dance as the primipilar Centurion had in the Legion or the Prince of the Senate had there in the Roman State at least as among Earls Baronets c. and others co-ordinate in degree yet one hath a precedence of the rest IV. As to a Primacy importing Superiority in power command or jurisdiction this by the Roman Party is asserted to Saint Peter but we have great reason to deny it upon the following considerations 1. For such a Power being of so great importance it was needfull that a Commission from God its Founder should be granted in down-right and perspicuous terms that no man concerned in duty grounded thereon might have any doubt of it or excuse for boggling at it it was necessary not onely for the Apostles to bind and warrant their Obedience but also for us because it is made the sole foundation of a like duty incumbent on us which we cannot heartily discharge without being assured of our obligation thereto by clear revelation or promulgation of God's will in the Holy Scripture for it was of old a current and ever will be a true Rule which St. Austin in one case thus expresseth I do believe that also on this side there would be most clear authority of the Divine Oracles if a man could not be ignorant of it without damage of his salvation and Lactantius thus Those things can have no foundation or firmness which are not sustained by any Oracle of God's word But apparently no such Commission is extant in Scripture the allegations for it being as we shall hereafter shew no-wise clear nor probably expressive of any such Authority granted by God but on the contrary divers clearer testimonies are producible derogating from it 2. If so illustrious an Office was instituted by our Saviour it is strange that no-where in the Evangelical or Apostolical History wherein divers acts and passages of smaller moment are recorded there should be any express mention of that Institution there being not onely much reason for such a report but many pat occasions for it The time when Saint Peter was vested with that Authority the manner and circumstances of his Installment therein the nature rules and limits of such an Office had surely well deserved to have been noted among other occurrences relating to our Faith and Discipline by the Holy Evangelists no one of them in all probability could have forborn punctually to relate a matter of so great consequence as the settlement of a Monarch in God's Church and a Sovereign of the Apostolical College from whom so eminent Authority was to be derived to all posterity for compliance wherewith the whole Church for ever must be accountable particularly it is not credible that Saint Luke should quite slip over so notable a passage who had as he telleth us attained a perfect understanding of all things and had undertaken to write in order the things that were surely believed among Christians in his time of which things this if any was one of the most considerable The time of his receiving Institution to such
the Pope with him in his actings He thereby might pretend to the first place of sitting and subscribing which kind of advantages it appeareth that some Bishops had in Synods by the virtue of the like substitution in the place of others but he thence could have no authoritative Presidency for that the Pope himself could by no delegation impart having himself no title thereto warranted by any Law or by any Precedent that depended on the Emperour's will or on the Election of the Fathers or on a tacit regard to personal eminence in comparison to others present This distinction Evagrius seemeth to intimate when he saith that the divine Cyril did administer it and the place of Celestine where a word seemeth to have fallen out and Zonaras more plainly doth express saying that Cyril Pope of Alexandria did preside over the Orthodox Fathers and also did hold the place of Celestine and Photius Cyril did supply the seat and the person of Celestine If any latter Historions do confound these things we are not obliged to comply with their ignorance or mistake Indeed as to Presidency there we may observe that sometime it is attributed to Cyril alone as being the first Bishop present and bearing a great sway sometimes to Pope Celestine as being in representation present and being the first Bishop of the Church in Order sometimes to both Cyril and Celestine sometimes to Cyril and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus who as being very active and having great influence on the proceedings are styled the Presidents and Rulers of the Synod The which sheweth that Presidency was a lax thing and no peculiarity in right or usage annexed to the Pope nor did altogether depend on his grant or representation to which Memnon had no title The Pope himself and his Legats are divers times in the Acts said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit together with the Bishops which confidence doth not well comport with his special right to Presidency Yea it is observable that the Oriental Bishops which with John of Antioch did oppose the Cyrillian Party in that Synod did charge on Cyril that he as if he lived in a time of Anarchy did proceed to all irregularity and that snatching to himself the Authority which neither was given him by the Canons nor by the Emperours Sanctions did rush on to all kind of disorder and unlawfulness whence it is evident that in the judgment of those Bishops among whom were divers worthy and excellent persons the Pope had no right to any authoritative Presidency This word Presidency indeed hath an ambiguity apt to impose on those who do not observe it for it may be taken for a privilege of Precedence or for Authority to govern things the first kind of presidence the Pope without dispute when present at a Synod would have had among the Bishops as being the Bishop of the first See as the Sixth Synod calleth him and the first of Priests as Justinian called him and in his absence his Legates might take up his Chair for in General Synods each See had its Chair assigned to it according to its order of dignity by custom And according to this sense the Patriarchs and chief Metropolitans are also often singly or conjunctly said to preside as sitting in one of the first Chairs But the other kind of Presidency was as those Bishops in their complaint against Cyril do imply and as we shall See in practice disposed by the Emperour as he saw reason although usually it was conferred on him who among those present in dignity did precede the rest this is that authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Syrian Bishops complained against Cyril for assuming to himself without the Emperour's warrant and whereof we have a notable Instance in the next General Synod at Ephesus For In the Second Ephesine Synod which in design was a General Synod lawfully convened for a publick cause of determining truth and settling peace in the Church but which by some miscarriages proved abortive although the Pope had his Legates there yet by the Emperour's order Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria did preside We said Theodosius in his Epistle to him do also commit to thy godliness the authority and the preeminency of all things appertaining to the Synod now assembled and in the Synod of Chalcedon it is said of him that he had received the authority of all affairs and of judgment and Pope Leo I. in this Epistle to the Emperour saith that Dioscorus did challenge to himself the principal place insinuating a complaint that Dioscorus should be preferred before him although not openly contesting his right The Emperour had indeed some reason not to commit the Presidency to Pope Leo because he was looked upon as prejudiced in the cause having declared in favour of Flavianus against Eutyches whence Eutyches declined his Legate's interessing in the judgment of his cause saying they were suspected to him because they were entertained by Flavianus with great regard And Dioscorus being Bishop of the next See was taken for more indifferent and otherwise a person however afterward it proved of much integrity and moderation He did saith the Emperour shine by the grace of God both in honesty of life and orthodoxy of faith and Theodoret himself before those differences arose doth say of him that he was by common fame reported a man adorned with many other kinds of vertue and that especially he was celebrated for his moderation of mind It is true that the Legates of Pope Leo did take in dudgeon this preferment of Dioscorus and if we may give credence to Liberatus would not sit down in the Synod because the presession was not given to their Holy See and afterwards in the Synod of Chalcedon the Pope's Legate Paschasinus together with other Bishops did complain that Dioscorus was preferred before the Bishop of Constantinople but notwithstanding those ineffectual mutinies the Emperour's will did take place and according thereto Dioscorus had although he did not use it so wisely and justly as he should the chief managery of things It is to be observed that to other chief Bishops the Presidency in that Synod is also ascribed by virtue of the Emperour's appointment Let the most reverend Bishops say the Imperial Commissaries in the Synod of Chalcedon to whom the authoritative management of affairs was by the Royal Sovereignty granted speak why the Epistle of the most Holy Archbishop Leo was not read and You say they again to whom the power of judging was given and of Dioscorus Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem Thalassius of Caesarea Eusebius of Ancyra Eustathius of Beristus Basilius of Selencia it is by the same Commissioners said that they had recieved the authority and did govern the Synod which was then and Elpidius the Emperour's Agent in the Ephesine Synod it self did expresly style them Presidents and Pope Leo himself calleth them Presidents and Primates of the Synod Whence it
of the Emperour he could dispose of their persons so as not to suffer them to continue in a place or to put them from it as they demeaned themselves to his satisfaction or otherwise in reference to publick utility It is reasonable if they were disloyal or disobedient to him that he should not suffer them to be in places of such influence whereby they might pervert the people to disaffection It is fit that he should deprive them of temporalties The example of Solomon deposing Abiathar Constantine M. commanded Eusebius and Theogonius to depart out of the Cities over which they presided as Bishops Constantius deposed Paulus of Constantinople Constantius ejected all that would not subscribe to the Creed of Ariminum The Emperour Leo deposed Timotheus Aelurus for which Pope Leo did highly commend and thank him The Emperours discarded divers Popes Constantius banished Pope Liberius and caused another to be put in his room Otho put out John the Twelfth Justinian deposed Pope Silverius and banished Pope Vigilius Justinian banished Anastasius Bishop of Antioch extruded Anthimus of Constantinople and Theodosius of Alexandria Neither indeed was any great Patriarch effectually deposed without their power or leave Flavianus was supported by Theodosius against the Pope Dioscorus subsisted by the power of Theodosius Junior The Deposition of Dioscorus in the Synod of Chalcedon was voted with a reserve of If it shall please our most sacred and pious Lord. In effect the Emperours deposed all Bishops which were ordained beside their general Laws as Justinian having prescribed conditions and qualifications concerning the Ordinations of Bishops subjoineth But if any Bishop be ordained without using our forementioned Constitution we command you that by all means he be removed from his Bishoprick 14. The Instances alledged to prove the Pope's Authority in this case are inconcludent and invalid They alledge the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles concerning whom for abetting Novatianism St. Cyprian doth exhort Pope Stephanus that he would direct Letters to the Bishops of Gaul and the people of Arles that he being for his schismatical behaviour removed from communion another should be substituted in his room The Epistle grounding this Argument is questioned by a great Critick but I willingly admit it to be genuine seeing it hath the style and spirit of St. Cyprian and suteth his Age and I see no cause why it should be forged wherefore omitting that defence I answer that the whole matter being seriously weighed doth make rather against the Pope's cause than for it for if the Pope had the sole or Sovereign authority of rejecting Bishops why did the Gaulish Bishops refer the matter to St. Cyprian why had Marcianus himself a recourse to him St. Cyprian doth not ascribe to the Pope any peculiar authority of Judgment or Censure but a common one which himself could exercise which all Bishops might exercise It is saith he our part to provide and succour in such a case for therefore is the body of Priests so numerous that by joint endeavour they may suppress heresies and schisms The case being such St. Cyprian earnestly doth move Pope Stephanus to concur in exercise of Discipline on that Schismatick and to prosecute effectually the business by his Letters persuading his fellow-Bishops in France that they would not suffer Marcianus to insult over the College of Bishops for to them it seemeth the transaction did immediately belong To doe thus St. Cyprian implieth and prescribeth to be the Pope's special duty not onely out of regard to the common Interest but for his particular concernment in the case that schism having been first advanced against his Predecessours St. Cyprian also if we mark it covertly doth tax the Pope of negligence in not having soon enough joined with himself and the community of Bishops in censuring that Delinquent We may add that the Church of Arles and Gaul being near Italy the Pope may be allowed to have some greater sway there than otherwhere in more distant places so that St. Cyprian thought his Letters to quicken Discipline there might be proper and particularly effectual These things being duly considered what advantage can they draw from this Instance doth it not rather prejudice their cause and afford a considerable objection against it We may observe that the strength of their argumentation mainly consisteth in the words quibus abstento the which as the drift of the whole Epistle and parallel expressions therein do shew do signifie no more than quibus efficiatur ut abstento which may procure him to be excomunicated not quae contineant abstentionem which contain excommunication as P. de Marca glosseth although admitting that sense it would not import much seeing onely thereby the Pope would have signified his consent with other Bishops wherefore de Marca hath no great cause to blame us that we do not deprehend any magnificent thing in this place for the dignity of the Papal See indeed he hath I must confess better eyes than I who can see any such mighty things there for that purpose As for the substitution of another in the room of Marcianus that was a consequent of the excommunication and was to be the work of the Clergy and people of the place for when by common judgment of Catholick Bishops any Bishop was rejected the people did apply themselves to chuse another I adjoin the Resolution of a very learned writer of their communion in these words In this case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles if the right of excommunication did belong solely to the Bishop of Rome wherefore did Faustinus Bishop of Lyons advertise Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who was so far distant concerning those very things touching Marcianus which both Faustinus himself and other Bishops of the same Province had before sent word of to Stephen Bishop of Rome who lived nearest being moreover of all Bishops the chief It must either be said that this was done because of Stephen's negligence or what is more probable according to the discipline then used in the Church that all Bishops of neighbouring places but especially those presiding over the most eminent Cities should join their Counsels for the welfare of the Church and that Christian Religion might not receive the least damage in any of its affairs whatsoever Hence it was that in the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles the Bishop of Lyons writ Letters to the Bishop of Rome and Carthage and again that the Bishop of Carthage as being most remote did write to the Bishop of Rome as being his brother and Collegue who by reason of his propinquity might more easily know and judge of the whole matter The other Instances are of a later date after the Synod of Nice and therefore of not so great weight yea their having none more ancient to produce doth strongly make against the antiquity of this right it being strange that no memory should be of any deposed
thereby for above three hundred years but however such as they are they do not reach home to the purpose They alledge Flavianus Bishop of Antioch deposed by Pope Damasus as they affirm But it is wonderfull they should have the face to mention that Instance the story in short being this The great Flavianus a most worthy and Orthodox Prelate whom St. Chrysostome in his Statuary Orations doth so highly commend and celebrate being substituted in the place of Meletius by the Quire of Bishops a party did adhere to Paulinus and after his decease they set up Evagrius ordaining him as Theodoret who was best acquainted with passages on that side of Christendom reporteth against many Canons of the Church Yet with this party the Roman Bishops not willing to know any of these things three of them in order Damasus Siricius Anastasius did conspire instigating the Emperour against Flavianus and reproaching him as supporter of a Tyrant against the Laws of Christ. But the Emperour having called Flavianus to him and received much satisfaction in his demeanour and discourse did demand and settle him in his place The Emperour saith Theodoret wondring at his courage and his wisedom did command him to return home and to feed the Church committed to him at which proceeding when the Romans afterward did grumble the Emperour gave them such reasons and advices that they complyed and did entertain communion with Flavianus It is true that upon their suggestions and clamours the Emperour was moved at first to order that Flavianus should go to Rome and give the Western Bishops satisfaction but after that he understood the quality of his plea he freed him of that trouble and without their allowance settled him in his See Here is nothing of the Pope's deposing Flavianus but of his embracing in a Schism the side of a Competitour it being in such a case needfull that the Pope or any other Bishop should chuse with whom he must communicate and consequently must disclaim the other in which choice the Pope had no good success not deposing Flavianus but vainly opposing him wherefore this allegation is strangely impertinent and well may be turned against them Indeed in this Instance we may see how fallible that See was in their judgment of things how rash in taking parties and somenting discords how pertinacious in a bad cause how peevish against the common sense of their brethren especially considering that before this opposition of Flavianus the Fathers of Constantinople had in their Letter to Pope Damasus and the Occidental Bishops approved and commended him to them highly asserting the legitimateness of his Ordination In fine how little their authority did avail with wise and considerate persons such as Theodosius M. was De Marca representeth the matter somewhat otherwise out of Socrates but take the matter as Socrates hath it and it signifieth no more than that both Theophilus and Damasus would not entertain communion with Flavianus as being uncapable of the Episcopal Order for having violated his Oath and caused a division in the Church of Antioch what is this to judicial Deposition and how did Damasus more depose him than Theophilus who upon the same dissatisfaction did in like manner forbear communion whenas indeed a wiser and better man than either of them St. Chrysostome did hold communion with him and did at length saith Socrates not agreeing with Theodoret reconcile him to them both They alledge the Deposition of Nestorius But who knoweth not that he was for heretical Doctrine deposed in and by a General Synod Pope Celestine did indeed threaten to withdraw his communion if he did not renounce his errour But had not any other Bishop sufficient authority to desert a perverter of the Faith Did not his own Clergy doe the same being commended by Pope Celestine for it Did not Cyril in writing to Pope Celestine himself affirm that he might before have declared that he could not communicate with him Did Nestorius admit the Pope's judgment no as the Papal Legates did complain He did not admit the constitution of the Apostolical Chair Did the Pope's Sentence obtain effect No not any for notwithstanding his threats Nestorius did hold his place till the Synod the Emperour did severely rebuke Cyril for his fierceness and implicitly the Pope and did order that no change should be made till the Synod should determine in the case not regarding the Pope's judgment So that this instance may well be retorted or used to prove the insignificancy of Papal authority then They alledge also Dioscorus of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo but the case is very like to that of Nestorius and argueth the contrary to what they intend He was for his misdemeanours and violent countenancing of heresie solemnly in a General Synod accused tried condemned and deposed the which had long before been done if in the Pope his professed and provoked Adversary there had been sufficient power to effect it Bellarmine also alledgeth Pope Sixtus III. deposing Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem But no such Polychronius is to be found in the Registers of Bishops then or in the Histories of that busie time between the two great Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the Acts of Sixtus upon which this allegation is grounded have so many inconsistences and smell so rank of forgery that no conscionable nose could endure them and any prudent man as Binius himself confesseth would assert them to be spurious Wherefore Baronius himself doth reject and despise them who gladly would lose no advantage for his Master Yet Pope Nicholas I. doth precede Bellarmine in citing this trash no wonder that being the Pope who did avouch the wares of Isidore Mercator They alledge Timotheus the Usurper of Alexandria deposed by Pope Damasus and they have indeed the sound of words attesting to them These are Heads upon which the B. Damasus deposed the Hereticks Apolinarius Vitalius and Timotheus The truth is that Apolinarius with divers of his Disciples in a great Synod at Rome at which Petrus Bishop of Alexandria together with Damasus was present was condemned and disavowed for heretical Doctrine whence Sozomen saith that the Apolinarian Heresie was by Damasus and Peter at a Synod in Rome voted to be excluded from the Catholick Church On which account if we conclude that the Pope had an authority to depose Bishops we may by like reason infer that every Patriarch and Metropolitan had a power to doe the like there being so many Instances of their having condemned and disclaimed Bishops supposedly guilty of heresie as particularly John of Antioch with his convention of Oriental Bishops did pretend to depose Cyril and Memnon as guilty of the same Apolinarian heresie alledging that to exscind them was the same thing as to settle Orthodoxy The which Deposition was at first admitted by the Emperour The next Instance is of Pope Agapetus in Justinian's time for so deep into time is
or inferiour to a Senate or any Assembly in his Territory Therefore the Pope doth claim a Superiority over all Councils pretending that their determinations are invalid without his consent and confirmation that he can rescind or make void their Decrees that he can suspend their Consultations and translate or dissolve them And Baronius reckons this as one errour in Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes that he held as if the canons of councils were of greater authority in the Church of God than the decrees of Popes which says he how absurd and unreasonable an opinion it is c. That the authority of the Apostolick See in all Christian Ages has been preferred before the universal Church both the canons of our predecessours and manifold tradition do confirm This is a question stiffly debated among Romanists but the most as Aeneas Sylvius afterward Pope Pius II. did acutely observe with good reason to adhere to the Pope's side because the Pope disposeth of Benefices but Councils give none But in truth anciently the Pope was not understood Superiour to Councils for greater is the authority of the world than of one city says St. Hierome He was but one Bishop that had nothing to doe out of his precinct He had but his Vote in them He had the first Vote as the Patriarch of Alexandria the second of Antioch the third but that order neither gave to him or them any advantage as to decision but common consent or the suffrages of the majority did prevail He was conceived subject to the Canons no less than other Bishops Councils did examine matters decreed by him so as to follow or forsake them as they saw cause The Popes themselves did profess great veneration and observance of Conciliar Decrees Pope Leo I. did oppose a Canon of the Synod of Chalcedon not pretending his Superiority to Councils but the inviolability of the Nicene Canons but it notwithstanding that opposition did prevail Even in the dregs of times when the Pope had clambred so high to the top of power this Question in great numerous Synods of Bishops was agitated and positively decided against him both in Doctrine and practice The Synod of Basil affirmeth the matter of these Decrees to be a verity of the Christian faith which whoever doth pertinaciously resist is to be deemed a heretick Those Fathers say that none of the skilfull did ever doubt of this truth that the Pope in things belonging to faith was subject to the judgment of the same General Councils that the Council has an authority immediately from Christ which the Pope is bound to obey Those Synods were confirmed by Popes without exception of those determinations Great Churches most famous Vniversities a mighty store of learned Doctours of the Roman Communion have reverenced those Councils and adhered to their Doctrine Insomuch that the Cardinal of Lorrain did affirm him to be an Heretick in France who did hold the contrary These things sufficiently demonstrate that the Pope cannot pretend to Supremacy by universal Tradition and if he cannot prove it by that how can he prove it not surely by Scripture nor by Decrees of ancient Synods nor by any clear and convincing reason XV. The Sovereign of the Church is by all Christians to be acknowledged the chief Person in the world inferiour and subject to none above all commands the greatest Emperour being his Sheep and Subject He therefore now doth pretend to be above all Princes Divers Popes have affirmed this Superiority They are allowed and most favoured by him who teach this Doctrine In their Missal he is preferred above all Kings being prayed for before them But in the primitive times this was not held for St. Paul requires every soul to be subject to the higher powers Then the Emperour was avowed the first person next to God To whom says Tertullian they are second after whom they are first before all and above all Gods Why c. we worship the Emperour as a man next to God and less onely than God And Optatus since there is none above the Emperour but God who made him while Donatus extolleth himself above the Emperour he raises himself as it were above humanity and thinks himself to be God and not Man For the King is the top and head of all things on earth Then even Apostles Evangelists Prophets all men whoever were subject to the Emperour The Emperours did command them even the blessed Bishops and Patriarchs of old Rome Constantinople Alexandria Theopolis and Jerusalem Divers Popes did avow themselves subject to the Emperour XVI The Confirmation of Magistrates elected by others is a Branch of Supremacy which the Pope doth assume Baronius saith that this was the ancient custome and that Pope Simplicius did confirm the Election of Calendion Bishop of Antioch Meletius confirm'd the most holy Gregory in the Bishoprick of Constantinople But the truth is that anciently Bishops being elected did onely give an account of their choice unto all other Bishops especially to those of highest rank desiring their approbation and friendship for preservation of due communion correspondence and peace So the Synod of Antioch gave account to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria and all their Fellow-ministers throughout the world c. of the election of Domnus after Paulus Samosatenus So the Fathers of Constantinople acquainted Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops with the Constitution of Nectarius Flavianus c. This was not to request Confirmation as if the Pope or other Bishops could reject the Election if regular but rather to assure whom they were to communicate with We have say the Fathers of the Synod against Paulus Samosatenus signified this our chusing of Domnus into Paulus his room that you may write to him and receive letters of communion from him And St. Cyprian That you and our Collegues may know to whom they may write and from whom they may receive letters Thus the Bishops of Rome themselves did acquaint other Bishops with their Election their Faith c. So did Cornelius whom therefore St. Cyprian asserteth as established by the consent and approbation of his Collegues When the place of Peter and the Sacerdotal Chair was void which by God's will being occupied and with all our consents confirmed c. and the testimony of our Fellow-bishops the whole number of which all over the world unanimously consented The Emperour did confirm Bishops as we see by that notable passage in the Synod of Chalcedon where Bassianus Bishop of Ephesus pleading for himself saith Our most religious Emperour knowing these things presently ratified it and by a memorial published it confirming the Bishoprick afterwards he sent his rescript by Eustathius the Silentiary again confirming it XVII It is a Privilege of Sovereigns to grant Privileges Exemptions Dispensations This he claimeth but against the Laws of God and Rights of Bishops Against the Decrees of Synods against the