immediately subjected to his Patriarchal Jurisdiction Pope Nicholas I. doth very jocularly expound this Canon affirming that by the Primate of the Diocese is understood the Pope Diocese being put by a notable figure for Dioceses and that an appeal is to be made to the Bishop of Constantinople onely by permission in case the Party will be content therewith We may note that some Provincial Churches were by ancient custome exempted from dependence on any Primacy or Patriarchate Such an one the Cyprian Church was adjudged to be in the Ephesine Synod wherein the privileges of such Churches were confirmed against the invasion of greater Churches and to that purpose this general Law enacted Let the same be observ'd in all Dioceses and Provinces every where that none of the Bishops most beloved of God invade another Province which did not formerly belong to him or his Predecessours and if any one have invaded one and violently seiz'd it that he restore it Such a Church was that of Britain anciently before Austin did introduce the Papal Authority here against that Canon as by divers learned Pens hath been shewed Such was the Church of Africk as by their Canons against transmarine appeals and about all other matters doth appear It is supposed by some that Discipline was scrued yet one peg higher by setting up the Order of Patriarchs higher than Primates or Diocesan Exarchs but I find no ground of this supposal except in one case that is of the Bishop of Constantinople being set above the Bishops of Ephesus Caesarea and Heraclea which were the Primates of the three Dioceses It is a notable fib which Pope Nicholas II. telleth as Gratian citeth him That the Church of Rome instituted all Patriarchal Supremacies all Metropolitan Primacies Episcopal Sees all Ecclesiastical Orders and Dignities whatsoever Now things standing thus in Christendom we may concerning the interest of the Roman Bishop in reference to them observe 1. In all these transactions about modelling the spiritual Discipline there was no Canon established any peculiar Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome onely the 2. Synod of Nice did suppose that he by custome did enjoy some Authority within certain precincts of the West like to that which it did confirm to the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt and the Countries adjacent thereto 3. The Synods of Constantinople did allow him honourary privileges or precedence before all other Bishops assigning the next place after him to the Bishop of Constantinople 4. In other privileges the Synod of Chalcedon did equall the See of Constantinople to the Roman 5. The Canons of the two First and Fourth General Synods ordering all affairs to be dispatched and causes to be determined in Metropolitan or Diocesan Synods do exclude the Roman Bishop from meddling in those concerns 6. The Popes out of a humour natural to them to like nothing but what they did themselves and which served their Interests did not relish those Canons although enacted by Synods which themselves admitted for Oecumenical That subscription of some Bishops made above sixty years since as you boast does no whit favour your persuasion a subscription never transmitted to the knowledge of the Apostolick See by your Predecessours which from its very beginning being weak and long since ruinous you endeavour now too late and unprofitably to revive So doth Pope Leo I. treat the Second Great Synod writing to Anatolius and Gregory speaking of the same says That the Roman Church has not the acts of that Synod nor receiv'd its Canons 7. Wherefore in the West they did obtain no effect so as to establish Diocesan Primacies there The Bishops of Cities which were Heads of Dioceses either did not know of these Canons which is probable because Rome did smother the notice of them or were hindred from using them the Pope having so winded himself in and got such hold among them as he would not let go 8. It indeed turned to a great advantage of the Pope in carrying on his Encroachments and enlarging his worldly Interests that the Western Churches did not as the Eastern conform themselves to the Political frame in embracing Diocesan Primacies which would have engaged and enabled them better to protect the Liberties of their Churches from Papal Invasions 9. For hence for want of a better the Pope did claim to himself a Patriarchal authority over the Western Churches pretending a right of calling to Synods of meddling in Ordinations of determining Causes by appeal to him of dictating Laws and Rules to them against the old rights of Metropolitans and the later Constitutions for Primacies Of this we have an Instance in St. Gregory where he alledging an Imperial Constitution importing that in case a Clergy-man should appeal from his Metropolitan the cause should be referred to the Archbishop and Patriarch of that Diocese who judging according to the Canons and Laws should give an end thereto doth consequentially assume an appeal from a Bishop to himself adjoyning If against these things it be said that the Bishop had neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch it is to be said that this cause was to be heard and decided by the Apostolical See which is the head of all Churches 10. Having got such advantage and as to extent stretched his Authority beyond the bounds of his sub-urbicarian precincts he did also intend it in quality far beyond the privileges by any Ecclesiastical Law granted to Patriarchs or claimed or exercised by any other Patriarch till at length by degrees he had advanced it to an exorbitant omnipotency and thereby utterly enslaved the Western Churches The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch or Primate to call a Synod of the Bishops in his Diocese and with them to determine Ecclesiastical Affairs by majority of suffrages but he doth not doe so but setting himself down in his Chair with a few of his Courtiers about him doth make Decrees and Dictates to which he pretendeth all must submit The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch to ordain Metropolitans duly elected in their Dioceses leaving Bishops to be ordained by the Metropolitans in their Provincial Synods but he will meddle in the Ordination of every Bishop suffering none to be constituted without his confirmation for which he must soundly pay The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch with the advice and consent of his Synod to make Canons for the well ordering his Diocese but he sendeth about his Decretal Letters composed by an infallible Secretary which he pretendeth must have the force of Laws equal to the highest Decrees of the whole Church The ancient Order did suppose Bishops by their Ordination sufficiently obliged to render unto their Patriarch due observance according to the Canons he being liable to be judged in a Synod for the transgression of his duty but he forceth all Bishops to take the most slavish oaths of obedience to him that can be imagined The ancient Order did appoint that Bishops accused for
how ready the Emperours were to promote the dignity of that Bishop we see by many of their Edicts to that purpose as particularly that of Leo. So for the honour of their City the Emperours usually did favour the Pope assisting him in the furtherance of his designs and extending his Privileges by their Edicts at home and Letters to the Eastern Emperours recommending their affairs So in the Synod of Chalcedon we have the Letters of Valentinian together with those of Placidia and of Eudoxia the Empresses to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo for retractation of the Ephesine Synod wherein they do express themselves engaged to maintain the honour of the Roman See Seeing that saith Placidia Mother of Theodosius it becometh us in all things to preserve the honour and dignity of this chief City which is the Mistress of all others So Pope Nicholas confesseth that the Emperours had extolled the Roman See with divers privileges had enriched it with gifts had enlarged it with benefits or benefices c. 14. The Popes had the advantage of being ready at hand to suggest what they pleased to the Court and thereby to procure his Edicts directed or dictated by themselves in their favour for extending their power or repressing any opposition made to their encroachments Baronius observeth that the Bishops of Constantinople did use this advantage for their ends for thus he reflecteth on the Edict of the Emperour Leo in favour of that See These things Leo but questionless conceived in the words of Acacius swelling with pride And no less unquestionably did the Popes conceive words for the Emperour in countenance of their Authority Such was the Edict of Valentinian in favour of Leo against Hilarius Bishop of Arles in an unjust cause as Binius confesseth who contested his Authority to undo what was done in a Gallicane Synod And we may thank Baronius himself for this Observation By this Reader thou understandest that when the Emperours ordained Laws concerning Religion they did it by transcribing and enacting the Laws of the Church upon the admonition of the Holy Bishops requiring them to doe their duty It was a notable Edict which Pope Hilarius alledgeth It was also decreed by the Laws of Christian Princes that whatsoever the Bishop of the Apostolick See should upon examination pronounce concerning Churches and their Governours c. should with reverence be received and strictly observed c. Such Edicts by crafty suggestions being at opportune times from easie and unwary Princes procured did hold not being easily reversed and the Power which the Pope once had obtained by them he would never part with fortifying it by higher pretences of Divine immutable right The Emperour Gratian having gotten the World under him did order the Churches to those who would communicate with Pope Damasus This and the like countenances did bring credit and authority to the Roman See 15. It is therefore no wonder that Popes being seated in the Metropolis of the Western Empire the head of all the Roman State should find interest sufficient to make themselves by degrees what they would be for they not onely surpassing the Provincial Bishops in wealth and repute but having power in Court who dared to pull a feather with them or to withstand their encroachments What wise man would not rather bear much than contest upon such disadvantages and without probable grounds of success 16. Princes who favoured them with such concessions and abetted their undertakings did not foresee what such encrease of power in time would arise to or suspect the prejudice thence done to Imperial Authority They little thought that in virtue thereof Popes would check and mate Princes or would claim superiority over them for the Popes at that time did behave and express themselves with modesty and respect to Emperours 17. Power once rooted doth find seasons and favourable junctures for its growth the which it will be intent to embrace The confusions of things the eruptions of Barbarians the straits of Emperours the contentions of Princes c. did all turn to account for him and in confusion of things he did snatch what he could to himself The declination and infirmity of the Roman Empire gave him opportunity to strengthen his interests either by closing with it so as to gain somewhat by its concession or by opposing it so as to head a Faction against it As he often had opportunity to promote the designs of Emperours and Princes so those did return to him encrease of Authority so they trucked and bartered together For when Princes were in straits or did need assistence from his reputation at home to the furtherance of their designs or support of their interest in Italy they were content to honour him and grant what he desired as in the case of Acacius which had caused so long a breach the Emperour to engage Pope Hormisdas did consent to his will And at the Florentine Synod the Emperour did bow to the Pope's terms in hopes to get his assistence against the Turks When the Eastern Emperours by his means chiefly were driven out of Italy he snatched a good part of it to himself and set up for a Temporal Prince When Princes did clash he by yielding countenance to one side would be sure to make a good market for himself for this pretended Successour to the Fisherman was really skilled to angle in troubled Waters They have been the incendiaries of Christendom the kindlers and fomenters of War And would often stir up Wars and inclining to the stronger part would share with the Conquerour as when he stirr'd up Charles against the Lombards They would upon spiritual pretence be interposing in all affairs He did oblige Princes by abetting their Cause when it was unjust or weak his spiritual Authority satisfying their Conscience whence he was sure to receive good acknowledgment and recompence As when he did allow Pepin's usurpation He pretended to dispose of Kingdoms and to constitute Princes reserving obeisance to himself Gregory VII granted to Robert Guislard Naples and Sicily beneficiario jure Innocent II. gave to Roger the title of King There is scarce any Kingdom in Europe which he hath not claimed the Sovereignty of by some pretence or other Princes sometime for quiet sake have desired the Pope's consent and allowance of things appertaining of right to themselves whence the Pope took advantage to claim an original right of disposing such things The proceeding of the Pope upon occasion of Wars is remarkable when he did enter League with a Prince to side with him in a War against another he did covenant to prosecute the Enemy with Spiritual Arms that is with Excommunications and Interdicts engaging his Confederates to use Temporal Arms. So making Ecclesiastical Censures tools of Interest When Princes were in difficulties by the mutinous disposition of Princes the emulation of Antagonists he would as served his interest interpose hooking in some advantage
the Pope with him in his actings He thereby might pretend to the first place of sitting and subscribing which kind of advantages it appeareth that some Bishops had in Synods by the virtue of the like substitution in the place of others but he thence could have no authoritative Presidency for that the Pope himself could by no delegation impart having himself no title thereto warranted by any Law or by any Precedent that depended on the Emperour's will or on the Election of the Fathers or on a tacit regard to personal eminence in comparison to others present This distinction Evagrius seemeth to intimate when he saith that the divine Cyril did administer it and the place of Celestine where a word seemeth to have fallen out and Zonaras more plainly doth express saying that Cyril Pope of Alexandria did preside over the Orthodox Fathers and also did hold the place of Celestine and Photius Cyril did supply the seat and the person of Celestine If any latter Historions do confound these things we are not obliged to comply with their ignorance or mistake Indeed as to Presidency there we may observe that sometime it is attributed to Cyril alone as being the first Bishop present and bearing a great sway sometimes to Pope Celestine as being in representation present and being the first Bishop of the Church in Order sometimes to both Cyril and Celestine sometimes to Cyril and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus who as being very active and having great influence on the proceedings are styled the Presidents and Rulers of the Synod The which sheweth that Presidency was a lax thing and no peculiarity in right or usage annexed to the Pope nor did altogether depend on his grant or representation to which Memnon had no title The Pope himself and his Legats are divers times in the Acts said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit together with the Bishops which confidence doth not well comport with his special right to Presidency Yea it is observable that the Oriental Bishops which with John of Antioch did oppose the Cyrillian Party in that Synod did charge on Cyril that he as if he lived in a time of Anarchy did proceed to all irregularity and that snatching to himself the Authority which neither was given him by the Canons nor by the Emperours Sanctions did rush on to all kind of disorder and unlawfulness whence it is evident that in the judgment of those Bishops among whom were divers worthy and excellent persons the Pope had no right to any authoritative Presidency This word Presidency indeed hath an ambiguity apt to impose on those who do not observe it for it may be taken for a privilege of Precedence or for Authority to govern things the first kind of presidence the Pope without dispute when present at a Synod would have had among the Bishops as being the Bishop of the first See as the Sixth Synod calleth him and the first of Priests as Justinian called him and in his absence his Legates might take up his Chair for in General Synods each See had its Chair assigned to it according to its order of dignity by custom And according to this sense the Patriarchs and chief Metropolitans are also often singly or conjunctly said to preside as sitting in one of the first Chairs But the other kind of Presidency was as those Bishops in their complaint against Cyril do imply and as we shall See in practice disposed by the Emperour as he saw reason although usually it was conferred on him who among those present in dignity did precede the rest this is that authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Syrian Bishops complained against Cyril for assuming to himself without the Emperour's warrant and whereof we have a notable Instance in the next General Synod at Ephesus For In the Second Ephesine Synod which in design was a General Synod lawfully convened for a publick cause of determining truth and settling peace in the Church but which by some miscarriages proved abortive although the Pope had his Legates there yet by the Emperour's order Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria did preside We said Theodosius in his Epistle to him do also commit to thy godliness the authority and the preeminency of all things appertaining to the Synod now assembled and in the Synod of Chalcedon it is said of him that he had received the authority of all affairs and of judgment and Pope Leo I. in this Epistle to the Emperour saith that Dioscorus did challenge to himself the principal place insinuating a complaint that Dioscorus should be preferred before him although not openly contesting his right The Emperour had indeed some reason not to commit the Presidency to Pope Leo because he was looked upon as prejudiced in the cause having declared in favour of Flavianus against Eutyches whence Eutyches declined his Legate's interessing in the judgment of his cause saying they were suspected to him because they were entertained by Flavianus with great regard And Dioscorus being Bishop of the next See was taken for more indifferent and otherwise a person however afterward it proved of much integrity and moderation He did saith the Emperour shine by the grace of God both in honesty of life and orthodoxy of faith and Theodoret himself before those differences arose doth say of him that he was by common fame reported a man adorned with many other kinds of vertue and that especially he was celebrated for his moderation of mind It is true that the Legates of Pope Leo did take in dudgeon this preferment of Dioscorus and if we may give credence to Liberatus would not sit down in the Synod because the presession was not given to their Holy See and afterwards in the Synod of Chalcedon the Pope's Legate Paschasinus together with other Bishops did complain that Dioscorus was preferred before the Bishop of Constantinople but notwithstanding those ineffectual mutinies the Emperour's will did take place and according thereto Dioscorus had although he did not use it so wisely and justly as he should the chief managery of things It is to be observed that to other chief Bishops the Presidency in that Synod is also ascribed by virtue of the Emperour's appointment Let the most reverend Bishops say the Imperial Commissaries in the Synod of Chalcedon to whom the authoritative management of affairs was by the Royal Sovereignty granted speak why the Epistle of the most Holy Archbishop Leo was not read and You say they again to whom the power of judging was given and of Dioscorus Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem Thalassius of Caesarea Eusebius of Ancyra Eustathius of Beristus Basilius of Selencia it is by the same Commissioners said that they had recieved the authority and did govern the Synod which was then and Elpidius the Emperour's Agent in the Ephesine Synod it self did expresly style them Presidents and Pope Leo himself calleth them Presidents and Primates of the Synod Whence it
appeareth that at that time according to common opinion and practice authoritative Presidency was not affixed to the Roman Chair In the Synod of Chalcedon Pope Leo did indeed assume to himself a kind of Presidency by his Legates and no wonder that a man of a stout and ardent Spirit impregnated with high conceits of his See and resolved with all his might to advance its interests as his Legates themselves did in effect declare to the world should doe so having so favourable a time by the misbehaviour of Dioscorus and his adherents against whom the Clergy of Constantinople and other Fathers of the Synod being incensed were ready to comply with Leo who had been the Champion and Patron of their Cause in allowing him extraordinary respect and whatever advantages he could pretend to Yet in effect the Emperour by his Commissioners did preside there they propounding and allowing matters to be discussed moderating debates by their interlocution and driving them to an issue maintaining order and quiet in proceedings performing those things which the Pope's Legates at Trent or otherwhere in the height of his power did undertake To them supplicatory addresses were made for succour and redress by persons needing it as for instance Command said Eusebius of Dorylaeum that my supplications may be read Of them leave is requested for time to deliberate Command saith Atticus in behalf of other Bishops that respite be given so that within a few days with a calm mind and undisturbed reason those things may be formed which shall be pleasing to God and the Holy Fathers Accordingly they order the time for consultation Let said they the hearing be deferred for five days that in the mean time your Holiness may meet at the house of the most Holy Archbishop Anatolius and deliberate in common about the faith that the doubtfull may be instructed They were acknowledged Judges and had thanks given them for the issue by persons concerned I said Eunomius Bishop of Nicomedia do thank your Honour for your right judgment And in the cause between Stephanus and Bassianus concerning their title to the Bishoprick of Ephesus they having declared their sense the Holy Synod cryed this is right judgment Christ hath decided the case God judgeth by you And in the result upon their declaring their opinion the whole Synod exclaimed This is a right judgment this is a pious order When the Bishops transported with eagerness and passion did tumultuously clamour they gravely did check them saying These vulgar exclamations neither become Bishops nor shall advantage the parties In the great contest about the privileges of the Constantinopolitan See they did arbitrate and decide the matter even against the sense and endeavours of the Pope's Legates the whole Synod concurring with them in these acclamations this is a right sentence we all say these things these things please us all things are duely ordered let 〈◊〉 things ordered be held The Pope's Legates themselves did avow this authority in them for If said Paschasinus in the case of the Egyptian Bishops your authority doth command and ye injoin that somewhat of humanity be granted to them c. And in another case If said the Bishops supplying the place of the Apostolical See your Honours do command we have an information to suggest Neither is the Presidency of these Roman Legates expressed in the Conciliar Acts but they are barely said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to concur and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit together with the other Fathers and accordingly although they sometimes talked high yet it is not observable that they did much there their Presidency was nothing like that at Trent and in other like Papal Synods It may be noted that the Emperour's Deputies are always named in the first place at the entrance of the Acts before the Pope's Legates so that they who directed the Notaries were not Popish In effect the Emperour was President though not as a Judge of Spiritual matters yet as an Orderer of the Conciliar transactions as the Synod doth report it to Leo the faithfull Emperours said they did preside or govern it for good order sake In the Fifth General Synod Pope Vigilius indeed was moved to be present and in his way to preside but he out of state or policy declined it wherefore the Patriarch of Constantinople was the Ecclesiastical President as in the beginning of every Collation doth appear whence clearly we may infer that the Pope's Presidency is no-wise necessary to the being of a General Council In the Sixth General Synod the Emperour in each Act is expesly said to preside in person or by his Deputies although P. Agatho had his Legates there In the Synod of Constance sometimes the Cardinal of Cambray sometimes of Hostia did preside by order of the Synod it self and sometime the King of the Romans did supply that place so little essential was the Pope's Presidency to a Council deemed even then when Papal authority had mounted to so high a pitch Nor is there good reason why the Pope should have this privilege or why this Prerogative should be affixed to any one See so that if there be cause as if the Pope be unfit or less fit if Princes or the Church cannot confide in him if he be suspected of prejudice or partiality if he be party in causes or controversies to be decided if he do himself need correction Princes may not assign or the Church with allowance of Princes may not chuse any other President more proper in their judgment for that charge in such cases the publick welfare of Church and State is to be regarded Were an Erroneous Pope as Vigilius or Hâ—â—orius fit to govern a Council gathered to consult about defining Truth in the matter of their Errour Where a Lewd Pope as Alexander VI John XII Paul III innumerable such scandalously vitious worthy to preside in a Synod convocated to prescribe strict Laws of Reformation Were a Furious Pugnacious Pope as Julius II apt to moderate an Assembly drawn together for settlement of Peace Were a Pope engaged in Schism as many have been a proper Moderatour of a Council designed to suppress Schism Were a Gregory VII or an Innocent IV or a Boniface VIII an allowable manager any where of Controversies about the Papal Authority Were now indeed any Pope fit to preside in any Council wherein the Reformation of the Church is concerned it being notorious that Popes as such do most need Reformation that they are the great obstructours of it that all Christendom hath a long time a Controversie with them for their detaining it in bondage In this and many other cases we may reject their Presidency as implying iniquity according to the Rule of an old Pope I would know of them where they would have that judgment they pretend examin'd what by themselves that the same may be adversaries witnesses and judges to such
no more than acknowledging a person although rejected by undue Sentence to be de jure worthy of communion and capable of the Episcopal Office upon which may be consequent an Obligation to communicate with him and to allow him his due Character according to the Precept of Saint Paul Follow righteousness faith charity peace with them that call upon the Lord with a pure heart This may be done when any man notoriously is persecuted for the Truth and Righteousness Or when the iniquity and malice of pretended Judges are apparent to the oppression of Innocence Or when the Process is extremely irregular as in the cases of Athanasius of St. Chrysostome And this is not an act of Jurisdiction but of Equity and Charity incumbent on all Bishops And there are promiscuous Instances of Bishops practising it Thus Socrates saith that Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem did restore communion and dignity to Athanasius And so Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch being reconciled and reduced to a good understanding of each other did restore to each other their Sees rescinding the Censures which in heat they had denounced each on other Which sheweth that Restitution is not always taken for an act of Jurisdiction wherein one is Superiour to another for those persons were in rank and power co-ordinate 2. Restitution sometime doth import no more than a considerable influence toward the effects of restoring a person to communion or Office no judicial act being exercised about the case The Emperour writing that Paulus and Athanasius should be restor'd to their Sees availed nothing That was a Restitution without effect Thus a Pope's avowing the Orthodoxy or Innocence or Worth of a person after a due information about them by reason of the Pope's eminent rank in the Church and the regard duely had to him might sometimes much conduce to restore a person and might obtain the name of Restitution by an ordinary scheme of speech 3. Sometimes persons said to be restored by Popes are also said to be restored by Synods with regard to such instance or testimony of Popes in their behalf In which case the Judicial Restitution giving right of Recovery and completion thereto was the act of the Synod 4. When Cases were driven to a legal debate Popes could not effectually resolve without a Synod their single acts not being held sufficiently valid So notwithstanding the Declarations of Pope Julius in favour of Athanasius for the effectual resolution of his case the great Synod of Sardica was convened So whatever Pope Innocent I. did endeavour he could not restore St. Chrysostome without a General Synod Nor could Pope Leo restore Flavianus deposed in the Second Ephesine Synod without convocation of a General Synod the which he did so often sue for to the Emperour Theodosius for that purpose Pope Simplicius affirmed that Petrus Moggus having been by a common decree condemned as an adulterer or Usurper of the Alexandrian See could not without a common Council be freed from condemnation 5. Particular instances do not ascertain right to the Person who assumeth any power for busie bodies often will exceed their bounds 6. Emperours did sometimes restore Bishops Constantine as he did banish Eusebius of Nicomedia and others so he did revoke and restore them so says Socrates They were recall'd from banishment by the Emperour's command and receiv'd their Churches Theodosius did assert to Flavianus his right whereof the Popes did pretend to deprive him which did amount to a Restitution at least to the Romanists who do assert Flavianus to be deposed by the Popes Instantius and Priscillianus were by the rescript of the Emperour Gratianus restored to their Churches Justinian did order Pope Silverius to be restored in case he could prove his Innocence 7. Commonly Restitution was not effectual without the Emperour's consent whence Theodoret although allowed by the great Synod did acknowledge his Restitution especially due to the Emperour as we shall see in reflecting on his case Now to the particular Instances produced for the Pope we answer 1. They pretend that Pope Stephanus did restore Basilides and Martialis Spanish Bishops who had been deposed for which they quote St. Cyprian's Epistle where he says Basilides going to Rome imposed upon our Collegue Stephen who lived a great way off and was ignorant of the truth of the matter seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bishoprick from which he had justly been deposed But we answer The Pope did attempt such a Restitution by way of Influence and Testimony not of Jurisdiction wherefore the result of his act in St. Cyprian's judgment was null and blameable which could not be so deemed if he had acted as a Judge for a favourable Sentence passed by just Authority is valid and hardly liable to Censure The Clergy of those places notwithstanding that pretended Restitution did conceive those Bishops uncapable and did request the judgment of St. Cyprian about it which argueth the Pope's judgment not to have been peremptory and prevalent then in such cases St. Cyprian denieth the Pope or any other person to have power of restoring in such a case and exhorteth the Clergy to persist in declining the communion of those Bishops Well doth Rigaltius ask why they should write to St. Cyprian if the judgment of Stephanus was decisive and he addeth that indeed the Spaniards did appeal from the Roman Bishop to him of Carthage No wonder seeing the Pope had no greater authority and probably St. Cyprian had the fairer reputation for wisedom and goodness Considering which things what can they gain by this Instance which indeed doth considerably make against them 2. They alledge the Restitution of Athanasius and of others linked in cause with him by Pope Julius He says Sozomen as having the care of all by reason of the dignity of his See restored to each his own Church I answer the Pope did not restore them judicially but declaratively that is declaring his approbation of their right and innocence did admit them to communion Julius in his own Defence did alledge that Athanasius was not legally rejected so that without any prejudice to the Canons he might receive him and the doing it upon this account plainly did not require any Act of Judgment Nay it was necessary to avow those Bishops as suffering in the cause of the common Faith Besides the Pope's proceeding was taxed and protested against as irregular nor did he defend it by virtue of a general power that he had judicially to rescind the acts of Synods And lastly the Restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops had no complete effect till it was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica backed by the Imperial authority which in effect did restore them This instance therefore is in many respects deficient as to their purpose 3. They produce Marcellus being restored by the same Pope Julius But that Instance beside the forementioned defects hath this that the
be deaf to the complaints of the whole World or make as if you were so why sleep you when will the consideration of so great confusion and abuse in appeals awake in you they are made without right or equity without due order and against custome Neither place nor manner nor time nor cause nor person are considered they are every where made lightly and for the most part unjustly with much more passionate language to the same purpose But in the Primitive Church the Pope had no such power 1. Whereas in the first times many causes and differences did arise wherein they who were condemned and worsted would readily have resorted thither where they might have hoped for remedy if Rome had been such a place of refuge it would have been very famous for it and we should find History full of such examples whereas it is very silent about them 2. The most ancient Customs and Canons of the Church are flatly repugnant to such a power for they did order causes finally to be decided in each Province So the Synod of Nice did Decree as the African Fathers did alledge in defence of their refusal to allow appeals to the Pope The Nicene decrees said they most evidently did commit both Clergymen of inferiour degrees and Bishops to their Metropolitans So Theòph in his Epistle I suppose you are not ignorant what the Canons of the Nicene Council command ordaining that a Bishop should judge no cause out of his own district 3. Afterward when the Diocesan administration was introduced the last resort was decreed to the Synods of them or to the Primates in them all other appeals being prohibited as dishonourable to the Bishops of the Diocese reproaching the Canons and subverting Ecclesiastical Order To which Canon the Emperour Justinian referred For it is decreed by our Ancestours that against the Sentence of these Prelates there should be no Appeal So Constantius told Pope Liberius that those things which had a form of Judgment past on them could not be rescinded This was the practice at least in the Eastern parts of the Church in the times of Justinian as is evident by the Constitutions extant in the Code and in the Novels 4. In derogation to this pretence divers Provincial Synods expresly did prohibit all Appeals from their decisions That of Milevis Let them appeal onely to African Councils or the Primates of Provinces and he who shall think of appealing beyond Sea let him be admitted into communion by none in Africk For if the Nicene Council took this care of the inferiour Clergy how much more did they intend it should relate to Bishops also 5. All persons were forbidden to entertain communion with Bishops condemned by any one Church which is inconsistent with their being allowed relief at Rome 6. This is evident in the case of Marcion by the assertion of the Roman Church at that time 7. When the Pope hath offered to receive Appeals or to meddle in cases before decided he hath found opposition and reproof Thus when Felicissimus and Fortunatus having been censured and rejected from communion in Africk did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius with supplication to be admitted by him Saint Cyprian maintaineth that fact to be irregular and unjust and not to be countenanced for divers reasons Likewise when Basilides and Martialis being for their crimes deposed in Spain had recourse to Pope Stephanus for Restitution the Clergy and People there had no regard to the judgment of the Pope the which their resolution Saint Cyprian did commend and encourage When Athanasius Marcellus Paulus c. having been condemned by Synods did apply themselves for relief to Pope Julius the Oriental Bishops did highly tax this course as irregular disclaiming any power in him to receive them or meddle in their cause Nor could Pope Julius by any Law or Instance disprove their plea Nor did the Pope assert to himself any peculiar authority to revise the Cause or otherwise justifie his proceeding than by right common to all Bishops of vindicating Right and Innocence which were oppressed and of asserting the Faith for which they were persecuted Indeed at first the Oriental Bishops were contented to refer the cause to Pope Julius as Arbitratour which signifieth that he had no ordinary right but afterward either fearing their Cause or his Prejudice they started and stood to the canonicalness of the former decision The contest of the African Church with Pope Celestine in the Cause of Apiarius is famous and the Reasons which they assign for repelling that Appeal are very notable and peremptory 8. Divers of the Fathers alledge like reasons against Appeals Saint Cyprian alledgeth these 1. Because there was an Ecclesiastical Law against them 2. Because they contain iniquity as prejudicing the right of each Bishop granted by Christ in governing his flock 3. Because the Clergy and People should not be engaged to run gadding about 4. Because Causes might better be decided there where witnesses of fact might easily be had 5. Because there is every where a competent authority equal to any that might be had otherwhere 6. Because it did derogate from the gravity of Bishops to alter their Censure Pope Liberius desired of Constantius that the Judgment of Athanasius might be made in Alexandria for such reasons because there the accused the accusers and their defender were St. Chrysostome's Argument against Theophilus meddling in his case may be set against Rome as well as Alexandria 9. St. Austin in matter of appeal or rather of reference to candid Arbitration more proper for Ecclesiastical causes doth conjoin other Apostolical Churches with that of Rome For the business says he was not about Priests and Deacons or the inferiour Clergy but the Collegues Bishops who may reserve their cause entire for the judgment of their Collegues especially those of the Apostolical Churches He would not have said so if he had apprehended that the Pope had a peculiar right of revising Judgments 10. Pope Damasus or rather Pope Siricius doth affirm himself incompetent to judge in a case which had been afore determined by the Synod of Capua but says he since the Synod of Capua has thus determined it we perceive we cannot judge it 11. Anciently there were no Appeals properly so called or jurisdictional in the Church they were as Socrates telleth us introduced by Cyril of Hierusalem who first did appeal to a greater Judicature against Ecclesiastical rule and custome This is an Argument that about that time a little before the great Synod of Constantinople greater Judicatories or Diocesan Synods were established whenas before Provincial Synods were the last resorts 12. Upon many occasions Appeals were not made to the Pope as in all likelihood they would have been if it had been supposed that a power of receiving them did belong to him Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to the Emperour The Donatists did not appeal to the Pope
Papal Sovereignty over Princes in Temporals to be preached in it There were many persons yea Synods who did oppose Pope Hildebrand in the birth of his Doctrine condemning it for a pernicious Novelty and branding it with the name of Heresie as we before shewed Since the Hildebrandine Age there have been in every Nation yea in Italy it self divers Historians Divines and Lawyers who have in elaborate Tracts maintained the Royal Sovereignty against the Pontifical This sort of Hereticks are now so much encreased that the Hildebrandine Doctrine is commonly exploded Which by the way sheweth that the Roman Party is no less than others subject to change its sentiments Opinions among them gaining and losing vogue according to circumstances of time and contingencies of things § VIII Neither are the adherents to the Roman Church more agreed concerning the extent of the Pope's Authority even in Spiritual matters For although the Popes themselves plainly do claim an absolute Supremacy in them over the Church although the stream of Divines who do flourish in favour with them doth run that way although according to their principles if they had any principles clearly and certainly fixed that might seem to be the Doctrine of their Church Yet is there among them a numerous party which doth not allow him such a Supremacy putting great restraints to his Authority as we shall presently shew And as the other party doth charge this with Heresie so doth this return back the same imputation on that § IX That their Doctrine is in this matter so various and uncertain is no great wonder seeing Interest is concerned in the question and Principles are defective toward the resolution of it 1. Contrary Interests will not suffer the Point to be decided nor indeed to be freely disputed on either hand On one hand the Pope will not allow his Prerogatives to be discussed according to that maxime of the great Pope Innocent III. When there is a question touching the Privileges of the Apostolick See we will not that others judge about them Whence as we before touched the Pope did peremptorily command his Legates at Trent in no case to permit any dispute about his Authority On the other hand the French will not permit the Supremacy of their King in Temporals or the Privileges of their Church in Spirituals to be contested in their Kingdom Nor we may suppose would any Prince admit a Decision prejudicial to his Authority and welfare subjecting and enslaving him to the will of the Roman Court. Nor we may hope would any Church patiently comport with the irrecoverable oppression of all its rights and liberties by a peremptory establishment of Papal Omnipotency 2. Nor is it easie for their Dissentions to be reconciled upon Theological grounds and authorities to which they pretend deference For not onely their Schools and Masters of their Doctrine do in the case disagree but their Synods do notoriously clash § X. Yea even Popes themselves have shifted their pretences and varied in style according to the different circumstances of time and their variety of humours designs interests In time of prosperity and upon advantage when they might safely doe it any Pope almost would talk high and assume much to himself but when they were low or stood in fear of powerfull contradiction even the boldest Popes would speak submissly or moderately As for instance Pope Leo I. after the second Ephesine Synod when he had to doe with Theodosius II. did humbly supplicate and whine pitifully but after the Synod of Chalcedon having got the Emperour favourable and most of the Bishops complacent to him he ranted bravely And we may observe that even Pope Gregory VII who did swagger so boisterously against the Emperour Henry was yet calm and mild in his contests with our William the Conquerour who had a spirit good enough for him and was far out of his reach And Popes of high spirit and bold face such as Leo I. Gelasius I. Nic. I. Gregory II. Gregory VII Innocent III. Boniface VIII Julius II. Paul IV. Sixtus V. Paulus V. c. as they did ever aspire to scrue Papal authority to the highest peg so would they strain their language in commendation of their See as high as their times would bear But other Popes of meeker and modester disposition such as Julius I. Anastasius II. Gregory I. Leo II. Adrian VI. c. were content to let things stand as they found them and to speak in the ordinary style of their times yet so that few have let their Authority to goe backward or decline We may observe that the pretences and language of Popes have varied according to several periods usually growing higher as their State grew looser from danger of opposition or controll In the first times while the Emperours were Pagans their pretences were suted to their condition and could not soar high they were not then so mad as to pretend to any Temporal Power and a pittance of Spiritual eminency did content them When the Empire was divided they could sometimes be more haughty and peremptory as being in the West shrowded under the wing of the Emperours there who commonly did affect to improve their Authority in competition to that of other Bishops and at distance from the reach of the Eastern Emperour The cause of Athanasius having produced the Sardican Canons concerning the Revision of some causes by the Popes by colour of them they did hugely enlarge their Authority and raise their style especially in the West where they had great advantages of augmenting their Power When the Western Empire was fallen their influence upon that part of the Empire which came under protection of the Eastern Emperours rendring them able to doe service or disservice to those Emperours they according to the state of Times and the need of them did talk more big or more tamely Pope Boniface III. having by compliance with the Usurper Phocas obtained a declaration from him concerning the Headship of the Roman Church did make a considerable step forward toward the height of Papal Greatness After that Pope Greg. II. had withdrawn Italy from the Oriental Empire and Rome had grown in a manner loose and independent from other secular powers in the confusions of the West the Pope interposing to arbitrate between Princes trucking and bartering with them as occasion served for mutual aid and countenance did grow in Power and answerably did advance his pretences The spurious Decretal Epistles of the ancient Popes which asserted to the Pope high degrees of Authority being foisted into mens hands and insensibly creeping into repute did inspire the Pope with confidence to invade all the ancient Constitutions Privileges and Liberties of Churches and having got such interest every-where he might say what he pleased no Clergy-man daring to check or cross him Having drawn to himself the final decision of all Causes having got a finger in disposal of all Preferments having by Dispensations Exemptions and Grants of privileges tyed
to him so many Dependents what might not he say or doe Pope Gregory VII being a man of untameable Spirit and taking advantage from the distractions and corruptions of his Times did venture to pull a feather with the Emperour and with success having mated him did set up a peremptory claim to Sovereignty over all Persons in all Causes In his footsteps his Successours have trodden being ever ready upon occasion to plead such a title and to practise according to it No Pope would foregoe any Power which had been claimed by his Predecessours And Popes would ever be sure to have dancers after their pipe numberless abetters of their pretences No wonder then that persons deferring much regard to the Authority of Popes and accommodating their conceits to the Dictates of them or of persons depending on them should in their opinions vary about the nature and extent of Papal Authority it having never been fixed within certain bounds or having in several Ages continued the same thing § XI Wherefore intending by God's help to discuss the pretended Authority of the Pope and to shew that He by no Divine institution and by no immutable right hath any such Power as he doth claim by reason of this perplexed variety of Opinions I do find it difficult to state the Question or to know at what distinct mark I should level my Discourse § XII But seeing his pretence to any Authority in Temporals or to the Civil Sword is so palpably vain that it hardly will bear a serious dispute having nothing but impudence and sophistry to countenance it seeing so many in the Roman Communion do reject it and have substantially confuted it seeing now most are ashamed of it and very few even among those Sects which have been its chief Patrons will own it seeing Bellarmine himself doth acknowledge it a Novelty devised about 500 years ago in St. Bernard's time seeing the Popes themselves what-ever they think dare now scarce speak out and forbear upon sufficient provocation to practise according to it I shall spare the trouble of meddling with it confining my Discourse to the Pope's Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs the pretence whereto I am persuaded to be no less groundless and no less noxious than the other to Christendom the which being overthrown the other as superstructed on it must also necessarily fall § XIII And here the Doctrine which I shall contest against is that in which the Cordial partizans of that See do seem to consent which is most common and current most applauded and countenanced in their Theological Schools which the Popes themselves have solemnly defined and declared for standing law or rule of jurisdiction which their most authentick Synods whereby their Religion is declared and distinguished from others have asserted or supposed which the tenour of their Discipline and Practice doth hold forth which their Clergy by most solemn professions and engagements is tied to avow which all the Clients and Confidents of Rome do zealously stand for more than for any other point of Doctrine and which no man can disclaim without being deemed an enemy or a prevaricator toward the Apostolick See § XIV Which Doctrine is this That in the words of the Florentine Synod's Definition the Apostolical Chair and the Roman High-Priest doth hold a Primacy over the Vniversal Church and that the Roman High-Priest is the Successour of Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the true Lieutenant of Christ and the Head of the Church and that he is the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that unto him in Saint Peter full Power is committed to feed and direct and govern the Catholick Church under Christ according as is contained in the Acts of General Councils and in the Holy Canons That in the words of Pope Leo X. approved by the Laterane Synod Christ before his departure from the world did in solidity of the Rock institute Peter and his Successours to be his Lieutenants to whom it is so necessary to obey that who doth not obey must die the death That to the Pope as Sovereign Monarch by Divine Sanction of the whole Church do appertain Royal Prerogatives Regalia Petri the Royalties of Peter they are called in the Oath prescribed to Bishops Such as these which follow To be Superiour to the whole Church and to its Representative a General Synod of Bishops To convocate General Synods at his pleasure all Bishops being obliged to attend upon summons from him To preside in Synods so as to suggest matter promote obstruct over-rule the debates in them To confirm or invalidate their Determinations giving life to them by his assent or subtracting it by his dissent To define Points of Doctrine or to decide Controversies authoritatively so that none may presume to contest or dissent from his Dictates To enact establish abrogate suspend dispense with Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons To relax or evacuate Ecclesiastical Censures by indulgence pardon c. To void Promises Vows Oaths Obligations to Laws by his Dispensation To be the Fountain of all Pastoral Jurisdiction and Dignity To constitute confirm judge censure suspend depose remove restore reconcile Bishops To confer Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices by paramount Authority in way of Provision Reservation c. To exempt Colleges Monasteries c. from Jurisdiction of their Bishops and ordinary Superiours To judge all persons in all Spiritual Causes by calling them to his cognizance or delegating Judges for them with a final and peremptory Sentence To receive Appeals from all Ecclesiastical Judicatories and to reverse their Judgments if he findeth cause To be himself unaccountable for any of his doings exempt from judgment and liable to no reproof To erect transfer abolish Episcopal Sees To exact Oaths of Fealty and Obedience from the Clergy To found Religious Orders or to raise a Spiritual Militia for propagation and defence of the Church To summon and commissionate Souldiers by Croisade c. to fight against Infidels or persecute Infidels Some of these are expressed others in general terms couched in those words of P. Eugenius telling the Greeks what they must consent unto The Pope said he will have the Prerogatives of his Church and he will have Appeals to him and to feed all the Church of Christ as Shepherd of the Sheep Beside these things that he may have authority and power to convoke General Synods when need shall be and that all the Patriarchs do yield to his will That the Pope doth claim assume and exercise a Sovereignty over the Church endowed with such Prerogatives is sufficiently visible in experience of fact is apparent by the authorized dictates in their Canon-law and shall be distinctly proved by competent allegations when we shall examine the branches of this pretended Authority In the mean time it sufficeth to observe that in effect all Clergy-men do avow so much who bonâ fide and without prevarication do submit to take the Oaths and Engagements prescribed to them
do style their Peter The truth is then among Christians there was little standing upon punctilio's private considerations and pretences to power then took small place each one was ready to comply with that which the most did approve the community did take upon it to prescribe unto the greatest persons as we see again in another instance where the Brethren at Antioch did appoint Paul and Barnabas the most considerable persons among them to go up unto Jerusalem They were then so generous so mercifull so full of charity as rather than to cause or foment any disturbance to recede or go whither the multitude pleased and doe what was commanded by it 10. In all relations which occur in Scripture about Controversies incident of Doctrine or Practice there is no appeal made to Saint Peter's Judgment or allegation of it as Decisive no Argument is built on his Authority dissent from his Opinion or disconformity to his Practice or disobedience to his Orders are not mentioned as ground of reproof as aggravation of any errour any misdemeanour any disorder which were very strange if then he was admitted or known to be the Universal Prince and Pastour of Christians or the Supreme Judge and Arbitratour of Controversies among them for then surely the most clear compendious and effectual way to confute any errour or check any disorder had been to alledge the Authority of Saint Peter against it who then could have withstood so mighty a prejudice against his cause If now a question doth arise about any Point of Doctrine instantly the Parties at least one of them which hopeth to find most favour hath recourse to the Pope to define it and his Judgment with those who admit his pretences proveth sufficiently decisive or at least greatly swayeth in prejudice to the opposite Party If any Heresie or any Opinion disagreeing from the current sentiments is broached the Pope presently doth roar that his voice is heard through Christendom and thundreth it down if any Schism or disorder springeth up you may be sure that Rome will instantly meddle to quash it or to settle matters as best standeth with its Principles and Interests such influence hath the shadow of Saint Peter's Authority now but no such regard was then had to poor Pope Peter himself he was not so busie and stirring in such cases the Apostles did not send Hereticks to be knocked down by his Sentence nor Schismaticks to be scourged by his Censure but were fain to use the long way of Disputation striving to convince them by Testimonies of Scripture and rational discourse If they did use authority it was their own which they challenge as given to them by Christ for edification or upon account of the more than ordinary gifts and graces of the Divine Spirit conferred on them by God Saint Peter no-where doth appear intermedling as a Judge or Governour paramount in such cases yea where he doth himself deal with Hereticks and disorderly persons confuting and reproving them as he dealeth with divers notoriously such he proceedeth not as a Pope decreeing but as an Apostle warning arguing and persuading against them It is particularly remarkable how Saint Paul reproving the factions which were among Christians at Corinth doth represent the several parties saying I am of Paul I am of Apollos I am of Cephas I am of Christ Now supposing the case then had been clear and certain and if it were not so then how can it be so now that Saint Peter was Sovereign of the Apostles is it not wonderfull that any Christian should prefer any Apostle or any Preacher before him as if it were now clear and generally acknowledged that the Pope is truly what he pretendeth to be would any body stand in competition with him would any glory in a relation to any other Minister before him It is observable how Saint Clemens reflecteth on this contention Ye were saith he less culpable for that partiality for ye did then incline to renowned Apostles and to a man approved by them but now c. If it be replyed that Christ himself did come into the comparison I answer that probably no man was so vain as to compare him with the rest nor indeed could any there pretend to have been baptized by him which was the ground of the emulation in respect of the others but those who said they were of Christ were the wise and peaceable sort who by saying so declined and disavowed faction whose behaviour Saint Paul himself in his discourse commendeth and confirmeth shewing that all indeed were of Christ the Apostles being onely his Ministers to work faith and vertue in them None saith Saint Austin of those contentious persons were good except those who said but I am of Christ. We may also here observe that Saint Paul in reflecting upon these contentions had a fair occasion of intimating somewhat concerning Saint Peter's Supremacy and aggravating their blameable fondness who compared others with him 12. The consideration of the Apostles proceeding in the conversion of people in the foundation of Churches and in administration of their spiritual affairs will exclude any probability of Saint Peter's Jurisdiction over them They went about their business not by Order or Licence from St. Peter but according to special instinct and direction of God's Spirit being sent forth by the Holy Ghost going by revelation or according to their ordinary prudence and the habitual wisedom given unto them by those aids without troubling St. Peter or themselves more they founded Societies they ordained Pastours they framed Rules and Orders requisite for the edification and good Government of Churches reserving to themselves a kind of paramount inspection and jurisdiction over them which in effect was onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a paternal care over them which they particularly claimed to themselves upon account of spiritual parentage for that they had begotten them to Christ If saith St. Paul to the Corinthians I am not an Apostle to others I am however so to you why so because he had converted them and could say As my beloved sons I warn you for though ye have ten thousand instructours in Christ yet ye have not many fathers for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel This paternal charge they did exercise without any dependence or regard to Saint Peter none such appearing it not being mentioned that they did ever consult his pleasure or render him an account of their proceedings but it rather being implyed in the reports of their actions that they proceeded absolutely by virtue of their universal Office and Commission of our Lord. If it he alledged that Saint Paul went to Jerusalem to Saint Peter I answer that it was to visit him out of respect and love or to confer with him for mutual edification and comfort or at most to obtain approbation from him and the other Apostles which might satisfy some doubters but not
fed by him but the common Believers or People of God which St. Peter himself doth call the Flock of God Feed saith he to his fellow-Elders the flock of God which is among you and Saint Paul Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers 9. Take Feeding for what you please for Teaching for Guiding the Apostles were not fit objects of it who were immediately taught and guided by God himself Hence we may interpret that saying of St. Chrysostome which is the most plausible argument they can alledge for them that our Lord in saying this did commit to St. Peter a charge or presidency over his brethren that is he made him a Pastour of Christian people as he did others at least if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be referred to the Apostles it must not signifie authority over them but at most a primacy of order among them for that Saint Peter otherwise should feed them St. Chrysostome could hardly think who presently after saith that seeing the Apostles were to receive the administration of the whole world they ought not afterward to converse with one another for that would surely have been a great damage to the world 10. But they forsooth must have Saint Peter solely obliged to feed all Christ's sheep so they do impose upon him a vast and crabbed Province a task very incommodious or rather impossible for him to undergo how could he in duty be obliged how could he in effect be able to feed so many flocks of Christian people scattered about in distant Regions through all Nations under Heaven he poor man that had so few helps that had no Officers or dependents nor wealth to maintain them would have been much put to it to feed the sheep in Britaine and in Parthia unto infinite distraction of thoughts such a charge must needs have engaged him But for this their great Champion hath a fine expedient Saint Peter saith he did feed Christ's whole flock partly by himself partly by others so that it seemeth the other Apostles were Saint Peter's Curates or Vicars and Deputies this indeed were an easie way of feeding thus although he had slept all his time he might have fed all the sheep under heaven thus any man as well might have fed them But this manner of feeding is I fear a later invention not known so soon in the Church and it might then seem near as absurd to be a shepherd as it is now in his own account to be a just man by imputation that would be a kind of putative pastorage as this a putative righteousness However the Apostles I dare say did not take themselves to be St. Peter's Surrogates but challenged to themselves to be accounted the Ministers the Stewards the Ambassadours of Christ himself from whom immediately they received their Orders in whose name they acted to whom they constantly refer their Authority without taking the least notice of Saint Peter or intimating any dependence on him It was therefore enough for Saint Peter that he had Authority restrained to no place but might as he found occasion preach the Gospel convert confirm guide Christians every where to truth and duty nor can our Saviour's words be forced to signifie more In fine this together with the precedent Testimonies must not be interpreted so as to thwart Practice and History according to which it appeareth that Saint Peter did not exercise such a Power and therefore our Lord did not intend to confer such an one upon him IV. Farther in confirmation of their Doctrine they do draw forth a whole shole of Testimonies containing divers Prerogatives as they call them of Saint Peter which do as they suppose imply this Primacy so very sharp-sighted indeed they are that in every remarkable accident befalling him in every action performed by him or to him or about him they can descry some argument or shrewd insinuation of his preeminence especially being aided by the glosses of some fancyfull Expositour From the change of his Name from his walking on the Sea from his miraculous draught of Fish from our Lord 's praying for him that his Faith should not fail and bidding him to confirm his Brethren from our Lord 's ordering him to pay the tribute for them both from our Lord's first washing his feet and his first appearing to him after the Resurrection from the prediction of his Martyrdom from sick persons being cured by his shadow from his sentencing Ananias and Saphira to death from his preaching to Cornelius from its being said that he passed through all from his being prayed for by the Church from Saint Paul's going to visit him from these passages I say they deduce or confirm his Authority Now in earnest is not this stout arguing is it not egregious modesty for such a point to alledge such proofs what cause may not be countenanced by such rare fetches who would not suspect the weakness of that Opinion which is fain to use such forces in its maintenance In fine is it honest or conscionable dealing so to wrest or play with the Holy Scripture pretending to derive thence proofs where there is no shew of consequence To be even with them I might assert the Primacy to Saint John and to that purpose might alledge his Prerogatives which indeed may seem greater than those of Saint Peter namely that he was the beloved disciple that he leaned on our Lord's breast that Saint Peter not presuming to ask our Lord a question desired him to doe it as having a more special confidence with our Lord that Saint John did higher service to the Church and all posterity by writing not onely more Epistles but also a most divine Gospel and a sublime Prophecy concerning the state of the Church that Saint John did outrun Peter and came first to the Sepulchre in which passage such acute devisers would find out marvellous significancy that Saint John was a Virgin that he did out-live all the Apostles and thence was most fit to be Universal Pastour that St. Hierome comparing Peter and John doth seem to prefer the latter for Peter saith he was an Apostle and John was an Apostle but Peter was onely an Apostle John both an Apostle and an Evangelist and also a Prophet and saith he that I may in brief speech comprehend many things and shew what privilege belongeth to John yea Virginity in John by our Lord a Virgin his Mother the Virgin is commended to the Virgin Disciple thus I might by Prerogatives and passages very notable infer the Superiority of Saint John to Saint Peter in imitation of their reasoning but I am afraid they would scarce be at the trouble to answer me seriously but would think it enough to say I trifled wherefore let it suffice for me in the same manner to put off those levities of discourse V. They argue this Primacy from the constant placing
exclaimed against as tyrannical When Primates did begin to swell and encroach good men declared their displeasure at it and wished it removed as is known particularly by the famous wish of Gregory Nazianzene But we are discoursing against a Superiority of a different nature which soundeth it self in the Institution of Christ imposeth it self on the Church is not alterable or governable by it can endure no check or controll pretendeth to be endowed with an absolute power to act without or against the consent of the Church is limited by no certain bounds but its own pleasure c. IV. Farther this pretence may be impugned by many Arguments springing from the nature and reason of things abstractedly considered according to which the exercise of such an Authority may appear unpracticable without much iniquity and great inconvenience in prejudice to the rights of Christian States and People to the interests of Religion and Piety to the peace and welfare of Mankind whence it is to be rejected as a pest of Christendom 1. Whereas all the world in design and obligation is Christian the utmost parts of the earth being granted in possession to our Lord and his Gospel extending to every creature under heaven and may in effect become such when God pleaseth by acceptance of the Gospel whereas it may easily happen that the most distant places on the Earth may embrace Christianity whereas really Christian Churches have been and are dispersed all about the World it is thence hugely incommodious that all the Church should depend upon an Authority resident in one Place and to be managed by one Person the Church being such is too immense boundless uncircumscribed unweildy a bulk to be guided by the inspection or managed by the influence of one such Authority or Person If the whole World were reduced under the Government of one Civil Monarch it would necessarily be ill governed as to Policy to Justice to Peace The skirts or remoter parts from the Metropolis or centre of the Government would extremely suffer thereby for they would feel little light or warmth from Majesty shining at such a distance They would live under small awe of that Power which was so far out of sight They must have very difficult recourse to it for redress of grievances and relief of oppressions for final decision of causes and composure of differences for correction of offences and dispensation of justice upon good information with tolerable expedition It would be hard to preserve peace or quell seditions and suppress insurrections that might arise in distant quarters What man could obtain the knowledge or experience needfull skilfully and justly to give Laws or administer Judgment to so many Nations different in Humour in Language in Customs What mind of man what industry what leisure could serve to sustain the burthen of that care which is needfull to the weilding such an Office How and when should one man be able to receive all the addresses to weigh all the cases to make all the resolutions and dispatches requisite for such a charge If the burthen of one small Kingdom be so great that wise and good Princes do grown under its weight what must that be of all Mankind To such an extent of Government there must be allowed a Majesty and power correspondent the which cannot be committed to one hand without its degeneration into extreme Tyranny The words of Zosimus to this purpose are observable who saith that the Romans by admitting Augustus Caesar to the Government did doe very perillously for If he should chuse to manage the Government rightly and justly he would not be capable of applying himself to all things as were fit not being able to succour those who do lie at greatest distance nor could he find so many Magistrates as would not be ashamed to defeat the opinion conceived of them nor could he sute them to the differences of so many manners Or if transgressing the bounds of Royalty he should warp to Tyranny disturbing the Magistracies overlooking misdemeanours bartering right for money holding the Subjects for slaves such as most Emperours or rather near all have been few excepted then it is quite necessary that the brutish Authority of the Prince should be a publick calamity for then flatterers being by him dignifyed with gifts and honours do invade the greatest commands and those who are modest and quiet not affecting the same life with them are consequently displeased not enjoying the same advantages so that from hence Cities are filled with seditions and troubles And the Civil and Military employments being delivered up to avaritious persons do both render a peaceable life sad and grievous to men of better disposition and do enfeeble the resolution of Souldiers in war Hence St. Austin was of opinion that it were happy for mankind if all Kingdoms were small enjoying a peacefull neighbourhood It is commonly observed by Historians that Rome growing in bigness did labour therewith and was not able to support it self many distempers and disorders springing up in so vast a body which did throw it into continual pangs and at length did bring it to ruine for Then saith St. Austin concerning the times of Pompey Rome had subdued Africk it had subdued Greece and widely also ruling over other parts as not able to bear it self did in a manner by its own greatness break it self Hence that wise Prince Augustus Caesar did himself forbear to enlarge the Roman Dominion and did in his Testament advise the Senate to doe the like To the like inconveniences and much greater in its kind Temporal things being more easily ordered than Spiritual and having secular Authority great advantages of power and wealth to aid it self must the Church be obnoxious if it were subjected to the government of one Sovereign unto whom the maintenance of Faith the potection of Discipline the determination of Controversies the revision of Judgments the discussion and final decision of Causes upon appeal the suppression of disorders and factions the inspection over all Governours the correction of Misdemeanours the constitution relaxation and abolition of Laws the resolution of all matters concerning Religion and the publick State in all Countries must be referred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Shoulders can bear such a charge without perpetual miracle and yet we do not find that the Pope hath any promise of miraculous assistence nor in his demeanour doth appear any mark thereof what mind would not the care of so many affairs utterly distract and overwhelm who could find time to cast a glance on each of so numberless particulars what sagacity of wit what variety of learning what penetrancy of judgment what strength of memory what indefatigable vigour of industry what abundance of experience would suffice for enabling one man to weigh exactly all the controversies of Faith and cases of Discipline perpetually starting up in so many Regions What reach of skill and ability would serve for
Ecclesiastical State to raise Schisms and Troubles It is like to extinguish genuine Charity which is free and uncompelled All the peace and charity which it endureth is by force and compulsion not out of choice and good affection V. The Ancients did assert to each Bishop a free absolute independent Authority subject to none directed by none accountable to none on Earth in the administration of affairs properly concerning his particular Church This is most evident in St. Cyprian's Writings out of which it will not be amiss to set down some passages manifesting the sense and practice of the Church in his time to the satisfaction of any ingenuous mind The Bond of concord abiding and the Sacrament or Doctrine of the Catholick Church persisting undivided every Bishop disposeth and directeth his own acts being to render an account of his purpose to the Lord this he writeth when he was pleading the cause of Pope Cornelius against Novatian but then it seemeth not dreaming of his Supremacy over others But we know that some will not lay down what once they have imbibed nor will easily change their mind but the bond of peace and concord with their Collegues being preserved will retain some peculiar things which have once been used by them in which matter neither do we force any or give law whenas every Prelate hath in the administration of his Church the free power of his will being to render unto the Lord an account of his acting this saith he writing to Pope Stephanus and in a friendly manner out of common respect and single love not out of servile obeisance acquainting him what he and his brethren in a Synod by common consent and authority had established concerning the degradation of Clergy-men who had been ordained by Hereticks or had lapsed into Schism For seeing it is ordained by us all and it is likewise equal and just that each man's cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and to each Pastour a portion of the Flock is assigned which each should rule and govern being to render an account to his Lord those indeed over whom we preside ought not to ramble about this saith he in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius upon occasion of some factious Clergy-men addressing themselves to him with factious suggestions to gain his countenance These things I have briefly written back according to our meanness dear brother prescribing to none nor prejudging that every Bishop should not doe what he thinks good having a free power of his will In which matter our bashfulness and modesty doth not prejudge any one so that every one may not judge as he thinketh and act as he judgeth Prescribing to none so that every Bishop may not resolve what he thinks good being to render an account to the Lord c. It remaineth that each of us do utter his opinion about this matter judging no man nor removing any man if he dissenteth from the right of communion for neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannical terrour driveth his Collegues to a necessity of obeying whenas every Bishop hath upon account of his liberty and authority his own free choice and is no less exempted from being judged by another than he is uncapable to judge another but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who and who alone hath power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting these words did St. Cyprian speak as Proloquntour of the great Synod of Bishops at Carthage and what words could be more express or more full in assertion of the Episcopal Liberties and Rights against almost every branch of Romish pretences He disavoweth the practice of one Bishop excluding another from communion for dissent in opinion about disputable points He rejecteth the pretence that any man can have to be a Bishop of Bishops or superiour to all his Brethren He condemneth the imposing opinions upon Bishops and constraining them to obedience He disclaimeth any power in one Bishop to judge another He asserteth to each Bishop a full liberty and power to manage his own concerns according to his discretion He affirmeth every Bishop to receive his power onely from Christ and to be liable onely to his judgment We may observe that St. Austin in his reflexions upon the passages in that Synod doth approve yea admire that Preface passing high commendations on the smartest passages of it which assert common liberty professing his own conformity in practice to them In this consultation saith he is shewed a pacifick soul overflowing with plenty of charity and We have therefore a free choice of inquiry granted to us by the most mild and most veracious speech of Cyprian himself and Now if the proud and tumid minds of hereticks dare to extoll themselves against the holy humility of this speech than which what can be more gentle more humble Would St. Austin have swallowed those Sayings could he have so much applauded them if he had known a just power then extant and radiant in the World which they do impeach and subvert No I trow he did not know nor so much as dream of any such although the Pope was under his nose while he was discussing that point and he could hardly talk so much of St. Cyprian without thinking of Pope Stephen However let any man of sense honestly reade and weigh those passages considering who did write them to whom he writ them upon what occasions he writ them when he writ them that he was a great Primate of the Church a most holy most prudent most humble and meek person that he addressed divers of them to Bishops of Rome that many of them were touching the concerns of Popes that he writ them in times of persecution and distress which produce the most sober and serious thoughts then let him if he can conceive that all-Christian Bishops were then held subject to the Pope or owned such a power due to him as he now claimeth We may add a contemporary Testimony of the Roman Clergy addressing to St. Cyprian in these words Although a mind well conscious to it self and supported by the vigour of Evangelical discipline and having in heavenly doctrines become a true witness to it self is wont to be content with God for its onely judge and not to desire the praises nor to dread the accusations of another yet they are worthy of double praise who when they know they owe their consciences to God onely as judge yet desire also their actions to be approved by their brethren themselves the which it is no wonder that you brother Cyprian should do who according to your modesty and natural industry would have us not so much judges as partakers of your Counsels Then it seems the College of Cardinals not so high in the instep as they are now did take St. Cyprian to be free and not accountable
for his actions to any other Judge but God That this notion of liberty did continue a good time after in the Church we may see by that Canon of the Antiochene Synod ordaining that every Bishop have power of his own Bishoprick govern it according to the best of his care and discretion and provide for all the Country belonging to his City so as to ordain Priests and Deacons and dispose things aright The Monks of Constantinople in the Synod of Chalcedon said thus We are sons of the Church and have one Father after God our Archbishop they forgot their Sovereign Father the Pope The like notion may seem to have been then in England when the Church of Canterbury was called the common mother of all under the disposition of its Spouse Jesus Christ. VI. The Ancients did hold all Bishops as to their Office originally according to Divine Institution or abstracting from humane Sanctions framed to preserve Order and Peace to be equal for that all are Successours of the Apostles all derive their Commission and Power in the same tenour from God all of them are Ambassadours Stewards Vicars of Christ entrusted with the same Divine Ministeries of instructing dispensing the Sacraments ruling and exercising Discipline to which Functions and Privileges the least Bishop hath right and to greater the biggest cannot pretend One Bishop might exceed another in Splendour in Wealth in Reputation in extent of Jurisdiction as one King may surpass another in amplitude of Territory but as all Kings so all Bishops are equal in Office and essentials of Power derived from God Hence they applied to them that in the Psalm Instead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children whom thou mayst make Princes in all the earth This was St. Hierome's Doctrine in those famous words Whereever a Bishop be whether at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Thenis he is of the same worth and of the same Priesthood the force of wealth and lowness of poverty doth not render a Bishop more high or more low for that all of them are Successours of the Apostles to evade which plain assertion they have forged distinctions whereof St. Hierome surely did never think he speaking simply concerning Bishops as they stood by Divine Institution not according to humane Models which gave some advantages over other That this notion did continue long in the Church we may see by the Elogies of Bishops in later Synods for instance that in the Synod of Compeigne It is convenient all Christians should know what kind of Office the Bishops is who 't is plain are the Vicars of Christ and keep the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And that of the Synod of Melun And though all of us unworthy yet are the Vicars of Christ and Successours of his Apostles In contemplation of which verity St. Gregory Nazianzene observing the declension from it introduced in his times by the ambition of some Prelates did vent that famous exclamation O that there were not at all any presidency or any preference in place and tyrannical enjoyment of prerogatives which earnest wish he surely did not mean to level against the Ordinance of God but against that which lately began to be intruded by men And what would the good man have wished if he had been aware of those pretences about which we discourse which then did onely begin to bud and peep up in the World 1. Common practice is a good Interpreter of common sentiments in any case and it therefore sheweth that in the primitive Church the Pope was not deemed to have a right of Universal Sovereignty for if such a thing had been instituted by God or established by the Apostles the Pope certainly with evident clearness would have appeared to have possessed it and would have sometimes I might say frequently yea continually have exercised it in the first Ages which that he did not at all we shall make I hope very manifest by reflecting on the chief passages occurring then whereof indeed there is scarce any one which duly weighed doth not serve to overthrow the Roman pretence but that matter I reserve to another place and shall propound other considerations declaring the sense of the Fathers onely I shall add that indeed 2. The state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such an universal Sovereignty For that did consist of small bodies incoherently situated and scattered about in very distant places and consequently unfit to be modelled into one political Society or to be governed by one Head Especially considering their condition under Persecution and Poverty What convenient resort for Direction or Justice could a few distressed Christians in Egypt Ethiopia Parthia India Mesopotamia Syria Armenia Cappadocia and other Parts have to Rome what trouble what burthen had it been to seek Instruction Succour Decision of Cases thence Had they been obliged or required to doe so what offences what clamours would it have raised seeing that afterward when Christendom was connected and compacted together when the state of Christians was flourishing and prosperous when passages were open and the best of opportunities of correspondence were afforded yet the setting out of these pretences did cause great oppositions and stirs seeing the exercise of this Authority when it had obtained most vigour did produce so many grievances so many complaints so many courses to check and curb it in Countries feeling the inconveniences and mischiefs springing from it The want of the like in the first Ages is a good Argument that the cause of them had not yet sprung up Christendom could not have been so still if there had been then so meddlesome a body in it as the Pope now is The Roman Clergy in their Epistle to St. Cyprian told him that because of the difficulty of things and times they could not constitute a Bishop who might moderate things immediately belonging to them in their own precincts how much more in that state of things would a Bishop there be sit to moderate things over all the World when as Rigaltius truly noteth the Church being then oppressed with various vexations the communication of Provinces between themselves was difficult and unfrequent Wherefore Bellarmine himself doth confess that in those times before the Nicene Synod the authority of the Pope was not a little hindred so that because of continual persecutions he could not freely exercise it The Church therefore could so long subsist without the use of such Authority by the vigilance of Governours over their Flocks and the friendly correspondence of neighbour Churches And if he would let it alone it might do so still That could be no Divine Institution which had no vigour in the first and best times but an Innovation raised by Ambition VII The Ancients when occasion did require did maintain their equality of Office and Authority particularly in respect to the Roman Bishops not onely interpretatively by practice but directly and
disorderly Behaviour notoriously incurred they deemed incapable of the Office presuming their places ipso facto void This Pope Gelasius I. proposed for a Rule That not onely a Metropolitan but every other Bishop hath a Right to separate any persons or any place from the Catholick Communion according to the Rule by which his heresie is already condemned And upon this account did the Popes for so long time quarrel with the See of Constantinople because they did not expunge Acacius from the roll of Bishops who had communicated with Hereticks So did Saint Cyprian reject Marcianus Bishop of Arles for adhering to the Novatians So Athanasius was said to have deposed Arian Bishops and substituted others in their places So Acacius and his Complices deposed Macedonius and divers other Bishops And the Bishops of those times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 factiously applying a Rule taken for granted then deposed one another So Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem deposed Athanasius So Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned to depose Alexander of Constantinople if he would not admit Arius to communion Acacius and his Complices did extrude Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem He also deposed and expelled Cyril of Jerusalem and deposed many other Bishops at Constantinople Cyril deposed Nestorius and Nestorius deposed Cyril and Memnon Cyril and Juvenalis deposed John of Antioch John of Antioch with his Bishops deposed Cyril and Memnon Yea after the Synod of Ephesus John of Antioch gathering together many Bishops did depose Cyril Stephanus concerning Bassianus Because he had entred into the Church with swords therefore he was expelled out of it again by the holy Fathers both by Leo of Rome the Imperial City and by Flavianus by the Bishop of Alexandria and also by the Bishop of Antioch Anatolius of Constantinople did reject Timotheus of Alexandria Acacius Bishop of Constantinople did reject Petrus Fullo 3. St. Cyprian doth assert the power of Censuring Bishops upon needfull and just occasion to belong to all Bishops for maintenance of common Faith Discipline and Peace Therefore saith he writing to Pope Stephanus himself dear brother the body of Bishops is copious being coupled by the glue of concord and the band of unity that if any of our College shall attempt to frame a heresie or to tear and spoil the flock of Christ the rest may succour and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may gather together the sheep of our Lord into the flock The like Doctrine is that of Pope Celestine I. in his Epistle to the Ephesine Synod In matter of Faith any Bishop might interpose Judgment Theophilus did proceed to condemn the Origenists without regard to the Pope Epiphanius did demand satisfaction of John of Jerusalem 4. This common right of Bishops in some cases is confirmed by the nature of such Censures which consisted in disclaiming persons notoriously guilty of Heresie Schism or Scandal and in refusing to entertain communion with them which every Bishop as entitled to the common Interests of Faith and Peace might do 5. Indeed in such a case every Christian had a right yea an obligation to desert his own Bishop So John of Hierusalem having given suspicion of Errour in Faith St. Epiphanius did write Letters to the Monks of Palestine not to communicate with him till they were satisfied of his Orthodoxy Upon which account St. Hierome living in Palestine did decline communication with the Patriarch thereof asking him if it were any where said to him or commanded that without satisfaction concerning his faith they were bound to maintain communion with him So every Bishop yea every Christian hath a kind of Universal Jurisdiction 6. If any Pope did assume more than was allowed in this case by the Canons or was common to other Bishops of his rank it was an irregularity and an usurpation Nor would Examples if any were producible serve to justifie him or to ground a right thereto any more than the extravagant proceedings of other pragmatical and factious Bishops in the same kind whereof so many instances can be alledged can assert such a power to any Bishop 7. When the Pope hath attempted in this kind his power hath been disavowed as an illegal upstart pretence 8. Other Bishops have taken upon them when they apprehended cause to discard and depose Popes So did the Oriental Faction at Sardica depose Pope Julius for transgressing as they supposed the Laws of the Church in fostering hereticks and criminal persons condemned by Synods So did the Synod of Antioch threaten Deposition to the same Pope So did the Patriarch Dioscorus make shew to reject Pope Leo from communion So did St. Hilary anathematize Pope Liberius 9. Popes when there was great occasion and they had a great mind to exert their utmost power have not yet presumed by themselves without joint authority of Synods to condemn Bishops so Pope Julius did not presume to depose Eusebius of Nicomedia his great Adversary and so much obnoxious by his patronizing Arianism Pope Innocent did not censure Theophilus and his Complices who so irregularly and wrongfully had extruded St. Chrysostome although much displeased with them but endeavoured to get a General Synod to doe the business Pope Leo I. though a man of spirit and animosity sufficient would not without assistence of a Synod attempt to judge Dioscorus who had so highly provoked him and given so much advantage against him by favouring Eutyches and persecuting the Orthodox Indeed often we may presume that Popes would have deposed Bishops if they had thought it regular or if others commonly had received that opinion so that they could have expected success in their attempting it But they many times were angry when their horns were short and shewed their teeth when they could not bite 10. What has been done in this kind by Popes jointly with others or in Synods especially upon advantage when the cause was just and plausible is not to be ascribed to the authority of Popes as such It might be done with their influence not by their authority so the Synod of Sardica not Pope Julius cashiered the enemies of Athanasius so the Synod of Chalcedon not Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus so the Roman Synod not Pope Celestine checked Nestorius and that of Ephesus deposed him The whole Western Synod whereof he was President had a great sway 11. If Instances were Arguments of Right there would be other pretenders to the Deposing power Particular Bishops would have it as we before shewed 12. The People would have the power for they have sometimes deposed popes themselves with effect So of Pope Constantine Platina telleth us at length he is deposed by the people of Rome being very much provoked by the indignity of the matter 13. There are many Instances of Bishops being removed or deposed by the Imperial authority This power was indeed necessarily annexed to the Imperial dignity for all Bishops being Subjects
Pope was grievously mistaken in the case whence St. Basil much blameth him for his proceeding therein 4. They cite the Restitution of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia by Pope Liberius out of an Epistle of St. Basil where he says What the most blessed Bishop Liberius proposed to him and to what he consented we know not onely that he brought a Letter to be restored and upon shewing it to the Synod at Tyana was restored to his See I answer That Restitution was onely from an invalid Deposition by a Synod of Arians at Melitine importing onely an acknowledgment of him upon approbation of his Faith professed by him at Rome the which had such influence to the satisfaction of the Diocesan Synod at Tyana that he was restored Although indeed the Romans were abused by him he not being sound in Faith for He now saith Saint Basil doth destroy that faith for which he was received 5. They adjoin that Theodoret was restored by Pope Leo I. for in the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon it is said that be did receive his place from the Bishop of Rome I answer The act of Leo did consist in an approbation of the Faith which Theodoret did profess to hold and a reception of him to communion thereupon which he might well do seeing the ground of Theodoret's being disclaimed was a misprision that he having opposed Cyril's Writings judged Orthodox did err in Faith consenting with Nestorius Theodoret's state before the Second Ephesine Synod is thus represented in the words of the Emperour Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus whom we have before commanded to mind onely his own Church we charge not to come to the Holy Synod before the whole Synod being met it shall seem good to them that he come and hear his part in it He was not perfectly deposed as others were who had others substituted in their places He was deposed by the Ephesine Synod The Pope was indeed ready enough to assume the Patronage of so very learned and worthy a man who in so very suppliant and respectfull a way had redressed to him for succour for whom doth not courtship mollifie And the majority of the Synod being inflamed against Dioscorus and the Eutychian Party was ready enough to allow what the Pope did in favour of him Yet a good part of the Synod the Bishops of Egypt of Palestine of Illyricum notwithstanding the Pope's Restitution that is his approbation in order thereto did stickle against his admission into the Synod crying out have pity on us the faith is destroyed the Canons proscribe this man cast him out cast out Nestorius his Master So that the Imperial Agents were fain to compromise the business permitting him to sit in the Synod as one whose case was dependent but not in the notion of one absolutely restored Theodoret's presence shall prejudice no man each one's right of impleading being reserved both to you and him He therefore was not entirely restored till upon a clear and satisfactory profession of his Faith he was acquitted by the judgment of the Synod The effectual Restitution of him proceeded from the Emperour who repealed the proceedings against him as himself doth acknowledge All these things says he has the most just Emperour evacuated to these things he premised the redressing my injuries and the Imperial Judges in the Synod of Chalcedon join the Emperour in the Restitution Let the most reverend Theodoret enter and bear his part in the Synod since the most holy Archbishop Leo and sacred Emperour have restored his Bishoprick to him Hence it may appear that the Pope's Restitution of Theodoretus was onely opinionative dough-baked incomplete so that it is but a slimme advantage which their pretence can receive from it IX It belongeth to Sovereigns to receive Appeals from all lower Judicatures for the final determination of Causes so that no part of his Subjects can obstruct resort to him or prohibit his revision of any Judgment This Power therefore the Pope doth most stifly assert to himself At the Synod of Florence this was the first and great Branch of Authority which he did demand of the Greeks explicitely to avow he will said his three Cardinals to the Emperour have all the Privileges of his Church and that Appeals be made to him When Pope Alexander III. was advised not to receive an Appeal in Becket's Case he replied in that profane allusion This is my glory which I will not give to another He hath been wont to encourage all People even upon the slightest occasions iter arripere as the phrase is obvious in their Canon Law to run with all haste to his Audience Concerning Appeals for the smallest causes we would have you hold that the same deference is to be given them for how slight a matter soever they be made as if they were for a greater See if you please in Gratian's Decree Caus. 2. quaest 6. where many Papal Decrees most indeed drawn out of the spurious Epistles of ancient Popes but ratified by their Successours and obtaining for current Law are made for Appeals to the See of Rome It was indeed one of the most ancient encroachments and that which did serve most to introduce the rest inferring hence a title to an universal Jurisdiction They are the Canons says Pope Nicholas I. which will that all Appeals of the whole Church he brought to the examination of this See and have decreed that no appeal be made from it and that thus she judge of the whole Church but her self goes to be judged by none other and the same Pope in another of his Epistles says The holy statutes and venerable decrees have committed the causes of Bishops as being weighty matters to be determined by us As the Synod has appointed and usage requires let greater and difficult cases be always referred to the Apostolick See says Pope Pelagius II. They are the canons which will have the appeals of the whole Church tryed by this See saith Pope Gelasius I. But this power is upon various accounts unreasonable grievous and vexatious to the Church as hath been deemed and upon divers occasions declared by the ancient Fathers and grave persons in all times upon accounts not onely blaming the horrible abuse of Appeals but implying the great mischiefs inseparably adherent to them The Synod of Basil thus excellently declared concerning them Hitherto many abuses of intolerable vexations have prevailed whilst many have too often been called and cited from the most remote parts to the court of Rome and that sometime for small and trifling matters and with charges and trouble to be so wearied that they sometime think it their best way to recede from their right or buy off their trouble with great loss rather than be at the cost of suing in so remote a Countrey Saint Bernard complaineth of the mischiefs of Appeals in his times in these words How long will you
but to the Emperour Their Cause was by the Emperour referred not to the Pope singly as it ought to have been and would have been by so just a Prince if it had been his right but to him and other Judges as the Emperour's Commissioners Athanasius did first appeal to the Emperour St. Chrysostome did request the Pope's Succour but he did not appeal to him as Judge although he knew him favourably disposed and the Cause sure in his hand but he appealed to a General Council the which Innocent himself did conceive necessary for decision of that Cause There are in History innumerable Instances of Bishops being condemned and expelled from their Sees but few of Appeals which is a sign that was no approved remedy in common opinion Eutyches did appeal to all the Patriarchs Theodoret did intend to appeal to all the Western Bishops 13. Those very Canons of Sardica the most unhappy that ever were made to the Church which did introduce Appeals to the Pope do yet upon divers accounts prejudice his claim to an original right and do upon no account favour that use of them to which to the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical liberty and good discipline they have been perverted For 1. They do pretend to confer a Privilege on the Pope which argueth that he before had no claim thereto 2. They do qualifie and restrain that Privilege to certain Cases and Forms which is a sign that he had no power therein flowing from absolute Sovereignty for it is strange that they who did pretend and intend so much to favour him should clip his power 3. It is not really a power which they grant of receiving Appeals in all Causes but a power of constituting Judges qualifyed according to certain conditions to revise a special sort of causes concerning the Judgment and Deposition of Bishops Which considerations do subvert his pretence to original and universal Jurisdiction upon Appeals 14. Some Popes did challenge Jurisdiction upon Appeals as given them by the Nicene Canons meaning thereby those of Sardica which sheweth they had no better plea and therefore no original right And otherwhere we shall consider what validity those Canons may be allowed to have 15. The General Synod of Chalcedon of higher authority than that of Sardica derived Appeals at least in the Eastern Churches into another chanel namely to the Primate of each Diocese or to the Patriarch of Constantinople That this was the last resort doth appear from that otherwise they would have mentioned the Pope 16. Appeals in cases of Faith or general Discipline were indeed sometimes made to the consideration of the Pope but not onely to him but to all other Patriarchs and Primates as concerned in the common maintenance of the common Faith or Discipline So did Eutyches appeal to the Patriarchs 17. The Pope even in later times even in the Western parts hath found rubs in his trade of Appeals Consider the scuffle between Pope Nicholas I. and Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes 18. Christian States to prevent the intolerable vexations and mischiefs arising from this practice have been constrained to make Laws against them Particularly England In the Twelfth Age Pope Paschal II. complained of King Henry I. That he deprived the oppressed of the benefit of appealing to the Apostolick See It was one of King Henry I. Laws none is permitted to cry from thence no judgment is thence brought to the Apostolick See Foreign judgments we utterly remove there let the cause be tried where the crime was committed It was one of the Grievances sent to Pope Innocent IV. That Englishmen were drawn out of the Kingdom by the Pope's authority to have their causes heard Nor in after-times were Appeals by Law in any case permitted without the King's leave although sometimes by the facility of Princes or difficulty of times the Roman Court ever importunate and vigilant for its profits did obtain a relaxation or neglect of Laws inhibiting Appeals 19. There were Appeals from Popes to General Councils very frequently Vid. The Senate of Paris after the Concordaâ—s between Lewis XI and Pope Leo X. 20. By many Laws and instances it appeareth that Appellations have been made to the Emperours in the greatest Causes and that without Popes reclaiming or taking it in bad part St. Paul did appeal to Caesar. Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to Aurelianus So the Donatists did appeal to Constantine Athanasius to Constantine The Egyptian Bishops to Constantine Priscillianus to Maximus Idacius to Gratian. So that Canons were made to restrain Bishops from recourse ad Comitatum 21. Whereas they do alledge Instances for Appeal those well considered do prejudice their Cause for they are few in comparison to the occasions of them that ever did arise they are near all of them late when Papal encroachments had grown some of them are very impertinent to the cause some of them may strongly be retorted against them all of them are invalid If the Pope originally had such a right known unquestionable prevalent there might have been producible many ancient clear proper concluding Instances All that Bellarmine after his own search and that of his Predecessours in Controversie could muster are these following upon which we shall briefly reflect adding a few others which may be alledged by them He alledgeth Marcion as appealing to the Pope The truth was that Marcion for having corrupted a Maid was by his own Father Bishop of Sinope driven from the Church whereupon he did thence fly to Rome there begging admittance to communion but none did grant it at which he expostulating they replied We cannot without the permission of thy honourable Father doe this for there is one faith and one concord and we cannot cross thy Father our good fellow-Minister this was the case and issue and is it not strange this should be produced for an Appeal which was onely a supplication of a fugitive criminal to be admitted to communion and wherein is utterly disclaimed any power to thwart the Judgment of a particular Bishop or Judge upon account of unity in common faith and peace should the Pope return the same answer to every Appellant what would become of his Privilege So that they must give us leave to retort this as a pregnant Instance against their pretence He alledgeth the forementioned address of Felicissimus and Fortunatus to Pope Cornelius the which was but a factious circumcursation of desperate wretches the which or any like it St. Cyprian argueth the Pope in law and equity obliged not to regard because a definitive Sentence was already passed on them by their proper Judges in Africk from whom in conscience and reason there could be no Appeal So Bellarmine would filtch from us one of our invincible Arguments against him He also alledgeth the case of Basilides which also we before did shew to make against him his application to the Pope being disavowed by St. Cyprian
and proving ineffectual These are all the Instances which the first three hundred years did afford so that all that time this great Privilege lay dormant He alledgeth the recourse of Athanasius to Pope Julius but this was not properly to him as to a Judge but as to a fellow-Bishop a friend of truth and right for his succour and countenance against persecutours of him chiefly for his Orthodoxy The Pope did undertake to examine his Plea partly as Arbitratour upon reference of both Parties partly for his own concern to satisfie himself whether he might admit him to communion And having heard and weighed things the Pope denied that he was condemned in a legal way by competent Judges and that therefore the pretended Sentence was null and consequently he did not undertake the cause as upon Appeal But whereas his proceeding did look like an exercise of Jurisdiction derogatory to a Synodical resolution of the case he was opposed by the Oriental Bishops as usurping an undue power Unto which charge he doth not answer directly by asserting to himself any such authority by Law or Custome but otherwise excusing himself In the issue the Pope's Sentence was not peremptory untill upon examining the merits of the cause it was approved for just as to matter by the Synod of Sardica These things otherwhere we have largely shewed and consequently this Instance is deficient He alledgeth St. Chrysostome as appealing to Pope Innocent I. but if you reade his Epistles to that Pope you will find no such matter he doth onely complain and declare to him the iniquity of the process against him not as to a Judge but as to a friend and fellow-Bishop concerned that such injurious and mischievous dealings should be stopped requesting from him not judgment of his cause but succour in procuring it by a General Synod to which indeed he did appeal as Sozomen expresly telleth us and as indeed he doth himself affirm Accordingly Pope Innocent did not assume to himself the judgment of his cause but did endeavour to procure a Synod for it affirming it to be needfull why so if his own Judgment according to his Privilege did suffice why indeed did not Pope Innocent being well satisfied in the case yea passionately touched with it presently summon Theophilus and his adherents undertaking the Trial did Pope Nicholas I. proceed so in the case of Rhotaldus why was he content onely to write Consolatory Letters to him and to his people not pretending to undertake the decision of his cause If the Pope had been endowed with such a Privilege it is morally impossible that it should not have shone forth clearly upon this occasion it could hardly be that St. Chrysostome himself should not in plain terms avow it that he should not formally apply to it as the most certain and easie way of finding relief that he should not earnestly mind and urge the Pope to use his Privilege why should he speak of that tedious and difficult way of a General Synod when so short and easie a way was at hand but the truth is he did not know any such power the Pope had by himself St. Chrysostome rather did conceive all such foreign Judicatures to be unreasonable and unjust for the Argument which he darteth at Theophilus doth as well reach the Papal Jurisdiction upon Appeals for It was saith he not congruous that an Egyptian should judge those in Thrace why not an Egyptian as well as an Italian and If saith he this custome should prevail and it become lawfull for those who will to go into the Parishes of others even from such distances and to cast out whom any one pleaseth doing by their own authority what they please know that all things will go to wreck Why may not this be said of a Roman as well as of an Alexandrian St. Chrysostome also we may observe did not onely apply himself to the Pope but to other Western Bishops particularly to the Bishops of Milain and Aquileia whom he called Beatissimi Domini did appeal to them He alledgeth Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople appealing to Pope Leo but let us consider the story Flavianus for his Orthodoxy or upon other accounts very injuriously treated and oppressed by Dioscorus who was supported by the favour of the Imperial Court having in his case no other remedy did appeal to the Pope who alone among the Patriarchs had dissented from those proceedings The Pope was himself involved in the cause being of the same persuasion having been no less affronted and hardly treated considering their power and that he was out of their reach and condemned by the same Adversaries To him therefore as to the leading Bishop of Christendom in the first place interested in defence of the common Faith together with a Synod not to him as sole Judge did Flavianus appeal He saith Placidia in her Letter to Theodosius did appeal to the Apostolick See and to all the Bishops of these parts that is to the rest of Christendom which were not engaged in the Party of Dioscorus and to whom else could he have appealed Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith that he did appeal according to the manner of Synods and whatever those words signifie that could not be to the Pope as a single Judge for before that time in whatever Synod was such an appeal made what custome could there be favourable to such a pretence But what his Appeal did import is best interpretable by the proceeding consequent which was not the Pope's assuming to himself the Judicature either immediately or by delegation of Judges but endeavouring to procure a General Synod for it the which endeavour doth appear in many Epistles to Theodosius and to his Sister Pulcheria soliciting that such a Synod might be indicted by his order All the Bishops saith Pope Leo with sighs and tears do supplicate your Grace that because our Agents did faithfully reclaim and Bishop Flavianus did present them a libel of appeal you would command a General Synod to be celebrated in Italy Dioscorus and his Party would scarce have been so silly as to condemn Flavianus if they had known which if it had been a case clear in law or obvious in practice they could not but have known that the Pope who was deeply engaged in the same cause had a power to reverse and revenge their proceedings Nor would the good Emperour Theodosius so pertinaciously have maintained the proceedings of that Ephesine Synod if he had deemed the Pope duly Sovereign Governour and Judge or that a right of ultimate Decision upon Appeal did appertain to him Nor had the Pope needed to have taken so much pains in procuring a Synod if he could have judged without it Nor would Pope Leo a man of so much spirit and zeal for the dignity of his See have been so wanting to the maintenance of his right as not immediately to have
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
as well in the places and bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as of Secular Empire Wherefore Saint Peter's Monarchy reason requiring might be cantonized into divers spiritual Supremacies and as other Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions have been chopp'd and chang'd enlarged or diminished removed and extinguished so might that of the Roman Bishop The Pope cannot retain power in any State against the will of the Prince he is not bound to suffer correspondences with Foreigners especially such who apparently have interests contrary to his honour and the good of his people 5. Especially that might be done if the continuance of such a Jurisdiction should prove abominably corrupt or intolerably grievous to the Church 6. That power is defectible which according to the nature and course of things doth sometime fail But the Papal Succession hath often been interrupted by contingencies of Sedition Schism Intrusion Simoniacal Election Deposition c. as before shewed and is often interrupted by Vacancies from the death of the Incumbents 7. If leaving their dubious and false suppositions concerning Divine Institution Succession to Saint Peter c. we consider the truth of the case and indeed the more grounded plea of the Pope that Papal preeminence was obtained by the wealth and dignity of the Roman City and by the collation or countenance of the Imperial authority then by the defect of such advantages it may cease or be taken away for when Rome hath ceased to be the Capital City the Pope may cease to be Head of the Church When the Civil powers which have succeeded the Imperial each in its respective Territory are no less absolute than it they may take it away if they judge it fit for whatever power was granted by humane Authority by the same may be revoked and what the Emperour could have done each Sovereign power now may doe for it self An indefectible power cannot be settled by man because there is no power ever extant at one time greater than there is at another so that whatever power one may raise the other may demolish there being no bounds whereby the present time may bind all posterity However no humane Law can exempt any Constitution from the providence of God which at pleasure can dissolve whatever man hath framed And if the Pope were devested of all adventitious power obtained by humane means he would be left very bare and hardly would take it worth his while to contend for Jurisdiction 8. However or whencesoever the Pope had his Authority yet it may be forfeited by defects and defaults incurred by him If the Pope doth encroach on the rights and liberties of others usurping a lawless domination beyond reason and measure they may in their own defence be forced to reject him and shake off his yoke If he will not be content to govern otherwise than by infringing the Sacred Laws and trampling down the inviolable Privileges of the Churches either granted by Christ or established by the Sanctions of General Synods he thereby depriveth himself of all Authority because it cannot be admitted upon tolerable terms without greater wrong of many others whose right out-weigheth his and without great mischief to the Church the good of which is to be preferred before his private advantage This was the Maxime of a great Pope a great stickler for his own dignity for when the Bishop of Constantinople was advanced by a General Synod above his ancient pitch of dignity that Pope opposing him did say that whoever doth affect more than his due doth lose that which properly belonged to him the which Rule if true in regard to another's case may be applied to the Pope for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again On such a supposition of the Papal encroachment we may return his words upon him It is too proud and immoderate a thing to stretch beyond ones bounds and in contempt of antiquity to be willing to invade other mens right and to oppose the Primacies of so many Metropolitans on purpose to advance the dignity of one For the privileges of Churches being instituted by the Canons of the holy Fathers and fixt by the Decrees of the venerable Synod of Nice cannot be pluckt up by any wicked attempt nor altered by any innovation Far be it from me that I should in any Church infringe the Decrees of our Ancestours made in favour of my Fellow-priests for I do my self injury if I disturb the rights of my brethren The Pope surely according to any ground of Scripture or Tradition or ancient Law hath no Title to greater Principality in the Church than the Duke of Venice hath in that State Now if the Duke of Venice in prejudice to the publick right and liberty should attempt to stretch his power to an absoluteness of command or much beyond the bounds allowed him by the constitution of that Common-wealth he would thereby surely forfeit his Supremacy such as it is and afford cause to the State of rejecting him the like occasion would the Pope give to the Church by the like demeanour 9. The Pope by departing from the Doctrine and Practice of Saint Peter would forfeit his Title of Successour to him for in such a case no succession in place or in name could preserve it The Popes themselves had swerved and degenerated from the example of Peter They are not the Sons of the Saints who hold the places of the Saints but they that doe their works Which place is rased out of St. Hierome They have not the inheritance of Peter who have not the faith of Peter which they tear asunder by ungodly division So Gregory Nazianzene saith of Athanasius that he was Successour of Mark no less in piety than presidency the which we must suppose to be properly succession otherwise the Mufti of Constantinople is Successour to St. Andrew of St. Chrysostome c. the Mufti of Jerusalem to St. James If then the Bishop of Rome instead of teaching Christian Doctrine doth propagate Errours contrary to it If instead of guiding into Truth and Godliness he seduceth into Falshood and Impiety If instead of declaring and pressing the Laws of God he delivereth and imposeth Precepts opposite prejudicial destructive of God's Laws If instead of promoting genuine Piety he doth in some instances violently oppose it If instead of maintaining true Religion he doth pervert and corrupt it by bold Defalcations by Superstitious additions by Foul mixtures and alloys If he coineth new Creeds Articles of Faith new Scriptures new Sacraments new Rules of Life obtruding them on the Consciences of Christians If he conformeth the Doctrines of Christianity to the Interests of his Pomp and Profit making gain godliness If he prescribe Vain Profane Superstitious ways of Worship turning Devotion into Foppery and Pageantry If instead of preserving Order and Peace he fomenteth Discords and Factions in the Church being a Make-bate and Incendiary among
any of the dissenting Parties to the Judgment of such Authority Indeed if such an Authority had then been avowed by the Christian Churches it is hardly conceivable that any Schisms could subsist there being so powerfull a Remedy against them then notably visible and most effectual because of its fresh Institution before it was darkned or weakned by Age. Whereas the Apostolical Writings do inculcate our Subjection to one Lord in Heaven it is much they should never consider his Vicegerent or Vicegerents upon Earth notifying and pressing the Duties of Obedience and Reverence toward them There are indeed Exhortations to honour the Elders and to obey the Guides of particular Churches but the Honour and Obedience due to those Paramount Authorities or Universal Governours is passed over in dead silence as if no such thing had been thought of They do expresly avow the Secular Pre-eminence and press Submission to the Emperour as Supreme why do they not likewise mention this no less considerable Ecclesiastical Supremacy or enjoin Obedience thereto why Honour the King and be subject to Principalities so often but Honour the Spiritual Prince or Senate doth never occur If there had been any such Authority there would probably have been some intimation concerning the Persons in whom it was setled concerning the Place of their residence concerning the Manner of its being conveyed by Election Succession or otherwise Probably the Persons would have some proper Name Title or Character to distinguish them from inferiour Governours that to the Place some mark of Pre-eminence would have been affixed It is not unlikely that somewhere some Rules or Directions would have been prescribed for the management of so high a Trust for preventing Miscarriages and Abuses to which it is notoriously liable It would have been declared Absolute or the Limits of it would have been determined to prevent its enslaving God's heritage But of these things in the Apostolical Writings or in any near those times there doth not appear any footstep or pregnant intimation There hath never to this day been any place but one namely Rome which hath pretended to be the Seat of such an Authority the Plea whereof we largely have examined At present we shall onely observe that before the Roman Church was founded there were Churches otherwhere there was a great Church at Jerusalem which indeed was the Mother of all Churches and was by the Fathers so styled however Rome now doth arrogate to her self that Title There were issuing from that Mother a fair Offspring of Churches those of Judaea of Galilaea of Samaria of Syria and Cilicia of divers other places before there was any Church at Rome or that Saint Peter did come thither which was at least divers years after our Lord's Ascension Saint Paul was converted after five years he went to Hierusalem then Saint Peter was there after fourteen years thence he went to Hierusalem again and then Saint Peter was there after that he met with Saint Peter at Antioch Where then was this Authority seated How then did the political Unity of the Church subsist Was the Seat of the Sovereign Authority first resident at Jerusalem when Saint Peter preached there Did it walk thence to Antiochia fixing it self there for seven years Was it thence translated to Rome and setled there ever since Did this roving and inconstancy become it 5. The primitive State of the Church did not well comport with such an Unity For Christian Churches were founded in distant places as the Apostles did find opportunity or received direction to found them which therefore could not without extreme inconvenience have resort or reference to one Authority any where fixed Each Church therefore separately did order its own Affairs without recourse to others except for charitable Advice or Relief in cases of extraordinary difficulty or urgent need Each Church was endowed with a perfect Liberty and a full Authority without dependence or subordination to others to govern its own Members to manage its own Affairs to decide Controversies and Causes incident among themselves without allowing Appeals or rendring Accounts to others This appeareth by the Apostolical Writings of Saint Paul and Saint John to single Churches wherein they are supposed able to exercise spiritual Power for establishing Decency removing Disorders correcting Offences deciding Causes c. 6. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Liberty of Churches doth appear to have long continued in practice inviolate although tempered and modelled in accommodation to the circumstances of place and time It is true that if any Church did notoriously forsake the Truth or commit Disorder in any kind other Churches did sometime take upon them as the Case did move to warn advise reprove it and to declare against its proceedings as prejudicial not onely to the welfare of that Church but to the common interests of Truth and Peace but this was not in way of commanding Authority but of fraternal Solicitude or of that Liberty which Equity and Prudence do allow to Equals in regard to common good So did the Roman Church interpose in reclaiming the Church of Corinth from its Disorders and Seditions So did Saint Cyprian and Saint Denys of Alex. meddle in the Affairs of the Roman Church exhorting Novatian and his Adherents to return to the Peace of their Church It is also true that the Bishops of several adjacent Churchs did use to meet upon Emergencies concerning the maintenance of Truth Order and Peace concerning Settlement and Approbation of Pastours c. to consult and conclude upon Expedients for attaining such Ends this probably they did at first in a free way without rule according to occasion as Prudence suggested but afterwards by confederation and consent those Conventions were formed into method and regulated by certain Orders established by consent whence did arise an Ecclesiastical Unity of Government within certain Precincts much like that of the United States in the Netherlands the which course was very prudential and usefull for preserving the Truth of Religion and Unity of Faith against heretical Devices springing up in that free age for maintaining Concord and good Correspondence among Christians together with an Harmony in Manners and Discipline for that otherwise Christendom would have been shattered and crumbled into numberless Parties discordant in Opinion and Practice and consequently alienated in Affection which inevitably among most men doth follow Difference of Opinion and Manners so that in short time it would not have appeared what Christianity was and consequently the Religion being overgrown with Differences and Discords must have perished Thus in the case about admitting the Lapsi to Communion Saint Cyprian relates when the persecution of Decius ceased so that leave was now given us to meet in one place together a considerable number of Bishops whom their own faith and God's protection had preserved sound and entire from the late Apostasie and Persecution being assembled we deliberated of the composition of the matter with wholsome moderation
bounds of Papal Authority This disagreement of the Roman Doctours about the nature and extent of Papal Authority is a shrewd prejudice against it If a man should sue for a piece of Land and his Advocates the notablest could be had and well payed could not find where it lieth how it is butted and bounded from whom it was conveyed to him one would be very apt to suspect his Title If God had instituted such an Office it is highly probable we might satisfactorily know what the Nature and Use of it were the Patents and Charters for it would declare it Yet for resolution in this great Case we are left to seek they not having either the will or the courage or the power to determine it This insuperable Problem hath baffled all their infallible methods of deciding Controversies their Traditions blundering their Synods clashing their Divines wrangling endlesly about what kind of thing the Pope is and what Power he rightly may claim There is saith a great Divine among them so much controversie about the plenitude of Ecclesiastical Power and to what things it may extend it self that few things in that matter are secure This is a plain argument of the impotency of the Pope's power in judging and deciding Controversies or of his Cause in this matter that he cannot define a Point so nearly concerning him and which he so much desireth an Agreement in that he cannot settle his own Claim out of doubt that all his Authority cannot secure it self from contest So indeed it is that no Spells can allay some Spirits and where Interests are irreconcilable Opinions will be so Some Points are so tough and so touchy that no-body dare meddle with them fearing that their resolution will fail of success and submission Hence even the anathematizing Definers of Trent the boldest undertakers to decide Controversies that ever were did wave this Point the Legates of the Pope being injoined to advertise That they should not for any cause whatever come to dispute about the Pope's Authority It was indeed wisely done of them to decline this Question their Authority not being strong enough to bear the weight of a Decision in favour of the Roman See against which they could doe nothing according to its Pretences as appeareth by one clear instance For whereas that Council took upon it incidentally to enact that any Prince should be excommunicate and deprived of the dominion of any City or place where he should permit a Duel to be fought the Prelates of France in the Convention of Orders Anno 1595. did declare against that Decree as infringing their King's Authority It was therefore advisedly done not to meddle with so ticklish a point But in the mean time their Policy seemeth greater than their Charity which might have inclined them not to leave the world in darkness and doubt and unresolved in a Point of so main importance as indeed they did in others of no small consequence disputed among their Divines with obstinate Heat viz. The Divine Right of Bishops the Necessity of Residence the immaculate Conception c. The Opinions therefore among them concerning the Pope's Authority as they have been so they are and in likelihood may continue very different § II. There are among them those who ascribe to the Pope an universal absolute and boundless Empire over all Persons indifferently and in all Matters conferred and settled on him by Divine immutable sanction so that all men of whatever degree are obliged in conscience to believe whatever he doth authoritatively dictate and to obey whatever he doth prescribe So that if Princes themselves do refuse obedience to his will he may excommunicate them cashier them depose them extirpate them If he chargeth us to hold no Communion with our Prince to renounce our Allegeance to him to abandon oppose and persecute him even to death we may without scruple we must in duty obey If he doth interdict whole Nations from the exercise of God's Worship and Service they must comply therein So that according to their conceits he is in effect Sovereign Lord of all the World and superiour even in Temporal or Civil matters unto all Kings and Princes It is notorious that many Canonists if not most and many Divines of that Party do maintain this Doctrine affirming that all the Power of Christ the Lord of Lords and King of Kings to whom all Power in Heaven and Earth doth appertain is imparted to the Pope as to his Vice-gerent This is the Doctrine which almost 400 years agoe Augustinus Triumphus in his egregious Work concerning Ecclesiastical Power did teach attributing to the Pope an incomprehensible and infinite Power because great is the Lord and great is his Power and of his Greatness there is no end This is the Doctrine which the leading Theologue of their Sect their Angelical Doctour doth affirm both directly saying that in the Pope is the top of both Powers and by plain consequence asserting that when any one is denounced excommunicate for Apostasie his Subjects are immediately freed from his dominion and their Oath of Allegeance to him This the same Thomas or an Authour passing under his name in his Book touching the Rule of Princes doth teach affirming that the Pope as Supreme King of all the world may impose taxes on all Christians and destroy Towns and Castles for the preservation of Christianity This as Card. Zabarell near 300 years agoe telleth us is the Doctrine which for a long time those who would please Popes did persuade them that they could doe all things whatever they pleased yea and things unlawfull and so could doe more than God According to this Doctrine then current at Rome in the last Laterane Great Synod under the Pope's nose and in his ear one Bishop styled him Prince of the World another Oratour called him King of Kings and Monarch of the Earth another great Prelate said of him that he had all Power above all Powers both of Heaven and Earth And the same roused up Pope Leo X. in these brave terms Snatch up therefore the two-edged sword of Divine Power committed to thee and injoyn command and charge that an universal Peace and Alliance be made among Christians for at least 10 years and to that bind Kings in the fetters of the great King and constrain Nobles by the iron manacles of Censures for to thee is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth This is the Doctrine which Baronius with a Roman confidence doth so often assert and drive forward saying that there can be no doubt of it but that the Civil Principality is subject to the Sacerdotal and that God hath made the Political Government subject to the Dominion of the Spiritual Church § III. From that Doctrine the Opinion in effect doth not differ which Bellarmine voucheth for the common Opinion of Catholicks that by reason of the Spiritual Power the Pope at least indirectly hath a Supreme
sayings to that purpose by suggestion of Hildebrand by whom he was much governed Pope Stephanus VI. told the Emperour Basilius that he ought to be subject with all veneration to the Roman Church Pope John VIII or IX did pretend Obedience due to him from Princes and in default thereof threatned to excommunicate them Pope Nicolas I. cast many imperious sayings and threats at King Lotharius these among others We do therefore by Apostolical authority under obtestation of the Divine judgment injoin to thee that in Triers and Colen thou shouldst not suffer any Bishop to be chosen before a report be made to our Apostleship Was not this satis pro imperio And again That being compelled thou mayst be able to repent know that very soon thou shalt be struck with the Ecclesiastical Sword so that thou mayst be afraid any more to commit such things in God's holy Church And this he suggesteth for right Doctrine that Subjection is not due to bad Princes perverting the Apostle's words to that purpose Be subject to the King as excelling that is saith he in vertues not in vices whereas the Apostle meaneth eminency in power Pope Gregory VII doth also alledge Pope Zachary who saith he did depose the King of the Franks and did absolve all the French from the Oath of fidelity which they had taken unto him not so much for his iniquities as because he was unfit for such a Power This indeed was a notable act of jurisdiction if Pope Gregory's word may be taken for matter of fact but divers maintain that Pope Zachary did onely concur with the rebellious deposers of King Chilperick in way of advice or approbation not by authority It was pretty briskly said of Pope Adrian I. We do by general decree constitute that whatever King or Bishop or Potentate shall hereafter believe or permit that the Censure of the Roman Pontifes may be violated in any case he shall be an execrable Anathema and shall be guilty before God as a betrayer of the Catholick Faith Constitutions against the Canons and Decrees of the Bishops of Rome or against good manners are of no moment Before that Pope Gregory II. because the Eastern Emperour did cross the worship of Images did withdraw Subjection from him and did thrust his Authority out of Italy He saith Baronius did effectually cause both the Romans and Italians to recede from Obedience to the Emperour This was an act in truth of Rebellion against the Emperour in pretence of Jurisdiction over him for how otherwise could he justify or colour the fact So as Baronius reflecteth he did leave to posterity a worthy example forsooth that Heretical Princes should not be suffered to reign in the Church of Christ if being warned they were found pertinacious in errour And no wonder he then was so bold seeing the Pope had obtained so much respect in those parts of the World that as he told the Emperour Leo Is. all the Kingdoms of the West did hold Saint Peter as an earthly God of which he might be able to seduce some to uphold him in his rebellious practices This is the highest source as I take it to which this extravagant Doctrine can be driven For that single passage of Pope Felix III. though much ancienter will not amount to it It is certain that in causes relating to God 't is the safest course for you that according to his institution ye endeavour to submit the will of the King to the Priests c. For while the Emperour did retain any considerable Authority in Italy the Popes were better advised than to vent such notions and while they themselves did retain any measure of pious or prudent Modesty they were not disposed to it And we may observe divers Popes near that time in word and practice thwarting that practice For instance Pope Gelasius a vehement stickler for Papal Authority doth say to the Emperour Anastasius I as being a Roman born do love worship reverence thee as the Roman Prince And he saith that the Prelates of Religion knowing the Empire conferr'd on him by Divine Providence did obey his Laws And otherwhere he discourseth that Christ had distinguished by their proper acts and dignities the offices of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power that one should not meddle with the other so disclaiming Temporal Power due to himself being content to scrue up his Spiritual Authority After him as is well known Pope Gregory I. as became a pious and good man did avow the Emperour for his Lord by God's gift superiour to all men to whom he was subject whom he in duty was bound to obey and supposed it a high presumption for any one to set himself above the honour of the Empire by assuming the title of Universal Bishop After him Pope Agatho in the Acts of the sixth General Council doth call the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus his Lord doth avow himself together with all Presidents of the Churches servants to the Emperour doth say that his See and his Synod were subject to him and did owe Obedience to him Presently after him Pope Leo II. who confirmed that General Synod doth call the Emperour the prototype Son of the Church and acknowledgeth the body of Priests to be servants meanest servants of his Royal Nobleness After him Pope Constantine the immediate Predecessour of Pope Greg. II. when the Emperour did command him to come to Constantinople The most holy man saith Anastasius in his Life did obey the Imperial Commands Yea Pope Gregory II. himself before his defection when perhaps the circumstances of time did not animate him thereto did in his Epistle to Leo Isaurus acknowledge him as Emperour to be the Head of Christians and himself consequently subject to him This Gregory therefore may be reputed the Father of that Doctrine which being fostered by his Successours was by Pope Gregory VII brought up to it s robust pitch and stature I know Pope Gregory VII to countenance him doth alledge Pope Innocent I. excommunicating the Emperour Arcadius for his proceeding against St. Chrysostome and the Writers of St. Chrysostome's Life with others of the like age and credit do back him therein But seeing the Historians who lived in St. Chrysostome's own time and who write very carefully about him do not mention any such thing seeing that being the first Act in the kind must have been very notable and have made a great noise seeing that story doth not sute with the tenour of proceedings reported by those most credible Historians in that case seeing that fact doth no-wise sort to the condition and way of those Times that report cannot be true and it must be numbred among the many fabulous narrations devised by some wanton Greeks to set out the Life of that excellent Personage The same Pope doth also alledge St. Gregory M. denouncing Excommunication and Deprivation of honour to all Kings Bishops Judges
large Epistle wherein like a good Bishop and charitable Christian brother he doth earnestly by manifold inducements persuade them to charity and peace but no-where doth he speak imperiously like their Prince In such a case one would think if ever for quashing such disorders and quelling so perverse folks who spurned the Clergy it had been decent it had been expedient to employ his Authority and to speak like himself challenging obedience upon duty to him and at their peril How would a modern Pope have ranted in such a case how thundring a Bull would he have dispatched against such outragious contemners of the Ecclesiastical Order how often would he have spoken of the Apostolick See and its Authority we should infallibly have heard him swagger in his wonted style Whoever shall presume to cross our will let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul but our Popes it seemeth have more wit or better mettle than Pope Clement that good Pope did not know his own strength or had not the heart to use it 21. Among the Epistles of St. Cyprian there are divers Epistles of him to several Popes to Cornelius to Lucius to Stephanus in the which although written with great kindness and respect yet no impartial eye can discern any special regard to them as to his Superiours in Power or Pastours in Doctrine or Judges of Practice he reporteth matters to them he conferreth about Points with all freedom he speaketh his sense and giveth his advice without any restraint or awe he spareth not upon occasion to reprove their practices and to reject their opinions he in his addresses to them and discourses of them styleth them Brethren and Collegues and he continually treateth them as such upon even terms When saith he to the Clergy of Rome dearest Brethren there was among us an uncertain rumour concerning the decease of the good man my Collegue Fabianus upon which words Rigaltius had cause to remark How like an equal and fellow-citizen doth the Bishop of Carthage mention the Bishop of Rome even to the Roman Clergy but would not any man now be deemed rude and sawcy who should talk in that style of the Pope Pope Cornelius also to Saint Cyprian hath some Epistles wherein no glimpse doth appear of any Superiority assumed by him But of St. Cyprian's judgment and demeanour toward Popes we shall have occasion to speak more largely in a way more positively opposite to the Roman pretences Eusebius citeth divers long passages out of an Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius Bishop of Antioch against Novatus wherein no mark of this Supremacy doth appear although the magnitude and flourishing State of the Roman Church is described for aggravation of Novatus his Schism and ambition Pope Julius hath a notable long Epistle extant in one of Athanasius's Apologies unto the Bishops assembled at Antioch wherein he had â—he fairest occasion that could be to assert and insist upon this Sovereign Authority they flatly denying and impugning it questioning his proceedings as singular supposing him subject to the Laws of the Church no less than any other Bishop and downrightly affirming each of themselves to be his equal about which Point he thought good not to contend with them but waving pretences to Superiority he justifieth his actions by reasons grounded on the merit of the cause such as any other Bishop might alledge But this Epistle I shall have more particular occasion to discuss Pope Liberius hath an Epistle to St. Athanasius wherein he not onely for his direction and satisfaction doth inquire his opinion about the Point but professeth in complement perchance that he shall obediently follow it Write saith he whether you do think as we do and just so about the true faith that I may be undoubtedly assured about what you think good to command me was not that spoken indeed like a courteous Sovereign and an accomplished Judge in matters of Faith The same Pope in the head of the Western doth write to a knot of Eastern Bishops whom they call their beloved Brethren and fellow Ministers and in a brotherly strain not like an Emperour In the time of Damasus Successour to Liberius St. Basil hath divers Epistles to the Western Bishops wherein having represented and bewailed the wretched state of the Eastern Churches then overborn with Heresies and unsettled by Factions he craveth their charity their prayers their sympathy their comfort their brotherly aid by affording to the Orthodox and sound Party the countenance of their Communion by joining with them in contention for Truth and Peace for that the Communion of so great Churches would be of mighty weight to support and strengthen their Cause giving credit thereto among the People and inducing the Emperour to deal fairly with them in respect to such a multitude of adherents especially of those which were at such a distance and not so immediately subject to the Eastern Emperour for If saith he very many of you do concur unanimously in the same opinion it is manifest that the multitude of consenters will make the doctrine to be received without contradiction and I know saith he again writing to Athanasius about these matters but one way of redress to our Churches the conspiring with us of the Western Bishops the which being obtained would probably yield some advantage to the publick the secular power revering the credibility of the multitude and the people all about following them without repugnance and You saith he to the Western Bishops the farther you dwell from them the more credible you will be to the people This indeed was according to the ancient Rule and Practice in such cases that any Church being oppressed with Errour or distracted with Contentions should from the Bishops of other Churches receive aid to the removal of those inconveniences That it was the Rule doth appear from what we have before spoken and of the Practice there be many instances for so did St. Cyprian send two of his Clergy to Rome to compose the Schism there moved by Novatian against Cornelius so was St. Chrysostome called to Ephesus although out of his Jurisdiction to settle things there so to omit divers instances occurring in History St. Basil himself was called by the Church of Iconium to visit it and to give it a Bishop although it did not belong to his ordinary inspection and he doth tell the Bishops of the Coasts that they should have done well in sending some to visit and assist his Churches in their distresses But now how I pray cometh it to pass that in such a case he should not have a special recourse to the Pope but in so many addresses should onely wrap him up in a community why should he not humbly petition him to exert his Sovereign Authority for the relief of the Eastern Churches laying his charge and inflicting censures on the dissenters why should he
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
vain pray for Kings and all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty For suppose the two powers Spiritual and Temporal to be co-ordinate and independent each of other then must all Christians be put into that perplexed state of repugnant and incompatible obligations concerning which our Lord saith No man can serve two Masters for either he will hate the one and love the other or else he will hold to the one and despise the other They will often draw several ways and clash in their designs in their laws in their decisions one willing and commanding that which the other disliketh and prohibiteth It will be impossible by any certain bounds to distinguish their Jurisdiction so as to prevent contest between them all temporal matters being in some respect spiritual as being referible to spiritual ends and in some manner allyed to Religion and all spiritual things becoming temporal as they conduce to the secular peace and prosperity of States there is nothing which each of these Powers will not hook within the verge of its cognizance and jurisdiction each will claim a right to meddle in all things one pretending thereby to further the good of the Church the other to secure the interest of the State and what end or remedy can there be of the differences hence arising there being no third Power to arbitrate or moderate between them Each will prosecute its cause by its advantages the one by instruments of temporal power the other by spiritual arms of censures and curses And in what a case must the poor people then be how distracted in their consciences how divided in their affections how discordant in their practices according as each pretence hath influence upon them by its different arguments or peculiar advantages How can any man satisfie himself in performing or refusing obedience to either How many by the intricacy of the point and contrary pulling will be withdrawn from yielding due complyance on the one hand or the other What shall a man doe while one in case of disobedience to his Commands doth brandish a Sword the other thundreth out a Curse against him one threatneth death the other excision from the Church both denounce damnation What animosities and contentions what discomposures and confusions must this Constitution of things breed in every place and how can a Kingdom so divided in it self stand or not come into desolation Such an advantage infallibly will make Popes affect to invade the temporal Power It was the reason which Pope Paschal alledged against Henry IV. because he did Ecclesiae regnum auferre It is indeed impossible that a co-ordination of these Powers should subsist for each will be continually encroaching on the other each for its own defence and support will continually be struggling and clambring to get above the other there will never be any quiet till one come to subside and truckle under the other whereby the Sovereignty of the one or the other will be destroyed Each of them soon will come to claim a Supremacy in all causes and the power of both Swords and one side will carry it It is indeed necessary that men for a time continuing possessed with a reverence to the Ecclesiastical Authority as independent and uncontrollable it should at last overthrow the temporal by reason of its great advantages above it for The Spiritual Power doth pretend an Establishment purely Divine which cannot by any accidents undergoe any change diminutions or translation to which Temporal dominions are subject Its power therefore being perpetual irreversible depending immediately of God can hardly be checked can never be conquered It fighteth with Tongues and Pens which are the most perillous Weapons It can never be disarmed fighting with Weapons that cannot be taken away or deprived of their edge and vigour It worketh by most powerfull considerations upon the Consciences and affections of men upon pain of damnation promising heaven and threatning hell which upon some men have an infinite sway upon all men a considerable influence and thereby will be too hard for those who onely can grant Temporal Rewards or inflict Temporal Punishments It is surely a notable advantage that the Pope hath above all Princes that he commandeth not onely as a Prince but as a Guide so that whereas we are not otherwise bound to obey the commands of Princes than as they appear concordant with God's Law we must observe his commands absolutely as being therefore lawfull because he commandeth them that involving his assertion of their lawfulness to which without farther inquiry or scruple we must submit our understanding his words sufficiently authorizing his commands for just We are not onely obliged to obey his commands but to embrace his doctrines It hath continual opportunities of conversing with men and thereby can insinuate and suggest the obligation to obey it with greatest advantage in secrecy in the tenderest seasons It claimeth a power to have its instruction admitted with assent and will it not instruct them for its own advantage All its Assertions must be believed is not this an infinite advantage By such advantages the Spiritual Power if admitted for such as it pretendeth will swallow and devour the Temporal which will be an extreme mischief to the world The very pretence doth immediately crop and curtail the natural Right of Princes by exempting great numbers of Persons the participants and dependents of this Hierarchy from subjection to them By withdrawing Causes from their Jurisdiction By commanding in their Territories and drawing people out of them to their Judicatories By having influence on their Opinions By dreigning them of Wealth c. To this discourse Experience abundantly doth yield its Attestation for How often have the Popes thwarted Princes in the exercise of their power challenging their Laws and Administrations as prejudicial to Religion as contrary to Ecclesiastical Liberty Bodin l. 9. observeth that if any Prince were a Heretick that is if the Pope could pick occasion to call him so or a Tyrant that is in his opinion or any-wise scandalous the Pope would excommunicate him and would not receive him to favour but upon his acknowledging himself a feudatory to the Pope So he drew in most Kingdoms to depend on him How often have they excommunicated them and interdicted their people from entertaining communion with them How many Commotions Conspiracies Rebellions and Insurrections against Princes have they raised in several Countries How have they inveigled people from their Allegiance How many Massacres and Assassinations have they caused How have they depressed and vilified the Temporal Power Have they not assumed to themselves Superiority over all Princes The Emperour himself the chief of Christian Princes they did call their Vassal exacting an Oath from them whereof you have a Form in the Canon Law and a declaration of Pope Clement V. that it is an Oath of Fealty
voluntary deference the conduct of affairs is wont to be allowed none presuming to stand in competition with them every one rather yielding place to them than to their equals The same conduct of things upon the same accounts and by reason of their possession doth continue fast in their hands so long as they do retain such advantages Then from a custom of managing things doth spring up an opinion or a pretence of right thereto they are apt to assume a title and others ready to allow it Men naturally do admire such things and so are apt to defer extraordinary respect to the possessours of them Advantages of wealth and might are not onely instruments to attain but incentives spurring men to affect the getting authority over their poorer and weaker neighbours for men will not be content with bare eminency but will desire real power and sway so as to obtain their wills over others and not to be crossed by any Pope Leo had no reason to wonder that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople was not content with dry honour Men are apt to think their honour is precarious and standeth on an uncertain foundation if it be not supported with real power and therefore they will not be satisfied to let their advantages lie dead which are so easily improveable to power by inveigling some and scaring or constraining others to bear their yoke and they are able to benefit and gratifie some and thereby render them willing to submit those afterwards become serviceable to bring others under who are disaffected or refractory So the Bishops of Constantinople and of Jerusalem at first had onely privileges of honour but afterward they soon hooked in power Now the Roman Bishops from the beginning were eminent above all other Bishops in all kinds of advantages He was seated in the Imperial City the place of general resort thence obvious to all eyes and his name sounding in all mouths He had a most numerous opulent splendid flock and Clergy He had the greatest income from liberal oblations to dispose of He lived in greatest state and lustre He had oportunities to assist others in their business and to relieve them in their wants He necessarily thence did obtain great respect and veneration Hence in all common affairs the conduct and presidence were naturally devolved on him without contest No wonder then that after some time the Pope did arrive to some pitch of authority over poor Christians especially those who lay nearest to him improving his eminency into power and his pastoral charge into a kind of Empire according to that observation of Socrates that long before his time the Roman Episcopacy had advanced it self beyond the Priesthood into a Potentacy And the like he observeth to have happened in the Church of Alexandria upon the like grounds or by imitation of such a pattern 2. Any small power is apt to grow and spread it self a spark of it soon will expand it self into a flame it is very like to the grain of mustard seed which indeed is the least of all seeds but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof Encroaching as Plutarch saith is an innate disease of Potentacies Whoever hath any pittance of it will be improving his stock having tasted the sweetness of having his will which extremely gratifieth the nature of man he will not be satisfied without having more he will take himself to be straitned by any bounds and will strive to free himself of all restraints Any pretence will serve to ground attempts of enlarging power and none will be balked For Power is bold enterprizing restless it always watcheth or often findeth never passeth opportunities of dilating it self Every accession doth beget farther advantages to amplifie it as its stock groweth so it with ease proportionably doth encrease being ever out at use As it groweth so its strength to maintain and enlarge it self doth grow it gaining more wealth more friends more associates and dependents None can resist or obstruct its growth without danger and manifold disadvantages for as its adherents are deemed loyal and faithfull so its opposers are branded with the imputations of rebellion contumacy disloyalty and not succeeding in their resistence they will be undone None ever doth enterprise more than to stop its careir so that it seldom loseth by opposition and it ever gaineth by composition If it be checked at one time or in one place it will like the Sea at another season in another point break in If it is sometimes overthrown in a Battel it is seldom conquered in the War It is always on its march forward and gaineth ground for one encroachment doth countenance the next and is alledged for a precedent to authorize or justifie it It seldom moveth backward for every Successour thinketh he may justly enjoy what his Predecessour did gain or which is transmitted into his possession so that there hardly can ever be any restitution of ill-gotten power Thus have many absolute Kingdoms grown the first Chief was a Leader of Volunteers from thence he grew to be a Prince with stated Privileges after he became a Monarch invested with high Prerogatives in fine he creepeth forward to be a Grand Seigniour usurping absolute dominion so did Augustus Caesar first onely assume the style of Prince of the Senate demeaning himself modestly as such but he soon drew to himself the administration of all things and upon that foundation his Successours very suddenly did erect a boundless power If you trace the foot-steps of most Empires to the beginning you may perceive the like So the Pope when he had got a little power continually did swell it The puny pretence of the succeeding Saint Peter and the name of the Apostolical See the precedence by reason of the Imperial City the honorary Privileges allowed him by Councils the Authority deferred to him by one Synod of revising the Causes of Bishops the countenance given to him in repressing some Heresies he did improve to constitute himself Sovereign Lord of the Church 3. Spiritual power especially is of a growing nature and more especially that which deriveth from Divine Institution for it hath a great awe upon the hearts and consciences of men which engageth them to a firm and constant adherence It useth the most subtile arms which it hath always ready which needeth no time or cost to furnish which cannot be extorted from its hand so that it can never be disarmed And its weapons make strong impression because it proposeth the most effectual encouragements to its abettours and discouragements to its adversaries alluring the one with promises of God's favour and eternal happiness terrifying the other with menaces of vengeance from heaven and endless misery the which do ever quell religious superstitious weak people and often daunt men of knowledge and courage It is presumed unchangeable
and unextinguishable by any humane power and thence is not as all other power subject to revolutions Hence like Achilles it is hardly vincible because almost immortal If it be sometime rebuffed or impaired it soon will recover greater strength and vigour The Popes derive their Authority from Divine Institution and their weapons always are sentences of Scripture they pretend to dispense remission of sins and promise heaven to their abettours They excommunicate curse and damn the opposers of their designs They pretend they never can lose any power that ever did belong to their See they are always stiff and they never recede or give back The privileges of the Roman Church can sustain no detriment 4. Power is easily attained and augmented upon occasion of dissentions Each faction usually doth make it self a Head the chief in strength and reputation which it can find inclinable to favour it and that Head it will strive to magnifie that he may be the abler to promote its cause and if the cause doth prosper he is rewarded with accession of Privileges and Authority Especially those who were oppressed and find relief by his means do become zealously active for his aggrandisement Thus usually in civil broils the Captain of the prevalent Party groweth a Prince or is crowned with great Privileges as Caesar Octavian Cromwell c. So upon occasion of the Arian faction and the oppression of Athanasius Marcellus Paulus and other Bishops the Pope who by their application to him had occasion to head the Catholick Party did grow in power for thereupon the Sardican Synod did decree to him that Privilege which he infinitely enhanced and which became the main engin of rearing himself so high And by his interposal in the dissensions raised by the Nestorians the Pelagians the Eutychians the Acatians the Monothelites the Image-worshippers and Image-breakers c. his authority was advanced for he adhering in those causes to the prevailing Party was by them extolled obtaining both reputation and sway 5. All power is attended by dependencies of persons sheltred under it and by it enjoying subordinate advantages the which proportionably do grow by its encrease Such persons therefore will ever be inciting their Chief and Patron to amplifie his power and in aiding him to compass it they will be very industriously resolutely and steadily active their own interest moving them thereto Wherefore their mouths will ever be open in crying him up their heads will be busie in contriving ways to further his interests their care and pains will be employed in accomplishing his designs they with their utmost strength will contend in his defence against all oppositions Thus the Roman Clergy first then the Bishops of Italy then all the Clergy of the West became engaged to support to fortifie to enlarge the Papal authority they all sharing with him in domination over the Laity and enjoying wealth credit support privileges and immunities thereby Some of them especially were ever putting him on higher pretences and furthering him by all means in his acquist and maintenance of them 6. Hence if a Potentate himself should have no ambition nor much ability to improve his power yet it would of it self grow he need onely be passive therein the interest of his partisans would effect it so that often power doth no less thrive under sluggish and weak Potentates especially if they are void of goodness than under the most active and able Let the Ministers alone to drive on their interest 7. Even persons otherwise just and good do seldom scruple to augment their power by undue encroachment or at least to uphold the usurpations of their foregoers for even such are apt to favour their own pretences and afraid of incurring censure and blame if they should part with any thing left them by their Predecessours They apprehend themselves to owe a dearness to their place engaging them to tender its own weal and prosperity in promoting which they suppose themselves not to act for their own private interest and that it is not out of ambition or avarice but out of a regard to the grandeur of their Office that they stickle and bustle and that in so doing they imitate Saint Paul who did magnifie his office They are encouraged hereto by the applause of men especially of those who are allied with them in interest and who converse with them who take it for a Maxime Boni Principis est ampliare imperium The extenders of Empire are admired and commended however they doe it although with cruel Wars or by any unjust means Hence usually the worthiest men in the world's eye are greatest enlargers of power and such men bringing appearances of vertue ability reputation to aid their endeavours do most easily compass designs of this nature finding less obstruction to their attempts for men are not so apt to suspect their integrity or to charge them with ambition and avarice and the few who discern their aims and consequences of things are overborn by the number of those who are favourably conceited and inclined toward them Thus Julius I. Damasus I. Innocent I. Gregory I. and the like Popes whom History representeth as laudable persons did yet confer to the advancement of Papal grandeur But they who did most advance that interest as Pope Leo I. Gelasius I. Pope Nicholas I. Pope Gregory VII in the esteem of true zelots pass for the best Popes Hence the distinction between a good Man a good Prince a good Pope 8. Men of an inferiour condition are apt to express themselves highly in commendation of those who are in a superiour rank especially upon occasion of address and intercourse which commendations are liable to be interpreted for acknowledgments or attestations of right and thence do sometimes prove means of creating it Of the generality of men it is truly said that it doth fondly serve fame and is stonn'd with titles and images readily ascribing to Superiours whatever they claim without scanning the grounds of their title Simple and weak men out of abjectedness or fear are wont to crouch and submit to any thing upon any terms Wise men do not love brangling nor will expose their quiet and safety without great reason thence being inclinable to comply with greater persons Bad men out of design to procure advantages or impunity are prone to flatter and gloze with them Good men out of due reverence to them and in hope of fair usage from them are ready to complement them or treat them with the most respectfull terms Those who are obliged to them will not spare to extoll them paying the easie return of good words for good deeds Thus all men conspire to exalt power the which snatcheth all good words as true and construeth them to the most favourable sense and alledgeth them as verdicts and arguments of unquestionable right So are the complements or terms of respect used by Hierome Austin Theodoret and divers others toward Popes drawn into Argument for Papal
that you would command a General Synod to be celebrated within Italy to which request although back'd with the desire of the Western Emperour Theodosius would by no means consent for as Leontius reporteth when Valentinian being importuned by Pope Leo did write to Theodosius II. that he would procure another Synod to be held for examining whether Dioscorus had judged rightly or no Theodosius did write back to him saying I shall make no other Synod The same Pope did again of the same Emperour petition for a Synod to examin the cause of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Let your clemency saith he be pleased to grant an Vniversal Council to be held in Italy as with me the Synod which for this cause did meet at Rome doth request Thus did that Pope continually harp upon one string to get a General Synod to be celebrated at his own doors but never could obtain his purpose the Emperour being stiff in refusing it The same Pope with better success as to the thing though not as to the place did request of the Emperour Marcian a Synod for he concurring in opinion that it was needfull did saith Liberatus at the petition of the Pope and the Roman Princes command a General Council to be congregated at Nice Now if the Pope had himself a known right to convocate Synods what needed all this application or this supplication to the Emperours would not the Pope have endeavoured to exercise his Authority would he not have clamoured or whined at any interruption thereof would so spiritfull and sturdy a Pope as Leo have begged that to be done by another which he had authority to doe of himself when he did apprehend so great necessity for it and was so much provoked thereto would he not at least have remonstrated against the injury therein done to him by Theodosius All that this daring Pope could adventure at was to wind in a pretence that the Synod of Chalcedon was congregated by his consent for it hath been the pleasure of whom I pray that a General Council should be congregated both by the command of the Christian Princes and with the consent of the Apostolick See saith he very cunningly yet not so cunningly but that any other Bishop might have said the same for his See This power indeed upon many just accounts peculiarly doth belong to Princes It suteth to the dignity of their state it appertaineth to their duty they are most able to discharge it They are the Guardians of publick tranquillity which constantly is endangered which commonly is violated by dissensions in religious matters whence we must pray for them that by their care we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty they alone can authorize their Subjects to take such Journeys or to meet in such Assemblies they alone can well cause the expences needfull for holding Synods to de exacted and defrayed they alone can protect them can maintain Order and Peace in them can procure Observance to their Determinations they alone have a Sword to constrain resty and refractory persons and in no cases are men so apt to be such as in debates about these matters to convene to confer peaceably to agree to observe what is settled They as nursing Fathers of the Church as Ministers of God's Kingdom as encouragers of good works as the Stewards of God entrusted with the great Talents of Power Dignity Wealth enabling them to serve God are obliged to cause Bishops in such cases to perform their duty according to the example of good Princes in Holy Scripture who are commended for proceedings of this nature for so King Josias did convocate a General Synod of the Church in his time then saith the Text the King sent and gathered together all the Elders of Judah and Jerusalem In this Synod he presided standing in his place and making a covenant before the Lord its Resolutions he confirmed causing all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to that Covenant and he took care of their Execution making all present in Israel effectually to serve the Lord their God So also did King Hezekiah gather the Priests and Levites together did warn did command them to doe their duty and reform things in the Church My Sons said he be not now negligent for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him to serve him and that ye should minister unto him and burn incense Beside them none other can have reasonable pretence to such a Power or can well be deemed able to manage it so great an Authority cannot be exercised upon the Subjects of any Prince without eclipsing his Majesty infringing his natural right and endangering his State He that at his pleasure can summon all Christian Pastours and make them trot about and hold them when he will is in effect Emperour or in a fair way to make himself so It is not fit therefore that any other person should have all the Governours of the Church at his beck so as to draw them from remote places whither he pleaseth to put them on long and chargeable Journeys to detain them from their charge to set them on what deliberations and debates he thinketh good It is not reasonable that any one without the leave of Princes should authorize so great conventions of men having such interest and sway it is not safe that any one should have such dependencies on him by which he may be tempted to clash with Princes and withdraw his Subjects from their due obedience Neither can any success be well expected from the use of such Authority by any who hath not Power by which he can force Bishops to convene to resolve to obey whence we see that Constantine who was a Prince so gentle and friendly to the Clergy was put to threaten those Bishops who would absent themselves from the Synod indicted by him at Tyre and Theodosius also a very mild and religious Prince did the like in his summoning the two Ephesine Synods We likewise may observe that when the Pope and Western Bishops in a Synodical Epistle did invite those of the East to a great Synod indicted at Rome these did refuse the journey alledging that it would be to no good purpose so also when the Western Bishops did call those of the East for resolving the difference between Flavianus and Paulinus both pretending to be Bishops of Antioch what effect had their summons and so will they always or often be ready to say who are called at the pleasure of those who want force to constrain them so that such Authority in unarmed hands and God keep Arms out of a Pope's hands will be onely a source of discords Either the Pope is a Subject as he was in the first times and then it were too great a presumption for him to claim such a power over his fellow-Subjects in prejudice to his Sovereign nor indeed did he presume so far untill he
in their generations accommodating their discourse to the state of times and places 11. It is also to be observed that often the Popes are supposed to speak and constitute things by their own authority which indeed were done by Synods consisting of Western Bishops more closely adhering to that See in regard to those Regions the Decrees of which Synods were binding in those places not so much by virtue of Papal authority as proceeding from the consent of their own Bishops how ready soever He were to assume all to himself pretending those Decrees as precepts of the Apostolical See Whence all the Acts of modern Popes are invalid and do not oblige seeing they do not act in Synod but onely of their own Head or with the advice of a few Partizans about them men linked in common interest with them to domineer over the Church 12. Yet even in the Western Countries in later times their Decrees have been contested when they did seem plainly to clash with the old Canons or much to derogate from the Liberties of Churches nor have there wanted learned Persons in most times who so far as they durst have expressed their dislike of this Usurpation For although the Bishop of Rome be more venerable than the rest that are in the world upon account of the dignity of the Apostolical See yet it is not lawfull for him in any case to transgress the order of Canonical governance for as every Bishop who is of the Orthodox Church and the Spouse of his own See doth intirely represent the Person of our Saviour so generally no Bishop ought pragmatically to act any thing in anothers Diocese 13. In the times of Pope Nicolas I. the Greeks did not admit the Roman Decrees so that Pope in an Epistle to Photius complains that he did not receive the Decrees of the Popes whenas yet they ordained nothing but what the Natural what the Mosaical and what the Law of Grace required And in another Epistle he expostulates with him for saying that they neither had nor did observe the Decrees made by the Holy Popes of the Prime See of the Roman Church 14. That which greatly did advance the Papal Jurisdiction and introduced his Usurpation of obtruding new Decrees on the Church was the venting of the forged Decretal Epistles under the name of Old Popes which when the Pope did alledge for authorizing his practices the French Bishops endeavouring to assert their Privilege did alledge that they were not contained in the whole body of their Canons 15. The power of enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching extoriour Discipline did of old belong to the Emperour And it was reasonable that it should because old Laws might not conveniently sute with the present state of things and the publick welfare because new Laws might condâ—ce to the good of Church and State the care of which is incumbent on him because the Prince is bound to use his power and authority to promote God's Service the best way of doing which may be by framing Orders conducible thereto Accordingly the Emperours did enact divers Laws concerning Ecclesiastical matters which we see extant in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian These things saith the Council of Arles we have decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour desiring his clemency that if any thing be defective it may be supplied by his prudence if any thing be unreasonable it may be corrected by his judgment if any thing be reasonably ordered it may by his help the Divine Grace assisting be perfected We may observe that Popes did allow the validity of Imperial Laws Pope Gregory I. doth alledge divers Laws of divers Emperours concerning Ecclesiastical affairs as authentick and obligatory Rules of practice 16. Divers Churches had particular rights of independency upon all power without themselves Such as the Church of Cyprus in the Ephesine Synod did claim and obtain the confirmation of Such was the ancient Church of Britain before Austin came into England The Welch Bishops are consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids and he himself in like manner is ordained by others who are as it were his Suffragans professing no manner subjection to any other Church V. Sovereign power immediately by it self when it pleaseth doth exercise all parts of Jurisdiction setting it self in the Tribunal or mediately doth execute it by others as its Officers or Commissioners Wherefore now the Pope doth claim and exercise Universal Jurisdiction over all the Clergy requiring of them engagements of strict submission and obedience to him demanding that all causes of weight be referred to him citing them to his bar examining and deciding their causes condemning suspending deposing censuring them or acquitting absolving restoring them as he seeth cause or findeth in his heart He doth encourage people to accuse their pastours to him in case any doth infringe his Laws and Orders But in general that originally or anciently the Pope had no such right appropriate to him may appear by arguments by cross instances by the insufficiency of all pleas and examples alledged in favour of this claim For 1. Originally there was not at all among Christians any Jurisdiction like to that which is exercised in Civil Governments and which now the papal Court doth execute For this our Saviour did prohibit and Saint Peter forbad the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And St. Chrysostome affirmeth the Episcopal power not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ecclesiastical History doth inform us that such a Jurisdiction was lately introduced in the Church as by other great Bishops so especially by the Bishop of Rome For saith Socrates from that time the Episcopacy of Alexandria beyond the Sacerdotal Order did assume a domineering power in affairs The which kind of power the Roman Bishops had long before assumed for saith he the Episcopacy of Rome in like manner as that of Alexandria had already a great while agoe gone before in a domineering power beyond that of the Priesthood At first the Episcopal power did onely consist in Paternal admonition and correption of offenders exhorting and persuading them to amendment and in case they contumaciously did persist in disorderly behaviour bringing them before the Congregation and the cause being there heard and proved with its consent imposing such penance or correction on them as seemed needfull for the publick good or their particular benefit All things saith St. Cyprian shall be examin'd you being present and judging And elsewhere according to your divine suffrages according to your pleasure 2. Originally no one Bishop had any Jurisdiction over another or authority to judge his actions as St. Cyprian who well knew the current judgment and practice of his age in many places doth affirm who particularly doth reflect on the Roman Bishop for presuming to censure his brethren who dissented from him Let us all saith he
expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who onely hath power to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of what we doe 3. Even the community of Bishops did not otherwise take notice of or intermeddle with the proceedings of any Bishop in his precinct and charge except when his demeanour did concern the general state of the Church intrenching upon the common faith or publick order and peace In other cases for one or more Bishops to meddle with the proceedings of their brother was taken for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pragmatical intrusion upon anothers business and an invasion of that Liberty which did belong to each Bishop by the grant of our Lord and the nature of his Office As by those passages of St. Cyprian and the declaration of the Synod with him doth appear 4. In cases needing decision for the publick good of the Church the Law and custom of the Church confirmed by the Nicene Synod did order that jurisdiction should be exercised and all causes finally determined in each Province so that no regard is had to the Pope no exception in favour of him being expressed or implyed The which Constitution if we believe Pope Leo himself cannot in any case by any power be revoked or infringed That is most expresly confirmed by the Synod of Antioch in the Code of the Universal Church If any Bishop accused of certain crimes shall be condemned by all the Bishops in the Province and all shall unanimously vote against him he shall not be judged again by others but the unanimous sentence of the Bishops of the Province shall remain valid Here is no consideration or exception from the Pope 5. Accordingly in practice Synods without regard or recourse to the Pope did judge Bishops upon offences charged against them 6. The execution of those judgments was entrusted to Metropolitan Bishops or had effect by the peoples consent for it being declared that any Bishop had incurred condemnation the people did presently desert him Every Bishop was obliged to confer his part to the execution as Pope Gelasius affirmeth 7. If the Pope had such judicial power seeing there were from the beginning so many occasions of exercising it there would have been extant in History many clear instances of it but few can be alledged and those as we shall see impertinent or insufficient 8. Divers Synods great and smaller did make Sanctions contrary to this pretence of the Pope appointing the decision of Causes to be terminated in each Diocese and prohibiting appeals to him which they would not have done if the Pope had originally or according to common law and custom a supreme judicial power 9. The most favourable of ancient Synods to Papal interest that of Sardica did confer on the Pope a power qualified in matter and manner of causing Episcopal causes to be revised which sheweth that before he had no right in such cases nor then had an absolute power 10. The Pope's power of judging Bishops hath been of old disclaimed as an illegal and upstart encroachment When the Pope first nibbled at this bait of ambition St. Cyprian and his Bishops did reprehend him for it The Bishop of Constantinople denied that Pope Gelasius alone might condemn him according to the Canons The Pope ranteth at it and reasoneth against it but hath no material argument or example for it concerning the Papal authority peculiarly beside the Sardican Canon 11. The Popes themselves have been judged for Misdemeanour Heresie Schism as hereafter we shall shew 12. The Popes did execute some judgments onely by a right common to all Bishops as Executours of Synodical Decrees 13. Other Bishops did pretend to Judicature by Privilege as Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem did pretend that to him did belong the Judgment of the Bishop of Antioch 14. The Popes were subject to the Emperours who when they pleased did interpose to direct or qualifie all Jurisdiction commanding the Popes themselves wherefore the Popes were not Judges Sovereign but subordinate Pope Gregory I. did refer the great Question about the title of Oecumenical Bishop to the judgment of the Emperour Mauricius These things will more fully appear in the discussion of the particulars concerning the chief Branches of Jurisdiction more especially under the Tenth Branch of Sovereignty They alledge that passage of Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius That the most blessed Bishop of Rome to whom Antiquity hath given a Priesthood over all hath a See and Power to judge both of Faith and Priests This was suggested by Pope Leo and his adherents to the young Emperour but it signifieth no more but that in the Judgment of Priests as of Faith he was to have his share or at most to be a leading person therein Theodosius a mature grave pious Prince did not regard that pretence of Leo nor the appeal of Flavianus VI. To the Sovereign of any State belongeth the Choice Constitution Confirmation Commissionating of all inferiour Magistrates that none uncapable unworthy or unfit for Offices or disaffected to the State be entrusted with the management of Affairs Wherefore the Pope doth claim and exercise these Prerogatives so far as he can pretending at least that no Bishop can be constituted without his designation or his licence and his confirmation of the nomination collation or election And these Privileges by the great Advocates are upon highest terms asserted to him In this matter may be distinguished 1. The Designation of the Person by Election or otherwise 2. The Confirmation of that 3. The Ordination or Consecration of him to his Office the which conferreth on him his Character and Authority 4. The Authority by which he acteth Into all these the Pope hath intruded himself and he will have a finger in them 1. He gladly would have drawn to himself the collation and disposal of all Benefices challenging a general right to dispose of all at his pleasure but not having been able wholly to deprive Princes and Patrons of their Nominations and Corporations of their Election yet he hath by Reservations Provisions Collations of Vacancies apud Sedem Resignations Devolutions and other such tricks extremely encroached on the rights of all to the infinite vexation damage and mischief of Christendom 2. He pretendeth that no Bishop shall be ordained without his Licence 3. He obligeth the person Ordained to swear obedience to him 4. He pretendeth that all Bishops are his Ministers and Deputies But no such Privileges have any foundation or warrant in Holy Scripture in Ancient Doctrine or in Primitive Usage they are all Encroachments upon the original Rights and Liberties of the Church derived from Ambition and Avarice subsisting upon Usurpation upheld by Violence This will appear from a Survey of Ancient Rules and Practices concerning this matter The first constitution after our Lord's decease of an Ecclesiastical person was that of Matthias into the vacant Apostolate or Bishoprick
then so expresly forbidden by the Canons as afterward Theognis and Theodorus did make Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople Theophilus of Alexandria did ordain St. Chrysostome The Egyptian Bishops surreptitiously did constitute Maximus the Cynick Philosopher Bishop of Constantinople Acacius who had as little to doe there as the Pope did thrust Eudoxius into the throne of Constantinople Meletius of Antioch did constitute St. Gregory Nazianzene to the charge of Constantinople Acacius and Patrophilus extruding Maximus did in his room constitute Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem Pope Leo doth complain of Anatolius that against the Canonical rule he had assumed to himself the Ordination of the Bishop of Antioch 2. To obviate these irregular and inconvenient proceedings having crept in upon the dissensions in Faith and especially upon occasion of Gregory Nazianzene being constituted Bishop of Constantinople by Meletius and Maximus being thrust into the same See by the Egyptians whose Party for a time the Roman Church did countenance the second General Synod did ordain that no Bishop should intermeddle about Ordinations without the bounds of his own Diocese 3. In pursuance of this Law or upon the ground of it the Pope was sometimes checked when he presumed to make a sally beyond his bounds in this or the like cases As when Pope Innocent I. did send some Bishops to Constantinople for procuring a Synod to examine the cause of St. Chrysostome those of Constantinople did cause them to be dismissed with disgrace as molesting a government beyond their bounds 4. Even in the Western parts after that the Pope had wrigled himself into most Countries there so as to obtain sway in their transactions yet he in divers places did not meddle in Ordinations we do not says Pope Leo I. arrogate to our selves a power of ordaining in your Provinces Even in some parts of Italy it self the Pope did not confirm Bishops till the times of Pope Nicholas I. as may be collected from the submission then of the Bishop of Ravenna to that condition that he should have no power to consecrate Bishops canonically elected in the Regio Flaminia unless it were granted him by letters from the Apostolick See And it was not without great opposition and struggling that he got that power other-where than in his original precincts or where the juncture of things did afford him special advantage 5. If Examples would avail to determine Right there are more and more clear Instances of Emperours interposing in the Constitution of Bishops than of Popes As they had ground in Reason and authority in Holy Scripture And Zadock the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar Constantine did interpose at the designation of a Bishop at Antioch in the room of Eustathius Upon Gregory Nazianzene's recess from Constantinople Theodosius that excellent Emperour who would not have infringed right did command the Bishops present to write in paper the names of those whom each did approve worthy to be ordained and reserved to himself the choice of one and accordingly they obeying he out of all that were nominated did elect Nectarius Constantius did deliver the See of Constantinople to Eusebius Nicomediensis Constantius was angry with Macedonius because he was ordain'd without his licence He rejecting Eleusius and Sylvanus did order other to be substituted in their places When before St. Ambrose the See of Milain was vacant a Synod of Bishops there did intreat the Emperour to declare one Flavianus said to the Emperour Theodosius Give forsooth O King the See of Antioch to whom you shall think good The Emperour did call Nestorius from Antioch to the See of Constantinople and he was saith Vincentius Lir. elected by the Emperour's judgment The favour of Justinian did advance Menas to the See of Constantinoâ—â—â— and the same did prefer Eutychius thereto He did put in Pope Vigilius In Spain the Kings had the Election of Bishops by the Decrees of the Council of Toledo That the Emperour Charles did use to confirm Bishops Pope John VIII doth testifie reproving the Archbishop of Virdun for rejecting a Bishop whom the Clergy and people of the City had chosen and the Emperour Charles had confirmed by his consent When Macarius Bishop of Antioch for Monothelitism was deposed in the sixth Synod the Bishops under that throne did request the Presidents of the Synod to suggest another to the Emperour to be substituted in his room In Gratian there are divers passages wherein Popes declared that they could not ordain Bishops to Churches even in Italy without the Emperour's leave and licence As indeed there are also in later times other Decrees made by Popes of another kidney or in other junctures of affairs which forbid Princes to meddle in the elections of Bishops as in the seventh Synod and in the eighth Synod as they call it upon occasion of Photius being placed in the See of Constantinople by the power of the Court. And that of Pope Nicholas I. By which discordance in practice we may see the consistence and stability of Doctrine and Practice in the Roman Church The Emperours for a long time did enjoy the privilege of constituting or confirming the Popes for says Platina in the Life of Pelagius II. nothing was then done by the Clergy in electing a Pope unless the Emperour approv'd the election He did confirm P. Gregory I. and P. Agatho Pope Adrian with his whole Synod did deliver to Charles the Great the right and power of electing the Pope and ordaining the Apostolick See He moreover defined that Archbishops and Bishops in every Province should receive investiture from him and that if a Bishop were not commended and invested by the King he should be consecrated by none and whoever should act against this Decree him he did noose in the band of anathema The like privilege did Pope Leo VIII attribute to the Emperour Otho I. We give him says he for ever power to ordain a successour and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See and change Archbishops c. And Platina in his Life says That being weary of the inconstancy of the Romans he transferr'd all authority to chuse a Pope from the Clergy and people of Rome to the Emperour Now I pray if this power of confirming Bishops do by Divine Institution belong to the Pope how could he part with it or transfer it on others Is not this a plain renunciation in Popes of their Divine pretence 6. General Synods by an authority paramount have assumed to themselves the constitution and confirmation of Bishops So the Second General Synod did confirm the Ordination of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople and of Flavianus Bishop of Antioch this Ordination say they the Synod generally have admitted although the Roman Church did not approve the Ordination of Nectarius and for a long time after did oppose that of Flavianus So the Fifth Synod it seemeth did confirm the Ordination of
Theophanius Bishop of Antioch So the Synod of Pisa did constitute Pope Alexander V. that of Constance Pope Martin V. that of Basil Pope Felix V. 7. All Catholick Bishops in old times might and commonly did confirm the Elections and Ordinations of Bishops to the same effect as Popes may be pretended to have done that is by signifying their approbation or satisfaction concerning the orthodoxy of their Faith the attestation of their Manners the legality of their Ordination no canonical Impediment and consequently by admitting them to communion of peace and charity and correspondence in all good Offices which they express by returning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in answer to their Synodical communicatory Letters Thus did St. Cyprian and all the Bishops of that Age confirm the Ordination of Pope Cornelius being contested by Novatian as St. Cyprian in terms doth affirm When the See of Saint Peter the Sacerdotal Chair was vacant which by the will of God being occupied and by all our consents confirm'd c. to confirm thy Ordination with a greater authority To which purpose each Bishop did write Epistles to other Bishops or at least to those of highest rank acquainting them with his Ordination and enstallment making a profession of his Faith so as to satisfie them of his capacity of the Function 8. But Bishops were complete Bishops before they did give such an account of themselves so that it was not in the power of the Pope or of any others to reverse their Ordination or dispossess them of their places There was no confirmation importing any such matter this is plain and one instance will serve to shew it that of Pope Honorius and of Sergius Bishop of Constantinople who speak of Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem that he was constituted Bishop before their knowledge and receipt of his Synodical Letters 9. If the designation of any Bishop should belong to the Pope then especially that of Metropolitans who are the chief Princes of the Church but this anciently did not belong to him In Africk the most ancient Bishop of the Province without election did succeed into that dignity Where the Metropoles were fixed all the Bishops of the Province did convene and with the consent of Clergy persons of quality and the commonalty did elect him So was St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage elected So Nectarius of Constantinople Flavianus of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem as the Fathers of Constantinople tell us So Stephanus and Bassianus rival Bishops of Ephesus did pretend to have been chosen as we saw before And for Confirmation there did not need any there is no mention of any except that Confirmation of which we spake a consequent approbation of them from all their fellow-Bishops as having no exception against them rendring them unworthy of communion In the Synod of Chalcedon it was defined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal Privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet it is expresly cautioned there that he shall not meddle in Ordination of Bishops in any Province that being left to the Metropolitan For a good time even in the Western parts the Pope did not meddle with the Constitution of Metropolitans leaving the Churches to enjoy their Liberties Afterwards with all other Rights he snatched the Collation Confirmation c. of Metropolitans VII Sovereigns have a power to Censure and Correct all inferiour Magistrates in proportion to their Offences and in case of great misdemeanour or of incapacity they can wholly discharge and remove them from their Office This Prerogative therefore He of Rome doth claim as most proper to himself by Divine Sanction God Almighty alone can dissolve the spiritual marriage between a Bishop and his Church Therefore those three things premised the Confirmation Translation and Deposition of Bishops are reserved to the Roman Bishop not so much by Canonical Constitution as by Divine Institution This power the Convention of Trent doth allow him thwarting the ancient Laws and betraying the Liberties of the Church thereby and endangering the Christian Doctrine to be inflected and corrupted to the advantage of Papal Interest But such a power anciently did not by any Rule or Custom in a peculiar manner belong to the Roman Bishop Premising what was generally touched about Jurisdiction in reference to this Branch we remark 1. The exercising of Judgment and Censure upon Bishops when it was needfull for general good was prescribed to be done by Synods Provincial or Patriarchal Diocesan In them Causes were to be discussed and Sentence pronounced against those who had deviated from saith or committed misdemeanours So it was appointed in the Synod of Nice as the African Synod wherein St. Austin was one Bishop did observe and urge in their Epistle to Pope Celestine in those notable words Whether they be Clergy of an inferiour degree or whether they be Bishops the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed them to the Metropolitans charge for they have most prudently and justly discerned that all matters whatsoever ought to be determined in the places where they do first begin and that the grace of the holy spirit would not be wanting to every particular Province The same Law was enacted by the Synod of Antioch by the Synods of Constantinople Chalcedon c. Thus was Paulus Samosatenus for his errour against the Divinity of our Lord and for his scandalous demeanour deposed by the Synod of Antioch Thus was Eustathius Bishop of Antioch being accused of Sabellianism and of other faults removed by a Synod of the same place the which Sentence he quietly did bear Thus another Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia for his uncouth garb and fond conceits against marriage was discarded by the Synod of Gangra Thus did a Synod of Constantinople abdicate Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra for heterodoxy in the point concerning our Lord's Divinity For the like cause was Photinus Bishop of Sirmium deposed by a Synod there gathered by the Emperour's command So was Athanasius tryed and condemned although unjustly as to the matter and cause by the Synod of Tyre So was St. Chrysostome although most injuriously deposed by a Synod at Constantinople So the Bishops at Antioch according to the Emperour's order deposed Stephanus Bishop of that place for a wicked contrivance against the fame of Euphratas and Vincentius In all these Condemnations Censures and Depositions of Bishops whereof each was of high rank and great interest in the Church the Bishop of Rome had no hand nor so much as a little finger All the proceedings did go on supposition of the Rule and Laws that such Judgments were to be passed by Synods St. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deposed fifteen Bishops 2. In some case a kind of deposing of Bishops was assumed by particular Bishops as defenders of the Faith and executours of Canons their Deposition consisting in not allowing those to be Bishops whom for erroneous Doctrine or
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
Bellarmine fain to dive for it deposing Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople But this Instance being scanned will also prove slender and lame The case was this Anthimus having deserted his charge at Trabisonde did creep into the See of Constantinople a course then held irregular and repugnant to the Canons and withall he had imbibed the Eutychian heresie Yet for his support he had wound himself into the favour of the Empress Theodora a countenancer of the Eutychian Sect. Things standing thus Pope Agapetus as an Agent from Rome to crave succour against the Goths pressing and menacing the City did arrive at Constantinople Whereupon the Empress desired of him to salute and consort with Anthimus But he by petitions of the Monks c. understanding how things stood did refuse to doe so except Anthimus would return to his own charge and profess the Orthodox doctrine Thereupon the Emperour joined with him to extrude Anthimus from Constantinople and to substitute Menas He say the Monks in their Libel of request to the Emperour did justly thrust this Anthimus from the Episcopal Chair of this City your Grace affording aid and force both to the Catholick faith and the divine Canons The act of Agapetus was according to his share in the common Interest to declare Anthimus in his judgment uncapable of Catholick communion and of Episcopal Function by reason of his heretical Opinions and his transgression of Ecclesiastical Orders which moved Justinian effectually to depose and extrude him You say they fulfilling that which he justly and canonicaly did judge and by your general edict confirming it and forbidding that hereafter such things should be attempted And Agapetus himself saith that it was done by the Apostolical authority and the assistence of the most faithfull Emperours The which proceeding was completed by Decree of the Synod under Menas and that again was confirmed by the Imperial Sanction Whence Evagrius reporting the story doth say concerning Anthimus and Theodosius of Alexandria that because they did cross the Emperour's commands and did not admit the decrees of Chalcedon they both were expelled from their Sees It seemeth by some passages in the Acts that before Agapetus his intermedling the Monks and Orthodox Bishops had condemned and rejected Anthimus according to the common Interest which they assert all Christians to have in regard to the common Faith As for the substitution of Menas it was performed by the choice and suffrage of the Emperour the Clergy Nobles and People conspiring the Pope onely which another Bishop might have done ordaining or consecrating him Then saith Liberatus the Pope by the Emperour's favour did ordain Menas Bishop consecrating him with his hand And Agapetus did glory in this as being the first Ordination made of an Eastern Bishop by the hands of a Pope And this said the Pope we conceive doth add to his dignity because the Eastern Church never since the time of the Apostle Peter did receive any Bishop besides him by the imposition of hands of those who sate in this our Chair If we compare the proceedings of Agapetus against Anthimus with those of Theophilus against St. Chrysostome they are except the cause and qualities of persons in all main respects and circumstances so like that the same reason which would ground a pretence of Universal Jurisdiction to one would infer the same to the other Baronius alledgeth Acacius Bishop of Constantinople deposed by Pope Felix III. But Pope Gelasius asserteth that any Bishop might in execution of the Canons have disclaimed Acacius as a favourer of Hereticks And Acacius did not onely refuse to submit to the Pope's Jurisdiction but slighted it And the Pope's act was but an attempt not effectual for Acacius dyed in possession of his See VIII If Popes were Sovereigns of the Church they could effectually whenever they should see it just and fit absolve restore any Bishop excommunicated from the Church or deposed from his Office by Ecclesiastical Censure for Relief of the Oppressed or Clemency to the Distressed are noble Flowers in every Sovereign Crown Wherefore the Pope doth assume this power and reserveth it to himself as his special Prerogative 'T is says Baronius a privilege of the Church of Rome onely that a Bishop deposed by a Synod may without another Synod of a greater number be restor'd by the Pope and Pope Gelasius I. says That the See of Saint Peter the Apostle has a right of loosing whatever the Sentences of other Bishops have bound That the Apostolick See according to frequent ancient custome had a power no Synod preceding to absolve those whom a Synod had unjustly condemned and without a Council to condemn those who deserv'd it It was an old pretence of Popes that Bishops were not condemned except the Pope did consent renouncing communion with them So Pope Vigilius saith of St. Chrysostome and Flavianus that although they were violently excluded yet were they not look'd upon as condemned because the Bishops of Rome always inviolably kept communion with them And before him Pope Gelasius saith that the Pope by not consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius Chrysostome Flavianus did absolve them But such a power of old did not belong to him For 1. There is not extant any ancient Canon of the Church nor apparent footsteps of custome allowing such a power to him 2. Decrees of Synods Provincial in the former times and Diocesan afterwards were inconsistent with or repugnant to such a power for judgments concerning Episcopal Causes were deemed irrevocable and appointed to be so by Decrees of divers Synods and consequently no power was reserved to the Pope of thwarting them by Restitution of any Bishop condemned in them 3. The Apostolical Canons which at least serve to prove or illustrate ancient Custome and divers Synodical Decrees did prohibit entertaining communion with any person condemned or rejected by canonical Judgment without exception or reservation of power of infringing or relaxing that Prohibition and Pope Gelasius himself says That he who had polluted himself by holding communion with a condemned person did partake of his condemnation 4. Whence in elder times Popes were opposed and checked when they offered to receive Bishops rejected in particular Synods So St. Cyprian declared the Restitution of Basilides by Pope Stephanus to be null So the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did reprehend Pope Julius for admitting Athanasius and Marcellus to communion or avowing them for Bishops after their condemnation by Synods And the Oriental Bishops of Sardica did excommunicate the same Pope for communicating with the same persons Which Instances do shew that the Pope was not then undoubtedly or according to common opinion endowed with such a power But whereas they do alledge some Instances of such a power I shall premise some general Considerations apt to clear the business and then apply answers to the particular Allegations 1. Restitution commonly doth signifie
proceeded unto Trial of the Cause without precarious attendence for a Synod if he thought his pretence to such Appeals as we now speak of to have been good or plausible in the world at that time The next case is that of Theodoret. His words indeed framed according to his condition needing the patronage of Pope Leo being then high in reputation do sound favourably but we abstracting from the sound of words must regard the reason of things His words are these I expect the suffrage of your Apostolick See and beseech and earnestly entreat your holiness to succour me who appeal to your right and just Judicature He never had been particularly or personally judged and therefore did not need to appeal as to a Judge nor therefore is his application to the Pope to be interpreted for such but rather as to a charitable succourer of him in his distress by his countenance and endeavour to relieve him He onely was supposed erroneous in Faith and a perillous abettour of Nestorianism because he had smartly contradicted Cyril which prejudice did cause him to be prohibited from coming to the Synod of Ephesus and there in his absence to be denounced Heterodox His Appeal then to the Pope having no other recourse in whom he did confide finding him to concur with himself in opinion against Eutychianism was no other than as the word is often used in common speech when we say I appeal to your judgment in this or that case a referring it to the Pope's consideration whether his Faith was sound and Orthodox capacitating him to retain his Office the which upon his explication and profession thereof presented in terms of extraordinary respect and deference the Pope did approve thereby as a good Divine rather than as a formal Judge acquitting him of Heterodoxy the which approbation in regard to the great opinion then had of the Pope's skill in those points and to the favour he had obtained by contesting against the Eutychians did bear great sway in the Synod so that although not without opposition of many and not upon absolute terms he was permitted to sit among the Fathers of Chalcedon Observations 1. We do not reade of any formal Trial the Pope made of Theodoret's case that he was cited that his Accusers did appear that his Cause was discussed but onely a simple approbation of him 2. We may observe that Theodoret did write to Flavianus in like terms We entreat your holiness to fight in behalf of the faith which is assaulted and to defend the Canons which are trampled under foot 3. We may observe that Theodoret expecting this favour of Pope Leo and thence being moved to commend the Roman See to the height and to reckon its special advantages doth not yet mention his Supremacy of Power or Universality of Jurisdiction For those words it befitteth you to be prime in all things are onely general words relating to the advantages which he subjoineth of which he saith for your throne is adorned with many advantages in a florid enumeration whereof he passeth over that of peculiar Jurisdiction he nameth the magnitude splendour majesty and populousness of the City the early faith praised by Saint Paul the Sepulchres of the two great Apostles and their decease there but the Pope's being Universal Sovereign and Judge which was the main advantage whereof that See could be capable he doth not mention why because he was not aware thereof else surely he would not have passed it in silence 4. We may also observe that whatever the opinion of Theodoret was now concerning the Pope's power he not long before did hardly take him for such a Judge when he did oppose Pope Celestine concurring with Cyril at the first Ephesine Synod He then indeed looking on Pope Celestine as a prejudiced Adversary did not write to him but to the other Bishops of the West as we see by those words in his Epistle to Domnus And we have written to the Bishops of the West about these things to him of Milain I say to him of Aquileia and him of Ravenna testifying c. 5. Yea we may observe that Theodoret did intend with the Emperour's leave to appeal or refer his cause to the whole body of Western Bishops as himself doth express in those words to Anatolius I do pray your magnificence that you would request this favour of our dread Sovereign that I may have recourse to the West and may be judged by the most religious and holy Bishops there Bellarmine farther doth alledge the appeal of Hadrianus Bishop of Thebes to Pope Gregory I. the which he received and asserted by excommunicating the Archbishop of Justiniana Prima for deposing Hadrianus without regard to that appeal I answer 1. The example is late when the Popes had extended their power beyond the ancient and due limits those Maxims had got in before the time of that worthy Pope who thought he might use the power of which he found himself possessed 2. It is impertinent because the Bishop of Justiniana had then a special dependence upon the Roman See from whence an Universal Jurisdiction upon appeal cannot be inferred 3. It might be an Usurpation nor doth the opinion or practice of Pope Gregory suffice to determine a question of right for good men are liable to prejudice and its consequences To these Instances produced by Bellarmine some add the Appeal of Eutyches to Pope Leo to which it may be excepted that if he did appeal it was not to the Pope solely but to him with the other Patriarchs so it is expresly said in the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod His deposition being read he did appeal to the Holy Synod of the most Holy Bishop of Rome and of Alexandria and of Jerusalem and of Thessalonica the which is an argument that he did not apprehend the right of receiving Appeals did solely or peculiarly belong to him of Rome Liberatus saith that Johannes Talaida went to Calendion Patriarch of Antioch and taking of him intercessory Synodical Letters appeal'd to Simplicius Bishop of Rome as Saint Athanasius had done and persuaded him to write in his behalf to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople In regard to any more Instances of this kind we might generally propose these following considerations 1. It is no wonder that any Bishop being condemned especially in causes relating to Faith or common Interest should have recourse to the Roman Bishop or to any other Bishop of great authority for refuge or for relief which they may hope to be procured by them by the influence of their reputation and their power among their dependents 2. Bad men being deservedly corrected will absurdly resort any whither with mouths full of clamour and calumny if not with hope of relief yet with design of revenge as did Marcion as did Felicissimus as did Apiarius to the Pope 3. Good men being abused will express some resentment and complain of their wrongs where they may
presume of a fair and favourable hearing so did Athanasius Flavianus St. Chrysostome Theodoret apply themselves to the same Bishops flourishing in so great reputation and wealth So did the Monks of Egypt Ammonius and Isidorus from the persecutions of Theophilus fly to the protection and succour of St. Chrysostome which gave occasion to the troubles of that incomparable Personage the which is so illustrious an instance that the words of the Historian relating it deserve setting down They jointly did endeavour that the trains against them might be examined by the Emperour as Judge and by the Bishop John for they conceived that he having conscience of using a just freedom would be able to succour them according to right but he did receive the men applying to him courteously and treated them respectfully and did not hinder them from praying in the Church He also writ to Theophilus to render communion to them as being Orthodox and if there were need of judging their case by law that he would send whom they thought good to prosecute the cause If this had been to the Pope it would have been alledged for an Appeal and it would have had as much colour as any Instance which they can produce 4. And when men either good or bad do resort in this manner to great friends it is no wonder if they accost them in highest terms of respect and with exaggerations of their eminent advantages so inducing them to regard and favour their cause 5. Neither is it strange that great persons favourably should entertain those who make such addresses to them they always coming crouching in a suppliant posture and with fair pretences it being also natural to men to delight in seeing their power acknowledged and it being a glorious thing to relieve the afflicted for Eminence is wont to incline toward infirmity and with a ready good will to take part with those who are under So when Basilides when Marcellus when Eustathius Sebastenus when Maximus the Cynick when Apiarius were condemned the Pope was hasty to engage for them more liking their application to him than weighing their cause 6. And when any person doth continue long in a flourishing estate so that such addresses are frequently made to him no wonder that an opinion of lawfull power to receive them doth arise both in him and in others so that of a voluntary Friend he become an authorized Protectour a Patron a Judge of such persons in such cases X. The Sovereign is fountain of all Jurisdiction and all inferiour Magistrates derive their Authority from his warrant and Commission acting as his Deputies or Ministers according to that intimation in St. Peter whether to the King as Supreme or to Governours as sent by him Accordingly the Pope doth challenge this advantage to himself that he is the fountain of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction pretending all Episcopal power to be derived from him The rule of the Church saith Bellarmine is Monarchical therefore all authority is in one and from him is derived to others the which Aphorism he well proveth from the form of creating Bishops as they call it We do provide such a Church with such a person and we do prefer him to be Father and Pastour and Bishop of the said Church committing to him the administration in temporals and spirituals in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Pope Pius II. in his Bull of Retractation thus expresseth the sense of his See In the militant Church which resembleth the triumphant there is one moderatour and Judge of all the Vicar of Jesus Christ from whom as from the Head all power and authority is derived to the subject members the which doth immediately flow into it from the Lord Christ. A Congregation of Cardinals appointed by Pope Paulus III. speaking after the style and sentiments of that See did say to him Your Holiness doth so bear the care of Christ's Church that you have very many Ministers by which you manage that care these are all the Clergy on whom the service of God is charged especially Priests and more especially Curates and above all Bishops Durandus Bishop of Mande according to the sense of his Age saith The Pope is head of all Bishops from whom they as members from an head descend and of whose fulness all receive whom he calls to a participation of his care but admits not into the fulness of his power This pretence is seen in the ordinary Titles of Bishops who style themselves Bishops of such a place By the grace of God and of the Apostolick See O shame The men of the Tridentine Convention those great betrayers of the Church to perpetual slavery and Christian truth to the prevalency of falshood till God pleaseth do upon divers occasions pretend to qualifie and empower Bishops to perform important matters originally belonging to the Episcopal Function as the Pope's Delegates But contrariwise according to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture and the sense of the Primitive Church the Bishops and Pastours of the Church do immediately receive their Authority and Commission from God being onely his Ministers The Scripture calleth them the Ministers of God and of Christ so Epaphras so Timothy in regard to their Ecclesiastical function are named the Stewards of God the Servants of God Fellow-servants of the Apostles The Scripture saith that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to feed the Church of God that God had given them and constituted them in the Church for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that is to all effects and purposes concerning their Office for the work of the Ministery comprizeth all the duty charged on them whether in way of Order or of Governance as they now do precariously and groundlesly in reference to this case distinguish And edifying the body doth import all the designed effects of their Office particularly those which are consequent on the use of Jurisdiction the which Saint Paul doth affirm was appointed for edification according saith he to the authority which God hath given me for edification and not for destruction They do preside in the Lord. They allow no other Head but our Lord from whom all the body c. The Fathers clearly do express their Sentiments to be the same St. Ignatius saith that the Bishop doth preside in the place of God and that we must look upon him as our Lord himself or as our Lord 's Representative that therefore we must be subject to him as unto Jesus Christ. St. Cyprian affirmeth each Bishop to be constituted by the judgment of God and of Christ and that in his Church he is for the present a Judge in the place of Christ and that our Lord Jesus Christ one and alone hath a power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting St. Basil A
or inferiour to a Senate or any Assembly in his Territory Therefore the Pope doth claim a Superiority over all Councils pretending that their determinations are invalid without his consent and confirmation that he can rescind or make void their Decrees that he can suspend their Consultations and translate or dissolve them And Baronius reckons this as one errour in Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes that he held as if the canons of councils were of greater authority in the Church of God than the decrees of Popes which says he how absurd and unreasonable an opinion it is c. That the authority of the Apostolick See in all Christian Ages has been preferred before the universal Church both the canons of our predecessours and manifold tradition do confirm This is a question stiffly debated among Romanists but the most as Aeneas Sylvius afterward Pope Pius II. did acutely observe with good reason to adhere to the Pope's side because the Pope disposeth of Benefices but Councils give none But in truth anciently the Pope was not understood Superiour to Councils for greater is the authority of the world than of one city says St. Hierome He was but one Bishop that had nothing to doe out of his precinct He had but his Vote in them He had the first Vote as the Patriarch of Alexandria the second of Antioch the third but that order neither gave to him or them any advantage as to decision but common consent or the suffrages of the majority did prevail He was conceived subject to the Canons no less than other Bishops Councils did examine matters decreed by him so as to follow or forsake them as they saw cause The Popes themselves did profess great veneration and observance of Conciliar Decrees Pope Leo I. did oppose a Canon of the Synod of Chalcedon not pretending his Superiority to Councils but the inviolability of the Nicene Canons but it notwithstanding that opposition did prevail Even in the dregs of times when the Pope had clambred so high to the top of power this Question in great numerous Synods of Bishops was agitated and positively decided against him both in Doctrine and practice The Synod of Basil affirmeth the matter of these Decrees to be a verity of the Christian faith which whoever doth pertinaciously resist is to be deemed a heretick Those Fathers say that none of the skilfull did ever doubt of this truth that the Pope in things belonging to faith was subject to the judgment of the same General Councils that the Council has an authority immediately from Christ which the Pope is bound to obey Those Synods were confirmed by Popes without exception of those determinations Great Churches most famous Vniversities a mighty store of learned Doctours of the Roman Communion have reverenced those Councils and adhered to their Doctrine Insomuch that the Cardinal of Lorrain did affirm him to be an Heretick in France who did hold the contrary These things sufficiently demonstrate that the Pope cannot pretend to Supremacy by universal Tradition and if he cannot prove it by that how can he prove it not surely by Scripture nor by Decrees of ancient Synods nor by any clear and convincing reason XV. The Sovereign of the Church is by all Christians to be acknowledged the chief Person in the world inferiour and subject to none above all commands the greatest Emperour being his Sheep and Subject He therefore now doth pretend to be above all Princes Divers Popes have affirmed this Superiority They are allowed and most favoured by him who teach this Doctrine In their Missal he is preferred above all Kings being prayed for before them But in the primitive times this was not held for St. Paul requires every soul to be subject to the higher powers Then the Emperour was avowed the first person next to God To whom says Tertullian they are second after whom they are first before all and above all Gods Why c. we worship the Emperour as a man next to God and less onely than God And Optatus since there is none above the Emperour but God who made him while Donatus extolleth himself above the Emperour he raises himself as it were above humanity and thinks himself to be God and not Man For the King is the top and head of all things on earth Then even Apostles Evangelists Prophets all men whoever were subject to the Emperour The Emperours did command them even the blessed Bishops and Patriarchs of old Rome Constantinople Alexandria Theopolis and Jerusalem Divers Popes did avow themselves subject to the Emperour XVI The Confirmation of Magistrates elected by others is a Branch of Supremacy which the Pope doth assume Baronius saith that this was the ancient custome and that Pope Simplicius did confirm the Election of Calendion Bishop of Antioch Meletius confirm'd the most holy Gregory in the Bishoprick of Constantinople But the truth is that anciently Bishops being elected did onely give an account of their choice unto all other Bishops especially to those of highest rank desiring their approbation and friendship for preservation of due communion correspondence and peace So the Synod of Antioch gave account to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria and all their Fellow-ministers throughout the world c. of the election of Domnus after Paulus Samosatenus So the Fathers of Constantinople acquainted Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops with the Constitution of Nectarius Flavianus c. This was not to request Confirmation as if the Pope or other Bishops could reject the Election if regular but rather to assure whom they were to communicate with We have say the Fathers of the Synod against Paulus Samosatenus signified this our chusing of Domnus into Paulus his room that you may write to him and receive letters of communion from him And St. Cyprian That you and our Collegues may know to whom they may write and from whom they may receive letters Thus the Bishops of Rome themselves did acquaint other Bishops with their Election their Faith c. So did Cornelius whom therefore St. Cyprian asserteth as established by the consent and approbation of his Collegues When the place of Peter and the Sacerdotal Chair was void which by God's will being occupied and with all our consents confirmed c. and the testimony of our Fellow-bishops the whole number of which all over the world unanimously consented The Emperour did confirm Bishops as we see by that notable passage in the Synod of Chalcedon where Bassianus Bishop of Ephesus pleading for himself saith Our most religious Emperour knowing these things presently ratified it and by a memorial published it confirming the Bishoprick afterwards he sent his rescript by Eustathius the Silentiary again confirming it XVII It is a Privilege of Sovereigns to grant Privileges Exemptions Dispensations This he claimeth but against the Laws of God and Rights of Bishops Against the Decrees of Synods against the
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
such a kind Unity which is a sufficient Proof that it hath no firm ground We may say of it as Saint Austin saith of the Church it self I will not that the Holy Church be demonstrated from humane reasonings but the Divine Oracles Saint Paul particularly in divers Epistles designedly treating about the Unity of the Church together with other Points of Doctrine neighbouring thereon and amply describing it doth not yet imply any such Unity then extant or designed to be He doth mention and urge the Unity of Spirit of Faith of Charity of Peace of Relation to our Lord of Communion in Devotions and Offices of Piety but concerning any Union under one singular visible Government or Polity he is silent He saith One Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all not one Monarch or one Senate or one Sanhedrin which is a pregnant sign that none such was then instituted otherwise he could not have slipped over a Point so very material and pertinent to his Discourse 2. By the Apostolical History it may appear that the Apostles in the Propagation of Christianity and founding of Christian Societies had no meaning did take no care to establish any such Polity They did resort to several places whither Divine instinct or reasonable occasion did carry them where by their Preaching having convinced and converted a competent number of persons to the embracing Christian Doctrine they did appoint Pastours to instruct and edifie them to administer God's Worship and Service among them to contain them in good order and peace exhorting them to maintain good correspondence of Charity and Peace with all good Christians otherwhere this is all we can see done by them 3. The Fathers in their set Treatises and in their incidental Discourses about the Unity of the Church which was de facto which should be de jure in the Church do make it to consist onely in those Unions of Faith Charity Peace which we have described not in this political Union The Roman Church gave this reason why they could not admit Marcion into their Communion they would not doe it without his Father's consent between whom and them there was one faith and one agreement of mind Tertullian in his Apologetick describing the Unity of the Church in his time saith We are one body by our Agreement in religion our Vnity of discipline and our being in the same Covenant of hope And more exactly or largely in his Prescriptions against Hereticks the breakers of Unity Therefore such and so many Churches are but the same with the first Apostolical one from which all are derived thus they become all first all Apostolical whilst they maintain the same Vnity whilst there are a Communion of peace names of brotherhood and contributions of hospitality among them the rights of which are kept up by no other means but the one tradition of the same Mystery They and we have one Faith one God the same Christ the same Hope the same Baptism in a word we are but one Church And Constantine the Great in his Epistle to the Churches Our Saviour would have his Catholick Church to be one the members of which though they be divided into many and different places are yet cherisht by one Spirit that is by the will of God And Gregory the Great Our Head which is Christ would therefore have us be his members that by the joints of Charity and Faith he might make us one body in himself Clem. Alex. defineth the Church A people gathered together out of Jews and Gentiles into one Faith by the giving of the Testaments fitted into Vnity of Faith This one Church therefore partakes of the nature of Vnity which Heresies violently endeavour to divide into many and therefore we affirm the ancient and Catholick Church whether we respect its constitution or our conception of it its beginning or its excellency to be but one which into the belief of that one Creed which is agreeable to its own peculiar Testaments or rather to that one and the same Testament in times however different by the will of one and the same God through one and the same Lord doth unite and combine together all those who are before ordained whom God hath predestinated as knowing that they would be just persons before the foundation of the world Many Passages in the Fathers applicable to this Point we have alledged in the foregoing Discourses 4. The constitution of such an Unity doth involve the vesting some Person or some number of Persons with a Sovereign Authority subordinate to our Lord to be managed in a certain manner either absolutely according to pleasure or limitedly according to certain Rules prescribed to it But that there was ever any such Authority constituted or any Rules prescribed to it by our Lord or his Apostles doth not appear and there are divers reasonable presumptions against it It is reasonable that whoever claimeth such Authority should for assuring his Title shew Patents of his Commission manifestly expressing it how otherwise can he justly demand Obedience or any with satisfaction yield thereto It was just that the Institution of so great Authority should be fortified with an undoubted charter that its Right might be apparent and the Duty of Subjection might be certain If any such Authority had been granted by God in all likelihood it would have been clearly mentioned in Scripture it being a matter of high importance among the establishments of Christianity conducing to great effects and grounding much duty Especially considering that There is in Scripture frequent occasion of mentioning it in way of History touching the use of it the acts of Sovereign Power affording chief matter to the History of any Society in way of Direction to those Governours how to manage it in way of Exhortation to Inferiours how to behave themselves in regard to it in way of commending the Advantages which attend it it is therefore strange that its mention is so balkt The Apostles do often speak concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs of all natures concerning the Decent administration of things concerning preservation of Order and Peace concerning the furtherance of Edification concerning the Prevention and Removal of Heresies Schisms Factions Disorders upon any of which occasions it is marvellous that they should not touch that Constitution which was the proper means appointed for maintenance of Truth Order Peace Decency Edification and all such Purposes for remedy of all contrary Mischiefs There are mentioned divers Schisms and Dissensions the which the Apostles did strive by instruction and persuasion to remove in which Cases supposing such an Authority in being it is a wonder that they do not mind the Parties dissenting of having recourse thereto for decision of their Causes that they do not exhort them to a Submission thereto that they do not reprove them for declining such a Remedy It is also strange that no mention is made of any Appeal made by
c. Which thing also Agrippinus of blessed memory with his other Fellow-bishops who then governed the Church of Christ in the African Province and in Numidia did establish and by the well-weighed examination of the common advice of them all together confirmed it Thus it was the custome in the Churches of Asia as Firmilian telleth us in those words Vpon which occasion it necessarily happens that every year we the Elders and Rulers do come together to regulate those things which are committed to our care that if there should be any things of greater moment by common advice they be determined Yet while things went thus in order to common Truth and Peace every Church in more private matters touching its own particular state did retain its Liberty and Authority without being subject or accountable to any but the common Lord in such cases even Synods of Bishops did not think it proper or just for them to interpose to the prejudice of that Liberty and Power which derived from a higher Source These things are very apparent as by the course of Ecclesiastical History so particularly in that most pretious Monument of Antiquity St. Cyprian's Epistles by which it is most evident that in those times every Bishop or Pastour was conceived to have a double relation or capacity one toward his own Flock another toward the whole Flock One toward his own Flock by virtue of which he taking advice of his Presbyters together with the conscience of his People assisting did order all things tending to particular Edification Order Peace Reformation Censure c. without fear of being troubled by Appeals or being liable to give any account but to his own Lord whose Vicegerent he was Another toward the whole Church in behalf of his People upon account whereof he did according to occasion or order apply himself to confer with other Bishops for preservation of the common Truth and Peace when they could not otherwise be well upheld than by the joint conspiring of the Pastours of divers Churches So that the Case of Bishops was like to that of Princes each of whom hath a free Superintendence in his own Territory but for to uphold Justice and Peace in the World or between adjacent Nations the entercourse of several Princes is needfull The Peace of the Church was preserved by communion of all Parts together not by the subjection of the rest to one Part. 7. This political Unity doth not well accord with the nature and genius of the Evangelical dispensation Our Saviour affirmed that his Kingdom is not of this World and Saint Paul telleth us that it consisteth in a Spiritual influence upon the Souls of men producing in them Vertue Spiritual Joy and Peace It disavoweth and discountenanceth the elements of the world by which worldly designs are carried on and worldly frames sustained It requireth not to be managed by politick artifices or fleshly wisedom but by Simplicity Sincerity Plain-dealing as every Subject of it must lay aside all guile and dissimulation so especially the Officers of it must doe so in conformity to the Apostles who had their conversation in the world and prosecuted their design in simplicity and godly sincerity not with fleshly wisedom but by the grace of God not walking in craftiness or handling the word of God deceitfully c. It needeth not to be supported or enlarged by wealth and pomp or by compulsive force and violence for God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and the weak things of the world to confound the mighty and base despicable things c. that no flesh should gloâ—y in his presence And The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God c. It discountenanceth the imposition of new Laws and Precepts beside those which God hath injoined or which are necessary for order and edification derogating from the Liberty of Christians and from the Simplicity of our Religion The Government of the Christian State is represented purely spiritual administred by meek persuasion not by imperious awe as an humble ministery not as stately domination for the Apostles themselves did not Lord it over mens faith but did co-operate to their joy they did not preach themselves but Christ Jesus to be the Lord and themselves their servants for Jesus It is expresly forbidden to them to domineer over God's people They are to be qualified with Gentleness and Patience they are forbidden to strive and enjoined to be gentle toward all apt to teach patient in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves They are to convince to rebuke to exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine They are furnished with no Arms beside the divine Panoply they bear no sword but that of the Spirit which is the word of God they may teach reprove they cannot compell They are not to be entangled in the cares of this life But supposing the Church was designed to be one in this manner of political regiment it must be quite another thing nearly resembling a worldly state yea in effect soon resolving it self into such an one supposing as is now pretended that its management is committed to an Ecclesiastical Monarch it must become a worldly Kingdom for such a Polity could not be upheld without applying the same means and engines without practising the same methods and arts whereby secular Governments are maintained It s Majesty must be supported by conspicuous Pomp and Phantastry It s Dignity and Power must be supported by Wealth which it must corrade and accumulate by large Incomes by exaction of Tributes and Taxes It must exert Authority in enacting of Laws for keeping its State in order and securing its Interests backed with Rewards and Pains especially considering its Title being so dark and grounded on no clear warrant many always will contest it It must apply Constraint and Force for procuring Obedience and correcting Transgression It must have Guards to preserve its Safety and Authority It must be engaged in Wars to defend its self and make good its Interests It must use Subtilty and Artifice for promoting its Interests and countermine the Policies of Adversaries It must erect Judicatories and must decide Causes with Formality of legal process whence tedious Suits crafty Pleadings Quirks of Law and Pettifoggeries Fees and Charges Extortion and Barretry c. will necessarily creep in All which things do much disagree from the original constitution and design of the Christian Church which is averse from pomp doth reject domination doth not require craft wealth or force to maintain it but did at first and may subsist without any such means I do not say that an Ecclesiastical Society may not lawfully for its support use Power Policy wealth in some measure to uphold or defend it self but that a Constitution needing such things is not Divine or that so far as it doth use them it is
Aeneas Sylvius his Account hereof Ibid. Catholick How much the abuse of that Word hath conduced to the Pope's Pretences 264. Censures Ecclesiastical Censures the great advantages made from them by the Pope 182. Ceremonies Why multitude of them in the Church of Rome 139. Charity Want thereof in the Church of Rome 286. Charity among Christians 299 301. breach thereof denominates a man to be no Christian 300. Charity to the Poor of other Churches in primitive Times no Argument of Unity of Church Government 320. Church Unity thereof 293. The various acceptations of the Word Church 294. The Titles and Privileges thereof 295. Church Government and Discipline in ancient times 162 c. Church Government No necessity of one kind onely of external Admistration thereof 306 307. The contrary shewed to be most proper and convenient in seq Church of Rome An Account of them who by voluntary Consent or Command of Princes do adhere in Confederation to the Church of Rome 325. Civil Magistrates Authority 271. Clergy Romish Clergy's Exemption from secular Jurisdiction whence 138. Communion Church Communion 296. Community of Men on several accounts may be termed One 297. Confession Auricular Confession 139. Confirmation of Magistrates belongs not to the Pope 269. Conscience The Usurpations made thereupon by the Popish Doctrines 288. Constantine M. His Judgment of Eusebius 86. No General Synod before his Reign 185. Controversies in the Church how in ancient times determined 115 149 264 303 304. Council of Trent Their Character 2. Enjoyned the Pope's Supremacy should not be disputed 18. Councils Their Authority above the Pope's 25. Councils Their Infallibility why pretended 139. Councils General Councils which so esteemed 188 first called by the Emperours ibid. when first celebrated 209 Use of them proves not there was Unity of Government in the Primitive Church 320 the proper occasion of General Councils assigned ibid Cup in the Sacrament why with-holden from the Laity 139. S. Cyprian's Account of S. Peter's primacy of Order 33 his Epistle concerning the deposing Marcianus examined 235 c. S. Cyril's supplying the Place of P. Celestine in the General Council 203 204. Cyril of Hierusalem the first according to Socrates who did introduce Appeals 249. D. POpe Damasus An Epistle of his in Theodoret whence Bellarmine's pretence for the Pope's Supremacy adjudged spurious 156 157. Decrees of Popes when contested against the ancient Canons 214. Whence their new Decrees introduced ibid. Decretal Epistles Their forgery and great advantage to the Church of Rome 184. Discipline and Order of the Primitive Church 211. Discipline The enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws about the same belong'd of old to Emperours 214. Discipline of the Church 305. main Form thereof not to be violated ibid. Dispensations 184. the Pope no power to grant them 270 281. Dissentions The Mischiefs arising from them 175 18â— The Profits accrewing from hence to the Romanists ibid. Dissentions How reconciled among Christians 323. E. ECclesiastical Jurisdiction not impugn'd by disclaiming S. Peter's Superiority 40. Emperours not Popes did first conâ—â—â—gate General Synods 185. Testimonies of Popes owning the same 193. Emperours themselves or Honourable Persons authorized by them did heretofore preside in General Synods 203. Empires Their Original and Increase 174. Episcopacy The Ends assigned of that Order 87. Eusebius Constantine M. his Character of him 86. Excommunicated Persons not admitted into Communion by other Churches 305 324 325. Exemptions The Pope no Power to grant them 270. F. FAith Unity of the Church preserved by it 299. Fathers What regard to be given to their account of S. Peter's Primacy of Order or bare Dignity 32. Fathers A Censure of their Writings 71. Bellarmine's account of the same ibid. The latter Fathers most guilty in Expressions 72. Fathers A Character of their Writings 119. Feed my sheep The Romish Interpretation rejected and the true established ibid. G. GLosses of the Romanists on Scripture 70 their Corruptions and Partiality herein 73. Gregory M. his Character and Authority against the Pope 123. H. HEresie of Simony Popes guilty of it 266. Hereticks How confuted in ancient times 115 c. Humility strictly enjoyned to Christ's Apostles and Followers 39. I. JEsuites Their Character 182. Jesus according to common notion of the Jews did imply his being the Son of God 30. Ignorance of Popes in Divinity 267. Ignorance How serviceable to the Church of Rome 182. Image Worship 139 280. Indulgences 184. Infallibility Pretence to it the greatest Tyranny 137. Whence pretended 139. The mother of Incorrigibility and Corruption of Manners 140. v. 265. Inspiration The Popes and Synods bold pretensions to it 286. Jurisdiction Universal Jurisdiction over the Clergy the Pope's Presumption herein and when begun 215. Jurisdiction Temporal and Ecclesiastical nature thereof 271. K. KEys Power thereof as also all other Authority communicated to all the Apostles equally 42 64. Kings have the Power onely of calling General Councils 191. The unreasonableness of the contrary 192. v. Emperours L. LEgends of the Church of Rome the Profits arising from them 184. Laws Ecclesiastical Laws In whose Power to enact them 212. The Pope subject to them ibid. M. MArriage The Romanists abuse thereof 284. Why forbidden to their Priests 139. Mass. Doctrine thereof ibid. Merit Doctrine thereof in the Chur. of Rome 138 286. Miracles Why pretended to by the Romanists 139. Monarchy Universal Monarchy not politick nor convenient 130 neither in Church nor State 152. Monarchy less subject to abuse than other ways of Government 315. Monastries why exempted by the Pope from secular Jurisdiction 138. Monkery 140. N. POpe Nicholas the first who excommunicated Princes secundum Bodin 146. O. OAth of Bishops of Rome at their Election 22. Obedience Blind Obedience 177. Order and Discipline of the Primitive Church 211. v. Discipline Ordination Priority therein did anciently ground a Right to Precedence 34. Orthodox Who such in the Primitive Church 299. P. PAstours of the Church Their duty to maintain Peace and Charity 304. Patriarchs not an higher Order than Primates 169 their Institution and Authority 170 171. Peace to be inviolable among Christians 301 the Sacraments conducive to the same 302 as also Convocation of Synods ibid. S. Peter in personal accomplishments most eminent among the Apostles 32 It is probable he was first called to the Apostolical office 33 his Zeal and Activity 30 34 his Superiority in Power rejected 35 was no Priest at the Celebration of our Lord's Supper contra Concil Trid. 36 not Bishop of Rome 82 whether ever at Rome 83 whence his Primacy asserted 27. Popes Supremacy The Controversies about it 1 The great Disturbances it hath caused 2 pretended authority to depose Princes 3 their behaviour according to their circumstances 17 pretended Supremacy in Spirituals 20 their imperious arbitrary Government 40 the insolent Titles given them 41 no Judge of Controversies 115 c. their Character before and after Constantine 142 Usurpation on Princes 145 Causes of the growth of pretended Supremacy 172
in them and in them to dispatch the principal affairs concerning that precinct to ordain Metropolitanes to confirm the Ordinations of Bishops to decide Causes and Controversies between Bishops upon appeal from Provincial Synods Some conceive the Synod of Nice did establish it but that can hardly well be for that Synod was held about the time of that division after that Constantine was setled in a peacefull enjoyment of the Empire and scarce could take notice of so fresh a change in the State that doth not pretend to innovate but professeth in its sanctions specially to regard ancient custome saving to the Churches their privileges of which they were possessed that onely mentioneth Provinces and representeth the Metropolitanes in them as the chief Governours Ecclesiastical then being that constituteth a peremptory decision of weighty causes in Provincial Synods which is inconsistent with the Diocesan Authority that taketh no notice of Constantinople the â—rincipal Diocese in the East as seat of the Empire and the Synod of Antioch insisting in the footsteps of the Nicene doth touch onely Metropolitanes Can. 19. and the Synod of Laodicea doth onely suppose that Order In fine that Synod is not recorded by any old Historian to have framed such an alteration which indeed was so considerable that Eusebius who was present there could not well have passed it over in silence Of this opinion was the Synod of Carthage in their Epistle to Pope Celestine I. who understood no jurisdiction but that of Metropolitanes to be constituted in the Nicene Synod Some think the Fathers of the Second General Synod did introduce it seeing it expedient that Ecclesiastical administrations should correspond to the Political for they did innovate somewhat in the form of Government they do expresly use the new word Diocese according to the civil sense as distinct from a Province they do distinctly name the particular Dioceses of the Oriental Empire as they stood in the civil establishment they do prescribe to the Bishops in each Diocese to act unitedly there not skipping over the bounds of it they order a kind of appeal to the Synod of the Diocese prohibiting other appeals The Historians expresly do report of them that they did distinguish and distribute Dioceses that they did constitute Patriarchs that they did prohibit that any of one Diocese should intrude upon another But if we shall attently search and scan passages we may perhaps find reason to judge that this form did soon after the Synod of Nice creep in without any solemn appointment by spontaneous assumption and submission accommodating things to the Political course the great Bishops who by the amplification of their City in power wealth and concourse of people were advanced in reputation and interest assuming such authority to themselves and the lesser Bishops easily complying And of this we have some Arguments Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem being deposed and extruded by Acacius Metropolitan of Palestine did appeal to a greater Judicatory being the first as Socrates noteth who ever did use that course because it seemeth there was no greater in being till about that time which was some years before the Synod of Constantinople in which there is a mention of a greater Synod of the Diocese There was a convention of Bishops of the Pontick Diocese at Tyana distinguished from the Asian Bishops whereof Eusebius of Caesarea is reckoned in the first place as President in the time of Valens Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople is said by the Synod of Chalcedon to have presided in the Synod of Constantinople A good Argument is drawn from the very Canon of the Synod of Constantinople it self which doth speak concerning Bishops over Dioceses as already constituted or extant not instituting that Order of Bishops but supposing it and together with an implicit confirmation regulating practice according to it by prohibiting Bishops to leap over the bounds of their Diocese so as to meddle in the affairs of other Dioceses and by ordering appeals to the Synod of a Diocese Of Authority gained by such assumption and concession without law there might be produced divers instances As particularly that the See of Constantinople did assume to it self Ordination and other acts of Jurisdiction in three Dioceses before any such power was granted to it by any Synodical Decree the which to have done divers instances shew some whereof are alledged in the Synod of Chalcedon as St. Chrysostome of whom it is there said That going into Asia he deposed fifteen Bishops and consecrated others in their room He also deposed Gerontius Bishop of Nicomedia belonging to the Diocese of Pontus Whence the Fathers of Chalcedon did aver That they had in a Synod confirmed the ancient custome which the Holy Church of God in Constantinople had to ordain Metropolitanes in the Asian Pontic and Thracian Dioceses The which custome consistent with reason and becoming the dignity of the Empire and gratefull to the Court that great Synod did establish although the Roman Church out of jealousie did contest and protest against it But the most pertinent instances are those of the Roman Alexandrine and Antiochene Churches having by degrees assumed to themselves such power over divers Provinces in imitation of which Churches the other Diocesan Bishops may well be thought to have enlarged their Jurisdiction This form of government is intimated in the Synod of Ephesus by those words in which Dioceses and Provinces are distinguished and the same shall be observed in all Dioceses and all Provinces every were However that this form of Discipline was perfectly setled in the times of the Fourth General Synod is evident by two notable Canons thereof wherein it is decreed that if any Bishop have a controversie with his Metropolitan of his Province he shall resort to and be judged by the Exarch of the Diocese or by the See of Constantinople This was a great privilege conferred on the Bishop of Constantinople the which perhaps did ground to be sure it did make way for the plea of that Bishop to the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Vniversal Bishop which Pope Gregory did so exagitate and indeed it soundeth so fairly toward it that the Pope hath nothing comparable to it to alledge in favour of his pretences this being the Decree of the greatest Synod that ever was held among the Ancients where all the Patriarchs did concur in making these Decrees which Pope Gregory did reverence as one of the Gospels If any ancient Synod did ever constitute any thing like to Vniversal Monarchy it was this wherein a final determination of greatest Causes was granted to the See of Constantinople without any exception or reservation I mean as to semblance and the sound of words for as to the true sense I do indeed conceive that the Canon did onely relate to causes emergent in the Eastern parts and probably it did onely respect the three Dioceses of Asia Pontus and Thrace which were