so few in the council surely could not weaken its acts which receive force not from all for what acts almost have such universal consent but from the much major part thereof But if these Canons without the concurrence of those persons were invalid so was also the Anti Arrian Creed of this Council and their sentence in the behalf of Athanasius And indeed hence where there is any Schism by some part no act of the Church can thence-forward be valid For example What act of the Church Catholick could be valid at that time against the Arians if these of Sardica were not 3. Let it be granted that these Canons rejected at first by these Schismaticks were afterward for some time in the East omitted by the Catholicks in their collections of the Churches Canons yet it seems sufficient that the Oriental Church of latter times when the Arians were crushed acknowledged them as well as the West which we find done by the Concil Constantinopolitan in Trullo Can. 2. Obsignamus reliquos omnes Canones qui a sanctis nostris Patribus c expositi sunt similiter ab eis qui Sardicae convenerunt 4. For the equity of these Canons if we consider any obligation which they lay upon these Western parts of the Church in respect of the Bishop of Rome it is no greater than the acknowledged-General Council of Chalcedon layeth on the East in respect of the Bishop of Constantinople Can. 9. 5. However it be the acts of such a Council wherein the Western Bishops are conceded to have unanimously agreed are obligatory to the West and particularly to Africk from whence were present therein 35 Bishops consenting thereto and no dislike thereof afterwards profest by the African Church of that present time Nay Gratus Primat of Carthage who was present in this Council quoteth the authority thereof in 1. Conc. Carthag 5. Can. Mamini in sanctissimo Concilio Sardicensi statutum c But had its Canons bin disallowed by the African Church his quoting them would have prejudiced his matter Therefore To β I say neither were these Canons opposed by the African Council which contested with Zosimus about them above 60 years after as known to them to be Sardican Canons but only because they were utterly ignorant thereof for t is clear by S. Austin's words contra Crescon 3. l. 34 c. and Ep. 163. ad Eleusium that he who may be presumed as knowing as any other of that Synod knew of no Sardican Decrees at all save those made by the separated Arians I know not where and called by them Sardican Canons of which he came to have notice only casually from the Donatists and perusing the Book they shewed him found them to be made by the Arians because saith he legi Athanasium Julium illo Conc. Sardicensi fuisse improbatos Ep. 163. But it had bin some advantage to his matter then in hand had he produced any true and Orthodox Council of Sardica opposit to this who defended Athanasius but of this he is silent Neither will this altogether seem so strange when as in another matter we find him confessing himself ignorant also of a Canon of Nice that There may not be two Bishops resident of the same place at once See Austin Epist. 110. Quod Concilio Nicaeno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam nec ipse Valerius the former Bishop of Hippo sciebat Neither did Zosimus in all probability know these Canons which he urged to the Africans as the Nicene to have bin the Canons of Sardica for else we would have pressed them for such being thus as obligatory to the Africans as if they had bin the Nicene To ◠Photius a single person his rejecting these Canons when opposite to him in a matter so nearly concerning himself 200 years after the Eastern Council in Trullo had acknowledged them amongst the rest is to be looked on as a piece of passion and his own putting these Canons also amongst the rest in his Nomo-canon see Balsam in Nomo-can Photii is a sufficient self-condemnation Thus much for vindicating the authority of this Council Of which thus Mr. Thorndike Epilog 3. l. 20. c. p. 181. This difference came afterward to be tried by a General Council at Sardica c. For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council as the Emperor Justinian reckons it being summoned by both the Emperor Constantius and Constance out of the whole Empire and when the breach fell out and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Phillopopolis the whole power in point of right ought I conceive to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach But the Success sufficiently sheweth that it did not so prevail was not obeyed and submitted to by all as a General Council for many a Council which followed after this about the Arian opinions might have bin spared The sovereign regard of peace in the Church suffered not those that were in the right to insist upon the acts of it as I suppose In the mean time the Canons thereof whereby Appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are setled whether for the West which it represented or for the whole Church which it had right to conclude those Bishops that voted in it not having caused the breach shall I conceive them to be forged because they are so aspersed they having bin acknowledged by Justinian translated by Dionys Exiguus added by the Eastern Church to their Canon-law Or shall I not ask rather what pretence there could be in these Canons to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminence of power and not only a precedence of rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome Thus Mr. Thorndike candidly of this Famous Council § 12 The 7th and 17th Canons of this Council above recited the Bishop of Rome urged A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals by mistake to the 6th Carthaginian Council contesting with him about Appeals for Canons of Nice By mistake I say For these two Canons are found verbatim the same with those which the Pope sent to the African Bishops as appears by their Epistle to Boniface wherein the Canons are set down And the 17th Canon it seems was understood I say not whether rightly by the Bishop of Rome in such a sence as that it established his as well as the finitimi Episcopi's receiving the appeals of Presbyters which appears by his pressing that canon to them by his admitting the appeals of Apiarius only a Presbyter the occasion of this controversy and by the African Bishops opposing him in their Epistle to Celestine as well concerning Presbyter's as Bishops appeals to Rome These canons of Sardica as I have shewed out of S. Austin t is probable that the African Bishops had not seen tho they had the consent also of their predecessors there being no less than 35 Bishops from Africk in
saith St. Austin aliud Arelatense judicium aliorum scil Episcoporum this was the Council of Arles assembled in Constantine's time of which see more below § 23. n. 7. consisting of two hundred Bishops as Baronius conjectures out of St. Austin which Council included with more added to them Caecilian's former Judges non quia jam necesse erat sed eorum perversitatibus cedens omni modo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere Afterward they importunately appealing also from this Council to the Emperor 's own judgment He very earnest by any means to quell this growing division in the African Churches cessit eis saith St. Austin ut de illa causa post Episcopos judicaret a sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus dum tamen illi quod ulterius dicerent non haberent si ejus sententiae non obtemporarent See likewise Dr. Field's concessions l. 5. c. 53. p. 682. concerning this business both that the cause was judg'd by a Synod at Arles and that the Emperor's hearing the cause after them was irregular After this you may review what truth there is in the objection of Calvin § 16 Excuse this digression which I have made from § 12. concerning the difference between the African and Roman Bishop arising from these Canons of Sardica there urged Against which Canons whereas it is pretended 1. That they authorize the Roman Bishop only to judg such causes by his Deputies upon the place often said by Dr. Field see in him p. 530. 2. That the 9th Canon of Chalcedon a Council following this in ordering the Appeal ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur contains something contrary to them The first appears not true by can 4. Sard. proclamaverit i. e. Episcopus depositus agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata By the privilege granted to the Constantinopolitan and inferior Patriarch to the Roman Con. Chal. c. 9. ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur By the ordinary practice of the Roman Bishops in those early times thence therefore is the African Expostulation with him Quomodo judicium transmarinum ratum erit ad quod testium necessariae personae c. adduci non possunt And the like you may see urg'd by Cyprian see Field p. 563. Lastly by Dr. Field's confession l. 5. c. 34. p. 531. That the Pope with his Western Bishops might examine and judge at Rome the differences between two Patriarchs or between a Patriarch and his Bishops as 't is clear he did a little before the Sardican Council judg at Rome the cause of Athanasius how much more then the differences when of moment of the Subjects of his own Patriarchy To the second 't is confess'd That that Canon in respect of some parts namely of the East and of some differences namely of Bishops there with their Metropolitans doth restrain those of Sardica But first The African Controversie was before the Council of Chalcedon Again for the West at least it must be granted that those Canons stand good still and are not weaken'd but strengthen'd rather and imitated by Chalcedon which Council thought fit in this Canon to give that authority which Sardica conferr'd on the Roman to a Seat inferior to the Roman much more therefore may the Roman See if the Constantinopolitan have such privileges But lastly we know also that in this point of the Bishop of Constantinople's Dignity and Power the Eastern Bishops of that Council were oppos'd by the Bishop of Rome and his Legates § 17 After these Sardican Decrees concerning these Appeals from inferior to superior Ecclesiastical Judges see the eighth General Council can 26. against which Council tho the Grecians in Conc. Florent sess 6. oppose the Decrees of another following it yet it is not contradicted in this I quote out of it by that or any other later Council Vt qui se laesum arbitrabitur a proprio Episcopo possit Metropolitanum appellare qui datis dimissoriis ad se causam advocet Liceat tamen Episcopis provocare ad Patriarcham si crediderint se injustitiam pati a Metropolitano a quo litibus finis imponatur After which Canon I will set you down that passage of the English Bishops upon their relinquishing the See of Rome in their Book of the Institution of a Christian man in Sacr. of Orders quoted by Dr. Hammond Schism c. 5. and much relied on by King James in Apol. pro juramento fidel p. 124. that you may see whether things were well-consider'd by them It was say they many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops which were not within his Province in Italy And the Bishops of Rome do now transgress their own profession made in their Creation For all the Bishops of Rome always when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See do make a solemn profession and vow that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordinances made in the Eight first General Councils among which it is especially provided that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they begun and that by the Bishops of the same Province which absolutely excludes all Papal i. e. foreign power out of these Realms Now the Canons the Bishops refer to are Conc. Nic. c. 6. 1 Conc. Const. c. 2 3. and Conc. Milevit c. 22. which Canons how little they make for their purpose see below § 19 c. and before § 14. But the Pope making solemn vow to observe Conc. 8. can 26. as well as these did he vow contradictions or if these contradicting doth not in Ecclesiastical constitutions the later stand in force Again for not appealing of all persons in every cause to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court see Conc. Milev whereof St. Austin was a member Can. 22. Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint si de judiciis Episcoporum questi fuerint vicini Episcopi eos audiant inter eos quicquid est finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum Quod si ab eis provocandum putaverint non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiantur But note here that this Canon was made only concerning inferior Clergy not Bishops tho some mistakingly urge it against any appeals whatever and as Bellarmin saith was ratified by Innocentius Bishop of Rome quoting his Epistle among St. Austin's the 93. tho indeed that Epistle confirms nothing else save their Decrees against Pelagius But however this is a thing it seems by Bellarmin that the Pope will not oppose See about this non-appealing Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 562. where he brings in also further to confirm this the Imperial Constitution Justin.
Digneris proinde quid hic sentias declarare quo liquide nobis constet communicare ne nos cum illo oporteat an vero libere eidem denunciare neminem cum illo communicare qui ejusmodi erroneam doctrinam fovet praedicat Again see the great authority that Celestin Bishop of Rome used against the same Nestorius which authority was approved and submitted-to by Cyril and the Alexandrian and also the Ephesine the 3d. General Council Thus Celestin writeth in his Epistle to Cyril Nostrae Sedis authoritate ascita nostraque vice loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententia exequeris nempe ut nisi decem dierum intervallo ab hujus nostroe admonitionis die numerandorum nefariam doctrinam suam conceptis verbis anathematizet c illico Sanctitas tua illi Ecclesioe prospiciat Thus Celestin to Nestorius Post unam alteram admonitionem c nisi nunc tandem quae perverse docuisti per te corrigantur in posterum a nostro consortio ab omnium Christianorum coetu alienum te fore nihil quicquam dubites Upon this thus Cyril and his Alexandrian Council to Nestorius Quod sane nisi juxta tempus in literis Celestini sacratissimi reverendissimique Romanorum Episcopi expressum praestiteris certo scias nullam tibi deinceps cum Episcopis Sacerdotibus Dei consuetudinem nullum sermonem nullum denique inter eos locum futurum esse All which proceedings see approved in the Acts of the Ephesine Council Tom. 2. c. 5. and then see the sentence of the Council against Nestorius running thus Per sacros Canones sanctissimique Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopi Celestini Patris nostri literas lachrymis suffusi pene inviti ad lugubrem hanc sententiam urgemur See the like things related by Evagrius 1. l. 4. c. See the Epistle of S. Chrysostom § 23. n. 6. Bishop of Constantinople in banishment being deposed by a Synod held there appealing to Innocentius Bishop of Rome and sending to him some of his Bishops wherein he bespeaks him thus Quamobrem ne confusio haec omnem quae sub coelo est nationem invadat obsecro ut scribas quod haec tam inique facta absentibus nobis non declinantibus judicium non habeant robur sicut neque natura sua habent illi autem qui adeo impune egisse deprehensi sunt poenae Ecclesiasticarum legum subjaceant Upon which suit the Bishop of Rome called a Synod of his Bishops and pronounced the proceedings of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria to be against the canons and void See Field p. 536. and Epist Innocent apud Binnium And is said by Baronius A.D. 407. who quotes for it many authors Gennadius Nicephorus Glycas to which may be added Georgius Patriarch of Alexandria in the Edit Savil. of Chrysostom 8. Tom. p. 248. after he heard of Chrysostom's death in banishment to have excommunicated both Arcadius the Eastern Emperour and Eudoxia and Theophilus his chief oppressors But this fact is denied by Dr. Field upon the silence of Historians more ancient In Innocentius's letter to Arcadius we find these words Itaque ego minimus peccator cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est segrego rejicio te illam a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri Episcopumetiam omnem aut Clericum ordinis sanctae Christi Ecclesiae qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas dignitate sua excidisse decerno c. The truth of this Epistle I decide not but t is certain that S. Ambrose before this excommunicated the Emperour his Father and if Arcadius his violences to holy Chrysostom his Bishop deserved the like Ecclesiastical censure I know not who after Chrysostom's death could inflict it more properly than the first See which also was defended in it by Honorius brother to Arcadius and Emperour in the West See the Epistle of Theodoret a Syrian Bishop appealing from the 2d Ephesine Council by which he was in absence condemned and deposed as a Nestorian to Leo Bishop of Rome whom he sues to in these terms post tot sudores labores ne in jus quidem vocatus sum condemnatus Ego autem Apostolicae vestrae Sedis expecto sententiam supplico obsecro vestram sanctitatem ut mihi opem ferat justum vestrum rectum appellanti judicium jubeat ad vos accurrere for the Emperour had confined him to Cyrus the place of his Bishoprick ostendere meam doctrinam vestigia Apostolica sequentem And his Epistle to Renatus one of the Bishop of Rome's Legats in the 2d Ephesine Council Te precor ut sanctissimo Archiepiscopo Leoni persuadeas ut Apostolica utatur authoritate jubeatque ad vestrurn Concilium adire Tenet enim sancta ista Sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti orbis Ecclesiarum Habet enim sanctissima Romana Sedes omnem per orbem Ecclesiarum principatum cum multis aliis de causis tum maxime quod haereticae labis immunis permansit this was long after the times of Liberius by which it appears Antiquity imputed no Arrianism to this See Apostolicam gratiam immaculatam servavit Whose cause Pope Leo accordingly judged and cleared him and afterward the General Council of Chalcedon after due examination some there also opposing Theodoret did the like After examination I say For the Pope's and his assistant Bishops sentence it seems was not accounted so authentick and unrepealable that a General Council might not review examin and if seeming to them erroneous reverse it upon which judgment of the Council concurring with his Leo thus answers Theodoret Quae nostro prius ministerio Dominus desinierat universae fraternitatis i. e. of the Council irrefragabili firmavit assensu ut vere a se prodiisse ostenderet quod prius a prima omnium Sede firmatum totius Christiani orbis judicium recepisset ut in hoc quoque capiti membra concordent Nam ne aliarum Sedium ad cam quam caeteris omnibus Dominus statuit praesidere consensus videretur assentatio inventi prius sunt qui de judiciis nostris ambigerent c. See Socrates Eccles Hist 50 l. 15. c. where he speaks thus concerning the reconciling of Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch to the Roman See Theophilus i. e. the Patriarch of Alexandria odio in illum i.e. Flavianum restincto Isidorum Presbyterum misit uti Damasi Siricii it should be saith Baronius animum in Flavianum exulceratum mitigaret doceretque in usu Ecclesiae esse si propter populi concordiam peccatum a Flaviano commissum remitteret Quocirca communione Flaviano ad hunc modum reddita therefore he had bin formerly by the Roman Bishop excommunicated populus Antiochenus ad concordiam reducitur therefore formerly in the want of that communion they had refused some obedience and submission to him After these clear evidences of
Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Rome See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it § 51. That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon § 52. That this Nation owes its Conversion chiefly if not only to the Roman See § 53. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon conversion § 55. The Britains observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals and no argument that they received Christianity from thence § 57. That the English Nation is sufficiently tyed to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils wherein her Prelats have yeilded their consents § 59. Thus the Principle upon which some set the English Clergy and Nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be unsound § 60. That some Rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterward be justly resumed § 61. Dr. Field of the Church Ep. Dedicat SEing the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matters so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examin them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies in the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the Living God which is this pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Grot. Animadv cont Rivet ad Art 7. Rogo eos qui. verum amant ut cum legent Dav. Blondelli viri diligentissimi Librum de Primatu non inpsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed ipsas historias quarum veritatem Blondellus agnoscit animo a factionibus remoto expendant spondeo si id faciant inventuros in quo acquieescant S. Austin de util credendi 16. c. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem iposo Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerum intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine 10. c. Sed inquis Nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quacunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoseendus sit omnesque putas idonâ—os esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam religionem putas who therefore must receive this not from Reason but Authority 12. c. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis utilius ac salubrius esse praeceptis obtemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere 13. c. Recte igitur Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad religionem fides i.e. adhibenda authoritati Ecclesiae persuadeatur ante omnia 8. c. Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manaturaest 12. Quum de religione id est quum de colendo atque intelligendo Deo agitur ii minus sequendi sunt qui nos credere vetant rationem promptissime pollicentes Rivet Apol. Discussio p. 255. Nunc plane ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit cause divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones fatente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium put at ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter insticutum Bishop Bilson in perpet governm of Christ's Church 16. c. Not Antichrist but ancient Councils and Christian Emperors perceiving the mighty trouble and intolerable charges that the Bishops of every Province were put-to by staying at Synods for the hearing and determining of all private matters and quarrels and seeing no cause to imploy the Bishops of the whole world twice every year to sit in judgment about petit and particular strifes and brabbles as well the Prince as the Bishops not to increase the pride of Arcbishops but to settle an indifferent course both for the parties and the Judges referred not the making of Laws and Canons but the execution of them already made to the credit and conscience of the Archbishop To the Fathers leave an Appeal either to the Councils or the Primate of every Nation Mr. Thorndike Epilogue 3. l. 20. c. p. 179. Of the Councils he meaneth those first Councils held in the East how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches and this admission of them what can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their Decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Council of Nice tho the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Councils yet in other occasions they may justly seem to refer themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the Acts of it and then he produceth several instances Whereby saith he it may appear how the Western Churches went always along with that of Rome Which necessarily argueth a singular preeminence in it in regard whereof He the Roman Bishop is stiled the Patriarch of the West during the regular government of the Church and being so acknowledged by K. James of Excellent memory to the Card. Perron may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church who had rather stand divided than own him in that quality Afterward he saith p. 180. That it is unquestionable that all causes that concern the whole Church are to resort to the Church of Rome And p. 181. asks what pretence there could be to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome as such Appeals were setled in the Council of Sardica which Council he there allows and
est Ipse decoravit sedem in qua Evangelistam discipulum misit Ipse firmavit sedem in qua septem annis quamvis discessurus sedit Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes cui ex authoritate divina tres nunc Episcopi praesident quicquid ego de vobis boni audio hoc mihi imputo Concil Gen. 8. at Constantinople can 21. Quisquis autem tale facinus contra sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare c. By these passages you see he Primacy and Priviledges whatever they were of the Roman Bishop anciently imputed to his Succession in the See of S. Peter and S. Paul and not or not chiefly or only to the Secular eminency of Rome But a chief reason also of the so high advancement of these three cities above all the rest notwithstanding that there were some other Apostolical Seats Hierusalem Ephesus preferable before Alexandria and many other cities more dignified as was urged by the Roman Bishops against that clause in Conc. Chalced. propter imperium civitatis Romae than either Alexandria or Antioch seems to be because these cities in the begining and first spreading of Christianity in those several quarters of the world the East the West and the South were replenished with a much greater number of Christians than others and were the Mother-churches of all the rest These three cities as Dr. Hammond notes Schism 3. c. p. 58. having the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations For the Churches of Asia were converted by Emissaries from Antioch Act. 13.2 4. and those of Egypt c from Alexandria and the Western from Rome Concerning which see the testimony of Innocentius the first Pope A. D. 408. in his Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium quoted before 3. § Tho I do not deny that Alexandria in Egypt having bin the Seat of the Successors of Ptolomy and Antioch in Asia of the Successors of Seleucus and under the Romans being the place of Residence of those their Governors who were set over the adjacent Provinces this might somewhat advance the propagation of Christianity more from these cities of so great resort than from others § 7 In the 2d General Council The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome A. D. 381. Constantinople being now made great by the Seat of the Empire translated thither its Bishop was advanced into a fourth Patriarch and that in the second place next to Rome which thing was also confirmed in the 4. Gen. Conc. Chalced granting him Act. 16. aequa senioris regiae Romae privilegia i.e. as they there and in their Letter to Leo Act. 3 explain themselves to exercise in such a sence as the 2d General Council had decreed before them a Patriarchal authority in ordaining the Metropolitans of certain Provinces and the Bishops also in some others as also to have the last place of Appeal Can. 9. in respect of those parts of the Church with this salvo annexed in behalf of the Roman Bishop omnem quidem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum Canones Antiquae Romae Archiepiscopo conservari and as it is said in the 2d General Concil 5th Can. to which former Canon they refer Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportere primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum propter quod sit Nova Roma tho this priority of the Bishop of Constantinople to Alexandria and Antioch was in this Council of Chalcedon much opposed in the behalf of those two Sees Dioscorus then Bishop of Alexandria being excluded from this Council for Heresy and so at this time uncapable of pleading for himself by Leo the then Bishop of Rome And it seems that the former 5th Canon but now recited made by the Bishops in that part of the 2d General Council which was assembled at Constantinople as also the three other Canons there preceding it which were recited in Concil Chalced. Act. 16. were either unknown or not at all regarded by the other part of the 2d General Council the Western Bishops who were assembled shortly after that time at Rome For thus saith Leo of these Canons or Acts in Ep. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Nunquam a praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Sedis transmissa notitiam and thus his Legats in Conc. Chalced. 16. Act. Quae in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur Neither indeed was any such Canon mentioned by the Constantinopolitan Bishops of the 2d General Council when they writ to Damasus concerning its Acts. See 1. conc Constantinop Nor was this foresaid 5th Canon when most opportunely it might but only the Nicene 6th Canon pleaded by S. Chrysostom against Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria offering to judge and depose him Wherefore Baronius conceives it to be made only by a part of that Council after Timotheus the Bishop of Alexandria was departed thence But however this Patriarch was not long after that contention of Leo's rather by their not contradiction than approbation indulged that honour also by the Roman Bishops themselves doubtless as conceiving it no abridgment of their own authority some Metropolitans being taken from the other Patriarchates The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times and subjected to it The great extent of which Patriarchy in latter times especially if you be curious to know see Dr. Field 3. l. 1. c. where he assigns for one reason of such an enlargment of its jurisdiction the conversion of sundry nations and people to the Christian faith by that Bishops Suffragans and Ministers § 8 Again in the 5th Gen. Council abou A. D. 550. the Bishop of Hierusalem out in honour to the Holy City The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place was made the 5th Patriarch after some honour and respects beyond other Bishops first given or rather wished to him by the Nicene Council see 7. Canon some Bishops both from that of Alexandria and Antioch being translated to his Jurisdiction § 9 Amost these above-named Dignities Ecclesiastical the Metropolitans were to ordain or confirm the Bishops of their Province The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors and the Patriarch was to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans subject unto him either by imposition of hands or by mission of the Pall. See Concil Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Action where advancing the Constantinopolitan Bishop to Patriarchal authority in the second place to Rome they conclude oportere ipsum potestatem habere ordinare Metropolitanos c. ut penes eum sit hunc qui electus est confirmare repudiareve See 8. Gen. Conc. Constant 17. c. See Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. Patriarchs were by the order of the 8. General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And 5.
l. 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And What the bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the precinct of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had and that therefore he might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece France and Spain as Bellarmin alledgeth being all within the compass of his Patriarchship See Bishop Bramhal vindic 9. c. p. 257. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterwards Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent differences or difficulties Thus he Neither might any Metropolitan upon any cause separate himself from the communion of his Patriarch before the examination and sentence of a Council first passed in his behalf See 8. General Council 10. c. whose words are Nullus Clericus ante diligentem examinationem Synodicam sententiam a communione proprii Patriarchae se separet licet criminalem quamlibet causam ejus se nosse praetendat nec recuset nomen ipsius referre inter divina mysteria Idem statuimus de Episcopis erga proprios Metropolitas similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarcham suum Qui vero contra fecerit ab omni Sacerdotali operatione honore decidat Ante Synodicam sententiam i. e. of a Council superior to the Metropolitan for the lower cannot judge the higher no not tho assembled together in a council See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 567. as an Episcopal Synod cannot judge the Metropolitan And the firmlier to bind and confine the inferior to the judgment of the superior orders of the Clergy the Church made frequent Canons against their starting aside by appeals to the judgment of Seculars whether of others or also of the Emperor himself See Concil Antiochen 11. c. 12. c. Concil Sardica 8. c. Concil Chalced. 9. c. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non relinquat suum Episcopum ad saecularia judicia non concurrat c. Conc. Melevitanum 19. c. Placuit ut quicunque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum i.e. Ecclesiasticorum petierit honore proprio privetur c. And see Conc. Generale 8. c. 17. 21. This for Patriarchs superiority over and their cotfirmation of Metropolitans Next amongst the Patriarchs themselves § 10 it seems the lower received no ordination from the higher But yet some confirmation or approbation they seem ordinarily to have had from their Superiors or at least from the Roman Patriarch by those words of Leo Ep. 54. ad Martianum the then Emperor concerning Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis est quod praedicto vestrae pietatis auxilio mei favoris assensu Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit And custodire debuit ut quod nostro beneficio noscitur consecutus nullius pravitatis cupiditate turbaret Nos enim vestrae fidei interventionis habentes intuitum cum secundum suae consecrationis authores ejus initia titubarent benigniores circa ipsum quam justiores esse voluimus quo perturbationes omnes quae operante Diabolo fuerunt excitatae adhibitis remediis leniremus Thus discourseth the Pope to the Emperor conscious of all those proceedings concerning his establishing of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch and by the suit made to the Pope concerning the settlement of Flavianus in the Patriarchy of Antioch of which see Theodoret hist Eccles 5. l. 23. c. Likewise concerning the confirming of superior Patriarchs by the inferior that is true which Dr. Field 5. l. 37. c. p. 551. saith in answer to such places urged by Bellarmin That the manner was that the Patriarchs should upon notice given of their due Ordination and Synodal letters containing a profession of their Faith mutually give assent one to another Therefore Cyprian Antoniano Ep. 52. speaks thus concerning the legitimate election of Cornelius Bishop of Rome whom Novatianus endeavoured to supplant Factus est Cornelius Episcopus cum Fabiani locus vacaret quo loco occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus Romae fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est c. But that which Dr. Field adds there viz. That the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained no otherwise to the Bishop of Rome than the right of confirming Him pertained unto Them cannot justly be defended even from his own concessions elsewhere 5. l. 34. c. p. 528. c. of which see more below § 24. For no other Bishop could be a lawful Patriarch without the approbation of the Bishop of Rome the prime Patriarch whose withdrawing his communion from any was withdrawing the communion of the whole Church which hath always continued united to this Apostolick chair and yet the Bishop of Rome was lawfully such without the approbation of every other Patriarch so long as his election is not disallowed by the conjunct Hierarchy or the whole representative of the Church gathered togegether in a Council as it happened in the Council of Constance He may have an authority over other Bishops or Patriarchs single which none of them singly hath over him and yet all of them conjoin'd may have the same authority over Him as he hath over any of them single one singulis major may be minor universis Of which see more below § 22. n. 2. and in 2. Part. § 20. § 11. n. 2. Likewise Appeals were permitted from inferior Ecclesiastical to superior Judges and Courts but not of all causes and persons whatever to the supreamest Court lest so should be no end of contentions So the inferior Clergy in their differences might appeal from their Bishop to their Metropolitan and his Council Provincial or National who were finally to determine such controversies and such persons to acquiesce in them Again Bishops might appeal from their Metropolitan or from any inferior Courts to their Patriarch and his Council whose final decision in ordinary contests they were to rest in and who from the remotest of his Provinces upon appeal might either bring the cause to be heard by himself if the moment of the business so requir'd or send e latere suo presbyteros to use the expression of the 7th can of Sardic Conc. or depute some other Bishops of that or some other neighbouring Province to hear the matter where it was acted Or lastly command the Appealant to acquiesce in the former sentence given See for both these the Appeals of inferior Clergy and also of Bishops Conc. Chalced. can 9. compar'd
with Conc. Nic. 6 can and Conc. Const 1. can 5. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habet negotium agitetur apud proprium Episcopum Si Clericus adversus suum vel alium Episcopum habeat causam apud audientiam Synodi Provinciae conqueratur Si vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam pergant ad ipsius Diocesis a word in those times of larger extent than that of Province one Diocess containing in it many Provinces Primates aut certe ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem Ad Constant sedem because by the Eastern Bishops both in this and in the second General Council the second Dignity amongst the Patriarchs or Primates after Rome was conferr'd on him and therefore by this Canon we may gather That the same repair as was in such causes permitted to be made in the East to the Constantinopolitan might as Canonically be made in the West to the Roman Patriarch For whatever priviledge the Constantinopolitan Bishop had the Roman had in the first place See Conc Sard. can 3 4 7 17. Can. 3. proposed by Hosius President formerly in the Nicene Council Si in aliqua Provincia aliquis Episcopus contra fratrem suum Episcopum litem habuerit unus de duobus ex alia Provincia advocet Episcopum cognitorem Quod si aliquis Episcopus judicatus fuerit in aliqua alia causa putat se bonam causam habere ut iterum Concilium renovetur si vobis placet S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus ut scribatur ab his qui causam examinarunt Julio Romano Episcopo si judicaverit renovandum esse judicium renovetur det Judices Si autem probaverit talem causam esse ut non refricentur ea quae acta sunt quae decreverit confirmata erunt si hoc omnibus placet Synodus respondit Placet Can. 4. Cum aliquis Episcopus depositus fuerit eorum Episcoporum judicio qui in vicinis locis commorantur proclamaverit agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma alter Episcopus in ejus Cathedra post appellationem i. e. to Rome ejus qui videtur esse depositus omnino non ordinetur nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata Can. 7. Si Episcopus accusatus fuerit congregati Episcopi regionis ipsius judicaverint de gradu suo eum dejecerint si appellaverit qui dejectus est confugerit ad Episcopum Romanae Ecclesiae voluerit se audiri which was the course which Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople had take just before this Council tho the no Bishops of the Western Patriarchy who also were members of this Council si justum putaverit i.e. Romanus Episcopus ut renovetur judicium vel discussionis examen scribere dignetur his Episcopis qui in finitima propinqua Provincia sunt ut ipsi diligenter requirant juxta fidem veritatis definiant Quod si is qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri deprecatione sua moverit Episcopum Romanum ut e latere suo Presbyterum mittat fit in potestaâ—e Episcopi i.e. Romani quid velit quid aestimet Et si decreverit mittendos esse qui praesentes cum Episcopis judicent habentes ejus authoritatem a quo destinati sunt erit in suo arbitrio Si vero crediderit Episcopos sufficere i.e. without his Legats ut negotio terminum imponant faciet quod sapientissimo consilio judicaverit Can. 17. Si Episcopus forte iracundus quod esse non debet cito aspere commoveatur adversus Presbyterum sive Diaconum suum exterminari eum de Ecclesia voluerit providendum est ne innocens damnetur aut perdat communionem ideo habeat potestatem is qui abjectus est ut Episcopos finitimos interpellet causa ejus audiatur ac diligentius tractetur quia non oportet ei negare audientiam roganti c. Thus probably with some eye to the Justification of Julius his proceeding concerning Athanasius § 11. n. 2. which were reproach'd by the oriental Arian party this great Council assembled about twenty years after the Nicene and establishing the Decrees thereof having the same President or chief Prolocutor in it with the Council of Nice Hosius Bishop of Corduba and several other Bishops of the Nicene Council and men eminent in sanctity to omit Athanasius Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem Paphnutius Serapion Spiridion and other call'd Oecumenical by Socrates l. 2. c. 17. both the Emperors concurring in the calling thereof and it being subscrib'd tho not by the Arrian party a few in comparison bearing the proportion of 76 to about 300 who seeing they should be over-voted departed from the Council yet by the Orthodox Oriental as well as Western Bishops namely by Athanasius by Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem and by the Bishops of Palestine who most-part adher'd to and the Athanasius and the Nicene Decrees by Diodorus Bishop of Asia minor c. see the Council Notwithstanding all which some have endeavour'd to disauthorize the Canons thereof as giving the Roman Bishop too great an authority See Spalatensis l. 4. c. 8. n. 34. where against these Canons he urgeth α. That in corpore antiquo Canonum universalis Ecclesiae quo Oriens semper usus est nullus Sardicenfis Canon locum habuit β That Patres Africani Canoni Sardicensi nihil deferre voluerunt ubi enim cognoverunt Canonem non esse Nicaenum illum contempserunt That Zosimus si Sardicenses tunc Canones fuissent alicujus authoritatis non eum dixisset esse Nicaenum sed id quod erat aperte dixisset esse Canonem Sardicensem servandum γ Lastly that Photius about Anno D. 860 expresse negavit Nicolao Papae Canonem Sardicensem 13 um ejus ordinationi objicienti se Sardicense Concilium aut alia Pontificum decreta habere vel recipere But in answer to these To α I oppose 1. What Cardinal Perron replied long since to Causaubon 1. l. 53. c. That the leaving these Canons out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae universalis is against the Faith of all the Greek Canonists Photius Zonaras Balsamon Harmenopulus and against the Greek impressions even of Basil Wirtenberg and other Protestant towns and in sum against the verity of all the Greek Codes as well Printed as Manuscripts of all the Libraries Occidental and Oriental Thus Perron 2. What just cause can be alledged for the rejection of these Canons Spalatensis alledgeth this ibid. quia Sardicae factum est schisma But this Schism and departure being made by an inconsiderable party these some 76 and the other some 300 with the prime Patriarch joined with them and some eminent Oriental Bishops amongst them lest they should be overpowred how could they do more to disauthorize these Canons by being divided from the Council than they could have done by residing in it and voting against them But the dissenting votes of
that council Athan. Apol. 2. and therefore upon their not finding them amongst the Nicene as was pretended nor knowing them to be of the orthodox council of Sardica they request That neither the appeals of Presbyters nor yet of Bishops might thenceforth be admitted from thence by the Roman Bishop but that their causes might finally be decided by their Metropolitan or a Provincial Council defending themselves with the 5th and 6th canons of the Nicene Council Their words are these Impendio deprecamur c ne a nobis excommunicatos in communionem ultra velitis accipere quia hoc etiam Nicaeno Concilio definitum facile advertet Venerabilitas tua Nam etsi de inferioribus clericis vel laicis videtur ibi praecaveri quanto magis de Episcopis voluit observari ne in sua provincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinato vel praepropere vel indebite videantur communioni restitui Decreta Nicaena can 4.6 sive inferioris gradus clericos sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commiserunt Maxime quia unicuique concessum est si judicio offensus sit cognitorum i.e. of the judges of his cause ad concilia suae Provinciae vel etiam universale provocare Their reasons are Vnicuique Provinciae gratiam Spiritus sancti non defuturam c. nisi forte quisquam est qui credat uni cuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam innumerabilibus congregatis in Concilium sacerdotibus denegare Therefore they desire him that neither their causes might be judged by himself at Rome for Quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium ratum erit ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexus vel propter senectutis infirmitatem c adduci non poterunt nor by his Legats a latere in Africk for hoc nulla invenimus Patrum synodo constitutum and nulla Patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Africanae much less that he would send executores Clericos quibusque petentibus ne fumosum typhum saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi videamur introducere insr § 25. n. 1. Executores c who by the Secular power the Emperor's officers there forced if need were the observation of the Bishop of Rome's decrees See Aust Ep. 261. the complaint S. Austin makes to the Pope of Antonius his threats From which proceedings they complain in their letter to Bonifacius that they had suffered much formerly and more than the Canons he urged should they be found in the Nicen Council did impose upon them And the same dislike of Appeal to Rome may be found before these times in S. Cyprian Ep. 55. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome at least in reference to those particular persons Fortunatus and Felicissimus notoriously guilty and most justly condemned by a Council in Africk where he pleads thus Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta quam regat rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare sed agere illic causam suam ubi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint nisi si paucis desperatis perditis minor videtur esse authoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorum § 13 Thus have I given you a brief account of this difference between Rome and Africk Mean-while t is plain that then Appeals were ordinarily made from Africk to the Bishop of Rome and his decrees submitted to and executed there and this not only before but presently after this contest See below 23 § and Leo's 85 Ep. ad Episcopos Africanos where he writes thus concerning Lupicinus an ejected African Bishop appealing to him Causam quoque Lupicini Episcopi illic jubemus audiri Cui multum saepius postulanti communionem hac ratione reddidimus quoniam cum ad nostrum judicium provocasset immerito eum pendente negotio a communione videbamus fuisse suspensum In which Epistle also he saith Quod nunc utcunque patimur esse veniale inultum postmodum esse non poterit si quisquam id quod omnino interdiximus usurpare praesumpserit Manifest also that they did at that time what he appointed concerning Apiarius and promised observance of the two Canons till the return of the copy of the Nicene canons out of the East and after this return some expressions in their letter they let fall as if they would not offer to throw off altogether his interest in their affairs Impendio deprecamur ut deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus 4. l. 8. c. 32. n. Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facile audiantur i.e. a Roman Pontifice nisi videlicet notoria manifesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus aut maxima eorum parte For he grants there ubi gravis notoria est suspicio erga proprios primarios Judices Ep scopos reos potuisse ad aliena or extera judicia praesertim vero ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Caetilian's case And voluit observari i.e. the Council of Nice ne in sua Provincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinato vel prapropere vel indâ—bite videantur communioni restitui And the 22. canon of the Milevitan Council held by them about the time of this contest prohibits transmarine Appeals only to the inferior Clergy Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint c non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum c. § 14 Again Notwithstanding what hath bin said by the Africans in this matter Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary yet here may be made still a Quaere Whether in a controversie between Bishops and their Metropolitan and much more in controversies between Metropolitans or Primates or also Patriarchs themselves such transmarine Appeals were not necessary and were at all or at least justly by the African Bishops in any-such cases opposed For the mere proving of an opposition engageth us no more to the opinion of one side than of the other neither may we argue the Bishop of Rome unjustly claimed it because they opposed it no more than that they unjustly opposed it because he claimed it As for the 5th Nicene Canon urged by them themselves grant it and it is manifest to any Reader to speak in express terms only of inferior Clergy and in their application of it to Bishops they qualify it with a ne festinato ne praepropere For the common practice of former times in Athanasius c shews that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons to admit into his communion any Bishop excommunicated by his Province if
he found him wrongfully Suspended and therefore t is true also that the 6th canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commisit but not in every case unappealably to Superiors as appears by the African Bishop's qualification in that Epistle Ne festinato ne praepropere quoted before As for the several Reasons they give to these it may be replied on the other side That the Patriarch tho he were neither more prudent nor better informed from others in difficult matters nor more assisted from Heaven yet t is probable that such might as having a more choice election both be more knowing and according to the eminency of his place assisted both with a wiser Council and a greater portion of God's Spirit yet must he needs be a less partial Judge in such matters because not so nearly interessed in the cause nor in the persons as the Metropolitan often must be or also other Bishops who live upon the place and are subject to his power That the Provincial Councils which they mention tho their judgment were never so entire were not always to be had and were much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint much rarer yet Councils universal neither of them by reason of the great trouble fit upon every such difference to be called And hence fails that Apology which Dr. Field 5. l. 39 c. p. 563. makes for the Africans in these words The Africans tho within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeals of Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a general Synod of Africk wherein the Primat sate as President for otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus far he Therefore the Africans denying this went against the canons That the canons of the Council of Sardica which the African Bishops then knew not of were sufficient to warrant his receiving of such appeals and if any former African decrees be pleaded against him much more may these of Sardica for him That many cases are not matter of fact where witnesses are necessary but questions de jure where the fact is confessed and that in such no more plea can be made to have them tried at home than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded not to have this matter arbitrated at Jerusalem or Arius of Alexandria at Nice That for the conveniency of hearing witnesses where necessary in such appeals it was ordered indeed anciently that whensoever it could safely be done such causes should be arbitrated in the same or some adjoining Provinces by some Judges either sent thither or there delegated by the Patriarch of which the 7th canon of Sardica seems to take special care in the non-observance of which canons some Roman Bishops perhaps may have bin culpable and caused great affliction to their subjects but yet that other exigencies might occur every cause not being fit to be decided by delegates which required the trial to be at the Patriarchal residency to which the trouble of witnesses must give place which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council see Conc. Sard. can 4. And this grave Assembly we have no reason to think but that they weighed the troubles of such appeals as well as the Africans afterward or we now but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences to avoid greater mischiefs namely in the intervals of Councils schisms and divisions between Provincial and between National Churches by the Church her having thus so many Supremes terminating all Spiritual causes within themselves as there were Provinces or countries Christian See Dr. Field allowing such appeals below § 20. and especially S. Austin Ep. 162. where he justifies the appeal of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage wronged by a Council of 70. Bishops held in Africk whereof was President the Primat of Numidia whose power and authority Dr. Hammond equals to that of Patriarchs Schism 3. c. p. 58. to a transmarine judgment tho Donatus his party much crying out against such appeals and tho it was in a matter meerly of fact namely whether Caecilian was ordained by some who were traditores sacrorum Codicum igni in time of persecution because such judgment was dis-engaged in the quarrel His words are Sibi i.e. Caeciliano videbat apud Ecclesiam transmarinam a privatis inimicitiis ab utraque parte dissensionis alienam incorruptum integrum examen suae causae remanere And again Qui i.e. Caecilianus posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum i.e. in Africk cum se videret Romanae Ecclesiae in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus caeteris terris per communicatorias literas esse conjunctum ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere for all Churches had power to clear and examin his cause in respect of entertaining communion with him and sending their communicatory letters c. tho all Churches had not such power in respect of righting him against his adversaries but only his superior Patriarch Again An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primas Numidiae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurpavit Rogatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent This transmarine judgment here you see S. Austin justifies notwithstanding the Donatists might have used the foresaid § 12. plea of the African Fathers of the 6th Council and of Cyprian especially in the trial of a matter of fact § 15 But concerning this foreign judgment of Caecilians cause before I leave it I must not conceal to you what Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 7. s 10. relates thereof in prejudice of the Pope's authority objecting there That Caecilian had his cause tried indeed by the Bishop of Rome but by him only as the Emperor 's Delegate and not by him singly but with other special Delegates join'd with him that from this judgment an appeal being made by Caecilian's adversaries then the Emperor Constantine so great an honorer of the Church's privileges appointed the Bishop of Arles in France Qui sedet Judex saith he ut post Roman Pontificem quod visum fuerit pronunciet And again an appeal being made from him also 't is further urg'd That the Emperor judg'd the cause after all himself For answer to which I refer you to the relation of this story by St. Augustin against the Donatists Epist 162. where you will find those Assessors to be join'd by the Emperor to the Bishop of Rome ad preces Donatistarum who well knew Melchiades much favouring Caecilian's cause You may see Constantine's Letter to Melchiades and Marcus one of his Assessors in Eus l. 1. c. 5. The Donatists here cast pretending some new evidence requested of the Emperor yet another hearing of their cause upon which dedit Ille
what goes before they say that this preeminence of the Constantinopolitan Bishop is dignitatis only not potestatis To all which I answer 1. That these Canons are capable of another interpretation namely That neither Patriarch nor Primat or Metropolitan should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy or Province coordinate and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs i. e. over which neither by ancient custom nor constitutions of Councils he could claim any such Superiority See the limitation Concil Ephes c. 8. Quae non prius atque ab initio c. and Can. Apostol 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt a clause clause still retained in these canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal Not those of Alexandria with the affairs of Antioch solius Aegypti curam gerant servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae without encroaching upon them or the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch medling with the Ordination of Bishops in the Provinces subjected to them Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace to whom Thrace owed no subjection Again That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the supreme and last Court above any other authority in that Province and exclusively to the judgments of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces which are only coordinate with it See them below § 28. called by Gregory Episcopi alieni Concilii and § 26. this interpretation further confirmed 2. That their interpretation of these canons cannot be true 1. Neither in this that they would make every Province independent and supreme because both the Bishop of Alexandria and of Antioch which are here mentioned had more than one Province subjected unto them yet all called their Diocess or Province taken in a larger sence and the Bishop of Constantinople who is not mentioned or limited in the 2d Canon Conc. Constantinop as others had several of the Provinces here-named as Pontus Asia Thrace subjected to him and that by this very Council For which see Conc. Chalced. Act. 16. Centum quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopi i.e. the Fathers of this Constantipolitan Counci rationabiliter judicantes c Vrbem Constant in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa Roma majestatem habere negotiis his qui de Ponto sunt de Asia Thracia dioecesibus Metropolitanos ordinari a praedictae Constant Sedis sanctissima Ecclesia where these Fathers expound what was meant here by Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae in the words following namely ut unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Dioecesium ordinet suae regionis Episcopos sicut divinis Canonibus i.e. the canons of Nice and these of Constantinople est praeceptum Thus are Pontus and Asia c subjected to the See of Constantinople tho not for the ordaining of their Bishops yet for the ordinations of their Metropolitans and also for Appeals as may be seen in their 9th and 16th canons which seems to be the meaning of that Majestas in Ecclesiasticis negotiis which they gave him post Romam And all this they do after these very canons were first recited in the Council definitionem sanctissimorum Patrum sequentes ubique regulam ea quae nunc relecta sunt i. e. these canons centum quinquaginta Episcoporum c. Which to confirm to you yet farther see the Subscriptions of those Bishops of Asia and Pontus c of one Ego gratum habeo sub sede Constantinopolit esse quoniam ipse ordinavit of another secundum sententiam Patrum 150 voluntate propria subscripsi Therefore the Primacy post Romanam granted by Const Concil Constantinopol to the Bishop thereof was not dignitatis only but potestatis and therefore much more the Primacy of Rome as the Chalcedon Fathers expound these canons But if we say that they misunderstood yet then they have at least sufficiently reversed them and nulled their force because they coming after the other have made a contrary decree which at least in matters of Ecclesiastical constitution annulleth the former 2. Neither is their interpretation true in this viz. That Provincial Councils may finally determin all causes thereof exclusively to all others whatsoever for so they would not be subject to Patriarchal nor Universal Councils nor would any appeals from them at all be lawful contrary to what is said but now Con. Chalc. 9. c. see likewise the can of Sardica and to the known common practice of Antiquity of which hereafter follow many instances and also in the 8th canon of this very Council which they urge as it is extant in Balsamon examinations of matters are remitted from Provincial Councils to a greater Synod of the Diocess Quod si evenerit ut Provinciales Episcopi crimina quae Episcopo intentata sunt corrigere non possunt placuit c tunc ipsos accusatores accedere ad majorem Synodum Dioecesis illius c. 3. It may be answered Whatever these canons mean that one part of this Council sitting at Constantinople the other at Rome they received no confirmation from those at Rome See for this what is said before § 7. And it is observable that tho there is mention made in them of Antioch and Alexandria yet is there none made of the limitations of the Roman or the Western Diocesses no nor yet of limiting the Constantinopolitan Bishops whom they ordered to be the second to Rome for we read not in them Constantinopolitanae Dioecesis Episcopi ea quae ad Constantinopolitanam tantummodo Dioecesim pertinent gubernent Lastly Patriarchs themselves §. 20. n. 1. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch and those who had complaints against them according to Dr. Field's concessions 5. l. 39. c. and 34. c. p. 530. might appeal to and were to be judged by those of their own rank in order before them assisted by inferior Bishops And the Bishop of Rome saith he p. 568. as first in order amongst the Patriarchs assisted with his own Bishops and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty tho these latter I do not always find necessary The power of Jurisdiction not only primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops or present at such judgments as appears in the instances here following might judge any of the other Patriarchs and such as had complaints against them might fly to him and the Synods of Bishops subject to him and the Patriarchs themselves in their distresses might fly to him and such Synods for relief and help Tho saith he of himself alone he had no power to do any thing And 5. l. 52. c. p. 668. when saith he there groweth a difference between the Patriarchs of one See and another or between any of the Patriarchs and the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to them the superior Patriarch not of himself alone but with his Metropolitans and such particular Bishops as are interested may judge and determin the differences between them And 5. l. 34. c. p.
reformare judicia quae putabantur Romam esse deferenda leviora absolvere graviora Domino Papae referre Thus He. And indeed § 20. n 2. frequent examples there are of the Bishop of Rome's using a judicial authority in some maters over the chiefest members of the Universal Church Frequent examples of wronged both Bishops and Patriarchs appealing and repairing unto him for redress even in early times when his power is said to have bin so great Which redress he afforded them By summoning their adversaries also tho under another Patriarchat to appear before him By examining their cause and declaring them innocent by and with his own Patriarchal Council or with so many Bishops as could well be conven'd if the cause were of moment By allowing and retaining them in his communion By declaring the proceedings and acts of their adversaries when discover'd by him to be against the former Ecclesiastical Canons null and void Whilst He as the prime Bishop of the world seemed to have a superintendency in the interval of General Councils for the observation of the Ecclesiastical Canons established by former Synods not only if we may judge by the practice of those ancient and holy Bishops of Rome over his own Patriarchat but over the whole Church of which see more § 21. and 25. c. by writing to other Patriarchs and Synods to do the same and to permit them quietly to enjoy their Dignities by pronouncing the sentence of Excommunication upon refractory offenders tho it were those of the highest Dignity see below § 23. n. 5 6. § 25 c. And lastly if the greatness of the cause and of the opposition and their non-acquiescence in his judgment so required by calling other Bishops of what Dignity soever before him and his Council or by citing a General Council for their relief See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 35. p. 536 538. Now why such repair was made to him and such primacy and power given him beyond all other Bishops by ancient Church-custom and Canons whether from the Dignity of the imperial City where he was Bishop or whether from St. Peter and St. Paul's last residence in this their most eminent seat and Martyrdom there leaving the Regiment of the Church of God which they both finally exercis'd in this place in that Bishop's hands when they died for some reason there must be that Antiquity so specially applied Sedes Apostolica when-as many others were so too to that See beyond all others and that the Appealants and others made their honourable addresses to it not as Sedes Imperialis for such addresses to Rome ceased not to be still when the Emperor 's chief residence was in the East but as Sedes Apostolica or whether for both these for both these are compatible enough it little concerns me to examine Only de facto such honour and respect to be given him is most evident So those famous Worthies of the Church amongst others Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paulus and Chrysostom Bishops of Constantinople and Theodoret a Bishop in Syria when oppressed at home appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synods see Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 570. In which Appeals what the Pope's power in those times was accounted to be and what interest his Authority challeng'd in respect of the Eastern parts of the Church I think you will remain partly well satisfied notwithstanding the great contests in this matter if you please to read these quotations which travelling thro by five or six of the first Ages with some trouble to my self I have transcribed to save your pains lest perhaps you should not have the opportunity or the leisure or at least the curiosity to seek them in their several Authors Wherein yet I could wish if you seriously seek satisfaction in this matter you would review them I being forc'd for avoiding further tediousness to omit many circumstances § 21 See the testimony of the Ecclesiastical Historians The seventh Chapter of the third Book of Sozomen This power exemplified in the primitive times to the end of the 6 Age the days of Gregory the Great extending to § 36. who liv'd in the fifth Age contemporary to St. Leo where concerning Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria their repair to the Bishop of Rome Julius he saith Cum propter Sedis dignitatem cura omnium ad ipsâ—m spectaret singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit scripsitque ad Episcopos Orientis eosque incusavit c. deditque mandatum ut quidam illorum omnium nomine ad diem constitâ—tum accederent Quinetiam minatus est se de reliquo non passurum c. The 11th Chapter of the second Book of Socrates where he saith Julius Bishop of Rome sent Letters to the Oriental Bishops c. quoniam Ecclesia Romana privilegium praeter caeteras obtinebat and that Paulus and Athanasius ad suas ipsorum EcclesiaÌ„s redibant literis Julâ—â— confisi concerning which priviledg we have less reason to rely on the judgment of those Arrian Bishops opposing and scoffing at them than on the orthodox Paulus and Athanasius acknowledging and seeking relief from them See the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians wherein he saith Judicatum est non semel secundum nos sed saepius ac saepius primum quidem in nostra Provincia c. Secundo Romae nobis caeterisque adversariis Eusebii ad ejus criminosas literas in judicio comparentibus Fuere autem in eo consensu plures quam 50 Episcopi the Pope with 50 of his Western Bishops hearing his cause The Epistle of Julius to the Oriental Bishops assembled at Antioch written before the Council of Sardica and so before the 7th Canon thereof was compos'd and publish'd by Athanasius in that his second Apology wherein are such passages as these unto them Quum iidem illi those sent from the Eastern Bishosp authores mihi fuerunt ut vos convocarem certe id a vobis aegre ferri non debuit sed potius alacriter ad citationem occurrere Cur igitur in primis de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere voluistis An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit qua propter si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcopum concepta fuerat id huc ad nostram Ecclesiam referri oportuit Quae accepimus a Beato Petro Apostolo ea vobis significo And the same thing which Julius mentions here An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse c. and before it Oportuit secundum Canonem non isto modo judicium fieri c. is also found urg'd by Innocentius amongst S. Austin's Epistles Ep. 91. Quod illi i. e. Patres non humana sed divina decrevere sententia ut quicquid de disjunctis remotisque Provinciis ageretur non prius ducerent finiendum nisi ad hujus sedis notitiam perveniret
nor discipline That where both the Council and this prime Patriarch agree not no new law no change can be made but all things must remain in statu quo prius which state of things is no way alterable by the Bishop of Rome for this Canon if it give him a negative power against what is to be established it doth not so for what hath bin established as well by the former Bishops of Rome as former Councils See the concession of Zosimns to this purpose apud Gratianum 25. q. contra statuta Contra statuta Patrum condere aliquid vel mutare nec hujus quidem Sedis potest authoritas Apud nos enim inconvulsis radicibus vivit antiquitas cui decreta Patrum sanxere reverentiam Which former Synods if he shall happen to trespass against and incur the guilt of heresy upon evidence of the fact he is condemnable and deposable by the Council of which see more 2. part § 20. So we find a Pope Honorius condemned of heresy as a Monothelite by the 6th General Council but this was done by the Pope as well as the Council Hear what a Bishop of Rome Adrian the 2d saith concerning this matter in the 8th General Council Act. 7. Romanum Pontificem de omnium Ecclesiarum Praesulibus judicasse legimus de eo vero quenquam judicasse non legimus Licet enim Honorio ab Orientalibus post mortem anathema sit dictum sciendum tamen est quod qui fuerat super haeresi accusatus propter quam solum licitum est minoribus majorum suorum motibus resistere vel pravos suos sensus libere respuere quamvis ibi nec Patriarcharum nec caeterorum Antistitum cuipiam de eo quamlibet fas fuerit proferre sententiam nisi ejusdem primae Sedis Pontificis consensus proecessisset and what that Council saith Can. 21. Sed ne alium quenquam conscriptiones contra Sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae ac verba complicare vel componere liceat c quod nuper Photius Patriarch of Constantinople whom this Council deposed fecit multo ante Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria Quisquis autem tale facinus contra Sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare aequalem eandem quam Illi condemnationem i.e. deposition recipiat Porro si Synodus Vniversalis fuerit congregata facta fuerit etiam de Sancta Romanorum Ecclesia quaevis ambiguitas aut controversia oportet venerabiliter cum convenienti reverentia de proposita quaestione sciscitari solutionem accipere aut proficere aut profectum facere non tamen audacter sententiam dicere contra summos Senioris Romae Pontifices Thus that Council in opposition to Photius his former violences toward the Roman See and thus much of that old Canon mentioned in the Epistle of Julius to the Orientals assembled at Antioch Who since they made an Arrian Creed contrary to the Nicene and condemned Athanasius and some other Orthodox Bishops which things were done if not by the major party yet by the prevailing it is as reasonable to affirm That the same persons only that did these things writ that Letter to Julius so invective against the authority of the Roman See and not the major part whom Spalatensis to add the more authority to this Letter contends to have bin Catholick See his 3. l. 8. c. 3. n. c. 4. l. 8. c. 11. n. c. However it is clear that Julius his proceedings are justified against them both by the Occidental Orthodox Bishops and by Athanasius and other orthodox Bishops of the East and by the Council of Sardica and by the Ecclesiastical Historians See Sozomen 3. l. 7. c. and 9. c. where the same persons that writ to Julius the Historian saith contra Concilii Nicaeni decreta res gesserunt and were accused by Julius 9. c. quod clam contra fidem Concilii Nicaeni novas res moliti fuerunt See Socrates 2. l. 7. c. their changing the Nicene Creed Thus much concerning the meaning of the ancient Canon Now to go on See in Athanas Apol. 2. and Socrates 2. l. 19. c. and Epiphan Haer. 68. Valens and Vrsatius § 23. n. 1. two Bishops one in Mysia the other in Pannonia both very gracious with the Emperour Constantius and leaders of the Arrian faction upon repentance of their error and also calumnies against Athanasius repairing to Rome and delivering to Julius libellum poenitentiae and begging pardon and reconciliation tho afterward they relapsed See the 3d 4th and 7th Canons of the Council of Sardica set down before § 11. in which great Council are reckoned by Athanasius one present in it in 2. Apolog. some Bishops present from our Britanny Episcopi Hispaniarum Galliarum Britanniarum c. Neither is this any wonder since they were also at Conc. Arelat 11 years before that of Nice see Hammond schism p. 110. which canons seem to confirm appeals to the Bishop of Rome and to authorize him to hear and decide the causes by himself or his Legats of those Bishops also who were not under his Patriarchy For it is not limited to the Western Patriarchy but generally proposed Si in aliqua Provincia Episcopus c. Can. 3. and the motive proposed by Hosius formerly President of Nice is general not more concerning one part of the Church than another the honouring of S. Peter's memory and these canons were made by that Council not long after Athanasius a Bishop not subject to the Roman Patriarchy but himself a Patriarch his appeal to Rome and the judgment of his cause by witnesses brought out of the East and his adversaries counter-plea there which judgment and sentence as the Eastern Bishops at Antioch much slighted and undervalued so this Sardican Council approved and if these canons respected all in general then since the Bishops of our Britanny also were there this was their act as well as of the rest and obliged Britanny to the same subordinations with the rest See the Epistle of St. Basil Epist 52. to Athanasius § 23. n. 2. about the suppression of Arrianism in the East wherein he saith Visum est consentaneum scribere ad Episcopum Romanum ut videat res nostras decreti sui judicium interponat authoritatem tribuat delectis viris qui acta Ariminensis Concilii secum ferant ad ea rescindenda quae illic violenter acta sunt c. See the two Epistles of St. Hierom to Damasus Bishop of Rome desiring to know what he should hold concerning the word Hypostasis applied to the Three Persons of the Trinity and with whom communicate in the East wherein thus he Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum furore collisus c. ideo mihi Cathedram Petri Rom. 1.8 sidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur haereditas Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri
the Eastern Bishops at Antioch judged or excommunicated Julius the Bishop of Rome who communicated with Athanasius they might justly have incurred the like censure Neither could they justly say so as they do in their Epistle to Him inter decreta Julii if it be not forged contraria celebrabimus vobiscum deinceps nec congregari nec vobis obedire volumus sed per nos quicquid melius elegerimus agere conabimur nor urge the 5. Can. of Nice against him supposing his a superior Court. He proceeds That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome seeing every other See is inferior to it but that the See of Rome i. e. the Bishops of Rome and the Bishops of the West may judge and examine the differences c but neither so peremptorily nor finally but that such judgment may be reviewed and re-examined and revers'd in a General Council Let this be agreed-to but I ask Is it no power that this See hath over the rest because this power is subordinated to a General Council But if it be granted to have the supremest power next to that of a General Council then when no General Council is in being is it not actually pro tempore the supremest and do not its determinations stand good and oblige till a General Council be assembled Else what will this mean which the Dr. saith The first See must judge and examine the differences of all others but none it if it judging and examining none are bound to submit or obey And from this namely that the first may judge i. e. excommunicate for this is the thing which is meant by judging above in the case of John Antioch and Dioscorus Alexand. inferior thrones not they it it will appear that the excommunications of the first See are either authoritative and privative in respect of other Sees i. e. rejecting them from the communion of the Church Catholick or if they are negative only i. e. withdrawing her self only from the communion of others of which two sorts of excommunication see Dr. Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 558. Bishop of Derry's vindicat 8. c. that no other Church may use a negative excommunication towards the first See i.e. may not withdraw themselves from the communion thereof but only it may do so toward others For some excommunication is granted here to die first See toward others which others have not towards it I ask therefore John Antoch excommunicating the second See and Dioscorus Alexand. excommunicating the first disallowed by two General Councils was it negative only by way of Christian caution or privative and authoritative by way of Jurisdiction Take which you will yet t is clear both by the Councils and Dr. Field's concession that in such manner the second or third See might not excommunicate the first and that in such manner the first might excommunicate the second or third But indeed it is manifest That the excommunication both of John and Dioscorus was authoritative neither would they have presumed singly to have done it but as having a party of a Council of other Bishops who were not subject to them joined with them Yet thus also were they by the Oecumenical Synods censured for making themselves heads of a Council against their Superiors the second and first See And as manifest it is that the Bishop of Rome's censures were authoritative many times deposing as well as excommunicating Bishops not under the jurisdiction of his Patriarchy as also John Antioch deposed Cyril Alexand. As for Dr. Field's very cautiously every where joining the Western Bishops with the Bishops of the first See in his exercising such judgment over other Sees he must either mean the Bishops of his ordinary Council and such others as according to the exigent he can conveniently advise with which may be conceded to Dr. Field or he must mean all the Bishops of the West assembled in a Patriarchal Council But if so their ordinary practice anciently in judging such appeals and causes shews it was otherwise and reason tells us it could not be thus unless so great a body could be so often convened as such appeals were necessary to be terminated Thus much of Dr. Field's answers Now to go on in our quotations out of Leo. See his Epistle to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria §25 n. 1. Quod a Patribus nostris propensiore cura novimus esse servatum a vobis quoque volumus custodiri ut non passim diebus omnibus Sacerdotalis ordinatio celâ—bretur sed mane ipso die Dominico Vt in omnibus observantia nostra concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri ut cum solennior sestivitas Conventum populi numerosioris indixerit sacrificii oblatio indubitanter iteretur Epistle 46. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople written to him about receiving some Bishops and others in the East followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus upon their penitence to the peace of the Church Licet sperem dilectionem tuam ad omne opus bonum esse devotam ut tamen efficacior tua fieri possit industria necessarium congruum fuit fratres meos Lucentium Episcopum Basilium Presbyterum ut promisimus destinare quibus tua dilectio societur ut nihil in his quae ad Vniversalis Ecclesiae statum pertinent aut dubie agatur aut segniter cum residentibus vobis quibus executionem nostrae dispositionis injunximus ea possint agi cuncta moderation c. De his autem qui in hac causa gravius peccavere si forte resipiscunt horum satisfactio maturioribus Apostolicae Sedis Conciliis reservetur ut examinatis omnibus c quid constitui debeat aestimetur And afterward Si de aliquibus amplius fuerit deliberandum celeriter ad nos relatio dirigatur ut pertractata qualitate causarum nostra quid observari debeat solicitudo constituat And see the Rescript of the Emperour Valentinian the Third quoted by Baron Anno 445. inter Novel Theod. tit 24. in the time of Leo a little before the Council of Chalcedon sent to Aelius his Vicegerent in France about quieting the difference between the Archbishops of Arles and Vienna after that the cause upon appeal had bin decided by Leo against Arles Wherein the Emperour hath these words Cum Sedis Apostolicae primatum S. Petri mâ—ritum sacra etiam Synodi firmarit authoritas ne quid praeter authoritatem Sedis illius inlicitum praesumptio attentare nitatur hinc enim demum Ecclesiarum pax ubique servabitur si Rectorem suum agnoscat Vniversitas Haec cum hactenus inviolabiliter fuerint constituta Hilarius contumaci ausu c. His talibus per ordinem religiosi viri urbis Papae cognitione discussis certa in eundem Hilarium lata sententia est Et erat ipsa quidem sententia per Gallias etiam sine Imperiali sanctione valitura Sed nostram quoque praeceptionem haec ratio provocavit ne ulterius cuiquam Ecclesiasticis rebus arma miscere as it
because a Synod was not specially summon'd for the purpose especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely City see Gelasius the successor to Felix A. D. 494. his vindication of this act of the Apostolick See without a Council at least an Oecumenial one in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae an Eastern Province not far from Constantinople which Epistle is worth the reading over the rather because some places being urg'd out of it by Bellarmin Dr. Field in his answer to them hath these words Truly there cannot be any better proof against the pretended Supremacy of the Popes than this Epistle In this Epistle then Gelasius pleads thus Sabellium damnavit Synodus nec fuit necesse ut ejus sectatores postea damnarentur singulas viritim Synodos celebrari sed pro tenore constitutionis antiquae cunctos qui vel pravitatis illius vel communionis extitere participes universalis Ecclesia i e. in a Council dixit esse refutandos Considimus quod nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus nullam magis exequi sedem prae ceteris oportere quam primam quae unamquamque Synodum sua authoritate confirmat continuata moderatione custodit pro suo scil Principatu quem Beatus Petrus Apostolus Domini voce perceptum I suppose it should be percepit Ecclesia nihilominus subsequens tenuit semper tenebit Haec i. e. Sedes Apostolica dum Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a veritate Apostolica deviasse diutius ista non credens quippe quem noverat executorem saepe necessariae dispensationis suae i. e. Sedis Apostolicae per triennium fere monere non destitit c. cur tanto tempore dum ista gererentur non ad sedem Apostolicam a qua sibi curam illarum regionum noverat delegatum referre curavit i. e. Acatius Tandem aliquando missis literis profitetur Acatius se Alexandrino Petro quem expetita Apostolicae sedis authoritate executor ipse quoque damnaverat absque sedis Apostolicae notitia communione permixtum Beati autem Petri sedes ne per Acacium in Petri consortiurn duceretur ipsum quoque a sua communione submovit multis modis transgressorum a sua societate fecit alienum Quo tenore Timotheus etiam atque ipse Alexandrinus Petrus qui secundam sedem tenuisse videbuntur non repetita Synodo tantummodo sedis Apostolicae ipso quoque Acacio postulante vel exequente probantur esse damnati Nec plane tacemus quod euncta per mundum novit Ecclesia quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata Pontificum sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habeat resolvendi utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicandi neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare judicio siquidem ad Illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellare aliquem voluerunt ab illa autem nemo sit appellare permissus Sed nec illa praeterimus quod Apostolicae sedi frequenter datum or dictum est ut more majorum etiam sine ulla Synodo precedente solvendi quod Synodus inique damnaverat damnandi nulla existente Synodo quos oportuit habuerit potestatem Sanctae memoriae nihilo minus Johannem Constantinopolitanum i. e. Chrysostomum Synodus etiam Catholicorum Praesulum certe damnaverat quem simili modo sedes Apostolica etiam sola quia non consensit absolvit Itemque S. Flavianum Pontificem Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore quoniam sola Apostolica sedes non consensit absolvit potius quam qui illic receptus fuerat Dioscorum secundae Sedis praesulem sua authoritate damnavit impiam Synodum i.e. sec Ephes non consentiendo summovit sola authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Ponamus tamen etiam si nulla Synodus praecessisset cujus Apost sedes recte fieret exequutrix cum quibus erat de Acacio Synodus ineunda Nunquid cum his qui jam participes tenebantur Acacii per Orientem totum Catholicis sacerdotibus such he calls those who adher'd to the Council of Chalcedon violenter exclusis per exilia diversa relegatis socii evidenter existentes communionis externae i. e. extra Ecclesiam Catholicam prius se ad haec consortia transferrent quam sedis Apostolicae scita consulerent Concilio nec opus erat post primam Synodum nec talibus habere licebat Quae congregatio facta Pontificum i.e. in Italia Occidentalium non contra Chalcedonensem non tanquam nova Synodus contra veterem primamque convenit sed potius secundum tenorem veteris constituti particeps Apostolica exequutionis effecta est ut satis appareat Ecclesiam Catholicam sedemque Apostolicam quia alibi jam omnino non posset ubi potuit cum quibus potuit nihil penitus omisisse quod ad fraternum pertineret pro intemerata fide sincera communione tractatum In this Epistle amongst others two things must not be passed by unobserv'd 1. One That he contends he ought not to call to a Council Bishops condemn'd by and professedly opposing a former General Council which being granted Councils may be rightly call'd General when they consist not of all but only of all Catholick Churches 2. The other That in the final sentencing and determining of greater persons and causes in the Eastern Church the Bishop of Constantinople was employ'd only from him and as his Delegate See the Epistle of Pelagius the 2d Bishop of Rome A.D. 580. Vniversis Episcopis qui illicita vocatione Johannis Constantinopolitani Episcopi ad Constantinopolim convenerunt Wherein he vindicates the authority of the Roman See against John assembling a Council there without his consent and leave and calling himself Universal Bishop seeking to exalt himself above Rome probably from the supreme dignity and great flourishing of that Imperial City in those time in which times also the poor City of Rome laboured under great afflictions and desolations by the Goths Longobards c. whereof Gregory writing to the Empress 4. l. Ep. 34. saith Viginti autem jam septem annos ducimus quod in hac urbe inter Longobardorum gladios vivimus and from the Emperour Mauritius his countenancing him in it Out of which Epistle some words are quoted by S. Gregory his Successor 4. l. Ep. 36. § 26 Now in the forenamed Epistle of Pelagius as he hath these passages Vniversalitatis quoque nomen A Digression concerning the title of Universalis Episcopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops quod sibi illicite usurpavit i.e. Joannes Constant nolite attendere c. Nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur quia si summus Patriarcha tho it were the Patriarch of Rome Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc absit c. Jactantiam tantam sumpsit i. e. Jonannes Constant ita ut universa
of that Church for such priviledges on the See of Rome and with the Emperor's conferring these priviledges to all succession without any joint authority of the Pope and bringing in provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine without mentioning the words immediately before Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia atque antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus he makes these words refer not to the Popes but to the Emperor 's former grant But meanwhile judge you if the Emperour might of his own accord erect Patriarchies or confer such priviledges without the Bishop of Rome's authority whether authoritate nostra firmamus illibata decernimus c and Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia be not not only needless but also ridiculous But if the Patriarch of the West's authoritate nostra firmamus was necessary to what the Emperour did then are all such instances rendred useless to the Doctor who can shew no such firmamus to the late erected Patriarchats And were not such testimonies extant yet the rescript of the same Emperour Valentinian quoted before p 86. seems a sufficient proof that no such priviledges as were prejudicial to the Roman See were granted by him 2. For the Bishop of Justiniana 1ª that he continued to receive the Pall as other Primats from the Bishop of Rome and that he had locum Apostolicae Sedis not the place of a but of the Apostolick See namely as the Pope's standing delegate for those parts subordinate to him the phrase being frequently used in this but I think never in the other sence lastly that the Bishop of Rome deputed the judgment of causes to him and for some misbehaviour in his place passed Ecclesiastical censures upon him I say for these things see 4. l. Indict 13. Ep. 15. Johanni Episcopo 1 ae Justinianae newly elected Pallium vero ex more transmisimus vices vos Apostolicae Sedis agere iterata innovatione decernimus Iterata innovatione which argues the first concession that he should have locum Apostolicae Sedis was from the Roman Bishop which Baronius Anno 535. saith Justinian with much importunity obtained of Vigilius after Agapetus his Predecessor had made a demur to grant it as being a thing too prejudicial to his Neighbour-Metropolitans And see 10. l. 5. Indict 34. Ep. where he refers the cause of Paulus Bishop of Dyaclina to the examination of the Bishop of Justiniana 1a. And see 2. l. Indict 11. Ep. 6. to the same Bishop where reprehending him for a singular act of injustice he saith Quod vero ad praesens attinet cassatis prius atque ad nihilum redactis praedictae sententiae tuae decretis ex Beati Apostolorum Principis authoritate decernimus triginta dierum spatio sacra te communione privatum ab omnipotenti Deo nostro tanti excessus veniam cum summa poenitentia ac lachrymis exorare Quod si c contumaciam fraternitatis tuae cognoscas adjuvante Deo severius puniendam After these see Justinianan's Constitution it self Novell 131. cap. 3. which runs thus Per tempus autem Beatissimum 1 ae Justinianae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae c. in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio Which last words how reasonably Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 96. interprets that Vigilius defin'd that the Bishop of Justin 1ª should be for ever after an absolute and free Patriarch independent on the Bishop of Rome or why the Emperour should require such a definition from Vigilius who as the Doctor holds had no right to hinder it I leave to your judgment after that you have well considered what is here alledged And see likewise this confessed by Dr Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 561. The same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana the first who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts upon signification of the Emperour's will and desire that it should be so Thus he And hence was this power conferred upon him finally to determine causes namely as the Pope's Delegate for that purpose and this exclusively not to Rome but to other Metropolitans within those Provinces newly subjected to him from whom to him not so from him to them might be Appeals 3. As for the third Primate of Carthage he is pretended only to be admitted to the like priviledges with Justiniana 1a. Thus have I set you down to save you the pains § 31. n. 1. or to prevent the usual neglect of searching them in the Authors some of the most notable passages for the first 600 years wherein you may find Calvin's confession Instit 4. l. 7. c. true nullum fuisse tempus quo non Romana Sedes imperium in alias Ecclesias appetiv rit but I add more obtinuerit too shewing as I think several ways not only the honour and dignity before but the authority and power of the Roman See over other Churches not only those under its Patriarchy but the Eastern also the Eastern not only single but joined in Councils power not only which Roman Bishops claimed but which Councils allowed testified confirmed and established and the greatest Bishops in the world repaired to for justice the most of those Roman Bishops whose authorities I have cited being eminent for sanctity and having the same title and reputation of Saints as the other ancient Fathers and the two last of them being quoted by Protestants as inveighers against an Universal Bishop as a forerunner of Antichrist that you may fee how much authority even the most moderate have assumed and all these transactions being before the times of the Emperour Phocas who by some Reformed see Dr. Hammond reply to Cathol Gentl. 3. c. 4. s. 14. n. is said to have laid the first foundations of the modern Roman Greatness in declaring him Episcopum Oecumenicum Caput omnium Ecclesiarum tho indeed Phocas his act was only in a quarrel of his against Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople adjudging the stile of Oecumenicus before much disputed between those two Bishops as you have seen not fit to be used by the Bishop of Constantinople and due only to the Bishop of Rome and that Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum 18. l. quoted by Dr. Hammond meant no more see what the same Paulus saith de gestis Longobardorum 4 l. 37. c. and being of those ages wherein Dr. Field thro his 5th book denies to have bin any Roman Supremacy of power If it be said that the Roman Bishops out of whose writings many of these authorities are produced then claimed what others denied I think some other quotations intermingled out of those who were no Roman Bishops will shew this to be untrue Besides §. 31. n. 2. In the chief causes of all other divisions from the Roman Church excepting that of the late Reformation the Roman Church in the judgment of the Reformed the
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if
calls General rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminency of Power and not only a precedence of Rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 29. l. 7. else he would Page 55. l. 80. thro five or six Page 115. l. 3. except that of one or two of his Predecessors CONCERNING ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors § 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth Unity Uniformity and Peace Subordination of Clergy and for the easier suppressing of all Errors and Divisions and for rendring all the Church of God tho dispers'd thro several Dominions but one visible compacted Society we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy 1. Presbyters 2. Bishops 3. Metropolitans and amongst Metropolitans Primates 4. Patriarchs and amongst these Patriarchs a Primate § 2 Of these Patriarchs in the first General Council of Nice held A. D. 325. there were only Three call'd Three Patriarchs only at the first at the first by the common name of Metropolitants tho with a distinct authority from the rest Then by the name of Primates 2. Gen. Con. Const can 2.5 this name also being common to some others Afterward by the name of Patriarchs Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. 8 Gen. Conc. can 10 Neither was this name tho most frequently always applied only to the Patriarchs of the first Sees But we find in the East the Primates of Asia minor Pontus Thrace and many others to the number of nine or ten call'd by Socrates who writ in the fifth Age Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 8. Patriarchs call'd so as well as by the name of Primates in respect of some other Bishops or also Metropolitans subject to them yet which Patriarchs had also a subordination and subjection to some of these prime or major Patriarchs of whom we here speak as appears in the Church-History and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West after A. D. 500. several Primates in France Italy Spain call'd Patriarchs as the Primate of Aquileia Gradus Lions see Conc. Matiscon 2. in praefat Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dixit c. See Greg. Turon 5. hist 10. Paul Diacon l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist l. 11. ep 54. yet over whom the Roman Bishop the major Patriarch of the West exercis'd a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction both before and after that we read this name given to them as will appear hereafter in this discourse and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo and Gregory and other Popes written upon several occasions to divers of them This I note to you that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the authority Now to go forward § 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62. and Dr. Hammond of schism c. 3. p. 51 52. following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 6. one less to be credited in this matter because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated see Anstasius 1. ad Johan Hierosol make very narrow and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarchs whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the other all Syria and the Oriental Churches allowing to the Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy and the Islands of Sicily Sardinia The extent of his Patriarchate and Corsica near adjoining to it But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate superintendency and Metropolitan or Primat-ship contradistinct to other Metropolitans as to that of Millan c. So the Primat of all England hath yet a particular superintendency over one Diocess more than over the rest of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae as he was their Primate or Metropolitan Ruffinus seems to speak and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice Mos antiquus perduret in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habet potestatem quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam caeterasque Provincias honor suus unicuique servetur Ecclesiae may be thought partly to intend it for which consider those words in that 6th Canon caeterasque Provincias compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan 2. Can. and Conc. Ephes 8. can Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus but confirm them not only the Metropolitan but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see more below § 19. from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius a Legat of the See Apostolick in the 4th General Council and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. See below § 25 n. 2. And again on the other side as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae supposing him to be so in some general way of superintendency or for some particular acts and offices as suppose for receiving appeals deciding controversies between the chief Governors of the Churches admitting them to and deposing them from their places obliging them pro tempore with his decrees hinders not but that he may be also a Patriarch a Metropolitan a Bishop in respect of some other more immediate super-intendencies and offices divers from the former which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches but doth not so over others or which also he cannot exercise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches as suppose for ordaining the inferior Bishops and Presbyters and hearing their causes personally officiating in the Word and Sacraments receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof c. Nor again e converso as Cardinal Perron in answer to K. James observes doth his governing only the Roman Province as their Metropolitan or only Italy as their Primate hinder that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch Nor again doth his governing the West as their Patriarch because he was Bishop of Rome the chiefest city of the West hinder that he may not also as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there to one of whom the Jew and to the other the Gentiles were committed Gal. 2.7 9. have some special superintendency over all the Church Jew and Gentile I know § 3. n. 2. it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69. That to have an universal Headship over the Church and to have a
Epistle of Zosimus a Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time ad Episc Salonit where prohibiting the admitting of Monks and also Laicks immediately to be Bishops without their passing thro and continuance for some time in inferior Ecclesiastical Functions he saith Hoc autem speeialiter sub Praedecessoribus nostris nuper a nobis interdictum constat literis ad Gallias Hispaniasque transmissis Ad te potissimum scripta direximus quae in omnium fratrum Coepiscoporum nostrorum facies ire notitiam Sciet quisquis hoc postposita Patrum Apostolicae Sedis authoritate neglexerit a nobis districtius vindicandum c. See the Epistles of the African Bishops § 23. n. 4. in the 5th Carthaginian and in the Milevitan Councils held there against Pâ—lagianism amongst whom was S. Austin sent to Pope Innocent I and his Answers to them being amongst S. Austin's Epistles the 90 91 92 93. where the 92. the African Bishops begin thus Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuae munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit talemque in nostris temporibus praestitit ut c. and see the close thereof And in Epistle 90. Hoc itaque gestum Domine Frater Sancte charitati tuae intimandum duximus ut statutis nostroe mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas And S. Austin Retract 2. l. 49. c. speaketh of the same business in this language Postea quam Pelagiana haeresis cum suis authoribus ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanoe prius Innocentio deinde Zosimo cooperantibus Conciliorum Africanorum literis convicta atque damnata est scripsi c. And Possidonius S. Austin's Collegiat in vita August 18. c. thus Et cum iidem Pelagiani perversi Sedi Apostolicae per suam ambitionem eandem perfidiam persuadere conabantur instantissime etiam Conciliis Africanis sanctorum Episcoporum gestum est ut So Papae urbis Romae prius venerabili Innocentio postea sancto Zosimo ejus successori persuaderetur quod illa Secta Catholica fide abominanda damnanda fuisset At illi tantae Sedis Antistites suis diversis temporibus eosdem notantes atque a membris Ecclesiae i. e. Catholicae praecidentes datis literis ad Africanas Orientis Occidentis Ecclesias eos anathematizandos devitandos ab omnibus Catholicis censuerunt Et hoc tale de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae probatum judiâ—ium where he seems to call the Pope's judgment the Catholical etiam pâ—issimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens suis eos legibus damnatos inter haereticos habere debere constituit And see the Bishop of Rome's answers wherein he vindicates the universal authority of that See something of which is quoted before § 21. After which judgment in Africk both Pelagius and Caelestius his chief disciple made their appeals to Rome to Zosimus the Successor of this Innocentius under such forms as these Si forte quispiam ignorantiae error obrepserit vestra sententia corrigatur and Emendari cupimus a te qui Petri fidem sedem tenes and were upon a false relation of their tenants favoured there to the great offence of the African Bishops but afterward also condemned by that See and their condemnation published from thence to all Churches See for what is said the authorities in S. Austin and others quoted by Baronius A.D. 418. See S. Austin contra Julianum 1. l. 2. c. where urging against Julian the testimonies of the Occidental Fathers for Original sin he saith thus An ideo contemnendos putas quia Occidentalis Ecclesiae sunt omnes Puto tibi eam partem orbis sufficere debere in qua primum Apostolorum suorum voluit Dominus gloriosissimo Martyrio coronare Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem beatum Innocentium si audire voluisses jam tunc periculosam juventutem tuam Pelagianis laqueis exuisses Quid enim potuit vir ille Sanctus Africanis respondere Conciliis nisi quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes Romana cum caeteris tenet perseveranter Ecclesia Non est ergo cur provoces ad Orientis Antistites c. See S. Austin's Epistle 261. written to Caelestine Bishop of Rome in his old age as appears in the end of the Epistle si meam senectutem fueris consolatus and probably after the contest of the African Council about Appeals that Council being held 419. and Celestine made Bishop of Rome 423. who outlived S. Austin who died 430. Ludov. de Angelis lib. 4. c. 6. It was written concerning one Antonius for whom S. Austin had procured the Bishoprick of Fussala a place formerly in his own Diocess but being very remote from Hippo he obtained that a new Bishoprick might be erected there which Antonius for some miscarriage being by the neighbouring Bishops of Numidia removed from that Bishoprick yet not utterly degraded had appealed to the Bishop of Rome and had much threatned by this Bishop's power to procure a restorement to his place In this Epistle thus S. Austin beseecheth the Pope Collabora obsecro nobiscum jube tibi quae decreta sunt omnia recitari Existat exemplo ipsa Apostolica Ecclesia judicante vel aliorum judicia firmante quosdam pro culpis nec Episcopali spoliatos honore neque relictos omnimodo impunitos Quia ergo c. subveni hominibus opem tuam in Christi mesericordia poscentibus non sinas ista fieri i.e. Antonius to be restored by force obsecro te per Christi sanguinem per Apostoli Petri memoriam qui Christianorum praepositos Populorum monuit ne violenter dominentur inter Fratres c. This he saith against the Executores Clericos of the Roman See many times using unjust violence but we see he declines not the Bishop of Rome's judgment but hopes to have it favourable to his cause See likewise his Epistle 157. to Optatus wherein he mentions a legation imposed upon him and some other Bishops for some Ecclesiastical affair to Caesarea in Mauritania Quo nos saith he injuncta nobis a venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae Sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat Of which also thus Possidonius Vit. Aug. 14. c. In Coesarinsem Mauritaniae Civitatem venire venerabilis mentoriae Augustinum cum aliis Episcopis Sedis Apostolicae literae compulerunt ad terminandas viz. aliquas Ecclesiae necessitates c which shews what authority the Roman Bishop used over the African in this Fathers time where S. Austin did many good offices for that Province and had successful disputes with Emeritus the Bishop of that city See Possid vit Aug. 14. c. Aug. de gest cum Emerit See the Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria § 23. n. 5. to Celestin Bishop of Rome wherein he saith concerning Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople before condemned by any General Council At quamvis res ita habeat non prius tamen illius communionem confidenter disserere ausi fuimus quam haec ipsa pietati tuae indicaremus
the Roman Bishops power now to look a little back into the former ages wherein by reason of the persecutions by heathen Princes the Church's discipline was not altogether so perfectly formed See Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Alexandrini § 23. n. 7. where he relates how Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria living above fifty years before the Nicene Council was accus'd by some of Pentapolis as erroneous in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Dionysius the then Bishop of Rome and thereupon writ an Apology to purge himself Quidam ex Ecclesia recte quidem sentientes sed tamen ignari c. Romam ascenderunt ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt Re comperta Alexandrinus postulavit a Romano Praesule ut objecta sibi indicaret non rixandi animo sed sui purgandi Apologiam scripsit Here it seems A. D. 266. long before the cause of Athanasius his addresses were made by the Alexandrians to the Roman Bishop See St. Cyprian contemporary to Dionysius to procure the deposing of Marcianus Metropolitan Bishop of Arles in France because he sided with Novatian writes thus to Stephen Bishop of Rome about it Dirigantur in Provinciam ad plebem Arelatae consistentem a te literae quibus abstento Marciano alius in locum ejâ—s substituatur Where Dr. Field l. 5 c. 37. grams Cyprian rather writ to him to do this than did it himself because the Roman Bishop was Patriarch of the West And it appears from his 68th Epistle that in his time two Bishops of Spain Basilides and Martialis ejected for giving their consent to some Idolatry appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome to restore them to their Dignities Romam pergens i. e. Basilides Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit ut exambiret reponi se injuste in Episcopatum de quo fuerat juste depositus In which Epistle he censures Stephen indeed but not for receiving Basilides his appeal or hearing his cause but for judging it amiss yet some way excuseth him also as misinform'd Neque enim tam culpandus est ille saith he eui negligenter obreptum est quam hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit But had Stephen had no just authority to judg this matter or reponere Basilidem in Episcopatum St. Cyprian would not have accused him of negligence i. e. in believing without seeking better information what Basilides or his friends said but of usurpation and intrusion and tyranny in judging in matters no way belonging to him But he allowing the Western Patriarchs authority over the Gallican Bishops as appears in the last instance could not rationally deny him the same over the Spanish Therefore that which this Father saith before that Basilides his appeal and Stephen's sentence ordinationem jure perfect am rescindere non potuit is to be understood with reference to the justness of the cause not of the authority For one may rightly be accus'd of injustice either who doth a thing and hath no just power to do it or who hath a just power to do a thing and hath no just cause And therefore the Spanish ought to seek a reversion of such sentence by presenting to their Patriarch perfecter informations Else surely his sentence who is granted to have the supreme authority to judg is to stand and he must give account thereof to God And yet higher before Cyprian's time about A.D. 200 we find in Eus Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 22 c. that in a controversie about the celebration of Easter whether on the Lord's day or on the same day with the Jews after many Provincial Councils in a peaceful time of the whole Christian Church call'd in several Countries as well of the East as Aegypt Palestine as of the West who all agreed with the Roman Bishop excepting Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and the Bishops of Asia minor who assembled in Council as the rest resolv'd to continue their custom of keeping it the same day with the Jews and in a Letter to Rome signified so much We find I say that Victor then Bishop of Rome either intended or also executed an Excommunication upon Polycrates and his party as pertinaciously retaining a Mosaical ceremony which might be an introduction to more Executed an excommunication not negative as Dr. Field would have it p. 558. by with-drawing his own communion from them but privative and authoritative by rejecting and debarring them from communion of the whole Catholick Church tho indeed debarring them from the Roman communion debars them also from all others that communicate with the Roman for those who may not communicate with an Heretick neither may communicate with any others who by communicating with such Heretick make themselves partakers of his sin This seems to me clear by the words of Eusebius Victor totius Asiae Ecclesias a communionis societate abscindere nititur tanquam in haeresin declinantes literas mittit quibus omnes simul absque discretione ab Ecclesiastico faedere segregaret Extant Episcoporum literae quibus asperius objurgant Victorem velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem Ecclesiae i. e. universalis And of Iraeneus who amongst the rest reprehended him quod non recte fecerit abscindens a corporis i. e. Christi not Romanae Ecclesiae unitate tot tantas Ecclesias Dei And by Polycrates his Letter Euseb l. 5. c. 22. to the Church of Rome wherein it appears both that he assembled his Asian Bishops at the Bishop of Rome's intimation and that some censure had been threaten'd him from thence upon non-conformity to which he answers That it were better to obey God than men His words are Sexaginta quinque â—nnos aetatis gerens non perturbabor ex his quae ad terrorem proferuntur quia majores mei dixerunt Obtemperare oportet Deo magis quam hominibus As for Irenaeus or other Bishops reprehending this fact or purpose of Victors it was not because he usurp'd or exercis'd an authority of Excommunication over the Asiaticks not belonging to him but that he used such authority upon no just or sufficient cause namely upon such a declination from Apostolical tradition vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam in so small a matter some compliance with the Jews to gain them partly excusing such a practice Thus a Prince who hath lawful power to inflict punishments upon his subjects when delinquent is reprehensible when punishing the innocent To this of Victor I may add another Excommunication not long after this by Stephen Bishop of Rome either inflicted or at least threatned to some of the Asian Churches in Cyprian's time that held the necessity or Rebaptization upon the Baptism of Hereticks Concerning which see Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 4.6 See St. Austin's Epistle 162 the great care and superintendence which Melchiades Bishop of Rome before Sylvester in Constantine's time used over the African Churches in the Schism of
Donatus Qualis saith he ipsius Melchiadis ultima est pâ—rlata sâ—ntentia i. e. in judging the cause of Donatus qua neque collegas i. e. the African Bishops in quibus nihil constiterat de collâ—gio suo from his Communion ausus est removere Donato solo quem totius mali principem invenerat maxime culpato sanitatis recuperandae optionem liberam caeteris fecit parâ— tus communicatorias litteras mittere etiam iis quos a Majorino a Donatist Bishop ordinatos esse constaret ita ut quibuscunque in locis in Africk dâ—o essent Episcopi quos dissâ—nsio geminasset eum confirmari vellet qui fuisset ordinatus prior c. alteri autem eorum plebs alia regenda provideretur O filium Christianae pacis patrem Christianae plebis Thus St. Austin of Melchiades Bishop of Rome his ordering the African affairs See the Council of Arles call'd by Constantine before Nice see in Euseb l. 10. c. 5. his Epistle summoning the Bishop of Syracuse to it in which were some Bishops from England see Bishop of Derry Vind c. 5. p. 98. Hammond Sch s c. 6. p. 110. sending their Decrees to Sylvester then Bishop of Rome and in their first Canon thus bespeaking him Quae decrevimus significamus c. De observatione Paschae Domini ut uno die tempore per omnem orbem observetur juxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas Now to go on in the occurrences of the fifth Age. See the Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome before and in the time of the fourth General Council the 53d Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople § 23. n. 8. the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus the 55th to the Empress Pulcheria wherein he vindicates the derivation of his authority not from the Imperial City but the Apostles and concerning that Act of the Bishops in Conc. Chalc. advancing the Bishop of Constantinople above the second Patriarch of Alexandria which he judg'd contrary to the Nicene Canons he saith Epistle to Pulcheria Consensiones vero Episcoporum sanctorum Canonum aepud Nicaenum conditorum regulis repugnantes unita nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate in irritum mittimus per authoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassemus c. His Epistle 84. to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica Sicut Praedecessores mei Praedecessoribus tuis ita etiam ego dilectioni tuae priorum secutus exemplum vices mei moderaminis delegavi ut curam quam universis Ecclestis principaliter ex divina institutione debemus adjuvâ—res longâ—nquis ab Apostolica Sede provinciis praesentiam quodammodo nostrae visitationis impenderes see below § 25. n. 13. where the same things are said of the Bishop of Constantinople as here of Thessalonica promptum tibi agnoscere quid vel tuo studio componeres vel nostro judicio reservares And in the close of the Epistle Magna dispositione provisum est ne omnes sibi omnia vendicarent sed essent in singulis Provinciis singuli quorum inter Fratres haberetur prima sententia Metropolitans rursus quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti solicitudinem susciperent ampliorem Primats or those amongst them deputed by the Patriarch per quos ad unam Petri Sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret nihil unquam a Capite suo dissideret This is spoken of the Church Universal To which may be added that expression of his quoted before § 6. Caput orbis effecta latius praesides religione divina now quam dominatione terrena formerly Seconded by Prosper 2. l. de vocatione Gentium Roma per Sacerdotii Principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio Potestatis and lib. de Ingratis Sedes Roma Petri quae Pastoralis honoris Facta Caput mundo quicquid non possidet armis Relligione tenet c. To the latter of these places Dr. Field 5l 34. c. p. 529. c. answers That more were subject to it than ever were under the Roman Empire as it had a presidency amongst them of Order and Honour not of Supreme power To the other he saith The care of the Universal Church is to be understood only in respect of things concerning the common faith and general state of the Church or of the principal most eminent and highest parts and members of the same Be it so for of such only we speak none of which things might be proceeded-in without the Bishop of Rome and his colleagues So a little before p. 528. he saith All things generally concerning the whole Church were either to take beginning or at the least to seek confirmation from the Roman Bishops before they were generally imposed and prescribed But Quaere whether if this Bishop denied his consent the rest might proceed no further without it and whether if he refused to confirm such acts they might not be at all imposed and whether as the eminentest persons in their differences might be judged by Him so they were bound to submit to his as to their Superior's judgment Else if he mean only that they were first to ask his consent or judgment but upon a denial or a displeasing sentence might proceed to establish things against it how consists this with that conclusion ut nihil unquam a capite suo dissideret To search a little further to see if the Dr. speaks plainer Below in the p. 530. he saith In cases which concerned the principal Patriarchs whether they were differences between them and their Bishops or between themselves the chief See as the principal part of the whole Church might interpose it self So as other Patriarchs likewise of the higher thrones might interpose themselves in matters concerning Patriarchs of the lower thrones But I ask How interpose by judging and determining the causes of their inferiors by excommunicating and deposing c the persons obnoxious noxious and criminal But then the Presidency of Rome will be a presidency of Power over the rest of the Church and not of Honour only And must not he mean some such thing by interpose since in his instances there this interposing proves to be judging excommunicating deposing c and so he grants that the ordering and setling of things of the Church of Antioch the 3d. See did pertain to the Patriarch of Alexandria the 2d See and he goeth on and saith That the Bishops of inferior thrones might not judge the superior and therefore That John of Antioch of the 3d. See is reprehended Act. Conc. Ephes for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2d See and Dioscorâ—s Bishop of the 2d See is condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in their Ep. ad Martian Imp. and ad Leonem Act. 3. for this thing among others That he presumed to judge the first See i. e. the Bishop thereof Leo. Where note That both John's and Dioscorus his judging was excommunicating their superior Bishops and done not singly but with their Council of Bishops And again observe That had
seems Hilarius or some in his behalf had done aut Praeceptis Romani Pontificis liceat obviare Omnibus pro lege sit quicquid sanxerit Aposâ—olicae Sedis authoritas ita ut quisquis Episcoporum ad judicium Romani Antistitis evocatus venire neglexerit per Moderatorem ejusdem Provinciae adesse cogatur per omnia servatis quae Divi Parentes nostri Romanae Ecclesiae detulerunt And the like orders had bin made by Emperours formerly it seems by that rigorous power used in Africk by the executors of the Bishop of Rome's orders there of which as you have read before § 12. the African Bishops so much complained See the Epistle of the 4th G. Council at Chalcedon the most numerous §25 n. 2. I think of any Council which the Church hath had to the same Leo Bishop of Rome in which are these expressions Quam fidem velut auro textam seriem ex veste Christi praecepto Legislatoris venientem usque ad nos ipse Leo servasti vocis Beati Petri omnibus constitutus Interpres ejus fidei beatificationem super omnes adducens Quibus i. e. Episcopis congregates in Concilio Tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens c. In vineam irruens i. e. Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria a supporter of Eutyches quam optime repperit plantatam evertit post haec omnia insuper contra ipsum cui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est extendit insaniam id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam sanctitatem excommunicatione meditatus est contra te qui corpus Ecclesiae unire festinas Haec i.e. the Honours they conferr'd on the See of Constantinople velut a tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata roboravimus praesumentes dum noverimus quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit alluding to themselves ad Patres recurrit alluding to Leo facientes hoc proprium sibi i. e. appropriating their Children's actions to themselves Rogamus igitur tuis decretis nostrum honora judicium sicut nos cupidi in bonis adjecimus consonantiam sic summitas tua filiis quod decet adimpleat Sic enim pii Principes the Emperor c. very desirous of the advancement of the See Constantinopolitanâ— complacebunt will be well pleased qui tanquam legem tuae sanctitatis judicium firmaverunt Constantinopolitanae sedes suscipiet praemium quae omne semper studium vobis ad causam pietatis explevit c. Eutychen pro impietate damnatum suae tyrannidis decretis innoxium statuit i.e. Dioscorus who by a party in the second Ephesine Council restor'd Eutyches who was a Constantinopolitan Presbyter and an Archimandrita Abbot of the Monks there to his former degree and dignities dignitatem quae a vestra illi oblata fuerat sanctitate quippe ut ab eo qui hac gratia fuerit indignus ille restituit Where know that Eutyches depos'd by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in a Synod there appeal'd or pretended it to the Bishop of Rome to whom also the Emperor sent Letters in his behalf which Bishop of Rome also after the business known ratified his deposition Concerning which appeal of this Presbyter where it appears that in matters of Faith and of great consequence the causes of Presbyters and inferior Clergy might be brought to the examination and sentence of the chief Patriarch Leo having by a miscarriage receiv'd as yet no Letters from the Bishop of Constantinople writes thus unto him Epist 8. Accepimus libâ—llum Eutychetis Presbyteri qui se queritur immerito communione privatum maxime cum libellum appellationis suae se assâ—rat obtulisse nec tamen fuisse susceptum Quibus rebus intercedentibus necdum agnoscimus qua justa a communione Ecclesiae fuerit separatus Sed respicientes ad causam facti tui nosse volumus rationem usque ad nostram notitiam cuncta deferri quoniam nos nihil possumus incognitis rebus in cujusquam partis praejudicium definire priusquam universa quae gesta sunt veraciter audiamus Thus Leo to the Bishop of Constantinople To return to the Epistle of Conc. Chalc. In the same 't is said Episcopis vâ—tam finientibus multae turbae nascuntur absque rectore c. therefore they say they gave some power to the Constantinopolitan Bishop for the ordering and setling them Quod nec vestram latuit sanctitatem quum maxime propter Ephesios unde quidam vobis saepius importuni fuerunt Leo therefore exercis'd some authority over the Church of Ephesus Again Considentes quia lucente apud vos Apostolico radio usque ad Constantinopolitanorum Ecclesiam consuete gubernando illum spargentes hunc saepius expanditis eo quod absque invidia consueveritis virorum bonorum participatione ditare domesticos Where they say the Roman Bishop dilated his beams to the governing of the Church of Constantinople And see their Epistle likewise to the Emperor Velut signaculum sacrae doctrinae Concilii hujus a vobis the Emperor congregati predicationem Petri sedis authoritate roborantes But yet tho thus courted by them in his answer to that Council Epist 59. he approv'd not the preferment of the Bishop of Constantinople before Alexandria Quantumlibet extortis assentationibus sese instruat vanitatis elatio i. e. of the Constantinopolitan Bishop appetitus suos Conciliorum aestimet nomine roborandos infirmum atque irritum erit quicquid a praedictorum Patrum i. e. Nicene canonibus discreparit Quorum regulis Apostolica sedes quam reverenter utatur scriptorum meorum c. poterit sanctitas vestra lectione cognoscere me auxiliante Domino catholicae fidei paternarum traditionum esse custodem See Evagrius Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 18 20 21. §25 n. 3. And the Epistle of Felix Bishop of Rome A. D. 484 to Acatius Bishop of Constantinople where we find Felix appeal'd and complain'd-to by John the wrong'd Bishop of Alexandria and being assisted with a Council of Forty-two Western Bishops excommunicating Peter who then unjustly possess'd the Patriarchy of Alexandria as being an Eutychian also and not submitting to the Council of Chalcedon see Evagrius l. 3. c. 21. and excommunicating Acatius also Bishop of Constanstinople after he had first cited him to Rome and also written to the Emperor Zeno to compel him to appear upon the complaints of John Alexand. rationem de rebus quas Johannes ei objectasset redditurus as Evagrius hath it for his communicating with Peter a condemn'd Heretick and many other crimes See his Epistle at the end of which the form of his Condemnation runs thus Sacerdotali honore communione Catholica not only Romana nec non etiam a fidelium numero segregatus sublatum tibi nomen munus ministerii sacerdotalis agnosce sancti Spiritus judicio Apostolica per nos authoritate damnatus Which proceeding of Felix being much dislik'd by some in the East
of Temporal States If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded it excuseth us not from paying justs debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person Neither can never so many examples brought for such things done by Princes § 48 That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Eccl. Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not be a sufficient warrant to any Prince to do the like much less to advance beyond such patterns and do something more See before § 42. After these a third proposition must also be granted That tho Seculars Princes or others cannot yet Councils may change some former Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs and when they do so are to be obey'd in their change Therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Council and Jura quae jam inde ab initio habent serventur and nullus invadat Provinciam quae non prius atque ab initio sub illius fuerat potestate in the Ephesine Council frequently press'd by Dr. Hammond see Sch. p. 61 65 100. so far as these refer not to Apostolical traditions but Ecclesiastical constitutions must be understood to oblige all the Church's subjects only so long till the Church shall think fit to change any thing in them Nor did they hinder but that afterward she advanc'd the Roman Church at last yeilding also her consent the See of Constantinople contrary to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both before Alexandria and Antioch into a Supremacy the next to Rome In whose power it is as in Secular Law-givers to alter her Laws at pleasure Nor can any G. Council decree that no General Council after them in matters of humane institution shall change their Decrees § 49 Nor can any particular Church claim that liberty unto them by any former Canons That Prelates and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Councils shall reverse them of which by later Canons made by the same authority they receive a restraint The truth of this fourth proposition also I think ought not to be doubted of That where the Bishops or Metropolitans suppose subjected to no Patriarch yet are present in Councils presided in by one or more Patriarchs and do consent to the Decrees thereof such Provinces and the Prelates thereof stand obliged to those Decrees and cannot afterward at pleasure reverse them and restore to themselves their former liberty Else Metropolitans who are under no Patriarch will be liable to the Decrees of no Councils at all no not of such wherein they appear wherein they vote wherein they oblige themselves But supposing they are as free as Patriarchs themselves yet where in Councils many Patriarchs meet the vote of the major part obligeth all Review what is said before § 18. § 50 Now to make some Reflections if you have not made them already upon what hath been discoursed here Reflections on what hath been said in relation to the Church of England § 51 1. It cannot reasonably be denied that supposing she had not receiv'd her Conversion from the See of Rome That the Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Roman See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it nor the Nicene or other Canons had constituted the Bishop of this City sole Patriarch of the West of which thing review what is said before § 3. yet she is bound to render so much not only honour but submission also to that See for what cause soever it was that such was given to that last Seat of the two great Apostles Peter and Paul as it hath been shew'd by the instances made above in those primitive times that the whole Church of God the Oriental Churches and Bishops the Patriarchs themselves and even Cyprus so much pleaded concerning which review § 18. have render'd unto him in appeals decision of controversies approbation of Prelates Ecclesiastical censures c. For example If the rule spoken of § 22. praeter or sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum have any obligation upon the Oriental the same it will have upon the English Bishops or Synods And the same power the Roman Bishop hath of receiving or hearing Appeals suppose from Alexandria as in Athanasius his cause review § 21. the same he hath in those from England For what exemptions can England plead more than Alexandria § 52 2. Yet farther There seems to be the same ground of her submission to him as Patriarch however this submission be founded as of other Western Provinces That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon her Neighbours who still continue obedience to that See And the Mos antiquus obtineat seems to put all the Occidental coast of the world who ever were then already or whoever thenceforward should be converted under his jurisdiction see § 3 In which Canon as not Brittain so no other Western Province is particularly nam'd tho it appears from some instances above that before Nice both Spain and France and Africk were Christian and subject to the Roman See see § 6. And then was the Brittish Nation also already Christian three of its Bishops being present at the Council of Arles in France ten years before this of Nice see Hamm. Sch. p. 110. and many suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's days amongst the rest the famous St. Alban And the Arms of Lichfield representing many mangled Bodies are said to be born in remembrance of the many Christians who in that persecution suffer'd there Christian yet higher before Tertullian's and Origen's time who testifie so much of it Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 4. Quando terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem Quando terra Maurorum c. Nunc vero propter Ecclesias quae mundi limites tenent universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Dominum Israel Tertull. adv Judaeos c. 7. Cui Christo crediderunt jam Getulorum varietates Maurorum multi fines Hispaniarum omnes termini Galliarum diversae nationes Brittannorum inaccessa Romanis loca Christo vero subd ta see also his Apologet. Christian in the days of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome A. D. 183. saith Venerable Bede Hist Ang. l. 1. c. 4. At which time Christianity by the late favourable Edicts of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius enjoying much tranquillity one Lucius or Leuer Maur a King of some part of Brittain bearing some affection to the Religion or Christians from their good conversation which recommended it and also for the miracles which confirm'd it is said to have sent two learned men Elvanus Avalonius or of Glastenbury and Medvinus de Belga or of Wells to the Bishop of Rome to desire from him some holy men to instruct him in Religion and some Roman Imperial Laws to direct him in his Civil
54. n. 2. mentioned before § 52. and such that afterward of S. Germanus a French Bishop famous for learning and sanctity about A. D. 430. whom as Prosper a French Bishop who lived also in those times relateth Pope Celestin hearing that Pelagianism had gotten some footing in this Island sent hither for the suppression thereof Prosper's words are in Chronico Pelagianus Severiani Pelagiani Episcopi filius Ecclesias Britanniae dogmatis sui insimulatione corrupit sed ad actionem Palladii Diaconi Papa Caelestinus Germanum Altisiodorensem Episcopum vice sua mittit ut deturbatis Haereticis Britannos ad Catholicam fidem dirigat Vice sua as his Legat as if the care of such reformation did some way especially concern the Pope ad actionem Palladii at the suite and request of Palladius a zealous opposer of and writer also against Pelagianisme In this Legation another holy French Bishop Lupus is mentioned also to have accompanied Germanus into Britanny of which two Bishops Bede indeed Hist 1. l. 17. c. delivers the story thus That upon the request of the Britain Clergy so unwilling to receive Pelagianism as unable sufficiently to confute it these two Bishops were sent hither by a Council in France But what Bede saith being taken out of Constantius one who writ at a greater distance from Germanus his times than Prosper did is liable to the more doubt and 2ly this may well consist with what Prosper saith since all those Occidental Synods had a subjection to the Western Patriarch and might receive directions from him The same Prosper saith that the forementioned Palladius was by the same authority and care of the same Pope Celestine ordained Bishop and sent into the more Northern parts of this Island to the Scots Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius primus Episcopus mittitur See the same in Bede 1. l. 13. c. Besides these Germanus and Palladius Bede and others make mention of Ninyus a Britain who finished his studies at Rome and was made Bishop and sent from thence not long after the other for the conversion of the Picts a Nation lying between the Scots and Britans Episcopus Reverendissimus Sanctissimus vir de natione Britonum qui erat Romae regulariter fidem mysteria veritatis edoctus saith Bede Hist 3. l. 4. c. Quem audiens Romanus Pontifex quosdam in occiduis Britanniae partibus necdum fidem Christi suscepisse ad Episcopatus gradum consecravit praemissae genti data benedictione Apostolum destinavit v. Broughton's Monasticon Briton 7. c. and Capgrave Catal. Sanctorum Likewise Patricius who finished the conversion of the Irish begun by Palladius is said to have received his education and learnt his Divinity from Germanus and Lupus and going to Rome and there made Bishop accepisse ab Apostolica Sede ad ejus Gentis conversionem Apostolatum V. Baron A.D. 431. Sigebert Chronol and Sir H. Spelman A.D. 449. who out of Matt. Westmon saith both of Palladius and Patricius ad Britanniam pervenisse missos a Papa Celestino ibique praedicasse verbum Dei Dubritius also the first Archbishop of Caerleon that we know of to which Archbishop only the British clergy in their conference with Augustin acknowledged their subjection was another Disciple of S. Germanus and by him and Lupus with the consent of the King and a Synod of the Clergy consecrated Bishop and possessed of this Archbishoprick See Spelman A. D. 512. and Apparat. p. 25. and in the same manner did this Brittish Archbishop receive his Commission from Germanus sent by the Roman See as the English Bishops from Augustin by the persuasion of which English or Saxon Bishops also afterwards both the Scots and some at least of the Brittains about A. D. 700 were reduc'd from those errors whereof Augustin had taxed them and conformed to the Customs of the Church Catholick V. Bede Hist l. 5. c. 16 19 22. Several of which English Clergy also in those days travel'd to Rome the more perfectly to learn the Laws and Customs of the Apostolick See or also there to receive their Ordination and St. Wilfrid among the rest went thither three several times and sate there also in a Synod and being twice ejected out of his Bishoprick twice had his cause heard there and was twice restor'd by the Pope's Letters See these things in Bede's Hist l. 5. c. 20 21. l. 5. c. 12. l. 3. c. 4 7 29. l. 4. c. 1. These particulars I have set down to shew the care interest authority esteem which the Roman Bishops had in these two Western Islands in all those ancient times wherein History gives posterity some light to know what was done in them But next however these things be Yet supposing only then the subjection of the Saxons §54 n. 3. and the English Clergy upon this title of Conversion to the Roman See it seems the Brittains for the present can claim no liberty from the same subjection because those in Wales being subject to the Bishop of Carleon or afterward to St. Davids and St. David's being subject to Canterbury I suppose this Canonically done of which see Sir Hen. Spelman's Appar p. 26. that it was order'd so by a Council at Rhemes and by the Pope to both which were made Addresses about it As for the Bribery that is by some supposed in it I see no reason why it should not be judg'd an uncharitable suspition being a thing every where imputable when rich and poor contend subjected also at that time when Canterbury was professedly subject to Rome in the Reign of K. Hen. I. Hence it follows I say that these Brittains must needs be subjects also to that See to which must Canterbury is subject and that Church hath which any Jurisdiction over Canterbury will also have the same over St. David's suppose in Appeals or the like And again those Brittains who were out of Wales dispers'd among the Saxons becoming subjects to the Saxon Bishops there who were the Pope's subjects must also be subject to the Pope Yet fourthly § 55. n. 1. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon Conversion If the Brittains were not converted by that See it may be shew'd that they had submitted themselves and join'd with the rest of Christianity in those Conciliary acts which had given some supremacy of Jurisdiction to the See of Rome amongst others over them For we find some of the Brittain Bishops present as at the Council of Ariminum where as Severus Hist l. 2. and Spelman Appar p. 24. say three of them being poor were maintain'd on the Emperor's charge so before this at the Council of Sardica assembled some twenty years after that of Nice as Athanasius who was also present there himself witnesseth see before § 23. n. 1. and therefore may the Canons of that Council be presum'd amongst the rest to be ratified by them or at
of Easter was contrary to the usage receiv'd at Rome see Ham. Sch. p. 113. Bramh. Vind. p. 104. seems of no force 1. Because the observation of the Orientals those of Asia minor only excepted was the same with the Roman see Euseb Eccl. Hist. l. 5 c. 21. and it is to be presumed Joseph or Simon had they founded this Church did celebrate this Feast on no other day than Peter and James and Paul did But 2ly Tho the Brittain's observation when Austin the Monk came hither was found contrary to the Roman yet so it was also contrary to the Quarto-Decimans of Asia For the Brittains observ'd it on the Lord's day only as well as the Romanists only their Lord's day was that which happen'd from the 14th day of the Moon in March inclusively to the 20th day but the Lord's day of the Romanists was from the 15th to the 21th the 14th day tho it were also the Lord's day being avoided because it was the Judaical observation or indeed rather because as Ceolfrid the Abbot discourseth it at large to Naitan King of the Picts in Bede l. 5. c. 22. with the Jews also the first day of the Paschal Feasts or of unleaven'd Bread was not the 14th but the 15th day of the Moon to which 15th day as in all other Festivals the even preceding wherein the Paschal Lamb was eaten is reckon'd to belong as the beginning thereof and not to the 14th therefore this Even also began the use of Bread unleven'd Exod. 12.18 So that the Britain 's kept it a week sometimes before the Romanists namely when the Lords day fell on the 14th Of this thus Bede Hist 3. l. 4. c. Quem tamen diem Paschatis non semper Luna 14 ma cum Judaeis ut quidam rebantur sed in die quidem Dominica alia tamen quam decebat hebdomada celebrabant and so he saith hist 3. l. 25. c. that Oswy King of Northumberland observing the Britain and Scotch mode brake up his Fast and solemnized the Feast when the Queen with Prince Alkfrid continued their Fast and kept that day their Palm-Sunday Therefore to Colman in a dispute before these Princes urging as the Asian Churches had done the practice of S. John the Evangelist desiring in their variance from the Western Churches to adhere to those in the East Wilfrid returns this answer That the Scots and Britains neither followed the example of S. John i. e. according to the Asian Churches nor S. Peter according to the West nor did their celebration of Easter agree either with the Judaical Law or the Gospel because they kept not Easter but on a Sunday See Bede ib. This Error perhaps was propagated to the Britains not long before from the Scots §57 n. 2. Or both Britains and Scots might incur at first a mistake therein from the rudeness and ignorance of those times over-run with civil wars which Bede also hinteth Hist 3. l. 4. c. Sciebant enim resurrectionem Dominicam prima Sabbati esse celebrandam sed ut Barbari rustici quando eadem prima Sabbathi venerit minime didicerunt Or it might arise as Bede ib. 3. c. saith it did from some of their Doctors misunderstanding the Egyptian computation or Cycle of Anatolius Whose writings also Colman the Scotch Bishop urgeth in their defence in the disputation had before K. Oswi about this matter and Wilfrid there also shews them to be orthodox and mistaken v. Bed 3. l. 25. c. But upon what ground or in what time soever this erroneous custom began here since we find those Bishops which were sent from Rome see before § 54. n. 2. from time to time so welcomly entertained and so readily submitted to by these two Islands and in particular find S. Germanus who came hither two several times solemnly keeping his Easter here with the Britain clergy see Bede 1. l. 20. c. it follows either that their observation of Easter was then altogether catholick or that if it was otherwise yet by reason that the difference happeneth not every year but only then when the Lord's day chanceth to be on the 14th of the Moon i.e. only once in many years it was then by these Bishops not taken notice of till the coming hither of Augustin who first appears about A.D. 604 to have observed and endeavoured to have reformed it in the Western Church of Britain and afterward his Successors and others well-instructed in the Churches practice to have endeavoured the same in the North and in the Scots concerning which controversy letters being sent to Rome to consult the Pope several answers also were directed from thence to the Scots condemning their practice v. Bede 2. l. 19. c. Yet was it still retain'd for some time both by them and the Britains till after a fuller conviction about A.D. 700 or not long after both were at last reduced to the Catholick observance See Bede 5. l. 16 19 22 c. as the South Irish were by the Pope's admonition long before Bede 3. l. 3. c. Meanwhile many Saints and holy men there were who so observed it as their Ancestors had misled them in this observation also being much more tolerable than the 14 mani Neither doth it seem any great fault in them but only in those of later times in whom obstinacy after due information of the Church's decrees made it so 3. After this decree of the Church Catholick § 57. n. 3. whenever manifested to them it cannot be denied that the Britains became now schismatical as offending both against the canon of Arles mentioned before where were present some of their own Bishops and afterward against that of Nice This business being one of the two causes of the meeting of that famous Council and being by them unanimously setled all the world over Whose words are these in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria Socrat. Hist 1. l. 6. c. Quod autem ad omnium consensum de sacratissimo festo Paschatis celebrando attinet scitote quod controversia de re suscepta prudenter commode sedata est ita ut omnes Fratres qui Orientem incolunt jam Romanos nos omnes vos sunt consentientibus animis in eodem celebrando deinceps sedulo secuturi And hence it was that in those later times when the Churches orders were well known here in England the Ordinations by the British or Scotch Bishops were accounted unlawful and several of the Saxon Kings to preserve themselves from the Schism sent their clergy to be consecrated Bishops into France amongst whom S. Wilfrid was one and to be consecrated Arch-Bishop to Rome See Bede Hist 3. l. 17. c. 28 29. c. 4. l. 1 2. c. and elsewhere Where also S. Chad the holy Bishop of Lichfield having bin consecrated in the vacancy of the See of Canterbury and some other orthodox Sees by three Bishops two of which were Britains and unconformable to the Church tho the third Wini Bishop of Winchester was ordained in France