indeed with application thereof to the Pope as guilty therein To rebel against the Catholick Church and its representative a General Council which is the last visible Judg of controversies and the supreme Ecclesiastical Court either is gross Schism or there is no such thing as Schismatical pravity in the world To rebel against such a Council i. e. against the constitutions thereof in affairs meerly Spiritual therefore if their Canons establish such and such Patriarchates to rebel against these will be Schism So p. 269. he saith In cases that are indeed Spiritual or meerly Ecclesiastical such as concern the Doctrine of Faith or Administration of the Sacraments or the Ordaining or Degrading of Ecclesiastical persons I add or those mention'd but now § 38. which relate not to the Civil State but meerly to the well governance of the Church Soveraign Princes have and have only an Architectonical power to see that Clergy-men do their duties i. e. according to such Church-decrees Else had Princes in such matters a negative or destructive power this would be the right of Heathen Potentates also and the primitive Church guilty of Rebellion in disobeying in these things their strictest prohibitions Again p. 257. he saith Thus neither the Papal power which we have cashier'd nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons and by consequence the separation is not Schismatical Therefore it seems it had been Schismatical had such power been given him by the Canons § 40 Now to view Dr. Hammond c. 3. p. 54. he saith It is manifest that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schism so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities were for the preserving of unity and many other good uses subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs the division of which is thus clear'd c. And p. 60. The uppermost of the standing powers in the Church are Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are appointed in many things to be subject and this power I add and the particular Sees to whom it shall belong and subjection defin'd and asserted by the ancient Canons and most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and custom is avouch'd for it I add especially for the eminency of the Roman See as may appear Conc. Nicaen Can. 4 6. Conc. Antioch c. 9. c. 20. Conc. Chalc. c. 19. c. After all which p. 66. of the same Chapter the Title of which is Of the several sorts of Schism he concludes That there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the Authority which these have by Canon and primitive custom over them Which was therefore to be added to the several species of Schism set down in the former Chapters Where tho the Doctor is pleased not to name particularly Patriarchs yet the quotation p. 54. We must yet ascend c. and p. 60. shews you that he upon the same reason of Church-Canons and primitive Custom doth and must hold that there may be a Schism also in the Metropolitans and consequently in all those under the Metropolitans in respect of their Patriarch The uniting as of several Diocesses in one Metropolitan and of several Provinces and Metropolitans in one Primate so of many Nations and Primates in one Patriarch exceedingly conducing to the peaceable government and cohesion of the Church Catholick and suppression of Heresies and Schisms oft'ner National than Diocesan only or Provincial Quae vero est causa saith Grotius in his first Reply upon Rivet ad Art 7. cur qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholicos maneant in eodem corpore non rupta communione contra qui inter Protestantes dissident idem facere nequeant utcunque multa de dilectione fraterna loquantur Hoc qui recte expender it inveniet quanta sit vis Primatus Which Primacy St. Hierom observes even amongst the Apostles themselves adversus Jovinianum l. 1. c. 14. Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regnorum Coeli accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatum tollatur occasio Capite that is not only in dignity but also in some authority else can such Head not remedy Schisms Patriarchs therefore as well as Metropolitans much conducing to the removing of Schisms and preserving the Church's unity I suppose whatever the Prince or Emperor should attempt against such Metropolitan or Patriarch either to oppose him in the managing of those spiritual matters and to deny him to exercise either by himself or his Ministers his jurisdiction in any Province which is by Church Canons subjected unto him or to depose him from his See or to transfer his authority and jurisdiction on some other whom he more approves of as if Valentinian much affected to the Arrians should have transferr'd St. Ambrose his Archiepiscopal jurisdiction upon Auxentius an Arrian Bishop whom he much affected as his Mother Justina I think actually did wanting only possession of the Church which Ambrose assisted also by the people stoutly resisted yet still according to Dr. Hammond's judgment as long as the Canons of the Church remain the same it would be Schism in any to disobey such Metropolitan or to side with the Prince and Schism in the Prince himself as well as in the rest Again S. W. replying thus upon these words of his Schis p. 125. the Canons of Councils have mostly been set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors That never was it heard that an Emperor claim'd a negative Voice in making a Canon of a Council valid which concern'd matters purely spiritual nay not disaccepted them decreed unanimously by the Fathers but all the world look'd upon him as an unjust and tyrannical Encroacher To this Dr. Hammond Ans to Schism Disarmed p. 203. speaks thus For the appendage c. I need not reply having never pretended or seem'd to pretend what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperor's negative Voice in the Council what I pretended I spake out in plain words that the Canons have bin mostly set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors and this receiving their authority is I suppose in order to their powerful reception in their Dominions and this he acknowledgeth and so we are Friends Thus Dr. Hammond Now all that which S. W. there acknowledgeth is That the supreme Secular power is oblig'd to see that the Church's Decrees be receiv'd and put in execution By Dr. Hammond's consent then a negative
and ceaseth to be any longer Catholick If then the former or present differences between the Roman and Greek Churches are such as have been by former Church-Authority superior to both Canonically decided and determin'd as suppose by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. or of that of Lions under Gregory X. or that of Florence under Eugenius IV. and the Eastern Churches disobeying these Acts have separated from or thereupon been rejected by the Roman Communion observing them Or again If the Greek Church have made a discession and rent from the Prime Patriarch of the Church and the Chair of St. Peter in denying any of those Priviledges and that Authority which rightly belongs to him over the whole Church of Christ in order to the preserving the perpetual Peace and Unity thereof things which it concerns me not here to determine the Greek Churches by this Separation from the Roman must stand guilty of a Schism from the Catholick Church and cease to be any true Members thereof Neither indeed have these Churches since this Division like wither'd branches retain'd any Dignity Authority Growth or Extent equal to the Roman or such as they had formerly this indeed hap'ning to them from the opression of an open enemy to Christianity but yet perhaps the same also an Instrument of God's displeasure against them § 79 Lastly As for the latest Division of the Reforming Party in the West much-what the same may be said of it as was but now of the Arian It is known when that single person stood alone who began it and it spread afterward by the support of the Secular power against Church-authority and when in its greatest growth but an inconsiderable part in comparison of the Whole Which also hath cast it off from her Communion condemn'd it by her Councils and permits not any of her Members to have any external Communion with it And tho at first by reason both of foreign Invasions from the Turk and many Civil Wars in Christian States it made especially in climates more remote from the residence and superintendency of the chief Hierarchy of the Church a very great and speedy increase yet the vigour of its age may be thought already past and it is a long time that it seems to be in its Wane and decadency expecting still and prophesying to it self the fall of Antichrist till it self by little and little be sunk down into its grave So many parts therefore as fall off once from their union with the main Body can be accounted no longer any members of the Church-Catholick nor yet lawfully continue a Church-Communion or Succession of Clergy among themselves Because there can be but unum Corpus as unus Dominus Christus Eph. 4.5 from which Body any part separated strait withereth and separated from the Body is so also from the Head Christ Tho all among these are not really cut off from the Head or Body that the Church externally separates from it by her Censures Which proceed upon these according to the outward profession which only the Church sees but cannot discern the inward affection and disposition which secretly may still continue some of those to the Body whom her Censures removes from it Such are the invincibly ignorant or those that without malice are involv'd in such Schism especially where the fundamental Faith is not diminish'd by any Heresie added to Schism But tho this plea of Ignorance invincible do seem good and credible for many in the present Greek Churches if these Churches may be concluded Schismatical kept in so much slavery illiterature and darkness yet it is to be fear'd it will fail many in the Reform'd Churches where too much presumption of Knowledg seems to be the chief thing that hath destroy'd their Obedience and Conformity to the whole FINIS THE THIRD TREATISE OF THE FIRST PART OF ANCIENT Church-Government REFLECTING On the late writings of several Learned Protestants Bishop Bramhall Dr. Field Dr. Fern Dr. Hammond and others on this Subject OXFORD Printed in the year M.DC.LXXXVIII CONTENTS SVbordination of Glergy § 1. Three Patriarchs only at the first § 2. The first of these the Bishop of Rome § 3. The extent of his Patriarchate The 2d the Bishop of Alexandria § 4. The 3d. the Bishop of Antioch § 5. From whence their Superiority over other Bishops § 6. The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome § 7. The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place § 8. The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors § 9. Where concerning the authority of the Council of Sardica § 11. A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals § 12. Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary § 14. Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of controversies § 18. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch § 20. The power of Jurisdiction not only Primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops ib. This power exemplified in the Primitive time to the end of the 6th age the days of Gregory the Great § 21 to 31. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum § 22. A Digression concerning the Title of Universalis Epipiscopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops § 26. A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Ravenna and Justiniana prima urged by Dr. Hammond § 30. The authority of this See of Rome by Protestants allowed to be the more orthodox in all other divisions that have bin made from it save only their own § 31. n. 2. By the former clear allegations some other controverted sayings of the Fathers expounded § 32. c. The Protestants ordinary replies to the authorities above cited to me seeming not satisfactory § 36. That such power which was anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome was not exercised by him jointly only with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended § 37. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by the Ecclesiastical Canons and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by any power secular § 38. The concessions of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this matter § 39. Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming invalid § 41. That obedience due may not be withdrawn upon Governors undue claimes § 47. That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Ecclesiastical Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not change them § 48. That Prelats and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Council shall reverse them § 49. Reflections upon what hath him said That the
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
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
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
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.
Novelae Const 123. c. 22. Lastly see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 24. confessing a restraint of some appeals not allow'd to be made to the Patriarch where he saith Quaestio de Apellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyterorum minorum Clericorum sed de appellationibus Episcoporum c. Therefore in that ' foremention'd contention between Zosimus Bishop of Rome and the African Bishops met in the 6th Council of Caerthage about the appeal made to Rome of one Apiarius an African Presbyter who had a controversie only with his Bishop the deciding of which by Canons is referr'd to the Metropolitan and his Council or to the Episcopi finitimi Conc. Sard. can 17. it may be made a question whether the Pope was not mistaken in it if he contended not only for appeal of Bishops having controversie with their Metropolitans but also countenanc'd that of Apiarius considering what was deliver'd in the Canons above-cited § 18 Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of Controversies and what is also conceded by the Cardinal As for those Churches who were under no Patriarch i. e. in respect of their Metropolitan's receiving his Ordination from any Patriarch as Cyprus is conceiv'd by some to be from Conc Ephes can 8. and Conc. Const in Trullo can 39. If these Canons do not prohibit rather the Patriarch of Antioch from hindering the Metropolitans of Cyprus to ordain other Bishops without his concurrence or consent as the Rem novam in the beginning of the 8th Canon of Ephesus and other expressions seem to import see below § 19. Yet 1. They were not free and exempt from all foreign judgments when any differences and contentions arose in any such Churches but to them or at least the principal of them were when question'd to give account of their Orthodox Faith and Canonical Obedience if they meant to retain any Communion with the rest of the Church Catholick and to receive communicatory Letters as testimonials thereof See for this St. Aug. Epist 162. where he hath discours'd it at large 2. Neither were they free from the jurisdiction of some Patriarch or other so far as the Canons of any General Council subjected them thereto For example That 7th Canon of Sardica Si Episcopus c. being deliver'd indefinitely oblig'd the Cyprian Bishops as much as any other For the Law of a Legislator who hath power to oblige all obligeth all if none be therein excepted Now General Councils have just authority of decreeing a subordination as they please of Ecclesiastical Persons and Courts for the unity and peace of the Church or else their common practice hath mistaken the right The same may be said of the obligation of the 9th Canon of Chalcedon c. According to which Canons since experience hath shew'd and you may see it in Dr. Field's concessions that many of those whom the Protestants make independent Primates as those of Carthage Millain c. have yeilded to the Patriarchal jurisdiction the practice of these Primates if allow'd by them infers the duty of the rest if disallow'd they must charge such Primates not to have known or maintain'd their own privileges But 3ly such non-subordinate Churches can plead no more privilege than absolute Patriarchs have being if equal to yet not advanc'd above these But amongst Patriarchs themselves in matters of difference and appeal the inferior were liable to the judgment of the superior Patriarchs as shall be shew'd presently therefore must the Cyprians or other be the like there being the same reason of all the preserving of the unity and communion of the whole Church Catholick in which one Church is not more concern'd than others Therefore Dr. Field l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. where in answer to Bellarmin's pretending a Monarchical Government of the Church as necessary he goes to shew how her unity might well be and was anciently preserv'd without it by several subordinations which were in the Church discourseth thus If a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only the chief Primate was Moderator If of many Kingdoms one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishops of the whole world was Moderator every Church being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the Unity of it 3ly The actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Oecumenical And l. 5. c. 39. p. 563. he quotes the Emperor's Decree Novel 123. c. 22. that Bishops being at variance were finally to stand to and not to contradict their own Patriarch's judgment And Gregory's l. 11. ep 54. addition to it That if there be no Patriarch then the matter must be ended by the Apostolick See the Head of all Churches And accordingly we find in the Patriarchal Councils of the West all the Western Churches whatever I dispute not here whether subject or no to the Patriarch assembling in them and subject to the prevailing Votes and Decrees § 19 Against what is said above is much urged by the Reformed the second and third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople Every Province not supreme for finally determining the differences arising therein The words are these Episcopi qui extra Dioecesim sunt ad Ecclesias quae extra terminos earum sunt non accedant neque confundant permisceant Ecclesias Alexandriae quidem Episcopi solius Orientis Aegypti saith another Translation curam gerant servatis honoribus Primatus ecclesiae Antiochenae qui in regulis Nicaenae Synodi continentur Sed Asianae Dioecesis Episcopi ea quae sunt in Asia quae ad Asianam tantummodo Diaecesis habeant curam Thraciae vero c. And c. 3. Non invitati Episcopi ultra Dioecesim accedere non debent super ordinandis aliquibus vel quibuscunque disponendis Ecclesiasticis causis Manifestum namque est quod per singulas quasque Provincias Provincialis Synodus administrare gubernare omnia debeat secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita 5. c. Veruntamen as it is in one Translation Constantinopolitanus Episcopus habeat honoris primatum post Romanum Episcopum c. The title to which Canons being all joined into one in one Translation is De ordine singularum Dioeceseon de privilegiis quae Aegyptiis Antiochenis Constantinopolitanisque debentur These Canons are urged to prove That all Provinces are for power absolute and supreme That every cause and controversy between any persons should be determined finally within the Provinces where the matters did lie and that by the Bishops of the same Provinces from whom might be no further appeal and That no Bishop should exercise any power out of his own Diocess or Province and consequently neither the Roman Bishop out of his Province in Italy And because here follows some preeminence granted to the Constantinopolitan Bishop post Romanum that this may not be thought to contradict
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
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
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
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
sibi tentet ascribere omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per electionem Pompatici sermonis i.e. Universalis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare Si enim dici hoc licenter permittitur honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur fortasse is in errore perit qui Vniversalis dicitur nullus jam Episcopus in statu veritatis invenitur I say as he hath these passages for which he is quoted by the Reformed as making much against the power which the Bishops of the Roman See claim so hath he other as it were an Antidote in the very same Epistle wherein he establisheth clearly that authority of the Roman Bishop which they oppose Whence it follows either that these places are urged by the Reformed in a mistaken fence or that he palpably contradicts himself and that with the same breath as it were Thus therefore saith he in the same Epistle Relatum est ergo ad Apostolicam Sedem Johannem vos ex hac sua praesumptione ad Synodum convocare Generalem cum Generalium Synodorum convocandi authoritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri singulari privilegio sit tradita nulla unquam Synodus rata legatur quae Apostolica authoritate non fuit fulta Quapropter quicquid in praedicto vestro Conventiculo statuistis ex authoritate S. Petri Apostolorum Principis Domini Salavatoris voce qua B. Petro potestatem ligandi atque solvendi ipse Salvator dedit quae etiam potestas in Successoribus ejus indubitanter transivit Praecipio omnia quae ibi statuisti vana cassata esse Multis denuo Apostolicis Canonicis atque Ecclesiasticis instruimur regulis non debere absque sententia Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari Orate Fratres ut honor Ecclesiasticus nostris diebus non evacuetur nec unquam Romana Sedes quod instituente Domino Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum Privilegiis suis usquam careat aut exspolietur Haec Fratres valde cavenda sunt praecepta Domini atque sanctae Sedis Apostolicae quae vice Domini Salvatoris legatione fungitur monita fideliter amplectenda peragenda Lastly being consulted by them concerning the subordinate judgments of the Church he writes thus Non oportet ut degradetur vel dehonoretur unaquaeque Provincia sed apud semetipsam habeat judices i. e. for its judges Sacerdotes Episcopos singulos viz. juxta ordines suos quicunque causam habuerit a suis judicibus judicetur non ab alienis id est a suae justis judicibus Provinciae non ab exteris nisi ut jam praelibatum est a judicandis fuerit appellatum Si vero inter ipsius Provinciae Episcopos discrepare coeperit ratio c ad majorem tunc Sedem referantur As to the Constantinopolitan or Antioch Et si illae facile juste non discernuntur i.e. which is the major Sedes in respect of that Province ubi fuerit Synodus regulariter congregata Canonice juste judicentur Majores vero difficiles quaestiones ut sancta Synodus statuit beata consuetudo exigit ad Sedem Apostolicam semper referantur Whereby you see that the first See of Rome interessed her self not in all but the highest and difficultest matters of controversie where former judgments were ununanimous or were appealed from Likewise by the former passages t is plain that Pelagius challengeth that Supremacy to the Roman See which is denied by Protestants and alloweth the term of Summus Patriarcha as Summus implies some power and jurisdiction over all the rest whereby they become subordinate but not of Vniversalis Patriarcha as Vniversalis implies that there can be none besides for that only is universale extra quod nihil and is a term whereby all the rest are degraded And in this fence also afterward Gregory Pelagius his Successor arguing against the same John Constant took the same word when he saith Ep. 34. Constant Augustae Despectis omnibus praedictus Frater Coepiscopus meus solus conatur appellari Episcopus See the same again Ep. 38. Johanni Episcopo Constant And Ep. 32. Vniversa Ecclesia cum statu suo corruit quando is qui appellatur Vniversalis cadit But neither Gregory nor Pelagius denied it at least as applied to the Roman Bishop in that sense in which the Reformed urge it i.e. as it implies a Supreme power in some one Bishop over all the rest and as it intimates not praeter quem nemo sit but qui remanentibus partibus integris ipse caeteris superemineat as Baronius hath it Since in the same place where they deny the one as it were with the same breath they maintain the other and since in that sense this Title was sometimes given to the Roman Bishops tho Pelagius and Gregory do not like the name because so easily interpretable in a sense not justifiable or rather jealous that the Constantinopolitan Bishop as presiding in the Imperial City in using that word unjustly sought to undermine them in their Primacy at least for the Eastern parts of the Church they extend the sense of the word to its whole latitude and further than in all probability he meant it to make it be the sooner laid aside But not long after within two or three years of Gregory's death by the Emperour Phocas offended with Cyriacus the then Patriarch of Constantinople as this title was taken from the Constantinopolitan so was it inoffensively applied to the Roman See Yet without the attribution or access of any authority to that See which cannot be shewed to have bin formerly practised by it as also this title had bin aforetime in the Council of Chalcedon given that Bishop without any contradiction of those Fathers See Concil Chalced. Act. 3. Thus much concerning the Title of Oecumenicus or Vniversalis § 27 In the last place for the anciently-great authority of the Roman Bishop see the Epistles of Gregory the Great who tho with Pelagius his Predecessors he much disrellished the name of Vniversal Bishop or Pastor yet it appears out of these that he both claimed and exercised such an universal superiority and jurisdiction over other both Bishops and Patriarchs as the Reformed will by no means approve and as we may gather by his words 4. l. 37. Ep. thought a vindication of his just authority well consistent with true humility There he saith Dum Praedicator egregius dicat Ministerium meum honorificabo Rom. 11.13 qui rursus alias dicens facti sumus parvuli in medio vestrum 1 Thes 2.7 exemplum proculdubio nobis se sequentibus ostendit ut humilitatem teneamus in mente tamen ordinis nostri dignitatem servemus in honore quatenus nec in nobis humilitas timida nec erectio sit superba This premised see what follows in the same Epistle Johannes Constantinopolitanus in Constantinopolitana urbe Synodum secit in qua se Vniversalem appellare conatus est quod
prejudicial to the formerly-asserted authority of the Roman Bishop For 1. by these within the compass of his own Patriarchate he is the supreme and final Judg upon all Appeals as well of other Clergy as of Bishops and 2. so is he also of all other Bishops and Metropolitans whosoever are not subjected to any other Patriarch and 3. also in other Patriarchates where greater contests happen between them and their Bishops or with one another here also he interests his power see before § 20. and 26. for any thing in these Imperial decrees expressed to the contrary Nay further 4. he as Caput omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum to use Justinian's stile where he judgeth other Patriarchs to neglect their duty or sees them overborn in heresy or other matters of great concernment for the peace and safety of the Church he I say as appears by many instances above hath exercised authority also over the inferior Clergy of other Patriarchats as he did in the degradation of Eutyches a Constantinopolitan Prerbyter see before § 25. n. 2. an act approved by the same Council of Chalcedon that in their 9th Canon referred the final decision of the ordinary controversies of any Province to their own Bishops or Patriarch § 29 Pardon this Digression Now to go on with the observations out of Gregory's writings 5. l. 24. Ep. where the Bishop of Ravenna telling S. Gregory that some said he had no Canonical authority to judge the difference between the said Bishop of Ravenna and a certain Abbot who had appealed to Gregory he saith Nunquid non ipse nosti quia in causa quae a Johanne Presbytero contra Johannem Constantinopolitanum fratrem coepiscopum nostrum orta est secundum Canones ad Sedem Apostolicam recurrit nostra est sententia definita Si ergo de illa Civitate ubi Princeps est i. e. Constantinople where the Emperour then resided ad nostram causa cognitionem deducta est quanto magis negotium quod contra nos est done within our own Patriarchat against our authority hic est veritate cognita terminà ndum See Ep. 63. to the same Sicilian Bishop where answering to some objecting Quomodo Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam disposuit comprimere i.e. Gregory qui ejus consuetudines i.e. in ordinatione Missae per omnia sequitur he denying that the Church of Rome followed the customs of the Greeks replies thus Vnde habent i.e. Graeci ergo hodie ut Subdiaconi lineis in tunicis procedant nisi quia hoc a Matre sua Romana Ecclesia perceperunt And Nam de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia quod dicunt Quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subieâ—â—am quod Lominus piissimus Imperator frater noster Eusebius I conceive it should be Cyriacus who at the first especially was very compliant with Rome see Greg. Ep. 6. l. 31. Ep. 28. Ep. for there was no Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople in Gregory's time ejusdem Civitatis Episcopus assidue profitentur And see 10. l. 31. Epistle the form of submission taken by Gregory's Substitutes of those who return'd to the unity of the Church from the Schism which maintained the tria Capitula of the Council of Chalcedon which were condemned in the 5th General Council which submission was Promitto tibi per te Sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi atque ejus Vicario Beatissimo Gregorio semper me in unitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum § 30 A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Raverna and Justiniana 1ª urged by Dr. Hammond And because Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 115. and 5. c. 8. § quotes and much stands upon the Patriarchship of Ravenna erected to this dignity as he saith by the Emperour Valentinian and of Justiniana 1ª and of Carthage erected by the Emperour Justinian the one being his native soil the other recovered by him from the Vandals erected as utterly independent on the Roman Patriarch tho Dr. Field grants all these places to have bin contained under his Patriarchy 38. c. p. 560. and this without any contradiction from the said Patriarch upon which instances chiefly he there builds this position That it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect or translate Patriarchates I will also set you down some passages in these Epistles of Gregory one who lived after and not long after these Emperours which shew these Primats to have had still dependance as others on the Roman See and either not to have had conferr'd on them at all or at least not to have enjoyed with that Church's consent those priviledges he pretends 1. For the Bishop of Ravenna see Gregory's Epistle 2. l. 54. Ep. to John 3d. Bishop of Ravenna the same that as Dr. Hammond saith Answ to S. disarm'd p. 156. stood much upon his special rights in opposition to the Roman See where Gregory reprehending him for an unseasonable using of the Pall hath these words Quod bene hanc consuetudinem generalis Ecclesiae contrary to what he used noveritis vestris nobis manifestissime significastis Epistolis quibus Praeceptum beatae memoriae Decessoris nostri Johannis Papae nobis subditis transmisistis annexum continens omnes consuetudines ex privilegio Praedecessorum nostrorum concessas vobis Ecclesiaeque vestrae debere servari The Priviledges of Ravenna therefore whatever they were are in this contest pretended by the Bishop thereof to be received not from the Emperour or not from him singly but from the See Apostolick contrary to what Dr. Hammond affirms p. 156. and this only is pleaded by John Bishop of Ravenna That the priviledges granted to his See by former Roman Bishops could not be annull'd by Gregory the present But such priviledges were denied by Gregory to have bin formerly conceded to Him by his Predecessors hence he proceeds thus afterward in the same Epistle Aut mos omnium Metropolitanorum est a sua fraternitate servandus aut si tuae Ecclesiae aliquid specialiter dicis esse concessum praeceptumve a prioribus Romanae Vrbis Pontificibus quod haec Ravennati Ecclesiae sint concessa a vobis oportet ostendi And to the same Bishop about another thing amiss 4. l. 1. Ep. he writes in this stile Proinde Fraternitas tua hoc quolibet in loco factum sit emendare festinet quia ego nullo modo patiar ut loca sacra per Clericorum ambitum destruantur Vos itaque ita agite ut mihi hac de re correctam causam sub celeritate nuntietis See 5. l. 8. Ep. his sending the Pall to Maximinianus Bishop of Ravenna and confirming his privileges In which Epistle urged by S. W. Dr. Hammond Answ to Schism disarm'd p. 151. will have these words omnia Privilegia quae tuae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae nostra authoritate firmamus illibata decernimus permanere well to consist with the independency
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
more Orthodox my chief intention here was not to declare quo jure such jurisdiction was either claim'd or yeilded to but that de facto that power was so long ago assum'd which being now challeng'd is by our men deny'd and I may add assum'd with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages The Bishops of Rome having patroniz'd no Heresies at all as all the other Patriarchs at some time or other did Such were in the See of Constantinople Macedonius Nestorius Sergius Arch-hereticks in Alexandria Dioscorus the grand Patron of the Eutychians in Antioch Paulus Samosatenus the Father of the Paulianists c. All which Heresies and several other which took root in the East were suppressed and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved by the over-ruling power the threats the censures of this See as any not over-partial Reader of the Ecclesiastical History will easily discern And perhaps I may venture a little further That to this day in the chief point and occasion of breach for which any other Church besides the Reform'd stands divided from the Roman Communion the Reformed do justifie the Roman tenent against those Churches The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was besides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus and the procession of the Holy Ghost as appears by the disputation in the Council of Florence where both Churches the Eastern now falling into some distress heartily sought for an accord almost wholly spent about this point Now in this article the Reform'd do side with the Roman Church and so far also as we allow of any superiority we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan but the Roman Patriarch The chief Doctrine for which the other Orientals as the Assyrian Churches the Jacobites Armenians Cophti Aethiopians Maronites c. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1 c. stand separate from Rome whilst their publick Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek or Roman is either Nestorianism or Eutychianism or Monothelitism imputed unto them in which also the Reformed adhere against them to the Roman judgment The like may be said in the ancienter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches about Easter and with the African and some of the Asian about Rebaptization Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches the Reform'd will grant Rome to have continued orthodox and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her they had been better guided or at least that for those 600 years she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent authority But if it be said again That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power than the instances above shew them anciently to have used I desire to know first before this be examin'd whether we will grant them so much for whilst we complain that they now a-days claim more than is due to them is it not so that we deny them not the more but all And have they done well who have used the Bishops so who have used Kings so upon pretence of their exercising an illegal power § 32 And now by what hath pass'd we may the better judge of the meaning notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them of those places of the ancient Fathers By the instances above judgment may be made of the sense of many other controverted Sayings of the Fathers which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows in Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there how Hereticks may be easily confounded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam i. e. a duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique fideles conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio In qua i. e. in unione adhaesione ad quam Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserv'd in all other Churches Let therefore potentiorem principalitatem if so you can make any sense be referr'd as it is by the Reform'd to the Roman Empire not Church yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apostolical which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this that cannot be apply'd but only to the Church not as seated in the Imperial City but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Of which Church Tertullian de praescript Haereticorum also saith Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt And after him thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Vnit Eccl. Cath. which perhaps seem capable of the exposition which the Reformed give them Nos singulis navigantibus i.e. from Affrick into Italy rationem reddentes scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam agnoscerent tenerent And afterward Ne in urbe in Rome schisma factum animos absentium i.e. of those in Africk incerta opinione confunderet which party they should adhere to placuit ut per Episcopos istic positos African Bishops residing at Rome literae fierent to the African Provinces ut te universi collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter ac charitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent And Epist 52. Antoniano Fratri a Bishop not communicating with Novatianus Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum literarum ad Cornelium the Bishop of Rome Collegam nostrum transmitterem ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sciret te secum hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicare The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose Orat. in Satyr where he saith of his Brother Satyrus about to receive the Communion that percunctatus est Episcopum si cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est si cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret And thus Cyprian again in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato Faelicissimo haereticis who condemn'd in Africk appeal'd to Rome Post ista adhuc insuper navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est a schismaticis Fortunato c. literas ferre nec cogitare eos i. e. tales esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum Add to these in the 46th Epistle the confession of those who return'd to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus made in this form Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae electum a Christo Domino nostro scimus
c. concluding Nec enim ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum unum Spiritum Sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholica Ecclesia esse debere Vnum i. e. I suppose unum supereminent in power to the rest the better to preserve the Church's Unity § 33 Lastly The passages of those Ancients who were in some difference with the Bishop of Rome which upbraid him for challenging such power seem to me good arguments that such power and authority over other Churches and Bishops was then so early assum'd by him So Tertullian de Pudicitia c. 21. living in the beginning of the third Age when now a Montanist and rigidly opposing the Absolution and restitution to the Church of lapsed Christians tho penitents which thing was practis'd by the Bishop of Rome mentions there in Irony his Titles of Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum and thus expostulates with him Vnde hoc jus Ecclesiae i. e. of absolving such sinners usurpas Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Tibi dedi claves regni Coelorum vel quaecunque alligaveris c. Qualis es evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem c. But note that Tertullian here in the Protestants judgment errs absolution of sinners penitent being not personal to Peter or the Apostles but common not only to the Roman Bishop but all the successive Clergy for ever So Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea Cappadociae in his Epistle to St. Cyprian the 75th amongst Cyprian's when very passionate in the matter of Rebaptizing those formerly Baptiz'd only by Hereticks and as it seems by Eus Ec. H. l. 7. c. 4. either punish'd or threaten'd with Excommunication by Stephen Bishop of Rome for it and also being his opposite in the controversie about Easter thus inveighs against him Ego in hac parte juste indignor quod qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriatur se successionem Petri tenere contendit super quem fundamenta Ecclesiae collocata sunt multas alias Petras inducat Ecclesiarum multarum nova aedificia constituat dum esse illic i.e. Heretical Churches baptisma sua authoritate defendit Stephanus qui per successionem Cathedram Petri habere se praedicat nullo adversus haereticos zelo exeitatur c. i.e. in disallowing and nulling their Baptism Eos autem qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita frustra Apostolorum authoritatem praetendere scire quis etiam inde potest c. where he blames their keeping of Easter differently from others in the Asian Churches Qui gloriatur qui praedicat qui praetendit therefore such titles and such gloriation there was and such authority challenged by the Roman Bishops which he calls in that Epistle ruptio pacis long before the Nicen Council and the judgments and the pretended Apostolical traditions of these Bishops tho by these mistaken men censured and opposed yet by the orthodox followed and embraced § 34 As for the two places urged out of S. Cyprian against the acknowledgment of any such power or superiority of one Bishop over another and consequently of the Bishop of Rome the one out of the Council of Carthage in his works wherein being President he saith Neminem judicantes aut a jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium tamque judicari ab alio non possit quam nec ipse potest judicare Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi qui unus solus habet Potestatem de actu nostro judicandi And the other in the close of his and the Councils Epistle to Stephen Epistle 72. where he saith Haec ad conscientiam tuam Frater Charissime i.e. Stephane pertulimus credentes etiam tibi pro religionis tuae fidei veritate placere quae religiosa pariter vera sunt Caeterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle disponere nec proposstum sâ—um facile mutare sed salvo inter collegas pacis concordiae vinculo quaedam propria retinere Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium iberum unusquisque Praepositus or Bishop rationem actus sui Domino redditurus In the first of these places the Father speaks of all Bishops having their free votes in the Council none lording it over the rest nor they to give account of such vote save to God alone This seems clear from the words immediately preceding Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus neminem judicantes c. which words they are pleased not to mention with the rest In the second he only saith of himself and the Council That they did not vim facere nor legem dare cuiquam Collegarum By which colleagues he means not Stephen the Bishop of Rome or any foreign but only some African Bishops who having no such former custom of rebaptizing any dissented from that Council's judgment as may be collected both from the words preceding here credimus tibi placere and from the former Epistle 71. to Quintus where he saith Nescio qua praesumptione ducuntur quidam de collegis nostris ut putent eos qui apud haereticos tincti sunt quando ad nos venerint baptizari non oportere this being spoken of his collegues Et qui hoc illis patrocinium de authoritate sua praestat cedit illis consentit c. this being spoken of Stephen who countenanced his African collegues But be these collegues whom they please of them I ask Were they subordinate and subject to this Council or not If they were then legem non damus must not be made equivalent to non licet dare And in doubtful matters as this must needs be on Cyprian's side going against the former general practice of the Church except that of his Predecessors t is many times great prudence legem non dare where there is a legislative power or if they were not subordinate then indeed non licuit legem illis dare But this rule non licet c. cannot be extended to other Governors where there is a subordination of others to them Now as there are Bishops and Councils coequal who therefore may not give the law to one another as the Bishop of one Diocess or one Provincial Council cannot regulate another so there are Bishops and Councils superior to others as above an ordinary Bishop are Metropolitans Primats Patriarchs above Councils Provincial are Patria chal General Therefore either S. Cyprian's words must not be so far extended as to assert
That no one Bishop nor Council hath any power over another but all Bishops left to their supreme liberty only rationem reddituri Domino of their actions contrary to the universal practice of the Church such superior Councils ordinarily censuring and also anathematizing Bishops or in the judgment of the Reformed who also maintain such subordinations S. Cyprian must be in an error Now in the vacancy of any General or Patriarchal Council the Patriarch at least for his own Patriarchat as Cyprian was within the Roman Patriarchat is the supreme Judge and therefore Cyprian not exempt from all subjection or subordination to Him See for this Dr. Field's concessions before § 18. Supreme judge for the executing of the former Ecclesiastical Canons and preserving of the doctrines formerly established and determined by Councils Supreme Judge thus over Provincial not only Bishops but Councils for from these may be made appeals to him and a confirmation of their decrees is fought for from him See that of Milevis and of Carthage in S. Austin's time before § 23. n. 4. neither ought they to promulgate any doctrine not formerly determined by former Councils against his approbation and consent See before § 22. Therefore Cyprian might not make a contrary Decree to the Western Patriarch so as to necessitate those under his Primacy to the obedience thereof as neither he did But how far on the other side they stand obliged to conform to the judgment of him or also of his Provincial Council when defining any such new point against theirs the case here between Stephen and Cyprian I determin not Especially considering the liberty Cyprian took to dissent from Stephen and considering what Bellarmin de Concil 2. l. 5. c. and before him S. Austin grants that by such dissent he ceased not to be a good Catholick and considering also the liberty S. Ambrose took at least in a ritual of practising contrary to the custom of the Roman Church See de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem i.e. de lotione Pedum non habeat cujus typum in omnibus sequimur formam In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam in omnibus that is which I can reasonably assent to sedtamen nos homines sensum habemus Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur nos recte custodiamus ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum c. But neither is Cyprian's authority whatever he did in this matter nor any decree of an African Council as Dr. Hammond Schism 6. c. p. 128. urgeth a canon of an African Council in Anastasius his time A.D. 401. the 71. in Balsamon the 35. in Crab and Binnius which imports thus much That laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Church to make contrary laws thereunto a sufficient argument clearly to decide this point namely that the African Churches being subject to this Patriarch might promulgate a Doctrine contrary to his judgment For there is no more reason we should justifie Cyprian's or an African Council's authority against the Bishop of Rome and his Council than this Bishop's and his Council's against theirs where if Cyprian for his person were a Martyr for Christ so was Stephen too Especially when we find Cyprian so much erring in the matter of this controversie whilst he saith Epist 74. Pompeio Qui Stephanus haereticorum causam contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur And when we consider the modest and safe grounds Stephen went upon Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est having the former custom of the Church on his side to which St. Cyprian pleads Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris and Epist 71. Quinto Fratri Non est consuetudine perscribendum sed ratione vincendum Whereas in this contest it had bin an happy thing for the Church and had sav'd St. Austin many sheets against the Donatists had he and his Council acquiesc'd in the judgment of their Patriarch Thus much to those places objected out of Cyprian § 35 As for that pretended Canon of the African Council I find the passages in Binnius with whom the Dr. saith Balsamon agrees in setting down this Canon but indeed there is some difference and Balsamon's Translation hardly intelligible otherwise then the Doctor in his Reply to Schism Disarm'd p. 209. relates them The business there consulted upon was about the re-admission of the recanting Donatists not only to the Unity of the Catholick Church but also to the former Dignities which such had held in the Church concerning this a Council had been held already in Italy by Anastasius and his Bishops wherein it was decreed that such Donatists should not be admitted to their former honours and places and a Letter was to this purpose sent to the Africans by Anastasius Concerning which Letter first this Council saith Recitatis epistolis beatissimi Fratris consacerdoti nostri Anastasii quibus nos paternae fraternae charitatis solicitudine sinceritate adhortatus est ut c Gratias agimus Domino nostro quod illi optimo ac sanâ—â—o Antâ—stiti suo tam piam curam pro membris Christi qâ—amvis in divâ—rsitate terrarum sed in una compage corporis const tutâ—s inspirare dignatus est Then in Can. 33. they say onsideratis omnibus c. eligimâ—s cum memoratis hominibus the Donatists leniter pacifice agere upon this reason that so they might reduce together with them many others seduc'd by them Lastly in c. 35. which is the Canon urged they say Itaque placuit ut literae mittantur ad fratres coâ—p scopos nostros i. e. those of the Council which Anastasius had held in Italy maxime ad sedem Apostolâ—cam in qua praesidet memoratus venerabilis Frater Collega noster Anastasius quo noverit habere Aphricam magnam nec ssitatem ut ex ipsis Donatistis quicunque transire voluerint c. in suis honoribus suscipiantur si hoc paci Christianae prodâ—sse visum fuerit i. e. as they explain themselves afterwards in the same Canon that such Clerks of the Donatists should be admitted to their former Dignities upon whose reconcilement depended the gaining and reduction of a multitude also of other Souls who were their followers This then they were to write to the Pope and the Bishops of the Italian Council that such Donatist-leaders might be readmitted not only into the Church's bosom but to their former places They go on Non ut Concilium quod in transmarinis partibus de hac refactum est who had decreed the contrary dissolvatur sed ut illud maneat the Council stand good cirea eos qui sic transire ad Catholicam volunt ut nulla per eos unitatis compensatio procuretur i. e. who do not procure the uniting of many others per quos autem adjuvari manifestis fraternarum animarum of those under the Donatist Clergy's Spiritual Conduct lucris Catholica unitas
visa fuerit non eis obsit quod contra honores eorum in transmarino Concilio statutum est Then contracting what is formerly said they conclude thus id est ut ordinati in parte Donati si ad Catholicam correcti transire voluerint non suscipiantur in honoribus suis secundum transmarinum Concilium exceptis his per quos Catholicae unitati consuletur Now some difference there is between their writing to the Pope and the Bishops of the former Council ne obsit for some and maneat for the rest and their decreeing against the Pope and that Council ne obfuerit for any Now this close is thus English'd by the Doctor our of Balsamon That they that have bin Ordain'd on the part of the Donatists shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod but shall the rather be receiv'd as those that take care for the Catholick Unity How well I leave to your judgment § 36 The Protestants ordinary Replies to these to me seeming not satisfactory Now to these several instances which I have drawn out of the primitive times the answers which are usually made by some for you must expect that nothing is said by any side which is not reply'd to by the other are such as these That such places as speak of the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Bishop speak only of that of Order and Dignity not of Power or Authority Apostolicae Cathedrae Principatus i. e. say they quoad dignitatem non quoad potestatem Rector domus Dei Ecclesiae Catholicoe or universalis Episcopus i.e. say they Vnus erectoribus domus Dei unus ex Episcopis c. That such places as mention appeals to the Bishop of Rome speak of them as made to him non ut ad Judicem sed ut ad ejusdem fidei fautorem ut ejusdem fidei professores in communionem suam admitteret non ob aliquam jurisdicendi authoritatem sed ob amicam communionis ejusdem societatem That the like addresses were made to other Patriarchs and Bishops for their communion and assistance as to him and that his Letters were requested and in behalf of sufferers directed to all parts of Chcistianity not by vertue of any authority he had to correct but by reason of the power he had from the reverence they gave to the dignity of his place every where to perswade That such places of Fathers or Councils as affirm that no publick affairs of the Church may be transacted without the Bishop of Rome are not appropriate therefore only to him but verified as much of the rest of the Patriarchs as of him That those places which mention his censuring excommunicating deposing Clergy that were not under his own Patriarchy speak not of any authoritative or privative excommunication to use the Bishop of Derry's expression Vind. c. 8. by way of jurisdiction excluding such from the communion of Christ but only of a negative in the way of Christian discretion by with-drawing him or his from communion with them for fear of infection for declaring his non-currence with or countenancing of their fault c. There being great difference as Dr. Field observes p. 558. between excommunication properly so nam'd or authoritatively forbidding all men to communicate with such and such and the rejecting only of them from our communion and fellowship And I also confess and grant such negations of communicating with others anciently used and amongst rest used also by the Bishop of Rome who often prohibited his Legates and others from communicating with some other Bishop as with the Bishop of Constantinople when he used the stile of Vniversalis or from going to and being present at their celebration of Divine Service when he did not excommunicate the other nay when also he admitted the ministers of the other and those who communicated with the other to come to his communion and celebration of Divine Service See Gregory 6. l. 31. Ep. to Eulogius and Anastasius indulging this to those who were sent from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople to him But that all the Bishops excommunications of those without his Patriarchy were only such this is the thing denied That the like may be said of his confirming or restoring his fellow-Bishops that it was done not by way of forensical justice but fraternal approbation and that all other Patriarchs used excommunicating deposing acquitting and restoring in the same manner allowing or withdrawing their communion from their fellow-Bishops as they saw fit and that they confirmed the Roman Bishop by their communicatory letters as he them Which things how well they agree with the above said forms of such Ecclesiastical censures and with other practices of the Roman Bishops towards others much differing from the practices of other Patriarchs either towards him or towards others how well they agree with the addresses made from both Church-governors and Councils upon differences and contentions in the Church to Rome addresses not used in the same manner to the other Patriarchs yet would have bin done equally to them also had all Patriarchs bin esteemed in their power equal especially how they agree with what is said § 24. and § 18. upon reviewing the instances I have given I leave to your judgment That the places which speak of his judging causes and inflicting such Ecclesiastical censures c speak not of him singly but as joined with his Western Bishops they meaning by this not some of his Western Bishops only whose assistance the Roman Bishop ordinarily useth in all his judgments but his whole Patriarchal Council That those places which do argue joining-with the Roman to be joinning with the Catholick communion see before § 23. n. 2. and n. 3. and § 32. as it must needs be that if God hath appointed any person or Council as a supreme Guide whom the rest ought to obey such members as do not obey cannot be Catholick are spoken only with respect to such a Roman Bishop at such a time who in their opinion held the true Profession and not that all the Roman Bishops at any time have or shall hold it those who made these expressions accounting the Roman Bishop orthodox and catholick because he then was of such a faith as they approved not the faith orthodox and catholick because it was the faith of the Roman Bishop or which he approved So Spalatensis in answer to the places produced out of S. Hierom. in 23. § saith 4. l. 10. c. 23. n. Quod Hieronymus Damaso hoc est Petri cathedrae consociari velit significat privilegium illius Cathedrae adhuc Hieronymi tempore vigens circa fidei puritatem and 88 n. Quasi dicat quia nunc not perpetuo in terris video Apostolicam doctrinam Romae maxime puram conservari ideo in his dissensionibus volo tibi adhaerere Which answer circularly makes him to judge first in what Church the true doctrine is who is to seek what Church to adhere to to be guided by it to
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if
disliked repealed 2. That tho Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent yet Patriarchal Synods were never nor never well could be so nor find we any set times appointed for calling them as for calling the other so that as t is plain by many former instances that the Patriarch ordinarily did so t is all reason that he should decide some appeals without them tho in some cases extraordinary and of great consequence such Councils also were assembled 3. Since where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone to have bin a practice only of latter times yet they allow this to be done upon very rational grounds observe that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently and again that the practice they justify for Metropolitans in latter times they have much more reason to allow to Patriarchs in all times because the greater the Councils are with the more trouble are they conven'd and lastly that the reformed Metropolitans themselves who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing themselves alone i. e. without their Provincial Synod authorizing their High-commission Court and blaming his Consistory Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceedings without Councils in respect of appeals from their several Provinces the same it is that in the differences and contests of Patriarchs themselves and of other greater Bishops since it is meet for preserving the Church's peace and unity that some person or assembly should have the authority to decide these and since it is unreasonable and for the great trouble thereof not feisible that a General Council or also Patriarchal in all such differences should be assembled the same I say it is that by ancient custom and Ecclesiastical canons hath bin conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council tho granted liable to error He being more eminently honourable than the rest by reason of the larger extent of his Patriarchy of the great power and ancient renown of that City which in Spiritual matters he governed but especially of the two greatest Apostles Peter and Paul there ending their days in the government of that See and leaving him there the Successor of their power Yet is this office of supreme judicature so committed unto him that his judgments only stand in force till such a meeting and may be reviewed and where contrary to former canons reversed by it concerning which see the saying of S. Austin quoted before § 22. Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesie universae Concilium c. and the saying of Zosimus quoted § 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now all Metropolitan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Councils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons or at least to the acting nothing against them if the question be asked who shall judge whether so they do I answer none but a superior Council till which their judgment stands good For as I have largely shewed elsewhere if Litigants once may judge of this when their Judges judge rightly and not against the laws and accordingly may yeild or substract their obedience such obedience is arbitrary In civil Courts Princes or their Ministers are obliged to judge according to or not against the laws of the Kingdom may the litigant therefore reject their judgment when it seems to him contrary to these laws I believe not § 38. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by Ecclesiastical Canon and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by the power Secular Thus much having bin said of the authority and jurisdiction given by Ecclesiastical constitutions and ancient customs and practice to some Ecclesiastical persons above others and amongst them supereminently above all the rest to the Roman Bishop and given to these persons not only as joined with Councils but as single Magistrates in the vacancy thereof in the next place these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted First That whatever authority is thus setled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church concerning the managing of affairs not civil but meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical cannot be annulled and dissolved nor cannot be conferred contrary to the Church's constitutions on any other person by any Secular power neither by Heathen and unbelieving Princes who were enemies to the Church nor by Christian much less because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church and now obliged to obey her laws neither by the one who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity nor by the other who if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical might easily hinder the profession of the Orthodox faith or disturb the Church's peace Thus Grotius a great Lawyer in Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in saeculi negotiis Ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparatum est Nam cum Principes filii sint Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligentur hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And Obedite Praepositis etiam Regibus dictum See this discoursed more largely in Success Clerg § 64 65. 2. And further That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power so established and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed I say here concerning matters Ecclesiastical not Civil therefore let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 129. for me stand good That a Law tho made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes i. e. of that time yet if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that Nation be repealed i. e. by that Prince's Successors provided only That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church the assembling of Synods and decision of controversies of Religion the ordering Church-service and discipline the Ecclesiastical censures upon delinquents and the like for preventing or suppressing of Heresie Schism and Faction and for preserving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice Provided I say that such things be not reckoned amongst civil rights as they may not be because all these were things used by the Church under the heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet could they not have bin lawfully so used if any of these had encroached on civil rights in any of which civil rights the heathen Prince might claime as much lawful power to prohibit them as the Christian
can And because all these were continued to be used by the Church also under Christian Emperors without asking their leave to decree such things or subjecting them to their authority or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance yet so as without it resolv'd to proceed in the execution thereof as under Heathen as clearly appeared under the the Arian Emperors yet which thing she could not lawfully have done were any of these entrenching upon anothers right For example the 6th Canon of Nice and 5. Can. of Constant Council would have bin an usurpation of an unjust authority if the subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince Upon the same grounds let also those instances collected by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. 7. c. of several Princes and States on many occasions opposing the Pope's authority stand good and be justified so far as he doth not shew these Secular powers to have opposed him in any right belonging to him by Church-canons in Ecclesiastical matters But if in any of those examples they are also found to oppose him in these the proving of such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done Tho also he confesseth that this fact of Hen. 8. in abolishing the usurped as he calls it jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions he cannot fellow abroad See what he saith Vindic. 7. c. p. 184. Neither do such facts as he urgeth to be done abroad hinder such Princes for living still in the external communion with the Church of Rome which facts he urgeth as a defence of the Reformed's necessary relinquishing this communion Again I said That no such Spiritual authority can he conferred or translated to others contrary to such Church Canons c. Else whenever it is not contrary to these Canons I grant that Inferior Councils or Church-governors or also Secular powers with their consent may change and alter many things both in respect of Ecclesiastical persons and affairs therefore many cases concerning the Kings of England with such consent of inferior Councils or Church-governors erecting or translating Bishopricks c. instanc'd in by D. Hammond or Bishop Bramhall are justifiable where any wore not contrary to the Laws of the Church i. e. of superior Councils but in any other examples where such Laws are transgressed either by the Prince or also by their particular Clergy the proving such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done tho such acts were done without any express or present controul Things being thus explain'd I say to give a particular instance of the former proposition No Prince or Emperor Heathen or Christian c. can for his own Dominions dissolve or abrogate the authority concerning Ecclesiastical affairs of those Patriarchs or Primates constituted or confirm'd in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice the Church not commanding obedience to Patriarchs at random or to such as the Secular Prince should set over us but also nominating and constituting from time to time the Sees which had or should have such preeminence if these be since by no other General Council revers'd nor can any who by that Canon is subjected for instance to the Patriarch of Alexandria deny obedience in such Ecclesiastical matters to him without Schism tho his Secular Prince should command the contrary or subject him to another And if these things here said be true then also so far as the Bishop of Rome's Authority is found to be confirm'd in matters Spiritual by the Church's Canons and ancient custom over any Churches Provincial or National it will be Schism for any such Christian Prince or People to oppose it so long till the like Council reverseth it Hence to those three pretended rights of the Roman Bishop over the Church of England whereby Schism is said to be incurr'd mention'd by Dr. Hammond see Schism p. 138. namely his right 1. As St Peter's Successor or 2. By conversion of the Nation to Christianity or 3. By the voluntary concession of Kings I suppose I may add a 4th with his good leave namely his right by ancient Constitutions and Canons of the Church and may rightly affirm that if any such right could be prov'd the English Clergy must be Schismaticks in opposing it tho all the other pretences be overthrown For such a sort of Schism Dr. Hammond mentions p. 66. It may be observ'd indeed in our writers That they freely determine 1. That the Secular Prince hath a just external authority in Ecclesiastical affairs committed to him by God to enforce the execution of the Church's Canons upon all as well Clergy as Laity within his Dominions a thing denied by none 2. Again That the Secular Prince hath no internal Ecclesiastical authority delegated to him by God as to Administer the Sacraments to Absolve Excommunicate c. 3. Again That the Secular Prince hath no just authority to determine any thing concerning Divine Truths or perhaps other Ecclesiastical affairs without the Clergy's help and assistances But whether such Ecclesiastical Determinations or Laws are obligatory when the Prince makes these being assisted only with some small portion of the Clergy and oppos'd by the rest or also by a superior Council or Court Ecclesiastical Or whether the Prince against these provided that he have some lesser number of Clergy on his side may reverse former Canons or enact new to oblige the Clergy and Laity under his Dominion This they seem to me not freely to speak to most what to pass over and some of our later Writers when they are forc'd upon it rather to deny it And indeed neither is there any thing in the Oath of the King's Supremacy except it be in that general clause I will defend all Jurisdictions c. granted nor in the 37 Article of the Church of England which treats of the King's power in Ecclesiasticals that may seem to affirm or determine it For whereas the Oath in general makes the King only supreme Governor in Ecclesiasticals he may be so for some thing and yet not for every thing not therefore the supreme decider of all Divinity controversies And whereas the 34th Article expounds the Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All this he may do and yet be ty'd in all things to the Laws of the Church and to leave to the Church's sole judgment who are evil-doers or Heretical persons c. when any controversie ariseth in Divine matters about the lawfulness of some Practice or truth of some Tenet § 39 Now let us search therefore how far the concessions of Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Hammond may extend to the confirmation of the foresaid assertions The Concessions of B. Bramhall und of Dr. Hammond in this matter The Bishop Vindic. c. 8. p. 232. hath this proposition
Nations who having made resistance to their Patriareh in some injunctions conceived by them not Canonical yet continue still their obedience in the rest Consider the late contest of the State of Venice and the present opposals both of France and Spain in some matters See Vind. 7. c. How can the Bishop then reasonably make use of those examples wherein Vindic. 7. c. he hath copiously shewed other Princes casting off the Pope's usurpations and oppressions to have retained still submission to his Supremacy to prove or countenance that Hen. 8. might lawfully cast off both those and also his Supremacy Especially since it cannot be shewed but that it is absolutely in his power who hath the sword to cast off only so much as he pleaseth and retain the rest Unless the sword in England cannot divide usurpations and lawful rights as beyond the Seas now it doth and did here before Hen. 8. but must necessarily cut off both at once As this p. 253 When a Steward chosen in trust by his fellow-servants violates his trust and usurps a dominion c it is not want of duty but fidelity for such servants to substract their obedience from him But what when most of the servants say he doth no such thing in those matters wherein the rest accuse him and therefore continue their obedience to him and also the Master of the house for the peace of his family hath ordered that the rest in all differences shall be swayed with the votes of the major part shall not this small part in departing from the whole and rejecting their governour and setting up another Steward of their own or every one assuming to be his own Master be held guilty of making a division in the family So p. 129. and p. 134. Many extortions and rapines and violations of rights both Civil and Ecclesiastical committed by such Patriarchs are urged But will these things done contrary to the Canon make a rejection of Canonical obedience to such authority lawful Is it a good argument against a King He hath bin tyrannous or done many things against law therefore depose him and his succession or hereafter yeild him no obedience where due by the laws Or against Bishops They have usurped some unjust power or otherways much violated their function therefore root out Episcopacy and yeild no more tho never so Canonical obedience unto them Thus as we have measured to others it hath bin meted to us again But if it be meant That obedience such as is Canonical to Patriarchs infers the violation of any civil rights the contrary I think is shewed elsewhere in Authority of Clergy derived from Christ more at large whither I remit you tho perhaps this may be enough to answer it That General Councils who made the Canons were of the contrary opinion to him Nay if it should be said that such preeminences as not the Canon but only some of the Roman writers more obsequious to the Papacy give to the Bishop of Rome are injurious to Civil rights yet the Bishop himself after some vehemency against them seems to wipe off this aspersion in saying thus Vindic. 8. c. p. 243. The best is that they who give these exorbitant priviledges to Popes do it with so many cautions and reservations that they such priviledges as they give him signify nothing and may be taken away with as much ease as they are given Which afterward he shews in the particulars of his Infallibility and his temporal power Did Popes practise therefore only what these write much wrong could not be done Again in his Replication to Bishop of Chalced. p. 230. t is urged That to whom a Kingdom is granted all necessary Power is granted without which a Kingdom cannot be governed and p. 238. that had the Britannick Churches bin subjected to the Bishop of Rome by General Councils yet it had bin lawful for the King and Church of England to substract their obedience from the Bishop of Rome and to have erected a new Primate at home amongst themselves upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire and great variation of affairs since those times For to persist saith he p. 241. in an old observation when the grounds of it are quite changed and the end for which the observation was made calleth upon us for an alteration is not obedience but obstinacy And p. 243. We pursue the same ends with them i. e. General Councils that is the conforming of the one regiment i. e. the Ecclesiastical to the other i. e. the Civil Thus he for Princes taking away the Bish of Rome's authority supposing General Councils had conferred any upon him Yet p. 293. speaking of that clause in the oath of Supremacy that no foreign Prelates ought to have any jurisdiction within this realm he saith A General Council is neither included here nor intended To which t is easily answered That there is no Church-canon detracting from Princes any of that power without which a Kingdom is not governable that the division of one Empire into many Dominions doth not necessarily require any alteration of the Oeconomy of the Church as appears in those States which conforming to these Canons still subsist and flourish without any disturbance of the civil peace But Quaere whether the throwing-off these Canons hath not bin the destruction of a Kingdom whose ruin took its beginning from divisions in Religion That the Church's end in constituting I say not of Metropolitans or Primats but of superior Patriarchs above them and of an Ecclesiastical Supreme to whom from several countreys might be the last appeal of greater controversies in Religion was not the conforming of the Ecclesiastical government to the Civil which end the Bishop pleads but the conserving of the Church tho sojourning under never so many temporal Scepters still as one body and government united in it self free from being divided and cantonized Which end is frustrated if so many Princes as there are there become so many independent Ecclesiastical Supremes Nay but rather the more the Civil Governments are multiplied the more need there is in the Church of but one or a few Supremes That there may not be so many modes or sects in Christianity as there are Princes So Vindic. p 145. Many inconveniences by foreign jurisdiction are urged That as the Bishops of Rome exercised it it was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical discipline which discipline in part is to preserve publick peace and tranquillity to retain subjects in due obedience and to oblige people to do their duties more conscientiously See likewise p. 146. To the actual exercise of the foreign jurisdiction of Patriarchs I have nothing to say as one Patriarch may use it culpably so the next may use it justly But the foreignness of the jurisdiction is no way guilty of the things here objected Nay where are these ends of discipline more failed than where this Patriarchal jurisdiction hath bin banished Do not we see in other Kingdoms
not deserting the Patriarch the things above-named both Royalty and Episcopacy peace in the State and in the Church of such countreys better preserved What former Prince or Clergy of this Kingdom under the Patriarch's obedience take him with all his faults have suffered more than these in our days have done since that yoke broken What subject trained up in his Principles hath bin so disobedient But 2ly Is any one free from a Law or Canon to eject it when he can give some reason that it is inconvenient Or did not the wisdom of those who established such Canons and such subordination to Patriarchs see their jurisdiction for example in respect of Africk to be foreign and weigh the inconveniences thereof as well as we now do but they weighed these together with the benefits serving for preserving unity for doing more entire justice being less engaged for deciding controversies more truly being persons of more eminent wisdom enabled with a more selected Council c. See before § 14. And now have other Nations lost their reason who notwithstanding the foreignness of the jurisdiction in obedience to the Church-canons submit to this power But what if a Patriarch should change the Bible into an Alcoran as he urgeth elsewhere Reply to Bishop of Chalced. should in Spiritual matters misguide us I answer when you can find any to obey who may not be faulty in his government leave the Patriarch and go to him Are we more secure then under the Supremacy of a Secular power or of some other Archbishop What if the Secular power throw down Bishops destroy the publick Liturgies silence the orthodox Ministry c And what if the Archbishop change the Bible or will we be our own Supreams and blot out the name of Canonical obedience § 43 In the next place Dr. Hammond's plea Schism 6. c. p. 115. seems to me not true nor his proofs and instances sufficient and the assertion in the consequences thereof dangerous to the government and unity of the Church Catholick where he saith That it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchats or to translate them from one city to another And therefore saith he whatever title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first plantation of the Gospel here whatever I will therefore suppose his title to have bin from ancient Church-canon and custom whereby he hath bin confirmed Patriarch of the Western Provinces I say not that such a thing was now but suppose such a thing were this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate independently from any foreign Bishop I say this Thesis seems to me very untrue if he mean That Princes may do any such thing by their own just power without the authoritative concurrence of the Church or contrary to her former Canons and ancient Customs as his instancing in Ravenna and Justiniana prima and Carthage and Grado formerly under the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch imply that he means thus For example I say it is not lawful supposing ancient Canons or immemorial custom to use his own word of the Church had made the Roman Bishop Patriarch of the West or of France for the King of France either with or without the consent of his own particular Clergy within his Dominions to erect a new Patriarchate or elect another Patriarch This I think is plain from the Discourse and the Concessions preceding And he seems to say the like himself Answer to Schism Disarm'd p. 164. A power Princes have to erect Metropoles but if it be exercis'd so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Thus he But how it coheres with what else is said there I see not But if secular Princes have such power to set up Patriarchs within their own Dominions I ask whether General Councils have not also the same and that within the same Dominions of Secular Princes Will he deny this power to Councils or at least their power to do it within the Secular Prince's Dominions But then the Church hath no power to do it at all For where are the Church's Subjects for whom she makes Laws as she thinks fit but under the government of some or orther Secular Power But the contrary of these things is most evident and many are her canons to this purpose The Council of Chalcedon the same upon two Canons of which Balsamon founds and by which the Doctor proves this authority of Princes to make Patriarchs did erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy next to Rome which also was done before by Conc. Constant 1. but not confirm'd by the Roman and Occidental Bishops and this not only to an empty Dignity or precedency in place but to a real jurisdiction over some of the Emperor's Provinces to receiving and judging appeals c. see Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. and Can. 9. and 16. And when the Bishop of Rome much opposed this Act of the Council the Emperor then making Constantinople the Seat of his Empire and much desiring the advancement of its Bishop yet appeared not at all in this promoting of him nor claim'd any such right as due to him tho this happen'd long after Valentinian is pretended to have advanc'd Ravenna to a Patriarchship and independency on Rome Nor the Council in their Letter to Leo see Act. 3. pleaded any such power as belonging to the Emperor at all but to themselves only they say Nos carantes tam piissimos Christi amicos Imperatores qui super hoc delectantur quam clarissimum senatum c. and sic enim pii Principes complacebunt c. This power then cannot with any modesty be deny'd to Councils If both of them then have this power and that in the same place as I have shew'd it must be what if they disagree Suppose the one gives Rome jurisdiction over Ravenna the other exempts it and makes Ravenna supreme for it self who must be obey'd If the Prince may reverse what the Council hath done then their Canons in these Spiritual matters are subordinate to his Edicts then Sedes Romana in omnibus per omnia prima Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. holds no longer than during the Emperor's pleasure Then why so much courting Leo's consent for a thing in the Emperor's gift Or doth Dr. Hammond here mean only a power in Princes to make some inferior Patriarchs subordinate not only in Dignity but Jurisdiction to these supreme ones as the name of Patriarchs in some times hath been communicated to inferior Bishops But then this Thesis of his if true will serve little to his purposes as long as he leaves his Patriarchs under the yoke of a superior You see how I cast about and yet cannot set these
things streight The Doctors proofs for what he saith are these § 44 The Emperor Justinian's erecting Justiniana Prima into a Patriarchate with independency on Rome and afterward Carthage to the like priviledges And the Emperor Valentinian's constituting Ravenna an independant and Patriarchal Seat To which instances see what I have said before in this Discourse § 30. and what authority the Western Patriarch exercised over the Doctor 's Patriarchs both after Justinian's days and before which argues either them not made Patriarchs in such an independency on any superior as the Doctor imagines or the Emperor's act disobey'd by the Western Patriarch as contrary to the Canons As for the reason he gives to secure the lawfulness thereof Answ to Schism Disarm'd p. 112. because never check'd at nor noted as an intrenchment on the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome that we discern or is pretended either by any Council or by any Bishops of the Church then living It seems many ways insufficient because if there be a Canon prohibiting it hence it will become unlawful and many things may be unlawfully done and yet not actually question'd and condemn'd And again may be condemn'd and yet not this condemnation recorded Yet is there record enough of the condemning of any such Supremacy in those Bishopricks in the authority we find used over them still by the Roman Patriarch Next he urgeth the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon as intimating that this Prince's making Patriarchs was a frequent I suppose he means and allow'd of by the Church usage in the East at that time And after this the 17th Canon Conc. Chalc. and Can. 38. Conc. Constant in Trullo Which Canons he saith Schis p. 119. do more expresly attribute this power to the Prince or yeild it to be a power belonging to the Prince But being a little exagitated for this by the Replier especially when Balsamon whose judgment the Doctor much followeth saith the Church by these Canons conferr'd this power on the Prince he in his Answer to him p. 174 saith thus Whether it were from God immediately conferr'd on them and independantly from the Church or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclined either to enquire or take upon me to determine Now to see what may be deduced from them in this matter of no small moment I will transcribe you these three Canons Conc. Chalc. can 12. Pervenit ad nos quod quidam praeter Ecclesiasticos ordines affectantes potentiam per pragmaticam sacram i. e. by an Imperial Constitution unam Provinciam in duas dividant ita ut ex hoc inveniantur duo Metropolitani Episcopi in eadem una esse Provincia Statuit ergo sancta Synodus deinceps nihil tale attentari a quolibet Episeopo Eos vero qui tale aliquid attentaverint de proprio gradu cadere Si quae vero antea civitates per pragmaticum alias literis Imperialibus Imperialem Metropolitani nominis honore decoratae sunt nomine solo perfruantur qui Ecclesiam ejus Civitatis regit Episcopus i. e. nomine solo Metropolitani perfruatur Salvis scilicet verae Metropoli privilegiis suis Privilegio Metropolitano Episcopo jure proprio reservato Can. 17. Statutum est or decrevimus alias singularem Ecclesiasticarum rusticas Parochias Per singulas Ecclesias rusticanas Parochias sive possessiones manere immobiles apud eos Episcopos qui eas retinent c. Si vero quaelibet Civitas per authoritatem Imperialem renovata est aut si renovetur in posterum civilibus publicis ordinationibus etiam Ecclesiasticarum Parochianarum sequatur ordinatio In another Copy Si qua vero civitas potestate Imperiali novata est i. e. noviter constructa aut si protinus innovetur civiles dispositiones publicas Ecclesiarum quoque Parochiarum ordines subsequantur Conc. Constant in Trullo can 38. Canonem qui a Patribus factus est referring to this Canon Conc. Chalc. Nos quoque observamus qui sic edicit Si qua civitas a regia potestate innovata est vel innovabitur civilem ac publicam formam Ecclesiasticarum quoque rerum ordo consequatur In the first of these Conc. Chalc. c. 12. there is the Emperor by his Letters making another City upon the ambition and solicitation of the Bishop thereof Metropolitan in a Province wherein there was a Metropolitan already but this fact of the Emperors disallow'd by the Council as a thing against Canon which Canon was as the Doctor acknowledges That there should be but one Metropolitan of one Province and order'd that for the future whatever Bishop sought such a thing should be degraded and for what was already past that the City and Bishop should enjoy the Title of Metropolitan but none of the Priviledges but that these be still retain'd to the former Metropolitan When-as the Doctor pretends it was the Prince's right both to confer the Title and the Priviledges of Metropolitan on what City he pleased One would think then according to this the Doctor saith That the Council if the Bishop were faulty and offended against the Canon in soliciting such a thing should punish him only another person whom they approv'd being substituted in his place to enjoy the rights which the Prince had conferr'd upon it and not that they should by their authority as if these things were in their disposal not in the Prince's continue the Title only and reverse the Priviledges and fix them to their former possessors The Bishop might have been punish'd and yet not the Emperor's act rescinded by them as to the new Metropolitans power or priviledges as it is plain it was Yet Dr. Hammond makes use of this Canon by shewing such things were then done by Princes to prove that suppose the Bishop of Rome were Patriarch of France yet the King of France might lawfully make the Bishop of Paris Patriarch and confer the Pope's priviledges on him This S. W. replying upon his Treatise of Schism wonders at and the Doctor endeavours to clear all in following Balsamon's judgment and distinguishing between the Prince's erecting such a Metropolitanship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own motion when he saith it stands good Or upon base solicitation when the Council it seems may reverse it But I ask when such a thing is done of his own inclination stands it good if against the Canon that there should be but one Metropolitan in one Province if so what means he to say Answ p. 164. A Prince's power to erect Metropoles if exercised so by him as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse And again p. 165. ' Such power stands valid to all effects if duly exercis'd by him without wrong to any i. e. other Metropolitan As for that which is urged from the Canon of a Council held under Alexius Comnenus an Eastern
Emperor after 1080 what is establish'd by such a Synod not General is too weak to overthrow any former rights of the Church Neither is Balsamon's a later Greek Writer's authority much to be stood upon in this controversie Neither speaks he home in this point whether the Patriarch is to admit what the Emperor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he hath represented to the Emperor that it is against the Canons Thus much of the 12th Canon In the 17th Canon and the 38th in Trullo Here is only upon the Emperor's building a new City or perhaps upon his transferring the Civil right and priviledges of having the seats of Judicature c. from one City in a Province unto another and upon this subjecting some other inferior Cities or Towns call'd Parochia's when being the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop see Hammond Schism p. 57. unto it the subjecting also of the Bishops of those Parochiae under that City to the Bishop of that City Where note First that these Canons speak only of the subjecting of Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans where new Cities are builded and not of altering any thing in the jurisdiction of old which the 12th Canon of the same Council so expresly opposeth Secondly Only of subjecting Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans not of subjecting Metropolitans to new Patriarchs nor yet to new Primates For 't is most clear that this very Council that made this Canon never dreamt of any power the Emperor had to erect a new Patriarch as I have shew'd before § 43. and much less Leo the Bishop of Rome who confirm'd these Canons yet vehemently opposed the Council seeking to erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy much more would he have opposed the Emperor Thirdly Whatever priviledge the Emperor here receives methinks their ordering that such a thing should be done subsequatur is far from sounding that they yeilded such a thing to belong to the Emperor by right as Dr. Hammond expounds it Schis p. 119. But then if the Emperor hold such priviledge from the Church the Church when they please may resume this power for so himself argues concerning any priviledges which Secular Princes have formerly conceded to the Bishop of Rome and then hear what the 21th Canon of the 8th General Council saith if we will trust later Councils not far distant in time better to understand the concessions of former Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt inhonorare aut movere a proprio throno tentare Sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare praecipue quidem sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae c. § 45 As for the things mention'd afterward by the Doctor p. 120 c. the power of changing the seat of a Bishop or dividing one Province into many as likewise the presenting of particular persons to several Dignities in the Church which also private Patrons do without claiming any superiority in Church-matters some of which seem of small consequence as to Ecclesiastical affairs Yet are not these things justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority without the approbation first of Church-Governors But the same things may be acted by the Church alone the Prince gain-saying if he be either Heathen or Heretick which also shews his power when orthodox in the regiment of the Church to be only executive and dependent on the Ecclesiastical Magistrate's No persons are or at least ought to be put into any Church-dignities without the authoritative consent and concurrence of the Clergy who if they reject such persons tho presented by Princes as unorthodox or otherwise unfit they cannot be invested in such Offices Hear what the 8th General Council saith of this matter Can. 22. Sancta universalis Synodus definit neminem Laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni vel promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet c. Praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam potestativorum vel caeterorum Laicorum habere conveniat Quisquis autem saecularium principum potentum vel alterius dignitatis Laicae adversus communionem ac consentaneam atque Canonicam electionem Ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit Anathema sit The transplanting of Bishopricks and division of Provinces probably was never order'd by Princes but either first propos'd or assented-to by the Clergy see that instance of Anselm Hammond of Schis p. 122. or upon some more general grant indulgently made to some pious Princes from the chief powers of the Church Tho Historians commonly in relation of such facts mention only the King's power as by whose more apparent and effectual authority such things are put in execution in which things negative arguments that such persons as are not mention'd did not concur especially when they are mention'd to concur in some other acts of the same nature are very fallacious But imagine we once the power of erecting Patriarchies and Primacies and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several priviledges thereof solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince and then this Prince not orthodox a supposition possible and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church strictly tyed in Canonical obedidience to such Superiors and submitting to their judgment and decisions in spiritual matters by which the King may sway the controversies in Religion within his own Dominions what way he pleaseth unless we will imagine there shall be no Ecclesiasticks at all of his own perswasions whom he may surrogate into the places of those who gainsay Such were the times of Constantius And by such violent and uncanonical expulsion and intrusion of Prelates the face of Religion was seen changed and re-changed so often here in England within a few years according to the fancies of the present Prince as if there were in her no certain form of truth And the same thing we have seen done before our eyes in our own days The removing inducting deposing promoting Ecclesiastical persons as the Secular power pleaseth being also a changing of the Church's Doctrine as it pleaseth Thus much to what Dr. Hammond hath said Schis p. 120 c. § 46 Lastly Schis p. 125. he makes three instances in the fact of the Kings of Judah in the fact of St. Paul and in the fact of the Christian Emperors tending to this purpose that their authority is supreme in Ecclesiastical causes as well as Civil and therefore may erect Patriarchies His words there are The authority of Kings is supreme in all sorts of causes even those of the Church as well as Civil as appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the Temple Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. 2 King 18. and Josiah 2 King 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so St. Paul appeal'd from the judgment of the chief Priests to the Tribunal of Caesar So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
thereof and consequently by what is said § 40. to their posterity until a Council of equal authority reverse them 6. Whereas Dr. Hammond thinks to free Prince and People § 60 Laity and Clergy from any submission that former canons may require That the principle upon which Dr. Hammond sets the English clergy nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be erroneous or from any concessions that the clergy or the former or also the present Prince hath made to the Bishop of Rome or to any other Patriarch upon this ground which he builds much upon That it is in the power of Christian Princes within their Dominions to erect or translate Patriarchates For thus he saith Schis p. 115. To put this whole matter out of controversy it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them c. And p. 132. Upon that one ground laid in the former chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchats whatever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdoms will easily be answered And p. 137. The whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the Reign of Hen. 8. the Bishop of Rome had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other And p. 138. The 3d. will appear to have received its determination also by the absoluteness of the power of our Princes and by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchats And p. 140 If the Pope held his Supremacy here in England by the Title of Regal concession as Dr. Hammond holds he did see p. 138. 142. then he may dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellor c. And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the fountaine of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall and communicate it to another And this takes-off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power Which freedom from that obedience immediately clears the whole business of Schism as that is a departure from the obedience of a lawful Superior Thus He. Now I say whereas he builds so much on this ground to remove thereby all difficulties and objections I think I have above by the first Proposition § 38. and by answering his proofs thereof § 43 and also by so many contrary examples brought in the former part of this Discourse sufficiently shewed it to fail him and to be untrue Only here observe one thing concerning this right of Princes That the Doctor it being much pressed by S. W. upon the Doctors quoting some Church-canons for it of which review § 44. That if Princes had any such right they had it not as their proper right independent on the Church or her canons in his answer to this p. 174. seems somewhat uncertain and wavering by what Title Princes hold it His words there are I that meant not to dispute of such mysteries of State desirous to unite the Civil and Ecclesiastical power and not to sow seeds of jealousies and dissensions betwixt them finding the same thing assumed by Kings as their right and yeilded them by the Church to be enjoyed by them thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due but whether it were from God immediately conferred on them and independently from the Church or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclined either to enquire or to take upon me to determin And afterward If it were not formerly the Prince's right but the Churche's then sure it is become so by that donation Now then if Princes should happen to hold this right only from the voluntary concessions of the Church or Councils or particularly from the clause of one canon passed in the Council of Chalcedon upon which canon the Doctor Schis p. 120 confesseth Balsamon a great stickler for Regal authority to found it then I leave to their consideration whether the same reason he pleads upon the instance of former Kings of England conceding Supremacy to the Pope for Princes reversing the donation of their right when they please may not be returned him for the Church or her representative the Council For if the Prince cannot give his right away but so that he may recall and resume it so neither can the Church And then after so many canons in and since Chalcedon reserving to such particular nominated Patriarchs their priviledges the Church of England according with the rest and extending this their jurisdiction over some Princes subjects at least who have the same power and rights as the Kings of England and expresly prohibiting Princes to remove Patriarchs 8. Gen. Counc can 21. where will his plea be § 61 Yet farther but in what I shall say now I will not be too peremptory That some rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterwards be justly resumed suppose the erecting and translating Patriarchates to be the Prince's right and that originally yet it may be such a right as once parted with cannot be resumed by the former owner For such rights there are as once passed away are not to be retracted and such as we may alienate not only from our selves but from our successors if such be the purpose of our donation And why this right may not be numbred amongst such I yet seek a reason If it be said the King cannot divest himself of such a right without which his Regal power which he intends to keep to him and his successors entire cannot subsist I willingly grant it But the Regal power may well subsist without the right of constituting or translating Patriarchs For the Regal power is entire in a Prince not Christian yet such Prince hath no power to erect or remove those Patriarchs who have a Spiritual Supremacy over his so many as are Christian Subjects Again the Prince when Christian as now being a Son of the Church must also be subject to some Patriarch i. e. supreme Church-power giving to him Ecclesiastical Laws and if need be inflicting Ecclesiastical censures c. or other and so must also his successor if Christian Neither doth his power to chuse or appoint the person bearing such Office any way lessen such submission so far as it is due neither doth it impose any more submission upon his successor than is due Why therefore this may not be a right alienable and partable with I see not When-as the Kings electing a Spiritual Supreme to be over him seems not to be like the chusing of a Chancellor or other Officers to serve under him as the Doctor compares it Sch. p. 140. but rather like the people's electing a Temporal Soveveraign Now such people in electing such a Temporal Prince transfer not their dominion and power which every single person had before over himself upon him or submit their obedience to him durante beneplacito or quamdiu se bene gesserit bene i. e. in their judgment for so who obeyeth only so long as he pleaseth needs to obey only what he pleaseth for so soon as any thing displeaseth he may change his Governors So to make instance in the matter in hand if Ambrose upon just cause exercise some Ecclesiastical censure upon Theodosius Theodosius may presently remove Ambrose his Metropolitan power to another but we tye them to Allegiance and tell them of their former right now given away and bind the Children and Successors to the act of their Forefathers Thus much of the Authority and Subordinations of the several Ecclesiastical Persons and Orders In the next Part I will proceed to shew you the Authority and Subordinations of these as they are united in several Bodies of Councils FINIS
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