from a stupid Easiness in admitting such a Lieutenancy to our Lord if we do not see exhibited to us manifest and certain Patents assuring its Commission to us We should love the Church better than to yield up its Liberty to the will of a Pretender upon slight or no ground Their boldly claiming such a Power their having sometime usurped such a Power will not excuse them or us Nor will precarious Assumptions or subtile Distinctions or blind Traditions or loose Conjectures serve for probations in such a case § XIX Such demands they cannot wholly balk wherefore for satisfaction to them not finding any better plea they hook in Saint Peter affirming that on him by our Lord there was instated a Primacy over his brethren all the Apostles and the Disciples of our Lord importing all the Authority which they claim and that from him this Primacy was devolved by succession to the Bishops of Rome by right indefectible for all future Ages Which Plea of theirs doth involve these main Suppositions I. That Saint Peter had a Primacy over the Apostles II. That Saint Peter 's Primacy with its Rights and Prerogatives was not personal but derivable to his Successours III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease V. That the Bishops of Rome according to God's institution and by original right derived thence should have an Vniversal Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Christian Church VI. That in fact the Roman Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Sovereign Power VII That this Power is indefectible and unalterable The truth and certainty of these Propositions we shall in order discuss so that it may competently appear whether those who disclaim these Pretences are as they are charged guilty of Heresie and Schism or they rather are liable to the imputations of Arrogancy and Iniquity who do obtrude and urge them A TREATISE OF THE Pope's Supremacy MATTH 10.2 Now the names of the twelve Apostles were these the first Simon who is called Peter AMONG the Modern Controversies there is scarce any of greater consequence than that about Universal Supremacy which the Bishop of Rome claimeth over the Christian Church the assertion whereof on his side dependeth upon divers Suppositions namely these I. That Saint Peter by our Lord's appointment had a Primacy implying a Sovereignty of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Apostles II. That the Rights and Prerogatives of this Sovereignty were not personal but derivable and transmitted to Successours III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease V. That hence of Right to the Bishops of Rome as Saint Peter 's Successours an Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ doth appertain VI. That in Fact the said Bishops continually from Saint Peter 's time have enjoyed and exercised this Power VII That this Power is indefectible such as by no means can be forfeited or fail In order to the discussion and resolution of the first Point I shall treat upon the Primacy of Saint Peter endeavouring to shew what Primacy he was capable of or might enjoy what he could not pretend to nor did possess SUPPOSITION I. The first Supposition of those who claim Universal Jurisdiction to the Pope over the Church is That Saint Peter had a primacy over the Apostles IN order to the resolution of this Point we may consider that there are several kinds of Primacy which may belong to a person in respect of others for there are 1. A Primacy of Worth or Personal Excellency 2. A Primacy of Reputation and Esteem 3. A Primacy of Order or bare Dignity and Precedence 4. A Primacy of Power or Jurisdiction To each of these what title Saint Peter might have let us in order examine I. As for the first of these a Primacy of Worth or Merit as some of the Ancients call it we may well grant it to Saint Peter admitting that probably he did exceed the rest of his Brethren in personal endowments and capacities both natural and moral qualifying him for the discharge of the Apostolical Office in an eminent manner particularly that in quickness of apprehension in boldness of spirit in readiness of speech in charity to our Lord and zeal for his Service in resolution activity and industry he was transcendent may seem to appear by the tenour of the Evangelical and Apostolical Histories in the which we may observe him upon all occasions ready to speak first and to make himself the mouth as the Fathers speak of the Apostles in all deliberations nimble at propounding his advice in all undertakings forward to make the onset being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always hot and eager always prompt and vigorous as S. Chrysostome often affirmeth concerning him these things are apparent in his demeanour and it may not be amiss to set down some instances When our Lord observing the different apprehensions men had concerning him asked the Apostles but whom say ye that I am up starteth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he skippeth forth and preventeth the rest crying Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God The other Apostles were not ignorant of the Point for they at their Conversion did take Jesus for the Messias which even according to the common Notion of the Iews did imply his being the Son of God Nathanael that is Saint Bartholomew as is supposed had in terms confessed it the whole company upon seeing our Lord walk on the Sea had avowed it Saint Peter before that in the name of them all had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have believed and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of the living God They therefore had the same Faith but he from a special alacrity of spirit and expedition in utterance was more forward to declare it He was more hot saith St. Greg. Naz. than the rest at acknowledging Christ. When our Saviour walked on the Sea who but He had the Faith and the Courage to venture on the Waters towards him When our Lord was apprehended by the Souldiers presently up was his spirit and out went his Sword in defence of him When our Lord predicted that upon his coming into trouble all the Disciples would be offended and desert him he was ready to say Though all men shall be offended because of thee yet will I never be offended and Though I should dye with thee yet will I not deny thee such was his natural courage and confidence When our Lord was discoursing about his Passion he suddenly must be advising in the case and urging him to spare himself upon which St. Chrysostome biddeth us to consider not that his answer was unadvised but that it came from a genuine and fervent affection And at the Transfiguration he
absolute Monarch upon earth for the Power of St. Peter in their opinion was the same which now the Roman Bishop doth challenge to himself over the Pastours and People of God's Church by virtue of succession to him Saint Peter's Power being the base of the Papal and therefore not narrower than its superstructure but what domination comparable to that hath ever been used in the world What Emperour did ever pretend to a rule so wide in extent in regard either to persons or matters or so absolute in effect Who ever beside his Holiness did usurp a command not onely over the external actions but the most inward cogitations of all mankind subjecting the very Minds and Consciences of Men to his dictates his laws his censures Who ever thundred Curses and Damnations on all those who should presume to dissent from his Opinion or to contest his pleasure Who ever claimed more absolute Power in making abolishing suspending Laws or imposing upon men what he pleased under obligation of Conscience and upon extremest penalties What Prince ever used a style more imperious than is that which is usual in the Papal Bulls Let it be lawfull for no man whatever to infringe this expression of our will and command or to goe against it with bold rashness What Domitian more commonly did admit the appellation of Lord than doth the Pope Our most Holy Lord is the ordinary style attributed to him by the Fathers of Trent as if they were his slaves and intended to enslave all Christendom to him Who ever did exempt his Clients and Dependents in all Nations from subjection to Civil Laws from undergoing common burthens and taxes from being judged or punished for their misdemeanours and crimes Who ever claimed a power to dispose of all things one way or other either directly or indirectly to dispose even of Kingdoms to judge Sovereign Princes and to condemn them to depose them from their authority absolving their Subjects from all allegiance to them and exposing their Kingdoms to rapine To whom but a Pope were ever ascribed prerogatives like those of judging all men and himself being liable to no judgment no account no reproof or blame so that as a Papal Canon assureth us let a Pope be so bad as by his negligence and male-administration to carry with him innumerable people to Hell yet no mortal man whatever must presume here to reprove his faults because he being to judge all men is himself to be judged of no man except he be catcht swerving from the Faith which is a case they will hardly suffer a man to suppose possible To whom but to a Pope was such Power attributed by his followers and admitted by himself that he could hear those words applying to him All Power is given to thee in Heaven and in Earth Such Power the Popes are wont to challenge and when occasion serveth do not fail to execute as Successours of St. Peter to whom therefore consequently they ascribe it and sometimes in express terms as in that brave apostrophe of P. Gregory VII the Spirit of which Pope hath possessed his Successours generally Goe to therefore said he directing his Speech to Saint Peter and Saint Paul most Holy Princes of the Apostles and what I have said confirm by your Authority that now at length all men may understand whether ye can bind and loose that also ye can take away and give on Earth Empires Kingdoms and whatever mortal men can have Now if the assuming and exercising such Powers be not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that exalting ones self that being called Rabbi Father Master which our Lord prohibiteth what is so what then can those words signify what could our Lord mean The Authority therefore which they assign to Saint Peter and assume to themselves from him is voided by those Declarations and Precepts of our Lord the which it can hardly be well conceived that our Lord would have proposed if he had designed to constitute Saint Peter in such a Supremacy over his Disciples and Church 7. Surveying particulars we shall not find any peculiar administration committed to Saint Peter nor any privilege conferred on him which was not also granted to the other Apostles Was Saint Peter an Ambassadour a Steward a Minister a Vicar if you please or Surrogate of Christ so were they by no less immediate and express warrant than he for As the Father sent me so also I send you said our Lord presently before his departure by those words as St. Cyprian remarketh granting an equal Power to all the Apostles and We saith Saint Paul are Ambassadours for Christ we pray you in Christ's stead be reconciled to God and So let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God Was Saint Peter a Rock on which the Church was to be founded Be it so but no less were they all for the Wall of Jerusalem which came down from Heaven had twelve foundations on which were inscribed the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb and We saith Saint Paul are all built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Christ himself being the chief Corner stone whence Equally saith St. Hierome the strength of the Church is setled upon them Was Saint Peter an Architect of the Spiritual house as himself calleth the Church so were also they for I saith Saint Paul as a wise Master-builder have laid the Foundation Were the Keys of the Church or of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to him So also were they unto them They had a Power to open and shut it by effectual instruction and persuasion by dispensation of the Sacraments by exercise of Discipline by exclusion of scandalous and heretical Persons Whatever faculty the Keys did import the Apostles did use it in the foundation guidance and government of the Church and did as the Fathers teach impart it to those whom they did in their stead constitute to feed and govern the Church Had Saint Peter a Power given him of binding and loosing effectually So had they immediately granted by our Saviour in as full manner and couched in the same terms If thou shalt bind on Earth it shall be bound in Heaven said our Lord to him and Whatsoever things ye shall bind on Earth they shall be bound in Heaven said the same Divine mouth to them Had he a privilege to remit and retain sins it was then by virtue of that common grant or promise Whos 's soever sins ye remit they shall be remitted and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained Had he power and obligation to feed the Sheep of Christ all or some so had they indefinitely and immediately so had others by Authority derived from them who were nominated Pastours who had this charge laid on them Take heed unto your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost
perplexities in story it is reasonable to understand those of the Ancients who call Peter Bishop of Rome and Rome the place the Chair the See of Peter as meaning that he was Bishop or Superintendent of that Church in a large sense because he did found the Church by converting men to the Christian Faith because he did erect the Chair by ordaining the first Bishops because he did in virtue both of his Apostolical Office and his special parental relation to that Church maintain a particular inspection over it when he was there which notion is not new for of old Ruffinus affirmeth that he had it not from his own invention but from Tradition of others Some saith he inquire how seeing Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clement Clement himself writing to James could say that the See was delivered to him by Peter whereof this reason has been given us viz. that Linus and Cletus were indeed Bishops of Rome before Clement but Peter being yet living viz. that they might take the Episcopal charge but he fulfill'd the Office of the Apostleship 6. This notion may be confirmed by divers observations It is observable that the most ancient Writers living nearest the fountains of Tradition do not expresly style Saint Peter Bishop of Rome but onely say that he did found that Church instituting and ordaining Bishops there as the other Apostles did in the Churches which they setled so that the Bishops there in a large sense did succeed him and deriving their power from his ordination and supplying his room in the instruction and governance of that great Church Yea their words if we well mark them do exclude the Apostles from the Episcopacy Which words the later Writers who did not foresee the consequence nor what an exorbitant superstructure would be raised on that slender bottom and who were willing to comply with the Roman Bishops affecting by all means to reckon Saint Peter for their predecessour did easily catch and not well distinguishing did call him Bishop and St. Paul also so making two Heads of one Church 7. It is also observable that in the recensions of the Roman Bishops sometimes the Apostles are reckoned in sometimes excluded So Eusebius calleth Clemens the third Bishop of Rome yet before him he reckoneth Linus and Anacletus And of Alexander he saith that he deduced his Succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul that is excluding the Apostles And Hyginus is thus accounted sometime the eighth sometime the ninth Bishop of Rome The same difference in reckoning may be observed in other Churches for instance although Saint Peter is called no less Bishop of Antioch than of Rome by the Ancients yet Eusebius saith that Evodius was first Bishop of Antioch and another bids the Antiocheans remember Evodius who was first entrusted with the Presidency over them by the Apostles Other instances may be seen in the Notes of Cotellerius upon the Apostolical Constitutions where he maketh this general Observation 'T is an usual custome with the Apostles according to their Power ordinary or extraordinary Episcopal or Apostolical to prefix c. but it was needless to suppose these two Powers when one was sufficient it virtually containing the other This is an Argument that the Ancients were not assured in opinion that the Apostles were Bishops or that they did not esteem them Bishops in the same notion with others 8. It is observable that divers Churches did take denomination from the Apostles and were called Apostolical Thrones or Chairs not because the Apostles themselves did sit Bishops there but because they did exercise their Apostleship in teaching and in constituting Bishops there who as Tertullian saith did propagate the Apostolical seed So was Ephesus esteemed because Saint Paul did found it and ordain Timothy there and because Saint John did govern and appoint Bishops there So was Smyrna accounted because Polycarpus was setled there by the Apostles or by Saint John So Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem had a controversie about metropolitical rights with Acacius Bishop of Caesarea as presiding in an Apostolical See So Alexandria was deemed because Saint Mark was supposed by the appointment of Saint Peter to sit there So were Corinth Thessalonica Philippi called by Tertullian because Saint Paul did found them and furnish them with Pastours in which respect peculiarly the Bishops of those places were called Successours of the Apostles So Constantinople did assume the title of an Apostolical Church probably because according to tradition St. Andrew did found that Church although Pope Leo I. would not allow it that appellation Upon the same account might Rome at first be called an Apostolical See although afterward the Roman Bishops did rather pretend to that denomination upon account of Saint Peter being Bishop there and the like may be said of Antioch 9. It is observable that the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions reciting the first Bishops constituted in several Churches doth not reckon any of the Apostles particularly not Peter or Paul or John 10. Again any Apostle wherever he did reside by virtue of his Apostolical Office without any other designation or assumption of a more special Power was qualifyed to preside there exercising a Superintendency comprehensive of all Episcopal functions so that it was needless that he should take upon himself the character or style of a Bishop This beside the tenour of ancient Doctrine doth appear from the demeanour of Saint John who never was reckoned Bishop of Ephesus nor could be without displacing Timothy who by Saint Paul was constituted Bishop there or succeeding in his room yet he abiding at Ephesus did there discharge the Office of a Metropolitan governing the Churches and in the adjacent Churches here constituting Bishops there forming whole Churches otherwhere allotting to the Clergy Persons designed by the Spirit Such Functions might Saint Peter execute in the parts of Rome or Antioch without being a Bishop and as the Bishops of Asia did saith Tertullian refer their original to Saint John so might the Bishops of Italy upon the like ground refer their original to Saint Peter It is observable that whereas Saint Peter is affirmed to have been Bishop of Antioch seven years before his access to Rome that is within the compass of Saint Luke's story yet he passeth over a matter of so great moment as St. Hierome observeth I cannot grant that if Saint Luke had thought Peter Sovereign of the Church and his Episcopacy of a place a matter of such consequence he would have slipped it over being so obvious a thing and coming in the way of his story He therefore I conceive was no Bishop of Antioch although a Bishop at Antioch 11. If in objection to some of these discourses it be alledged that Saint James our Lord 's near Kinsman although he was an Apostle was made Bishop of Jerusalem and that
for the like reason Saint Peter might assume the Bishoprick of Rome I answer 1. It is not certain that Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem was an Apostle meaning an Apostle of the primary rank for Eusebius the greatest Antiquary of old times doth reckon him one of the 70 disciples So doth the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions in divers places suppose Hegesippus that most ancient Historian was of the same mind who saith that there were many of this name and that this James did undertake the Church with the Apostles Of the same opinion was Epiphanius who saith that Saint James was the Son of Joseph by another Wife The whole Greek Church doth suppose the same keeping three distinct solemnities for him and the two Apostles of the same name Gregory Nyssene St. Hierome and divers other ancient Writers do concur herein whom we may see alledged by Grotius Dr. Hammond who themselves did embrace the same opinion Valesius Blondel c. Salmasius after his confident manner saith it is certain that he was not one of the twelve I may at least say it is not certain that he was and consequently the objection is grounded on an uncertainty 2. Granting that Saint James was one of the Apostles as some of the Ancients seem to think calling him an Apostle and as divers modern Divines conceive grounding chiefly upon these words of Saint Paul But other of the Apostles saw I none save James the Lord's Brother and taking Apostles there in the strictest sense I answer That the case was peculiar and there doth appear a special reason why one of the Apostles should be designed to make a constant residence at Jerusalem and consequently to preside there like a Bishop For Jerusalem was the Metropolis the Fountain the Centre of the Christian Religion where it had birth where was greatest matter and occasion of propagating the Gospel most people disposed to embrace it resorting thither where the Church was very numerous consisting as St. Luke or Saint James in him doth intimate of divers myriads of believing Jews whence it might seem expedient that a person of greatest Authority should be fixed there for the confirming and improving that Church together with the propagation of Religion among the people which resorted thither the which might induce the Apostles to settle Saint James there both for discharging the Office of an Apostle and the supplying the room of a Bishop there According to him saith Eusebius The Episcopal Throne was committed by the Apostles or our Lord saith Epiphanius did entrust him with his own Throne But there was no need of fixing an Apostle at other places nor doth it appear that any was so fixed especially Saint Peter was uncapable of such an employment requiring settlement and constant attendance who beside his general Apostleship had a peculiar Apostleship of the dispersed Jews committed to him who therefore was much engaged in travel for propagation of the Faith and edifying his Converts every where 3. The greater consent of the most ancient Writers making St. Iames not to have been one of the twelve Apostles it is thence accountable why as we before noted Saint James was called by some ancient Writers the Bishop of Bishops the Prince of Bishops c. because he was the first Bishop of the first See and Mother Church the Apostles being excluded from the comparison Upon these considerations we have great reason to refuse the assertion or scandal cast on Saint Peter that he took on him to be Bishop of Rome in a strict sense as it is understood in this controversie SUPPOSITION V. A father Assertion is this superstructed by consequence on the former That the Bishops of Rome according to God's institution and by original right derived thence should have an Vniversal Supremacy and jurisdiction containing the privileges and prerogatives formerly described over the Christian Church THIS Assertion to be very uncertain yea to be most false I shall by divers considerations evince 1. If any of the former Suppositions be uncertain or false this Assertion standing on those legs must partake of those defects and answerably be dubious or false If either Peter was not Monarch of the Apostles or if his privileges were not successive or if he were not properly Bishop of Rome at his decease then farewell the Romish claim if any of those things be dubious it doth totter if any of them prove false then down it falleth But that each of them is false hath I conceive been sufficiently declared that all of them are uncertain hath at least been made evident The Structure therefore cannot be firm which relieth on such props 2. Even admitting all those Suppositions the inference from them is not assuredly valid For Saint Peter might have an Universal Jurisdiction he might derive it by Succession he might be Bishop of Rome yet no such Authority might hence accrue to the Roman Bishop his Successour in that See For that Universal Jurisdiction might be derived into another Chanel and the Bishop of Rome might in other respects be Successour to him without being so in this As for instance in the Roman Empire before any Rule of Succession was established therein the Emperour was Sovereign Governour and he might dye Consul of Rome having assumed that place to himself yet when he dyed the Supreme Authority did not lapse into the hands of the Consul who succeeded him but into the hands of the Senate and People his Consular Authority onely going to his Successour in that Office So might Saint Peter's Universal Power be transferred unto the Ecclesiastical College of Bishops and of the Church his Episcopal inferiour Authority over the singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province of Rome being transmitted to his Followers in that Chair 3. That in truth it was thus and that all the Authority of Saint Peter and of all other Apostles was devolved to the Church and to the representative Body thereof the Fathers did suppose affirming the Church to have received from our Lord a Sovereign Power This saith St. Cyprian is that One Church which holdeth and possesseth all the power of its Spouse and Lord in this we preside for the honour and unity of this we fight saith he in his Epistle to Jubaianus wherein he doth impugn the proceedings of Pope Stephanus the which Sentence St. Austin appropriateth to himself speaking it absolutely without citing St. Cyprian To this Authority of the Church St. Basil would have all that confess the faith of Christ to submit To which end we exceedingly need your assistence that they who confess the Apostolick faith would renounce the schisms which they have devised and submit themselves henceforth to the Authority of the Church They after the Holy Scripture which saith that each Bishop hath a care of God's Church and is obliged to feed the Church of God and is appointed to edify the body of Christ do suppose the administration
of Ecclesiastical Affairs concerning the publick state of the Church the defence of the common Faith the maintenance of order peace and unity jointly to belong unto the whole body of Pastours according to that of St. Cyprian to Pope Stephanus himself Therefore most dear brother the body of Priests is copious being joined together by the glue of mutual concord and the bond of unity that if any of our College shall attempt to make heresie and to tear or waste the flock of Christ the rest may come to succour and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may recollect the sheep into the flock And again Which thing it concerns us to look after and redress most dear brother who bearing in mind the divine clemency and holding the scales of the Church-government c. So even the Roman Clergy did acknowledge For we ought all of us to watch for the body of the whole Church whose members are digested through several Provinces Like the Trinity whose power is one and undivided there is one Priesthood among divers Bishops So in the Apostolical Constitutions the Apostles tell the Bishops that an universal Episcopacy is entrusted to them So the Council of Carthage with St. Cyprian Clear and manifest is the mind and meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ sending his Apostles and affording to them alone the power given him of the Father in whose room we succeeded governing the Church of God with the same power Christ our Lord and our God going to the Father commended his Spouse to us A very ancient Instance of which administration is the proceeding against Paulus Samosatenus when the Pastours of the Churches some from one place some from another did assemble together against him as a pest of Christ's flock all of them hastning to Antioch where they deposed exterminated and deprived him of communion warning the whole Church to reject and disavow him Seeing the Pastoral charge is common to us all who bear the Episcopal Office although thou fittest in a higher and more eminent place Therefore for this cause the Holy Church is committed to you and to us that we may labour for all and not be slack in yielding help and assistence to all Hence Saint Chrysostome said of Eustathius his Bishop For he was well instructed and taught by the grace of the Holy Spirit that a President or Bishop of a Church ought not to take care of that Church alone wherewith he is entrusted by the Holy Ghost but also of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world They consequently did repute Schism or Ecclesiastical Rebellion to consist in a departure from the consent of the body of the Priesthood as St. Cyprian in divers places doth express it in his Epistles to Pope Stephen and others They deem all Bishops to partake of the Apostolical Authority according to that of St. Basil to St. Ambrose The Lord himself hath translated thee from the Judges of the Earth unto the Prelacy of the Apostles They took themselves all to be Vicars of Christ and Judges in his stead according to that of St. Cyprian For Heresies are sprung up and Schisms grown from no other ground nor root but this because God's Priest was not obeyed nor was there one Priest or Bishop for a time in the Church nor a Judge thought on for a time to supply the room of Christ. Where that by Church is meant any particular Church and by Priest a Bishop of such Church any one not bewitched with prejudice by the tenour of Saint Cyprian's discourse will easily discern They conceive that our Saviour did promise to Saint Peter the Keys in behalf of the Church and as representing it They suppose the combination of Bishops in peaceable consent and mutual aid to be the Rock on which the Church is built They alledge the Authority granted to Saint Peter as a ground of claim to the same in all Bishops jointly and in each Bishop singly according to his rata pars or allotted proportion Which may easily be understood by the words of our Lord when he says to blessed Peter whose place the Bishops supply Whatsoever c. I have the sword of Constantine in my hands you of Peter said our great King Edgar They do therefore in this regard take themselves all to be Successours of Saint Peter that his power is derived to them all and that the whole Episcopal Order is the Chair by the Lord's voice founded on Saint Peter thus St. Cyprian in divers places before touched discourseth and thus Firmilian from the Keys granted to Saint Peter inferreth disputing against the Roman Bishop Therefore saith he the power of remitting sins is given to the Apostles and to the Churches which they being sent from Christ did constitute and to the Bishops which do succeed them by vicarious ordination 4. The Bishops of any other Churches founded by the Apostles in the Fathers style are Successours of the Apostles in the same sense and to the same intent as the Bishop of Rome is by them accounted Successour of Saint Peter the Apostolical power which in extent was universal being in some sense in reference to them not quite extinct but transmitted by succession yet the Bishops of Apostolical Churches did never claim nor allowedly exercise Apostolical Jurisdiction beyond their own precincts according to those words of St. Hierome Tell me what doth Palestine belong to the Bishop of Alexandria This sheweth the inconsequence of their discourse for in like manner the Pope might be Successour to Saint Peter and Saint Peter's universal power might be successive yet the Pope have no singular claim thereto beyond the bounds of his particular Church 5. So again for instance Saint James whom the Roman Church in her Liturgies doth avow for an Apostle was Bishop of Jerusalem more unquestionably than Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome Jerusalem also was the root and the mother of all Churches as the Fathers of the Second General Synod in their Letter to Pope Damasus himself and the Occidental Bishops did call it forgetting the singular pretence of Rome to that Title Yet the Bishops of Jerusalem Successours of Saint James did not thence claim I know not what kind of extensive Jurisdiction yea notwithstanding their succession they did not so much as obtain a metropolitical Authority in Palestine which did belong to Caesarea having been assigned thereto in conformity to the Civil Government and was by special provision reserved thereto in the Synod of Nice whence St. Jerome did not stick to affirm that the Bishop of Jerusalem was subject to the Bishop of Caesarea for speaking to John Bishop of Jerusalem who for compurgation of himself from errours imputed to him had appealed to Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria he saith Thou hadst rather cause molestation to ears possessed than render honour to thy Metropolitan that is to the Bishop of Caesarea By which
instance we may discern what little consideration sometimes was had of personal or topical succession to the Apostles in determining the extent of Jurisdiction and why should the Roman Bishop upon that score pretend more validly than others 6. Saint Peter probably e'er that he came at Rome did found divers other Churches whereof he was paramount Bishop or did retain a special superintendency over them particularly Antioch was anciently called his See and he is acknowledged to have sate there seven years before he was Bishop of Rome Why therefore may not the Bishop of Antioch pretend to succeed Saint Peter in his universal Pastourship as well as his younger brother of Rome why should Evodius ordained by Saint Peter at Antioch yield to Clemens afterward by him ordained at Rome Antioch was the first-born of Gentile Churches where the name of Christians was first heard Antioch was as the Constantinopolitan Fathers called it the most ancient and truly Apostolical Church Antioch by virtue of Saint Peter's sitting there or peculiar relation to it was according to their own conceits the principal See Why therefore should Saint Peter be so unkind to it as not onely to relinquish it but to debase it not onely transferring his See from it but devesting it of the privilege which it had got Why should he prefer before it the City of Rome the mystical Babylon the mother of abominations of the earth the Throne of Satan's Empire the place which did then most persecute the Christian Faith and was drunk with the bloud of the Saints 7. The ground of this preference was say they Saint Peter's Will and they have reason to say so for otherwise if Saint Peter had died intestate the Elder Son of Antioch would have had best right to all his goods and dignities But how doth that Will appear in what Tables was it written in what Registers is it extant in whose presence did he nuncupate it it is no-where to be seen or heard of Neither do they otherwise know of it than by reasoning it out and in effect they say onely that it was fit he should will it but they may be mistaken in their divinations and perhaps notwithstanding them Saint Peter might will as well to his former See of Antioch as to his latter of Rome 8. Indeed Bellarmine sometimes positively and briskly enough doth affirm that God did command Saint Peter to fix his See at Rome but his proofs of it are so ridiculously fond and weak that I grudge the trouble of reciting them and he himself sufficiently confuteth them by saying other-where It is not unprobable that our Lord gave an express command that Peter should so fix his See at Rome that the Bishop of Rome should absolutely succeed him He saith it is not improbable if it be no more than so it is uncertain it may be a mere conjecture or a dream It is much more not-unprobable that if God had commanded it there would have been some assurance of a command so very important 9. Antioch hath at least a fair plea for a share in Saint Peter's Prerogatives for it did ever hold the repute of an Apostolical Church and upon that score some deference was paid to it why so if Saint Peter did carry his See with all its Prerogatives to another place But if he carried with him onely part of his Prerogative leaving some part behind at Antioch how much then I pray did he leave there why did he divide unequally or leave less than half if perchance he did leave half the Bishop of Antioch is equal to him of Rome 10. Other persons also may be found who according to equal judgment might have a better title to the succession of Peter in his Universal Authority than the Pope having a nearer relation to him than he although his Successour in one charge or upon other equitable grounds For instance Saint John or any other Apostle who did survive Saint Peter for if Saint Peter was the Father of Christians which Title yet our Saviour forbiddeth any one to assume Saint John might well claim to be his eldest Son and it had been a very hard case for him to have been postponed in the succession it had been a derogation to our Lord 's own choice a neglect of his special affection a disparagement of the Apostolical Office for him to be subjected to any other neither could any other pretend to the like gifts for management of that great charge 11. The Bishop of Jerusalem might with much reason have put in his claim thereto as being Successour of our Lord himself who unquestionably was the High-priest of our Profession and Archbishop of all our Souls whose See was the Mother of all Churches wherein St. Peter himself did at first reside exercising his Vicarship If our Lord upon special accounts out of course had put the Sovereignty into Saint Peter's hands yet after his decease it might be fit that it should return into its proper chanel This may seem to have been the judgment of the times when the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions did write who reporteth the Apostles to have ordered Prayers to be made first for James then for Clement then for Evodius 12. Equity would rather have required that one should by common consent and election of the whole Church be placed in Saint Peter's room than that the Bishop of Rome by election of a few Persons there should succeed into it As the whole body of Pastours was highly concerned in that Succession so it was reasonable that all of them should concur in designation of a Person thereto it is not reasonable to suppose that either God would institute or Saint Peter by will should devise a course of proceeding in such a case so unequal and unsatisfactory If therefore the Church considering this equity of the case together with the expediency of affairs in relation to its good should undertake to chuse for its self another Monarch the Bishop of another See who should seem fitter for the place to succeed into the Prerogatives of Saint Peter that Person would have a fairer title to that Office than the Pope for such a Person would have a real title grounded on some reason of the case whenas the Pope's pretence doth onely stand upon a positive Institution whereof he cannot exhibit any Certificate This was the mind of a great man among themselves who saith that if possibly the Bishop of Triers should be chosen for Head of the Church For the Church has free power to provide its self a Head Bellarmine himself confesseth that if Saint Peter as he might have done if he had pleased should have chosen no particular See as he did not for the first five years then after Peter's death neither the Bishop of Rome nor of Antioch had succeeded but he whom the Church should have chosen for it self Now if the Church upon that supposition would have
14. From the Premisses to conclude the Pope's Title to Saint Peter's Authority it is requisite to shew the Power demised by him to be according to God's institution and intent immutable and indefectible for Power built upon the like but far more certain principles hath in course of times and by worldly changes been quite lost or conveyed into other Chanels than those wherein it was first put and that irrecoverably so that it cannot any-wise be retrieved or reduced into the first order For instance Adam was by God constituted Universal Sovereign of mankind and into that Power his eldest Son of right did succeed and so it of right should have been continually propagated Yet soon did that Power fail or was diverted into other courses the world being cantonized into several Dominions so that the Heir at Law among all the descendents of Adam cannot so easily be found as a Needle in a bottle of Hay he probably is a Subject and perhaps is a Peasant So might Saint Peter be Monarch of the Church and the Pope might succeed him yet by revolutions of things by several defaults and incapacities in himself by divers obstructions incident by forfeiture upon encroaching on other mens rights according to that Maxime of a great Pope He loseth his own who coveteth more than his due his Power might be clipped might be transplanted might utterly decay and fail to such fatalities other Powers are subject nor can that of the Pope be exempt from them as otherwhere we shall more largely declare 15. Indeed that God did intend his Church should perpetually subsist united in any one political frame of Government is a principle which they do assume and build upon but can no-wise prove Nor indeed is it true For If the Unity of the Church designed and instituted by God were onely an Unity of Faith of Charity of Peace of fraternal Communion and Correspondence between particular Societies and Pastours then in vain it is to seek for the Subject and Seat of Universal Jurisdiction now that God did not intend any other Unity than such as those specified we have good reason to judge and shall we hope otherwhere sufficiently prove 16. We may consider that really the Sovereign Power such as it is pretended hath often failed there having been for long spaces of time no Roman Bishops at all upon several accounts which is a sign that the Church may subsist without it As 1. When Rome was desolated by the Goths Vandals and Lombards 2. In times when the Romans would not suffer Popes to live with them 3. In case of discontinuance from Rome when the Popes so calling themselves did for above seventy years abide in France when they indeed not being chosen by the Roman People nor exercising Pastoral care over them were onely titular not real Bishops of Rome They were Popes of Avignion not of Rome and Successours of God knows who not of Saint Peter no more than one continually living in England can be Bishop of Jerusalem 4. In times of many long Schisms 22 Schisms when either there was no true Pope or which in effect was the same no one certain one 5. When Popes were intruded by violence whom Baronius himself positively affirmeth to have been no Popes how then could a Succession of true Popes be continued from them by the Clergy which they in virtue of their Papal Authority did pretend to create 6. When Elections had a flaw in them were uncanonical and so null 7. When Popes were Simoniacally chosen who by their own Rules and Laws are no true Popes being Hereticks Heresiarchs The which was done for long courses of time very commonly and in a manner constantly 8. When Popes have been deposed as some by the Emperours others by General Councils in which case according to Papal Principles the Successours were illegal for the Pope being Sovereign he could not be judged or deposed and his Successour is an Usurper 9. When Popes were Heretical that is say they no Popes 10. When Atheists Sorcerers Elections in some of these cases being null and therefore the Acts consequent to them invalid there is probably a defailance of right continued to posterity And probably therefore there is now no true Pope For upon violent intrusion or Simoniacal choice or any usurpation the Cardinals Bishops c. which the Pope createth are not truly such and consequently their Votes not good in the choice of another Pope and so successively These Considerations may suffice to declare the inconsequence of their Discourses even admitting their Assertions which yet are so false or so apparently uncertain I shall in the next place level some Arguments directly against their main Conclusion it self I. My First Argument against this pretence shall be that it is destitute of any good warrant either from Divine or Humane testimony and so is groundless As will appear by the following Considerations I. If God had designed the Bishop of Rome to be for the perpetual course of times Sovereign Monarch of his Church it may reasonably be supposed that he would expresly have declared his mind in the case it being a point of greatest importance of all that concern the administration of his Kingdom in the World Princes do not use to send their Vice Roys unfurnished with Patents clearly signifying their Commission that no man out of ignorance or doubt concerning that point excusably may refuse compliance And in all equity promulgation is requisite to the establishment of any Law or exacting obedience But in all the Pandects of Divine Revelation the Bishop of Rome is not so much as once mentioned either by name or by character or by probable intimation they cannot hook him in otherwise than by streining hard and framing a long Chain of Consequences each of which is too subtile for to constrain any man's persuasion They have indeed found the Pope in the first Chapter of Genesis for if we believe Pope Innocent III. he is one of the two great Luminaries there and he is as plainly there as any where else in the Bible Wherefore if upon this account we should reject this pretence we might doe it justly and for so doing we have the allowance of the ancient Fathers for they did not hold any man obliged to admit any point of Doctrine or rule of Manners which is not in express words or in terms equivalent contained in Holy Scripture or which at least might not thence be deduced by clear and certain inference this their manner of disputing with Hereticks and heterodox People doth shew this appeareth by their way of defining and setling Doctrines of Faith this they often do avow in plain words applicable to our case for If saith St. Austin about Christ or about his Church or about any other thing which concerneth our Faith and Life I will not say We who are no-wise comparable to him who said Although we but even as he going on did
the authority of a Church especially then when no Church did appear to have either Principality or Puissance And that sense may clearly be evinced by the context wherein it doth appear that St. Irenaeus doth not alledge the judicial Authority of the Roman Church but its credible Testimony which thereby became more considerable because Christians commonly had occasions of recourse to it Such a reason of precedence St. Cyprian giveth in another case Because saith he Rome for its magnitude ought to precede Carthage For this reason a Pagan Historian did observe the Roman Bishop had a greater authority that is a greater interest and reputation than other Bishops This reason Theodoret doth assign in his Epistle to Pope Leo wherein he doth highly complement and cajole him for this city saith he is the greatest and the most splendid and presiding over the world and flowing with multitude of people and which moreover hath produced the Empire now governing This is the sole ground upon which the greatest of all ancient Synods that of Chalcedon did affirm the Papal eminency to be founded for to the throne say they of ancient Rome because that was the royal city the Fathers reasonably conferred the privileges the fountain of Papal eminence was in their judgment not any divine Institution not the Authority of Saint Peter deriving it self to his Successours but the concession of the Fathers who were moved to grant it upon account that Rome was the Imperial City To the same purpose the Empress Placidia in her Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith It becometh us to preserve to this city the which is mistress of all lands a reverence in all things This reason had indeed in it much of equity of decency of conveniency it was equal that he should have the preference and more than common respect who was thence enabled and engaged to do most service to Religion It was decent that out of conformity to the State and in respect to the Imperial Court and Senate the Pastour of that place should be graced with repute it was convenient that he who resided in the centre of all business and had the greatest influence upon affairs who was the Emperour's chief Counsellour for direction and Instrument for execution of Ecclesiastical affairs should not be put behind others Hence did the Fathers of the Second General Synod advance the Bishop of Constantinople to the next privileges of honour after the Bishop of Rome because it was new Rome and a Seat of the Empire And the Fathers of Chalcedon assigned equal privileges to the most Holy See of Rome with good reason say they judging that the city which was honoured with the Royalty and Senate and which otherwise did enjoy equal privileges with the ancient Royal Rome should likewise in Ecclesiastical affairs be magnified as it being second after it Indeed upon this score the Church of Constantinople is said to have aspired to the supreme Principality when it had the advantage over old Rome the Empire being extinguished there and sometimes was styled the Head of all Churches It is also natural and can hardly be otherwise but that the Bishop of a chief City finding himself to exceed in wealth in power in advantages of friendships dependencies c. should not affect to raise himself above the level it is an ambition that easily will seise on the most moderate and otherwise religious minds Pope Leo objected it to Anatolius and Pope Gregory to John from his austere life called the Faster Upon the like account it was that the Bishops of other Cities did mount to a preeminency Metropolitane Primatical Patriarchal Thence it was that the Bishop of Alexandria before Constantine's time did acquire the honour of second place to Rome because that City being head of a most rich and populous Nation did in magnitude and opulency as Gregory Nazianzene saith approach next to Rome so as hardly to yield the next place to it Upon that account also did Antioch get the next place as being the most large flourishing commanding City of the East the which as Josephus saith for bigness and for other advantages had without controversie the third place in all the world subject to the Romans and the which St. Chrysostome calleth the head of all cities seated in the East Saint Basil seemeth to call the Church thereof the principal in the world for what saith he can be more opportune to the Churches over the world than the Church of Antioch the which if it should happen to be reduced to concord nothing would hinder but that as a sound head it would supply health to the whole body Upon the same account the Bishop of Carthage did obtain the privilege to be standing Primate of his Province although other Primacies there were not fixed to places but followed Seniority and a kind of Patriarch over all the African Provinces Hence did Caesarea as exceeding in temporal advantages and being the Political Metropolis of Palestine o'ertop Jerusalem that most ancient noble and venerable City the source of our Religion It was indeed the general Rule and practice to conform the privileges of Ecclesiastical dignity in a proportion convenient to those of the secular Government as the Synod of Antioch in express terms did ordain the ninth Canon whereof runneth thus The Bishops in every Province ought to know that the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis doth undertake the care of all the Province because all that have business do meet together in the Metropolis whence it hath been ordained that he should precede in honour and that the Bishops should doe nothing extraordinary without him according to a more ancient Canon holding from our Fathers that is according to the 34th Canon of the Apostles It is true that the Fathers do sometimes mention the Church of Rome being founded by the two great Apostles or the succession of the Roman Bishop to them in Pastoral charge as a special ornament of that Church and a congruous ground of respect to that Bishop whereby they did honour the memory of Saint Peter but even some of those who did acknowledge this did not avow it as a sufficient ground of preeminence none did admit it for an argument of authoritative Superiority St. Cyprian did call the Roman See the chair of Saint Peter and the principal Church yet he disclaimed any authority of the Roman Bishops above his brethren Firmilian did take notice that Pope Stephanus did glory in the place of his Bishoprick and contend that he held the succession of Peter yet did not he think himself thereby obliged to submit to his authority or follow his judgment but sharply did reprehend him as a favourer of Hereticks an authour of Schisms and one who had cut himself off from the communion of his brethren The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did confess that in writings all did willingly honour the Roman
A TREATISE OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY To which is added A DISCOURSE Concerning the Unity of the Church By ISAAC BARROW D. D. Late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge and one of His MAJESTY'S Chaplains in Ordinary The Second Edition Corrected With a TABLE to the Whole LONDON Printed by M. Flesher and J. Heptinstall for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1683. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HENEAGE Earl of Nottingham Lord High CHANCELLOUR OF ENGLAND And one of His MAJESTY'S most Honourable PRIVY COUNCIL THOMAS BARROW the Authour's Father Humbly Dedicateth this TREATISE The Publisher TO THE READER THIS excellent and elaborate Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy which I here present thee withall the learned Authour of it upon his Death-bed gave me particular permission to publish with this modest Character of it that he hoped it was indifferent perfect though not altogether as he intended it if God had granted him longer life He designed indeed to have transcribed it again and to have fill'd up those many spaces which were purposely left in it for the farther confirmation and illustration of several things by more Testimonies and Instances which probably he had in his thoughts And it would certainly have added much to the beauty and perfection of this Work had it pleased God that he had lived to finish it to his mind and to have given it his last hand However as it is it is not onely a just but an admirable Discourse upon this Subject which many others have handled before but he hath exhausted it insomuch that no Argument of moment nay hardly any Consideration properly belonging to it hath escaped his large and comprehensive Mind He hath said enough to silence the Controversie for ever and to deâ—er all wise men of both Sides from medling any farther with it And I dare say that whoever shall carefully peruse this Treatise will find that this Point of the Pope's Supremacy upon which Bellarmine hath the confidence to say the whole of Christianity depends is not onely an indeâ—ensible but an impudent Cause as ever was undertaken by learned Pens And nothing could have kept it so long from becoming ridiculous in the judgment of mankind but its being so strongly supported by a worldly interest For there is not one tolerable Argument for it and there are a thousand invincible Reasons against it There is neither from Scripture nor Reason nor Antiquity any evidence of it The past and the present state of Christendom the Histories and Records of all Ages are a perpetual Demonstration against it And there is no other ground in the whole world for it but that now of a long time it hath been by the Pope's Janizaries boldly asserted and stiffly contended for without reason So that any one might with as much colour and evidence of truth maintain that the Grand Seignior is of right and for many Ages hath been acknowledg'd Sovereign of the whole World as that the Bishop of Rome is of right and in all Ages from the beginning of Christianity hath been own'd to be the Universal Monarch and Head of the Christian Church To this Treatise of The Pope's Supremacy I have for the affinity of the Argument added by way of Appendix another Discourse of the same Authour 's concerning The Unity of the Church which he so explains as quite to take away the necessity of a Visible Head over the whole Church for the preservation of its Unity which is the onely specious but yet a very remote pretence for the Pope's Supremacy For if a Visible Monarch of the Church were granted necessary many things more must be supposed which neither yet are nor ever can be proved to make the Bishop of Rome the Man The Testimonies relating to both Parts were very few of them translated by the Authour which he certainly intended having left spaces for it and is since done with great care by two of his Worthy and Learned Friends of his own College This is all the Advertisement I thought necessary J. Tillotson THE CONTENTS THE Introduction Page 1. The Suppositions upon which the Pope's Supremacy is grounded p. 29. I. That Saint Peter had a Primacy over the Apostles p. 30. II. That Saint Peter's Primacy with its Rights and Prerogatives was not personal but derivable to his Successours p. 76. III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome p. 82. IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease p. 88. V. That the Bishops of Rome according to God's institution and by original right derived thence should have an Vniversal Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Christian Church p. 94. VI. That in fact the Roman Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Sovereign Power p. 185. VII That this Power is indefectible and unalterable p. 271. IMPRIMATUR Ex Aedibus Lamb. Febr. 27. 1678 9. Geo. Thorp Rmo in Christo Patri D no D no Gulielmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris Domesticis A TREATISE OF THE Pope's Supremacy INTRODUCTION § I. THE Roman Party doth much glory in Unity and Certainty of Doctrine as things peculiar to them and which no other men have any means to attain Yet about divers matters of notable consideration in what they agree or of what they are certain it is hard to descry They pretend it very needfull that Controversies should be decided and that they have a special knack of doing it Yet do many Controversies of great weight and consequence stick on their hands unresolved many Points rest in great doubt and debate among them The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Roman Sect concerning Doctrine Practice Laws and Customs of Discipline Rites and Ceremonies are of divers sorts or built on divers grounds 1. Some established by pretended general Synods 2. Some founded on Decrees of Popes 3. Some entertained as upon Tradition Custom common Agreement 4. Some which their eminent Divines or Schoolmen do commonly embrace 5. Some prevailing by the favour of the Roman Court and its zealous Dependents Hence it is very difficult to know wherein their Religion consisteth for those Grounds divers times seem to clash and accordingly their Divines some building on these some on others disagree This being so in many Points of importance is so particularly in this For instance The Head of their Church as they call it is one would think a Subject about which they should thoroughly consent and which they by this time should have cleared from all disputes so that so far as their decisive faculty goeth we might be assured wherein his Authority consisteth and how far it doth extend seeing the resolution of that Point so nearly toucheth the heart of Religion the Faith and Practice of all Christians the good of the Church and peace of the world seeing that no one Question perhaps not all Questions together hath created so many tragical Disturbances in Christendom as that concerning the
nor probably did they desire so much as our Adversaries do give to Saint Peter yet our Lord doth not onely reject their sute but generally declareth that none of them were capable of such a preferment in his Kingdom which therein differed from worldly Dominion because in it there was no room for such an ambition especially in that state of things wherein the Apostles were to be placed which was a state of undergoing Persecutions not of enjoying Dignity or exercising Command all the preferment which they reasonably could aspire to being to be dispenced in the future state whereof they were not aware according to God's preparation in correspondence to the patience and industry any of them should exert in God's service upon which account St. Chrysostome saith it was a clear case that Saint Paul should obtain the preference It was indeed as our Lord intimateth incongruous for those who had forsaken all things for Christ who had embraced a condition of disgrace who were designed by self-denial humility neglect of temporal grandeur wealth and honour by undergoing persecution and undertaking conformity to our Lord being baptized with the baptism with which he was baptized to propagate the Faith of a Crucified Master to seek or take on them authoritative dignity for among them there could not well be any need of commanding or being commanded it was more fit that all of them should conspire to help and serve one another in promoting the common design and service of their Lord with mutual condescension and compliance which was the best way of recommending themselves to his acceptance and obtaining from him answerable reward Such was the drift of our Lord's discourse whereunto as in the other case he did annex the prohibition of exercising dominion Ye know saith he that the Princes of nations exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them but it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your minister and whosoever will be first among you let him be your servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whoever among you hath a mind to special grandeur and preeminence let him understand that there is no other to be attained beside that which resulteth from the humble performance of charitable Offices to his Brethren the which whoever shall best discharge he alone will become greatest and highest in the eye of God Again at another time the Apostles dreaming of a secular Kingdom to be erected by our Lord disputed among themselves who should be the greatest and for satisfaction presumed to enquire of our Lord about it whenas they surely were very ignorant of Saint Peter's being their head so there was a fair occasion as could be of our Lord 's instructing them in that point and injoyning their duty towards him but he did not so but rather taught him together with the rest not to pretend to any such thing as preferment above the rest He sitting down called the twelve and said unto them If any one desire to be first the same shall be last of all and servant of all how could he considering the occasion and circumstances of that speech in plainer terms establish equality or discountenance any claim to superiority among them Had Saint Peter then advanced such a plea as they now affirm of right belonging to him would he not thereby have depressed and debased himself to the lowest degree To impress this Rule our Lord then calling a little child did set him in the midst of them telling them that except they were converted from such ambitious pretences and became like little children wholly void of such conceits they could not enter into the Kingdom of heaven that is could not in effect be so much as ordinary good Christians adjoyning that whosoever should humble himself as did that little child not affecting or assuming more than such an innocent did should be greatest in the Kingdom of heaven in real worth and in the favour of God transcending the rest so that Saint Peter claiming Superiority to himself would have forfeited any title to eminency among Christians Again as to the power which is now ascribed to Saint Peter by the Party of his pretended Successours we may argue from another place where our Saviour prohibiting his Disciples to resemble the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees in their ambitious desires and practices their affectations of preeminence their assuming places and titles importing difference of rank and authority He saith But be ye not called Rabbi for there is one Master one Guide or Governour of you even Christ but ye are Brethren How more pregnantly could he have declared the nature of his Constitution and the relation of Christians one to another established therein to exclude such differences of Power whereby one doth in way of domination impose his opinion or his will on others Ye are all fellow-scholars fellow-servants and fellow-children of God it therefore doth not become you to be any-wise imperious over one another but all of you humbly and lovingly to conspire in learning and observing the Precepts of your common Lord the doing which is backed with a Promise and a Threat sutable to the purpose He that exalteth himself shall be abased and he that will abase himself shall be exalted the which sentences are to be interpreted according to the intent of the Rules foregoing If it be said that such discourse doth impugn all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction I answer that indeed thereby is removed all such haughty and harsh Rule which some have exercised over Christians that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arbitrary power that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolute uncontrollable authority that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tyrannical prerogative of which the Fathers complain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 domineering over their charges which Saint Peter forbiddeth We saith St. Chrysostome were designed to teach the word not to exercise empire or absolute sovereignty we do bear the rank of advisers exhorting to duty A Bishop saith St. Hierome differeth from a King in that a Bishop presideth over those that are willing the King against their will that is the Bishop's governance should be so gentle and easie that men hardly can be unwilling to comply with it but should obey as Saint Peter exhorteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by constraint but of their own accord and Let saith he the Bishops be content with their honour let them know themselves to be Fathers not Lords they should be loved not feared And Thou saith St. Bernard to Pope Eugenius dost superintend the name of Bishop signifying to thee not dominion but duty At least those precepts of our Lord do exclude that Power which is ascribed to Saint Peter over the Apostles themselves the which indeed is greater than in likelihood any Pharisee did ever affect yea in many respects doth exceed any domination which hath been claimed or usurped by the most
superiour to Saint Paul but his Collegue and equal in Authority although precedeing him in standing repute and other advantages then Saint Paul's free proceeding toward him was not onely warrantable but wholesome and deserving for edification to be recited and recorded as implying an example how Collegues upon occasion should with freedom and sincerity admonish their Brethren of their errours and faults Saint Peter's carriage in patiently bearing that correption also affording another good pattern of equanimity in such cases to which purpose S. Cypr. alledged and approved by S. Austin doth apply this passage for saith he neither Peter whom the Lord first chose and upon whom he built his Church when Paul afterward contested with him about circumcision did insolently challenge or arrogantly assume any thing to himself so as to say that he did hold the primacy and that rather those who were newer and later Apostles ought to obey him neither despised he Saint Paul because he was before a persecutour of the Church but he admitted the counsel of truth and easily consented to the lawfull course which Saint Paul did maintain yielding indeed to us a document both of concord and patience that we should not pertinaciously love our own things but should rather take those things for ours which sometimes are profitably and wholesomely suggested by our Brethren and Collegues if they are true and lawfull this St. Cyprian speaketh upon supposition that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were equals or as he calleth them Collegues and Brethren in rank co-ordinate otherwise St. Cyprian would not have approved the action for he often severely doth inveigh against Inferiours taking upon them to censure their Superiours What tumour saith he of pride what arrogance of mind what inflation of heart is it to call our Superiours and Bishops to our cognisance St. Cyprian therefore could not conceive Saint Peter to be Saint Paul's Governour or Superiour in Power he doth indeed plainly enough in the forecited words signifie that in his judgment Saint Peter had done insolently and arrogantly if he had assumed any obedience from Saint Paul St. Austin also doth in several places of his Writings make the like application of this passage The ancient Writer contemporary to St. Ambrose and passing under his name doth argue in this manner Who dared resist Peter the first Apostle to whom the Lord did give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but another such an one who in assurance of his election knowing himself to be not unequal to him might constantly disprove what he had unadvisedly done It is indeed well known that Origen and after him St. Chrysostome and St. Hierome and divers of the Ancients beside did conceive that Saint Paul did not seriously oppose or tax Saint Peter but did onely doe it seemingly upon confederacy with him for promoting a good design This interpretation however strained and earnestly impugned by Saint Austin I will not discuss but onely shall observe that it being admitted doth rather strengthen than weaken our discourse for if Saint Peter were Saint Paul's Governour it maketh Saint Peter to have consented to an act in all appearance indecent irregular and scandalous and how can we imagine that Saint Peter would have complotted to the imparing his own just Authority in the eye of a great Church doth not such a condescension imply in him a disavowing of Superiority over Saint Paul or a conspiracy with him to overthrow good Order To which purpose we may observe that St. Chrysostome in a large and very elaborate discourse wherein he professeth to endeavour an aggravation of the irregularity of Saint Paul's dâ—meanour if it were serious doth not lay the stress of that aggravation upon Saint Paul's opposing his lawfull Governour but his onely so treating a Co-apostle of such eminency neither when to that end he designeth to reckon all the advantages of Saint Peter beyond Saint Paul or any other Apostle doth he mention this which was chiefly material to his purpose that he was Saint Paul's Governour which observations if we do carefully weigh we can hardly imagine that St. Chrysostome had any notion of Saint Peter's Supremacy in relation to the Apostles In fine the drift of Saint Paul in reporting those passages concerning himself was not to disparage the other Apostles nor merely to commend himself but to fence the truth of his Doctrine and maintain the liberty of his Disciples against any prejudice that might arise from any authority that might be pretended in any considerable respects superiour to his and alledged against them to which purpose he declareth by arguments and matters of fact that his Authority was perfectly Apostolical and equal to the greatest even to that of Saint Peter the prime Apostle of Saint John the beloved Disciple of Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem the judgment or practice of whom was no law to him nor should be to them farther than it did consist with that Doctrine which he by an independent Authority and by special revelation from Christ did preach unto them He might as St. Chrysostome noteth have pretended to some advantage over them in regard that he had laboured more abundantly than them all but he forbeareth to do so being contented to obtain equal advantages Well therefore considering the disadvantage which this passage bringeth to the Roman pretence might this History be called by Baronius a History hard to be understood a stone of offence a rock of scandal a rugged place which Saint Austin himself under favour could not pass over without stumbling It may also be considered that Saint Paul particularly doth assert to himself an independent authority over the Gentiles co-ordinate to that which Saint Peter had over the Jews the which might engage him so earnestly to contest with Saint Peter as by his practice seducing those who belonged to his charge the which also probably moved him thus to assert his authority to the Galatians as being Gentiles under his care and thence obliged especially to regard his authority They saith Saint Paul knowing that I was entrusted with the Gospel of uncircumcision as Peter was entrusted with that of circumcision gave unto me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship the which words do clearly enough signifie that he took himself and that the other Apostles took him to have under Christ an absolute charge subordinate to no man over the Gentiles whence he claimeth to himself as his burthen the care of all the Churches he therefore might well contest for their liberty he might well insist upon his authority among them Thus did St. Chrysostome understand the case for Christ saith he committed the Jews to Peter but set Paul over the Gentiles and He saith that great Father farther doth shew himself to be equal to them in dignity and compareth himself not onely to the others but even to the ring-leader shewing that each did enjoy equal dignity
It may also by any prudent considerer easily be discerned that if Saint Peter had really been as they assert him so in Authority superiour to the other Apostles it is hardly possible that Saint Paul should upon these occasions express nothing of it 16. If Saint Peter had been appointed Sovereign of the Church it seemeth that it should have been requisite that he should have outlived all the Apostles for then either the Church must have wanted a Head or there must have been an inextricable Controversie about who that Head was Saint Peter dyed long before Saint John as all agree and perhaps before divers others of the Apostles Now after his departure did the Church want a Head then it might before and after have none and our Adversaries lose the main ground of their pretence did one of the Apostles become Head which of them was it upon what ground did he assume the Headship or who conferred it on him who ever did acknowledge any such thing or where is there any report about it was any other person made Head suppose the Bishop of Rome who onely pretendeth thereto then did Saint John and other Apostles become subject to one in degree inferiour to them then what becometh of Saint Paul's first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers what do all the Apostolical privileges come to when St. John must be at the command of Linus and Cletus and Clemens and of I know not who beside was it not a great absurdity for the Apostles to truckle under the Pastours and Teachers of Rome The like may be said for Saint James if he as the Roman Church doth in its Liturgicks suppose were an Apostle who in many respects might claim the preeminence Who therefore in the Apostolical Constitutions is preferred before Clement Bishop of Rome 17. Upon the same grounds on which a Supremacy of power is claimed to Saint Peter other Apostles might also challenge a Superiority therein over their Brethren but to suppose such a difference of power among the rest is absonous and therefore the grounds are not valid upon which Saint Peter's Supremacy is built I instance in Saint James and Saint John who upon the same probabilities had after Saint Peter a preference to the other Apostles For to them our Saviour declared a special regard to them the Apostles afterwards may seem to have yielded a particular deference they in merit and performances seem to have surpassed they after St. Peter and his Brother were first called to the Apostolical Office they as Saint Peter were by our Lord new Christned as it were and nominated Boanerges by a name signifying the efficacy of their endeavour in their Master's service they together with Saint Peter were assumed to behold the transfiguration they were culled out to wait on our Lord in his agony they also with Saint Peter others being excluded were taken to attest our Lord's performance of that great Miracle of restoring the Ruler's Daughter to life they presuming on their special favour with our Lord did pretend to the chief places in his Kingdom To one of them it is expressed that our Saviour did bear a peculiar affection he being the disciple whoâ— Jesus loved and who leaned on his bosome to the other he particularly discovered himself after his Resurrection and first honoured him with the Crown of Martyrdom They in bloud and cognation did nearest touch our Lord being his Cousin Germans which was esteemed by the Ancients a ground of preferment as Hegesippus reporteth Their industry and activity in propagation of the Gospel was most eminently conspicuous To them it was peculiar that Saint James did first Suffer for it and Saint John did longest persist in the faithfull Confession of it whose Writings in several kinds do remain as the richest magazines of Christian Doctrine furnishing us with the fullest Testimonies concerning the Divinity of our Lord with special Histories of his Life and with his divinest Discourses with most lively incitements to Piety and Charity with propheâ—ical Revelations concerning the state of the Church He therefore was one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief Pillars and props of the Christian Profession one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Superlative Apostles Accordingly in the Rolls of the Apostles and in reports concerning them their names usually are placed after Saint Peter Hence also some of the Fathers do take them as Saint Peter was to have been preferred by our Lord Peter saith Saint Gregory Nazianzene and James and John who both were indeed and were reckoned before the others so indeed did Christ himself prefer them and Peter James and John saith Clemens Alex. did not as being preferred by the Lord himself contest for honour but did chuse James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem or as Ruffinus read Bishop of the Apostles Hence if by designation of Christ by the Concession of the Apostolical College by the prefulgency of his excellent worth and merit or upon any other ground Saint Peter had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or next place in the same kind by like means upon the same grounds seem to have belonged unto them and if their advantage did imply difference not in Power but in Order onely not authoritative Superiority but honorary Precedence then can no more be allowed or concluded due to him 18. The Fathers both in express terms and implicitly or by consequence do assert the Apostles to have been equal or co-ordinate in Power and Authority What can be more express than that of St. Cyprian The other Apostles were indeed that which Peter was endowed with equal consortship of honour and power and again Although our Lord giveth to all the Apostles after his resurrection an equal power and saith As the Father sent me so I send you What can be more plain than that of St. Chrysostome Saint Paul sheweth that each Apostle did enjoy equal dignity How again could St. Chrysostome more clearly signifie his Opinion than when comparing Saint Paul to Saint Peter he calleth Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal in honour to him adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I will not as yet say any thing more as if he thought Saint Paul indeed the more honourable How also could St. Cyril more plainly declare his sense to be the same than when he called Saint Peter and Saint John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equâ—â— to one another in honour Did not St. Hierome also sufficiently declare his mind in the case when he saith of the Apostles that the strength of the Church is equally settled upon them Doth not Dionysius the supposed Areopagite call the decad of the Apostles co-ordinate with their foreman Saint Peter in conformity I suppose to the current judgment of his Age. What can be more full than that of Isidore whose words shew how long this sense continued in the
Church The other Apostles did receive an equal share of honour and power who also being dispersed in the whole world did preach the Gospel and to whom departing the Bishops did succeed who are constituted through the whole world in the Sees of the Apostles By consequence the Fathers do assert this equality when they affirm as we before did shew the Apostolical Office to be absolutely Supreme when also they affirm as afterwards we shall shew all the Apostles Successours to be equal as such and particularly that the Roman Bishop upon account of his succeeding Saint Peter hath no prâ—-eminence above his Brethren for wherever a Bishop be whether at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Thanis he is of the same worth and of the same Priesthood the force of wealth and lowness of poverty doth not render a Bishop more high or more low for that all of them are Successours of the Apostles 19. Neither is it to prudential esteem a despicable consideration that the most ancient of the Fathers having occasion sometimes largely to discourse of Saint Peter do not mention any such Prerogatives belonging to him 20. The last Argument which I shall use against this Primacy shall be the insufficiency of those Arguments and Testimonies which they alledge to warrant and prove it If this Point be of so great consequence as they make it if as they would persuade us the subsistence order unity and peace of the Church together with the Salvation of Christians do depend on it if as they suppose many great points of truth do hang on this pin if it be as they declare a main Article of Faith and not onely a simple errour but a pernicious heresie to deny this primacy then it is requisite that a clear revelation from God should be producible in favour of it for upon that ground onely such points can firmly stand then it is most probable that God to prevent controversies occasions of doubt and excuses for errour about so grand a matter would not have failed to have declared it so plainly as might serve to satisfie any reasonable man and to convince any froward gainsayer but no such revelation doth appear for the places of Scripture which they alledge do not plainly express it nor pregnantly imply it nor can it by fair consequence be inferred from them No man unprepossessed with affection to their side would descry it in them without thwarting Saint Peter's Order and wresting the Scriptures they cannot deduce it from them This by examining their allegations will appear I. They alledge those words of our Saviour uttered by him upon occasion of Saint Peter's confessing him to be the Son of God Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church here say they Saint Peter is declared the Foundation that is the sole Supreme Governour of the Church To this I answer 1. Those words do not clearly signifie any thing to their purpose for they are metaphorical and thence ambiguous or capable of divers interpretations whence they cannot suffice to ground so main a point of Doctrine or to warrant so huge a Pretence these ought to stand upon down-right evident and indubitable Testimony It is pretty to observe how Bellarmine proposeth this Testimony Of which words saith he the sense is plain and obvious that it be understood that under two metaphors the principate of the whole Church was promised as if that sense could be so plain and obvious which is couched under two metaphors and those not very pat or clear in application to their sense 2. This is manifestly confirmed from that the Fathers and Divines both ancient and modern have much differed in exposition of these words Some saith Abulensis say that this rock is Peter others say and better that it is Christ others say and yet better that it is the confession which Peter maketh For some interpret this rock to be Christ himself of whom Saint Paul saith Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ. St. Austin telleth us in his Retractations that he often had expounded the words to this purpose although he did not absolutely reject that interpretation which made Saint Peter the rock leaving it to the Readers choice which is the most probable Others and those most eminent Fathers do take the rock to be Saint Peter's faith or profession Vpon the Rock saith the Prince of Interpreters that is upon the faith of his profession and again Christ said that he would build his Church on Peter's confession and again he or another ancient Writer under his name upon this rock he said not upon Peter for he did not build his Church upon the man but upon his faith Our Lord saith Theodoret did permit the first of the Apostles whose confession he did fix as a prop or foundation of the Church to be shaken Whence Origen saith that every disciple of Christ is the rock in virtue of his agreement with Peter in that holy confession This sense even Popes have embraced Others say that as Saint Peter did not speak for himself but in the name of all the Apostles and of all faithfull people representing the Pastours and people of the Church so correspondently our Lord did declare that he would build his Church upon such faithfull Pastours and Confessours Others do indeed by the rock understand Saint Peter's person but do not thereby expound to be meant his being Supreme Governour of the Apostles or of the whole Church The Divines Schoolmen and Canonists of the Roman Communion do not also agree in exposition of the words and divers of the most learned among them do approve the interpretation of St. Chrysostome Now then how can so great a Point of Doctrine be firmly grounded on a place of so doubtfull interpretation how can any one be obliged to understand the words according to their interpretation which Persons of so good sense and so great Authority do understand otherwise with what modesty can they pretend that meaning to be clear which so perspicacious eyes could not discern therein why may not I excusably agree with St. Chrysostome or St. Austin in understanding the place may I not reasonably oppose their judgment to the Opinion of any Modern Doctours deeming Bellarmine as fallible in his conceptions as one of them why consequently may I not without blame refuse their Doctrine as built upon this place or disavow the goodness of this proof 3. It is very evident that the Apostles themselves did not understand those words of our Lord to signify any grant or promise to Saint Peter of Supremacy over them for would they have contended for the chief place if they had understood whose it of right was by our Lord 's own positive determination would they have disputed about a question which to their knowledge by their Master was
already stated would they have troubled our Lord to inquire of him who should be the greatest in his Kingdom when they knew that our Lord had declared his will to make Saint Peter Viceroy would the Sons of Zebedee have been so foolish and presumptuous as to beg the place which they knew by our Lord's word and promise fixed on Saint Peter would Saint Peter among the rest have fretted at that idle overture whenas he knew the place by our Lord 's immutable purpose and infallible declaration assured to him And if none of the Apostles did understand the words to imply this Roman sense who can be obliged so to understand them yea who can wisely who can safely so understand them for surely they had common sense as well as any man living now they had as much advantage as we can have to know our Lord's meaning their ignorance therefore of this sense being so apparent is not onely a just excuse for not admitting this interpretation but a strong bar against it 4. This interpretation also doth not well consist with our Lord's answers to the contests inquiries and petitions of his Disciples concerning the point of Superiority for doth he not if the Roman expositions be good seem upon those occasions not onely to dissemble his own word and promise but to disavow them or thwart them can we conceive that he would in such a case of doubt forbear to resolve them clearly to instruct them and admonish them of their duty 5. Taking the Rock as they would have it to be the Person of Saint Peter and that on him the Church should be built yet do not the words being a Rock probably denote government for what resemblance is there between being a Rock and a Governour at least what assurance can there be that this metaphor precisely doth import that sense seeing in other respects upon as fair similitudes he might be called so St. Austin saith the Apostles were Foundations because their Authority doth support our weakness St. Hierome saith that they were Foundations because the Faith of the Church was first laid in them St. Basil saith that Saint Peter's Soul was called the Rock because it was firmly rooted in the Faith and did hold stiff without giving way against the blows of temptation Chrysologus saith that Peter had his name from a Rock because he first merited to found the Church by firmness of Faith These are fair explications of the metaphor without any reference to Saint Peter's Government But however also admitting this that being such a Rock doth imply Government and Pastoral Charge yet do they notwithstanding these grants and suppositions effect nothing for they cannot prove the words spoken exclusively in regard to other Apostles or to import any thing singular to him above or beside them He might be a governing Rock so might others be the Church might be built on him so it might be on other Apostles he might be designed a Governour a great Governour a principal Governour so might they also be this might be without any violence done to those words And this indeed was for all the other Apostles in Holy Scripture are called Foundations and the Church is said to be built on them If saith Origen the Father of Interpreters you think the whole Church to be onely built on Peter alone what will you say of John the Son of thunder and of each of the Apostles c. largely to this purpose Christ as St. Hierome saith was the Rock and he bestowed on the Apostles that they should be called Rocks And You say saith he again that the Church is founded on Peter but the same in another place is done upon all the Apostles The twelve Apostles saith another ancient Authour were the immutable Pillars of orthodoxie the Rock of the Church The Church saith St. Basil is built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Peter also was one of the Mountains upon which Rock the Lord did promise to build his Church St. Cyprian in his disputes with Pope Stephen did more than once alledge this place yet could he not take them in their sense to signify exclusively for he did not acknowledge any imparity of Power among the Apostles or their Successours He indeed plainly took these words to respect all the Apostles and their Successours our Lord taking occasion to promise that to one which he intended to impart to all for themselves and their Successours Our Lord saith he ordering the honour of a Bishop and the order of his Church saith to Peter I say to thee c. hence through the turns of times and successions the ordination of Bishops and the manner of the Church doth run on that the Church should be setled upon the Bishops and every Act of the Church should be governed by the same Prelates as therefore he did conceive the Church to be built not on the Pope singularly but on all the Bishops so he thought our Lord did intend to build his Church not upon Saint Peter onely but on all his Apostles 6. It is not said that the Apostles or the Apostolical Office should be built on him for that could not be seeing the Apostles were constituted and the Apostolical Office was founded before that promise the words onely therefore can import that according to some meaning he was a Rock upon which the Church afterward to be collected should be built he was A Rock of the Church to be built as Tertullian speaketh the words therefore cannot signify any thing available to their purpose in relation to the Apostles 7. If we take Saint Peter himself for the Rock then as I take it the best meaning of the words doth import that our Lord designed Saint Peter for a prime Instrument the first mover the most diligent and active at the beginning the most constant stiff and firm in the support of his Truth and propagation of his Doctrine or conversion of men to the belief of the Gospel the which is called building of the Church according to that of St. Ambrose or some ancient Homilist under his name He is called the Rock because he first did lay in the Nations the Foundations of Faith In which regard as the other Apostles are called Foundations of the Church the Church being founded on their labours so might Saint Peter signally be so called who as Saint Basil saith allusively interpreting our Saviour's words for the excellency of his Faith did take on him the edifying of the Church Both he and they also might be so termed for that upon their testimonies concerning the Life Death and Resurrection of Christ the Faith of Christians was grounded as also it stands upon their convincing discourses their holy practice their miraculous performances in all which Saint Peter was most eminent and in the beginning of Christianity displayed them to the edification of the Church This interpretation plainly doth agree with matter
of fact and history which is the best interpreter of right or privilege in such cases for we may reasonably understand our Saviour to have promised that which in effect we see performed so the event sheweth the Church was built on him that is by him saith Tertullian But this sense doth not imply any Superiority of Power or Dignity granted to Saint Peter above his Brethren however it may signify an advantage belonging to him and deserving especial respect as St. Chrysostome notably doth set out in these words Although John although James although Paul although any other whoever may appear performing great matters he yet doth surpass them all who did precede them in liberty of speech and opened the entrance and gave to them as to a river carryed with a huge stream to enter with great ease Doing this as I say it might signify his being a Rock of the Church so it denoteth an excellency of merit but not a Superiority in Power 8. It may also be observed that Saint Peter before the speaking of those words by our Lord may seem to have had a Primacy intimated by the Evangelists when they report his call to the Apostolical Office and by his behaviour when in this confession and before in the like he undertook to be their mouth and Spokesman when not being unmindfull of his place saith St. Ambrose he did act a Primacy a Primacy addeth that Father of Confession not of honour of Faith not of order his Primacy therefore such as he had cannot well be founded on this place he being afore possessed of it and as St. Ambrose conceived exercising it at that time II. They alledge the next words of our Lord spoken in sequele upon the same occasion To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven that is say they the Supreme power over all the Church for he say they that hath the Keys is Master of the House To this testimony we may apply divers of the same answers which were given to the former for 1. These words are figurate and therefore not clear enough to prove their assertion 2. They do admit and have received various interpretations 3. It is evident that the Apostles themselves did not understand these words as importing a Supremacy over them that Saint Peter himself did not apprehend this sense that our Lord upon occasion inviting to it did not take notice of his promise according thereto 4. The words I will give thee cannot any-wise be assured to have been exclusive of others or appropriated to him He said as a very learned man of the Roman Communion noteth to Peter I will give thee the Keys but he said not I gill give them to thee alone nothing therefore can be concluded from them to their purpose 5. The Fathers do affirm that all the Apostles did receive the same Keys Are saith Origen the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone and shall none other of the Blessed ones receive them but if this I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven be common how also are not all the things common which were spoken before or are added as spoken to Peter St. Hierome says in express words that all the Apostles did receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven He saith Optatus did alone receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which were to be communicated to the rest that is as Rigaltius well expoundeth those words which Christ himself would also communicate to the rest Theophilact Although it be spoken to Peter alone I will give thee yet it is given to all the Apostles It is part of Saint John's character in St. Chrysostome He that hath the Keys of the Heavens 6. Indeed whatever according to any tolerable exposition or according to the current expositions of the Fathers those Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven do import whether it be a faculty of opening it by Doctrine of admitting into it by dispensation of Baptism and absolution of excluding from it by Ecclesiastical censure or any such faculty signified by that metaphorical expression it plainly did belong to all the Apostles and was effectually conferred on them yea after them upon all the Pastours of the Church in their several precincts and degrees who in all Ages have claimed to themselves the power of the Keys to be as the Council of Compeign calleth all Bishops clavigeri the Key-bearers of the Kingdom of Heaven So that in these words nothing singular was promised or granted to Saint Peter although it well may be deemed a singular mark of favour that what our Lord did intend to bestow on all Pastours that he did anticipately promise to him or as the Fathers say to the Church and its Pastours in him In which respect we may admit those words of Pope Leo I. 7. Indeed divers of the Fathers do conceive the words spoken to St. Peter not as a single person but as a representative of the Church or as standing in the room of each Pastour therein unto whom our Lord designed to impart the power of the Keys All we Bishops saith St. Ambrose have in Saint Peter received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven 8. These answers are confirmed by the words immediately adjoyned equivalent to these and interpretative of them And whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven the which do import a power or privilege soon after expressly and in the very same words promised or granted to all the Apostles as also the same power in other words was by our Lord conferred on them all after the Resurrection If therefore the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven do import Supreme Power then each Apostle had Supreme Power 9. If we should grant that which no-wise can be proved that something peculiarly belonging to Saint Peter is implyed in those words it can onely be this that he should be a prime man in the work of preaching and propagating the Gospel and conveying the heavenly benefits of it to believers which is an opening of the Kingdom of Heaven according to what Tertullian excellently saith of him So saith he the event teacheth the Church was built in him that is by him he did initiate the Key see which Ye men of Israel hear these words Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God among you c. He in fine in the baptism of Christ did unlock the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven c. 10. It seemeth absurd that Saint Peter should exercise the power of the Keys in respect to the Apostles for did he open the Kingdom of Heaven to them who were by our Lord long before admitted into it 11. In fine our Lord as Saint Luke relateth it did say to Saint Peter and probably to him first Fear not from henceforth thou shalt catch men might it hence be inferred that Saint Peter
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal in honour to Saint Peter as we before shewed The like we declared of St. Hierome St. Cyril c. And as for St. Cyprian who did allow a Primacy to Saint Peter nothing can be more evident than that he took the other Apostles to be equal to him in power and honour The like we may conceive of St. Austin who having carefully perused those Writings of St. Cyprian and frequently alledging them doth never contradict that his sentiment Even Pope Gregory himself acknowledgeth Saint Peter not to have been properly the Head but onely the first member of the universal Church all being members of the Church under one head 6. If Pope Leo I. or any other ancient Pope do seem to mean farther we may reasonably except against their Opinion as being singular and proceeding from partial affection to their See such affection having influence on the mind of the wisest men according to that certain maxime of Aristotle every man is a bad Judge in his own case 7. The Ancients when their subject doth allure them do adorn other Apostles with the like titles equalling those of Saint Peter and not well consistent with them according to that rigour of sense which our adversaries affix to the commendations of Saint Peter The Epistle of Clemens Rom. to Saint James an Apocryphal but ancient Writing calleth St. James our Lord's Brother The Bishop of Bishops the Clementine Recognitions call him the Prince of Bishops Ruffinus in his translation of Eusebius The Bishop of the Apostles St. Chrysost. saith of him that he did preside over all the Jewish believers Hesychius Presbyter of Jerusalem calleth him the chief Captain of the New Jerusalem the Captain of Priests the Prince of the Apostles the top among the Heads c. The same Hesychius calleth Saint Andrew the first-born of the Apostolical Choire the first setled pillar of the Church the Peter before Peter the foundation of the foundation the first-fruits of the beginning c. St. Chrysostome saith of Saint John that he was a pillar of the Churches through the world he that had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. But as occasion of speaking about Saint Paul was more frequent so the elogies of him are more copious and indeed so high as not to yield to those of Saint Peter He was saith St. Chrysostome the ringleader and guardian of the Choire of all the Saints He was the tongue the teacher the Apostle of the world He had the whole world put into his hands and took care thereof and had committed to him all men dwelling upon Earth He was the light of the Churches the foundation of Faith the pillar and ground of Truth He had the patronage of the World committed into his hands He was better than all men greater than the Apostles and surpassing them all Nothing was more bright nothing more illustrious than he None was greater than he yea none equal to him Pope Gregory I. saith of Saint Paul that he was made head of the Nations because he obtained the principate of the whole Church These Characters of Saint Paul I leave them to interpret and reconcile with those of Saint Peter 8. That the Fathers by calling Saint Peter Prince Chieftain c. of the Apostles do not mean Authority over them may be argued from their joining Saint Paul with him in the same appellations who yet surely could have no Jurisdiction over them and his having any would destroy the pretended Ecclesiastical Monarchy St. Cyril calleth them together Patrons or Presidents of the Church St. Austin or St. Ambr. or Max. calleth them Princes of the Churches The Popes Agatho and Adrian in their General Synods call them the ring-leading Apostles The Popes Nicholas I. and Gregory VII c. call them Princes of the Apostles St. Ambrose or St. Austin or St. Maximus Taur chuse you which doth thus speak of them Blessed Peter and Paul are most eminent among all the Apostles excelling the rest by a kind of peculiar prerogative but whether of these two be preferred before the other is uncertain for I count them to be equal in merit because they are equal in suffering c. To all this discourse I shall onely adde that if any of the Apostles or Apostolical men might claim a presidency or authoritative headship over the rest Saint James seemeth to have the best title thereto for Jerusalem was the mother of all Churches the fountain of the Christian Law and Doctrine the See of our Lord himself the chief Pastour He therefore who as the Fathers tell us was by our Lord himself constituted Bishop of that City and the first of all Bishops might best pretend to be in special manner our Lord's Vicar or Successour He saith Epiphanius did first receive the Episcopal Chair and to him our Lord first did entrust his own Throne upon Earth He accordingly did first exercise the Authority of presiding and moderating in the first Ecclesiastical Synod as St. Chrysostome in his Notes thereon doth remark He therefore probably by Saint Paul is first named in his report concerning the passages at Hierusalem and to his orders it seemeth that Saint Peter himself did conform for 't is said there that before certain came from Saint James he did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come he withdrew Hence in the Apostolical Constitutions in the Prayer prescribed for the Church and for all the Governours of it the Bishops of the principal Churches being specified by name Saint James is put in the first place before the Bishops of Rome and of Antioch Let us pray for the whole Episcopacy under Heaven of those who rightly dispense the word of thy Truth and let us pray for our Bishop James with all his Parishes let us pray for our Bishop Clemens and all his Parishes let us pray for Evodius and all his Parishes Hereto consenteth the Tradition of those ancient Writers afore cited who call Saint James the Bishop of Bishops the Bishop of the Apostles c. SUPPOSITION II. I proceed to examine the next Supposition of the Church Monarchists which is That Saint Peter's Primacy with its Rights and Prerogatives was not personal but derivable to his Successours AGainst which Supposition I do assert that admitting a Primacy of Saint Peter of what kind or to what purpose soever we yet have reason to deem it merely personal and not according to its grounds and its design communicable to any Successours nor indeed in effect conveyed to any such It is a rule in the Canon Law that a personal Privilege doth follow the Person and is extinguished with the Person and such we affirm that of St. Peter for 1. His Primacy was grounded upon personal acts such as his chearfull following of Christ his faithfull confessing of Christ his resolute adherence to Christ his embracing
special Revelations from God or upon personal graces his great Faith his special love to our Lord his singular zeal for Christ's Service or upon personal gifts and endowments his courage resolution activity forwardness in apprehension and in speech the which advantages are not transient and consequently a preeminency built on them is not in its nature such 2. All the pretence of Primacy granted to Saint Peter is grounded upon words directed to Saint Peter's Person characterized by most personal adjuncts as name parentage and which exactly were accomplished in Saint Peter's personal actings which therefore it is unreasonable to extend farther Our Lord promised to Simon Son of Jona to build his Church on him accordingly in eminent manner the Church was founded upon his Ministery or by his first preaching testimony performances Our Lord promised to give him the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom this Power Saint Peter signally did execute in converting Christians and receiving them by Baptism into the Church by conferring the Holy Ghost and the like administrations Our Lord charged Simon Son of Jonas to feed his Sheep this he performed by preaching writing guiding and governing Christians as he found opportunity wherefore if any thing was couched under those promises or orders singularly pertinent to Saint Peter for the same reason that they were singular they were personal for These things being in a conspicuous manner accomplished in St. Peter's Person the sense of those words is exhausted there may not with any probability there cannot with any assurance be any more grounded on them whatever more is inferred must be by precarious assumption and justly we may cast at those who shall infer it that exposâ—ulation of Tertullian What art thou who dost overturn and change the manifest intention of our Lord personally conferring this on Peter 3. Particularly the grand promise to Saint Peter of founding the Church on him cannot reach beyond his person because there can be no other foundations of a Society than such as are first laid the successours of those who first did erect a Society and establish it are themselves but superstructures 4. The Apostolical Office as such was personal and temporary and therefore according to its nature and design not successive or communicable to others in perpetual descendence from them It was as such in all respects extraordinary conferred in a special manner designed for special purposes discharged by special aids endowed with special privileges as was needfull for the propagation of Christianity and founding of Churches To that Office it was requisite that the Person should have an immediate designation and commission from God such as Saint Paul so often doth insist upon for asserting his title to the Office Paul an Apostle not from men or by man not by men saith St. Chrysostome this is a property of the Apostles It was requisite that an Apostle should be able to attest concerning our Lord's Resurrection or Ascension either immediately as the twelve or by evident consequence as Saint Paul thus Saint Peter implyed at the choice of Matthias wherefore of those men which have companyed with us must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the Resurrection and Am I not saith Saint Paul an Apostle have I not seen the Lord according to that of Ananias The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will and see that just one and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth for thou shalt bear witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard It was needfull also that an Apostle should be endowed with miraculous gifts and graces enabling him both to assure his Authority and to execute his Office wherefore Saint Paul calleth these the marks of an Apostle the which were wrought by him among the Corinthians in all patience or perseveringly in signs and wonders and mighty deeds It was also in St. Chrysostome's opinion proper to an Apostle that he should be able according to his discretion in a certain and conspicuous manner to impart Spiritual Gifts as Saint Peter and Saint John did at Samaria which to doe according to that Father was the peculiar gift and privilege of the Apostles It was also a privilege of an Apostle by virtue of his commission from Christ to instruct all Nations in the Doctrine and Law of Christ He had right and warrant to exercise his function every where His charge was universal and indefinite the whole world was his Province he was not affixed to one place nor could be excluded from any he was as St. Cyril calleth him an Oecumenical Judge and an Instructour of all the Subcelestial World Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner according to discretion as being guided by infallible assistence to the which they might upon occasion appeal and affirm It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us Whence their Writings have passed for inspired and therefore Canonical or certain Rules of Faith and Practice It did belong to them to found Churches to constitute Pastours to settle orders to correct offences to perform all such Acts of Sovereign Spiritual Power in virtue of the same Divine assistence according to the Authority which the Lord had given them for edification as we see practised by Saint Paul In fine the Apostleship was as St. Chrysostome telleth us a business fraught with ten thousand good things both greater than all privileges of grace and comprehensive of them Now such an Office consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers which were requisite for the foundation of the Church and the diffusion of Christianity against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages which it then needs must encounter was not designed to continue by derivation for it containeth in it divers things which apparently were not communicated and which no man without gross imposture and hypocrisie could challenge to himself Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicate it they did indeed appoint standing Pastours and Teachers in each Church they did assume Fellow-labourers or Assistents in the work of Preaching and Governance but they did not constitute Apostles equal to themselves in Authority Privileges or Gifts For who knoweth not saith St. Austin that principate of Apostleship to be preferred before any Episcopacy and the Bishops saith Bellarmine have no part of the true Apostolical Authority Wherefore Saint Peter who had no other Office mentioned in Scripture or known to Antiquity beside that of an Apostle could not have properly and adequately any Successour to his Office but it naturally did expire with his Person as did that of the other Apostles 5. Accordingly whereas the other Apostles as such had no Successours the Apostolical Office not being propagated the Primacy of Saint Peter whatever it were whether of Order or Jurisdiction in regard to his Brethren did cease with him for when there were no Apostles extant there could be no Head or Prince of
the Apostles in any sense 6. If some privileges of Saint Peter were derived to Popes why were not all why was not Pope Alexander VI. as holy as Saint Peter why was not Pope Honorius as found in his private judgment why is not every Pope inspired why is not every Papal Epistle to be reputed Canonical why are not all Popes endowed with power of doing miracles why doth not the Pope by a Sermon convert thousands why indeed do Popes never preach why doth not he cure men by his shadow he is say they himself his shadow what ground is there of distinguishing the privileges so that he shall have some not others where is the ground to be found 7. If it be objected that the Fathers commonly do call Bishops Successours of the Apostles to assoil that objection we may consider that whereas the Apostolical Office virtually did contain the functions of Teaching and ruling God's people the which for preservation of Christian doctrine and edification of the Church were requisite to be continued perpetually in ordinary standing Offices these indeed were derived from the Apostles but not properly in way of succession as by univocal propagation but by Ordination imparting all the power needfull for such Offices which therefore were exercised by persons during the Apostles lives concurrently or in subordination to them even as a Dictatour at Rome might create inferiour Magistrates who derived from him but not as his Successours for as Bellarmine himself telleth us there can be no proper succession but in respect of one preceding but Apostles and Bishops were together in the Church The Fathers therefore so in a large sense call all Bishops Successours of the Apostles not meaning that any one of them did succeed into the whole Apostolical Office but that each did receive his power from some one immediately or mediately whom some Apostle did constitute Bishop vesting him with Authority to feed the particular Flock committed to him in way of ordinary charge according to the sayings of that Apostolical person Clemens Rom. The Apostles preaching in Regions and Cities did constitute their first Converts having approved them by the Spirit for Bishops and Deacons of those who should afterward believe and having constituted the foresaid Bishops and Deacons they withall gave them farther charge that if they should dye other approved men successively should receive their Office thus did the Bishops supply the room of the Apostles each in guiding his particular charge all of them together by mutual aid conspiring to govern the whole Body of the Church 8. In which regard it may be said that not one single Bishop but all Bishops together through the whole Church do succeed Saint Peter or any other Apostle for that all of them in union together have an universal Sovereign Authority commensurate to an Apostle 9. This is the notion which St. Cyprian doth so much insist upon affirming that the Bishops do succeed Saint Peter and the other Apostles by vicarious ordination that the Bishops are Apostles that there is but one chair by the Lord's word built upon one Peter One undivided Bishoprick diffused in the peacefull numerosity of many Bishops whereof each Bishop doth hold his share One Flock whom the Apostles by unanimous agreement did feed and which afterward the Bishops do feed having a portion thereof allotted to each which he should govern So the Synod of Carthage with St. Cyprian So also St. Chrysostome saith that the Sheep of Christ were committed by him to Peter and to those after him that is in his meaning to all Bishops 10. Such and no other power Saint Peter might devolve on any Bishop ordained by him in any Church which he did constitute or inspect as in that of Antioch of Alexandria of Babylon of Rome The like did the other Apostles communicate who had the same power with Saint Peter in founding and settling Churches whose Successours of this kind were equal to those of the same kind whom St. Peter did constitute enjoying in their several precincts an equal part of the Apostolical power as St. Cyprian often doth assert 11. It is in consequence observable that in those Churches whereof the Apostles themselves were never accounted Bishops yet the Bishops are called Successours of the Apostles which cannot otherwise be understood than according to the sense which we have proposed that is because they succeeded those who were constituted by the Apostles according to those sayings of Irenaeus and Tertullian we can number those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles and their Successours and All the Churches do shew those whom being by the Apostles constituted in the Episcopal Office they have as continuers of the Apostolical seed So although Saint Peter was never reckoned Bishop of Alexandria yet because 't is reported that he placed Saint Mark there the Bishop of Alexandria is said to succeed the Apostles And because Saint John did abide at Ephesus inspecting that Church and appointing Bishops there the Bishops of that See did refer their Origine to him So many Bishops did claim from Saint Paul So St. Cyprian and Firmilian do assert themselves Successours of the Apostles who yet perhaps never were at Carthage or Caesarea So the Church of Constantinople is often in the Acts of the Sixth General Council called this great Apostolick Church being such Churches as those of whom Tertullian saith that although they do not produce any of the Apostles or Apostolical men for their authour yet conspiring in the same faith are no less for the consanguinity of doctrine reputed Apostolical Yea hence St. Hierome doth assert a parity of merit and dignity Sacerdotal to all Bishops because saith he all of them are Successours to the Apostles having all a like power by their ordination conferred on them 12. Whereas our Adversaries do pretend that indeed the other Apostles had an extraordinary charge as Legates of Christ which had no succession but was extinct in their persons but that Saint Peter had a peculiar charge as ordinary Pastour of the whole Church which surviveth To this it is enough to rejoyn that it is a mere figment devised for a shift and affirmed precariously having no ground either in Holy Scripture or in ancient Tradition there being no such distinction in the Sacred or Ecclesiastical Writings no mention occurring there of any Office which he did assume or which was attributed to him distinct from that extraordinary one of an Apostle and all the Pastoral charge imaginable being ascribed by the Ancients to all the Apostles in regard to the whole Church as hath been sufficiently declared 13. In fine If any such conveyance of power of power so great so momentous so mightily concerning the perpetual state of the Church and of each person therein had been made it had been for general direction and satisfaction for voiding all doubt and debate about it for stifling these pretended Heresies
and Schisms very requisite that it should have been expressed in some authentick Record that a particular Law should have been extant concerning it that all posterity should be warned to yield the submission grounded thereon Indeed a matter of so great consequence to the being and welfare of the Church could scarce have scaped from being clearly mentioned somewhere or other in Scripture wherein so much is spoken touching Ecclesiastical Discipline it could scarce have avoided the pen of the first Fathers Clemens Ignatius the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions Tertullian c. who also so much treat concerning the Function and Authority of Christian Governours Nothing can be more strange than that in the Statute-book of the new Jerusalem and in all the Original Monuments concerning it there should be such a dead silence concerning the succession of its chief Magistrate Wherefore no such thing appearing we may reasonably conclude no such thing to have been and that our Adversaries assertion of it is wholly arbitrary imaginary and groundless 14. I might add as a very convincing Argument that if such a succession had been designed and known in old times it is morally impossible that none of the Fathers Origen Chrysostome Augustine Cyril Hierome Theodoret c. in their exposition of the places alledged by the Romanists for the Primacy of Saint Peter should declare that Primacy to have been derived and setled on Saint Peter's Successour a point of that moment if they had been aware of it they could not but have touched as a most usefull application and direction for duty SUPPOSITION III. They affirm That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome COncerning which Assertion we say that it may with great reason be denyed and that it cannot any-wise be assured as will appear by the following Considerations 1. Saint Peter's being Bishop of Rome would confound the Offices which God made distinct for God did appoint first Apostles then Prophets then Pastours and Teachers wherefore Saint Peter after he was an Apostle could not well become a Bishop it would be such an irregularity as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon 2. The Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with instruction and government of the whole world and calling for an answerable care the Apostles being Rulers as Saint Chrysostome saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common entrusted with the whole world but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to one place and requiring a special attendance there Bishops being Pastours who as St. Chrysostome saith do sit and are employed in one place Now he that hath such a general care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular attendance can hardly look well after so general a charge Either of those Offices alone would suffice to take up a whole man as those tell us who have considered the burthen incumbent on the meanest of them the which we may see described in St. Chrysostome's Discourses concerning the Priesthood Baronius saith of Saint Peter that it was his Office not to stay in one place but as much as it was possible for one man to travel over the whole world and to bring those who did not yet believe to the faith but thoroughly to establish believers if so how could he be Bishop of Rome which was an Office inconsistent with such vagrancy 3. It would not have beseemed Saint Peter the prime Apostle to assume the charge of a particular Bishop it had been a degradation of himself and a disparagement to the Apostolical Majesty for him to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome as if the King should become Mayor of London as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras 4. Wherefore it is not likely that Saint Peter being sensible of that superiour charge belonging to him which did exact a more extensive care would vouchsafe to undertake an inferiour charge We cannot conceive that Saint Peter did affect the Name of a Bishop as now men do allured by the baits of wealth and power which then were none if he did affect the Title why did he not in either of his Epistles one of which as they would persuade us was written from Rome inscribe himself Bishop of Rome Especially considering that being an Apostle he hid not need any particular Authority that involving all power and enabling him in any particular place to execute all kinds of Ecclesiastical Administrations there was no reason that an Apostle or Universal Bishop should become a particular Bishop 5. Also Saint Peter's general charge of converting and inspecting the Jews dispersed over the World his Apostleship as Saint Paul calleth it of the Circumcision which required much travel and his presence in divers places doth not well agree to his assuming the Episcopal Office at Rome Especially at that time when they first make him to assume it which was in the time of Claudius who as Saint Luke and other Histories do report did banish all the Jews from Rome as Tiberius also had done before him He was too skilfull a Fisherman to cast his Net there where there were no Fish 6. If we consider Saint Peter's life we may well deem him uncapable of this Office which he could not conveniently discharge for it as History doth represent it and may be collected from divers circumstances of it was very unsetled he went much about the World and therefore could seldom reside at Rome Many have argued him to have never been at Rome which opinion I shall not avow as bearing a more civil respect to ancient Testimonies and Traditions although many false and fabulous relations of that kind having crept into History and common vogue many doubtfull reports having passed concerning him many notorious forgeries having been vented about his travels and acts all that is reported of him out of Scripture having a smack of the Legend would tempt a man to suspect any thing touching him which is grounded onely upon humane Tradition so that the forger of his Epistle to Saint James might well induce him saying If while I do yet survive men dare to feign such things of me how much more will they dare to doe so after my decease But at least the discourses of those men have evinced that it is hard to assign the time when he was at Rome and that he could never long abide there For The time which old Tradition assigneth of his going to Rome is rejected by divers learned men even of the Roman Party He was often in other places sometimes at Jerusalem sometimes at Antioch sometimes at Babylon sometimes at Corinth sometimes probably at each of those places unto which he directeth his Catholick Epistles among which Epiphanius saith that Peter did often visit Pontus and Bithynia And that he seldom
was at Rome may well be collected from St. Paul's Writings for he writing at different times one Epistle to Rome and divers Epistles from Rome that to the Galatians that to the Ephesians that to the Philippians that to the Colossians and the Second to Timothy doth never mention him sending any salutation to him or from him Particularly Saint Peter was not there when Saint Paul mentioning Tychicus Onesimus Aristarchus Marcus and Justus addeth these alone my fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God who have been a comfort unto me He was not there when Saint Paul said at my first defence no man stood with me but all men forsook me He was not there immediately before Saint Paul's death when the time of his departure was at hand when he telleth Timothy that all the brethren did salute him and naming divers of them he omitteth Peter Which things being considered it is not probable that Saint Peter would assume the Episcopal Chair of Rome he being little capable to reside there and for that other needfull affairs would have forced him to leave so great a Church destitute of their Pastour 7. It was needless that he should be Bishop for that by virtue of his Apostleship involving all the power of inferiour degrees he might whenever he should be at Rome exercise Episcopal Functions and Authority What need a Sovereign Prince to be made a Justice of Peace 8. Had he done so he must have given a bad example of Non-residence a practice that would have been very ill relished in the Primitive Church as we may see by several Canons interdicting offences of kin to it it being I think then not so known as nominally to be censured and culpable upon the same ground and by the sayings of Fathers condemning practices approaching to it Even latter Synods in more corrupt times and in the declension of good Order yet did prohibit this practice Epiphanius therefore did well infer that it was needfull the Apostles should constitute Bishops resident at Rome It was saith he possible that the Apostles Peter and Paul yet surviving other Bishops should be constituted because the Apostles often did take journeys into other Countries for preaching Christ but the City of Rome could not be without a Bishop 9. If Saint Peter were Bishop of Rome he thereby did offend against divers other good Ecclesiastical Rules which either were in practice from the beginning or at least the reason of them was always good upon which the Church did afterward enact them so that either he did ill in thwarting them or the Church had done it in establishing them so as to condemn his practice 10. It was against Rule that any Bishop should desert one Church and transfer himself to another and indeed against Reason such a relation and endearment being contracted between a Bishop and his Church which cannot well be dissolved But Saint Peter is by Ecclesiastical Historians reported and by Romanists admitted to have been Bishop of Antioch for seven years together He therefore did ill to relinquish that Church that most ancient and truly Apostolick Church of Antioch as the Constantinopolitan Fathers call'd it and to place his See at Rome This practice was esteemed bad and of very mischievous consequence earnestly reproved as heinously criminal by great Fathers severely condemned by divers Synods Particularly a transmigration from a lesser and poorer to a greater and more wealthy Bishoprick which is the present case was checked by them as rankly savouring of selfish ambition or avarice The Synod of Alexandria in Athanasius in its Epistle to all Catholick Bishops doth say that Eusebius by passing from Berytus to Nicomedia had annulled his Episcopacy making it an adultery worse than that which is committed by marriage upon divorce Eusebius say they did not consider the Apostle's admonition Art thou bound to a wife do not seek to be loosed for if it be said of a woman how much more of a Church of the same Bishoprick to which one being tyed ought not to seek another that he may not be found also an adulterer according to the Holy Scripture Surely when they said this they did forget what Saint Peter was said to have done in that kind as did also the Sardican Fathers in their Synodical Letter extant in the same Apology of Athanasius condemning translations from lesser Cities unto greater Dioceses The same practice is forbidden by the Synods of Nice I. of Chalcedon of Antioch of Sardica of Arles I. c. In the Synod under Mennas it was laid to the charge of Anthimus that having been Bishop of Trabisond he had adulterously snatched the See of Constantinople against all Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons Yea great Popes of Rome little considering how peccant therein their Predecessour Pope Peter was Pope Julius and Pope Damasus did greatly tax this practice whereof the latter in his Synod at Rome did excommunicate all those who should commit it In like manner Pope Leo I. These Laws were so indispensable that in respect to them Constantine M. who much loved and honoured Eusebius acknowledging him in the common judgment of the world deserving to be Bishop of the whole Church did not like that he should accept the Bishoprick of Antioch to which he was invited and commended his waving it as an act not onely consonant to the Ecclesiastical Canons but acceptable to God and agreeable to Apostolical Tradition so little aware was the good Emperour of Saint Peter being translated from Antioch to Rome In regard to the same Law Gregory Nazianzene a person of so great worth and who had deserved so highly of the Church at Constantinople could not be permitted to retain his Bishoprick of that Church to which he had been call'd from that small one of Sasima The Synod saith Sozomen observing the ancient laws and the Ecclesiastical rule did receive his Bishoprick from him being willingly offered no-wise regarding the great merits of the person the which Synod surely would have excluded Saint Peter from the Bishoprick of Rome and it is observable that Pope Damasus did approve and exhort those Fathers to that proceeding We may indeed observe that Pope Pelagius II. did excuse the translation of Bishops by the example of Saint Peter for who ever dareth to say argueth he that Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles did not act well when he changed his See from Antioch to Rome But I think it more adviseable to excuse Saint Peter from being Authour of a practice judged so irregular by denying the matter of Fact laid to his charge 11. It was anciently deemed a very irregular thing contrary saith St. Cyprian to the Ecclesiastical disposition contrary to the Evangelical Law contrary to the unity of Catholick Institution a Symbol saith another Ancient Writer of dissention and disagreeable to Ecclesiastical Law which therefore was condemned by the Synod of Nice
by Pope Cornelius by Pope Innocent the First and others that two Bishops should preside together in one City This was condemned with good reason for this on the Churches part would be a kind of spiritual Polygamy this would render a Church a monster with two heads this would destroy the end of Episcopacy which is unity and prevention of Schisms But if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome this irregularity was committed for the same Authority upon which Saint Peter's Episcopacy of Rome is built doth also reckon Saint Paul Bishop of the same the same Writers do make both Founders and Planters of the Roman Church and the same call both Bishops of it wherefore if Episcopacy be taken in a strict and proper sense agreeable to this Controversie that rule must needs be infringed thereby Irenaeus saith that the Roman Church was founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Dionysius of Corinth calleth it the plantation of Peter and Paul Epiphanius saith that Peter and Paul were first at Rome both Apostles and Bishops so Eusebius implyeth saying that P. Alexander derived a succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Donys Corinth apud Euseb. 2.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eus. 4.1 Wherefore both of them were Roman Bishops or neither of them In reason and rule neither of them may be called so in a strict and proper sense but in a larger and improper sense both might be so styled Indeed that Saint Paul was in some acception Bishop of Rome that is had a Supreme superintendence or inspection of it is reasonable to affirm because he did for a good time reside there and during that residence could not but have the chief place could be subject to no other He saith Saint Luke did abide two whole years in his own hired house and received all that entred in unto him preaching the Kingdom of God and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence no man forbidding him It may be enquired if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome how he did become such did our Lord appoint him such did the Apostles all or any constitute him did the people elect him did he put himself into it of none of these things there is any appearance nor any probability Non constat SUPPOSITION IV. They affirm That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease AGainst which Assertions we may consider 1. Ecclesiastical Writers do affirm that Saint Peter either alone or together with Saint Paul did constitute other Bishops wherefore Saint Peter was never Bishop or did not continue Bishop there Irenaeus saith that the Apostles founding and rearing that Church delivered the Episcopal Office into the hands of Linus if so how did they retain it in their own hands or persons could they give and have Tertullian saith that Saint Peter did ordain Clement In the Apostolical Constitutions a very ancient Book and setting forth the most ancient Traditions of the Church the Apostles ordering Prayers to be made for all Bishops and naming the principal do reckon not St. Peter but Clement Let us pray for our Bishop James for our Bishop Clemens for our Bishop Evodius c. These reports are consistent and reconciled by that which the Apostolical Constitutions affirm that Linus was first ordained Bishop of the Roman Church by Paul but Clemens after the death of Linus by Peter in the second place Others between Linus and Clemens do interpose Cletus or Anacletus some taking these for one others for two persons which doth not alter the case Now hence we may infer both that Saint Peter never was Bishop and upon supposition that he was that he did not continue so For 2. If he had ever been Bishop he could not well lay down his Office or subrogate another either to preside with him or to succeed him according to the ancient Rules of Discipline and that which passed for right in the Primitive Church This practice Pope Innocent I. condemned as irregular and never known before his time We saith he in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople never have known these things to have been adventured by our Fathers but rather to have been hindred for that none hath power given him to ordain another into the place of one living He did not it seems consider that Saint Peter had used such a power Accordingly the Synod of Antioch to secure the tradition and practice of the Church which began by some to be infringed did make this Sanction that it should not be lawfull for any Bishop to constitute another in his room to succeed him although it were at the point of death 3. But supposing Saint Peter were Bishop once yet by constituting Linus or Clemens in his place he ceased to be so and devested himself of that place for it had been a great irregularity for him to continue Bishop together with another That being in St. Cyprian's judgment the Ordination of Linus had been void and null for seeing saith that H. Martyr there cannot after the first be any second whoever is after one who ought to be sole Bishop he is not now second but none Upon this ground when the Emperour Constantius would have procured Felix to sit Bishop of Rome together with Pope Liberius at his return from Banishment after his complyance with the Arians the people of Rome would not admit it exclaiming One God one Christ one Bishop and whereas Felix soon after that dyed the Historian remarketh it as a special providence of God that Peter's Throne might not suffer infamy being governed under two Prelates he never considered that Saint Peter and Saint Paul Saint Peter and Linus had thus governed that same Church Upon this account St. Austin being assumed by Valerius with him to be Bishop of Hippo did afterward discern and acknowledge his errour In fine to obviate this practice so many Canons of Councils both general and particular were made which we before did mention 4. In sum when Saint Peter did ordain others as story doth accord in affirming either he did retain the Episcopacy and then beside need reason and rule there were concurrently divers Bishops of Rome at one time or he did quite relinquish and finally divorce himself from the Office so that he did not dye Bishop of Rome the which overturneth the main ground of the Romish pretence Or will they say that Saint Peter having laid aside the Office for a time did afterward before his death resume it then what became of Linus of Cletus of Clemens were they dispossessed of their place or deposed from their function would Saint Peter succeed them in it this in Bellarmine's own judgment had been plainly intolerable 5. To avoid all which difficulties in the case and
Authority whenas the actions of such Fathers and their discourses upon other occasions do manifest their serious judgment to have been directly contrary to his pretences wherefore the Emperour of Constantinople in the Florentine Synod had good reason to decline such sayings for arguments for if saith he any of the Saints doth in an Epistle honour the Pope shall he take that as importing privileges 9. Good men commonly out of charitable simplicity meekness modesty and humility love of peace and aversness from contention are apt to yield to the encroachments of those who any-wise do excell them and when such men do yield others are ready to follow their example Bad men have little interest to resist and no heart to stand for publick good but rather strike in presently taking advantage by their compliance to drive a good market for themselves Hence so many of all sorts in all times did comply with Popes or did not obstruct them suffering them without great obstacle to raise their power 10. If in such cases a few wise men do apprehend the consequences of things yet they can doe little to prevent them They seldom have the courage with sufficient zeal to bustle against encroachments fearing to be overborn by its stream to lose their labour and vainly to suffer by it If they offer at resistence it is usually faint and moderate whereas power doth act vigorously and push it self forward with mighty violence so that it is not onely difficult to check it but dangerous to oppose it Ambiguity of words as it causeth many debates so yieldeth much advantage to the foundation and amplification of power for whatever is said of it will be interpreted in favour of it and will afford colour to its pretences Words innocently or carelesly used are by interpretation extended to signifie great matters or what you please For instance The word Bishop may import any kind of superintendency or inspection hence Saint Peter came to be reckoned Bishop of Rome because in virtue of his Apostolical Office he had inspection over that Church founded by him and might exercise some Episcopal acts The word Head doth signifie any kind of eminency the word Prince any priority the word to preside any kind of superiority or preeminence hence some Fathers attributing those names to Saint Peter they are interpreted to have thought him Sovereign in power over the Apostles And because some did give like terms to the Pope they infer his Superiority in power over all Bishops notwithstanding such Fathers did express a contrary judgment The word Successour may import any derivation of power hence because Saint Peter is said to have founded the Church of Rome and to have ordained the first Bishop there the Pope is called his Successour The word Authority doth often import any kind of influence upon the opinions or actions of men grounded upon eminence of place worth reputation or any such advantage Hence because the Pope of old sometimes was desired to interpose his authority they will understand him to have had right to command or judge in such cases although authority is sometimes opposed to command as where Livy saith that Evander did hold those places by authority rather than by command and Tacitus of the German Princes saith They are heard rather according to their authority of persuading than power of commanding The word Judge saith Canus is frequently used to signifie no more than I do think or conceive whereby he doth excuse divers Popes from having decreed a notable errour for Alexander III. says of them that they judged that after a matrimony contracted not consummated another may be valid that being dissolved Yet if the Pope is said to have judged so or so in any case it is alledged for a certain argument of proper Jurisdiction 11. There is a strange inchantment in words which being although with no great colour of reason assumed do work on the fancies of men especially of the weaker sort Of these power doth ever arrogate to it self such as are most operative by their force sustaining and extending it self So divers prevalent Factions did assume to themselves the name of Catholick and the Roman Church particularly hath appropriated that word to it self even so as to commit a Bull implying Rome and the Universe to be the same place and the perpetual canting of this Term hath been one of its most effectual charms to weak people I am a Catholick that is an Vniversal therefore all I hold is true this is their great Argument The words Successour of Peter Apostolick See Prima Sedes have been strongly urged for Arguments of Papal Authority the which have beyond their true force for indeed they signifie nothing had a strange efficacy upon men of understanding and wisedom 12. The Pope's power was much amplified by the importunity of persons condemned or extruded from their places whether upon just accounts or wrongfully and by faction for they finding no other more hopefull place of refuge and redress did often apply to him for what will not men doe whither will not they go in straits Thus did Marcion go to Rome and sue for admission to communion there So Fortunatus and Felicissimus in St. Cyprian being condemned in Africk did fly to Rome for shelter of which absurdity St. Cyprian doth so complain So likewise Martianus and Basilides in St. Cyprian being outed of their Sees for having lapsed from the Christian profession did fly to Stephen for succour to be restored So Maximus the Cynick went to Rome to get a confirmation of his election at Constantinople So Marcellus being rejected for Heterodoxy went thither to get attestation to his Orthodoxy of which St. Basil complaineth So Apiarius being condemned in Africk for his crimes did appeal to Rome And on the other side Athanasius being with great partiality condemned by the Synod of Tyre Paulus and other Bishops being extruded from their Sees for Orthodoxy St. Chrysostome being condemned and expelled by Theophilus and his complices Flavianus being deposed by Dioscorus and the Ephesine Synod Theodoret being condemned by the same did cry out for help from Rome Chelidonius Bishop of Resanon being deposed by Hilarius of Arles for crimes did fly to Pope Leo. Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople being extruded from his See by Photius did complain to the Pope 13. All Princes are forward to heap honour on the Bishop of their Imperial City it seeming a disgrace to themselves that so near a relation be an inferiour to any other who is as it were their Spiritual Pastour who is usually by their special favour advanced The City it self and the Court will be restless in assisting him to climb Thus did the Bishop of Constantinople arise to that high pitch of honour and to be Second Patriarch who at first was a mean Suffragan to the Bishop of Heraclea this by the Synods of Constantinople and Chalcedon is assigned for the reason of his advancement And
onely bring much grist to his Mill but did enable him highly to oblige divers persons especially great ones to himself For to him they owed the quiet of their Conscience from scruples To him they owed the satisfaction of their desires and legitimation of their issue and title to their possessions 36. So the device of Indulgences did greatly raise the veneration of him for who would not adore him that could loose his bands and free his Soul from long and grievous pains SUPPOSITION VI. The next Supposition is this That in Fact the Roman Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Sovereign Power THIS is a Question of Fact which will best be decided by a particular consideration of the several Branches of Sovereign Power that so we may examine the more distinctly whether in all Ages the Popes have enjoyed and exercised them or not And if we survey the particular Branches of Sovereignty we shall find that the Pope hath no just title to them in reason by valid Law or according to ancient practice whence each of them doth yield a good argument against his pretences 1. If the Pope were Sovereign of the Church he would have power to convocate its supreme Councils and Judicatories and would constantly have exercised it This power therefore the Pope doth claim and indeed did pretend to it a long time since before they could obtain to exercise it It is manifestly apparent saith Pope Leo X. with approbation of his Laterane Synod that the Roman Bishop for the time being as who hath authority over all Councils hath alone the full right and power of indicting translating and dissolving Councils and long before him To the Apostolical authority said Pope Adrian I. by our Lord's command and by the merits of Saint Peter and by the decrees of the Holy Canons and of the Venerable Fathers a right and special power of convocating Synods hath many-wise been committed and yet before him The authority saith Pope Pelagius II. of convocating Synods hath been delivered to the Apostolical See by the singular privilege of Saint Peter But it is manifest that the Pope cannot pretend to this power by virtue of any old Ecclesiastical Canon none such being extant or produced by him Nor can he alledge any ancient custome there having been no General Synod before Constantine and as to the practice from that time it is very clear that for some Ages the Popes did not assume or exercise such a power and that it was not taken for their due Nothing can be more evident and it were extreme impudence to deny that the Emperours at their pleasure and by their authority did congregate all the first General Synods for so the oldest Historians in most express terms do report so those Princes in their Edicts did aver so the Synods themselves did declare The most just and pious Emperours who did bear greatest love to the Clergy and had much respect for the Pope did call them without scruple it was deemed their right to doe it none did remonstrate against their practice the Fathers in each Synod did refer thereto with allowance and commonly with applause Popes themselves did not contest their right yea commonly did petition them to exercise it These things are so clear and so obvious that it is almost vain to prove them I shall therefore but touch them In general Socrates doth thus attest to the ancient practice We saith he do continually include the Emperours in our history because upon them ever since they became Christians Ecclesiastical affairs have depended and the greatest Synods have been and are made by their appointment and Justinian in his prefatory type to the Fifth General Council beginneth thus It hath been ever the care of Pious and Orthodox Emperours by the assembling of the most religious Bishops to cut off Heresies as they did spring up and by the right faith sincerely preached to keep the Holy Church of God in peace and to doe this was so proper to the Emperours that when Ruffin did affirm Saint Hilary to have been excommunicated in a Synod Saint Hierome to confute him did ask tell me What Emperour did command this Synod to be congregated implying it to be illegal or impossible that a Synod should be congregated without the Imperial command Particularly Eusebius saith of the first Christian Emperour that as a common Bishop appointed by God he did summon Synods of God's Ministers so did he command a great number of Bishops to meet at Arles for decision of the Donatists cause so did he also command the Bishops from all quarters to meet at Tyre for examination of the affairs concerning Athanasius and that he did convocate the great Synod of Nice the first and most renowned of all General Synods all the Historians do agree he did himself affirm the Fathers thereof in their Synodical remonstrances did avow as we shall hereafter in remarking on the passages of that Synod shew The same course did his Son Constantius follow without impediment for although he was a favourer of the Arian Party yet did the Catholick Bishops readily at his call assemble in the great Synods of Sardica of Ariminum of Seleucia of Sirmium of Milan c. Which he out of a great zeal to compose dissentions among the Bishops did convocate After him the Emperour Valentinian understanding of dissensions about divine matters to compose them did indict a Synod in Illyricum A while after for settlement of the Christian State which had been greatly disturbed by the Persecution of Julian and of Valens and by divers Factions Theodosius I. did command saith Theodoret the Bishops of his Empire to be assembled together at Constantinople the which meeting accordingly did make the Second General Synod in the congregation of which the Pope had so little to doe that Baronius saith it was celebrated against his will Afterwards when Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople affecting to seem wiser than others in explaining the mystery of Christ's Incarnation had raised a jangle to the disturbance of the Church for removing it the Emperour Theodosius II. did by his edict command the Bishops to meet at Ephesus who there did celebrate the Third General Council in the beginning of each Action it is affirmed that the Synod was convocated by the Imperial decree the Synod it self doth often profess it the Pope's own Legate doth acknowledge it and so doth Cyril the President thereof The same Emperour upon occasion of Eutyches being condemned at Constantinople and the stirs thence arising did indict the Second General Synod of Ephesus which proved abortive by the miscariages of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria as appeareth by his Imperial Letters to Dioscorus and the other Bishops summoning them to that Synod We have decreed that the most holy Bishops meeting together c. After the same manner the other most reverend Bishops were written to to come
as well in the places and bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as of Secular Empire Wherefore Saint Peter's Monarchy reason requiring might be cantonized into divers spiritual Supremacies and as other Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions have been chopp'd and chang'd enlarged or diminished removed and extinguished so might that of the Roman Bishop The Pope cannot retain power in any State against the will of the Prince he is not bound to suffer correspondences with Foreigners especially such who apparently have interests contrary to his honour and the good of his people 5. Especially that might be done if the continuance of such a Jurisdiction should prove abominably corrupt or intolerably grievous to the Church 6. That power is defectible which according to the nature and course of things doth sometime fail But the Papal Succession hath often been interrupted by contingencies of Sedition Schism Intrusion Simoniacal Election Deposition c. as before shewed and is often interrupted by Vacancies from the death of the Incumbents 7. If leaving their dubious and false suppositions concerning Divine Institution Succession to Saint Peter c. we consider the truth of the case and indeed the more grounded plea of the Pope that Papal preeminence was obtained by the wealth and dignity of the Roman City and by the collation or countenance of the Imperial authority then by the defect of such advantages it may cease or be taken away for when Rome hath ceased to be the Capital City the Pope may cease to be Head of the Church When the Civil powers which have succeeded the Imperial each in its respective Territory are no less absolute than it they may take it away if they judge it fit for whatever power was granted by humane Authority by the same may be revoked and what the Emperour could have done each Sovereign power now may doe for it self An indefectible power cannot be settled by man because there is no power ever extant at one time greater than there is at another so that whatever power one may raise the other may demolish there being no bounds whereby the present time may bind all posterity However no humane Law can exempt any Constitution from the providence of God which at pleasure can dissolve whatever man hath framed And if the Pope were devested of all adventitious power obtained by humane means he would be left very bare and hardly would take it worth his while to contend for Jurisdiction 8. However or whencesoever the Pope had his Authority yet it may be forfeited by defects and defaults incurred by him If the Pope doth encroach on the rights and liberties of others usurping a lawless domination beyond reason and measure they may in their own defence be forced to reject him and shake off his yoke If he will not be content to govern otherwise than by infringing the Sacred Laws and trampling down the inviolable Privileges of the Churches either granted by Christ or established by the Sanctions of General Synods he thereby depriveth himself of all Authority because it cannot be admitted upon tolerable terms without greater wrong of many others whose right out-weigheth his and without great mischief to the Church the good of which is to be preferred before his private advantage This was the Maxime of a great Pope a great stickler for his own dignity for when the Bishop of Constantinople was advanced by a General Synod above his ancient pitch of dignity that Pope opposing him did say that whoever doth affect more than his due doth lose that which properly belonged to him the which Rule if true in regard to another's case may be applied to the Pope for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again On such a supposition of the Papal encroachment we may return his words upon him It is too proud and immoderate a thing to stretch beyond ones bounds and in contempt of antiquity to be willing to invade other mens right and to oppose the Primacies of so many Metropolitans on purpose to advance the dignity of one For the privileges of Churches being instituted by the Canons of the holy Fathers and fixt by the Decrees of the venerable Synod of Nice cannot be pluckt up by any wicked attempt nor altered by any innovation Far be it from me that I should in any Church infringe the Decrees of our Ancestours made in favour of my Fellow-priests for I do my self injury if I disturb the rights of my brethren The Pope surely according to any ground of Scripture or Tradition or ancient Law hath no Title to greater Principality in the Church than the Duke of Venice hath in that State Now if the Duke of Venice in prejudice to the publick right and liberty should attempt to stretch his power to an absoluteness of command or much beyond the bounds allowed him by the constitution of that Common-wealth he would thereby surely forfeit his Supremacy such as it is and afford cause to the State of rejecting him the like occasion would the Pope give to the Church by the like demeanour 9. The Pope by departing from the Doctrine and Practice of Saint Peter would forfeit his Title of Successour to him for in such a case no succession in place or in name could preserve it The Popes themselves had swerved and degenerated from the example of Peter They are not the Sons of the Saints who hold the places of the Saints but they that doe their works Which place is rased out of St. Hierome They have not the inheritance of Peter who have not the faith of Peter which they tear asunder by ungodly division So Gregory Nazianzene saith of Athanasius that he was Successour of Mark no less in piety than presidency the which we must suppose to be properly succession otherwise the Mufti of Constantinople is Successour to St. Andrew of St. Chrysostome c. the Mufti of Jerusalem to St. James If then the Bishop of Rome instead of teaching Christian Doctrine doth propagate Errours contrary to it If instead of guiding into Truth and Godliness he seduceth into Falshood and Impiety If instead of declaring and pressing the Laws of God he delivereth and imposeth Precepts opposite prejudicial destructive of God's Laws If instead of promoting genuine Piety he doth in some instances violently oppose it If instead of maintaining true Religion he doth pervert and corrupt it by bold Defalcations by Superstitious additions by Foul mixtures and alloys If he coineth new Creeds Articles of Faith new Scriptures new Sacraments new Rules of Life obtruding them on the Consciences of Christians If he conformeth the Doctrines of Christianity to the Interests of his Pomp and Profit making gain godliness If he prescribe Vain Profane Superstitious ways of Worship turning Devotion into Foppery and Pageantry If instead of preserving Order and Peace he fomenteth Discords and Factions in the Church being a Make-bate and Incendiary among
occasion did invite and circumstances of things did permit interdicting Princes absolving Subjects from their Allegeance raising or encouraging Insurrections as appeareth by their transactions not long since against our Princes and those of France which shews the very See imbued with those Notions 7. They do oblige all Bishops most solemnly to avow this Doctrine and to engage themselves to practise according to it For in the Oath prescribed to all Bishops they are required to avow that they will observe the Apostolical commands with all their power and cause them to be observed by others that they will aid and defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of Saint Peter against every man that they will to their power persecute and impugn Hereticks Schismaticks and Rebels to the Pope or his Successours without any exception which was I suppose chiefly meant against their own Prince if occasion should be together with divers other points importing their acknowledgment and abetting the Pope's universal Domination These horrible Oaths of Bishops to the Pope do seem to have issued from the same shop with the high Hildebrandine dictates for the Oath in the Decretals is ascribed to Pope Gregory I suppose Greg. VII And in the sixth Roman Synod under Greg. VII there is an Oath of like tenour exacted from the Bishop of Aquileia perhaps occasionally which in pursuance of that example might be extended to all And that before that time such Oaths were not imposed doth appear from hence that when P. Paschal II. did require them from some great Bishops the Bishop of Palermo and the Archbishop of Poland they did wonder and boggle at it as an uncouth Novelty nor doth the Pope in favour of his demand alledge any ancient precedent but onely proposeth some odd reasons for it You have signified unto me most dear Brother that the King and his Nobles did exceedingly wonder that an Oath with such a condition should be every-where offered you by my Commissioners and that you should take that Oath which I had written and they tendered to you § VI. All Romanists in consistence with their Principles do seem obliged to hold this opinion concerning the Pope's Universal Power For seeing many of their standing Masters and Judges of Controversies have so expresly from their Chair declared and defined it all the Row for many Ages consenting to it and countenancing it not one of them having signified any dissent or dislike of it And considering that if in any thing they may require or deserve belief it is in this point for in what are they more skilfull and credible than about the nature of their own Office What saith Bellarmine wisely may they be conceived to know better than the Authority of their own See Seeing it hath been approved by their most great and famous Councils which they hold Universal and which their adored Synod of Trent doth alledge for such the Laterane under P. Innocent III. that of Lions under P. Innocent IV. the other Laterane under P. Leo X. Seeing it hath been current among their Divines of greatest vogue and authority the great Masters of their School Seeing by so large a consent and concurrence during so long a time it may pretend much better than divers other Points of great importance to be confirmed by Tradition or Prescription Why should it not be admitted for a Doctrine of the Holy Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches How can they who disavow this Notion be true Sons of that Mother or faithfull Scholars of that Mistress How can they acknowledge any Authority in their Church to be infallible or certain or obliging to assent How can they admit the Pope for authentick Judge of Controversies or Master of Christian Doctrine or in any Point credible who hath in so great a matter erred so foully and seduced the Christian world whom they desert in a Point of so great consideration and influence on practice whom they by virtue of their dissent from him in this Opinion may often be obliged to oppose in his proceedings How can they deny that bad Doctrines might creep in and obtain sway in the Church by the interest of the Pope and his Clients How can they charge Novelty or Heterodoxy on those who refuse some Dictates of Popes of Papal Councils of Scholastick Divines which stand upon no better grounds than those on which this Doctrine standeth Why hath no Synod of the many which have been held in all parts of Christendom clearly disclaimed this Opinion but all have let it slip or have seemed by silence to approve it Yea how can the Concord and Unity of that Church well consist with a Dissent from this Doctrine For No man apprehending it false seemeth capable with good conscience to hold Communion with those who profess it for upon supposition of its falshood the Pope and his chief adherents are the teachers and abettours of the highest violation of Divine Commands and most enormous sins of Usurpation Tyranny Imposture Perjury Rebellion Murther Rapine and all the villanies complicated in the practical influence of this Doctrine It seemeth clear as the Sun that if this Doctrine be an Errour it is one of the most pernicious Heresies that ever was vented involving the highest Impiety and producing the greatest Mischief For If he that should teach Adultery Incest Simony Theft Murther or the like Crimes to be lawfull would be a Heretick how much more would he be such that should recommend Perjury Rebellion Regicide things inducing Wars Confusions Slaughters Desolations all sorts of Injustice and Mischief as Duties How then can any man safely hold Communion with such persons May we not say with P. Symmachus that to communicate with such is to consent with them with P. Gelasius that it is worse than ignorance of the truth to communicate with the enemies of truth and that He who communicateth with such an Heresie is worthily judged to be removed from our society § VII Yet so loose and slippery are the Principles of the Party which is jumbled in adherence to the Pope that divers will not allow us to take this Tenent of Infinite Power to be a Doctrine of their Church for divers in that Communion do not assent to it For there is a sort of Hereticks as Bellarmine and Baronius call them sculking every-where in the bosome of their Church all about Christendom and in some places stalking with open face who restrain the Pope's Authority so far as not to allow him any Power over Sovereign Princes in Temporal affairs much less any power of depriving them of their Kingdoms and Principalities They all are branded for Hereticks who take from the Church of Rome and the See of Saint Peter one of the two Swords and allow onely the Spiritual This Heresie Baronius hath nominated the Heresie of the Politicks This Heresie a great Nation otherwise sticking to the Roman Communion doth stiffly maintain not enduring the
had such a right it is not probable that Saint Peter by his fact would have deprived it thereof or willingly done any thing in prejudice to it there being apparently so much equity that the Church should have a stroke in designation of its Pastour In ancient times there was not any small Church which had not a suffrage in the choice of its Pastour and was it fitting that all the Church should have one imposed on it without its consent If we consider the manner in ancient time of electing and constituting the Roman Bishop we may thence discern not onely the improbability but iniquity of this pretence how was he then chosen was it by a General Synod of Bishops or by Delegates from all parts of Christendom whereby the common interest in him might appear and whereby the World might be satisfied that one was elected fit for that high Office No he was chosen as usually then other particular Bishops were by the Clergy and People of Rome none of the World being conscious of the proceeding or bearing any share therein Now was it equal that such a power of imposing a Sovereign on all the grave Bishops and on all the good people of the Christian world should be granted to one City Was it fitting that such a charge importing advancement above all Pastours and being entrusted with the welfare of all Souls in Christendom should be the result of an election liable to so many defects and corruptions which assuredly often if not almost constantly would be procured by ambition bribery or partiality would be managed by popular faction and tumults It was observed generally of such Elections by Nazianzene that Prelacies were not rather by vertue than by naughtiness and that Episcopal Thrones did not rather belong to the more worthy than to the more powerfull And declaring his mind or wish that Elections of Bishops should rest onely or chiefly in the best men not in the wealthiest and mightiest or in the impetuousness and unreasonableness of the people and among them in those who are most easily bought and bribed whereby he intimateth the common practice and subjoineth but now I can hardly avoid thinking that the popular or civil governances are better ordered than ours which are reputed to have divine grace attending them And that the Roman Elections in that time were come into that course we may see by the relation and reflexions of an honest Pagan Historian concerning the Election of Pope Damasus contemporary of Gregory Nazianz. Damasus saith he and Vrsinus above humane measure burning with desire to snatch the Episcopal See did with divided parties most fiercely conflict in which conflict upon one day in the very Church 130 persons were slain so did that great Pope get into the Chair thus as the Historian reflecteth the wealth and pomp of the place naturally did provoke ambition by all means to seek it and did cause fierce contentions to arise in the choice whence commonly wise and modest persons being excluded from any capacity thereof any ambitious and cunning man who had the art or the luck to please the multitude would by violence obtain it which was a goodly way of constituting a Sovereign to the Church Thus it went within three ages after our Lord and afterwards in the declensions of Christian simplicity and integrity matters were not like to be mended but did indeed rather grow worse as beside the reports and complaints of Historians how that commonly by ambitious prensations by Simoniacal corruptions by political bandyings by popular factions by all kinds of sinister ways men crept into the place doth appear by those many dismal Schisms which gave the Church many pretended Heads but not one certain one as also by the result of them being the choice of persons very unworthy and horribly flagitious If it be said that the Election of a Pope in old times was wont to be approved by the consent of all Bishops in the world according to the testimony of St. Cyprian who saith of Cornelius that he was known by the testimony of his fellow-Bishops whose whole number through all the world did with peacefull unanimity consent I answer that this consent was not in the Election or antecedently to it that it was onely by Letters or messages declaring the Election according to that of St. Cyprian that it was not any-wise peculiar to the Roman Bishop but such as was yielded to all Catholick Bishops each of whom was to be approved as St. Cyprian saith by the testimony and judgment of his Collegues that it was in order onely to the maintaining fraternal communion and correspondence signifying that such a Bishop was duly elected by his Clergy and People was rightly ordained by his neighbour Bishops did profess the Catholick Faith and was therefore qualified for communion with his Brethren such a consent to the Election of any Bishop of old was given especially upon occasion and when any question concerning the right of a Bishop did intervene whereof now in the Election of a Pope no footstep doth remain We may also note that the Election of Cornelius being contested he did more solemnly acquaint all the Bishops of the world with his case and so did obtain their approbation in a way more than ordinary 13. If God had designed this derivation of Universal Sovereignty it is probable that he would have prescribed some certain standing immutable way of Election and imparted the right to certain Persons and not left it at such uncertainty to the chances of time so that the manner of Election hath often changed and the power of it tossed into divers hands And though in several times there have been observed several ways as to the Election of the Roman Pontifs according as the necessity and expediency of the Church required Of old it was as other Elections managed by nomination of the Clergy and suffrage of the People Afterward the Emperours did assume to themselves the nomination or approbation of them For then nothing was done by the Clergy in the choice of the Pope unless the Emperour had approv'd his Election But he seeing the Prince's consent was required sent Messengers with Letters to intreat Mauritius that he would not suffer the Election made by the Clergy and People of Rome in that case to be valid Leo VIII being tired out with the inconstancy of the Romans transferred the whole power and authority of chusing the Pope from the Clergy and People of Rome to the Emperour At some times the Clergy had no hand in the Election but Popes were intruded by powerfull Men or Women at their pleasure Afterwards the Cardinals that is some of the chief Roman Clergy did appropriate the Election to themselves by the Decree of Pope Nicholas II. in his Lateran Synod Sometimes out of course general Synods did assume the Choice to themselves as at Constance Pisa and Basil.
large Epistle wherein like a good Bishop and charitable Christian brother he doth earnestly by manifold inducements persuade them to charity and peace but no-where doth he speak imperiously like their Prince In such a case one would think if ever for quashing such disorders and quelling so perverse folks who spurned the Clergy it had been decent it had been expedient to employ his Authority and to speak like himself challenging obedience upon duty to him and at their peril How would a modern Pope have ranted in such a case how thundring a Bull would he have dispatched against such outragious contemners of the Ecclesiastical Order how often would he have spoken of the Apostolick See and its Authority we should infallibly have heard him swagger in his wonted style Whoever shall presume to cross our will let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul but our Popes it seemeth have more wit or better mettle than Pope Clement that good Pope did not know his own strength or had not the heart to use it 21. Among the Epistles of St. Cyprian there are divers Epistles of him to several Popes to Cornelius to Lucius to Stephanus in the which although written with great kindness and respect yet no impartial eye can discern any special regard to them as to his Superiours in Power or Pastours in Doctrine or Judges of Practice he reporteth matters to them he conferreth about Points with all freedom he speaketh his sense and giveth his advice without any restraint or awe he spareth not upon occasion to reprove their practices and to reject their opinions he in his addresses to them and discourses of them styleth them Brethren and Collegues and he continually treateth them as such upon even terms When saith he to the Clergy of Rome dearest Brethren there was among us an uncertain rumour concerning the decease of the good man my Collegue Fabianus upon which words Rigaltius had cause to remark How like an equal and fellow-citizen doth the Bishop of Carthage mention the Bishop of Rome even to the Roman Clergy but would not any man now be deemed rude and sawcy who should talk in that style of the Pope Pope Cornelius also to Saint Cyprian hath some Epistles wherein no glimpse doth appear of any Superiority assumed by him But of St. Cyprian's judgment and demeanour toward Popes we shall have occasion to speak more largely in a way more positively opposite to the Roman pretences Eusebius citeth divers long passages out of an Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius Bishop of Antioch against Novatus wherein no mark of this Supremacy doth appear although the magnitude and flourishing State of the Roman Church is described for aggravation of Novatus his Schism and ambition Pope Julius hath a notable long Epistle extant in one of Athanasius's Apologies unto the Bishops assembled at Antioch wherein he had â—he fairest occasion that could be to assert and insist upon this Sovereign Authority they flatly denying and impugning it questioning his proceedings as singular supposing him subject to the Laws of the Church no less than any other Bishop and downrightly affirming each of themselves to be his equal about which Point he thought good not to contend with them but waving pretences to Superiority he justifieth his actions by reasons grounded on the merit of the cause such as any other Bishop might alledge But this Epistle I shall have more particular occasion to discuss Pope Liberius hath an Epistle to St. Athanasius wherein he not onely for his direction and satisfaction doth inquire his opinion about the Point but professeth in complement perchance that he shall obediently follow it Write saith he whether you do think as we do and just so about the true faith that I may be undoubtedly assured about what you think good to command me was not that spoken indeed like a courteous Sovereign and an accomplished Judge in matters of Faith The same Pope in the head of the Western doth write to a knot of Eastern Bishops whom they call their beloved Brethren and fellow Ministers and in a brotherly strain not like an Emperour In the time of Damasus Successour to Liberius St. Basil hath divers Epistles to the Western Bishops wherein having represented and bewailed the wretched state of the Eastern Churches then overborn with Heresies and unsettled by Factions he craveth their charity their prayers their sympathy their comfort their brotherly aid by affording to the Orthodox and sound Party the countenance of their Communion by joining with them in contention for Truth and Peace for that the Communion of so great Churches would be of mighty weight to support and strengthen their Cause giving credit thereto among the People and inducing the Emperour to deal fairly with them in respect to such a multitude of adherents especially of those which were at such a distance and not so immediately subject to the Eastern Emperour for If saith he very many of you do concur unanimously in the same opinion it is manifest that the multitude of consenters will make the doctrine to be received without contradiction and I know saith he again writing to Athanasius about these matters but one way of redress to our Churches the conspiring with us of the Western Bishops the which being obtained would probably yield some advantage to the publick the secular power revering the credibility of the multitude and the people all about following them without repugnance and You saith he to the Western Bishops the farther you dwell from them the more credible you will be to the people This indeed was according to the ancient Rule and Practice in such cases that any Church being oppressed with Errour or distracted with Contentions should from the Bishops of other Churches receive aid to the removal of those inconveniences That it was the Rule doth appear from what we have before spoken and of the Practice there be many instances for so did St. Cyprian send two of his Clergy to Rome to compose the Schism there moved by Novatian against Cornelius so was St. Chrysostome called to Ephesus although out of his Jurisdiction to settle things there so to omit divers instances occurring in History St. Basil himself was called by the Church of Iconium to visit it and to give it a Bishop although it did not belong to his ordinary inspection and he doth tell the Bishops of the Coasts that they should have done well in sending some to visit and assist his Churches in their distresses But now how I pray cometh it to pass that in such a case he should not have a special recourse to the Pope but in so many addresses should onely wrap him up in a community why should he not humbly petition him to exert his Sovereign Authority for the relief of the Eastern Churches laying his charge and inflicting censures on the dissenters why should he
bulk whereas so long ago when it was but in its budd and stripling age it was observed of it by a very honest Historian that the Roman Episcopacy had long since advanced into a high degree of power beyond the Priesthood 3. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by destroying that brotherly co-ordination and equality which our Lord did appoint among the Bishops and chief Pastours of his Church He did as we before shewed prohibit all his Apostles to assume any domination or authoritative Superiority over one another the which command together with others concerning the Pastoral function we may well suppose to reach their Successours so did St. Hierome suppose collecting thence that all Bishops by original Institution are equals or that no one by our Lord's order may challenge Superiority over another Whereever saith he a Bishop is whether at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Thanis he is of the same worth and of the same Priesthood the power of wealth or lowness of poverty do not make a Bishop higher or lower but all are Successours of the Apostles where doth not he plainly deny the Bishop of Eugubium to be inferiour to him of Rome as being no less a Successour of the Apostles than he doth he not say these words in way of proof that the authority of the Roman Bishop or Church was of no validity against the practice of other Bishops and Churches upon occasion of Deacons there taking upon them more than in other places as Cardinal Deacons do now which excludeth such distinctions as Scholastical fancies have devised to shift off his Testimony the which he uttered simply never dreaming of such distinctions This consequence St. Gregory did suppose when he therefore did condemn the Title of Vniversal Bishop because it did imply an affectation of Superiority and dignity in one Bishop above others of abasing the name of other Bishops in comparison of his own of extolling himself above the rest of Priests c. This the ancient Popes did remember when usually in their compellation of any Bishop they did style them Brethren Collegues fellow-Ministers fellow-Bishops not intending thereby complement or mockery but to declare their sense of the original equality among Bishops notwithstanding some differences in Order and Privileges which their See had obtained And that this was the general sense of the Fathers we shall afterward shew Hence when it was objected to them that they did affect Superiority they did sometimes disclaim it so did Pope Gelasius I. a zealous man for the honour of his See 4. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture not onely by trampling down the dignity of Bishops which according to St. Gregory doth imply great pride and presumption but as really infringing the Rights granted by our Lord to his Church and the Governours of it For to each Church our Lord hath imposed a Duty and imparted a Power of maintaining divine Truth and so approving it self a pillar and support of truth of deciding Controversies possible and proper to be decided with due temper ultimately without farther resort for that he who will not obey or acquiesce in its Decision is to be as a heathen or publican Of censuring and rejecting Offenders in Doctrine or Demeanour Those within saith Saint Paul to the Church of Corinth do not ye judge But them that are without God judgeth wherefore put away from among your selves that wicked person Of preserving Order and Decency according to that Rule prescribed to the Church of Corinth let all things be done decently and in order Of promoting edification Of deciding Causes All which Rights and Privileges the Roman Bishop doth bereave the Churches of snatching them to himself pretending that he is the Sovereign Doctour Judge Regulatour of all Churches over-ruling and voiding all that is done by them according to his pleasure The Scripture hath enjoyned and empowered all Bishops to feed guide and rule their respective Churches as the Ministers Stewards Ambassadours Angels of God for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edification of the Body of Christ To them God hath committed the care of their People so that they are responsible for their Souls All which Rights and Privileges of the Episcopal Office the Pope hath invaded doth obstruct cramp frustrate destroy pretending without any warrant that their Authority is derived from him forcing them to exercise it no otherwise than as his Subjects and according to his pleasure But of this Point more afterward 5. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by robbing all Christian People of the Liberties and Rights with which by that Divine Charter they are endowed and which they are obliged to preserve inviolate Saint Paul enjoyneth the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage there is therefore a liberty which we must maintain and a power to which we must not submit and against whom can we have more ground to doe this than against him who pretendeth to dogmatize to define Points of Faith to impose Doctrines new and strange enough on our Consciences under a peremptory obligation of yielding assent to them to prescribe Laws as Divine and necessary to be observed without warrant as those Dogmatists did against whom Saint Paul biddeth us to maintain our Liberty so that if he should declare vertue to be vice and white to be black we must believe him some of his Adherents have said consistently enough with his pretences for Against such tyrannical Invaders we are bound to maintain our Liberty according to that Precept of Saint Paul the which if a Pope might well alledge against the proceedings of a General Synod with much more reason may we thereby justify our non-submission to one man's exorbitant domination This is a Power which the Apostles themselves did not challenge to themselves for We saith Saint Paul have not dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy They did not pretend that any Christian should absolutely believe them in cases wherein they had not Revelation general or special from God in such cases referring their Opinion to the judgment and discretion of Christians They say Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed If any man c. which Precept with many others of the like purport injoyning us to examine the truth to adhere unto the received Doctrine to decline heterodoxies and novelties doth signify nothing if every Christian hath not allowed to him a judgment of discretion but is tyed blindly to follow the dictates of another St. Austin I am sure did think this liberty such that without betraying it no man could be obliged to believe any thing not grounded upon Canonical Authority for
accommodation of Laws to the different humours and fashions of so many Nations Shall a decrepit old man in the decay of his age parts vigour such as Popes usually are undertake this May we not say to him as Jethro did to Moses Vltra vires tuas est negotium The thing thou doest is not good thou wilt surely wear away both thou and this People that is with thee for this thing is too heavy for thee thou art not able to perform it thy self alone If the care of a small Diocese hath made the most able and industrious Bishops who had a Conscience and sense of their duty to grown under its weight how insupportable must such a thing be The care of his own particular Church if he would act the part of a Bishop indeed would sufficiently take up the Pope especially in some times whenas Pope Alex. saith Vt intestina nostrae specialis Ecclesiae negotia vix possemus ventilare nedum longinqua ad plenum extricare If it be said that Saint Paul testifieth of himself that he had a care of all the Churches incumbent on him I answer that he and other Apostles had the like questionless had a pious solicitude for the welfare of all Christians especially of the Churches which he had founded being vigilant for occasions to edifie them but what is this to bearing the charge of a standing government over all Churches diffused through the world that care of a few Churches then was burthensome to him what is the charge of so many now to one seldom endowed with such Apostolical graces and gifts as Saint Paul was How weak must the influence of such an Authority be upon the circumferential Parts of its Oecumenical Sphere How must the outward branches of the Churches faint and fade for want of sap from the root of Discipline which must be conveyed through so many obstructions to such a distance How discomposed must things be in each Country for want of seasonable resolution hanging in suspence till information do travell to Rome and determination come back thence How difficult how impossible will it be for him there to receive faithfull information or competent testimony whereupon to ground just decisions of Causes How will it be in the power thence of any malicious and cunning person to raise trouble against innocent persons for any like person to decline the due Correction laid on him by transferring the Cause from home to such a distance How much cost how much trouble how much hazard must parties concerned be at to fetch light and justice thence Put case a Heresie a Schism a Doubt or Debate of great moment should arise in China how should the Gentleman in Italy proceed to confute that Heresie to quash that Schism to satisfie that Doubt to determine that Cause how long must it be ere he can have notice thereof to how many cross accidents of weather and way must the transmitting of information be subject how difficult will it prove to get a clear and sure knowledge concerning the state of things How hard will it be to get the opposite parties to appear so as to confront testimonies and probations requisite to a fair and just decision how shall witnesses of infirm sex or age ramble so far how easily will some of them prepossess and abuse him with false suggestions and misrepresentations of the case how slippery therefore will the result be and how prone he to award a wrongfull sentence How tedious how expensive how troublesome how vexatious how hazardous must this course be to all parties Certainly Causes must needs proceed slowly and depend long and in the end the resolution of them must be very uncertain What temptation will it be for any one how justly soever corrected by his immediate Superiours to complain hoping thereby to escape to disguise the truth c. who being condemned will not appeal to one at distance hoping by false suggestions to delude him This necessarily will destroy all Discipline and induce impunity or frustration of Justice Certainly much more convenient and equal it should be that there should be near at hand a Sovereign Power fully capable expeditely and seasonably to compose differences to decide causes to resolve doubts to settle things without more stir and trouble Very equal it is that Laws should rather be framed interpreted and executed in every Countrey with accommodation to the tempers of the People to the circumstances of things to the Civil State there by persons acquainted with those particulars than by strangers ignorant of them and apt to mistake about them How often will the Pope be imposed upon as he was in the case of Basilides of whom St. Cyprian saith going to Rome he deceived our Collegue Stephen being placed at distance and ignorant of the fact and concealed truth aspiring to be unjustly restored to the Bishoprick from which he was justly removed As he was in the case of Marcellus who gull'd Pope Julius by fair professions as St. Basil doth often complain As he was in aiding that versatile and troublesome Bishop Eustathius of Sebastia to the recovery of his Bishoprick As he was in rejecting the man of God and most admirable Bishop Meletius and admitting scandalous reports about him which the same Saint doth often resent blaming sometimes the fallacious misinformation sometimes the wilfull presumption negligence pride of the Roman Church in the case As he was in the case of Pelagius and Celestius who did cajole Pope Zosimus to acquit them to condemn Eros and Lazarus their accusers to reprove the African Bishops for prosecuting them How many proceedings should we have like to that of Pope Zosimus I. concerning that scandalous Priest Apiarius whom being for grievous crimes excommunicated by his Bishop that Pope did admit to communion and undertake to patronize but was baffled in his enterprize This hath been the sense of the Fathers in the case St. Cyprian therefore saith that seeing it was a general statute among the Bishops and that it was both equal and just that every one's cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and that each Pastour had a portion of the Flock allotted to him which he should rule and govern being to render unto the Lord an account of his doing St. Chrysostome thought it improper that one out of Egypt should administer justice to Persons in Thrace and why not as well as one out of Italy The African Synod thought the Nicene Fathers had provided most prudently and most justly that all affairs should be finally determined there where they did arise They thought a transmarine judgment could not be firm because the necessary persons for testimony for the infirmity of sex or age or for many other infirmities could not be brought thither Pope Leo himself saw how dilatory this course would be and that longinquity of region doth cause the examination of truth
formally in express terms asserting it Thus when Felicissimus and his Complices being rejected by St. Cyprian did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius for his communion and countenance St. Cyprian affirmed that to be an irregular and unjust course subjoining Except to a few desperate and wicked persons the authority of the Bishops constituted in Africk who have already judged of them do seem less that is inferiour to any other Authority particularly to that of Rome unto which they had recourse what other meaning could he have doth not his Argument require this meaning Another instance is that of the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod being 97 Bishops the which St. Hilary calleth a Synod of Saints congregated the Decrees whereof the Catholick Church did admit into its Code and the Canons whereof Popes have called Venerable these in their Epistle to Pope Julius complaining of his demeanour in the case of Athanasius did flatly assert to themselves an equality with him They did not as Sozomen reciteth out of their Epistle therefore think it equal that they should be thought inferiours because they had not so big and numerous a Church That Pope himself testifieth the same in his Epistle to them extant in the second Apology of Athanasius If saith he ye do truly conceive the honour of Bishops to be equal and the same and ye do not as ye write judge of Bishops according to the magnitude of Cities which assertion of theirs so flatly thwarting Papal Supremacy he doth not at all confute yea not so much as contradict and therefore reasonably may be interpreted to yield consent thereto the rule He that holdeth his peace seemeth to consent never holding better than in this case when his copyhold was so nearly touched indeed he had been very blameable to wave such an occasion of defending so important a Truth or in letting so pestilent an Errour to pass without correction or reproof After the Pope had climbed higher than at that time upon the ladders of dissention and disorders in the Church yet he was reproved by Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople for preferring himself before his Brethren as we may collect from those words of a zealous Pope We desire not to be placed above others as you say so much as to have fellowship holy and well-pleasing to God with all the faithfull That Pope Gregory I. did not hold himself superiour to other Bishops many sayings of his do infer for in this he placeth the fault of the Bishop of Constantinople which he so often and so severely reprehendeth that he did prefer himself before and extoll himself above other Bishops And would he directly assume that to himself which he chargeth on another although onely following his position by consequence And when Eulogius the Bishop of Alexandria had complementally said sicut jussistis As you commanded He doth thus express his resentment That word of command I desire you let me not hear because I know who I am and who you are by place ye are my brethren in goodness fathers I did not therefore command but what seem'd profitable I hinted to you That many such Instances may not be alledged out of Antiquity the reason is because the ancient Popes did not understand this Power to belong to them and therefore gave no occasion for Bishops to maintain their honour or were more just prudent and modest than to take so much upon them as their Successours did upon frivolous pretences VIII The style used by the primitive Bishops in their applications to the Roman Bishop doth signify that they did not apprehend him their Sovereign but their equal Brother Collegue Fellow-bishop are the terms which St. Cyprian doth use in speaking about the Roman Bishops his contemporaries Fabianus Cornelius Lucius Stephanus and in his Epistles to the three last of them nor doth he ever use any other importing higher respect due to them as indeed his practice demonstrateth he did not apprehend any other due or that he did take them for his Superiours in Office Know now brother was the compellation of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria to Pope Stephanus The Synod of Antioch which rejected Paulus Samosatenus inscribeth its Epistle to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome and Maximus and all our Fellow-ministers through the world The old Synod of Arles directeth their Epistle to Signiour Sylvester their brother Athanasius saith These things may suffice which have been written by our beloved and Fellow-minister Damasus Bishop of great Rome Marcellus inscribed to Pope Julius to his Most blessed Fellow-minister So Cyril spake of Pope Celestine I. Our brother and Fellow-minister the Bishop of Rome So St. Basil and his Fellow-bishops of the East did inscribe their Epistle To the beloved of God and our most holy brethren and Fellow-ministers the unanimous Bishops through Italy and France In this style do the Fathers of Sardica salute Pope Julius those of Constantinople Pope Damasus those of Ephesus Pope Celestine I. our brother and Fellow-minister Celestine those of Carthage Pope Celestine I. in the very same terms wherein St. Austin doth salute Maximinus a Donatist Bishop Signiour my beloved and most honoured brother The Oriental Bishops Eustathius Theophilus and Silvanus did inscribe their Remonstrance to Pope Liberius To Signiour our brother and Fellow-minister Liberius So John of Antioch to Nestorius writeth to my Master The Synod of Illyricum call Elpidius Our seniour and Fellow-minister In which Instances and some others of later date we may observe that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Dominus was then as it is now barely a term of civility being then usually given to any person of quality or to whom they would express common respect so that St. Chrysostome in his Epistles commonly doth give it not onely to meaner Bishops but even to Priests and St. Austin doth thus salute even Donatist Bishops reflecting thereon thus Since therefore by charity I serve you in this Office of writing letters to you I do not improperly call you Master for the sake of our one true Master who has commanded us so to doe my most honour'd Master now therefore having with me my most honour'd Signiour and most reverend Presbyter c. my most honour'd Master Asyncritus the elder Pope Celestine himself did salute the Ephesine Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 masters brethren Even in the VI. Council Thomas Bishop of Constantinople did inscribe according to the old style to Pope Vitalianus his brother and Fellow-minister The French Bishops had good reason to expostulate with Pope Nicholas I. You may know that we are not as you boast and brag your Clerks whom if pride would suffer you ought to acknowledge for your brethren and Fellow-bishops Such are the terms and titles which primitive integrity when they meant to speak most kindly and respectfully did allow to the Pope being the same which all Bishops did give to one another as
to himself In the tumults against our King John he struck in and would have drawn the Kingdom to himself He would watch opportunity to quarrel with Princes upon pretence they did intrench on his Spiritual Power as about the point of the investiture of Bishops and receiving homage from them Gregory VII did excommunicate Henry III. Anno 1076. Calixtus II. Henry IV. Anno 1120. Adrian IV. Frederick Anno 1160. Celestinus III. Henry V. Anno 1195. Innocent III. Otho Anno 1219. Honorius III. and Gregory IX Frederick II. Anno 1220. Innocent IV. in the Ludg. Conc. 1245. 18. The ignorance of times did him great service for then all the little Learning which was being in his Clients and Factours they could instill what they pleased into the credulous People Then his Dictates would pass for infallible Oracles and his Decrees for inviolable Laws whence his veneration was exceedingly encreased 19. He was forward to support factious Church-men against Princes upon pretence of spiritual Interest and Liberty And usually by his importunity and arts getting the better in such contests he thereby did much strengthen his Authority 20. He making himself the Head of all the Clergy and carrying himself as its Protectour and Patron did ingage thereby innumerable most able heads tongues and pens who were devoted to maintain whatever he did and had little else to doe 21. So great a Party he cherished with exorbitant Liberties suffering none to rule over them or touch them beside himself 22. He did found divers Militias and bands of spiritual Janisaries to be Combatants for his Interests who depending immediately upon him subsisting by his Charters enjoying exemptions by his authority from other Jurisdictions being sworn to a special obeisance of him were entirely at his devotion ready with all their might to advance his Interests and to maintain all the pretences of their Patron and Benefactour These had great sway among the People upon account of their religious guises and pretences to extraordinary heights of sanctimony austerity contempt of the World And learning being mostly confined to them they were the chief Teachers and Guides of Christendom so that no wonder if he did challenge and could maintain any thing by their influence They did cry up his Power as superiour to all others They did attribute to him titles strangely high Vice-god Spouse of the Church c. strange attributes of Omnipotency Infallibility c. 23. Whereas Wealth is a great sinew of Power he did invent divers ways of drawing great store thereof to himself By how many tricks did he proll money from all parts of Christendom as by Dispensations for Marriage within degrees prohibited or at uncanonical times for Vows and Oaths for observance of Fasts and Abstinences for Pluralities and incompatible Benefices Non-residences c. Indulgences and Pardons and freeing Souls from the pains of Purgatory Reservations and provisions of Benefices not bestowed gratÃs Consecrated Presents Dei's Swords Roses c. Confirmations of Bishops sending Palls Appeals to his Court. Tributes of Peter-pence Annates Tithes introduced upon occasion of Holy Wars and continued Playing fast and loose tying knots and undoing them for gain Sending Legates to drein places of money Commutations of Penance for money Inviting to Pilgrimage at Rome Hooking in Legacies What a mass of Treasure did all this come to what a Trade did he drive 24. He did indeed easily by the help of his mercenary Divines transform most Points of Divinity in accommodation to his interests of Power Reputation and Gain 25. Any pretence how slender soever will in time get some validity being fortified by the consent of divers Authours and a current of sutable practice Any story serving the designs of a Party will get credit by being often told especially by Writers bearing a semblance of gravity whereof divers will never be wanting to abet a flourishing Party 26. The Histories of some Ages were composed onely by the Popes Clients Friars and Monks and such People which therefore are partial to him addicted to his interests and under awe of him For a long time none dared open his mouth to question any of his pretences or reprehend his practices without being called Heretick and treated as such 27. Whereas the Pope had two sorts of Opposites to subdue temporal Princes and Bishops his business being to o'ertop Princes and to enslave all Bishops or to invade and usurp the rights of both he used the help of each to compass his designs on the other by the Authority of Princes oppressing Bishops and by the assistence of Bishops mating Princes 28. When any body would not doe as he would have them he did incessantly clamour or whine that Saint Peter was injured 29. The forgery of the Decretal Epistles wherein the ancient Popes are made expresly to speak and act according to some of his highest pretences devised long after their times and which they never thought of good men did hugely conduce to his purpose authorising his encroachments by the suffrage of ancient Doctrine and Practice a great part of his Canon-law is extracted out of these and grounded on them The Donation of Constantine fictitious Acts of Councils and the like counterfeit stuff did help thereto the which were soon embraced as we see in Pope Gregory II. As also Legends Fables of Miracles and all such deceivableness of unrighteousness 30. Popes were so cunning as to form grants and impute that to Privileges derived from them which Princes did enjoy by right or custome 31. Synods of Bishops called by him at opportune seasons consisting of his Votaries or Slaves None dared therein to whisper any thing to the prejudice of his Authority He carried whatever he pleased to propose without check or contradiction Who dared to question any thing done by such numbers of Pastours styling themselves the Representative of Christendome 32. The having hampered all the Clergy with strict Oaths of universal obedience to him beginning about the times of Pope Gregory VII did greatly assure his power 33. When intolerable oppressions and exactions did constrain Princes to struggle with him if he could not utterly prevail things were brought to composition whereby he was to be sure for that time a gainer and gained establishment in some Points leaving the rest to be got afterward in more favourable junctures Witness the Concordates between Henry II. and P. Alex. III. Anno 1172. Edw. III. and P. Greg. XI Anno 1373. Henry V. and P. Mart. V. Anno 1418. 34. When Princes were fain to curb their exorbitances by Pragmatical Sanctions they were restless till they had got those Sanctions revoked And when they found weak Princes or any Prince in circumstances advantaging their design they did obtain their end So Pope Leo X. got Lewis XI to repeal the Pragmatical Sanctions of his Ancestours 35. The power he did assume to absolve men from Oaths and Vows to dispence with prohibited Marriages c. did not
had in a manner shaken off subjection to the Emperour or he is not a Subject and then it is not reasonable that he should have such power in the Territories of another Prince The whole business of General Synods was an expedient for Peace contrived by Emperours and so to be regulated by their order Hence even in times and places where the Pope was most reverenced yet Princes were jealous of suffering the Pope to exercise such a power over the Bishops their Subjects and to obviate it did command all Bishops not to stir out of their Territories without licence particularly our own Nation in the Council at Clarendon where it was decreed that they should not go out of the Kingdom without the King's leave To some things above said a passage may be objected which occurreth in the acclamation of the Sixth Synod to the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus wherein 't is said that Constantine and Sylvester did collect the Synod of Nice Theodosius I. and Damasus together with Gregory and Nectarius the Synod of Constantinople Theodosius II. with Celestine and Cyril the Ephesine Synod and so of the rest To which I answer that the Fathers mean onely for the Honour of those Prelates to signifie that they in their places and ways did concur and co-operate to the celebration of those Synods otherwise we might as to matter of Fact and History contest the accurateness of their relation and 't is observable that they joyn other great Bishops then flourishing with the Popes so that if their suffrage prove any thing it proveth more than our Adversaries would have viz. that all great Bishops and Patriarchs have a power or right to convocate Synods As for passages alledged by our Adversaries that no Synod could be called or Ecclesiastical Law enacted without consent of the Pope they are no-wise pertinent to this question for we do not deny that the Pope had a right to sit in every General Synod and every other Patriarch at least had no less as all reason and practice do shew and as they of the Seventh Synod do suppose arguing the Synod of Constantinople which condemned the Worship of Images to be no General Council because it had not the Pope's co-operation nor the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs Syncellus the Patriarch of Jerusalem's Legate in the Eighth Synod says for this reason did the Holy Spirit set up Patriarchs in the World that they might suppress Scandals arising in the Church of God And Photius is in the same Synod told that the judgment past against him was most equal and impartial as proceeding not from one but all the four Patriarchs That a General Synod doth not need a Pope to call it or preside in it appeareth by what the Synods of Pisa and Constance define for provision in time of Schisms II. It inseparably doth belong to Sovereigns in the General assemblies of their States to preside and moderate affairs proposing what they judge fit to be consulted or debated stopping what seemeth unfit to be moved keeping proceedings within order and rule and steering them to a good issue checking disorders and irregularities which the distemper or indiscretion of any persons may create in deliberations or disputes This privilege therefore the Pope doth claim not allowing any General Council to be legitimate wherein he in person or by his Legates doth not preside and sway All Catholicks says Bellarmine teach this to be the chief Pontif's proper Office that either in person or by his Legate he preside and as a chief Judge moderate all But for this prerogative no express Grant from God no ancient Canon of the Church no certain Custom can be produced Nor doth ancient practice favour the Pope's claim to such a Prerogative it appearing that he did not exercise it in the first General Synods Saint Peter himself did not preside in the Apostolical Synod at Jerusalem where he was present but rather Saint James as we before have shewed In all the first Synods convocated by Emperours they did either themselves in person or by honourable persons authorized by them in effect preside governing the proceedings In the Synod of Nice Constantine was the chief Manager Directer and Moderatour of the Transactions and under him other chief Bishops did preside but that the Pope's Legates had any considerarable influence or sway there doth by no evidence appear as we shall hereafter out of History declare In the Synod of Sardica which in design was a General Council but in effect did not prove so being divided by a Schism into two great parts Hosius Bishop of Corduba did preside or by reason of his age and venerable worth had the first place assigned to him and bore the Office of Proloquutor so the Synod it self doth imply All we Bishops say they in their Catholick Epistle meeting together and especially the most ancient Hosius who for his age and for his confession and for that he hath undergone so much pains is worthy all reverence so Athanasius expresly doth call him The holy Synod saith he the Proloquutor of which was the great Hosius presently sent to them c. The Canons of the Synod intimate the same wherein he proposeth matters and asketh the pleasure of the Synod the same is confirmed by the subscriptions of their General Epistle wherein he is set before Pope Julius himself Hosius from Spain Julius of Rome by the Presbyters Archidamus and Philoxenus In this all Ecclesiastical Histories do agree none speaking of the Pope's presiding there by his Legates In the Second General Synod at Constantinople the Pope had plainly no stroke the Oriental Bishops alone did there resolve on matters being headed by their Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem as Sozomen saith being guided by Nectarius and Saint Gregory Nazianzene as the Council of Chalcedon in its Epistle to the Emperour doth aver In the third General Synod at Ephesus Cyril Bishop of Alexandria did preside as Pope Leo himself doth testifie he is called the Head of it in the Acts. We may note that the Bishop of the place where the Synod is held did bear a kind of presidency in all Synods so did Saint James Bishop of Jerusalem in the First Synod as St. Chrysostome noteth so did Protogenes at Sardica and Nectarius at Constantinople and Memnon in this of Ephesus It is true that according to the Acts of that Synod and the reports of divers Historians Pope Celestine according to a new politick device of Popes did authorize Cyril to represent his person and act as his Proctour in those affairs assigning to him as he saith jointly both the authority of his throne that is his right of voting and the order of his place the first place in sitting but it is not consequent thence that Cyril upon that sole account did preside in the Synod He thereby had the disposal of one so considerable suffrage or a legal concurrence of
be derogated from persons dying in the peace and communion of the universal Church by his condemning that perverse opinion Yet did the Synod in smart terms reflecting on the Pope and giving him the lie not regarding his opinion or authority decree that persons deceased were liable to be anathematized they did anathematize Theodorus they did expresly condemn each of the Chapters they threatned deposition or excommunication on whoever should oppose their Constitutions they anathematize whoever doth not anathematize Theodorus But Pope Vigilius did refuse to approve their Doctrine and Sentence and therefore which was the case of many other Bishops as Baronius himself doth confess and argue was driven into banishment wherein he did expire Yet posterity hath embraced this Synod as a legitimate and valid General Synod and the Popes following did profess the highest reverence thereto equally with the preceding General Synods so little necessary is the Pope's consent or concurrence to the validity of Synodical definitions Upon this Baronius hath an admirable reflexion Here stay saith he O Reader and consider the matter attently Ay do so I pray That it is no new thing that some Synod in which the Pope was not even present by his Legates but did oppose it should yet obtain the title of an Oecumenical Synod whenas afterward the Pope's will did come in that it should obtain such a title So in the opinion of this Doctour the Pope can easily change the nature of things and make that become a General Synod which once was none yea which as it was held did not deserve the name of any Synod at all O the virtue of Papal Magick or rather O the Impudence of Papal Advocates The Canons of the sixth General Council exhibited by the Trullane or Quinisext Synod clearly and expresly do condemn several Doctrines and Practices of Rome I ask whether the Pope did confirm them they will to be sure as they are concerned to do answer No and indeed Pope Sergius as Anastasius in his Life reporteth did refuse them yet did they pass for legitimate in the whole Church for in their general Synod the second Nicene without contradiction one of them is alledged out of the very original paper wherein the Fathers had subscribed as a Canon of the Holy General Sixth Synod and avowed for such by the Patriarch Tarasius both in way of argument of defence and of profession in his Synodical Epistle to the Patriarchs where he saith that together with the divine doctrines of the Sixth Synod he doth also embrace the Canons enacted by it of which Epistle Pope Adrian in his Answer thereto doth recite a part containing those words and applaud it for Orthodox signifying no offence at his embracing the Trullane Canons And all those 102 Canons are again avowed by the Synod in their Antithesis to the Synod of Constantinople In fine if we believe Anastasius Pope John VII did being timorous out of humane frailty direct these Canons without amendment by two Metropolites to the Emperour that is he did admit them so as they stand But it may be instanced that divers Synods have asked the Popes consent for ratification of their Decrees and Acts. So the Fathers of the Second General Synod having in an Episstle to Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops declared what Constitutions they had made in the close speak thus In which things being legally and canonically settled by us we do exhort your reverence to acquiesce out of spiritual charity and fear of the Lord So the Synod of Chalcedon did with much respect ask from Pope Leo the confirmation of its Sanctions That you may know how that we have done nothing for favour or out of spite but as guided by the divine direction we have made known to you the force of all that has been done for your concurrence and for the confirmation and approbation of the things done Of the Fifth Synod Pope Leo II. saith that he agrees to what was determin'd in it and confirms it with the authority of the Blessed Saint Peter To these allegations we reply That it was indeed the manner of all Synods for notification of things and promulgation of their Orders for demonstration and maintenance of concord for adding weight and authority to their determinations for engaging all Bishops to a willing complyance in observing them for attestation to the common interest of all Bishops in the Christian truth and in the governance and edification of the Church having framed Decrees concerning the publick State to demand in fairest terms the consent to them of all Catholick Bishops who were absent from them to be attested by their subscription So did Constantine recommend the Nicene Decrees to all Bishops undertaking that they would assent to them So more expresly the Synod of Sardica in their Epistle to all Bishops of the Catholick Church Do ye also our brethren and fellow-ministers the more use diligence as being present in spirit with our Synod to yield consent by your subscription that concord may be preserved every where by all the fellow-ministers So did Pope Liberius request of the Emperour Constantius that the faith delivered at Nice might be confirmed by the subscription of all Bishops So did Athanasius procure a Synod at Alexandria to confirm the Decrees at Sardica and in Palestine concerning him So the Macedonian Bishops are said to have authorized their Agents to ratifie the faith of Consubstantiality Many such Instances occur in story by which it may appear that the Decrees of Synods concerning Faith or concerning any matters of common interest were presented to all Bishops and their consent requested or required because say the Roman Clergy in Saint Cyprian a decree cannot be firm which has not the consent of many Whence it is no wonder if any Synods did thus proceed toward so eminent a Bishop as was he of Rome that they should endeavour to give him satisfaction that they should desire to receive satisfaction from him of his conspiring with them in Faith of his willingness to comply in observing good Rules of Discipline that as every vote had force so the suffrage of one in so great dignity and reputation might adjoin some regard to their judgment The Pope's confirmation of Synods what was it in effect but a declaration of his approbation and assent the which did confirm by addition of Suffrage as those who were present by their Vote and those who were absent by their Subscription are said to confirm the Decrees of Councils every such consent being supposed to encrease the authority whence the number of Bishops is sometimes reckoned according to the subscriptions of Bishops absent as the Council of Sardica is sometimes related to consist of three hundred Bishops although not two hundred were present the rest concurring by subscription to its definitions Other Bishops in yielding their suffrage do
Bishop might alledge all having a like right and common interest to Vote in those Assemblies 3. Accordingly the dissent of other Bishops particularly of those eminent in dignity or merit is also alledged in exception which had been needless if his alone dissent had been of so very peculiar force 4. The Emperour and many other Bishops did not know of any peculiar necessity of his confirmation Again it may be objected that Popes have voided the Decrees of General Synods as did Pope Leo the Decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon concerning the Privileges of the Constantinopolitan See in these blunt words But the agreements of Bishops repugnant to the Holy Canons made at Nice your faith and piety joyning with us we make void and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Saint Peter by a general determination we disanull and in his Epistle to those of that Synod For however vain conceit may arm it self with extorted compliances and think its wilfulness sufficiently strengthened with the name of Councils yet whatever is contrary to the Canons of the above-nam'd fathers will be weak and void Lastly in his Epistle to Maximus Bishop of Antioch he says He has such a reverence for the Nicene Canons that he will not permit or endure that what those holy fathers have determined be by any novelty violated This behaviour of Pope Leo although applauded and imitated by some of his Successours I doubt not to except against in behalf of the Synod that it was disorderly factious and arrogant proceeding indeed from ambition and jealousie the leading act of high presumption in this kind and one of the seeds of that exorbitant ambition which did at length overwhelm the dignity and liberty of the Christian Republick Yet for somewhat qualifying the business it is observable that he did ground his repugnancy and pretended annulling of that Decree or of Decrees concerning Discipline not so much upon his authority to cross General Synods as upon the inviolable firmness and everlasting obligation of the Nicene Canons the which he although against the reason of things and rules of Government did presume no Synod could abrogate or alter In fine this opposition of his did prove ineffectual by the sense and practice of the Church maintaining its ground against his pretence It is an unreasonable thing that the opinion or humour of one man no wiser or better commonly than others should be preferred before the common agreement of his brethren being of the same Office and Order with him so that he should be able to overthrow and frustrate the result of their meetings and consultations when it did not square to his conceit or interest especially seeing there is not the least appearance of any right he hath to such a Privilege grounded in Holy Scripture Tradition or Custom for seeing that Scripture hath not a syllable about General Synods seeing that no Rule about them is extant in any of the first Fathers till after 300 years seeing there was not one such Council celebrated till after that time seeing in none of the First General Synods any such Canon was framed in favour of that Bishop what ground of right could the Pope have to prescribe unto them or thwart their proceedings Far more reason there is in conformity to all former Rules and Practice that he should yield to all his Brethren than that all his Brethren should submit to him and this we see to have been the judgment of the Church declared by its Practice in the cases before touched IV. It is indeed a proper endowment of an absolute Sovereignty immediately and immutably constituted by God with no terms or rules limiting it that its will declared in way of Precept Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws the Abrogation of them the Dispensation with them should be observed This Privilege therefore in a high strein the Pope challengeth to himself asserting to his Decrees and Sentences the force and obligation of Laws so that the body of that Canon Law whereby he pretendeth to govern the Church doth in greatest part consist of Papal Edicts or Decretal Epistles imitating the Rescripts of Emperours and bearing the same force In Gratian we have these Aphorisms from Popes concerning this their Privilege No person ought to have either the will or the power to transgress the precepts of the Apostolick See Those things which by the Apostolick See have at several times been written for the Catholick faith for sound doctrines for the various and manifold exigency of the Church and the manners of the faithfull how much rather ought they to be preferr'd in all honour and by all men altogether upon all occasions whatsoever to be reverently received Those Decretal Epistles which most holy Popes have at divers times given out from the City of Rome upon their being consulted with by divers Bishops we decree that they be received with veneration If ye have not the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome ye are to be accused of neglect and carelesness but if ye have them yet observe them not ye are to be chidden and rebuk'd for your temerity All the Sanctions of the Apostolick See are so to be understood as if confirm'd by the voice of Saint Peter himself Because the Roman Church over which by the will of Christ we do preside is proposed for a mirrour and example whatsoever it doth determine whatsoever that doth appoint is perpetually and irrefragably to be observed by all men We who according to the plenitude of our power have a right to dispense above Law or right This See that which it might doe by its sole authority it is often pleased to define by consent of its Priests But this power he doth assume and exercise merely upon Usurpation and unwarrantably having no ground for it in original right or ancient practice Originally the Church hath no other General Law-giver beside our one Lord and one Law-giver As to practice we may observe 1. Anciently before the First General Synod the Church had no other Laws beside the Divine Laws or those which were derived from the Apostles by Traditional custom or those which each Church did enact for it self in Provincial Synods or which were propagated from one Church to another by imitation and compliance or which in like manner were framed and setled Whence according to different Traditions or different reasons and circumstances of things several Churches did vary in points of Order and Discipline The Pope then could not impose his Traditions Laws or Customs upon any Church if he did attempt it he was liable to suffer a repulse as is notorious in the case when Pope Victor would although rather as a Doctour than as a Law-giver have reduced the Churches of Asia to conform with the Roman in the time of celebrating Easter wherein he found not onely stout resistence but sharp reproof In St. Cyprian's time every Bishop had a free power according to his discretion
to govern his Church and it was deemed a tyrannical enterprise for one to prescribe to another or to require obedience from his Collegues as otherwhere by many clear allegations out of that Holy man we have shewed For none of us saith he makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by a tyrannical terrour compels his Collegues to a necessity of obedience since every Bishop according to the licence of his own liberty and power hath his own freedom and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another If any new Law were then introduced or Rule determined for common practice it was done by the general agreement of Bishops or of a preponderant multitude among them to whom the rest out of modesty and peaceableness did yield complyance according to that saying of the Roman Clergy to Saint Cyprian upon occasion of the debate concerning the manner of admitting lapsed persons to communion that Decree cannot be valid that hath not the consent of the major part The whole validity of such Laws or Rules did indeed wholly stand upon presumption of such consent whereby the common liberty and interest was secured 2. After that by the Emperours Conversion the Church enjoying secular protection and encouragement did reduce it self as into a closer union and freer communication of parts so into a greater uniformity of practice especially by means of great Synods wherein the Governours and Representatives of all Churches being called unto them and presumed to concur in them were ordained Sanctions taken to oblige all The Pope had indeed a greater stroke than formerly as having the first place in order or privilege of honour in Ecclesiastical Assemblies where he did concur yet had no casting Vote or real advantage above others all things passing by majority of Vote This is supposed as notorious in the Acts of the Fifth Council This say they is a thing to be granted that in Councils we must not regard the interlocution of one or two but those things which are commonly defined by all or by the most So also in the Fifth Council George Bishop of Constantinople saith that seeing every where the Council of the multitude or of the most doth prevail it is necessary to anathematize the persons before mentioned 3. Metropolitan Bishops in their Provinces had far more power and more surely grounded than the Pope had in the whole Church for the Metropolitans had an unquestioned authority settled by custome and confirmed by Synodical Decrees yet had not they a negative voice in Synodical debates for it is decreed in the Nicene Synod that in the designation of Bishops which was the principal affair in Ecclesiastical administrations plurality of votes should prevail It is indeed there said that none should be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the opinion of the Metropolitan but that doth not import a negative voice in him but that the transaction should not pass in his absence or without his knowledge advice and suffrage for so the Apostolical Canon to which the Nicene Fathers there did allude and refer meaning to interpret it doth appoint that the Metropolitan should doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the opinion of all that is without suffrage of the most concluding all for surely that Canon doth not give to each one a negative voice And so the Synod of Antioch held soon after that of Nice which therefore knew best the sense of the Nicene Fathers and how the custome went doth interpret it decreeing that a Bishop should not be ordained without a Synod and the presence of the Metropolitan of the Province in which Synod yet they determine that plurality of votes should carry it no peculiar advantage in the case being granted to the Metropolitan Seeing therefore Provincial Synods were more ancient than General and gave pattern to them if we did grant the same privilege to the Pope in General Synods as the Metropolitans had in Provincial which yet we cannot do with any good reason or ground yet could not the Pope thence pretend to an authority of making Laws by himself 4. It was then a passable opinion that He as one was in reason obliged to yield to the common judgment of his Collegues and Brethren as the Emperour Constantius told Pope Liberius that the Vote of the plurality of Bishops ought to prevail 5. When Pope Julius did seem to cross a rule of the Church by communicating with persons condemned by Synods the Fathers of Antioch did smartly recriminate against him shewing that they were not to receive Canons from him 6. So far was the Pope from prescribing Laws to others that he was looked upon as subject to the Laws of the Church no less than others as the Antiochene Fathers did suppose complaining to Pope Julius of his transgressing the Canons the which charge he doth not repell by pretending exemption but by declaring that he had not offended against the Canons and retorting the accusation against themselves as the African Fathers supposed when they told Pope Celestine that he could not admit persons to communion which had been excommunicated by them that being contrary to a Decree of the Nicene Synod as the Roman Church supposed it self when it told Marcian that they could not receive him without leave of his Father who had rejected him This the whole tenour of Ecclesiastical Canons sheweth they running in a general style never excepting the Pope from the Laws prescribed to other Bishops 7. The privilege of dispensing with Laws had then been a strange hearing when the Pope could in no case dispense with himself for infringing them without bringing clamour and censure upon him 8. It had indeed been a vain thing for Synods with so much trouble and solemnity to assemble if the Pope without them could have framed Laws or could with a puff of his mouth have blown away the results of them by dispensation 9. Even in the growth of Papal Dominion and after that the Seeds of Roman ambition had sprouted forth to a great bulk yet had not Popes the heart or face openly to challenge power over the universal Canons or exemption from them but pretended to be the chief observers guardians defenders and executours of them or of the Rights and Privileges of Churches established by them for while any footsteps of ancient liberty simplicity and integrety did remain a claim of paramount or lawless Authority would have been very ridiculous and very odious Pope Zosimus I. denieth that he could alter the Privileges of Churches 10. If they did talk more highly requiring observance to their Constitutions it was either in their own precinct or in the Provinces where they had a more immediate jurisdiction or in some corners of the West where they had obtained more sway and in some cases wherein their words were backed with other inducements to obedience for the Popes were commonly wise
of Judas wherein upon Saint Peter's motion all the disciples present did by consent present two out of whom God himself did elect one by determining the lot to fall upon Matthias so that this designation being partly humane partly divine so far as it was humane it went by free election of the whole fraternity and Saint Peter beside generally suggesting the matter to be done did assume nothing peculiar to himself The next constitution we meet with is that of Deacons to assist the Apostles and Elders in discharge of inferiour Offices wherein the Apostles did commit the designation of the persons to the multitude of the disciples who elected them and presented them to the Apostles who by prayer and laying on of hands did ordain them Nor had Saint Peter in this action any particular stroke As to the Constitution of Bishops in the first Apostolical times the course was this The Apostles and Apostolical persons who were authorized by the Apostles to act with their power and in their stead did in Churches founded by them constitute Bishops such as divine inspiration or their grace of discretion did guide them to So did Saint John in Asia setting those apart for the Clergy whom the Spirit had markt out This was not done without the consent of the Christian people as Clemens Romanus telleth us in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians But he doth not acquaint us although he were himself Bishop of Rome that the Pope had any thing to doe in such Constitutions or in confirmations of them the whole Church saith he consenting Why doth he not add for his own sake and the Pope confirming In the next times when those extraordinary persons and faculties had expired when usually the Churches planted were in situation somewhat incoherent and remote from each other upon a vacancy the Clergy and people of each Church did elect its Bishop in which action commonly the Clergy did propound and recommend a person or persons and the people by their consent approve or by their suffrages elect one a strict examination of his Life and Doctrine intervening the which Order Tertullian briefly doth intimate in those words The Presidents of the Church are certain Elders well approved who have obtained that honour not by price but by proof It may be enquired how a Bishop then was Ordained in case his City was very remote from any other Churches Did they send for Bishops from distant places to Ordain him Or did the Presbyters of the place lay their hands on him Or did he receive no other Ordination than that he had before of Presbyter Or did he abide no Bishop till opportunity did yield Bishops to Ordain him Or did providence order that there should be no such solitary Churches The ancient Commentatour contemporary to St. Ambrose and bearing his name did conceive that upon decease of a Bishop the elder of the Presbyters did succeed into his place Whence had he this out of his invention and conjecture or from some Tradition and History Afterward when the Faith was diffused through many Provinces that Churches grew thick and close the general practice was this The neighbour Bishops being advertised of a vacancy or want of a Bishop did convene at the place then in the Congregation the Clergy of the place did propound a person yielding their attestation to his fitness for the charge which the people hearing did give their suffrages accepting him if no weighty cause was objected against him or refusing him if such cause did appear Then upon such recommendation and acceptance the Bishops present did adjoin their approbation and consent then by their devotions and solemn laying on of their hands they did Ordain or Consecrate him to the Function Of this course most commonly practised in his time we have divers plain Testimonies in St. Cyprian the best Authour extant concerning these matters of ancient Discipline For which reason saith he that from divine tradition and Apostolical observation is to be observed and held which also is with us and almost through all Provinces kept that for duely celebrating ordinations unto that people for whom a Bishop is ordained all the neighbour Bishops of the same Province or people should resort and a Bishop should be chosen the people being present which most fully knoweth the life of each one and hath from his conversation a thorough insight into his practice the which we see done with you in the ordination of our Collegue Sabinus that by the suffrage of all the fraternity and by the judgment of all the Bishops which had assembled in the presence and had sent letters to you about him the Bishoprick should be deferr'd to him Again A people obedient to the Lord's commands and fearing God ought to separate it self from a wicked Bishop such a notoriously wicked Bishop as those were of whom he treateth who had renounced the Faith and not to mingle it self with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest seeing especially that it hath a power either to chuse worthy Priests or to refuse those who are unworthy the which also we see to descend from divine authority that a Bishop should be chosen the people being present before the eyes of all and that he who is worth and fit should be approved by publick judgment and testimony Again when saith he concerning himself a Bishop is substituted in the place of one deceased when he is peaceably chosen by the suffrage of all the people and whom if according to the divine instructions the whole fraternity would obey no man would move any thing against the College of Priests none after the divine judgment after the suffrage of the people after the consent of the fellow-Bishop would make himself judge not indeed of the Bishop but of God Again Cornelius was made Bishop by the judgment of God and his Christ by the testimony of almost all the Clergy by the suffrage of the people being then present and by the College of Priests ancient and good men and Cornelius being in the Catholick Church ordained by the judgment of God and by the suffrage of the Clergy and people Again When a Bishop is once made and is approved by the testimony and the judgment of his Collegues and of the people The Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions thus in the person of Saint Peter very fully and clearly describeth the manner of Ordination of Bishops in his times After one of the chief Bishops present has thus prayed the rest of the Priests with all the people shall say Amen and after the prayer one of the Bishops shall deliver the Eucharist into the hands of the person ordained and that morning he shall be plac'd by the rest of the Bishops in his Throne all of them saluting him with a kiss in the Lord. After the reading of the Law and Prophets of our Epistles the Acts and Gospel he who is ordained shall salute the
consent of the order and people be observed let him who is to preside over all be chosen by all And Pope Nicholas I. Because we know the custom of your Royal City that none can arrive at the top of the highest Priestly power without the assent of the Ecclesiastical people and the Emperour's suffrage Now in all these proceedings it is most apparent that there was no regard had to the Pope or any thought of him out of his particular Territory which he had as Metropolitan or afterward as Primate in some parts of the West No where else had he the least finger in the Constitution of a Bishop any where through the whole Church no not of the least Clergy-man When by Saint Cyprian so largely and punctually the manner of Constituting Bishops is declared when the Nicene Canons and those of other Synods do so carefully prescribe about the Ordination of them when so many reports concerning the Election of Bishops do occur in History why is there not a tittle of mention concerning any special interest of the Roman Bishops about them So true is that of Alb. Crantzius There was no need then of Apostolical confirmation it was sufficient if the Election were approv'd by the Archbishop now the Church of Rome has assum'd to her self the rights of all Churches We may by the way observe that in the first times they had not so much as an absolute power of ordaining a Presbyter in the Church of his own City without leave of the Clergy and People as may be inferred from that passage in Eusebius where Pope Cornelius relateth that the Bishop who ordained Novatus being hindred from doing it by all the Clergy and by many of the Laity did request that it might be granted to him to ordain that one person and he that so hardly could ordain one Priest in his own Church what authority could he have to constitute Bishops in all other Churches To all these Evidences of Fact our Adversaries do oppose some Instances of Popes meddling in the Constitution of Bishops as Pope Leo I saith that Anatolius did by the favour of his assent obtain the Bishoprick of Constantinople The same Pope is alledged as having confirmed Maximus of Antioch The same doth write to the Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicar that he should confirm the Elections of Bishops by his authority He also confirmed Donatus an African Bishop we will that Donatus preside over the Lord's flock upon condition that he remember to send us an account of his faith Also Gregory I. doth complain of it as of an inordinate Act that a Bishop of Salonae was ordained without his knowledge Pope Damasus did confirm the Ordination of Peter Alexandrinus The Alexandrians saith Sozomen did render the Churches to Peter being returned from Rome with the Letters of Damasus which confirmed both the Nicene Decrees and his Ordination But what I pray doth Confirmation here signifie but approbation for did he otherwise confirm the Nicene Decrees did they need other confirmation To the former Instances we answer that being well considered they do much strengthen our Argument in that they are so few so late so lame so impertinent for if the Pope had enjoyed a power of constituting Bishops more instances of its exercise would have been producible indeed it could not be but that History would have been full of them the constitution of Bishops being a matter of continual use and very remarkable At least they might have found one Instance or other to alledge before the time of that busie Pope Leo in whose time and by whose means Papal Authority began to overflow its banks And those which they produce do no-wise reach home to the point Anatolius did obtain the Bishoprick of Constantinople by the help of the Emperour and by the assent of the Pope's favour what then Anatolius being put into that See in the room of Flavianus by the influence of Dioscorus whose Responsal he had been and having favoured the Eutychian Faction Pope Leo might thence have had a fair colour to disavow him as uncapable of that Function and Dignity he being so obnoxious both having such a flaw in his Ordination and having been guilty of great faults adherence to the party of Dioscorus and irregularly ordaining the Bishop of Antioch but he out of regard to the Emperour's intervention did acknowledge Anatolius for Bishop this was the favourable assent with which he upbraideth Anatolius having displeased him and what doth this signifie Again Pope Leo did not reject Maximus Bishop of Antioch from communion nor disclaimed his Ordination although liable to exception what then is this a confirmation of him No such matter it was onely which in such a vixonely Pope was a great favour a forbearance to quarrel with him as not duely ordained which any other Bishop might have done If a Pope had a flaw in his Ordination another Bishop might refuse him Again Pope Leo did injoin the Bishop of Thessalonica to confirm Ordinations what is that to the purpose It belonged to that Bishop as a Metropolitan by the Canons to confirm those in his Province or as a Primate to confirm those in his Diocese It belonged to him as the Pope's Vicar in those Territories to which the Pope had stretched his Jurisdiction to execute the Pope's Orders but what is this to Universal Authority It is certain that Illyricum was then in a more special manner subjected to the Pope's Jurisdiction than any of the other Eastern Churches what therefore he did there cannot be drawn into consequence as to other places The same may be said in answer to the complaint of Pope Gregory and to any the like Instances Moreover surreptitious presumptuous pragmatical intrusions or usurpations of power do not suffice to found a right in this or any other case to which purpose and wholly to invalidate any such pleas these Observations may be considered 1. There do occur divers Instances of Bishops who did meddle in Ordinations of other Bishops so as to bear great stroke in constituting them who did not thereby pretend to Universal Jurisdiction and it would be extremely ridiculous thence to infer they had any reasonable claim thereto Thus it was objected to Athanasius that he presum'd to ordain in Cities which did not belong to him Eusebius of Constantinople did obtrude Eusebius Emissenus to be Bishop of Alexandria Eustathius of Antioch did ordain Evagrius Bishop of Constantinople Euzoius delivered unto Lucius the Bishoprick of Alexandria Lucifer a Sardinian Bishop did ordain Paulinus Bishop of Antioch they for a Salvo say as the Pope's Legate but upon what ground or testimony why did not Historians tell us so much The Pope had then been hissed at if he had sent Legates about such errands it was indeed out of presumption and pragmatical zeal to serve a party then ordinary in persons addicted to all parties right and wrong it not being
Theophanius Bishop of Antioch So the Synod of Pisa did constitute Pope Alexander V. that of Constance Pope Martin V. that of Basil Pope Felix V. 7. All Catholick Bishops in old times might and commonly did confirm the Elections and Ordinations of Bishops to the same effect as Popes may be pretended to have done that is by signifying their approbation or satisfaction concerning the orthodoxy of their Faith the attestation of their Manners the legality of their Ordination no canonical Impediment and consequently by admitting them to communion of peace and charity and correspondence in all good Offices which they express by returning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in answer to their Synodical communicatory Letters Thus did St. Cyprian and all the Bishops of that Age confirm the Ordination of Pope Cornelius being contested by Novatian as St. Cyprian in terms doth affirm When the See of Saint Peter the Sacerdotal Chair was vacant which by the will of God being occupied and by all our consents confirm'd c. to confirm thy Ordination with a greater authority To which purpose each Bishop did write Epistles to other Bishops or at least to those of highest rank acquainting them with his Ordination and enstallment making a profession of his Faith so as to satisfie them of his capacity of the Function 8. But Bishops were complete Bishops before they did give such an account of themselves so that it was not in the power of the Pope or of any others to reverse their Ordination or dispossess them of their places There was no confirmation importing any such matter this is plain and one instance will serve to shew it that of Pope Honorius and of Sergius Bishop of Constantinople who speak of Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem that he was constituted Bishop before their knowledge and receipt of his Synodical Letters 9. If the designation of any Bishop should belong to the Pope then especially that of Metropolitans who are the chief Princes of the Church but this anciently did not belong to him In Africk the most ancient Bishop of the Province without election did succeed into that dignity Where the Metropoles were fixed all the Bishops of the Province did convene and with the consent of Clergy persons of quality and the commonalty did elect him So was St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage elected So Nectarius of Constantinople Flavianus of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem as the Fathers of Constantinople tell us So Stephanus and Bassianus rival Bishops of Ephesus did pretend to have been chosen as we saw before And for Confirmation there did not need any there is no mention of any except that Confirmation of which we spake a consequent approbation of them from all their fellow-Bishops as having no exception against them rendring them unworthy of communion In the Synod of Chalcedon it was defined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal Privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet it is expresly cautioned there that he shall not meddle in Ordination of Bishops in any Province that being left to the Metropolitan For a good time even in the Western parts the Pope did not meddle with the Constitution of Metropolitans leaving the Churches to enjoy their Liberties Afterwards with all other Rights he snatched the Collation Confirmation c. of Metropolitans VII Sovereigns have a power to Censure and Correct all inferiour Magistrates in proportion to their Offences and in case of great misdemeanour or of incapacity they can wholly discharge and remove them from their Office This Prerogative therefore He of Rome doth claim as most proper to himself by Divine Sanction God Almighty alone can dissolve the spiritual marriage between a Bishop and his Church Therefore those three things premised the Confirmation Translation and Deposition of Bishops are reserved to the Roman Bishop not so much by Canonical Constitution as by Divine Institution This power the Convention of Trent doth allow him thwarting the ancient Laws and betraying the Liberties of the Church thereby and endangering the Christian Doctrine to be inflected and corrupted to the advantage of Papal Interest But such a power anciently did not by any Rule or Custom in a peculiar manner belong to the Roman Bishop Premising what was generally touched about Jurisdiction in reference to this Branch we remark 1. The exercising of Judgment and Censure upon Bishops when it was needfull for general good was prescribed to be done by Synods Provincial or Patriarchal Diocesan In them Causes were to be discussed and Sentence pronounced against those who had deviated from saith or committed misdemeanours So it was appointed in the Synod of Nice as the African Synod wherein St. Austin was one Bishop did observe and urge in their Epistle to Pope Celestine in those notable words Whether they be Clergy of an inferiour degree or whether they be Bishops the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed them to the Metropolitans charge for they have most prudently and justly discerned that all matters whatsoever ought to be determined in the places where they do first begin and that the grace of the holy spirit would not be wanting to every particular Province The same Law was enacted by the Synod of Antioch by the Synods of Constantinople Chalcedon c. Thus was Paulus Samosatenus for his errour against the Divinity of our Lord and for his scandalous demeanour deposed by the Synod of Antioch Thus was Eustathius Bishop of Antioch being accused of Sabellianism and of other faults removed by a Synod of the same place the which Sentence he quietly did bear Thus another Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia for his uncouth garb and fond conceits against marriage was discarded by the Synod of Gangra Thus did a Synod of Constantinople abdicate Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra for heterodoxy in the point concerning our Lord's Divinity For the like cause was Photinus Bishop of Sirmium deposed by a Synod there gathered by the Emperour's command So was Athanasius tryed and condemned although unjustly as to the matter and cause by the Synod of Tyre So was St. Chrysostome although most injuriously deposed by a Synod at Constantinople So the Bishops at Antioch according to the Emperour's order deposed Stephanus Bishop of that place for a wicked contrivance against the fame of Euphratas and Vincentius In all these Condemnations Censures and Depositions of Bishops whereof each was of high rank and great interest in the Church the Bishop of Rome had no hand nor so much as a little finger All the proceedings did go on supposition of the Rule and Laws that such Judgments were to be passed by Synods St. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deposed fifteen Bishops 2. In some case a kind of deposing of Bishops was assumed by particular Bishops as defenders of the Faith and executours of Canons their Deposition consisting in not allowing those to be Bishops whom for erroneous Doctrine or
disorderly Behaviour notoriously incurred they deemed incapable of the Office presuming their places ipso facto void This Pope Gelasius I. proposed for a Rule That not onely a Metropolitan but every other Bishop hath a Right to separate any persons or any place from the Catholick Communion according to the Rule by which his heresie is already condemned And upon this account did the Popes for so long time quarrel with the See of Constantinople because they did not expunge Acacius from the roll of Bishops who had communicated with Hereticks So did Saint Cyprian reject Marcianus Bishop of Arles for adhering to the Novatians So Athanasius was said to have deposed Arian Bishops and substituted others in their places So Acacius and his Complices deposed Macedonius and divers other Bishops And the Bishops of those times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 factiously applying a Rule taken for granted then deposed one another So Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem deposed Athanasius So Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned to depose Alexander of Constantinople if he would not admit Arius to communion Acacius and his Complices did extrude Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem He also deposed and expelled Cyril of Jerusalem and deposed many other Bishops at Constantinople Cyril deposed Nestorius and Nestorius deposed Cyril and Memnon Cyril and Juvenalis deposed John of Antioch John of Antioch with his Bishops deposed Cyril and Memnon Yea after the Synod of Ephesus John of Antioch gathering together many Bishops did depose Cyril Stephanus concerning Bassianus Because he had entred into the Church with swords therefore he was expelled out of it again by the holy Fathers both by Leo of Rome the Imperial City and by Flavianus by the Bishop of Alexandria and also by the Bishop of Antioch Anatolius of Constantinople did reject Timotheus of Alexandria Acacius Bishop of Constantinople did reject Petrus Fullo 3. St. Cyprian doth assert the power of Censuring Bishops upon needfull and just occasion to belong to all Bishops for maintenance of common Faith Discipline and Peace Therefore saith he writing to Pope Stephanus himself dear brother the body of Bishops is copious being coupled by the glue of concord and the band of unity that if any of our College shall attempt to frame a heresie or to tear and spoil the flock of Christ the rest may succour and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may gather together the sheep of our Lord into the flock The like Doctrine is that of Pope Celestine I. in his Epistle to the Ephesine Synod In matter of Faith any Bishop might interpose Judgment Theophilus did proceed to condemn the Origenists without regard to the Pope Epiphanius did demand satisfaction of John of Jerusalem 4. This common right of Bishops in some cases is confirmed by the nature of such Censures which consisted in disclaiming persons notoriously guilty of Heresie Schism or Scandal and in refusing to entertain communion with them which every Bishop as entitled to the common Interests of Faith and Peace might do 5. Indeed in such a case every Christian had a right yea an obligation to desert his own Bishop So John of Hierusalem having given suspicion of Errour in Faith St. Epiphanius did write Letters to the Monks of Palestine not to communicate with him till they were satisfied of his Orthodoxy Upon which account St. Hierome living in Palestine did decline communication with the Patriarch thereof asking him if it were any where said to him or commanded that without satisfaction concerning his faith they were bound to maintain communion with him So every Bishop yea every Christian hath a kind of Universal Jurisdiction 6. If any Pope did assume more than was allowed in this case by the Canons or was common to other Bishops of his rank it was an irregularity and an usurpation Nor would Examples if any were producible serve to justifie him or to ground a right thereto any more than the extravagant proceedings of other pragmatical and factious Bishops in the same kind whereof so many instances can be alledged can assert such a power to any Bishop 7. When the Pope hath attempted in this kind his power hath been disavowed as an illegal upstart pretence 8. Other Bishops have taken upon them when they apprehended cause to discard and depose Popes So did the Oriental Faction at Sardica depose Pope Julius for transgressing as they supposed the Laws of the Church in fostering hereticks and criminal persons condemned by Synods So did the Synod of Antioch threaten Deposition to the same Pope So did the Patriarch Dioscorus make shew to reject Pope Leo from communion So did St. Hilary anathematize Pope Liberius 9. Popes when there was great occasion and they had a great mind to exert their utmost power have not yet presumed by themselves without joint authority of Synods to condemn Bishops so Pope Julius did not presume to depose Eusebius of Nicomedia his great Adversary and so much obnoxious by his patronizing Arianism Pope Innocent did not censure Theophilus and his Complices who so irregularly and wrongfully had extruded St. Chrysostome although much displeased with them but endeavoured to get a General Synod to doe the business Pope Leo I. though a man of spirit and animosity sufficient would not without assistence of a Synod attempt to judge Dioscorus who had so highly provoked him and given so much advantage against him by favouring Eutyches and persecuting the Orthodox Indeed often we may presume that Popes would have deposed Bishops if they had thought it regular or if others commonly had received that opinion so that they could have expected success in their attempting it But they many times were angry when their horns were short and shewed their teeth when they could not bite 10. What has been done in this kind by Popes jointly with others or in Synods especially upon advantage when the cause was just and plausible is not to be ascribed to the authority of Popes as such It might be done with their influence not by their authority so the Synod of Sardica not Pope Julius cashiered the enemies of Athanasius so the Synod of Chalcedon not Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus so the Roman Synod not Pope Celestine checked Nestorius and that of Ephesus deposed him The whole Western Synod whereof he was President had a great sway 11. If Instances were Arguments of Right there would be other pretenders to the Deposing power Particular Bishops would have it as we before shewed 12. The People would have the power for they have sometimes deposed popes themselves with effect So of Pope Constantine Platina telleth us at length he is deposed by the people of Rome being very much provoked by the indignity of the matter 13. There are many Instances of Bishops being removed or deposed by the Imperial authority This power was indeed necessarily annexed to the Imperial dignity for all Bishops being Subjects
Bellarmine fain to dive for it deposing Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople But this Instance being scanned will also prove slender and lame The case was this Anthimus having deserted his charge at Trabisonde did creep into the See of Constantinople a course then held irregular and repugnant to the Canons and withall he had imbibed the Eutychian heresie Yet for his support he had wound himself into the favour of the Empress Theodora a countenancer of the Eutychian Sect. Things standing thus Pope Agapetus as an Agent from Rome to crave succour against the Goths pressing and menacing the City did arrive at Constantinople Whereupon the Empress desired of him to salute and consort with Anthimus But he by petitions of the Monks c. understanding how things stood did refuse to doe so except Anthimus would return to his own charge and profess the Orthodox doctrine Thereupon the Emperour joined with him to extrude Anthimus from Constantinople and to substitute Menas He say the Monks in their Libel of request to the Emperour did justly thrust this Anthimus from the Episcopal Chair of this City your Grace affording aid and force both to the Catholick faith and the divine Canons The act of Agapetus was according to his share in the common Interest to declare Anthimus in his judgment uncapable of Catholick communion and of Episcopal Function by reason of his heretical Opinions and his transgression of Ecclesiastical Orders which moved Justinian effectually to depose and extrude him You say they fulfilling that which he justly and canonicaly did judge and by your general edict confirming it and forbidding that hereafter such things should be attempted And Agapetus himself saith that it was done by the Apostolical authority and the assistence of the most faithfull Emperours The which proceeding was completed by Decree of the Synod under Menas and that again was confirmed by the Imperial Sanction Whence Evagrius reporting the story doth say concerning Anthimus and Theodosius of Alexandria that because they did cross the Emperour's commands and did not admit the decrees of Chalcedon they both were expelled from their Sees It seemeth by some passages in the Acts that before Agapetus his intermedling the Monks and Orthodox Bishops had condemned and rejected Anthimus according to the common Interest which they assert all Christians to have in regard to the common Faith As for the substitution of Menas it was performed by the choice and suffrage of the Emperour the Clergy Nobles and People conspiring the Pope onely which another Bishop might have done ordaining or consecrating him Then saith Liberatus the Pope by the Emperour's favour did ordain Menas Bishop consecrating him with his hand And Agapetus did glory in this as being the first Ordination made of an Eastern Bishop by the hands of a Pope And this said the Pope we conceive doth add to his dignity because the Eastern Church never since the time of the Apostle Peter did receive any Bishop besides him by the imposition of hands of those who sate in this our Chair If we compare the proceedings of Agapetus against Anthimus with those of Theophilus against St. Chrysostome they are except the cause and qualities of persons in all main respects and circumstances so like that the same reason which would ground a pretence of Universal Jurisdiction to one would infer the same to the other Baronius alledgeth Acacius Bishop of Constantinople deposed by Pope Felix III. But Pope Gelasius asserteth that any Bishop might in execution of the Canons have disclaimed Acacius as a favourer of Hereticks And Acacius did not onely refuse to submit to the Pope's Jurisdiction but slighted it And the Pope's act was but an attempt not effectual for Acacius dyed in possession of his See VIII If Popes were Sovereigns of the Church they could effectually whenever they should see it just and fit absolve restore any Bishop excommunicated from the Church or deposed from his Office by Ecclesiastical Censure for Relief of the Oppressed or Clemency to the Distressed are noble Flowers in every Sovereign Crown Wherefore the Pope doth assume this power and reserveth it to himself as his special Prerogative 'T is says Baronius a privilege of the Church of Rome onely that a Bishop deposed by a Synod may without another Synod of a greater number be restor'd by the Pope and Pope Gelasius I. says That the See of Saint Peter the Apostle has a right of loosing whatever the Sentences of other Bishops have bound That the Apostolick See according to frequent ancient custome had a power no Synod preceding to absolve those whom a Synod had unjustly condemned and without a Council to condemn those who deserv'd it It was an old pretence of Popes that Bishops were not condemned except the Pope did consent renouncing communion with them So Pope Vigilius saith of St. Chrysostome and Flavianus that although they were violently excluded yet were they not look'd upon as condemned because the Bishops of Rome always inviolably kept communion with them And before him Pope Gelasius saith that the Pope by not consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius Chrysostome Flavianus did absolve them But such a power of old did not belong to him For 1. There is not extant any ancient Canon of the Church nor apparent footsteps of custome allowing such a power to him 2. Decrees of Synods Provincial in the former times and Diocesan afterwards were inconsistent with or repugnant to such a power for judgments concerning Episcopal Causes were deemed irrevocable and appointed to be so by Decrees of divers Synods and consequently no power was reserved to the Pope of thwarting them by Restitution of any Bishop condemned in them 3. The Apostolical Canons which at least serve to prove or illustrate ancient Custome and divers Synodical Decrees did prohibit entertaining communion with any person condemned or rejected by canonical Judgment without exception or reservation of power of infringing or relaxing that Prohibition and Pope Gelasius himself says That he who had polluted himself by holding communion with a condemned person did partake of his condemnation 4. Whence in elder times Popes were opposed and checked when they offered to receive Bishops rejected in particular Synods So St. Cyprian declared the Restitution of Basilides by Pope Stephanus to be null So the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did reprehend Pope Julius for admitting Athanasius and Marcellus to communion or avowing them for Bishops after their condemnation by Synods And the Oriental Bishops of Sardica did excommunicate the same Pope for communicating with the same persons Which Instances do shew that the Pope was not then undoubtedly or according to common opinion endowed with such a power But whereas they do alledge some Instances of such a power I shall premise some general Considerations apt to clear the business and then apply answers to the particular Allegations 1. Restitution commonly doth signifie
proceeded unto Trial of the Cause without precarious attendence for a Synod if he thought his pretence to such Appeals as we now speak of to have been good or plausible in the world at that time The next case is that of Theodoret. His words indeed framed according to his condition needing the patronage of Pope Leo being then high in reputation do sound favourably but we abstracting from the sound of words must regard the reason of things His words are these I expect the suffrage of your Apostolick See and beseech and earnestly entreat your holiness to succour me who appeal to your right and just Judicature He never had been particularly or personally judged and therefore did not need to appeal as to a Judge nor therefore is his application to the Pope to be interpreted for such but rather as to a charitable succourer of him in his distress by his countenance and endeavour to relieve him He onely was supposed erroneous in Faith and a perillous abettour of Nestorianism because he had smartly contradicted Cyril which prejudice did cause him to be prohibited from coming to the Synod of Ephesus and there in his absence to be denounced Heterodox His Appeal then to the Pope having no other recourse in whom he did confide finding him to concur with himself in opinion against Eutychianism was no other than as the word is often used in common speech when we say I appeal to your judgment in this or that case a referring it to the Pope's consideration whether his Faith was sound and Orthodox capacitating him to retain his Office the which upon his explication and profession thereof presented in terms of extraordinary respect and deference the Pope did approve thereby as a good Divine rather than as a formal Judge acquitting him of Heterodoxy the which approbation in regard to the great opinion then had of the Pope's skill in those points and to the favour he had obtained by contesting against the Eutychians did bear great sway in the Synod so that although not without opposition of many and not upon absolute terms he was permitted to sit among the Fathers of Chalcedon Observations 1. We do not reade of any formal Trial the Pope made of Theodoret's case that he was cited that his Accusers did appear that his Cause was discussed but onely a simple approbation of him 2. We may observe that Theodoret did write to Flavianus in like terms We entreat your holiness to fight in behalf of the faith which is assaulted and to defend the Canons which are trampled under foot 3. We may observe that Theodoret expecting this favour of Pope Leo and thence being moved to commend the Roman See to the height and to reckon its special advantages doth not yet mention his Supremacy of Power or Universality of Jurisdiction For those words it befitteth you to be prime in all things are onely general words relating to the advantages which he subjoineth of which he saith for your throne is adorned with many advantages in a florid enumeration whereof he passeth over that of peculiar Jurisdiction he nameth the magnitude splendour majesty and populousness of the City the early faith praised by Saint Paul the Sepulchres of the two great Apostles and their decease there but the Pope's being Universal Sovereign and Judge which was the main advantage whereof that See could be capable he doth not mention why because he was not aware thereof else surely he would not have passed it in silence 4. We may also observe that whatever the opinion of Theodoret was now concerning the Pope's power he not long before did hardly take him for such a Judge when he did oppose Pope Celestine concurring with Cyril at the first Ephesine Synod He then indeed looking on Pope Celestine as a prejudiced Adversary did not write to him but to the other Bishops of the West as we see by those words in his Epistle to Domnus And we have written to the Bishops of the West about these things to him of Milain I say to him of Aquileia and him of Ravenna testifying c. 5. Yea we may observe that Theodoret did intend with the Emperour's leave to appeal or refer his cause to the whole body of Western Bishops as himself doth express in those words to Anatolius I do pray your magnificence that you would request this favour of our dread Sovereign that I may have recourse to the West and may be judged by the most religious and holy Bishops there Bellarmine farther doth alledge the appeal of Hadrianus Bishop of Thebes to Pope Gregory I. the which he received and asserted by excommunicating the Archbishop of Justiniana Prima for deposing Hadrianus without regard to that appeal I answer 1. The example is late when the Popes had extended their power beyond the ancient and due limits those Maxims had got in before the time of that worthy Pope who thought he might use the power of which he found himself possessed 2. It is impertinent because the Bishop of Justiniana had then a special dependence upon the Roman See from whence an Universal Jurisdiction upon appeal cannot be inferred 3. It might be an Usurpation nor doth the opinion or practice of Pope Gregory suffice to determine a question of right for good men are liable to prejudice and its consequences To these Instances produced by Bellarmine some add the Appeal of Eutyches to Pope Leo to which it may be excepted that if he did appeal it was not to the Pope solely but to him with the other Patriarchs so it is expresly said in the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod His deposition being read he did appeal to the Holy Synod of the most Holy Bishop of Rome and of Alexandria and of Jerusalem and of Thessalonica the which is an argument that he did not apprehend the right of receiving Appeals did solely or peculiarly belong to him of Rome Liberatus saith that Johannes Talaida went to Calendion Patriarch of Antioch and taking of him intercessory Synodical Letters appeal'd to Simplicius Bishop of Rome as Saint Athanasius had done and persuaded him to write in his behalf to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople In regard to any more Instances of this kind we might generally propose these following considerations 1. It is no wonder that any Bishop being condemned especially in causes relating to Faith or common Interest should have recourse to the Roman Bishop or to any other Bishop of great authority for refuge or for relief which they may hope to be procured by them by the influence of their reputation and their power among their dependents 2. Bad men being deservedly corrected will absurdly resort any whither with mouths full of clamour and calumny if not with hope of relief yet with design of revenge as did Marcion as did Felicissimus as did Apiarius to the Pope 3. Good men being abused will express some resentment and complain of their wrongs where they may
presume of a fair and favourable hearing so did Athanasius Flavianus St. Chrysostome Theodoret apply themselves to the same Bishops flourishing in so great reputation and wealth So did the Monks of Egypt Ammonius and Isidorus from the persecutions of Theophilus fly to the protection and succour of St. Chrysostome which gave occasion to the troubles of that incomparable Personage the which is so illustrious an instance that the words of the Historian relating it deserve setting down They jointly did endeavour that the trains against them might be examined by the Emperour as Judge and by the Bishop John for they conceived that he having conscience of using a just freedom would be able to succour them according to right but he did receive the men applying to him courteously and treated them respectfully and did not hinder them from praying in the Church He also writ to Theophilus to render communion to them as being Orthodox and if there were need of judging their case by law that he would send whom they thought good to prosecute the cause If this had been to the Pope it would have been alledged for an Appeal and it would have had as much colour as any Instance which they can produce 4. And when men either good or bad do resort in this manner to great friends it is no wonder if they accost them in highest terms of respect and with exaggerations of their eminent advantages so inducing them to regard and favour their cause 5. Neither is it strange that great persons favourably should entertain those who make such addresses to them they always coming crouching in a suppliant posture and with fair pretences it being also natural to men to delight in seeing their power acknowledged and it being a glorious thing to relieve the afflicted for Eminence is wont to incline toward infirmity and with a ready good will to take part with those who are under So when Basilides when Marcellus when Eustathius Sebastenus when Maximus the Cynick when Apiarius were condemned the Pope was hasty to engage for them more liking their application to him than weighing their cause 6. And when any person doth continue long in a flourishing estate so that such addresses are frequently made to him no wonder that an opinion of lawfull power to receive them doth arise both in him and in others so that of a voluntary Friend he become an authorized Protectour a Patron a Judge of such persons in such cases X. The Sovereign is fountain of all Jurisdiction and all inferiour Magistrates derive their Authority from his warrant and Commission acting as his Deputies or Ministers according to that intimation in St. Peter whether to the King as Supreme or to Governours as sent by him Accordingly the Pope doth challenge this advantage to himself that he is the fountain of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction pretending all Episcopal power to be derived from him The rule of the Church saith Bellarmine is Monarchical therefore all authority is in one and from him is derived to others the which Aphorism he well proveth from the form of creating Bishops as they call it We do provide such a Church with such a person and we do prefer him to be Father and Pastour and Bishop of the said Church committing to him the administration in temporals and spirituals in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Pope Pius II. in his Bull of Retractation thus expresseth the sense of his See In the militant Church which resembleth the triumphant there is one moderatour and Judge of all the Vicar of Jesus Christ from whom as from the Head all power and authority is derived to the subject members the which doth immediately flow into it from the Lord Christ. A Congregation of Cardinals appointed by Pope Paulus III. speaking after the style and sentiments of that See did say to him Your Holiness doth so bear the care of Christ's Church that you have very many Ministers by which you manage that care these are all the Clergy on whom the service of God is charged especially Priests and more especially Curates and above all Bishops Durandus Bishop of Mande according to the sense of his Age saith The Pope is head of all Bishops from whom they as members from an head descend and of whose fulness all receive whom he calls to a participation of his care but admits not into the fulness of his power This pretence is seen in the ordinary Titles of Bishops who style themselves Bishops of such a place By the grace of God and of the Apostolick See O shame The men of the Tridentine Convention those great betrayers of the Church to perpetual slavery and Christian truth to the prevalency of falshood till God pleaseth do upon divers occasions pretend to qualifie and empower Bishops to perform important matters originally belonging to the Episcopal Function as the Pope's Delegates But contrariwise according to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture and the sense of the Primitive Church the Bishops and Pastours of the Church do immediately receive their Authority and Commission from God being onely his Ministers The Scripture calleth them the Ministers of God and of Christ so Epaphras so Timothy in regard to their Ecclesiastical function are named the Stewards of God the Servants of God Fellow-servants of the Apostles The Scripture saith that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to feed the Church of God that God had given them and constituted them in the Church for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that is to all effects and purposes concerning their Office for the work of the Ministery comprizeth all the duty charged on them whether in way of Order or of Governance as they now do precariously and groundlesly in reference to this case distinguish And edifying the body doth import all the designed effects of their Office particularly those which are consequent on the use of Jurisdiction the which Saint Paul doth affirm was appointed for edification according saith he to the authority which God hath given me for edification and not for destruction They do preside in the Lord. They allow no other Head but our Lord from whom all the body c. The Fathers clearly do express their Sentiments to be the same St. Ignatius saith that the Bishop doth preside in the place of God and that we must look upon him as our Lord himself or as our Lord 's Representative that therefore we must be subject to him as unto Jesus Christ. St. Cyprian affirmeth each Bishop to be constituted by the judgment of God and of Christ and that in his Church he is for the present a Judge in the place of Christ and that our Lord Jesus Christ one and alone hath a power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting St. Basil A
most primitive ages when evidently there was no such a political Conjunction of Christians Arg. III. The Apostles delivered one Rule of Faith to all Churches the embracing and profession whereof celebrated in Baptism was a necessary condition to the admission into the Church and to continuance therein therefore Christians are combined together in one political Body Answ. 1. The Consequence is very weak for from the Antecedent it can onely be inferred that according to the Sentiment of the Ancients all Christians should consent in one Faith which Unity we avow and who denieth Answ. 2. By like reason all Mankind must be united in one political Body because all men are bound to agree in what the Light of nature discovereth to be true and good or because the Principles of natural Religion Justice and Humanity are common to all Arg. IV. God hath granted to the Church certain Powers and Rights as Jura Majestatis namely the Power of the Keys to admit into to exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven a Power to enact Laws for maintenance of its Order and Peace for its Edification and Welfare a Power to correct and excommunicate Offenders a Power to hold Assemblies for God's Service a Power to ordain Governours and Pastours Answ. 1. These Powers are granted to the Church because granted to each particular Church or distinct Society of Christians not to the whole as such or distinct from the Parts Answ. 2. It is evident that by virtue of such Grants particular Churches do exercise those Powers and it is impossible to infer more from them than a Justification of their Practice Answ. 3. St. Cyprian often from that common Grant doth infer the Right of exercising Discipline in each particular Church which Inference would not be good but upon our Supposition nor indeed otherwise would any particular Church have ground for its Authority Answ. 4. God hath granted the like Rights to all Princes and States but doth it thence follow that all Kingdoms and States must be united in one single Regiment the Consequence is just the same as in our Case Arg. V. All Churches were tied to observe the same Laws or Rules of Practice the same Orders of Discipline and Customes therefore all do make one Corporation Answ. 1. That All Churches are bound to observe the same Divine Institutions doth argue onely an Unity of relation to the same Heavenly King or a specifical Unity and Similitude of Policy the which we do avow Answ. 2. We do also acknowledge it convenient and decent that all Churches in principal Observances introduced by humane prudence should agree so near as may be an Uniformity in such things representing and preserving Unity of Faith of Charity of Peace Whence the Governours of the primitive Church did endeavour such an Uniformity as the Fathers of Nice profess in the Canon forbidding of Genu-flexion on Lord's days and in the days of Pentecost Answ. 3. Yet doth not such an agreement or attempt at it infer a political Unity no more than when all men by virtue of a primitive general Tradition were tied to offer Sacrifices and Oblations to God that Consideration might argue all men to have been under the same Government or no more than the usual Agreement of neighbour Nations in divers fashions doth conclude such an Unity Answ. 4. In divers Customes and Observances several Churches did vary with allowance which doth rather infer a difference of Polity than agreement in other Observances doth argue an Unity thereof Answ. 5. St. Cyprian doth affirm that in such matters every Bishop had a Power to use his own discretion without being obliged to comply with others Arg. VI. The Jewish Church was one Corporation and in correspondence thereto the Christian Church should be such Answ. 1. As the Christian Church doth in some things correspond to that of the Jews so it differeth in others being designed to excell it wherefore this argumentation cannot be valid and may as well be employed for our Opinion as against it Answ. 2. In like manner it may be argued that all Christians should annually meet in one place that all Christians should have one Arch-priest on Earth that we should all be subject to one temporal Jurisdiction that we should all speak one Language c. Answ. 3. There is a great difference in the case for the Israelites were one small Nation which conveniently might be embodied but the Christian Church should consist of all Nations which rendreth Correspondence in this particular unpracticable at least without great inconvenience Answ. 4. Before the Law Christian Religion and consequently a Christian Church did in substance subsist but what Unity of Government was there then Answ. 5. The Temporal Union of the Jews might onely figure the spiritual Unity of Christians in Faith Charity and Peace Arg. VII All Ecclesiastical Power was derived from the same Fountains by succession from the Apostles therefore the Church was one political Body Answ. 1. Thence we may rather infer that Churches are not so united because the Founders of them were several Persons endowed with co-ordinate and equal Power Answ. 2. The Apostles did in several Churches constitute Bishops independent from each other and the like may be now either by succession from those or by the constitutions of humane prudence according to emergences of occasion and circumstances of things Answ. 3. Divers Churches were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all were so according to Saint Cyprian Answ. 4. All temporal power is derived from Adam and the Patriarchs ancient Fathers of families Doth it thence follow that all the World must be under one secular Government Arg. VIII All Churches did exercise a Power of Excommunication or of excluding Hereticks Schismaticks disorderly and scandalous people Answ. 1. Each Church was vested with this Power this doth therefore onely infer a resemblance of several Churches in Discipline which we avow Answ. 2. This argueth that all Churches took themselves to be obliged to preserve the same Faith to exercise Charity and Peace to maintain the like Holiness of conversation What then Do we deny this Answ. 3. All Kingdoms and States do punish Offenders against Reason and Justice do banish seditious and disorderly persons do uphold the Principles and Practice of common Honesty and Morality Doth it thence follow that all Nations must come under one civil Government Arg. IX All Churches did maintain entercourse and commerce with each other by formed communicatory pacificatory commendatory synodical Epistles Answ. 1. This doth signifie that the Churches did by Admonition Advice c. help one another in maintenance of the common Faith did endeavour to preserve Charity Friendship and Peace this is all which thence may be concluded Answ. 2. Secular Princes are wont to send Ambassadours and Envoys with Letters and Instructions for settlement of Correspondence and preserving Peace they sometimes do recommend their Subjects to other Princes they expect
for a Bishop to forsake his Church and to neglect the Flocks of God Oportet enim Episcopâ—s curis secularibus expeditos curam suorum agere populorum nec Ecclesiis suis abesse diutiús P. Paschal II. Ep. 22. For Bishops ought to be disentangled from secular cares and to take charge of their people and not to be long absent from their Churches Praecipimus nè conductitiis ministris Ecclesiae committantur unaquaeque Ecclesia cui facultas suppetit proprium habeat Sacerdotem Conc. Lat. 2. sub Innoc. II. Can. 10. We enjoyn that Churches be not committed to hired Ministers but that every Church that is of ability have its proper Priest Cum igitur Ecclesia veâ— Ecclesiasticum ministerium committi debuerit talis ad hoc persona quaeratur quae residere in loco curam ejus per seipsum valet exercere quòd si aliter fuerit actum qui receperit quod contra Sanctos Canones accepit amittat Conc. â—at 3. sub Alexandro III. Cap. 13. Therefore when a Church or the Ecclesiastical Ministry be to be committed to any man let such a person be found out for this purpose who can reside upon the place and discharge the cure by himself but if it prove otherwise then let him who has received lose that which he has taken contrary to the holy Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. haer 27. Apost Can. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Ep. 86. The great City of the Antiochians hath the throne of the great Saint Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. 5.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 726. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Alex. apud Athan. p. 727. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p. 765. Syn. Nic. Can. 15. Syn. Chalc. Can. 5. Syn. Ant. Can. 21. Syn. Sard. Can. 1. Syn. Arel Can. 22. Grat. Caus. 8. qu. 1. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. sub Menn p. 9. P. Jul. I. apud Athan. in Apolog. 2. p. 744. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. 5.11 Those that pass from their own Churches to other Churches we esteem so long excommunicate or strangers from our communion till such time as they return to the same Cities where they were first ordained Si quis Episcopus mediocritate Civitatis suae despectâ administrationem loci celebrioris ambierit ad majorem se plebem quacunque occasione transtulerit non solìon à Cathedra quidem pellatur aliena sed carebit propriâ c. P. Leo I. Ep. 84. c. 4. If an Bishop despising the meanness of his City seeks for the administration of a more eminent place and upon any occasion whatsoever transfers himself to a greater people he shall not onely be driven out of another's See but also lose his own c. Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.61 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. 7.7 Illud praeterea commoneo dilectionem vestram nè patiamini aliquem contra Staâ—uta majorum nostrorum de Civitate alia ad aliam transduci deserere plebem sibi commissam c. P. Damasi Epist. apud Holsten p. 41. R. Marc. 5.21 Moreover this I advise you that out of your charity you would not suffer any one against the Decrees of our Ancestours to be removed from one City to another and to forsake the people committed to his charge c. Quis enim unquam audet dicere S. Petrum Apostolorum Principem non benè egisse quando mutavit sedem de Antiochia in Romam Pelag. II. Ep. 1. Contra Ecclesiasticam dispositionem contra Evangelicam legem contra Institutionis Catholicae unitatem Cypr. Ep. 44. ut Ep. 46 52 55 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. 4.15 Syn. Nic. Can. 8. Cornelius apud Euseb. 6.43 Cypr. Ep. 46. P. Innocentius apud Sozom. 8.26 Opt. I. Cathedra una In remedium Schismatis Hier. à gloriofissimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundaeta constituta Ecclesia Iren. 3.3.3.1 Haer. 27. Act. 28.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iren. apud Euseb. 5.6 Romanorum Ecclesiae Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit Tert. de Praescr 32. Ex quìbus electum magnum plebique probatum Hâc Cathedrâ Petrus quâ sederat ipse locatum Maxima Roma Linum primum considere jussit Tert. in Marc. 3.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Const. Apost 7.46 Euseb. 3.4 13. Aug. Ep. 165. Epiph. Haer. 27. Opt. 2. Tertull. poem in Marc. 3.9 Phot. Cod. 112. p. 290. N. Eusebius 3.2 saith that Linus did sit Bishop after the Martyrdom of Saint Peter but this is not so probable as that which the Authour of the Constitutions doth affirm which reconcileth the dissonancies of Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. Inn. I. apud Soz. 8.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Ant. Can. 23. Cùm post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Cypr. Ep. 52. Theod. hist. 2.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adhuc in corpore posito beatae memoriae patre Episcopo meo sene Valerio Episcopus ordinatus sum sedi cum illo quod concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam nec ipse sciebat Aug. Ep. 110. While my Father and Bishop of blessed memory old Valerius was yet living I was ordained Bishop and held the See with him which I knew not nor did he know to be forbidden by the Council of Nice Ipse sublimavit Sedem in qua etiam quiescere praesentem vitam finire dignatus est Greg. I. Ep. 6.37 Innoc. I. Ep. 21. P. Nic. I. Ep. 9. p. 509. Grat. caus 8. q. 1. cap. 1. He advanced that See wherein he vouchsafed both to set up his rest and also to end this present life Bell. 2.12 § At verò Petrum Apostolum successisse in Episcopatu Antiocheno alicul ex discipulis quod est planè intolerandum Bell. 2.6 Quidam enim requirunt quo modo cùm Linus Cletus in urbe Roma ante Clementem hunc fuerint Episcopi ipse Clemens ad Jacobum Scribens sibi dicat à Petro docendi Cathedram traditam cujus rei hanc accepimus esse rationem quòd Linus Cletus fuerunt quidem ante Clementem Episcopi in urbe Roma sed superstite Petro videlicet ut illi Episcopatûs curam gererent ipse verò Apostolatûs impleret Officium Ruffin in praef ad Clem. Recogn Const. Apost 7.46 Iren. 3.3 Tertull. Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt Iren. 3.3 The Blessed Apostles therefore founding and instructing the Church delivered the Episcopal power of ordering and governing the Church to Linus Euseb. 3.4 13 15. Iren. 3.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. 4.1 Iren. 1.28.3.3 4. Euseb. 4.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. Chron. p. 7. Hist. 3.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pseud. Ignat. ad Ant. Euseb. counteth Anniaâ—â—s the first Bishop of Alexandria 3.21 Celebris mos est Apostolos pro potestate