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.

[Page]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 de [...]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 inde [...]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 [Page] 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 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 &
  • Dno Dno 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 [Page 2] of that Point so nearly toucheth the heart of Religion,Agitur de summa rei Christianae. Bell. Praef. de Rom. Pont. Vpon this one Point the very sum and sub­stance of Christianity depends. 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 bounds of Papal Authority.

This disagreement of the Roman Doctours about the nature and extent of Papal Authority is a shrewd prejudice against it. If a man should sue for a piece of Land, and his Advocates (the notablest could be had, and well payed) could not find where it lieth, how it is butted and boun­ded, from whom it was conveyed to him—one would be very apt to suspect his Title. If God had instituted such an Office, it is highly pro­bable, we might satisfactorily know what the Nature and Use of it were: the Patents and Charters for it would declare it.

Yet for resolution in this great Case we are left to seek; they not ha­ving either the will, or the courage, or the power to determine it. This insuperable Problem hath baffled all their infallible methods of deciding Controversies; their Traditions blundering, their Synods clashing, their Divines wrangling endlesly about what kind of thing the Pope is, and what Power he rightly may claim.

There is (saith a great Divine among them) so much controversie about the plenitude of Ecclesiastical Power, Tanta est inter Doctores controversia de plenitudine Ecclesiasticae potestatis, & ad quae se extendat, ut pauca sint in ea materia secura—Almain. de Auct. Eccl. cap. 3. and to what things it may extend it self, that few things in that matter are secure—

This is a plain argument of the impotency of the Pope's power in judging and deciding Controversies, or of his Cause in this matter; that he cannot define a Point so nearly concerning him, and which he so much desireth an Agreement in; that he cannot settle his own Claim out of doubt; that all his Authority cannot secure it self from contest.

So indeed it is, that no Spells can allay some Spirits; and where In­terests are irreconcilable, Opinions will be so.

Some Points are so tough and so touchy, that no-body dare meddle with them, fearing that their resolution will fail of success, and submis­sion. Hence even the anathematizing Definers of Trent (the boldest un­dertakers to decide Controversies that ever were) did wave this Point; the Legates of the Pope being injoined, to advertise, That they should not for any cause whatever come to dispute about the Pope's Authority. —di avertire, Che non si venga mai per qual causa si sia alla disputa dell Autorita di Papa. Concil. Trid. lib. 2. p. 159.

It was indeed wisely done of them to decline this Question, their Au­thority not being strong enough to bear the weight of a Decision in fa­vour of the Roman See, (against which they could doe nothing,) accor­ding to its Pretences; as appeareth by one clear instance. For whereas that Council took upon it incidentally to enact, that any Prince should be excommunicate, and deprived of the dominion of any City or place, where he should permit a Duel to be fought;Hic articulus est contra au­thoritatem Regis, qui non potest pri­vari suo dominio temporali, respectu cujus nullum superiorem recognoscit. Bochell. lib. 5. tit. 20. cap. 45. This Article is against the authority of the King; who cannot be deprived of his Temporal Dominion, where­in he acknowledges no Superiour. the Prelates of France in the Convention of Orders, Anno 1595. did declare against that Decree, as infringing their King's Authority.

It was therefore advisedly done not to meddle with so ticklish a point. But in the mean time their Policy seemeth greater than their Charity; [Page 3] which might have inclined them not to leave the world in darkness and doubt, and unresolved in a Point of so main importance; (as indeed they did in others of no small consequence, disputed among their Divines with obstinate Heat; viz. The Divine Right of Bishops, the Necessity of Re­sidence, the immaculate Conception, &c.)

The Opinions therefore among them concerning the Pope's Authori­ty, as they have been, so they are, and in likelihood may continue, very different.

§ II. There are among them those who ascribe to the Pope an univer­sal, absolute and boundless Empire over all Persons indifferently, and in all Matters; conferred and settled on him by Divine immutable sanction: so that all men of whatever degree are obliged in conscience to believe whatever he doth authoritatively dictate, and to obey whatever he doth prescribe. So that if Princes themselves do refuse obedience to his will, he may excommunicate them, cashier them, depose them, extirpate them. If he chargeth us to hold no Communion with our Prince, to re­nounce our Allegeance to him, to abandon, oppose and persecute him even to death, we may without scruple, we must in duty obey. If he doth interdict whole Nations from the exercise of God's Worship and Service, they must comply therein. So that, according to their con­ceits, he is in effect Sovereign Lord of all the World; and superiour, even in Temporal or Civil matters, unto all Kings and Princes.

It is notorious, that many Canonists (if not most) and many Divines of that Party do maintain this Doctrine; affirming that all the Power of Christ (the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, Prima sen­tentia est, summum Pon­tificem jure divino habere plenissimam potestatem in universum orbem terrarum, tam in rebus Ecclesiasticis quam Civilibus. Ità docent Aug. Triumphus, Alvarus Pelagius, Panormitanus, Hostiensis, Silvester, & alii non pauci. Bell. 5.1. The first Opinion is, that the Pope hath a most full Power over the whole world, both in Ecclesiastical and Civil affairs. This is the Doctrine of Aug. Triumphus, &c. and of many others. to whom all Power in Heaven and Earth doth appertain) is imparted to the Pope, as to his Vice-gerent.

This is the Doctrine which almost 400 years agoe Augustinus Trium­phus, in his egregious Work concerning Ecclesiastical Power, did teach;Scripsit egre­giam sum­mam de Pote­state Ecclesiae. Bell. de Script. Anno 1301. Error est, non credere Pontificem Rom. Vniversalis Ecclesiae Pastorem, Petri Successorem, & Christi Vicarium, supra tem­poralia & spiritualia Vniversalem non habere Primatum; in quem quandoque multi labuntur, dictae potestatis ignorantiâ; quae cùm sit infinita, eò quòd magnus est Dominus, & magna virtus ejus, & magnitudinis ejus non est finis, omnis crea­tu [...] intellectus in ejus perscrutatione invenitur deficere. Aug. Triumph. de Potest. Eccl. in praef. ad P. Joh. XXII. attributing to the Pope an incomprehensible and infinite Power; because great is the Lord, and great is his Power, and of his Greatness there is no end.

This is the Doctrine which the leading Theologue of their Sect, their Angelical Doctour, doth affirm, both directly, saying,Thomas in fi­ne Secun. Sen­tent. dicit in Papa esse api­cem utriusque Potestatis. Bell. 5.1. Quum quis per sententiam denunciatur propter Apostasiam excommunicatus, ipso facto ejus subditi à dominio, & jura­mento fidelitatis ejus liberati sunt. Th. 2. Secund. qu. 12. art. 2. that in the Pope is the top of both Powers; and by plain consequence, asserting, that when any one is denounced excommunicate for Apostasie, his Subjects are immedi­ately freed from his dominion, and their Oath of Allegeance to him.

This the same Thomas (or an Authour passing under his name,S. Thomas (in lib. 3. de Regim. Princ. cap. 10. & 19.) affirmat, summum Pon­tificem jure divino habere spiritualem & temporalem Potestatem, ut supremum totius mundi Regem, ad [...]ò [...] etiam taleas omnibus Christianis possit imponere, & civitatis ac castra destruere pro conservatione Christianitatis. Bell. 5.5. in his Book touching the Rule of Princes,) doth teach, affirming, that the Pope, as Supreme King of all the world, may impose taxes on all Christians, and destroy Towns and Castles for the preservation of Christianity.

[Page 4]This (as Card. Zabarell near 300 years agoe telleth us) is the Doc­trine which, Quae jura sunt notanda, quia malè conside­rata sunt per multos assen­tatores, qui voluerunt placere Pontificibus, per multa retro tempora, & usque ad hodierna suaserunt eis, quòd omnia possent; & sic quòd facerent quicquid liberet, etiam illicita, & sic plus quàm Deus. Zabar. de Schism. for a long time, those who would please Popes did persuade them, that they could doe all things, whatever they pleased; yea and things unlawfull; and so could doe more than God.

According to this Doctrine then current at Rome, in the last Laterane Great Synod, under the Pope's nose and in his ear, one Bishop styled him Prince of the World;Orbis Prin­ceps, Episc. Spal. Sess. 1. p. 24. Regum Rex, & Orbis ter­rarum Mo­narcha, Del Rio, Sess. 8. p. 87. —Virum, in quo erat Po­testas supra omnes Pote­states, [...]am coeli, quàm terrae. Episc. Patrac. Sess. 10. p. 132. Arripe ergò gladium Divinae Potestatis tibi creditum, his acutum; & jube, impera, manda, ut Pax universalis & Col­ligatio per decennium inter Christianos ad minus fiat; & Reges ad id in compedibus magni Regis liga, & Nobiles in manicis ferreis Censurarum constringe: quoniam tibi data est omnis Potestas in coelo & in terra. Ibid. p. 133. another Oratour called him King of Kings, and Monarch of the Earth; another great Prelate said of him, that he had all Power above all Powers both of Heaven and Earth. And the same rou­sed up Pope Leo X. in these brave terms; Snatch up therefore the two-edged sword of Divine Power, committed to thee; and injoyn, command and charge, that an universal Peace and Alliance be made among Christians for at least 10 years; and to that bind Kings in the fetters of the great King, and constrain Nobles by the iron manacles of Censures: for to thee is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth.

This is the Doctrine which Baronius with a Roman confidence doth so often assert, and drive forward, saying, Politicum Principatum Sacerdotali esse subjectum nulla potest es­se dubitatio. An. 57. § 32. that there can be no doubt of it, but that the Civil Principality is subject to the Sacerdotal: and, Politicum Imperium subjecit spiritualis Ecclesiae dominio. Ib. § 33. that God hath made the Political Government subject to the Dominion of the Spi­ritual Church.

§ III. From that Doctrine the Opinion in effect doth not differ, which Bellarmine voucheth for the common Opinion of Catholicks, that by reason of the Spiritual Power the Pope at least indirectly hath a Supreme Power even in Temporal matters. Tertia senten­tia media, & Catholicorum communis, Pontificem ut Pontisicem non habere directè & immediatè ullam temporalem potestatem, sed solùm spiritualem; tamen ra­tione spiritualis habere saltem indirectè potestatem quandam, eámque summam, in temporalibus. Bell. 5.1.

This Opinion, so common, doth not, I say, in effect, and practi­cal consideration, any-wise differ from the former; but onely in words devised to shun envy, and veil the impudence of the other Assertion: for the qualifications, by reason of the Spiritual Power, and, at least in­directly, are but notional, insignificant and illusive in regard to practice: it importing not, if he hath in his keeping a Sovereign Power, upon what account, or in what formality he doth employ it; seeing that every matter is easily referrible to a Spiritual account; seeing he is sole Judge upon what account he doth act; seeing experience sheweth, that he will spiritualize all his interests, and upon any occasion exercise that pretended Authority; seeing it little mattereth, if he may strike Princes, whether he doeth it by a downright blow, or slantingly.

§ IV. That such an universal and absolute Power hath been claimed by divers Popes, successively for many Ages, is apparent from their most solemn Declarations, and notorious Practices; whereof (begin­ning [Page 5] from later times, and rising upwards toward the source of this Doctrine) we shall represent some.

The Bull of P. Sixtus V. against the two Sons of wrath, Henry, Anno 198 [...]. K. of Navarre, and the P. of Conde, beginneth thus; The Authority given to Saint Peter and his Succes­sours by the immense Power of the Eternal King ex­cels all the Powers of earthly Kings and Princes. Ab immensa aeterni Regis potentia B. Petro ejúsque Successoribus tradita Aucto­ritas omnes terrenorum Regum & Princi­pum supereminet potestates—Inconcus­sa profert in omnes judicia—Et siquos ordinationi Dei resistentes invenit, seve­riore hos vindictâ ulciscitur, &, quam [...]ìs potentiores, de solio dejiciens, veluti super­bientis Luciferi ministros, ad infima ter­rae deturbatos prosternit.— Dominiis, Regnis, &c. nos illos illo [...]úm­que posteros privamus in perpetuum.— A Juramento hujusmodi, ac omni pror­sus Dominii, Fidelitatis & Obsequii debi­to, illos omnes tam universè quàm singu­latim auctoritate praesentium absolvimus & liberamus; praecipimúsque & interdi­cimus eis universis & singulis, nè illi [...] eo­rúmque monitis, legibus & mandatis au­deant obedire. Bulla Sixti V. Contra Henr. Navarr. R. &c.—It passes uncontrollable sentence upon them all.—And if it find any of them resisting God's Ordinance, it takes more severe vengeance of them, casting them down from their Thrones, though never so puissant, and tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the ministers of aspiring Lucifer. And then he proceeds to thunder against them, We deprive them and their posterity for ever of their Dominions and Kingdoms. And accordingly he depriveth those Princes of their Kingdoms and Dominions, absol­veth their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegeance, and forbiddeth them to pay any Obedience to them. By the Authority of these presents, we do ab­solve and set free all persons, as well jointly as severally, from any such Oath, and from all duty whatsoever in regard of Dominion, Fealty and Obedience, and do charge and forbid all and every of them, that they do not dare to obey them, or any of their Admonitions, Laws and Com­mands.

P. Pius V. (one of their Holiest Popes of the last stamp,Anno 1570. who hard­ly hath scaped Canonization untill now) beginneth his Bull against our Q. Elizabeth in these words;Pius V.—Quem mirum est in albo Sanc­torum nondum relatum esse. Briet. Chr. Anno 1572. Regnans in excelsis, cui data est omnis in coe [...]o & in terra potestas, unam Sanc­tam, Catholicam & Apostolicam Ecclesi­am, extra quam nulla est Salus, uni soli in terris, videlicet Apostolorum Principi Petro, Petrique Successori Romano Ponti­fici, in potestatis plenitudine tradidit gubernan [...]am: Hunc unum super omnes gentes & omnia regna Principem consti­tuit, qui [...]vellat, destruat, dissipet, dis­perdat, plantet & aedificet.—P. Pius V. in Bull. contra R. Eliz. (Cambd. Hist. Anno 1570.) Ipsam praetenso regni jure, nec non omni quocunque dominio, dignitate privilegióque privamus; & interum Proceres, subditos, &c. Ibid. He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all Pow­er in Heaven and in Earth, hath committed the one H. Catholick and Apostolick Church, out of which there is no Salvation, to one alone on earth, namely to Peter Prince of the Apostles, and to the Roman Pontife, Successour of Peter, to be governed with a plenitude of Power: This one he hath constituted Prince over all Nations, and all Kingdoms; that he might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant and build.—And in the same Bull he declares, that he thereby deprives the Queen of her pretended right to the Kingdom, and of all Dominion, Dignity and Privilege whatsoever; and absolves all the Nobles, Subjects and people of the Kingdom, and whoever else have sworn to her, from their Oath, and all duty whatsoever, in regard of Dominion, Fidelity and Obedience.

P. Clement VI. did pretend to depose the Emperour Lewis IV.Anno 1346.

P. Clement V. in the great Synod of Vienna, Anno 1311. Apostolica auctoritate de fratrum no­strorum consilio declaramus, illa juramenta pr [...]dicta fidelitatis exsistere & censeri debere. Clem. lib. 2. tit. 9. Vide Conc. Vienn. p. 909. declared the Emperour subject to him, or standing obliged to him by a proper Oath of Fealty.

[Page 6]P. Boniface VIII. hath a Decree extant in the Canon-Law running thus;Anno 1294. We declare, say, define, pronounce it to be of necessity to Salvation, Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pr [...]nunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. Extrav. com. lib. 1. tit. 8. cap. 1. for every humane creature to be subject to the Roman Pontife. The which Sub­jection, according to this intent, reacheth all mat­ters; for he there challengeth a double Sword, and asserteth to himself Jurisdiction over all Temporal Authorities:Opor [...]et gladium esse sub gladio, & temporalem authoritatem spirituali sub­jici potestati. Ibid. for, One Sword (saith he) must be under another, and the Temporal Authority must be subject to the Spiritual Power—whence if the Earth­ly Power doth go astray, Ergò si deviat terrena potestas, judi­cabitur à potestate spirituali. Ibid. it must be judged by the Spi­ritual Power. The which Aphorisms he proveth by Scriptures admirably expounded to that purpose.

This Definition might pass for a Rant of that boi­sterous Pope,Vir super modum ambitiosus & arro­gans (Bin [...]us in vita Bonif. VIII.) (a man above measure ambitious and arrogant,) vented in his passion against K. Philip of France, if it had not the advantage (of a greater than which no Papal Decree is capable) of being expresly confirmed by one of their General Councils; for, We (saith P. Leo X. in his Bull read and pas [...]ed in the Laterane Council) do renew and approve that H. Constitution, Constitutionem ipsam, sacro praesenti Concilio approbante, innovamus & [...]p­probamus. Concil. Later. Sess. 11. p. 153. Quam extravagantem renovavit & approbavit Concilium Lateranense sub Leone X. Canus loc. 6.4. Haec Bonifacius, cui assentiuntur om­nes, ut nullus discrepet, nisi qui dissidio ab Ecclesia excidit. Baron. Anno 1053. § 14. with appro­bation of the present H. Council. Accordingly Melch. Canus saith, that the Laterane Council did renew and approve that extravagant (indeed extravagant) Constitution: and Baronius saith of it, that all do assent to it, so that none dissenteth, who doth not by discord fall from the Church.

The truth is, P. Boniface did not invent that Proposition, but bor­rowed it from the School; for Thomas Aquinas, in his work against the Greeks, Os [...]enditur etiam quòd subesse Romano Pontifici sit de necessitate salutis. (Thom. in opusc. contra Graecos.) pretendeth to shew, that it is of necessity to Salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontife. The which Scholastical Aphorism P. Boniface turned into Law, and applied to his purpose of exercising domination over Princes; offering in virtue of it to deprive King Philip of his Kingdom.

The Appendix to Mart. Pol. saith of P. Boniface VIII. Regem se Re­gum, Mundi Monarcham, unicum in Spiritualibus & Temporalibus Domi­num promulgavit; That he openly declar'd himself to be King of Kings, Mo­narch of the world, and sole Lord and Governour both in Spirituals and Temporals.

Anno 1245.Before him, P. Innocent IV. did hold and exemplifie the same notion; declaring the Emperour Frederick II. his Vassal, and denouncing in his General Council of Lions a sentence of Deprivation against him in these terms: Nos itaque super praemissis, &c. P. In­noc. IV. in Conc. Lugd. We having about the foregoing and many other his wicked Miscarriages had before a carefull deliberation with our Brethren and the H. Council, Matt. Paris (Anno 1253.) saith, he deemed Kings Mancipia Papae. seeing that we, although un­worthy to hold the place of Jesus Christ on earth, and that it was said un­to us in the person of Saint Peter the Apostle, Whatever thou shalt bind on earth—the said Prince (who hath rendred himself unworthy of Em­pire and Kingdoms, and of all Honour and Dignity, and who for his ini­quities is cast away by God, that he should not reign or command, being [Page 7] bound by his sins, and cast away, and deprived by the Lord of all Ho­nour and Dignity) do shew, denounce, and accordingly by sentence de­prive; absolving all who are held bound by Oath of Allegeance from such Oath for ever; by Apostolical authority firmly prohibiting, that no man henceforth do obey or regard him as Emperour or King; and decreeing, that whoever shall hereafter yield advice, or aid, or favour to him as Em­perour or King, shall immediately lie under the band of Excommunication.

Before him, Pope Innocent the Third (that true wonder of the world, Verè stupor mundi, & immutator se­culi. Matt. Par. Anno 1217. Vt quanta est inter Solem & Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices & Reges differen­tia cognoscatur. P. Innoc. III. in Decret. Greg. lib. 1. tit. 33. cap. 6. and changer of the Age) did affirm the Pontifical Authority so much to ex­ceed the Royal Power, as the Sun doth the Moon; and applieth to the former that of the Prophet Je­remy, Ecce, constitui te super gentes & regna— Jer. 1.10. See, I have set thee over the Nations and over the Kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, &c.

Of this Power that Pope made experiment, by deposing the Empe­rour Otho IV; whom, (saith Nauclerus) as rebellious to the Apostolical See, he first did strike with an Anathema; Imperatorem—ut rebellem Sedi Apostoli­cae & inobedi­entem anathe­mate primùm; deinde in pertinacia perseverantem, in Concilio Praesulum, quod Romae tum Innocentius celebrabat, ab Imperio depositum percussit & pronunciavit. Naucl. Anno 1212. then him persevering in his obstinacy did in a Council of Prelates held at Rome pronounce deposed from Empire.

The which Authority was avowed by that great Council under this Pope, (the which,Neque enim per Lateranense Concilium Ecclesia statuit, &c. Syn. Trid. Sess. 14. cap. 5. Si verò Dominus temporalis requisitus & monitus. Conc. Later. cap. 3. in De­cret Greg. lib. 5. tit. 7. cap. 13. according to the men of Trent, did represent or constitute the Church,) wherein it was ordained, that If a Tem­poral Lord, being required and admonished by the Church, should neglect to purge his Territory from Heretical filth, he should by the Metropolitan and the other Compro­vincial Bishops be noosed in the band of Excommunication; and that if he should slight to make satisfaction within a year, it should be signified to the Pope, that he might from that time denounce the Subjects absolved from their Fealty to him, and expose the Territory to be seised on by Ca­tholicks, &c.

Before that,Anno 1099. Nam in hac non tantùm parte, sed u­bique, cùm po­teris, Henri­cum, Haereti­corum caput, & ejus fautores pro viribus persequaris. Nullum profectò gratius Deo sacrificium, quàm si eum impugnes, qui se contra Deum erexit, qui Ecclesiae regnum auferre conatur. P. Pasch. Ep. 7. ad Rob. Fland. Com. Pope Paschal II. deprived Henry IV. and excited ene­mies to persecute him; telling them, that they could not offer a more acceptable Sacrifice to God, than by impugning him, who endeavoured to take the Kingdom from God's Church.

Before him,Anno 1088. Pope Vrban II. (called Turban by some in his Age) did preach this Doctrine, recommended to us in the Decrees, that Sub­jects are by no authority constrained to pay the Fidelity which they have sworn to a Christian Prince, who opposeth God and his Saints, Fidelitatem enim quam Christiano Principi ju­rârunt, Deo ejúsque Sanc­tis adversan­ti, eorúmque praecepta, nul­lâ cohibentur auctoritate persolvere, Caus. 15. qu. 7. cap. 5. or viola­teth their Precepts. An instance whereof we have in his granting a privilege to the Canons of Tours; Si quis Imperator, Rex, Princeps—contra hanc Constitutionem venire tentaverit—potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat—P. Urb. II. Ep. 12. which (saith he) if any Emperour, King, Prince, &c. shall wilfully attempt to thwart, let him be deprived of the dignity of his honour and power.

[Page 8]But the great Apostle (if not Authour) of this confounding Doc­trine was Pope Gregory VII. (a man of a bold spirit and fiery temper, inured even before his entry on that See to bear sway, and drive on daring projects, possessed with resolution to use the advantages of his place and time in pushing forward the Papal Interest to the utmost,) who did lift up his voice like a trumpet, kindling Wars and Seditions thereby over Christendom. His Dictates and Practices are well known, being iterated in his own Epistles,Vid. ejus dic­tata apud Bin. post Ep. l. 2. Ep. 55. Ep. 4.2.8.21. & passim. Ep. 1.58.2.5, 12, 13, 18, 32.3.10.4.1, 2, 3, 7, 22. and in the Roman Councils under him, extant: Yet it may be worth the while to hear him swagger in his own language.

Hâc itaque fiduciâ fretus, pro dignitate & tutela Ec­clesiae suae Sanctae, Om­nipotentis Dei nomine, Pa­tris, Filii, & Spiritûs S. Henricum Re­gem, Henric [...] quondam Imperatoris filium, qui audacter nimiùm & temerariè in Ecclesiam tuam manus injecit, Imperatoriâ admini­stratione Regiâque dejicio; & Christianos omnes Imperio subjectos Juramento illo absolvo, quo fidem veris Regibus praestare consueverunt: dignum enim est, ut is honore careat, qui majestatem Ecclesiae imminnere causatur. Plat. in Greg. VII. & Tom. 7. Conc. Rom. 3. apud Bin. p. 484. For the dignity and defence of God's Holy Church, in the name of Al­mighty God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I depose from Imperial and Royal Administration King Henry, Son of Henry sometime Emperour, who too boldly and rashly hath laid hands on thy Church; and I absolve all Christians subject to the Empire from that Oath whereby they were wont to plight their faith unto true Kings: for it is right, that he should be de­prived of Dignity, who doth endeavour to diminish the Majesty of the Church.

Agite igitur, Apostolorum sanctissimi Principes, & quod dixi—Plat. in Greg. VII. Conc. Rom. 7. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 491. Go to therefore, most Holy Princes of the Apostles, and what I said, by interposing your Authority, confirm; that all men may now at length un­derstand, if ye can bind and loose in Heaven, that ye also can upon Earth take away and give Empires, Kingdoms, and whatsoever mortals can have: for if ye can judge things belonging unto God, what is to be deemed con­cerning these inferiour and profane things? And if it is your part to judge Angels, who govern proud Princes, what becometh it you to doe toward their servants? Let Kings now and all Secular Princes learn by this man's example, what ye can doe in Heaven, and in what esteem ye are with God; and let them henceforth fear to slight the commands of Holy Church: but put forth suddenly this judgment, that all men may un­derstand, that not casually, but by your means this Son of iniquity doth fall from his Kingdom.

So did that Pope, not unadvisedly in heat or passion, but out of set­tled judgment, upon cool deliberation, express himself in his Synods at Rome.

This Pope is indeed by many held the inventour and broacher of this strange Doctrine. And even those, who about his Age did oppose it, did express themselves of this mind; calling it the novel Tradition, Schism, quod ex no­vella Tradi­tione Hilde­brandus—Eccl. Leod. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 521. Heresie of Hildebrand.

Pope Hildebrand (saith the Church of Liege, in their answer to the E­pistle to P. Paschal.) is authour of this new Schism, Hildebrandus P. author est hujus novelli Schismatis, & primus le­vavit sacer­dotalem lanceam contra diadema regni. Ib. p. 522. Qui primus se, & suo exemplo alios Pontifices, contra Imp. accinxit gla­dio belli. Ibid. p. 523. and first did raise the Priests lance against the Royal Diadem.—Who first did girt himself, and by his example other Popes, with the sword of war against the Emperours.

[Page 9] This onely Novelty, (saith Sigebert) not to say Heresie, Haec sola No­vitas, nè di­cam Haeresis, nondum in mundo emer­serat, ut Sa­cerdotes illius qui dicit Re­gi, Apostata, & qui regna­re facit hypo­critas propter peccata populi, doceant popu­lum, quòd malis Regibus nullam debeant subjectionem, & licèt ei Sacramentum fidelitatis secerint, nullam tamen fideli­tatem debeant; nec perjuri dicantur, qui contra Regem senserint; imo, qui Regi paruerit pro excommunicato habeatur; qu [...] contra Regem fecerit, à noxa injustitiae & perjurii absolvatur. Sigeb. Chron. Anno 1088. had not yet sprang up in the world, that the Priests of him Job 34.18, 30. who saith to the King, Apostate, and who maketh hypocrites to reign for the sins of the people, should teach the people, that they owe no subjection to bad Kings, and al­though they have sworn Allegeance to the King, they yet owe him none; and that they who take part against the King may not be said to be perju­red; yea, that he who shall obey the King may be held excommunicate; he that shall oppose the King, may be absolved from the crime of injustice and perjury.

Indeed certain it is, that this man did in most downright strains hold the Doctrine, and most smartly apply it to practice: yet did he dis­claim the invention or introduction of it; professing that he followed the notions and examples of his predecessours, divers of which he alle­geth in defence of his proceedings. We, Nos, sancto­rum praedeces­sorum statura tenentes, eos qui excommu­nicatis fideli­tate aut sa­cramento constricti sunt, Apostolicâ auctoritate à sacramento absolvimus, & nè eis fidelitatem observent omnibus modis prohibemus. Greg. VII. Ep. 8.21. Caus. 15. qu. 7. cap. 4. (saith he) holding the Sta­tutes of our Holy Predecessours, do by Apostolical authority absolve those from their Oath who are obliged by Fealty or Sacrament to Excommunicate persons, and by all means prohibit that they observe Fealty to them.

And so it is, that (although for many successions before Pope Hil­debrand the Popes were not in condition or capacity to take so much upon them; there having been a row of persons intruded into that See void of vertue, and of small authority, most of them very beasts, who depended upon the favour of Princes for their admittance, confirma­tion or support in the place; yet) we may find some Popes before him, who had a great spice of those imperious conceits, and upon oc­casion made very bold with Princes, assuming power over them, and darting menaces against them. For

Pope Leo IX. telleth us, that Constantine M. did think it very unbecoming, Valde indignum fore arbitratus, terre­no imperio subdi, quos Divina Majestas praefecit coelesti. P. Leo IX. Ep. 1. c. 12. that they should be sub­ject to an Earthly Empire whom the Divine Majesty had set over an Heavenly: and surely he was of his authour's mind, whom he alledged: although indeed this Pope may be supposed to speak this, and other sayings to that purpose, by suggesti­on of Hildebrand, by whom he was much governed.Plat. in vita Leon. IX. Quis te se­duxit, ut Pon­tificem Oecu­menicum scommatibus lacesseres, & S. Romanam Ecclesiam maledictis incesseres, cui cum omni veneratione subditus esse debes? Steph. VI. Ep. 1. Baron. Anno 885. § 11.

Pope Stephanus VI. told the Emperour Basilius, that he ought to be sub­ject with all veneration to the Roman Church.

Pope John VIII. (or IX.) did pretend Obedience due to him from Princes; and in default thereof threatned to excommunicate them.Anno 873. —cuncti ve­nire per ino­bedientiam neglexistis. Joh. VIII. Ep. 119. deinceps excommunicamus omnes, &c. Ibid.

Pope Nicolas I. cast many imperious sayings and threats at King Lo­tharius; these among others. We do therefore by Apostolical authority, Anno 858. Idcirco Apo­stolicâ autho­ritate, sub Divini judicii obtestatione, injungimus ti­bi, ut in Tre­virensi urbe & in Agrip­pina Colonia nullum eligi patiaris, antequam relatum super hoc nostro Apostolatui fiat. Grat. Dist. 63. cap. 4. Vt saltem compulsus resipiscere valeas, noveris, te citissimè mucrone Ecclesiastico feriendum; ità ut ulteriùs talia in S. Del Ecclesia perpetrare formides. P. Nic. l. Ep. 64. un­der obtestation of the Divine judgment, injoin to thee, that in Triers and [Page 10] Colen thou shouldst not suffer any Bishop to be chosen, before a report be made to our Apostleship. (Was not this satis pro imperio?) And again, That being compelled thou mayst be able to repent, know, that very soon thou shalt be struck with the Ecclesiastical Sword; so that thou mayst be afraid any more to commit such things in God's holy Church.

And this he suggesteth for right Doctrine, that Subjection is not due to bad Princes; perverting the Apostle's words to that purpose, Be sub­ject to the King as excelling, Regi quasi praecellenti, virtutibus sci­licet, non vitiis, subditi estote. P. Nic. I. Epist. 4. append. p. 626. that is, saith he, in vertues, not in vices: whereas the Apostle meaneth eminency in power.

Alius item Rom. Ponti­fex, Zacharias scilicet, Re­gem Fanco­rum, non tam pro suis iniquitatibus, quàm pro eo quòd tantae potestati erat inutilis, deposuit— omnésque Francigenas à juramento fideli­tatis quod illi— Decret. 2. part. Caus. 15. q. 6.Pope Gregory VII. doth also alledge Pope Zachary, who (saith he) did depose the King of the Franks, and did absolve all the French from the Oath of fidelity which they had taken unto him, not so much for his iniquities, as because he was unfit for such a Power.

This indeed was a notable act of jurisdiction, if Pope Gregory's word may be taken for matter of fact: but divers maintain, that Pope Zacha­ry did onely concur with the rebellious deposers of King Chilperick in way of advice or approbation, not by authority.

It was pretty briskly said of Pope Adrian I. We do by general decree constitute, Anno 772. Generali de­creto constitui­mus, ut exse­crandum Ana­thema sit, & veluti praeva­ricator Catholicae Fidei semper apud Deum reus exsistat, quicunque Regum, seu Episcoporum, vel Potentum, deinceps Romanorum Pontificum Censuram in quocunque crediderit, vel permiserit violandam. P. Had I. Capit. apud Grat. Caus. 25. qu. 1. cap. 11. that whatever King, or Bishop, or Potentate, shall hereafter be­lieve, or permit that the Censure of the Roman Pontifes may be violated in any case, he shall be an execrable Anathema, and shall be guilty before God as a betrayer of the Catholick Faith.

Constitutiones contra Cano­nes & decre­ta Praesulum Romanorum, vel bonos mores, nullius sunt momenti. Distinct. 10. cap. 4. Constitutions against the Canons and Decrees of the Bishops of Rome, or against good manners, are of no moment.

Before that, Pope Gregory II. because the Eastern Emperour did cross the worship of Images, did withdraw Subjection from him, and did thrust his Authority out of Italy. Anno 730. Tum Romanos tum Italos ab ejus obedientia recedere penitùs fecit. Baron. Anno 730. § 40. He (saith Baronius) did effectually cause both the Romans and Italians to recede from Obedience to the Emperour.

This was an act in truth of Rebellion against the Emperour, in pre­tence of Jurisdiction over him; for how otherwise could he justify or co­lour the fact? So (as Baronius reflecteth) he did leave to posterity a wor­thy example, Sic dignum posteris reli­quit exem­plum, nè in Ecclesia Chri­sti regnare si­nerentur haeretici Principes, si sape moniti, in errore persistere obstinato animo invenirentur. Baron. ibid. (forsooth,) that Heretical Princes should not be suffered to reign in the Church of Christ, if, being warned, they were found pertina­cious in errour.

[Page 11]And no wonder he then was so bold, seeing the Pope had obtained so much respect in those parts of the World, that (as he told the Emperour Leo Is.) all the Kingdoms of the West did hold Saint Peter as an earthly God: [...]. Greg. II. Epist. 1. Bin. Tom. 5. p. 508. of which he might be able to seduce some to uphold him in his re­bellious practices.

This is the highest source, as I take it, to which this extravagant Doctrine can be driven.Certum est, rebus vestris hoc esse salu­tare, ut, cùm de causis Dei agitur, juxta ipsiu; constitutionem, Regiam voluntatem Sacerdotibus Christi studeatis subdere, non praeferre— &c. P. Felix III. (Anno 483.) dist. 10. cap. 3. For that single passage of Pope Felix III. though much ancienter, will not amount to it. It is certain, that, in causes relating to God, 'tis the safest course for you, that, according to his institution, ye endeavour to submit the will of the King to the Priests, &c.

For while the Emperour did retain any considerable Authority in Ita­ly, the Popes were better advised than to vent such notions: and while they themselves did retain any measure of pious or prudent Modesty, they were not disposed to it. And we may observe divers Popes near that time in word and practice thwarting that practice. For instance,

Pope Gelasius, a vehement stickler for Papal Authority, doth say to the Emperour Anastasius, I, as being a Roman born, do love, worship, reverence thee as the Roman Prince. Te, sicut Romanus natus, Romanum Principem amo, colo, suspicio. P. Gelas. I. Epist. 8. (ad Anast. Imp.) —cognoscentes imperium tibi supernâ dispositione collatum, legibus tuis ipsi quo­que parent religionis Antistites. Ibid. And he saith, that the Prelates of Religion (knowing the Empire conferr'd on him by Divine Providence) did obey his Laws. And otherwhere he discourseth, that Christ had distinguished by their proper acts and dignities the offices of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power, Christus, dispensatione magnificâ tem­perans, sic actionibus propriis dignitati­búsque distinctis officia Potestatis utrius­que discrevit, &c. that one should not meddle with the other; so dis­claiming Temporal Power due to himself, being con­tent to scrue up his Spiritual Authority.

After him, as is well known, Pope Gregory I. (as became a pious and good man) did avow the Empe­rour for his Lord, by God's gift superiour to all men, Ad hoc potestas Dominorum meorum pietati coelitùs data est super omnes ho­mines— Ego indignus famulus vester— Ego quidem jussioni subjectus— P. Greg. I. Ep. 2.26. Qui honori quoque Imperii vestri se per privatum vocabulum superponit. Ep. 4.32. to whom he was subject, whom he in duty was bound to obey; and supposed it a high presumption for any one to set himself above the honour of the Empire, by assuming the title of Universal Bishop.

After him, Pope Agatho, Anno 680. in the Acts of the sixth General Council, [...]. Act. Syn. 6. p. 53. [...]. p. 304. [...]. p. 32. [...]. p. 94. [...]. p. 64. [...]. p. 33, 34. doth call the Emperour Constan­tine Pogonatus his Lord; doth avow himself together with all Presidents of the Churches servants to the Emperour; doth say, that his See and his Synod were subject to him, and did owe Obedience to him.

Presently after him, Pope Leo II. who confirmed that General Synod, [...]. Act. Syn. VI. p. 303. [...]. Ibid. p. 304. doth call the Emperour the prototype Son of the Church; and acknowledgeth the body of Priests to be servants (meanest servants) of his Royal Nobleness.

After him, Pope Constantine, Anno. 709. Misit Imp. ad Constantinum P. sacram, per quam jus­sit eum ad Regiam ascendere urbem; qui sanctiss. vir jussis imperialibus obtemperans— Anast. in vit. P. Const. (the immediate Predecessour of Pope Greg. II.) when the Emperour did command him to come to Constanti­nople, [Page 12] The most holy man, saith Anastasius in his Life, did obey the Impe­rial Commands.

[...]. P. Greg. II. ad Leon. Is. Ep. 1. (p. 502.)Yea, Pope Gregory II. himself, before his defection, (when perhaps the circumstances of time did not animate him thereto,) did, in his Epi­stle to Leo Isaurus, acknowledge him as Emperour to be the Head of Christians, and himself consequently subject to him.

This Gregory therefore may be reputed the Father of that Doctrine, which, being fostered by his Successours, was by Pope Gregory VII. brought up to its robust pitch and stature.

I know, Pope Gregory VII. to countenance him, doth alledge Pope Innocent I. excommunicating the Emperour Arcadius for his proceeding against St. Chrysostome: Greg. VII. Epist. 8.2. Baron. Anno 407. § 23. Georg. Alex. vit. Chrys. cap. 68. Anon. vit. Chrys. cap. 39. and the Writers of St. Chrysostome's Life, with others of the like age and credit, do back him therein.Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Pal­ladius. But seeing the Historians who lived in St. Chrysostome's own time, and who write very carefully about him, do not mention any such thing; seeing that, being the first Act in the kind, must have been very notable, and have made a great noise; seeing that story doth not sute with the tenour of proceedings, reported by those most credible Historians, in that case; seeing that fact doth no-wise sort to the condition and way of those Times; that report cannot be true, and it must be numbred among the many fabulous narrations, devised by some wanton Greeks, to set out the Life of that excellent Personage.

The same Pope doth also alledge St. Gregory M. denouncing Excommunication,Siquis autem Regum, Antistitum, Ju­dicum, vel quarumcunque secularium per­sonarum, hujus Apostolicae auctoritatis, & nostrae praeceptionis decreta violaverit,—cujuscunque dignitatis vel sublimitatis sit, honore suo privetur.— Greg. M. post Epist. 38. libri 2. and Deprivation of honour, to all Kings, Bishops, Judges, &c. who should violate the Privilege granted to the Mona­stery of St. Medard. But this (as are many such Privileges) is a rank Forgery, unworthily imposed on P. Gregory, (that prudent, meek and holy man,) much to his wrong and disgrace: which I will not be at trouble to confute, having shewed St. Gregory to have been of another judg­ment and temper, than to behave himself thus toward Princes; and seeing that task is abundantly discharged by that very learned man, Monsieur Launoy. Epist. pars VII.

Indeed (upon this occasion to digress a little farther) it doth not seem to have been the opinion of the ancient Popes, that they might excom­municate their Sovereign Princes: for if they might, why did they for­bear to exercise that power, when there was greatest reason, and great temptation for it?

Why did not Pope Julius or Pope Liberius excommunicate Constantius the great Favourer of the Arians, against whom Athanasius, St. Hilary, and Lucifer Calar. do so earnestly inveigh, calling him Heretick, Anti­christ, and what not? How did Julian himself escape the censure of Pope Liberius? Why did not Pope Damasus thunder against Valens, that fierce Persecutour of Catholicks? Why did not Damasus censure the Empress Justina, the Patroness of Arianism? Why did not Pope Si­ricius censure Theodosius I. for that bloudy fact, for which St. Ambrose denied him the Communion? How was it that Pope Leo I. (that stout [Page 13] and high Pope) had not the heart to correct Theodosius Junior in this way, who was the supporter of his adversary Dioscorus, and the obstinate pro­tectour of the second Ephesine Council, which that Pope so much de­tested? Why did that Pope not rather compell that Emperour to rea­son by censures, than supplicate him by tears? How did so many Popes connive at Theodorick, and other Princes prosessing Arianism at their door? Wherefore did not Pope Simplicius or Pope Felix thus punish the Emperour Zeno, the supplanter of the Synod of Chalcedon, for which they had so much zeal? Why did neither Pope Felix, nor Pope Gelasius, Quid sibi vult autem, quod dixerit Imperator à nobis se in religione damna­tum, cùm super hac parte decessor meus non solùm minimè nomen ejus attigerit—? P. Gelas. I. Epist. 4. nor Pope Symma­chus, nor Pope Hormisdas excommunicate the Em­perour Anastasius, (yea did not so much, Pope Gela­sius saith, as touch his name,) for countenancing the Oriental Bishops in their Schism, and refractory Non-compliance with the Papal Authority? Those Popes did indeed clash with that Empe­rour, but they expresly deny, that they did condemn him with others whom he did favour. We (saith Pope Symmachus) did not excommuni­cate thee, O Emperour, but Acacius. —If you mingle your self, Nos te non ex­communicavi­mus, Impera­tor, sed Aca­cium. —Si te misces, non à nobis, sed à te­ipso excommunicatus e [...]. P. Symmachus I. Ep. 7. Si isti placet se miscere damnatis, nobis non potest impu­tari. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4. you are not excommunicated by us, but by your self. And, If the Emperour plea­seth to join himself with those condemned, (saith Pope Gelasius) it cannot be imputed to us.

Wherefore Baronius doeth ill,Baron. Anno 503. § 17. in affirming Pope Symmachus to have ana­thematized Anastasius; whereas that Pope plainly denied that he had ex­communicated him; yea, denied it even in those words which are cited to prove it, being rightly read: for they are corruptly written in Baro­nius and Binius; Ego (which hath no sense,Dicis quòd. mecum conspi­rante Senatu, excommuni­caverim te. Ista quidem ego, (nego,) sed rationabiliter factum à decessoribus meis sine dubio subsequor. P. Sym. Epist. 7. You say, that I excommunicated you by the joint consent of the Senate. This I deny: but I undoubt­edly follow what was with good reason done by my Predecessours. or one contradictory to his former assertion) being put for Nego, which is good sense, and agreeable to what he and the other Popes do affirm in relation to that matter.

Why do we not reade that any Pope formally did excommunicate, though divers did zealously contradict and oppose, the Princes who did reject Images?

In fine, a noble Bishop above 500 years agoe did say, I reade and reade again the Records of the Roman Kings and Emperours, Lego & rele­go Romano­rum Regum & Imperato­rum gesta, & nusquam invenio quenquam eorum ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum, vel Regno privatum. Otho Frising. Chron. lib. 6. cap. 35. and I no-where find that any of them before this was excommunicated or deprived of his Kingdom by the Roman Pontife.

Surely therefore the ancient Popes did either not know their Power, or were very negligent of their Duty.

Such have been the Doctrine and behaviour of Popes in reference to their Power.

§ V. This Doctrine of the Pope's Universal Power over all Persons in all Matters may reasonably be supposed the sentiment of all Popes con­tinually [Page 14] for a long time, even for more than 500 years unto this pre­sent day. For,

1. If this Doctrine be false, it implieth no slight Errour, but one of a very high nature and most dangerous consequence; which involveth great arrogance and iniquity, which tendeth to work enormous wrongs and grievous mischiefs: whence, if any Pope should conce [...]ve it false, he were bound openly to disclaim, to condemn, to refute it; lest the authority of his Predecessours, and his connivence should induce others into it, or settle them in it; as it is (in regard to Pope Honorius) charged upon P. Leo II. who did not, —cum Honorio, qui [...]lammam haeretici dogmatis non, ut decuit Apostolicam au­thoritatem, incipientem extinxit, sed neg­ligendo confovit. P. Leo II. Ep. 2. as it became the Apostolical Authority, extinguish the flame of Heretical doctrine beginning, but did by neg­lecting cherish it. In such a case a Pope must not be silent:Non leve discrimen incumbit Pontifici­bus siluisse pro divinitatis cultu quod con­gruit. P. Gelas. 1. Epist. 8. (ad Ana­stas. Imp.) Si verò nostro silentio pateremur Eccle­siam [...]elle amaritudinis & impietatis ra­dice [...]ollui, quâ ratione possemus apud ae­ternum Judicem excusari? P. Paschal. II. Ep. 3. (ad Anselm. Cant.) Error cui non resistitur, approbatur; & veritas quae minimè defensatur, oppri­mitur. P. Felix III. Ep. 1. (ad Aca­tium.) For, No small danger (said P. Gelasius) li­eth upon Popes in being silent about what agreeth to the service of God: and, If (saith P. Paschal) a Pope by his silence doth suffer the Church to be pollu­ted with the gall of bitterness and root of impiety, he should no-wise be excusable before the Eternal Judge: and, Errour (saith P. Felix III.) which is not resi­sted, (by those in eminent office,) is approved; and Truth which is not defend [...]d, is oppressed: and, He is not free from suspicion of a close society in mischief, Non caret scrupulo societatis occultae, qui evidenter facinori desinit obviare. Id. ibid. who ceaseth to obviate it: and, We (saith P. Gregory I.) do greatly offend, Si ea quae nobis corrigenda sunt tace­mus, valde delinquimus. P. Greg. I. Ep. 2.37. if we do hold our peace at things that are to be corrected. But all Popes since the time specified have either openly de­clared for this Doctrine; or have been silent, and so have avowed it by tacit consent.

2. Any Pope disapproving that Tenent were bound to renounce communion with those that hold and profess it; or at least to check and discountenance it. But on the contrary they have suffered it to be maintained in their presence and audience; and have hugged that sort of men with especial favour, as their most affectionate and sure friends: they have suspected, discountenanced and frowned on those who have shewed dislike of it.

Those men indeed who vouch this Doctrine, may reasonably be dee­med to doe it as accomplices with the Popes, [...], Rom. 1.32. They not onely doe the same, but have pleasure in them that doe them. on purpose to gratifie and curry favour with them, in hopes of obtaining reward and preferment of them for it.

3. The chief Authours and most zealous Abettors of these notions (Popes, Synods, Doctours of the School) have continually passed for most authentick Masters of Divinity, and have retained greatest autho­rity in the Church governed and guided by the Pope.

4. The Decrees containing them do stand in their Canon-Law, and in their Collections of Synods, without any caution or mark of dislike; which is a sufficient indication of their constant adherence to this Doc­trine.

5. The common style of the Papal Edicts or Bulls doth import their sense; which is imperious, in regard to all persons without exception: [Page 15] Let no man (say they) presume to infringe this our will and com­mand, &c.

6. Popes of all tempers and qualifications (even those who have pas­sed for the most wise and moderate among them) have been ready to practise according to those principles, when 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, Mandata Apostolica totis viribus obser­vabo, & ab aliis observari faciam. and cause them to be observed by o­thers; Papatum Romanum & Regalia S. Pe­tri adjutor eis ero ad retinendum & de­fendendum contra omnem hominem. 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, Haereticos, Schismaticos & Rebelles ei­dem Domino nostro vel successoribus prae­dictis pro posse persequar & impugnabo. 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:Greg. Decret. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 4. Concil. Rom. VI. apud Bin. p. 489. 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,Decret. Greg. lib. 1. tit. 6. cap. 4. 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, Significâsti, frater charis­sime, Regem & Regni Ma­jores admira­tione permo­tos, quòd pas­sim tibi ab Apocrisiariis nostris tali conditione oblatum fuerit, si sacramentum, quod à nobis scriptum detulerant, jurares. P. Pasch. II. Epist. 6. 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?Ipsis praecip [...]è debet esse nota suae Sedis au­thoritas. Bell. 4.3. What (saith Bellarmine wisely) may they be conceived to know better than the Authority of their own See? Seeing it hath been ap­proved [Page 16] 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?

An communi­care non est consentire cum talibus? P. Sym. I. Ep. 7. Quasi non sit deterius, & non ignorâsse veritatem, & tamen communicâsse cum veritatis inimicis. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 1. Cuicunque haeresi communicans meritò ju­dicatur à nostra societate removendus. Id. ibid. Vide Ep. 13. p. 642.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?

[Page 17]§ 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,Altera non tam sententia quàm haeresis duo docet: primò, Ponti­ficem ut Pon­tificem ex ju­re Divino nul­lam habere temporalem potestatem, nec posse ullo modo imperare Principibus secularibus, nedum eos regnis & principatu privare— Bell. V. 1. 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, Haeresis erro­re notantur omnes qui ab Ecclesia Rom. cathedra Pe­tri è duobus alterum gladium auferunt, nec nisi spiritualem concedunt. Baron. Anno 1053. § 14. Haeresis Polititorum. Baron. Anno 1073. § 13. 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 Papal Sovereignty over Princes in Temporals to be preached in it.

There were many persons, yea Synods, who did oppose Pope Hil­debrand in the birth of his Doctrine, condemning it for a pernicious Novelty, and branding it with the name of Heresie; as we before shewed.

Since the Hildebrandine Age there have been in every Nation (yea in Italy it self) divers Historians, Divines and Lawyers,Otto Fri [...]ing. Sigebert. Abbas Ubsp. Occam, Mar­silius Pa [...]a [...]. &c. who have in ela­borate Tracts maintained the Royal Sovereignty against the Pontifical.

This sort of Hereticks are now so much encreased, that the Hilde­brandine Doctrine is commonly exploded. Which, by the way, sheweth, that the Roman Party is no less than others subject to change its senti­ments; Opinions among them gaining and losing vogue, according to circumstances of time and contingencies of things.

§ VIII. Neither are the adherents to the Roman Church more agreed concerning the extent of the Pope's Authority even in Spiritual matters.

For, although the Popes themselves plainly do claim an absolute Su­premacy in them over the Church; although the stream of Divines who do flourish in favour with them doth run that way; although, accor­ding to their principles, (if they had any principles clearly and certain­ly fixed,) that might seem to be the Doctrine of their Church: Yet is there among them a numerous party, which doth not allow him such a Supremacy, putting great restraints to his Authority; (as we shall presently shew.) And as the other party doth charge this with Here­sie, so doth this return back the same imputation on that.

§ IX. That their Doctrine is in this matter so various and uncertain, is no great wonder; seeing Interest is concerned in the question, and Principles are defective toward the resolution of it.

[Page 18]1. Contrary Interests will not suffer the Point to be decided, nor in­deed to be freely disputed on either hand.

On one hand, the Pope will not allow his Prerogatives to be discus­sed; according to that maxime of the great Pope Innocent III.Cùm super privilegiis sedis Apostolicae ca [...]sa vertatur, nolumus de ipsis per alios judicari. Greg. Decr. lib. 2. tit. 1. c. 12. When there is a question touching the Privileges of the Apostolick See, we will not that o­thers judge about them. Whence (as we before touched) the Pope did peremptorily command his Legates at Trent, in no case to permit any dispute about his Authority.

On the other hand, the French will not permit the Supremacy of their King in Temporals, or the Privileges of their Church in Spirituals, to be contested in their Kingdom. Nor, we may suppose, would any Prince admit a Decision prejudicial to his Authority and welfare, sub­jecting and enslaving him to the will of the Roman Court. Nor (we may hope) would any Church patiently comport with the irrecove­rable oppression of all its rights and liberties by a peremptory establish­ment of Papal Omnipotency.

2. Nor is it easie for their Dissentions to be reconciled upon Theo­logical grounds, and authorities to which they pretend deference. For, not onely their Schools and Masters of their Doctrine do in the case disagree, but their Synods do notoriously clash.

§ X. Yea even Popes themselves have shifted their pretences, and va­ried in style, according to the different circumstances of time, and their variety of humours, designs, interests.

In time of prosperity and upon advantage, when they might safely doe it, any Pope almost would talk high, and assume much to himself: but when they were low, or stood in fear of powerfull contradiction, even the boldest Popes would speak submissly or moderately. As for instance, Pope Leo I. after the second Ephesine Synod, when he had to doe with Theodosius II. did humbly supplicate, and whine pitifully; but after the Synod of Chalcedon, having got the Emperour favourable, and most of the Bishops complacent to him, he ranted bravely. And we may observe, that even Pope Gregory VII. who did swagger so boiste­rously against the Emperour Henry, was yet calm and mild in his con­tests with our William the Conquerour; who had a spirit good enough for him, and was far out of his reach.

And Popes of high spirit and bold face, (such as Leo I. Gelasius I. Nic. I. Gregory II. Gregory VII. Innocent III. Boniface VIII. Julius II. Paul IV. Sixtus V. Paulus V. &c.) as they did ever aspire to scrue Pa­pal authority to the highest peg; so would they strain their language in commendation of their See as high as their times would bear. But other Popes of meeker and modester disposition, (such as Julius I. A­nastasius II. Gregory I. Leo II. Adrian VI. &c.) were content to let things stand as they found them, and to speak in the ordinary style of their times; yet so, that few have let their Authority to goe backward or decline.

We may observe, that the pretences and language of Popes have va­ried according to several periods, usually growing higher as their State grew looser from danger of opposition or controll.

In the first times, while the Emperours were Pagans, their pretences were suted to their condition, and could not soar high; they were not [Page 19] then so mad as to pretend to any Temporal Power, and a pittance of Spiritual eminency did content them.

When the Empire was divided,P. Nich. ad Imp. Mich. p. 511, & 513. they could sometimes be more haugh­ty and peremptory; as being in the West, shrowded under the wing of the Emperours there, (who commonly did affect to improve their Au­thority, in competition to that of other Bishops) and at distance from the reach of the Eastern Emperour.

The cause of Athanasius having produced the Sardican Canons, con­cerning the Revision of some causes by the Popes, by colour of them they did hugely enlarge their Authority, and raise their style; especi­ally in the West, where they had great advantages of augmenting their Power.

When the Western Empire was fallen, their influence upon that part of the Empire which came under protection of the Eastern Emperours rendring them able to doe service or disservice to those Emperours, they, according to the state of Times and the need of them, did talk more big, or more tamely.

Pope Boniface III. having by compliance with the Usurper Phocas ob­tained a declaration from him concerning the Headship of the Roman Church, did make a considerable step forward toward the height of Pa­pal Greatness.

After that Pope Greg. II. had withdrawn Italy from the Oriental Em­pire, and Rome had grown in a manner loose and independent from other secular powers; in the confusions of the West, the Pope interposing to arbitrate between Princes, trucking and bartering with them, as occasi­on served, for mutual aid and countenance, did grow in Power, and answerably did advance his pretences.

The spurious Decretal Epistles of the ancient Popes (which asserted to the Pope high degrees of Authority) being foisted into mens hands, and insensibly creeping into repute, did inspire the Pope with confi­dence to invade all the ancient Constitutions, Privileges and Liberties of Churches; and having got such interest every-where, he might say what he pleased, no Clergy-man daring to check or cross him. Having drawn to himself the final decision of all Causes, having got a finger in disposal of all Preferments, having by Dispensations, Exemptions and Grants of privileges tyed to him so many Dependents, what might not he say or doe?

Pope Gregory VII. being a man of untameable Spirit, and taking ad­vantage from the distractions and corruptions of his Times, did venture to pull a feather with the Emperour; and with success having mated him, did set up a peremptory claim to Sovereignty over all Persons in all Causes.

In his footsteps his Successours have trodden, being ever ready upon occasion to plead such a title, and to practise according to it. No Pope would foregoe any Power which had been claimed by his Predecessours. And Popes would ever be sure to have dancers after their pipe, number­less abetters of their pretences.

No wonder then that persons deferring much regard to the Authority of Popes, and accommodating their conceits to the Dictates of them, (or of persons depending on them,) should in their opinions vary about the nature and extent of Papal Authority; it having never been fixed with­in certain bounds, or having in several Ages continued the same thing.

[Page 20]§ XI. Wherefore intending by God's help to discuss the pretended Authority of the Pope, and to shew that He by no Divine institution, and by no immutable right, hath any such Power as he doth claim; by reason of this perplexed variety of Opinions I do find it difficult to state the Question, or to know at what distinct mark I should level my Discourse.

§ XII. But seeing his pretence to any Authority in Temporals, or to the Civil Sword, is so palpably vain, that it hardly will bear a serious dispute, having nothing but impudence and sophistry to countenance it; seeing so many in the Roman Communion do reject it, and have substantially confuted it; seeing now most are ashamed of it, and very few, (even among those Sects which have been its chief Patrons) will own it;Primi qui temporalem potestatem sum­mo Pontifici ex Christi institutione tribu­unt, videntur esse Hugo de S. Victore, Bernardus, &c. Bell. 5.5. seeing Bellarmine him­self doth acknowledge it a Novelty, devised about 500 years ago in St. Bernard's time; seeing the Popes themselves,The first that yield the Pope Tempo­ral power by Christ's Institution, seem to be Hugo, &c. what-ever they think, dare now scarce speak out, and forbear upon sufficient pro­vocation to practise according to it; I shall spare the trouble of meddling with it, confining my Discourse to the Pope's Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs; the pretence whereto I am persuaded to be no less groundless, and no less noxious than the other to Christen­dom; the which being overthrown, the other, as superstructed on it, must also necessarily fall.

§ XIII. And here the Doctrine which I shall contest against is that in which the Cordial partizans of that See do seem to consent, which is most common and current, most applauded and countenanced in their Theological Schools; which the Popes themselves have solemn­ly defined, and declared for standing law, or rule of jurisdiction; which their most authentick Synods (whereby their Religion is decla­red, and distinguished from others) have asserted, or supposed; which the tenour of their Discipline and Practice doth hold forth; which their Clergy by most solemn professions and engagements is tied to avow; which all the Clients and Confidents of Rome do zealously stand for (more than for any other point of Doctrine;) and which no man can dis­claim without being deemed an enemy, or a prevaricator toward the Apostolick See.

§ XIV. Which Doctrine is this, That (in the words of the Floren­tine Synod's Definition) the Apostolical Chair and the Roman High-Priest doth hold a Primacy over the Vniversal Church; and that the Ro­man High-Priest is the Successour of Saint Peter the Prince of the A­postles; [...], &c. Concil. Flor. defin. p. 854. and the true Lieutenant of Christ, and the Head of the Church; and that he is the Father and Doctour of all Christians; and that unto him in Saint Peter full Power is committed to feed, and direct, and govern the Catholick Church under Christ; according as is contained in the Acts of General Councils, and in the Holy Canons.

Christus—migraturus ex mundo ad Patrem, in soliditate Petrae Petrum ejús­que Successores vicarios suos instituit, qui­bus ex libri Regum testimonio ità obedire necesse est, ut qui non obedirit, morte mo­riatur. P. Leo X. in Conc. Later. Sess. 11. p. 151.That (in the words of Pope Leo X. approved by the Laterane Synod) Christ, before his departure from the world, did in solidity of the Rock institute [Page 21] Peter and his Successours to be his Lieutenants, to whom it is so necessary to obey, that who doth not obey must die the death.

That to the Pope as Sovereign Monarch, by Divine Sanction of the whole Church, do appertain Royal Prerogatives, (Regalia Petri, the Royalties of Peter they are called in the Oath prescribed to Bishops.) Such as these which follow.

To be Superiour to the whole Church, and to its Representative a General Synod of Bishops. To convocate General Synods at his plea­sure; all Bishops being obliged to attend, upon summons from him. To preside in Synods, so as to suggest matter, promote, obstruct, over-rule the debates in them. To confirm or invalidate their Determinations, giving life to them by his assent, or subtracting it by his dissent. To de­fine Points of Doctrine, or to decide Controversies authoritatively; so that none may presume to contest, or dissent from his Dictates. To enact, establish, abrogate, suspend, dispense with Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons. To relax or evacuate Ecclesiastical Censures by indulgence, pardon, &c. To void Promises, Vows, Oaths, Obligations to Laws by his Dispensation.Bell. 4.22. To be the Fountain of all Pastoral Jurisdiction and Dignity. To constitute, confirm, judge, censure, suspend, depose, re­move, restore, reconcile Bishops. To confer Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices by paramount Authority, in way of Provision, Reserva­tion, &c. To exempt Colleges, Monasteries, &c. from Jurisdiction of their Bishops and ordinary Superiours. To judge all persons in all Spiri­tual Causes, by calling them to his cognizance, or delegating Judges for them; with a final and peremptory Sentence. To receive Appeals from all Ecclesiastical Judicatories; and to reverse their Judgments, if he find­eth cause. To be himself unaccountable for any of his doings, exempt from judgment, and liable to no reproof. To erect, transfer, abolish Episcopal Sees. To exact Oaths of Fealty and Obedience from the Clergy. To found Religious Orders; or to raise a Spiritual Militia for propagation and defence of the Church. To summon and commissio­nate Souldiers by Croisade, &c. to fight against Infidels, or persecute Infidels.

Some of these are expressed, others in general terms couched in those words of P. Eugenius, telling the Greeks what they must consent unto. The Pope (said he) will have the Prerogatives of his Church; [...]. Conc. Flor. p. 846. and he will have Appeals to him; and to feed all the Church of Christ, as Shepherd of the Sheep. Beside these things, that he may have authority and power to convoke General Synods, when need shall be; and that all the Patriarchs do yield to his will.

That the Pope doth claim, assume and exercise a Sovereignty over the Church endowed with such Prerogatives, is sufficiently visible in expe­rience of fact, is apparent by the authorized dictates in their Canon-law, and shall be distinctly proved by competent allegations, when we shall examine the branches of this pretended Authority.

In the mean time it sufficeth to observe, that in effect all Clergy-men do avow so much, who bonâ fide and without prevarication do submit to take the Oaths and Engagements prescribed to them of course by [Page 22] Papal appointment. For this surely, according to the Pope's meaning, (by which their obligation is to be measured,) is designed in the profes­sion ordained by Pope Pius IV. wherein every be­neficed Clergy-man is injoined to say,—Romanóque Pontifici, B. Petri suc­cessori, ac Jesu Christi Vicario, veram obedientiam spondeo ac juro. Bull. Pii IV. super forma juram. And I do pro­mise and swear true Obedience to the Roman Pontife the Successour of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Which profession was appointed in pursu­ance of a Sanction made by the Trent Council,Provisi de beneficiis — in Romanae Ecclesiae obedientia se permansuros sponde­ant ac jurent. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. cap. 12. that all such persons should vow and swear to abide in Obe­dience to the Roman Church; and consequently, how hard soever its Yoke should be, they would not shake it off: which inferreth most absolute Sovereignty of that Church, or of the Pope, who ruleth the roast in it.

But what that true Obedience doth import, or how far the Papal Au­thority in the Pope's own sense, and according to the publick spirit of that Church, doth stretch, is more explicitly signified in the Oath which all Bishops at their Consecration, and all Metropolitans at their Instalment, are required to take; the which, as it is extant in the Roman Pontifical,Pontif. Rom. Antwerp. Anno 1626. p. 59. & p. 86. set out by order of Pope Clement VIII. doth run in these terms.

Ego N. Electus Ecclesiae N. ab hac hora in antea fidelis & obediens ero B. Petro Apostolo, Sanctaeque Romanae Ec­clesiae, & Domino nostro, Domino N. Papae N. suisque Successoribus canonicè intrantibus. Non ero in consilio, aut consensu, vel facto, ut vitam perdant, aut membrum; scu capiantur mala cap­tione; aut in eos manus quomodolibet in­gerantur; vel injuriae aliquae inferantur, quovis quaesito colere. Consilium verò quod mihi credituri sunt, per se, aut Nuncios suos, seu literas, ad eorum damnum, me sciente, nemini pandam. Papatum Romanum & Regalia Sancti Petri adjutor eis ero ad defendendum & retinendum, salvo meo ordine, con­tra omnem hominem. Legatum Apo­stolicae Sedis in eundo & redeundo ho­norificè tractabo, & in suis necessitati­bus adjuvabo. Jura, honores, privile­gia, & auctoritatem Sanctae Romanae Ec­clesiae, Dimini nostri Papae & Successorum praedictorum, conservare, defendere, au­gere, promovere curabo. Neque ero in consilio, vel facto, seu tractatu in quibus contra ipsum Dominum nostrum, vel ean­dem Romanam Ecclesiam aliqua sinistra vel praejudicialia personarum, juris, hono­ris, statùs & potestatis eorum machinen­tur. Et si talia à quibuscunque tractari vel procurari novero, impediam hoc pro posse, & quanto citiùs potero significabo eidem Domino nostro, vel alteri per quem possit ad ipsius notitiam pervenire. Re­gulas Sanctorum Patrum, decreta, ordi­nationes, seu dispositiones, reservationes, provisiones & mandata Apostolica totis viribus observabo, & faciam ab aliis ob­servari. Haereticos, Schismaticos & Re­belles eidem Domino nostro vel Successori­bus praedictis pro posse persequar & im­pugnabo. Vocatus ad Synodum veni­am, nisi praepeditus fuero canonicâ praepeditione. Apostolorum limina sin­gulis trienniis personaliter per me ip­sum visitabo, & Domino nostro ac Suc­cessoribus praefatis rationem reddam de toto meo [...]astorali officio ac de rebus om­nibus ad v [...]eae Ecclesiae statum, ad cleri, & populi disciplinam, animarum denique quae me ae fidei traditae sunt, salutem quo­vismodo pertinentibus, & vicissim man­data Apostolica humiliter recipiam & quàm diligentissimè exequar. Quod si legitimo impedimento detentus fuero prae­sata omnia adimplebo per certum Nun­cium ad hoc speciale mandatum haben­tem de gremio mei Capituli, aut alium in dignitate Ecclesiastica constitutum, seu aliàs personatum habentem; aut, his mihi deficientibus, per dioesesanum Sa­cerdotem; & clero deficiente omninò per aliquem alium Presbyterum saecularem vel regularem spectatae probitatis & re­ligionis de supradictis omnibus plenè in­structum. De hujusmodi autem impedi­mento▪ docebo per legitimas probationes ad Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Proponentem in Congregatione Sacri Con­cilii per supradictum Nuncium transmit­tend [...]s. Possessiones verò ad mensam me­am pertinentes non vendam, nec donabo neque impignorabo, nec de novo infeudabo vel aliquo modo alienabo, etiam cum consensu Capituli Ecclesiae meae, inconsulto Romano Pontifice. Et si ad aliquam alienationem devenero, poenas in quadam super hoc edita constitutione contentas eo ipso incurrere volo. Sic me Deus ad­juvet & haec Sancta Dei Evangelia.I N. Elect of the Church of N. from hencefor­ward will be faithfull and obedient to Saint Peter the Apostle, and to the Holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord N. Pope N. and to his Successours canonically coming in. I will neither advise, con­sent, or doe any thing that they may lose life or member, or that their Persons may be seised, or hands any-wise laid upon them, or any injuries offer'd to them under any pretence whatsoever. The counsel which they shall entrust me withall, by themselves, their messengers or Letters, I will not knowingly re­veal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to de­fend and keep the Roman Papacy, and the Royalties of Saint Peter, saving my Order, against all men. The Legate of the Apostolick See, going and com­ing, I will honourably treat and help in his necessi­ties. The rights, honours, privileges and authority of the Holy Roman Church, of our Lord the Pope, and his foresaid Successours, I will endeavour to preserve, defend, increase and advance. I will not be in any counsel, action or treaty in which shall be plotted a­gainst our said Lord, and the said Roman Church any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their Persons, right, honour, state or power: and if I shall know any such thing to be treated or agitated by any whatsoever, I will hinder it to my power; and as soon as I can will signify it to our said Lord, or to some other by whom it may come to his knowledge. The Rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolick decrees, ordinances or dispo­sals, reservations, provisions and mandates I will ob­serve with all my might, and cause to be observed by others. Hereticks, Schismaticks and Rebels to our [Page 23] said Lord or his foresaid Successours I will to my pow­er persecute and oppose. I will come to a Council when I am call'd, unless I be hinder'd by a Canoni­cal impediment. I will by my self in person visit the threshold of the Apostles every three years; and give an account to our Lord and his foresaid Successours of all my Pastoral Ossi and of all things any-wise be­longing to the state of my Church, to the discipline of my Clergy and People, and lastly to the salvation of Souls committed to my trust; and will in like manner humbly receive and diligently execute the Apostolick commands. And if I be detain'd by a lawfull impediment, I will perform all the things aforesaid by a certain Messen­ger hereto specially impower'd, a member of my Chap­ter, or some other in Ecclesiastical Dignity or else ha­ving a Parsonage; or in default of these, by a Priest of the Diocese; or in default of one of the Clergy [of the Diocese] by some other Secular or Regular Priest of approved integrity and Religion, fully instructed in all things above-mentioned. And such impediment I will make out by lawfull proofs to be transmitted by the foresaid Messenger to the Cardinal Proponent of the Holy Roman Church in the Congregation of the Sacred Council. The Possessions belonging to my Table I will neither sell nor give away, nor mortgage, nor grant anew in fee, nor any-wise alienate, no not even with the consent of the Chapter of my Church, without consulting the Roman Pon­tife. And if I shall make any alienation, I will thereby incur the Penalties contain'd in a certain Constitution put forth about this matter. So help me God and these Holy Gospels of God.

Such is the Oath prescribed to Bishops, the which is worth the most serious attention of all men, who would understand how miserably slavish the condition of the Clergy is in that Church, and how inconsistent their obligation to the Pope is with their duty to their Prince.

And in perusing it we may note, that the clauses in a different charac­ter are in the more ancient Oath extant in the Gregorian Decretals:Gregor. De­cret. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 4. by which it appeareth how the Pope doth more and more enlarge his Pow­er, and straiten the bands of Subjection to him. And it is very remar­kable that the new Oath hath chang'd those words REGVLAS SANC­TORVM PATRVM into REGALIA SANCTI PETRI, i. e. THE RVLES OF THE HOLY FATHERS into THE ROYALTIES OF SAINT PETER.

§ XV. I know there are within the Roman Communion great store of Divines, who do contract the Papal Sovereignty within a much narrow­er compass, refusing to him many of those Prerogatives, yea scarce al­lowing to him any of them.

There are those who affirm the Pope, in Doctrine and Discipline, subject to the Church, or to a General Synod representing it. Which opinion thwarteth a proposition, in Bellarmine's opinion, e'en almost an Article of faith: but to be even with him, they do hold his proposition [Page 24] to be quite heretical: The Pope is simply and abso­lutely above the Vniversal Church —this proposition is almost an Article of faith, Summus Pontifex simpliciter & ab­solutè est supra Ecclesiam Vniversam; —haec propositio est ferè de fide. Bell. de Conc. 2.17. Ego verò negare non possum quin Gallus sim, & Parisiensis Ecclesiae alumnus, in quâ Rom. Pontificem subesse concilio tene­tur, & qui docent ibi contrarium, ii tan­quam haeretici notantur. Card. Loth. apud Laun. Ep. 1.1. saith Bellarmine: The Cardinal of Lorrain on the contrary, But I (saith he) cannot deny but that I am a French-man, and bred up in the Church of Paris, which teaches that the Roman Pontife is subject to a Council, and they who teach the contrary are there branded as Here­ticks.

There are those who affirm the Pope, if he undertake Points of Faith without assistence of a General Synod, may teach Heresie: (quae senten­tia videtur omnino erro­nea & haeresi proxima. Bell. 4.2. which opinion, as Bellarmine thought, doth closely border on heresie:) And those who conceive that Popes may be, and have been Hereticks; whence Christians sometimes are not obliged to admit their Doctrine, or observe their pleasure.

There are those who maintain the Pope, no less than other Bishops, subject to the Canons, or bound to observe the Constitutions of the Church; that he may not infringe them, or over-rule against them, or dispense with them; and that to him attempting to doe so obedience is not due.

There are those who maintain, that the Pope cannot subvert or vio­late the Rights and Liberties of particular Churches, settled in them agreeably to the ancient Canons of the Church Universal.

Bell. de Conc. 2.14.There are those who assert to General Councils a power of Reforming the Church, without or against the Pope's consent.

There are those who (as Bellarmine telleth us) do allow the Pope to be no more in the Ecclesiastical Republick, than as the Duke of Venice in his Senate, or as the General of an Order in his Congregation; and that he therefore hath but a very limited and subordinate Power.

There are consequently those who conceive the Pope notoriously er­ring, or misdemeaning himself to the prejudice of the Christian State, may be called to an account, may be judged, may be corrected, may be discarded by a General Synod.

Such notions have manifestly prevailed in a good part of the Roman Communion, and are maintained by most Divines in the French Church; and they may be supposed every-where common, where there is any li­berty of judgment, or where the Inquisition doth not reign.

There have been seasons wherein they have so prevailed, as to have been defined for Catholick Truths in great Synods, and by them to have been applied to practice. For,

Anno 1409. Conc. Pis. Sess. 16, 17.In the first great Synod of Pisa it was declared, that Councils may reform the Church sufficiently both in Head and Members: and according­ly that Synod did assume to judge two Popes (Gregory XII. and Bene­dict XIII.) contending for the Papacy, (whereof one was the true Pope,) and deposing them both, did substitute Alexan­der V. who for one year (as Antoninus reporteth) according to the common opinion did hold the Seat of Peter. Qui anno uno sedem Petri tenuit, se­cundùm communem opinionem. Anton. de Concil. Pis. cap. 5. § 3.

The Synod of Constance declared, that the Synod lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, Primò decla­rat quòd ipsa Synodus, &c. Sess. 4. & 5. making a General Council representing the Catholick Church militant, hath immediately power from Christ; to which every one, of what­ever state or dignity he be, although it be Papal, is bound to obey in those [Page 25] things which belong to Faith, and the extirpation of (the said) Schism, and the general reformation of the Church of God in Head and Mem­bers.

The which Doctrine they notably put in practice, exercising juris­diction over Popes, and for Errours, Misdemeanours, or Contumacies discarding three (of whom it is hard if one were not true Pope,) and chusing another, who thereafter did pass for a right Pope, and himself did confirm the Acts of that Council. (So that this Semi-heresie hath at least the authority of one Pope to countenance it.Sanctiss. Do­minus noster Papa dixit, respondendo ad praedicta, quod omnia & singula determinata, conclusa & decreta in materiis fidei per praesens concilium conciliariter, tenere & inviola­biliter observare volebat. Conc. Const. Sess. 45. p. 1119.) Our most holy Lord the Pope said in answer thereunto, that he would maintain and inviolably observe all and every of those things that were conciliarly determin'd, con­cluded and decreed by the present Council in matters of Faith.

The Synod of Basil declared the same Point, that Councils are superiour to Popes, Veritas de potestate Concilii supra Pa­pam— est veritas fidei Catholicae— cui pertinaciter repugnans est censendus hae­reticus. Conc. Bas. Sess. 33. (p. 95.) Nèc unquam aliquis peritorum dubita­vit, summum Pontificem in his quae fidem concernunt judicio earundem generalium Synodurum esse subjectum. Concil. Bas. Sess. 45. (p. 117.) Vigore cujus, ac ineffabili & inexpug­nabili authoritate— Sess. 38. p. 101. to be a truth of Ca­tholick Faith, which whoever doth stiffly oppose is to be accounted a Heretick: Nor (say they) did any skilfull man ever doubt the Pope to be subject to the judgment of General Synods in things concerning Faith. In virtue of which Doctrine, and by its irresistable au­thority, the Synod did sentence and reject Pope Eu­genius as criminal, heretical and contumacious.

These Synods, although reprobated by Popes (Concil. Later. &c.) in Counter-synods, are yet by many Roman Catholick Divines retained in great veneration; and their Doctrine is so current in the famous Sorbonne, Ego verò ne­gare non pos­sum, &c. that (if we may believe the great Cardinal of Lorrain) the contrary is there repu­ted heretical.

§ XVI. Yet notwithstanding these oppositions, the former Opinion averring the Pope's absolute Sovereignty, doth seem to be the genuine Doctrine of the Roman Church, if it have any.

For those Divines by the Pope and his intimate confidents are looked upon as a mongrel brood, or mutinous faction;Nam. adhuc videmus ab Ecclesia tole­rari, qui eam sententiam se­quuntur— Bell. 4.2. which he by politick connivence doth onely tolerate, because he is not well able to correct or suppress them. He is afraid to be violent in reclaiming them to his sense, lest he spend his artillery in vain, and lose all his power and inte­rest with them.

Nor indeed do those men seem to adhere to the Roman Party out of entire judgment or cordial affection; but in compliance with their Princes, or upon account of their Interest, or at best with regard to peace and quiet. They cannot conveniently break with the Pope, be­cause his Interest is twisted with their own, so as not easily to be disen­tangled.

For how can they heartily stick to the Pope, whenas their Opinion doth plainly imply him to be an Usurper and a Tyrant, (claiming to himself, and exercising authority over the Church, which doth not rightfully belong to him;) to be a Rebel and Traitour against the Church, (invading and possessing the Sovereignty due to it; for such questionless the Duke of Venice would be, should he challenge and as­sume to himself such a Power over his Commonwealth, as the Pope hath [Page 26] over Christendom;) to be an Impostour and Seducer, pretending to in­fallible conduct, which he hath not.

How can they honestly condemn those who (upon such grounds) do shake off such yokes, refusing to comply with the Pope, till he correct his Errours, till he desist from those Usurpations and Impostures, till he restore to the Church its Rights and Liberties?

How are the Doctrines of those men consistent or congruous to their practice? For they call the Pope Monarch of the Church, and Univer­sal Pastour of Christians, by God's appointment, indefectibly; yet will they not admit all his Laws, and reject Doctrines which he teacheth, particularly those which most nearly touch him, concerning his own Of­fice and Authority. They profess themselves his loyal Subjects, yet pretend Liberties which they will maintain against him.Manifestum autem Schismatis argu­mentum est, cùm quis se communioni sub­trahit Apostolicae sedis. Balus. not. ad Agobard. p. 112. It is a manifest argument of Schism, when any man withdraws himself from Communion with the Apostolick See. They hold that all are bound to entertain Communion with him, yet con­fess that he may be heretical, and seduce into Errour. They give him the name and shadow of a Suprema­cy, but so that they can void the substance and rea­lity thereof.

In fine, where should we seek for the Doctrine of the Roman Church, but at Rome, or from Rome it self? where these Doctrines are Hetero­doxies.

§ XVII. We shall not therefore have a distinct regard to the Opinion of these Semi-romanists; nor consider them otherwise, than to confirm that part of Truth which they hold, and to confute that part of Errour which they embrace; allowing, at least in word and semblance, more power to the Pope, than we can admit as due to him. Our discourse shall be levelled at him as such as he pretendeth himself to be, or as assu­ming to himself the forementioned Powers and Prerogatives.

§ XVIII. Of such vast Pretences we have reason to require sufficient Grounds. He that demandeth assent to such important Assertions, ought to produce clear proofs of them: He that claimeth so mighty Power, should be able to make out a good Title to it;Heb. 5.4. for No man may take this (more than Pontifical) honour to himself, but he that is called by God, Jure culpandi sunt, qui turbidè atque inordinatè in eos [...]o [...]rcendos insiliunt, qui nullâ sibi lege subjecti sunt. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 17. as was Aaron. They are worthily to be blamed, who tumultuously and disorderly fall up­on curbing or restraining those who by no law are sub­ject to them.

We cannot well be justified 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.Nemo sibi & professor & testis est. Tertul. 5.1. adv. Marc. None can be both a Claimer and a Witness for himself. 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; [Page 27] 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, [...]. Cyrill. in Joh. 21.15. He was a very active and stirring man, exceedingly spurr'd on with much promptness and alacrity in doing and speaking. t [...]. Chrys. in Joh. Or. 12. (13.24.) [...]. Chrysost. Tom. 5. Orat. 59. 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,Matt. 16.16. asked the Apostles, but whom say ye that I am, up star­teth he, [...], he skippeth forth, Licèt caeteri Apostoli sciant, Petrus tamen respondet pro caeteris. Am [...]r. in Luc. lib. 6. cap. 9. 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, Joh. 1.42, 46. Matt. 26.63. Joh. 1.50. Matt. 14.33. 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,Joh. 6.69. [...], 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, [Page 31] and expedition in utterance, was more forward to declare it; [...]. Greg. Naz. Or. 34. He was more hot (saith St. Greg. Naz.) than the rest at acknowledging Christ.

When our Saviour walked on the Sea,Matt. 14.28. who but He had the Faith and the Courage to venture on the Waters towards him?

When our Lord was apprehended by the Souldiers,Joh. 18.10. 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, Matt. 26.33, 35. Joh. 13.37. 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;Matt. 16.22. upon which St. Chrysostome biddeth us to consider, not that his an­swer was unadvised, [...]. Tom. 5. Or. 59. but that it came from a genuine and fervent affection.

And at the Transfiguration, [...]. Mark 9.6. Luke 9.33. he fell to proposing about making an a­bode there, not knowing what he said; so brisk was he in imagination and speech.

Upon the good Womans report that our Lord was risen from the dead, he first ran to the Sepulchre,Luke 24.12, 34. Joh. 20.3. [...]. 1 Cor. 15.5. And that he appeared to Cephas, after that to the twelve. and so (as Saint Paul implieth) did obtain the first sight of our Lord after the Resurrection; such was his zeal and activity upon all occasions.

At the Consultation about supplying the place of Judas, he rose up, Acts 1.15. proposed, and pressed the matter.

At the Convention of the Apostles and Elders about resolving the de­bate concerning observance of Mosaical Institutions, he first rose up,Acts 15.7. and declared his sense.

In the Promulgation of the Gospel, and Defence thereof before the Jewish Rulers, he did assume the conduct, and constantly took upon him to be the Speaker; the rest standing by him, implying assent, and ready to avow his word; [...]. Peter (saith Saint Luke) standing with the rest lift up his voice, and said unto them; so did they utter a common voice (saith St. Chrys.) and he was the mouth of all.

That in affection to our Lord, and zeal for his service,Aug. in Joh. Tract. 124. [...]. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 24. An extreme lover of Christ. Saepe diximus nimii ardoris, amorisque quàm maximi fuisse Petrum in Dominum. Hier. in Matt. 16.22. We have often said that Peter was transported with too much heat, and extraordinary great love of our Lord. Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Christi amore promptissimus, saepe unus respondet pro omnibus. August. Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. in Matt. 1. For Peter himself being first in the Order of the Apostles, and most prompt and forward in the Love of Christ, an­swer'd oftentimes alone for all the rest. Saint Peter had some advantage o­ver the rest, that Question, Simon Peter, dost thou love me more than these? may seem to im­ply: (although the words [...] may bear other interpretations, whereby the seeming in­vidiousness of the Question according to that sense will be removed.) However, that he had a singular zeal for promoting our Lord's service, and propagation of the Gospel, therein outshi­ning the rest, seemeth manifest in the Hi­story, and may be inferred from the peculi­ar regard our Lord apparently did shew to him.

[Page 32]Upon these Premises we may well admit that Saint Peter had a Pri­macy of Worth; or that in personal accomplishments he was most emi­nent among the twelve Apostles; (although afterward there did spring up one,1 Cor. 15.10. 2 Cor. 11.23. who hardly in any of these respects would yield to him; who could confidently say, that he did not come be­hind the very chief Apostles: 2 Cor. 11.5. & 12.11. and of whom St. Am­brose saith, Nec Paulus inferior Petro — cum primo quoque sacilè conferendus, & nulli secundus. Ambr. de Sp. S. 2.12. Neither was Paul inferiour to Peter— being well to be compar'd even to the first, and second to none: and St. Chrysostome, [...]; Chrys. Tom. 5. Orat. 167. For what was greater than Peter, and what equal to Paul?) This is the Primacy which Eusebius attributeth to him, [...]. Euseb. Hist. 2.4. when he calleth him, the excellent and great Apostle, who for his virtue was the proloquutor of all the rest.

II. As to a Primacy of Repute; which Saint Paul meaneth, when he speaketh of the [...],Gal. 2,2, 6. Gal [...].9. 2 Cor. 11.5.12.11. those which had a special reputation, of those who seemed to be Pillars, of the [...], the supereminent Apostles; this advantage cannot be refused him; being a necessary consequent of those eminent qualities resplendent in him, and of the illustrious performances atchieved by him, beyond the rest.

This may be inferred from that advantageous renown, which he hath had propagated from the beginning to all posterity.

This at least those elogies of the Fathers (styling him the Chief, [...]. Ath. disp. c. Arium, p. 122. Prince, Head of the Apostles) do signifie.

This also may be collected from his being so constantly ranked in the first place, before the rest of his Brethren.

III. As to a Primacy of Order, or bare Dignity, importing, that commonly in all meetings and proceedings the other Apostles did yield him the precedence, the [...] or privilege of speaking first (whether in propounding matters for debate, or in delivering his ad­vice) the conduct and moderation of affairs; that this was stated on him, may be questioned; for that this were a kind of womanish privilege; and that it doth not seem to befit the gravity of such per­sons, or their condition and circumstances to stand upon ceremo­nies of respect; for that also our Lord's Rules do seem to exclude all semblance of ambition, all kinds of inequality, and distance be­tween his Apostles; for that this practice doth not seem constantly and thoroughly to agree to his being endowed with this advantage; especially seeing all that practice which favoureth it, may fairly be assigned to other causes; for that also the Fathers Authority (if that be objected, as a main argument of such a Primacy) in points of this nature, not bordering on essentials of Faith, is of no great strength; they in such cases speaking out of their own ingeny and conjecture; and commonly indulging their imaginations no less freely than other men.

[Page 33]But yet this Primacy may be granted, as probable upon divers ac­counts of use and convenience; it might be usefull to preserve order, and to promote expedition, or to prevent confusion, distraction and di­latory obstruction in the management of things; yea to maintain con­cord, and to exclude that ambition or affectation to be formost, which is natural to men.

For seeing all could not goe, speak, or act first, all could not guide affairs, it was expedient that one should be ready to undertake it, knowing his cue; See (saith St. Chry­sostome, [...]. Chrys. in Act. 2.14. noting on Act. 2.14. where Saint Peter speaketh for the rest) the concord of the Apostles; they yield unto him the speech, for they could not all speak;Inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio. Hier. in Jovin. I. cap. 14. and One (saith St. Hierome) is chosen among the twelve, that a head being appointed, an occasion of Schism might be removed.

St. Cyprian hath a reason for it somewhat more subtile and mystical, supposing our Lord did confer on him a preference of this kind to his Brethren (who otherwise in power and authority were equal to him) that he might intimate and recommend unity to us;Cyp. Ep. 73. de unit. Eccl. &c. and the other A­frican Doctours (Optatus and St. Austin) do commonly harp on the same notion: I can discern little solidity in this conceit,In typo unita­tis— Aug. de Bapt. 3.17. and as little harm.

However, supposing this Primacy (at least in respect to the Fathers, who generally seem to countenance it) divers probable reasons may be assigned, why it should especially be conferred on Saint Peter. Petrus— na­turâ unus ho­mo erat, gra­ [...]iâ unus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ unus idémque primus Apostolus. Aug. in Joh. tract. 123. Peter was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by a more abundant grace one and the same prime Apostle. Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Christi amore promptissimus, saepe unus respondet pro omnibus. Aug. de verbis Dom. sup. Matt. 1. Serm. 13. For Peter himself being the first in the Order of the Apostles, the most forward in the love of Christ, he alone oft-times answers for all the rest.

1. It is probable, that Saint Peter was first in standing among the A­postles; I mean not that he was the first Disciple, or first converted to Faith in Christ; but first called to the Apostolical Office; or first nomina­ted by our Lord, when out of all his Disciples he chose twelve and called them Apostles; Simon whom he called Peter, [ [...]. Theoph. in Matt. 10.] Luke 6.14. Matt. 4.18. Mark 1.16. Luke 5.3. and Andrew his Brother— He was one of the first Believers at large; he was perhaps the first, that distinctly believed our Lord's Divinity; he was probably the very first Apostle; [...]— Epiph. haer. 51. Primus credidit, & Apostolatûs est Princeps. Hil. in Matt. Can. 7. Quem primum Dominus elegit. Cypr. Ep. 71. [...]. Bas. de Judicio Dei, Tom. 2. p. 268. [...]. Modest. a­pud Phot. Cod. 275. Clem. ad Jac. as the fit­test Person in our Lord's eye for that employment. He (saith St. Hilary) did first believe, and is the Prince (or first man) of the Apostleship. He (saith St. Cyprian) was the first, whom the Lord chose. He (saith St. Basil) was by judgment preferred before all the Disciples. He by other Ancients is called the first-fruits of the Apostles. And according to this sense St. Hierome (I suppose) doth call him and his Brother Andrew Principes Apostolorum, Hier. in Jovin. 1. that is (ac­cording to frequent usage of the word Princeps in Latin) the first of the Apostles.

[Page 34]So that as in divers Churches (perhaps when time was, in all) an­ciently priority in ordination did ground a right to precedence, as it is in ours, with some exception; so might Saint Peter upon this account of being first ordained Apostle, obtain such a Primacy.

2. Saint Peter also might be the first in age; which among Persons otherwise equal is a fair ground of preference; for he was a married man; and that before he was called, as is intimated in Saint Luke; and may be inferred from hence,Luke 4.38.5.7. Matt. 19.27. that he would not have married after that he had left all, and devoted himself to follow our Lord. Upon which account of age St. Hierome did suppose that he was preferred before the beloved Disciple;Sed cur non Joannes electus est virgo? aetati delatum est, quia Petrus senior erat; nè adhuc adolescens & penè puer progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14. why (saith he) was not Saint John elected, being a Batchelour? it was deferred to age, because Peter was elder, that a youth and almost a boy might not be preferred before men of good age.

[...]. Epiph. haer. 51. Peter being the younger in age.I know that Epiphanius affirmeth St. Andrew to have been the elder Brother; but it doth not appear whether he saith it from conjecture, or upon any other ground. And his Authority, although we should suppose it bot­tomed on tradition, is not great; tradition it self in such matters being very slippery; and often one tradition crossing another.

3. The most eminent qualifications of Saint Peter (such as we before described) might procure to him this advantage.

They might breed in him an honest confidence, pushing him forward on all occasions to assume the former place, and thence by custom to possess it;Hor. Ep. 1.19. for qui sibi fidit, Dux regit examen— it being in all action, as in walking, where he that naturally is most vigorous and active doth goe before the rest.

They might induce others to a voluntary con­cession thereof; [...], &c. Chrys. in Acts 2.14. They yield unto him, &c. for to those, who indisputably do excell in good qualities or abilities, honest and meek persons easily will yield precedence, especially on occasions of publick concernment; wherein it is expedient, that the best qualified persons should be first seen.

They probably might also move our Lord himself to settle, or at least to insinuate this order; assigning the first place to him, whom he knew most willing to serve him, and most able to lead on the rest in his service.

It is indeed observable, that upon all occasions our Lord signified a particular respect to him, before the rest of his Collegues; for to him more frequently than to any of them he directed his discourse; unto him, by a kind of anticipation he granted or promised those gifts and privileges,Matt. 16.16. Matt. 17.1. Matt. 26.37. which he meant to confer on them all; Him he did assume as Spectatour and Witness of his glorious Transfiguration; Him he pic­ked out as Companion and Attendant on him in his grievous Agony; His Feet he first washed;John 13.6. 1 Cor. 15.5. to him he did first discover himself after his Resurrection (as Saint Paul implieth;) and with him then he did en­tertain most discourse;John 21. in especial manner recommending to him the pa­storal care of his Church; by which manner of proceeding our Lord may seem to have constituted Saint Peter the first in order among the Apostles, or sufficiently to have hinted his mind for their direction, ad­monishing them by his example to render unto him a special deference.

[Page 35]4. The Fathers commonly do attribute his priority to the merit of his Faith and Confession, wherein he did outstrip his Brethren.Hil. in Matt. Can. 14. p. 566. Supereminentem beatae fidei suae con­fessione gloriam promeruit. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. p. 121. Ideò quia solus profitetur (amorem su­um John 21.) ex omnibus, omnibus an­tefertur. Ambros. in Luc. cap. ult. He obtained supereminent glory by the con­fession of his blessed faith, saith St. Hilary. Because he alone of all the rest professeth his love, John 21. therefore he is preferred above all, saith St. Am­brose.

5. Constantly in all the Catalogues of the Apostles Saint Peter's name is set in the front; and when actions are reported,Matth. 10.2. Mark 3.17. Luke 6.14. Acts 1.13. John 21.2. in which he was con­cerned jointly with others, he is usually mentioned first; which seemeth not done without carefull design, or special reason.

Upon such grounds it may be reasonable to allow Saint Peter a pri­macy of order; such an one as the Ring-leader hath in a Dance, as the primipilar Centurion had in the Legion, or the Prince of the Senate had there, in the Roman State; at least, as among Earls, Baronets, &c. and others co-ordinate in degree, yet one hath a precedence of the rest.

IV. As to a Primacy, importing Superiority in power, command or jurisdiction; this by the Roman Party is asserted to Saint Peter, but we have great reason to deny it, upon the following considerations.

1. For such a Power (being of so great importance) it was needfull that a Commission from God, its Founder, should be granted in down-right and perspicuous terms; that no man concerned in duty grounded thereon, might have any doubt of it, or excuse for boggling at it; It was a reasonable demand, which was made to our Saviour, Tell us by what authority thou doest these things, or who is he that gave thee this authority? (Luke 20.2.) and the reasonableness, of it our Lord did often avow, decla­ring that if by his doctrine and works he had not vouched the divinity of his authority, it had been no sin to disbe­lieve or reject him, (John 5.31, 36.10.25, 37.15.22, 24.) it was necessary not onely for the Apostles to bind and warrant their Obedience, but also for us, because it is made the sole foundation of a like duty incumbent on us; which we cannot hear­tily discharge without being assured of our obligation thereto, by clear revelation, or promulgation of God's will in the Holy Scripture; for it was of old a current and ever will be a true Rule, which St. Austin in one case thus expresseth,Credo etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset, si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non pos­set. Aug. de pecc. mer. & rem. 2.36. I do believe that also on this side there would be most clear authori­ty of the Divine Oracles, if a man could not be igno­rant of it, without damage of his salvation; and Lac­tantius thus, Those things can have no foundation, Nullum fundamentum, aut firmitatem possunt habere, quae nullis divinarum vo­cum fulciuntur oraculis. Lact. 7.2. or firmness, which are not sustained by any Oracle of God's word.

But apparently no such Commission is extant in Scripture; the allega­tions for it being, as we shall hereafter shew, no-wise clear, nor proba­bly expressive of any such Authority granted by God; but on the con­trary divers clearer testimonies are producible derogating from it.

2. If so illustrious an Office was instituted by our Saviour, it is strange that no-where in the Evangelical or Apostolical History (wherein di­vers acts and passages of smaller moment are recorded) there should be any express mention of that Institution; there being not onely much reason for such a report, but many pat occasions for it: The time when Saint Peter was vested with that Authority; the manner and circumstan­ces of his Installment therein; the nature, rules and limits of such an Office had surely well deserved to have been noted, among other occur­rences relating to our Faith and Discipline, by the Holy Evangelists; [Page 36] no one of them, in all probability, could have forborn punctually to re­late a matter of so great consequence, as the settlement of a Monarch in God's Church, and a Sovereign of the Apostolical College; (from whom so eminent Authority was to be derived to all posterity, for compliance wherewith the whole Church for ever must be accountable;) particu­larly it is not credible that Saint Luke should quite slip over so notable a passage,Luke 1.1.— who had (as he telleth us) attained a perfect understanding of all things, and had undertaken to write in order the things that were sure­ly believed among Christians in his time; of which things this if any, was one of the most considerable.

The time of his receiving Institution to such Authority can hardly be assigned. For was it when he was constituted by our Lord an Apostle? Then indeed probably he began to obtain all the primacy and preemi­nence he ever had;Matth. 10.1. but no such power doth appear then conferred on him, or at any time in our Saviour's life; at least, if it was, it was so covertly and indiscernibly, that both he himself, and all the Apostles must be ignorant thereof, who a little before our Lord's Passion did more than once earnestly contest about Superiority. And it is observable, that whereas our Lord before his Passion did carefully teach and press on the Apostles the chief duties, which they were to observe in their beha­viour toward each other,Mark 9.50. John 13.34.15.12.17.21. John 13.14. The maintenance of peace, of charity, of uni­ty, of humility toward one another; yet of paying due respect and obe­dience to this Superiour he said nothing to them.

The collation of that Power could not well be at any time before the celebration of our Lord's Supper, because before that time Saint Peter was scarce an Ecclesiastical Person; at least he was no Priest, as the Con­vention of Trent under a curse doth require us to believe;Si quis dix­erit, illis ver­bis, Hoc fa­cite in meam commemora­tionem, Christum non instituisse Apostolos Sacerdotes — anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 2. If any one shall say that in those words, Doe this in remembrance of me, Christ did not ordain his Apostles Priests— Let him be accursed. for it were strange, that an unconsecrated Person, or one who was not so much as a Priest, should be endowed with so much spiritual Power.

[...]— Acts 1.2. John 20.21. Matt. 28.19. Luke 24.49. Mark 16.15.After his Resurrection, our Lord did give divers common Instructions, Orders and Commissions to his Apostles, but it doth not appear that he did make any peculiar grant to St. Peter; for as to the pretence of such an one drawn out of the Appendix to Saint John's Gospel, or grounded on the words Pasce oves, we shall afterward declare that to be invalid.

4. If Saint Peter had been instituted Sovereign of the Apostolical Se­nate, his Office and state had been in nature and kind very distinct from the common Office of the other Apostles; as the Office of a King from the Office of any Subject; as an ordinary, standing, perpetual, succes­sive Office from one that is onely▪ extraordinary, transitory, temporary, personal and incommunicable; (to speak according to distinctions now in use, and applied to this case) whence probably, as it was expedient to be, it would have been signified by some distinct name, or title, charac­terizing it, and distinguishing it from others; as that of Arch-apostle, Arch-pastour, High-priest, Sovereign Pontife, Pope, his Holiness, the Vicar of Christ, or the like; whereby it might have appeared that there was such an Officer, what the nature of his Office was, what specialty of respect and obedience was due to him: But no such name or title (upon any occasion) was assumed by him, or was by the rest attributed [Page 37] to him, or in History is recorded concerning him; the name of an Apo­stle being all that he took on him, or by others was given to him.

5. There was indeed no Office above that of an Apostle known to the Apostles, or to the primitive Church; this (saith St. Chrysostome) was the greatest authority, [...]. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 114. [...]. Ibid. [...]. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 33. [...]. Chrys. Tom. 8. ubi suprá. We have heard Paul himself recko­ning up powers or authorities, and pla­cing the Apostolical in the highest place. and the top of authorities; there was (saith he) none before an Apostle, none superiour, none equal to him; this he asserteth of all the Apostles, this he particularly applieth to Saint Paul; this he demon­strateth from Saint Paul himself, who purposely enumerating the chief Officers instituted by God in his Church, doth place Apostles in the highest rank; Our Lord Eph. 4.11. (saith Saint Paul) gave some Apo­stles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastours and Teachers; and God hath set some in 1 Cor. 12.28. his Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers; [...], why not first a Pope, an Universal Pastour, an Oecumenical Judge, a Vicar of Christ, a Head of the Catholick Church? Could Saint Paul be so ignorant, could he be so negligent, or so envious, as to pass by, without any distinction, the Supreme Officer, if such an one then had been? As put case, that one should undertake to recite the Officers in any State, or Republick, would he not do strange­ly if he should pretermit the King, the Duke, the Consul, the Major thereof? would not any one, confiding in the skill, diligence and inte­grity of such a relatour, be induced from such an omission to believe there was no such Officer there? St. Chrysostome therefore did hence ve­ry rationally infer, that the Apostolical Office was the Supreme in the Christian state, having no other Superiour to it.

Saint Peter therefore was no more than an Apostle, and as such he could have no command over those, who were in the same highest rank co-ordinate to him; and who as Apostles could not be subject to any.

6. Our Lord himself, at several times, declared against this kind of Primacy, instituting equality among his Apostles, prohibiting them to affect, to seek, to assume or admit a superiority of Power, one above another.

There was (saith Saint Luke, among the twelve, Luke 22.14. Luke 22.24. [...]. at the participation of the Holy Supper) a strife among them, who of them should be accounted the greatest, or who had the best pretence to Superiority; this strife our Lord presently did check and quash; but how? not by telling them, that he already had decided the case in appointing them a Superiour, but rather by assuring them, that he did intend none such to be; that he would have no Monarchy, no exercise of any Dominion or Authority by one among them over the rest; but that notwith­standing any advantages one might have before the other, (as [...]. Clem. ad Corinth. I. p. 63. apud Clem. Alex. Strom. 6. p. 466. Let a man be faithfull, let him be powerfull in declaring knowledge, let him be wise in discovering reasons, let him be strenuous in works, by so much the more ought he to be humble-min­ded, by how much the more he seems to be greater than others; and to seek the common benefit of all, and not of himself. greater in gifts,So doth St. Clemens interpret [...], alluding to this place. or as preceding in any respect) they should be one as another, all hum­bly condescending to one another, each being ready to yield help and service to one another; The Kings (said he) of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them; and they that exercise authority over them, are called benefactours, but ye shall not be so; but he▪ that is [ [...].] greater among you let him be as the younger; [Page 38] and he that is [...]. leader, as he that doth minister; that is, whatever privilege any of you obtaineth, let it not be employed in way of command, but rather of compliance and subserviency, as occasion shall re­quire; let him not pretend to be a Superiour, but rather behave himself as an Inferiour: thus our Lord did smother the debate, by removing from among them, whatever great­ness any of them did affect or pretend to; forbidding that any of them should,Luke 22.25, 26. [...], or [...], exercise any Dominion or Authority o­ver the rest, as worldly Princes did over their Subjects.

Again upon another occasion (as the circumstances of the place do imply) when two of the Apostles (of special worth and consideration with our Lord,Mark 10.37. Matt. 20.25. Saint James and Saint John the Sons of Zebedee) did af­fect a preeminence over the rest, requesting of our Lord, Grant unto us, that we may sit one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand in thy glory (or in thy Kingdom, as Saint Matthew hath it, that is, in that new state, which they conceived our Lord was ready to introduce;) which request doth not seem to import any great matter of Authority; 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, [...]. Chrys. Tom. 5. Orat. 33. 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, [...], &c. Chrys. in Acts 1.26. Then the Government was not an honour, but a provident care of the governed, &c. 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;Matt. 20.26. 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, [Page 39] 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, Mark 9.34. Luke 9.46. Matth. 18.1. 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, Mark 9.35. 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, [...]. Clem. Alex. Str. 5. (p. 409.) And to those familiar friends stri­ving for the preeminence, he com­mends equality together with simpli­city, saying, that they ought to be­come as little Children. 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, Matth. 23.8. [...]. 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.

[Page 40]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,Chrys. in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Eph. Or. 11. Isid. Pel. Ep. 4.219.2.125. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 1 Pet. 5.3. [...]. Chrys. in Eph. Orat. 11. 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,Ille enim nolentibus praeest, hic volen­tibus. Hier. Ep. 3. ad Nepot. [...], &c. Chrys. in Tit 1.7. He ought to rule them so as they may be willing to be ruled, &c. 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;1 Pet. 5. but should obey, as Saint Peter exhorteth, [...], not by constraint, but of their own accord) and,Sed contenti sint honore suo; Patres se sciant esse non dominos— Hier. Ep. 62. (ad Theoph.) cap. 3. Amari parens, & episcopus debet, non timeri. Ibid. cap. 1. 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.

Indè denique superintendis, sonante tibi Episcopi nomine non dominium, sed offici­um. Bern. de Consid. 2.6.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 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, Nulli hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae voluntatis & mandati infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. or to goe against it with bold rash­ness?

[Page 41]What Domitian more commonly did admit the appellation of Lord, than doth the Pope? Our most Holy Lord, is the or­dinary style,Sanctissimus Dominus noster. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 11. &c. 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;Si Papa suae, &c. Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6. 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,Concil. Lat. sub Leone X. Sess. 11. p. 133. (in Orat. Archiep. Patrac.) 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; Hâc itaque fiduciâ fretus, &c. Ex­commun. Henrici R. in Concil. Rom. 3. sub Greg. 7. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 484. 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, Agite Apostolorum Sanctissimi Princi­pes, &c. Plat. in Greg. VII. In Concil. Rom. 6. apud Bin. p. 491. 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 [Page 42] words (as St. Cyprian remarketh) granting an equal Power to all the Apostles;Et quamvìs Apostolis omnibus post re­surrectionem suam parem potestatem tri­buat & dicat, Sicut, &c. Cypr. de Vn. Eccl. 2 Cor. 5.20. 1 Cor. 4.1. 2 Cor. 6.4. 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.

Matt. 16.18. Apoc. 21.10, 14.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;Eph. 2.20. 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. Ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.

1 Pet. 2.5. 1 Cor. 3.10.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.

Matt. 16.19.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,Matt. 16.19. Matt. 18.18. 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, — [...]. Phot. Cod. 280. p. 1600. Those, who by Succession from them (viz. the Apostles,) were endowed with Episcopal Authority, we be­lieve to have the same Power of binding and loosing. 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;John 20.23. Whose 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;Eph. 4.11. Act. 20.28. 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 hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Bloud; whom he doth himself ex­hort,1 Pet. 5.2. Feed the Flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof; Let feeding signify what it can, instruction, or guidance, or governance, or all of them together (Regio more impera, if you please, as Bellarmine will have it) it did appertain to their charge; to teach was a common duty, to lead and to rule were common functions; Saint Pe­ter could not, nor would not appropriate it to himself; it is his own ex­hortation,2 Pet. 3.2. when he taketh most upon him, Be mindfull of the command­ment (or precept) of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.

[Page 43]Was his commission universal, or unlimited? so was theirs, by the same immediate Authority; for All Power (said he to them, when he gave his last charge) is given to me in Heaven and in Earth, Matt. 28.19. Goe there­fore and teach all Nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you, and Goe ye into all the world, Mark 16.15. Luke 24.47. and preach the Gospel to every Creature.

They (as St. Chrysostome speaketh) were all in common intrusted with the whole world, [...]. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115. Tom. 5. Orat. 47. in 2 Cor. 11.28. and had the care of all Nations.

Was he furnished with extraordinary gifts, with special graces, with continual directions and assistences for the discharge of the Apostolical Office? so were they;Luke 24.49. John 16.13.14.26. Luke 24.49. Mark 10.17. John 20.22. Act. 2.24. for the promise was common of sending the Ho­ly Spirit, to lead them into all truth, and cloathing them with the power from on high; and of endowing them with Power to perform all sorts of miraculous works; Our Lord before his departure breathed into them, and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost; All of them (saith Saint Luke) were filled with the Holy Ghost; all of them with confidence and truth could say, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; Act. 15.28. all of them did abundantly partake of that character, which Saint Paul respected, when he did say,2 Cor. 12.11, 12. The Signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.

Did Saint Peter represent the Church as recei­ving privileges in its behalf; as the Fathers affirm? so did they according to the same Fathers;Cui totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti, &c. Aug. Ep. 165. If there­fore (saith St. Austin, citing the famous place, sicut me misit Pater) they did bear the Person of the Church, Ergò si personam gerébant Ecclesiae, & sic eis hoc dictum est, tanquam ipsi Ecclesiae diceretur, pax Ecclesiae dimittit peccata, &c. Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 3.18. and this was said to them as if it were said to the Church it self, then the peace of the Church re­mitteth Sins.

What singular prerogative then can be imagined appertaining to Saint Peter? what substantial advantage could he pretend to beyond the other Apostles? Nothing surely doth appear; whatever the Pa­trons of his Supremacy do claim for him, is precariously assumed, with­out any fair colour of proof; he for it is beholding not to any testimony of Holy Scripture, but to the invention of Roman fancy: We may well infer with Cardinal Cusanus; Scimus quòd Petrus nihil plus potesta­tis à Christo recepit aliis Apostolis; ni­hil enim dictum est ad Petrum, quod aliis etiam dictum non est. — Ideò rectè dicimus omnes Apostolos esse aequales cum Petro in potestate. Card. Cus. de Conc. Cath. 2.13. We know that Peter did not receive more Power from Christ than the other Apostles; for nothing was said to Peter, which was not also said to the others; There­fore (addeth he) we rightly say, that all the Apostles were equal to Peter in Power.

8. Whereas Saint Peter himself did write two Catholick Epistles; there doth not in them appear any intimation, any air or savour of pretence to this Arch-apostolical Power. It is natural for Persons endowed with unquestionable Authority (howsoever otherwise prudent and modest) to discover a spice thereof in the matter, or in the style of their writing; their Mind conscious of such advantage will suggest an authoritative way of expression; especially when they earnestly exhort, or seriously re­prove, in which cases their very Authority is a considerable motive to assent or compliance, and strongly doth impress any other arguments; But no Critick perusing those Epistles would smell a Pope in them. The [Page 44] Speech of Saint Peter, although pressing his Doctrine with considerations of this nature, hath no tang of such Authority.

1 Pet. 5.1.— The Elders (saith he) which are among you, I exhort, who also am an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed; by such excellent, but common advantages of his Person and Office he presseth on the Clergy his advices.

Had he been what they make him, he might have said, I the peculiar Vicar of Christ, and Sovereign of the Apostles do not onely exhort, but require this of you; this language had been very proper, and no less for­cible; but nothing like this, nothing of the Spirit and Majesty of a Pope is seen in his discourse; there is no pagina nostrae voluntatis & mandati, which now is the Papal style; when He speaketh highest, it is in the com­mon name of the Apostles, [...]. 2 Pet. 3.2. Be mindfull (saith he) of the command (that is of the Doctrine, and Precepts) of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.

9. In the Apostolical History, the proper place of exercising this power (wherein, as St. Chrysostome saith, [...]. Chrys. in Act. 1. we may see the predictions of Christ, which he uttered in the Gospels, reduced to act, and the truth of them shining in the things themselves) no footstep thereof doth appear.

We cannot there discern, that Saint Peter did assume any extraordina­ry authority, or that any deference by his Brethren was rendred to him as to their Governour or Judge. No instance there doth occur of his laying commands on any one Apostle, or exercising any act of jurisdic­tion upon any one; but rather to the contrary divers passages are obser­vable, which argue, that he pretended to no such thing, and that others did not understand any such thing belonging to him.

His temper indeed and zeal commonly did prompt him to be most forward in speaking and acting upon any emergency for the propagation or maintenance of the Gospel; [...]. Chrys. in Act. 1.15. As being a man hot and earnest, and as entrusted with the flock by Christ, and as the fore-man of the company, he ever begins to speak. [...]— in Act. 1.26. Probably so it fell out by reason of the signal vertue of the man. and the memory of the particular charge which our Lord departing had late­ly put on him, strongly might instigate him there­to; regard to his special gifts and sufficiency did in­cline the rest willingly to yield that advantage to him; and perhaps because upon the considerations before touched, they did allow some preference in order to him: [...]. Chrys. de Sacerd. Or. 4. but in other respects, as to the main administration of things, he is but one among the rest; not taking upon him in his speech or behaviour beyond others. All things are transacted by common agree­ment, and in the name of all concurring; no appeal in cases of difference is made singly to him, no peremptory decision or decree is made by him; no orders are issued out by him alone, or in a special way; in Ec­clesiastical Assemblies he acteth but as one member; in deliberations he doth onely propound his opinion and passeth a single vote; his judgment and practice are sometime questioned, and he is put to render an account of them; he doth not stand upon his Authority, but assigneth reasons to persuade his opinion, and justify his actions; yea sometimes he is mo­ved by the rest, [...]. Chrys. in Act. 1.16. Behold him doing all things by common consent; nothing authoritatively, nor imperiously. receiving orders and employment from them; these things we may discern by considering the instances which follow.

[Page 45]In the designation of a new Apostle, to supply the place of Judas, Act. 1. Act. 1.15, 21. Act. 23.26. [...] — he did indeed suggest the matter and lay the case before them, he first de­clared his sense; but the whole company did chuse two, and referred the determination of one to lot, or to God's arbitration.

At the institution of Deacons,Act. 6.2. the twelve did call the multitude of dis­ciples, and directed them to elect the persons; and the proposal being ac­ceptable to them, it was done accordingly; they chose Stephen, V. 5. [...], &c. &c. whom they set before the Apo­stles, and when they had prayed, they layd their hands on them.

In that important transaction about the observance of Mosaical Insti­tutions, a great stir and debate being started;Act. 15. [...]. Ver. 2. V. 2. which Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas by disputation could not appease, what course was then taken? did they appeal to Saint Peter as to the Supreme Dictatour and Judge of Controversies? not so; but they sent to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem to enquire about the question: when those great messengers were arrived there, they were received by the Church, and the Apostles, V. 4. V. 6. and Elders; and having made their report, the Apostles and Elders did assemble to consider about that matter. V. 7. In this assembly after much de­bate passed, and that many had freely uttered their sense, Saint Peter rose up, with Apostolical gravity declaring what his reason and experi­ence did suggest conducing to a resolution of the point; whereto his words might indeed be much available, grounded not onely upon com­mon reason, but upon special revelation concerning the case; whereup­on Saint James, Act. 15. V. 13— V. 14. v. 15. alledging that revelation and backing it with reason drawn from Scripture, with much authority pronounceth his judg­ment; Therefore, saith he, I judge, (that is, saith St. Chrysostome, [...]. V. 19. [...]. Chrys. I authoritatively say) that we trouble not them, who from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them, &c. And the result was, that according to the proposal of Saint James, it was by ge­neral consent determined to send a decretal Letter unto the Gentile Christians, containing a Canon or advice directive of their practice in the case; [...], &c. V. 22. [...]. Act. 16.4. [...]. Act. 21.25. It then seemed good to (or was decreed by) the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send— and the Letter ran thus, The Apostles and Elders, and Brethren to the Bre­thren of the Gentiles— Now in all this action, (in this leading prece­dent for the management of things in Ecclesiastical Synods and consisto­ries, where can the sharpest sight descry any mark of distinction or pree­minence which Saint Peter had in respect to the other Apostles; did Saint Peter there any-wise behave himself like his pretended Successours upon such occasions? what authority did he claim or use before that As­sembly, or in it, or after it; did he summon or convocate it? no, [...]. Chrys. (Tom. 5. Or. 59.) [...]. Chrys. in [...]c. For he had the Government com­mitted to him— he was empowered. they met upon common agree­ment: did he preside therein? no, but rather Saint James, to whom, (saith Saint Chrysostome) as Bishop of Jerusalem the government was committed: did he offer to curb or check any man, or to restrain him from his liberty of discourse there? no, there was much disputation, every man frankly speaking his sense: did he more than use his freedom of speech [Page 46] becoming an Apostle, in arguing the case and passing his vote? no, for in so exact a relation nothing more doth appear: did he form the defi­nitions, or pronounce the Decree resulting? no, Saint James rather did that; for (as an ancient Authour saith) Peter did make an Oration, [...]. Hesych. apud Phot. Cod. 275. but Saint James did enact the Law: was, beside his suffrage in the debate, any singular approbation required from him, or did he by any Bull confirm the De­crees? no such matter; these were devices of ambition creeping on and growing up to the pitch where they now are. In short, doth any thing correspondent to Papal pretences appear assumed by Saint Peter, or de­ferred to him? If Saint Peter was such a man as they make him, how wanting then was he to himself, how did he neglect the right and digni­ty of his Office, in not taking more upon him, upon so illustrious an oc­casion, the greatest he did ever meet with? How defective also were the Apostolical College, and the whole Church of Jerusalem in point of duty and decency, yielding no more deference to their Sovereign, the Vicar of their Lord? Whatever account may be framed of these defai­lances, the truth is, that Saint Peter then did know his own place and duty better, than men do know them now; and the rest as well under­stood how it became them to demean themselves; St. Chrysostome's re­flexions on those passages are very good, that in­deed then there was no fastuousness in the Church, [...]. Chrys. ibid. and the souls of those primitive Christians were clear of Vanity; the which dispositions did afterward spring up and grow rankly to the great prejudice of Religion, begetting those exorbitant pretences, which we now disprove.

Again, when Saint Peter being warned from Heaven thereto, did re­ceive Cornelius, a Gentile Souldier, unto Communion; divers good Christians, who were ignorant of the warrantableness of that proceeding (as others commonly were,Act. 10.28. [...]— Act. 11.12. Act. 11.2. and Saint Peter himself was, before he was informed by that special revelation) did not fear [...], to contest with him about it; not having any notion (as it seemeth) of his Supreme unaccountable Authority (not to say of that infallibility,Bell. de Pont. Rom. 4.3, 4, &c. Act. 11.18. [...]. Chrys. See how free he is from pride and vain-glory; see how he excuses him­self, and thinks himself not worthy to have the honour of a Master. with which the Canonists and Jesuits have invested him) unto whom Saint Peter rendreth a fair account, and maketh a satisfactory Apology for his proceedings; not brow-beating those audacious contenders with his Authority, but gently satisfying them with reason. But if he had known his Power to be such, as now they pretend it to be, he should have done well to have asserted it, even out of good­will and Charity to those good Brethren;Ità ut Petrus quoque timens ne culparetur ab ipsis. Iren. 3.12. N. In the matter at Antioch Saint Peter did comply with Saint James, and the Judaizers, which did not be­seem such Authority. correcting their errour and checking their misdemeanour; shewing them what an enormous pre­sumption it was so to contend with their Sovereign Pastour and Judge.

Farther, so far was Saint Peter from assuming Command over his Brethren, that he was upon occasion ready to obey their Orders; as we may see by that passage, where upon the conversion of divers persons in Samaria, Act. 8.14. it is said, that the Apostles hearing it, did send to them Peter and John, who going down prayed for them, that they might receive the [Page 47] Holy Ghost. The Apostles sent him, that, had he been their Sovereign, would have been somewhat unseemly and presumptuous; for Subjects are not wont to send their Prince, or Souldiers their Captain; to be sent being a mark of inferiority, as our Lord himself did teach; A servant (said he) is not greater than his Lord, John 13.16. nor he that is sent greater than he that sent him. Saint Luke therefore should at least have so expressed this passage, that the Apostles might have seemed to keep their distance, and observed good manners: if he had said, they beseeched him to go, that had sounded well; but they sent him, is harsh, if he were Dominus noster Papa, as the modern Apostles of Rome do style their Peter. The truth is, then among Christians there was little standing upon punctilio's, pri­vate considerations and pretences to power then took small place; each one was ready to comply with that which the most did approve, the community did take upon it to prescribe unto the greatest persons, as we see again in another instance, [...] B. Act. 15.2.13.3. [...]. Clem. ad Cor. p. 69. Who among you is noble and generous? who has bowels of compassion? who is full of charity? Let him say, If for my sake there be sedition and strife, and divisions, I will depart and go whither you would have me, and doe what shall be enjoyned me by the multitude. where the Brethren at Antioch did ap­point Paul and Barnabas (the most considerable persons among them) to go up unto Jerusalem. They were then so generous, so mercifull, so full of charity, as rather than to cause or foment any disturbance, to recede, or go whither the multitude pleased, and doe what was commanded by it.

10. In all relations, which occur in Scripture, about Controversies in­cident of Doctrine or Practice, there is no appeal made to Saint Peter's Judgment, or allegation of it as Decisive, no Argument is built on his Authority: dissent from his Opinion, or disconformity to his Practice, or disobedience to his Orders are not mentioned as ground of reproof, as aggravation of any errour, any misdemeanour, any disorder; which were very strange, if then he was admitted or known to be the Univer­sal Prince and Pastour of Christians, or the Supreme Judge and Arbi­tratour of Controversies among them: for then surely the most clear, compendious and effectual way to confute any errour, or check any disorder, had been to alledge the Authority of Saint Peter against it; who then could have withstood so mighty a prejudice against his cause? If now a question doth arise about any Point of Doctrine, instantly the Parties (at least one of them, which hopeth to find most favour) hath recourse to the Pope to define it; and his Judgment, with those who ad­mit his pretences, proveth sufficiently decisive, or at least greatly sway­eth in prejudice to the opposite Party. If any Heresie, or any Opinion disagreeing from the current sentiments is broached, the Pope presently doth roar, that his voice is heard through Christendom, and thundreth it down; if any Schism or disorder springeth up, you may be sure that Rome will instantly meddle to quash it, or to settle matters as best stan­deth with its Principles and Interests; such influence hath the shadow of Saint Peter's Authority now; but no such regard was then had to poor Pope Peter himself; he was not so busie and stirring in such cases: the Apostles did not send Hereticks to be knocked down by his Sentence, nor Schismaticks to be scourged by his Censure, but were fain to use the long way of Disputation, striving to convince them by Testimonies of Scripture and rational discourse. If they did use authority, 2 Cor. 13.10.10.8.12.21. 1 Cor. 4.2. it was their [Page 48] own; which they challenge as given to them by Christ for edification, or upon account of the more than ordinary gifts and graces of the Divine Spirit,2 Thess. 3.14. 1 Cor. 7.25, 40. 1 Thess. 4.8. conferred on them by God.

Saint Peter no-where doth appear intermedling as a Judge or Gover­nour paramount in such cases; yea where he doth himself deal with He­reticks, and disorderly persons, confuting and reproving them (as he dealeth with divers notoriously such) he proceedeth▪ not as a Pope de­creeing, but as an Apostle warning, arguing and persuading against them.

It is particularly remarkable how Saint Paul reproving the factions, which were among Christians at Corinth, doth represent the several par­ties saying,1 Cor. 1.12.3.21. I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ: Now supposing the case then had been clear and certain (and if it were not so then, how can it be so now?) that Saint Peter was Sovereign of the Apostles, is it not wonderfull, that any Christian should prefer any Apostle, or any Preacher before him? as if it were now clear and ge­nerally acknowledged that the Pope is truly what he pretendeth to be, would any body stand in competition with him, would any glory in a relation to any other Minister before him?

It is observable how Saint Clemens reflecteth on this contention; Ye were (saith he) less culpable for that partiality; [...], &c. Clem. ad Corinth. p. 61. for ye did then incline to renowned Apostles, and to a man approved by them; but now, &c.

If it be replyed, that Christ himself did come into the comparison; I answer, that probably no man was so vain, as to compare him with the rest, nor indeed could any there pretend to have been baptized by him (which was the ground of the emulation in respect of the others) but those who said they were of Christ, were the wise and peaceable sort, who by saying so declined and disavowed faction; whose behavi­our Saint Paul himself in his discourse commendeth and confirmeth, shewing that all indeed were of Christ, the Apostles being onely his Ministers to work faith and vertue in them.1 Cor. 3.5. Falsum est quòd illi boni erant, excep­tis eis qui dicebant, Ego autem Christi. Aug. Cont. Crescon. 1.27. None (saith Saint Austin) of those conten­tious persons were good, except those who said, but I am of Christ.

We may also here observe, that Saint Paul in reflecting upon these contentions had a fair occasion of intimating somewhat concerning Saint Peter's Supremacy, and aggravating their blameable fondness, who compared others with him.

12. The consideration of the Apostles proceeding in the conversion of people, in the foundation of Churches, and in administration of their spiritual affairs, will exclude any probability of Saint Peter's Jurisdiction over them.

They went about their business not by Order or Licence from St. Pe­ter, but according to special instinct and direction of God's Spirit (being sent forth by the Holy Ghost; [...]. Act. 13.4.2.16.6, 9. Gal. 2.2. [...]. 2 Pet. 3.5. going by revelation) or according to their ordinary prudence, and the habitual wisedom given unto them; by those aids, (without troubling St. Peter or them­selves more) they founded Societies,1 Cor. 7.17.11.34.16.1. they ordained [Page 49] Pastours,Tit. 1.5. they framed Rules and Orders requisite for the edification and good Government of Churches, reserving to themselves a kind of para­mount inspection and jurisdiction over them; which in effect was onely [...], a paternal care over them;Isid. Pel. 1 Thess. 2.7, 11. 1 Cor. 9.2. Act. 18.1. which they particularly claimed to themselves upon account of spiritual parentage, for that they had begotten them to Christ: If (saith St. Paul to the Corinthians) I am not an Apostle to others, I am however so to you? why so? because he had converted them, and could say, As my beloved sons I warn you, 1 Cor. 4.14, 15. Gal. 4.19. for though ye have ten thousand instructours in Christ, yet ye have not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. This paternal charge they did exercise without any dependence, or regard to Saint Pe­ter, none such appearing, it not being mentioned that they did ever consult his pleasure, or render him an account of their proceedings; but it rather being implyed in the reports of their actions, that they procee­ded absolutely, by virtue of their universal Office and Commission of our Lord.

If it he alledged that Saint Paul went to Jerusalem to Saint Peter;Gal. 1.18. I answer that it was to visit him out of respect and love; [...]. or to confer with him for mutual edification and comfort; or at most to obtain ap­probation from him and the other Apostles, which might satisfy some doubters, but not to receive his commands or authoritative instructions from him; it being, as we shall afterwards see, the design of Saint Paul's discourse to disavow any such dependence on any man whatever. So doth St. Chrysostome note; What (saith he) can be more humble than this Soul? [...]. Chrys. in Gal. 118. after so many and so great exploits, having no need at all of Peter, or of his discourse, but being in dignity equal to him (for I will now say no more) he yet doth go up to him▪ as to one greater and ancienter; and a sight alone of Peter is the cause of his journey thither.— And He went (saith he again) not to learn any thing of him, nor to receive any correction from him, but for this onely, that he might see him, and honour him with his presence.

And indeed that there was no such deference of the Apostles to St. Pe­ter, we may hence reasonably presume, because it would then have been not onely impertinent and needless, but inconvenient and troublesome. For,

13. If we consider the nature of the Apostolical Office, the state of things at that time, and the manner of Saint Peter's Life; in correspon­dence to those things, he will appear uncapable, or unfit to manage such a jurisdiction over the Apostles as they assign him.

The nature of the Apostolical Ministery was such, that the Apostles were not fixed in one place of residence, but were continually moving about the World, or in procinctu, 2 Cor. 11.2 [...]. [...]. Chrys. in John 21.23. For seeing they were to take upon them the inspection and superintendency of all the world, it behoved them not any longer to be mixt or conjoyn'd together, for this had been a great loss and hinderance to the World. ready in their gears to move whither Divine suggestions did call them, or fair occasion did invite them, for the propagation or furtherance of the Gospel.

[Page 50] 1 Cor. 4.9. 2 Cor. 4.8.6.4.11.25. Matth. 24.9. Luke 21.12.The state of things was not favourable to the Apostles, who were dis­countenanced and disgraced, persecuted, and driven from one place to another; (as our Lord foretold of them.) Christians lay scattered about at distant places, so that opportunities of dispatch for conveyance of in­structions from him, or of accounts to him were not easily found.

Saint Thomas preaching in Parthia, Saint Andrew in Scythia, Eus. 3.1. Niceph. 2.38, 39, 40. Tertull. ad Jud. cap. 7. Saint John in Asia, Simon Zelotes in Bri­tain, [...]. Bas. Seleuc. Or. 2. He that run his race through the whole Universe, and by his so eager running for the Faith made the World as it were too narrow for him. Col. 1.6, 23. Rom. 10.18. Saint Paul in many places; other Apostles and Apostolical men in Arabia, in Aethiopia, in In­dia, in Spain, in Gaul, in Germany, in the whole world, and in all the Creation under Heaven (as Saint Paul speaketh) could not well maintain cor­respondence with Saint Peter; especially considering the manner of his Life, which was not setled in any one known place, but moveable and uncertain; for he continually roved over the wide World, preaching the Gospel, converting, confirming and comforting Christian people, as occasion starting up did induce; how then could he conveniently dispense all about his ruling and judging influence? how in cases incident could direction be fetched from him, or reference be made to him by those subordinate Governours, who could not easily know where to come at him, or whence to hear from him in any compe­tent time? To send to him had been to shoot at rovers; affairs there­fore which should depend on his resolution and orders, must have had great stops; he could but very lamely have executed such an office; so that his jurisdiction must have been rather an extreme inconvenience and encombrance, than any-wise beneficial or usefull to the Church.

Gold and Silver he had none, or a very small Purse to maintain Depen­dents and Officers to help him; (Nuncio's, Legates à latere, Secretaries, Auditours, &c.) Infinity of affairs would have oppressed a poor help­less man; and to bear such a burthen as they lay on him no one could be sufficient.

14. It was indeed most requisite, that every Apostle should have a complete, absolute, independent Authority in managing the concerns and duties of his Office; that he might not any-wise be obstructed in the discharge of them; not clogged with a need to consult others, not hampered with orders from those who were at distance and could not well descry what was fit in every place to be done.

Matt. 28.20. John 16.13.14.26.The direction of him who had promised to be perpetually present with them, and by his Holy Spirit to guide, to instruct, to admonish them upon all occasions, was abundantly sufficient; they did not want any o­ther conduct or aid beside that special Light and powerfull influence of Grace, which they received from him; the which [...], did (as Saint Paul speaketh) render them sufficient Ministers of the New Te­stament. 2 Cor. 3.5. Rom. 15.15.

Accordingly their discourse and practice do throughly savour of such an independence; nor in them is there any appea­rance of that being true,— à quo illi tanquam à capite, & imperatore' suo pendebant. Bellarm. de Pont. 1.16. which Bellarmine dictateth, that the Apostles depended on Saint Peter, as on their head and commander.

15. Particularly the discourse and behaviour of Saint Paul towards Saint Peter doth evidence, that he did not acknowledge any dependence on him, any subjection to him.

[Page 51]Saint Paul doth often purposely assert to himself an independent and absolute power, inferiour or subordinate to none other, insisting thereon for the enforcement or necessary defence of his Doctrine and Practice; (I have become a fool in glorying, ye have compelled me, saith he) alledg­ing divers pregnant arguments to prove and confirm it,2 Cor. 12.11. Rom. 11.13. drawn from the manner of his call, the characters and warrants of his Office, the tenour of his proceedings in the discharge of it, the success of his endeavours, the approbation and demeanour toward him of other Apostles.

As for his call and commission to the Apostolical Office, he maintain­eth (as if he meant designedly to exclude those pretences, that other A­postles were onely called in partem solicitudinis with Saint Peter) that he was an Apostle not from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, Bell. 1.9, 14, 16. [...]. Gal. 1.1. and God the Father; that is, that he derived not his Office immediately or me­diately from men, or by the ministery of any man; but immediately had received the grant and charge thereof from our Lord; as indeed the History plainly sheweth, in which our Lord telleth him, that he did Constitute him an Officer, and a chosen instrument to him, to bear his name to the Gentiles. [...], &c. Act. 9.15. [...]2.21.

Hence he so often is carefull and cautious to ex­press himself an Apostle by the will and special grace, or favour and appointment, [...]. 1 Cor. 1.1. 2 Cor. 1.1. Eph. 1.1. Colos. 1.1. 2 Tim. 1.1. [...]. 1 Cor. 15.10. Eph. 3.7. 1 Tim. 1.12. 2 Tim. 1.12. [...]. 1 Tim. 1.1. Rom. 1.5. and command of God; and particularly telleth the Romans, that by Christ he had received grace, grace and Apostleship.

For the warrant of his Office, he doth not alledge the allowance of Saint Peter, or any other, but those special gifts and graces which were conspicuous in him, and exerted in miraculous performances; Truly, 2 Cor. 12.12. Rom. 15.18, 19. 1 Cor. 2.4. saith he, the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds; and I will not dare to speak of any of those things, which Christ hath not wrought by me to make the Gentiles obe­dient by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.

To the same purpose he alledgeth his successfull industry in conver­ting men to the Gospel; Am I not an Apostle? 1 Cor. 9.1.— (saith he) are ye not my work in the Lord? If I am not an Apostle to others, I am surely one to you; for the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord. And,1 Cor. 15.10. 2 Cor. 11.23. By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace which was on me became not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all.

In the discharge of his Office, he immediately (after that he had re­ceived his call and charge from our Saviour) without consulting or ta­king licence from any man, did vigorously apply himself to the work, Immediately, saith he, I conferred not with flesh and bloud, Gal. 1.16, 17. neither went I up to Jerusalem to them, that before me were Apostles; so little did he take himself to be accountable to any man.

In settling order and correcting irregularities in the Church he profes­sed to act merely by his own Authority, conferred on him by our Lord; Therefore (saith he) being absent I write these things,2 Cor. 13.10.10.8. that being present I may not use severity, according to the authority which the Lord hath gi­ven me for edification, not for destruction.

Such being the privileges, which he did assert to himself with all confi­dence, he did not receive for it any check from other Apostles, but the chief of them, knowing the grace that was given unto him, Gal. 2.9. gave unto him the right hand of fellowship; in token of their acknowledgment and al­lowance of his proceedings.

[Page 52]Upon these considerations (plainly signifying his absolute indepen­dence in the reception and execution of his Office,) he doth more than once affirm (and in a manner boast) himself to be inferiour in nothing to the very chief Apostles; 2 Cor. 12.16, 17. 2 Cor. 12.11.11.5. 1 Cor. 15.9. Eph. 3.8. in nothing, that is in nothing pertinent to the Au­thority, or substantial Dignity of his place; for as to his personal merit he professeth himself much less than the least of the Apostles, but as to the authentickness and authority of his Office he deemed himself equal to the greatest;1 Cor. 15.10. Eph. 3.7. being by the grace of God what he was; a Minister of the Gospel, according to the gift of the grace of God, which was given him ac­cording to the effectual working of his power.

When he said he was behind none, he could not forget Saint Peter; when he said none of the chief, [...]. 2 Cor. 11.3. [...]. 2 Cor. 12.11.1.16, 17. he could not but especially mean him (he did indeed, as St. Chrysostome saith, intend to compare himself with St. Pe­ter;) when he said in nothing, he could not but design that which was most considerable, the Authority of his place; which in the context he did expresly mention. For when he objected to himself the semblance of fondness or arrogance in speaking after that manner, he declared that he did not speak rashly or vainly, but upon serious consideration, and with full assurance, finding it very needfull or usefull to maintain his Au­thority,Rom. 11.13. or to magnify his Office, as he otherwhere speaketh.

If things had been, as now we are taught from the Roman School, it is strange, that Saint Paul should compare himself so generally, not ex­cepting Saint Peter; that he should express (nor by the least touch in­timate) no special consideration for his,Bell. de Pont. 1.11. as they tell us, ordinary Pastour; that he should not consider how lyable such words were to be interpre­ted in derogation to Saint Peter's due prerogatives.

But it is no wonder, that Saint Paul in Saint Peter's absence should thus stand on his own legs, not seeming to mind him, whenas in im­mediate transactions with him he demeaned himself as his fellow, yiel­ding to him no respect or deference as to his Superiour. For,

When Saint Paul went to Jerusalem to have conference with Saint Pe­ter and other Apostles, who were chief in repute, he professeth, that they did not confer any thing to him, Gal. 2.2. so as to change his opinion, or di­vert him from his ordinary course of practice, which was different from theirs; this was, (it seemeth) hardly proper or seemly for him to say, if Saint Peter had been his Sovereign; but he seemeth to say it on very purpose, to exclude any prejudice that might arise to his Doctrine from their authority or repute; their authority being none over him, their repute being impertinent to the case;Gal. 2.6. for whatsoever (addeth he) they were, it maketh no matter to me, God respecteth no man's person; the which might well be said of Persons greater in common esteem, but not so well of one who was his Superiour in Office; to whose opinion and conduct, as of his Judge and Pastour by God's appointment, he did owe a special regard.

Gal. 2.12, 13, 14.Again, St. Paul at Antioch, observing St. Peter out of fear and policy to act otherwise than became the simplicity and sincerity of Christians, to the pre­judice of Evangelical Truth, Charity and Liberty, a­gainst his own judgment and former practice,(Vid. P. Pelag. II. apud. Bin. Tom. 4. p. 308. in Epist. ad Eliam.) draw­ing others by his pattern into the same unwarranta­ble course of behaviour,V. 11.14. Nunquid ideò aut illa ejus sequenda sunt, quae meritò ejus Co-apostolus ejus facta redarguit. Gelas. I. de Anath. (apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 645.) did withstand him to the face, did openly reprove him before all, because he was blamea­ble, did as P. Gelasius I. affirmeth (to excuse another Pope misbehaving himself) worthily confute him; [Page 53] did (as St. Augustine often doth affirm and urge; in proof that greatest Persons may sometimes err and [...]ail,) correct him, rebuke him, chide him. Apostolo Pau­lo monstrante, & corrigente, Aug. c. Crescon. 1.32.2.32. Ep. 19. de Bap. c. Dor. 2.1, 2. correptus. cont. Don. 2.1. objurgavit. Ep. 8. —qui de minor [...] causa conversationis ambiguae Petro ipsi non peperci [...]. Tert. 5.3. (contra Marc.) —who for a smaller matter of doubtfull conversation spared not Peter himself. Cùm la [...]detur etsa [...] Pauli minimi Apostolorum sana ratio atque libertas, quòd Petrum Apostolorum primum adductum in [...]pocrisin▪ & non [...]ectâ viâ in [...]eden [...]em ad veritatem Evangelii fidenter improbans, in faciem illi restitit, eúmque coram omnibus coràm obj [...]gavit. Fac. Her. 8.6. Whereas the sound reason and freedom even of Paul the least of the Apostles, is commended, in that, when Peter the chief of the Apostles was carryed away with dissimulation, and walked not in a right way according to the truth of the Gospel▪ he [...]oldly dislik'd, and withstood him to the face, and reprov'd him openly before all.

Which behaviour of Saint Paul doth not well consist with the Suppo­sition, That Saint Peter was his superiour in Office; if that had been, Porphyrius with good colour of reason might have objected procacity to Saint Paul in taxing his betters;Hier. ad Aug. Epist. 11. in Prol. ad Gal. for he then indeed had shewed us no commendable pattern of demeanour toward our Governours, in so bold­ly opposing Saint Peter, in so openly censuring him, in so smartly con­futing him,

More unseemly also it had been to report the business as he doth in writing to the Galatians; for to divulge the miscarriages of Superiours, to revive the memory of them, to register them, and transmit them down to all posterity, to set forth our clashing and contests with them, is hardly allowable; if it may consist with justice and honesty, it doth yet little favour of gravity and modesty: It would have been more seemly for Saint Paul to have privately and humbly remonstrated to Saint Peter, than openly and downrightly to have reprehended him; at least it would have become him in cold bloud to have represented his carriage more respectfully, consulting the honour of the Universal Pa­stour, whose reputation was like to suffer by such a representation of his proceedings. Pope Pelagius II. would have taught Saint Paul better manners; who saith,Non sunt consentiendi, sed reprobandi, qui praelatos suos reprehendunt vel accu­sant. Pelag. II. Ep. 2. that they are not to be approved, but reprobated, who do reprove or accuse their Prelates; and Pope Gregory would have taught him another lesson, namely,Bonis subditis sic praepositorum suorum mala displicent, ut tamen haec ab aliis occultent. Greg. M. Moral. 25.15. Admonendi sunt subditi, nè pr [...]posito­rum suoru [...] vitam temer [...] judicent, siquid eos fortasse agere reprehensibiliter vi­dent, &c. Greg. Past. part. 3. cap. [...]. Admon. 5. that the evils of their Superiours do so displease good Subjects, that however they do conceal them from others; and Sub­jects are to be admonished, that they do not rashly judge the life of their Superiours, if perhaps they see them doe blameably, &c.

It is plain, that Saint Paul was more bold with Saint Peter, than any man now must be with the Pope; for let the Pope commit never so great crimes,Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6. yet no mortal (saith the Canon Law) presume to reprove his faults.

But if Saint Peter were not in Office 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 Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Domi­nus elegit, &c. Cypr. Ep. 71. (ad Quint.) S. Cypr. (alledged and approved by Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 2.2. S. Austin) [Page 54] 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, Quis enim hic est superbiae tumor, quae arrogantia animi, quae mentis inflatio ad cognitionem suos praepositos & Sacerdotes vocare? Cpr. Ep. 69. 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. Aug. c. Don. de Bap. 2.1, 2. Ep. 19. 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,Nam quis eo­rum auderet Petro primo Apostolo, cui claves regni coelorum Do­minus dedit, resistere, nisi alius talis, qui fiduciâ electionis suae, sciens se non imparem, constanter improbaret quod ille sine consilio fecerat? Ambr. in Gal. 2.9. Paulus Petrum reprehendit, quod non auderet, nisi se non imparem sciret. (Hieron. vel alius quis ad Gal. citatus à Grat. Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 33.) Paul reprehended Peter, which he would not have dared to doe, had he not known himself to be equal to him. 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?

S. Cyril. c. Jul. lib. 9. (p. 325.) Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. [...]. Aug. Ep. 11. &c.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, Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. [...], &c. in a large and very elaborate discourse, [Page 55] wherein he professeth to endeavour an aggravation of the irregularity of Saint Paul's d [...]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: [...].— So that 'tis no advantage to me, if▪ when Peter has confuted the charge, Paul appear to accuse his Fellow-apostle boldly and inconsiderately. 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,Gal. 1.12. and by special revelation from Christ did preach unto them: He might (as St. Chrysostome noteth) have pretended to some ad­vantage over them, [...]. Chrys. in Gal. 1.1. 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, Baron. Anno 51. § 32 — 34, 35. &c. 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,Rom. 11.13. 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;Plena authoritas Petro in Judaismi praedicatione data dignoscitur, & Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione Gen­tium invenitur. Ambros. There is discerned a full authority given to Peter of preaching to the Jews, and in Paul there is found a per­fect power and authority of preaching to the Gentiles. 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.Gal. 1.6, 7. 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;2 Cor. 11.28. he therefore might well con­test for their liberty, he might well insist upon his authority among them.

[Page 56]Thus did St. Chrysostome understand the case; for Christ (saith he) committed the Jews to Peter, [...]. Chrys. T. 5. Or. 59. but set Paul over the Gentiles; and, He (saith that great Father) farther doth shew himself to be equal to them in dignity, [...]. Chrys. in Gal. 2.8. 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, 1 Cor. 12.28. 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, Eph. 4.11. 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▪ Matt. 4.21. Luke 5.10. Mark 3.17.) 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;Matth. 17.1. 2 Pet. 1.16. Matt. 26.37. Mark 14.33. Matt. 20.20. Mark 10.35. 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 [Page 57] with our Lord, did pretend to the chief places in his Kingdom.Mark 10.37.

To one of them it is expressed that our Saviour did bear a peculiar af­fection, he being the disciple who [...] Jesus loved, John 13.2 [...].21. [...] 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; [...]. Hegesipp. apud Euseb. 3.20. They being dismiss and sent away to govern the Churches, as being both Witnesses, and also Kinsmen of our Lord. (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,Act. 12. [...] ▪ 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 prophe [...]ical Revelations concerning the state of the Church. He therefore was one of the [...],Gal. 2.9. 2 Cor. 12.11.11.5. chief Pillars and props of the Christian Profession, one of the [...], the Superlative Apostles.

Accordingly in the Rolls of the Apostles,Mark 3.17. Act. 1.13. 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 [...]. Chrys. in Matt. 17.1. Taking therefore the chief and principal. [...]. Chrys. ib. Wherefore taketh he these onely with him? because these were the chief and principal above the others. [...]. Greg. Naz. Or. 26. [...]. (Ruffinus reddit Apostolorum Episcopum.) Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. 2.1.; 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, Hoc erant utique & cateri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis. — quamvis Apostolis omnibus pos [...] resurrectionem suam pare [...] potestatem tri­ [...]at, ac dicat, &c. Cypr. de Vn. Eccl. endowed with equal consortship of honour and power; and a­gain, Although our Lord giveth to all the Apostles af­ter [Page 58] 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, [...]. Chrys. in Gal. 2.8. that each Apostle did enjoy equal dignity ▪

Chrys. in Gal. 1.8.How again could St. Chrysostome more clearly signifie his Opinion, than when comparing Saint Paul to Saint Peter, he calleth Saint Paul [...],Vide Tert. de Praescr. cap. 20. 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.

[...]. Act. Con. Eph. part. 1. p. 209. Peter and John were equal in honour one to another, as were also the Apostles and holy Disciples. Did Tertullian think Saint Paul inferiour to Saint Peter, when he said, It is well that Peter is even in martyrdom equalled to Paul? Bene quod Petrus Paulo & in martyrio adaequatur. Tert. de Praes. 24.How also could St. Cyril more plainly declare his sense to be the same, than when he called Saint Peter and Saint John [...], equ [...] to one another in honour.

Did not St. Hierome also sufficiently declare his mind in the case, when he saith of the Apostles,At dicis super Petrum fun­datur Eccl [...] ­sia, licèt id ipsum alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & ex [...] super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14. But you will say, the Church is founded upon Peter, though the same thing in another place is affirmed of all the Apostles, and that, &c. 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, [...]. Dionys. de Eccl. Hier. cap. 5. 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; Caeteri Aposto­li cum Petro par consorti­um honoris & potestatis ac­ceperunt, qui etiam in toto orbe dispersi Evangelium praedicaverunt, quib [...]sque decedentibus successerum Episcopi, qui sunt constitu [...]i per totum m [...]ndum in sedibus Aposto [...]am. Isid. Hisp. de Off. 2.5. 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 pr [...] ­eminence above his Brethren?Vbicunque fuerit Episco­pus, sive Ro­mae sive Eu­gubii, &c. Hier. ad E­vagr. Ep. 85. Clem. ad Co­rinth. Iren. 3.12.3.1, 3. 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.

[Page 59]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,Agitur de summa rei Christianae, &c. Bell. praef. ad lib. de Pontif. R. 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, Est enim reverà non simplex error, sed perniciosa haeresis negare B. Petri prima­tum à Christo institutum. Bell. de Pont. R. 1.10. 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,2 Pet. 3.16. 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,Matt. 16.18. S. Romana Ecclesia nullis Synodicis con­stitutis caete­ris Ecclesiis praelata est, sed Evangelicâ voce Domini & salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit; Tu es Petrus (inquiens) &c. P. Ge­las. 1. dist. 21. cap. 3. The Holy Church of Rome is not prefer'd before other Churches by any Synodical Decrees, but has obtain'd the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel, saying, Thou art Peter, &c. 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, Quorum verborum planus & obvius sensus est, ut intelligatur sub duabus me­taphoris promissum Petro totius Ecclesiae principatum. Bell. de Pont. 1.10. 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, Tostat. in Matth. 16. qu. 67. and better, that it is Christ — others say, and yet better, that it is the confes­sion which Peter maketh.]

[Page 60] 1 Cor. 3.11.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,Scio me post­ea saepissimè exposuisse, ut super hanc Pe­tram intellige­retur quem confessus est Petrus; harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat Lector. Aug. Retr. 1.21. Vide Aug. in Joh. tr. 124. de verb. Dom. in Matt. Serm. 13. Super hanc, inquit, Petram quam confessus es, aedificabe Ecclesiam meam. Aug. in Joh. tr. 124. & de Verb. Dom. in Matt. Serm. 13. (Tom. 10.) Super hanc Petram, id est, super me aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Ans. in Matt. 16.18. 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; [...] Chrys. in Matt. 16.18. — [...]. Chrys. in Joh. 1.50. [...]. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 163. Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est. Hil. de Trin. 6. 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, — [...]. Theod. Ep. 77. 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, [...], &c. Orig. in Matt. 16. p. 275. in virtue of his agreement with Peter in that holy confession.]

In vera fide persistite, & vitam ve­stram in Petra Ecclesiae, hoc est in confessi­one B. Petri Apostolorum Principis solidate. Greg. M. Ep. 3.33. Persist in the true Faith, and establish and fix your life upon the rock of the Church, that is, upon the confession of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles. Super ista confessione aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Felix III. Ep. 5. Vide Nic. I. Ep. 2, 6. Joh. VIII. Ep. 76.This sense even Popes have embraced.

Vnus pro omnibus loquens, & Ecclesiae voce respondens. Cypr. Ep. 55. One speaking for all, and answering in the name of the Church. Cui Ecclesiae figuram gerenti Dominus ait, Super hanc— Aug. Ep. 165. To whom, representing the whole Church, our Lord saith, Vpon this rock, &c. Petrus ex persona omnium Apostolorum profitetur. Hier. in loc. Peter professes in the person of all the Apostles.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.

Vide Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 27.40.70.71.73.69.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 [Page 61] 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;Luke 22.14. 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,Mark 9.34. 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,Matth. 18.1. 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,Matth. 20.24. [...]. And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation. 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. Quare sunt fundamenta Apostoli & Prophetae, quia eorum auctoritas portat in­firmitatem nostram. Aug. in Ps. 86.

St. Hierome saith, that they were Foundations, In illis erant fundamenta, ibi primùm posita est fides Ecclesiae. Hier. in Ps. 86. because the Faith of the Church was first laid in them.

St. Basil saith, [...]. Bas. in If. 2. p. 86 [...]. 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.

[Page 62] Chrysologus saith, that Peter had his name from a Rock, Petrus à Petra nomen adeptus est, quia primus meruit E [...]clesiam fidei firmitate fundare. Chrysol. Serm. 53. 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, [...]; &c. Orig. in Matth. 16. p. 275. Eph. 2.20. Petra Christus est, qui donavit Aposto­lis, ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur. Hier. in Amos. 9.12. Dicis super Petrum sundatur Ecclesia, licèt id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14. 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, [...]. Basil. in Isa. 2. p. 869. 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,Cypr. Ep. 71, & 73. 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, Dominus noster Episcopi honorem, & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens, dicit Pe­tro, Ego tibi dico— Inde per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordina­tio, & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ec­clesia super Episcopos constituatur, & om­nis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur. Cypr. Ep. 27. & de Vnit. Eccl. 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 [Page 63] 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▪ Latuit aliquid Petrum aedificandae Ec­clesiae Petram dictum. Tertull. de Praescr. cap. 22. 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, [...]. Chrys. Peter first of all the Apostles preach­ed Christ. (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,Petra dicit [...]r e [...] quòd primus in natio­r [...]bus fidei fundamenta posuerit. Ambr. de Sanctis Serm. 2. 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, [...]. Bas. contra Eunom. lib. 2. Petra aedificandae Ecclesiae. Tertull. de praes. c. 22. 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;Sic enim exitus docet, in ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est per ipsum, &c. Tert. de pudic. cap. 21. 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, [...], &c. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 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;Matth. 10.2. and by his behaviour, when in this confession, and before in the like,John 6.69. [Page 64] he undertook to be their mouth and Spokesman; when not being unmindfull of his place (saith St. Am­brose) he did act a Primacy; Loci non imme [...]or sui primatum egit; — primatum Confessionis, non honoris; Fidei, non ordinis. Ambr. de Incarn. cap. 4. 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, Per claves datos Petro intelligimus summam potestatem in omnem Ecclesiam. Bell. de Pont. 1.3. 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, Dixit Petro, dabo tibi claves, at non dixit, dabo tibi soli. Rigalt. in Epist. Firmil. 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, [...]; Orig. in Matt. 16. p. 275. 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?

Quod Petro dicitur, Apo­stolis dicitur. Ambr. in Psal. 38. What is said to Peter, is said to the Apostles. Licè [...] id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant. Hier. in Jov. 1.14. Though the same thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles, and all receive the Keys of the King­dom of Heaven.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;Claves regni coelorum communicandas caeteris solus accepit. Opt. lib. 7. Communicandas caeteris dixit, qu [...]s ipse Christus communicaturus erat & caeteris. Rigalt. in Cypr. de Vn. Eccl. that is (as Rigaltius well ex­poundeth those words) which Christ himself would also communicate to the rest.

[...]. Theoph. in loc. [...]. Chrys. in praef. Evang. Joh. 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.

[Page 65]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,Claves intel­ligit verbum Dei, Evange­lium Christi. Rigalt. in Cyp. Ep. 73. 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;Episcopi— quos constat esse vicario [...] Christi, & clavigeros regni coelorum. Conc. Compend. apud. Bin. Tom. 6. p. 361. 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.Transivit qui­dem in Apo­stolos alios vis istius potestatis, sed non frustra [...]ni commendatur quod omnibus intimetur. Petro ergò singulariter hoc cre­ditur, quia cunctis Ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. Leo I. in Nat. Petri & Pauli. Serm. 2. The efficacy of this Power passed indeed upon all the Apostles; yet was it not in vain, that what was intima­ted to all, was commended to one. Therefore this is committed singly to Peter, because Peter's pattern and ex­ample is propounded to all the Governours of the Church.

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. In B. Petro claves regni coelorum cun­cti suscepimus sacerdotes. Ambr. de dign. Sac. 1. Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum ac­cepit, id est, potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata. Aug. tract. 124. in Joh. vide tract. 50. The Church which is founded upon Christ, received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. the power of binding and loosing Sins. In typo unitatis Petro Dominus dedit potestatem— Aug. de Bap. 3.17. Our Lord gave the power to Peter, as a type of Unity. [...]. Phot. Cod. 280. Such Authority was given to the rest of the Apostles in the person of him who was the chief. Non sine causa inter omnes Apostolos Ecclesiae Catholicae personas sustinet Petrus; huic enim Ecclesiae claves regni coelorum datae sunt, cùm Petro datae sunt— Aug. de Ag. Chr. cap. 30. in Ps. 108. Not without cause does Peter among the rest of the Apostles sustain the Person of the Catholick Church; for to this Church are the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given, when they are given unto Peter.

8. These answers are confirmed by the words immediately adjoyned, August. supr. Matt. 18.18. 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;John 20.23. 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 [Page 66] of it to believers; which is an opening of the King­dom of Heaven;Sic enim exitus docet, in ipso Ecclesia extruct [...] est, id est, per ipsum; ipse cla­vem imbuit; vide quam, Viri Israelitae auribus mandate quae dico, Jesum Na­zerenum virum à Deo vobis destina­tum, &c. Ipse denique primus in Christi Baptismo reseravit aditum coelestis reg­ni, &c. Tert. de pud. 21. 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, Luke 5.10. Matth. 4.19. and probably to him first, Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men; might it hence be inferred, that Saint Peter had a peculiar or sole faculty of catching men? why might it not by as good a consequence, as this, whereby they would appropriate to him this opening faculty? Many such instances might in like manner be used.

III. They produce those words of our Saviour to Saint Peter, Feed my sheep, that is, in the Roman interpretation, Be thou Vniversal Gover­nour of my Church.

To this allegation I answer.

1. From words, which truly and properly might have been said to any other Apostle, yea to any Christian Pastour whatever, nothing can be concluded to their purpose, importing a peculiar duty, or singular privilege of Saint Peter.

2. From indefinite words a definite conclusion (especially in matters of this Kind) may not be inferred; it is said, do thou feed my Sheep, it is not said do thou alone feed all my Sheep; this is their arbitrary gloss, or presumptuous improvement of the Text; without succour whereof the words signify nothing to their purpose, so far are they from suffici­ently assuring so vast a pretence: for instance, when Saint Paul doth ex­hort the Bishops at Ephesus to feed the Church of God, may it thence be collected, that each of them was an Universal Governour of the whole Church,Act. 20.28. which Christ had purchased with his own bloud?

3. By these words no new power is (assuredly at least) granted or in­stituted by our Lord; for the Apostles before this had their Warrant and Authority consigned to them, [...]. Cyril. in loc. Peter was ordained to the holy Apo­stleship together with the rest of the Disciples. John 20.21. when our Lord did inspire them, and so­lemnly commissionate them, saying, As the Father did send me, so I send you; to which Commission, these words, (spoken occasionally, before a few of the Disciples) did not add or derogate. At most the words do onely (as St. Cyril saith) renew the former Grant of Apostleship, [...]. Cyril. ib. after his great offence of denying our Lord.

4. These words do not seem institutive or collative of Power, but ra­ther onely admonitive or exhortative to duty; implying no more, but the pressing a common duty, before incumbent on Saint Peter, upon a special occasion, in an advantagious season, that he should effectually discharge the Office, which our Lord had committed to him.

[Page 67]Our Lord (I say) presently before his departure, when his words were like to have a strong impression on Saint Peter, doth earnestly di­rect and warn him to express that special ardency of affection, which he observed in him, in an answerable care to perform his duty of feeding, that is, of instructing, guiding,Paulus Apostolus boni Pastoris imple­bat Officium; quando Christum praedica­bat. Aug. in Joh. [...]r. 47. Paul fulfilled the Office of a good Pastour, when he preached Christ. edifying in faith and obedience those Sheep of his, that is, those Believers, who should be converted to embrace his Religion, as ever he should find oppor­tunity.

5. The same Office certainly did belong to all the Apostles,Principes Disciplinae nostrae, & [...]isti­ani Dogmatis duces. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14. who (as Saint Hierome speaketh) were the Princes of our Discipline, and Chieftains of the Christian Doctrine; they at their first vocation had a commission and command to go unto the lost sheep of the house of Is­rael; that were scattered abroad like sheep not having a shepherd;Matt. 10.6.9.36. they before our Lord's Ascension were enjoyned to teach all Nations the Doc­trines and Precepts of Christ; to receive them into the fold,Matt. 28.19, 20. to feed them with good instruction, to guide and govern their Converts with good Discipline; Hence All of them (as Saint Cy­prian saith) were shepherds; Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus una­nimi consensione pascatur. Cyp. de Vn. Eccl. but the flock did appear one, which was fed by the Apostles with unanimous agreement.

6. Neither could Saint Peter's charge be more extensive, than was that of the other Apostles; for they had a general and unlimited care of the whole Church; that is, according to their capacity and opportuni­ty, none being exempted from it, who needed or came into the way of their discharging Pastoral Offices for them.

They were Oecumenical Rulers (as St. Chrysostome saith) appointed by God who did not receive several Nations or Cities, [...]. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115. but all of them in common were en­trusted with the world.

Hence particularly St. Chrysostome calleth Saint John a pillar of the Churches over the world, and Saint Paul an Apostle of the world; [...]. Chrys. praef. comment. ad Joh. [...]. Chrys. in 1 Cor. 9.2. [...]. Chrys. in 2 Cor. 11.28. [...]. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115. [...]— Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. [...]. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 39. who had the care not of one House, but of Cities and Nations, and of the whole Earth; who undertook the World, and governed the Churches; on whom the whole world did look, and on whose soul the care of all the Churches every-where did hang; into whose hands were delivered the Earth, and the Sea, the inhabited and uninhabited parts of the World.

And could Saint Peter have a larger Flock committed to him? could this charge, feed my sheep, more agree to him, than to those, who no less than he were obliged to feed all Christian people every-where?

7. The words indeed are applicable to all Christian Bishops and Go­vernours of the Church; according to that of St. Cy­prian, to Pope Stephen himself,Pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gre­gem, & oves Christi universas pascimus. Cypr. Ep. 67. ad P. Steph. we being many Shep­herds do feed one flock, and all the sheep of Christ; for they are styled Pastours; they in terms as inde­finite as those in this text are exhorted to feed the Church of God, Act. 20.28. which [Page 68] he hath purchased with his own bloud;Quanto magìs debent usque ad mortem pro veritate certare, & usque ad san­guinem adversus peccatum, quibus oves ipsas pascendus, hoc est docend [...]s regendasque committit. Aug. in Joh. tr. 123. How much more ought they to contend for the truth even unto death, and against sin even unto bloud, to whom he committeth his Sheep to be fed, that is, to be taught and governed. to them (as the Fathers commonly suppose) this Injunction doth reach, our Lord when he spake thus to Saint Peter, intending to lay a charge on them all to express their love and piety toward them in this way, by feeding his Sheep and People.

Which Sheep, saith Saint Ambrose, and which Flock not onely then Saint Peter did receive, Quas oves, & quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & cum eo nos suscepimus omnes. Ambr. de Sacerd. 2. but also with him all we Priests did receive it.

Our Lord (saith Saint Chrysostome) did commit his Sheep to Peter, [...]. Chrys. de Sa­cerd. 1. and to those, which came after him, that is, to all Christian Pastours, as the scope of his discourse sheweth.

Cùm dicitur Petro, ad omnes dicitur, Pasce oves mean. Aug. de Agone Christ. 30. When it is said to Peter (saith Saint Austin) it is said to all, Feed my Sheep.

And we (saith Saint Basil) are taught this (obe­dience to Superiours) by Christ himself, [...]. Bas. Const. Mon. cap. 22. constituting Saint Peter Pastour after himself of the Church (for Peter, saith he, dost thou love me more than these? feed my Sheep) and conferring to all Pastours and Teachers continually afterward an equal power (of do­ing so;) whereof it is a sign that all do in like manner bind, and do loose as he.

Et quidem, fratres, quod Pastor est, dedit & membris suis; nam & Petrus Pastor, & Paulus Pastor, & caeteri Apostoli Pastores, & boni Episcopi Pastores. Aug. in Joh. tr. 47. And indeed, brethren, that which a Pastour is, he gave also to his members, for both Peter was a Pastour, and Paul a Pastour, and the rest of the Apostles were Pastours, and good Bishops are Pastours.Saint Austin comprizeth all these considerations in those words.

How could these great Masters more clearly express their mind, that our Lord in those words to Saint Peter did inculcate a duty no-wise pe­culiar to him, but equally together with him belonging to all Guides of the Church; in such manner, as when a Master doth press a duty on one Servant, he doth thereby admonish all his Servants of the like duty; whence St. Austin saith,Vt ergo Pe­trus quando ei dictum est, Tibi dabo cla­ves, in figura personam gestabat Ecclesiae, sic & quando ei dictum est, Pusc [...] oves meas, Ecclesiae quoque personam in figura gestabat. Aug. in Psal. 108. [...]. Chrys. in Matt. 24. Or. 77. This was not spoken to those Priests onely, but to every one of us, who have the care even of a little Flock committed to us. that Saint Peter in that case did sustain the per­son of the Church, that which was spoken to him, belonging to all its members, especially to his Brethren, the Clergy.

It was (saith Cyril) a lesson to Teachers, that they cannot otherwise please the Arch-pastour of all, [...]. Cyril. ibid. than by taking care of the welfare of the ra­tional Sheep.

8. Hence it followeth, that the Sheep, which our Saviour biddeth St. Pe­ter to feed, were not the Apostles, who were his Fellow-shepherds, designed to feed others, and needing not to be fed by him; but the common Belie­vers or People of God,1 Pet. 5.2. which St. Peter himself doth call the Flock of God; [Page 69] Feed, saith he to his fellow-Elders, the flock of God, which is among you; and Saint Paul, Take heed therefore unto your selves, and to all the flock, Act. 20.28. over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.

9. Take Feeding for what you please; for Teaching, for Guiding— the Apostles were not fit objects of it, who were immediately taught, and guided by God himself.

Hence we may interpret that saying of St. Chrysostome, which is the most plausible argument they can alledge for them, that our Lord in saying this, [...]. Chrys. in Joh. 21.15. [...]. in vers. 21. did commit to St. Pe­ter a charge (or presidency) over his brethren; that is, he made him a Pastour of Christian people, as he did others; at least, if [...] be referred to the A­postles, it must not signifie authority over them, but at most a prima­cy of order among them; for that Saint Peter otherwise should feed them, St. Chrysostome could hardly think, who pre­sently after saith, [...]. Ibid. V. 23. that seeing the Apostles were to receive the administration of the whole world, they ought not afterward to converse with one another; for that would surely have been a great damage to the world.

10. But they, forsooth, must have Saint Peter solely obliged to feed all Christ's sheep; so they do impose upon him a vast and crabbed Pro­vince; a task very incommodious, or rather impossible for him to un­dergo: how could he in duty be obliged, how could he in effect be able to feed so many flocks of Christian people scattered about in distant Re­gions, through all Nations under Heaven: he, poor man, that had so few helps, that had no Officers or dependents, nor wealth to maintain them, would have been much put to it to feed the sheep in Britaine, and in Parthia; unto infinite distraction of thoughts such a charge must needs have engaged him.

But for this their great Champion hath a fine ex­pedient; Saint Peter, saith he,Respondeo, S. Petrum partim per se, partim per alios universum Dominicum gregem ut sibi imperatum erat pavisse.— Bell. de Pont. R. 1.16. did feed Christ's whole flock, partly by himself, partly by others; so that it seemeth, the other Apostles were Saint Peter's Curates, or Vicars and Deputies: this indeed were an easie way of fee­ding; thus although he had slept all his time, he might have fed all the sheep under heaven; thus any man as well might have fed them. But this manner of feeding is, I fear, a later invention, not known so soon in the Church; and it might then seem near as absurd to be a shepherd, as it is now (in his own account) to be a just man by imputation; that would be a kind of putative pastorage, as this a putative righteous­ness. However the Apostles, I dare say, did not take themselves to be St. Peter's Surrogates, but challenged to themselves to be accounted the Ministers, the Stewards, 1 Cor. 4.1. &c. 2 Cor. 5.20.10.8. &c. Gal. 1.1. Tit. 1.3. &c. the Ambassadours of Christ himself; from whom imme­diately they received their Orders, in whose name they acted, to whom they constantly refer their Authority, without ta­king the least notice of Saint Peter, or intimating any dependence on him.

It was therefore enough for Saint Peter, that he had Authority restrai­ned to no place, but might, as he found occasion, preach the Gospel, convert, confirm, guide Christians every where to truth and duty; nor can our Saviour's words be forced to signifie more.

[Page 70]In fine, this (together with the precedent Testimonies) must not be interpreted so as to thwart Practice and History; according to which it appeareth, that Saint Peter did not exercise such a Power, and there­fore our Lord did not intend to confer such an one upon him.

P. Leo IX. Ep. 1. Ad ejusdem primatûs con­firmationem, &c. Bell. 1.17.IV. Farther in confirmation of their Doctrine they do draw forth a whole shole of Testimonies, containing divers Prerogatives, as they call them, of Saint Peter; which do, as they suppose, imply this Pri­macy; so very sharp-sighted indeed they are, that in every remarkable accident befalling him, in every action performed by him, or to him, or about him, they can descry some argument or shrewd insinuation of his preeminence; especially being aided by the glosses of some fancyfull Expositour. From the change of his Name, from his walking on the Sea, from his miraculous draught of Fish, from our Lord's praying for him, that his Faith should not fail, and bidding him to confirm his Bre­thren; from our Lord's ordering him to pay the tribute for them both; from our Lord's first washing his feet, and his first appearing to him after the Resurrection; from the prediction of his Martyrdom; from sick persons being cured by his shadow; from his sentencing Ananias and Saphira to death,Act. 9.32. from his preaching to Cornelius, from its being said that he passed through all, from his being prayed for by the Church, from Saint Paul's going to visit him; from these passages, I say, they deduce or confirm his Authority: Now in earnest is not this stout ar­guing? is it not egregious modesty for such a point to alledge such proofs? what cause may not be countenanced by such rare fetches? who would not suspect the weakness of that Opinion, which is fain to use such forces in its maintenance? In fine, is it honest or conscionable dealing so to wrest or play with the Holy Scripture, pretending to de­rive thence proofs, where there is no shew of consequence?

To be even with them, I might assert the Primacy to Saint John, and to that purpose might alledge his Prerogatives (which indeed may seem greater than those of Saint Peter,) namely, that he was the beloved disciple, John 13.24. that he leaned on our Lord's breast, that Saint Peter, not pre­suming to ask our Lord a question, desired him to doe it, as having a more special confidence with our Lord; that Saint John did higher ser­vice to the Church and all posterity, by writing not onely more Epistles, but also a most divine Gospel, and a sublime Infinita futurorum mysteria continen­tem. Hier. Containing infinite mysteries of fu­ture things. Pro­phecy concerning the state of the Church; that Saint John did Joh. 20.4. outrun Peter, and came first to the Sepulchre (in which passage such acute devisers would find out marvellous significancy) that Saint John was a Virgin; that he did out-live all the Apostles (and thence was most fit to be Universal Pastour;) that St. Hierome comparing Pe­ter and John, doth seem to prefer the latter; for Peter (saith he) was an Apostle, Petrus Apostolus est, & Johannes A­postolus, maritus & Virgo; sed Petrus Apostolus tantùm, Johannes & Apostolus & Evangelista, & Propheta, &c. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14. Et ut brevi sormone multa comprehen­dam, doceámque cujus privilegii sit Jo­hannes, —imò in Johanne Virginitas; à Domino Virgine mater Virgo Virgini Discipulo commendatur. Hier. ibid. and John was an Apostle; but Peter was onely an Apostle, John both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and also a Prophet,— and (saith he) that I may in brief speech compre­hend many things, and shew what privilege belongeth to John, —yea Virginity in John; by our Lord a Virgin, his Mother the Virgin is commended to the Virgin Disciple: thus I might by Prerogatives and [Page 71] passages very notable infer the Superiority of Saint John to Saint Peter, in imitation of their reasoning; but I am afraid they would scarce be at the trouble to answer me seriously, but would think it enough to say I trifled; wherefore let it suffice for me in the same manner to put off those levities of discourse.

V. They argue this Primacy from the constant placing Saint Peter's name before the other Apostles, in the Catalogues and Narrations concer­ning him and them.

To this I answer.

1. That this Order is not so strictly observed, as not to admit some exceptions; for Saint Paul saith, that James, Gal. 2.9. Cephas and John knowing the grace given unto him— so it is commonly read in the ordina­ry Copies, in the Text of ancient Commentatours, and in old Translati­ons; and, whether Paul, whether Apollo, whether Cephas, 1 Cor. 3.22. 1 Cor. 9.5. saith Saint Paul again; and, As the other Apostles, and the brethren of our Lord, and Ce­phas; and Philip (saith Saint John) was of Bethsaida, Joh. 1.45. the City of An­drew and Peter; and Clemens Alex. in Eusebius saith, [...]. Euseb. Hist. 2.1. that the Lord after his resurrection delivered the special knowledge to James the Just, and to John, and to Peter, post-poning Saint Peter, as perhaps conceiving him to have less of sublime Revelations imparted to him; that Order therefore is not so punctually constant.

In the Apostolical Constitutions, [...]— Const. Apost. 8.33. Saint Paul and Saint Peter being induced jointly prescribing Orders, they begin, I Paul, and I Peter do appoint— so little ambitious or curious of precedence are they repre­sented.

2. But it being indeed so constant as not to seem casual, I farther say, that position of names doth not argue difference of degree, or superiority in power; any small advantage of age, standing, merit, or wealth ser­ving to ground such precedence, as common experience doth shew.

3. We formerly did assign other sufficient and probable causes, why Saint Peter had this place. So that this is no cogent Reason.

VI. Farther, (and this indeed is far their most plausible argumenta­tion) they alledge the Titles and Elogies given to Saint Peter by the Fathers; who call him [...] (the Prince) [...] (the Ringleader) [...] (the Head) Chrysost. Tom. 5. Or. 59. Chrysost. in Joh. 21. Cyr. c. Jul. 9. (p. 325.) Aug. Ep. 11.19. [...] (the President) [...] (the Captain) [...] (the Proloquutor) [...] (the Foreman) [...] (the Warden) [...] (the choice, or egregious Apostle) Ma­jorem (the greater, or Grandee among them) primum (the first, or prime Apostle.

To these and the like allegations I answer.

1. If we should say, that we are not accountable for every hyperbolical flash or flourish occurring in the Fathers, (it being well known,The truth is, the best Arguments of the Papists in other questions are some flourishes of Oratours, speaking hyper­bollically and heedlesly. that they in their encomiastick speeches, as Oratours are wont, fol­lowing the heat and gaiety of fancy, do sometimes overlash) we should have the pattern of their greatest Controvertists to warrant us; for Bel­larmine doth put off their Testimonies by saying that they do sometimes speak in way of excess, Per excessum loqui. Bell. de Miss. 2.10. minùs proprìè. 3.4. benignâ expositione opus habere. de amiss. gr. 4.12. minùs cautè. de purg. 1.11. less properly, less warily, so as to need benign Exposi­tion, [Page 72] &c. as Bishop Tort. Tort. p. 338. Andrews sheweth; and it is a common shift of Cardinal Perron, whereof you may see divers instances alledged by Dall. de us. P. lib. 1. c. 6. p. 158. (& p. 314.) M. Dallée.

Which observation is especially applicable to this case; for that elo­quent men do never more exceed in their indulgence to fancy, than in the demonstrative kind, in panegyricks, in their commendations of persons; and I hope they will embrace this way of reckoning for those expressions of Pope Leo, sounding so exorbitantly, that Saint Peter was by our Lord assumed into consortship of his individual unity;Nunc enim in consortium in­dividuae uni­tatis assump­tum id quod ipse erat vo­luit nominari. P. Leo I. Ep. 89. Nihil à bonorum fonte Deo in quenquam sine Petri participatione transire. P. Leo de assumpt. suâ. Serm. 3. and that no­thing did pass upon any from God the fountain of good things without the participation of Peter.

2. We may observe, that such turgid Elogies of Saint Peter are not found in the more ancient Fathers; for Clemens Romanus, Irenaeus, Cle­mens Alex. Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian — when they mention Saint Peter, do speak more temperately and simply, according to the current notions and traditions of the Church in their time; using in­deed fair terms of respect, but not such high streins of courtship, about him. But they are found in the latter Fathers, who being men of wit and eloquence, and affecting in their discourses to vent those faculties, did speak more out of their own invention and fancy.

Whence according to a prudent estimation of things in such a case, the silence or sparingness of the first sort is of more consideration on the one hand, than the speech, how free soever, of the latter is on the other hand: and we may rather suppose those titles do not belong to Saint Peter because the first do not give them, than that they do, be­cause the other are so liberal in doing it.

Indeed if we consult the Testimonies of this kind alledged by the Ro­manists, who with their utmost diligence have raked all ancient Wri­tings for them, it is strange that they cannot find any very ancient ones; that they can find so few plausible ones; that they are fain (to make up the number) to produce so many, which evidently have no force or pertinency; being onely commendations of his Apostolical Office, or of his Personal Merits, without relation to others.

3. We say, that all those terms or Titles, which they urge, are am­biguous, and applicable to any sort of Primacy or Preeminency; to that which we admit, no less than to that which we refuse; as by in­stances from good Authours, and from common use might easily be demonstrated; so that from them nothing can be inferred advantageous to their cause.

Cic. de Nat. D. lib. 2. Cic. de clar. Orat. Cicero calleth Socrates, Prince of the Philosophers; and Sulpitius, Prince of all Lawyers; would it not be ridiculous thence to infer, that Socrates was a Sovereign Governour of the Philosophers, or Sulpitius of the Law­yers? The same great speaker calleth Pompey, Prince of the City in all mens judgment;Quem omnium judicio longè principem esse Civitatis videbat— Principem orbis terrae virum— Cic. pro domo sua. doth he mean that he did exercise jurisdiction over the City?

Act. 24.5. Tertullus calleth Saint Paul, [...], a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes; and St. Basil calleth Eustathius Sebaste­nus, [...]. Bas. Ep. 74. foreman of the sect of the Pneumatomachi; did Tertullus mean, that Saint Paul had universal Juris­diction [Page 73] over Christians; or St. Basil, that Eustathius was Sovereign of those Hereticks?

So neither did Prince of the Apostles, or any equivalent term, in the sense of those who assigned it to Saint Peter, import Authority over the Apostles, but eminency among them in worth, in merit, in Apostolical performances, or at most in order of precedence.

Such words are to be interpreted by the state of things, not the state of things to be inferred from them; and in understanding them we should observe the Rule of Tertullian. Malo te ad sensum réi quàm ad sonum vocabuli exerceas. Tert. adv. Prax. cap. 3. I had rather you would apply your self to the sense of the thing, than to the sound of the word. [...]. Athan. Orat. 3. adv. Ar. (p. 373.) For words do not take away the nature of things, but the nature rather changes the words, and draws them to it self.

4. Accordingly the Fathers sometimes do explain those Elogies signi­fying them to import the special gifts and vertues of Saint Peter, where­in he did excell;Euseb. Hist. 2.14. so Eusebius calleth Saint Peter the most excellent and great Apostle, who for his vertue was proloquutour of the rest.

5. This Answer is thoroughly confirmed from hence; that even those who give those Titles to Saint Peter, do yet expresly affirm other A­postles in power and dignity equal to him.

Who doth give higher Elogies to him than St. Chrysostome? yet doth he assert all the Apostles to be Supreme, and equal in dignity; and par­ticularly he doth often affirm Saint Paul to be [...], 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,Certè Petrus Apostolus pri­mum mem­brum S. & universalis Ecclesiae— sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Greg. I. Epist. 4.38. 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, [...]. Jacobum Episcoporum Principem Sacer­dotum Princeps orabat. Clem. Rec. 1.68. Apostolorum Episcopus. Ruf. Euseb. 2.11 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 [Page 74] the Apostles; It is likely that Ruffinus did call him so by mistaking that in the Apo­stolical Constitutions. [...]. Apost. Const. 8.10. [...]. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. [...], &c. Hesych. Presb. apud Phot. Cod. 275. (p. 1525.) 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, [...]— Hesych. apud Phot. Cod. 269. 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, [...], &c. Chrys. in Joh. 1.1. 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. [...]. Chrys. in Rom. 16.24. [...]. Chrys. in 1 Cor. 9.2.

He was the tongue, the teacher, the Apostle of the world. [...]. [...].— He had the whole habi­table World committed to his charge. [...].— He was the Teacher of the World, and had all the inhabitants of the Earth committed to his trust. 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. —

[...]. in Jud. Or. 6. [...]. in 1 Cor. Or. 22. [...]; Tom. 7. p. 2. Did not God put into his hands the whole world? [...]. in 2 Tim. 2.1. He had the charge of the whole world. 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. [...]. de Sacerd. 4. [...]. Tom. 5. Orat. 33. Who then was better than all other men? who else but that Tent-maker, the Teacher of the world? — If therefore he receive a greater Crown than the Apostles, and none perhaps was equal to the Apostles, and yet he grea­ter than they, it is manifest that he shall enjoy the highest honour and preeminence.

[...]. Tom. 5. Or. 47. Nothing was more bright, nothing more illustrious than he.

[...]. Tom. 6. Or. 9. [...]. 2 Tim. 3.15. [...]. Theod. Ep. 146. The most wise, and best Architect or chief builder of the Churches. [...]. Just. M. resp. ad Orthod. Qu. 119. The blessed Apostle, the Father of the Fathers. None was greater than he, yea none equal to him.

[Page 75]Pope Gregory I. saith of Saint Paul, that he was made head of the Na­tions, because he obtained the principate of the whole Church. Caput effec­tus est Natio­num; quia obtinuit totius Ecclesiae principatum, Greg. M. in 1 Reg. lib. 4. Videsis. Paulus Apostolorum Princeps. Ep. Sp▪ lat. in Lat. Syn. sub P. Jul. II. Sess. 1. p. 25.

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. [...]. Cyrill. Cat. 6.

St. Austin (or St. Ambr. or Max.) calleth them Princes of the Churches. Ecclesiarum Principes. Aug. de Sanct. 27.

The Popes Agatho and Adrian (in their General Synods) call them the ring-leading Apostles. [...]. P. Agatho. in 6 Syn. Act. 4. p. 35. P. Adrian. in 7 Syn. Act. 2. p. 554.

The Popes Nicholas I. and Gregory VII. &c. call them Princes of the Apostles. Nicol. Ep. 7. Plat. in Greg. VII. &c.

St. Ambrose, or St. Austin, or St. Maximus Taur. (chuse you which) doth thus speak of them;Beati Petrus & Paulus eminent inter Vniversos Apostolos, & peculiari quâ­dam praerogativâ praecellunt; verùm inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est, puto enim illos aequales esse meritis, quìa aequales sunt passione, &c. Ambr. Serm. 66. Aug. de Sanct. 27. Max. Taur. Serm. 54. 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,Hae voces Ecclesiae, ex qua habuit om­nis Ecclesia initium. Iren. 3.12. These are the words of the Church, from whence every Church had its be­ginning. 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, Isa. 2.3. Luke 14.47. Ecclesia in Hierusalem fundata totius orbis Ecclesias seminavit. Hieron. in Is. 2. The Church founded in Jerusalem was the Seminary of the Churches throughout the whole world. Theod. 5.9. Vide Tert. de Praescr. cap. 20. the fountain of the Christi­an Law and Doctrine, the See of our Lord himself, the chief Pastour.

He therefore, [...]. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Or. 11. 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. After that he was seen of James, I sup­pose to his Brother; for he is said to have ordained him, and made him the first Bishop of Jerusalem. [...]. Epiph. haer. 78.

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;Gal. 2.9. and to his orders it seemeth that Saint Peter himself did conform; for 'tis said there,Gal. 2.12. that before certain [Page 76] 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; [...], &c. Const. Ap. 8.10. 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, Privilegium personale Personam sequi­tur, & cum Persona extinguitur. Reg. Iuris, 7. in Sexto. 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,Matt. 16.17. John 21.15, 16, 17. 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.

Matt. 16.17▪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.

[Page 77]Our Lord charged Simon Son of Jonas to feed his Sheep; this he per­formed by preaching, writing, guiding and governing Christians,Joh. 21. 15— 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 expos [...]ulation of Tertullian, Qualis es ever [...]ens atque commutan [...] manifestam Domini intentionem personali­ter hoc Petro conferentem? Tertull. de pud. 21. 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, Gal. 1.1. [...]. Chrys. Ibid. 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? Act. 1.21— 1 Cor. 9.1.15.8. Act. 22.14— 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,2 Cor. 12.12. Rom. 15.18— 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 [Page 78] Samaria; [...]. Chrys. in Act. 8.18. De solis Apostolis legitur, quorum vicem tenent Epis­copi, quod per manûs impositionem Spiritum S. dabant. P. Eugenius IV. in Instit. Arm. 'Tis recorded of the Apostles alone, in whose room the Bishops succeed, that they gave the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. 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, [...]. Chrys. in Joh. 21. 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, [...]. Cyrill. [...]. in Gen. 7. 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,Act. 15.28. 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; [...]. Chrys. in Rom. 1. Or. 1. Tom. 8. p. 114. 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,Quis nescit illum Aposto­latû [...] princi­patum cuili­bet Episcopa­tui praeferen­dum? Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 2.1. Episcopi nullam habent partem verae Apostolicae auctoritatis. Bell. 4.25. 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. The Apostles themselves do make the Apostolate a distinct Office from Pastours and Teachers, which are the standing Offices in the Church. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28.

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.

[Page 79]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, Non succeditur propriè nisi praecedenti, at simul fuerunt in Ecclesia Apostoli & Episcopi— Bell. de Pont. R. 4.25. 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. [...]. Clem. ad Corinth. 1. p. 54. 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, [...]. Ibid. p. 57.) 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, Singulis pastoribus portio gregis ad­scripta est, quam regat unusquisque & gu­bernet— Cypr. Ep. 55. 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.

[Page 80]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,Praepositos, qui Apostolis vicariâ ordina­tione succedunt ..... Ep. 69.42.75. Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & praepositos Dominus elegit. Ep. 65. Cathedra una super Petrum Domini vo­ce fundata— Ep. 40. & Ep. 73. & de unit. Eccl. Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus. Ep. 5 [...]. Episcopatus unus, cujus à singulis in so­lidum pars tenetur. De unit. Eccl. Et Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus una­nimi consentione pascatur. De unit. Eccl. Nam etsi Pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, & oves universas, &c. Epist. 67. For though we are many Pastours, yet we feed one flock, and all the sheep, &c. 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.

Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, & ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus, eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes. The mind and meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest in sending his Apostles, and allowing the power given him of the Father to them alone, whose successours we are, governing the Church of God by the same power.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, [...]. Chrys. de Sa­cerd. 1. 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.

Hier. ad Evagr.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;Habemus annumerare eos, qui ab Apo­stolis instituti sunt Episcopi, & successores eorum usque ad nos— Iren. 3.3. Proinde utique & caeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apo­stolici seminis traduces habent. Tert. de Praes. 32. 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 'tis reported that he placed Saint Mark there, [...]. Eus. hist. 4.1. Primus is the fourth from the Apostles who was the Bishop of that place, or obtained the ministery 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, [...], &c. Clem Alex. apud Euseb. 3.23. Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit autorem. Tert. in Marc. 4.5. Tert. de Praescr. 32. the Bishops of that See did refer their Ori­gine to him.

[Page 81]So many Bishops did claim from Saint Paul.

So St. Cyprian and Firmilian do assert themselves Successours of the Apostles, Vnitatem à Domino & per Apostolos nobis successoribus traditam. Cypr. Ep. 42. Adversarii nostri qui Apostolis successi­mus. Firmi [...]l. in Cypr. Ep. 75. who yet perhaps never were at Carthage or Caesarea.

So the Church of Constantinople is often in the Acts of the Sixth General Council,— ab illis Ecclesiis, quae licèt nullum ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posterìores, quae deni­que quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minùs Apostolicae de­putantur, pro consanguinitate doctrinae. Tert. de Praescr. 32. 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.Hier. ad Evagr.

12. Whereas our Adversaries do pretend, that indeed the other Apo­stles had an extraordinary charge as Legates of Christ, Bell. 4.25, &c. 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, [Page 82] 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;1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. 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, [...]. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115. 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, [...]. Chrys. in Eph. 4.11. 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, Non erat ejus Officii in uno loco consi­stere, sed quantum homini licuisset univer­sum peragrare orbem, & nondum creden­tes ad fidem perducere, credentes vero in fide penitus stabilire. Baron. Anno 58. §. 51. 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.

[Page 83]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,Gal. 2.8. [...]. 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, Act. 18.2. Sueton. in Claud. 25. in Tib. 36. 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;Euseb. 3.3. 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, [...] ▪ Petr. ad Jacob. 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,Scal. in Euseb. p. 189. Onuph. apud Bell. 2.6. Vales. in Euseb. 2.16. even of the Roman Party.

He was often in other places;Act. 11.2.15.7. Gal. 1.18.2.9. Gal. 2.11. 1 Pet. 5.13. 1 Cor. 1.12. Euseb. 2.25. 2 Pet. 3.2. 1 Pet. 1.1. 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, [...]. Epiph. haer. 27. that Peter did often visit Pontus and Bithynia.

[Page 84]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, Coloss. 4.11. Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus, addeth these alone my fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God, who have been a comfort unto me.

2 Tim. 4.16.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, 2 Tim. 4.6. 2 Tim. 4.21. 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,Conc. Nic. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 3. Conc. Sard. Can. 11, 12. Conc. Trull. Can. 80. [...]. Athan. Apol. 1. Having read the Scriptures, you know how great an offence it is for a Bishop to forsake his Church, and to ne­glect the Flocks of God. Oportet enim Episcop [...]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. 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,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 ve [...] 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. [...]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. 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, [...]. Epiph. haer. 27. 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.

[Page 85]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,Apost. Can. 14. 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. [...]. Theodor. Ep. 86. The great City of the Antiochians hath the throne of the great Saint Peter.

He therefore did ill to relinquish that Church, that most ancient and truly Apostolick Church of An­tioch, [...]. Theod. 5.6. 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, [...]. Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 726. 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; [...]. Syn. Alex. apud Athan. p. 727. 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, [...]. Ibid. p. 765. 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, 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. of Arles I. &c.

In the Synod under Mennas, it was laid to the charge of Anthimus, — [...]. Conc. sub. Menn. p. 9. 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 greatlyP. Jul. I. apud Athan. in Apolog. 2. p. 744. [Page 86] tax this practice; whereof the latter in his Synod at Rome did excom­municate all those, [...]. 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. who should commit it.

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.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, Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.61. 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, [...]. Sozom. 7.7. 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: Illud praeterea commoneo di­lectionem ve­stram, nè pa­tiamini aliquem contra Sta [...]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. 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, Quis enim unquam audet dicere S. Pe­trum Apostolorum Principem non benè egis­se, quando mutavit sedem de Antiochia in Romam? Pelag. II. Ep. 1. 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,Contra Ecclesiasticam dispositionem, con­tra Evangelicam legem, contra Institutio­nis Catholicae unitatem— Cypr. Ep. 44. (ut & Ep. 46, 52, 55, 58.) 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, [...]. Soz. 4.15. and disagreeable to Ecclesiastical Law; which there­fore was condemned by the Synod of Nice, Syn. Nic. Can. 8. by [Page 87] Pope Cornelius, by Pope Innocent the First,Cornelius apud Euseb. 6.43. Cypr. Ep. 46. P. Innocentius, apud Sozom. 8.26. Opt. I. Cathedra una. 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. In remedium Schismatis. Hier.

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,—à gloriofis­simis duobus Apostolis Pe­tro & Paulo Romae fundae­ta, & consti­tuta Ecclesia. Iren. 3.3.3.1. 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.
Haer. 27.
[...]. 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, Act. 28.30. 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, [...]. Iren. apud Euseb. 5.6. 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?

Romanorum Ecclesiae Clementem à Pe­tro ordinatum edit. Tert. de Praescr. 32. 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,Ex quìbus electum magnum plebique probatum, Hâc Cathedrâ, Petrus quâ sederat ipse, locatum Maxima Roma Linum primum considere jussit. do reckon, not St. Pe­ter, but Clement, Let us pray for our Bishop James, for our Bishop Clemens, for our Bishop Evodius, Tert. in Marc. 3.9. &c.

These reports are consistent, and reconciled by that which the Apo­stolical Constitutions affirm; [...]. Const. Apost. 7.46. 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,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. 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, [...]. P. Inn. I. apud Soz. 8.26. 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.

[Page 89]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; [...]. Syn. Ant. Can. 23. 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, Cùm post primum secundus esse non pos­sit; quisquis post unum, qui solus esse de­beat, non jam secundus ille, sed nullus est. Cypr. Ep. 52. 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; Theod. hist. 2.17. [...]. 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.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.

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, 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— 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? Petrum Apostolum successisse in Episco­patu Antiocheno alicul ex discipulis, quod est planè intolerandum. Bell. 2.6. this in Bel­larmine's own judgment had been plainly intolerable.

5. To avoid all which difficulties in the case, and 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, [Page 90] 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;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. 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.

Const. Apost. 7.46. Iren. 3.3. Tertull.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,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. 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, Euseb. 3.4, 13, 15. Iren. 3.3. 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, [...]. Euseb. 4.1. that is, excluding the Apostles.

Iren. 1.28.3.3, 4. Euseb. 4.10.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; [...]. Euseb. Chron. p. 7. Hist. 3.22. [...]. Pseud. Ignat. ad Ant. Euseb. counteth Annia [...]s the first Bishop of Alexandria. 3.21. 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.

'Tis an usual custome with the Apostles according to their Power ordinary or extraordinary, Celebris mos est Apostolos pro potestate eorum ordinaria vel extraordinaria, Epi­scopali vel Apostolica, Indiculis antistitum praefigere, aut ex iis eximere. Cotell. Not. p. 299. Episcopal or [Page 91] 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, Apostolicae Ecclesiae. Tert. de Praescr. 3 [...]. [...]. Soz. 1.17. not because the Apostles themselves did sit Bishops there, but because they did exercise their Apostleship, in teaching; and in constituting Bishops there, 2 Tim. 1.6. In Canonicis autem Scrip­turis Ecclesi­arum Catholicarum quamplurium auctoritatem sequatur, inter quos sanè illae sunt, quae Apostolicas sedes habere, & Epistolas accipere meruerunt. Aug. de doctr. Ch. 2.8. Let him follow the Authority of those many Catholick Churches in the Canonical Scriptures, among which surely are those which had the honour to have Apostolical Sees, and to receive Epistles from the Apostles. Proinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent. Tertull. de Praescr. 32. who (as Ter­tullian saith) did propagate the Apostolical seed.

So was Ephesus esteemed, because Saint Paul did found it,Sed & quae est Ephesi Ec­clesia à Paulo quidem fun­data, Johanne autem permanente apud eos usque ad Trajani tempora, &c. Iren. 3.3. And also the Church of Ephesus which was founded by Saint Paul, Saint John continuing with them till the time of Trajan, &c. Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit auctorem. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5. [...]. Apost. Const. 7.46. 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. Ab Apostolis in ea quae es [...] Smyrnis Ec­clesia constitutus Episcopus. Iren. 3.3. Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Johanne conlocatum. Tertull. de Praescr. 32. Euseb. 3.36. [...]. Euseb. 3.36.

So Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, had a controversie about metropolitical rights with Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, as presiding in an Apostolical See. [...]. Sozom. 4.25.

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;Tertull. de Praes. 36. 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, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 379. & p. 284. Thou despisest this Apostolical Throne. — [...]. Niceph. 2.39. Forasmuch as having appointed holy Stachys the first Bishop, in the Church which he first setled there. Non dedignetur regiam civitatem, quam Apostolicam non potest facere sedem— P. Leo I. Ep. 54. Let him not disdain the Royal City, which he cannot make an Apostolick See. 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 [Page 92] denomination, upon account of Saint Peter being Bishop there; and the like may be said of Antioch. Memento quia Apostolicam sedem regis— Greg. M. Ep. 4.37. Remember you rule an Apostolick See.

Const. Apost. 7.46.9. 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, [...]. Syn. Chal. Act. 11. 2 Tim. 1.6. From holy Timothy till now there have been seven and twenty Bishops, and all ordained at Ephesus. Johanne autem permanente apud eos, &c. Iren. 3.3. [...]. Euseb. hist. 3.23. 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, Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit auctorem. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5. 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, Ann. Chr. 39. Baron. § 8. Act. 9.32. Act. 11.20. Denique pri­mum Episcopum Antiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse accepimus, & Romam exinde translatum, quod Lucas penitus omisit. Hier. in Gal. 2. Lastly, we have received by tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, and from thence translated to Rome: which Luke has altogether omitted. 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. 'Tis the distinction of a Pope. Rex Etruriae, & Rex in Etruria.

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; [...]. Euseb. 1.12. (meaning an Apostle of the primary rank,) for Eusebius (the greatest Antiquary of old times) doth reckon him one of the 70 disciples.

[Page 93]So doth the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions in divers places suppose.Apost. Const. 6.12.6.14.2.55.7.46, &c. [...]— 6.12. We the twelve Apostles together with James.

Hegesippus (that most ancient Historian) was of the same mind, who saith, [...]. Euseb. 2.23. that there were many of this name, and that this James did undertake the Church with the Apostles.

Of the same opinion was Epiphanius, Epiph. Haer. 78. 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, Grot. in Jac. 1.1. Hamm. dissert. Ignat. 4.3. Vales. in Euseb. 1.12. Blondel. in Epist. Clem. ad Jacob. Certum est non fuisse unum ex duode­cim. Wal. Mess. p. 20. (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,Hierosolymitanam, quam primus Apo­stolus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit. Aug. c. Cresc. 2.37. The Church of Jerusalem, which James the Apostle first governed by his Episcopal power. Gal. 1.19. 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,Act. 21.20. 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; [...]. Eus. 2.23. [...]. Epiph. Haer. 78. 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.

[Page 94]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 [Page 95] 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, Haec est una quae tenet & possidet om­nem sponsi sui & Domini potestatem, in hac praesidemus, pro honore ejus & unitate pugnamus— Cypr. Ep. 73. 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,Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 4.1. 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, [...]. Bas. Epist. 69. 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,1 Tim. 3.5, 15. Act. 20.28. Eph. 4.12. 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,Collegium Sacerdotum. Cypr. Ep. 67.52.— [...]. Apost. Const. 8.10. 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, Idcirco enim, frater carissime, copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum, concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut siquis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri, & quasi Pastores utiles & misericordes oves Domi­ni in gregem colligant. Cypr. Ep. 67. 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,Cui rei nostrum est consulere, & sub­venire, frater charissime, qui divinam clementiam cogitantes, & gubernandae Ecclesiae libram tenentes, &c. Ibid. 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,Omnes enim nos decet pro corpore totlus Ecclesiae, cujus per varias quasque provin­cias membra digesta sunt, excu [...]are. Cler. Rom. apud Cypr. Ep. 30. 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, Ad Trinitatis instar, cujus una est at­que individua potestas, unum esse per di­versos Antistites Sacerdotium. P. Sym­machus ad Aeonium Arelat. [...]. Const. Apost. 6.14. Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, & ipsis solis potestatem à Petro sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus, eâ­dem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernan­tes. Conc. Carth. apud Cypr. p. 405. 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.

[Page 96] Christus Dominus & Deus noster ad Patrem proficiscens, sponsam suam nobis commendavit— Ibid. p. 404. 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; [...]. Eus. 7.27. 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, Cùm commu­nis sit omni­bus nobis, qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio, quamvis ipse in eo praemineas celsiore fastigio, sp [...]cula pastoralis— Aug. ad Bonif. contra duas Epist. Pelag. 1.1. although thou fittest in a higher and more eminent place.

Hujus ergo rei gratiâ vo­bis & nobis sancta com­missa est Ec­clesia, ut pro omnibus laboremus, & cunctis opem ferre non negligamus— P. Joh. I. Ep. 1. (ad Zachar.) apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 812. 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; [...]. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 93. 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, A corpore nostri, & Sacerdotii consen­sione discesserit— Cypr. Ep. 67. Qui se ab Ecclesiae vinculo, atque à Sa­cerdotum Collegio separat— Cypr. Ep. 52. 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; [...]. Basil. Epist. 56. 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, Neque enim aliunde Haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt Schismata, quàm in­dè quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperetur, nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur. Cypr. Ep. 55. 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.Episcopus per­sonam habet Christi & Vicarius Domini est. Ambr. in 1 Cor. 11. The Bishop sustains the Person of Christ, and is the Vicar of our Lord.

Cypr. Ep. 27.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.

[Page 97]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, Quod ex verbis Domini facilè intelligi potest, quibus B. Petro, cujus vicem Epi­scopi gerunt, ait Quodcunque, &c. Capit. Caroli M. Lib. 5. cap. 163. Ego Constantini, vos Petri gladium ha­betis in manibus. 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, Potestas ergò remittendorum peccatorum Apostolis data est, & Ecclesiis qu [...] illi à Christo missi constituerunt, & Episcopis qui eis ordinatione vicariâ succedunt. Fir­mil. apud Cypr. Ep. 75. 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;Responde mihi ad Alexandrinum Epi­scopum Palestina quid pertinet? Hier. ad Pammach. Ep. 61.15. 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, [...]. Theodor. 5.9. Mater Christiani nominis. Imper. Just. ad P. Hornisd. apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 794. The mother of the Christian name. 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; [...]. Conc. Nic. Can. 7. Ibi decernitur, ut Palestinae metropolis Caesarea sit. Hier. Ep. 61.15. 'Tis there decreed that Caesarea should be the metropolis of Palestine. 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 [Page 98] him had appealed to Theophilus Bishop of Alexan­dria, Maluisti occupatis auribus molestion facere, quam debitum metropolitano tuo honorem reddere. Hier. ad Pammach. Ep. 61.15. 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,Hier. ad Galat. 2. P. Pelag. II. Ep. 1. whereof he was paramount Bishop, or did retain a special super­intendency over them; particularly Antioch was an­ciently called his See, — [...]. Syn. Chalced. Act. 7. p. 364. 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;Act. 11.26. Antioch was (as the Constantinopolitan Fa­thers called it) the most ancient and truly Apostolical Church. [...]. Theod. 5.9.

Antioch by virtue of Saint Peter's sitting there, or peculiar relation to it,Vbi Imperator, ibi Roma. Where the Emperour is, there is Rome. 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, Apoc. 17.5. 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? Apoc. 17.6. Sic & Baby­lon apud Joannem nostrum Romanae Vrbis figura est, proinde & magnae & regno superbae, & sanctorum debellatricis. Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. 9. So also Babylon in our Saint John is a type of the City of Rome, and therefore of a great, royal, and proud City, and a subduer of the Saints.

Bell. 2.12.7. 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.Potuisset Pe­trus nullam sedem parti­cularem sibi unquam eligere, sicut fecit primis quinque annis— Ibid. Peter might have chosen to himself no par­ticular City, as he did the first five years.

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 [Page 99] 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,Jubente Domino. 2.1. Deus ipse jussit Romae figi Apostolicam Petri sedem. 4.4. 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, Non est improbabile Dominum etiam a­pertè jussisse, ut sedem suam Petrus ità figeret Romae, ut Romanus Episcopus ab­solutè ei succederet. Bell. 2.12. § Et quoniam. 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.

[Page 100]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:Quòd si per possibile Trevirensis elige­retur pro Capite Ecclesiae. Habet enim Ecclesia potestatem liberam sibi de Capite providendi — Card. Cus. de Conc. Cath. 2.13— 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, Nam potuisset Petrus nullam sedem par­ticularem sibi unquam eligere, sicut fecit primis quinque annis, & tunc moriente Petro, non Episcopus Ròmanus, neque An­tiochenus successissèt sed is quem Ecclesia sibi elegisset. Bell. 2.12. 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 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?Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter Episcopos ha­beantur, qui nec à Clericis sunt electi, nec à plebibus expetiti, nec à comprovincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio consecrati. P. Leo I. Ep. 92. No reason will admit, that they should be esteemed Bishops, who are neither chosen by the Clergy, nor desir'd by the People, nor consecrated by the Bishops of the same Province, with the consent of the Metropolitan. Nullus invitis detur Episcopus: Cleri, plebis, & ordinis consensus requiratur.— P. Celest. I. Ep. 2. Grat. dist. 61. cap. 13. Let there be no Bishop imposed on any against their wills: Let the consent of the Clergy and People, and his own Order be required.

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.

[Page 101]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; [...]. Naz. Orat. 20. p. 335. 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; [...]. Greg. Naz. Or. 19. p. 211. 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 & Vrsinus supra humanum modum ad rapiendam Episcopalem sedem ardentes scissis studiis acerrim [...] conflicta­bantur— Am. Marcell. lib. 27.) 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;Sozom. 6.23. 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,Neque ego ab uno ostentationem rerum considerans urbanarum, hujus rei cupi­dos, &c. Id. Ibid. 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,Damasus II. — Pontificatum per vim occupat, nullo Cleri populique consensu; Adeo enim in [...]levera [...] hic mos, ut jam cui­que ambitioso liceret Petri sedem invadere. Plat. (p. 314.) Damasus II. inv [...]des the Popedome by force, without any consent of the Clergy and people; For so was it now grown into custom, that any ambitious man might invade Peter's Se [...]. Eò enim tum Pontificatus devenerat, ut qui plus largitione & ambitione, non dico sanctitate vita & doctrin [...] valeret, is tantuminodo dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis & rejectis obtineret; quem morem utinam aliquando non retinuissent nostra tempora. Plat. in Silv. For the business of the Papacy was come to that pass, that whoever by bribery and ambition, I say not, by ho­liness of life and learning, got the start of others, he alone obtained that degree of dignity, good men in the mean be­ing depressed and rejected; which custom I would to God our times had not retained. Cùm jam eò devenissent Ecclesiastici, ut non coacti ut antea, sed sponte & largitionibus Pontificium munus obirent. Plat. in Steph. 6. Baron. Anno 112. § 8. Whenas now Ecclesiastical persons are come to that pass, that they execute the Papal Office, not being compelled unto it, as heretofore, but of their own accord, and by bribing for it. Videbat enim Imperator▪ eò licentiae factiosum quemque & potentem, quamvis ignobilem devenisse, ut corruptis suffragiis tantam dignitatem consequeretur, &c. Plat. in Clem. 2. (p. 313.) For the Emperour saw, that every factious and powerfull person, though base and ignoble, was grown to that height of licentiousness, that he obtained so great Dignity by corruption and buying of Suffrages. Omne Papale negotium manus agunt: quem dabis mihi de tota maxima Vrbe, qui te in Papam receperit, pretio seu spe pretii non interveniente? Be [...]n. de Consid. 4.2. The whole business of making a Pope is managed by gifts: whom can you shew me in all this great City, who took you into the Papacy, without being bribed and corrupted with reward, or at least with hope of it? 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.

[Page 102]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. —co-Episcoporum testimonio, quorum numerus universus per totum mundum con­cordi unanimitate consentit— Cypr. Ep. 52. Cùm Fabiani locus, id est, cùm locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrum consensione. — Ibid. When Fabianus's place (i. e.) when the place of Peter, and the degree of the Sacerdotal Chair was vacant; which being obtained by the will of God, and all our consents. —

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,Satis erat ut tu te Episcopum factum Literis nunciares, &c. Cypr. Ep. 42. It was enough that you declar'd by Letters that you were made Bishop. 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,Episcopo semel facto, & Collegarum ac plebis testimonio & judicio comprobato— Cypr. Ep. 41. 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.

Euseb.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, Et licèt diversis temporibus diversi mo­di super Electione Romanorum Pontificum observati sunt, prout necessitas, & utilitas Ecclesiae exposcebat— Conc. Bas. Sess. 37. p. 98. Vide Grat. dist. 63. per tot. according as the necessity and expediency of the Church required.

[Page 103]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, Nil enim tum à clero in eli­gendo Pontifi­ce actum erat, nisi ejus Electionem Imperator approbâsset. Plat. in Pelag. II. un­less the Emperour had approv'd his Election.

But he, seeing the Prince's consent was required, Is autem, cùm Principis con­sensus requi­reretur, nun­cios cum Li­teris miserat, qui Mauritium obsecrarent, nè pateretur electionem Cleri & populi Romani ea in re valere. Plat. in Greg. M. Vid. Grat. dist. 63.— 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, Conc. Tom. 7. p. 182. Leo VIII.— Romanorum inconstantiam pertaesus Auctoritatem omnem eligendi Pontificis à Clero, Populóque Romano ad Imperatorem transtulit. Plat. in Leo VIII. (p. 291.) 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.Nusquam Cle­ri eligentis, vel postea con­sentientis aliqua mentio. Baron. Anno 112. § 8. Anno 131. § 1. There was nowhere any mention of the Clergy elec­ting, or afterward consenting.

Afterwards the Cardinals (that is,Grat. dist. 23. cap. 1. Plat. in Nic. II. 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.

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, Propria perdit qui inde [...]ita concupiscit. P. Leo I. Ep. 54. who coveteth more than his due, his Power might be clip­ped, might be transplanted, might utterly decay and fail; to such fa­talities [Page 104] 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.

Vide Bern. Ep. 242, 243. Bell. 4.4.2. 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.

—Inopem me copia fecit.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.

Baron. ad Ann. 112. § 8.5. 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;P. Greg. VII. Ep. 3.7. P. Jul. in Conc. Lat. Sess. 5. p. 57. Non solùm hujusmodi Electio vel assumptio eo ipso nulla existat—&c. Vide sup. § 12. Such an Election or assumption, let it not onely be upon that account void and null— being Hereticks, Heresiarchs.

The which was done for long courses of time very commonly, and in a manner constantly.Vide quaeso quantum isti degenerave­rint à majoribus suis; Illi enim utpote viri Sanctissimi Dignitatem ultrò oblatam contemnebant, orationi & Doctrinae Chri­stianae vacantes; hi verò largitione & ambitione Pontificatum quaerentes, & adepti, posthabito divino cultu, &c. Plat. in Serg. 3. (p. 279.) Vid.—in Bened. IV. p. 277. See, I beseech you, how much they have degenerated from their Ancestours; For they as being very Holy men did contemn that Dignity when freely offered, giving themselves wholly to Prayer and the Doctrine of Christ; but these by bribery and ambition seek and obtain the Papacy.

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, —

[Page 105]Elections in some of these cases being null,Plat. in Joh. 10. (p. 275.) Pontifices ipsi à Petri vesti­giis discesse­rant. The Popes had swerv'd from the Examples of Peter. Possessor malae fidei ullo tempore non praescribit. Reg. [...]ur. 2. in Sexto. He that has no right to the thing he possesses, cannot prescribe or plead any length of time to make his possession lawfull. 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;Nec vero simile sit, ut rem tam noces­sariam ad Ecclesiae unitatem continen­dam Christus Dominus Apostolis suis non revelârit. Melch. Can. 6.8. Neither is it likely that our Lord Christ would not have revealed to his Apostles a thing so necessary for pre­serving the Unity of the Church. 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,Ad Firma­mentum igi­tur Coeli, hoc est Vniversa­lis Ecclesiae, fecit Deus duo magna Luminaria, id est, du [...]s instituit Dignitates, quae sun [...] Pontificalis auctoritas, & Regalis potestas; sed illa quae praeest diebus, id est, Spiritualibus, major est; quae verò Carnalibus, minor, &c. Innoc. III. in Decret. Greg. I. 33.6. For the Firmament therefore of Heaven, (i. e.) of the Universal Church, God made two great Lights, (i. e.) he ordained two Dignities or Powers, which are the Pontifical Authority, and the Regal Power; but that which rules the days, (i. e.) Spiritual matters, is the greater, but that which governs Carnal things, is [...]he les­ser, &c. (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 [Page 106] 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, Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re, quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam Nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, licet si nos, sed omnino quod se­quutus adjecit, si Angelus de coelo vo­bis annunciaverit, praeterquam quod in Scripturis Legalibus ac Evangelicis ac­cepistis, anathema sit. Aug. contr. Petil. 3.6. 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 add, If an Angel from Heaven should tell you beside what you have received in the Legal and E­vangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema; in which words we have St. Austin's warrant not onely to re­fuse, but to detest this Doctrine, which being nowhere extant in Law or Gospel, is yet obtruded on us as nearly relating both to Christ and his Church; as greatly concerning both our Faith and Practice.

2. To enforce this Argument, we may consider, that the Evangelists do speak about the propagation, settlement, and continuance of our Lord's Kingdom; that the Apostles do often treat about the state of the Church, and its edification, order, peace, unity; about the distinction of its Offi­cers and Members, about the qualifications, duties, graces, privileges of Spiritual Governours and Guides; about prevention and remedy of He­resies, Schisms, Disorders; upon any of which occasions how is it pos­sible that the mention of such a Spiritual Monarch (who was to have a main influence on each of those particulars) should wholly escape them, if they had known such an one instituted by God?

In the Levitical Law all things concerning the High-Priest; not one­ly his Designation,Exod. 28.1. Succession, Consecration, Duty, Power, Mainte­nance,Exod. 28.4. Privileges; but even his Garments, Marriage, Mourning, &c. are punctually determined and described;Levit. 21. and is it not wonderfull that in the many descriptions of the New-Law, no mention should be made concerning any Duty, or Privilege of its High-Priest? whereby he might be directed in the administration of his Office, and know what obser­vance to require?

3. Whereas also the Scripture doth inculcate duties of all sorts, and doth not forget frequently to press duties of respect and obedience to­ward particular Governours of the Church; is it not strange that it never should bestow one precept, whereby we might be instructed and admonished to pay our duty to the Universal Pastour? especially con­sidering, that God who directed the Pens of the Apostles, and who in­tended that their Writings should continue for the perpetual instructi­on of Christians, did foresee, how requisite such a precept would be to secure that duty; for if but one such precept did appear, it would doe the business, and void all contestation about it.

4. They who so carefully do exhort to honour and obey the tempo­ral Sovereignty, how come they so wholly to wave urging the no less needfull obligations to obey the Spiritual Monarch? while they are so mindfull of the Emperour,P. Nic. I. Ep. 10. P. Leo. IX. Ep. 1. P. Greg. VII. Ep. 1.22. why are they so neglectfull of the Pope? in­somuch, that divers Popes afterward, to ground and urge obedience to them, are fain to borrow those precepts, which command obedience to Princes, accommodating them by analogy and inference to themselves?

1 Pet. 2.13— 17.5. Particularly Saint Peter, one would think, who doth so earnestly injoin to obey the King as Supreme, and to honour him, should not have been unmindfull of his Successours; or quite have forborn to warn Chri­stians [Page 107] of the respect due to them: surely the Popes afterward do not follow him in this reservedness; for in their Decretal Epistles they urge nothing so much as obedience to the Apostolical See.

6. One might have expected something of that nature from St. Paul himself, who did write so largely to the Romans, and so often from Rome; that at least some word, or some intimation should have dropped from him concerning these huge Rights and Privileges of this See, and of the regard due to it. Particularly then, when he professedly doth enumerate the Offices, instituted by God, for standing use and perpetual duration; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, Eph. 3.11, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 12.28. Quarum lau­dum & gloriae degenerem su­isse, maximum crimen est. Cl. Rom. ad Cypr. Ep. 31. To degenerate from which praise and glory, is an exceeding great crime. for the edifying of the Body of Christ; till we all come in the Vnity of Faith, &c.

He commendeth them for their Faith, which was spoken of through the whole world; yet giveth them no advantage above others;Rom. 1.8. as St. Chry­sostome observeth on those words; for obedience to the Faith among all Nations, [...]. among whom also are ye; this (saith St. Chrysostome) he saith to depress their conceit, to void their haughtiness of mind, [...]. and to teach them (to deem others equal in Dignity with them.)

When He writeth to that Church ((Vid. Chrys. Theo. Hier.) Baron. Anno 58. § 46. &c. Rom. 1.7.1.8.16.19. which was some time after Saint Peter had setled the Popedom) he doth onely style them [...] (called Saints) and [...], (beloved of God) which are common adjuncts of all Christians; He saith their Faith was spoken of generally, but of the fame of their Authority being so spread he taketh no notice; that their obedience had come abroad to all men, but their commands had not (it seemeth) come anywhere.

He wrote divers Epistles from Rome, wherein he resolveth many ca­ses debated, yet never doth urge the Authority of the Roman Church for any point, which now is so ponderous an Argument.

7. But however seeing the Scripture is so strangely reserved, how cometh it to pass that Tradition is also so defective, and staunch in so grand a case? We have in divers of the Fathers, (particularly in Tertullian, in St. Basil, Tertull. de Cor. Mil. 3. Basil. de Sp. S. 27. Hier. advers. Lucif. 4. in St. Hie­rome) Catalogues of Traditional Doctrines and Ob­servances, which they recite to assert Tradition in some cases supple­mental to Scripture; in which their purpose did require, that they should set down those of principal moment; and they are so punctual as to insert many of small consideration; how then came they to neg­lect this, concerning the Papal Authority over the whole Church, which had been most pertinent to their design, and in consequence did vastly surpass all the rest, which they do name?

8. The designation of the Roman Bishop by succession to obtain so high a degree in the Church being above all others a most remarkable and noble piece of History, which it had been a horrible fault in an Ec­clesiastical History to slip over, without carefull reporting, and reflec­ting upon it; yet Eusebius that most diligent Compiler of all passages relating to the original Constitution of the Church, and to all transac­tions therein, hath not [...]ne word about it; who yet studiously doth re­port [Page 108] the Successions of the Roman Bishops, and all the notable occurren­ces he knew concerning them, with favourable advantage.

9. Whereas this Doctrine is pretended to be a Point of Faith, of vast consequence to the subsistence of the Church and to the Salvation of men, it is somewhat strange, that it should not be inserted into any one ancient Summary of things to be believed (of which Summaries divers remain, some composed by publick consent, others by persons of Emi­nency in the Church) nor by fair and forcible consequence should be deducible from any Article in them;Const. Apost. 7.41. (a full Creed, at Baptism.) especially considering that such Summaries were framed upon occasion of Heresies springing up, which disregarded the Pope's Authority, and which by asserting it were plain­ly confuted.Conc. Lat. 4. cap. 5. Anno 1215. We are therefore beholden to Pope Innocent III. and his Laterane Synod for first Synodically defining this Point, together with other Points no less new and unheard of before. The Creed of Pope Pius IV. formed the other day, is the first, as I take it, which did con­tain this Article of Faith.

10. It is much that this point of Faith should not be delivered in any of those ancient Expositions of the Creed (made by St. Austin, Ruffin, &c.) which enlarge it to necessary points of Doctrine, connected with the Articles therein, especially with that of the Catholick Church, to which the Pope's Authority hath so close a connexion; that it should not be touched in the Catechetical Discourses of Cyril, Ambrose, &c. that in the Systemes of Divinity composed by Saint Austin, Lac [...]antius, &c. it should not be treated on: The world is now changed; for the Ca­techism of Trent doth not overlook so material a Point; and it would pass for a lame Body of Theology, which should omit to treat on this Subject.

11. It is more wonderfull, that this Point should never be defined, in downright and full terms, by any ancient Synod; it being so noto­riously in those old times opposed by divers, who dissented in opinion, and discorded in practice from the Pope; it being also a Point of that consequence, that such a solemn declaration of it would have much con­duced to the ruine of all particular Errours and Schisms, which were maintained then in opposition to the Church.

12. Indeed had this Point been allowed by the main Body of Ortho­dox Bishops, the Pope could not have been so drowsie or stupid, as not to have solicited for such a definition thereof; nor would the Bishops have been backward in compliance thereto; it being, in our adversa­ries conceit, so compendious and effectual a way of suppressing all He­resies, Schisms and Disorders; (although indeed later Experience hath shewed it no less available to stifle Truth, Justice and Piety:) The Popes after Luther were better advised, and so were the Bishops adhe­ring to his Opinions.

13. Whereas also it is most apparent, that many persons disclaimed this Authority, not regarding either the Doctrines or Decrees of the Popes; it is wonderfull, that such men should not be reckoned in the large Catalogues of Hereticks; wherein Errours of less obvious conside­ration, and of far less importance did place men; If Epiphanius, Theodo­ret, Leontius, &c. were so negligent or unconcerned, yet St. Austin, Phi­lastrius,—Western men, should not have overlooked this sort of desperate Hereticks; Aerius for questioning the dignity of Bishops is set among the Hereticks, but who got that name for disavowing the Pope's Supremacy, [Page 109] among the many who did it? (It is but lately, that such as we have been thrust in among Hereticks.)

14. Whereas no Point avowed by Christians could be so apt to raise offence and jealousie in Pagans against our Religion as this, which setteth up a Power of so vast extent, and huge influence; whereas no novelty could be more surprizing or startling, than the Erection of an Universal Empire over the Consciences and religious Practices of men; whereas also this Doctrine could not but be very conspicuous and glaring in or­dinary practice; it is prodigious, that all Pagans should not loudly ex­claim against it.

It is strange, that Pagan Historians (such as Marcellinus, —procedant­que vehiculis insidentes, cir­cumspectè ve­stiti, epulas curantes pro­fusas, adeò ut eorum convivia Regales superent mensas. Marcell. lib. 27. p. 338. They travel sitting in Chariots, curiously apparelled, procu­ring profuse dainties, insomuch as their meals exceed the feasts of Kings. who often speaketh of Popes, and blameth them for their luxurious way of living, and pompous garb: as Zozimus, who bore a great spight at Christiani­ty; as all the Writers of the Imperial History before Constantine) should not report it, as a very strange pretence newly started up.

It is wonderfull, that the eager Adversaries of our Religion (such as Celsus, Porphyrie, Hierocles, Julian himself) should not particularly level their Discourse against it, as a most scandalous position and dange­rous pretence, threatning the Government of the Empire.

It is admirable, that the Emperours themselves, enslamed with emu­lation and suspicion of such an Authority (the which hath been so terri­ble even to Christian Princes) should not in their Edicts expresly decry and impugn it; that indeed every one of them should not with extre­mest violence implacably strive to extirpate it.

In consequence of these things it may also seem strange, that none of the Advocates of our Faith (Justin, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, Cyril, Austin) should be put to defend it, or so much as forced to mention it, in their elaborate Apologies for the Doctrines and Practices, which were reprehended by any sort of Adversaries thereto.

We may add, that divers of them in their Apologies and representations con­cerning Christianity would have appea­red not to deal fairly,Sentiunt enim Deum esse solum, in cujus solius potestate sunt, à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi, ante omnes & super omnes Deos. Quidni? cùm super omnes homines, qui utique vivunt, & mortuis antistant. Tertull. Apo­log. c. 30. For they think it is God alone in whose power they are, next to whom they are the chief before all, and above all Gods. And why not? when they are above all men alive, and surpass the dead. or to have been very inconsiderate; when they profess for their common belief assertions re­pugnant to that Doctrine; as when Tertullian saith, Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo▪ secundum, & solo Deo minorem. Tertull. ad Scap. 2. We reverence the Em­perour as a man second to God, and less onely than God; when Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus quì fecit Imperatorem. Opt. lib. 3. Optatus affir­meth, that above the Emperour there is none beside God who made the Emperour; and, that —dum se Donatus super Imperatorem extollit, jam quasi hominum excesserat modum, ut se ut Deum, non ho­minem aestimaret. Id. ibid. [...]. Chrys. [...]. 2. p. 463. [...], &c. Chrys. in Rom. [...]3.1. [...]— Chrys. suprá. Por he that is thus wrong'd has not his equal upon earth, for he is King, &c. Donatus by extolling himself (as some now do) above the Emperour, did in so doing as it were exceed the bounds of men, that he did esteem him­self as God, not as a man. When St. Chry­sostome asserteth, the Emperour to be the crown and head of all men upon earth; and saith, that even Apostles, Evange­lists, [Page 110] Prophets, any men whoever are to be subject to the temporal Powers; when [...]. Cyril. ad Theod. in Conc. Eph. part. 1. cap. 3. p. 20. St. Cyril calleth the Emperour the Supreme top of glory among men, ele­vated above all others by incomparable differences; &c. When even Popes talk at this rate; as Pope P. Greg. M. Ep. 2.62. Quia Sereniss. Domine ex illo jam tempore Dominus me­us fuisti, quando adhuc Dominus omnium non eras— Ego quidem jussioni subjectus— Ibid. Ad hoc enim potestas Dominorum meorum pietati coelitus data est super omnes homines, &c. Ibid. Ego indignus fa­mulus vester. Ib. Qui honori quoque Imperii vestri se per privatum voca­bulum superponit. P. Greg. I. Ep. 4.32. Gregory I. calling the Emperour his Lord, and Lord of all, telling the Emperour, that his Competitour, by assuming the title of Universal Bishop did set himself above the honour of his Imperial Majesty; which he supposeth a piece of great ab­surdity and arrogance; and even Pope [...]. P. Greg. II. in Epist. 1. ad Leon. Isaur. apud Bin. Tom. 5. p. 502. As King and Head of Christians. Gregory II. doth call that Emperour (against whom he afterward rebelled) the Head of Christians. Whereas in­deed if the Pope be Monarch of the Church, endowed with the Regalities which they now ascribe to him, it is plain enough that he is not inferiour to any man living, in real power and dignity: wherefore the modern Doctours of Rome are far more sincere or considerate in their Heraldry, than were those old Fa­thers of Christendom; who now stick not down-rightly to prefer the Pope before all Princes of the World;—una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. & Antistite nostro N. & Rege nostro N. & omnibus Orthodoxis, &c. Together with thy Servant our Pope N. and our Bishop N. and our King N. and all Orthodox, &c. not onely in Doctrine and Notion, but in the Sacred Offices of the Church; for in the very Canon of their Mass, the Pope (together with the Bishop of the Diocese, one of his Ministers) is set before all Christian Princes; every Christian Subject being thereby taught to deem the Pope superiour to his Prince: Fiat autem oratio pro dignitate Re­gia post orationem factam pro Papa, quia potestas suprema Sacerdotalis excedit Re­giam antiquitate, dignitate & utilita­te, &c. Gab. Biel in Can. mis. Let prayer be made for the King af­ter prayer made for the Pope, because the supreme Sacerdotal power exceeds the Kingly in antiquity, dignity and utility, &c. Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. P. Bonif. VIII. in Extrav. com. lib. 1. tit. 38. Now we must believe (for one Pope hath written it, another hath put it in his Decre­tals, and it is current Law) that the Papal Autho­rity doth no less surpass the Royal, than the Sun doth outshine the Moon.

Now it is abundantly declared by Papal defini­tion, as a point necessary to Salvation, that every hu­mane creature (neither King, nor Kesar excepted) is subject to the Roman High-priest.

Now the mystery is discovered, why Popes, when summoned by Em­perours, declined to go in Person to General Sy­nods;At quamvis utcunque tolerabile sit, ut Principes seculares in Concilio sedeant an­te alios Episcopos, tamen nullo modo con­venit. ut ante ipsum summum Pontifi­cem, &c. Bell. de Conc. 1.19. because it was not tolerable, that the Empe­rour (who sometime would be present in Synods) should sit above the Pope; as in the pride of his heart he might perhaps offer to do. (I cannot forbear to note what an ill conceit Bellarmine had of Leo I. and other Popes, that they did forbear coming at Synods out of this villainous pride and haughtiness.)

15. One would admire, that Constantine, if he had smelt this Doc­trine, or any thing like it in Christianity, should be so ready to embrace it; or that so many Emperours should in those times do so; some Princes [Page 111] then probably being jealous of their honour, and unwilling to admit any Superiour to them.

It is at least much, that Emperours should with so much indulgence foster and cherish Popes, being their so dangerous rivals for dignity; and that it should be true, which Pope Nicholas doth affirm;Quapropter attendat clementia vestra, quantus fuerit erga sedis Apostolicae reve­rentiam Antecessorum véstrorum, piorum duntaxat Imperatorum—amor, & studi­um; qualiter eam diversis privilegiis ex­tulerint, donis ditaverint, beneficiis am­pliaverint; qualiter eam literis suis ho­noraverint, ejus votis annuerint, &c. P. Nich. I. Epist. 8. ad Mich. Imp. that the Emperours had extolled the Roman See with divers privileges, had enriched it with gifts, had enlarged it with benefits; had done I know not how many things more for it: surely they were bewitched thus to advance their concur­rent Competitour for Honour and Power; one who pretended to be a better man than themselves. Bel­larmine (in his Apology against King James) saith, that the Pope was (vellet, nollet) constrained to be subject to the Emperours, Apol. Bell. p. 202. because his Power was not known to them; it was well it was not: but how could it be concealed from them, if it were a Doctrine commonly avowed by Christians? it is hard keeping so practical a Doctrine from breaking forth into light. But to leave this consideration:

Farthermore, We have divers ancient Writings, the special nature, matter, scope whereof did require, or greatly invite giving attestation to this Power, if such an one had been known and allowed in those times; which yet do afford no countenance, but rather much prejudice thereto.

16. The Apostolical Canons, and the Constitutions of Clement, which describe the state of the Church, with its Laws, Customs and Practices current in the times of those who compiled them (which times are not certain, but ancient,Const. Apost. 8.4, &c. and the less ancient the more it is to our purpose) wherein especially the Ranks, Duties and Privileges of all Ecclesiastical Persons are declared, or prescribed, do not yet touch the Prerogatives of this Universal Head, or the special respects due to him, nor mention any Laws or Constitutions framed by him: Which is no less strange, than that there should be a Body of Laws, or description of the state of any Kingdom, wherein nothing should be said concerning the King, or the Royal Authority: It is not so in our modern Canon-law, wherein the Pope doth make utramque paginam; we reade little beside his Authority, and Decrees made by it.

The Apostolical Canons particularly do prescribe, that the Bishops of each Nation should know him that is first among them, and should esteem him the Head, [...]. Apost. Can. 34. and should doe nothing considerable (or extraordinary) without his advice; as also that each one (of those Head-bishops) should onely meddle with those affairs, which concerned his own precinct, and the places under it: also, that no such Primate should doe any thing without the opinion of all; that so there may be con­cord: Now what place could be more opportune to mention the Pope's Sovereign Power? how could the Canonist without strange neglect pass it over? doth he not indeed exclude it, assigning the Supreme disposal (without farther resort) of all things to the arbitration of the whole body of Pastours, and placing the maintenance of concord in that course?

[Page 112]17. So also the Old Writer, under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, [...]. Dionys. de Hier. Eccl. cap. 5. treating in several places about the degrees of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, was monstrously overseen in omitting the Sovereign thereof: In the fifth Chapter of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he professeth carefully to speak of those Orders, but hath not a word of this supereminent rank, [...]. De Eccl. Hier. cap. 5. but averreth Episcopacy to be the first and highest of divine Orders, in which the Hierarchy is consummated: and in his Epistle to Demophilus there is a remarkable place, wherein he could hardly have avoided touching the Pope, had there been then one in such vogue as now: for advising that Monk to gentleness and observance toward his Superiours, he thus speaketh: Let passion and reason be governed by you; [...], &c. Dionys. Ar. Ep. 8. [...]. Max. Schol. Ib. but you by the holy Dea­cons, and these by the Priests, and the Priests by the Bishops, and the Bishops by the Apostles, or by their Successours; (that is, saith Maximus, those which we now call Patriarchs) and if perhaps any one of them shall fail of his duty, let him be corrected by those holy persons, who are co-ordinate to him; why not in this case, let him be corrected by the Pope, his Superiour? but he knew none of an Order superiour to the Apostles Successours.

18. Likewise, Ignatius in many Epistles frequently describeth the se­veral Ranks of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, extolleth their Dignity and Authority to the highest pitch, mightily urgeth the respect due to them, yet never doth he so much as mention or touch this Sovereign degree, wherein the Majesty of the Clergy did chiefly shine.

In his very Epistle to the Romans he doth not yield any deference to their Bishop, nor indeed doth so much as take notice of him; is it not strange he should so little mind the Sovereign of the Church? or was it, for a sly reason, because being Bishop of Antioch he had a pique to his brother Jacob, who had supplanted him and got away his birthright?

The counterfeiter therefore of Ignatius did well personate him, [...]. Pseud. Ig­nat. ad Smyr. [...], &c. id ad Trall. when he saith, that in the Church there is nothing greater than a Bishop; and that a Bi­shop is beyond all rule and authority; for in the time of Ignatius there was no domineering Pope over all Bishops.

19. We have some Letters of Popes, (though not many; for Popes were then not very scribacious, or not so pragmatical; whence to sup­ply that defect, lest Popes should seem not able to write, or to have slept almost 400 years, they have forged divers for them, and those so wise ones, that we who love the memory of those good Popes, disdain to ac­knowledge them Authours of such idle stuff; we have yet some Letters of,) and to Popes, to and from divers eminent Persons in the Church, wherein the former do not assume, nor the latter ascribe any such power; the Popes do not express themselves like Sovereigns, nor the Bishops ad­dress themselves like Subjects; but they treat one another in a familiar way like brethren and equals: this is so true, that it is a good mark of a spurious Epistle (whereof we have good store, devised by colloguing [Page 113] Knaves, and fathered on the first Popes) when any of them talketh in an imperious strain, or arrogateth such a Power to himself.

20. Clemens Bishop of Rome in the Apostolical times unto the Church of Corinth, then engaged in discords and factions, wherein the Clergy was much affronted (divers Presbyters, who had well and worthily behaved themselves, [...]. Clem. ad Corinth. Ep. 1 p. 58. Jun. For we see that you have removed some, who behaved themselves well in their Office, out of their ministry blamelesly discharged by them. [...]. were ejected from their Office, in a seditious manner) did write a very 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, [...]. p. 2. 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, Si quis voluntati nostrae contraìre prae­sumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Deì, ac Beatorum Petri & Pauli Apostoli se noverit incursurum: in such terms usu­ally the Pope's Bulls do end. 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,Cypr. Ep. 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 54, 55, 57, 58, 67, 72. 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,Et quanquam sciam, frater charissime, pro mutua dilectione, quam debemus & exhibemus invicem nobis, florentissimo illic clero tecum praesidenti, &c. Ep. 55. And although I know, most dear brother, out of the mutual love and re­spect, which we owe and yield one to another, &c. 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, Cùm de excessu boni viri Collegae mei, rumor apud nos incertus esset Collegae cha­rissimi— Cypr. Ep. 4. 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? Quàm ex aequo, & civilis mentio Epi­scopi Romani ab Episcopo Carthaginis a­pud Clerum? Rigalt. Ibid. 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, Cypr. Ep. 46, 48. 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.

[Page 114] Eusebius citeth divers long passages out of an Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius Bishop of Antioch against Novatus;Euseb. 6.43. 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 [...]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; [...]. Liber. ad Ath. Tom. 1. p. 243. 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?Socr. 4.12. 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,Ep. 61, 69, 70, 74, 182. [...]. Ep. 61. [...]. Ibid. We beseech you to have a fellow-feeling of our distractions. If there be any comfort of love, any fellowship of the Spirit, any bowels and mercies, be ye moved with pity and commiseration to help us. [...]. Ep. 69. [...]. Ep. 70. [...]. Ibid. Vid. Ep. 74. ( [...], &c.) [...]. Ep. 74. (Ep. 293.) — [...]. — Ep. 48. 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 [Page 115] probably yield some advantage to the publick, [...]. Ibid. [...]. Ep. 74. 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; Quod servis Dei, & maxi­mè Sacerdoti­bus justis & pacificis con­gruebat, fra­ter charissime, miseramus nuper Collegas nostros Caldo­nium & For­tunatum, ut non tantùm persuasione literarum nostrarum, sed praesentia sua, & consilio omnium vestrum eniterentur, quan­tum possent, & elaborarent, ut ad Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem scissi corporis membra componerent— Cypr. Ep. 42. ad Cornel. Pallad. As it becomed the Servants of God, especially righteous and peaceable Priests, most dear Brother, we lately sent our Collegues Caldonius and Fortunatus, that they might, not onely by the persuasion of our Letters, but also by their presence, and the advice of you all, endeavour to their utmost and strive to reduce the members of that divided Body to the Unity of the Catholick Church. [...]. Bas. Ep. 8. 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 [...]. [...]. Ep. 77. Coasts, that they should have done well in sending some to visit and assist his Churches in their di­stresses.

But now how, I pray, cometh it to pass, that in such a case he should not have a special recourse to the Pope? but in so many addres­ses should onely wrap him up in a community? why should he not hum­bly petition him to exert his Sovereign Authority for the relief of the Eastern Churches, laying his charge, and inflicting censures on the dis­senters? why should he lay all the stress of his hopes on the consent of the Western Bishops? why doth he not say a word of the domi­nion resident in them over all the Church? these things are un­conceivable, if he did take the Pope to be the man our adversaries say he is.

But St. Basil had other notions; for indeed,Vid. Epist. 272, 273, 321, 325, 349. being so wise and good a man, if he had taken the Pope for his Sovereign, he would not have taxed him as he doth, and so complain of him; when speaking of the Western Bishops (whereof the Pope was the ringleader, and most con­cerned) he hath these words: (occasioned as I conceive by the Bishop of Rome's rejecting that excellent person, Meletius Bishop of Antioch;) What we should write, or how to joyn with those that write, I am in doubt— for I am apt to say that of Diomedes, You ought not to request, [...]. Bas. Ep. 10. ad Euseb. Samos. Ep. for he is a haughty man; for in truth observance doth render men of proud manners more contemptuous than other­wise they are. For if the Lord be propitious to us, — [...]. Ibid. what other addition do we need? but if the anger of [Page 116] God continue, what help can we have from the Western Superciliousness? who in truth neither know, nor endure to learn; but being prepossessed with false suspicions, do now doe those things, which they did before in the cause of Marcellus; affecting to contend with those, who report the Truth to them; and establishing Heresie by themselves: would that excellent Person, (the greatest man of his time in reputation for wisedom and piety) have thus, unbowelling his mind in an Epi­stle to a very eminent Bishop, smartly reflected on the qualities and proceedings of the Western Clergy, charging them with pride and haughtiness? with a suspicious and contentious humour, with incorrigible ignorance, and indisposition to learn; if he had taken him, who was the leader in all these matters, to have been his Superiour and Sovereign? would he have added the following words, immediately touching him; I would not in the common name have written to their ring­leader, [...]. Ibid. nothing indeed about Ecclesiastical Af­fairs, except onely to intimate, that they neither do know the truth of things with us, nor do admit the way by which they may understand it; but in ge­neral about their being bound not to set upon those, who were humbled with afflictions; nor should judge themselves dignifyed by pride, a sin which alone suffi­ceth to make one God's enemy: surely this great man knew better what belonged to government and manners, than in such rude terms to accost his Sovereign: nor would he have given him that character, which he doth otherwhere; where spea­king of his Brother St. Gregory Nyssene, he saith he was an unfit Agent to Rome; because although his address with a sober man would find much reve­rence and esteem; [...]; Bas. Ep. 250. yet to a haughty, and reserved man sitting I know not where above, and thence not able to hear those below speaking the truth to him, what profit can there be to the publick from the con­verse of such a man, whose disposition is averse from illiberal flattery? But these speeches sute with that conceit,Anast. ad Joh. Hier. apud Hier. which St. Basil (as Baronius I know not whence reporteth) expressed by saying, I hate the pride of that Church; which humour in them that good man would not be guilty of fostering by too much obse­quiousness.

Tom. 7. Epist. 122.St. Chrysostome, having by the practices of envious men combined a­gainst him, in a packed assembly of Bishops, upon vain surmises, been sentenced and driven from his See, did thereupon write an Epistle to Pope Innocent I. Bishop of Rome, Vid. Laun. Epist. 1.3. together with his Brethren the Bishops of Italy; therein representing his case, complaining of the wrong, vin­dicating his innocency, displaying the iniquity of the proceedings against him, together with the mischievous consequences of them toward the whole Church, then requiring his succour for redress: yet, (although the sense of his case, and care of his interest were likely to suggest the greatest deference that could be) neither the style, which is very respectfull, [Page 117] nor the matter, which is very copious, do imply any acknowledgment of the Pope's Supremacy; He doth not address to him as to a Gover­nour of all, who could by his Authority command justice to be done, but as to a brother, [...]. and a friend of innocence, from whose endeavour he might procure relief; [...]. He had recourse not to his Sove­reign power, but to his brotherly love; He informed his Charity, not ap­pealed to his bar; He in short did no more than implore his assistence in an Ecclesiastical way; that he would express his resentment of so ir­regular dealings, that he would avow communion with him, as with an Orthodox Bishop innocent and abused, that he would procure his cause to be brought to a fair trial in a Synod of Bishops, lawfully called and indifferently affected: Had the good man had any conceit of the Pope's Supremacy, he would,— [...]. But as for us, we who are not con­demned nor convicted, nor prov'd guilty, let us continually enjoy the be­nefit of your Letters, and Love, and all other things as before. one would think, have framed his address in other terms, and sued for another course of proceeding in his behalf; but it is plain enough that he had no such notion of things, nor had any ground for such an one. For indeed Pope Innocent in his an­swer to him, could doe no more than exhort him to patience; in another to his Clergy and People could onely comfort them, declare his dislike of the Adversaries pro­ceedings and grounds; signifie his intentions to procure a general Synod, with hopes of a redress thence; his Sovereign pow­er, it seems, not availing to any such purposes, [...].— Soz. 8.26. But what (saith he) can we doe in such cases? a Synodi­cal cognizance is necessary, which we heretofore did say ought to be called; the which alone can allay the motions of such tempests.

It is true, that the later Popes (Siricius, Anastasius, Innocent, Zozi­mus, Bonifacius, Celestinus, &c.) after the Sardican Council in their E­pistles to the Western Bishops, over whom they had encroached, and who were overpowred by them, &c. do speak in somewhat more lofty strain; but are more modest toward those of the East, who could not bear, &c.

22. Farther; It is most prodigious that in the disputes managed by the Fathers against Hereticks (the Gnosticks, Valentinians, Marcionites, Montanists, Manichees, Paulianists, Arians, &c.) they should not, even in the first place alledge and urge the sentence of the Universal Pastour and Judge, as a most evidently conclusive argument, as the most effica­cious and compendious method of convincing and silencing them: Had this point been well proved and pressed, then without any more con­certations from Scripture, tradition, reason, all Hereticks had been quite defeated; and nothing then could more easily have been proved, if it had been true; when the light of tradition did shine so brightly; no­thing indeed had been to sense more conspicuous, than the continual ex­ercise of such an Authority.

We see now among those, who admit such an Authority, how sure­ly when it may be had it is alledged, and what sway it hath, to the determination of any controversie; and so it would have been then, if it had been then as commonly known and avowed.

23. Whereas divers of the Fathers purposely do treat on methods of confuting Hereticks, it is strange they should be so blind or dull, as not [Page 118] to hit on this most proper and obvious way, of referring debates to the decision of him, to whose Office of Universal Pastour and Judge it did belong: Particularly one would wonder at Vincentius Lirinensis; that he on set purpose, with great care discoursing about the means of setling points of Faith, and of overthrowing Heresies, should not light upon this notable way, by having recourse to the Pope's Magisterial sentence; yea, that indeed he should exclude it; for he (after most intent study, Saepe igitur magno studio, & summâ attentione perquirens à quamplurimis sanc­titate & doctrina praestantibus viris, &c. p. 316. (in edit. Balus.) and diligent inquiry, consulting the best and wisest men) could find but two ways of doing it; I (saith he) did always and from almost every one receive this answer, that if either I or any other would find out the frauds and avoid the snares of up-start Hereticks, Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omni­bus ferè retuli, quòd sive ego sive quis ali­us vellet exurgentium haereticorum frau­des deprehendere, laqueósque vitare, & in fide sana sanus atque integer perma­nere, duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet; Primò scili­cet, divinae legis Auctoritate, tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione. p. 317. and continue sound and up­right in the true Faith, he should guard and streng­then his Faith, God helping him, by these two means, viz. First by the Authority of the Divine Law, and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church. And again;Diximus in superioribus hanc fuisse semper & esse hodie Catholicorum consue­tudinem ut fidem veram duobus his mo­dis adprobent; Primùm divini Canonis Auctoritate, deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione. p. 364. We before have said, that this hath always been, and is at present the custome of Catholicks, that they prove their Faith by these two ways, First by Authority of the Divine Canon, then by the Traditi­on of the Vniversal Church.

Is it not strange that he (especially being a Western man, living in those parts, where the Pope had got much sway, and who doth express great reverence to the Apostolick See) should omit that way of deter­mining points, which of all, (according to the modern conceits a­bout the Pope) is most ready and most sure?

24. In like manner Tertullian professeth the Catholicks in his time to use such compendious methods of confuting Hereticks: We, (saith he) when we would dispatch against Hereticks for the Faith of the Gospel, His ferè compendiis utimur, quum de Evangelii fide adversus Haereticos expe­dimur, defendentibus & temporum ordi­nem posteritati falsariorum praescribentem, & Auctoritatem Ecclesiarum traditioni Apostolorum patrocinantem. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5. do commonly use these short ways, which do maintain both the order of times pre­scribing against the lateness of impostours, and the Authority of the Churches patronizing Apostolical tradition; Solemus haereticis compendii gratiâ de posteritate praescribere. Tertull. con­tra Hermog. cap. 1. but why did he skip over a more com­pendious way, than any of those, namely, standing to the judgment of the Roman Bishop?

25. It is true that both he, and St. Irenaeus before him, disputing a­gainst the Hereticks of their times, who had introduced pernicious no­velties of their own devising, when they alledge the general consent of Churches (planted by the Apo­stles,The like discourse against Here­ticks doth Clemens Alex. use Strom. 7. p. 549. and propagated by continual successions of Bi­shops from those whom the Apostles did ordain) in doctrines and practices opposite to those devices, as a good argument (and so indeed it then was, next to a demonstration) against them, do pro­duce the Roman Church, as a principal one among them, upon several obvious accounts; And this indeed argueth the Roman Church to have been then one competent witness, or credible retainer of tradition; as also were the other Apostolical Churches, to whose Testimony they likewise appeal; but what is this to the Roman Bishop's judicial Power in such cases? why do they not urge that in plain terms? they would cer­tainly have done so, if they had known it, and thought it of any validity.

[Page 119]Do but mark their words, involving the force of their argumentati­on; When (saith Irenaeus) we do again (after al­legation of Scripture) appeal to that tradition, Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditio­nem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per suc­cessores Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custo­ditur, provoc [...]mus— Iren. 3.2. which is from the Apostles, which by successions of Presbyters is preserved in the Churches: and, That (saith Tertullian) will appear to have been delive­red by the Apostles, Constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolicas fuerit sa­crosanctum; videamus quod lac à Paulo Corinthii hauserint; quid legant Philip­penses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii; quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent; quibus Evangelium & Petrus & Paulus san­guine quoque suo, signatum reliquerunt; habemus & Johannis alumnas Ecclesi­as, &c. Adv. Marc. 4.5. which hath been kept as holy in the Apostolical Churches: let us see what milk the Corinthians did draw from Paul; what the Philippi­ans, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians do reade: what also the Romans our nearer neighbours do say, to whom both Peter and Paul did leave the Gospel sealed with their Bloud; we have also the Churches nursed by John, &c. Again,Constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus & originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum, id sine dubio tenentem quod Ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus à Deo suscepit; reliquam verò doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam, quae sapiat contra veritatem Ecclesiarum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei. Tert. de praescr. 21. It is therefore mani­fest (saith he, in his Prescriptions against Hereticks) that every doctrine, which doth conspire with those Apostolical Churches, in which the Faith originally was planted, is to be accounted true; as undoubtedly holding that, which the Churches did receive from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God; but all other doctrine is to be prejudged false, which doth think against the truth of the Churches, and of the Apostles, and of Christ, and of God: their argumentation then in short is plainly this, that the conspiring of the Churches in doctrines contrary to those, which the Hereticks vented, did irrefragably signifie those doctrines to be Apostolical; which discourse doth no-wise favour the Roman preten­ces, but indeed, if we do weigh it, is very prejudicial thereto; it there­by appearing, that Christian Doctrines then in the canvasing of points and assuring tradition had no peculiar regard to the Roman Churche's testimonies, no deference at all to the Roman Bishop's Authority; (not otherwise at least than to the Authority of one single Bishop yielding at­testation to tradition.)

26. It is odd, that even old Popes themselves in elaborate tracts dis­puting against Hereticks (as Pope Celestine against Nestorius and Pela­gius, Pope Leo against Eutyches —) do content themselves to urge te­stimonies of Scripture, and arguments grounded thereon; not alled­ging their own definitive Authority, or using this parlous argumentati­on, I, the Supreme Doctour of the Church and Judge of controversies, do assert thus; and therefore you are obliged to submit your assent.

27. It is matter of amazement, if the Pope were such as they would have him to be, that in so many bulky Volumes of ancient Fathers, li­ving through many ages after Christ, in those vast treasuries of learning and knowledge, wherein all sorts of truth are displayed, all sorts of duty are pressed; this momentous point of doctrine and practice should nowhere be expressed in clear and peremptory terms; (I speak so, for that by wresting words, by impertinent application, by streining con­sequences the most ridiculous positions imaginable may be deduced from their Writings.)

It is strange that somewhere or other, at least incidentally, in their Commentaries upon the Scripture, wherein many places concerning the Church and its Hierarchy do invite to speak of the Pope; in their Treatises about the Priesthood, about the Unity and Peace of the Church, about [Page 120] Heresie and Schism; in their Epistles concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs; in their Historical narrations about occurrences in the Church, in their concertations with heterodox adversaries, they should not frequently touch it, they should not sometimes largely dwell upon it.

Is it not marvellous, that Origen, St. Hilary, St. Cyril, St. Chryso­stome, St. Hierome, St. Austin, in their Commentaries and Tractates upon those places of Scripture [Tu es Petrus. Pasce oves.] whereon they now build the Papal Authority, should be so dull and drowsie as not to say a word concerning the Pope?

That St. Austin in his so many elaborate Tractates against the Dona­tists, (wherein he discourseth so prolixly about the Church, its Unity, Communion, Discipline) should never insist upon the duty of Obedi­ence to the Pope, or charge those Schismaticks with their rebellion a­gainst him, or alledge his Authority against them?

If we consider that the Pope was Bishop of the Imperial City, the Metropolis of the World; that he thence was most eminent in rank, did abound in wealth, did live in great splendour and reputation; had ma­ny dependences, and great opportunities to gratify, and relieve ma­ny of the Clergy; that of the Fathers, whose Volumes we have, all well affected towards him, divers were personally obliged to him, for his sup­port in their distress (as Athanasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret,) or as to their Patrons and Benefactours (as St. Hierome:) divers could not but highly respect him as Patron of the cause wherein they were engaged (as Basil, Gregory Nazianzene, Hilary, Gregory Nyssene, Ambrose, Au­stin:) some were his partizans in a common quarrel (as Cyril:) divers of them lived in places and times wherein he had got much sway, (as all the Western Bishops:) that he had then improved his Authority much beyond the old limits: that all the Bishops of the Western or La­tine Churches had a peculiar dependence on him (especially after that by advantage of his Station, by favour of the Court, [...]. Socr. 7.11. The Bishoprick of Rome is like to that of Alexandria, having now long agoe arrived to that height of Power above and beyond the Priesthood. by colour of the Sardican Canons, by vo­luntary deferences and submissions, by several tricks he had wound himself to meddle in most of their chief Affairs:) that hence divers Bishops were temp­ted to admire, to court, to flatter him; that divers aspiring Popes were apt to encourage the commen­ders of their Authority which they themselves were apt to magnifie and inculcate; considering, I say, such things, it is a wonder, that in so ma­ny voluminous discourses so little should be said favouring this pretence, so nothing that proveth it, [so much that crosseth it, so much indeed (as I hope to shew) that quite overthroweth it.]

If it be asked how we can prove this; I answer, that (beside who carefully peruseth those old Books, will easily see it) we are beholden to our Adversaries for proving it to us, when they least intended us such a favour; for that no clear and cogent passages for proof of this pre­tence can be thence fetched, is sufficiently evident from the very allega­tions, which after their most diligent raking in old Books they pro­duce; the which are so few, and fall so very short of their purpose, that without much stretching they signifie nothing.

28. It is monstrous, that in the Code of the Catholick Church (con­sisting of the decrees of so many Synods, concerning Ecclesiastical or­der and discipline) there should not be one Canon directly declaring his [Page 121] Authority; nor any mention made of him, except thrice accidentally; once upon occasion of declaring the Authority of the Alexandrine Bi­shop,Conc. Nic. Can. 6. Conc. Const. Can. 2. Conc. Chalc. Can. 28. the other upon occasion of assigning to the Bishop of Constanti­nople the second place of honour, and equal privileges with him.

If it be objected, that these discourses are negative, and therefore of small force; I answer, that therefore they are most proper to assert such a negative proposition; for how can we otherwise better shew a thing not to be, than by shewing it to have no footstep there, where it is suppo­sed to stand? how can we more clearly argue a matter of right to want proof, than by declaring it not to be extant in the Laws grounding such right; not taught by the Masters, who profess to instruct in such things; not testifyed in records concerning the exercise of it? such arguments indeed in such cases are not merely negative, but rather privative; pro­ving things not to be, because not affirmed there, where in reason they ought to be affirmed; standing therefore upon positive Suppositions, that Holy Scripture, that general tradition are not imperfect and lame toward their design; that ancient Writers were competently intelligent, faithfull, diligent; that all of them could not conspire in perpetual si­lence about things, of which they had often fair occasion, and great reason to speak: In fine, such considerations, however they may be deluded by Sophistical Wits, will yet bear great sway, and often will amount near to the force of demonstration, with men of honest pru­dence. However we shall proceed to other discourses more direct and positive against the Popish Doctrine.

II. Secondly, we shall shew that this pretence, upon several accounts, is contrary to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture.

1. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture, by assigning to an­other the prerogatives and peculiar Titles appropriated therein to our Lord.

The Scripture asserteth him to be our onely Sovereign Lord and King: To us (saith it) there is one Lord; and, One King shall be King over them;1 Cor. 8.6.12.5. Eph. 4.5. Ezek. 37.22. Luke 1.33. 1 Tim. 6.15. Jam. 4.12. 1 Pet. 5.4.2.25. Heb. 13.20. Ezek. 34.23. who shall reign over the house of David for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end; who is the onely Potentate; the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; the One Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy.

The Scripture speaketh of one Arch-Pastour and great Shepherd of the Sheep; exclusively to any other; for I will (said God in the Pro­phet) set up one Shepherd over them; and he shall feed the Sheep: and There (saith our Lord himself) shall be one Fold, and one Shepherd; who that shall be, he expresseth adding, I am the good Shepherd; Joh. 10.16.11.14. Extrav. Com. lib. 1. tit. 8. cap. 1. Heb. 3.1. Heb. 9.7, 24. the good Shepherd giveth his life for the Sheep, (by Pope Boniface his good leave, who maketh Saint Peter or himself this Shepherd.)

The Scripture telleth us, that we have one High-Priest of our Professi­on, answerable to that one in the Jewish Church, his Type.

The Scripture informeth us, that there is but one Supreme Doctour, Guide, Father of Christians, prohibiting us to acknowledge any other for such; Ye are all Brethren; and call ye not any one Father upon Earth; Matth. 23.8, 9. for one is your Father, even he that is in Heaven; Neither be ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. Good Pope Gregory (not the seventh of that name) did take this for a good argument; for What therefore, dearest Brother, Quid ergò, frater charissime, in illo terribili examine venientis judicis dictu­rus es, qui non solum Pater, sed etiam ge­neralis Pater in Mundo vocari appetis? Greg. M. Epist. 4.38. (said he to John of Constantinople) wilt thou say in [Page 122] that terrible trial of the Judge who is coming; who dost affect to be called not onely Father, but General Father in the World.

Eph. 2.20.The Scripture representeth the Church as a building whereof Christ himself is the chief Corner-stone;1 Pet. 2.4. as a Family, whereof he being the Pa­ter-familias, as all others are fellow-servants; as one Body, Heb. 3.6. Matt. 10.25. Eph. 4.4.2.16. Rom. 12.5. 1 Cor. 12.13. Eph. 1.22.4.15.5.23. Col. 1.18. Hos. 1.11. One Head. having one Head; whom God hath gi­ven to be Head over all things to the Church, which is his Body.

He is the One Spouse of the Church; which title one would think he might leave peculiar to our Lord;Joh. 3.29. Eph. 5.23. 2 Cor. 11.2. [...]. there being no Vice-husbands; yet hath he been bold even to claim that;Sext. Decret. lib. 1. tit. 6. cap. 3. as may be seen in the Constit. of Pope Greg. X. in one of their General Synods.

It seemeth therefore a Sacrilegious arrogance (derrogating from our Lord's Honour) for any man to assume or admit those Titles of Sove­reign of the Church, Baron. A. 34. § 208. Head of the Church, our Lord, Arch-Pastour, High­est-Priest, Chief Doctour, Master, Father, Judge of Christians; upon what pretence, or under what distinction soever: these pompatick, Vid. Greg. I. Epist. lib. 4. Ep. 32, 34, 36, 38, 39. lib. 6. Ep. 24, 28, 30, 31. lib. 7. Epist. 70. foolish, proud, perverse, wicked, profane words; these names of singularity, elation, vanity, blasphemy; (to borrow the Epithets with which Pope Gregory I. doth brand the Titles of Vniversal Bishop, and Oecumenical Patriarch, no less modest in sound, and far more innocent in meaning, than those now ascribed to the Pope) are therefore to be re­jected; not onely because they are injurious to all other Pastours, and to the People of God's heritage; but because they do encroach upon our onely Lord, to whom they do onely belong; much more to usurp the things, which they do naturally signifie, is a horrible invasion upon our Lord's Prerogative.

Thus hath that great Pope taught us to argue, in words expressly condemning some, and consequently all of them, together with the things which they signifie: What (saith he, writing to the Bishop of Constantinople, who had admitted the title of Vniversal Bishop or Pa­triarch) wilt thou say to Christ the Head of the V­niversal Church, Tu quid Christo Vniversalis Ecclesiae capiti in extremi judicii dicturus exa­mine, qui cuncta ejus Membra tibimet coneris Vniversalis appellatione supponere? quis rogo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo ni si ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui de­spectis Angelorum Legionibus secum socia­liter constitutis ad culmen conatus est sin­gularitatis erumpere, ut & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus praeesse videretur: qui etiam dixit, In coelum conscendam, super astra coeli exaltabo solium meum — quid enim fratres tui omnes Vniversalis Ecclesiae Episcopi, nisi astra coeli sunt? quibus dum cupis temetipsum vocabulo ela­tionis praeponere, eorúmque nomen tui com­paratione calcare — Greg. Ep. 4.38. in the trial of the last judgment, who by the appellation of VNIVERSAL dost endeavour to subject all his Members to thee? whom I pray dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but him who despising the Legions of Angels constituted in fellowship with him, did endeavour to break forth unto the top of Singularity, that he might both be subject to none, and alone be over all? who also said, I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars — for what are thy brethren all the Bishops of the Vniversal Church, but the stars of heaven; to whom while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thy self, and to trample on their name in comparison to thee, what dost thou say, but I will climb into heaven? —

Jactantiam sumpsit ità ut universa si­bi tentet adscribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent, vid [...]licet Christo, per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare. Greg. M. Ep. 4.36. The same words we have in the E­pistle of P. Pelagius (predecessour of St. Gregory) to the Bishops of Constan­tinople (P. Pelagii Ep. 8.)And again in another Epistle to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he taxeth the same Patri­arch [Page 123] for assuming to boast, so that he attempteth to ascribe all things to himself, and studieth by the e­lation of pompous speech to subject to himself all the members of Christ, which do cohere to One Sole Head, namely, to Christ.

Again, I confidently say, that whoever doth call himself Universal Bi­shop, or desireth to be so called, doth in his elation forerun Antichrist, Ego autem fi­denter dico, quia quisquis se V [...]versa­lem Sacerdo­tem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. (Greg. I. lib. 6. Ep. 30.) Nec dispari superbiâ ad errorem ducitur; quia sicut perversus ille Deus videri vult super omnes homines; ità quisquis est, qui solus Sacerdos appellari appetit, super caeteros Sacerdotes se extollit. (ad Mauric. Aug.) be­cause he pridingly doth set himself before all others.

If these argumentations be sound or signifie any thing, what is the pre­tence of Vniversal Sovereignty and Pastourship, but a piece of Luciferian arrogance? who can imagine, that even this Pope could approve, could assume, could exercise it? if he did, was he not monstrously senseless and above measure impudent to use such discourses, which so plainly, without altering a word, might be retorted upon him; which are built upon suppositions that it is unlawfull and wicked to assume Superiority over the Church, over all Bishops, over all Christians; the which in­deed (seeing never Pope was of greater repute, or did write in any case more solemnly and seriously) have given to the pretences of his Succes­sours so deadly a wound, that no balm of Sophistical interpretation can be able to heal it.

We see that according to St. Gregory M. our Lord Christ is the one one­ly Head of the Church;Vide P. Pelag. Ep. 3. to whom for company let us adjoin St. Basil M. (that we may have both Greek and Latin for it,) who saith, that (ac­cording to Saint Paul) we are the body of Christ and members one of ano­ther, because it is manifest, that the one and sole truly head, [...]. Bas. M. de Jud. div. Tom. 2. p. 261. Totus Christus Caput & Corpus est; Caput unigenitus Dei Filius, & corpus ejus Ecclesiae, Sponsus & Sponsa, duo in carne una. Quicunque de ipso Capite ab Scripturis Sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia, &c. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 4. Vid. contra Petil. 3.42. Whole Christ is the Head and the Body; the Head the onely-begotten Son of God, and his Body the Church, the Bridegroom and the Spouse, two in one flesh. Whoever disagree about the Head it self from the Holy Scrip­tures though they are found in all places, in which the Church is design'd, they are not in the Church, &c. It was unhappily expressed by Bellarmine — Ecclesia secluso etiam Christo unum Caput habere debet. De Pont. R. 1.9. §. Ac nè forté. The Church, even Christ himself being set aside, ought to have one Head. which is Christ, doth hold and connect each one to another unto concord.

To decline these allegations of Scripture, they have forged distincti­ons, of several kinds of Churches, and several sorts of Heads; the which evasions I shall not particularly discourse, seeing it may suffice to observe in general, that no such distinctions have any place or any ground in Scripture; nor can well consist with it; which simply doth represent the Church as one Kingdom, a Kingdom of Heaven, Joh. 18.36. Phil. 3.20. Heb. 12.22. a King­dom not of this world; all the Subjects whereof have their [...] in heaven, or are considered as members of a City there; so that it is vain to seek for a Sovereign thereof in this world; the which also doth to the Catholick Church sojourning on earth usually impart the name and attri­butes properly appertaining to the Church most universal (comprehensive of all Christians in heaven and upon earth) because that is a visible repre­sentative of this,Act. 20.28. Matt. 16.18. 1 Cor. 12.28.15.9. Gal. 1.13. and we by joining in offices of piety with that do communicate with this; whence that which is said of one (concerning [Page 124] the Unity of its King, its Head, its Pastour, its Priest) is to be under­stood of the other; especially considering that our Lord, according to his promise,Matt. 28.20. Christus arbi­tri [...] & nutu ac praesentiâ suâ & praepo­sitos ipsos, & Ecclesiam cum praepositis gubern [...]. Cypr. Ep. 69. Christ by his own arbitrement and power and pre­sence governs both the Bishops themselves, and the Church with the Bishops. is ever present with the Church here, governing it by the efficacy of his Spirit and Grace, so that no other corporeal or visible Head of this Spiritual Body is needfull.

It was to be sure a visible Headship, which St. Gregory did so eagerly impugn and exclaim against; for he could not apprehend the Bishop of Constantinople so wild, as to affect a Jurisdiction over the Church mysti­cal or invisible.

2. Indeed upon this very account the Romish pretence doth not well accord with Holy Scripture,Joh. 18.36. because it transformeth the Church into another kind of Body, than it was constituted by God, according to the representation of it in Scripture; for there it is represented as a spiritual and heavenly Society,Eph. 4.4, 5. 2 Cor. 10.4. compacted by the bands of one faith, one hope, one Spirit of Charity; but this pretence turneth it into a worldly frame; united by the same bands of interest and design, managed in the same manner,Caput no­strum, quod Christus est, ad hoc sua es­se membra nos voluit, ut per compagem charitatis & fidei unum nos in se corpus efficeret. Greg. M. Ep. 7.111. Our Head, which is Christ, would therefore have us to be his members, that by the conjuction of charity and faith he might make us to be one body. by terrour and allurement, supported by the same props of force, of policy, of wealth, of reputation and splendour, as all other secular Corporations are.

You may call it what you please, but it is evident that in truth the Papal Monarchy is a temporal Dominion, driving on worldly ends by worldly means; such as our Lord did never mean to institute; so that the Subjects thereof may with far more reason, than the People of Con­stantinople had, when their Bishop Nestorius did stop some of their Priests from contradicting him, say [...]. Conc. Eph. part. cap. 30. We have a King, a Bishop we have not; so that upon every Pope we may charge that, whereof Anthimus was accused, in the Synod of Constantinople, [...], &c. Conc. sub Men. Act. 1. pag. 9. under Menas; that he did account the greatness and dignity of the Priest­hood to be not a spiritual charge of souls, but as a kind of politick rule.

This was that, which seeming to be affected by the Bishop of Anti­och, in encroachment upon the Church of Cyprus, the Fathers of the Ephesine Synod did endeavour to nipp; enacting a Canon against all such invasions, [...]. Con. Eph. 1. Can. 8. lest under pretext of holy discipline the pride of worldly authority should creep in; This was that which, about the same time the Fathers of the African. Synod do request P. Celestine to forbear; —nec permittere, ut sumosum mundi fa­stum Christi Ecclesiae inducere videamur. Conc. Afr. ad P. Celest. 1. and what pride of that kind could they mean beyond that which now the Popes do claim and exercise? Now, do I say, after that the Papal Empire hath swollen to such a 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, [...]. Socr. 7.11. that the Roman Episcopacy had long since advanced into a high degree of power beyond the Priesthood.

[Page 125]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, Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive Thanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem & Sacerdotii; potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humi­litas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Epis­copum non facit; caeterùm omnes Apostolo­rum Successores sunt. Hier. Ep. 85. (ad Evagr.) 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,Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe; Vbicunque, &c. 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,Illud appetunt unde omnibus digniores videantur. Gr. Ep. 4.34. Quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. Ep. 6.38. Super caeteros Sacerdotes se extollit. Ib. Cupis Episcoporum nomen tui compara­tione calcare. Ep. 4.38. Cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris supponere. Ib. 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, (Invigiletur ergò ut omnibus co-Epis­copis nostris & fratribus innotescat. P. Corn. apud Cyp. Ep. 48.) 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,Hic non tam optamus prae­poni aliis, (sicut praedi­cas) quàm cum fidelibus cunctis sanctum & Deo placitum habere consortium. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. (ad Euphem. Ep. CP.) Here we do not so much desire to be advanced above others, as together with all the faithfull to make up a consort holy and well-pleasing to God. 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.—Vobis sub­trahitur, quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit praebetur. Greg. 7.30. (p. 451.) What is yielded to another more than reason requires, is taken from you. [...]. Syn. Eph. I. Can. 8. A thing that entrencheth upon the freedom of all others.

[Page 126]For to each Church our Lord hath imposed a Duty, and imparted a Power of maintaining divine Truth,Apoc. 2. & 3. 1 Tim. 3.15. Matt. 18.17. [...]. &c. [...]; 1 Cor. 5.12. [...]— Vid. v. 4.5. Apoc. 2.20. 1 Cor. 14.40. 1 Thess. 5.14. Rom. 14.19. 1 Cor. 6.1— 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, Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 5.2. 1 Tim. 3.15. Tit. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Apoc. 2, &c. Eph. 4.12. Heb. 13.17. 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,Dei & Apo­stolicae sedis gratiâ. Vid. post. Superbum nimis est & immoderatum ultra fines proprios tendere, & antiquitate calcatâ alienum jus velle praeripere, atque ut unius crescat digni­tas, tot Metropolitanorum impugnare primatus, &c. P. Leo I. Ep. 55. 'Tis too proud and unreasonable a thing for one to stretch himself beyond his bounds, and maugre all antiquity to snatch away other mens right, and that the dignity of one may be enhanced, to oppose the primacies of so ma­ny Metropolitans. 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.

Sanctae Ecclesiae universali injuriam fa­cit. Greg. I. Ep. 4.32. It does wrong to the Holy Catholick Church. Plebis Majestas. Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Corn. P.) p. 117.5. 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.

Gal. 5.1.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:Gal. 5.1. Coloss. 2.16, 18. (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 [Page 127] 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.P. Leo I. Ep. 28.

This is a Power, which the Apostles themselves did not challenge to themselves, for We (saith Saint Paul) have not dominion over your faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. 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.1 Cor. 10.1 [...].7.12, 25, 40.

They say,Gal. 1.8. 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 to a Donatist his Adversary, citing the Authority of St. Cyprian against him, he thus re­plieth;Nunc vero quoniam Canonicum non est quod recitas, ea libertate ad quam nos vocavit Dominus, ejus viri, cujus lau­dem consequi non valeo, cujus multis lite­ris Scripta mea non comparo, cujus ingeni­um diligo, cujus ore dilector, cujus chari­tatem miror, cujus martyrium veneror, hoc quod aliter sapuit non accipio. Aug. contr. Cresc. 2.32. But now seeing it is not Canonical which thou recitest, with that liberty to which the Lord hath cal­led us, I do not receive the opinion, differing from Scripture, of that man whose praise I cannot reach, to whose great learning I do not compare my writings, whose wit I love, in whose speech I delight, whose cha­rity I admire, whose martyrdom I reverence.

This Liberty, not onely the Ancients, but even divers Popes have ac­knowledged to belong to every Christian; as we shall hereafter shew, when we shall prove, that we may lawfully reject the Pope, as a Patron of Errour and Iniquity.

6. It particularly doth thwart Scripture by wronging Princes in ex­empting a numerous sort of People from subjection to their Laws, and Judicatures; whereas by God's Ordination and express Command every soul is subject to them; not excepting the Popes themselves;Rom. 13.1. (in the opinion of St. Chrysostome, except they be greater than any Apostle.)

By pretending to govern the Subjects of Princes without their leave; to make Laws, without his permission or confirmation; to cite his Sub­jects out of their Territories, &c. which are encroachments upon the Rights of God's unquestionable Ministers.

III. Farther, because our Adversaries do little regard any allegation of Scripture against them (pretending themselves to be the onely Masters of its sense or of common sense, Judges and Interpreters of them) we do alledge against them, that this pretence doth also cross Tradition, and the common Doctrine of the Fathers. For,

1. Common usage and practice is a good interpreter of Right; and that sheweth no such Right was known in the Primitive Church—

2. Indeed the state of the Primitive Church did not admit it.

[Page 128]3. The Fathers did suppose no Order in the Church, by original Right or divine Institution superiour to that of a Bishop; whence they commonly did style a Bishop the Highest Priest, [...], &c. Const. Apost. 8.46. and Episcopacy the top of Ecclesiastical Orders.

Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacer­dos qui est Episcopus. Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. The chief Priest (saith Tertullian) that is the Bishop, hath the right of giving baptism.

Licèt enim & Presbyteri faciant, ta­men exordium Ministerii est à summo Sa­cerdote. Ambr. de Sacr. 3.1. Suscepisti gubernacula summi Sacerdotii. Id. Ep. 5. Although (saith St. Ambrose) the Presbyters also do it, yet the beginning of the Ministery is from the highest Priest.

Apices & Principes omnium Sacerdotes. Opt. 1. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet. Hier. c. Lucif. 4. The safety of the Church depends upon the dignity of the High-priest. Ego dignus summo Sacerdotio decernebar. Id Ep. 99. (ad Asell.) In Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est Princeps Sacerdotum, & Propheta & Evangelista, & caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in ministerio fidelium. Ambros. in Eph. 4.11. In the Bishop there are all Orders, because he is the first Priest, (i. e.) the Prince of Priests, and Pro­phet and Evangelist, and all other Offices of the Church, to be fulfilled in the ministery of the faithfull. Optatus calleth Bishops the tops and Princes of all.

The Divine Order of Bishops (saith Dionysius) is the first of Divine Orders; [...], &c. supr. Pontifex princeps Sacerdotum est, quasi via sequentium; Ipse & summus Sacerdos, ipse & Pontifex maximus nuncupatur. Isid. Hisp. apud Grat. dist. 21. cap. 1. the same being also the extreme and last of them; for into it all the frame of our Hierarchy is resolved and accom­plished.

This language is common even among Popes themselves, complying with the speech then current; for, Presbyters (saith Pope Innocent I.) although they are Priests, Nam Presby­teri, licèt sint Sacerdotes, pontificatûs tamen apicem non habent. P. Innoc. I. Ep. 1. (ad Decent.) —dum facilè imponuntur manus, dum negligenter summus Sacerdos eligitur. Id Ep. 12. (ad Aurel.) yet have they not the top of High priesthood.

No man (saith P. Zosimus I.) against the precepts of the Fathers should presume to aspire to the highest Priesthood of the Church. Nè quis contra Patrum praecepta— ad summum Ecclesiae Sacerdotium aspirare praesumeret. P. Zoz. I. Ep. 1. (ad Hesych.)

Ideóque id quod tantùm facere Princi­pibus Sacer­dotum jussum est, quorum [...]ypum Moses & Aaron te­nuerunt, om­nino decretum est, ut Chorepiscopi vel Presbyteri qui filiorum Aaron gestant figuram, arripere non praesumant. P. Leo. Ep. 88. Pontificatus apicem non habent. Ibid. Vid. Ep. 84. cap. 5. S. Hier. ad Evagr. Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumpt [...]s de veteri Testamento, Quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri & diaconi vendicant in Ecclesia. Or. 19. p. 309. It is decreed (saith Pope Leo I.) that the Chorepiscopi or Presbyters, who figure the sons of Aaron, shall not presume to snatch that, which the Princes of the Priests (whom Moses and Aaron did typifie) are commanded to doe. (Note by the way, that seeing according to this Pope's mind (after St. Hierome) Moses and Aaron did in the Jewish Policy represent Bishops, there was none there to prefigure the Pope.)

In those days the Bishop of Nazianzum (a petty Town in Cappadocia) was an High-priest (so Gre­gory calleth his Father.A Bishop called [...]. Apost. Const. 8.10, 12. Summus Christi Pontifex Augustinus. (Paulin. apud Aug. Ep. 36.) Aug. Ep. 35. Beatissimo Papae Augustino. Hieron. (Aug. Ep. 11, 13, 14, &c.) Optamus te beatiss. & gloriosissime Pa­pa in Domino semper valere. Ep. 31.) And the Bishop of a poor City in Africk is styled Sovereign Pontif of Christ, most blessed Father, most blessed Pope; and the very Roman Clergy doth call St. Cyprian, most blessed and glorious Pope; which Titles the Pope doth now so charily reserve and appropriate to himself.

[Page 129]But innumerable Instances of this kind might be produced; I shall onely therefore add two other passages, which seem very observable, to the enforcement of this discourse.

St. Hierome, reprehending the discipline of the Montanists hath these words,Apud nos Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, apud eos Episcopus tertius est; habent enim primos de Pepusa Phrygiae Patriarchas, secundos quos appellant Ce­nones; atque ità in tert [...]m, id est plenè ultimum locum Episcopi devolvuntur; quasi exindè ambitiosior religio fiat, si quod apud nos primum est, apud illos no­vissimum sit. Hier. (ad Marcellam.) Ep. 54. With us the Bishops do hold the places of the Apostles; with them, a Bishop is in the third place; for they have for the first rank the Patriarchs of Pepusa in Phrygia; for the second those whom they call Cenones; so are Bishops thrust down into the third, that is almost the last place; as if thence Religion became more stately, if that which is first with us, be the last with them: Now doth not St. Hierome here affirm that every Bishop hath the place of an Apo­stle, and the first rank in the Church? doth not he tax the advance­ment of any Order above this? may not the Popish Hierarchy most patly be compared to that of the Montanists, and is it not equally liable to the censure of St. Hierome? doth it not place the Roman Pope in the first place, and the Cardinals in the second, detruding the Bishops into a third place? Could the Pepusian Patriarch, or his Cenones either more over-top in dignity, or sway by power over Bishops, than doth the Ro­man Patriarch and his Cardinals?

Again St. Cyprian telleth Pope Cornelius, that in Episcopacy doth re­side the sublime and divine power of governing the Church; it being the sublime top of the Priesthood: —actum est de Episcopatûs vigore, & de Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi, ac divina potestate. Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad P. Cornel.) Non iste ad Episcopatum subitò perve­nit, sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, & in divinis administrationi­bus Dominum saepe promeritus, ad Sacer­dotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit. Cypr. Ep. 52. He (saith the Blessed man concerning Pope Corne­lius) did not suddenly arrive to Episcopacy, but be­ing through all Ecclesiastical Offices promoted, and ha­ving in divine administrations often merited of God, did by all the steps of Religion mount to the sublimest pitch of Priesthood; where it is visible, that St. Cy­prian doth not reckon the Papacy, but the Episcopacy of Cornelius to be that top of Priesthood, (above which there was nothing eminent in the Church) unto which he passing through the inferiour degrees of the Clergy had attained.

In fine, it cannot well be conceived, that the Ancients constantly would have spoken in this manner, if they had allowed the Papal Office to be such, as now it doth bear it self; the which indeed is an Order no less distant from Episcopacy, than the rank of a King differeth from that of the meanest Baron in his Kingdom.

Neither is it prejudicial to this Discourse (or to any preceding) that in the Primitive Church there were some distinctions and subordinations of Bishops (as of Patriarchs, The Africans had a particular care, that this Primacy should not degene­rate into tyranny. Primates, Metropolitans, common Bishops) for,

These were according to prudence constituted by the Church it self for the more orderly and peaceable administration of things.

These did not import such a difference among the Bishops, that one should domineer over others to the infringing of primitive fraternity, or common liberty: but a precedence in the same rank, with some mode­rate advantages for the common good.

These did stand under Authority of the Church; and might be chan­ged, or corrected as was found expedient by common agreement.

[Page 130]By virtue of these the Superiours of this kind could doe nothing over their subordinates in an arbitrary manner, but ac­cording to the regulation of Canons,Conc. Ant. Can. 9. Vid. Apost. Can. 34. Conc. Carth. apud Cypr. Cod. Asr. Can. 39. Nestorius, Dioscorus, [...]. Euseb. 8.1. So Eusebius complaineth of the Bi­shops in his time— So Isidor. Pelusiot. Ep. 20.125.4.219. established by consent in Synods; by which their influence was amplified or curb'd.

When any of these did begin to domineer, or ex­ceed his limits, he was liable to account, and cor­rection; he was exclaimed against as tyrannical.

When Primates did begin to swell and encroach, good men declared their displeasure at it, and wished it removed; as is known particularly by the famous wish of [...]. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. O that there were not at all any Presidency, or any preference in place, and tyrannical prerogative. Gregory Nazianzene.

But we are discoursing against a Superiority of a different nature, which soundeth it self in the Institution of Christ, imposeth it self on the Church,So Socrates of the Bishop (not one­ly of Rome, but) Alexandria. lib. 7. cap. 11. So St. Chrysostome in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Ep. Orat. 11. So Greg. Naz. complained of [...]. Ibid. is not alterable or governable by it, can endure no check or controll; pretendeth to be endowed with an absolute power to act without, or against the consent of the Church, is limited by no certain bounds but its own pleasure, &c.

IV. Farther this pretence may be impugned, by many Arguments springing from the nature and reason of things abstractedly considered; according to which the exercise of such an Authority may appear un­practicable without much iniquity, and great inconvenience, in preju­dice to the rights of Christian States and People, to the interests of Re­ligion and Piety, to the peace and welfare of Mankind; whence it is to be rejected as a pest of Christendom.

1. Whereas all the world in design and obligation is Christian; (the utmost parts of the earth being granted in possession to our Lord;Psal. 2.8. Col. 1.23. Luke 24.47. Matt. 28.19. and his Gospel extending to every creature under heaven) and may in effect be­come such, when God pleaseth, by acceptance of the Gospel: whereas it may easily happen, that the most distant places on the Earth may em­brace Christianity: whereas really Christian Churches have been and are dispersed all about the World; it is thence hugely incommodious, that all the Church should depend upon an Authority resident in one Place, and to be managed by one Person: the Church being such, is too immense, boundless, uncircumscribed, unweildy a bulk to be guided by the inspection, or managed by the influence of one such Authority or Person.

If the whole World were reduced under the Government of one Civil Monarch, it would necessarily be ill governed, as to Policy, to Justice, to Peace: The skirts or remoter parts from the Metropolis or centre of the Government would extremely suffer thereby; for they would feel little light or warmth from Majesty shining at such a distance: They would live under small awe of that Power, which was so far out of sight: They must have very difficult recourse to it for redress of grievances, and relief of oppressions; for final decision of causes and composure of differences; for correction of offences, and dispensation of justice, upon good information, with tolerable expedition: It would be hard to pre­serve [Page 131] peace or quell seditions, and suppress insurrections that might arise in distant quarters.

What man could obtain the knowledge or experience needfull skilful­ly and justly to give Laws, or administer Judgment to so many Nations different in Humour, in Language, in Customs? What mind of man, what industry, what leisure could serve to sustain the burthen of that care, which is needfull to the weilding such an Office?Cùm tot susti­nea [...], & tanta negotia so­lus, &c. Hor. Ep. 2.1. How and when should one man be able to receive all the addresses, to weigh all the ca­ses, to make all the resolutions and dispatches requisite for such a charge? If the burthen of one small Kingdom be so great, that wise and good Princes do grown under its weight, what must that be of all Mankind? To such an extent of Government there must be allowed a Majesty, and power correspondent, the which cannot be committed to one hand, without its degeneration into extreme Tyranny. The words of Zosimus to this purpose are observable; who saith, that the Romans by admitting Augustus Caesar to the Government, did doe very perillously; for, [...], &c. Zos. Hist. 1. (p. 4. Steph.) If he should chuse to manage the Government rightly and justly, he would not be capable of applying himself to all things as were fit; not being able to succour those, who do lie at greatest distance; nor could he find so many Magistrates, as would not be ashamed to defeat the opinion conceived of them; nor could he sute them to the differences of so many manners: Or, if transgressing the bounds of Royalty, he should warp to Tyranny, disturbing the Magistracies, overlooking misdemeanours, bartering right for money, holding the Subjects for slaves (such as most Emperours, or rather near all have been, few ex­cepted) then it is quite necessary, that the brutish Authority of the Prince should be a publick calamity, for then flatterers being by him dignifyed with gifts and honours do invade the greatest commands; and those who are mo­dest and quiet, not affecting the same life with them, are consequently dis­pleased, not enjoying the same advantages; so that from hence Cities are filled with seditions and troubles. And the Civil and Military employments being delivered up to avaritious persons do both render a peaceable life sad and grievous to men of better disposition, and do enfeeble the resolution of Souldiers in war.

Hence St. Austin was of opinion, that it were happy for mankind, Felicioribus sic rebus hu­manis [...]mnia Regna parva essent, concordi vicinitate laetantia. Aug. de Civ. D. 4.15. [...]. Arist. Pol. 7.4. There is a certain measure of greatness fit for Cities and Commonwealths, as well as for all other things, Living Creatures, Plants, Instruments, for every one of these hath its proper virtue and faculty, when it is neither very little, not yet exceeds in bigness. [...]; Ibid. For who would be a Captain of an excessive huge multitude, &c. if all Kingdoms were small, enjoying a peacefull neighbourhood.

It is commonly observed by Historians,Suis & ipsa Roma viribus ruit. Hor. Ep. 16. —quae ab exiguis initiis creverit ut, jam magnitudine laboret sua. Liv. I. Ac nescio an satius fuerit populo Roma­no Sicilia & Africa contentos fuisse, aut his etiam ipsis carere dominanti in Italia sua, quàm eo magnitudinis crescere, ut viribus suis conficeretur. Flor. 3.12. Tunc jam Roma subjugaverat Africam, subjugaverat Graciam, latéque etiam aliis partibus imperans tanquam seip­sam ferre non valent, se sua quodammodo magnitudine fregerat. Aug. de Civ. D. 18.45. Tac. Hist. 2. p. 476. that Rome growing in bigness, did labour therewith, and was not able to support it self; many distempers and disorders springing up in so vast a body, which did throw it into continual pangs, and at length did bring it to ruine: for Then (saith St. Austin concerning the times of Pompey) Rome had subdued Africk, it had subdued Greece; and widely also ru­ling over other parts, as not able to bear it self did in a manner by its own greatness break it self.

[Page 132]Hence that wise Prince Augustus Caesar did himself forbear to enlarge the Roman Dominion, [...]. Dion. lib. 56. Tac. Ann. 1. He advised them to be content with what they had, and by no means to endeavour the enlargement of their Empire, for, said he, it will be hardly kept; and this he himself observ'd not in word onely, but in deed: for when he might have gotten more from the barbarous Nations, yet he would not. Ipsa nocet moles, utinam remeare liceret Ad veteres fines, & moenia pauperis Anci, &c. Clau. de bello Gildon. and did in his Testament advise the Senate to doe the like.

To the like inconveniences (and much greater in its kind; Temporal things being more easily ordered than Spiritual, and having secular Au­thority, great advantages of power and wealth to aid it self) must the Church be obnoxious, if it were subjected to the government of one So­vereign, unto whom the maintenance of Faith, the potection of Disci­pline, the determination of Controversies, the revision of Judgments, the discussion and final decision of Causes upon appeal, the suppression of disorders and factions, the inspection over all Governours, the correc­tion of Misdemeanours, the constitution, relaxation and abolition of Laws, the resolution of all matters concerning Religion and the publick State, in all Countries must be referred.

[...]; what Shoulders can bear such a charge with­out perpetual miracle? (and yet we do not find that the Pope hath any promise of miraculous assistence, nor in his demeanour doth appear any mark thereof:) what mind would not the care of so many affairs utter­ly distract, and overwhelm? who could find time to cast a glance on each of so numberless particulars? what sagacity of wit,The Synod of Basil doth well describe the duty of a Pope, but it is infinitely hard to practise it in any measure. (Conc. Bas. Sess. 23. p. 64. &c.—) what variety of learning, what penetrancy of judgment, what strength of memory, what in­defatigable vigour of industry, what abundance of experience would suffice for enabling one man to weigh exactly all the controversies of Faith, and cases of Discipline per­petually starting up in so many Regions?

What reach of skill and ability would serve for 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?Exod. 18.18. 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,P. Alex. II. (Epist. ad Ger. Rhem.) Bin. p. 284. 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.

[Page 133]If it be said that Saint Paul testifieth of himself,2 Cor. 11.28. 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,Tanta me oc­cupationum o­nera depri­munt, ut ad superna ani­mus nullatenus erigatur, &c. Greg. I. lib. I. Ep. 7, 25, 5. Such a weight of employments presses me down, that my mind can by no means be rais'd to things above. Si administratio illius temporis Mare fuit, quid de praesenti Papatu dicendum erit? Calv. Inst. 4. c. 7.22. If the ordering of affairs in those times was a boundless Sea, what shall we say of the present Papacy? 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,Nunquid mi­randum est de tam longin­quis terris E­piscopos tuos tibi narrare impune quod volunt? Aug. contra Crescon. 3.34. What marvel if the Bishops from so re­mote Countries tell you what they please without check or Controll? and how prone he to award a wrongfull sentence?

How tedious, how expensive, how troublesome, how vexatious,De lungas vi­as luengas mentiras. Hispan. Prov. Syn. Basil. Sess. 31. p. 86. 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, [Page 134] to disguise the truth, &c. who being condemned will not appeal to one at distance, hoping by false suggestions to delude him?

Vid. Bernard. Ep. 178. de Consid.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, Romam pergens Stephanum Collegam nostrum longè positum, & gestae rei, ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit; ut ex­ambiret reponi se injustè in Episcopatum, de quo fuerat justè depositus. Cypr. Ep. 67. 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.

[...], &c. Basil. Ep. 10.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, Bas. Ep. 73.74. to the recovery of his Bishoprick.

As he was in rejecting the man of God, and most admirable Bishop, [...].— Bas. Ep. 349. 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, [...]. Ibid. Some are altogether ignorant of what is here done, others that think they know them declare them unto us more contentiously than truly. [...]. Epist. 321. ad. Pet. Alex. He grieved us when he said that our godly brethren, Meletius and Eusebius were reckoned among the Arians. [...]; Bas. Ep. 10. What help can we have from the pride of the Africans, who neither know the truth, no [...] endure to learn it? in the case.

As he was in the case of Pelagius and Celestius, who did cajole Pope Zosimus to acquit them,P. Zos. I. Ep. 3, & 4. 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,Deinde quòd inter tantam hominum multitudinem adeò pauci sunt Episcopi, & amplae singulorum Parochiae, ut in subjectis plebibus curam Episcopalis officii nullatenus exequi, aut ritè administrare valeant. P. Greg. VII. Ep. 2.73. And then because in so great a multitude of People there are so few Bishops, and every one's Diocese very large, that they are in no-wise able to execute or rightly perform the charge of the Episcopal office among the people over whom they are set. and undertake to patronize; but was baffled in his enterprize.

This hath been the sense of the Fathers, in the case.

Cypr. Ep. 55. (p. 116.)St. Cyprian therefore saith, that seeing it was a general statute among [Page 135] 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: [...]. Chrys. Ep. 102. (ad P. Innoc. I.) [...], &c. For if this custome prevail, and if they that will may go to other mens Dioceses at so great a distance, and eject whom any man pleases, know that all will go to wrack, &c. (and why not as well as one out of Italy?)

The African Synod thought the Nicene Fathers had provided most pru­dently and most justly, Decreta Nice­na sive infe­rioris gradus clericos, sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metrop [...]litanis apertissimè commiserunt; Prudentissimè enim justissiméque viderunt (providerunt) quaecunque nego­tia in suis locis, ubi orsa sunt, finienda. Ep. Conc. Afric. ad P. Celest. I. (in fine Cod. Afric.) vel apud Dion. E [...]ig▪ that all affairs should be finally determined there where they did arise.

They thought a transmarine judgment could not be firm, Aut quomodo ipsum trans­marinum ju­dicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexûs, vel propter senectutis infirmitatem, vel multis allis impedimentis adduci non poterunt. Ibid. 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 to become over-dilatory. Nè ergo (quod inter longin­quas regiones accidere solet) in nimias dilationes tenderent veritatis examina— P. Leo I. Ep. 34.

Pope Liberius for such reasons did request Constantius, that Athanasius his cause should be tryed at Alexandria; [...]. Theod. 2.16. where— he (saith he) that is accused, and the accusers are, and the defender of them, and so we may up­on examination had agree in our sentence about them.

Therefore divers ancient Canons of Synods did prohibit, that any Causes should be removed out of the bounds of Provinces, or Dioceses;Inoleverunt autem hacte­nus intolera­bilium vexationum abusus permulti, dum nimium frequenter à remotissimis etiam partibus ad Romanam curiam, & in­terdum pro parvis & minutis rebus ac negotiis quamplurimi citari ac evocari consueverunt, &c. Vid. Conc. Bas. Sess. 31. (p. 86.) But hitherto very many intollerable vexatious abuses have prevailed, while too often men have been used to be cited and call'd out even from the remotest parts to the Court of Rome, and sometimes for slight and trivial businesses and occasions. as otherwhere we shew.

2. Such an Authority, as this pretence claimeth, must necessarily (if not withheld by continual Miracle) throw the Church into sad bon­dage. All the World must become slaves to one City,Vid. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 61. Privilegia istius sedis perpetua sunt, divinitùs ra­dicata, atque plantata, impingi possunt, transferri non possunt; trahi possunt, evelli non possunt. P. Nic. I. ad Mich. Imp. The privileges of this See are perpetual, rooted and founded upon Divine Authority, they may be dash [...] against, they cannot be removed, they may be drawn aside, they cannot be pluck'd up. its wealth must be derived thither, its quiet must depend on it. For it (not being restrain­ed within any bounds of place or time, having no check upon it of equal or co-ordinate power, standing upon Divine Institution, and therefore im­mutably setled) must of its own nature become absolute, and unlimited.

[Page 136]Let it be however of right limited by Divine Laws, or Humane Ca­nons, yet will it be continually encroaching, and stretching its power, untill it grow enormous, and boundless. It will not indure to be pin­ched by any restraint.Vid. Concil. Bas. Sess. 31. p. 87. It will draw to it self the collation of all prefer­ments, &c.

It will assume all things to it self; trampling down all opposite claims of right and liberty; so that neither Pastour nor People shall enjoy or doe any thing otherwise than in dependence on it, and at its pleasure.

It will be always forging new prerogatives, and interpreting all things in favour of them,Licèt Aposto­lica praeroga­tiva possimus de qualibet Ecclesia clericum ordinare. P. Steph. apud Grat. caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 20. Though by our Apostolical preroga­tive we may ordain a Clergy-man of any Church. and enacting sanctions to establish them; which none must presume to contest.

It will draw to it self the disposal of all places; the exaction of goods.Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 60. so they pre­tend. Concil. Later. 4. (sub Innoc. 3.) All Princes must become his Ministers, and executours of his Decrees.

It will mount above all Law, and Rule; not onely challenging to be uncontrollable, and unaccountable, but not enduring any reproof of its proceedings, or contradiction of its dictates: a blind Faith must be yiel­ded to all its Assertions as infallibly true, and a blind obedience to all its Decrees, as unquestionably holy: whosoever shall any-wise cross it in word or deed, shall certainly be discountenanced, condemned, ejected from the Church;Sitque alie­nus à divinis & Pontifica­libus officiis, qui noluit praeceptis Apo­stolicis obtem­perare. Greg. IV. (dist. 19. cap. 5.) And let him have nothing at all to doe with Divine and Ponti­fical Offices, who would not obey Apostolical Precepts. so that the most absolute tyranny, that can be ima­gined, will ensue: All the World hath groaned and heavily complained of their exactions, particularly our poor Nation; it would raise indig­nation in any man to reade the complaints Vid. Mat. Paris. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, & Temporalem Authoritatem Spirituali subjici potestati. Bonif. VIII. Ex­trav. Com. 1.8.1. But there must be a sword under a sword, and Temporal Authority subject to Spiritual..

This is consequent on such a pretence according to the very nature of things;— ches [...]a piu ufficio di Pon­ [...]efici aggiur­gere con l'armi, & col sorgue de Christiani, &c. Guicc. l. 11. p. 858. and so in experience it hath happened. For,

It is evident, that the Papacy hath devoured all the privileges and rights of all Orders in the Church,Quid hodie erant Episco­pi, nisi um­bra quaedam? quid plus eis restabat quàm baculus & mitra, &c. An. Sylv. de gestis Syn. Bas. lib. 1. What were Bishops now, but kind of shadows? what had they left more than a Staff and a Miter, &c. either granted by God, or established in the ancient Canons.

The Royalties of Peter are become immense; and consistently to his practice the Pope doth allow men to tell him to his face,Concil. Lat. 5. Sess. 11. p. 129. De omni Ec­clesia jus ha­bet judicandi. (P. Gelas. Grat. Caus. 9. qu. 3 cap. 18.) that all Power in Heaven and in Earth is given unto him.

It belongeth to him to judge of the whole Church.

Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare. Greg. decret. lib. 3. tit. 8. cap. 4.He hath a plenitude (as he calleth it) of Power, by which he can in­fringe any Law, or doe any thing that he pleaseth.

[Page 137]It is the tenour of his Bulls; that whoever rashly dareth to thwart his will, shall incur the indignation of Almighty God; and (as if that were not enough) of Saint Peter and Saint Paul also.

No man must presume to tax his faults; or to judge of his judgment. Hujus culpa [...] isthîc redar­guere praesumit mortalium nullus. Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6. (Si Papa—) Neque cùiquam licere de ejus judicare judicio. Caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 10.

It is Idolatry to disobey his commands, Cùm enim obedire Apo­stolicae sedi su­perbè contemnunt, sc [...]lus idololatriae, teste Samuele, incurrunt. Greg. VII. Ep. 4.2. Nulli f [...]s est vel velle, vel posse transgredi Apostolicae sedis praecepta. Greg. IV. apud Grat. dist. 19. cap. 5. No man may nor can transgress the commands of the Apostolick See. — Ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, perpetuò & irrefragabiliter observandum est. Ibid. cap. 4. (P. Steph.) — Whatever he decrees, whatever he ordains, must always and inviolably be observed by all. against their own Sovereign Lord.

There are who dare in plain terms call him Omnipotent, and who ascribe infinite power to him. And that he is infallible,Erronea, & haeresi proxi­ma. Bell. de P. 4.2. is the most com­mon and plausible opinion; so that at Rome the contrary is erroneous, and within an inch of being heretical.

We are now told,Si autem Papae erraret praecipiendo vi­tia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtu­tes mala [...], nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare. Bell. de Pont. 4.5. that If the Pope should err by enjoyning vices, or forbidding vertues, the Church should be bound to believe vices to be good, and ver­tues evil, unless it would sin against Conscience.

The greatest Princes must stoop to his will; otherwise he hath power to cashier, and depose them.

Now what greater inconvenience, what more horrible iniquity can there be, than that all God's people (that free people, Gal. 5.1.13. 1 Pet. 2.16. who are called to freedom) should be subject to so intolerable a yoke, and miserable a sla­very?

That tyranny soon had crept into the Roman Church Socrates tel­leth us.Papa occupa­vit omnia ju­ra inferiorum Ecclesiarum, ità quòd inferiores Praelati sunt pro nihilo. Card. Zab. de Sch. Inn. VII. p. 560. The Pope hath invaded all the rights of inferiour Churches, so that all inferiour Prelates are nothing set by.

They have rendred true that definition of Sciop­pius. The Church is a stall, or herd, Ecclesia est mandra sive grex aut mul­titudo jumentorum sive asinorum. Eccl. c. 47. Illí nos fraenant, nos lore alligant, nos stimulant, nobis jugum & onus imponunt. Ibid. or multitude of Beasts, or Asses.

They bridle us, they harness us, they spur us, they lay Yokes and Laws upon us.

The greatest tyranny that ever was invented in the world is the pre­tence of Infallibility: for Dionysius and Phalaris did leave the mind free, (pretending onely to dispose of body and goods according to their will:) but the Pope not content to make us doe and say what he pleaseth, will have us also to think so; denouncing his imprecations and spiritual me­naces if we do not.

3. Such an Authority will inevitably produce a depravation of Chri­stian Doctrine, by distorting it in accommodation of it to the promo­ting its designs and interests. It will blend Christianity with worldly notions and policies.

It certainly will introduce new Doctrines, and interpret the old ones so as may serve to the advancement of the power, reputation, pomp, [Page 138] wealth and pleasure of those who manage it, and of their de­pendents.

That which is called [...]· to make a trade of Religion,2 Cor. 2.17. 1 Tim. 6.5. [...]. Supposing that gain is godliness. [...]. Thess. 2.5. A cloke of Covetousness. [...]. Eph. 4.4. will be the great work of the Teachers of the Church. It will turn all Divines into mercenary, slavish, designing Flatterers.

This we see come to pass, Christianity by the Papal influence being from its original simplicity transformed into quite another thing than it was; from a divine Philosophy designed to improve the reason, to mo­derate the passions, to correct the manners of men, to prepare men for conversation with God and Angels; modelled to a systeme of politick devices (of notions,Pasce, id est regio more Impera. Ecce duos Gladios. — Oravi nè deficeret. — Feed (i. e.) rule as a King. Behold two Swords. of precepts, of rites,) serving to exalt and enrich the Pope, with his Court and Adherents, Clients and Vassals.

What Doctrine of Christian Theology, as it is interpreted by their Schools, hath not a direct aspect, or doth not squint that way? especi­ally according to the opinions passant and in vogue among them.

To pass over those concerning the Pope (his Universal Pastourship, Judgship in controversies, Power to call Councils, Presidency in them, Superiority over them; Right to confirm, or annull them; his Infallibi­lity; his double Sword, and Dominion (direct or indirect) over Prin­ces; his dispensing in Laws, in Oaths, in Vows, in Matrimonial cases, with all other the monstrous prerogatives, which the sound Doctours of Rome, with encouragement of that Chair, do teach)

What doth the Doctrine concerning the exempting of the Clergy from secular jurisdiction, and immunity of their goods from taxes signify, but their entire dependence on the Pope, and their being closely tyed to his interests?

What is the exemption of Monastical places from the jurisdiction of Bishops, but listing so many Souldiers and Advocates to defend and ad­vance the Papal Empire?

What meaneth the Doctrine concerning that middle Region of Souls, or Cloister of Purgatory, whereof the Pope holdeth the Keys; opening and shutting it at his pleasure, by dispensation of pardons and indulgen­ces; but that he must be Master of the Peoples condition, and of their purse?

What meaneth the treasure of Merits, and supererogatory works, whereof he is the Steward, but a way of driving a trade, and drawing money from simple People, to his treasury?

Whither doth the entangling of Folks in perpetual Vows tend, but to assure them in a slavish dependance on their interests, eternally, without evasion or remedy; except by favourable dispensation from the Pope?

Why is the opus operatum in Sacraments taught to confer grace, but to breed a high opinion of the Priest, and all he doeth?

Whence did the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation (urged with so furious zeal) issue, but from design to magnify the credit of those, who by saying of a few words can make Our God and Saviour? [Page 139] and withall to exercise a notable instance of their power over men, in making them to renounce their Reason, and Senses?

Whither doth tend the Doctrine concerning the Mass being a propitia­tory Sacrifice for the Dead, but to engage men to leave in their Wills good sums to offer in their behalf?

Why is the Cup withholden from the Laity, but to lay it low by so notable a distinction, in the principal mystery of our Religion, from the Priesthood?

Why is saying private Mass (or celebrating the Communion in solitude) allowed, but because Priests are pay'd for it, and live by it?

At what doth the Doctrine concerning the necessity of auricular Con­fession aim, but that thereby the Priests may have a mighty awe on the Consciences of all People, may dive into their secrets, may manage their Lives as they please?

And what doth a like necessary particular Absolution intend, but to set the Priest in a lofty state of Authority above the People, as a Judge of his condition, and dispenser of his Salvation?

Why do they equal Ecclesiastical Traditions with Scripture, but that on the pretence of them they may obtrude whatever Doctrines, advan­tageous to their designs?

What drift hath the Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of Churches or Councils, but that when opportunity doth invite, he may call a com­pany of Bishops together to establish what he liketh, which ever after must pass for certain truth, to be contradicted by none; so enslaving the minds of all men to his dictates, which always sute to his interest.

What doth the prohibition of Holy Scripture drive at, but a mono­poly of knowledge to themselves, or a detaining of People in ignorance of truth and duty; so that they must be forced to rely on them for di­rection, must believe all they say, and blindly submit to their dictates; being disabled to detect their errours, or contest their opinions.

Why must the Sacraments be celebrated, and publick devotions exer­cised in an unknown Tongue, but that the Priests may seem to have a peculiar interest in them, and ability for them?

Why must the Priesthood be so indispensably forbidden marriage, but that it may be wholly untacked from the State, and rest addicted to him, and governable by him; that the Persons and Wealth of Priests may be purely at his devotion?

To what end is the clogging Religion by multiplication of Ceremo­nies and Formalities, but to amuse the People, and maintain in them a blind reverence toward the Vid. Sle [...]d. p. 673. Interpreters of the dark mysteries couched in them; and by seeming to encourage an exteriour shew of Piety (or form of godliness) to gain reputation and advantage, whereby they might oppress the interiour virtue and reality of it, as the Scribes and Pharisees did, although with less designs.

Why is the veneration of Images and Reliques, the credence of Mira­cles and Legends, the undertaking of Pilgrimages, and voyages to Rome, and other places, more holy than ordinary; sprinklings of Holy-water, consecrations of baubles, (with innumerable foppish knacks and trinkets) so cherished; but to keep the People in a slavish credulity and dotage; apt to be led by them whither they please, by any sleeveless pretence; and in the mean while to pick various gains from them by such trade?

[Page 140]What do all such things mean but obscuring the native simplicity of Christianity, whereas it being represented intelligible to all men, would derogate from that high admiration, which these men pretend to from their peculiar and profound wisedom? And what would men spend for these toys, if they understood they might be good Christians, and get to Heaven without them?

What doth all that pomp of Religion serve for, but for ostentation of the dignity of those who administer it: It may be pretended for the ho­nour of Religion, but it really conduceth to the glory of the Priesthood; who shine in those pageantries.

Why is Monkery (although so very different from that which was in the ancient times) so cryed up as a superlative state of perfection; but that it filleth all places with swarms of lusty People, who are vowed ser­vants to him, and have little else to doe but to advance that Authority, by which they subsist in that dronish way of life?

In fine, perusing the Controversies of Bellarmine or any other Cham­pion of Romanism, do but consider the nature and scope of each Doc­trine, maintained by them; and you may easily discern, that scarce any of them but doth tend to advance the interest of the Pope, or of his sworn Vassals.

Whereas indeed our Lord had never any such design, to set up a sort of men in such distance above their brethren; to perk over them, and suck them of their goods by tricks; it onely did charge People to allow their Pastours a competent maintenance for a sober life, with a moderate respect, as was needfull for the common benefit of God's People; whom they were, with humility and meekness, to instruct and guide in the plain and simple way of Piety.

This is a grievous inconvenience; there being nothing wherein the Church is more concerned than in the preservation of its Doctrine pure and incorrupt from the leaven of hurtfull errours, influential on practice.

4. The errours in Doctrine, and miscarriages in practice, which this Authority in favour to it self would introduce, would be established im­moveably, to the irrecoverable oppression of Truth and Piety; any re­formation becoming impossible, while it standeth, or so far as it shall be able to oppose and obstruct it.

While particular Churches do retain their liberty, and Pastours their original co-ordination in any measure, if any Church or Bishop shall of­fer to broach any novel Doctrine or Practice of bad import, the others may endeavour to stop the settlement or progress of them; each Church at least may keep it self sound from contagion.

But when all Churches and Bishops are reduced into subjection to one Head, supported by the guards of his Authority, who will dare to con­test, or be able to withstand, what he shall say or doe? It will then be deemed high presumption, contumacy, rebellion, to dissent from his determinations how false soever, or tax the practices countenanced by him however irregular and culpable.

He will assume to himself the privilege not to be crossed in any thing; and soon will claim infallibility, the mother of incorrigibility.

No errour can be so palpable, which that Authority will not protect and shroud from confutation; no practice so enormous, which it will not palliate, and guard from reproof.

[Page 141]There will be Legions of mercenary Tongues to speak, and stipendi­ary Pens to write in defence of its Doctrines and Practices; so that whoever will undertake to oppose it shall be voted down and overwhel­med with noise; and shall incur all the discouragement and persecution imaginable. So poor Truth will become utterly defenceless, wretched Vertue destitute of succour or patronage.

This is so in speculation, and we see it confirmed by experience; for when from the influence of this Power (as P. Adri­an VI. did ingenuously confess) an apparent dege­neracy in Doctrine, in Discipline,Sleid. lib. 4. p. 82. lib. 12. p. 322. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 24. Vid. Riv. in Castig. Nol. p. 525. in Practice had seised on Christendom, all the world feeling it, and crying out loudly for reformation, yet how stiff a repugnance did the adherents to this interest make thereto? with what industry and craft did Popes endeavour to decline all means of remedy?

What will not this Party doe rather than acknowledge themselves mistaken or liable to errour? what palliations, what shifts do not they use? what evidence of light do they not outface?Cen [...]um gra­vamina.

5. The same will induce a general corruption of manners.

For the chief Clergy partaking of its growth, and protected by its interest, (reciprocally supporting it, and being sheltred by it from any curb or controll) will swell into great pride and haughtiness; will be tempted to scrape and hoard up wealth, by rapine, extortion, simo­ny; will come to enjoy ease and sloth; will be immersed in sensuality and luxury, and will consequently neglect their charge.

The inferiours will become enamoured and ambitious of such digni­ty, and will use all means and arts to attain it.

Thence emulation, discord, sycophantry will spring.Vid. ipsum Greg. VII. Ep. 1.42.2.45. See the de­scription of them in S. Bernard. in Cant. Serm. G [...]ioc [...]a [...]d. in Suppl.

Thence all Ecclesiastical Offices will become venal; to be purchased by bribes, flattery, favour.—

The higher ranks will become fastuous, supercilious and domineering. The lower will basely crouch, cogg—

What then must the people be, the guides being such?

Were such guides like to edifie the people by their Doctrine?Adv. Pelag. in Riv. Ca­stig. N. cap. 8. Vid. Bernard. Convers. S. Paul. Serm. [...]. p. 87. Were they not like to damnifie them by their Example?

That thus it hath happened Experience doth shew; and History doth abundantly testifie. This was soon observed by a Pagan Historian, Am. Marcellin. By St. Basil [...].

What mischief this, what scandal to Religion, what detriment to the Church, what ruins of Souls it produceth is visible.

The descriptions of Rome and of that Church by Mantuan, do in a lively manner represent the great degeneracy and corruptions of it.

6. This Authority as it would induce corruption of manners, so it would perpetuate it; and render the state of things incorrigible.

For this Head of the Church, and the supporters of his Authority will often need reformation, but never will endure it.

That will happen of any Pope,—Nulla unquam mo­nitione, nulla exhortatione induci jam largo tempore potuit, ut aliquam errorum emendationem Christo placentem, aut no [...]issimorum abusuu [...] correctionem in Ecclesia Sancta Dei efficere satageret. Conc. Bas. Sess. 23. (p. 76.) Sess. 31. p. 89. He could never be brought in this long time by any advice or exhortation, seriously to set upon any amendment of errours or correction of the most gross abuses in the Holy Church of God. which the Fathers of Basil complai­ned of in Pope Eugenius.

[Page 142] Vid. Conc. Trid. p. 22.If the Pope would (as Pope Adrian VI.) yet he will not be able to reform; the interests of his dependents crossing it.

If there hath happened a good Pope, who desired to reform; yet he hath been ridiculous when he endeavoured it; and found it impossible to reform even a few particulars in his own house, the incorrigible Roman Court.

The nature and pretended foundation of this spiritual Authority doth encourage it with insuperable obstinacy to withstand all reformation: for whereas if any temporal Power doth grow intolerable, God's Pro­vidence by Wars and Revolutions of State, may dispense a redress, they have prevented this by supposing that in this case God hath tied his own hands; this Authority being immovably fixed in the same hands, from which no revolution can take it; whence from its exorbitancies there can be no rescue or relief.

It will cer­tainly render him a Ty­rant, accor­ding to the definition of Aristotle, Pol. 4.10. Cui plus licet quàm par est, plus vult quàm licet. Vnde sicut languescente capite, reliquum postea corpus morbus invadat. Conc. Bas. Sess. 23. (p. 64.) Whence it comes to pass that if the Head be sick, the rest of the Body afterward grows diseased. Vid. Conc. Bas. p. 87. Conc. Const. p. 1110.7. This Authority will spoil him in whom it is seated; corrupting his mind and manners; rendring him a Scandal to Religion, and a perni­cious Instrument of wickedness by the influence of his example.

Vid. dist. 40. cap. 6. (hujus culpas, etsi.) Vid. Alv. Pelag. apud Riv. Cath. Orth. p. 141. Baron. Pope Marcellus II. doubted whether a Pope could be saved. Thuan. lib. 15. (p. 566.) From John VIII. to Leo IX. what a rabble of rake-hells and so [...]ts did sit in that Chair! Machiavel. Hist. lib. 16. p. 1271. Baron. Ann. 912. § 8.To this an uncontrollable power (bridled with no restraint) and impunity doth naturally tend, and accordingly hath it been—

How many notorious Reprobates, Monsters of wickedness have been in that See?

If we survey the Lives of the Popes, written by Historians most in­different, or (as most have been) partial in favour to them, we shall find, at first good ones, Martyrs, Confessours, Saints— but after this exorbitant power had grown, how few good ones? how many extreme­ly bad? The first Popes before Constantine were Holy men; the next were tolerable, while the Papacy kept within bounds of modesty; but when they having shaked off their Master, and renounced allegiance to the Emperour, (i. e. after Gregory II.) few tolerable; generally they were either rake-hells, or intolerably arrogant, insolent, turbulent and ravenous.

Baron. Ann. 897. § 5. It was said of Vespasian, solus imperantium melior— so apt is power to corrupt men. Solus omnium ante se Principum in melius mutatus est. Tac. Hist. 1. (p. 451.) Bellarmine and Baronius do bobb off this, by telling us that hence the providence of God is most apparent.

But do they call this preserving the Church; the permission of it to continue so long in such a condition, under the prevalence of such mis­chiefs?How vain is that which P. Greg. VII. citeth out of P. Symmachus, B. Petrus perennem meritorum dotem cum haereditate innocentiae misit ad posteros. Greg. VII. Ep. 8.21. when hath God deserted any People if not then? when such Im­piety more than Pagan doth reign in it?

But what in the mean time became of those Souls, which by this means were ruined; what amends for the vast damage which Religi­on [Page 143] sustained? for the introducing so pernicious Customs hardly to be ex­tirpated?Quòd Roma­nus Pontifex, si canonicè fu­erit ordinatus, meritis B. Petri indubitanter efficitur sanctus; was one of P. Greg. VII. his dictates. That the Roman Pontif, if canonically elected, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of Blessed Peter. —

To what a pass of shameless wickedness must things have come, when such men as Alexander VI. having visibly such an impure brood, should be placed in this Chair?

Even after the Reformation began to curb their impudence, and ren­der them more wary, yet had they the face to set Paul the Third there.

How unfit must such men be, to be the Guides of all Christendom; to breathe Oracles of Truth, to enact Laws of Sanctity?

How improper were those Vessels of Satan to be Organs of that Ho­ly Spirit of discipline, which will flee deceit, Sap. 1.5. and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide where unrighteousness cometh in?

It will engage the Popes to make the Ecclesiastical Authority an En­gine of advancing the Temporal concerns of his own Relations (his Sons, his Nephews.)

What indeed is the Popedom now but a Ladder for a Family to mount unto great estate?Vid. Guic­ciard. Machiav. His. Fl. p. 19. Conc. Bas. (p. 65.)

What is it, but introducing an old man into a place, by advantage whereof, a Family must make hay while the Sun shines?—Cùm non ob religionem, & Dei cul­tum appetere Pontificatum nostri Sacerdotes videantur, sed ut fratrum vel nepotum, vel familiarium ingluviem & ava­ritiam expleant. Plat. in Joh. XVI. (p. 298.) Whereas our Priests seem to desire the Popedom, not for Religion and the worship of God, but that they may fill the ravening appetite and covetousness of their brethren or nephews, or familiars.

8. This Pretence, upon divers obvious accounts, is apt to create great mischief in the world, to the disturbance of Civil Societies, and destruction or debilitation of temporal Authority, which is certainly God's Ordinance, and necessary to the well-being of mankind; so that supposing it, we may in vain pray for Kings, and all that are in authority, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

For suppose the two powers (Spiritual and Temporal) to be co-or­dinate, and independent each of other; then must all Christians be put into that perplexed state of repugnant and incompatible obligations; concerning which our Lord saith; No man can serve two Masters; Matt. 6.24. for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.

They will often draw several ways, and clash in their designs,Bell. 5.6. (p. 1415.) in their laws, in their decisions; one willing and commanding that, which the other disliketh and prohibiteth.

It will be impossible by any certain bounds to distinguish their Juris­diction, so as to prevent contest between them; all temporal matters being in some respect spiritual (as being referible to spiritual ends, and in some manner allyed to Religion) and all spiritual things becoming temporal, as they conduce to the secular peace and prosperity of States; there is nothing, which each of these Powers will not hook within the verge of its cognizance and jurisdiction; each will claim a right to meddle in all things; one pretending thereby to further the good of the [Page 144] Church, the other to secure the interest of the State: and what end or remedy can there be of the differences hence arising; there being no third Power to arbitrate or moderate between them?

Each will prosecute its cause by its advantages; the one by instru­ments of temporal power, the other by spiritual arms of censures and curses.

And in what a case must the poor people then be? how distracted in their consciences, how divided in their affections, how discordant in their practices? according as each pretence hath influence upon them, by its different arguments or peculiar advantages?

How can any man satisfie himself in performing or refusing obedi­ence to either? How many (by the intricacy of the point, and con­trary pulling) will be withdrawn from yielding due complyance on the one hand or the other?

What shall a man doe, while one in case of disobedience to his Com­mands doth brandish a Sword, the other thundreth out a Curse against him; one threatneth death, the other excision from the Church; both denounce damnation?

What animosities and contentions, what discomposures and confusi­ons must this Constitution of things breed in every place? and how can a Kingdom so divided in it self stand, Matth. 12.25. or not come into desolation?

Such an advantage infallibly will make Popes affect to invade the temporal Power.

P. Pasch. II. Ep. 7.It was the reason, which Pope Paschal alledged against Henry IV. be­cause he did Ecclesiae regnum auferre.

It is indeed impossible, that a co-ordination of these Powers should subsist; for each will be continually encroaching on the other; each for its own defence and support will continually be struggling and clam­bring to get above the other: there will never be any quiet till one come to subside and truckle under the other; whereby the Sovereign­ty of the one or the other will be destroyed. Each of them soon will come to claim a Supremacy in all causes, and the power of both Swords; and one side will carry it.

It is indeed necessary, that men for a time continuing possessed with a reverence to the Ecclesiastical Authority, as independent and uncon­trollable, it should at last overthrow the temporal; by reason of its great advantages above it; for,

The Spiritual Power doth pretend an Establishment purely Divine; which cannot by any accidents undergoe any change, diminutions or translation, to which Temporal dominions are subject: Its power there­fore,Vid. Mach. Hist. Flor. p. 18.— Impeti possunt humanis praesumptionibus quae divino sunt judicio constituta, vinci autem quorumlibet potestate non possunt. P. Gel. Ep. 8. Felix P. Ep. 1. (p. 597.) being perpetual, irreversible, depending immediately of God, can hardly be checked, can never be conquered.

It fighteth with Tongues and Pens, which are the most perillous Wea­pons.

It can never be disarmed; fighting with Weapons that cannot be ta­ken away, or deprived of their edge and vigour.

It worketh by most powerfull considerations upon the Consciences and affections of men upon pain of damnation; promising heaven, and threatning hell; which upon some men have an infinite sway, upon all [Page 145] men a considerable influence; and thereby will be too hard for those who onely can grant Temporal Rewards, or inflict Temporal Punish­ments. It is surely a notable advantage that the Pope hath above all Princes, that he commandeth not onely as a Prince, but as a Guide; so that whereas we are not otherwise bound to obey the commands of Prin­ces, than as they appear concordant with God's Law, we must observe his commands absolutely, as being therefore lawfull, because he comman­deth them, that involving his assertion of their lawfulness, to which (without farther inquiry or scruple) we must submit our understan­ding, his words sufficiently authorizing his commands for just. We are not onely obliged to obey his commands but to embrace his doctrines.

It hath continual opportunities of conversing with men; and there­by can insinuate and suggest the obligation to obey it, with greatest ad­vantage, in secrecy, in the tenderest seasons.

It claimeth a power to have its instruction admitted with assent; and will it not instruct them for its own advantage? All its Assertions must be believed—is not this an infinite advantage?

By such advantages the Spiritual Power (if admitted for such as it pretendeth) will swallow and devour the Temporal; which will be an extreme mischief to the world.

The very pretence doth immediately crop and curtail the natural Right of Princes; by exempting great numbers of Persons (the partici­pants and dependents of this Hierarchy) from subjection to them.Non enim vo­lumus aut propter Prin­cipum potenti­am Ecclesia­stic [...]m minui dignitatem, aut pro Eccle­siastica dignitate Principum potentiam mutilari. P. Pasch. II. Ep. 28, & 29. For we will not that either the Eccle­siastical dignity should be diminished, by reason of the Prince's power, or that the Prince's power should be curtail'd for the Ecclesiastical dignity. By withdrawing Causes from their Jurisdiction. By commanding in their Territories, and drawing people out of them to their Judicatories. By having influence on their Opinions. By dreigning them of Wealth, &c.

To this discourse Experience abundantly doth yield its Attestation; for,In vain did S. Bernard, (de Consid. 1.) c [...]y, Quid fi­nes alienos in­vaditis? quid falcem vestram in alienam messam extenditis? Why do you invade other mens territories? why thrust you your sickle into other mens harvest? How often have the Arietes furiosos. Bell. 5.7. Popes thwarted Princes in the exercise of their power; challenging their Laws and Administrations as prejudicial to Religion? as contrary to Ecclesiastical Liberty?

Bodin (l. 9.) observeth that if any Prince were a Heretick (that is, if the Pope could pick occasion to call him so) or a Tyrant (that is,Vid. Tort. T. p. 216. Greg. VII. Ep. 1.7.112.13, 63. in his opinion) or any-wise scandalous; the Pope would excommunicate him; and would not receive him to favour, but upon his acknowledg­ing himself a feudatory to the Pope: So he drew in most Kingdoms to depend on him.

How often have they excommunicated them, and interdicted their people from entertaining communion with them?

How many Commotions, Conspiracies,Vid. Plat. de Bonif. VIII. p. 467. Jul. 2. Non sine sus­picione, quod illorum tem­porum Ponti­fices, qui bella extinguere, discordias tollere debuissent, suscitarent ea potiùs atque nutrirent. Episc. Modrus. in Conc. Lat. V. Sess. 6. (p. 72.) Rebellions and Insurrections against Princes have they raised in several Countries?

How have they inveigled people from their Allegiance? How many Massacres and Assassinations have they caused? How have they depres­sed and vilified the Temporal Power?

[Page 146] Not without suspicion, that the Popes of those times, who ought to have extinguished wars, and put an end to dissentions, did rather raise them up and cherish them. See Greg. VII. Ep. 4.2.8.21. Have they not assumed to themselves Superiority over all Princes? The Emperour himself (the chief of Christian Princes) they did call their Vassal,Vid. Concil. Lugd. p. 851. exacting an Oath from them, whereof you have a Form in the Canon Law, and a declaration of Pope Clement V. that it is an Oath of Fealty.

Have they not challenged propriety in both Swords, Ecce duo Gla­dii?

Auctoritate Apostolica de fratrum no­strorum consi­lio declaramus illa juramenta praedicta fidelitatis existere & censeri debere. Clementin. lib. 2. Tit. 9. cap. unicum. We declare out of our Apostolical authority by the advice of our brethren that the foresaid oaths of fealty ought to be, and be so esteemed.How many Princes have they pretended to depose, and dispossess of their Authority?

Consider the Pragmatical Sanctions, Provisors, Compositions, Con­cordats, &c. which Princes have been forced to make against them, or with them to secure their Interest.

Thuan. lib. 1.Many good Princes have been forced to oppose them, as Henry the Second of England, King Lewis the Twelfth of France, (that Just Prince, Pater Patriae) Perdam Babylonis nomen.

Abutente Chri­stianorum Pa­store Christia­norum Princi­pum viribus, ut privatae ambitioni, & suorum libidini inserviret. Thuan. lib. 1. p. 42. The Pastour of Christians abusing the power of Christian Princes that he might gratifie his private ambition, and the will and lust of his friends.How often have they used this as a pretence of raising and fomenting Wars? confiding in their Spiritual Arms; interdicting Princes, that would not comply with their designs, for advancing the interests not onely of their See, but of their private Families?

Observ. Bodin observeth that Pope Nicholas I. was the first who excommuni­cated Princes. Platina doth mention some before him: But it is remar­kable, that although Pope Leo I. (a high spirited Pope (Fortissimus Leo,) as Liberatus calleth him) was highly provoked against Theodosius Juni­or; Pope Gelasius and divers of his Predecessours and Followers—Pope Gregory II. against Leo— Vigilius against Justinian, &c. yet none of them did presume to excommunicate the Emperours.

All these dealings are the natural result of this Pretence; and, sup­posing it well grounded, are capable of a plausible justification: for is it not fit, (seeing one must yield) that Temporal should yield to Spi­ritual?

Indeed, granting the Papal Supremacy in Spirituals, I conceive the high flying Zelots of the Roman Church, who subject all Temporal Powers to them, have great reason on their side, for co-ordinate Pow­er cannot subsist, and it would be onely an eternal Seminary of perpe­tual discords.

The quarrel cannot otherwise be well composed than by wholly dis­claiming the fictitious and usurped power of the Pope: for,

Two such Powers (so inconsistent and cross to each other, so apt to interfere, and consequently to breed everlasting mischiefs to mankind be­tween them) could not be instituted by God. —

He would not appoint two different Vicegerents in his Kingdom at the same time. —

[Page 147]But it is plain, that he hath instituted the civil Power; and endowed it with a Sword.Tort. T. p. 210. That Princes are his Lieutenants P. Anast. calleth the Emperour Anast. Vicarium. Epist. (p. 670.).

That in the ancient times the Popes did not claim such Authority, but avowed themselves Subjects to Princes.

9. Consequently this Pretence is apt to engage Christian Princes a­gainst Christianity; for they will not endure to be crossed,Eccles. Leod. p. [...]22. to be depres­sed, to be trampled on.

This Popes often have complained of; not considering it was their own insolence that caused it.

10. Whereas now Christendom is split into many parcels,Secundum mutationes temporum transferuntur etiam regna terrarum; unde etiam Ecclesiastica­rum parochiarum fines in plerisque provinciis mutari expedit & transferri. P. Pasch. II. Ep. 19. subject to divers civil Sovereignties, it is expedient that correspondently there should be distinct Ecclesiastical Governments, independent of each other, which may comply with the respective civil Authorities in promoting the good and peace both of Church and State.

It is fit, that every Prince, should in all things govern all his Subjects; and none should be exempted from subordination to his Authority: As Philosophers, and Physicians of the Body; so Priests, and Physicians of the Soul; not in exercising their Function, but in taking care that they do exercise it duly for the honour of God, and in consistence with pub­lick good: otherwise many grievous inconveniences must ensue.

It is of perillous consequence, that foreigners should have authorita­tive influence upon the Subjects of any Prince; or have a power to in­termeddle in affairs.

Princes have a natural Right to determine with whom their Subjects shall have intercourse; which is inconsistent with a Right of foreigners to govern or judge them in any case, without their leave.

Every Prince is obliged to employ the power entrusted to him, to the furtherance of God's Service, and encouragement of all good works; as a Supreme power, without being liable to obstruction from any other power.

It would irritate his power, if another should be beyond his coercion.

It is observable,Vid. Bod. de Rep. 1.9. (p. 195.) Car les Prin­ces Chrestien avoient presque tous opinion, que le Pape estoit absolvement seigneur sovereigne de tous les Roydumes dela Chrestiente. Bod. ibid. p. 196. Tort. Tort. p. 216, &c.— Greg. VII. Ep. 1.7.2.13. Alex. II. Ep. 8. [...]. Bas. de Jud. Dei, T. 2. p. 259. So great a dissonancy and jarring there is among men in the Church, while every one swerves from the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, and asserts certain conceits and rules of his own by his own authority, and had rather rule contrary to the Lord, than be rul'd by the Lord. that the Pope by intermeddling in the affairs of King­doms did so wind himself into them, as to get a pretence to be Master of each; Princes being his Vassals and Feudatories.

11. Such an Authority is needless and useless; it not serving the ends which it pretendeth; and they being better compassed without it.

It pretendeth to maintain Truth; but indeed it is more apt to op­press it.

Truth is rather (as St. Cyprian wisely observeth) preserved by the multitude of Bishops, whereof some will be ready to relieve it, when as­saulted by others.

[Page 148]Truth cannot be supported merely by humane Authority; especially that Authority is to be suspected, which pretendeth dominion over our minds. What Controversie, being doubtfull in it self, will not after his Decision continue doubtfull? his Sentence may be eluded by interpre­tation as well as other Testimonies or Authorities.

The opinion of a man's great wisedom or skill may be the ground of assent, in defect of other more cogent Arguments; but Authority of Name or Dignity is not proper to convince a man's understanding. Men obey, but not believe Princes more than others, if not more learned than others.

It pretendeth to maintain Order: but how? by introducing Slave­ry; by destroying all Rights; by multiplying Disorders; by hindring Order to be quietly administred in each Countrey.

It pretendeth to be the onely means of Unity and Concord in Opini­on, by determining Controversies: which its Advocates affirm neces­sary.Necesse est, ut omnes fideles idem sentiant. Bell. 1.9. It is necessary that all the faithfull should be of the same opinion.

But how can that be necessary which never was de facto? not even in the Roman Church?

Hath the Pope effected this? do all his followers agree in all points? do they agree about his Authority? Do not they differ and dispute about infinity of questions? Are all the points frivolous, about which their Divines and Schoolmen dispute? Why did not the Council of Trent it self, without more adoe, and keeping such a disputing, refer all to his Oracular Decision.

[...]. Ath.Necessary points may and will by all honest people be known and determined without him, by the clear Testimony of Scripture, by con­sent of Fathers, by General Tradition.— And other points need not to be determined.

That he may be capable of that Office, he must be believed appointed by God thereto; which is a question it self to be decided without him, to satisfaction. His power is apt no otherwise to knock down Contro­versies, than by depressing Truth; not suffering any Truth to be asser­ted, which doth not favour its Interests.

Concord was maintained and Controversies decided without them in the ancient Church; in Synods, wherein he was not the sole Judge, nor had observable influence.

The Fathers did not think such Authority needfull, otherwise they would have made more use of it.

Nemini prae­scribentes.A more ready way to define Controversies, is for every one not to prescribe to others, or to prosecute: for then men would more calmly see the Truth and consent.

It pretendeth to maintain Peace and Unity. But nothing hath raised more fierce Dissentions, or so many bloudy Wars in Christendom as it.

It is apt by tyrannical administration to become intolerable, and so to break the Ecclesiastical State; to raise Schisms and Troubles.

It is like to extinguish genuine Charity, which is free and uncom­pelled.

All the peace and charity which it endureth, is by force and com­pulsion, not out of choice and good affection.

[Page 149]V. The Ancients did assert to each Bishop a free, absolute, indepen­dent Authority, subject to none, directed by none, accountable to none on Earth, in the administration of affairs properly concerning his par­ticular Church.

This is most evident in St. Cyprian's Writings; out of which it will not be amiss to set down some passages, manifesting the sense and prac­tice of the Church in his time, to the satisfaction of any ingenuous mind.

The Bond of concord abiding, and the Sacrament (or Doctrine) of the Catholick Church persisting un­divided, Manen [...]e concordiae vinculo, & perseve­rante Catholicae Ecclesiae individuo Sacra­mento, actum suum disponit & dirigit unusquisque Episcopus, rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus. Cypr. Ep. 52. (ad Antonianum.) every Bishop disposeth and directeth his own acts, being to render an account of his purpose to the Lord: this he writeth, when he was pleading the cause of Pope Cornelius against Novatian; but then, it seemeth, not dreaming of his Supremacy over o­thers.

But we know, Caeterùm scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facilè mutare, sed salvo inter Col­legas pacis & concordiae vinculo quaedam propria, quae apud se semel sint usurpata, retinere; qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cùm habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae li­berum arbitrium unusquisque praepositus, rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. Cypr. Ep. 72. (ad Stephanum.) that some will not lay down what once they have imbibed, nor will easily change their mind; but, the bond of peace and concord with their Collegues being preserved, will retain some peculiar things, which have once been used by them; in which matter neither do we force any, or give law; whenas every Prelate hath in the administration of his Church the free power of his will, being to render unto the Lord an account of his acting: this saith he, writing to Pope Stephanus, and in a friendly manner,Haec ad conscientiam tuam, frater cha­rissime, & pro honore communi & pro sim­plici dilectione pertulimus, &c. Consensu & auctoritate communi. out of common respect and single love, (not out of servile obeisance) acquainting him what he and his bre­thren in a Synod by common consent and authority had established concerning the degradation of Clergy-men, who had been ordained by Hereticks, or had lapsed into Schism.

For seeing it is ordained by us all, and it is likewise equal and just, Nam cum stat [...]tum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter ac justum, ut unius­cujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est cri­men admissum, & singulis Pastoribus por­tio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unus­quisque & gubernet, rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus, oportet utique eos qui­bus praesumus, non circumcursare, &c. Cypr. Epist. 55. (ad Cornelium.) that each man's cause should be there heard where the crime is committed; and to each Pa­stour a portion of the Flock is assigned, which each should rule and govern, being to render an account to his Lord; those indeed over whom we preside ought not to ramble about: this saith he in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius, upon occasion of some factious Cler­gy-men addressing themselves to him with factious suggestions, to gain his countenance.

These things I have briefly written back, Haec tibi breviter pro nostra mediocrita­te rescripsimus, frater charissime; nemini praescribentes, aut praejudicantes, quo minùs unusquisque Episcoporum quod putat faciat, habens arbitrii sui liberam potestatem. Cypr. Epist. 73. (ad Jubabaianum.) Quâ in parte nemini verecundia & mo­destia nostra praejudicat, quo minùs unus­quisque quod putat sentiat, & quod senserit faciat. Cypr. Epist. 76. (ad Magnum.) Nemini praescribentes, quo minùs statuat quod putat unusquisque Praepositus, actûs sui rationem Domino redditurus; secun­dum quod Apostolus, &c. Ibid. according to our meanness, dear brother; prescribing to none nor prejudging, that every Bishop should not doe what he thinks good, having a free power of his will.

In which matter our bashfulness and modesty doth not prejudge any one; so that every one may not judge as he thinketh, and act as he judgeth: Prescribing to none, so that every Bishop may not resolve what he thinks good, being to render an account to the Lord, &c.

[Page 150] Superest ut de hac re singuli quid sen­tiamus proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut à jure communionis aliquem si diver­sum senserit amoventes; neque enim quis­quam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcopo­rum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adi­git; quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro li­centia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitri­um proprium, támque judicari ab alio non possit, quàm nec ipse potest alterum judica­re; sed expectemus universi judicium Do­mini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & so­lus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro judicandi. Cypr. in praef. Conc. Carthag. It remaineth that each of us do utter his opinion about this matter, judging no man, nor removing any man, if he dissenteth, from the right of communion; for neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terrour driveth his Collegues to a necessity of obeying; whenas every Bishop hath upon account of his liberty and authority his own free choice, and is no less exempted from being judged by an­other, than he is uncapable to judge another; but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, and who alone hath power both to prefer us to the go­vernment of his Church, and to judge of our acting: these words did St. Cyprian speak as Proloquntour of the great Synod of Bishops at Carthage; and what words could be more express or more full in assertion of the Episcopal Liberties and Rights against almost eve­ry branch of Romish pretences?

He disavoweth the practice of one Bishop excluding another from communion for dissent in opinion about disputable points: He rejecteth the pretence that any man can have to be a Bishop of Bishops, or superi­our to all his Brethren: He condemneth the imposing opinions upon Bi­shops, and constraining them to obedience; He disclaimeth any power in one Bishop to judge another; He asserteth to each Bishop a full liber­ty and power to manage his own concerns according to his discretion; He affirmeth every Bishop to receive his power onely from Christ, and to be liable onely to his judgment.

Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 2.3, &c.We may observe, that St. Austin in his reflexions upon the passages in that Synod, doth approve, yea admire that Preface, passing high commendations on the smartest passages of it which assert common li­berty, professing his own conformity in practice to them;Habemus ergo quaerendi liberum arbi­trium ipsius Cypriani nobis mitissimo & veracissimo sermone concessum. Lib. 3. cap. 3. Nunc si se audent superbae & tumidae cervices haereticorum adversus sanctam hu­militatem hujus sententiae extollant. Lib. 2. cap. 3. Quid mansuetius, quid humilius? Lib. 3. cap. 3. In this consultation (saith he) is shewed a pacifick soul, overflowing with plenty of charity; and, We have therefore a free choice of inquiry granted to us by the most mild and most veracious speech of Cypri­an himself, and, Now if the proud and tumid minds of hereticks dare to extoll themselves against the holy humility of this speech —than which what can be more gentle, more humble?

Would St. Austin have swallowed those Sayings, could he have so much applauded them, if he had known a just power then extant and radiant in the World, which they do impeach and subvert? No, I trow; he did not know, nor so much as dream of any such; although the Pope was under his nose while he was discussing that point, and he could hardly talk so much of St. Cyprian without thinking of Pope Stephen.

However let any man of sense honestly reade and weigh those passa­ges, considering who did write them, to whom he writ them, upon what occasions he writ them, when he writ them; that he was a great Primate of the Church, a most holy, most prudent, most humble and meek person; that he addressed divers of them to Bishops of Rome; that many of them were touching the concerns of Popes, that he writ them in times of persecution and distress, which produce the most sober and serious thoughts; then let him if he can, conceive, that all-Christian Bi­shops [Page 151] were then held subject to the Pope, or owned such a power due to him as he now claimeth.

We may add a contemporary Testimony of the Roman Clergy, ad­dressing to St. Cyprian in these words; Although a mind well conscious to it self, Quanquam benè sibi conscius animus, & Evangelicae disciplinae vigore subnixus, & verus sibi in d [...]cretis coelestibus testis effectus, soleat solo Deo judice esse conten­tus, nec alterius aut laudes petere, aut accusationes perti [...]escere; tamen gemina­tâ sunt laude condigni, qui cùm conscien­tiam sciant Deo soli debere se judici, actus tamen suos desiderant etiam ab ipsi [...] suis fratribus comprobari: quod [...]e, frater Cypriane, facere non mirum est, qui pro tua verecundia, & ingenita industria con­siliorum tuorum no [...] non tam judices volu­isti, quàm participes inveniri— Cler. Rom. ad Cypr. Ep. 31. and supported by the vi­gour of Evangelical discipline, and having in heaven­ly doctrines become a true witness to it self, is wont to be content with God for its onely judge; and not to de­sire the praises, nor to dread the accusations of ano­ther; yet they are worthy of double praise, who when they know they owe their consciences to God onely as judge, yet desire also their actions to be approved by their brethren themselves; the which it is no wonder that you, brother Cyprian, should do, who according to your modesty and natural industry would have us not so much judges as partakers of your Counsels— Then it seems the College of Cardinals, not so high in the instep as they are now, did take St. Cyprian to be free, and not accountable for his ac­tions to any other Judge but God.

That this notion of liberty did continue a good time after in the Church, we may see by that Canon of the Antio­chene Synod; [...]—. Syn. Ant. Can. 9. ordaining that every Bishop have pow­er of his own Bishoprick, govern it according to the best of his care and discretion, and provide for all the Country belonging to his City, so as to ordain Priests and Deacons, and dispose things aright.

The Monks of Constantinople in the Synod of Chalcedon, said thus; We are sons of the Church, [...]. Sin. Chalced. Act. 1. p. 114. and have one Father, after God, our Archbishop: they forgot their Sovereign Father the Pope.

The like notion may seem to have been then in England, Omnium nostrum mater communis sub Sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione. Ger­vas. Dorob. (p. 1663.) apud Twisd. p. 72. when the Church of Canterbury was cal­led the common mother of all under the disposition of its Spouse Jesus Christ.

VI. The Ancients did hold all Bishops, as to their Office, originally according to Divine Institution,Vid. Epist. P. Celestini I. in Conc. Eph. Act. 2. (p. 324.) or abstracting from humane Sanctions framed to preserve Order and Peace, to be equal; for that all are Suc­cessours of the Apostles, all derive their Commission and Power in the same tenour from God, all of them are Ambassadours, Stewards, Vicars of Christ; entrusted with the same Divine Ministeries of instructing, dis­pensing the Sacraments, ruling and exercising Discipline; to which Fun­ctions and Privileges the least Bishop hath right, and to greater the big­gest cannot pretend.

One Bishop might exceed another in Splendour, in Wealth, in Repu­tation, in extent of Jurisdiction, as one King may surpass another in am­plitude of Territory; but as all Kings, so all Bishops are equal in Office and essentials of Power, derived from God.

Hence they applied to them that in the Psalm, Baron. An. 57. § 30. Psal. 45.16. Vbicunque fuerit Episco­pus, sive Ro­mae sive Eu­gubii, &c. Hieron. ad Evagr. Ep. 85. Instead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children, whom thou mayst make Princes in all the earth.

This was St. Hierome's Doctrine in those famous words; Whereever a Bishop be, whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhe­gium, [Page 152] at Alexandria or at Thenis, he is of the same worth, and of the same Priesthood; the force of wealth, and lowness of poverty doth not render a Bishop more high or more low; for that all of them are Successours of the Apostles: to evade which plain assertion, they have forged distinc­tions, whereof St. Hierome surely did never think, he speaking simply concerning Bishops, as they stood by Divine Institution, not according to humane Models, which gave some advantages over other.

That this notion did continue long in the Church, we may see by the Elogies of Bishops in later Synods; for instance that in the Synod of Compeigne; Omnibus in Christiana religione consti­tutis scire convenit quale sit ministerium Episcoporum— quos constat esse Vicarios Christi, & Clavigeros Regni Coelorum, &c. Syn. Compend. Ann. Dom. 833. (apud Bin. Tom. 6. p. 361.) Nos omnes licèt indigni, Christi tamen Vicarii, & Apostolorum ipsius Successores. Syn. Meldens. Ann. D. 845. (apud Bin. Tom. 6. p. 402.) It is convenient all Chri­stians should know what kind of Office the Bishops is — who 'tis plain are the Vicars of Christ, and keep the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

And that of the Synod of Melun; And though all of us unworthy, yet are the Vicars of Christ and Suc­cessours of his Apostles.

In contemplation of which verity, St. Gregory Nazianzene observing the declension from it introduced in his times by the ambition of some Prelates, did vent that famous exclamation; O that there were not at all any presidency, [...]— Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. or any preference in place, and tyrannical enjoyment of prerogatives— which earnest wish he surely did not mean to level against the Ordinance of God, but against that which lately began to be intruded by men: And what would the good man have wished, if he had been aware of those pretences, about which we discourse; which then did onely begin to bud and peep up in the World?

1. Common practice is a good Interpreter of common sentiments in any case; and it therefore sheweth that in the primitive Church the Pope was not deemed to have a right of Universal Sovereignty; for if such a thing had been instituted by God, or established by the Apostles, the Pope certainly with evident clearness would have appeared to have pos­sessed it; and would have sometimes (I might say frequently, yea con­tinually) have exercised it in the first Ages; which that he did not at all, we shall make, I hope, very manifest by reflecting on the chief pas­sages occurring then; whereof indeed there is scarce any one, which duly weighed doth not serve to overthrow the Roman pretence; but that matter I reserve to another place; and shall propound other conside­rations, declaring the sense of the Fathers; onely I shall add, that indeed

2. The state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such an universal Sovereignty. For that did consist of small bodies incoherently situated and scattered about in very distant places, and consequently un­fit to be modelled into one political Society, or to be governed by one Head. Especially considering their condition under Persecution and Po­verty. What convenient resort for Direction or Justice could a few di­stressed Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Parthia, India, Mesopotamia, Sy­ria, Armenia, Cappadocia, and other Parts have to Rome? what trouble, what burthen had it been to seek Instruction, Succour, Decision of Ca­ses thence? Had they been obliged or required to doe so, what offences, what clamours would it have raised? seeing that afterward, when Chri­stendom was connected, and compacted together; when the state of Christians was flourishing and prosperous, when passages were open, [Page 153] and the best of opportunities of correspondence were afforded, yet the setting out of these pretences did cause great oppositions and stirs; see­ing the exercise of this Authority, when it had obtained most vigour, did produce so many grievances, so many complaints, so many courses to check and curb it, in Countries feeling the inconveniences and mis­chiefs springing from it?

The want of the like in the first Ages is a good Argument, that the cause of them had not yet sprung up; Christendom could not have been so still, if there had been then so meddlesome a body in it, as the Pope now is.

The Roman Clergy in their Epistle to St. Cyprian told him,Nobis, post excessum nobilissimae memo­riae viri Fabiani, nondum est Episcopus propter rerum & temporum difficultatem constitutus, qui omnia ista moderetur— Cl. Rom. ad Cypr. Ep. 31. that because of the difficulty of things and times, they could not constitute a Bishop who might moderate things immediately belonging to them in their own precincts: how much more in that state of things would a Bishop there be sit to moderate things over all the World; when (as Rigaltius truly noteth) the Church being then oppres­sed with various vexations the communication of Pro­vinces between themselves was difficult and unfrequent. Variis tunc Ecclesiâ vexationibus oppres­sâ, difficilis & infrequens erat Provincia­rum inter sese communicatio. Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 67. Verum enim est impeditam suisse eo tempore non parùm Pontificis auctorita­tem— propter persecutiones continuas non potuisse Romanos Pontifices liberè exercere eam, quam à Christo acceperant auctori­tatem, &c. Bell. de R. P. 2.17.

Wherefore Bellarmine himself doth confess, that in those times, before the Nicene Synod the authori­ty of the Pope was not a little hindred, so that because of continual persecutions he could not freely exer­cise it.

The Church therefore could so long subsist without the use of such Au­thority, by the vigilance of Governours over their Flocks, and the friend­ly correspondence of neighbour Churches: And if he would let it alone, it might do so still.

That could be no Divine Institution, which had no vigour in the first and best times; but an Innovation raised by Ambition.

VII. The Ancients, when occasion did require, did maintain their equality of Office and Authority particularly in respect to the Roman Bi­shops; not onely interpretatively by practice, but directly and 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, Nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis minor esse videtur auctoritas Episcopo­rum in Africa constitutorum, qui jam de illis judicaverunt— 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, Fides quam exposuerunt qui affue­runt Episcopi 97— Hilar. de Synodis. (p. 367.) Congregatam Sanctorum Synodum. Hi­lar. ibid. Venerabiles Antiocheni Canones. P. Ni­col. I. Ep. 9. (p. 519.) (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 [Page 154] out of their Epistle) therefore think it equal, [...]. Soz. 3.8. 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; [...]. P. Jul. I. apud Athan. in Apol. 2. (p. 744.) 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;Qui tacet con­sentiri vide­tur. 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;Hic non tam optamus praeponi aliis (sicut praedic [...]s) quàm cum fidelibus cunctis sanctum & Deo placitum habere consortium. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 1. (ad Eu­phemium.) 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;—in elatione suâ Antichri­stum praecur­rit, quia su­perbiendo se caeteris praepo­nit. P. Greg. I. Ep. 6.30. Super caeteros Sacerdotes se extollit. ibid. Christi sibi student membra judicare. P. Greg. I. Ep. 4.36. Solus omnibus praeesse. id. Ep. 4.38. —quibus (Episcopis) cupis temetipsum vocabulo elationis praepo­nere. ibid. 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, Quod verbum jussionis peto à meo au­ditu removeri; quia scio quis sum, qui estis; loco enim mihi fratres estis, mori­bus patres, non ergo jussi, sed quae utilia visa sunt, indicare curavi, &c. Greg. I. Ep. 7.30. (ad Eulog. Alex.) 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.

Cypr. Ep. 4.41.58.67.68.45.49. &c. 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 [Page 155] other due; or that he did take them for his Superiours in Office. [...],— Euseb. 7.5. 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, [...]. Euseb. 7.30. 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, [...]. Athan. Epist. ad Afr. (p. 931.) 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. [...]. Marcell. ad P. Jul. Epiph. haer. 72. [...]— Cyril. ad Nest. in Syn. Eph. p. 207. [...]. Bas. Ep. 69. Athanas. Apol. 2. (p. 761.756.) 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;Theod. 5.9. [...]. Syn. Eph. p. 217. Domino dilectissimo & honoratissimo fratri.— Conc. Afr. Domino dilectissimo & honorabili fratri Maximino. Aug. Ep. 203. [...]— Socr. 4.12. 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. [...]. Conc. Eph. p. 202. [...]. Theod. 4.9. 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,Cùm ergò vel hoc ipso officio literarum per charitatem tibi serviam, non absurdè te Dominum voco, propter [...]num & verum Dominum nostrum qui nobis ista praecepit. Aug. Ep. 103. [...]. Chrys. Ep. 26. [...]. Chrys. Ep. 26. [...]. Ep. 68. (71, 75, 77, 84, 91, &c.) 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. [...]. P. Gel. I. Epist. ad Syn. Eph. Act. 2. (p. 324.) Even in the VI. Council, Thomas Bishop of Constantinople did inscribe according to the old style, to Pope Vitalianus, Conc. 6. Act. 13. p. 224. his brother and Fellow-minister.

The French Bishops had good reason to expostulate with Pope Nicho­las I. You may know, that we are not, Scias nos non tuos esse, ut te jactas & extollis, Clericos, quos ut fratres & Co­episcopos recognoscere, si elatio permitteret, debueras. Ann. Franc. Pith. (Ann. 858.) as you boast and brag, your Clerks; whom, if pride would suffer, you ought to acknowledge for your brethren and Fellow-bishops.

[Page 156]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 may be seen in all solemn addresses, and reports concerning them:) which is an Ar­gument sufficiently plain, that Bishops in those times did not take them­selves to be the Pope's Subjects, or his inferiours in Office; but his fel­lows and mates, co-ordinate in rank.

Were not these improper terms for an ordinary Gentleman, or Noble­man to accost his Prince in? yet hardly is there such a distance between any Prince and his Peers, as there is between a modern Pope and other Bishops.

It would now be taken for a great arrogance and sawciness, for an un­derling Bishop to address to the Pope in such language, or to speak of him in that manner; which is a sign that the World is altered in its no­tion of him, and that he beareth a higher conceit of himself than his primitive Ancestours did. Now nothing but Beatissimus Pater, most Bles­sed Father, and Dominus noster Papa, our Lord the Pope, in the highest sense will satisfy him.

Now a Pope in a General Synod, in a solemn Oration, could be told to his face,Verè divinâ providentiâ factum cen­sendum est, quòd te sacerrimus iste Senatus— fratrem, & ità dixerim filium in patrem, Collegam in Dominum— elegerint, assumpserint, adoraverint. Balt. Delrio. in Conc. Later. ad Leonem X. Sess. 8. (p. 85.) that the most Holy Senate of Cardinals had chosen a Brother into a Father, a Collegue into a Lord. Verily so it is now, but not so anciently.

In the same ancient times the style of the Roman Bishops writing to other Bishops was the same; he calling them Brethren and Fellow-ministers.

So did Cornelius write to Fabius of Antioch, belo­ved brother; [...]. Euseb. 6.43. Omnibus Co-episcopis nostris & fra­tribus innotescat. P. Corn. apud Cypr. Ep. 48. [...]. Athan. p. 739. [...]. Socr. 4.12. so did he call all other Bishops, —be it known to all our Fellow-bishops and brethren. So Julius to the Oriental Bishops, To our beloved bre­thren. So Liberius to the Macedonian Bishops, To our beloved brethren and Fellow-ministers: and to the Oriental Bishops,Fratribus & Co-episcopis. Hil. frag. p. 450. Soz. 6.23. To our brethren and Fellow-bishops. So Damasus to the Bishops of Illyricum. So Leo himself frequently in his Epistles. So Pope Ce­lestine calleth John of Antioch, [...]. Conc. Eph. p. 196. Most honoured bro­ther; to Cyril and to Nestorius himself, Beloved bro­ther; [...]. p. 179, 183. to the Fathers of Ephesus, Signiours brethren. Pope Gelasius to the Bishops of Dardania, [...]. Act. 2. p. 324. Your bro­therhood. Fraternitas Vestra. P. Gelas. Ep. 12. Greg.— Epist. 6.24. Fratris & Con­sacerdotis nostri Cyriaci.— St. Gregory to Cyriacus, Our brother and Fellow-priest, Cyriacus.

If it be said the Popes did write so then out of condescension, or hu­mility and modesty; it may be replied, that if really there was such a difference as is now pretended, it may seem rather affectation, and inde­cency or mockery: for it would have more become the Pope to main­tain the majesty and authority of his place, by appellations apt to cherish their reverence, than to collogue with them in terms void of reality; or signifying that equality which he did not mean.

Bell. 2.14. Theod. 5.10.But Bellarmine hath found out one instance (which he maketh much of) of Pope Damasus, who writing (not as he alledgeth, to the Fathers of Constantinople, Vales. in Theod. ibid. [...]. but) to certain Eastern Bishops, calleth them most honoured sons. That whole Epistle I do fear to be foisted into Theodoret; [Page 157] for it cometh in abruptly; and doth not much become such a man: and if it be supposed genuine, I should suspect some corruption in the place; for why, if he writ to Bishops, should he use a style so unsutable to those times, and so different from that of his Predecessours, and Suc­cessours? why should there be such a disparity between his own style now and at other times? [...]. Soz. 6.23. for writing to the Bishops of Illyricum he cal­leth them beloved brethren; why then is he so inconstant and partial, as to yield these Oriental Bishops less respect? wherefore perhaps [...] was thrust in for [...]· or perhaps the word [...] was intruded, and he did write to Lay-men; [...]. those who governed the East, who well might be called most honoured sons; otherwise the Epithet doth not seem well to sute; but however, a single example of arrogance or stateliness, (or of what shall I call it?) is not to be set against so many modest and mannerly ones?

In fine, that this salutation doth not always imply Superiority, we may be assured by that inscription of Alexander, [...]. Apud Athan. Apol. 2. p. 783. Bishop of Thessalonice, to Athanasius of Alexandria, To my beloved Son and unanimous Collegue Athanasius.

IX. The ground of that eminence, which the Roman Bishop did ob­tain in the Church, so as in order to precede other Bishops, doth shake this pretence.

The Church of Rome was indeed allowed to be the principal Church, Ecclesia prin­cipalis. Cypr. Ep. 55. as St. Cyprian calleth it; but why? was it preferred by Divine Instituti­on? no surely, Christianity did not make Laws of that nature, or con­stitute differences of places. Was it in regard to the succession of St. Pe­ter? no; that was a slim upstart device; that did not hold in Antioch; nor in other Apostolical Churches.

But it was for a more substantial reason; the very same, on which the dignity and preeminency of other Churches was founded; that is, the dignity, magnitude, opulency, opportunity of that City in which the Bishop of Rome did preside; together with the consequent numerous­ness, quality and wealth of his flock; which gave him many great ad­vantages above other his Fellow-bishops: It was (saith Rigaltius) cal­led by St. Cyprian the principal Church,Ecclesia principalis, id est in urbe prin­cipali constituta. Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 55. because constituted in the principal City.

That Church in the very times of severest perse­cutions by the providence of God (as Pope Cornelius said in his Epistle to Fabius) had a rich and plenti­full number, [...]. Euseb. 6.43. with a most great and innumerable peo­ple; so that he reckoneth forty four Presbyters, Et quanquam sciam, frater, pro mutua dilectione quam debemus & exhibemus invicem nobis florentissimo illic Clero te­cum praesidenti, & sanctissimae atque am­plissimae plebi, legere te semper literas no­stras —Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Corn.) seven Deacons (in imitation of the number in the Acts,) seven Sub-deacons, forty two Acoluthi, fifty two others of the inferiour Clergy, and above fifteen hundred Alms-people.

To that Church there must needs have been a great resort of Christi­ans, going to the seat of the Empire in pursuit of business; as in propor­tion there was to each other Metropolis; according to that Canon of the Antiochene Synod, [...]. [...]. Syn. Ant. Can. 9. which or­dered, that the Bishop of each Metropolis should take care of the whole Province, because all that had busi­ness did resort to the Metropolis.

[Page 158]That Church was most able to yield help and succour to them who needed it; and accordingly did use to doe it; according to that of Dionysius (Bishop of Corinth) in his Epistle to Bi­shop Soter of Rome; [...], &c. Dionys. Corinth. apud Euseb. 4.23. This (saith he) is your cu­stome from the beginning, in divers ways to doe good to the brethren and to send supplies to many Churches in every city, so refreshing the poverty of those who want—

Whence it is no wonder, that the Head of that Church did get most reputation, and the privilege of precedence without competition.

To this Church (said Irenaeus) it is necessary that every Church (that is, Ad hanc Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem conveni­re Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt ubique fideles. Iren. 3.3. the faithfull who are all about) should resort, because of its more powerfull principality; what is meant by that resort, will be easie to him, who considereth how men here are wont to go up to Lon­don, drawn thither by interests of Trade, Law, &c. What he did understand by more powerfull principali­ty the words themselves do signifie,( [...] I conjecture he said.) which exactly do agree to the Power and Grandure of the Imperial City; but do not well sute to 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,Quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma praecedere. Cypr. Ep. 49. 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,Autoritate qua potiores aeternae urbis Episcopi. Amm. Marcell. lib. 15. (p. 47.) 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, [...]— Theod. Ep. 113. 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, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. Can. 28. 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, [...]. Placid. in Syn. Chalc. p. 27. 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 [Page 159] 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, [...]— Syn. Const. Can. 3. 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, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Can. 28. 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,Sacrosanctam quoque hujus religiosissimae civitatis Ec­clesiam, & matrem no­strae pietatis, & Christianorum Orthodoxae religionis omnium, & ejusdem Regiae urbis sanctissimam sedem, &c. Imp. Leo. Cod. Lib. 1. Tit. 2. § 16. The Holy Church of this most religious city, the mother of our devotion, and of all orthodox Christians, and the most holy See of that imperial city. Bonifacius III. à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit, magnâ tamen contentione, ut sedes B. Petri. Apostoli, quae caput est omni­um Ecclesiarum, ità & diceretur, & haberetur ab omnibus; quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendi­care conabatur; faventibus interdum Principibus, affirmantibúsque eo loci primam sedem esse debere, ubi Imperii caput esset. Plat. in Bonif. III. (p. 161.) Boniface III. (though with a great deal of stir) obtained of the Emperour Phocas, that the See of Saint Peter the Apostle, which is the head of all Churches, should be so called and accounted by all; which dignity the Church of Constantinople did indeed endeavour to assert to it self, Princes sometime favouring them, and affir­ming that there the chief See ought to be where the head of the Empire was. Phocas rogante Papâ Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum, quia Ecclesia Constantino­politana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat. Anastas. in Bonif. III. Idem Sabellicus, Blondus, Laetus, &c. tradunt. Phocas at the entreaty of Pope Boniface appointed that the Roman See should be the head of all Churches, be­cause the Church of Constantinople wrote her self the chief of all Churches. 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, [...]. Greg. Naz. Orat. 27. [...]. Evag. 2.4. & passim. so as hardly to yield the next place to it.

Upon that account also did Antioch get the next place; as being the [Page 160] 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; [...]. Joseph. de Bello Jud. 3.3. and the which [...]. Chrys. [...]. 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? [...]. Bas. Ep. 48. (ad Athanas.) 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; [...]. Syn. Ant. Can. 9. Syn. Chalc. 17. 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.)

Sedis Apostolicae primatum S. Petri meritum, (qui Princeps est Episcopalis coronae) Romanae dignitas Civitatis, sa­crae etiam Synodi firmavit authoritas. Valentin. Nov. 24. in fin. Cod. Theod.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.

Cypr. Ep. 55.52.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, Atque ego in hac parte justè indignor ad hanc tam apertam & manifestam Ste­phani stultitiam, quod qui sic de Episco­patûs sui loco gloriatur, & se successionem Petri tenere contendit— Stephanus qui per successionem Cathe­dram Petri habere se praedicat— Firmil. apud Cypr. Ep. 75. 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.

[Page 161]The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did confess, that in writings all did willingly honour the Roman Church, [...]. Soz. 3.8. as having been from the beginning the School of the Apostles, and the Metropolis of Religi­on; although yet from the East the instructours of the Christian Doctrine did go and reside there; but from hence they desired not to be deemed inferiours; be­cause they did not exceed in the greatness and nume­rousness of their Church. They allowed some regard (though faintly and with reservation) to the Roman Church upon account of their Aposto­lical foundation; they implied a stronger ground of pretence from the grandeur of that City; yet did not they therefore grant themselves to be inferiours; at least as to any substantial Privilege, importing Autho­rity.

If by Divine right, upon account of his succession to Saint Peter, he had such preeminence, why are the other causes reckoned, as if they could add any thing to God's Institution, or as if that did need humane confirmation? The pretence to that surely was weak, which did need corroboration, and to be propp'd by worldly considerations.

Indeed, whereas the Apostles did found many Churches, exercising Apostolical authority over them (eminently containing the Episcopal) why in conscience should one claim privileges on that score rather than, or above the rest?

Why should the See of Antioch, [...]— Ep. Synod. Const. The­odoret. hist. l. 5. c. 9. p. 211. Quae quantumlibet à Petro ante Alexandrinam fuerat instituta, tamen quoniam prae­fectura Alexandrina Augustalis dicta —longè praestabat Syriae praefecturae, &c. Baron. Ann. 39. § 10. that most ancient and truly Aposto­lical Church, where the Christian name began, where Saint Peter at first (as they say) did sit Bishop for seven years, be postponed to Alex­andria?

Especially why should the Church of Jerusalem, the Seat of our Lord himself,Epiph. Synod. Constant. ibid. [...]. the mother of all Churches, the fountain of Christian Doctrine, the first Consistory of the Apostles, enobled by so ma­ny glorious performances (by the Life, Preaching, Miracles, Death, Bu­rial, Resurrection, Ascension of our Saviour; by the first preaching of the Apostles, the effusion of the Holy Spirit, the Conversion of so ma­ny people, and Constitution of the first Church, and Celebration of the first Synods) upon these considerations not obtain preeminence to other Churches, but in honour be cast behind divers others;Optat. lib. 6. (p. 169.) Hier. Ep. 61. Conc. Nic. Can. 7. and as to Power be subjected to Caesarea, the Metropolis of Palestine?

The true reason of this even Baronius himself did see and acknowledge;Majores enim in instituendis sedibus Ecclesiarum non aliam iniisse rationem, quam secundum divisionem Provincia­rum, & Praerogativas à Romanis anteà stabilitas, quàm plurima sunt exempla. Baron. Anno 39.10. for that (saith he) the An­cients observ'd no other rule in instituting the Ecclesi­astical Sees, than the division of Provinces, and the Prerogative before established by the Romans, there are very many examples.

Of which examples, that of Rome is the most obvious and notable; and what he so generally asserteth may be so applied thereto, as to void all other grounds of its preeminence.

[Page 162]X. The truth is, all Ecclesiastical presidencies and subordinations, or dependencies of some Bishops on others in administration of spiritual affairs were introduced merely by humane Ordinance, and established by Law or Custome, upon prudential accounts, according to the exigency of things: Hence the Prerogatives of other Sees did proceed; and hereto whatever Dignity, Privilege, or Authority the Pope with equity might at any time claim, is to be imputed.

To clear which point, we will search the matter nearer the quick; propounding some observations concerning the ancient forms of Disci­pline, and considering what interest the Pope had therein.

At first each Church was settled apart under its own Bishop and Pres­byters; so as independently and separately to manage its own concern­ments; each was [...], and [...], governed by its own head, and had its own Laws. Every Bishop as a Prince in his own Church, did act freely according to his will and discretion, with the advice of his Ecclesiastical Senate, and Cypr. Ep. 52.55.72.73.76. Omnis hic actus populo erat insinuandus. P. Corn. apud Cypr. Ep. 46. All this business was to have been imparted to the people. Secundum arbitrium quoque vestrum, & omnium no­strum commune consilium — ea quae agenda sunt disponere. Cypr. Ep. 40. (Plebi Vniv.) To order what was to be done according to your judg­ment, and the common advice of us all. Et limanda plenius ratio non solùm cum Collegis meis, sed & cum plebe ipsa universa. Cypr. Ep. 28. And the reason is more throughly to be examined not onely with my Collegues, but with the whole people. Praejudicare ego & soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. Ep. 18. I dare not therefore prejudge, nor assume to my self alone a matter which is common to all. with the consent of his people (the which he did use to consult) without being con­trollable by any other, or accountable to any, farther than his obligation to uphold the verity of Christian professi­on, and to maintain fraternal commu­nion in charity and peace with neigh­bouring Churches did require, in which regard if he were notably peccant, he was liable to be disclaimed by them, as no good Christian, and rejected from communion, together with his Church, if it did adhere to him in his misde­meanours. This may be collected from the remainders of State in the times of St. Cyprian.

But because little, disjointed and incoherent Bodies were like dust apt to be dissipated by every wind of exter­nal assault,Hoc enim & verecundiae & disciplinae & vitae ipsi omni­um nostrum convenit, ut Episcopi plures in unum conv [...]ni­entes, praesente & stantium plebe, quibus & ipsis pro fi­de & timore suo honor habendus est) disponere omnia consi­lia communis religione possimus. Cypr. Ep. 14. For it becomes the modesty, the discipline, and the manner of our living, that many Bishops meeting toge­ther, the people being also present, (to whom respect ought to be had for their faith and fear) we may order all things with the common advice. or intestine faction; and peaceable union could hardly be retai­ned without some ligature of disci­pline; and Churches could not mu­tually support and defend each other without some method of entercourse and rule of confederacy, engaging them:—quoniam non pancorum, nec Ecclesiae unius aut unius Provinciae, sed totius orbis haec causa est—Cypr. Ep. 14. —because this is the concern not of a few men or one Church, or one Province, but of the whole world. Therefore for many good pur­poses (for upholding and advancing the common interests of Christianity, for protection and support of each Church from inbred disorders and dis­sentions;Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum— ut si quis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri— Cypr. Ep. 76. Therefore the Clergy is a large body — that if any one of our own society should vent an heresie, and attempt to rent and waste the flock of Christ, the rest might come in to their help. for preserving the integri­ty of the faith, for securing the con­cord of divers Churches, for provi­ding fit Pastours to each Church, and correcting such as were scandalously [Page 163] bad Particularly in the dispensation of Church goods. Conc. Ant. Can. 25. or unfaithfull) it was soon found needfull, that divers Churches should be combined and linked to­gether in some regular form of Discipline; Nov. 137. cap. 4.123. cap. 10. that if any Church did want a Bishop, the neighbour Bi­shops might step in to approve and ordain a fit one; Vid. Can. Apost. 38. (al. 30.) de Synodis. that if any Bishop did notoriously swerve from the Christian rule, the others might interpose to correct or void him; that if any errour, or schism did peep up in any Church, the joint con­currence of divers Bishops might avail to stop its progress, and to quench it; by convenient means of instruction, reprehension and censure; that if any Church were oppressed by persecution, by indigency, by faction; the others might be engaged to afford effectual succour and relief: for such ends it was needfull, that Bishops in certain precincts should con­vene, with intent to deliberate and resolve about the best expedients to compass them; And that the manner of such proceeding,( [...]. Syn. Const. can. 2.) (to avoid un­certain distraction, confusion, arbitrariness, dissatisfaction and mutinous opposition) should be settled in an ordinary course; according to rules known and allowed by all.

In defining such precincts it was most natural, most easie, most com­modious to follow the divisions of Territory, or Jurisdiction already established in the Civil State; that the Spiritual administrations being in such circumstances aptly conformed to the Secular might go on more smoothly and expeditely, the wheels of one not clashing with the other; according to the judgment of the two great Synods, that of Chalcedon, and the Trullane; [...]. Conc. Chalced. Can. 17. & Conc. Trull. Can. 38. which did ordain, that if by Royal authority any city be or should hereafter be re-established, the order of the chur­ches shall be according to the civil and publick form.

Whereas therefore in each Nation or Province subject to one Political Jurisdiction there was a Metropolis or Head-city, P. Anacl. dist. 99. cap. 1. P. Greg. VII. Ep. 6.35. to which the greatest resort was for dispensation of Justice, and dispatch of principal Affairs emergent in that Province; it was also most convenient, that also the determination of Ecclesiastical matters should be affixed thereto; especi­ally considering that usually those places were opportunely seated; that many persons upon other occasions did meet there; that the Churches in those Cities did exceed the rest in number, in opulency, in ability and op­portunity to promote the common interest in all kinds of advantages.

Moreover because in all Societies and Confedera­cies of men for ordering publick affairs,Ad hoc divinae dispensationis provisio gradus & diversos constituit ordines in se distinctos, ut dum reverentiam minores potioribus exhiberent, & potiores minori­bus diligentiam impenderent, una concor­diae fieret à diversitate contentio & rectè officiorum gereretur administratio singu­lorum. Joh. VIII. Ep. 95. To this end divine providence hath appointed degrees and divers orders distinct from one another, that while the less reverence the greater, and the greater take care of the less, from this diversity there might arise one frame of concord, and all offices be daily ad­ministred. (for the settling things in motion, for effectual dispatch, for preventing endless dissentions and confusions both in resolving upon and executing things) it is needfull that one person should be authorized to preside among the rest, unto whom the power and care should be entrusted to convoke Assemblies in fit season, to propose matters for consultation, to moderate the debates and proceedings, to declare the result, and to see that what is agreed upon may be duly executed; Such a charge then naturally would devolve it self upon the Prelate of the Metropolis, as being suppo­sed constantly present on the place; as being at home in his own seat of presidence, and receiving the rest under his wing; as incontestably [Page 164] surpassing others in all advantages answerable to the secular advantages of his City; for that it was unseemly and hard, if he at home should be postponed in dignity to others repairing thither; for that also common­ly he was in a manner the spiritual Father of the rest, (Religion being first planted in great Cities and thence propagated to others) so that the reverence and dependence on Colonies to the mother City was due from other Churches to his See.

Wherefore by consent of all Churches, grounded on such obvious rea­son of things, the presidency in each Province was assigned to the Bi­shop of the Metropolis, who was called the first Bishop, the Metropoli­tane, (in some places the Primas Provinciae. Cod. Afr. Can. 19. Primate, the Archbi­shop, the Patriarch, the Pope) of the Province. The Apostolical Canons call him the first Bishop (which sheweth the Antiquity of this Institution: [...]. Can. Apost. 27. The Bishops of each Nation ought to know who is chief among them. Cod. Afr. Can. 39. Dist. 99. cap. 3.) the A­frican Synods did appoint that name to him as most modest, and calling him Primate in that sense; o­ther ancient Synods style him the Metropolite; and to the Metropolites of the principal Cities they gave the Title of Archbishop. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria peculiarly were called Popes; although that name was sometimes deferred to any other Bishop.

During this state of things the whole Church did consist of so many Provinces, being [...], independent on each other in Ecclesiasti­cal administrations; each reserving to it self the constitution of Bishops, the convocation of Synods, the enacting of Canons, the decision of Causes, the definition of Questions; yet so that each Province did hold peacefull and amicable correspondence with others; upon the like terms as before each [...], or Episcopal precinct did hold intercourse with its neighbours.

And whoever in any Province did not comply with or submit to the Orders and Determinations resolved upon in those Assemblies, [...] Syn. Nic. Can. 18. was dee­med a schismatical, contentious and contumelious person; with good reason, because he did thwart a Discipline plainly conducible to publick good; because declining such judgments he plainly shewed that he would admit none, (there not being any fairer way of determining things than by common advice and agreement of Pastours) because he did in effect refuse all good terms of communion and peace.

Thus I conceive the Metropolitical governance was introduced, by humane prudence following considerations of publick necessity or uti­lity: There are indeed some, who think it was instituted by the Apostles; but their Arguments do not seem convincing, and such a constitution doth not (as I take it) well sute to the state of their times, and the course they took in founding Churches.

Into such a Chanel, through all parts of Christendom (though with some petty differences in the methods and measures of acting) had Ecclesiasti­cal administrations fallen of themselves; plain community of reason, and imitation insensibly propagating that course; and therein it ran for a good time, before it was by general consent and solemn sanction established.

The whole Church then was a Body consisting of several confederati­ons of Bishops, acting in behalf of their Churches under their respective Metropolitanes, Can. Apost. 38. Tertull. de Jej. cap. 13. Syn. Nic. Can. 5. who did ma­nage the common affairs in each Province; convo­king Synods at stated times and upon emergent oc­casions; [Page 165] in them deciding Causes and Controversies incident, relating to faith or practice; [...]— Syn. Ant. Can. 20. framing Rules serviceable to common Edification, and decent uni­formity in God's service; quashing Heresies and Schisms; declaring truths impugned or questioned; maintaining the harmony of commu­nion and concord with other Provinces adjacent or remote.

Such was the state of the Church, unto which the Apostolical Ca­nons and Constitutions do refer, answerable to the times in which they were framed; and which we may discern in the practice of ancient Synods.

Such it did continue, when the great Synod of Nice was celebrated, which by its authority (presumed to represent the authority of all Bishops in the World, [...]— Synod. Constant. Theod. 5.9. who were summoned thereto) backed by the Imperial Autho­rity and Power, did confirm those Orders, as they found them standing by more general custome, and received Rules in most Provinces; [...]. Can. 20. reducing them into more [...]orm practice; so that what before stood upon reason, customary usage, particular consent, by so august sanction did become universal Law; and did ob­tain so great veneration, as by some to be conceived everlastingly and immutably obligatory; according to those maximes of Pope Leo.

It is here farther observable, that whereas divers Provinces did hold communion and entercourse; so that upon occasion they did (by their formed Letters) render to one another an account of their proceedings, being of great moment, especially of those which concerned the general state of Christianity, and common faith; calling, when need was, for assistence one of other to resolve points of faith, or to settle order and peace; there was in so doing a special respect given to the Metropolites of great Cities: and to prevent dissensions, which naturally ambition doth prompt men to, grounded upon degrees of respect, an Order was fixed among them, according to which in subscriptions of Letters, in accidental congresses, and the like occasions, some should precede others; (that distinction being chiefly and commonly grounded on the greatness, splendour, opulency of Cities; or following the secular dignity of them:) whence Rome had the first place, Alexandria the second, An­tioch the third, Hierusalem the fourth, &c.

Afterward,Zos. lib. 2. p. 63. Sextus Ru­fus, Brev. Constantine having introduced a new partition of the Em­pire, whereby divers Provinces were combined together into one Territo­ry, under the regiment of a Vicar, or a Lieutenant of a Praefectus-prae­terio, which Territory was called a Diocese; the Ecclesiastical state was adapted in conformity thereto; new Ecclesiastical Systems, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 388. [...]. Epist. Orient. ad Rusum. in Syn. Eph. p. 396. Dist. 99. cap. 1, 2. [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 2. (p. 211.) Ephesi [...]. Evag. 3.6. [...]. Zon. ad 28. Can. Chalc. Novell. 137. cap. 5. & 123. cap. 10. P. Greg. I. Ep. 11, 56. Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, id est in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metro­politanis, atque Episcopis. Isid. dist. 21. cap. 1. Dionysius Ex. translates [...], Pri­matem. in Syn. Chalc. Can. 9, & 17. and a new sort of spiritual Heads thence springing up; so that in each Diocese, consisting of divers Provinces an Ecclesiastical Exarch (otherwise sometimes called a Primate, sometimes a Diocesan, sometimes a Patriarch) was constituted, answera­ble to the Civil Exarch of a Diocese; who by such constitution did obtain a like Authority over the Metropolitanes of Provinces, as they had in their Province over the Bishops of Cities; so that it ap­pertained to them to call together the Synods of the [Page 166] whole Diocese, to preside in them, and in them to dispatch the principal affairs concerning that pre­cinct, to ordain Metropolitanes, to confirm the Or­dinations of Bishops, to decide Causes and Contro­versies between Bishops upon appeal from Provincial Synods.

Some conceive the Synod of Nice did establish it; but that can hardly well be; for that Synod was held about the time of that division, (after that Constantine was setled in a peacefull enjoyment of the Empire) and scarce could take notice of so fresh a change in the State; [...]— Can. 18. [...]. Can. 6. [...]— Can. 7. [...]. Ibid. that doth not pretend to innovate, but pro­fesseth in its sanctions specially to regard ancient custome, saving to the Churches their privileges of which they were possessed; that onely mentioneth Provinces, and representeth the Metropolitanes in them as the chief Governours Ecclesiastical then be­ing; that constituteth a peremptory decision of weighty causes in Pro­vincial Synods, which is inconsistent with the Diocesan Authority; that taketh no notice of Constantinople, the [...]rincipal Dio­cese in the East, [...]— Syn. Laod. Can. 12. That Bishops should be constituted by the judgment of the Metropolitanes and the neighbouring Bishops. as seat of the Empire; (and the Sy­nod of Antioch, insisting in the footsteps of the Ni­cene, doth touch onely Metropolitanes (Can. 19.) and the Synod of Laodicea doth onely suppose that Order.) In fine, that Synod is not recorded by any old Historian to have framed such an alteration; which indeed was so considerable, that Eusebius who was present there could not well have passed it over in silence.

Of this opinion was the Synod of Carthage in their Epistle to Pope Ce­lestine I. who understood no jurisdiction but that of Metropolitanes to be constituted in the Nicene Synod.

Some think the Fathers of the Second General Synod did introduce it, seeing it expedient that Ecclesiastical administrations should correspond to the Political; for they did innovate somewhat in the form of Govern­ment; they do expresly use the new word Diocese, according to the ci­vil sense, as distinct from a Province; they do distinctly name the par­ticular Dioceses of the Oriental Empire, as they stood in the civil esta­blishment; [...]— Syn. Const. Can. 6. But if it so happen that the Bishops of any Province cannot rectify those things which are laid to the charge of a Bishop, they shall then go to a greater Synod of the Bishops of that Diocese, met together for that purpose. The Fathers of Constantinople in their Synodick Epistle distinguish the Province and Diocese of Antioch, [...]— Theod. 5.9. [...]. Socr. 5.8. [...]. Theodor. Epist. 86. (ad Flavianum.) For, says Theodoret, the Blessed Fathers meeting together in the Imperial City, distinguish'd Dioceses agreeably to what the Nicene Fathers had done, and allotted to every Diocese what belonged to it: on the contrary char­ging that no one of one Diocese should encroach upon another. they do prescribe to the Bishops in each Diocese to act uni­tedly there, not skipping over the bounds of it; they order a kind of appeal to the Synod of the Diocese, prohibiting other appeals: The Hi­storians expresly do report of them, that they did distinguish and distri­bute Dioceses, that they did constitute Patriarchs, that they did prohibit that any of one Diocese should intrude upon another.

[Page 167]But if we shall attently search and scan passages, we may perhaps find reason to judge, that this form did soon after the Synod of Nice creep in without any solemn appointment by spontaneous assumption and sub­mission, accommodating things to the Political course; the great Bishops (who by the amplification of their City in power, wealth and concourse of people were advanced in reputation and interest) assuming such au­thority to themselves; and the lesser Bishops easily complying; And of this we have some Arguments.Theod. 2.26. Soz. 4.25. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem being deposed and extruded by Acacius Metropolitan of Palestine, did appeal to a grea­ter Judicatory; being the first (as Socrates noteth) who ever did use that course; because, it seemeth, [...]— Socr. 2.40. there was no greater in being till about that time; which was some years before the Synod of Constan­tinople; in which there is a mention of a greater Sy­nod of the Diocese —

There was a convention of Bishops of the Pontick Diocese at Tyana;Sozom. 6.12. (distinguished from the Asian Bishops) whereof Eusebius of Caesarea is reckoned in the first place, as President; in the time of Valens.

Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople is said by the Synod of Chalcedon to have presided in the Synod of Constantinople. [...]. (in prosphonetico ad Imper.)

A good Argument is drawn from the very Canon of the Synod of Constantinople it self; [...]— Can. 2. [...]— Can. 6. which doth speak concerning Bishops over Dioceses as already constituted, or extant; not instituting that Order of Bishops, but supposing it, and together with an implicit confirmation regulating practice according to it, by prohibiting Bishops to leap over the bounds of their Diocese, so as to meddle in the affairs of other Dio­ceses; and by ordering appeals to the Synod of a Diocese.

Of Authority gained by such assumption, and concession without law, there might be produced divers instances.

As particularly that the See of Constantinople did assume to it self Or­dination and other acts of Jurisdiction, in three Dioceses, before any such power was granted to it by any Synodical Decree; the which to have done divers instances shew; some whereof are alledged in the Synod of Chalcedon;Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. (p. 463.) [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 11. (p. 411.) as St. Chryso­stome, of whom it is there said, That going into Asia he deposed fifteen Bishops, and consecrated others in their room.

He also deposed Gerontius Bishop of Nicomedia, Sozom. 8.6. belonging to the Dio­cese of Pontus.

Whence the Fathers of Chalcedon did aver, [...]. Syn. Chalc. in Epist. ad P. Leonem. That they had in a Synod confirmed the ancient custome which the Holy Church of God in Constantinople had, to ordain Metropolitanes in the Asian, Pontic and Thracian Dioceses.

The which custome, (consistent with reason, and becoming the dig­nity of the Empire,Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. (p. 462—) and gratefull to the Court) that great Synod did establish, although the Roman Church out of jealousie did contest and protest against it.

But the most pertinent instances are those of the Roman, Alexandrine and Antiochene Churches having by degrees assumed to themselves such [Page 168] power over divers Provinces; in imitation of which Churches the other Diocesan Bishops may well be thought to have enlarged their Jurisdiction.

This form of government is intimated in the Sy­nod of Ephesus; [...]. Syn. Eph. Can. 8. [There is mention of Dioceses in Strabo.] by those words in which Dioceses and Provinces are distinguished; and the same shall be observed in all Dioceses and all Provinces every were.

However that this form of Discipline was perfectly setled in the times of the Fourth General Synod is evident by two no­table Canons thereof, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Can. 19, & 17. wherein it is decreed, that if any Bishop have a controversie with his Metropolitan of his Province, he shall resort to and be judged by the Exarch of the Diocese, or by the See of Constantinople.

This was a great privilege conferred on the Bishop of Constantinople; the which perhaps did ground (to be sure it did make way for) the plea of that Bishop to the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch, or Vniversal Bishop, which Pope Gregory did so exagitate; and indeed it soundeth so fairly toward it, that the Pope hath nothing comparable to it to alledge in fa­vour of his pretences; this being the Decree of the greatest Synod that ever was held among the Ancients, where all the Patriarchs did concur in making these Decrees; which Pope Gregory did reverence as one of the Gospels.— If any ancient Synod did ever constitute any thing like to Vniversal Monarchy, it was this; wherein a final determination of greatest Causes was granted to the See of Constantinople, without any ex­ception or reservation: I mean as to semblance, and the sound of words; for as to the true sense I do indeed conceive that the Canon did onely re­late to causes emergent in the Eastern parts; and probably it did onely respect the three Dioceses (of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace) which were immediately subjected to his Patriarchal Jurisdiction.

Quem autem Primatem Dioeceseos S. Synodus dixerit, prae­ter Apostoli primi Vicari­um, nullus penitus intelligitur— None can understand whom the Holy Synod should call Primate of a Diocese, except the Vicar of the prime Apostle. Tantundem valet dixisse Primatem Dioeceseos, quantum si perhibuisset Dioeceseon. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. (p. 507.) To say the Primate of a Diocese is as much as to say of Dioceses.Pope Nicholas I. doth very jocularly expound this Canon; affirming that by the Primate of the Diocese is understood the Pope (Diocese being put by a notable figure for Dioceses) and that an appeal is to be made to the Bishop of Constantinople, onely by permission, in case the Party will be content therewith.

We may note, that some Provincial Churches were by ancient custome exempted from dependence on any Primacy or Patriarchate.

Such an one the Cyprian Church was adjudged to be in the Ephesine Synod; wherein the privileges of such Churches were confirmed against the invasion of greater Churches; and to that pur­pose this general Law enacted, [...], &c. Conc. Eph. Can. 8. Let the same be ob­serv'd in all Dioceses and Provinces every where — that none of the Bishops most beloved of God invade another Province which did not formerly belong to him or his Predecessours; and if any one have invaded one, and violently seiz'd it, that he restore it.

Such a Church was that of Britain anciently, before Austin did in­troduce the Papal Authority here, against that Canon: as by divers learned Pens hath been shewed.

[Page 169]Such was the Church of Africk, as by their Canons against transma­rine appeals, and about all other matters doth appear.

It is supposed, by some,Isid. dist. 2. cap. 1. that Discipline was scrued yet one peg high­er, by setting up the Order of Patriarchs higher than Primates, or Dio­cesan Exarchs; but I find no ground of this supposal except in one case; that is, of the Bishop of Constantinople being set above the Bishops of Ephe­sus, Caesarea and Heraclea, which were the Primates of the three Dioceses.

It is a notable fib, which Pope Nicholas II. tel­leth, as Gratian citeth him;Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apices, sive Metropole [...]n Primatus, aut Episcopa­tuum Cathedras, vel Ecclesiarum cujusli­bet Ordinis Dignitates instituit Romana Ecclesia. P. Nich. II. Dist. 22. cap. 1. That the Church of Rome instituted all Patriarchal Supremacies, all Me­tropolitan Primacies, Episcopal Sees, all Ecclesiastical Orders and Dignities whatsoever.

Now things standing thus in Christendom, we may, concerning the interest of the Roman Bishop, in reference to them, observe,

1. In all these transactions about modelling the spiritual Discipline, there was no Canon established any peculiar Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome, onely the

2. Synod of Nice did suppose that he by custome did enjoy some Autho­rity within certain precincts of the West, like to that which it did confirm to the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, and the Countries adjacent thereto.

3. The Synods of Constantinople did allow him honourary privileges or precedence before all other Bishops, [...]. Can. 3. [...] Syn. Ch. Act. 16. assigning the next place after him to the Bishop of Constantinople.

4. In other privileges the Synod of Chalcedon did equall the See of Con­stantinople to the Roman. [...].

5. The Canons of the two First and Fourth General Synods, ordering all affairs to be dispatched, and causes to be determined in Metropolitan or Dio­cesan Synods, do exclude the Roman Bishop from meddling in those concerns.

6. The Popes (out of a humour natural to them, to like nothing but what they did themselves, and which served their Interests) did not re­lish those Canons, although enacted by Synods which themselves admit­ted for Oecumenical: That subscription of some Bi­shops made above sixty years since as you boast, Persuasioni enim tuae in nullo penitus suffragatur quorundam Episcoporum ante sexaginta, ut jactas, annos facta subscri­ptio, nunquámque à praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Seais transmissa notitiam, cui ab initio sui caducae, dudúmque collapsae sera nunc & inutilia subjicere somenta vo­luisti— P. Leo. Ep. 53. (ad Anatol.) Vid. Ep. 54, & 55, & 61. does no whit favour your persuasion: a subscription never transmitted to the knowledge of the Apostolick See by your Predecessours, which from its very beginning be­ing weak, and long since ruinous, you endeavour now too late and unprofitably to revive.

So doth Pope Leo I. treat the Second Great Sy­nod, writing to Anatolius: Romana autem Ecclesia eosdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet, nec accepit. Greg. M. Ep. 6.31. (ad Eulog. Alex.) and Gregory speaking of the same says, That the Roman Church has not the acts of that Synod, nor receiv'd its Canons.

7. Wherefore in the West they did obtain no effect, so as to establish Diocesan Primacies there.

The Bishops of Cities, which were Heads of Dioceses,N. A Roman Synod, Anno 378. consi­sting of Ita­lian Bishops did give the Pope such a privilege as the Synod of Constantinople did to the Bishop of that See. (Marc. de Primat. p. 103. ex app. Cod. Theodos. vide Baron.) But there is difference between a General Synod, and an Italian Synod: and what had an Italian Synod to prescribe to all the Provinces of the Roman Empire, or rather of the West? P. Greg. I. Ep. 7, 8. either did not know of these Canons (which is probable, because Rome did smother the notice of them:) or were hindred from using them; the Pope having so winded himself in and got such hold among them, as he would not let go.

[Page 170]8. It indeed turned to a great advantage of the Pope, in carrying on his Encroachments, and enlarging his worldly Interests, that the We­stern Churches did not, as the Eastern, conform themselves to the Poli­tical frame in embracing Diocesan Primacies; which would have enga­ged and enabled them better to protect the Liberties of their Churches from Papal Invasions.Balusius thinketh, that Hilarius of Arles did pretend and offer at this Primatical power. apud Marc. 5.32. but P. Leo did mainly check and quash his attempt.

9. For hence for want of a better, the Pope did claim to himself a Pa­triarchal authority over the Western Churches; pretending a right of calling to Synods, of meddling in Ordinations, of determining Causes by appeal to him; of dictating Laws and Rules to them, against the old rights of Metropolitans, and the later Constitutions for Primacies.

Of this we have an Instance in St. Gregory; where he alledging an Imperial Constitution importing that in case a Clergy-man should appeal from his Metropolitan, the cause should be referred to the Archbishop and Patriarch of that Diocese, who judging according to the Canons and Laws should give an end thereto; doth consequentially assume an appeal from a Bishop to himself,Contra haec si dictum fuerit, quia nec Metropolitam habuit, nec Patriarcham; dicendum est quia à Sede Apostolica, quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est, causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat. Greg. I. Ep. 11.56. adjoy­ning, If against these things it be said, that the Bi­shop had neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch, it is to be said, that this cause was to be heard and decided by the Apostolical See, which is the head of all Churches.

10. Having got such advantage, and as to extent stretched his Autho­rity beyond the bounds of his sub-urbicarian precincts, Ruffin. Hist. 1.6. he did also intend it in quality far beyond the privileges by any Ecclesiastical Law granted to Patriarchs; or claimed or exercised by any other Patriarch; till at length by degrees he had advanced it to an exorbitant omnipotency, and thereby utterly enslaved the Western Churches.

The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch or Primate to call a Synod of the Bishops in his Diocese, and with them to determine Ecclesiastical Affairs by majority of suffrages; but he doth not doe so, but setting him­self down in his Chair with a few of his Courtiers about him, doth make Decrees and Dictates, to which he pretendeth all must submit.

The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch to ordain Metropolitans duly elected in their Dioceses; leaving Bishops to be ordained by the Metro­politans in their Provincial Synods; but he will meddle in the Ordina­tion of every Bishop, suffering none to be constituted without his con­firmation, for which he must soundly pay.

The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch, with the advice and consent of his Synod to make Canons for the well ordering his Diocese; but he sendeth about his Decretal Letters, composed by an infallible Secretary, which he pretendeth must have the force of Laws, equal to the highest Decrees of the whole Church.

The ancient Order did suppose Bishops by their Ordination sufficient­ly obliged to render unto their Patriarch due observance, according to the Canons, he being liable to be judged in a Synod for the transgression of his duty; but he forceth all Bishops to take the most slavish oaths of obedience to him that can be imagined.

The ancient Order did appoint that Bishops accused for offences should be judged in their Provinces; or upon appeal from them in Pa­triarchal Synods: but he receiveth appeals at the first hand, and deter­mineth [Page 171] them in his Court, without calling such a Synod in an age for any such purpose.

The ancient Patriarchs did order all things, as became good Subjects, with leave and under submission to the Emperour, who as he pleased did interpose his confirmation of their Sanctions: but this man preten­deth to decree what he pleaseth without the leave, and against the will of Princes.

Wherefore he is not a Patriarch of the Western Churches, (for that he acteth according to no Patriarchal Rule) but a certain kind of Sove­reign Lord, or a tyrannical Oppressour of them.

11. In all the transactions for modelling the Church there never was allowed to the Pope any dominion over his Fellow-patriarchs,Isid. in dist. 21. cap. 1. or of those great Primates who had assumed that name to themselves; among whom indeed, for the dignity of his City, he had obtained a priority of honour or place; but never had any power over them setled by a title of Law, or by clear and uncontested practice.

Insomuch, that if any of them had erred in Faith, or offended in Prac­tice, it was requisite to call a General Synod to judge them; as in the cases of Athanasius, of Gregory Nazianzene and Maximus, of Theophilus and St. Chrysostome, of Nestorius and of Dioscorus— is evident.

12. Indeed all the Oriental Churches did keep themselves pretty free from his encroachments, although, when he had swollen so big in the West, he sometimes did take occasion to attempt on their Liberty; which they sometimes did warily decline, sometimes stoutly did oppose.

But as to the main,Vid. de Marc. lib. 7. cap. [...] & 5. those flourishing Churches constantly did maintain a distinct administration from the Western Churches, under their own Patriarchs and Synods, not suffering him to interlope in prejudice to their Liberty.

They without his leave or notice did call and celebrate Synods (where­of all the first great Synods are instances) their Ordinations were not confirmed or touched by him; Appeals were not (with publick regard or allowance) thence made to him in causes great or little, but they de­cided them among themselves: they quashed Heresies springing up a­mong them, as the Second General Synod the Macedonians, Theophilus the Origenists, &c. Little in any case had his Worship to doe with them or they with him, beyond what was needfull to maintain general com­munion and correspondence with him; which they commonly, as piety obliged, were willing to doe.

And sometimes, when a pert Pope, upon some incidental advantage of differences risen among them, would be more busie than they deemed convenient in tampering with their affairs, they did rap his fingers: so Victor, so Stephanus, so Julius and Liberius of old did feel to their smart; so afterward Damasus and other Popes in the case of Flavianus; Innocent in the case of St. Chrysostome; Felix and his Successours in the case of Acacius did find little regard had to their interposals.

So things proceeded, till at length a final rupture was made between them, and they would not suffer him at all to meddle with their affairs.

Before I proceed any farther I shall briefly draw some Corollaries from this Historical account which I have given of the original and growth of Metropolitical, Primatical and Patriarchal Jurisdiction.

1. Patriarchs are an humane Institution.

[Page 172]2. As they were erected by the power and prudence of men, so they may be dissolved by the same.

3. They were erected by the leave and confirmation of Princes; and by the same they may be dejected, if great reason do appear.

4. The Patriarchate of the Pope beyond his own Province or Diocese doth not subsist upon any Canon of a General Synod.

5. He can therefore claim no such power otherwise than upon his in­vasion or assumption.

6. The Primates and Metropolitans of the Western Church cannot be supposed otherwise than by force or out of fear to have submitted to such an authority as he doth usurp.

7. It is not really a Patriarchal Power (like to that which was gran­ted by the Canons, and Princes) but another sort of power which the Pope doth exercise.

8. The most rightfull Patriarch, holding false Doctrine, or imposing unjust Laws, or tyrannically abusing his power may and ought to be re­jected from communion.

9. Such a Patriarch is to be judged by a free Synod, if it may be had.

10. If such a Synod cannot be had by consent of Princes, each Church may free it self from the mischiefs induced by his perverse doc­trine or practice.

11. No Ecclesiastical Power can interpose in the management of any affairs within the Territory of any Prince without his concession.

12. By the Laws of God and according to ancient Practice Princes may model the bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, erect Bishopricks, enlarge, diminish, or transfer them as they please.

13. Wherefore each Prince (having Supreme Power in his own Do­minions, and equal to what the Emperour had in his) may exclude any foreign Prelate from Jurisdiction in his Territories.

14. It is expedient for peace and publick good that he should doe thus.

15. Such Prelate, according to the rules of Christianity, ought to be content with his doing so.

16. Any Prelate, exercising power in the Dominion of any Prince, is eatenus, his Subject: as the Popes and all Bishops were to the Roman Emperours.

17. Those joints of Ecclesiastical Discipline, established in the Roman Empire by the confirmation of Emperours, were (as to necessary conti­nuance) dissolved by the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

18. The power of the Pope in the Territories of any Prince did sub­sist by his authority and favour.

19. By the same reason as Princes have curbed the exorbitancy of Pa­pal power in some cases (of entertaining Legats, making Appeals, dis­posing of Benefices, &c.) by the same they might exclude it.

20. The practice of Christianity doth not depend upon the subsistence of such a form instituted by man.

Having shewed at large that this Universal Sovereignty and Jurisdic­tion of the Bishop of Rome over the Christian Church hath no real Foun­dation either in Scripture or elsewhere, it will be requisite to shew by what ways and means so groundless a claim and pretence should gain belief and submission to it,De pusillo crescere. P. Leo. Ep. 55. from so considerable a part of Christendom; and that from so very slender roots (from slight beginnings and the slimmest pretences [Page 173] one can well imagin) this bulk of exorbitant power did grow, the vast­est that ever man on earth did attain, or did ever aim at, will be the less wonderfull, if we do consider the many causes which did concur and contribute thereto; some whereof are proposed in the following Observations.

1. Eminency of any kind (in wealth, in honour, in reputation, in might, in place, or mere order of dignity,) doth easily pass into ad­vantages of real power and command over those who are inferiour in those respects, and have any dealings or common transactions with such Superiours.

For to persons endowed with such eminency by voluntary deference the conduct of affairs is wont to be allowed; none presuming to stand in competition with them, every one rather yielding place to them than to their equals.

The same conduct of things, upon the same accounts, and by rea­son of their possession, doth continue fast in their hands, so long as they do retain such advantages.

Then from a custom of managing things doth spring up an opinion or a pretence of right thereto; they are apt to assume a title, and others ready to allow it.

Men naturally do admire such things, and so are apt to defer extraor­dinary respect to the possessours of them.

Advantages of wealth and might are not onely instruments to attain, but incentives spurring men to affect the getting authority over their poorer and weaker neighbours: for men will not be content with bare eminency, but will desire real power and sway, so as to obtain their wills over others, and not to be crossed by any. Pope Leo had no reason to wonder,Quid illi sa­tisfaciet, si [...]tantae urbi [...] magnificentia & claritudo non sufficit? Leo Ep. 55. that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople was not content with dry honour. Men are apt to think their honour is precarious, and stan­deth on an uncertain foundation, if it be not supported with real power; and therefore they will not be satisfied to let their advantages lie dead, which are so easily improveable to power, by inveigling some, and sca­ring or constraining others to bear their yoke: and they are able to be­nefit and gratifie some, and thereby render them willing to submit, those afterwards become serviceable to bring others under, who are disaffec­ted or refractory.

So the Bishops of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, at first had onely privileges of honour; but afterward they soon hooked in power.

Now the Roman Bishops from the beginning were eminent above all other Bishops in all kinds of advantages.

He was seated in the Imperial City, the place of general resort; thence obvious to all eyes,Euseb. 6.43. (Anno 254.) Oblationibus matro­narum ditati. Amm. Marc. l. 27. (p. 337.) Anno 367. Circumspectè vestiti. Amm. Marc. l. 27. (p. 337.) Anno 367. and his name sounding in all mouths. He had a most nu­merous, opulent, splendid flock and Clergy. He had the greatest income (from liberal oblations) to dis­pose of. He lived in greatest state and lustre.Euseb. He had oportunities to assist others in their business, and to relieve them in their wants. He necessarily thence did obtain great respect and veneration. Hence in all common affairs, the conduct and presidence were naturally devolved on him, without contest.

No wonder then, that after some time the Pope did arrive to some pitch of authority over poor Christians, especially those who lay nearest [Page 174] to him; improving his eminency into power, and his pastoral charge into a kind of Empire; according to that observati­on of Socrates, [...]. Socr. 7.11. that long before his time the Roman Episcopacy had advanced it self beyond the Priest­hood into a Potentacy.

Socr. 7.7.And the like he observeth to have happened in the Church of Alex­andria, upon the like grounds, or by imitation of such a pattern.

2. Any small power is apt to grow and spread it self; a spark of it soon will expand it self into a flame:Matt. 13.32. it is very like to the grain of mu­stard seed, which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Encroaching (as Plutarch saith) is an innate disease of Potentacies. [...]. Plut. in Pyrrh. Whoever hath any pittance of it, will be improving his stock, having tasted the sweetness of having his will (which ex­tremely gratifieth the nature of man) he will not be satisfied without having more; he will take himself to be straitned by any bounds, and will strive to free himself of all restraints.

Any pretence will serve to ground attempts of enlarging power, and none will be balked. For Power is bold, enterpri­zing,Subrependi occasiones non praetermittit ambitio—P. Leo I. Ep. 62. restless: it always watcheth, or often findeth, never passeth opportunities of dilating it self. Eve­ry accession doth beget farther advantages to ampli­fie it;Faciliùs crescit dignitas quàm incipit. Sen. Ep. 101. Primae dominandi spe [...] in arduo; ubi sis ingressus, adsunt studia & ministri. Tacit. Ann. 4. (p. 143.) as its stock groweth, so it with ease propor­tionably doth encrease; being ever out at use. As it groweth, so its strength to maintain and enlarge it self doth grow; it gaining more wealth, more friends, more associates and dependents.

None can resist or obstruct its growth without danger and manifold disadvantages; for as its adherents are deemed loyal and faithfull, so its opposers are branded with the imputations of rebellion, contumacy, dis­loyalty; and not succeeding in their resistence they will be undone.

None ever doth enterprise more than to stop its careir; so that it sel­dom loseth by opposition; and it ever gaineth by composition. If it be checked at one time, or in one place, it will, like the Sea, at an­other season, in another point, break in. If it is sometimes overthrown in a Battel, it is seldom conquered in the War.

It is always on its march forward, and gaineth ground; for one en­croachment doth countenance the next, and is alledged for a precedent to authorize or justifie it. It seldom moveth backward; for every Successour thinketh he may justly enjoy what his Predecessour did gain, or which is transmitted into his possession; so that there hardly can ever be any restitution of ill-gotten power.

Thus have many absolute Kingdoms grown; the first Chief was a Leader of Volunteers; from thence he grew to be a Prince with stated Privileges; after he became a Monarch invested with high Prerogatives; in fine he creepeth forward to be a Grand Seigniour usurping absolute do­minion: so did Augustus Caesar first onely assume the style of Prince of the Senate, demeaning himself modestly as such; but he soon drew to himself the administration of all things; and upon that foundation his Successours very suddenly did erect a boundless power. If you trace the foot-steps of most Empires to the beginning you may perceive the like.

[Page 175]So the Pope when he had got a little power, continually did swell it. The puny pretence of the succeeding Saint Peter, and the name of the Apostolical See; the precedence by reason of the Imperial City; the ho­norary Privileges allowed him by Councils; the Authority deferred to him by one Synod of revising the Causes of Bishops; the counte­nance given to him in repressing some Heresies, he did improve to con­stitute himself Sovereign Lord of the Church.

3. Spiritual power especially is of a growing nature, and more espe­cially that which deriveth from Divine Institution; for it hath a great awe upon the hearts and consciences of men; which engageth them to a firm and constant adherence. It useth the most subtile arms, which it hath always ready, which needeth no time or cost to furnish, which cannot be extorted from its hand; so that it can never be disarmed. And its weapons make strong impression, because it proposeth the most effectual encouragements to its abettours, and discouragements to its adversaries; alluring the one with promises of God's favour and eternal happiness, terrifying the other with menaces of vengeance from heaven and endless misery; the which do ever quell religious, superstitious, weak people; and often daunt men of knowledge and courage.

It is presumed unchangeable and unextinguishable by any humane power; and thence is not (as all other power) subject to revolutions. Hence like Achilles it is hardly vincible, because almost immortal. If it be sometime rebuffed or impaired; it soon will recover greater strength and vigour.

The Popes derive their Authority from Divine Institution;Dist. 21. cap. 2, 3. and their weapons always are sentences of Scripture; they pretend to dispense re­mission of sins; and promise heaven to their abettours. They excom­municate, curse and damn the opposers of their designs.

They pretend they never can lose any power that ever did belong to their See: they are always stiff,Privilegia Romanae Ecclesiae nullum possunt sustinere detrimentum— P. Nic. I. Ep. 36. (32 —) and they never recede or give back. The privileges of the Roman Church can sustain no detriment.

4. Power is easily attained and augmented upon occasion of dissen­tions. Each faction usually doth make it self a Head, the chief in strength and reputation which it can find inclinable to favour it; and that Head it will strive to magnifie, that he may be the abler to pro­mote its cause; and if the cause doth prosper he is rewarded with ac­cession of Privileges and Authority: Especially those who were op­pressed, and find relief by his means, do become zealously active for his aggrandisement.

Thus usually in civil broils the Captain of the prevalent Party grow­eth a Prince, or is crowned with great Privileges (as Caesar, Octavian, Cromwell, &c.)

So upon occasion of the Arian faction, and the oppression of Athana­sius, Marcellus, Paulus and other Bishops, the Pope who by their appli­cation to him had occasion to head the Catholick Party did grow in power; for thereupon the Sardican Synod did decree to him that Pri­vilege, which he infinitely enhanced, and which became the main en­gin of rearing himself so high.

And by his interposal in the dissensions raised by the Nestorians, the Pelagians, the Eutychians, the Acatians, the Monothelites, the Image-worshippers, and Image-breakers, &c. his authority was advanced; for [Page 176] he adhering in those causes to the prevailing Party, was by them extol­led, obtaining both reputation and sway.

5. All power is attended by dependencies of persons sheltred under it, and by it enjoying subordinate advantages; the which proportionably do grow by its encrease.

Such persons therefore will ever be inciting their Chief and Patron to amplifie his power; and in aiding him to compass it, they will be ve­ry industriously, resolutely and steadily active; their own interest mo­ving them thereto.

Wherefore their mouths will ever be open in crying him up, their heads will be busie in contriving ways to further his interests, their care and pains will be employed in accomplishing his designs; they with their utmost strength will contend in his defence against all oppositions.

Thus the Roman Clergy first, then the Bishops of Italy, then all the Clergy of the West became engaged to support, to fortifie, to enlarge the Papal authority; they all sharing with him in domination over the Laity; and enjoying wealth, credit, support, privileges and immunities thereby. Some of them especially were ever putting him on higher pretences, and furthering him by all means in his acquist and mainte­nance of them.

6. Hence if a Potentate himself should have no ambition, nor much ability to improve his power; yet it would of it self grow, he need onely be passive therein; the interest of his partisans would effect it; so that often power doth no less thrive under sluggish and weak Poten­tates, especially if they are void of goodness, than under the most active and able: Let the Ministers alone to drive on their interest.

7. Even persons otherwise just and good do seldom scruple to aug­ment their power by undue encroachment, or at least to uphold the u­surpations of their foregoers; for even such are apt to favour their own pretences, and afraid of incurring censure and blame, if they should part with any thing left them by their Predecessours. They apprehend themselves to owe a dearness to their place, engaging them to tender its own weal and prosperity, in promoting which they suppose themselves not to act for their own private interest; and that it is not out of ambi­tion or avarice, but out of a regard to the grandeur of their Office that they stickle and bustle; and that in so doing they imitate Saint Paul who did magnifie his office. They are encouraged hereto by the applause of men, especially of those who are allied with them in interest, and who converse with them; who take it for a Maxime, Boni Principis est am­pliare imperium: The extenders of Empire are admired and commen­ded however they doe it, although with cruel Wars, or by any unjust means.

Hence usually the worthiest men in the world's eye are greatest en­largers of power; and such men bringing appearances of vertue, ability, reputation to aid their endeavours, do most easily compass designs of this nature, finding less obstruction to their attempts; for men are not so apt to suspect their integrity, or to charge them with ambition and avarice; and the few, who discern their aims and consequences of things, are overborn by the number of those, who are favourably conceited and inclined toward them.

Thus Julius I. Damasus I. Innocent I. Gregory I. and the like Popes, whom History representeth as laudable persons, did yet confer to the [Page 177] advancement of Papal grandeur. But they who did most advance that interest, as Pope Leo I. Gelasius I. Pope Nicholas I. Pope Gregory VII. in the esteem of true zelots pass for the best Popes. Hence the distinction between a good Man, a good Prince, a good Pope.Sixtus V.

8. Men of an inferiour condition are apt to express themselves highly in commendation of those who are in a superiour rank, especially upon occasion of address and intercourse; which commendations are liable to be interpreted for acknowledgments or attestations of right, and thence do sometimes prove means of creating it.

Of the generality of men it is truly said, that it doth fondly serve fame, —qui famae servit ineptus, Ac stupet in titulis & imaginibus— Hor. and is stonn'd with titles and ima­ges; readily ascribing to Superiours whatever they claim, without scanning the grounds of their title. Simple and weak men out of abjectedness or fear are wont to crouch, and submit to any thing upon any terms. Wise men do not love brangling, nor will expose their quiet and safety without great reason; thence be­ing inclinable to comply with greater persons. Bad men out of design to procure advantages or impunity are prone to flatter and gloze with them. Good men out of due reverence to them, and in hope of fair usage from them, are ready to complement them, or treat them with the most respectfull terms. Those who are obliged to them will not spare to extoll them; paying the easie return of good words for good deeds.

Thus all men conspire to exalt power; the which snatcheth all good words as true, and construeth them to the most favourable sense; and alledgeth them as verdicts and arguments of unquestionable right. So are the complements or terms of respect used by Hierome, Austin, The­odoret, and divers others toward Popes, drawn into Argument for Papal 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 [...] ▪ [...]. Syn. Flor. Sess. 25. (p. 848.) 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.

[Page 178]Ambiguity of words (as it causeth many de­bates,Ità de vocabulorum occasionibus pluri­mùm quaestiones subornantur, sicut & de verborum in communionibus. Tertull. de Resur. Carn. 54. 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.

[...]. Can. Apost. 34.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,Quia duobus Episcopis, quorum eâ tem­pestate summa authoritas erat, non illuse­rat— Sulp. Sev. 2.63. Because he had not deluded the two Bishops who had the greatest authority in those times. Non mediocris authoritatis Episcopus Carthag. Aug. Epist. 162. The Bishop of Carthage was of no mean authority. —audiuntur authoritate suadendi po­tiùs quàm jubendi potestate. Tac. de mor. Germ. (p. 640.) Evander—ea authoritate magìs quàm imperio retinebat loca. Liv. 1. Verbum Judico frequenter in ea signi­ficatione usurpatur, ut idem sit quod sen­tio seu opinor. Can. loc. 6. cap. 8. (comp. lib. 6.1.) 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.

[Page 179]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,—ut ad Domini mei tanti Pontificis & piissimi Patris, omnium ad se confugi­entium tutissimi defensoris ac protecto­ris, &c. Rothaldi appell. (in P. Nich. I. Ep. 37. p. 563.) —my Lord so great a Pontif, and most pious a Father, the safe defender and protectour of all those that flee un­to him for succour. 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, Cypr. Ep. 68. 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, Epist. 55. 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,Calendion of Antioch, Li­ber. cap. 18. 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;P. Leo, Ep. 89. Marc. 5.32. P. Nich. I. [...] Ep. 38. (p. 564.) Rothaldus. 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.Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 2. cap. 16. And how ready the Emperours were to promote the dignity of that Bishop, we see by ma­ny of their Edicts to that purpose; as particularly that of Leo.

So, for the honour of their City, the Emperours usually did favour the Pope, assisting him in the furtherance of his designs, and exten­ding his Privileges by their Edicts at home, and Letters to the Eastern Emperours, recommending their affairs.

So in the Synod of Chalcedon we have the Letters of Valen­tinian, together with those of Placidia and of Eudoxia the Em­presses to Theodosius, in behalf of Pope Leo, for retractation of the Ephesine Synod; wherein they do express themselves enga­ged to maintain the honour of the Roman See; Seeing that (saith Placidia, [...]. Syn. Chalc. (p. 27.) Mother of Theodosi­us) it becometh us in all things to preserve the [Page 180] honour and dignity of this chief City, which is the Mistress of all others.

Qualiter (Imperatores) eam diversis beneficiis ex­tulerint, do­nis ditaverint, beneficiis ampliaverint, qualiter illam, &c. P. Nic. I. Ep. 8. (p. 513.) —Romanus tempore prisco Pauper erat Praesul, Regali munere crevit, &c. Gunth. Lig. lib. 6.So Pope Nicholas confesseth, that the Emperours had extolled the Roman See with divers privileges, had enriched it with gifts, had en­larged it with benefits (or benefices,) &c.

14. The Popes had the advantage of being ready at hand to suggest what they pleased to the Court, and thereby to procure his Edicts (di­rected or dictated by themselves) in their favour, for extending their power, or repressing any opposition made to their encroachments.

Baronius observeth that the Bishops of Constantinople did use this ad­vantage for their ends; for thus he reflecteth on the Edict of the Em­perour Leo in favour of that See:Haec Leo, sed Acaci [...] fastu tumentis proculdubio verbis concepta, & stylo super­biae exarata. Baron. Ann. 473. § 4. These things Leo; but questionless conceived in the words of Acacius, swelling with pride.

And no less unquestionably did the Popes conceive words for the Em­perour in countenance of their Authority.Apud Marc. 5.32.

Such was the Edict of Valentinian in favour of Leo against Hilarius Bishop of Arles, Bin. ad P. Hil. Ep. 11. (p. 576.) (in an unjust cause as Binius confesseth) who con­tested his Authority to undo what was done in a Gallicane Synod. And we may thank Baronius himself for this Observati­on,Ex his intelligis, Lector, cum de rebus sacris Imperatores leges sanxivere, id ip­sum admonitione ss. Praesulum requirenti­um eorum officium ex scriptis legibus sta­tuisse. Baron. Ann. 458. § 4. By this, Reader, thou understandest, that when the Emperours ordained Laws concerning Religion, they did it by transcribing and enacting the Laws of the Church upon the admonition of the Holy Bi­shops requiring them to doe their duty. It was a no­table Edict, which Pope Hilarius alledgeth, It was also decreed by the Laws of Christian Princes, Christianorum quoque Principum lege decretum est, &c. P. Hilarius, Ep. 11. (p. 576.) that whatsoever the Bishop of the Apostolick See should upon examination pronounce concerning Churches and their Governours, &c. should with reverence be received and strictly ob­served, &c.

Such Edicts by crafty suggestions being at opportune times from easie and unwary Princes procured, did hold, not being easily rever­sed: and the Power which the Pope once had obtained by them, he would never part with;P. Nich. I. Ep. 36. Theod. 5.2. fortifying it by higher pretences of Divine im­mutable right.

The Emperour Gratian, having gotten the World under him, did or­der the Churches to those who would communicate with Pope Dama­sus. This and the like countenances did bring credit and authority to the Roman See.

15. It is therefore no wonder, that Popes being seated in the Metro­polis of the Western Empire (the head of all the Roman State) should find interest sufficient to make themselves by degrees what they would be; for they not onely surpassing the Provincial Bishops in wealth and repute, but having power in Court, who dared to pull a feather with them, or to withstand their encroachments? What wise man would not rather bear much, than contest upon such disadvantages, and without probable grounds of success?

[Page 181]16. Princes who favoured them with such concessions and abetted their undertakings, did not foresee what such encrease of power in time would arise to; or suspect the prejudice thence done to Imperial Authority. They little thought that in virtue thereof Popes would check, and mate Princes; or would claim superiority over them; for the Popes at that time did behave and express themselves with modesty and respect to Em­perours.

17. Power once rooted doth find seasons and favourable junctures for its growth; the which it will be intent to embrace.

The confusions of things, the eruptions of Barbarians, the straits of Emperours, the contentions of Princes, &c. did all turn to account for him; and in confusion of things he did snatch what he could to himself.

The declination and infirmity of the Roman Empire gave him oppor­tunity to strengthen his interests, either by closing with it, so as to gain somewhat by its concession; or by opposing it, so as to head a Faction against it. As he often had opportunity to promote the designs of Em­perours and Princes, so those did return to him encrease of Authority; so they trucked and bartered together. For when Princes were in straits, or did need assistence (from his reputation at home) to the furtherance of their designs, or support of their interest in Italy, they were content to honour him, and grant what he desired: as in the case of Acacius, which had caused so long a breach, the Emperour to engage Pope Hor­misdas, did consent to his will. And at the Florentine Synod, the Em­perour did bow to the Pope's terms, in hopes to get his assistence against the Turks.

When the Eastern Emperours, by his means chiefly, were driven out of Italy, [...]— When the Oak is fallen every one gets some wood. he snatched a good part of it to himself, and set up for a Tempo­ral Prince.

When Princes did clash, he by yielding countenance to one side, would be sure to make a good market for himself: for this pretended Successour to the Fisherman, was really skilled to angle in troubled Waters.

They have been the incendiaries of Christendom, the kindlers and fo­menters of War. And would often stir up Wars,Anast. in Vit. Zach. P. Nich. I. Ep. 25.30, &c. Non sine su­spicione, quod illorum temporum Pontifices, qui bella extinguere, discordias tollere debuissent, suscitarent ea potiùs atque nutrirent. Modruviensi [...] Episc. in Conc. Lat. su [...] Leone X. Sess. 6. (p. 72.) and inclining to the stronger part, would share with the Conquerour; as when he stirr'd up Charles against the Lombards. They would, upon spiritual pretence, be interposing in all affairs.

He did oblige Princes by abetting their Cause when it was unjust or weak; his spiritual Authority satisfying their Conscience: whence he was sure to receive good acknowledgment and recompence.Anno 752. As when he did allow Pepin's usurpation.

He pretended to dispose of Kingdoms, and to constitute Princes; re­serving obeisance to himself.Anno 1060. Gregory VII. granted to Robert Guislard Naples and Sicily beneficiario jure. Anno 1139. Innocent II. gave to Roger the title of King.

There is scarce any Kingdom in Europe which he hath not claimed the Sovereignty of, by some pretence or other. Princes sometime for quiet sake have desired the Pope's consent and allowance of things apper­taining [Page 182] of right to themselves, whence the Pope took advantage to claim an original right of disposing such things.

The proceeding of the Pope upon occasion of Wars is remarkable; when he did enter League with a Prince to side with him in a War against another, he did covenant to prosecute the Enemy with Spiritual Arms (that is, with Excommunications and Interdicts) engaging his Confederates to use Temporal Arms. So making Ecclesiastical Cen­sures tools of Interest.

When Princes were in difficulties, (by the mutinous disposition of Princes, the emulation of Antagonists) he would, as served his interest, interpose; hooking in some advantage 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 Church­men against Princes,Anselme Anno 1109. Eadmer. Matt. Par. Becket Anno 1154. Eadmer. Matt. Par. 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.

[Page 183]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.Pro pallio omninò aliquid dare prohibeo. Greg. I. Ep. 4.44.

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 gratís. Vendit plum­bum pro auro. Taxa Came­rariae—

Consecrated Presents; Agnus Dei's, Swords, Roses, &c.

Confirmations of Bishops; In the times of Henry I. the Bishop of York did pay 10000 l. Sterling for his Pall. Matt. Par. (p. 274.) sending Palls.

Appeals to his Court.

Tributes of Peter-pence, Annates, Peter-pence. Plat. p. 257. 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?Quantas nobis divitias peperit haec fa­bula Christi? 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,Quando & Apostolica praeceptio ad injuriam B. Petri in illis partibus non observatur, & à te spernitur & violatur. P. Nich. I. Ep. 37. he did incessantly clamour or whine, that Saint Peter was injured.

[Page 184]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.—

[...]. 2 Thess. 2.10. Twisd. p. 17. Non necessita­tis, sed honoris causâ peto.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.Extortis as­sentationibus. P. Leo. Epist. (ad Syn. Chalc.) 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 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,Distinct. 17. Cùm etiam solum Rom. Pontificem pro tempore existentem, tanquam auctorita­tem super omnia Concilia habentem, Con­ciliorum indicendorum, transferendorum ac dissolvendorum plenum jus & potesta­tem habere— manifestè constet. Con. La­ter. Sess. 11. (p. 152) Ann. —Cui jussione Domini, & meritis B. Petri Apostoli, singularis congregandarum Synodorum authoritas, & Sanctorum Ca­nonum ac Venerandorum Patrum decretis multipliciter privata tradita est potestas. P. Hadrian. I. apud Bin. Tom. 5. p. 565. (Ann. 785.) Cùm generalium Synodorum convocandi auctoritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri singu­lari privilegio sit tradita— P. Pelag. II. Epist. 8. (Bin. Tom. 4. p. 476.) Ann. 587. qu. an haec Epistola sit Pelagii II? Negat Launoius. 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, [Page 186] 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; [...]. Socr. 5. prooem. 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:Semper studium fuit Orthodoxis, & piis Imperatoribus, pro tempore exortas Haereses per congregationem religiosissimo­rum Episcoporum amputare, & recta fide sincerè praedicata in pace Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam custodire— Justin. in Syn. 5. Collat. 1. (p. 209.) Graecé. p. 368. magìs Emphaticé. 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.Doce—quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari. Hier.

[...]. Eus. de Vit. Const. I. 44. [...]. Eus. Hist. 10.5. Epist. ad Chrestum. Ad Arelatensium ci­vitatem piissimi Imperatoris voluntate ad­ducti, say the Fathers, in their Epistle to P. Sylvester himself. Vid. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 4. cap. 41, 42, 43. & Socr. 1.28.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 [...]. Theodor. 2.4· Soz. 3.11. Socr. 2.16, 20. Athan. Tom. 1. p. 761. Hil. in fragm. p. Jubet ex toto orbe apud Sardicam Episcopos congregari. Sulp. 2.52. Sardica, of [...], &c. Syn. Arim. Epist. ad Const. Socr. 2.37. Ariminum, of Socr. 2.39. [...]. Ann. 381. Seleucia, of [...]. Socr. 2.99. Soz. 4.6. Sirmium, of [...]. Socr. 1.36. Soz. 4.9. 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, [...]. Theod. 4.7. did indict a Synod in Illyricum.

[Page 187]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; [...]. Soz. 7.7. Socr. 5.8. [...]. Theod. 5.7. 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,Repugnante Damaso celebrata, &c. Baron. Ann. 553. § 224. 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, [...]. Socr. 7.34. Evagr. 1.3. 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; [...]. Syn. Eph. Act. 1. p. 291. The holy Synod assembled by the grace of God, according to the Decree of our most Religious Empe­rours, &c. — [...]. p. 297. [...], &c. Act. 5. p. 347. [...]. p. 404. [...]. Which Synod our most Christian and gracious Emperours appointed, saith Philip, the Pope's Legate. Act. 3. p. 330. [...]— To the holy Synod assembled by the grace of God, and the command of our Emperours, &c. So do Cyril and Memnon inscribe in their Epistle. Act. 4. p. 337. 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: [...], &c. [...]. Syn. Chalc. pars 1. p. 53. Episcopale concilium, quod haberi apud Ephesum praecepistis. P. Leo. I. Ep. 2 [...]. (& 24.) ad Theod. — 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 to the Synod. And as Pope Leo doth confess; calling it the council of Bishops which you (Theodosius) commanded to be held at Ephesus.

The next General Synod of Chalcedon was convo­cated by the authority of the Emperour Marcian;Ann. 451. as is expressed in the beginning of each Action, [...]. [...]. (Act. 6. p. 345.) [...] Act. 6.346. as the Emperour declareth, as the Synod it self in the front of its definition doth avow; the holy, great and Oecumenical Synod, gather'd together by the grace of God and the command of our most dread Empe­rours, &c. has determin'd as follows.

[Page 188] Ann. 533.The Fifth General Synod was also congregated by the authority of Justinian I. and the Emperour's Letter authorizing it,Act. p. 368. Gr. p. 309. Lat. beginneth (as we saw before) with an Assertion (backed with a particular enumeration) that all former great Synods were called by the same power: the Fathers themselves do say, that they had come together ac­cording to the will of God, Pro Dei voluntate, & jussione piissimi Imperatoris ad hanc vrbem convenimus Collat. 8. Vt quae resistente Romano Pontifice fuerit congregata. Baron. Ann. 553. § 219. and the command of the most pious Emperour. So little had the Pope to doe in it, that, as Baronius himself telleth us, it was con­gregated against his will, or with his resistence.

The Sixth General Synod at Constantinople was also indicted by the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus; as doth appear by his Letters, as is intimated at the entrance of each Action, as the Synod doth acknow­ledge, as Pope Leo II. (in whose time it was concluded) doth affirm. The Synod in its definition, as also in its Epistle to Pope Agatho doth inscribe it self The Holy and Oecumenical Synod, [...]. Act. 18. p. 255. & p. 285. (in Epist. ad P. Agath.) [...]. Act. 18. p. 256. in de­finitione Synodica. congregated by the grace of God, and the altogether religious Sanction of the most pi­ous, and most faithfull great Emperour Constantine; and, in their definition they say, By this doctrine of peace dictated by God, our most gracious Emperour through the divine wisedom being guided, as a defen­der of the true faith, and an enemy to the false, ha­ving gather'd us together in this holy and Oecu­menical Synod, has united the whole frame of the Church, &c. In its acclamatory Oration to the Emperour it saith [...], [...]— P. Leo. II. in Epist. ad Constant. Imp. p. 305. &c. Act. 18. p. 271. We all acquiescing in your most sacred commands; both the most holy Presi­dent of (Rome) the most ancient and Apostolical city, and we the least, &c.

These are all the great Synods, which posterity with clear consent did admit as General; for the next two have been disclaimed by great Churches (the Seventh by most of the Western Churches, the Eighth by the Eastern) so that even P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 247. P. Nich. I. Ep. 7, 8, 10. P. Hadrian. II. Ep. 26. divers Popes after them did not reckon them for general Councils; and all the rest have been onely Assemblies of Western Bishops, celebrated after the breach between the Oriental and Occidental Churches.

Yet even that Second Synod of Nice, which is called the Se­venth Synod, doth avow it self to have convened by the Emperour's com­mand; [...]. Act. 7. p. 831. Act. 1. p. 519. Act. 2. p. 551. Act. 3. p. 586. Act. 4. p. 609. Act. 5. p. 696. Act. 6. p. 722. Act. 7. p. 812. Defin. Synod. Act. 7. p. 817. and in the front of each Action, as also of their Synodical defi­nition, the same style is retained.

Hitherto it is evident, that all General Synods were convocated by the Imperial authority; and about this matter divers things are observable.

It is observable in how peremptory a manner the Emperours did require the Bishops to convene at the time and place appointed by [Page 189] them. Constantine in his Letter indicting the Sy­nod of Tyre hath these words;Euseb. de Vit. Const. 4.42. (Vid. in 5. p. 30.) If any one presu­ming to violate our command and sense, &c.

Theodosius II. summoneth the Bishops to the Ephesine Synod in these terms; [...]. Theod. Jun. Ep. ad Cyril. Conc. Eph. par [...] 1. p. 226 We taking a great deal of care about these things will not suffer any one if he be absent to go unpunish'd; nor shall he find excuse either with God or us, who presently without delay does not by the time set, appear in the place appointed.

In like terms did he call them to the Second Ephesine Synod; If a­ny one shall chuse to neglect meeting in a Synod so necessary and gratefull to God, [...]. Theodos. in Ep. ad Diosc. in Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 53. and by the set time do not with all diligence appear in the place appointed, he shall find no excuse, &c.

Marcian thus indicteth the Synod of Nice (after by him translated to Chalcedon) It properly seemeth good to our clemency that an holy Synod meet in the city of Nice, in the Province of Bithynia. [...]. In Epist. ad Episc. Syn. Chal. pars 1. p. 34.

Again we may observe, that in the Imperial Edicts or Epistles where­by Councils effectually were convened, there is nothing signified con­cerning the Pope's having any authority to call them; it is not as by licence from the Pope's Holiness, but in their own Name and Authority they Act: which were very strange if the Popes had any plea then commonly approved for such a power.

As commonly Emperours did call Synods by the suggestion of other Bishops [...]. Evagr. 1.3., so again, there be divers instances of Popes applying themselves to the Emperours with petitions to indict Synods; wherein sometimes they prevailed, sometimes they were disappointed: so Pope Liberius did request of Constantius to indict a Synod for deci­ding the cause of Athanasius; Ecclesiastical judg­ments (said he, [...]. Theod. 2.16. as Theodoret reports) should be made with great equity; wherefore if it please your piety, command a Judicatory to be constituted; and in his Epistle to Hosius, produced by Baronius, he saith, Many Bishops out of Italy met together, Multi ex Italia Episcopi convenerunt, qui mecum religiosissimum Imperatorem fuerant deprecati, ut juberet, sicut ipsi placuerat, dudum concilium Aquileiense congregari. Baron. Ann. 353. § 19. who together with me had beseecht the most Religious Em­perour, that he would command, as he had thought fit, the Council of Aquileia to meet.

So Pope Damasus, having a desire that a General Synod should be celebrated in Italy for repressing Heresies and Factions then in the Church, did obtain the Imperial Letters for that purpose directed to the Eastern Bishops; as they in their Epistle to the Western Bishops do intimate: [...]. Theod. 5.9. But because ex­pressing a brotherly affection toward us, ye have cal­led us as your own members by the most pious Empe­rour's Letters to that Synod which by the will of God ye are gathering at Rome.

[Page 190] Bell. de Pont. R. 2.13.It is a wonder that Bellarmine should have the confidence to al­ledge this passage for himself.

So again Pope Innocent I. being desirous to restore Saint Chrysostome, did (as Sozomen telleth us) send five Bishops and two Priests of the Ro­man Church to Honorius and to Arcadius the Empe­rour, [...]. Soz. 8.28. [...]. Ibid. requesting a Synod, with the time and the place thereof; in which attempt he suffered a repulse; for the Courtiers of Arcadius did repell those A­gents, as troubling another government, which was beyond their bounds, or wherein the Pope had no­thing to doe, that they knew of.

Humiliter ac sapienter exposcite, ut pe­titioni nostrae, quâ plenariam indici Sy­nodum postulamus, clementissimus Impe­rator dignetur annuere, (saith Pope Leo, to the Clergy and People of Constanti­nople. Ep. 23) Vnde si pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere, ut intra Italiam haberi jubeatis Episcopale Concilium, citò auxiliante Deo poterunt omnia scandala resecari. P. Leo I. Ep. 9.So also Pope Leo I. (whom no Pope could well exceed in zeal to maintain the Privileges, and advance the eminence of his See) did in these terms request Theodosius to indict a Synod; whence if your piety shall vouchsafe consent to our suggestion and supplication, that you would command an Episco­pal Council to be held in Italy; soon, God aiding, may all scandals be cut off: upon this occasion the Emperour did appoint a Council (not in Italy according to the Pope's desire, but) at Ephesus; the which not succeeding well,Omnes partium Ecclesiae nostrarum, omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus & lacrymis supplicant sacerdotes, ut gene­ralem Synodum jubeatis intra Italiam ce­lebrari. P. Leo. I. Ep. 42. Pope Leo again did address to Theodosius in these words, All the Churches of our parts, all Bishops with groans and tears do supplicate your Grace, that you would command a General Synod to be celebrated within Italy; to which request (al­though back'd with the desire of the Western Em­perour) Theodosius would by no means consent; [...]. Leont. de Sect. Act. 4. for, as Leontius reporteth, when Valentinian being importuned by Pope Leo, did write to Theodosius II. that he would procure another Synod to be held for examining whether Dioscorus had judged rightly or no, Theodosius did write back to him saying, I shall make no other Synod.

The same Pope did again of the same Emperour petition for a Synod to examin the cause of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople: Let your cle­mency (saith he) be pleased to grant an Vniversal Council to be held in Italy; as with me the Synod, which for this cause did meet at Rome, doth request: Thus did that Pope continually harp upon one string to get a General Synod to be celebrated at his own doors; but never could obtain his purpose, the Emperour being stiff in refusing it.

The same Pope, with better success, (as Sanctum clementiae vestrae studium, quo ad reparationem pacis Ecclesiasticae Synodum habere voluistis, adeò libenter ac­cepi, ut quamvis eam fieri intra Italiam poposcissem, &c. Leo. Ep. 50. Poposceram quidem à gloriosissima cle­mentia vestra, ut Synodum, quam pro re­paranda Orientalis Ecclesiae pace à nobis etiam petitam necessariam judicâstis, ali­quantisper differri ad tempus opportunius juberetis.— P. Leo. Ep. 43.44.50. Sed eo defuncto, cùm Martianus Imperii culmen fuisset adeptus, pro illa Papae & Principum Romanorum pe­titione Vniversale Concilium in Nicea congregari jussit. Lib. Brev. cap. 13. to the thing, though not as to the place) did request of the Emperour Marcian a Synod; for he (con­curring in opinion that it was needfull) did (saith Liberatus) at the petition of the Pope and the Roman Princes command a General Council to be congregated at Nice.

[Page 191]Now, if the Pope had himself a known right to convocate Synods, what needed all this application, or this supplication to the Emperours? would not the Pope have endeavoured to exercise his Authority? would he not have clamoured or whined at any interruption thereof? would so spiritfull and sturdy a Pope as Leo Fortissimus Leo. Liber. cap. 12. have begged that to be done by another, which he had authority to doe of himself, when he did appre­hend so great necessity for it, and was so much provoked thereto? would he not at least have remonstrated against the injury therein done to him by Theodosius?

All that this daring Pope could adventure at, was to wind in a pre­tence that the Synod of Chalcedon was congregated by his consent; for, it hath been the pleasure (of whom I pray) that a General Council should be congregated, — in causa fidei, propter quam Gene­rale Concilium & ex praecepto Christia­norum Principum, & ex consensu Aposto­licae Sedis placuit congregari. Ep. 61. both by the command of the Christian Princes, and with the con­sent of the Apostolick See, saith he very cunningly; yet not so cunningly, but that any other Bishop might have said the same for his See.

This power indeed upon many just accounts peculiarly doth belong to Princes: It suteth to the dignity of their state, it appertaineth to their duty, they are most able to discharge it. They are the Guardians of publick tranquillity, which constantly is endangered, which common­ly is violated by dissensions in religious matters; (whence we must pray for them,1 Tim. 2.2▪ that by their care we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,) they alone can authorize their Subjects to take such Journeys, or to meet in such Assemblies; they alone can well cause the expences needfull for holding Synods to de exacted and defrayed; they alone can protect them, can maintain Order and Peace in them, can procure Observance to their Determinations; they alone have a Sword to constrain resty and refractory persons (and in no cases are men so apt to be such as in debates about these matters) to convene, to confer peaceably, to agree, to observe what is settled: They,Isa. 49.23. Sap. 6.4. Rom. 13.3. as nursing Fathers of the Church, as Ministers of God's Kingdom, as encouragers of good works; as the Stewards of God, entrusted with the great Talents of Power, Dignity, Wealth, enabling them to serve God, are obliged to cause Bishops in such cases to perform their duty; according to the ex­ample of good Princes in Holy Scripture, who are commended for pro­ceedings of this nature; for so King Josias did convocate a General Sy­nod of the Church in his time, then (saith the Text) the King sent, 2 Chron. 34.29, &c. and gathered together all the Elders of Judah and Jerusalem; In this Synod he presided, standing in his place; and making a covenant before the Lord; its Resolutions he confirmed, causing all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to that Covenant; and he took care of their Exe­cution, making all present in Israel effectually to serve the Lord their God.

So also did King Hezekiah gather the Priests and Levites together, 2 Chron. 29.4, 15, 20, 21, &c. Vers. 11. did warn, did command them to doe their duty, and reform things in the Church: My Sons (said he) be not now negligent, for the Lord hath cho­sen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that ye should minister unto him, and burn incense.

Beside them none other can have reasonable pretence to such a Power, or can well be deemed able to manage it: so great an Authority can­not be exercised upon the Subjects of any Prince without eclipsing his [Page 192] Majesty, infringing his natural right, and endangering his State. He that at his pleasure can summon all Christian Pastours, and make them trot about, and hold them when he will, is in effect Emperour, or in a fair way to make himself so. It is not fit therefore that any other per­son should have all the Governours of the Church at his beck, so as to draw them from remote places whither he pleaseth; to put them on long and chargeable Journeys; to detain them from their charge; to set them on what deliberations and debates he thinketh good. It is not reasonable that any one without the leave of Princes should autho­rize so great conventions of men, having such interest and sway; it is not safe, that any one should have such dependencies on him, by which he may be tempted to clash with Princes, and withdraw his Sub­jects from their due obedience. Neither can any success be well ex­pected from the use of such Authority by any, who hath not Power, by which he can force Bishops to convene, to resolve, to obey; whence we see that Constantine, who was a Prince so gentle and friendly to the Clergy, was put to threaten those Bishops, who would absent them­selves from the Synod indicted by him at Tyre; and Theodosius (also a very mild and religious Prince) did the like in his summoning the two Ephesine Sy­nods. [...]. — [...]. Socr. 7.42. We likewise may observe, that when the Pope and Western Bishops, in a Synodical Epistle, did invite those of the East to a great Synod indicted at Rome, [...]. Theod. 5.8. these did refuse the journey, alledging that it would be to no good purpose; so also when the Western Bishops did call those of the East, [...]. Soz. 7.11. Both they and Gratian the Emperour wrote, calling the Eastern Bishops into the West. for re­solving the difference between Flavianus and Pau­linus, both pretending to be Bishops of Antioch, what effect had their summons? and so will they always or often be ready to say, who are called at the pleasure of those who want force to constrain them; so that such Authority in unarmed hands (and God keep Arms out of a Pope's hands) will be onely a source of discords.

Either the Pope is a Subject, as he was in the first times, and then it were too great a presumption for him to claim such a power over his fellow-Subjects in prejudice to his Sovereign; (nor indeed did he pre­sume so far, untill he 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;Philip of France. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 906. (Ann. 1302.) and to obviate it, did command all Bishops not to stir out of their Territories without licence; par­ticularly our own Nation,Decretum est—non licere—exire Reg­num absque licentia Regis. Conc. Clarend. vid. Matt. Par. Ann. 1164. 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 [Page 193] Pogonatus; wherein 'tis said, that Constantine and Sylvester did collect the Synod of Nice, Syn. Sext. Act. 18. p. 272. [...]. — [...].— 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 'tis 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; [...]. Anteac­ta Syn. Nic. II. p. 518. [...], Syn. 7. Act. 6. p. 725. [...]. Syn. 8. Act. 1. p. 930. [...]. Act. 5. p. 945. 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,Sess. 39. (p. 1109.) 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, Catholici omnes id munus proprium esse docent summi Pontificis, ut per se, vel per Legatos praesideat, & tanquam su­premus judex omnia moderetur. Bell. de Conc. 1.19. 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.

[Page 194]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.

Act. 15.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; [...]. Eus. 3.13. 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, [...], &c. Athan. Apol. 2. p. 761. [...], &c. Athan. ad Solit. p. 819. [...]. — Soz. 12.13. [...]. Theod. 2.15. [...] — Syn. Chalc. ad Imp. Marc. p. 468. [...], &c. apud Athan. p. 767. 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.

Baron. Ann. 553. § 224. [...]. Soz. 7.7. [...]. Conc. Chalc. in Epist. ad Imp. Marc. (pag. 469.)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.

Prioris Ephe­sinae Synodi, cui sanctae memoriae. Cy­rillus Episco­pus tunc praesedit. P. Leo. I. Ep. 47. [...]. Relat. Act. Eph. cap. 60.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.

[Page 203]We may note,Digress. 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, [...]. Celest. ad Cyril. Relat. cap. 16. N. Yet the Fathers in their Epistle to Pope Celestine do onely take notice of Arcadius, Projectus, and Philippus supplying his place. Act. p. 353. or a legal con­currence of the Pope with him in his actings; He thereby might pretend to the first place of sitting and subscribing (which kind of advanta­ges it appeareth that some Bishops had in Sy­nods by the virtue of the like substitution in the place of others) but he thence could have no authoritative Presidency; for that the Pope himself could by no delegation impart, having himself no ti­tle thereto, warranted by any Law, or by any Precedent; that de­pended on the Emperour's will, or on the Election of the Fathers, or on a tacit regard to personal eminence in comparison to others present: This distinction Evagrius seemeth to in­timate, when he saith, that the divine Cyril did administer it, [...]. Evag. 1.4. and the place of Celestine (where a word seemeth to have fallen out) and Zona­ras more plainly doth express; saying, that Cy­ril Pope of Alexandria did preside over the Ortho­dox Fathers, [...]. Zon. in Syn. Eph. Can. 1. [...]. and also did hold the place of Ce­lestine: and Photius; Cyril did supply the seat, and the person of Celestine. If any latter Histori­ons do confound these things, we are not o­bliged to comply with their ignorance or mi­stake.

Indeed as to Presidency there we may observe, [...]. Conc. Chalc. Act. 4. p. 302. [...]. Cler. Const. in Syn. Eph. p. 418. Cui praefuit Cyrillus. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 173. [...]. Syn. Chalc. desin. in Act. 5. p. 338. & Act. 4. p. 300. The Bishops of Isauria to the Emperour Leo say, that Cyril was partaker with Pope Celestine, &c. Dum B. Celestino incolumis Ecclesiae Romanorum particeps—Part. 3. Syn. Chalc. p. 522. [...]. Eph. Act. 4. p. 338. (p. 420. & 422.) [...]. Act. 5. p. 347. [...]. Relat. Syn. p. 406. [...]. Relat. p. 411. that sometime it is attributed to Cyril alone, as being the first Bishop present, and bearing a great sway; sometimes to Pope Celestine, as being in representation present, and being the first Bishop of the Church in Order; sometimes to both Cyril and Celestine; sometimes to Cy­ril and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, who as being very active, and having great influence on the proceedings, are styled the Presi­dents and Rulers of the Synod. The which sheweth, that Presiden­cy was a lax thing, and no peculiarity in right or usage annexed to the Pope; nor did altogether depend on his grant or represen­tation, to which Memnon had no title.

[Page 204] [...]. Relat. ad. Imp. p. 422. [...], &c. Act. 2. p. 322. [...]. Act. 4. p. 340.The Pope himself and his Legats are divers times in the Acts said [...], to sit together with the Bishops; which confidence doth not well comport with his special right to Presidency.

Yea it is observable, that the Oriental Bishops, which with John of Antioch did oppose the Cyrillian Party in that Synod, did charge on Cyril, that he, (as if he lived in a time of Anar­chy) did proceed to all irregularity; [...]— [...]. Relat. ad Imper. Act. Eph. p. 380. and that, snatch­ing to himself the Authority, which neither was gi­ven him by the Canons, nor by the Emperours Sancti­ons, did rush on to all kind of disorder, and unlawful­ness; whence it is evident, that in the judgment of those Bishops, (among whom The Bishops of Syria being then the most learned in the World; as John of Antioch doth imply. p. 377. were divers worthy and excellent persons) the Pope had no right to any authoritative Presidency.

This word Presidency indeed hath an ambiguity, apt to impose on those, who do not observe it; for it may be taken for a pri­vilege of Precedence, or for Authority to govern things; the first kind of presidence the Pope without dispute, when present at a Synod, [...]. Syn. 6. p. 285. [...]. Ibid. p. 297. [...]. justin. Cod. Tit. 1. would have had a­mong the Bishops (as being the Bishop of the first See, as the Sixth Synod calleth him; and the first of Priests, as Justinian called him) and in his ab­sence his Legates might take up his Chair (for in General Synods each See had its Chair assigned to it, according to its order of dignity by custom.) And according to this sense the Patriarchs, and chief Metropolitans are also often (singly or conjunctly) said to pre­side: as sitting in one of the first Chairs.

But the other kind of Presidency was (as those Bishops in their complaint against Cyril do imply, and as we shall See in practice) disposed by the Emperour, as he saw reason; although usually it was conferred on him, who among those present, in dignity did precede the rest: this is that authority, [...], which the Syrian Bishops complained against Cyril for assuming to himself, without the Emperour's warrant; and whereof we have a notable Instance in the next General Synod at Ephesus. For,

In the Second Ephesine Synod, (which in design was a General Synod, lawfully convened, for a publick cause of determining truth, and settling peace in the Church; but which by some miscarriages proved abortive:) although the Pope had his Legates there, [...]. Evag. 1.10. [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 59. [...]. Syn. Chal. Act. 1. p. 160. [...]. Evag. 1.10. — Si is qui sibi locum principalem vin­dicabat, Sacerdotalem moderationem custo­dire voluisset — Leo I. Ep. 25, 26, &c. yet by the Emperour's order Di­oscorus Bishop of Alexandria did preside, We (said Theodosius in his Epistle to him) do also commit to thy godliness the authority, and the preeminency of all things appertaining to the Synod now assembled; and in the Synod of Chalcedon it is said of him, that he had received the authority of all affairs, and of judgment; and Pope Leo I. in this Epistle to the Emperour saith, that Dioscorus did challenge to him­self the principal place; (insinuating a complaint, [Page 205] that Dioscorus should be preferred before him, although not openly contesting his right.)

The Emperour had indeed some reason not to commit the Pre­sidency to Pope Leo, because he was looked upon as prejudiced in the cause, having declared in favour of Flavianus, against Eutyches; whence Eutyches declined his Legate's interessing in the judgment of his cause, saying, [...], &c. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 80. they were suspected to him, because they were entertained by Flavianus with great regard. And Dioscorus, being Bishop of the next See, was taken for more indifferent, and other­wise a person (however afterward it proved) of much integrity and moderation; He did (saith the Emperour) shine, by the grace of God, both in honesty of life, — [...]. Theod. Ep. ad Diosc. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 59. [...]. Theod. Ep. 60. and orthodoxy of faith; and Theodoret himself, before those differences arose, doth say of him, that he was by common fame reported a man adorned with many other kinds of vertue, and that especially he was celebrated for his moderation of mind.

It is true, that the Legates of Pope Leo did take in dudgeon this preferment of Dioscorus; and (if we may give credence to Liberatus) would not sit down in the Synod, Ecclesiae Romanae Diaconi, vice [...] ha­bentes P. Leonis assidere non passi sunt, eò quòd non data fuerit praesessio sanctae Sedi eorum. Liber cap. 12. because the presession was not given to their Holy See; and afterwards in the Synod of Chalcedon the Pope's Legate Paschasinus (together with other Bishops) did complain, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 62. that Diosco­rus was preferred before the Bishop of Constanti­nople; but notwithstanding those ineffectual mu­tinies, the Emperour's will did take place, and according thereto Dioscorus had, (although he did not use it so wisely and justly as he should) the chief managery of things.

It is to be observed, that to other chief Bishops the Presidency in that Synod is also ascribed, by virtue of the Emperour's appoint­ment; Let the most reverend Bishops (say the Imperial Commissaries in the Synod of Chalcedon) to whom the authoritative management of affairs was by the Royal Sovereignty granted, [...]— Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 65. speak why the Epistle of the most Holy Archbishop Leo was not read: and, [...]— Ibid. p. 77. [...] — Act. 2. p. 202. & Act. 4. p. 288. (Evag. 2.4. [...].) [...]— Ibid. p. 70. Siquidem penè omnes, qui in consensum Praesidentium aut traducti fuerant, aut coacti. Leo. Ep. 51. Ibi Primates Synodi nec resistenti­bus, &c. P. Leo. I. Ep. You (say they again) to whom the pow­er of judging was given; and of Dioscorus, Juvenalis (Bishop of Jerusalem) Thalassius (of Caesarea) Euse­bius (of Ancyra) Eustathius (of Beristus) Basilius (of Selencia) it is by the same Commissioners said that they had recieved the authority, and did govern the Synod which was then; and Elpidius, the Empe­rour's Agent in the Ephesine Synod it self did ex­presly style them Presidents; and Pope Leo himself calleth them Presidents and Primates of the Synod.

Whence it appeareth, that at that time, according to common opinion and practice, authoritative Presidency was not affixed to the Roman Chair.In his fratribus—me Synodo vestrae fra­teunitas existimet praesidere. P. Leo. I. E. 47.

In the Synod of Chalcedon Pope Leo did in­deed assume to himself a kind of Presidency by [Page 206] his Legates; and no wonder that a man of a stout and ardent Spirit (impregnated with high conceits of his See, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Epist. ad Leon. p. 473. and resolved with all his might to advance its interests, as his Legates themselves did in effect declare to the world) should doe so; having so favourable a time, by the misbehaviour of Dioscorus and his adherents; against whom the Clergy of Constantinople, and other Fathers of the Synod being incensed were ready to comply with Leo (who had been the Champion and Patron of their Cause) in allowing him extraordinary respect, and whatever advantages he could pretend to.

Yet in effect the Emperour by his Commissioners did preside there; they propounding and allowing matters to be discussed;Act. 1. p. 50. & p. 202. Act. 2. p. 211. moderating debates by their interlocution and driving them to an issue, maintain­ing order and quiet in proceedings; performing those things, which the Pope's Legates at Trent, or otherwhere in the height of his power did undertake.

To them supplicatory addresses were made for succour and redress by persons needing it; (as for instance) Com­mand (said Eusebius of Dorylaeum) that my suppli­cations may be read. [...]. Act. 1. p. 50.

Of them leave is requested for time to deliberate; Command (saith Atticus in behalf of other Bishops) that respite be given, [...]. Act. 1. p. 219. so that within a few days, with a calm mind, and undisturbed reason, those things may be formed which shall be pleasing to God and the Holy Fa­thers.

Accordingly, they order the time for consul­tation; [...]. Act. 4. p. 289. Let (said they) the hearing be deferred for five days, that in the mean time your Ho­liness may meet at the house of the most Holy Archbishop Anatolius, and deliberate in common a­bout the faith, that the doubtfull may be instructed.

They were acknowledged Judges; and had thanks given them for the issue by persons concerned; I (said Eu­nomius Bishop of Nicomedia) do thank your Ho­nour for your right judgment. [...]. Act. 13. p. 420. And in the cause between Stephanus and Bassianus concerning their title to the Bishoprick of Ephesus; [...]. Act. 12. p. 409. [...]. ibid. p. 414. they having declared their sense, the Holy Synod cryed, this is right judgment; Christ hath decided the case, God judgeth by you: And in the result, upon their de­claring their opinion; the whole Synod exclaimed, This is a right judgment, this is a pious order.

When the Bishops, transported with eagerness and passion, did tumultuously clamour, they gravely did check them, [...]. Act. 1. p. 55. saying, These vulgar exclamations nei­ther become Bishops, nor shall advantage the par­ties.

In the great contest about the privileges of the Constantinopolitan See, they did arbitrate and decide the matter,— [...]. Syn. Chal. ad Leon. Ep. p. 475. even against the sense and endeavours of the Pope's [Page 199] Legates; [...]. Act. 16. p. 464. the whole Synod concurring with them in these acclamations; this is a right sentence, we all say these things, these things please us all, things are duely ordered; let [...] things ordered be held.

The Pope's Legates themselves did avow this authority in them; for, If (said Paschasinus, [...]— Act. 4. p. 315. in the case of the Egyptian Bishops) your authority doth command, and ye injoin that somewhat of huma­nity be granted to them, &c.

And in another case, If, said the Bishops, [...]. Act. 16. p. 451. sup­plying the place of the Apostolical See, your Ho­nours do command, we have an information to sug­gest.

Neither is the Presidency of these Roman Legates expressed in the Conciliar Acts; but they are barely said Act. 5. Act. 7. Act. 8. p. 366. Act. 9. Act. 11. Act. 13.14. [...] (to concur) and Act. 3. (p. 230.) [...] (to sit together) with the other Fathers; and according­ly although they sometimes talked high, yet it is not observable that they did much there; their Presidency was nothing like that at Trent, and in other like Papal Synods. It may be noted, that the Emperour's Deputies are always named in the first place, at the en­trance of the Acts, before the Pope's Legates, so that they who di­rected the Notaries were not Popish. In effect the Emperour was President, though not as a Judge of Spiritual matters, yet as an Or­derer of the Conciliar transactions; as the Sy­nod doth report it to Leo; the faithfull Empe­rours (said they) did preside, [...]. Relat. Syn. ad Leon. 473. (or govern it) for good order sake.

In the Fifth General Synod, Pope Vigilius indeed was moved to be present, and (in his way) to preside; but he out of state or policy declined it; wherefore the Patriarch of Constan­tinople was the Ecclesiastical President,Ideò petimus Praesident [...] nobis vestrâ beatitudine, sub tranquillitate, & man­suetudine Sacerdotali, sanctis propositis E­vangeliis, communi tracta [...], &c. Coll. 1. p. 212. (& in Consti [...]. Vigil.) as in the beginning of every Collation doth appear; whence clearly we may infer that the Pope's Presidency is no-wise necessary to the being of a General Council.

In the Sixth General Synod the Emperour in each Act is expesly said to preside, [...], &c. in person or by his Deputies; although P. Agatho had his Le­gates there.

In the Synod of Constance sometimes the Cardinal of Cambray, sometimes of Hostia did preside (by order of the Synod it self) and sometime the King of the Ro­mans did supply that place;Dominus Rom. Rex indutus vestibus Regalibus recessi [...] de Sede sua solita, & transivit ad aliam Sedem positam in fronte Altaris, tanquam Praesidens pro tunc in Concilio. Syn. Const. Sess. 14. (p. 1044.) so little essential was the Pope's Presidency to a Council deemed even then, when Papal authority had mounted to so high a pitch.

Nor is there good reason why the Pope should have this privilege, or why this Prerogative should be affixed to any one See; so that (if there be cause; as if the Pope be unfit, or less fit; if Princes, or the Church cannot confide in him; if he be suspected of preju­dice or partiality; if he be party in causes or controversies to be decided; if he do himself need correction) Princes may not assign, [Page 200] or the Church with allowance of Princes may not chuse any other President, more proper in their judgment for that charge; in such cases the publick welfare of Church and State is to be regarded.

Were an Erroneous Pope (as Vigilius or H [...]orius) fit to govern a Council, gathered to consult about defining Truth in the matter of their Errour?

Where a Lewd Pope (as Alexander VI, John XII, Paul III, innu­merable such, scandalously vitious) worthy to preside in a Synod convocated to prescribe strict Laws of Reformation?

Were a Furious, Pugnacious Pope (as Julius II —) apt to mo­derate an Assembly drawn together for settlement of Peace?

Were a Pope engaged in Schism (as many have been) a proper Moderatour of a Council, designed to suppress Schism?

Were a Gregory VII, or an Innocent IV, or a Boniface VIII, an al­lowable manager any where of Controversies about the Papal Au­thority?

Were now indeed any Pope fit to preside in any Council, wherein the Reformation of the Church is concerned, it being notorious that Popes as such do most need Reformation, that they are the great obstructours of it, that all Christendom hath a long time a Con­troversie with them for their detaining it in bondage?

In this and many other cases we may reject their Presidency, as implying iniquity; according to the Rule of an old Pope; I would know of them where they would have that judgment they pretend, Quaero tamen ab his, judicium quod praetendunt, ubinam possit agitari, an apud ipsos, ut iidem sint inimici, & te­stes, & judices? Sed tali judicio nec hu­mana debent committi negotia, nedum di­vinae legis integritas. P. Gel. Ep. 4. examin'd, what by themselves, that the same may be adversaries, witnesses and judges? to such judgment as this even humane affairs are not to be trusted, much less the integrity of the divine Law.

It is not reasonable that any person should have such a Preroga­tive which would be an engine of mischief: for thereby (bearing sway in general Assemblies of Bishops) he would be enabled and irresi­stibly tempted to domineer over the world, to abuse Princes, and dis­turb States; to oppress and enslave the Church; to obstruct all Re­formation;Nic. II. Lugd. Lat. IV. & V. to enact Laws; to promote and establish Errours ser­viceable to his Interest: the which effects of such power exercised by him in the Synod of Trent, and in divers other of the later Gene­ral Synods, experience hath declared.

III. If the Pope were Sovereign of the Church, the Legislative power wholly or in part would belong to him; so far at least, that no Synod, or Ecclesiastical Consistory could without his consent determine or prescribe any thing; His approbation would be re­quired to give life and validity to their Decrees; He should at least have a negative, so that nothing might pass against his will: This is a most essential ingredient of Sovereignty; and is therefore claim­ed by the Pope, who long hath pretended that no Decrees of Sy­nods are valid without his consent, and confirmation.

But the Decrees made by the Holy Popes of the chief See of the Roman Church, Decretalia autem, quae à sanctis Pon­tificibus primae Sedis Romanae Ecclesiae sunt instituta, cujus auctoritate atque sanctione omnes Synodi, & sancta Concilia roborantur, & stabilitatem sumunt, cur vos non habere, vel observare dicitis? Papa Nic. I. Ep. 6. (ad Photium.) by whose authority and sancti­on all Synods and holy Councils are strengthened and e­stablished, why do you say, that you do not receive and observe them?

[Page 201] Lastly, Denique ut in universalibus Conciliis quid ratum vel quid prorsus acceptum, nisi quod Sedes B. Petri probavit (ut ipsi scitis) habetur; sicut è contrario quod ipsa sola reprobavit, hoc solummodo consistat hactenus reprobatum. P. Nich. I. Ep. 7. as you know nothing is accounted valid or to be receiv'd in universal Councils but what the See of Saint Peter has approv'd: so on the other side whatever she alone has rejected, that onely is re­jected.

We never read of any Synod that was valid, —Nulla unquam Synodus rata legatur, quae Apostolicâ auctoritate non fuerit ful­ta. P. Pelag. II. Ep. 8. (Dist. 17.) Confidimus quòd nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum, quod universalis Ecclesiae pro­bavit assensus, non aliquam magìs exequi Sedem prae caeteris oportere, quàm primam; quae & unamquamque Synodum sua aucto­ritate confirmat, & continuatâ modera­tione custodit, pro suo scilicet principa­tu, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.) vid. p. 647. tract. de Anath. God hath promised to bless particular Synods, Matt. 18.19. unless it were confirm'd by the Apostolick authority.

We trust no true Christian is now ignorant that no See is above all the rest more oblig'd to observe the Constitution of each Council which the consent of the universal Church hath approv'd, than the prime See which by its authority confirms every Synod, and by continued moderating preserves them according to its principality, &c.

But this pretence, as it hath no ground in the Divine Law, or in any old Canon, or in primi­tive Custom; so it doth cross the sentiments and practice of Antiquity; for that in ancient Synods divers things were ordained without the Pope's consent, divers things against his pleasure.

What particular or formal confirmation did Saint Peter yield to the Assembly at Jerusalem?

That in some of the first General Synods he was not apprehen­ded to have any negative voice, is by the very tenour and air of things, or by the little regard expressed toward him, sufficiently clear. There is not in the Synodical Epistles of Nice, or of Sardica any mention of his confirmation.

Interpretatively all those Decrees may be supposed to pass with­out his consent, which do thwart these pretences; for if these are now good, then of old they were known and admitted for such; and being such we cannot suppose the Pope willingly to have con­sented in derogation to them.

Wherefore the Nicene Canons establishing Ecclesiastical admini­strations without regard to him, and in authority equalling other Metropolitans with him, may be supposed to pass without his consent.

The Canons of the Second General Council, and of all others confirming those;Persuasioni tuae in nullo penitus suffra­gatur, quorundam Episcoporum ante 60, ut jactas, annos, nunquámque à praedeces­soribus tuis ad Apostolicae Sedis transmissa notitiam. — Leo. Epist. 53. (ad Anat.) Conc. Constant. Can. 3. Concil. Chalc. Can. 9, 17, 28. Syn. Trull. Can. 36. as also the Canons of all Synods, which advanced the See of Constantinople, his Rival for Authority, above its former state, first to a proximity in Order, then to an equality of Privileges with the See of Rome, may, as plainly contrary to his interest and spirit, be supposed to pass without his consent; And so divers Popes have affirmed; if we may believe Pope Leo, (as I suppose) the Canons of the Second Council were not transmitted to Rome; they did therefore pass, and obtain in practice of the Catholick Church, without its consent or knowledge. Pope Gregory I. saith, that the Roman Church did not admit them, Romana autem Ecclesia [...]osdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet, nec accipit; in hoc autem eandem Synodum accepit quod est per eam contra Macedo­nium definitum P. Greg. M. Ep. 6.31. wherein it plainly discorded with the Catholick Church, which with all reverence did receive and hold them; and in despight to the Canon of that [Page 202] Synod, advancing the Royal City to that emi­nency,The same Pope Leo I. doth affirm. Ep. 53. —ejus civitatis quae non solùm inter Sedes numeratur, sed nec inter Metropoli­tanorum jura censetur, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.) Pope Gelasius I. would not admit it for so much as a Metropolitan See; O proud insolency, O contentious frowardness, O rebellious contu­macy against the Catholick Church and its peace! (Such was the humour of that See, to allow nothing which did not sute with the interest of its Ambi­tion.)

But farther, divers Synodical Decrees did pass expresly against the Pope's mind and will: I pass over those at Tyre, at Antioch, at Arimi­num, at Constantinople, in divers places of the East (the which do yet evince that commonly there was no such Opinion entertained of this privilege belonging to the Pope) and shall instance onely in Ge­neral Synods.

[...]. (in fine Acto­rum. p. 464.) Inde enim fra­tres nostri, ab Apostolica Se­de directi, qui vice meâ Synodo praesidebant, probabiliter atque constanter illicitis ausibus obstiterunt, apertè reclamantes, &c. Leo. I. Ep. 53, 54. [...]. (Act. 16. p. 469. against P. Leo's assertion, that the consent was extorted.) [...], say the Fathers to Pope Leo p. 475.) By a Synodical vote we have confirm'd this ancient custom.In the Synod of Chalcedon equal privileges were assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople, as the Bishop of Rome had; this with a ge­neral concurrence was decreed and subscribed; although the Pope's Le­gates did earnestly resist, clamour and protest against it; The Imperi­al Commissioners, and all the Bishops not understanding, or not al­lowing the Pope's negative voice.

And whereas Pope Leo (moved with a jealousie, that he who thus had obtained an equal rank with him, should aspire to get above him) did fiercely dispute,Ep. 53, 54, 55, 61, 62. exclaim, inveigh, menace against this Order, striving to defeat it, pretending to annull it, labouring to depress the Bishop of Constantinople from that degree, which both himself, and his Legates in the Synod had acknowledged due to him: In which endea­vour divers of his Successours did imitate him; [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. (p. 462.) supra. Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, said, I have willingly subscrib'd, because I have read this Canon to the most holy Pope of Rome, the Clergy of Constantinople be­ing present, and he receiv'd it.

Yet could not he or they accomplish their design; the veneration of that Synod and consent of Christendom overbearing their oppositi­on; the Bishop of Constantinople sitting in all the succeeding General Synods in the second place, without any contrast; so that at length Popes were fain to acquiesce in the Bishop of Constantinople's possession of the second place in dignity among the Patriarchs.

Eum (Theodo­rum) nostrâ non audemus damnare sen­tentiâ, sed nec ab alto quopi­am condemna­ri concedimus. Vig. Const. p. 186. Stat [...]imus at­que decernimus nihil in in­juriam atque obtrectatio­nem probatis­simi in Chal­cedonensi Sy­nodo viri, ho [...] est Theodoreti Episcopi Cyri, sub taxatione nominis ejus à quoquam fieri vel proferri. Ibid. Idémque regulariter Apostolicae Sedis desiniunt constituta, nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judica­re personis; sed in hoc relinqui, in quo unumquemque supremus dies invenit.— Hac praesentis Constitutionis dispositione quàm maximè providemus, nè (sicut suprà diximus) personis, quae in pace & communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt, sub hac damnati à nobis perversi dogmatis occasione aliquid derogetur. Ibid.In the Fifth General Synod Pope Vigilius did make a Constitution, in most express terms prohibiting the condemnation of the three Chapters (as they are called) and the anathematization of persons deceas­ed in peace of the Church; We dare not our selves, says he, condemn Theodorus, neither do we yield to have him condemn'd by any other: and in the same Constitution he orders and decrees, That nothing be said or done by any to the injury or discredit of Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, a man most approv'd in the Synod of Chalcedon; and the same, says he, have the Decrees of the Apostolical See determined, that no man [Page 203] pass a new judgment upon persons dead, but leave them as death found them. Lastly by that Constitution he specially provides that (as he had before said) nothing might 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,Quoniam au­tem post haec omnia impie­tatis illius de­fensoris inju­riis contra creatorem su­um dictis glo­riantes dice­bant non opor­tere eum post mortem anathematizare— qui haec dicunt nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt, nec Apostolicarum pronunci­ationum, nec paternarum traditionum. Coll. 8. p. 289. Condemnamus autem & anathematizamus unà cum omnibus aliis haereticis & Theodorum. Coll. 8. p. 291. Quod dicitur à quibusdam quòd in communicatione & pace, defunctus est Theodorus, mendacium est, & calumnia magìs adversus Ecclesiam. Coll. 5. p. 250. Si quis conatus fuerit contra haec quae piè disposuimus, vel tradere, vel docere vel scribere, siquidem Epis­copus vel Clericus sit iste tanquam aliena à Sacerdotibus & statu Ecclesiastico faciens, denudabitur Episco­patu vel Clericatu: si autem Monachus vel Laicus sit, anathematizabitur. Coll. 8. (p. 293.) 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; Si quis defendit—& non anathematizat eum—anathema sit. Ibid. 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,—contra ip­sius (Pontificis Rom.) decreta ab ea (Synodo) pariter sen­tentia dicta. Baron. Ann. 553. § 219. Non consentientes depositi in exilium missi sunt. Lib. cap. 24. Ba­ron. Ann. 553. § 223. 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,Greg. Ep. 1.24. Quintam quoque Sy­nodum pariter veneror, &c. 1.24. Pelag. II. Ep. — Agatho. Syn. 6. Act. 4. Leo. Syn. 6. Act. 18. Hadrian. ad Nectar. 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, Hîc siste, Lector, atque rem attentè con­sidera; non esse hoc novum, ut aliqua Syno­dus, cui nec per Legatos ipse Pontifex in­terfuerit, sed adversatus fuerit, titulum tamen obtinuerit Oecumenicae; cùm postea ut hujusmodi titulum obtineret, Romani Pontificis voluntas accessit, Baron. Ann. 553. § 224. 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,Si ad numeros omnes, &c. Plenè consenties ipsam non Oecumenicae tantùm, sed nec privatae Synodi mereri nomen. Id. Ann. 553. § 219. did not deserve the name of any Synod at all. O the virtue of Papal Magick! or rather O the Impudence of Papal Advocates!

[Page 204]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;Can. 2, 7, 13, 36, 55, 58, 67. I ask whether the Pope did confirm them? they will to be sure, as they are con­cerned to do,— in quibus diversa capitula Romanae Ecclesiae contraria scripta inerant. Anast. in Vit. Joh. VII. 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; [...]. Syn. Nic. II. Act. 4. (631.) and avowed for such by the Patriarch Ta­rasius, [...]. Ibid. both in way of argument of defence and of profession in his Synodical Epistle to the Pa­triarchs; [...]. Act. 3. p. 592. (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 [...], &c. ib. (p. 363.) Act. 6. p. 732. (Dist. 16. cap. 5, &c.) 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,Sed hic humana fragilitate timidus hos nequaquam tomos emendans per suprafatos Metropolitas direxit ad Principem. Anast. in Vit. Joh. VII. 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, [...], &c. Theod. 5.9. 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, [...]. Syn. Chalc. ad P. Leon. I. p. 476. 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, [...]. P. Leo. II. Ep. (p. 306.) 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 [Page 205] 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, [...]—de Vit. Const. 3.20. [...]. Ibid. 3.19. 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, [...]. Syn. Sard. Epist. apud Athan. in Apol. 2. p. 766. [...]. Soz. 4.11. [...]. Soz. 4.1. 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. [...]. Socr. 4.12.

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,—quoniam nec firmum decretum potest esse, quod non plurimorum videbitur ha­bere consensum. Cler. Rom. apud Cyp. Ep. 31. 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, [...]. Syn. Chalc. ad Leon. p. 476. 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, [...].— Epist. Syn. Chalc. ad Leon. p. 475. 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;Socr. 2.20. & Vales. Ann. ibid. 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.Sententi [...] fratrum omnei sequimur, om­nes confirmamus, omnes observandas esse decernimus. Conc. Rom. P. Hil. p. 579.

Other Bishops in yielding their suffrage, do express it by I con­firm, I define, I decree.]

[Page 206]But the effectual confirmation of Synods, which gave them the force of Laws, was in other hands, and depended on the Imperial Sanction.

His itaque om­nibus per di­versa tempora subsecutis, prae­dicti piae re­cordationis no­stri Patres ea quae in uno­quoque Concilio judicata sunt, legibus suis corroboraverunt, & confirmaverunt; & haereticos qui definitionibus praedictorum S. quatuor Conciliorum resistere, & Ecclesias conturbare conati sunt, expulerunt. Justin. in Conc. V. Coll. 1. (p. 210.)So Justinian affirmeth generally: All these things at diverse times following, our above-named predecessours of pious memory, corroborated and confirm'd by their Laws what each Council had determin'd, and expell'd those Hereticks who attempted to resist the definitions of the aforesaid four Councils and disturb the Churches.

So particularly Constantine (as Athanasius himself reporteth) did by Law confirm the decrees of the great Synod of Nice; [...]. Athan. apud. Theodor. 2.4. [...]. Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.23. [...]. Eus. ibid. 3.20. and Eusebius assureth the same; He (saith he) did ratifie the decrees of the Synod by his authority; His Letters are extant, which he sent about the world exhorting and requiring all to con­form to the constitutions of that Synod.

So Theodosius did confirm the Decrees of the Second General Synod; [...]. Soz. 7.9. adding (saith Sozomen) his confirmatory suffrage to their decree; the which he did at the supplication of the Fathers, [...]. Praef. ad Can. Conc. Constant. (apud Bin. p. 660.) addressed to him in these terms; We therefore do beseech your Grace, that by your pious Edict the sentence of the Synod may be authorized; that as by the letters of convocation you did honour the assembly, so you would also confirm the result of things decreed.

The third General Synod was also confirm­ed by Theodosius II. as Justinian telleth us;Sed praedictus piae recordationis Theodo­sius vindicans ea, quae ità rectè contra Nestorium, & ejus impietatem fuerant judicata, fecit firmiter obtinere contra eum factam condemnationem. Justin. in Quinto Conc. Coll. 1. The above-named Theodosius of pious memory, maintain­ing what had been so justly determined against Nesto­rius and his impiety, made his condemnation valid.

And this Emperour asserted this privilege to himself, as of right and custom belonging to him; writing to the Synod in these words; [...]. Epist. Theod. ad Syn. Eph. in Actis Conc. p. 375. for all things, so as may please God, without contentiousness and with truth being examined ought so to be established by our religiousness.

The other abortive Synod at Ephesus was also confirmed by The­odosius Junior, as Dioscorus in his defence alledged in these words, which shew the manner of practice in this case; We then indeed did judge the things, [...]. Syn. Chal. Act. 1. p. 59. which were judged; the whole Synod did accord with us, and gave verdict by their own votes, and subscribed; and they were referred to the most religious Empe­rour Theodosius of happy memory; and he did by a general Law confirm all things judged by the Holy and Oecumenical Synod.

So also did the Emperour Marcian confirm the Synod of Chalcedon; [Page 207] as himself telleth us in his Royal Edict: [...]. Conc. Chal. Part. 3.478. We (saith He) having by the sacred Edict of our serenity con­firmed the Holy Synod, did warn all to cease from disputes about religion: with which Pope Leo sig­nifieth his compliance in these terms;Quia verò omnibus modis obediendum est pietati vestrae, religiosissimaeque volun­tati, Constitutionibus Synodalibus, quae mihi de confirmatione fidei Catholicae & haereticorum damnatione placuerunt, li­bens adjeci sententiam meam. P. Leo. I. Ep. 59. (ad Mart. Aug.) But because by all means your piety and most religious will must be obeyed, I have willingly approv'd the Synodical Constitutions about confirming the Catholick faith and condemning hereticks, which pleased me.

Justinian did with a witness confirm the Fifth Synod, punishing with banishment all who would not submit to its determinations.

In the Sixth Synod the Fathers did request the Emperour, accord­ing to custom, to confirm its definitions, in these very words; [...]. Syn. VI. Act. 18. p. 275. To what we have determined set your Seal, your royal ratification by writing, and confir­mation of them all by your sacred edicts and holy con­stitutions according to custom.

We beg that by your sacred signing of it you would give force to what we have defined and subscribed. [...]. Ibid. p. 283. [...]. Ibid. p. 284.

We intreat the power of our Lord guided by God's wisedom to confirm, for the great strength and security of the orthodox faith, the copies of our determina­tion read in the hearing of your most serene Majes­ty, and subscribed by us, that they may be delive­red to the five Patriarchal Sees with your pious con­firmation.

Accordingly he did confirm that Synod by his Edict; [...], Sancimus, [...], &c. Ibid. Edict. Const. p. 294. All these things being thus ordered by this Sixth Holy and Oecumenical Synod; We decree, that none whosoever trouble himself farther about this faith, or advance any new inventions about it.

So he told Pope Leo II. in his Epistle to him; [...], &c. Ibid. p. 298. & p. 302. This divine and venerable determination the Holy Synod has made, to which we also have subscribed, and confirmed it by our Religious Edicts, exhorting all our people who have any Love for Christ, to fol­low the faith there written.

Pope Leo tells his name-sake Leo the Empe­rour,Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non solùm ad mundi Regi­men, sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam, &c. Leo M. Ep. 75. That he must always remember that the Impe­rial power was given him not onely to rule the world, but more especially to protect the Church.

So by long prescription, commencing with the first General Sy­nod, did the Emperour enjoy this Prerogative; and with good rea­son, He having an unquestionable warrant and obligation to pro­mote the welfare of the Church, designed by those Conventions; He being the Guardian of Concord among his Subjects, and protectour of their Liberties, which might be nearly concerned in Conciliar pro­ceedings; the power of enacting Laws being an incommunicable branch of Sovereign Majesty; He alone having power committed to him, able to enforce the observance of Decrees, without which they would in effect signifie little.

Because also commonly the Decrees of Synods did in a manner [Page 208] retrench some part of the Royal Prerogative, translating or imparting to others Causes before appropriate to his Jurisdiction (as in the case of appeals, and of prohibiting addresses to Court, ordered in the Sar­dican and other Synods; of exempting Clergymen from secular Ju­risdiction, from taxes and common burthens, &c.) which ought not to be done without his licence and authority.

So that the Oriental Bishops had good reason to tell the Emperour, [...]. Rel. Orient. ad Imp. Act. Syn. Eph. p. 372. that it was impossible with­out his authority to order the matters under conside­ration with good law and order.

It is no-wise reasonable, that any other should have this power, it being inconsistent with publick peace that in one State there should be two Legislative powers; which might clash the one with the o­ther, the one enacting Sanctions prejudicial to the interest and will of the other: wherefore the Pope being then a Citizen of Rome, and a Subject to the Emperour, could not have a Legislative power, or a negative Vote in Synods, but that wholly did belong to the Impe­rial authority.

But it is opposed, that some Synods have been declared invalid for want of the Pope's con­firmation; [...]. Soz. 6.23. for to the Decrees of the Synod at A­riminum it was excepted, that they were null, because the Bishop of Rome did not consent to them: There could not (say the Roman Synod in Theodoret) be any prejudice from the number of those assembled in Ariminum, [...].— Theod. 2.22. it being plain, that neither the Roman Bishop, whose suffrage ought first to have been received, nor Vicentius, who for so many years did hold his Episcopacy blameless, nor others agreeing to such things. To which exception I answer, that

1. That which is alledged against the Synod of Ariminum, is not the defect of the Pope's confirmation subsequent, but of his consent and concurrence before it, or in it; P. Liberius being absent, detained from it by violence in banishment. which is very reasonable, because he had a right to be present, and to concur in all such Assemblies, especially being so eminent a Bishop.

2. The same exception every 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, Consensiones verò Episcoporum, Sancto­rum Canonum apud Niciam conditorum regulis repugnantes, unitâ nobiscum ve­strae fidei pietate, in irritum mittimus, & per authoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli ge­nerali prorsus definitione cassamus. P. Leo. I. Ep. 55. (ad Pulcher. Aug.) 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 [Page 209] to those of that Synod,Quantumlibet enim extortis assentatio­nibus sese instruat vanitatis elatio, & ap­petitus suos Conciliorum aestimet nomine roborandos, infirmum atque irritum erit, quicquid à praedictorum Patrum Canoni­bus discrepârit. Ep. 61. (ad Syn. Chal­ced.) 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, Tanta apud me est Nicenorum Cano­num reverentia, ut ea quae sunt à Sanctis Patribus constituta nec permiserim nec patiar aliquâ novitate violari. Leo. Ep. 62. (ad Max. Antioch.) 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,P. Gelas. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.) p. 642. & in Tract. de Anathem. (pag. 647.) P. Pelag. II. Ep. 5. (ad Eliam. p. 474—.) Greg. M. Ep. 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.

[Page 210]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. Nulli fas est vel velle vel posse transgre­di Apostolicae Sedis praecepta. P. Greg. IV. Dist. 19. c. 5.

—Quanto potiùs quae ipsa (sedes Apo­stolica) pro Catholica fide, profanis (l. pro sanis) dogmatibus, pro variis & multifa­riis Ecclesiae necessitatibus & fidelium mo­ribus diverso tempore scripsit, omni debent honore praeferri, & ab omnibus prorsus in quibuslibet opportunitatibus discretione vel dispensatione magistrâ reverenter as­sumi? P. Nic. I. Epist. Dist. 19. c. 1. —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?

Decretales Epistolas, quas beatissimi Papae diversis temporibus ab urbe Roma pro diversorum Patrum consultatione de­derunt, venerabiliter suscipiendas decer­nimus. P. Gelas. I. (in decreto) lit. a Nic. P. Ep. 42. ad Epist. Galliae. Dist. 19. c. 1. 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.

Si decreta Romanorum Pontificum non habetis, de neglectu atque incuria est is arguendi; si verò habetis & non observa­tis, de temeritate estis corripiendi & in­crepandi. P. Nic. I. Ep. 6. ad Phot. Dist. 20. cap. 2. Sic omnes Apostolicae Sedis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam ipsius Divini Petri voce firmatae sunt. P. Agatho. Dist. 19. c. 2. Vid. Syn. VI. Act. 4. p. 35. Quia in speculum, & exemplum S. Ro­mana Ecclesia, cui nos Christus praeesse vo­luit, proposita est, ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, perpetuo & ir­refragabiliter observandum est. P. Steph. (Dist. 19. cap. 3.) P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. de dispens. (p. 633.) Qui secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare. P. Inn. III. Decret. Greg. Lib. 3. tit. 8. c. 4. Sedes haec —quod singulari etiam au­ctoritate perficere valet, multorum saepe sacerdotum decernit definire consensu. P. Nic. I. Ep. 18. (ad Carolum R.) Leo. I. Ep. 1. cap. 5. P. Hilarius in Conc. Rom. p. 578. Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 4. P. Urb. Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 6. P. Anas. ad Imp. Anast. P. Siric. Ep. 1. (p. 691.) 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.

Eph. 4.5. Jam. 4.12.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 [...]. Syn. Constan­tinop. Can. 2. which were derived from the Apostles by Traditional custom; or those which each Church [Page 211] 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.Neque enim quisquam nostrûm Episco­pum se esse Episcoporum constituit, du [...] ty­rannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omn [...] Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & pote­statis suae arbitrium proprium; támque judicari ab alio non possit, quàm nec ipse potest alterum judicare. Cypr. in Conc. Carthag. 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, Quoniam nec firmum Decretum potest esse, quòd non plurimorum videbitur ha­buisse consensum. Cler. Rom. ad Cypr. (Epist. 31.) 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;Idem enim omnes credimur operati, in quo deprehendimur eâdem omnes censurae & disciplinae consensione sociati. Cler. Rom. ad. Cypr. Ep. 31. 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:Illo certè constituto, quòd in Conciliū non unius vel secundi interlocutionem at­tendere oportet, sed haec quae communiter ab omnibus vel amplioribus definiuntur. Concil. 5. Collat. 6. p. 263. 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.

[Page 212]So also in the Fifth Council, George Bishop of Constantinople saith, [...]. VI. Syn. Act. 16. p. 249. 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: [...]. Conc. Nic. Can. 6. 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, [...]. Apost. Can. 34. 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, [...]. Syn. Ant. Can. 19. 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,— [...]. Ibid. [...]. Syn. Nic. Can. 6. 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, [...]. Theod. 2.16. 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, [...]. Socr. 2.15. 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: [...]— P. Julii Epist. apud A­thanas. in Apol. 2. p. 748. as the Antiochene Fathers did suppose, complaining to Pope Julius of his transgressing the Canons; the which charge he [Page 213] doth not repell by pretending exemption, [...], &c. p. 748. but by declaring that he had not offended against the Canons, and retorting the accusation against themselves; as the African Fathers supposed, [...] &c. Epist. ad P. Celest. I. 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; [...]. Epiph. Haer. 42. 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,It was then a Maxime be­coming the mouth of a Pope, Vni­versae pacis tranquillitas non aliter poterit custodiri, nisi sua Canonibus reverentia intemerata servetur. P. Leo I. Ep. 62. The tranquillity of an universal peace cannot otherwise be kept, unless due reverence be paid to the Ca­nons. 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,P. Hil. Ep. 2. N. B. P. Innoc. I. Ep. 2.12. P. Hil. Ep. 4. P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 9. p. 634. Ep. 13. p. 639. De Anathem. p. 645. 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.P. Zos. I. Ep. 7. (ad Episc. Vienn. & Narb.) Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 7. Pope Zo­simus I. denieth that he could alter the Privileges of Churches.

10. If they did talk more highly,P. Siric. Ep. 1. requiring observance to their Con­stitutions, it was either in their own precinct, or in the Provinces where they had a more immediate jurisdiction,Leo M. Ep. 1. cap. 5. P. Ge­las. Ep. 9. 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 in their generations, accommodating their discourse to the state of times and places.

11. It is also to be observed, that often the Popes are supposed to speak and constitute things by their own authori­ty, which indeed were done by Synods,P. Siric. Ep. 4. [...]. Conc. Eph. p. 332. [...]. Syn. VI. Act. 4. p. 60. N. The Pope did in those Councils ask the Placets. P. Hil. in Conc. R. (p. 578.) consisting of Western Bishops more closely adhering to that See, in regard to those Regions; the Decrees of which Synods were binding in those places, not so much by virtue of Papal authority, as proceed­ing from the consent of their own Bishops: how [Page 214] ready soever He were to assume all to himself, pretending those De­crees as precepts of the Apostolical See.

Whence all the Acts of modern Popes are invalid, and do not oblige, seeing they do not act in Synod; but onely of their own Head, or with the advice of a few Partizans about them, men linked in com­mon interest with them to domineer over the Church.

12. Yet even in the Western Countries, in later times, their Decrees have been contested, when they did seem plainly to clash with the old Canons, or much to derogate from the Liberties of Churches; nor have there wanted learned Persons in most times, who so far as they durst, have expressed their dislike of this Usurpation.

For although the Bishop of Rome be more venerable than the rest that are in the world, Licèt namque Pontifex Romanae Eccle­siae ob dignitatem Apostolicae Sedis caeteris in orbe constitutis reverentior habeatur, non tamen ei licet transgredi in aliquo Canonici moderaminis tenorem; sicut enim unusquisque Orthodoxae Ecclesiae Pontifex ac Sponsus propriae Sedis uniformiter speci­em gerit Salvatoris, ità generaliter nulli convenit quippiam in alterius procaciter patrare Episcopi Dioecesi. Glab. Rod. 2.4. Vid. Baron. Ann. 996. § 22, 23. upon account of the dignity of the Apostolical See, yet it is not law­full for him in any case to transgress the order of Ca­nonical governance; for as every Bishop who is of the Orthodox Church, and the Spouse of his own See, doth intirely represent the Person of our Saviour; so generally no Bishop ought pragmatically to act any thing in anothers Diocese.

13. In the times of Pope Nicolas I. the Greeks did not admit the Roman Decrees;Circa Ann. 860. so that Pope in an Epistle to Photius complains that he did not receive the Decrees of the Popes whenas yet they ordained nothing but what the Natural, Noli quia Decreta ipsorum non suscepe­ris ampliùs asseverare, cùm ipsi nihil nisi quod Naturalis, quod Mosaica, necnon & Gratiae Lex jussit, instituant. P. Nic. I. Ep. 11. (ad Phot.) what the Mo­saical, and what the Law of Grace required. Decretalia autem, quae à Sanctis Pon­tificibus Primae Sedis Romanae Ecclesiae sunt instituta, — cur vos non habere vel observare dicitis? Id. Ep. 6. (ad Phot.) And in another Epistle he expostulates with him for saying that they neither had nor did observe the De­crees made by the Holy Popes of the Prime See of the Roman Church.

14. That which greatly did advance the Papal Jurisdiction, and in­troduced his Usurpation of obtruding new Decrees on the Church, was the venting of the forged Decretal Epistles under the name of Old Popes;Vidi Hin [...]m. which when the Pope did alledge for authorizing his practices, the French Bishops,Quanquam quidam ve­strum scripse­rint haud illa decretalia priscorum Pontificum in toto codicis Canonum corpore contineri descripta, &c. P. Nic. I. Ep. 42. (ad Galliae Episc.) endeavouring to assert their Privilege, did alledge that they were not contained in the whole body of their Canons.

15. The power of enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching extoriour Discipline did of old belong to the Emperour. And it was reasonable that it should; because old Laws might not conveni­ently sute with the present state of things and the publick welfare; be­cause new Laws might cond [...]ce to the good of Church and State, the care of which is incumbent on him; because the Prince is bound to use his power and authority to promote God's Service, the best way of do­ing which may be by framing Orders conducible thereto.

Accordingly the Emperours did enact divers Laws concerning Eccle­siastical matters, which we see extant in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian.

[Page 215] These things (saith the Council of Arles) we have decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour, Haec—Domino Imperatori praesentan­da decrevimus, poscentes ejus clementiam ut siquid hic minus est, ejus prudentià sup­pleatur, si quid secus quàm se ratio habet, ejus judicio emendetur; si quid rationa­biliter taxatum est, ejus adjutorio divinâ opitulante clementiâ perficiatur. Conc. A­rel. 4. c. 26. Ann. 813. (sub Carolo M.) desiring his clemency that if any thing be defective it may be supplied by his prudence, if any thing be un­reasonable it may be corrected by his judgment, if any thing be reasonably ordered it may by his help, the Divine Grace assisting, be perfected.

We may observe, that Popes did allow the validity of Imperial Laws. Pope Gregory I. doth alledge divers Laws of divers Emperours concern­ing Ecclesiastical affairs as authentick and obligatory Rules of prac­tice.P. Greg. I. Ep. 11.56.

16. Divers Churches had particular rights of independency upon all power without themselves.

Such as the Church of Cyprus in the Ephesine Synod did claim and obtain the confirmation of.

Such was the ancient Church of Britain, before Austin came into England.

The Welch Bishops are consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids, Episcop [...] Walliae à Menevensi Antistite sunt consecrati, & ipse similiter ab aliis tanquam saffragane is est constitutus, nullâ penitus alii Ecclesiae facta professione vel subjectione. Girald. Cambr. Itin. 2.1. and he himself in like manner is ordained by others who are as it were his Suffragans, professing no manner subjection to any other Church.

V. Sovereign power, immediately by it self when it pleaseth, doth exercise all parts of Jurisdiction, setting it self in the Tribunal; or medi­ately doth execute it by others, as its Officers or Commissioners.

Wherefore now the Pope doth claim and exercise Universal Jurisdic­tion over all the Clergy;Bell. 2.18, 26. requiring of them engagements of strict sub­mission and obedience to him; demanding that all causes of weight be referred to him;Per hoc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare— P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 4. Cunctos ipsè judicaturus à nemine est judicandus. Dist. 40. cap. 6. Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 45, &c. Sacra statuta & veneranda decreta Episcoporum causas, utpote majora negotia nostrae definiendas censurae mandârunt. P. Nic. I. Ep. 38. citing them to his bar, examining and deciding their causes; condemning, suspending, deposing, censuring them, or acquitting, absolving, restoring them, as he seeth cause, or findeth in his heart; He doth encourage people to accuse their pastours to him, in case any doth infringe his Laws and Orders.

But (in general) that originally or anciently the Pope had no such right appropriate to him may appear by arguments, by cross instances, by the insufficiency of all pleas, and examples alledged in favour of this claim. For,

1. Originally there was not at all among Christians any Jurisdiction like to that which is exercised in Civil Governments, and which now the papal Court doth execute. For this our Saviour did prohibit, and Saint Peter forbad the Presbyters [...].1 Pet. 5. And St. Chrysostome affirmeth the Episcopal power not to be [...], or [...].Chrys. in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Eph. Orat. 11. Hier. Ep. 3. & Ep. 62. Isid. Pelus. Ep. 20.125.4.219. And Ecclesiastical Hi­story doth inform us, that such a Jurisdiction was lately introduced in the Church, as by other great Bishops, so especially by the Bishop of Rome: [...]. Socr. 7.7. For (saith Socrates) from that time the Episcopacy of Alexandria, beyond the Sacerdotal Order did assume a domineering power in affairs.

[Page 216]The which kind of power the Roman Bishops had long before assumed; for, (saith he) the Episcopacy of Rome, in like manner as that of Alexandria, — [...]. Socr. 7.11. had already a great while agoe gone before in a domineering power beyond that of the Priesthood.

At first the Episcopal power did onely consist in Paternal admoniti­on, and correption of offenders, exhorting and persuading them to a­mendment; and in case they contumaciously did persist in disorderly behaviour, bringing them before the Congrega­tion,1 Cor. 5.4, 12. — 2 Cor. 2.6. — Examinabuntur singulae praesentibus, & judicantibus vobis. Cypr. Ep. 12. (fra­tribus in plebe.) Secundùm vestra divina suffragia. Cypr. Ep. 40. Secundùm arbitrium quoque vestrum. Ibid. (Ep. 46.) Tertul. Apol. 39. ibidem— and the cause being there heard and proved, with its consent imposing such penance or correc­tion on them as seemed needfull for the publick good, or their particular benefit: All things (saith St. Cyprian) shall be examin'd you being present and judging. And (elsewhere) according to your divine suffrages; according to your pleasure.

2. Originally no one Bishop had any Jurisdiction over another, or authority to judge his actions; as St. Cyprian (who well knew the cur­rent judgment and practice of his age) in many places doth affirm: who particularly doth reflect on the Roman Bishop, for presuming to censure his brethren,Expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus ha­bet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ec­clesiam suam gubernatione & de actu no­stro judicandi. Cypr. in Conc. Carth. who dis­sented from him: Let us all (saith he) expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who onely hath power to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of what we doe.

3. Even the community of Bishops did not otherwise take notice of, or intermeddle with the proceedings of any Bishop in his precinct and charge; except when his demeanour did concern the general state of the Church, intrenching upon the common faith, or publick order and peace.

In other cases for one or more Bishops to meddle with the procee­dings of their brother, was taken for an [...], a pragmati­cal intrusion upon anothers business; and an invasion of that Liberty which did belong to each Bishop, by the grant of our Lord, and the nature of his Office.

As by those passages of St. Cyprian, and the declaration of the Synod with him doth appear.

4. In cases needing decision for the publick good of the Church, the Law and custom of the Church, confirmed by the Nicene Synod, did order, that jurisdiction should be exercised, and all causes finally de­termined in each Province;Can. 5. so that no regard is had to the Pope, no exception in favour of him being expressed or implyed.

In venerabilis Concilii Nice­ni contumelia saepe versatus, alienarum tibi Provinciarum jura temerariè rapuisti. P. Felix Acacio. apud Baron. Ann. 484. § 17.The which Constitution, if we believe Pope Leo himself, cannot in any case by any power be revoked or infringed.

That is most expresly confirmed by the Synod of Antioch, in the Code of the Universal Church, If any Bishop accused of certain crimes shall be condemned by all the Bishops in the Province, [...]. Syn. Ant. Ca. 16. and all shall unanimously vote against him, he shall not be judged again by others; but the unanimous sentence of the Bishops of the Province shall remain valid.

[Page 217]Here is no consideration or exception from the Pope.

5. Accordingly in practice, Synods without regard or recourse to the Pope, did judge Bishops upon offences charged against them.

6. The execution of those judgments was entrusted to Metropolitan Bishops; or had effect by the peoples consent; for it being declared that any Bishop had incurred condemnation, the people did presently desert him.

Every Bishop was obliged to confer his part to the execution;Quod non so­lùm praesuli Apostolico fa­cere licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quoslibet & quemlibet locum, secundum regulam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Catho­lica communione discernant. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4. as Pope Gelasius affirmeth.

7. If the Pope had such judicial power, seeing there were from the beginning so many occasions of exercising it, there would have been extant in History many clear instances of it, but few can be alledged; and those (as we shall see) impertinent, or insufficient.

8. Divers Synods (great and smaller) did make Sanctions contrary to this pretence of the Pope; appointing the decision of Causes to be terminated in each Diocese; and prohibiting appeals to him; which they would not have done if the Pope had originally, or according to common law and custom, a supreme judicial power.

9. The most favourable of ancient Synods to Papal interest, that of Sardica, did confer on the Pope a power, qualified in matter and man­ner, of causing Episcopal causes to be revised; which sheweth that be­fore he had no right in such cases; nor then had an absolute power.

10. The Pope's power of judging Bishops hath been of old disclai­med as an illegal and upstart encroachment.

When the Pope first nibbled at this bait of ambition, St. Cyprian and his Bishops did reprehend him for it.

The Bishop of Constantinople denied that Pope Gelasius alone might condemn him;Euphemium verò miror, si ignorantiam suam ipse non perspicit, qui dicit Acaci­um ab uno non posse damnari — P. Ge­las. I. Ep. 4. Nobis opponunt Canones — Ib. according to the Canons— The Pope ranteth at it, and rea­soneth against it; but hath no material argument or example for it, (concerning the Papal authori­ty peculiarly) beside the Sardican Canon.

11. The Popes themselves have been judged for Misdemeanour, He­resie, Schism; as hereafter we shall shew.

12. The Popes did execute some judgments,Quod non solùm praesuli Apostolico fa­cere licet, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4. (supr. in arg. 6.) Vid. Epist. 13. onely by a right common to all Bishops; as Exe­cutours of Synodical Decrees.

13. Other Bishops did pretend to Judicature, by Privilege: as Juve­nalis. Bishop of Jerusalem did pretend that to him did belong the Judg­ment of the Bishop of Antioch. [...]. Syn. Eph. Act. 4. (p. 340.)

14. The Popes were subject to the Emperours; who when they plea­sed did interpose to direct or qualifie all Jurisdic­tion;Justin. Nov. 123. cap. 3. Jubemus Episc. Rom. commanding the Popes themselves — wherefore the Popes were not Judges Sovereign, but subordinate.

[Page 218]Pope Gregory I. did refer the great Question a­bout the title of Oecumenical Bishop to the judg­ment of the Emperour Mauricius. — ut piissimus Dominus Mauritius ipsum illud negotium judicare dignaretur. Greg. Ep. 4.32.

These things will more fully appear in the discussion of the particu­lars concerning the chief Branches of Jurisdiction; more especially un­der the Tenth Branch of Sovereignty.

They alledge that passage of Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius, [...] — Act. S [...]n. Chalc. p. 25. That the most blessed Bishop of Rome, to whom Antiquity hath given a Priesthood over all, hath a See and Power to judge both of Faith and Priests.

This was suggested by Pope Leo and his adherents to the young Em­perour — but it signifieth no more, but that in the Judgment of Priests (as of Faith) he was to have his share; or at most to be a leading per­son therein.

Theodosius (a mature, grave, pious Prince) did not regard that pretence of Leo, [...] — Ibid. p. 28. nor the ap­peal of Flavianus.

Upon a Sove­reign all Infe­riour Magi­strates depend.VI. To the Sovereign of any State belongeth the Choice, Constitu­tion, Confirmation, Commissionating of all inferiour Magistrates; that none uncapable, unworthy, or unfit for Offices, or disaffected to the State, be entrusted with the management of Affairs.

Wherefore the Pope doth claim and exercise these Prerogatives so far as he can; pretending at least that no Bishop can be constituted without his designation, or his licence, and his confirmation of the no­mination, collation or election.

Bell. 4.24.And these Privileges by the great Advocates are upon highest terms asserted to him.

In this matter may be distinguished,

1. The Designation of the Person by Election or otherwise.

2. The Confirmation of that.

3. The Ordination or Consecration of him to his Office; the which conferreth on him his Character and Authority.

4. The Authority by which he acteth.

Into all these the Pope hath intruded himself, and he will have a finger in them.

1. He gladly would have drawn to himself the collation and dispo­sal of all Benefices, challenging a general right to dispose of all at his pleasure;Licèt Ecclesiarum, Personatuum, Dig­nitatum, aliorúmque Beneficiorum Eccle­siasticorum plenaria dispositio ad Roma­num noscatur Pontificem pertinere, &c. Clem. IV. in Sexto. lib. 3. tit. 4. cap. 2. Vid. ib. c. 4.10.12.20. but not having been able wholly to deprive Princes and Patrons of their Nominations, and Corporations of their E­lection; yet he hath by Reservations, Provisions, Collations of Vacancies apud Sedem, Ib. c. 14, &c. Although the plenary disposal of all Churches, Parsonages, Dignities and other Ecclesiastical Benefices be known to belong to the Pope of Rome, &c. Resignati­ons, Devolutions, and other such tricks extreme­ly encroached on the rights of all, to the infinite vexation, damage and mischief of Christendom.

2. He pretendeth that no Bishop shall be ordained without his Li­cence.

3. He obligeth the person Ordained to swear obedience to him.

4. He pretendeth that all Bishops are his Ministers and Deputies.

[Page 219]But no such Privileges have any foundation or warrant in Holy Scripture, in Ancient Doctrine, or in Primitive Usage: they are all Encroachments upon the original Rights and Liberties of the Church, derived from Ambition and Avarice; subsisting upon Usurpation, up­held by Violence.

This will appear from a Survey of Ancient Rules and Practices con­cerning this matter.

The first constitution after our Lord's decease of an Ecclesiastical per­son was that of Matthias into the vacant Aposto­late, or Bishoprick of Judas;Act. 1. [...]. V. 20. Vers. 15. [...]. Vers. 23. [...]. Vers. 24. 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, Act. 6.2. [...]. Vers. 5. 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, [...]. Tit. 2.5. [...]. 1 Cor. 12.10. [...]. Eus. 3.23. 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, [...]. Clem. Epist. p. 57. 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; [...]. 1 Tim. 3.10. Praesident probati quique seniores, ho­norem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti. Tertull. Apol. 39. Plenâ diligentiâ, exploratione sincerâ. Cypr. Ep. 68. 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.

[Page 220]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, Primùm Presbyteri Episcopi appella­bantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succe­deret, &c. Vid. Dist. 66. cap. 2. At first Presbyters were called Bishops that one departing the next might suc­ceed him. and bearing his name, did con­ceive, that upon decease of a Bishop the elder of the Presbyters did succeed into his place. In Eph. 4.11. 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, Propter quod diligenter de traditione divina & Apostolica observatione obser­vandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque & ferè per Provincias universas tenetur; ut ad ordinationes ritè celebran­d [...]s, ad eam plebem cui praepositus ordi­natur, Episcopi ejusdem proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente, quae singillòrum vitam plenissimè novit, & uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit; quod & apud vos factum videmus in Sa [...]ini Collegae nostri ordinatione, ut de universae frater­nitatis suffragio, & de Episcoporum, qui in praesentia convenerant, quíque de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio Episcopatus ei deferetur. Cypr. Ep. 68. 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; Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis & Deum metuens à peccatore praeposito sepa­rare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdo­tis sacrificia miscere; quando ipsa maxi­mè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi; quod & ipsum videmus de divina auctoritate descendere; ut Sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque idonens publico judicio ac testimonio com­probetur— Cypr. Ep. 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 [Page 221] worth and fit should be approved by publick judgment and testimony.

Again,Suffragio totius populi Cyprianus eligi­tur. Optat. 1. Caeterùm quando Episcopus in locum de­functi substituitur, quando populi uni­versi suffragio in pace deligitur — Cui si secundum magisteria divina obtemperaret fraternitas universa, nemo adversum Sa­cerdotum Collegium quidquam moveret; nemo post divinum judicium, post populi suffragium, post coepiscorum consensum, judicem se jam non Episcopi sed Dei face­ret—Cypr. Ep. 55. 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,Factus est autem Cornelius Episcopus de Dei, & Christi ejus judicio, de Cleri­corum penè omnium testimonio, de plebis, quae tunc affuit, suffragio, & de Sacerdo­tum antiquorum & bonorum virorum Col­legio — Cypr. Ep. 52. Cornelio in Catholica Ecclesia de Dei judicio, & Cleri ac plebis suffragio ordi­nato— Cypr. Ep. 67. 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, Episcopo semel facto, & Collegarum ac plebis testimonio & judicio combrobato— Ep. 41. (ad Cornel.) 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:Const. Apost. 8.4. Postquam haec erit precatus, &c. 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 Church with these words, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all, Amen. And let all answer, And with thy spirit. After which words let him exhort the people.

Thus it was then, in a practice so obvious and observable, that a Pagan Emperour took good notice of it, and chose to imitate it in con­stituting the Governours of Provinces, and other Officers; When (saith Lampridius of Alexander Sever [...]s) he would either give rulers to Provinces or make presidents, Vbi aliquos voluisset vel rectores Pro­vinciis dare, vel praepositos facere, vel procuratores id est rationales ordinare, nomina eorum proponebat, hortans popu­lum, ut siquid haberet criminis, probaret manifestis rebus; si non probâsset, subiret poenam capitis; dicebatque grave esse, quum id Christiani & Judaei facerent in praedicandis Sacerdotibus qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in Provinciarum Rectori­bus, quibus & fortunae hominum commit­terentur & capita. Lamprid. in Alex. Sev. cap. 45. or or­dain procuratours, he set up their names, exhorting the people if they had any thing against them, to prove it by manifest evidence, if they could not make their accusation good they were to die for it, and he said 'twould be hard not to doe that in the choice of Governours of Provinces, to whom the lives and for­tunes of men were entrusted, which the Christians and Jews did in setting up those who were to be or­dained Priests.

Afterward in process of time, when (the gaps of distance being fil­led up, and Christendom becoming one continued Body) Ecclesiastical Discipline was improved into a more complete shape, for Constitution of a Bishop, all the Bishops of a Province did convene, (or such as could [Page 222] with convenience, [...]. Syn. Con­stantinop. Theod. 5.9. the others signifying their mind by writing) and having approved him who was recommended by the Clergy, and allowed by the people, they did ordain him; the Metropolitan of the Province ratifying what was done.

So the Nicene Synod, regarding the practice which had commonly obtained, did appoint with a qualification to be generally observed: It is most fit (say they) that a Bishop be constituted by all Bishops in the Province; [...] Conc. Nic. Can. 4. but if this be hard, either because of urgent necessity, or for the length of the way, then three of the body being gathered toge­ther (those also who are absent conspiring in opinion, and yielding their consent in writing) let the Ordi­nation be performed, Vid. Can. Apost. 1. Conc. Antioch. Can. 19. Conc. Laod. Can. 12. — Conc. Afr. Can. 13. but let the ratification of what is done be assigned to the Metropolite in each Pro­vince.

In this Canon (the which is followed by divers Canons of other Sy­nods) there is no express mention concerning the interest of the Cler­gy and people in election of the Bishops; but these things are onely passed over, as precedaneous to the Constitution or Ordination, about which onely the Fathers did intend to prescribe; supposing the electi­on to proceed according to former usual practice.

That we ought thus to interpret the Canon, so that the Fathers did not intend to exclude the people from their choice, doth appear from their Synodical Epistle; wherein they Decree concerning Bishops con­stituted by Meletius, who returning to communi­on with the Church did live in any City, [...]. Socr. 1.9. The­od. 1.9. that, If any Catholick Bishop should happen to die, then should those who were already received ascend into the honour of him deceased; in case they should ap­pear worthy, and the people should chuse, the Bishop of Alexandria withall adding his suffrage to him, and his confirmation; the which words with suffi­cient evidence do interpret the Canon not to concern the Election, but the Ordination of Bishops.

Thus the Fathers of the second General Synod plainly did interpret this Canon by their proceeding;Theod. 5.9. for they in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops, did assure him, that they in the Constitution of Bishops for the principal Ea­stern Sees, had followed this Order of the Synod of Nice, [...]— [...]— — [...]. together with the ancient law of the Church; in agreement whereto they had ordained Necta­rius Bishop of Constantinople; with common consent, under the eyes of the most religious Emperour Theodo­sius, and of all the Clergy, the whole City adjoining also its suffrage;— [...]. and that for Antioch, the Bishops of the Province, and of the Eastern Diocese concur­ring had canonically ordained Flavianus Bishop, the whole Church consenting as with one voice to honour the person.

Ath. Apol. 2. p. 726.Indeed the practice generally doth confirm this, the People every where continuing to elect their Bishop: So did the people of Alexan­dria demand Athanasius for their Bishop. So Pope Julius did complain [Page 223] that Gregory was intruded into the place of Atha­nasius; not being required by the Presbyters, [...]. Ath. ibid. p. 749. not by the Bishops, not by the People. So Gregory Nazian­zene describeth the Elections of Bishops in his times to be carried by the power of wealthy men,Orat. 19. p. 310. Epist. 21. and impetuousness of the people. So Austin intima­teth the same in his Speech about designation of a Successour to himself, I know, says he,Scio post obitus Episcoporum per ambi­tiosos aut contentiosos solere Ecclesias per­turbari—Aug. Ep. 110. that af­ter the decease of Bishops the Churches are wont to be disturbed by ambitious and contentious men. Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.59, 60. Socr. 1.24. [...]— Sozom. 6.23. Marcell. lib. 27. [...]— Socr. 1.24. Soz. 3.4. Theod. 4.6. So the tumults at Antioch, in chusing a Bishop after Eu­stathius; at Rome after Liberius; at Constantinople after Alexander; at Milain when St. Ambrose was chosen.

So Stephanus Bishop of Ephesus in justification of himself saith, [...]. Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. p. 404. [...]. Ibid. Me forty Bishops of Asia by the suf­frage of the most noble and of the substantial Citizens, and of all the most reverend Clergy, and of all the rest of the whole City, did Ordain; and his Com­petitour Bassianus, Me, with great constraint and violence, the people and the Clergy, and the Bishops did install—

In the Synod of Chalcedon, Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra, saith, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. p. 462. that the whole City of Gangra did come to him bringing their suffrages. Posidius tel­leth us of St. Austin, In ordinandis verò Sacerdotibus & Cle­ricis consensum majorem Christianorum, & consuetudinem Ecclesiae sequendam esse arbitrabatur. Posid. in Aug. Vit. cap. 20. Nullus invitis detur Episcopus; Cleri, plebis, & ordinis consensum ac desiderium requiratur— Celest. I. Ep. 2. that in ordaining Priests and Clergymen he deemed the greater consent of Christi­ans, and the custom of the Church was to be followed.

So Celestine the First: Let no Bishop be given them against their wills; let the consent and request of the Clergy, the people and the order be expected; and Pope Leo the First,Cùm ergò de summi Sacerdotis electione tractabitur, ille omnibus praeponatur, quem Cleri plebísque consensus concorditer postu­lârint; ità ut si in aliam fortè personam partium se vota deviserint, Metropolitani judicio is alteri praeferatur, qui majori­bus & studiis juvatur & meritis, tan­tùm ut nullus invitis, & non petentibus ordinetur; nè Civitas Episcopum non op­tatum aut contemnat aut oderit, & fiat minùs religiosa quàm convenit, cui non licuit habere quem voluit. P. Leo I. Ep. 84. ad Anastas. When there shall be an elec­tion of a Bishop, let him be preferr'd who has the unanimous consent of the Clergy and people; so that if the votes be divided and part for another person, let him, by the judgment of the Metropolitan, be pre­ferr'd whose merits and interest are greatest, onely that none may be ordained against their wills or with­out their desire, lest the unwilling people contemn or hate a Bishop whom they never desired, and become less religious than they ought, because they could not have such a Bishop as they would. And in other of his Epistles,Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter Episcopos ha­beantur, qui nec à Clericis sunt electi, nec à plebibus expetiti, nec à Provincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio con­secrati. P. Leo I. Ep. 92. There is no reason that they should be accounted Bishops, who were neither chosen by the Clergy, nor desired by the people, nor with the Me­tropolitan's order consecrated by the Provincial Bi­shops—

Certainly the desires of the Citizens, Expectarentur certè vota Civium, testi­monia populorum, quaereretur honoratorum arbitrium, electio Clericorum, quae in Sa­cerdotum solent ordinationibus ab his qui nôrunt Patrum regulas custodiri. P. Leo Ep. 89. Dist. 63. cap. 27. and the testi­monies of the people should have been expected, with the judgment of the honourable and the choice of the Clergy, which in the Ordinations of Priests use to be observ'd by those who know the rules of the Fathers— [Page 224] When peaceably and with such concord as God loves, Quum per pacem, & D [...]o placitam con­cordiam consonis omniu [...] studiis qui doc­tor pacis futurus est [...]. Ibid. he who is to be a teacher of peace is ordained by the agree­ment of all— Let Priests who are to be ordained be required peaceably and quietly: Per pacem & quietem Sacerdotes qui praefuturi sunt postulentur; teneatur sub­scriptio Clericorum, honoratorum testi­monium, ordinis consensus & plebis; qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eli­gatur. Ibid. let the subscription of the Clergy, the testimony of the honourable, 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, P. Nich. I. Ep. 5. Quia consuetudi­nem vestram novimus in Regia Vrbe, mi­nimò apicem Archieraticae potestatis ali­quem posse habere sine Ecclesiasticae plebis assensu, atque Imperiali suffragio—. P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 70. Dist. 62. 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.

Vid. P. Leo Ep. 84.101.107.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, Nihil tum opus erat Apostolicâ confir­matione; satìs erat electionem ab Archie­piscopo comprobari: nunc ad se omnium Ecclesiarum jura traxit Romana Ecclesia. Crantz. Metrop. 7.45. 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, [...]. P. Cornel. apud Eus. 6.43. 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?

Bell 2.18.20.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. Satìs est quòd vestrae pietatis auxilio, & mei favoris assensu Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit. P. Leo Ep. 54. De Marc 3.14. § 1. 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. Vt ordinationem ritè celebrandam tua quoque firmet authoritas. P. Leo Ep. 84. (ad Anastas.) 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. Donatum—ità Dominico volumus gregi praesidere, ut libellum fidei suae ad nos me­minerit dirigendum—P. Leo Ep. 87. Also Gregory I. doth complain of it as of an inordinate Act,Salonitanae Civitatis Episcopus ne ac re­sponsali meo nesciente ordinatus est, & facta res est, quae sub nullis anterioribus principibus evenit. Greg. Ep. 4.34. that a Bishop of Salonae was [Page 225] 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, [...]. Sozom. 6.39. 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, Nos enim vestrae fidei & interventionis habentes intuitum, cùm secundum suae con­secrationis authores ejus initia titubarent, benigniores erga ipsum quàm justiores esse voluimus— P. Leo Ep. 55. (ad Martia­num.) 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,Decessore enim tuo B. memoriae Flavi­ano propter defensionem Catholicae verita­tis ejecto, non immeritò credebatur quòd ordinatores tui contra Sanctorum Cano­num Constituta viderentur sui similem consecrâsse—Post illa itaque ordinationis tuae non inculpata principia—P. Leo Ep. 53. ad Anatol. Lib. cap. 12. 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,Quod nos amore reparandae fidei, & pa­cis studio retractare cessavimus. P. Leo Ep. 54. (ad Martian.) Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. 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.

[Page 226]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. [...]. Soz. 3.21. [...]. Soz. 2.5. Socr. 4.14. [...]. Socr. 4.21. [...]. Socr. 3.6. Socr. 6.2. 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 then so expresly for­bidden by the Canons as afterward.

Theognis and Theodorus did make Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople. Soz. 2.6. [...]. Socr. 6.2. [...]. Soz. 7.9. [...]. Socr. 2.13. [...]. Soz. 7.2, 3. [...]. Socr. 2.238. Post consecrationem Antiocheni Episco­pi, quam tibimet contra Canonicam re­gulam vendicâsti— P. Leo I. Epist. 53. (ad Anatol.) Theophilus of Alexan­dria did ordain St. Chrysostome. The Egyptian Bishops surreptitiously did constitute Maximus, the Cynick Philosopher, Bishop of Constantinople. Acacius, (who had as little to doe there as the Pope) did thrust Eudoxius into the throne of Con­stantinople. Meletius of Antioch did constitute St. Gregory Nazianzene to the charge of Constanti­nople. Acacius and Patrophilus, extruding Maxi­mus did in his room constitute Cyril Bishop of Jeru­salem. Pope Leo doth complain of Anatolius, that against the Canonical rule he had assumed to himself the Ordination of the Bishop of Antioch.

2. To obviate these irregular and inconvenient proceedings, having crept in upon the dissensions in Faith and especially upon occasion of Gre­gory Nazianzene being constituted Bishop of Constantinople by Meletius, and Maximus being thrust into the same See by the Egyptians (whose Par­ty for a time the Roman Church did countenance) the second General Synod did ordain that no Bishop should intermeddle about Ordinations without the bounds of his own Diocese.

3. In pursuance of this Law, or upon the ground of it, the Pope was sometimes checked, when he presumed to make a sally beyond his bounds in this or the like cases.

[Page 227]As when Pope Innocent I. did send some Bishops to Constantinople for procuring a Synod to examine the cause of St. Chrysostome; those of Constantinople —did cause them to be dismissed with disgrace as molesting a government beyond their bounds. [...]. Sozom. 8.28.

4. Even in the Western parts, after that the Pope had wrigled him­self into most Countries there, so as to obtain sway in their transactions, yet he in divers places did not meddle in Ordina­tions; —we do not, Non enim nobis ordinationes vestrarum Provinciarum defendimus. P. Leo Ep. 89. says Pope Leo I. arrogate to our selves a power of ordaining in your Provinces.

Even in some parts of Italy it self the Pope did not confirm Bishops till the times of Pope Nicholas I. as may be collected from the submis­sion then of the Bishop of Ravenna to that condition,— & ne ele­ctos etiam Ca­nonicè in Fla­minia Episco­pos consecran­di facultatem haberet, nisi id sibi à Sede Apostolica literis concederetur. Plat. in P. Nichol. I. that he should have no power to consecrate Bishops canonically elected in the Regio Flaminia, un­less it were granted him by letters from the Apostolick See.

And it was not without great opposition and struggling that he got that power other-where than in his original precincts, or where the juncture of things did afford him special advantage.

5. If Examples would avail to determine Right, there are more, and more clear Instances of Emperours interposing in the Constitution of Bishops, than of Popes. As they had ground in Reason, and autho­rity in Holy Scripture.1 King. 2.35. And Zadock the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar. Constantine did interpose at the designation of a Bishop at Antioch in the room of Eustathius. Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.59, 60. Upon Gregory Nazianzene's recess from Constantinople, Theodosius (that excellent Emperour, [...]. Sozom. 7.8. who would not have infringed right) did com­mand the Bishops present to write in paper the names of those whom each did approve worthy to be ordained, and reserved to himself the choice of one; and ac­cordingly they obeying, he out of all that were nominated did elect Nectarius. [...]. Sozom. 3.4. Constantius did deliver the See of Constantinople to Eusebius Nicome­diensis, [...]. Soz. 3.6. Constantius was angry with Macedonius, because he was ordain'd without his licence. [...]. Theodor. 2.27. He rejecting Eleusius and Sylvanus did order other to be substituted in their places. [...]— Theod. 4.7. When, before St. Am­brose, the See of Milain was vacant, a Synod of Bishops there did intreat the Emperour to declare one. [...]— Theod. 5.23. Flavianus said to the Emperour Theodosius, Give forsooth, O King, the See of Antioch to whom you shall think good. Visum est Imperatoribus nullum or­dinare de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia Pontificem— Nestorium quasi utilem ad docendum Constantinopolin Principes evocaverunt. Lib. Brev. 6. Socr. 7.29. Quem tanto Imperii judicio electum, tanto Sacerdotum studio prosecutum — Vinc. Lir. p. 330. Tunc Papa principis favore Menam pro eo (Anthimo) ordinavit Antistitem. Lib. cap. 21. — [...]. Evag. 4.38. Conc. Tolet. 12. cap. 6. apud Gr. Dist. 63. cap. 25. The Emperour did call Nes­torius from Antioch to the See of Constantinople; and he was (saith Vincentius Lir.) elected by the Emperour's judgment. The favour of Justinian did advance Menas to the See of Constantino [...]: and the same did prefer Eutychius thereto. He did put in Pope Vigilius—

In Spain the Kings had the Election of Bishops by the Decrees of the Council of Toledo.

[Page 228]That the Emperour Charles did use to confirm Bishops Pope John VIII. doth testifie, reproving the Archbishop of Vir­dun, Quem Clerus & populus Civitatis eli­gerat, praeque memoriae Carolus Imperator suo consensu firmaverat— P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 70. for rejecting a Bishop, whom the Clergy and people of the City had chosen, and the Emperour Charles had confirmed by his consent.

When Macarius Bishop of Antioch for Monothe­litism was deposed in the sixth Synod, [...]. Syn. VI. Act. 12. (p. 208.) the Bishops under that throne did request the Presidents of the Synod to suggest another to the Emperour to be substituted in his room.

In Gratian there are divers passages wherein Popes declared, that they could not ordain Bishops to Churches, even in Italy, without the Emperour's leave and licence. As Dist. 63. cap. 9. Greg. I. Ep. 4.15. cap. 15. cap. 16, 17, 18. P. Leo IV. & Steph. Distinc. 63. c. 6, 7. Distinc. 63. c. 1, 2. indeed there are also in later times other Decrees (made by Popes of another kidney, or in other junctures of affairs) which forbid Princes to meddle in the elections of Bishops; as in the seventh Synod, and in the eighth Synod as they call it, upon oc­casion of Photius being placed in the See of Con­stantinople by the power of the Court. Ibid. cap. 4. [It is a notorious thing, that most Princes in the West, in Germany, France, England, did invest Bishops, till the time of Pope Gregory VII. when that boisterous man did raise so much stir in Christendom to dispossess them of that right; which they enioyed not one­ly as Princes, but as Founders, Patrons, Benefactours, Protectours of Churches.] And that of Pope Nicholas I. By which discordance in practice we may see the consistence and stability of Doctrine and Practice in the Roman Church.

The Emperours for a long time did enjoy the privilege of constituting or confirming the Popes: for, says Platina, in the Life of Pelagius II. Nihil à Clero in eligendo Pontifice actum erat nisi ejus electionem Imperator approbâsset. Plat. in Pelagio II. (p. 154.) Distinct. 63. Plat. p. 155. Vid. Joh. Diac. & Anastas. Dist. 63. cap. 21. Hadrianus autem Papa cum universa Synodo tradiderunt jus & potestatem eli­gendi Pontificem, & ordinandi Apostoli­cam Sedem — Insuper Archiepiscopos & Episcopos per singulas Provincias ab eo in­vestituram accipere definivit; & nisi à Rege laudetur & investiatur Episcopus, à nemine consecretur; & quicunque con­tra hoc decretum ageret, anathematis vinculo eum innodavit. Distinct. 63. cap. 22. no­thing was then done by the Clergy in electing a Pope unless the Emperour approv'd the election. He did confirm P. Gregory I. and P. Agatho.

Pope Adrian with his whole Synod did deliver to Charles the Great the right and power of electing the Pope and ordaining the Apostolick See— He more­over defined that Archbishops and Bishops in every Province should receive investiture from him; and that if a Bishop were not commended and invested by the King, he should be consecrated by none; and whoever should act against this Decree, him he did noose in the band of anathema.

Largimur in perpetuum facultatem successorem, atque summae Sedis Apostoli­cae Pontificem ordinandi, ac per hoc Ar­chiepiscopos seu Episcopos, &c. Distinc. 63. cap. 23. Qui statim Romanorum inconstantiae pertaesus authoritatem omnem eligendi Pontificis à Clero populóque Romano ad Imperatorem transtulit— Plat. in Leo. VIII. p. 291.The like privilege did Pope Leo VIII. attribute to the Emperour Otho I. We give him, says he, for ever power to ordain a successour and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See, and change Archbishops, &c. And Platina, in his Life, says, That being weary of the inconstancy of the Romans, he transferr'd all au­thority to chuse a Pope from the Clergy and people of Rome to the Emperour.

Now I pray if this power of confirming Bishops do by Divine Insti­tution belong to the Pope, how could he part with it, or transfer it on others? Is not this a plain renunciation in Popes of their Divine pre­tence?

[Page 229]6. General Synods by an authority paramount have assumed to themselves the constitution and confirmation of Bishops.Conc. Const. Sess. 40. Conc. Bas. Sess. 37. (p. 98.) So the Second General Synod did confirm the Ordination of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople, [...] — Theod. 5.9. and of Flavianus Bishop of Antioch, (this Ordination, say they, the Synod generally have admitted) although the Roman Church did not approve the Ordination of Necta­rius, and for a long time after did oppose that of Flavianus. So the Fifth Synod it seemeth did confirm the Ordination of Theophanius Bishop of Antioch. So the Synod of Pisa did constitute Pope Alexander V. that of Constance Pope Martin V. that of Basil Pope Felix V.

7. All Catholick Bishops in old times might and commonly did con­firm the Elections and Ordinations of Bishops, to the same effect as Popes may be pretended to have done; that is by signifying their ap­probation, or satisfaction concerning the orthodoxy of their Faith, the attestation of their Manners, the legality of their Ordination, no cano­nical Impediment; and consequently by admitting them to communi­on of peace and charity, and correspondence in all good Offices, which they express by returning [...] in answer to their Syno­dical— communicatory Letters.

Thus did St. Cyprian and all the Bishops of that Age confirm the Or­dination of Pope Cornelius, being contested by No­vatian; as St. Cyprian in terms doth affirm,Cùm locus Petri & gradus Cathedrae Sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrum consen­sione firmato. Cypr. Ep. 52. (ad Anton.) Ad comprobandam ordinationem tuam factam auctoritate majore— Ep. 45. ad Corn. 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, [...]. Syn. VI. Act. 12.198. 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, [...]— P. Honor. Ib. p. 198. 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 Metropolitano defuncto, cùm in lo­cum ejus alius fuerit subrogandus, Pro­vinciales Episcopi ad Civitatem Metro­politanam convenire debebunt, ut omnium Clericorum atque omnium Civium volun­tate discussâ ex Presbyteris ejusdem Eccle­siae, vel ex Diaconibus optimus eligatur. P. Leo. Ep. 88. The Metropolitan being dead, when another is to be put in his place, the Provincial Bishops ought to meet in the Metropolitan City, that by the Votes of the whole Clergy and Citizens, out of the Priests or Deacons of the same Church, the fittest person may be chosen.. 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 [Page 230] 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, [...]— Act. 16. p. 464. that he shall not meddle in Ordination of Bishops in any Pro­vince, that being left to the Metropolitan— For a good time,Vid. Concil. Aur. Can. 7. Apud de Marc. VI. 4. § 8. 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.

Vid. Gelas. Ep. 13. (p. 640.)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,Et ideò tria haec quae praemisimus non tam Constitutione Canonica, quàm Insti­tutione Divinâ soli sunt Romano Ponti­fici reservata. P. Innoc. III. in Gregor. Decret. Lib. 1. Tit. 7. cap. 2. Translation and Deposi­tion of Bishops) are reserved to the Roman Bishop, not so much by Canonical Constitution, as by Divine Institution.

Causae criminales graviores contra Epi­scopos, etiam haeresis quod absit, quae depo­sitione aut privatione dignae sunt, ab ipso tantùm summo Romano Pontifice cognos­cantur, & terminentur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. cap. 5.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.

[...]. Const. Ap. 8.28. A Bishop may depose any Clerk who deserves it, except he be a Bishop, whom to deprive, one Bishop alone is not sufficient.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; Syn. Nic. Can. 5. as the African Synod (wherein St. Austin was one Bishop) [Page 231] 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, Decreta Nicena sive inferioris gradûs Clericos, sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metro­politanis apertissimè commiserunt: pru­dentissimè enim justissiméque viderunt quaecunque negotia in suis locis ubi orta sunt finienda; nec unicuique Provinciae gratiam S. Spiritûs defuturam. Syn. Afr. Ep. ad P. Celest. I. 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, Syn. Ant. Can. 15. Chalcedon, &c.

Thus was Paulus Samosatenus for his errour against the Divinity of our Lord,(Ann. 269.) Euseb. 7.30. and for his scandalous demeanour deposed by the Synod of Antioch. Thus was Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (being accused of Sabellianism, Socr. 1.24. [...]. Soz. 2.19. 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,Socr. 2.43. Soz. 3.14. and fond conceits against marriage) was discarded by the Synod of Gangra. Thus did a Synod of Constantinople abdicate Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, Socr. 1.36. for hetero­doxy in the point concerning our Lord's Divinity. For the like cause was Photinus Bishop of Sirmium deposed by a Synod there,Socr. 2.29. gathered by the Emperour's command. So was Athanasius tryed,Socr. 1.28— 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. Theod. 2.10. 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. Act. 11. Syn. Chalc. p. 411. Haec § cum 4. jungenda.

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, [...]. P. Celest. in Nest. Sent. Eph. Act. p. 195. 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,Quod non solùm praesuli Apostolico face­re licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quos­libet & quemlibet locum secundum regu­lam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Ca­tholica communione discernant. Ep. 4. 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. [...]. Conc. sub Men. (p. 10.) 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.Cypr. Ep. 67. So did Saint Cy­prian reject Marcianus Bishop of Arles for adhering to the Novatians. Soz. 3.21. So Athanasius was said to have [Page 232] deposed Arian Bishops,Socr. 2.42. 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, [...]. Socr. 2.24. [...]. Socr. 1.37. 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. [...]. Socr. 2.38. Acacius and his Complices did extrude Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem. Theod. 2.26. He also deposed and ex­pelled Cyril of Jerusalem: Sozom. 4.24. and deposed many other Bishops at Constantinople. Socr. 7.34. [...]. Ibid. Cyril deposed Nestorius, and Nestorius deposed Cyril, and Mem­non. Cyril and Juvenalis deposed John of Antioch. [...]. Act. Syn. Eph. p. 380. [...]. Ibid. p. 320. John of Antioch with his Bishops deposed Cyril and Memnon. [...]. Socr. 7.34. [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 11. (p. 405.) [...]. Ibid. p. 406. Baron. Ann. 457. § 34. P. Felix III. Ep. 4. 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, Idcircò enim, frater charissime, copio­sum corpus est Sacerdotum, concordiae mu­tuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copula­tum, ut siquis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare, & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri, & quasi pastores utiles & misericordes oves Dominicas in gregem colligant. Cypr. Ep. 67. (ad Steph.) 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.

[...]— &c. Conc. Eph. Act. 2. p. 324. [...]. Ibid. p. 325.The like Doctrine is that of Pope Celestine I. in his Epistle to the Ephesine Synod.

Vid. Hier. 67, & 78.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 [Page 233] communion with them; which every Bishop,Cypr. Ep. 67. [...]. Thalass. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 191. [...]. P. Agapet. ad Petr. Hier. (p. 24.) 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. [...]. Menas (Tom. 4. p. 10.) Plebs, &c. Cypr. Ep. 68. Deum metuens— Cypr. Ep. 68. Vid. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. (p. 506.) So John of Hierusalem having given sus­picion of Errour in Faith, Cunctis monachis ab eodem Epiphanio scripta venerunt, ut absque satisfactione fidei nullus ei temerè communicaret. Hier. Ep. 61. (ad Pammach.) cap. 15. Alicubíne dictum, aut tibi alicubi man­datum est, quòd sine satisfactione fidei communionem tuam subiremus? Ibid. Quòd tibi non communicemus, fidei est. Ibid. cap. 16. 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.Theophilus, John of Anti­och, Dioscorus.

7. When the Pope hath attempted in this kind,Novam legem, &c. Vid. de Conc. Sard. 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,Soz. 3.11. the Laws of the Church, in fostering hereticks, and criminal persons condemned by Synods.Soz. 3.8. So did the Synod of Antioch threaten Deposition to the same Pope.Evag. 2.4. Hilar. fragm. 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;An qui in hominem Imperatorem pec­câsse dicebatur, nullâ interveniente Synod [...] dejici debuerunt? P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. 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. [Page 234] 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; [...]. Cyril. ad Joh. Ant. Conc. Eph.— p. 197.332. Syn. p. 11, 60. [...]. Const. Sacra. in Syn. VI. p. 11. [...]— Ibid. p. 60. [...]. Act. Eph. p. 332. Sit haec in te fixa damnatio à me, & ab his qui sub me constituti Episcopales Sedes gubernare noscuntur— P. Felix. ad Petrum Antioch. apud Baron. Ann. 483. § 68. 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, Tandem à Se­de dejicitur à populo Romano irâ & indignitate rei percito. Plat. p. 223. P. Leo VIII. p. 291. Anastasius. Plat. p. 131. 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 of the Emperour, he could dispose of their persons, so as not to suffer them to continue in a place, or to put them from it, as they demeaned themselves, to his satisfaction or otherwise, in reference to publick utility. It is reasona­ble, if they were disloyal or disobedient to him, that he should not suf­fer them to be in places of such influence, whereby they might pervert the people to disaffection. It is fit that he should deprive them of tem­poralties.

1 King. 2.35. [...]. Soz. 1.21. [...]. Theodor. 1.20.The example of Solomon deposing Abiathar.

Constantine M. He threatned Athanasius to depose him — [...]. Socr. 1.27. Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 778. commanded Eusebius and Theogonius to depart out of the Cities over which they presided as Bishops.

[...]. Socr. 2.7 [...]. Socr. 2.37. Constantius deposed Paulus of Constantinople.

Constantius ejected all that would not subscribe to the Creed of Ari­minum.

[Page 235]The Emperour Leo deposed Timotheus Aelurus, Evag. 2.11. Lib. cap. 15. P. Leo I. Epist. 99. for which Pope Leo did highly commend and thank him.

The Emperours discarded divers Popes.

Constantius banished Pope Liberius, and caused another to be put in his room.

Otho put out John the Twelfth.

Justinian deposed Pope Silverius, and banished Pope Vigilius. Lib. cap. 22.

Justinian banished Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, Evag. 4.41. Evag. 4.11. extruded Anthimus of Constantinople, and Theodosius of Alexandria.

Neither indeed was any great Patriarch effectually deposed without their power or leave.

Flavianus was supported by Theodosius against the Pope.

Dioscorus subsisted by the power of Theodosius Junior.

The Deposition of Dioscorus in the Synod of Chalcedon was voted with a reserve of, [...]. Act. 2. p. 202. If it shall please our most sacred and pious Lord.

In effect the Emperours deposed all Bishops which were ordained beside their general Laws: as Justinian having prescribed conditions and qualifications concerning the Ordinations of Bishops, subjoineth, But if any Bishop be ordained without using our forementioned Constitution, Si quis autem citra memoratam obser­vationem Episcopus ordinetur, jubemus hunc omnibus modis Episcopatu depelli. Justin. Novell. 123. cap. 1. we command you that by all means he be removed from his Bisho­prick.

14. The Instances alledged to prove the Pope's Authority in this case, are inconcludent and invalid.

They alledge the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles; concerning whom (for abetting Novatianism) St. Cyprian doth exhort Pope Stephanus, Cypr. Ep. 67. Dirigantur in Provinciam & ad ple­bem Arelate consistentem literae, quibus abstento Marciano alius in ejus locum substituatur— that he would direct Letters to the Bishops of Gaul, and the people of Arles, that he being for his schismatical behaviour removed from communion, another should be substituted in his room.

The Epistle, grounding this Argument, is questioned by a great Critick; but I willingly admit it to be genuine, seeing it hath the style and spirit of St. Cyprian, and suteth his Age, and I see no cause why it should be forged; wherefore omitting that defence, I answer, that the whole matter being seriously weighed, doth make rather against the Pope's cause than for it; for if the Pope had the sole or Sovereign au­thority of rejecting Bishops, why did the Gaulish Bishops refer the matter to St. Cyprian? why had Marcianus himself a recourse to him?

St. Cyprian doth not ascribe to the Pope any peculiar authority of Judgment or Censure, but a common one, which himself could exer­cise, which all Bishops might exercise, It is (saith he) our part to provide and succour in such a case;Cui rei nostrum est consulere, & subve­nire— Idcircò copiosum est corpus Sacerdotum— Quando ipse est ab universis Sacerdoti­bus judicatus— for therefore is the body of Priests so numerous, that —by joint endeavour they may suppress heresies and schisms.

The case being such, St. Cyprian earnestly doth move Pope Stepha­nus to concur in exercise of Discipline on that Schismatick; and to prosecute effectually the business by his Letters; persuading his fellow-Bishops [Page 236] in France, that they would not suffer Marci­anus to insult over the College of Bishops;Facere te oportet plenissimas literas ad co-Episcopos nostros in Galliis constitutos, nè ultra Marcianum Collegio nostro insul­tare patiantur.— (for to them it seemeth the transaction did immediately belong.)

To doe thus St. Cyprian implieth and prescribeth to be the Pope's spe­cial duty, not onely out of regard to the common Interest, but for his particular concernment in the case;Multo magìs tu— that schism having been first advanced against his Predecessours.

Quod nedum videatur à no­bis abstentus.St. Cyprian also (if we mark it) covertly doth tax the Pope of neg­ligence, in not having soon enough joined with himself and the com­munity of Bishops in censuring that Delinquent.

We may add, that the Church of Arles and Gaul, being near Italy, the Pope may be allowed to have some greater sway there, than other­where in more distant places; so that St. Cyprian thought his Letters to quicken Discipline there, might be proper and particularly effectual.

These things being duly considered, what advantage can they draw from this Instance? doth it not rather prejudice their cause, and af­ford a considerable objection against it?

We may observe, that the strength of their argumentation mainly consisteth in the words quibus abstento, the which (as the drift of the whole Epistle, and parallel expressions therein do shew) do signifie no more, than quibus efficiatur ut abstento, which may procure him to be excomunicated, not quae contineant abstentionem, which contain excom­munication, as P. de Marca glosseth; although admitting that sense, it would not import much, seeing onely thereby the Pope would have signified his consent with other Bishops; wherefore de Marca hath no great cause to blame us,Marc. 7.1.6. that we do not deprehend any magnificent thing in this place for the dignity of the Papal See; indeed he hath, I must con­fess, better eyes than I, who can see any such mighty things there for that purpose.

As for the substitution of another in the room of Marcianus, that was a consequent of the excommunication; and was to be the work of the Clergy and people of the place; for when by common judgment of Catholick Bishops any Bishop was rejected, the people did apply themselves to chuse another.

I adjoin the Resolution of a very learned writer of their communion, in these words,

In this case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles, if the right of excommunication did belong solely to the Bi­shop of Rome, In hac Marciani Episcopi Arelatensis causa si jus abstinendi sive excommuni­candi competebat soli Episcopo Romano, cur Faustinus Episcopus Lugdunensis Cy­priano Episcopo Carthaginiensi longè dissi­to semel atque iterum significat ea de Mar­ciano, quae jam utique ipse Faustinus & alii ejusdem Provinciae Episcopi nuncia­v [...]rant Stephano proximiori, & omnium Episcoporum principi? Dicendum igitur factum id fuisse aut per negligentiam Ste­phani; aut quod magìs videtur, per di­sciplinam quae tunc in Ecclesia vigeba [...], ut omnes quidem in circumpositis locis, sed praesertim Vrbium clarissimarum Episcopi in commune consulerent Ecclesiae, viderént­que nè quid detrimenti res Christiana Ca­tholica caperet. Itaque super isto Mar­ciani Arelatensis facinore, Lugdunensem Episcopum ad Romanum & Carthaginien­sem dedisse literas, istum verò ut remotis­simum dedisse vicissim suas ad Romanum, ut fratrem & Collegam, qui in propinquo faciliùs posset de negotio & cognoscere & statuere. Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 67. wherefore did Faustinus Bishop of Lyons advertise Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who was so far distant, concerning those very things touching Marci­anus, which both Faustinus himself, and other Bi­shops of the same Province, had before sent word of to Stephen (Bishop of Rome) who lived nearest, being moreover of all Bishops the chief? It must either be said that this was done because of Stephen's negli­gence; or what is more probable, according to the discipline then used in the Church, that all Bishops of neighbouring places, but especially those presiding over the most eminent Cities, should join their Coun­sels for the welfare of the Church, and that Christian [Page 237] Religion might not receive the least damage in any of its affairs whatsoever: Hence it was that in the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles, the Bishop of Ly­ons writ Letters to the Bishop of Rome and Carthage; and again, that the Bishop of Carthage, as being most remote, did write to the Bishop of Rome as being his brother and Collegue, who by reason of his propinquity might more easily know and judge of the whole matter.

The other Instances are of a later date (after the Synod of Nice) and therefore of not so great weight; yea their having none more an­cient to produce, doth strongly make against the antiquity of this right; it being strange, that no memory should be of any deposed thereby for above three hundred years, but however such as they are, they do not reach home to the purpose.

They alledge Flavianus Bishop of Antioch deposed by Pope Damasus, as they affirm. But it is wonderfull they should have the face to men­tion that Instance; the story in short being this, The great Flavianus (a most worthy and Ortho­dox Prelate, [...]— Theod. whom St. Chrysostome in his Statuary Orations doth so highly commend and celebrate) being substituted in the place of Meletius, by the Quire of Bishops; Theod. 5.23. Socr. 5.15. Soz. 8.3. a party did adhere to Paulinus; and after his decease they set up Evagrius, ordaining him (as Theodoret, who was best acquainted with passages on that side of Christendom, reporteth) against many Canons of the Church.

Yet with this party, the Roman Bishops, not willing to know any of these things, [...]. Theod. Ib. (three of them in order, Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius) did con­spire, instigating the Emperour against Flavianus, and reproaching him as supporter of a Tyrant against the Laws of Christ.

But the Emperour having called Flavianus to him, and received much satisfaction in his demeanour and discourse, did demand and set­tle him in his place; The Emperour (saith Theo­doret) wondring at his courage and his wisedom, [...]. Theod. Ib. did command him to return home, and to feed the Church committed to him; at which proceeding when the Romans afterward did grumble, the Emperour gave them such reasons and advices that they complyed and did enter­tain communion with Flavianus.

It is true, that upon their suggestions and clamours, the Emperour was moved at first to order that Flavianus should go to Rome, and give the Western Bishops satisfaction: but after that he understood the quality of his plea, he freed him of that trouble, and without their allowance settled him in his See.

Here is nothing of the Pope's deposing Flavianus; but of his embra­cing in a Schism the side of a Competitour, it being in such a case needfull that the Pope or any other Bishop should chuse with whom he must communicate, and consequently must disclaim the other; in which choice the Pope had no good success; not deposing Flavianus, but vainly opposing him; wherefore this allegation is strangely imper­tinent, and well may be turned against them.

Indeed in this Instance, we may see how fallible that See was in their judgment of things, how rash in taking parties and somenting discords; [Page 238] how pertinacious in a bad cause, how peevish against the common sense of their brethren; (especially considering, that before this oppo­sition of Flavianus the Fathers of Constantinople had in their Letter to Pope Damasus and the Occidental Bishops approved, and commended him to them; highly asserting the legitimateness of his Ordination;) In fine,Theod. 5.9. — [...]. how little their authority did avail with wise and considerate persons, such as Theodosius M. was.

Socr. 5.15. Marc. 3.14. § 1. De Marca representeth the matter somewhat otherwise out of Socra­tes; but take the matter as Socrates hath it and it signifieth no more, than that both Theophilus and Damasus would not entertain communion with Flavianus, as being uncapable of the Episcopal Order, for having violated his Oath and caused a division in the Church of Antioch: what is this to judicial Deposition? and how did Damasus more depose him than Theophilus, who upon the same dissatisfaction did in like manner forbear communion? whenas indeed a wiser and better man than either of them, St. Chrysostome, did hold communion with him, and did at length (saith Socrates, not agreeing with Theodoret) reconcile him to them both.

They alledge the Deposition of Nestorius. But who knoweth not, that he was for heretical Doctrine deposed in and by a General Synod? [...]— P. Celest. ad Cyril. in Conc. Eph. Act. p. 281. [...]. Ibid. Epist. ad Nest. p. 186. [...]. (ad Joh. Ant. p. 196.) Pope Celestine did indeed threa­ten to withdraw his communion, if he did not re­nounce his errour. But had not any other Bishop sufficient authority to desert a perverter of the Faith? [...]. P. Ce­lest. ad Clerum, &c. Const. Act. Eph. p. 190. Did not his own Clergy doe the same, be­ing commended by Pope Celestine for it? [...]. Cyril. Ep. ad Celest. Act. Eph. p. 177. Did not Cyril in writing to Pope Celestine himself af­firm, that he might before have declared, that he could not communicate with him? Did Nestorius admit the Pope's judgment? no, as the Papal Legates did complain, [...]. Conc. Eph. Act. 3. p. 331. Vid. Theodos. 2. Epist. in Conc. Eph. p. 224, & 225. He did not admit the constitution of the Apostolical Chair. Did the Pope's Sentence obtain effect? No, not any; for notwithstanding his threats, Nestorius did hold his place till the Synod; the Emperour did severe­ly rebuke Cyril for his fierceness, (and implicitly the Pope) and did order that no change should be made, till the Synod should determine in the case; not regarding the Pope's judgment: So that this instance may well be retorted, or used to prove the insignificancy of Papal authority then.

They alledge also Dioscorus of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo: but the case is very like to that of Nestorius, and argueth the contrary to what they intend; He was, for his misdemeanours, and violent coun­tenancing of heresie, solemnly in a General Synod accused, tried, con­demned and deposed; the which had long before been done, if in the Pope, his professed and provoked Adversary, there had been sufficient power to effect it.

[Page 239] Bellarmine also alledgeth Pope Sixtus III. deposing Polychronius Bi­shop of Jerusalem: But no such Polychronius is to be found in the Regi­sters of Bishops then, or in the Histories of that busie time, between the two great Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon; and the Acts of Sixtus, upon which this allegation is grounded, have so many inconsistences, and smell so rank of forgery, that no conscionable nose could endure them; and any prudent man (as Binius himself confesseth) would assert them to be spurious. Baron. Ann. 433. § 38, 39. P. Nich. I. Epist. 8. (ad Mich.) Wherefore Baronius himself doth reject and despise them; who gladly would lose no advantage for his Master. Yet Pope Nicholas I. doth precede Bellarmine in citing this trash; no won­der, that being the Pope, who did avouch the wares of Isidore Mer­cator.

They alledge Timotheus the Usurper of Alexan­dria deposed by Pope Damasus;Fac. Herm. p. 150. [...]. Orient. ad Rufum. apud Bin. p. 396. and they have in­deed the sound of words attesting to them; These are Heads upon which the B. Damasus deposed the Hereticks Apolinarius, Vitalius and Timotheus.

The truth is, that Apolinarius, with divers of his Disciples, in a great Synod at Rome, at which Petrus Bishop of Alexandria together with Damasus was present, was condemned and disavowed for heretical Doctrine; [...]. Soz. 6.25. whence Sozo­men saith that the Apolinarian Heresie was by Da­masus and Peter, at a Synod in Rome, voted to be excluded from the Catholick Church.

On which account if we conclude that the Pope had an authority to depose Bishops, we may by like reason infer that every Patriarch and Metropolitan had a power to doe the like; there being so many Instances of their having condemned and disclaimed Bishops supposedly guilty of heresie; as particularly John of Antioch, with his convention of Oriental Bishops, did pretend to depose Cyril and Memnon as guilty of the same Apolinarian heresie; alledging that to exscind them was the same thing as to settle Orthodoxy. [...]. Relat. O­rient. ad Imp. in Act. Eph. p. 380. [...]. Act. p. 385. The which Deposition was at first admitted by the Emperour.

The next Instance is of Pope Agapetus (in Justinian's time,Ann. 536. Vict. Tun. for so deep into time is Bellarmine fain to dive for it) deposing Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople. But this Instance being scanned will also prove slender and lame. The case was this: Anthimus having deserted his charge at Trabisonde did creep into the See of Constantinople (a course then held irregular and repugnant to the Canons) and withall he had imbi­bed the Eutychian heresie. Yet for his support he had wound himself into the favour of the Empress Theodora, Evag. 4.10. 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,Denique petentibus Principibus, ut An­thimum Papa in salutatione & commu­nicatione susciperet; ille fieri inquit posse, si se libello probaret orthodoxum, & ad Cathedram suam reverteretur. Lib. c. 21. &c. understanding how things stood, did refuse to doe so, except Anthimus would return to his own charge, [Page 240] and profess the Orthodox doctrine. [...]— Libell. Monach. p. 7. Thereupon the Emperour joined with him to extrude Anthimus from Constantinople, [...]—Ib. Et. Syn. decr. p. 43. Imper. Sanct. p. 128. 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. [...]. Synodi decr. p. 43. 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, [...]. p. 24. 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, [...]. Evag. 4.11. 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, p. 10. the Monks and p. 16. 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;Tunc Papa Principis favore Menam pro eo ordinavit Antistitem, consecrans eum manu suâ— Lib. cap. 21. Then (saith Li­beratus) the Pope by the Emperour's favour did or­dain Menas Bishop, consecrating him with his hand.

[...]— Act. p. 24.And Agapetus did glory in this, as being the first Ordination made of an Eastern Bishop by the hands of a Pope: [...]— p. 24. 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.

[Page 241] Baronius alledgeth Acacius Bishop of Constanti­nople deposed by Pope Felix III.Baron. Anno 484. § 19. Vid. P. Felic. III. Ep. 6. P. Gelas. Ep. 4. But Pope Gelasius asserteth, that any Bishop might, in execution of the Canons, have disclaimed Acacius, Ad cujus praecipuè vocatus examen vel venire vel mitter [...] non curavit. Gelas. Ep. 13. 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, when a Bishop was unjustly cen­sured upon malice or mistake; — when he did repent of his errour or miscarriage— when the case would upon any account bear favour or Pity— 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; 'Tis says Ba­ronius, a privilege of the Church of Rome onely, Privilegium quidem solius Ecclesiae Ro­manae esse reperitur, ut depositus à Synodo Episcopus absque alia Synodo majoris nu­meri restitui possit per Romanum Pontifi­cem. Baron. Ann. 449. § 127. Quorumlibet Sententiis ligata Pontifi­cum Sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habet re­solvendi. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. Sedes Apostolica frequenter more ma­jorum, etiam sine ulla Synodo praecedente & absolvendi quos Synodus iniquè damna­verat, & damnandi nullâ existente Synodo quos oportuit habuit facultatem— Ibid. 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, —qui licèt violenter exclusi sunt, non tamen pro damnatis sunt habiti, eò quòd semper inviolatam eorum communionem Rom. Pontifices servaverant. P. Vigilius in Constit. Athan. &c. 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,Quem (Joannem Chrys.) Sedes Apo­stolica etiam sola, quia non consensit, ab­solvit. P. Gelas. Ep. 13. 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,Can. Apost. 10, 11, 12, 31. Conc. Nic. Can. 5. Sard. 16, 17. Cod. Afr. 9. Conc. Antioch. 6, 15. Evag. 2.4. or [Page 242] 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, Damnati hominis communione pollutus, damnationis ejus factus est particeps. P. Gelas. Ep. 13. (p. 640.) 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.Cypr. Ep. 68. 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 no more, than acknowledg­ing a person (although rejected by undue Sentence) to be de jure wor­thy of communion, and capable of the Episcopal Office; upon which may be consequent an Obligation to communicate with him, and to allow him his due Character; according to the Precept of Saint Paul, Follow righteousness, 2 Tim. 2.22. faith, charity, peace with them that call upon the Lord with a pure heart.

This may be done, when any man notoriously is persecuted for the Truth and Righteousness. Or when the iniquity and malice of preten­ded Judges are apparent, to the oppression of Innocence. Or when the Process is extremely irregular: as in the cases of Athanasius, of St. Chrysostome,— And this is not an act of Jurisdiction, but of Equity and Charity; incumbent on all Bishops; And there are promiscuous Instances of Bishops practising it. Thus Socrates saith, [...]. Socr. 2.24. that Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem did re­store communion and dignity to Athanasius. And so Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, being reconciled and reduced to a good understanding of each other, [...]. Socr. 7.33. did restore to each other their Sees; rescinding the Censures, which in heat they had denounced each on other. Which sheweth that Restitution is not always taken for an act of Jurisdiction; wherein one is Superiour to another; for those persons were in rank and power co-ordinate.

2. Restitution sometime doth import no more than a considerable influence toward the effects of restoring a person to communion or Office; no judicial act being exercised about the case— The Emperour writing that Paulus and Athanasius should be restor'd to their Sees, [...]. Socr. 2.20. availed nothing— That was a Re­stitution without effect.

Thus a Pope's avowing the Orthodoxy, or Innocence, or Worth of a person, after a due information about them, (by reason of the Pope's eminent rank in the Church, and the regard duely had to him) might sometimes much conduce to restore a person; and might obtain the name of Restitution, by an ordinary scheme of speech.

3. Sometimes persons said to be restored by Popes are also said to be restored by Synods, with regard to such instance or testimony of Popes [Page 243] in their behalf. In which case the Judicial Restitution,Note, It is an ordinary style of Votes in Sy­nods for the Restitution of a Bishop, I restore, Vid. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 165. That is, I give my Vote for his Restitution. giving right of Recovery and completion thereto, was the act of the Synod.

4. When Cases were driven to a legal debate, Popes could not ef­fectually resolve without a Synod, their single acts not being held suf­ficiently valid. So notwithstanding the Declarations of Pope Julius in favour of Athanasius, for the effectual resolution of his case the great Synod of Sardica was convened. So whatever Pope Innocent I. did en­deavour, he could not restore St. Chrysostome without a General Synod.

Nor could Pope Leo restore Flavianus, deposed in the Second Ephe­sine Synod, without convocation of a General Synod, the which he did so often sue for to the Emperour Theodosius, for that purpose. Pope Simplicius affirmed, that Petrus Moggus having been by a common decree condemned as an adulterer (or Usurper of the Alexandrian See) could not with­out a common Council be freed from condemnation. Oportebat communi decreto damnatum tanquam adulterum communi concilio damnatione liberari. Lib. cap. 18.

5. Particular instances do not ascertain right to the Person, who as­sumeth any power; for busie bodies often will exceed their bounds.

6. Emperours did sometimes restore Bishops. Constantine, as he did banish Eusebius of Nicomedia and others, so he did revoke and restore them; so says Socrates, [...]. Socr. 1.14. Theod. 5.23. They were recall'd from banishment by the Emperour's com­mand and receiv'd their Churches. Theodosius did assert to Flavianus his right, whereof the Popes did pretend to deprive him; which did amount to a Restitution (at least to the Romanists who do assert Flavianus to be deposed by the Popes.Rescriptum e­liciunt, quo calcatis quae priùs decreta erant, restitui Ecclesiis jubebantur: hoc frèti Instantius & Priscillianus repetivere Hispanias. Sulp. Sev. 2.63. Revocari Romam Silverium jussit, & de literis illis judicium fieri, ut—si falsae fuissent probatae, restitueretur Sedi suae. Liberat. Breviar. cap. 22.) Instantius and Priscillianus were by the rescript of the Empe­rour Gratianus restored to their Churches. Justinian did order Pope Sil­verius to be restored, in case he could prove his Innocence.

7. Commonly Restitution was not effectual without the Emperour's consent; whence Theodoret, although allowed by the great Synod, did acknowledge his Restitution especially due to the Emperour; as we shall see in reflecting on his case.

Now to the particular Instances produced for the Pope, we answer.

1. They pretend, that Pope Stephanus did restore Basilides and Mar­tialis Spanish Bishops, who had been deposed; for which they quote St. Cyprian's Epistle, where he says, Basilides go­ing to Rome, imposed upon our Collegue Stephen, Romam pergens Stephanum Collegam nostrum longè positum, & gestae rei ac ta­citae veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exam­biret reponi se injustè in Episcopatum, de quo fuerat justè depositus. Cypr. Ep. 68. who lived a great way off and was ignorant of the truth of the matter; seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bi­shoprick from which he had justly been deposed.

But we answer; The Pope did attempt such a Restitution by way of Influence and Testimony, not of Jurisdiction; wherefore the result of his act in St. Cyprian's judgment was null, and blameable; which could not be so deemed,—quare etsi aliqui de Collegis nostris extiterunt, qui Deificam disciplinam neg­ligendam putant— if he had acted as a Judge; for a favourable Sentence, [Page 244] passed by just Authority,(Nec censurae congruit Sacerdotum mo­bilis atque inconstantis animi levitate re­prehendi. Cypr. Ep. 55.) —Episcopatum gerere, & Sacerdoti­um Dei administrare non oportere. Desideràstis solicitudinem vestram vel solatio vel auxilio sententiae nostrae suble­vari. Nec personam in ejusmodi rebus acci­pere, aut aliquid cuiquam largiri potest humana indulgentia; ubi intercedit & legem tribuit divina praescriptio. —quantum possumus adhortamur, nè vos cum profanis & maculatis Sacerdoti­bus communicatione sacrilegâ misceatis. Sed cur ad Cyprianum si potestas infi­nita penes Romanum? Rigalt. ibid. —datis ad Cyprianum literis appella­vere Carthaginiensem adversus Roma­num. Id. is valid, and hardly lia­ble to Censure. The Clergy of those places, not­withstanding that pretended Restitution did con­ceive those Bishops uncapable; and did request the judgment of St. Cyprian about it; which ar­gueth the Pope's judgment not to have been per­emptory and prevalent then in such cases. St. Cy­prian denieth the Pope or any other person to have power of restoring in such a case; and ex­horteth the Clergy to persist in declining the com­munion of those Bishops. Well doth Rigaltius ask, why they should write to St. Cyprian if the judg­ment of Stephanus was decisive; and he addeth that indeed, the Spaniards did appeal from the Ro­man Bishop to him of Carthage. No wonder, see­ing the Pope had no greater authority, and probably St. Cyprian had the fairer reputation for wisedom and goodness. Considering which things, what can they gain by this Instance? which indeed doth con­siderably make against them.

2. They alledge the Restitution of Athanasius, and of others linked in cause with him, by Pope Julius. He, says Sozomen, [...]. Soz. 3.8. as having the care of all by reason of the dignity of his See, restored to each his own Church.

I answer, the Pope did not restore them judi­cially, [...]. Soz. 3.8. Julii Epist. apud Ath. in Apol. 2. but declaratively; that is, declaring his approbation of their right and innocence, did ad­mit them to communion. Julius in his own De­fence did alledge, that Athanasius was not legally rejected; so that without any prejudice to the Canons he might receive him; and the doing it upon this account, plainly did not require any Act of Judg­ment.

Nay it was necessary to avow those Bishops, as suffering in the cause of the common Faith. Besides, the Pope's proceeding was taxed, and protested against as irregular; nor did he defend it by virtue of a gene­ral power that he had judicially to rescind the acts of Synods. And lastly, the Restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops, had no com­plete effect, till it was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica, backed by the Imperial authority; which in effect did restore them. This instance therefore is in many respects deficient as to their purpose.

Socr. 1.36.3. They produce Marcellus being restored by the same Pope Julius.

But that Instance, beside the forementioned defects, hath this, that the Pope was grievously mistaken in the case;Bas. Ep. 10. whence St. Basil much blameth him for his proceeding therein.

4. They cite the Restitution of Eustathius (Bishop of Sebastia) by Pope Liberius, out of an Epistle of St. Basil, where he says, [...]— Bas. Ep. 74. What the most blessed Bishop Liberius pro­posed to him, and to what he consented we know not; onely that he brought a Letter to be restored, and up­on shewing it to the Synod at Tyana was restored to his See.

[Page 245]I answer,Soz. 4.24. That Restitution was onely from an invalid Deposition by a Synod of Arians at Melitine; importing onely an acknow­ledgment of him, upon approbation of his Faith professed by him at Rome; the which had such influence to the satisfaction of the Diocesan Synod at Tyana, that he was restored. Although indeed the Romans were abused by him, he not being sound in Faith; [...]. Basil. ibid. for He now (saith Saint Basil) doth de­stroy that faith, for which he was received—

5. They adjoin, that Theodoret was restored by Pope Leo I. for in the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon it is said, [...]— Act. 1. p. 53. that be did receive his place from the Bishop of Rome.

I answer, The act of Leo did consist in an approbation of the Faith, which Theodoret did profess to hold; and a re­ception of him to communion thereupon; [...]—Syn. Chalc. Act. 8. p. 368. which he might well do, seeing the ground of Theo­doret's being disclaimed was a misprision, that he (having opposed Cyril's Writings, judged Orthodox) did err in Faith, consenting with Nestorius.

Theodoret's state before the Second Ephesine Synod, [...]. Imp. Theod. Epist. ad Diosc. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 53. is thus represented in the words of the Emperour, Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, whom we have before commanded to mind onely his own Church, we charge not to come to the Holy Synod, before the whole Synod being met, it shall seem good to them that he come and hear his part in it.

He was not perfectly deposed;Pro Theodoreto autem & Eusebio nullus ordinatus est. Liberat. 12. as others were who had others substituted in their places. He was deposed by the Ephesine Synod.Vid. Con [...]. Chalc. part. 3. p. 490. Excludi verò ab Episcopatu, &c. in Im­peratoris Theod. rescripto.

The Pope was indeed ready enough to assume the Patronage of so very learned and worthy a man, who in so very suppliant and respectfull a way had redressed to him for succour; for whom doth not courtship mollifie? And the majority of the Synod, (being inflamed against Dioscorus and the Eutychian Party) was ready enough to allow what the Pope did in favour of him. Yet a good part of the Synod (the Bishops of Egypt, of Palestine, of Illyricum) notwithstan­ding the Pope's Restitution (that is, his approbation in order thereto) did stickle against his admission into the Synod; crying out, have pity on us, the faith is destroyed, [...]. Ibid. p. 54. the Canons proscribe this man, cast him out, cast out Nestorius his Master. So that the Imperial Agents were fain to compromise the business, permitting him to sit in the Synod, as one whose case was dependent, but not in the notion of one absolutely restored: [...]— Ibid. Theo­doret's presence shall prejudice no man, each one's right of impleading being reserved both to you and him.

[Page 246]He therefore was not entirely restored, till upon a clear and satis­factory profession of his Faith he was acquitted by the judgment of the Synod. The effectual Restitution of him proceeded from the Emperour, who repealed the proceedings against him: [...]— Theod. Ep. 139. (ad Asperam.) [...]— Ep. 138. (ad Anatol.) as himself doth acknowledge; All these things, says he, has the most just Emperour evacu­ated — to these things he premised the redressing my injuries; and the Imperial Judges in the Sy­nod of Chalcedon join the Emperour in the Re­stitution — Let the most reverend Theodoret enter and bear his part in the Synod, [...]— Act. 1. p. 53. since the most holy Archbishop Leo, and sacred Emperour have re­stored his Bishoprick to him. Hence it may appear that the Pope's Restitution of Theodoretus was onely opinionative, dough-baked, incomplete; so that it is but a slimme advantage, which their pretence can receive from it.

IX. It belongeth to Sovereigns to receive Appeals from all lower Judicatures, for the final determination of Causes; so that no part of his Subjects can obstruct resort to him, or prohibit his revision of any Judgment.

This Power therefore the Pope doth most stifly assert to himself. At the Synod of Florence, this was the first and great Branch of Au­thority, which he did demand of the Greeks ex­plicitely to avow: [...]— Syn. Flor. Sess. 25. p. 846. — he will (said his three Cardinals to the Emperour) have all the Privi­leges of his Church, and that Appeals be made to him. When Pope Alexander III. was advised not to receive an Appeal in Becket's Case, he replied in that profane allusi­on,Haec est gloria mea, quam alteri non dabo. This is my glory, which I will not give to ano­ther. He hath been wont to encourage all Peo­ple, even upon the slightest occasions, iter arripere (as the phrase is obvious in their Canon Law) to run with all haste to his Audience; Concerning Appeals for the smallest causes we would have you hold, De appellationibus pro minimis causis volumus te tenere, quòd eis pro quacunque levi causa fiant, non minus est, quàm si pro majoribus fierent, deferendum. Alex. III. Ep. ad Vigorn. Episc. in decret. Greg. lib. 2. tit. 28. cap. 11. Caus. 2. qu. 6. Caus. 3. qu. 6. Caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 16. that the same deference is to be gi­ven them for how slight a matter soever they be made, as if they were for a greater. See, if you please in Gratian's Decree, Caus. 2. quaest. 6. where many Papal Decrees (most indeed drawn out of the spurious Epistles of ancient Popes, but ratified by their Successours, and obtaining for current Law) are made for Appeals to the See of Rome.

It was indeed one of the most ancient encroachments, and that which did serve most to introduce the rest; inferring hence a title to an universal Jurisdiction: They are the Canons, says Pope Nicholas I. which will that all Appeals of the whole Church he brought to the examination of this See, Ipsi sunt Canones, qui appellationes to­tius Ecclesiae ad hujus Sedis examen vo­luere deferri; ab ipsa verò nusquam pror­sus appellari debere sanxerunt; ac per hoc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare, ipsam ad nullius commeare judicium. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. and have decreed that no appeal be made from it, and that thus she judge of the whole Church, but her self goes to be judged by none other; and the same Pope, in another of his Epistles, Sacra statuta, & veneranda decreta Episcoporum causas, utpote majora negotia nostrae definiendas censurae mandàrunt. P. Nich. I. Ep. 38. Majores vero & difficiles quaestiones (ut sancta Synodus statuit, & beata cousuetu­do exigit) ad Sedem Apostolicam semper referantur. P. Pelag. II. Epist. 8. Ipsi sunt canones qui appellationes totius Ecclesiae ad hujus Sedis examen voluere deferri. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4. says, The holy statutes and venerable decrees have com­mitted [Page 247] the causes of Bishops, as being weighty mat­ters, to be determined by us — As the Synod has appointed and usage requires, let greater and diffi­cult cases be always referred to the Apostolick See, says Pope Pelagius II. They are the canons which will have the appeals of the whole Church tryed by this See, saith Pope Gelasius I.

But this power is upon various accounts unreasonable, grievous and vexatious to the Church; as hath been deemed and upon divers occasions declared by the ancient Fathers, and grave persons in all times; upon accounts not onely blaming the horrible abuse of Ap­peals, but implying the great mischiefs inseparably adherent to them.

The Synod of Basil thus excellently declared concerning them:Concil. Basil. Sess. 31. (p. 86.) Inoleverunt autem hactenus intolerabi­lium vexationum abusus permulti, dum nimium frequenter à remotissimis etiam partibus ad Romanam Curiam, & inter­dum pro parvis & minutis rebus ac negoti­is quamplurimi citari, & evocari consue­verunt, atque ità expensis & laboribus fa­tigari, ut nonnunquam commodius arbi­trentur juri suo cedere, aut vexationem suam gravi damno redimere, quàm in tam longinqua regione litium subire dis­pendia, &c. Vid. Opr. Hitherto many abuses of into­lerable vexations have prevailed, whilst many have too often been called and cited from the most remote parts to the court of Rome, and that sometime for small and trifling matters, and with charges and trouble to be so wearied, that they sometime think it their best way to recede from their right, or buy off their trouble with great loss, rather than be at the cost of suing in so remote a Countrey.

Saint Bernard complaineth of the mischiefs of Appeals in his times in these words,Bern. de Consid. lib. 3. cap. 2. Quousque murmur universae terrae aut dissimulas, aut non advertis? — &c. How long will you be deaf to the complaints of the whole World, or make as if you were so? why sleep you? when will the consideration of so great confusion and abuse in appeals awake in you? they are made without right or equity, without due order and against custome. Neither place, nor manner, nor time, nor cause, nor person are considered: they are every where made lightly and for the most part unjustly: with much more passionate language to the same purpose.

But in the Primitive Church the Pope had no such power.

1. Whereas in the first times many causes and differences did arise, wherein they who were condemned and worsted, would readily have resorted thither where they might have hoped for remedy, if Rome had been such a place of refuge, it would have been very famous for it; and we should find History full of such examples; whereas it is very silent about them.

2. The most ancient Customs and Canons of the Church are flatly repugnant to such a power, for they did order causes final­ly to be decided in each Province.

So the Synod of Nice did Decree; as the African Fathers did al­ledge, in defence of their refusal to allow appeals to the Pope:Decreta Nicena sive inferioris gradûs Clericos sive Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commiserunt. Syn. Afr. in Ep. ad P. Celest. The Nicene decrees (said they) most evidently did commit both Clergymen of infe­riour degrees and Bishops to their Metropolitans.

So Theòph. — in his Epistle, Arbitror te non ignorare quid praecipi­ant Niceni Concilii Canones, sancientes Episcopum non judicare causam citra terminos suos— nam— Pallad. cap. 7. I suppose you are not ignorant what the Canons of the Nicene Council com­mand, ordaining that a Bishop should judge no cause out of his own district.

[Page 248]3. Afterward when the Diocesan administration was introduced, the last resort was decreed to the Synods of them (or to the Primates in them) all other appeals being prohibited;Note, That the Synod of Constantino­ple (Can. 6.) mentioning Appeals to the Emperour, secular Judicatories, a Gene­ral Synod, saith, [...], &c. Syn. Const. Can. 6. Concil. Constantinop. Can. 2, 6. Concil. Chalced. Can. 2, 17. Nam contra horum Antistitum Senten­tias non esse locum Appellationi à majori­bus nostris constitutum est. Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 4. cap. 29. [...]. Theod. 11.16. Nov. 123. cap. 22. Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 4. § 29. Vid. Graec. as dishonourable to the Bishops of the Diocese; reproaching the Canons, and subverting Ecclesiastical Order; To which Canon the Empe­rour Justinian referred; For it is decreed by our Ancestours that against the Sentence of these Prelates there should be no Appeal. So Constantius told Pope Liberius — that those things which had a form of Judgment past on them could not be rescinded. This was the practice (at least in the Eastern parts of the Church) in the times of Justinian; as is evi­dent by the Constitutions extant in the Code and in the Novels.

Can. 12. Conc. Ant. Can. 15. Conc. Carth. Can. 31.4. In derogation to this pretence divers Provincial Synods expresly did prohibit all Ap­peals from their decisions.

Non provocent nisi ad Afri­cana Concilia, vel ad Prima­tes Provinci­arum; ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo infra Africam in communionem suscipiatur. Conc. Milev. cap. 22. Conc. Afr. Can. 72.That of Milevis, — Let them appeal onely to African Councils or the Primates of Provinces; and he who shall think of appealing beyond Sea, let him be admitted into communion by none in Africk.

Nam si de in­ferioribus Cle­ricis in Conci­lio Niceno hoc praecaverunt; quanto magìs de Episcopis voluit observari? Conc. Afr. Can. 105. (vel Epist.) For if the Nicene Council took this care of the inferiour Clergy, how much more did they intend it should relate to Bishops also?

5. All persons were forbidden to entertain communion with Bishops condemned by any one Church, which is inconsistent with their be­ing allowed relief at Rome.

6. This is evident in the case of Marcion, by the assertion of the Roman Church at that time.

7. When the Pope hath offered to receive Appeals, or to meddle in cases before decided, he hath found opposition and reproof. Thus when Felicissimus and Fortunatus, Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Corneli­um.) having been censured and rejected from communion in Africk, did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius, with supplication to be admitted by him; Saint Cyprian maintaineth that fact to be irregular and unjust, and not to be countenanced, for divers reasons. Likewise, when Basilides and Martialis, being for their crimes deposed in Spain, Cypr. Ep. 68. had recourse to Pope Stephanus for Restitu­tion, the Clergy and People there had no regard to the judgment of the Pope; the which their resolution Saint Cyprian did commend and encourage.

When Athanasius, Marcellus, Paulus, &c. having been condemned by Synods, did apply themselves for relief to Pope Julius; the Orien­tal Bishops did highly tax this course as irregular; disclaiming any power in him to receive them, or meddle in their cause. Nor could Pope Julius by any Law or Instance disprove their plea; Nor did the Pope assert to himself any peculiar authority to revise the Cause, or otherwise justifie his proceeding than by right common to all Bishops [Page 249] of vindicating Right and Innocence, which were oppressed; and of asserting the Faith, for which they were persecuted. Indeed at first the Oriental Bishops were contented to refer the cause to Pope Ju­lius as Arbitratour; which signifieth that he had no ordinary right; but afterward, either fearing their Cause or his Prejudice, they star­ted, and stood to the canonicalness of the former decision.

The contest of the African Church with Pope Celestine, in the Cause of Apiarius is famous; and the Reasons which they assign for repelling that Appeal, are very notable and peremptory.

8. Divers of the Fathers alledge like reasons against Appeals.Refer. ad § 7. Vid. Supr. O­portet utique eos quibus prae­sumus non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere, & testes sui criminis possint. Cypr. Ep. 55. Saint Cyprian alledgeth these:

1. Because there was an Ecclesiastical Law against them.

2. Because they contain iniquity; as prejudicing the right of each Bishop granted by Christ, in governing his flock.

3. Because the Clergy and People should not be engaged to run gadding about.

4. Because Causes might better be decided there, where witnesses of fact might easily be had.

5. Because there is every where a competent authority, equal to any that might be had otherwhere.

6. Because it did derogate from the gravity of Bishops to alter their Censure —

Pope Liberius desired of Constantius, that the Judgment of Athanasius might be made in Alexan­dria for such reasons, because there the accused, — [...]— Theod. 11.16. the accusers, and their defender were.

St. Chrysostome's Argument against Theophilus meddling in his case may be set against Rome as well as Alexandria.

9. St. Austin in matter of appeal, or rather of reference to candid Arbitration (more proper for Ecclesiastical causes) doth conjoin other Apostolical Churches with that of Rome; For the business, says he,Neque enim de Presbyteris aut Diaco­nis, aut inferioris ordinis Clericis, sed de Collegis agebatur qui possunt aliorum Col­legarum judicio, praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum, causam suam integram re­servare. Aug. Ep. 162. was not about Priests and Deacons or the inferiour Clergy, but the Collegues [Bishops,] who may reserve their cause entire for the judgment of their Collegues, especially those of the Apostolical Chur­ches. He would not have said so, if he had appre­hended that the Pope had a peculiar right of revising Judgments.

10. Pope Damasus or rather Pope Siricius) doth affirm himself incompetent to judge in a case, which had been afore determined by the Synod of Capua; —but, Sed cùm hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Ca­puensis judicium— advertimus quòd à nobis judicandi forma competere non possit. says he, since the Synod of Capua has thus determined it, we perceive we cannot judge it.

11. Anciently there were no Appeals (properly so called or juris­dictional) in the Church; they were, as Socrates telleth us, introdu­ced by Cyril of Hierusalem; who first did appeal to a greater Judicature, against Ecclesiastical rule and custome. This is an Argument, [...]. Socr. 2.40. [...]. Ibid. Being deposed he sent a libell of Appeal to them who deposed him, appealing to a greater Judicature. that about that time (a little before the great Synod of Constantinople) greater [Page 250] Judicatories, or Diocesan Synods were established; whenas before Pro­vincial Synods were the last resorts.

12. Upon many occasions Appeals were not made to the Pope as in all likelihood they would have been, if it had been supposed that a power of receiving them did belong to him. Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to the Emperour.Illos verò ab Ecclesiastico judicio pro­vocâss [...], &c. Aug. Ep. 162. Ad Imperatorem appellaverunt. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 16. The Donatists did not appeal to the Pope, but to the Emperour. Their Cause was by the Empe­rour referred not to the Pope singly (as it ought to have been,Quid quod nec ipse Vsurpavit; rogatus Imperator judices misit Episcopos qui cum ipso sederent, & de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent. Aug. Ep. 162. and would have been by so just a Prince if it had been his right) but to him and other Judges as the Emperour's Commissioners. Athanasius did first appeal to the Emperour. St. Chrysostome did request the Pope's Succour, but he did not appeal to him as Judge; although he knew him favourably disposed, and the Cause sure in his hand; but he appealed to a Gene­ral Council; [...]. Sozom. 8.26. the which Innocent himself did con­ceive necessary for decision of that Cause.

[There are in History innumerable Instances of Bishops being con­demned and expelled from their Sees, but few of Appeals; which is a sign that was no approved remedy in common opinion.]

Infrà. Infrà. Eutyches did appeal to all the Patriarchs. Theodoret did intend to ap­peal to all the Western Bishops.

13. Those very Canons of Sardica (the most unhappy that ever were made to the Church) which did introduce Appeals to the Pope, do yet upon divers accounts prejudice his claim to an original right; and do upon no account favour that use of them, to which (to the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical liberty and good discipline) they have been perver­ted. For,

1. They do pretend to confer a Privilege on the Pope; which argueth that he before had no claim thereto.

2. They do qualifie and restrain that Privilege to certain Cases and Forms; which is a sign, that he had no power therein flowing from absolute Sovereignty; for it is strange, that they who did pretend and intend so much to favour him should clip his power.

3. It is not really a power which they grant of receiving Appeals in all Causes; but a power of constituting Judges, qualifyed according to certain conditions, to revise a special sort of causes concerning the Judg­ment and Deposition of Bishops. Which considerations do subvert his pre­tence to original and universal Jurisdiction upon Appeals.

14. Some Popes did challenge Jurisdiction upon Appeals, as given them by the Nicene Canons, meaning thereby those of Sardica; which sheweth they had no better plea, and therefore no original right. And otherwhere we shall consider, what validity those Canons may be allow­ed to have.

[Page 251]15. The General Synod of Chalcedon (of higher authority than that of Sardica) derived Appeals, at least in the Eastern Churches, into ano­ther chanel; namely to the Primate of each Diocese, or to the Patri­arch of Constantinople. That this was the last resort doth appear,Can. 9, 17. from that otherwise they would have mentioned the Pope.

16. Appeals in cases of Faith, or general Discipline were indeed some­times made to the consideration of the Pope; but not onely to him, but to all other Patriarchs and Primates, as concerned in the common main­tenance of the common Faith, or Discipline. So did Eutyches appeal to the Patriarchs. Baron. Ann. 865.— P. Nich. I. Ep. 37, &c. Vid. Matt. Pa­ris. Ann. 1094. Statutes of Provisors, Premunire, &c.

17. The Pope even in later times, even in the Western parts hath found rubs in his trade of Appeals. Consider the scuffle between Pope Ni­cholas I. and Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes.

18. Christian States, to prevent the intolerable vexations and mis­chiefs arising from this practice, have been constrained to make Laws against them. Particularly England.

In the Twelfth Age Pope Paschal II. complained of King Henry I.Vos oppressis Apostolicae Sedis appellatio­nem subtrahitis. Eadm. p. 113. That he deprived the oppressed of the benefit of appealing to the Apostolick See. It was one of King Henry I. Laws,Nullus inde clamor, nullum inde judi­cium ad Sedem Apostolicam destinantur. Eadm. p. 113. Peregrina judicia modis omnibus sub­movemus. Henr. I. Leg. cap. 31. Ibi semper causa agatur, ubi crimen admittitur. Ibid. Quòd Anglici extra regnum in causis auctoritate Apostolicâ trahuntur. Matt. Paris. p. 699.10. —none is permit­ted to cry from thence, no judgment is thence brought to the Apostolick See. Foreign judgments we utterly remove. —there let the cause be tried where the crime was committed. It was one of the Grievan­ces sent to Pope Innocent IV. That Englishmen were drawn out of the Kingdom by the Pope's authority, to have their causes heard.

Nor in after-times were Appeals by Law in any case permitted with­out the King's leave; although sometimes by the facility of Princes, or difficulty of times, the Roman Court (ever importunate and vigilant for its profits) did obtain a relaxation or neglect of Laws inhibiting Ap­peals.

19. There were Appeals from Popes to General Councils very fre­quently. Vid. The Senate of Paris after the Concorda [...]s between Lewis XI. and Pope Leo X.

20. By many Laws and instances it appeareth, that Appellations have been made to the Emperours in the greatest Causes; [...]. Rom. 13.1. and that without Popes reclaiming or taking it in bad part. St. Paul did Act. 25. Ad Imperatorem appellaverunt. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 16. appeal to Caesar. Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to Aurelianus. So the Donatists did ap­peal to Constantine. Apol. 2. p. 804. Athanasius to Constantine. The Ath. Apol. 2. p. 797, 798. Egyptian Bishops to Constantine. Ad Principem provocavit. Sulp. Sev. 2.64. Sulp. Sev. 2.63. Conc. Ant. Can. P. de Marca 4.4.— Priscillianus to Maximus. Idacius to Gratian. So that Canons were made to restrain Bishops from recourse ad Comita­tum.

21. Whereas they do alledge Instances for Appeal, those well con­sidered do prejudice their Cause; for they are few, in comparison to the occasions of them, that ever did arise; they are near all of them late, when Papal encroachments had grown; some of them are very impertinent to the cause; some of them may strongly be retorted against them; all of them are invalid.

[Page 252]If the Pope originally had such a right (known, unquestionable, prevalent) there might have been producible many, ancient, clear, proper, concluding Instances.

Bell. 2.21.All that Bellarmine (after his own search, and that of his Predeces­sours in Controversie) could muster, are these following; upon which we shall briefly reflect: (adding a few others, which may be alledged by them.)

Ann. 142.He alledgeth Marcion, as appealing to the Pope.

The truth was, that Marcion for having corrup­ted a Maid was by his own Father,Epiph. haer. 42. [...]. [...]. Bishop of Si­nope, driven from the Church; whereupon he did thence fly to Rome, there begging admittance to communion, but none did grant it; at which he expostulating, [...]. they replied, We cannot without the permission of thy honourable Father doe this; for there is one faith, and one concord; and we cannot cross thy Father our good fellow-Minister: this was the case and issue; and is it not strange this should be produced for an Ap­peal, which was onely a supplication of a fugitive criminal to be admit­ted to communion; and wherein is utterly disclaimed any power to thwart the Judgment of a particular Bishop or Judge, upon account of unity in common faith and peace? should the Pope return the same an­swer to every Appellant, what would become of his Privilege? So that they must give us leave to retort this as a pregnant Instance against their pretence.

He alledgeth the forementioned address of Felicissimus and Fortunatus to Pope Cornelius;Cypr. Ep. 55. Ann. 252. the which was but a factious circumcursation of desperate wretches; the which, or any like it, St. Cyprian argueth the Pope in law and equity obliged not to regard; because a definitive Sentence was already passed on them by their proper Judges in Africk, from whom in conscience and reason there could be no Appeal. So Bellarmine would filtch from us one of our invincible Arguments against him.

Cypr. Ep. 68.He also alledgeth the case of Basilides; which also we before did shew to make against him; his application to the Pope being disavowed by St. Cyprian, and proving ineffectual.

These are all the Instances which the first three hundred years did af­ford; so that all that time this great Privilege lay dormant.

Ann. 350.He alledgeth the recourse of Athanasius to Pope Julius; but this was not properly to him as to a Judge, but as to a fellow-Bishop, a friend of truth and right, for his succour and countenance against persecutours of him, [...]. Socr. 2.20. chiefly for his Ortho­doxy. The Pope did undertake to examine his Plea, partly as Arbitratour upon reference of both Parties; partly for his own concern to satisfie himself whether he might admit him to communion. And having heard and weighed things, the Pope denied that he was condemned in a legal way by competent Judges; and that therefore the pretended Sentence was null; and consequently he did not undertake the cause as upon Appeal. But whereas his pro­ceeding did look like an exercise of Jurisdiction, derogatory to a Sy­nodical resolution of the case, he was opposed by the Oriental Bishops, as usurping an undue power.Socr. 2.20. Unto which charge he doth not answer [Page 253] directly by asserting to himself any such authority by Law or Custome; but otherwise excusing himself. In the issue, the Pope's Sentence was not peremptory; untill upon examining the merits of the cause it was approved for just as to matter by the Synod of Sar­dica. [...] (Athanasius & Paulus) [...]. Socr. 2.20. These things otherwhere we have largely shewed? and consequently this Instance is defi­cient.

He alledgeth St. Chrysostome, Tom. 7. Epist. 122, 123. [...]. as appealing to Pope Innocent I. but if you reade his Epistles to that Pope, you will find no such matter; he doth onely complain, [...]. and declare to him the iniquity of the process against him, not as to a Judge, but as to a friend and fellow-Bishop concerned, that such injurious and mischievous dealings should be stopped; requesting from him not judgment of his cause, but succour in procuring it by a General Synod; [...]. Soz. 8.17. [...]. Theod. 5.34. [...]. Soz. 8.26. [...]. Ibid. to which indeed he did appeal, as Sozomen expresly telleth us; and as indeed he doth himself affirm. Ac­cordingly Pope Innocent did not assume to himself the judgment of his cause, but did endeavour to procure a Synod for it, affirming it to be needfull; why so, if his own Judgment, according to his Privilege did suffice? why indeed did not Pope Innocent, (being well satisfied in the case, yea passionately touched with it) presently sum­mon Theophilus and his adherents, undertaking the Trial? did Pope Nicholas I. proceed so in the case of Rhotaldus? why was he content onely to write Consolatory Let­ters to him, and to his people; [...]. Theoph. Soz. 8.26. not pretending to undertake the decision of his cause? If the Pope had been endowed with such a Privilege, it is morally impossible that it should not have shone forth clearly upon this occasion; it could hardly be that St. Chrysostome himself should not in plain terms avow it; that he should not formally apply to it as the most certain and easie way of finding relief; that he should not earnestly mind and urge the Pope to use his Privilege: why should he speak of that tedious and difficult way of a General Synod, when so short and easie a way was at hand? but the truth is, he did not know any such power the Pope had by himself. St. Chrysostome rather did conceive all such foreign Judicatures to be unreasonable and unjust; for the Argument which he darteth at Theophilus doth as well reach the Papal Jurisdiction upon Appeals; for It was (saith he) not congru­ous, that an Egyptian should judge those in Thrace: why not an Egyptian as well as an Italian? [...]. [...]— Epist. 122. and If (saith he) this custome should prevail, and it be­come lawfull for those who will to go into the Parishes of others, even from such distances, and to cast out whom any one pleaseth doing by their own authority what they please, know that all things will go to wreck— Why may not this be said of a Roman as well as of an Alexandrian? Scripsimus ista & ad Venerium Medio­lanensem, & ad Chromatium Aquilegien­sem Episcopum. Pallad. cap. 2. St. Chrysostome also (we may observe) did not onely apply himself to the Pope, but to other Western Bishops; particu­larly [Page 254] to the Bishops of Milain and Aquileia; whom he called Beatissimi Domini: did appeal to them?

He alledgeth Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople appealing to Pope Leo:Flavianus autem contra se prolatâ sen­tentiâ per ejus legatos Sedem Apostolicam appellavit libello. Liber. cap. 12. but let us consider the sto­ry. Flavianus for his Orthodoxy (or upon other accounts) very injuriously treated and oppressed by Dioscorus, Necessitate coactus fuit ità agere, eò quòd reliqui Patriarchae adessent— Marc. 7.7. who was supported by the favour of the Imperial Court; having in his case no other remedy did appeal to the Pope; who alone among the Patriarchs had dissented from those procee­dings. The Pope was himself involved in the cause, being of the same persuasion; having been no less affronted and hardly treated (consider­ing their power, and that he was out of their reach) and condemned by the same Adversaries.

To him therefore as to the leading Bishop of Christendom, in the first place interested in defence of the common Faith, together with a Synod, not to him as sole Judge, did Flavianus appeal. He (saith Placidia in her Letter to Theodosius) did appeal to the Apostolick See, [...]— Placidia. [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 26. and to all the Bishops of these parts; that is to the rest of Christendom, which were not engaged in the Party of Dioscorus; and to whom else could he have appealed?

Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith, that he did appeal according to the manner of Synods; [...]. p. 25. and whatever those words signifie, that could not be to the Pope as a single Judge; for be­fore that time in whatever Synod was such an appeal made? what cu­stome could there be favourable to such a pretence?

But what his Appeal did import is best interpretable by the procee­ding consequent; which was not the Pope's assuming to himself the Judicature either immediately or by delegation of Judges, but endea­vouring to procure a General Synod for it; the which endeavour doth appear in many Epistles to Theodosius and to his Sister Pulcheria, soli­citing that such a Synod might be indicted by his order:Omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemi­tibus & lachrymis supplicant Sacerdotes, ut quia & nostri fideliter reclamârunt, & eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit, generalem Synodum jube­atis intra Italiam celebrari— P. Leo Epist. 25. All the Bishops (saith Pope Leo) with sighs and tears do supplicate your Grace, that because our Agents did faithfully reclaim, and Bishop Flavianus did present them a libel of appeal, you would command a General Synod to be celebrated in Italy.

Dioscorus and his Party would scarce have been so silly as to condemn Flavianus, if they had known, (which, if it had been a case clear in law or obvious in practice, they could not but have known) that the Pope, who was deeply engaged in the same cause, had a power to reverse (and revenge) their proceedings. Nor would the good Emperour Theodosius so pertinaciously have maintained the proceedings of that Ephesine Sy­nod, if he had deemed the Pope duly Sovereign Governour and Judge; or that a right of ultimate Decision upon Appeal did appertain to him. Nor had the Pope needed to have taken so much pains in procuring a Synod, if he could have judged without it. Nor would Pope Leo (a man of so much spirit and zeal for the dignity of his See (have been so wanting to the maintenance of his right, as not immediately to have 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.

[Page 255]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, [...]. Theod. Ep. 113, (ad P. Leonem.) 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,Vid. Ep. 112. ad Domnum. [...]. [...]. Epist. 138. by his countenance and endeavour to relieve him.

He onely was supposed erroneous in Faith, [...]— Epist. 145. Vid. Theod. Epist. supr. & Epist. 127, 129. [...]— Ep. 138, 136. [...]. Epist. 113. [...]. Ep. 118. 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: [...]. The­od. Epist. 86. We entreat your holiness to fight in behalf of the faith which is assaulted, and to defend the Canons which are trampled under foot.

[Page 256]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; [...]— [...]. [...]. Theod. Ep. 116. (ad Renatum Presb.) That holy See has the principality o­ver the Churches in all the world for many reasons; but especially because she continued free from the taint of heresie, and none otherwise minded ever sate in her, she having kept the Apostolick state always unmixt. 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; [...]. Theod. Epist. 112. 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, [...]. Theod. Ep. 119. (ad Anatol.) 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, Greg. lib. 2. Indict. 11. Ep. 6. 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; [Page 257] so it is expresly said in the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod; His deposition being read, [...]. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. 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,Ingressus est ad Calendionem Antioche­num Patriarcham, & sumptis ab eo inter­cessionis Synodicis Literis Romanum Pon­tificem Simplicium appellavit, sicut B. fe­cerat Athanasius, & suasit scribere pro se Acacio Constantinopolitano Episcopo — Liber. cap. 18. Baron. Ann. 483. § 1. 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, [...]. Soz. 8.13. 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.

[Page 258]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. [...]. Greg. Naz. Orat. 23. 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,1 Pet. 2.13. 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; Regimen Ecclesiae est Monarchicum, er­go omnis auctoritas est in uno, & ab illo in alios derivatur. Bell. 4.24. 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,Providemus Ecclesiae tali de tali Per­sona, & praeficimus eum in Patrem, & Pastorem & Episcopum ejusdem Ecclesiae, committentes ei administrationem in tem­poralibus & spiritualibus; in nomine, &c. Ibid. 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 Ecclesia militanti, quae instar tri­umphantis habet, unus est omnium mode­rator & arbiter Jesu Christi vicarius, à quo tanquam capite omnis in subjecta membra potestas & authoritas derivatur, quae à Christo Domino sine medio in ipsum influit. P. Pius II. in Bull. Retract. 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,Sanctitas vestra ità gerit curam Ec­clesiae Christi, ut Ministros plurimos ha­beat, per quos curam exerceat; hi autem sunt Clerici omnes, quibus mandatus est cultus Dei; Presbyteri praesertim, & maximè Curati, & prae omnibus Epi­scopi— apud Cham. de Pont. Oecum. 10, 13. 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.

[Page 259] Durandus Bishop of Mande, according to the sense of his Age, saith,Summus Pontifex caput est omnium Pontificum, â quo illi tanquam à capite membra descendunt, & de cujus plenitu­dine omnes accipiunt quos ipse vocat in partem solicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis. Durand. Mimat. Offic. 2.1.17. 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,N. Dei & Apostolicae Sedis gratiâ Episcopus Colon— 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,This was an expedient. Vid. Concil. 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, Col. 1.7.4.7. 1 Thess. 3.2. 1 Tim. 4.6. Tit. 1.7. 2 Tim. 2.24. Act. 20.28. Naz. Or. 30. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.29. 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:Ordo confertur à Deo immediatè, ju­risdictio mediatè. Bell. 4.25. 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; 2 Cor. 10.8.13.10. according (saith he) to the authority which God hath given me for edification, and not for destruction. They do [...]. 1 Thess. 5.12. preside in the Lord. They allow no other Head but our Lord, Eph. 4.16. [...]. Ign. ad Mag­nes. [...]. Ign. ad Eph. [...]. Ign. ad Trall. 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;De Dei & Christi ejus judicio. Cypr. Ep. 52. & a­libi saepe. Vnus in Ec­clesia ad tem­pus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex, vice Christi. Cypr. Ep. 55. Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro judicandi. Cypr. in Con. Carthag. 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.

[Page 260] [...]. Baf. Const. Mon. cap. 22.St. Basil, A Prelate is nothing else but one that sustaineth the person of Christ.

[...]. Chrys. in Coloss. Orat. 3.St. Chrysostome, We have received the commission of Ambassadours and come from God, for this is the dignity of the Episcopal Office.

Oportere nos omnes, qui Deo auctor [...] sumu [...] in Sa­cerd [...]r [...] constituti illius certaminibus ob [...]iate, &c. Anatol. in Syn. Chalc. p. 512. It behoveth us all who by divine authority are constituted in the Priesthood to prevent, &c.

Wherefore the ancient Bishops did all of them take themselves to be Vicars of Christ, not of the Pope, and no less than the proudest Pope of them all; whence it was ordinary for them in their addresses and compellations to the Bishop of Rome, and in their speech about him to call him their Brother, their Collegue, their Fellow-minister; which had not been modest, or just, if they had been his Ministers or Shadows. Yea the Popes themselves, even the highest and haughtiest of them, who of any in old times did most stand on their presumed preeminence,Leo Ep. 84. did yet vouchsafe to call other Bishops their Fellow-bishops and Fellow-ministers.

Those Bishops of France with good reason did complain of Pope Nicholas I. for calling them his Clerks; Seièsque nos non tuos esse ne [...]e jactas & extollis Clericos, quos ut fratres & Co-episcopos recognoscere si elatio permit­teret, debueras. Ann. Pith. whenas, if his pride had suffered him, he should have acknowledged them for his Brethren and Fellow-bishops.

In fine, the ancient Bishops did not alledge any Commission from the Pope to warrant their Ju­risdiction, [...]— S. Chrys. sup. but from God; If Moses his Chair were so venerable, [...]. Chrys. in Coloss. Orat. 3. that what was said out of that ought therefore to be heard, how much more is Christ's Throne so? we succeed him, from that we speak, since Christ has committed to us the ministery of re­conciliation.

[...], &c. Chrys. in Joh. Orat. 83. That which is committed to the Priest, 'tis onely in God's power to give.

[...] (l. [...]) [...]— Flavian. in Chalc. Act. 1. p. 4. Since we also by the mercy of Christ our King and God were made Mini­sters of the Gospel.

This is a modern dream born out of Ambition and Flattery, which never came into the head of any ancient Divine.

It is a ridiculous thing to imagine, that Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostome, Austin, &c. did take themselves for the Vicegerents or Ministers of the Popes; if they did, why did they not, so frequent oc­casion being given them, in all their Volumes, ever acknowledge it? why cannot Bellarmine and his Complices after all their prolling shew [Page 261] any passage in them importing any such acknowledgment; but are fain to infer it by far-fetched Sophisms, from Allegations plainly im­pertinent, or frivolous?

The Popes indeed in the Fourth Century began to practise a fine trick, very serviceable to the enlargement of their power; which was to confer on certain Bishops, as occasion served, or for continuance, the title of their Vicar or Lieutenant; thereby pretending to impart Authority to them; whereby they were enabled for performance of divers things, which otherwise by their own Episcopal or Metropoliti­cal power they could not perform. By which device they did engage such Bishops to such a dependence on them, whereby they did pro­mote the Papal Authority in Provinces, to the oppression of the anci­ent Rights and Liberties of Bishops and Synods; doing what they pleased under pretence of this vast power communicated to them; and for fear of being displaced, or out of affection to their favourer doing what might serve to advance the Papacy.

Thus did Pope Celestine constitute Cyril in his room.Evagr. Act. Eph. p. 134.

Pope Leo appointed Anatolius of Constantinople.

Pope Felix Acacius of Constantinople.

Pope Hormisdas Epiphanius of Constantinople. Act. Conc. sub Menna p. 70.

Pope Simplicius to Zeno Bishop of Seville, We thought it convenient that you should be held up by the vicariat authority of our See. Congruum duximus vicariâ Sedis nostra te auctoritate fulciri. Baron. An. 482. § 46.

So did Siricius and his Successours constitute the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their Vicars in the Diocese of Illyricum, wherein being then a member of the Western Empire they had caught a special jurisdiction; to which Pope Leo did refer in those words, which sometimes are impertinently alledged with reference to all Bishops,Vices enim nostr [...] ità tuae credidimus charitati, ut in partem sis voca [...] soli [...]i­tudinis, non in plenitudinem potestati [...]. P. Leo. Ep. 84. (ad Anastas. Thessal.) but concern onely Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica; We have entrusted thy Charity to be in our stead, so that thou art called into part of the solicitude, not into plenitude of the authority.

So did Pope Zozimus bestow a like pretence of Vicarious power upon the Bishop of Arles, P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 93. which city was the seat of the temporal Exarch in Gaule.

So to the Bishop of Justiniana prima in Bulgaria (or Dardania Europaea) the like privilege was granted [by procurement of the Emperour Justinian, native of that place.]

Afterwards temporary or occasional Vicars were appointed (such as Austin in England, Boniface in Germany—) who in virtue of that con­cession did usurp a paramount authority; and by the exercise thereof did advance the Papal interest; depressing the authority of Metropoli­tanes, and provincial Synods.

So at length Legates, upon occasion dispatched into all Countries of the West, came to doe there what they pleased, using that pretence to oppress and abuse both Clergy and people very intolerably.

Whence divers Countries were forced to make legal provisions for excluding such Legates, finding by much experience that their business was to rant and domineer in the Pope's name,P. Pasch. II. Epist. apud Eadm. p. 113, &c. to suck money from the People, and to maintain luxurious pomp upon expence of the Countries where they came.

[Page 262] Extrav. commun. 1.1. (p. 310.) Occulti inimici regni. Matt. Par. p. 524. Of this John XXII. doth sorely complain; and decrees that all people should admit his Legates, under pain of interdicts.

In England, Pope Paschal finds the same fault in his letter to King Henry I.Sedis Apostolicae nuncii vel literae prae­ter jussum Regiae Majestatis nullam in po­testate tua susceptionem aut aditum pro­merentur, nullus inde clamor, nullum ju­dicium ad sedem Apostolicam destinan­tur— P. Pasch. II. Eadm. p. 113. Nuncio's or letters from the Apostolick See, unless by your Majestie's command, are not thought worthy any admittance or reception within your jurisdiction: none complains thence, none appeals thence for judgment to the Apo­stolick See.

The Pope observing what authority and reverence the Archbishops of Canterbury had in this Nation, whereby they might be able to check his attempts, did think good to constitute those Archbishops his Legates of course, (Legatos natos) that so they might seem to exercise their Ju­risdiction by authority derived from him, and owing to him that mark of favour, or honour, with inlargement of power, might pay him more devotion and serve his interests.

Bell. 2.10. Bellarmine doth from this practice prove the Pope's Sovereign power, but he might from thence better have domonstrated their great cunning. It might from such extraordinary designation of Vicegerents with far more reason be inferred, that ordinarily Bishops are not his Ministers.

XI. It is the privilege of a Sovereign, that he cannot be called to account, or judged, or deposed, or debarr'd communion, or any-wise censured and punished; for this implyeth a contradiction or confusion in degrees, subjecting the superiour to inferiours; this were making a river run backwards; this were to damm up the fountain of justice; to behead the State; to expose Majesty to contempt.

Bell. 2.26. de Conc. 2.17. Grat. Dist. 40. cap. 6. Dist. 21. cap. 7. Caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 10.— Extrav. comm. lib. 1. tit. 8. cap. 1. P. Leo. IX. Ep. 1. cap. 10.— 17. P. Nich. 1. Ep. 8. (p. 504.) P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 75. (p. 31.) P. Gelas. Ep. 4. (p. 625, 626.) Ep. 13. (p. 640.) P. Greg. VII. Ep. 8. Ep. 21.Wherefore the Pope doth pretend to this privilege, according to those Maxims in the Canon Law, drawn from the sayings of Popes (either forged or genuine, but all alike) obteining authority in their Court.

And according to what P. Adrian let the 8th Synod know, because, says he, the Apostolick Church of Rome stoops not to the judgment of lesser Churches. [...]. P. Adrian. in Syn. VIII. Act. 7. pag. 963. They cite also three old Synods (of Sinuessa, of Rome under Pope Silvester, of Rome under Sixtus III.) but they are palpably spurious, and the learned among them confess it.

But antiquity was not of this mind; for it did suppose him no less obnoxious to judgment and correction than other Bishops, if he should notoriously deviate from the faith, or violate canonical discipline.

The Canons generally do oblige Bishops without exception to duty, and (upon defailance) to correction: why is not he excepted, if to be excused, or exempted?

It was not questioned of old, but that a Pope in case he should noto­riously depart from the faith, or notably infringe discipline, might be [Page 263] excommunicated; the attempting it upon divers occasions do shew their opinion, although it often had not effect because the cause was not just and plausible; the truth and equity of the case appearing to be on the Pope's side.

St. Isidore Pelusiota denieth of any Bishop's office that it is [...] an uncontrollable government.

In the times of Polycrates and Pope Victor the whole Eastern Church did forbear communion with the Pope. Firmilian told Pope Stephanus, [...]. Epiph. haer. 70. Audianorum. Dum enim putas omnes abs te abstine­ri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti. Firm. apud Cypr. Ep. that by conceiting he might excommunicate all other Bishops, he had excommunicated himself. The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did threaten to excommunicate and depose Pope Julius. [...]. Sozom. 3.8. They did promise to Julius, peace and communion, if he did admit the deposition of those whom they had expel­led, and the constitution of those whom they had or­dained; but if he did resist their decrees, they de­nounced the contrary. Sozom. 3.11. The Oriental Bishops at Sar­dica did excommunicate and depose him.Anathema tibi, Papa Liberi. Hil. fragm. St. Hi­lary did anathematize Pope Liberius, upon his defection to the Arians. [...]. Evag. 2.4. Dioscorus did attempt to excommunicate Pope Leo. Niceph. 16.17. Baron. Ann. 484. § 35. Acacius of Con­stantinople renounced the communion of Pope Felix. Baron. A. 457. § 25. Timotheus Aelurus cursed the Pope. Africani Antistites Vigilium Rom. Episc. damnatorem Capitulorum Synoda­liter à Catholica communione, reservato ei poenitentiae loco, recludunt. (l. exclu­dunt) Vict. Tun. post Cons. Basilii V. C. Ann. 10. The African Bishops did Synodically excommuni­cate Pope Vigilius. Plat. p. 131. & Dist. 19. cap. 21, 22. Pope Anastasius was reject­ed by his own Clergy. Plat. p. 223. Pope Constantine by the people, and so was Plat. p. 291. Pope Leo VIII. P. Pelag. II. Ep. 3.13. Divers Bishops of Italy and Illyricum did abstain from the Pope's communion for a long time, because they did admit the fifth Synod. [...]. Vit. Ignatii Patr. apud Bin. p. 892. Ba­ron. Ann. 863— Photius did excom­municate and depose Pope Nicholas I. Baron. Ann. 669. § 2. —Communi totius Sancti Concilii consensu depositus. Luitprand. 6.6. Maurus Bishop of Ravenna did anathematize Pope Vitalia­nus. —Concilium indicit, convocatis E­piscopis Italiae, quorum judicio vita sce­leratissimi hominis dijudicaretur. Plat. in Joh. 13. (pro XII.) vid. Baron. Ann. 960. & Binium. The Emperour Otho II. having with good advice laboured to reclaim Pope John XII. with­out effect did indict a Council, calling together the Bishops of Italy, by the judgment of whom the life of that wicked man should be judged; and the issue was, that he was deposed. Grat. Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 41. Pope Nicholas I. desired to be judged by the Emperour. The fifth Synod did in general terms condemn Pope Vigi­lius, and the Emperour Justinian did banish him for not complying with the decrees of it. The sixth and seventh Ge­neral Synods did anathematize Honorius by name; when he was dead, because his heresie was not before confuted; and they would have ser­ved him so, if he had been alive. Divers Synods (that of Worms, of Papia, of Brescia, of Mentz, of Rome, Ann. 1076. Vid. Baron. Ann. 1033. § 3. &c.) did reject Pope Gregory VII. Pope Adrian himself in the VIII. Synod (so called) did confess, that a Pope being found deviating from the faith might be judged, as Honori­us was.Baron. Ann. 992. § 44.— Conc. Bas. Sess. 38. (p. 101.) Gerbertus (afterward Pope Sylvester II.) did maintain that Popes might be held as Ethnicks and Publicans, if they did not hear the Church. The Synod of Constance did judge and depose three Popes. [Page 264] The Synod of Basil did depose Pope Eugenius; affirming that The Catholick Church hath often cor­rected and judged Popes when they either err'd from the faith, Ecclesia Catholica saepenumerò summos Pontifices sive à fide delirantes, sive pravis moribus notoriè Ecclesiam scanda­lizantes correxit, & judicavit.— Conc. Bas. Sess. 12. or by their ill manners became notoriously scandalous to the Church.

Mos est Romanae Ecclesiae sacerdoti no­viter constituto formam fidei suae ad san­ctas Ecclesias praerogare. P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 1. ad Laur.The practice of Popes to give an account of their faith (when they entred upon their office) to the other Patriarchs and chief Bishops, appro­ving themselves thereby worthy and capable of communion, doth imply them liable to judgment. Of the neglect of which practice Euphemius Bi­shop of Constantinople did complain.Gelas. Ep. 9. Baron. Ann. 492. § 10.

Vid. tract. de Vnit. Eccl.Of this we have for example the Synodical E­pistles of Pope Gregory I.

XII. To the Sovereign in Ecclesiastical affairs it would belong to define and decide controversies in faith, discipline, moral practice; so that all were bound to admit his definitions, decisions, interpretati­ons. He would be the supreme Interpreter of the divine law, and Judge of controversies. No point or question of moment should be decided without his cognizance. This he therefore doth pretend to; taking upon him to define points, and requiring from all submission to his determinations. Nor doth he allow any Synods to decide questions.

But the ancients did know no such thing. In case of Contentions, they had no recourse to his judgment; they did not stand to his opi­nion, his authority did not avail to quash disputes. They had recourse to the Holy Scriptures, to Catholick Tradition, to reason, they dis­puted and discussed points by dint of argument.

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Vincentius Lirinensis and others discoursing of the methods to resolve points of Controversie, did not reckon the Pope's authority for one. Divers of the Fathers did not scruple openly to dissent from the opinions of Popes; nor were they wondred at, or condemned for it.

Gall. 2.11. [...].So Saint Paul did withstand Saint Peter. So Polycarpus dissented from Pope Elutherius. So Polycrates from Pope Victor. So St. Cyprian from Pope Stephen. So Dionysius Alex. from Pope Stephen: all which persons were renowned for wisedom and piety in their times.

Highest Controversies were appeased by Synods out of the Holy Scripture, Catholick Tradition, the Analogy of faith, and common Reason, without regard to the Pope. Divers Synods in Africk and Asia defined the Point about rebaptization without the Pope's leave, and against his opinion. The Synod of Antioch condemned the doctrine of Paulus Samosatenus, without intervention of the Pope; before they gave him notice. In the Synod of Nice the Pope had very small stroke. The General Synod of Const. declared the Point of the Divinity of the H. Ghost against Macedonius, without the Pope; who did no more than after­ward consent: This the Synod of Chalcedon in their compellation to the Emperour Marcian did observe. The Fathers met in Sardica to suppress the reliques of Arianism, [...]. Conc. Chal­ced. ad Marc. Orat. p. 468. commu­nicated their decrees to the Eastern Bishops; and they who here discovered the pestilence of Apolina­rius, made known theirs to the Western.

[Page 265]The Synod of Africk defined against Pelagius, before their informing Pope Innocentius thereof; not seeking his judgment, but desiring his consent to that, which they were assured to be truth.

Divers Popes have been incapable of deciding Controversies, them­selves having been erroneous in the questions controverted: as Pope Stephanus (in part,) Pope Liberius, P. Felix, P. Vigilius, P. Honori­us, &c. And in our opinion all Popes for many ages.

It is observable how the Synod of Chalcedon in their allocution to the Emperour Marcian do excuse P. Leo for expoun­ding the faith in his Epistle (the which it seems some did reprehend as a novell method disa­greeable to the Canons; [...]. Act. Syn. Chalc. p. 465. [...] —) Let not them (say they) object to us the Epistle of the marvellous Prelate of Rome, as obnoxious to imputation of novelty; but if it be not consonant to the Scriptures, let them confute it; or if it be not consentaneous to the Fathers who have preceded; or if it be not apt to confute the irreligious, &c.

It was not his judicial authority, which they did insist upon, to main­tain his Epistle, but the orthodoxie and intrinsick usefulness of it to confute errours; upon which account they did embrace and confirm it by their suffrage.

XIII. If the Pope were a Sovereign of the Church as they make him, it were at least expedient that he should be infallible; for why other­wise should he undertake confidently to pronounce in all cases, to define high and difficult Points, to impose his Dictates, and require assent from all? If he be fallible, it is very probable that often he doth ob­trude errours upon us for matters of Faith and Practice.

Wherefore the true fast friends of Papal interest do assert him to be infallible, when he dictateth as Pope,Bell. lib. 4. and setting himself into his Chair doth thence mean to instruct the whole Church. And the Pope there­fore himself, who countenanceth them, may be presumed to be of that mind.

Pighius said bouncingly,Longè certius est unius Apostolicae Sedis cum Concilio domesticorum Sacerdotum judicium, quàm sine Pontifice judicium universalis Concilii totius Orbis terrarum. Pighius de Hier. lib. 6. The judgment of the Apostolick See with a Council of domestick Priests, is far more certain than the judgment of an universal Council of the whole earth without the Pope.

This is the Syllogism we propose:

The Supreme Judge must be infallible,

The Pope is not infallible, Therefore.

The Major the Jesuits, Canonists and Courtiers are obliged to prove, it being their Assertion; and they do prove it very wisely and strongly.

The Minor is asserted by the French Doctours, and they do with clear evidence maintain it.

The Conclusion we leave them to infer who are concerned.

It is in effect Pope Gregory's Argumentation; No Bishop can be Universal Bishop, (or Universal Pastour and Judge of the Church) because no Bishop can be Infallible; for that the lapse of such a Pastour would throw down the Church into ruine, by errour and impiety. Therefore the Vniversal Church, Vniversa ergò Ecclesia, quod absit, à statu suo corruit, quando is qui vocatur Vniversalis cadit. Greg. M. Epist. 4.32. Totius familiae Domini status & ordo nu­tabit, si quod requiritur in corpore, non inveniatur in capite. P. Leo. Ep. 87. which God forbid, falls, when he falls who is call'd Vniversal. [Page 266] —The state and order of our Lord's family will decay when that which is required in the body is not to be found in the head.

But that he is not infallible, much Experience and History do abun­dantly shew.

The Ancients knew no such pretender to infallibility; otherwise they would have left disputing, and run to his Oracular Dictates for informa­tion.In nullo aliter sapere quàm res se habet angelica per­fectio est. Aug· de Bapt. c. Don. 2.5. Not to think of a thing otherwise than tis, is an angelical perfection. They would have onely asserted this point against Hereticks. We should have had Testimonies of it innumerable. It had been the most famous point of all.

I will not mention Pope Stephanus universally approving the Baptism of Hereticks against the Decrees of the Synod of Nice and other Sy­nods. Nor Pope Liberius complying with Arianism. Nor Pope Innocent I. and his followers at least till Pope P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. p. 636. Gelasius first asserting the Communion of Infants for needfull. Nor Pope Vigilius dodging with the Fifth Synod. Nor Pope Honorius condemned by so many Councils and Popes for Monothelitism. De Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 12. But surely Pope Leo and Pope Gelasius were strangely deceived, when they condemned Partaking in one kind. Pope Gregory was foully out, when he condemned the Greg. Ep. 7.110. Ep. 2.62. Ep. 4.32, 36.38.6.30. In Job. lib. 19. cap. 13. In Job. lib. 18. cap. 14. worship of Images; and when he so declaimeth against the title of Vniversal Bishop; and when he avowed himself a Subject to the Emperour Mauritius; and when he denied the Books of Maccabees to be Canonical; and when he asserted the perfection of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo II. was mistaken, when he did charge his infallible Predecessour Honorius of Monothelitism. If many Popes had been writers, we should have had more errours to charge them with. Pope Nicholas was a little decei­ved when he determined the Grat. de Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 42. attrition of Christ's Body. Pope Vrban II. was out, when he allowed it Grat. Caus. 23. qu. 5. cap. 47. lawfull for good Catholicks to commit mur­ther on Persons excommunicate.Mancipia Papae. Matt. Paris. Anno 1253. Pope Innocent IV. erred, when he called Kings, The Pope's Slaves.

Surely those Popes did err, who confirmed the Synods of Constance and Basil; not excepting the determinations in favour of General Councils being Superiour to Popes.Joh. 22. Ger­son. Serm. in Pasch. occam. Celestinus— Alph. à Ca­stro. Haer. 1.4. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 994. All those Popes have devilishly erred, who have pretended to dispose of Kingdoms, to depose Princes: to absolve Subjects of their Oaths. Pope Adrian II. did not take the Pope to be infallible, when he said he might not be judged, excepting the case of Heresie; and thereby excuseth the Orientals for anathematizing Honorius, he being accused of Heresie.

There is one Heresie, of which, if all Histories do not lie grievously,P. Greg. VII. Ep. lib. 3.7. Simoniaca haeresis. P. Jul. II. Conc. Lat. Sess. 5. (p. 57.) Idem electus non Apostolicus, sed Apo­staticus, & tanquam haeresiarcha, &c. Ibid. Tract. 4. § 12. & § 16. Decernimus, quòd—sed etiam contra dictum sic electum vel assumptum à Simo­niaca labe opponi & excipi possit sicut de vera & indubitata haeresi— divers Popes have been guilty; a Heresie defined by divers Popes; the Heresie of Simony; How many such Hereticks have sate in that Chair? of which how many Popes are pro­claimed guilty with a loud voice in History? The hand, says St. Omne Papale negotium manus agunt; quem dabis mihi de tota maxima Vrbe, qui te in Papam receperit pretio non in­ [...]ercedente? Bern. de Consid. 4.2. Bernard, does all the Papal business, shew me a man in all this greatest City who would admit thee to be Pope without the mediation of a bribe? Yea how few for some Ages have been guiltless of this Heresie? I may be answered, [Page 267] they were no Popes because their Election was null; but then the Church hath often and long been without a Head. Then numberless Acts have been void; and Creations of Cardinals have been null; and con­sequently there hath not probably been any true Pope for a long time.

In the judgment of so many great Divines, which did constitute the Synod of Basil, many Popes (near all surely) have been Hereticks; who have followed or countenanced the opinion that Popes are superiour to General Councils; the which there is flatly declared Heresie. Pope Eugenius by name was there declared a pertinacious Heretick, A fide devius, pertinax haereticus— Concil. Basil. Sess. 34. p. 96. & p. 107. deviating from the faith—

It often happeneth that the Pope is not skilled in Divinity, as Pope Innocent X. was wont to profess concerning himself (to wave discourse about Theological points) he therefore cannot pronounce, in use of ordinary means, but onely by miracle, as Balaam's Ass. So Pope Innocent X. said, that the Vicar of Jesus Christ was not obliged to examine all things by dispute; Le Pape respondit, che le Vicaire de J. C. ne estoit point oblige d'examiner toutes choses par la dispute; que la verite de ses decrets dependoit seulement de l'Inspirati­on divine. Memor. Hist. de 5. Propos. for that the truth of his decrees depended onely on divine Inspiration: what is this but downright Quakerism, Enthusiasm, Imposture?

Pope Clemens V. did not take himself to be infallible, when in his great Synod of Vienna, the question, whether beside remission of sin, also vertue were conferred to Infants, he resolved thus very honestly, —The second opinion, — Opinionem secundam, quae dicit tam parvulis quàm adultis conferri in bap­tismo informantem gratiam & virtutes, tanquam probabiliorem ac Doctorum mo­dernorum Theologiae magìs consonam & concordem sacro approbante Concilio dux­imus eligendam. Clem. in Tit. 1. which says that informing grace and vertues are in baptism conferred both upon infants and adult persons, we think fit with the consent of the holy council to be chosen; as being more probable, and more consonant and agreeable to the Divinity of the modern Doctours.

Which of the two Popes were in the right, Pope Nicholas IV. who decided that our Lord was so poor that he had right to nothing,Bell. 4.14. (p. 1318.) Confer Sext. lib. 5. tit. 12. cap. 3. Extrav. Joh. XXII. tit. 14. cap. 3, 4, 5. or Pope John XXII. who decla­red this to be a Heresie, charging our Lord with injustice?

XIV. A Sovereign is in Dignity and Authority Superiour to any number of Subjects, however conjoined or congregated; as a Head is above all the Members however compacted; He is not Supreme, who is any-wise subject or inferiour to a Senate, or any Assembly in his Territory.

Therefore the Pope doth claim a Superiority over all Councils;Bellarm. de Concil. 2.15. pretending that their determinations are invalid without his consent and confirmation; that he can rescind or make void their Decrees; that he can suspend their Consultations, and translate or dissolve them.

And Baronius reckons this as one errour in Hinc­marus Bishop of Rhemes, Planè significat majoris esse auctorita­tis in Ecclesia Dei Canones Conciliorum decretis Pontificum: haec quàm sint absur­da & ab omni ratione penitus aliena, &c. Baron. ad Ann. 992. § 56. Concil. Later. V. Sess. 11. p. 152. Th. Cajet. Orat. in Conc. Lat. p. 36. that he held as if the canons of councils were of greater authority in the Church of God than the decrees of Popes, which, says he, how absurd and unreasonable an opinion it is, &c.

[Page 268] Apostolicae verò Sedis auctoritas, quod cunctis seculis Christianis Ecclesiae praelata sit universae, & canonum serie paternorum, & multiplici traditione firmatur. P. Ge­las. I. Ep. 8. (O impudentiam!) That the authority of the Apostolick See in all Christian Ages has been preferred before the universal Church, both the canons of our predecessours and manifold tradition do confirm.

This is a question stiffly debated among Romanists; but the most (as Aeneas Sylvius, afterward Pope Pius II. did acutely observe) with good reason to adhere to the Pope's side, because the Pope disposeth of Benefices, but Councils give none.

But in truth anciently the Pope was not understood Superiour to Councils: for greater is the authority of the world than of one city, Ma [...]or est auctoritas orbis quàm urbis. Hier. ad Evag. says St. Hierome. He was but one Bishop, that had nothing to doe out of his precinct. He had but his Vote in them; He had the first Vote, as the Patriarch of Alexandria the second, of Antioch the third— but that or­der neither gave to him or them any advantage, as to decision; but common consent, or the suffrages of the majority did prevail. He was conceived subject to the Canons no less than other Bishops. Coun­cils did examine matters decreed by him, so as to follow or forsake them as they saw cause. The Popes themselves did profess great vene­ration and observance of Conciliar Decrees. Pope Leo I. did oppose a Canon of the Synod of Chalcedon, (not pretending his Superiority to Councils, but the inviolability of the Nicene Canons) but it notwith­standing that opposition did prevail.

Even in the dregs of times, when the Pope had clambred so high to the top of power, this Question in great nu­merous Synods of Bishops was agitated,Concil. Const. Sess. 4. (p. 1003.) Concil. Bas. Sess. 2. & Sess. 33. and posi­tively decided against him; both in Doctrine and practice.

Veritas Catholicae fidei, cui pertinaci­ter repugnans est censendus haereticus. Concil. Bas. Sess. 33. Nec unquam aliquis peritorum dubita­vit summum Pontificem in his quae fidem concernunt judicio eorundem Conciliorum universalium esse subjectum. Conc. Basil. decret. p. 117. Concilium habet potestatem immediatè à Christo, cui Papa obedire tenetur— Conc. Bas. Sess. 38. p. 101.The Synod of Basil affirmeth the matter of these Decrees to be a verity of the Christian faith, which whoever doth pertinaciously resist, is to be deemed a heretick— Those Fathers say that none of the skilfull did ever doubt of this truth, that the Pope in things belonging to faith, was subject to the judgment of the same General Councils. —that the Council has an authority immediately from Christ which the Pope is bound to obey. Those Synods were confirmed by Popes, without exception of those determina­tions.

Great Churches, most famous Vniversities, a mighty store of learned Doctours of the Roman Communion have reverenced those Councils, and adhered to their Doctrine. Insomuch that the Cardinal of Lorrain did affirm him to be an Heretick in France, who did hold the contrary.

These things sufficiently demonstrate that the Pope cannot pretend to Supremacy by universal Tradition; and if he cannot prove it by that, how can he prove it? not surely by Scripture, nor by Decrees of ancient Synods, nor by any clear and convincing reason.

XV. The Sovereign of the Church is by all Christians to be acknowledged the chief Person in the world, inferiour and subject to none; above all commands; the greatest Emperour being his Sheep and Subject.

[Page 269]He therefore now doth pretend to be above all Princes.As in Israel Saul was the Head. 1 Sam. 15.17. Divers Popes have affirmed this Superiority. They are allowed and most fa­voured by him, who teach this Doctrine. In their Missal he is pre­ferred above all Kings, being prayed for before them.

But in the primitive times this was not held; for St. Paul requires every soul to be subject to the higher powers. Rom. 13.1. Then the Emperour was a­vowed the first person, next to God; To whom, says Tertullian, they are second, — [...] quo sunt secundi, post quem pri­mi ante omnes, & super omnes Deos; quidni? cùm super omnes homines, qui utique vivunt. Tertull. Apol. cap. 30. Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 2. Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi so­lus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem. Opt. 3. Vid. Tr. 5. § 14. Dum se Donatus super Imperatorem ex­tollit, jam quasi hominum excesserat mo­dum ut se ut Deum non hominem aestima­ret. Id. Ibid.— [...]. Chrys. [...]. p. 463. after whom they are first, before all and above all Gods. Why? &c. — we worship the Emperour as a man next to God, and less onely than God. And Optatus, — since there is none above the Emperour but God who made him. —while Donatus extolleth himself above the Emperour, he raises himself as it were above humani­ty, and thinks himself to be God and not Man. For the King is the top and head of all things on earth. Then even Chrys. in Rom. 13.1. Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, all men whoever were subject to the Emperour. The Emperours did command them, Jubemus igitur beatissimos Episco­pos & Patriarchas hoc est senioris Romae, & Constantinopoleos, & Alexandriae, & Theopoleos & Hierosolymorum. Justinian. Novel. 123. cap. 3. P. Greg. M. Ep. 2.62. Supra in praef. § 4. Tract. 5. § 14. even the blessed Bishops and Patriarchs of old Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Theopolis and Jerusalem. Divers Popes did avow themselves subject to the Emperour.

XVI. The Confirmation of Magistrates, elected by others,Vid. § 5. Dist. 63. c. 4. P. Nic. I. Ep. Ann. 482. § 1. is a Branch of Supremacy which the Pope doth assume.

Baronius saith that this was the ancient custome; and that Pope Sim­plicius did confirm the Election of Calendion Bishop of Antioch.

Meletius confirm'd the most holy Gregory in the Bishoprick of Constantinople. [...]. Theod. 5.8.

But the truth is, that anciently Bishops being elected did onely give an account of their choice unto all other Bishops; especially to those of highest rank, desiring their approbation and friendship, for preservation of due communion, correspondence and peace. So the Synod of Antioch gave account to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, [...]—Euseb. 7.30. and all their Fellow-ministers through­out the world, &c. of the election of Domnus after Paulus Samosatenus. So the Fathers of Constantinople acquainted Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops with the Constitution of Nectarius, Flavianus, &c.

This was not to request Confirmation, as if the Pope or other Bish­ops could reject the Election if regular, but rather to assure whom they were to communicate with. [...]. Euseb. Ibid. We have (say the Fathers of the Synod against Paulus Samosatenus) signified this (our chusing of Domnus into Paulus his room) that you may write to him and receive letters of communion from him— And St. Cyprian; Vt scires tu, & Collegae nostri quibus scribere, & literas mutuò à quibus vos accipere oporteret— Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Cornel.) That you and our Collegues may know to whom they may write, and from whom they may receive letters.

Thus the Bishops of Rome themselves did acquaint other Bishops with their Election, their Faith, &c. So did Cornelius;Vid. P. Greg. Tract. de V­nit. Eccl. whom therefore [Page 270] St. Cyprian asserteth as established by the consent and approbation of his Collegues; Cum locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae Sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrûm consen­sione firmato— Cypr. Ep. 52. —& Co-episcoporum testimonio, quo­rum numerus universus per totum mun­dum concordi unanimitate consensit. Ibid. When the place of Peter and the Sacerdotal Chair was void, which by God's will being occupied, and with all our con­sents confirmed, &c. —and the testimony of our Fel­low-bishops, the whole number of which all over the world unanimously consented.

The Emperour did confirm Bishops, as we see by that notable passage in the Synod of Chalcedon; where Bassianus, Bi­shop of Ephesus, [...]. Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. (p. 404.) pleading for himself saith, Our most religious Emperour knowing these things present­ly ratified it, and by a memorial published it, confir­ming the Bishoprick; afterwards he sent his rescript by Eustathius the Silentiary again confirming it.

XVII. It is a Privilege of Sovereigns to grant Privileges, Exemptions, Dispensations.

Vid. Bern.This he claimeth; but against the Laws of God and Rights of Bishops. Against the Decrees of Synods—against the sense of good men in all times.

XVIII. It is a Prerogative of Sovereign power, to Erect, Translate Spiritual Presidencies.

P. Innoc. III. in Greg. decr. li. 1. tit. 7. c. 1.—&c.Wherefore this the Pope claimeth. Cum ex illo, &c.

But at first he had nothing to doe therein, except in his own Province or Diocese.

As Christianity did grow and enter into Cities, so the neighbour Bishops did ordain Bishops there.

Princes often, as they did endow, so they did erect Episcopal Sees, and did, as was sutable, change places.

Pope Paschal II. doth by complaining attest to this, writing to the Archbishop of Poland▪ Quid super Episcoporum translationi­bus loquar, quae apud vos non auctoritate Apostolicâ, sed nutu Regis praesumuntur? P. Pasch. II. Ep. 6. Praeter authoritatem nostram Episcoporum translationes praesumitis— Eadm. p. 115. What shall I say of the translations of Bishops, which among you are presumed to be made, not by Apostolick authority, but the King's command?

XIX. It is a great Prerogative of Sovereignty to impose Taxes on the Clergy or People.

Wherefore the Pope doth assume this; as for instance that Decree of Pope Innocent IV. in the First Synod of Lions; By the common consent of the Council we ordain that all the Clergy, Caeterùm ex communi Concilii appro­batione statuimus, ut omnes omnino Cle­rici, tam subditi quàm praelati, vigesi­mam Ecclestarum proventuum usque ad triennium conferant in subsidium terrae sanctae, per manus eorum, qui ad hoc A­postolicâ fuerint providentiâ ordinati. —sciántque se omnes ad hoc fideliter ob­servandum per excommunicationis sen­tentiam obligatos. Lugdun. Concil. 1. (Anno 1245) as well those who are under authority as the Prelates, pay for three years a twentieth part of their Ecclesiastical revenues towards the assistence of the holy Land, into the hands of those who shall be thereto appointed by the prudence of the Apostolick See. —and let all know that this they are bound faith­fully to doe under pain of excommunication.

[Page 271]But Antiquity knew no such Impositions: when the Church, the Clergy, the Poor were maintained and relieved by voluntary Offerings, or Obventions.

Even the invidious splendour of the Roman Bishop was supported by the Oblations of Matrons, as Marcellinus observeth.Vt ditentur Oblationibus Matronarum. Marcell. 27. Vid. Const. Apost. 2.25. Nam qui constituerunt vel fundârunt sanctissimas Ecclesias pro sua salute & communis Reipublicae, reliquerunt illis substantias, ut per eas debeant sacrae liturgiae fieri, & ut in illis à ministrantibus piis Clericis Deus colatur. Cod. Lib. 1. Tit. 3. § 42.

This is an encroachment upon the right of Princes, unto whom Clergy­men are Subjects, and bound to render tribute to whom tribute be­longeth. Rom. 13.7.

SUPPOSITION VII. A farther grand Assertion of the Roman Party, is this, That the Papal Supremacy is indefectible, and unalte­rable.

BUT good reasons may be assigned, why even supposing that the Pope had an Universal Sovereignty in virtue of his Succession to Saint Peter conferred on him, it is not assuredly consequent, that it must always, or doth now belong to him. For it might be settled on him not absolutely but upon conditions, the which failing his authority may expire. It might be God's will that it should onely continue for a time. And there are divers ways, whereby according to common rules of justice, he might be disseised thereof.

1. If God had positively declared his will concerning this Point, that such a Sovereignty was by him granted irrevocably and immutably, so that in no case it might be removed or altered, then indeed it must be admitted for such; but if no such declaration doth appear, then to assert it for such is to derogate from his power and providence; by exem­ption of this case from it. It is the ordinary course of providence so to confer power of any kind or nature on men, as to reserve to himself the liberty of transferring it, qualifying it, extending or contracting it, abolishing it, according to his pleasure, in due seasons and exigencies of things. Whence no humane power can be supposed absolutely stable or immovably fixed in one person or place.

2. No power can have a higher source, or firmer ground, than that of the Civil Government hath, for all such power is from heaven, and in relation to that it is said, There is no power but from God, the powers that are, are ordained by God: Joh. 19.11. Rom. 13.1— But yet such power is liable to various altera­tions, and is like the Sea, having ebbs and flows, and ever changing its bounds either personal or local.

Any temporal Jurisdiction may be lost by those revolutions and vi­cissitudes of things, to which all humane Constitutions are subject; and which are ordered by the will and providence of the most High, Dan. 5.21. Psal. 75.7. who ruleth [Page 272] in the Kingdom of men, appointing over it whom he pleaseth; putting down one and setting up another.

Adam by God's appointment was Sovereign of the world; and his first-born Successours derived the same power from him: yet in course of time that order hath been interrupted, and divers independent Sovereignties do take place.

Every Prince hath his authority from God, or by virtue of Divine Ordination within his own Territory; and according to God's Ordi­nance the lawfull Successour hath a right to the same authority; yet by accidents such authority doth often fail totally or in part, changing its extent.

Why then may not any Spiritual power be liable to the same vicissi­tudes? why may not a Prelate be degraded as well as a Prince? why may not the Pope, as well as the Emperour, lose all, or part of his Kingdom?

Why may not the Successour of Peter, no less than the Heir of Adam, suffer a defaileur of Jurisdiction?

That Spiritual Corporations, Persons and Places are subject to the same contingences with others, as there is like reason to suppose, so there are Examples to prove; God removed his Sanctuary from Shiloh, Go ye now unto my place, Jer. 7.12. Jer. 7.14. Apoc. 2.5. which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at first, &c. He deserted Jerusalem. He removeth the Candlesticks. He placed Eli (of the Family of Ithamar) in the High-Priesthood, and dis­placed his Race from it:1 Sam. 2.30. 1 King. 2.27. I said indeed (saith God) that thy house, and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever, but now the Lord saith Be it far from me, &c.

3 The reason and exigency of things might be sufficient ground for altering an Universal Jurisdiction; for when it should prove very inconvenient or hurtfull, God might order such an alteration to happen, and men be obliged to allow it.

As God first did institute one Universal Monarchy, but that form (upon the multiplication of mankind, and peopling of the earth) proving incommodious, providence gave way for its change, and the setting up of particular Governments; to which men are bound to submit; So God might institute a singular Presidency of the Church; but when the Church grew vastly extended, so that such a Government would not conveniently serve the whole, he might order a division, in which we should acquiesce.

4. It hath ever been deemed reasonable, and accordingly been prac­tised, that the Church in its exteriour form and political administrations should be suted to the state of the world, and Constitution of worldly Governments; that there might be no clashing or disturbance from each to other.

Wherefore seeing the World is now settled under so many Civil Sovereignties, it is expedient that Ecclesiastical Discipline should be so modelled, as to comply with each of them.

And it his reasonable, that any pretence of Jurisdiction should veil to the publick good of the Church and the World.

That it should be necessary for the Church to retain the same form of policy or measure of power affixed to persons or places, can no-wise be demonstrated by sufficient proof, and it is not consistent with experience; which sheweth the Church to have subsisted with variations of that kind.

[Page 273]There hath in all times been found much reason or necessity to make alterations 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 [Page 274] 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, Propria pordit, qui indebita concu­piscit. P. Leo I. Ep. 54. 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,Superbum nimis est & immoderatum ultra fines proprios tendere, & antiquita­te calcatâ alienum jus velle praeripere; utque unius crescat dignitas, tot Metropo­litanorum impugnare primatus — P. Leo I. Ep. 55. 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.

Privilegia enim Ecclesiarum, sancto­rum Patrum Canonibus instituta, & ve­nerabilis Nicenae Synodi fixa Decretis, nullâ possunt improbitate convelli, nullâ novitate mutari. Ibid. 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.

Absit hoc à me, ut Statuta Majorum Con-sacerdotibus meis in qualibet Ecclesiâ infringam, quia mihi injuriam facio, si fratrum meorum jura perturbo. Greg. I. Epist. 2.37. 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;Pontifices ipsi à Petri vestigiis discesse­rant. Plat. in Joh. 10. (p. 275.) The Popes themselves had swerved and degene­rated from the example of Peter.

Non Sanctorum Filii sunt, qui tenent l [...]ca Sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum— Hieron. ad Heliod. apud Grat. Dist. 40. cap. 2. 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.)

Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Pe­tri fidem non habent, quam impiâ divi­sione discerpunt. Ambr. de Poen. 1.6. They have not the inheritance of Peter, who have not the faith of Peter, which they tear asunder by ungodly division.

[...]— Greg. Naz. Or. 21.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.

[Page 275]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 Christians; If he claimeth exorbitant Power, and exerciseth Oppression and tyrannical Domina­tion over his Brethren; cursing and damning all that will not submit to his Dictates and Commands; If instead of be­ing a Shepherd, he is a Wolf,Non facit Ecclesiastica dignitas Chri­stianum. Hier. Ecclesiastical dignity makes not a Christian. Non omnes Episcopi Episcopi sunt. Id. All Bishops are not Bishops. [...]. Athan. Const. Ap. 8.2. They with them are scouts or spies, not Overseers or Bishops. worrying and tear­ing the Flock by cruel Persecution: He by such behaviour ipso facto depriveth himself of Authori­ty and Office; He becometh thence no Guide or Pastour to any Christian; there doth in such case rest no obligation to hear or obey him; but rather to decline him, to discost from him, to reject and disclaim him.

This is the reason of the case, this the Holy Scripture doth prescribe, this is according to the Primitive Doctrine, Tradition and Practice of the Church. For,

10. In reason, the nature of any spiritual Office consisting in Instruc­tion in Truth and Guidance in Vertue toward attainment of Salvation; if any man doth lead into pernicious Errour or Impiety, he thereby ceaseth to be capable of such Office: As a blind man, by being so, doth cease to be a Guide; and much more he, that declareth a will to seduce; for,Luk. 6.39. [...]; Who so blind as he that will not see?

No man can be bound to follow any one into the ditch: Matt. 15.14. or to obey any one in prejudice to his own Salvation; to die in his iniquity. Ezek. 3.18. Seeing God saith in such a case, [...], In vain do they worship me, Matt. 15.9. teaching for Doctrines the Precepts of men.

They themselves do acknowledge that Hereticks cease to be Bishops;Bell. de P. R. 2.30. (p. 1083.) and so to be Popes. Indeed they cease to be Christians; for [...], such a one is subverted.

11. According to their Principles, the Pope hath the same relation to other Bishops and Pastours of the Church, which they have to their people; he being Pastour of Pastours: But if any Pastour should teach bad Doctrine, or prescribe bad Practice, his people may reject and disobey him; therefore in proportion, the Pastours may desert the Pope misguiding or misgoverning them. In such cases any Inferiour is exempted from obligation to comply with his Superiour, either truly or pretendedly such.

[Page 276]12. The case may be that we may not hold communion with the Pope, but may be obliged to shun him; in which case his Authority doth fail, and no man is subject to him.

13. This is the Doctrine of the Scripture. The High Priest and his fellows, under the Jewish Oeconomy, had no less Authority than any Pope can now pretend unto;Matt. 23.2. Matt. 15.6. they did sit in the Chair of Moses, and therefore all their True Doctrines and Lawfull Directions the people were obliged to learn and observe; but their false Doctrines,Matt. 16.6. [...]— [...]. Vers. 12. Beware and take heed of the leaven— of the doctrine. and impious Precepts they were bound to shun; and consequently to disclaim their Au­thority so far as employed in urging such Doctrines and Precepts: [...]; Let them alone, saith our Saviour,Matt. 15.14. they are blind leaders of the blind. Under the Christian dispensation, the matter is no less clear; our Lord commandeth us to beware of false Prophets;Matt. 7.15. and to see that no man deceive us; although he wear the cloathing of a Sheep, or come under the name of a Shepherd (coming in his name—).Matt. 24.4. Gal. 1.8, 9. Saint Paul informeth us, that if an Apostle, if an Angel from heaven doth preach beside the old Apostolical Doctrine (introducing any new Gospel, or a Divinity devised by himself) he is to be held accursed by us. He affirmeth, that even the Apostles them­selves were not Lords of our faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. nor might challenge any power in­consistent with the maintenance of Christian Truth and Piety;2 Cor. 13.7, 8. We (saith he) can doe nothing against the truth, but for the truth; the which an ancient Writer doth well apply to the Pope, saying,Nec aliquid contra veritatem, sed pro veritate, plus suis Con-sacerdotibus potest. Fac. Hermian. 2.6. Gal. 2.11, 14. [...]. that he could doe nothing against the truth more than any of his Fellow-priests could doe; which S. Paul did in practice shew, when he resisted Saint Peter, declining from the truth of the Gospel. He chargeth, that if any one doth [...], teach heterodoxies, 1 Tim. 6.3, 5. [...]. we should stand off from him; that, if any brother walketh disorderly, and not ac­cording to Apostolical tradition, 2 Thess. 3.6. [...]— Rom. 16.17. [...]. we should withdraw from him; that if any one doth raise divisions and scandals beside the doctrine received from the Apo­stles we should decline from him; that we are to re­fuse any heretical person. He telleth us that grie­vous Wolves should come into the Church, Tit. 3.10. Act. 20.29. [...]. not sparing the flock; that from among Christians there should arise men speaking perverse things, Act. 20▪ 30. to draw disciples after them; but no man surely ought to follow, but to shun them.

These Precepts and Admonitions are general, without any respect or exception of Persons great or small, Pastour or Lay-man: nay, they may in some respect more concern Bishops than others; for that they declining from truth, are more dangerous and contagious.

14. The Fathers (in reference to this case) do clearly accord, both in their Doctrine and Practice. St. Cyprian telleth us,Plebs obsequens praecepti [...] Dominicis & Deum metuens à peccatore praeposito sepa­rare se debet. Cypr. Ep. 68. that a people obedient to the Lord's command­ments, and fearing God, ought to separate it self from a sinfull Bishop, that is, from one guilty of such sins which unqualifie him for Christian Commu­nion or Pastoral charge;Nec sibi plebs blandiatur, quasi immu­nis esse à contagio delicti possit cum Sacer­dote peccatore communicans. Ibid. and Let not (addeth he) the common people flatter it self, as if it could be [Page 277] free from the contagion of guilt, if it communicate with a sinfull Bishop; whose irreligious Doctrine or Practice doth render him uncapable of communion;Quomodo enim possunt integritati & continentiae praeesse, si ex ipsis incipiant corruptelae & vitiorum magisteria proce­dere? Cyp. Ep. 62. for how (saith he otherwhere) can they preside over integrity and continence, if corruptions and the teaching of vices do begin to proceed from them?

They who reject the commandment of God, Qui mandatum Dei rejiciunt, & tra­ditionem suam statuere conantur, fortiter à vobis & firmiter respuantur. Cypr. Ep. 40. (p. 73.) and labour to establish their own tradition, let them be strongly and stoutly refused and rejected by you.

St. Chrysostome, commenting on Saint Paul's words, If I or an Angel— saith, [...]. Chrys. in Gal. 1.9. [...]. Ibid. 1.8. [...]. Ibid. that Saint Paul meaneth to shew, that dignity of persons is not to be regarded where truth is concerned; that, if one of the chief Angels from heaven should corrupt the Gospel, he were to be accursed; that, not onely if they shall speak things contrary, or overturn all, but if they preach any small matter beside the Apostolical doc­trine, altering the least point whatever, they are lia­ble to an anathema.

And other-where, very earnestly persuading his Audience to render due respect and obedience to there Bishop, he yet interposeth this excep­tion, If he hath a perverse opinion, although he be an Angel do not obey him; [...]. Chrys. in 2 Tim. Orat. 2. Ecclesiastici Judices ut homines ple­runque falluntur — Aug. c. Cresc. 2.21. Quia nec Catholicis Episcopis consenti­endum est, sicubi fortè falluntur, [...] con­tra Canonicas Dei Scriptur [...]s aliquid sen­tiant. August. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 10. but if he teacheth right things, regard not his life but his words.

Ecclesiastical Judges as men are for the most part deceived.

For neither are Catholick Bishops to be assented to, if peradventure in any case they are mistaken, so as to hold any thing contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God.

If there be any Church which rejects the faith, Si qua est Ecclesia, quae fidem resp [...]at, nec Apostolicae praedicationis fundamenta possideat, nè quam l [...]bem perfidia possit asperg [...]re deserenda est. Ambr. in Luc. 9. (p. 85.) and does not hold the fundamentals of the Apostolical doc­trine, it ought to be forsaken, lest it infect others with its heterodoxy.

If in such a case we must desert any Church, then the Roman; if any Church, then much more any Bishop, particularly him of Rome.

This hath been the Doctrine of divers Popes.

Which not onely the Apostolical Prelate, Quod non solùm Praesuli Apostolico fa­cere licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quoslibet & quemlibe [...] locum, secundum regulam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Catholica communione discernant. P. Ge­las. I. Ep. 4. Fides universalis est, omnium commu­nis est, non solùm ad Clericos, verùm etiam ad Laicos, & ad omnes omni [...] pertinet Christianos. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. p. 506. Oves ergò quae pastori suo commissae fue­rint, [...]um nec reprebendere, nisi à recta fide exorbitaverit, debent— P. Joh. I. Ep. 1. (apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 812.) but any other Bishop may doe, viz. discriminate and severe any men, and any place from the Catholick communion, ac­cording to the rule of that fore-condemned heresie.

Faith is universal, common to all, and belongs not onely to Clergymen but also to Laicks, and even to all Christians.

Therefore the sheep which are committed to the cure of their Pastour, ought not to reprehend him, unless he swerve and go astray from the right faith.

15. That this was the current opinion, common practice doth shew, there being so many instances of those who rejected their Su­periours, and withdrew from their communion, in case of their main­taining errours, or of their disorderly behaviour; such practice ha­ving [Page 278] been approved by General and Great Synods as also by divers Popes.

When Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople did introduce new and strange Doctrine, [...]— Conc. Eph. part. I. p. 220. divers of his Presbyters did rebuke him, and withdraw communion from him; which proceeding is approved in the Ephesine Synod.

Particularly Charisius did assert this proceeding in those remarkable words presented to that same Synod; 'Tis the wish and desire of all well affected persons, [...]. Cha­ris. in Conc. Eph. Act. 6. p. 358. to give al­ways all due honour and reverence especially to their spiritual Fathers and Teachers: but if it should so happen that they who ought to teach, should instill unto those who are set under them such things concerning the faith, as are offensive to the ears and hearts of all men, then of necessity the order must be inverted, and they who teach wrong Doctrine must be rebuked of those who are their inferi­ours.

Pope Celestine I. in that case did commend the people of Constantinople, [...]. Ce­l [...]st. I. in Conc. Eph. p. 190. deserting their Pastour; Happy flock (said he) to whom the Lord did afford to judge about its own Pasture.

St. Hierome did presume to write very briskly and smartly in reproof of John Bishop of Hierusalem, in whose Province he a simple Presbyter did reside.

Quis scindit Ecclesiam? nos quorum omnis domus in Bethlehem in Ecclesia communicat; an tu qui aut benè credis, & superbè de fide taces, aut malè & verè scindis Ecclesiam?— An tu solus Ecclesia es; & qui to offenderit à Christo excluditur? Hier. Ep. 61. cap. 16. Ep. 62. Who makes a schism in the Church? we whose whole house in Bethlehem communicate with the Church, or thou, who either believest aright, and proudly concealest the truth, or art of a wrong belief, and really makest a breach in the Church? Art thou onely the Church? and is he who offendeth thee excluded from Christ?

Malchion di­sertissimus Antiochenae Ecclesiae Pres­byter, adversus Paulum Samosatenum, qui Antiochenae Ecclesiae Episcopus dogma Artemonis instaurârat disputa­vit. Hieron. in Catal. Malchion, Presbyter of Antioch disputed against Paulus Samosatenus his Bishop.

Beatus Presbyter confuted his Bishop Elipandus of Toledo.

Quòd si à fide exorbitaverit Rector, tunc arguendus erit à subditis. Isid. Hisp. de Offic. 3.39. Vid. Thomam Aq. in 4. Dist. 19. Art. 2. But if the Rectour swerve from the faith, he is to be reproved by those who are under him.

16. The case is the same of the Pope; for if other Bishops, who are reckoned Successours of the Apostles, and Vicars of Christ within their precinct; if other Patriarchs, who sit in Apostolical Sees, and par­take of a like extensive Jurisdiction, by incurring heresie or schism, or committing notorious disorder and injustice, may be deprived of their Authority, so that their Subjects may be obliged to forsake them, then may the Pope lose his: for truth and piety are not affixed to the Chair [Page 279] of Rome more than to any other; there is no ground of asserting any such Privilege either in Holy Scripture or in old Tradition; there can no promise be alledged for it, having any probable shew (that of Oravi pro te, being a ridiculous pretence) it cannot stand without a perpetual miracle; there is in fact no appearance of any such miracle; from the ordinary causes of great errour and impiety (that is, ambition, avarice, sloth, luxury) the Papal state is not exempt, yea apparently it is more subject to them than any other; all Ages have testified and complai­ned thereof.

17. Most eminent persons have in such cases withdrawn communion from the Pope; as other-where we have shewed by divers Instances.

18. The Canon Law it self doth admit the Pope may be judged if he be a Heretick.Quia cunctos ipse judicatu­rus à nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur à fide devius. Gra. dist. 40. cap. 6. Vid. P. Innoc. III. apud Laun. contra Baron.—— Because he that is to judge all persons is to be judged of none, except he be found to be gone astray from the faith.

The supposition doth imply the possibility, and therefore the case may be put that he is such, and then he doth (according to the more current Doctrine ancient and modern) cease to be a Bishop, yea a Christian; Hence no obedience is due to him; yea no communion is to be held with him.

19. This in fact was acknowledged by a great Pope, allowing the condemnation of Pope Honorius for good, because he was erroneous in point of Faith: for (saith he, in that which is called the Eighth Synod) although Honorius was anathe­matized after his death by the Oriental Bishops, [...]. Syn. VIII. Act. 7. p. 963. it is yet well known, that he was accused for heresie; for which alone it is lawfull for inferiours to rise up against superiours.

Now that the Pope (or Papal succession) doth pervert the truth of Christian Doctrine, in contradiction to the Holy Scripture, and Pri­mitive Tradition; that he doth subvert the practice of Christian piety in opposition to the Divine commands; that he teacheth falshoods, and maintaineth impieties, is notorious in many particulars, some whereof we shall touch.

We justly might charge him with all those extravagant Doctrines and Practices which the high flying Doctours do teach, and which the fierce Zealots upon occasion do act; for the whole succession of Popes of a long time hath most cherished and encouraged such folks, looking squintly on others, as not well affected to them; But we shall onely touch those new and noxious or dangerous positions, which great Sy­nods, managed and confirmed by their Authority, have defined; or which they themselves have magisterially decreed; or which are gene­rally practised by their influence or countenance.

It is manifest, that the Pope doth support and cherish as his special Favourites the Venters of wicked Errours; such as those who teach the Pope's infallibility, his power over temporal Princes, to cashier and depose them, to absolve subjects from their allegiance— the Doctrine of equivo­cation, breach of faith with hereticks, &c. the which Doctrines are here­tical, as inducing pernicious practice; whence whoever doth so much as communicate with the maintainers of them, according to the [Page 280] principles of ancient Christianity, are guilty of the same crimes.

The Holy Scripture and Catholick Antiquity do teach and injoin us to worship and serve God alone, Matt. 4.10. Apoc. 19.10.22.9. Col. 2.18. Rom. 1.25. [...]. Bas. apud Sozom. 6.16. our Creatour; forbidding us to worship a­ny Creature, or Fellow-servant; even not Angels. For I who am a Creature will not endure to worship one like to me.

Similiter & Sanctos una cum Christo regnantes ve­nerandos at­que invocandos esse.— atque horum reliquias esse venerandas. Pii IV. Profess. fid. Bonum atque utile esse eos in­vocare— Sanctorum quoque corpora— à fidelibus veneranda esse. Conc. Trid.But the Pope and his Clients do teach and charge us to worship An­gels, and dead men; yea even to venerate the reliques and dead bodies of the Saints.

1 Cor. 4.5. Rom. 14.4.The Holy Scripture teacheth us to judge nothing (about the present or future state of men, absolutely) before the time, untill the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of hearts, and then each man shall have praise of God.

But the Pope notoriously (in repugnance to those precepts, antici­pating God's judgment, and arrogating to himself a knowledge requisite thereto) doth presume to determine the state of men, canonizing them, declaring them to be Saints, and proposing them to be worshipped; and on the other side, he damneth, curseth and censureth his Fellow-servants.

God in his Law doth command us not to bow down our selves unto any image, or worship the like­ness of any thing in heaven, Exod. 20.4. [...].— or earth, or under the earth; the which Law (whether Moral or Posi­tive) the Gospel doth ratifie and confirm,1 Joh. 5.21. 1 Cor. 10.14, 7. charging us to keep our selves from idols, and to fly worshipping of idols, that is, to observe the Second Commandment;Clem. Alex. Tertull. the validity whereof the Fathers most ex­presly assert; and divers of them were so strict in there opinion about it, that they deemed it unlawfull so much, as to make any Image.

But the Pope and his Adherents (in point-blank opposition to Divine Law, and Primitive Doctrine) doth require us to fall down before and to worship Images.Imagines porrò— Sanctorum in Tem­plis praesertim habendas, & retinendas, císque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam— ità ut per Imagines, quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, Christum ad­oremus, & Sanctos quorum illae similitu­dinem gerunt, veneremur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Moreover we decree that the Images of Saints be especially had and retain'd in Churches, and that due honour and veneration be imparted to them— so that by those Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and fall down, we adore Christ, and vene­rate the Saints whose likeness they bear.

Neither is he satisfied to recommend and decree these unwarrantable venerations, but (with a horrible strange kind of uncharitableness and ferity) doth he anathematize those, who teach or think any thing opposite to his decrees concerning them;Siquis autem his decretis con [...]raria do­cuerit, aut senserit, anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. so that if the ancient Fathers should live now, they would live under this curse.

Ezek. 18. Luk. 15. Rom. 10.9. Mark 1.15.The Holy Scripture, under condition of Repentance and amendment of life, upon recourse to God and trust in his Mercy, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, doth offer and promise Remission of sins, Accep­tance with God, Justification and Salvation; this is the tenour of the [Page 281] Evangelical Covenant; nor did the Primitive Church know other terms.

But the Pope doth preach another Doctrine, and requireth other terms as necessary for Remission of sins and Salvation; for he hath de­creed the confession of all and each mortal sin, which a man by recol­lection can remember, to a Priest, to be necessary thereto; anathema­tizing all who shall say the contrary;Si quis dixe­rit in Sacra­mento poeni­tentiae ad re­missionem pec­catorum necessarium non esse jure divino confiteri omnia & singula peccata mortalia, quorum memoria cum de­bita & diligenti praemeditatione habeatur— anathema sit. Sess. 14. de Poen. Can. 7. If any one shall say, that in the Sacrament of Penance, it is not necessary by divine right to confess all and singular mortal sins, the remembrance whereof may be had by due and diligent premeditation— let him be anathema. although the Fathers (particu­larly St. Chrysostome frequently) have affirmed the contrary.

The which is plainly preaching another Gospel (forged by himself and his abettours) as offering Remission upon other terms than God hath prescribed; and denying it upon those which Christianity proposeth.

He teacheth that no sin is pardoned without absolution of a Priest.

He requireth satisfaction imposed by a Priest, besides repentance and new obedience, as necessary. Which is also another Gospel.Si quis nega­verit ad inte­gram & per­fectam peccatorum remissionem requiri—contritionem, confessionem & satisfactionem. Sess. 14. Can. 4. If any shall deny that contrition, confession and satisfaction, is required to the entire and perfect remission of sin.

He dispenseth pardon of sin upon condition of performances unne­cessary and insufficient;Et qui Hiero­solymam pro­ficiscuntur, & ad Christia­nam gentem defendendam, & tyranni­dem infideli­um debellandum efficaciter. auxilium praebuerint, quorum peccatorum remissionem concedimus— Conc. Lat. 1. Can. 11. And whoever go to Jerusalem and powerfully afford help to defend Christian people, and to subdue the ty­ranny of Infidels, to them we grant forgiveness of their sins— such as undertaking Pilgrimages to the Shrines of Saints, Visiting Churches, making War upon Infidels or Hereticks, Con­tributing money, Repeating Prayers, undergoing Corporal Penances, &c. Which is likewise to frame and publish another Gospel.

These Doctrines are highly presumptuous, and well may be reputed heretical.

God hath commanded that every soul should be subject to the higher powers temporal, as to God's Ministers; so as to obey their Laws,Rom. 13.1. — Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. [...]— Chrys. Si omnis & vestra— si quis tentat excipere, conatur decipere. Bern. Ep. 42. to sub­mit to their Judgments, to pay Tribute to them— And the Fathers expound this Law to the utmost extent and advantage. If every soul, then yours, if any attempt to except you, he goes about to deceive you.

But the Pope countermandeth,Lex Canonica simpliciter eos eximit. Bell. de Cler. cap. 1. Sanè quia La­ici quidam Ecclesiastica [...] personas & ip­sos etiam E­piscopos suo judicio stare compellunt, eos qui de caetero id praesumpserint, à communione fidelium decernimus se­gregandos. Conc. Lat. III. Can. 14. Con. Lat. II. Can. 15. Steph. VI. Ep. 1. (Tom. 1. p. 130.) Nichol. 1. Ep. 8. (Tom. 6. p. 513.) and exempteth all Clergy-men from those duties, by his Canon Law; excommunicating Lay-Judges, who shall perform their Office in regard to them. Because indeed some Lay-persons constrain Ecclesiasticks, yea and Bishops themselves, to appear before them and to stand to their judgment, those that henceforth shall presume to doe so, we decree that they shall be separate from the communion of the faithfull.

[Page 282]The Scriptures do represent the King (or Temporal Sovereign) as Supreme over his Subjects,Tertull. Opt. Cyrill. &c. alibi. Greg. Ep. 2.62. Agatho, &c. to whom all are obliged to yield special respect and obedience: The Fathers yield him the same place, above all next to God; and subject to God alone: The ancient good Popes did acknowledge themselves Servants, and Subjects to the Emperour.

2 Thess. 2.4.But later Popes, like the man of sin in Saint Paul, have advanced themselves above all Civil power; claiming to themselves a superemi­nency not onely of Rank but of Power over all Christian Princes; even to depose them.Christus beato aeternae vitae Clavigero ter­reni simul & coelestis Impe­rii jura com­misit. P. Nich. II. apud Grat. dist. 22. cap. 1. Greg. VII. Ep. 8.21. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 3. Christ has committed the rights both of terrestrial and celestial government to that blessed man who bears the keys of eternal life.

Seculi potesta­tes si fideles sunt, Deus Ec­clesiae Sacerdo­tibus voluit esse subjectas— Imperatores Christiani subdere debent executiones suas Ecclesiasticis praesulibus, non praeferre. P. Joh. VIII. apud Grat. dist. 96. cap. 11. If the secular power be believers, God would have them subject to the Priests of the Church— Christian Emperours ought to submit, and not prefer the ex­ecution of their Laws to the Rulers of the Church.

God by indispensable Law hath obliged us to retain our obedience to the King even Pagan; charging us under pain of damnation to be sub­ject to him, and not to resist him—

But the Pope is ready upon occasion to discharge Subjects from that obligation, to absolve them from their solemn Oaths of Allegiance, to encourage Insurrection against him;Nos sanctorum Praedecesso­rum nostro­rum Statuta tenentes, eos qui excommu­nicatis Fideli­tate aut Sa­cramento constricti sunt, Apostolicâ auctoritate à Sacramento absolvimus; & nè eis Fidelitatem observent omni­bus modis prohibemus, quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. Greg. VII. in Syn. Rom. Grat. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 4. to prohibit obedience—We observing the Decrees of our holy Predecessours, by our Apostolical Authority absolve those from their Oath who were bound by their Fealty and Oath to excommunicated persons: and we forbid them by all means that they yield them no Allegiance, till they come and make satisfaction.

Thus doth he teach and prescribe Rebellion, Perjury— together with all the Murthers and Rapines consequent on them: which is a far greater Heresie, than if he should teach Adultery, Murther or Theft to be lawfull. For they are enjoined by no authority to perform the Allegiance which they have sworn to a Christian Prince, Fidelitatem enim quam Christiano Principi ju­rârunt, Deo ejúsque Sanctis adversanti, eorum praecepta calcanti, nullà cohibentur auctoritate persolvere— P. Urb. II. apud Grat. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 5. who is an adversary to God and his Saints, and contemns their commands.

Ezek. 13.3, &c.Not onely the Holy Scripture, but Common Sense doth shew it to be an enormous presumption to obtrude for the Inspirations, Oracles and Dictates of God, any writings or Propositions, which are not really such.

S [...]quis autem libros ipsos in­tegros cum suis partibus, prout in Ec­clesia Catholi­ca legi consue­verunt, & in veteri vulgata Latina Editi­one habentur, pro Sacris & Canonicis non susceperit— anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 4. But if any shall not receive for Sacred and Canonical, those whole Books with the parts of them, according as they have been wont to be read in the Catholick Church, and are had in the old vulgar Latin Edition; let him be Anathema.This the Pope doth notoriously, charging us to admit divers wri­tings, (which the greatest part of learned men in all Ages have refused for such) as Sacred and Canonical; anathematizing all those who do not hold each of them for such.—Even as they are extant in a Tran­slation, not very exact, and framed partly out of Hebrew, partly out [Page 283] of Greek, upon divers accounts liable to mistake; as its Authour St. Hierome doth avow.

According to which Decree, all who consent with St. Hierome, St. Austin, St. Athanasius, &c. with common sense, with the Authour of the Second of Maccabees himself, must incur a curse— what can be more uncharitable, more unjust, more silly than such a Definition?

He pretendeth to Infallibility, or encourageth them who attribute it to him; which is a continual Enthusiasm and profane bold Im­posture.

The Scripture doth avow a singular reverence due to it self, as containing the Oracles of God.—

But the Pope doth obtrude the Oral Traditions of his Church (divers of which evidently are new, dubious,—nec non traditiones ipsas—con­tinuâ succes­sione in Eccle­sia Catholica conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit, & veneratur. Syn. Trid. Sess. 4. vain —) to be worshipped with equal reverence as the Holy Scripture. And also receives and venerates with the like pious respect and reverence the Traditions themselves—which have been preserved by continual succession in the Catholick Church.

Among which Traditions they reckon all the tricks and trumpery of their Mass-service; together with all their new notions about Purgatory, Extreme unction, &c. He also used several ceremonies, Caeremonias item adhibuit, ut mysticas be­nedictiones, lumina, thy­miamata, vestes, aliáque id genus multaex Apostolica disciplina & traditione—Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 5.11. de sacrif. Miss. as mystical benediction, lights, incensings, garments, and many other such things, from Apostolical discipline, and tradition.

The Scriptures affirm themselves to be written for common instruc­tion, comfort, edification in all piety; they do therefore recommend themselves to be studyed and searched by all people;2 Tim. 3.15.—Rom. 15.4. 1 Cor. 9.10.10.11. 2 Pet. 1.20. [...]. Joh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. Psal. 119.— Hier. ad Laet. Epitaph. Paul. Vit. Hi­lar.— Chrys. in Colos. Or. 9. Aug. Serm. 55. de temp. as the best and surest means of attaining knowledge and finding truth. The fathers also do much exhort all people, (even women and girles) constantly to reade, and diligently to study the Scriptures.

But the Pope doth keep them from the people,N. P. Pius IV. did authorize certain rules for prohibition and permission of books; in which it is permitted to Bi­shops to grant a faculty of reading the Scriptures translated—but to this rule there is added an observation, that this power was taken from Bishops by command of the Roman Vniversal Inquisition. Ind. Lib. prohib. à Clem. VIII. locked up in Languages not understood by them; prohibiting Translations of them to be made, or used— The Scripture teacheth, and common sense sheweth, and the Fathers do assert (nothing indeed more frequently or more plainly) that all necessary points of faith and good morality are with sufficient evidence couched in Holy Scrip­ture, so that a man of God, or pious men may thence be perfectly furnished to every work;2 Tim. 3.17. But they contrary-wise blaspheme the Scriptures as obscure, dangerous, &c.

[Page 284]Common sense dictateth, that devotions should be performed with understanding and affection; and that consequently they should be in a known tongue: And Saint Paul expresly teacheth, that it is requisite for private and publick edification; from this Doctrine of Paul it appears, 1 Cor. 14.14.—Ex hac Pauli doctri­na habetur, quòd melius est ad Ecclesiae aedificationem orationes publicas, quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici linguâ communi Clericis & populo, quàm dici Latiné. Cajet. in 1 Cor. 14. that it is better for the edification of the Church, that publick prayers, which are said in the audience of the people, should be said in a tongue common to the Clergy and the people, than that they should be said in Latin.

All ancient Churches did accordingly practise; and most others do so, beside those which the Pope doth ride.

But the Pope will not have it so, requiring the publick Liturgy to be celebrated in an unknown tongue; and that most Christians shall say their devotions like Parrots. He anathematizeth those, who think the Mass should be celebrated in a vulgar tongue;—aut linguâ tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere— anathema sit. Sess. 22. Can. 9. that is all those who are in their right wits, and think it fit to follow the practice of the anci­ent Church.

The Holy Scripture teacheth us that there is but one Head of the Church; and the Fathers do avow no other (as we have otherwhere shewed.)

But the Pope assumeth to himself the headship of the Church,A quo tanquam Capite omnis in subjec­ta membra potest [...]s & authoritas derive­tur. P. Pius II. in Bull. Retract. affirming all power and authority to be derived from him into the subject members of the Church.

Definimus Romanum Pontificem — verum Christi Vicarium, totiúsqùe Eccle­siae caput— Defin. Syn. Flor. We decree that the Roman Pontife is the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church.

The Scripture declareth that God did institute marriage for remedy of incontinency and prevention of sin; forbidding the use of it to none,Matt. 19.11. who should think it need­full or convenient for them; [...];— 1 Cor. 9.5. reckoning the prohibition of it among heretical doctrines; [...] 1 Tim. 4.3. imply­ing it to be imposing a snare upon men. [...] 1 Cor. 7.35.

But the Pope and his Complices do prohibit it to whole Orders of men,Vid. Tom. 7. Conc. p. 465. Syn. Trid. Sess. 24. de matr. Can. 9. (Priests, &c.) engaging them into dangerous vows.

Matt. 5.32.19.7. 1 Cor. 7.10.Our Lord forbiddeth any marriage lawfully contracted to be dissolved, otherwise than in case of adultery.

Contracta quoque matrimonia ab hu­jusmodi personis disjungi— Conc. Lat. I. cap. 21. Lat. II. Trid. Sess. 24. Can. 9.—But the Pope commandeth Priests married to be divorced. And that marriages contracted by such persons should be dissolved.

He dissolveth matrimony agreed, by the pro­fession of monkery of one of the espoused.Si quis dixerit matrimonium ratum, non consummatum, per solennem religio­nis professionem alterius conjugum non di­rimi, anathema sit. Sess. 24. Can. 6. If any shall say, that matrimony confirmed, not consummate, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion of either party, let him be Anathema,

[...]. Matt. 26.27. [...]. Joh. 6.53.Our Saviour did institute and enjoin us (under pain of damnation, if we should wilfully transgress his order) to eat of his body, and drink of his bloud, in participation of the Holy Supper.

[Page 285]The Fathers did accordingly practise, with the whole Church, till late times.

But notwithstanding Christ's institution (as they express it) Papal Synods do prohibit all Laymen,Non obstante. Conc. Const. Sess. 13. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 8. & Can. 3. Sess. 21. cap. 4. & Can. 3. and Priests not celebrating to partake of Christ's bloud; so maiming and perverting our Lord's In­stitution: This P. Leo I. condemneth. De Quadr. Serm. 4. (p. 38.) Sanguinem re­demptionis nostrae haurire declinant.— P. Gelasius calleth the division of the Sa­crament a grand Sacrilege. Gratian. in De Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 12. and yet they decline to drink the bloud of our redemption.

In defence of which practice, they confound body and bloud;Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 3. Sess. 13. Can. 3. and under a curse would oblige us to believe▪ that one kind doth contain the other; or that a part doth contain the whole.

Whereas our Lord saith,Joh. 6.54. that whoso eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath eternal life, and consequently supposeth,Si quis dixerit tantum in usu, &c. Trid. Conc. Sess. 13. cap. 8. & Can. 4. — that bad men do not partake of his body and bloud; yet they con­demn this assertion under a curse

The Holy Scripture, and the Fathers after it, [...]. 1 Cor. 11.26. commonly do call the elements of the Eucharist, after consecration, bread and wine;Theod. Gelas.— affirming them to retain their nature.

But the Popish Cabal anathematizeth those who say, that bread and wine do then remain. Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucha­ristiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis & vini— anathema sit. Trid. Conc. de Euch. Sess. 13. Can. 2.

If any shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remain —let him be Anathema.

The nature of the Lord's Supper doth imply communion and company;Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus sacer­dos solus sacramentaliter communicat, il­licitas esse, anathema sit. Sess. 22. de sacr. Miss. Can. 8. Sess. 13. Can. 8. but they forbid any man to say that a Priest may not communicate alone; so establishing the belief of non-sense, and con­tradiction.

The Holy Scripture teacheth us, that our Lord hath departed, and is absent from us in body; untill that he shall come to judge, which is called his presence;2 Cor. 5.6.— Act. 2.33. Col. 3.1. [...]. Heb. 10.12. [...].— Act. 3.21. that heaven, whither he ascended, and where he sit­teth at God's right hand, must hold him till the times of the restitution of all things.

But the Pope with his Lateran and Tridentine Complices draw him down from heaven, and make him corporally present every day, in numberless places here.

The Scripture teacheth us, [...]. Heb. 2.17. that our Lord is a man, perfectly like to us, in all things.

But the Pope and his adherents make him extremely different from us, as having a body at once present in innumerable places; insensi­ble, &c. devested of the properties of our body; thereby destroying his humane nature, and in effect agreeing with Eutyches, Apollinarius, and other such pestilent Hereticks.

The Scripture representeth him born once for us; but they affirm him every day made by a Priest, uttering the words of consecration; as if that which before did exist, could be made; as if a man could make his Maker.

[Page 286]The Scripture teacheth, that our Lord was once offered for expiation of our sins;Heb. 9.26.10.10, 12, 14. [...]. but they pre­tend every day to offer him up as a propitiatory Sacrifice.

These devices without other foundation, than a figurative expressi­on (which they resolve to expound in a proper sense, although even in that very matter divers figurative expressions are used, as they can­not but acknowledge) they with all violence and fierceness obtrude upon the belief as one of the most necessary and fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion.

Eph. 2.8, 9. Tit. 3.5. Rom. 3.24. Luk. 17.10.The Scripture teacheth us humbly to acknowledge the rewards as­signed by God to be gratuitous and free; and that we, after we have done all, must acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants.

But the Papists curse those who, although out of humility and mode­sty, will not acknowledge the good works of justified persons to be truly meritorious;Sess. 6. de Ju­stif. Can. 32. deserving the encrease of grace, eternal life, and aug­mentation of glory: so forcing us to use saucy words and phrases, if not impious in their sense.

The Scripture teacheth one Church diffused over the whole world; whereof each part is bound to maintain charity, peace and communi­on with the rest, upon brotherly terms.

But the Romanists arrogate to themselves the name and privilege of the onely Church;Orbis terra­ [...]um Apostata­vit, & sola re­mansit Donati Communio. Aug. de Vnit. 12.— 1 Joh. 4.1. Jer. 29.8.— condemning all other Churches beside their own, and censuring all for Apostatical who do not adhere to them or submit to their yoke; Just like the Donatists, who said that the world had apo­statized, excepting those who upon their own terms did communicate with them; onely the communion of Donatus remained the true Church.

The Holy Scripture biddeth us take care of persons pretending to extraordinary Inspirations; charging on the Holy Spirit their own conceits and devices.

Such have been their Synods, boldly fathering their Decrees on God's Spirit— And their Pope is infallible, by virtue of inspiration com­municated to him, when he pleaseth to set himself right in his Chair. Whence we may take them for bodies of Enthusiasts and Fanaticks: the difference onely is, that other Enthusiasts pretend singly, they con­junctly and by conspiracy. Others pretend it in their own direction and defence, these impose their dreams on the whole Church.

Luk. 11.13. Jam. 1.5. 1 Joh. 2.27. Heb. 8.11. Rom. 8.9. Act. 5.32. Aug. Doctr. Christ. Ep. ad Jen.If they say that God hath promised his Spirit to his Church; it is true, but he hath no less plainly and frequently promised it to single Christians, who should seek it earnestly of him.

The ancient Fathers could in the Scriptures hardly discern more than two Sacraments or Mysterious Rites of our Religion, by positive Law and Institution of our Saviour to be practised.

But the Popes have devised others, and under uncharitable curses propound them to be profes­sed for such;Si Sacramenta essent pauciora, magna impietas fuisset, & superstitio, &c. Bell. de Sacr. 2.25. If the Sacraments were fewer there would have been great im­piety and superstition, &c. affirming them to confer grace by the bare performance of them.

Every Clergy-man and Monk is bound by Pius IV. to profess there are just seven of them;Profiteor quoque septem esse propriè & verè Sacramenta. Bulla Pii IV. Si quis dixerit— esse plura vel pau­ciora quàm septem— anathema sit. Syn. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1. and the Tridentine Synod anathematizeth all those, who do say there are more or fewer; although the Ancients did never hit on that number.

[Page 287] But these our Sacraments both contain grace, Haec verò nostra & continent gratiam, & ipsam dignè suscipientibus conferunt. P. Eug. in Instr. Arm. Si quis dixerit per ipsa novae legis Sa­cramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam— anathema sit. Ibid. Can. 8. and also confer it upon those who worthily receive them.

They require men to believe under a curse that each of those were instituted of Christ, and con­fer grace by the bare performance.

Particularly, they curse those,Si quis dixerit matrimonium non esse verè ac propriè unum ex septem legis Evangelicae Sacramentis, à Christo Do­mino institutum— neque gratiam con­ferre, anathema sit. Sess. 24. Can. 1. who do not hold matrimony for a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, and conferring grace. What can be more ridiculous than to say, that marriage was instituted by Christ, or that it doth confer grace?

Yet with another anathema they prefer Virginity before it:Sess. 24. Can. 10. and why forsooth is not that another Sacrament? And then they must be comparing the worth of these Sacraments, condemning those hea­vily, who may conceive them equal, as being Divine Institutions.

If any say that these seven Sacraments are so equal one to another, Si quis dixerit haec septem Sacramenta ità esse inter s [...] paria, ut nullâ ration [...] aliud sit alio dignius, anathema si [...]. Sess. 7. Can. 3. that one is in no respect of more worth than another, let him be Anathema.

The first, as it seemeth, who reckoned the Sacraments to be seven, was Peter Lombard;Novae legis septem sunt Sacramenta, &c. P. Eug. in Instr. Arm. Bellarmine could find none before him. Vid. de Sacram. 2.25. whom the Schoolmen did follow; and Pope Eugenius IV. followed them; and afterward the Trent men formed it into an Article back'd with an Anathema.

Upon which rash and peremptory Sentence touching all ancient Divines, we may note;

1. Is it not strange that an Article of Faith should be formed upon an ambiguous word, or a term of art, used with great variety?

2. Is it not strange to define a Point whereof it is most plain that the Fathers were ignorant, were in they never did agree or resolve any thing?

3. Yea whereof they speak variously.

4. Is it not odd and extravagant to damn or curse people for a point of so little consideration or certainty?

5. Is it not intolerable arrogance and presumption to define, nay indeed to make an Article of Faith,Multa di [...]un­tur à veteri­bus Sacramen­ta praeter ista septem. Bell. de Sacr. 2.24. Many things are by the Ancients called Sacraments besides these seven. without any manner of ground or colour of Authority either from Scripture or the Tradition of the ancient Fathers?

The Holy Scripture forbiddeth us to call any man Master upon earth, Matt. 23.8. 2 Cor. 1.24. 1 Thess. 5.21. Col. 2.8. Matt. 15.9. or absolutely to subject our Faith to the dictates of any man; It teach­eth us that the Apostles themselves are not Lords of our faith, so as to oblige us to believe their own inventions; It forbiddeth us to swallow whole the Doctrines and Precepts of men, without examination of them. It forbiddeth us to admit [...]. Heb. 13.9. various and strange doctrines.

But the Pope and Roman Church exact from us a submission to their Dictates, admitting them for true, without any farther enquiry or discussion, barely upon his Authority. They who are provided of any Benefices whatever, having cure of Souls, Provisi de be­neficiis qui­buscunque cu­ram anima­rum habentibus— in Romanae Ecclesiae obedientiam spondeant ac jurent. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. cap. 12. de Ref. —n [...]c non veram obedientiam summo Pontifici spondeant & profiteantur. Sess. 25. cap. 2. de Ref. let them promise and swear obedi­ence to the Roman Church.

[Page 288]They require of us without doubt to believe, to profess, to assert innumerable Propositions, divers of them new and strange no-wise deducible from Scripture or Apostolical Tradition, the very terms of them being certainly unknown to the Primitive Church, devised by humane subtilty, curiosity, contentiousness — divers of them being (in all appearance, to the judgment of common sense) uncertain, ob­scure and intricate; divers of them bold and fierce; divers of them frivolous and vain; divers of them palpably false. Namely all such Propositions, as have been taught by their Great Junto's, allowed by the Pope, especially that of Trent.

Moreover all other things delivered, defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils, Caetera item omnia à Sacris Canonibus & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipuè à Sacrosancta Tridentina Synod [...] tradita, definita, & declarata, indubitanter reci­pio atque profiteor; simúlque contraria omnia, atque haereses quascunque ab Ec­clesia damnatas & rejectas & anathema­tizatas ego pariter damno, respuo & a­nathematizo. P. Pii IV. profess. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nulla salus esse potest. Ibid. and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent, I undoubtedly receive and profess; and also all things contrary thereunto, and all heresies whatsoever con­demned and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I in like manner do condemn, reject and anathematize— This is the true Catholick Faith, out of which there can be no Salvation.

This Usurpation upon the Consciences of Christians (none like whereto was ever known in the world) they prosecute with most un­charitable censures; cursing and damning all who do not in heart and profession submit to him, obliging all their consorts to join therein, against all charity and prudence.

Rom. 14.1.15.1, 7.The Scripture enjoineth us to bear with those who are weak in faith, and err in doubtfull or disputable matters.

But the Popes with cruel uncharitableness, not onely do censure all that cannot assent to their devices, which they obtrude as Articles of Faith; but sorely persecute them with all sorts of punishments; even with death it self; a practice inconsistent with Christian meekness, with equity, with reason; and of which the Fathers have expressed the grea­test detestation.

Totam Theologiam à capite usque ad calcem retexuerunt, & ex divina Sophi­sticam fecerunt. Erasm. praef. ad Hieron. They have unwoven and altered all Theology from head to foot, and of Divine have made it So­phistical.

The Pope with his pack of mercenary Clients at Trent, did indeed establish a Scholastical or Sophistical, rather than a Christian Theology; framing Points, devised by the idle wits of latter times, into Definitions, and peremptory Conclusions, back'd with Curses and Censures: con­cerning which Conclusions it is evident

Formaliter justos. Sess. 6. Can. 10. Ex opere ope­rato. Sess. 7. Can. 8. Character. Sess. 7. Can. 9.That the Apostles themselves would not be able to understand many of them.

That ancient Fathers did never think any thing about them.

That divers of them consist in application of artificial terms and phrases devised by humane subtilty.

That divers of them are in their own nature disputable; were be­fore disputed by wise men, and will ever be disputed by those who freely use their judgment.

That there was no need of defining many of them.

That they blindly lay about them, condemning and cursing they [Page 289] know not who, Fathers, Schoolmen, Divines, &c. who have expres­ly affirmed points so damned by them.

That many Truths are uncharitably back'd with Curses, which disparageth them; (seeing a man may err pardonably — [...]) in many things we offend all.

For instance; what need was there of defining,Sess. 5. Can. 5. Rom. 7. what need of cursing those, who think concupiscence to be truly and properly sin, upon Saint Paul's Authority, calling it so?

That Adam presently upon his transgression did lose the sanctity and justice in which he was constituted. Cùm manda­tum Dei in pa­radiso fuisset transgressus, statim sanctitatem & justitiam in qua constitutus fuerat amisisse. Ibid. Can. 1.

What need of cursing those,Sess. 6. Can. 11.— who say that men are justified by the sole remission of sins, according to Saint Paul's notion, and use of the word Justification?

What need of cursing those,Sess. 6. Can. 11. Aut etiam gratiam qua justificamur esse tantùm favorem Dei. Sess. 6. Can. 12. who say the grace of God by which we are justified, is onely the favour of God, whereas it is plain enough that God's grace there in Saint Paul, doth signifie nothing else, applied to that case.

Or that Faith is nothing else, but a reliance in God's mercy, remitting sins for Christ; seeing it is plain that Saint Paul doth by Faith chiefly mean the belief of that principal point of the Gospel.

Or that good works do not cause an encrease of justification;Sess. 6. Can. 24. Non autem ip­sius augendae causam. — Vt nullus re­maneat reatus poenae tempo­ralis exolven­dae— Sess. 6. Can. 30. Sess. 14. de poenit. Can. 15. seeing Saint Paul doth exclude justification by works; and it is a free work of God— uncapable of degrees.

Or that after remission of sin in justification, a guilt of paying temporal pain doth abide.

Or that a man cannot by his works merit encrease of grace, and glory, Sess. 6. Can. 32. and eternal life; seeing a man is not to be blamed, who doth dislike the use of so sawcy a word; the which divers good men have disclaimed.

What need of cursing those,De Sacramen­tis. Si quis dixe­rit— esse plura vel pauciora quàm septem. Sess. 7. Can. 1. who do not take the Sacraments to be precisely Seven? or who conceive that some one of their seven may not be truly and properly a Sacrament; seeing the word Sacrament is ambigu­ous, and by the Fathers applied to divers other things, and defined gene­rally by St. Austin, Signum rei sacrae; and that before Peter Lombard ever did mention that number.

What need of damning those,Sess. 7. Can. 3. who do conceive the Sacraments equal in dignity?

What need of defining,Sess. 7. Can. 8. Non imprimi characterem in anima. Sess. 7. Can. 9. Hoc est signum quoddam spi­rituale, & in­delebile. Ibid. Sess. 7. Can. 11. that Sacraments do confer grace ex opere ope­rato; which is an obscure Scholastical phrase.

What need of cursing those who say, that a Character is not impressed in the soul of those who take Baptism, Confirmation, or Orders; seeing what this Character is (or this spiritual and indeleble mark) they do not themselves well understand or agree.

What need of cursing those, who do not think that the validity of Sacraments (and consequently the assurance of our being Christians) dependeth on the Intention of the Minister?

What need of cursing those,Sess. 7. Can. 13. who think that a Pastour of the Church [Page 290] may change the Ceremonies of administring the Sacraments; seeing St. Cyprian often teacheth that every Pastour hath full authority in such cases within his own precinct?

Sess. 4.What need of defining the Second Book of Maccabees to be Canonical, against the common opinion of the Fathers (most expresly of St. Austin himself) of the most learned in all Ages, of Pope Gelasius himself (in decret. Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus Vt quisque linguâ nequior. Solvunt ligàntque quaestionum vinculà Per Syllogismos plectiles. — Prudent. in Apotheos.) which the authour him­self (calling his work an Epitome, and asking par­don for his errours) disclaimeth? and which com­mon sense therefore disclaimeth.

Their new Creed of Pius IV. containeth these novelties and hetero­doxies. 1. Seven Sacraments. 2. Trent Doctrine of Justification and Original sin. 3. Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. 4. Transubstantiation. 5. Communicating under one kind. 6. Purgatory. 7. Invocation of Saints. 8. Veneration of Reliques. 9. Worship of Images. 10. The Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. 11. Swearing Obedience to the Pope. 12. Receiving the Decrees of all Synods and of Trent.

A DISCOURSE Concerni …

A DISCOURSE Concerning the UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

By ISAAC BARROW, D. D. late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge.

Aug. de Bapt. 3.

Non habet Charitatem Dei, qui Ecclesiae non diligit Vnitatem.

LONDON, Printed for Brabazon Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons, against the Royal Exchange, in Cornhill, 1683.

A DISCOURSE Concerning the UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

EPHES. 4.4.

One Body, and one Spirit.

THE Vnity of the Church is a Point which may seem somewhat speculative and remote from Practice; but in right Judgments it is otherwise; many Duties depending upon a true notion and consideration of it; so that from ignorance or mistake about it we may incur divers offences or omissions of Duty; hence in Holy Scripture it is often proposed as a considerable Point, and usefull to Practice.

And if ever the Consideration of it were needfull, it is so now, when the Church is so rent with Dissentions; for our satisfaction and direction about the Questions and Cases debated in Christendom; for on the Ex­plication of it, or the true Resolution wherein it doth consist, the Con­troversies about Church-Government, Heresie, Schism, Liberty of Con­science, and by consequence many others do depend; yea indeed all others are by some Parties made to depend thereon.

Saint Paul, exhorting the Ephesians, his disciples, to the maintenance of Charity and Peace among themselves, doth for inducement to that Practice represent the Unity and Community of those things which jointly did appertain to them as Christians: the Unity of that Body whereof they were members; of that Spirit which did animate and act them; of that Hope to which they were called; of that Lord whom they all did worship and serve; of that Faith which they did profess; of that Baptism whereby they were admitted into the same state of Duties, of Rights, of Privileges; of that one God and universal Father, to whom they had all the same relations.

[Page 294]He beginneth with the Vnity of the Body; that is, of the Christian Church; concerning which Unity, what it is, and wherein it doth consist, I mean now to discourse.

In order to clearing which Point, we must first state what the Church is, of which we discourse; for the word Church is ambiguous, having both in Holy Scripture, and common use, divers senses, somewhat different: For,

1 Sometimes any Assembly or Company of Christians, is called a Church; as when mention is made of Rom. 16.5. Col. 4.15. Philem. 2. the Church in such a house, (whence Tertullian Vbi tres, Ecclesia est, li­cèt Laici. Tert. de Exh. Cast. cap. 7. saith, Where there are three, even Laicks, there is a Church.)

2. Sometimes a particular Society of Christians living in spiritual Communion, and under Discipline, as when, Act. 8.1.14.27.5.11. 1 Cor. 1.1. Col. 4.16. 1 Thess. 1.1. 2 Cor. 1.1. Apoc. 2.1, &c. Rom. 16.1. the Church at such a Town; Act. 9.31. Gal. 1.2. 1 Cor. 16.1, 19. 2 Cor. 8.1. the Churches of such a Province; Rom. 16.4. 1 Cor. 4.17.11.16. Act. 16.5. Apoc. 2.7, 11. [...]. Act. 14.23. the Churches, all the Churches, are mentioned: According to which notions St. Cyprian Ecclesia, Plebs Sacerdoti adunata, & Pastori suo Grex adhaerens. Cypr. Ep. 69. saith, that there is a Church, where there is a People united to a Priest, and a Flock adhering to their Shepherd: and so Ignatius [...]. Ignat. ad Trall. saith, that without the Orders of the Clergy a Church is not called.

3. A larger Collection of divers particular Societies combined together in order, under direction and influence of a common Government, or of Persons acting in the Publick behalf, is termed a Church: as the Church of Antioch, of Corinth, of Jerusalem, &c. each of which at first probably might consist of divers Congregations, having depen­dencies of less Towns annexed to them; all being united under the care of the Bishop and Presbytery of those places; but however, soon after the Apostles times, it is certain that such Collections were, and were named Churches.

Matt. 16.18. Eph. 3.10. Gal. 1.13. 1 Tim. 3.15. Act. 12.1.2.47.20.28. 1 Cor. 10.32.12.28.15.9.14.12.4. The Society of those who at present or in course of time profess the Faith and Gospel of Christ, and undertake the Evangelical Covenant, in distinction to all other Religions; particularly to that of the Jews; which is called the Synagogue.

5. The whole body of God's people that is, ever hath been, or ever shall be, from the beginning of the world to the consummation thereof, who having (formally or virtually) believed in Christ and sincerely obeyed God's Laws, shall finally by the meritorious Performances and Sufferings of Christ be saved, is called the Church.

Of these Acceptions the two latter do onely come under present consideration; it being plain that Saint Paul doth not speak of any one particular or present Society; but of all at all times who have relation to the same Lord, Faith, Hope, Sacraments, &c.

Wherefore, to determine the case between these two, we must ob­serve that to the latter of these (that is, to the Catholick Society of true Believers and faithfull Servants of Christ, diffused through all ages, dispersed through all Countries, where part doth sojourn on Earth, part doth reside in Heaven, part is not yet extant; but all whereof is de­scribed in the register of Divine Pre-ordination,Ephes. 1.10. and shall be recollected at the Resurrection of the Just; that I say, to this Church) especially all the glorious Titles and excellent Privileges attributed to the Church in Holy Scripture do agree.

[Page 295]This is the body of Christ, whereof he is the Head; and Saviour.Col. 1.18, 20.

This is the Spouse, and Wife of Christ; where­of he is the Bridegroom and Husband.Ephes. 5.25, 32. Apoc. 19.7. Matt. 22.2.25.1. Matth. 24.13. 1 Tim. 3.15. Heb. 3.5. 1 Pet. 2.5. Eph. 2.21. Matth. 16.18.

This is the House of God; whereof our Lord is the Master: which is built upon a rock, so that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is the City of God; the new, the holy, Apoc. 3.12.21.2, 10. Gal. 4.26. Heb. 12.22. the heavenly Jerusalem, the Mother of us all.

This is the Sion, which the Lord hath chosen, Psal. 132.13. which he hath desired for his habitation, where he hath resolved to place his rest and residence for ever.

This is the mountain of the Lord, seated above all mountains, Is. 2.22. Mic. 4.1. unto which all Nations shall flow.

This is the elect generation, royal Priesthood, holy nation, 1 Pet. 2.9. peculiar peo­ple.

This is the general Assembly, and Church of the first-born, Heb. 12.23. who are en­rolled in heaven.

This is the Church which God hath purchased with his own bloud; Act. 20.28. and for which Christ hath delivered himself, that he might sanctifie it, and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, nor any such thing; but that it might be holy and unblemished. Eph. 5.25.

To this Church as those high Elogies most properly do appertain, so that Unity which is often attributed to the Church doth peculiarly be­long thereto.

This is that One body, into which we are all baptized by one Spirit;1 Cor. 12.13. Rom. 12.5. Eph. 4.16. Col. 2.19. 1 Cor. 12.26. which is knit together, and compacted of parts affording mutual aid, and supply to its nourishment and encrease; the members whereof do hold a mutual sympathy and complacence; which is joined to one Head, deriving sense and motion from it; which is enlivened, and moved by one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12.13.

This is that one spiritual House, Eph. 4.16. Col. 2.19. reared upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord.

This is that One family of God, whereof Christ is the [...] whence good Christians are [...].Heb. 3.6. 1 Tim. 3.15. Matt. 10.25. Heb. 12.22. Apoc. 3.12.21.2, 10. Eph. 2.19. Phil. 3.20.

This is that one City, or Corporation, endued with an ample Charter, and noble Privileges, in regard to which Saint Paul saith we are [...], (fellow Citizens of the Saints) and that our [...] (our civil state and capacity) is in Heaven, or that we are Ci­tizens thereof.

That one Holy nation, and peculiar People, (the spiritual Israel, 1 Pet. 2.9. Ezek. 37.2 [...].) subject to the same Government and Law, (that which is called the Kingdom of Heaven,) enioying the same Franchises and Privileges, following the same Customs and Fashions; using the same Conversation and Language; whereof Jesus Christ is the Lord and King.

This is the Joh. 10.16. Ezek. 37.24.24.23. one Flock, under one Shepherd.

This is the Society of those, for whom Christ did pray, that they might Joh. 17.20, 21. be all one.

[Page 296]It is true, that divers of these Characters are expressed to relate to the Church after Christ; but they may be allowed to extend to all the faithfull Servants of God before,Ex quo vocan­tur Sancti, est Ecclesia in terra. Aug. in Psal. 128. Since men are called Saints, there is a Church upon Earth. Sancti ante Legem, Sancti sub Lege, Sancti sub Gratia, omnes hi perficientes Corpus Domini in membris sunt Ecclesiae constituti. Greg. Mag. Epist. 24. Saints before the Law, Saints under the Law, Saints under the Gospel, all these make up the Body of Christ, and are reckoned among the members of the Church. who in effect were Christians, being saved upon the same account: and therefore did belong to the same Body.

To this Church in a more special and eminent manner all those Titles, and particularly that of Vnity, are ascribed; but the same also in some order and measure do belong and are attributed to the Univer­sal Church sojourning upon Earth.

For because this visible Church doth enfold the other, (as one Mass doth contain the good Ore and base Alloy; as one Floor the Corn and the Chaff;One great house hath vessels of honour and dishonour, 2 Tim. 2.20. (Rom. 9.21.) Matth. 3.12.13.38, 47. as one Field the Wheat and the Tares; as one Net the choice Fish and the refuse; as one Fold the Sheep and the Goats;Joh. 15.2. as one Tree the living and the dry Branches:) Because this Society is designed to be in reality what the other is in appearance, the same with the other: Because therefore presumptively every mem­ber of this doth pass for a member of the other, (the time of distincti­on and separation not being yet come:Matt. 13.30.) Because this in its Profession of Truth, in its Sacrifices of Devotion, in its Practice of Service and Duty to God doth communicate with that: Therefore commonly the Titles and Attributes of the one are imparted to the other.

Rom. 9.6.2.28. All, saith Saint Paul, are not Israel who are of Israel; nor is he a Jew, that is one outwardly; yet in regard to the conjunction of the rest with the faithfull Israelites;Joh. 1.18. Sicut lilium in medio spi­narum, ità proxima mea in medio fili­arum.—Vnde filias appellat, nisi propter communionem Sacramentorum? Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 13. As the Lily among Thorns, so is my Love among the Daughters. —Why doth he call them Daughters, but for the communion and agreement in Sacraments? because of external Consent in the same Profession and conspiring in the same Services, all the Congregation of Israel is styled a holy Nation, and peculiar People.

So likewise do the Apostles speak to all Members of the Church as to elect and holy Persons, unto whom all the Privileges of Christi­anity do belong;Non ad eam pertinent ava­ri, raptores, foeneratores. Videntur esse in Ecclesia, non sunt. Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 4.1.6.3. Ecclesiam veram intelligere non audeo nisi in sanctis & justis. Aug. de Bapt. 5.27. I dare not understand the true Church to be but among holy and righteous men. Pax autem hujus Vnitatis in solis bonis est—Sicut autem isti qui intus cum gemitu tolerantur, quamvis ad eandem Columbae unitatem & illam gloriosam Ecclesiam, non habentem maculam aut rugam, aut aliquid ejus­modi non pertineant. Idem de Bapt. 3.18. Nec regenerati spiritualiter in corpus & membra Christi co-aedifi­centur nisi boni, &c. Aug. de Vnit. 18. Multitales sunt in Sacramentorum communion [...] cum Ecclesia, & ta­men jam non sunt in Ecclesia. Idem de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 20. There are many such who communicate in Sacra­ments with the Church, and yet they are not in the Church. Omnes mali spiritualiter a bon [...] sejuncti sunt. De Bapt. 6.4. All evil men are spiritually severed from the good. although really Hypocrites and bad men do not be­long to the Church, nor are concerned in its Vnity, as St. Austin doth often teach.

[Page 297]The places therefore of Scripture which do re­present the Church one, [...]. Clem. Alex. Str. p. 514. I call the Church the Congregation of the Elect. as unquestionably they be­long (in their principal notion and intent) to the true universal Church, (called the Church mystical and invisible;) so may they by analogy and participation be understood to concern the visible Church Catholick here in Earth; which professeth Faith in Christ, and Obedience to his Laws.

And of this Church (under due reference to the other) the que­stion is, Wherein the Unity of it doth consist, or upon what grounds it is called one? being that it compriseth in it self so many Persons, Socie­ties and Nations.

For resolution of which Question, we may consider, that a Com­munity of men may be termed one upon several Accounts and Grounds; as,

For special Unity of nature, or as Vnum genus; so are all men one by participation of common rationality; [...], Humanum genus.

For Cognation of bloud; as, Gens una; so are all Jews, however li­ving dispersedly over the World, reckoned one Nation, or People; so all Kinsmen do constitute one Family: and thus also all Men, as made of one Bloud, are one People.

For Commerce of language; so Italians, and Germans, are esteemed one People, although living under different Laws and Governments.

For Consent in opinion, or Conformity in manners and practices; as, Men of the same Sect in Religion or Philosophy, of the same Profession, Faculty, Trade: so Jews, Mahometans, Arians; so Oratours, Gramma­rians, Logicians; so Divines, Lawyers, Physicians, Merchants, Artizans, Rusticks, &c.

For Affection of mind, or Compacts of good-will; or for Links of peace and amicable correspondence; in order to mutual interest and aid; as, Friends and Confederates.

For being ranged in order under one Law and Rule; as, those who live under one Monarchy, or in one Commonwealth; as the People in England, Spain, France; in Venice, Genoa, Holland, &c.

Upon such Grounds of Unity or Union a Society of men is denomina­ted One; and, upon divers such accounts, it is plain that the Catholick Church may be said to be One. For,

I. It is evident, that the Church is One by Consent in faith and opi­nion concerning all principal matters of Doctrine,My sheep hear my voice, Joh. 10.27, 16. Tit. 2.12. especially in those which have considerable influence upon the Practice of Piety toward God, Righteousness toward Men, and Sobriety of Conversation; to teach us which the Grace of God did appear.

As he that should in any principal Doctrine differ from Plato (deny­ing the Immortality of the Soul, the Providence of God, Regula fidei sola immobilis & irreforma­bilis— Tert. de Virg. vel. 1. the natural diffe­rence of Good and Evil,) would not be a Platonist; so he that dissenteth from any Doctrine of importance, manifestly taught by Christ, doth re­nounce Christianity.

All Christians are delivered into one form of doc­trine;Rom. 6.17. Col. 2.7. Heb. 3.6.13.9. 1 Cor. 15.58. Eph. 4.14. to which they must stiffly and stedfastly ad­here, keeping the Depositum committed to them: They must strive together for the faith of the Gospel; and,Phil. 1.27. earnestly con­tend [Page 298] for the faith which was once delivered to the Saints: Jud. 3. 2 Tim. 1.13. Heb. 2.3. They must hold fast the form of sound words—in faith and love which is in Christ Je­sus; that great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto them by his hearers, God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.

They are bound to mind, or think, one and the same thing; [...]. Phil. 2.2. 2 Cor. 13.11. Phil. 1.27. Phil. 3.16. to stand fast in one spirit with one mind; to walk by the same rule; to be joined together in the same mind, 1 Cor. 1.10. Rom. 15.6. and in the same judgment; with one mind and mouth to glorify God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They are obliged to disclaim Consortship with the Gain-sayers of this Doctrine; [...]. to stand off from those who do [...], or who do not consent to the wholsome Words — of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 6.4. 2 Thess. 3.16. Rom. 16.17. and to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness; to mark those who make divisions and scan­dals beside the Doctrine which Christians had learnt, Tit. 3.10. and to decline from them: To reject Hereticks: To beware of false Pro­phets,Matt. 7.15.24.11. Act. 20.29, 30. 2 Pet. 2.1. Eph. 4.14.of Seducers; of those who speak perverse things to draw disciples after them: Gal. 1.8. To pronounce Anathema upon whoever shall preach any other Doctrine.

3.28, (26.)Thus are all Christians one in Christ Jesus: thus are they (as Tertul­lian speaketh) confederated in the society of a Sacra­ment, De societate Sacramenti confoederantur. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5. or of one Profession.

[...]. Iren. 1.3. (a­pud Epiph. haer. 31.) This preaching and this faith the Church having re­ceived, though dispersed over the world, doth care­fully hold, as inhabiting one house; and alike be­lieveth these things as if it had one soul, and the same heart, and consonantly doth preach, and teach, and deliver these things, as if it had but one mouth.

Reges— Quorum etsi divisa sunt reg­na, aequaliter tamen de singulis dispensa­tionem exigit, unámque de eis verae de se confessionis hostiam laudis exspectat— ut etsi dispositionum temporalium videa­tur esse diversitas, circa ejus fidei recti­tudinem unitatis co [...]fonantia teneatur. (P. Leo 2. Epist. 5. ad Ervigium R. Hisp.) As for Kings, though their Kingdoms be divided, yet he equally expects from every one of them one dis­pensation, and one and the same sacrifice of a true Con­fession and Praise. So that, though there may seem to be a diversity of temporal ordinances, yet an Vnity and Agreement in the right Faith may be held and maintained among them.

In regard to this Union in Faith peculiarly the body of Christians, ad­hering to it, was called the Catholick Church, from which all those were esteemed ipso facto to be cut off and separated who in any point de­serted that Faith; [...], Tit. 3.10. Rom. 16.17. 2 Joh. 10. such a one (saith Saint Paul) [...], is turned aside, or hath left the Christian way of life. He in reality is no Chri­stian, nor is to be avowed or treated as such, but is to be disclaimed, rejected and shunned.

Nec Christianus videri potest, qui non permanet in Evangelii ejus & fidei veri­tate. Cypr. de Vnit. Eccl. He (saith Saint Cyprian) cannot seem a Christi­an, who doth not persist in the Vnity of Christ's Gospel and Faith.

Si Haeritici sunt, Christiani esse non possunt. Tert. de Praeser. c. 37. If (saith Tertullian) a man be a Heretick, he cannot be a Christian.

[...]. Eus. Hist. 4.22.Whence Hegesippus saith of the old Hereticks, that they did divide the Vnity of the Church by per­nicious speeches against God, and his Christ.

[Page 299] The Vertue (said the Pastour Hermes, cited by Clemens Alexan. [...]. Herm. apud Clem. Strom. 2. p. 281.) which doth keep the Church toge­ther, is Faith.

So the Fathers of the Sixth Council tell the Em­perour that they were members one of another, [...]. Conc. VI. Act. 18. p. 271. and did constitute the one body of Christ by consent in opi­nion with him, and one another; and by faith.

We ought in all things to hold the Vnity of the Ca­tholick Church; Per omnia debemus Ecclesiae Catholicae Vnitatem tenere, nec. in aliquo fidei & veritatis hostibus cedere. Cypr. Ep. 71. (ad Quint. de Steph. P.) and not to yield in any thing to the enemies of faith and truth.

In each part of the world this faith is one, Vtriusque partis terra­rum fides ista una est, quia & fides ista Christiana est. Aug. c. Jul. 1.2. (p. 203.2.) because this is the Christian faith.

He denies Christ, who confesses not all things that are Christ's. Negat Chri­stum, qui non omnia quae Christi sunt confitetur. Ambr. in Luc. lib. 6. cap. 9. p. 90. (Vid. p. 85.)

Hence in common practice, whoever did appear to differ from the common Faith, was rejected as an Apostate from Christianity, and un­worthy the communion of other Christians.

There are Points of less moment,Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissi­mi atque opti­mi regulae Ca­tholicae defensores, salvâ fidei compage non consonant, &c. Aug. c. Jul. 1.2. p. 205. Totum hoc genus liberas habet observationes. Aug. ad Jan. Ep. 118. Ep. 86. (ad Casal.) more obscurely delivered — in which Christians without breach of Unity may dissent, about which they may dispute, in which they may err— without breach of Unity, or prejudice to Charity.

The Faith of Christians did at first consist in few Points, those which were professed in Baptism,Iren. 1.2. whereof we have divers Summaries in the An­cients— by analogy whereto all other Propositions were expounded, and according to agreement whereto sound Doctrines were distinguished from false: so that he was accounted orthodox who did not violate them —

So he that holds that immovable Rule of truth which he received at his Baptism, Sic autem qui regulam veritatis immo­bilem apud se habet quam per Baptismum accepit, haec quidem quae sunt ex Scripturis nomina & dictiones & parabolas cognos­cet, &c. Iren. 1.1. Vid. Gr. (p. 4.) will know the words and sayings and parables which are taken out of the Scriptures, &c.

II. It is evident, that all Christians are united by the bands of mutual Charity and Good-will.

They are all bound to wish one another well, to have a complacence in the good, and a compassion of the evils incident to each other, to dis­charge all offices of kindness, succour, consolation to each other.

This is the command of Christ to all; (This is my commandment, Joh. 15.12. 1 Joh. 3.11. 1 Thess. 4.9. Joh. 13.35. saith he, That ye love one another;) This is the common badge by which his Disciples are discerned and distinguished, Hereby (saith he) shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another: They must have the same love: They must love as brethren, be compassionate,Phil. 2.2. 1 Pet. 3.8.piti­full, courteous each to other: They must bear one anothers burthens; and, especially, as they have opportunity, doe good to the houshold of faith. Gal. 6.2, 10. 1 Cor. 12.2 [...]. If one member suffer, all the members must suffer with it; and if one member be honoured, all the members must rejoice. Act. 4.32. The multitude of them who be­believe [Page 300] must be (like that in the Acts) of one heart, Eph. 5.2. 1 Cor. 16.14. and of one soul. They must walk in love, and doe all things in love.

Whoever therefore doth highly offend against Charity, maligning or mischieving his brethren, doth thereby separate himself from Christ's bo­dy, and cease to be a Christian.

They that are enemies to brotherly charity, whe­ther they are openly out of the Church, Hujus autem fraternae charitatis inimi­ci sive apertè forìs sint, sive intùs esse vi­deantur, Pseudo-christiani sunt & Anti-christi. Aug. de Bapt. 3.19. —Cùm in­tùs videntur, ab illa invisibili charitatis compage separati sunt; Vnde Johannes, (1 John 2.19.) Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis.— Non ait quòd exeundo alieni facti sunt, sed quòd alieni erant, propter hoc eos exisse declaravit. Ibid. or seem to be within, they are Pseudo-christians and Anti-christs— When they seem to be within the Church, they are se­parated from that invisible conjunction of Charity; Whence Saint John, They went out from us, but were not of us. He saith not, that by their going out they were made aliens, but because they were aliens, there­fore he declareth that they went out.

Wherefore the most notorious violations of Charity being the causing of dissentions and factions in the Church, the causeless separation from any Church, the unjust condemnation of Churches— Whoever was guilty of any such unchristian behaviour was rejected by the Fathers, and held to be no Christian. Such were the Novatians, the Donatists, the Meletians, the Luciferians,— and other Schismaticks.

For what can be more acceptable and pleasant than to see those who are severed and scattered into so ma­ny places, [...]. Bas. Ep. 220. yet knit and joined together in the bond and union of charity as harmonious members of the bo­dy of Christ.

[...]. Bas. Ep. 338. In old time — when the Church of God flourished, being rooted in the same faith, united in love: there being as it were one conspiracy or league of different members in one body.

[...]. Bas. Epist. 182. For the communion of the Spirit is wont to knit and unite mens minds, which conjunction we believe to be between us and your charitable affection.

Qui ergò compage Charitatis incorporati sunt aedificio super petram constituto, &c. Aug. de Vnit. cap. 18. They therefore who by the bond of Charity are incorporated into the building setled upon the rock.

Membra verò Christi per unitatis cha­ritatem sibi copulantur, & per eandem ca­piti suo cohaerent, quod est Christus. Aug. de Vnit. cap. 2. Omnes Sancti sibi charitate cohaerent. — Aug. de Bapt. 6.3. But the members of Christ are joined together by the charity of union, and by the same cleave close to their head, which is Christ.

III. All Christians are united by spiritual cognation and alliance; as being all regenerated by the same incorruptible seed, 1 Pet. 1.23. Jam. 1.18. Joh. 1.14. Gal. 3.26. Joh. 1.12. Heb. 2.10, 11. 1 Cor. 7.15.5.11. Rom. 14.10, &c. being alike born, not of bloud, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God; whence, as the sons of God, and brethren of Christ, they become brethren one to another; so that it is a peculiar title or appellation of Christians, the brethren signifying all Christian people; and a brother being the same with a Christian professour.

IV. The whole Christian Church is one by its incorporation into the mystical body of Christ;They are un­der a Cove­nant of Alle­giance. or as Fellow-subjects of that spiritual, heavenly Kingdom, whereof Christ is the sovereign Head and Governour; whence they are governed by the same Laws, are obliged by the same Institutions [Page 301] and Sanctions; they partake of the same Privileges, and are entitled to the same Promises, and encouraged by the same Rewards;Eph. 4.4. (being called in one hope of their calling.)

So they make up one spiritual Corporation, [...]. Rom. 10.12. or Republick, whereof Christ is the Sovereign Lord.

Though the place disjoin them, [...], &c. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Orat. 1. Vid. yet the Lord joins them together, being their common Lord, &c.

Hence an habit of Disobedience doth sever a man from this Body; for, not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, Matt. 7.21. shall enter in­to the Kingdom of Heaven, or continue therein. Every such person who denieth God in works is a Rebel, an Outlaw, renouncing his Allegiance,Tit. 1.16. forfeiting his Title to God's protection and favour.

He is not a sheep of Christ, because he doth not Joh. 10.27. hear his voice. Qui eum non sequitur, quo­modo s [...] ovem ejus dicere audebit? Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 10.

He is separated from the Body, by not holding the Head. Col. 2.19.

'Tis a lie, to call one's self a Christian, Mendacium est, Christianum se dicere, & opera Christi non facere. Ambr. and not to doe the works of Christ.

He that does not the work of a Christian name, Qui Christiani nominis opus non agit, Christianus non esse videtur. Salv. de Gub. D. 4. seems not to be a Christian.

When in stead of the works themselves he begins to oppose even the most apparent truth, —Cùm pro ipsis operibus etiam veri­tati apertissimae, quâ redarguitur, resistere coeperit, tunc praeciditur. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 20. whereby he is reproved, then he is cut off (from the Body, or the Church.)

Hence St. Austin often denieth wicked persons to be in the Church,Vid. suprá. or to appertain unto its Unity.

For when there is one and the same Lord, Nam quum Dominus unus atque id [...]m sit, qui habitat in nobis, conjungit ubique & copulat suos vinculo Vnitatis. Firmil. apud Cypr. Ep. 75. that dwelleth in us, he every where joins and couples those that are his with the bond of Vnity.

V. All Christians are linked together in peaceable concord and con­federacy; so that they are bound to live in good correspondence; to communicate in works of Piety and Devotion; to defend and promote the common interest of their Profession.

Upon the entrance of the Gospel by our Lord's Incarnation, it was by a celestial Herald proclaimed, Peace on earth, Luc. 2.14. and good-will among men. It was our Lord's office Act. 10.36. Eph. 2.17. to preach Peace. It was a principal end and effect of his Death Col. 1.20. Eph. 2.14. Marc. 9.50. Joh. 14.27. to reconcile all men, and to destroy enmity. He specially charged his Disciples, [...], to maintain Peace one with another. It was his Will at parting with them, Peace I leave with you.

The Apostles frequently do enjoin to pursue Peace with all them who call upon the Lord with a pure heart;2 Tim. 2.22. Rom. 14.19. Eph. 4.3. to follow the things which make for Peace and edification mutual; to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace.

It was in the Prophecies concerning the Evangelical state decla­red, that under it, The Wolfe should dwell with the Lamb, Isai. 11.6. Isai. 65.25.2.4.66.12. Isai. 2.4. They shall learn war no more. and the Leopard should lie down with the Kid, and the sucking Child should play on the hole of the Aspe; that is, that men of all tempers, and condi­tions, by virtue of this Institution, should be disposed to live innocent­ly, quietly and lovingly together; so that they should not hurt or de­stroy in all God's holy mountain; for that would be a Duty incumbent on [Page 302] the Disciples of this Institution, which all good Christians would ob­serve.

The Evangelical Covenant, as it doth ally us to God, so it doth con­federate us together: The Sacraments of this Covenant are also sym­bols of Peace and Amity between those who undertake it. Of Baptism it is said, that so many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;Gal. 3.27, 28. 1 Cor. 12.13. and thence, Ye are all one in Christ Jesus — All in one Spirit have been baptized into one Body. And in the Eucharist, by partaking of one individual Food, they are transmuted into one Body and Substance; We (saith Saint Paul) being many are one bread, 1 Cor. 10.7. one body; for all of us do partake of one bread.

By which Sacraments also our people appears to be united: Quo & ipso Sacramento populus noster adunatus ostenditur: ut quemadmodum grana multa in unum collecta, & com­molita, & commixta, panem unum faci­unt; sic in Christo, qui est panis coelestis, unum sciamus esse corpus, cui conjunctus sit noster numerus & adunatus. Cyp. Ep. 63. for as many grains collected, and ground, and mingled together make one bread; so in Christ, who is the bread of heaven, we may know our selves to be one body, that our company or number be conjoined and united together.

Nobis & Ecclesiae una, & mens juncta, & individua concordia. Cypr. Ep. 57. With us there is both one Church, and one mind, and undivided concord.

Catholicae Ecclesiae pacem concordiae uni­tate teneamus. Ep. 45. Let us hold the peace of the Catholick Church in the unity of concord.

Manente concordiae vinculo, & perseve­rante Catholicae Ecclesiae individuo Sacra­mento, &c. Ep. 52. (ad Anton. p. 96.) The bond of concord remaining, and the individual Sacrament of the Catholick Church continuing, &c.

He therefore that keeps neither the unity of the Spirit, Qui ergo nec unitatem Spiritûs, nec conjunctionem Pacis observat, & se ab Ec­clesiae vinculo, atque à Sacerdotum collegio separat, Episcopi nec potestatem potest ha­bere, nec honorem, &c. Ibid. p. 97. nor the conjunction of Peace, and separates himself from the bond of the Church, and the college (or society) of Priests, can have neither the power of a Bishop, nor the honour.

Thus in general. But particularly, All Christians should assist one another in the common Defence of Truth, Piety and Peace, when they are assaulted, in the Propagation of the Faith, and Enlargment of the Church,Phil. 1.17. 1 Tim. 1.18.6.12. 2 Tim. 4.7. Jud. 3. which is [...], to contend together for the faith of the Gospel; to be good souldiers of Christ; warring the good warfare; — striving for the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

Hence if any where any Heresie or bad doctrine should arise, all Chri­stians should be ready to declare against it; that it may not infect, or spread a doubt arising, as in the case of celebra­ting Easter; [...]. Euseb. 5.23. They all, with one consent, declared by letters the Decree of the Church to all every where.

Cypr. Ep. 67.Especially the Pastours of the Churches are obli­ged with consent to oppose it.

Laborantes hîc nos & contra invidiae impetum totis fidei viribus resistentes, multùm Sermo vester adjuvit, &c. Cypr. Ep. 23. While we laboured here and withstood the force of envy with the whole strength of our faith, your Speech assisted us very much.

Thus did the Bishops of several Churches meet to suppress the Here­sie of P. Samosatenus.

This was the ground of most Synods.

[...]. Syn. Chalced. ad Im­per. Conc. Chal. pars 3. p. 468. So they who afterward in all places and several ways were gathered together against the innovations of Hereticks gave their common opinion in behalf of the faith, as being of one mind: what they had ap­proved among themselves in a brotherly way, that [Page 303] they clearly transferred to those who were absent: and they who at the Council of Sardis had earnestly contended against the remainders of Arius sent their judgment to those of the Eastern Churches: and they who had discovered the infection of Apolinarius, made their opinions known to the Western.

If any Dissention or Faction doth arise in any Church, other Chur­ches, upon notice thereof, should yield their aid to quench and suppress it; countenancing the peaceable, checking and disavowing the factious.

Thus did St. Cyprian help to discountenance and quash the Novatian Schism.Vid. Ep. 42. (ad Cornel.) p. 77.

Thus when the Oriental Churches did labour under the Arian Facti­on, and Dissentions between the Catholicks, St. Basil (with other Ortho­dox Bishops consorting with him) did write to the Western Bishops (of Italy and France) to yield their succour.

For this, my brother, we must earnestly endeavour, and ought to endeavour, to have a care, Hoc enim vel maximè, frater, labo­ramus, & laborare debemus, ut Vni­tatem à Domino, & per Apostolos nobis successoribus traditam, quantum possumus, obtinere curemus; & quod in nobis est, &c. Cypr. Ep. 42. p. 78. as much as in us lies, to hold the Vnity delivered to us from the Lord, and by the Apostles, whose successours we are; and what lies in us, &c.

All Christians should be ready, when opportunity doth invite, to ad­mit one another to conjunction in offices of Piety and Charity; in Prayer, in communion of the Eucharist, in brotherly conversation,Ep. 398. and pious conference for edification or advice.

So that he who flies and avoids communion with us, [...]. Bas. Ep. 75. you in your prudence may know, that such a man breaks himself off from the whole Church.

Saint Chrysostome doth complain of Epiphanius;

Then when he came to the great and holy City Constantinople, [...], &c. Chrys. ad Innoc. P. (Ep. 122.) he came not out into the Congrega­tion according to custome and the ancient manner, he joined not himself with us, nor communicated with us in the Word, and Prayer, and the Holy Com­munion, &c.

So Polycarp, being at Rome, did communicate with P. Anicetus. [...]. Euseb. 5.24.

If Dissention arise between divers Churches;Cod. Afr. Can. 101. another may interpose to reconcile them; as did the Church of Carthage, between that of Rome and Alexandria.

If any Bishop were exceedingly negligent in the discharge of his Of­fice, (to the common damage of Truth and Piety,Cod. Afr. Can. 123.) his neighbour Bi­shops might admonish him thereto; and, if he should not reform, might deprive him of Communion.

All Christians should hold friendly correspondence, as occasion doth serve, and as it is usefull, to signifie consent in Faith, to recommend Persons, to foster Charity, to convey Succour and Advice, to perform all good offices of Amity and Peace.

Siricius who is our companion, and fellow-labourer, with whom the whole world by mutual commerce of canonical or communicatory Letters agree together with us in one common Society. Damaso Siricius bodie, qui noster est socius, cum quo nobis totus orbis commer­cio formatarum in una communionis socie­tate concordant. Opt. lib. 2. p. 40.

[Page 304] The Catholick Church being one body, 'tis consequent thereto, that we write and signifie one to another, [...], &c. Alex. Alexandriae. Socr. 1.6. Theod. &c.

In cases of doubt or difficulty one Church should have recourse to others for Advice; and any Church should yield it.

Both common charity and reason requires, most dear brethren, Et dilectio communis & ratio exposcit, fratres charissimi, nihil conscientiae vestrae subtrahere ae his quae apud nos geruntur, ut sit nobis circa utilitatem Ecclesiasticae administrationis commune consilium. Cyp. Ep. 29. (ad Cler. Rom.) that we conceal nothing from your knowledge of those things which are done among us, that so there may be common advice taken by us concerning the most usefull way of ordering Ecclesiastical affairs.

One Church should acquaint others of any ex­traordinary transaction concerning the common Faith or Discipline;The practice of this we see frequent­ly in Saint Cyprian's Epistles; particu­larly in Epist. 4, 15, 23, 29, 30, 42, 48. (P. Corn.) requesting their approbation and countenance.

Thus did the Eastern Churches give account to all other Churches of their proceedings against P. Samosatenus. Euseb. 7.30. Quae literae per totum mun­dum missae sunt, & in notitiam Ecclesiis omnibus & universis fratribus perlata sunt. Cypr. Ep. 52. (ad Anton. p. 92.) Scripsimus ad Cornelium collegam nostrum, &c. Ibid.

Which letters are sent all the world over, and brought to the notice of all the Churches and of all the Brethren.

When any Church or any Pastour was oppressed or injured, he might have recourse to other Churches for their assistence in order to relief.

Habeat pote­statem is qui abjectus est, ut Episcopos finitimos interpellet, & causa ejus audiatur ac diligenter tractetur, &c. Con. Sard. Can. 17. Vid. Cod. Afr. Can. 125. Let him who is cast out have power to apply himself to the neighbouring Bishops, that his cause may be carefully heard and discussed.

Thus did Athanasius (being overborn and expelled from his See by the Arian faction) goe for refuge to the Church of Rome.

St. Chrysostome had recourse to the Bishop of Rome, and to those of the West, as also to the Bishop of Antioch.

VI. Now, because in the transacting of these things, the Pastours have the chief hand, and act in behalf of the Churches which they in­spect, therefore is the Church united also by their consent in Doctrine, their agreement in Peace, their maintaining entercourse, their concur­rence to preserve Truth and Charity.

Omnes nos decet pro corpore totius Eccle­siae, cujus per varias quasque Provincias membra digesta sunt excubare. Cypr. Ep. 30. (Cler. Rom. ad Cypr. P. Quod servis Dei, & maximè Sacerdotibus. Cypr. Ep. 42. (ad Cornel.) Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum, &c. Cypr. Ep. 67. (p. 161.) We ought all to be vigilant and carefull for the bo­dy of the whole Church, where members are dispersed through many several Provinces.

Quando Ecclesia, quae Catholica una est, scissa non sit, neque divisa, sed sit utique connexa, & cohaerentium sibi invicem Sa­cerdotum glutino copulata. Cypr. Ep. 69. Seeing the Church, which is one and Catholick, is not rent nor divided, but truly knit and united toge­ther, by the bond of Priests united one to another.

This agrees with the modesty and discipline and the very life of all, Hoc verecundiae & disciplinae & vitae ipsi omnium convenit—ut Episcopi plures in unum convenientes — disponere omnia consilii communis religione possimus. Cypr. Ep. 14. (Clero suo.) that many of the Bishops meeting to­gether might order all things in a religious way by common advice.

[Page 305] That, Vt cum pace à Domino nobis data plu­res Praepositi convenire in unum coeperi­mus, communicato etiam vobiscum consilio disponere singula & reformare possimus. Cypr. Ep. 15. (Clero Rom.) since it having pleased God to grant us peace, we begin to have greater meetings of Bishops, we may also by your advice order and reform every thing.

Which that, with the rest of our Collegues, Quod ut simul cum caeteris Collegis no­stris stabiliter ac firmiter administremus, atque ut catholicae Ecclesiae pacem concor­diae unanimitate teneamus, perficiet divi­na dignatio. Cypr. Ep. 52. (ad Cornel.) we may stedfastly and firmly administer; and that we may keep the peace of the Church, in the unanimity of concord, the divine favour will vouchsafe to accomplish.

A great number of Bishops—we met together. Copiosus Episcoporum numerus—in unum convenimus. Cypr. Ep. 45. (ad Anton.)

Bishops being chosen did acquaint other Bishops with it;Satìs erat, ut tu te Episcopum factum Literis nunciares. Cyprian. ad Cornel. (Epist. 42.) It was sufficient (saith St. Cyprian to Cor­nelius) that you should by your Letters acquaint us that you were made a Bishop.

Declare plainly to us who is substituted at Arles in the room of Marcian, Significa planè nobis quis in locum Marciani Arelate fuerit substitutus, ut sciamus ad quem fratres nostros dirigere, & cui scribere debeamus. Cypr. Ep. 67. ad Steph. P. that we may know to whom we should direct our brethren, and to whom we should write.

All Churches were to ratifie the Elections of Bi­shops duly made by others,Cypr. Ep. 41, 42, 52. (pag. 93.) Theod. 5.9. Euseb. de P. Samos. and to communicate with those. And likewise to comply with all rea­sonable Acts for Communion.

To preserve this Peace and Correspondence, it was a Law and Custome, that no Church should admit to Communion those which were excom­municated by another; or who did schismatically divide.

We are believed to have done the same thing, whereby we are found to be all of us associated and joined together by the same agreement in censure and discipline. Idem enim omnes credimur operati, in quo deprehendimur eadem omnes censurae, & disciplinae consensione sociati. Cler. Rom. ad Cypr. Epist. 31.

The Decrees of Bishops were sent to be subscribed.Vid. Conc. Sard. P. Leonis II. Ep. 2. (ad Hisp. Episc.) N. B. p. 385. (Tom. 5.) P. Bened. II. Ep. 16.

VII. All Christian Churches are one by a specifical Unity of Disci­pline, resembling one another in Ecclesiastical administrations, which are regulated by the indispensible Sanctions and Institutions of their So­vereign.

They are all bound to use the same Sacraments, according to the forms appointed by our Lord, not admitting any substantial alteration.

They must uphold that sort of Order, Government and Ministery in all its substantial parts, which God did appoint in the Church,1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Rom. 12.7. Act. 20.28. or give thereto, as Saint Paul expresseth it; it being a temerarious and dangerous thing to innovate in those matters which our Lord had a spe­cial care to order and settle.

Nor can they continue in the Church that have not retained Divine and Ecclesiastical Discipline, neither in good conversation, nor peaceable life. Nec remanere in Ecclesia possunt qui Deificam & Ecclesiasticam Disciplinam nec actûs sui conversatione, nec morum pace tenuerunt. P. Cornel. apud Cyprian. Ep. 48. Vid. Ep. 73. (ad Jub.)

In lesser matters of Ceremony or Discipline (instituted by humane prudence) Churches may differ, and it is expedient they should do so,Ep. Firmil. (pag. 198.) Aug. Ep. 118. & 86. suprá. in regard to the various circumstances of things, and qualities of persons to which Discipline should be accommodated; but no Power ought to abrogate, destroy, or infringe, or violate the main form of Discipline, constituted by Divine appointment.

[Page 306]Hence, when some Confessours had abetted Novatianus, against Cor­nelius, thereby (against a fundamental Rule of the Church, necessary for preserving of Peace and Order therein, that but one Bishop should be in one Church,) St. Gravat enim me, atque contristat, &c. Ep. 44. (ad Confess. Rom.) Cyprian doth thus com­plain of their proceeding—

Contra Sacramentum semel traditum Divinae dispositionis & Catholicae unitatis adulterum & contrarium caput extra Ec­clesiam facit. Cyprian. Epist. 42. (ad Cornel.)(To act any thing) against the Sacrament of Di­vine ordination and Catholick unity, once delivered, makes an adulterate and contrary head out of the Church.

—Relictis Domini Sacerdotibus contra Evangelicam disciplinam nova Traditio sacrilegae Institutionis exsurgat.— Cypr. Ep. 40. (Plebi suae.)— Forsaking the Lord's Priests contrary to the Evangelical discipline, a new Tradition of a sacrile­gious Institution starts up.

There is one God and one Christ, and one Church and one See founded upon Peter by the word of the Lord; Deus unus est, & Christus unus, & Ec­clesia una, & Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce sundata; aliud Altare con­stitui, aut Sacerdotium novum fieri prae­ter unum Altare, & unum Sacerdotium non potest. Ibid. besides one Altar and one Priesthood an­other Altar cannot be erected nor a new Priesthood or­dained.

Hence were the Meletians rejected by the Church, for introducing Ordinations—

Hence was Aerius accounted a Heretick, for meaning to innovate in so grand a point of Discipline, as the Subordination of Bishops and Pres­byters.

VIII. It is expedient that all Churches should conform to each other in great matters of prudential Discipline, although not instituted or pre­scribed by God: for this is a means of preserving Peace, and is a Beau­ty or Harmony. For difference of Practice doth alienate Affections, especially in common People.

So the Synod of Nice.

[...]. Can. 20. [...]. Const. M. in Epist. ad Eccles. Euseb. vita Constantini, 3.18. That all things may be alike ordered in every Diocese, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod, that men should put up their Prayers to God standing, (viz. between Easter and Whitsontide, and upon the Lord's-day.)

The Church is like the World; for as the World doth consist of men, all naturally subject to one King, Almighty God; all obliged to observe his Laws, declared by natural Light; all made of one bloud, and so Bre­thren; all endowed with common Reason; all bound to exercise good Offices of Justice and Humanity toward each other, to maintain Peace and Amity together; to further each other in the prosecution or attain­ment of those good things which conduce to the Welfare and Security of this present Life: even so doth the Church consist of persons spiritu­ally allied, professing the same Faith, subject to the same Law and Go­vernment of Christ's heavenly Kingdom; bound to exercise Charity, and to maintain Peace toward each other, and to promote each others good in order to the future Happiness in Heaven.

All those kinds of Unity do plainly agree to the universal Church of Christ; but the Question is, Whether the Church is also necessarily by the design and appointment of God to be in way of external policy un­der one singular Government or Jurisdiction of any kind; so as a King­dom [Page 307] or Commonwealth are united under the Command of one Monarch or one Senate?

That the Church is capable of such an Union, is not the Controversie; that it is possible it should be so united, (supposing it may happen that all Christians may be reduced to one Nation, or one civil Regiment; or that several Nations spontaneously may confederate and combine themselves into one Ecclesiastical Commonwealth, administred by the same Spiritual Rulers and Judges according to the same Laws,) I do not question; that when in a manner all Christendom did consist of Subjects to the Roman Empire, the Church then did arrive near such an Unity, I do not at present contest; but that such an Union of all Christians is necessary, or that it was ever instituted by Christ, I can­not grant; and for my refusal of that opinion, I shall assign divers Reasons.

1. This being a Point of great consideration, and trenching upon Practice, which every one were concerned to know; and there being frequent occasions to declare it; yet the Holy Scripture doth no where express or intimate such a kind Unity; which is a sufficient Proof, that it hath no firm ground. We may say of it as Saint Austin saith of the Church it self,Nolo humanis documentis, sed Divini [...] Oraculis Sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. Aug. de Vnit. c. 3. I will not that the Holy Church be demonstrated from humane reasonings, but the Divine Oracles.

Saint Paul particularly, in divers Epistles,Eph. 4. 1 Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Gal. 3.28. designedly treating about the Unity of the Church, (together with other Points of Doctrine neighbouring thereon,) and amply describing it, doth not yet imply any such Unity then extant, or designed to be.

He doth mention and urge the Unity of Spirit, of Faith, of Charity, of Peace, of Relation to our Lord, of Communion in Devotions and Offices of Piety; but concerning any Union under one singular visible Government or Polity he is silent: He saith, One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; one God and Father of all: not one Monarch, or one Senate, or one Sanhedrin — which is a pregnant sign, that none such was then instituted; otherwise he could not have slipped over a Point so very material and pertinent to his Discourse.

2. By the Apostolical History it may appear, that the Apostles, in the Propagation of Christianity, and founding of Christian Societies, had no meaning, did take no care, to establish any such Polity.

They did resort to several places (whither Divine instinct, or rea­sonable occasion, did carry them) where, by their Preaching, having convinced and converted a competent number of per­sons to the embracing Christian Doctrine, [...]. Act. 11.26. they did appoint Pastours to instruct and edifie them, [...]. Act. 14.23. to ad­minister God's Worship and Service among them, to contain them in good order and peace, exhorting them to maintain good correspondence of Charity and Peace with all good Christians otherwhere; this is all we can see done by them.

3. The Fathers, in their set Treatises and in their incidental Discour­ses about the Unity of the Church, (which was de facto, which should be de jure in the Church,) do make it to consist onely in those Uni­ons of Faith, Charity, Peace, which we have described, not in this politi­cal Union.

[Page 308]The Roman Church gave this reason why they could not admit Mar­cion into their Communion, they would not doe it without his Father's consent, between whom and them there was one faith and one agreement of mind. — [...]. Epiph. haer. 42.

Tertullian, in his Apologetick describing the Unity of the Church in his time, saith, We are one body by our Agreement in religion, Corpus sumus de Conscientia religionis & disciplinae Vnitate, & spei Foedere. Apol. 39. our Vnity of discipline, and our being in the same Covenant of hope.

And more exactly or largely in his Prescriptions against Hereticks, the breakers of Unity. Therefore such and so many Churches are but the same with the first Apostolical one, Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes; sic om­nes primae, & omnes Apostolicae; dum u­nam omnes probant Vnitatem; Commu­nicatio pa [...]is, & appellatio fraternitatis & contesseratio hospitalitatis; quae jura non alia ratio regit, quàm ejusdem Sa­cramenti una traditio. Tertul. Praescript. cap. 20. from which all are derived: thus they become all first, all Apostolical; whilst they maintain the same Vnity; whilst there are a Communion of peace, names of brotherhood and contributions of hospitality among them; the rights of which are kept up by no o­ther means, but the one tradition of the same Mystery.

Vna nobis & illis Fides, unus Deus, idem Christus, eadem Spes, eadem lava­cri Sacramenta; semel dixerim, una Ec­clesia sumus. Tert. de Virg. vel. 2. They and we have one Faith, one God, the same Christ, the same Hope, the same Baptism; in a word, we are but one Church.

And Constantine the Great in his Epistle to the Churches:

[...]. Const. M. in Ep. ad Eccles. Euseb. vit. Const. 3.18.(Our Saviour) would have his Catholick Church to be one: the members of which, though they be di­vided into many and different places, are yet che­risht by one Spirit, that is, by the will of God.

And Gregory the Great. —

Caput nostrum, quod Christus est, ad hoc sua esse membra nos voluit, ut per compagem Charitatis & Fidei unum nos in se corpus essiceret. Greg. M. Ep. 7.111. Our Head, which is Christ, would therefore have us be his members, that by the joints of Charity and Faith he might make us one body in himself.

Clem. Alex. defineth the Church;

[...]. Strom. 6. init. [...]. Str. 7. (p. 516.) [...], (principium,) [...]. Strom. 7. (p. 549.) A people gathered together out of Jews and Gen­tiles into one Faith, by the giving of the Testaments fitted into Vnity of Faith.

This one Church therefore partakes of the nature of Vnity, which Heresies violently endeavour to di­vide into many; and therefore we affirm the ancient and Catholick Church, whether we respect its consti­tution or our conception of it, its beginning or its ex­cellency, to be but one; which into the belief of that one Creed which is agreeable to its own peculiar Testa­ments, or rather to that one and the same Testa­ment, in times however different, by the will of one and the same God through one and the same Lord doth unite and combine together all those who are be­fore ordained, whom God hath predestinated, as knowing that they would be just persons, before the foundation of the world.

Many Passages in the Fathers, applicable to this Point, we have al­ledged in the foregoing Discourses.

[Page 309]4. The constitution of such an Unity doth involve the vesting some Person or some number of Persons with a Sovereign Authority (subor­dinate to our Lord) to be managed in a certain manner, either absolute­ly according to pleasure, or limitedly according to certain Rules prescri­bed to it.

But that there was ever any such Authority constituted, or any Rules prescribed to it by our Lord or his Apostles doth not appear, and there are divers reasonable presumptions against it.

It is reasonable that whoever claimeth such Authority, should for as­suring his Title shew Patents of his Commission, manifestly expressing it; how otherwise can he justly demand Obedience, or any with satis­faction yield thereto?

It was just that the Institution of so great Authority should be fortified with an undoubted charter, that its Right might be apparent, and the Duty of Subjection might be certain.

If any such Authority had been granted by God, in all likelihood it would have been clearly mentioned in Scripture; it being a matter of high importance among the establishments of Christianity, conducing to great effects, and grounding much duty. Especially considering that

There is in Scripture frequent occasion of mentioning it; in way of History, touching the use of it (the acts of Sovereign Power affording chief matter to the History of any Society) in way of Direction to those Governours how to manage it; in way of Exhortation to Inferiours how to behave themselves in regard to it; in way of commending the Ad­vantages which attend it; it is therefore strange that its mention is so balkt.

The Apostles do often speak concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs of all na­tures, concerning the Decent administration of things, concerning pre­servation of Order and Peace, concerning the furtherance of Edification, concerning the Prevention and Removal of Heresies, Schisms, Factions, Disorders; upon any of which occasions it is marvellous that they should not touch that Constitution, which was the proper means appointed for maintenance of Truth, Order, Peace, Decency, Edification, and all such Purposes, for remedy of all contrary Mischiefs.

There are mentioned divers Schisms and Dissensions, the which the Apostles did strive by instruction and persuasion to remove; in which Cases, supposing such an Authority in being, it is a wonder that they do not mind the Parties dissenting of having recourse thereto for decision of their Causes, that they do not exhort them to a Submission thereto, that they do not reprove them for declining such a Remedy.

It is also strange, that no mention is made of any Appeal made by any of the dissenting Parties to the Judgment of such Authority.

Indeed, if such an Authority had then been avowed by the Christian Churches, it is hardly conceivable that any Schisms could subsist, there being so powerfull a Remedy against them; then notably visible and most effectual, because of its fresh Institution, before it was darkned or weakned by Age.

Whereas the Apostolical Writings do inculcate our Subjection to one Lord in Heaven, it is much they should never consider his Vicegerent, or Vicegerents, upon Earth; notifying and pressing the Duties of Obe­dience and Reverence toward them.

[Page 310]There are indeed Exhortations to honour the Elders, and to obey the Guides of particular Churches; but the Honour and Obedience due to those Paramount Authorities, or Universal Governours, is passed over in dead silence, as if no such thing had been thought of.

They do expresly avow the Secular Pre-eminence, and press Submis­sion to the Emperour as Supreme; why do they not likewise mention this no less considerable Ecclesiastical Supremacy, or enjoin Obedience thereto? why Honour the King, and be subject to Principalities so often,Rom. 13.1. — Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13, 17. 1 Tim. 1.2. but Honour the Spiritual Prince or Senate doth never occur?

If there had been any such Authority, there would probably have been some intimation concerning the Persons in whom it was setled, con­cerning the Place of their residence, concerning the Manner of its being conveyed, (by Election, Succession, or otherwise.)

Probably the Persons would have some proper Name, Title or Cha­racter to distinguish them from inferiour Governours; that to the Place some mark of Pre-eminence would have been affixed.

It is not unlikely, that somewhere some Rules or Directions would have been prescribed for the management of so high a Trust, for preven­ting Miscarriages and Abuses to which it is notoriously liable.

It would have been declared Absolute, or the Limits of it would have been determined, to prevent its enslaving God's heritage.

But of these things in the Apostolical Writings, or in any near those times, there doth not appear any footstep or pregnant intimation.

There hath never to this day been any place but one (namely Rome) which hath pretended to be the Seat of such an Authority; the Plea whereof we largely have examined.

At present we shall onely observe, that before the Roman Church was founded, there were Churches otherwhere; there was a great Church at Jerusalem (which indeed was the Mother of all Churches, Act. 2.41, 47.4.4.6.1.8.1. [...]. Act. 6.7. [...]. Conc. Const. in Synod. Ep. Theod. 5.9. and was by the Fa­thers so styled, however Rome now doth arrogate to her self that Title.) There were issuing from that Mother a fair Offspring of Churches (those of Judaea, of Galilaea, of Samaria, of Syria and Cilicia, of divers other places) before there was any Church at Rome, Act. 9.31.15.41.11.19.8.1. 1 Cor. 16.1, 19. Rom. 16.4. Vales. in Euseb. 2.16. Gal. 1.18, 19.2.1, 9, 11. or that Saint Peter did come thither; which was at least divers years after our Lord's Ascension. Saint Paul was converted —after five years he went to Hierusalem, then Saint Peter was there; after fourteen years thence he went to Hie­rusalem again, and then Saint Peter was there; after that, he met with Saint Peter at Antioch. Where then was this Authority seated? How then did the political Unity of the Church subsist? Was the Seat of the Sovereign Authority first resident at Jerusalem, when Saint Peter prea­ched there? Did it walk thence to Antiochia, fixing it self there for seven years? Was it thence translated to Rome, and setled there ever since? Did this roving and inconstancy become it?

5. The primitive State of the Church did not well comport with such an Unity.

For Christian Churches were founded in distant places, as the Apostles did find opportunity, or received direction to found them; which there­fore could not, without extreme inconvenience, have resort or reference to one Authority, any where fixed.

[Page 311]Each Church therefore separately did order its own Affairs, without recourse to others, except for charitable Advice or Relief in cases of ex­traordinary difficulty or urgent need.

Each Church was endowed with a perfect Liberty and a full Authori­ty, without dependence or subordination to others, to govern its own Members, to manage its own Affairs, to decide Controversies and Cau­ses incident among themselves, without allowing Appeals, or rendring Accounts to others.

This appeareth by the Apostolical Writings of Saint Paul and Saint John to single Churches;Apoc. 2. & 3. 1 Cor. 14.40. 1 Thess. 5.14. 1 Cor. 5.12.6.1. wherein they are supposed able to exercise spi­ritual Power for establishing Decency, removing Disorders, correcting Offences, deciding Causes, &c.

6. This [...], and Liberty of Churches, doth appear to have long continued in practice inviolate; although tempered and modelled in accommodation to the circumstances of place and time.

It is true, that if any Church did notoriously forsake the Truth, or commit Disorder in any kind, other Churches did sometime take upon them (as the Case did move) to warn, advise, reprove it, and to de­clare against its proceedings, as prejudicial not onely to the welfare of that Church, but to the common interests of Truth and Peace; but this was not in way of commanding Authority, but of fraternal Solicitude; or of that Liberty which Equity and Prudence do allow to Equals in re­gard to common good:Iren. 3. c. 2. So did the Roman Church interpose in reclaiming the Church of Corinth from its Disorders and Seditions: So did Saint Cy­prian and Saint Denys of Alex. meddle in the Affairs of the Roman Church, exhorting Novatian and his Adherents to return to the Peace of their Church.

It is also true, that the Bishops of several adjacent Churchs did use to meet upon Emergencies (concerning the maintenance of Truth, Order and Peace; concerning Settlement and Approbation of Pastours, &c.) to consult and conclude upon Expedients for attaining such Ends; this probably they did at first in a free way, without rule, according to oc­casion, as Prudence suggested; but afterwards, by confederation and consent, those Conventions were formed into method, and regulated by certain Orders established by consent, whence did arise an Ecclesiastical Unity of Government, within certain Precincts; much like that of the United States in the Netherlands; the which course was very prudential, and usefull for preserving the Truth of Religion and Unity of Faith a­gainst heretical Devices springing up in that free age; for maintaining Concord and good Correspondence among Christians, together with an Harmony in Manners and Discipline; for that otherwise Christendom would have been shattered and crumbled into numberless Parties, discor­dant in Opinion and Practice; and consequently alienated in Affection, which inevitably among most men doth follow Difference of Opinion and Manners, so that in short time it would not have appeared what Christianity was, and consequently the Religion, being overgrown with Differences and Discords, must have perished.

Thus in the case, about admitting the Lapsi to Communion, Saint Cy­prian relates, when the persecution [of Decius] cea­sed, Persecutione sopitâ, cùm data esset fa­cultas in unum conveniendi, copiosus Epis­coporum numerus, quos integros & incolu­mes fide sua ac Domini tutela protexit, in unum convenimus, & scripturis diu ex utraque parte prolatis, temperamen­tum salubri moderatione libravimus, &c. Cypr. Ep. 52. (ad Antonian.) so that leave was now given us to meet in one place together, a considerable number of Bishops whom their own faith and God's protection had preserved [Page 312] sound and entire [from the late Apostasie and Perse­cution] being assembled, we deliberated of the com­position of the matter with wholsome moderation, &c.

Quod quidem & Agrippinus bonae me­moriae vir cum caeteris Co-episcopis suis qui illo tempore in Provincia Africa & Nu­midia Ecclesiam Domini gubernabant, statuit & librato consilii communis exa­mine firmavit. Cypr. Epist. 71. (ad Quint.) Which thing also Agrippinus of blessed memory with his other Fellow-bishops who then governed the Church of Christ in the African Province and in Numidia did establish; and by the well-weighed examination of the common advice of them all together confirmed it.

Thus it was the custome in the Churches of Asia, as Firmilian telleth us in those words:

Vpon which occasion it necessarily happens, that eve­ry year we the Elders and Rulers do come together to regulate those things which are committed to our care; Qua ex causa necessario apud nos fit, ut per singulos annos Seniores & Praepositi in unum conveniamus, ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt; ut si qua gra­viora sunt communi consilio dirigantur— Cypr. Ep. 75. that if there should be any things of greater moment, by common advice they be determined—

Yet while things went thus, in order to common Truth and Peace; every Church in more private matters, touching its own particular state, did retain its Liberty and Authority,Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus, proferamus, neminem ju­dicantes aut à jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes,— &c. Vid. Conc. Carthag. apud Cypr. p. 399. Vid. Syn. Ant. Can. 9. without being subject or accounta­ble to any but the common Lord; in such cases even Synods of Bishops did not think it proper or just for them to interpose, to the prejudice of that Liberty and Power which derived from a higher Source.

These things are very apparent, as by the course of Ecclesiastical Hi­story, so particularly in that most pretious Monument of Antiquity, St. Cyprian's Epistles; by which it is most evident, that in those times every Bishop or Pastour was conceived to have a double relation or ca­pacity, one toward his own Flock, another toward the whole Flock:

One toward his own Flock; by virtue of which, Vide Epist. 28.39.14.18. he taking advice of his Presbyters, together with the conscience of his People assisting, Sub Populi assistentis conscientia. Cypr. Epist. 78. did order all things tending to particular Edification, Order, Peace, Reformation, Censure, &c. without fear of being troubled by Appeals,—Actum su­um disponit, & dirigit u­nusquisque Episcopus, rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus. Cypr. Epist. 52. Every Bishop ordereth and di­recteth his own acts, being to render an account of his purpose to the Lord. Cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis ac aequum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum; & singulis Pastoribus portio Gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque Praepositus rationem actûs sui Do­mino redditurus. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad— Since it is ordained by us all, and it is likewise just and equal that every man's cause should be there judged where the crime is committed, and to each Pastour a portion of the Flock is assigned, which he is to rule and govern, being to give an account of his act to the Lord. Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, nec legem damus, cùm habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae li­berum arbitrium unusquisque Praepositus, rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. Cypr. Ep. 72. ad Steph. P. Vide Ep. 73. p. 186. Ep. 76. p. 212. In which matter neither do we offer violence to any man, or prescribe any Law, since every Bishop hath in the government of his Church the free power of his will, being to render an account of his own act, unto the Lord. or being liable to give any account but to his own Lord, whose Vicegerent he was.

Another toward the whole Church, in behalf of his People; upon account whereof he did (according to occasion or order) apply himself to confer with other Bishops for preservation of the common Truth and Peace, when they could not otherwise be well upheld, than by the joint conspiring of the Pastours of divers Churches.

[Page 313]So that the Case of Bishops was like to that of Princes; each of whom hath a free Superintendence in his own Territory, but for to uphold Ju­stice and Peace in the World, or between adjacent Nations the enter­course of several Princes is needfull.

The Peace of the Church was preserved by communion of all Parts together, not by the subjection of the rest to one Part.

7. This political Unity doth not well accord with the nature and ge­nius of the Evangelical dispensation.

Our Saviour affirmed, that his Kingdom is not of this World; and Saint Paul telleth us,Joh. 18.36. Rom. 14.17. that it consisteth in a Spiritual influence upon the Souls of men; producing in them Vertue, Spiritual Joy and Peace.

It disavoweth and discountenanceth the elements of the world, Gal. 4.3, 9. Col. 2.20. by which worldly designs are carried on, and worldly frames sustained.

It requireth not to be managed by politick artifices or fleshly wisedom, 1 Pet. 2.1. but by Simplicity, Sincerity, Plain-dealing: as every Subject of it must lay aside all guile and dissimulation, so especially the Officers of it must doe so, in conformity to the Apostles, who had their conversation in the world (and prosecuted their design) in simplicity and godly sincerity, 2 Cor. 1.12. 2 Cor. 4.2.2.17 ( [...]) 1 Thess. 2.3, 5. not with fleshly wisedom, but by the grace of God; not walking in craftiness, or handling the word of God deceitfully; &c.

It needeth not to be supported or enlarged by wealth and pomp, or by compulsive force and violence; for God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; 1 Cor. 1.27. Jam. 2.5. and the weak things of the world to con­found the mighty, and base, despicable things, &c. that no flesh should glo­ [...]y in his presence.

And, The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, 2 Cor. 10.4. but mighty through God, &c.

It discountenanceth the imposition of new Laws and Precepts, beside those which God hath injoined,Matt. 15.9. Colos. 2.8, 20, 21. Gal. 4.10. or which are necessary for order and edi­fication; derogating from the Liberty of Christians and from the Sim­plicity of our Religion.

The Government of the Christian State is represented purely spiri­tual; administred by meek persuasion, not by imperious awe; as an humble ministery, not as stately domination; for the Apostles themselves did not Lord it over mens faith, but did co-operate to their joy: 2 Cor. 1.24. they did not preach themselves, but Christ Jesus to be the Lord; 2 Cor. 4.5. and themselves their servants for Jesus.

It is expresly forbidden to them, to domineer over God's people. 1 Pet. 5.3. Matt. 20.25, 26. 2 Cor. 6.4. 1 Tim. 3.3. Tit. 2.2. 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. Chrys. Isid. 2 Tim. 4.2. Episcopus praest volentibus non nolentibus. Hier. Ep. 3. (ad Nepot.)

They are to be qualified with Gentleness and Patience; they are for­bidden to strive, and enjoined to be gentle toward all, apt to teach, pa­tient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.

They are to convince, to rebuke, to exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.

They are furnished with no Arms beside the divine Panoply; [...]. Eph. 6.13.6.17. 2 Tim. 2.4. [...]— Chrys. de [...]acerd. 2. [...]. Ibid. they bear no sword, but that of the Spirit; which is the word of God. —they may teach, reprove, —they cannot compell—

They are not to be entangled in the cares of this life.

[Page 314]But supposing the Church was designed to be one in this manner of po­litical regiment, it must be quite another thing; nearly resembling a worldly state, yea in effect soon resolving it self into such an one; sup­posing, [...]. Arist. Pol. IV. 15. as is now pretended, that its management is committed to an Ecclesiastical Monarch, it must become a worldly Kingdom; for such a Polity could not be upheld without applying the same means and en­gines, without practising the same methods and arts, whereby secular Governments are maintained.

Its Majesty must be supported by conspicuous Pomp and Phantastry.

Its Dignity and Power must be supported by Wealth; which it must corrade and accumulate by large Incomes, by exaction of Tributes and Taxes.

It must exert Authority in enacting of Laws for keeping its State in order, and securing its Interests, backed with Rewards and Pains; espe­cially considering, its Title being so dark and grounded on no clear war­rant, many always will contest it.

It must apply Constraint and Force, for procuring Obedience, and correcting Transgression.

It must have Guards to preserve its Safety and Authority.

It must be engaged in Wars, to defend its self and make good its Interests.

It must use Subtilty and Artifice, for promoting its Interests, and countermine the Policies of Adversaries.

It must erect Judicatories, and must decide Causes with Formality of legal process;Is modus qui frequentatur execrabilis planè, & qui non dico Ec­clesiam, sed nec forum deceret, &c. Bern. de Consid. I. 10. Attendens itaque S. Synodus, quòd spiritualia sine carnalibus sustineri nequeant. Syn. Bass. Sess. 42. p. 108. whence tedious Suits, crafty Pleadings, Quirks of Law and Pettifoggeries, Fees and Charges, Extortion and Barretry, &c. will necessarily creep in.

Omnis pul­chritudo filiae Regis intrin­secús. Aug. Ep. 68.All which things do much disagree from the original constitution and design of the Christian Church, which is averse from pomp, doth reject domination, doth not require craft, wealth or force to maintain it; but did at first, and may subsist without any such means.

I do not say, that an Ecclesiastical Society may not lawfully, for its support, use Power, Policy, wealth, in some measure to uphold or de­fend it self; but that a Constitution needing such things is not Divine; or that so far as it doth use them, it is no more than Humane.

Thus in effect we see that it hath succeeded, from the Pretence of this Unity; the which hath indeed transformed the Church into a mere worldly State; wherein the Monarch beareth the garb of an Emperour, in external splendour surpassing all worldly Princes; crowned with a triple Crown.One Crown doth serve an Emperour, but he must have a triple: to kiss the hands of a King is a sufficient respect, but you cannot salute him without kissing his blessed feet.

He assumeth the most haughty Titles of, Our most holy Lord, the Vi­car general of Christ, &c. and he suffereth men to call him the Mo­narch of Kings, &c.

He hath Respects paid him, like to which no Po­tentate doth assume,That which Seneca did take for a piece of enormous Pride in Caligul [...]. De Benef. 2.12. (having his Feet kissed, riding upon the backs of men, letting Princes hold his Stirrup and lead his Horse.)

[Page 315]He hath a Court, and is attended with a train of Courtiers surpassing in State and claiming Precedence to the Peers of any Kingdom.Cardin. vid. Uss. p. 103.

He is encompassed with armed Guards.Switzers.

He hath a vast Revenue, supplied by Tributes and Imposts, sore and grievous; the exaction of which hath made divers Nations of Christen­dom to groan most lamentably.

He hath raised numberless Wars and Commotions for the promotion and advancement of his Interests.

He administreth things with all depth of Policy, to advance his Designs.

He hath enacted Volumes of Laws and Decrees to which Obedience is exacted with rigour and for­cible constraint.Sub mortali. He imposes rigorous Oaths of Feal­ty and Obedience.

He draweth grist from all Parts to his Courts of Judgment, wherein all the formalities of suspence, all the tricks of squeezing money, &c. are practised, to the great trouble and charge of Parties concerned.

Briefly, it is plain, that he doth exercise the proudest, mightiest, subtlest Domination that ever was over Christians.Exaltatio, & inflatio, & arrogans ac superba jactatio, non de Christi magisterio, qui humilitatem docet, sed de Antichristi spiritu nascitur. Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad P. Cornel.)

8. The Union of the whole Church in one Body, under one Govern­ment or Sovereign Authority, would be inconvenient and hurtfull; pre­judicial to the main designs of Christianity; destructive to the Welfare and Peace of Mankind in many respects.

This we have shewed particularly concerning the Pretence of the Pa­pacy; and those Discourses being applicable to any like Universal Au­thority, (perhaps with more advantage, Monarchy being less subject to abuse than other ways of Government) I shall forbear to say more.

9. Such an Union is of no need, would be of small use, or would doe little good; in balance to the great Mischiefs and Inconveniences which it would produce.

This Point also we have declared, in regard to the Papacy; and we might say the same concerning any other like Authority substituted thereto.

10. Such a Connexion of Churches is not any-wise needfull or expe­dient to the Design of Christianity; which is to reduce Mankind to the Knowledge, Love and Reverence of God;Tit. 2.12. to a just and loving Conver­sation together; to the practice of Sobriety, Temperance, Purity, Meekness, and all other Vertues; all which things may be compassed without forming men into such a Policy.

It is expedient there should be particular Societies in which men may concur in worshipping God, and promoting that Design by instructing and provoking one another to good practice, in a regular, decent and orderly way.

It is convenient that the Subjects of each temporal Sovereignty should live as in a civil, so in a spiritual Uniformity, in order to the preservation of Goodwill and Peace among them (for that Neighbours differing in opinion and fashions of practice will be apt to contend each for his way, and thence to disaffect one another) for the beauty and pleasant harmo­ny of Agreement in Divine things, for the more commodious succour and defence of Truth and Piety by unanimous concurrence.

[Page 316]But that all the World should be so joined is needless; and will be apt to produce more mischief than benefit.

11. The Church in the Scripture sense hath ever continued One; and will ever continue so; notwithstanding that it hath not had this po­litical Unity.

12. It is in fact apparent, that Churches have not been thus united, which yet have continued Catholick and Christian.

It were great, no less folly than uncharitableness to say, that the Greek Church hath been none.

There is no Church that hath in effect less reason than that of Rome to prescribe to others.

13. The Reasons alledged in proof of such an Unity are insufficient and inconcluding; the which (with great diligence, although not with like perspicuity) advanced by a late Divine of great repute, and collec­ted out of his Writings with some care, are those which briefly proposed do follow; together with Answers declaring their invalidity.

Epil. p. 38. Lat. p. 114. Arg. I. The name Church is attributed to the whole body of Christi­ans; which implieth Unity.

Answ. This indeed doth imply an Unity of the Church, but determi­neth not the kind or ground thereof: there being several kinds of Uni­ty; one of those which we have touched, or several, or all of them may suffice to ground that comprehensive Appellation.

Epil. Lat. 144. Arg. II. Our Creeds do import the belief of such an Unity; for in the Apostolical we profess to believe the Holy Catholick Church; in the Constantinopolitan, the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church.

Answ. 1. The most ancient Summaries of Christian Faith, extant in the first Fathers,Iren. Tert. Cypr. Conc. Nic. (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, &c.) do not contain this Point.

The word Catholick was not originally in the Apostolical (or Roman) Creed, but was added after Ruffin and Saint Austin's time.

This Article was inserted into the Creeds upon the rise of Heresies and Schisms to discountenance and disengage from them.

Answ. 2. We do avow a Catholick Church in many respects One; wherefore not the Unity of the Church, but the Kind and Manner of Unity being in question, the Creed doth not oppose what we say, nor can with reason be alledged for the special kind of Unity which is pre­tended.

Answ. 3. That the Unity mentioned in the Constantinopolitan Creed is such as our Adversaries contend for, of external Policy, is precariously assumed, and relieth onely upon their interpretation obtruded on us.

Answ. 4. The genuine meaning of that Article may reasonably be deemed this; That we profess our adhering to the Body of Christians, which diffused over the World doth retain the Faith taught, the Disci­pline setled, the Practices appointed by our Lord and his Apostles; that we maintain general Charity toward all good Christians, that we are ready to entertain communion in Holy Offices with all such; that we are willing to observe the Laws and Orders established by Authority or Consent of the Churches, for maintenance of Truth, Order and Peace: that we renounce all heretical doctrines, all disorderly practices, all con­spiracy with any factious combinations of people. [...].

[Page 317] Answ. 5. That this is the meaning of the Article, may sufficiently ap­pear from the reason and occasion of introducing it; which was to secure the Truth of Christian Doctrine, the Authority of Ecclesiastical Disci­pline, and the common Peace of the Church; according to the Discour­ses and Arguments of the Fathers, (Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Austin, Vincentius Lirinensis,) the which do plainly countenance our Inter­pretation.

Answ. 6. It is not reasonable to interpret the Article so as will not con­sist with the State of the Church in the Apostolical and 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,Ep. p. 40. Lat. p. 144,— 151. 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,Epil. p. 37, 49. Lat. p. 153. p. 118. Leges ferre. Lat. p. 171. 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;Lat. p. 54. 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;Ep. p. 42, 49. Lat. p. 151, 219. 1 Cor. 11.16. 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.

[Page 318] 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, [...]. Conc. Nic. Can. 20. Vide de Paschate. 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.Vide Aug. E­pist. 86. (ad Casul.) Ep. 118. ad Jan. Cypr. Ep. 75. p. 198. Iren. apud Euseb. 5.24. Socr. 5.22.7.19. — Caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, hâc lege manente, &c. Tert. de Virg. vel. Thorn. Lat. p. 219. P. Greg. I. in una fide nihil officit sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa. P. Greg. I. Epist. 1.41. P. Leo IX. Epist. 1. cap. 29. Nil obsunt saluti credentium diversae pro loco & tempore consuetudines, quando una fides per dilectionem operans bona quae potest uni Deo commendat omnes. P. Nic. I. Ep. 6. De consuetudinibus quidem, quem nobis opponere visi estis, scribentes per diversas Ecclesias diversas esse consuetudines, si illis canonica non resistit auctoritas, pro qua eis obviare debeamus, nil judicamus vel eis resistimus, &c.

Cypr. Ep. 73. 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.

Ep. p. 39. Lat. p. 159. 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.

Eus Hist. 1.4. Baron. App. 2. 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.

Ep. p. 51—55. Lat. p. 157. Arg. VII. All Ecclesiastical Power was derived from the same Foun­tains, by succession from the Apostles; therefore the Church was one political Body.

Iren. 3.3. Tert. Praescr. 31, 32. Answ. 1. Thence we may rather infer, that Churches are not so uni­ted, because the Founders of them were several Persons endowed with co­ordinate and equal Power.

[Page 319] 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,Ep. p. 59— p. 125. Lat. p. 185. p. 195. 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?

Note:

Excommunication of other Churches is onely a Declaration against their Deviation from Christian Truth, or Piety, or Charity.

Communio suspensae restituitur demonstranti causas, quibus id acciderat, jam esse detersas, & pr [...]tenti conditiones pa­cis impleta [...]. P. Inn. I. Ep. 16. (de Attico Constant. Ep.)

Arg. IX. All Churches did maintain entercourse and commerce with each other by formed, communicatory, pacificatory, commenda­tory, synodical Epistles.

Note:

Ep. p. 69. Lat. p. 222.

Literae formatae. Optat. 2. Con. Milev. Can. 20. communicatoriae. Aug. Ep. 162, 163. [...]. Euseb. 7.30. Cypr. Ep. 55, 67. [...]. Apost. Can. 12. [...]. Conc. Chald. Can. 11. [...]. Soz. 7.11. Conc. VI. Act. 11. (p. 158, 198, 223.) Greg. M. (Ep.—) P. Zach. Baron. A. 743. §. 29.

Significa planè nobis quis in locum Marciani Arelate fuerit substitutus, ut sciamus ad quem fratres nostros dirige­re, & cui scribere debeamus.—Cypr. Ep. 42.67. ad P. Steph. (p. 161.) Ep. 55. (N. B. p. 113.)

[...], &c. Alex­andri Epist. Socr. I. 6.

The Catholick Church being one body, there being moreover a Command in the Holy Scripture, to preserve the bond of Peace and Concord; hence it follows, that what things (happen to, or) are done by any of us, we ought to Write, and signifie to each other.

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 offices of humanity toward their subjects travelling or trading any where in the World; common Reason doth require such things; But may common Unity of Polity from hence be inferr'd?

[Page 320] Ep. pag. 64. Lat. pag. 221. Arg. X. The effectu [...] Preservation of Unity in the primitive Church is alledged as a strong Argument of its being united in one Go­vernment.

Answ. 1. That Unity of Faith and Charity and Discipline, which we admit, was indeed preserved, not by influence of any one Sovereign Authority (whereof there is no mention,) but by the concurrent vigi­lance of Bishops, declaring and disputing against any Novelty in Doc­trine or Practice which did start up; by their adherence to the Doc­trine asserted in Scripture and confirmed by Tradition; by their aiding and abetting one another as Confederates against Errours and Disorders creeping in.

Answ. 2. The many Differences which arose concerning the Observa­tion of Easter, the Re-baptization of Hereticks, the Reconciliation of Revolters and scandalous Criminals; concerning the decision of Causes and Controversies, &c. do more clearly shew that there was no stan­ding common Jurisdiction in the Church; for had there been such an one, recourse would have been had thereto; and such Differences by its Authority would easily have been quashed.

Ep. pag. 119. Lat. pag. 209. Arg. XI. Another Argument is grounded on the Relief which one Church did yield to another, which supposeth all Churches under one Government, imposing such Tribute.

Answ. 1. This is a strange Fetch: as if all who were under obligati­on to relieve one another in need, were to be under one Government. Then all Mankind must be so.

2 Cor. 8.3. [...]. Vers. 8. [...]. 2 Cor. 9.7. [...]. Rom. 15.26. [...]. Act. 11.29.24.17. [...]. Answ. 2. It appeareth by St. Paul that these Succours were of free Charity, Favour and Liberality; and not by Constraint.

Ep. pag. 51. Lat. pag. 400. Arg. XII. The use of Councils is also alledged as an Argument of this Unity.

Aug. Answ. 1. General Councils (in case Truth is disowned, that Peace is disturbed, that Discipline is loosed or perverted,) are wholsome Expe­dients to clear Truth and heal Breaches; but the holding them is no more an Argument of political Unity in the Church, than the Treaty of Munster was a sign of all Europe being under one civil Government.

Answ. 2. They are extraordinary, arbitrary, prudential means of re­storing Truth, Peace, Order, Discipline; but from them nothing can be gathered concerning the continual ordinary State of the Church.

Answ. 3. For during a long time the Church wanted them; and after­wards had them but rarely; For the first three hun­dred years (saith Bell.) there was no general assem­bly; Primis trecentis annis nulla fuit con­gregatio generalis; postea verò vix cente­simo anno. De Rom. P. 1.8. afterwards scarce one in a hundred years.

And since the breach between the Oriental and Western Churches, for many Centenaries, there hath been none.

Yet was the Church from the beginning One, till Constantine, and long afterwards.

Answ. 4. The first General Councils (indeed all that have been with any probable shew capable of that denomination) were congregated by Emperours, to cure the Dissentions of Bishops; what therefore can be argued from them, but that the Emperours did find it good to settle Peace and Truth; and took this for a good mean thereto?

[Page 321] Alb. Pighius said that General Councils were an invention of Constan­tine; and who can confute him?Bell. de Conc. 1.13.

Answ. 5. They do shew rather the Unity of the Empire than of the Church; or of the Church as National under one Empire, than as Ca­tholick; for it was the State which did call and moderate them to its Purposes.

Answ. 6. It is manifest that the congregation of them dependeth on the permission and pleasure of secular Powers; and in all equity should do so, (as otherwhere is shewed.)

Note: The validity of Synodical Decrees (as Spiritual) doth proceed from the Obligation to each singular Bishop; as if Princes in confederacy do make any Sanction, the Subjects of each are bound to observe them, not from any [...]lation to the body confederating, but because of their Obligation to their own Prince consenting.

Answ. 7. It is not expedient that there should be any of them now that Christendom slandeth divided under divers temporal Sovereignties; for their Resolutions may intrench on the Interests of some Princes; and hardly can they be accommodated to the Civil Laws and Customs of every State.

Whence we see that France will not admit the Decrees of their Tri­dentine Synod.

Answ. 8. There was no such inconvenience in them while Christen­dom was in a manner confined within one Empire; for then nothing could be decreed or executed without the Emperour's leave or to his prejudice.

Answ. 9. Yea (as things now stand) it is impossible there should be a free Council;Hist. Trid. p. 67. A free Coun. P. Leo I. Ep. most of the Bishops being sworn Vassals and Clients to the Pope; and by their own Interests concerned to maintain his exorbi­tant Grandeur and Domination.

Answ. 10. In the opinion of St. Athanasius there was no reasonable cause of Synods, except in case of new Heresies springing up, [...]; &c. Athan. de Syn. p. 873. which may be confuted by the joint consent of Bishops.

Answ. 11. As for particular Synods, they do onely signifie, that it was usefull for neighbour Bishops to conspire in promoting Truth, Or­der and Peace, as we have otherwhere shewed.Subrependi e­nim occasio­nes non praetermittit ambitio, & quoties ob incurrentes causas generalis congregatio facta fuerit Sacerdotum, dissicile est ut cupiditas improborum non aliquid supra mensuram suam non moliatur appetere. Leo M. Ep. 62. (ad Maximum Ant. Ep. —)

Councils have often been convened for bad Designs, and been made Engines to oppress Truth and enslave Christendom.

That of Antioch against Athanasius: of Ariminum for Arianism. The second Ephesine to restore Eutyches, and reject Flavianus. The second of Nice, to impose the Worship of Babies. The Synod of Ariminum, to countenance Arians. So the fourth Synod of Laterane (sub Inn. III.) to settle the prodigious Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the wicked Doctrine of Papal Authority over Princes. The first Synod of Lions, to practise that hellish Doctrine of Deposing Kings. The Synod of Con­stance, to establish the maime of the Eucharist; against the Calistines of Bohemia. The Laterane (under Leo X.) was called (as the Arch-bi­shop of Patras affirmed) for the Exaltation of the Apostolical See. The Synod of Trent, Pro Apostolicae Sedis exal [...]atione. Lat. Syn. Sess. 10. p. 129. to settle a raff of Errours and Superstitions.

[Page 322] Obj. II. It may farther be objected, that this Doctrine doth favour the Conceits of the Independents, concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline.

I answer, No. For,

1. We do assert, that every Church is bound to observe the Instituti­ons of Christ, and that sort of Government which the Apostles did or­dain, consisting of Bishops, Priests and People.

2. We avow it expedient (in conformity to the primitive Churches, and in order to the maintenance of Truth, Order, Peace,) for several particular Churches or Parishes to be combined in political Corporati­ons; as shall be found convenient by those who have just Authority to frame such Corporations: for that otherwise Christianity, being shatte­red into numberless shreds, could hardly subsist; and that great Confu­sions must arise.

3. We affirm, that such Bodies having been established and being main­tained by just Authority, every man is bound to endeavour the uphol­ding of them by Obedience, by peaceable and compliant Demeanour.

Jud. 19. [...].4. We acknowledge it a great Crime, by factious behaviour in them, or by needless separation from them, to disturb them, to divide them, to dissolve or subvert them.

Note:

We allow the Apost. Can. 31. [...], &c.

If any person, despising his own Bishop, shall set up a separate meeting, and build another Altar, having nothing to condemn in his Bishop, either for his piety or uprightness, let him be deposed as one that ambitiously affects to be a Governour, &c.

5. We conceive it fit that every People under one Prince (or at least of one Nation, using the same Language, Civil Law and Fashions,) should be united in the bands of Ecclesiastical Poli­ty: [...]. Syn. Rom. apud Theod. 2.22. for that such a Unity apparently is conducible to the peace and welfare both of Church and State; to the furtherance of God's worship and Service; to the edification of People in Charity and Piety; by the encouragement of secular Powers, by the concurrent advice and aid of Ecclesiastical Pastours; by many advantages hence arising.

6. We suppose all Churches obliged to observe friendly communion; and, when occasion doth invite, to aid each other by assistence and ad­vice, in Synods of Bishops, or otherwise.

7. We do affirm, that all Churches are obliged to comply with law­full Decrees and Orders, appointed in Synods with consent of their Bi­shops, and allowed by the Civil Authorities, under which they live: As if the Bishops of Spain and France assembling should agree upon Constitutions of Discipline which the Kings of both those Countries should approve; and which should not thwart God's Laws; both those Churches, and every man in them, were bound to comply in observance of them.

From the Premisses divers Corollaries may be deduced.

1. Hence it appeareth, that all those clamours of the pretended Ca­tholicks against other Churches, for not submitting to the Roman Chair, are groundless; they depending on the supposition, that all Churches must necessarily be united under one Government.

[Page 323]2. The Injustice of the Adherents to that See; in claiming an Em­pire (or Jurisdiction) over all, which never was designed by our Lord; heavily censuring and fiercely persecuting those who will not acknow­ledge it.

3. All Churches, which have a fair settlement in several Countries, are co-ordinate; neither can one challenge a Jurisdiction over the other.

4. The nature of Schism is hence declared; viz. that it consisteth in disturbing the Order and Peace of any single Church; in withdrawing from it Obedience and Compliance with it; in obstructing good Corre­spondence, Charity, Peace, between several Churches; in condemning or censuring other Churches without just cause, or beyond due measure.

In refusing to maintain Communion with other Churches, without reasonable cause;Excidisti e­nim teipsum; noli te falle­re; siquidem ille est verè Schis [...]a [...]iem, qui se à communione Ecclesiasticae Vnitatis Apostatam fecerit. Firmil. apud Cypr. Ep. 75. whence Firmilian did challenge P. Stephanus with Schism.

5. Hence the right way of reconciling Dissentions among Christians is not affecting to set up a political Union of several Churches, or sub­ordination of all to one Power; not for one Church to enterprize up­on the Liberty of others, or to bring others under it, (as is the prac­tice of the Roman Church and its Abettors,) but for each Church to let the others alone, quietly enjoying its freedom in Ecclesiastical Admi­nistrations; onely declaring against apparently hurtfull Errours and Fac­tions; shewing Good-will, yielding Succour, Advice, Comfort, upon needfull occasion; according to that excellent Advice of the Constanti­nopolitane Fathers to the Pope and Western Bishops — (after having ac­quainted them with their proceedings) towards the conclusion they thus exhort them:

We, having in a legal and canonical way determi­ned these Controversies, [...] (com­pressing) [...]. Theod. 5.9. do beseech your Reverence to congratulate with us, your Charity spiritually in­terceding, the fear of the Lord also compressing all humane affection, so as to make us to prefer the edi­fication of the Churches to all private respect and fa­vour toward each other; for by this means the word of faith being consonant among us, and Christian Cha­rity bearing sway over us, we shall cease from spea­king after that manner which the Apostle condemns, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, but I am of Ce­phas: for if we all do appear to be of Christ, who is not divided amongst us, we shall then through God's grace preserve the body of the Church from Schism, and present our selves before the throne of Christ with boldness.

6. All that withdraw their communion or obeysance from particular Churches fairly established, (unto which they do belong or where they reside,) do incur the guilt of Schism: for such per­sons being de Jure subject to those particular Chur­ches, and excommunicating themselves,Aug. contra Jul. Ep. 2. Te certè occi­dentalis terra generavit, occidentalis re­generavit Ecclesia: quid ei quaeris infer­re quod in ea non invenisti, quando in e­jus membra venisti? imo quid, &c. do conse­quentially sever themselves from the Catholick Church; they commit great wrong toward that particular Church, and toward the whole Church of Christ.

[Page 324]7. Neither doth their pretence of joining themselves to the Roman Church excuse them from Schism: for the Roman Church hath no rea­son or right to admit or to avow them; it hath no power to exempt or excuse them from their duty;Syn. Sard. Can. 13. Gr. it thereby abetteth their Crime, and in­volveth it self therein; it wrongeth other Churches: As no man is freed from his Allegiance by pretending to put himself under the protection of another Prince; neither can another Prince justly receive such disloy­al Revolters into his Patronage.

Tornd. Lat. p. 220.It is a Rule grounded upon apparent Equity, and frequently declared by Ecclesiastical Canons, that no Church shall admit into its protecti­on or communion any persons who are excommunicated by another Church, or who do withdraw themselves from it: (for Self-excommu­nication or Spiritual felony de se doth involve the Churches Excommu­nication, [...]. Tit. 3. [...]. [...]. Apost. Can. 12. [...]. Con. Nic. Can. 5. If any Clerk, or Laick, who hath been excommunicated, and not yet re-admitted (by his own Church) shall depart thence, and be received in another City without Letters commendatory, both he who doth receive him, and he that is received, let them be excommunicated. Let the sentence be ratified which is according to that Canon which commands others not to admit those whom others have ejected. deserving it, and preventing it.)

Which Canon as the African Fathers do alledge and expound it, doth pro­hibit the Pope himself from receiving persons rejected by any other Church. [...]. Syn. Afr. Epist. ad P. Celest. I. [...]—Conc. Aut. Can. 6. Idem in Concil. Sard. Can. 13.14. (Graec.)

So when Marcion, having been excommunicated by his own Father, coming to Rome, did sue to be received by that Church into communi­on, [...]. Epiph. Haer. 42. they refused, telling him that, they could not doe it without the con­sent of his Reverend Father, between whom and them there being one faith and one agreement of mind, they could not doe it in opposition to their wor­thy fellow-labourer, who was also his Father.

Ep. 55. p. 113.St. Cyprian refused to admit Maximus (sent from the Novatian par­ty) to communion.

Ep. 55. init. (abs te rejectum. Vid.) Vid. Rig. p. 79.So did P. Cornelius reject Felicissimus, condemned by St. Cyprian, without farther inquiry.

It was charged upon Dioscorus as a heinous misdemeanour, that he had, against the Holy Canons, —quosdam à diversis Con­ciliis ritè damnatos, in communionem, propriâ auctoritate, suscepit, Sanctis Regulis praecipientibus excommunicatos ab aliis, in com­munionem alios non debere suscipere. Epist. Syn. Chalced. ad Imper. Act. 4. pag. 286. — [...]. Evagr. 2.4. by his proper authority, received into communion persons excommunicated by others.

The African Synod (at the suggestion of St. Austin) decreed, that if it happen'd that any for their evil deeds were deservedly expell'd out of the Church, Augustinus E­piscopus, le­gatus Provin­ciae Numiaiae dixit; Hoc statuere dig­namini, ut si qui fortè merito facinorum suorum ab Ecclesia pulsi sunt, & sive ab aliquo Episcopo vel Presbytero fuerint in communionem suscepti, etiam ipse pari cum eis crimine teneatur obnoxius.— Cod. Afr. Can. 9. and taken again into communion by any Bishop or Priest who­soever, that he also who received him, should incur the same penalty of Excommunication.

[Page 325]The same is by latter Papal Synods decreed.Sanctorum quippe Cano­num sanxit auctoritas, & ea passim Ecclesiae consuetudo servat, ut à quolibet justè excommunicatum Episcopo, alius ab­solvere non praesumat. P. Urb. II. Epist. 20. (apud Bin.) A suis Episcopis excommunicatos, ab aliis Episcopis, Abbatibus & Clericis in communionem recipi proculdubio prohibe­mus. Conc. Lat. I. (sub P. Calixto II.) cap. 9. — Qui verò excommunicato antequam ab eo qui eum excommunicaverit absolvatur, scienter communicare praesumpserit, pari sententiae teneatur obnoxius. Conc. Lat. (sub Innoc. II.) Can. 3.

The Words of Synesius are remarkable: He, [...]. — [...] (proscribed by it) [...].— Epist. 58. pag. 203. Edit. Petav. having excommunica­ted some cruel Oppressours, doth thus recommend the case to all Chri­stians.

Upon which grounds I do not scruple to affirm the Recusants in En­gland to be no less Schismaticks than any other Separatists.P. Leo Ep. 84. cap. 9. They are in­deed somewhat worse; for most others do onely forbear communion, these do rudely condemn the Church, to which they owe Obedience; yea, strive to destroy it: they are most desperate Rebels against it.

8. It is the Duty and Interest of all Churches to disclaim the Preten­ces of the Roman Court; maintaining their Liberties and Rights against its Usurpations: For Compliance therewith, as it doth greatly preju­dice Truth and Piety; (leaving them to be corrupted by the ambitious, covetous and voluptuous Designs of those men;) so it doth remove the genuine Unity of the Church and Peace of Christians; unless to be ty­ed by compulsory Chains (as Slaves) be deemed Unity or Peace.

9. Yet those Churches, which by the voluntary consent or command of Princes, do adhere in confederation to the Roman Church, we are not, merely upon that score, to condemn or reject from communion of Charity or Peace; (for in that they do but use their Liberty.)

10. But if such Churches do maintain impious Errours; if they do prescribe naughty Practices; if they do reject Communion and Peace upon reasonable terms; if they vent unjust and uncharitable Censures; if they are turbulent and violent, striving by all means to subdue and en­slave other Churches to their will or their dictates —if they damn and persecute all who refuse to be their Subjects:Cuicunque haeresi communicans merito judicatur à nostra societate removendus. Gelas. Ep. 1. ad Euphem. An communicare, non est consentire cum talibus? P. Sym. I. Ep. 7. in such cases we may reject such Churches as heretical or schismatical or wickedly uncharitable and unjust in their Proceedings.

A TABLE of the AUTHOURS quoted in the Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, and Vnity of the Church.

A.
  • S. AMbrosius, 155. in Luc. 277. de Poen. 274. de Sac. 128.
  • Anastasius in vit. Joh. 204.210.
  • Anton. de Concil. Pis. 24.
  • Anselmus in Joh. 60.
  • Apost. Can. 324.
  • Aquinas (Tho.) 278.
  • Arist. Pol. 131.142.314.
  • S. Athanas. Disp. contra Arium, 3.
  • Athanas. 73.115.148.155.202.
  • Athanas. de Syn. 321.
  • August. Triumph. 3.
  • S. Augustinus contra Crescon. 48.53.127.133.
    • Idem de Unit. Eccles. 26.123.250.251.277.296.301.307.
    • Ep.128.155.249.155.305.314.
    • in S. Joh. 31.
    • contra Don. 54.
    • de Bapt. 150.300.
    • in Psal. 296.
    • contra Jul. 223.
B.
  • BAlusius, 170. Not. ad Agorbard. 26.
  • Baronius, 5.10.82.142.151.161.122.180.187.203.216.232.234.239.241.151.256.215.264.318.
  • S. Basil. 68.115.246.264.
    • Epist. 61.160.244.
    • in Is. 61.
    • de Judicio Dei, 33.
  • Bellarminus, 2.3.15.51.59.69.71.137.148.153.193.256.269.257.261.287.321.
  • S. Bernardus, 141.145.281. de Consid. 40.265.
  • Binius, 6.8.52.65.152.192.265.277.325.
  • Bochell. 2.
  • Bodin. de Rep. 147.
  • Bullae Variorum P. 5. &c.
C.
  • CAmd. Hist. 5.
  • Canon. Apost. 164.178.241.
  • Cajet. in 1 Cor. 284.
  • Canus, 6.
  • Celest. ad Cyril. 203.213.
  • Chrysol. 62.
  • S. Chrysostomus, 30.31.32.63.67.74.75.82.264.269.281.313.
    • Idem in Ephes. 40.
    • in Act. Apost. 44.45.
    • in S. Joh. 49.
    • in Galat. ibid. & 55.
    • Ep. 135.159.
    • in Colos. 283.
    • in 1 Cor. 301.
  • Claudianus, 132.
  • Clemens ad Corinth. 48.58.113.
  • S. Clemens Alex. 118.297.299.308.
  • Clemens Alex. apud Euseb. 57.
  • Cod. Afr. 164.241.248.
  • Cod. Lib. 1.179.
  • Concilium Ant.
    • Bas. 25.264.132.135.141.267.268.
    • Chalced. 165.166.163.225.135.136.248.270.303.202.203.204.205.206.121.
    • Sard. 84.233.
    • Trid. 2.7.135.136.280.283.285.286.230.
    • Lat. 41.136.185.281.325.
    • Ludg. 146.
    • Tolet. 227.
    • Nic. 241.121.
    • Trull. 84.
    • Eph. 234.278.155.
    • Florent. 21.
    • [Page] Cons. 25.330.121.248.
    • Miler. 248.
    • Carth. ibid.
    • Conc. sub Men. 85.231.
  • Const. Apost. 230.
  • Card. Cusanus de Conc. Carth. 43.
  • S. Cyprianus, 149.150.150.252.263.269.
    • de Unit. Eccles. 58.62.
    • in Conc. Carth. 211.216.
    • Ep. 54.71.67.79.113.115.124.125.129.153.157.158.162.229.232.235.243.248.249.276.277.269.301.302.304.305.312.315.318.323.
  • S. Cyril, 68.78.282.
D.
  • DAmasi P. Ep.
  • Distinct. 228, &c.
  • Durandus, 263.
  • Dionysius de Eccl. Hier. 58.
E.
  • EAdmeri Hist. 182.270.
  • S. Epiphan. 83.252.
    • Haer.34.51.324.298.308.
  • Erasmi Praefat. ad Hieron. 288.
  • Evag. 239.240.
  • Euseb. 158.173.273.202.
    • Hist. 32.73.298.318.
    • de Vit. Const. 86.186.304.305.306.
F.
  • FAC. Hermian, 276.
  • Florus, 131.
G.
  • POpe Gelas. distinc. 58.
    • Ep. —
    • Georg. Alex. vita Chrys. 12.
    • Gervas Dorob. apud. Twisd. 151.
    • Grat. Dist. 10.41.
    • Greg. Decret. 15.
    • Greg, Past. 53.
    • Greg. M. Ep. 122.124.125.265.225.169.
    • S. Greg. Naz. 130.152.159.257.
    • Guicc. 136.143.
    • Gunth. Lig. 180.
H.
  • HEgesippus apud Euseb. 57.
  • Hesychius apud Photium 46.
  • Hieron. adv. Evagr. 152.125.
  • Hieron. Ep. 129.
  • S. Hier. in Matt. 33.
    • in Jovin. 42.
  • Hilar. de Trin. 35.
  • Hilar. 153.155.213.
  • Hist. Trident. 321.
  • Horat. 177.
I.
  • IGnat. ad Trall. 294.
  • S. Iren. 87.88.119.158.299.311.316.318.
  • Joseph. de Bello Jud. 160.
  • Isid. Dist. 169.
  • Isid. Hispal. 128.58.
  • Isid. Pelusiot. 130.
  • Justini Cod. 204.
  • Justini Novell. 235.
L.
  • LActantius, 35.
  • Lateran. Concil. 46.
  • Launoius, 12.116.185.
  • P. Leo Ep. 126.273.204.205.208.209.225.230.225.254.
  • Livius, 178.
M.
  • MAchivel, 144.
  • De Marc. 170.
  • Marsil. Patav. 17.
  • Matt. Paris, 6.7.182.183.192.251.262.265.
  • Memor. Hist. de 5 Propos. 267.
N.
  • POpe Nic. Ep. 174.175.200.210.
O.
  • OCcam. 17.
  • Optat. lib. 2.303.
  • Orient. Relat. ad Imper. Act. 208.
  • Orig. in Matt. 62.
  • Otho. Frising Chron. 13.
P.
  • POpe Pash. Ep. apud Eadmer. 261.262.
  • Pelag. Ep. 123.201.86.
  • Petr. ad Jacob. 83.
  • Photius, 33.42.
  • Pighius de Hier. 265.
  • Platina de Vit. Pont. 8.28.41.145.150.215.228.
  • Plut. in Pyrr. 174.
  • Prudent. in Apotheos. 290.
R.
  • RIgalt. in Cypr. Ep. 60. 157.237.
  • Ruffinus, 170.
S.
  • SEnec. de Benef.
  • Sigeberti Chron. 9.
  • Sleid. 139.141.
  • Socrates, Sozom. 12.87.120.173.186.167.208.216.234.242.226.232.252.253.256.
  • Spalatens. 5.
  • Suetonius, 83.
  • P. Symac. Ep. 325.
  • Synes. Ep. 325.
  • Synod. Ant. 157.216.312.231.
    • Ansel. 85.
    • Bas. 133.314.
    • Chalc. 158.159.167.168.184.231·233.245.254.257.264.
    • Const. 165.159.
    • Eph. 168.
    • Trull. 201.
    • Nic. 164.166.231.
    • Flor. 177.
    • Laod. 166.
    • Sard. 324.
T.
  • TAcitus, 131.142.
    • Ann. 174. de Morib. Germ. 178.
  • Tertullianus, 26.50.58.63.67.77.80.118.119.164.298.216.269.280.282.294.297.309.318.
  • Theod. 156.161.166.187.208.227.229.237.238.255.256.323.
  • Theoph. in Matth. 33.253.
  • Tho. Aq. 3.6.
  • Tho. Cajet. Orat. 267.
  • Thorn. 318.
  • Thuan. 146.
  • Tort. Tort. 147.
  • Trid. Concil. 41.
  • Twisd. 184.
V.
  • VAles. in Euseb. 310.
  • P. Vrb. Ep. 7.
  • Vsserius, 242.315.
Z.
  • ZAbarellus, 4.
  • Zozomen. 117.131.161.213.225.227.232.239.250.

A TABLE OF Things, or the Chief Matters contained in the Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, and of the Vni­ty of the Church.

A.
  • ABsolution. Particular Absoluti­on, why allowed in the Church of Rome, 139.
  • Anacletus and Cletus, by some thought to be the same, 88.
  • Anathema's of the Romanists, 289.
  • Angels. Popish Doctrine of wor­shipping them, contrary to Scrip­ture, 280.
  • Apostles. Which the Elder, 34. That Office of the greatest Au­thority in the Primitive Church, 37. This Authority of their Of­fice they frequently assert; never Superiority over one another, 50. Their manner of Life, ibid. Their Equality attested by the Fathers, and plain from Scripture, 57, 59. Their extraordinary Privileges and miraculous Powers not suc­cessive, nor communicable, 78.
  • Appeals to the Pope disclaimed, 248, 249.
B.
  • S. BAsil. His Authority against the Pope's Supremacy, 123.
  • Bishops. How to discharge their Office, 40. In what sense said to be Successours of the Apostles, 79. All Bishops styled Clavigeri by the Council of Compeigne, 65. Their Residence and Translation, 84, 85. The Highest Order in the Church, 128. Their Equa­lity, notwithstanding some Dif­ferences in Order, and Privileges, 125, 129, 151. An Answer to such who object, They had a Power, as well as Emperours, to call General Councils, 193. Me­tropolitan Bishops in their Pro­vinces had far more Power, and more truly grounded, than the Pope had in the whole Church, 212. What kind of Authority they had heretofore in Synods, ibid. Their Ordination, in whose Power; Their Authority and Rights, 215, 216. Constitution of them, not in the Power of the Pope, but Emperour, 225. Nor Censuring them, in the power of the Pope, 231, 232. No power in the Pope to depose them, 233, — The contrary Assertions examined and confuted, in seq. v. 241. Confirmation of them be­longs not to the Pope, 269.
  • [Page] Bishops and Pastours. Their Autho­rity in Church Government in the Primitive Church, 312, 313. Their Character, ibid.
C.
  • CAnon Law. The vain pretence for the Obligation thereof, 210.
  • Canons. Ancient Canons, their si­lence concerning the Pope's Au­thority, 120, 121.
  • Canons. Universal Canons, Popes no Power to alter them, nor Exemp­tion from them, 213: their poli­cy herein, ibid. contrary Opinion from whence arising, ibid.
  • Canons of Popes, why set above Ge­neral Councils, 268. Aeneas Syl­vius, his Account hereof, Ibid.
  • Catholick. How much the abuse of that Word hath conduced to the Pope's Pretences, 264.
  • Censures. Ecclesiastical Censures, the great advantages made from them by the Pope, 182.
  • Ceremonies. Why multitude of them in the Church of Rome, 139.
  • Charity. Want thereof in the Church of Rome, 286.
  • Charity among Christians, 299, 301. breach thereof denominates a man to be no Christian, 300.
  • Charity to the Poor of other Chur­ches in primitive Times, no Ar­gument of Unity of Church Go­vernment, 320.
  • Church. Unity thereof, 293. The various acceptations of the Word Church, 294. The Titles and Privileges thereof, 295.
  • Church Government and Discipline in ancient times, 162, &c.
  • Church Government. No necessity of one kind onely of external Admi­stration thereof, 306, 307. The contrary shewed to be most pro­per and convenient, in seq.
  • Church of Rome. An Account of them who by voluntary Consent or Command of Princes do adhere in Confederation to the Church of Rome, 325.
  • Civil Magistrates Authority, 271.
  • Clergy. Romish Clergy's Exemption from secular Jurisdiction, whence, 138.
  • Communion. Church Communion, 296.
  • Community of Men on several ac­counts may be termed One, 297.
  • Confession. Auricular Confession, 139.
  • Confirmation of Magistrates belongs not to the Pope, 269.
  • Conscience. The Usurpations made thereupon by the Popish Doc­trines, 288.
  • Constantine M. His Judgment of Eusebius, 86. No General Synod before his Reign, 185.
  • Controversies in the Church, how in ancient times determined, 115, 149, 264, 303, 304.
  • Council of Trent. Their Character, 2. Enjoyned the Pope's Supremacy should not be disputed, 18.
  • Councils. Their Authority above the Pope's, 25.
  • Councils. Their Infallibility, why pretended, 139.
  • Councils. General Councils, which so esteemed, 188: first called by the Emperours, ibid. when first cele­brated, 209: Use of them proves not there was Unity of Govern­ment in the Primitive Church, 320: the proper occasion of Ge­neral Councils assigned, ibid▪
  • Cup in the Sacrament, why with-hol­den from the Laity, 139.
  • S. Cyprian's Account of S. Peter's pri­macy of Order, 33: his Epistle concerning the deposing Marcia­nus examined, 235, &c.
  • S. Cyril's supplying the Place of P. Celestine in the General Council, 203, 204.
  • Cyril of Hierusalem, the first, ac­cording to Socrates, who did in­troduce Appeals, 249.
D.
  • POpe Damasus. An Epistle of his in Theodoret (whence Bellar­mine's [Page] pretence for the Pope's Su­premacy) adjudged spurious, 156, 157.
  • Decrees of Popes, when contested a­gainst the ancient Canons, 214. Whence their new Decrees intro­duced, ibid.
  • Decretal Epistles. Their forgery, and great advantage to the Church of Rome, 184.
  • Discipline, and Order of the Primi­tive Church, 211.
  • Discipline. The enacting, and dis­pensing with Ecclesiastical Laws about the same belong'd of old to Emperours, 214.
  • Discipline of the Church, 305. main Form thereof not to be violated, ibid.
  • Dispensations, 184. the Pope no power to grant them, 270, 281.
  • Dissentions. The Mischiefs arising from them, 175, 18 [...]. The Pro­fits accrewing from hence to the Romanists, ibid.
  • Dissentions. How reconciled among Christians, 323.
E.
  • ECclesiastical Jurisdiction, not im­pugn'd by disclaiming S. Pe­ter's Superiority, 40.
  • Emperours, not Popes, did first con­ [...]gate General Synods, 185. Testimonies of Popes owning the same, 193.
  • Emperours themselves, or Honou­rable Persons authorized by them, did heretofore preside in General Synods, 203.
  • Empires. Their Original and In­crease, 174.
  • Episcopacy. The Ends assigned of that Order, 87.
  • Eusebius. Constantine M. his Cha­racter of him, 86.
  • Excommunicated Persons, not admit­ted into Communion by other Churches, 305, 324, 325.
  • Exemptions. The Pope no Power to grant them, 270.
F.
  • FAith. Unity of the Church pre­served by it, 299.
  • Fathers. What regard to be given to their account of S. Peter's Prima­cy of Order, or bare Dignity, 32.
  • Fathers. A Censure of their Wri­tings, 71. Bellarmine's account of the same, ibid. The latter Fa­thers most guilty in Expressions, 72.
  • Fathers. A Character of their Wri­tings, 119.
  • Feed my sheep. The Romish Inter­pretation rejected, and the true established, ibid.
G.
  • GLosses of the Romanists on Scripture, 70: their Corrup­tions and Partiality herein, 73.
  • Gregory M. his Character and Au­thority against the Pope, 123.
H.
  • HEresie of Simony. Popes guilty of it, 266.
  • Hereticks. How confuted in anci­ent times, 115, &c.
  • Humility strictly enjoyned to Christ's Apostles and Followers, 39.
I.
  • JEsuites. Their Character, 182.
  • Jesus, according to common notion of the Jews, did imply his being the Son of God, 30.
  • Ignorance of Popes in Divinity, 267.
  • Ignorance. How serviceable to the Church of Rome, 182.
  • Image Worship, 139, 280.
  • Indulgences, 184.
  • Infallibility. Pretence to it the grea­test Tyranny, 137. Whence pre­tended, 139. The mother of In­corrigibility, and Corruption of Manners, 140. v. 265.
  • [Page] Inspiration. The Popes and Synods bold pretensions to it, 286.
  • Jurisdiction. Universal Jurisdiction over the Clergy, the Pope's Pre­sumption herein, and when be­gun, 215.
  • Jurisdiction. Temporal and Ecclesia­stical, nature thereof, 271.
K.
  • KEys. Power thereof, as also all other Authority, communica­ted to all the Apostles equal­ly, 42, 64.
  • Kings have the Power onely of cal­ling General Councils, 191. The unreasonableness of the contrary, 192. v. Emperours.
L.
  • LEgends of the Church of Rome, the Profits arising from them, 184.
  • Laws. Ecclesiastical Laws. In whose Power to enact them, 212. The Pope subject to them, ibid.
M.
  • MArriage. The Romanists a­buse thereof, 284. Why for­bidden to their Priests, 139.
  • Mass. Doctrine thereof, ibid.
  • Merit. Doctrine thereof in the Chur. of Rome, 138, 286.
  • Miracles. Why pretended to by the Romanists, 139.
  • Monarchy. Universal Monarchy not politick, nor convenient, 130: nei­ther in Church, nor State, 152.
  • Monarchy, less subject to abuse than other ways of Government, 315.
  • Monastries, why exempted by the Pope from secular Jurisdiction, 138.
  • Monkery, 140.
N.
  • POpe Nicholas the first who ex­communicated Princes, secun­dum Bodin. 146.
O.
  • OAth of Bishops of Rome, at their Election. 22.
  • Obedience. Blind Obedience, 177.
  • Order and Discipline of the Primi­tive Church, 211. v. Discipline.
  • Ordination. Priority therein did an­ciently ground a Right to Prece­dence, 34.
  • Orthodox. Who such in the Primitive Church, 299.
P.
  • PAstours of the Church. Their duty to maintain Peace and Charity, 304.
  • Patriarchs, not an higher Order than Primates, 169: their Institution and Authority, 170, 171.
  • Peace to be inviolable among Chri­stians, 301: the Sacraments con­ducive to the same, 302: as also Convocation of Synods, ibid.
  • S. Peter in personal accomplishments most eminent among the Apostles, 32: It is probable he was first cal­led to the Apostolical office, 33: his Zeal and Activity, 30, 34: his Superiority in Power rejected, 35: was no Priest at the Celebration of our Lord's Supper, contra Con­cil. Trid. 36: not Bishop of Rome, 82: whether ever at Rome, 83: whence his Primacy asserted, 27.
  • Popes Supremacy. The Controversies about it, 1: The great Disturban­ces it hath caused, 2: pretended authority to depose Princes, 3: their behaviour according to their circumstances, 17: pretended Su­premacy in Spirituals, 20: their imperious, arbitrary Government, 40: the insolent Titles given them, 41: no Judge of Controversies, 115, &c. their Character before, and after Constantine, 142: Usur­pation on Princes. 145: Causes of the growth of pretended Supre­macy, [Page] 172, 173: did not claim a Power of summoning General Councils till they had in a man­ner shaken off Subjection to the Emperour, 192: no more autho­rity in Councils, than Patriarchs and other Clergy, 193: Supre­macy, not indefectible and unal­terable, 271: a Character of them, and their Usurpations, 200, 314, 315: Supremacy disclaimed, 309.
  • Power. Worldly Power, 174: De­scription thereof, and how much it hath advanced the Pope's Usurpa­tions, ibid.
  • Pragmatical Sanctions, 184.
  • Presidency of the Pope, no wise ne­cessary to the being of a General Council, 199.
  • Presidency. Some imposed upon by the ambiguity of that word, 204.
  • Presidencies. Spiritual Presidencies: To erect and translate them a Pre­rogative of Sovereign Power, 270.
  • Presidents in Councils appointed by Popes, of no authority, 203.
  • Priests, why forbidden Marriage by the Church of Rome, 139.
  • Primacy. Three kinds thereof, 30.
  • Primacy in S. Peter neither personal nor successive, 76.
  • Primacy of S. John and S. James have more specious Titles, than of S. Peter, 70, 74.
  • Primacies. Diocesan Primacies: the Pope's great gain in the W. Chur­ches not embracing that Disci­pline, 170.
  • Privileges. The Pope no Power to grant them, 270.
  • Provincial Synods. When Appeals were first made from them, 250.
  • Purgatory. Whence invented, 138.
R.
  • REliques among the Ro. 139.
  • Remission of Sins. The Popish Doc­trines and Errours about it, 280, 281.
  • Restitution of Bishops, not an Act of Jurisdiction, never in the power of the Pope, 242, &c. pretended Examples shewed to be invalid, in seq.
  • Residence of Bishops, 84: their Trans­lation, 85.
  • Revelation. Divine Revelation made by the Apostles, the onely ground of absolute Belief, 127.
  • Rock. S. Peter being so called, exa­mined, 59.
  • Romanists. An Enumeration of some of their Errours, 138, &c.
  • Romanists, in England, Schismaticks, 325. A farther Character of them, ibid.
  • Romish Church vainly pretends to greatest Antiquity, 310.
S.
  • SAcraments. The Opus operatum therein among the Romanists, 138: why celebrated by them in an unknown tongue, 139: their farther abuse thereof, 285, 286.
  • Saints. Papists Doctrine of worship­ping them contrary to Scripture, 280.
  • Schism. Nature thereof, 323: the Persons guilty of it, ibid.
  • Scripture. The onely Rule for our Belief, 35.
  • Scriptures. Prohibiting of them, whence, 139, 283: and Teaching them in an unknown tongue, ibid.
  • Separations in the Church. The Mis­chiefs of them, 322.
  • Simony. Popes guilty of it, 266.
  • Sovereignty. The particular bran­ches thereof considered, and Popes vain Pretences to the same, 185.
  • Spirit, v. Inspiration.
  • Synod. No General Synod before Constantine M. 185.
  • Synods. In Ancient Synods divers Things were ordained without the Pope's consent, divers against his pleasure, 201, 208: Instances hereof, in seq.
  • Synods. No Rule extant about them in the first Fathers, till after 300 years, 209.
  • [Page] Synods. Their Decrees and Acts, by whom ratified, 204, 205, 206.
  • Synods. Romish Synods and Enthu­siasts compared, 286.
T.
  • TAxes. Imposing them on Cler­gy, or People, not in the power of the Pope, 270.
  • Tradition, in some matters very un­certain and contradictory, 34.
  • Traditions of the Church of Rome, 139.
  • Traditions. Oral Traditions, 283.
  • Tradition. Universal Tradition dis­owns the Pope's Supremacy, 268.
  • Transubstantiation, 139.
  • Trent (Council) Character thereof, 259.
V.
  • UNity of the Church, mentioned in the Constantinopolitan Creed, not of external Policy, 316.
  • Vnity. Preservation thereof in the Primitive Church no Argument of its being united in one Govern­ment, 320.
  • Vows, in the Church of Rome, why imposed, 138.
W.
  • WEalth, how procured by the Church of Rome, 183.
  • Words. False Interpretations of words how much contributing to the growth of the Church of Rome.
The End of the First Volume.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.