PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors.

§. 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth, Unity, Uniformity, and Peace;Subordina­tion of Clergy. and for the easier suppressing of all Errors, and Divisions; and for rendring all the Church of God, tho dispers'd thro several Dominions, but one visible com­pacted Society; we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy: 1. Presbyters. 2. Bishops. 3. Metropo­litans; and (amongst Metropolitans) Primates. 4. Pa­triarchs; and (amongst these Patriarchs) a Primate.

§ 2 Of these Patriarchs, in the first General Council of Nice, held A. D. 325. there were only Three [call'd,Three Pa­triarchs only at the first. at the first, by the common name of Metropolitants; tho with a distinct authority from the rest: Then, by the name of Primates, (2. Gen. Con. Const. can 2.5.)—(this name also being common to some others): Afterward by the name of Patriarchs, (Conc. Chalc. Act. 3.—8 Gen. Conc. can. 10). Neither was this name (tho most fre­quently) always applied only to the Patriarchs of the first Sees. But we find in the East (the Primates of Asia minor, Pontus, Thrace, and many others, to the [Page 2]number of nine or ten, call'd by Socrates, who writ in the fifth Age, Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 8.) Patriarchs; (call'd so, as well as by the name of Primates, in respect of some other Bishops, or also Metropolitans, subject to them); yet which Patriarchs had also a subordination and sub­jection to some of these prime, or major, Patriarchs, of whom we here speak; as appears in the Church-Histo­ry; and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West (after A. D. 500.) se­veral Primates in France, Italy, Spain, call'd Patriarchs; as the Primate of Aquileia, Gradus, Lions, (see Conc. Matiscon. 2. in praefat. Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dix­it, &c. See Greg. Turon. 5. hist. 10. Paul Diacon. l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist. l. 11. ep. 54.) yet over whom the Ro­man Bishop, the major Patriarch of the West, exercis'd a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction, both before and after that we read this name given to them; as will appear hereafter in this discourse, and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo, and Gregory, and other Popes, written upon several occasions to divers of them. This I note to you, that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the au­thority. Now to go forward.]

§ 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome.The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome; whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry (Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62.) and Dr. Hammond (of schism, c. 3. p. 51, 52.) following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 6. (one less to be credited in this matter, because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated; see Anstasius 1. ad Johan. Hierosol.) make very narrow, and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarchs (whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis; and the other, all Syria, and the Oriental Churches,) allowing to the [Page 3]Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy, and the Islands of Sicily, Sardinia, The extent of his Pa­triarchate. and Corsica, near adjoining to it. But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate super­intendency, and Metropolitan- or Primat-ship, contra­distinct to other Metropolitans, as to that of Millan, &c. (So the Primat of all England hath yet a particular su­perintendency over one Diocess more than over the rest; of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae, as he was their Primate or Me­tropolitan, Ruffinus seems to speak; and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice [Mos antiquus perduret, in Aegypto vel Lybia & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum om­nium habet potestatem; quoniam quidem & Episcopo Roma­no parilis mos est. Similiter autem & apud Antiochiam, caeterasque Provincias, honor suus unicuique serve­tur Ecclesiae.] may be thought partly to intend it, for which consider those words in that 6th Canon [caeterasque Provincias &] compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan. 2. Can. —and Conc. Ephes. 8. can. Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop, quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate (to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus,) but confirm them, not only the Metropolitan, but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly: as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon, [...] ▪ of which see more below § 19. from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius, a Legat of the See Apostolick in the 4th General Council, and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. (See below § 25 n. 2.) And again on the other side, (as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes), the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae (supposing him to be [Page 4]so) in some general way of superintendency, or for some particular acts and offices, (as suppose for receiving appeals, deciding controversies, between the chief Go­vernors of the Churches admitting them to, and de­posing them from, their places, obliging them pro tem­pore with his decrees,) hinders not, but that he may be also a Patriarch, a Metropolitan, a Bishop, in respect of some other more immediate super-intendencies and offices divers from the former; which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches, but doth not so over others; or which also he cannot exer­cise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches, (as, suppose, for ordaining the inferior Bi­shops and Presbyters, and hearing their causes, perso­nally officiating in the Word and Sacraments, receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof &c.) Nor again, e converso, (as Cardinal Perron, in answer to K. James, observes,) doth his governing only the Ro­man Province, as their Metropolitan; or only Italy, as their Primate, hinder, that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch. Nor again, doth his governing the West as their Patriarch) because he was Bishop of Rome, the chiefest city of the West) hinder, that he may not also, as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there, (to one of whom the Jew, and to the other, the Gen­tiles, were committed, (Gal. 2.7, 9.) have some spe­cial superintendency over all the Church, Jew, and Gen­tile.

I know,§ 3. n. 2. it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69. —That, ‘to have an universal Headship over the Church, and to have a Patriarchal authority or headship over only some part of the Church; to have a limited, jurisdi­ction over a certain Province, and to have an unlimited [Page 5]jurisdiction over the whole world. —To challenge the same thing from divine, and from humane, insti­tution; as Patriarch, to be subject to the Canons, as Universal Head of the Church, to be above them, are contradictions.’ And in Schis. guarded, 4. sect. p. 304. tis again urged by him, that Sovereign government, and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society, is inconsistent; where he hath also these words. ‘When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad meditation on this subject, I confess ingeniously, that which gave me the most trouble, was to satisfy my self fully about the Pope's Patriarchate; but in con­clusion, that which had bin a cause of my trouble, proved a means of my final satisfaction. For seeing it is generally confessed, that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch, I concluded, that he could not be a Spiri­tual Monarch.’ Tis urged likewise by Dr. Hammond, in Schis. 6. c. 2. s. ‘—That he that supposed in (gross) to have by Succession to S. Peter that original title to all power, over all Churches, cannot be imagined to ac­quire it afterward (by way of retail) [i.e. by any other ways and means] over any particular Church. He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travel, must be supposed to disclaim donation, which is antecedent to, and exclusive of, the other; as the title of descent is, to that of conquest.’ Thus Dr. Hammond. But to these it is easily answered.

1. To Bishop Bramhal: §. 3. n. 3. That nothing consists bet­ter together than contradictories, if they be not under­stood secundum idem. To have a headship Universal over the whole Church, given him by God, or by the Church, (if God hath left to it the disposal thereof) for some things, and to have a headship Patriarchal only [Page 6]over some part of the Church given by the same autho­rity; or the first given by God, the second by the Church, i. e. the first by divine, the second by humane, institution, for some other things, contradict not. To have an unlimited power (if he means for place) for some things, and limited (for place) for other things, contradict not: To hold the same power or authority both by divine and humane institution, or title, or laws, (which are all one,) contradicts not; unless this term [only] be added. One may hold the same thing both from the donation of our Saviour, and from the dona­tion of the Church too, and from the donation of the Prince too, quantum in illis est, which is only a consent­ing to Christ's donation, if they acknowledge it. Nei­ther will these latter donations be needless, or useless, ad homines, tho the former donation be good; if the for­mer be at any time questioned, as many good titles have bin. Again, it doth not contradict, that one as Patriarch be subject to some thing, to which, in another consideration, i.e. as head of the Church, he is not sub­ject; for the respect is changed. Christ the same per­son as Man was subject to laws, to which as God he was not. So Sovereign government and Subordinate go­vernment of the same person in the same Society are consistent. The government of a city is subordinate to the office of a Prince in the same civil society; yet may the Prince, that rules over all the Kingdom, be go­vernor also of some particular city thereof, (if so he pleaseth for his more security,) and may execute in that city all those under-offices himself which his Sub­stitutes do in the rest, or also formerly did there, by his authority. A Rectorship of a Parish is subordinate to that of a Bishop in the same Ecclesiastical society, and yet the Bishop may also be the Parson of some Parish [Page 7]within his Diocess, and officiate therein, as is usual in some poorer Bishopricks. One may be made by the King governor of a whole Province, in respect of some command which he hath over it all; and may be made by the same King, or by any other, to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a dignity, governor also only of one city in that Province; in respect of some other offices, divers from the former, which he may ex­ercise over that town, and not likewise over the Pro­vince. Thus much to Bishop Bramhal. Only I must tell you, that he may put his propositions in such a sence, as they shall point-blank contradict: but then he will not be able to shew, that, in such a sence, the Ro­man Church affirms them.

2. To Dr. Hammond, I answer, That no man can acquire the possession of a thing anew, which he already possesseth, but he may acquire a new title or right to what he already rightly possesseth, i. e. he may do something upon which another law, which now doth not, shall give him right to the same thing, supposing that his present right faileth, or is questioned. Nei­ther needeth he, when such titles are questioned, ad­here to one, and renounce the other, but may successive­ly plead both; one after another. Indeed when these two titles are in several persons, one voids the other, the former the latter; because the same thing cannot, at the same time, be possessed by several persons, (as Dr. Hammond rightly argues in Rep. to Cath. Gent. 6. cap. 1. s.) but seems to me to apply it amiss to two titles remain­ing in the same person, that the one of these will spoil the plea of the other. So one may receive a possession from a Prince by free donation; and afterward, fearing some cavil at this title, may acquire another right to the same thing by purchase; either from the same [Page 8]Prince, or from any other person of his Subjects, who pretends to have the just disposal thereof. And this per­son may afterward plead, as he seeth cause, either of these titles, the donation from the Prince, or purchase from the Subject; which Subject whether he had a right power to dispose of such a thing, or no, yet the purcha­ser's plea is good against him, and against all those who are bound by his act, so that they cannot resume such possession from him. So, to come nearer our business; Suppose a donation by our Saviour of such a Supremacy for ever over the whole Church, and so over Britain, to S. Peter's Successor; and suppose a donation (quo jure I need no here enquire) by the Church, of the same Su­premacy to the Patriarch of the West over all the West, and so over Britain: and suppose 3ly, a donation or con­sent by the inhabitants of Great Britain of the same Supremacy over them to the first author of their con­version: I say here, the same person being S. Peter's Successor, and Patriarch of the West, and converter of England, may challenge such Supremacy over it, by which of these titles he pleaseth; they being obliged to all; to our Saviour's Act, of whom they are subjects, to the Act of the Church, (whereof the are a part,) and to their own. But when these three titles are preten­ded by three several persons, but one of them can stand in force; Or, if any one will say, that possession can ne­ver relate save only to one single title; yet if this be granted, that there may be several titles inherent in the same person, of which the one failing the possession may still justly relate to another; And will come to one, name­ly this; That no other can dispossess this person, unless he first prove (not only one, but) all his titles faulty. Thus much that a Primatship, a Patriarchiship, and an Universal Headship may be well consistent in one per­son. [Page 9]This rub being removed, now to go on.

But tho the fore-nam'd Writers much straiten the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction,§ 3. n. 4. and make his Primate­ship, and Patriarchship both one; yet Balsamon (in his Explication of the Nicene Canons), and Nilus (in his Book against the Primacy), no great Friends to the Greatness of Rome, looking upon that authority which he always exercis'd over the other Metropolitans of the West (of which more hereafter), besides that which he had over his own more particular Suburbican Dio­cess, do enlarge this his Patriarchship to all the West; Quoniam & Romanus Episcopus praeest Occidentalibus Pro­vinciis, (saith Balsamon.) ‘Balsamon and Nilus in­terpret the words of the Nicene Decree (saith Dr. Field, l. 5. c. 31.) that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have the charge of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, and the Confirm­ing of the Metropolitans in those parts; because the Bishop of Rome, who hath care of the West, Confirm­eth the Metropolitans of the West.’ And, before these, Zomaras a Greek Writer likewise, (on Conc. Sard. can. 5.) granteth the more Westernly of the Eastern Provinces at that time to have belong'd to the Roman Church. ‘To the Roman Church (saith he) were the subject all the Western Churches, namely, those of Macedo­nia, Thessalia, Illyricum, Epirus, which were afterward subjected to the Church of Constantinople.’ And like­wise Dr. Field, being press'd with many instances (not denyable) concerning the Bishop of Rome's authority most anciently exercis'd over the Bishops, not only, of Spain, France, Africk, &c. in the West; but also, of some parts of Greece, Thebes, Thessalonica, Corinth, &c. in the East; whereby they endeavour'd to prove his Univer­sal [Vicaria] Headship over all the Church; is glad [Page 10]to plead; That the Roman Bishop used such authority, not as Head of all the Church, but as Patriarch of the West; embracing Balsamon's opinion; and proving, out of Cusanus, that such places, as are urged by the Roma­nists, do belong to the Roman Patriarchship. (Which Patriarchship the other Doctors labouring to straiten, how they will avoid another Universal Super-intendentship of the same Bishop, urg'd by the Roman party, I see not). See Field l. 5. c. 37. p. 551.—c. 38. p. 560.— c. 39. p. 570. and p. 568. where he hath these words: ‘Appeals, of ancient time wont to be made out of France to Rome, no way prove the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop; unless we will acknowledg every one of the Patriarchs to have been so too: it being lawful to appeal unto them out of any, the remotest, Provinces subject to them.’ And c. 38. p. 560. where Dr. Field confesseth, that Leo (who liv'd in the time of the fourth General Council) constituted Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicegerent for the parts there­abouts, as others his Predecessors had done former Bishops of that Church; ‘which, (saith he) causing great resort thither upon divers occasions, may be thought to have been the reason, why the Council of Sardica (Can 20.) provideth, that the Clergy-men of other Churches shall not make too long stay at Thessalonica [this Council of Sardica was about twenty years after that of Nice.] So the same Leo made Potentius the Bishop his Vicegerent, in the parts of Africa; Hormisda Bishop of Rome about ann. 500. Salustius Bishop of Hispalis, in Baetica and Lusitania; and Gregory, Virgilius Bishop of Arles, in the Regions of France: all these places being within the compass of the Patriarchship of Rome. And the same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana prima; who was appointed the Bishop of [Page 11] Rome's Vicegerent in those parts, upon signification of the Emperor's will and desire that it should be so.’ Thus he. To this I will add, the testimony of Inno­cent I. Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time, who (Epist. 1. Decentio Episcopo Eugubino) prescribing some Roman Orders to be observ'd in the Western Churches, there gives a more particular reason of their obedience, to observe the Rules and Customs of the Roman See; namely, their conversion to Christianity by it; Quis enim nesciat (saith he) aut non advertat id, quod a Prin­cipe Apostolorum Petro Romanae ecclesiae traditum est, ac nunc usque custoditur, ab omnibus debere servari, &c.—praeser­tim, cum sit manifestum, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, His­panias, Aphricam, atque Siciliam, insulasque interiacentes, nullum instituisse Ecclesias, nisi eos, quos venerabilis Aposto­lus Petrus, aut ejus successores constituerunt sacerdotes, &c. And afterward he saith, Quibus [i.e. Decentius his pro­posals] idcirco respondimus, non quod te aliqua ignorare credamus, sed ut majori authoritate vel tuos instituas, vel, si qui a Romanae ecclesiae institutionibus errant, aut commo­neas, aut indicare [i. e. to the Bishop of Rome] non dif­feras, ut scire valeamus, qui sint, qui aut novitates indu­cunt, aut alterius ecclesiae, quam Romanae, existimant con­suetudinem esse servandam. The sufficiency of the rea­son given here I will not now dispute; but this ap­pears, that over all those Churches he then exercis'd some authority. And see below (§ 23. and elsewhere) many instances of the Roman Bishops authority exercis'd over the Bishops of France, of Spain, and other Western Provinces, before the sitting of the first Council of Nice; to all which therefore, and not only to the regiones sub­urbicariae, must the 6th Nicene Canon [Mos antiquus perduret] be extended.

[Page 12] § 4 Thus much of the first Patriarch, The second was the Bishop of Alexandria; The second, the Bishop of Alexan­dria. containing under his Patri­archship, all the Archbishops and Bishops of Egypt and Lybia.

§ 5 The third, of Antioch; containing under him all the Archbishops and Bishops of the East;The third, the Bishop of Antioch. and amongst the rest, the Bishop of Jerusalem, whose Metropolitan, as also of all Palestine, was the Bishop of Caesarea: But he subject to the Antiochian Patriarch. See Hierom's Epistle to Pammachius against John Bishop of Jerusalem,—Ni fallor hoc ibi [i. e. in Concilio Niceno] ut Palestinae Me­tropolis Caesarea sit; & totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras, cui, spreta communione tua, communicare nos noveras; aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius lite­rae dirigendae.

§ 6 And these three Bishops had a superiority to the rest, from most ancient custom and tradition,From whence their supe­riority over other Bi­shops. which was rather confirm'd, than given, to them in the Nicene Council, as appears by those words in the 6th Canon thereof, [Mos antiquus perduret;] and by those in the 7th (concerning some Honour also allow'd to the Bishop of Hierusalem, yet [manente Metropolitanae civitatis dig­nitate] — Quoniam mos antiquus obtinuit & vetusta tra­ditio. Such expressions we find also in Conc. Antioch. can. 9. [secundum antiquam a patribus nostris regulam con­stitutam;] and in Conc. Ephes. can. 8. [singulis Provinciis pura & inviolata, quae jam inde ab initio habent, jura ser­ventur]; wherein the Councils shew themselves very zealous for preserving all ancient customs and privi­leges. So St. Ignatius the Martyr, living presently [Page 13]after the Apostles times, in his Epistle to the Romans, stiles himself the Pastor of the Church in Syria; because that whole Region belong'd also in those times to the Metropolis of Antioch, as Dr. Hammond observes out of him (Sch. p. 50.) And this superiority over the rest these three Metropolitans had, as was anciently conjectur'd, from St. Peter (who was first, or Primate of the Apo­stles) his being Bishop of Rome; and formerly of An­tioch; and his having also (by his Disciple Mark, sent thither) a more particular relation to the Church of Alexandria. These therefore were call'd Apostolicae se­des which title was also sometimes anciently commu­nicated to some other Churches besides these, where any of the Apostles had for any long time made their residence, as to Ephesus, to Jerusalem, &c.): but, [...], the Roman See, the last and most eminent Seat of the two greatest Apostles,Vid. Bell. de Roman. Pont. l. 3. c. 2. l. 2. c. 27. St. Peter and St. Paul (not disputing here what subordination there was between these two, whose Government the Divine Wisdom thought meet to conclude in one and the same Succes­sion) is so stiled. Which place, from this rather, than from the secular eminency and power of that City, or from any other cause whatever, (if we may judg by the suffrages of Antiquity), had the Honour and Primacy above all other Churches. The secular eminency of that City was the reason indeed mention'd by the Bi­shops in Conc. Chalc. (Act. 16. propter imperium civitatis illius]) because they endeavour'd the advancement of the Constantinopolitan Bishop (the Patriarch of Alexan­dria, Dioscorus, being condemn'd by that Council as a Defender of Eutyches) to the same priviledges with the Roman (in the second place) upon the like grounds: But a reason disclaim'd by Leo, the then Bishop of Rome, and by his Legates; and a reason also omitted and left [Page 14]out by themselves, when they writ to Leo for his confirmation of their Canons; who there give another reason of his Primacy, viz. his Successorship in St. Pe­ter's chair, as appears below, § 25. n. 2. [See also Sy­ricius (Bishop of Rome A.D. 389.) his Epistle ad Episco­pum Tarraconensem, a city in Spain: —Nobis major cun­ctis Christianae religionis zelus incumbit. Portamus onera omnium, qui gravantur: Quinimo haec portat in nobis Bea­tus Apostolus Petrus, qui nos in omnibus (ut confidimus) administrationis suae protegit, & tuetur, haeredes. See Leo, serm. 1. de natali Apostolorum, thus speaking to Rome: —Per sacram Beati Petri sedem, caput Orbis effecta, latius praesides religione divina, quam dominatione terrena. And his Epist. 58. to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, and Ep. 66. to the Bishops of Chalced. Conc. in answer to the Letter sent from them; where he hath these words: Nihil Alexandrinae sedi ejus pereat dignitatis, quam per San­ctum Marcum Evangelistam B. Petri Discipulum meruit. Antiochena quoque Ecclesia, in qua primum praedicante Apo­stolo Petro Christianum nomen exortum est, in paternae [i.e. Patrum Concilii Niceni] constitutionis ordine perseve­ret &c. and Ep. ad Marcinamum Augustum, he saith: —Ha­beat Constantinopolitana civitas gloriam suam. —Alia ta­men ratio est rerum saecularium, alia divinarum —c. And, in conc. Chalced. 16. sess. see the answer of the Roman Le­gats: —Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat, ut noverimus quid Apostolico viro Ʋniversalis Ecclesiae Papae deferre va­leamus. And see the confessions of the Council of Chalcedon it self, in Act. 2. —Petrus per Leonem locutus est; and in their Epistle to Leo, set down below, § 25. n. 2. which clearly shews them not to have held the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome to have sprung only from the Secular greatness of the city, but also from the Succession of S. Peter. I have staid the longer upon [Page 15]this, because of that passage in Dr. Hammond Schism. 5. c. 4. s. See the words of Anacletus, Ep. 3. (if those Epistles he his) in Dr. Field (5. l. 31. c. p. 515.) to the same pur­pose as Leo's. —See Cyprian (Ep. 55. ad Cornelium, Bi­shop of Rome, de Fortunato & Faelicissimo Haereticis.) In­super navigare audent & ad Petri cathedram, atque ad Ec­clesiam principalem. —And Ep. 52. Antoniano. Cum Fa­biani locus, id est, cum locus Petri—vacaret; factus est Cor­nelius Episcopus i. e. of Rome after Fabianus. —Irenaeus, who lived in the 2d. Age, (3. l. 3. c.) Maximae, & anti­quissime, & omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus Aposto­lis Petro & Paulo fundatae & constitutae, Ecclesiae, eam, quam habet ab Apostolis, traditionem, & annunciatam homini­bus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum usque ad nos perveni­entem, indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui per sui pla­centiam &c, praeterquam oportet, colligunt. —Hosius, in the Council of Sardica, can. 3. concerning Appeals to the Bishop of Rome, proposing thus: —Si vobis placet, S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus, ut scribatur Julio Romano Episcopo &c. —Hieron. Ep. to Damasus, con­cerning the word Hypostasis, whether he might admit it; —Ideo mihi cathedram Petri, & fidem Apostolico ore lau­datam censui consulendam. —Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur authoritas, [alias, haereditas.] —Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, Beatitudinis tuae i. e. cathedrae Petri communione consocior; super illam Petram adificatam Ecclesiam scio. And in another Ep. ad eundem. —Si quis cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 36. Quod mox idem decessor meus ut agnovit, directis literis, ex authoritate S. Petri Apostoli, ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit. And l. 6. Ep. 37. Eulogio Episcopo Alex. —Quis nesciat sanctam Ecclesiam in Apostolorum Principis soliditate firma­tam &c. —Cum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso tamen princi­patu sola Apostolorum Principis sedes in authoritate conva­luit, [Page 16]quae in tribus locis unius est. Ipse enim sublimavit se­dem, in qua etiam quiescere & praesentem vitam finire digna­tus est. Ipse decoravit sedem, in qua Evangelistam disci­pulum misit. Ipse firmavit sedem, in qua septem annis, quam­vis discessurus, sedit. Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes, cui ex authoritate divina tres nunc Episcopi praesident, quic­quid ego de vobis boni audio, hoc mihi imputo. Concil. Gen. 8. at Constantinople, can. 21. —Quisquis autem tale facinus contra sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit in­tentare &c. By these passages you see he Primacy and Priviledges (whatever they were) of the Roman Bishop, anciently imputed to his Succession in the See of S. Peter and S. Paul, and not (or not chiefly, or on­ly) to the Secular eminency of Rome.]

But a chief reason also of the so high advancement of these three cities above all the rest, (notwithstanding that there were some other Apostolical Seats, Hierusa­lem, Ephesus, preferable before Alexandria, and many other cities more dignified, as was urged by the Roman Bishops against that clause in Conc. Chalced. [propter im­perium civitatis Romae] than either Alexandria, or An­tioch,] seems to be, because these cities, in the begin­ing and first spreading of Christianity in those several quarters of the world, the East, the West, and the South, were replenished with a much greater number of Chri­stians than others, and were the Mother-churches of all the rest. These three cities, as Dr. Hammond notes, (Schism. 3. c. p. 58.) ‘having the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations.’ For the Churches of Asia were con­verted by Emissaries from Antioch, (Act. 13.2, 4.) and those of Egypt &c, from Alexandria; and the Western, from Rome. Concerning which, see the testimony of Innocentius the first, Pope, A. D. 408. in his Epistle to [Page 17] Decentius Bishop of Eugubium, quoted before 3. §. Tho I do not deny, that Alexandria in Egypt, having bin the Seat of the Successors of Ptolomy, and Antioch in Asia of the Successors of Seleucus; and, under the Romans, being the place of Residence of those their Governors, who were set over the adjacent Provinces; this might somewhat advance the propagation of Christianity more from these cities of so great resort, than from others.

§ 7 In the 2d. General Council,The See of Constanti­nople ad­vanced to a Patriar­chate, in the next place to Rome. A. D. 381. Constantinople, being now made great, by the Seat of the Empire trans­lated thither, its Bishop was advanced into a fourth Patriarch; and that in the second place next to Rome; which thing was also confirmed in the 4. Gen. Conc. Chalced granting him (Act. 16.) aequa senioris regiae Ro­mae privilegia, i.e. (as they there, and in their Letter to Leo (Act. 3) explain themselves,) to exercise, in such a sence, as the 2d. General Council had decreed before them, a Patriarchal authority; in ordaining the Me­tropolitans of certain Provinces, and the Bishops also in some others; as also to have the last place of Appeal (Can. 9.) in respect of those parts of the Church, with this salvo annexed in behalf of the Roman Bishop; om­nem quidem primatum, & honorem praecipuum (secundum Canones) Antiquae Romae Archiepiscopo conservari; and (as it is said in the 2d. General Concil 5th Can. to which former Canon they refer) —Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportere primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum, propter quod sit Nova Roma. tho this priority of the Bishop of Constantinople to Alexandria and Antioch was in this Council of Chalcedon much op­posed in the behalf of those two Sees (Dioscorus then Bishop of Alexandria being excluded from this Council [Page 18]for Heresy, and so at this time uncapable of pleading for himself) by Leo the then Bishop of Rome. And it seems, that the former 5th Canon (but now recited) made by the Bishops in that part of the 2d. General Council which was assembled at Constantinople, as also the three other Canons there preceding it (which were recited in Concil. Chalced. Act. 16.) were either unknown, or not at all regarded, by the other part of the 2d. Gene­ral Council, the Western Bishops, who were assembled shortly after that time at Rome. For thus saith Leo of these Canons or Acts, in Ep. to Anatolius Bishop of Con­stantinople, —Nunquam a praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostoli­cae Sedis transmissa notitiam; and thus his Legats in Conc. Chalced. 16. Act. —Quae in Synodicis Canonibus non ha­bentur. Neither indeed was any such Canon mentio­ned by the Constantinopolitan Bishops of the 2d. General Council, when they writ to Damasus concerning its Acts. (See 1. conc. Constantinop.) Nor was this foresaid 5th Canon, (when most opportunely it might) but only the Nicene 6th Canon pleaded by S. Chrysostom against Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, offering to judge and depose him. Wherefore Baronius conceives it to be made only by a part of that Council, after Timotheus the Bishop of Alexandria was departed thence. But, how­ever, this Patriarch was, not long after that contention of Leo's, rather by their not contradiction, than appro­bation), indulged that honour also by the Roman Bi­shops themselves, (doubtless as conceiving it no abridg­ment of their own authority,) some Metropolitans be­ing taken from the other Patriarchates,The great extent of this Patri­archate in latter times. and subjected to it. The great extent of which Patriarchy (in latter times especially) if you be curious to know, see Dr. Field 3. l. 1. c. where he assigns, for one reason of such an en­largment of its jurisdiction, ‘the conversion of sundry [Page 19]nations and people to the Christian faith by that Bishops Suffragans, and Ministers.’

§. 8 Again, in the 5th Gen. Council, abou A. D. 550. the Bishop of Hierusalem, out in honour to the Holy City,The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriar­chate in the 5th place. was made the 5th Patriarch; (after some honour and respects beyond other Bishops first given (or rather wish­ed) to him by the Nicene Council; see 7. Canon.) some Bishops both from that of Alexandria and Antioch being translated to his Jurisdiction.

§. 9 Amost these above-named Dignities Ecclesiastical, the Metropolitans were to ordain or confirm the Bi­shops of their Province,The autho­rity of Pa­triarchs, and other Ecclesiasti­cal Gover­nors, for the ordinati­ons, or con­firmations, and for judging the causes (up­on appeal) of their in­feriors. and the Patriarch was to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans subject unto him, either by imposition of hands, or by mission of the Pall. [See Concil. Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Action: where, ad­vancing the Constantinopolitan Bishop to Patriarchal authority, in the second place to Rome, they conclude, oportere & ipsum potestatem habere ordinare Metropolitanos, &c. & ut penes eum sit, hunc, qui electus est, confirmare, repudiareve. See 8. Gen. Conc. Constant. 17. c. —See Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. — ‘Patriarchs were, by the order of the 8. General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans, subject unto them, either by impo­sition of hands, or giving the Pall. —And 5. l. 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Me­tropolitans subject unto them might be ordained. And —What the bring (saith he) proves nothing that we ever doubted of. For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the precinct of his own Patriarchship, as likewise every other Patriarch had: and that therefore, he might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece, France, and [Page 20] Spain, (as Bellarmin alledgeth,) being all within the compass of his Patriarchship.’ —See Bishop Bramhal, (vindic. 9. c. p. 257. &c. ‘What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province, the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate.’ And afterwards: ‘Wherein then consisted Patriarchal au­thority? in ordaining their Metropolitans, (for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle,) or confirm­ing them, in imposing of hands, or giving the Pall, in convocating Patriarchal Synods, and presiding in them, &c, —when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent differences or diffi­culties.’ Thus he. Neither might any Metropolitan upon any cause separate himself from the communion of his Patriarch, before the examination and sentence of a Council first passed in his behalf. See 8. General Council, 10. c. whose words are, —Nullus Clericus ante diligentem examinationem & Synodicam sententiam a com­munione proprii Patriarchae se separet, licet criminalem quam­libet causam ejus se nosse praetendat; nec recuset nomen ipsius referre inter divina mysteria. Idem statuimus de Episcopis erga proprios Metropolitas; similiter & de Metropolitis circa Patriarcham suum. —Qui vero contra fecerit, ab omni Sacerdotali operatione & honore decidat. Ante Synodicam sententiam, i. e. of a Council superior to the Metropo­litan: for the lower cannot judge the higher, no, not tho assembled together in a council, See Dr.Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 567.) as an Episcopal Synod cannot judge the Me­tropolitan.] And the firmlier to bind and confine the in­ferior, to the judgment of the superior, orders of the Clergy, the Church made frequent Canons against their starting aside by appeals to the judgment of Secu­lars, whether of others, or also of the Emperor himself. [Page 21]See Concil. Antiochen. 11. c. 12. c. —Concil. Sardica. 8. c. Concil. Chalced. 9. c. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium, non relinquat suum Episcopum, & ad saecularia judicia non concurrat &c. —Conc. Melevitanum 19. c. Pla­cuit, ut quicunque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum [i.e. Ecclesiasticorum] petierit, honore proprio privetur, &c. And see Conc. Generale 8. c. 17. & 21. This for Patriarchs superiority over, and their cotfirmation of, Metropolitans.

Next, amongst the Patriarchs themselves; § 10 it seems the lower received no ordination from the higher. But yet some confirmation, or approbation, they seem ordi­narily to have had from their Superiors, or at least from the Roman Patriarch, by those words of Leo, (Ep. 54. ad Martianum, the then Emperor,) concerning Anato­lius Bishop of Constantinople. Satis est, quod praedicto ve­strae pietatis auxilio, & mei favoris assensu, Episcopatum tantae Ʋrbis obtinuit. And, —custodire debuit, ut quod no­stro beneficio noscitur consecutus, nullius pravitatis cupidi­tate turbaret. Nos enim vestrae fidei, & interventionis ha­bentes intuitum, cum secundum suae consecrationis authores ejus initia titubarent, benigniores circa ipsum, quam justiores, esse voluimus; quo perturbationes omnes, quae operante Dia­bolo fuerunt excitatae, adhibitis remediis leniremus. Thus discourseth the Pope to the Emperor, conscious of all those proceedings, concerning his establishing of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch: and by the suit made to the Pope, concerning the settlement of Flavianus in the Patriarchy of Antioch; of which see Theodoret, hist. Ec­cles. 5. l. 23. c. Likewise concerning the confirming of superior Patriarchs by the inferior, that is true, which Dr. Field (5. l. 37. c. p. 551.) saith, in answer to such places urged by Bellarmin, That the manner was, that ‘the Patriarchs should (upon notice given of their due [Page 22]Ordination, and Synodal letters, containing a profession of their Faith) mutually give assent one to another.’ Therefore Cyprian, Antoniano Ep. 52. speaks thus con­cerning the legitimate election of Cornelius Bishop of Rome, whom Novatianus endeavoured to supplant. Factus est Cornelius Episcopus, cum Fabiani locus vacaret, quo [loco] occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato, quisquis jam Episcopus [Romae] fieri voluerit, foris fiat necesse est &c. But that which Dr. Field adds there, viz. ‘That the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained no otherwise to the Bi­shop of Rome, than the right of confirming Him per­tained unto Them, cannot justly be defended, even from his own concessions elsewhere, 5. l. 34. c. p. 528. &c. of which see more below § 24.)’ For no other Bishop could be a lawful Patriarch, without the approbation of the Bishop of Rome, the prime Patriarch: whose withdrawing his communion from any was withdraw­ing the communion of the whole Church, which hath always continued united to this Apostolick chair; and yet the Bishop of Rome was lawfully such without the approbation of every other Patriarch, so long as his ele­ction is not disallowed by the conjunct Hierarchy, or the whole representative of the Church gathered toge­gether in a Council, as it happened in the Council of Constance. He may have an authority over other Bi­shops or Patriarchs single, which none of them singly hath over him: and yet all of them conjoin'd may have the same authority over Him, as he hath over any of them single; one singulis major, may be minor universis. Of which see more below, § 22. n. 2. and in 2. Part. § 20.

[Page 23] § 11. n. 2.Likewise, Appeals were permitted from inferior Ec­clesiastical, to superior, Judges and Courts; but not of all causes and persons whatever to the supreamest Court; lest so should be no end of contentions. So the inferior Clergy in their differences might appeal from their Bi­shop to their Metropolitan and his Council, Provincial, or National, who were finally to determine such con­troversies; and such persons to acquiesce in them. A­gain; Bishops might appeal from their Metropolitan, or from any inferior Courts, to their Patriarch, and his Council; whose final decision, in ordinary contests, they were to rest in; and who, from the remotest of his Provinces, upon appeal, might either bring the cause to be heard by himself, if the moment of the business so requir'd; or send e latere suo presbyteros, (to use the expression of the 7th can. of Sardic. Conc.) or depute some other Bishops of that, or some other neighbour­ing, Province, to hear the matter, where it was acted: Or lastly, command the Appealant to acquiesce in the former sentence given. See for both these, the Appeals of inferior Clergy, and also of Bishops, Conc. Chalced. can. 9. (compar'd with Conc. Nic. 6 can. and Conc. Const. 1. can. 5.) —Si Clericus adversus Clericum habet negotium, —agitetur apud proprium Episcopum.—Si Clericus adversus suum vel alium Episcopum habeat causam, apud audientiam Synodi Provinciae conqueratur. Si vero contra ipsius Pro­vinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam, pergant ad ipsius Diocesis (a word in those times of larger extent than that of Province; one Diocess containing in it many Provinces) Primates, aut certe ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem.— Ad Constant. sedem; because by the Eastern Bishops both in this, and in the second General Council, the second [Page 24]Dignity amongst the Patriarchs, or Primates, after Rome, was conferr'd on him; and therefore by this Canon we may gather, That the same repair, as was in such causes permitted to be made in the East to the Constantinopo­litan, might as Canonically be made in the West to the Roman, Patriarch. For whatever priviledge the Constan­tinopolitan Bishop had, the Roman had in the first place. See Conc Sard. can. 3, 4, 7, 17.—Can. 3. (proposed by Hosius, President formerly in the Nicene Council,) Si in aliqua Provincia aliquis Episcopus contra fratrem suum Episcopum litem habuerit, unus de duobus ex alia Provin­cia advocet Episcopum cognitorem. Quod si aliquis Episco­pus judicatus fuerit in [aliqua] alia causa, & putat se bonam causam habere, ut iterum Concilium renovetur, si vo­bis placet S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus, ut scriba­tur ab his qui causam examinarunt, Julio Romano Episcopo: & si judicaverit renovandum esse, judicium renovetur; & det Judices. Si autem probaverit talem causam esse, ut non refricentur ea, quae acta sunt, quae decreverit confirmata erunt; si hoc omnibus placet: Synodus respondit, Placet.— Can. 4. Cum aliquis Episcopus depositus fuerit eorum Episco­porum judicio, qui in vicinis locis commorantur, & procla­maverit; agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma, alter Epis­copus in ejus Cathedra, post appellationem [i. e. to Rome] ejus qui videtur esse depositus, omnino non ordinetur, nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata.— Can. 7. Si Episcopus accusatus fuerit, — congregati Epis­copi regionis ipsius judicaverint; & de gradu suo eum deje­cerint, si appellaverit; qui dejectus est, & confugerit ad Episcopum Romanae Ecclesiae, & voluerit se audiri, [which was the course which Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, had take just be­fore this Council, tho the no Bishops of the Western Patriarchy, who also were members of this Council,] si [Page 25]justum putaverit, [i.e. Romanus Episcopus,] ut renovetur judicium vel discussionis examen, scribere dignetur his Epi­scopis, qui in finitima & propinqua Provincia sunt, ut ipsi diligenter requirant, & juxta fidem veritatis definiant. Quod si is, qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri, deprecatione sua moverit Episcopum Romanum, ut e latere suo Presbyte­rum mittat, fit in potesta [...]e Episcopi [i.e. Romani] quid velit, & quid aestimet. Et si decreverit mittendos esse, qui prae­sentes cum Episcopis judicent, habentes ejus authoritatem a quo destinati sunt, erit in suo arbitrio. Si vero crediderit Episcopos sufficere, [i.e. without his Legats,] ut negotio terminum imponant, faciet, quod sapientissimo consilio judica­verit. Can. 17. Si Episcopus forte iracundus (quod esse non debet) cito & aspere commoveatur adversus Presbyterum sive Diaconum suum, & exterminari eum de Ecclesia voluerit; providendum est, ne innocens damnetur, aut perdat commu­nionem, & ideo habeat potestatem is, qui abjectus est, ut Epi­scopos finitimos interpellet, & causa ejus audiatur, ac diligen­tius tractetur, quia non oportet ei negare audientiam rogan­ti, &c.

Thus (probably with some eye to the Justification of Julius his proceeding, concerning Athanasius, § 11. n. 2. which were reproach'd by the oriental Arian party) this great Council assembled about twenty years after the Nicene, and establishing the Decrees thereof; having the same President, or chief Prolocutor, in it, with the Coun­cil of Nice, (Hosius Bishop of Corduba) and several other Bishops of the Nicene Council, and men eminent in san­ctity, (to omit Athanasius), Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, Paphnutius, Serapion, Spiridion, and other: call'd Oecu­menical by Socrates, l. 2. c. 17. both the Emperors con­curring in the calling thereof: and it being subscrib'd, tho not by the Arrian party (a few in comparison, [Page 26]bearing the proportion of 76 to about 300; who seeing, they should be over-voted, departed from the Council), yet by the Orthodox Oriental, as well as Western, Bishops, namely, by Athanasius, by Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, and by the Bishops of Palestine, (who most­part adher'd to and the Athanasius, and the Nicene Decrees), by Diodorus Bishop of Asia minor, &c. (see the Council).

Notwithstanding all which, some have endeavour'd to disauthorize the Canons thereof, as giving the Ro­man Bishop too great an authority. See Spalatensis l. 4. c. 8. n. 34. where against these Canons he urgeth: α. That, in corpore antiquo Canonum universalis Eccle­siae, quo Oriens semper usus est, nullus Sardicenfis Canon lo­cum habuit: β That Patres Africani Canoni Sardicensi nihil deferre voluerunt, ubi enim cognoverunt Canonem non esse Nicaenum, illum contempserunt. That Zosimus, si Sardicenses tunc Canones fuissent alicujus authoritatis, non eum dixisset esse Nicaenum; sed id quod erat aperte dixisset, esse Canonem Sardicensem & servandum. γ Lastly, that Photius, about Anno D. 860 expresse negavit Nicolao Pa­pae Canonem Sardicensem 13 um ejus ordinationi objicienti se Sardicense Concilium, aut alia Pontificum decreta, habere vel recipere. But in answer to these. To α I oppose,

1. What Cardinal Perron replied long since to Cau­saubon, 1. l. 53. c. — ‘That the leaving these Canons out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae universalis is against the Faith of all the Greek Canonists, Photius, Zonaras, Bal­samon, Harmenopulus, and against the Greek impressions even of Basil, Wirtenberg, and other Protestant towns; and, in sum, against the verity of all the Greek Codes, as well Printed, as Manuscripts, of all the Libraries, Occidental, and Oriental.’ Thus Perron.

2. What just cause can be alledged for the rejection of these Canons? Spalatensis alledgeth this, (ibid.) quia [Page 27]Sardicae factum est schisma. But this Schism and depar­ture being made by an inconsiderable party, (these some 76, and the other some 300, with the prime Patriarch joined with them, and some eminent Oriental Bishops amongst them,) lest they should be overpowred; how could they do more to disauthorize these Canons, by being divided from the Council, than they could have done, by residing in it, and voting against them? But the dissenting votes of so few in the council surely could not weaken its acts; which receive force, not from all, (for what acts almost have such universal consent?) but from the much major part thereof. But if these Canons, without the concurrence of those persons, were invalid; so was also the Anti-Arrian Creed of this Council, and their sentence in the behalf of Athanasius. And indeed hence, where there is any Schism by some part, no act of the Church can thence-forward be valid. For example: What act of the Church Catholick could be valid at that time against the Arians, if these of Sar­dica were not?

3. Let it be granted, that these Canons, rejected at first by these Schismaticks, were afterward for some time, in the East, omitted by the Catholicks in their collections of the Churches Canons; yet it seems suffi­cient, that the Oriental Church of latter times, when the Arians were crushed, acknowledged them, as well as the West; which we find done by the Concil, Constan­tinopolitan. in Trullo. Can. 2. Obsignamus reliquos omnes Canones, qui a sanctis nostris Patribus &c expositi sunt, —si­militer & ab eis qui Sardicae convenerunt.

4. For the equity of these Canons, if we consider any obligation which they lay upon these Western parts of the Church, in respect of the Bishop of Rome, it is no greater than the acknowledged-General Council of [Page 28] Chalcedon layeth on the East, in respect of the Bishop of Constantinople, Can. 9.

5. However it be; the acts of such a Council, where­in the Western Bishops are conceded to have unani­mously agreed, are obligatory to the West; and parti­cularly to Africk, from whence were present therein 35 Bishops consenting thereto; and no dislike thereof af­terwards profest by the African Church of that present time. Nay Gratus, Primat of Carthage, who was pre­sent in this Council, quoteth the authority thereof in 1. Conc. Carthag. 5. Can. —Mamini in sanctissimo Con­cilio Sardicensi statutum —c: But had its Canons bin dis­allowed by the African Church, his quoting them would have prejudiced his matter. Therefore To β I say; neither were these Canons opposed by the African Council (which contested with Zosimus about them) above 60 years after, as known to them to be Sardican Canons, but only because they were utterly ignorant thereof. for tis clear by S. Austin's words, con­tra Crescon. 3. l. 34 c. and Ep. 163. ad Eleusium, that he, who may be presumed as knowing as any other of that Synod, knew of no Sardican Decrees at all, save those made by the separated Arians, I know not where, and called by them Sardican Canons; of which he came to have notice only casually from the Donatists; and, per­using the Book they shewed him, found them to be made by the Arians; because (saith he) legi Athanasium & Julium illo Conc. Sardicensi fuisse improbatos. (Ep. 163.) But it had bin some advantage to his matter then in hand, had he produced any true and Orthodox Council of Sardica, opposit to this, who defended Athanasius; but of this he is silent. Neither will this altogether seem so strange, when as in another matter we find him con­fessing himself ignorant also of a Canon of Nice, that [Page 29] ‘There may not be two Bishops resident of the same place at once.’ See Austin Epist. 110. Quod Concilio Nicaeno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, nec ipse [Valerius, the former Bishop of Hippo] sciebat. Neither did Zosimus, in all probability, know these Canons, which he urged to the Africans as the Nicene, to have bin the Canons of Sardica; for else we would have pressed them for such, being thus as obligatory to the Africans, as if they had bin the Nicene. To [...] Photius, a single person his re­jecting these Canons, when opposite to him, in a mat­ter so nearly concerning himself, 200 years after the Eastern Council in Trullo had acknowledged them a­mongst the rest, is to be looked on as a piece of passion: and his own putting these Canons also amongst the rest in his Nomo-canon, (see Balsam. in Nomo-can. Photii) is a sufficient self-condemnation.

Thus much for vindicating the authority of this Council. Of which thus Mr. Thorndike. Epilog. 3. l. 20. c. p. 181. — ‘This difference came afterward to be tried by a General Council at Sardica, &c. For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council, as the Emperor Justinian reckons it, being summoned by both the Emperor Constantius and Constance out of the whole Empire. [and] when the breach fell out, and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Phil­lopopolis, the whole power, in point of right, ought, I conceive, to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach. But the Success sufficiently shew­eth, that it did not so prevail, [was not obeyed, and submitted to by all, as a General Council,] for many a Council [which followed after this about the Arian opi­nions,] might have bin spared. The sovereign re­gard of peace in the Church suffered not those, that were in the right, to insist upon the acts of it, as I sup­pose. [Page 30]In the mean time the Canons thereof, whereby Appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are setled, whether for the West, which it represented, or for the whole [Church] which it had right to conclude, [those Bishops that voted in it] not having caused the breach,) shall I conceive [them] to be forged, because they are so aspersed? they having bin acknowledged by Justinian, translated by Dionys. Exiguus, added by the Eastern Church to their Canon-law? Or, shall I not ask [rather], what pretence there could be [in these Canons] to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome, rather than from Rome to other parts, had not a preeminence of power, and not only a precedence of rank, bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome?’ Thus Mr. Thorndike candidly of this Famous Council.

§ 12 The 7th and 17th Canons of this Council above re­cited, the Bishop of Rome urged,A Digres­sion concer­ning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Ap­peals. by mistake, to the 6th Carthaginian Council, contesting with him about Ap­peals, for Canons of Nice. By mistake, I say: For these two Canons are found verbatim the same, with those, which the Pope sent to the African Bishops; as appears by their Epistle to Boniface, wherein the Canons are set down: And the 17th Canon, it seems, was understood (I say not whether rightly) by the Bishop of Rome in such a sence; as that it established his, as well as the finitimi Episcopi's, receiving the appeals of Presbyters. which appears, by his pressing that canon to them; by his admitting the appeals of Apiarius only a Presbyter, the occasion of this controversy; and by the African Bishops opposing him in their Epistle to Celestine,, as well concerning Presbyter's as Bishops appeals to Rome. These canons of Sardica (as I have shewed out of S. Au­stin) [Page 31]tis probable that the African Bishops had not seen, tho they had the consent also of their predecessors; there being no less than 35 Bishops from Africk in that council, (Athan. Apol. 2.) and therefore, upon their not finding them amongst the Nicene, as was pretended, nor knowing them to be of the orthodox council of Sardica, they request; That neither the appeals of Presbyters, nor yet of Bishops, might thenceforth be admitted, from thence, by the Roman Bishop, but that their causes might finally be decided by their Metropolitan, or a Provincial Council, defending themselves with the 5th and 6th canons of the Nicene Council: Their words are these. —Impendio deprecamur &c, ne a nobis excommu­nicatos in communionem ultra velitis accipere; quia hoc eti­am Nicaeno Concilio definitum facile advertet Venerabilitas tua. Nam etsi de inferioribus clericis vel laicis videtur ibi praecaveri, quanto magis de Episcopis voluit observari, ne in sua provincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festi­nato, vel praepropere, vel indebite videantur communioni re­stitui? Decreta Nicaena [can. 4.6.] sive inferioris gra­dus clericos, sive ipsos Episcopos, suis Metropolitanis apertis­sime commiserunt. —Maxime quia unicuique concessum est, si judicio offensus sit cognitorum (i.e. of the judges of his cause) ad concilia suae Provinciae, vel etiam universale, pro­vocare. Their reasons are, —Ʋnicuique Provinciae gra­tiam Spiritus sancti non defuturam &c. —nisi forte quis­quam est qui credat, uni cuilibet posse Deum nostrum exami­nis inspirare justitiam, & innumerabilibus congregatis in Concilium sacerdotibus denegare. Therefore they desire him, that neither their causes might be judged, by him­self at Rome; for Quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexus, vel propter senectutis, infirmitatem &c, adduci non poterunt? nor by his Legats a latere in Africk; for hoc [Page 32]nulla invenimus Patrum synodo constitutum. —and nulla Patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Africanae. much less; that he would send executores Clericos qui­busque petentibus,—ne fumosum typhum saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi —videamur introducere. insr. § 25. n. 1. Executores &c, who by the Secular power, the Emperor's officers there, forced, if need were, the observation of the Bishop of Rome's decrees. See (Aust. Ep. 261.) the complaint S. Austin makes to the Pope of Antonius his threats. From which proceedings, they complain in their letter to Bonifacius, that they had suffered much formerly, and more than the Canons he urged, should they be found in the Nicen Council, did impose upon them. And the same dislike of Appeal to Rome may be found, before these times, in S. Cyprian, (Ep. 55. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome) at least in reference to those particular persons, Fortunatus and Felicissimus, notoriously guilty, and most justly con­demned by a Council in Africk; where he pleads thus: Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat, rationem sui actus Domino redditurus: oportet utique eos, quibus praesumus, non circumcursare, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere & testes sui criminis possint; nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis, minor videtur esse autho­ritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorum.

§ 13 Thus have I given you a brief account of this differ­ence between Rome and Africk. Mean-while tis plain; that then Appeals were ordinarily made from Africk to the Bishop of Rome, and his decrees submitted to, and executed there, and this not only before, but presently after, this contest. See below 23 §. and Leo's 85 Ep. ad Episcopos Africanos. where he writes thus concerning [Page 33] Lupicinus, an ejected African Bishop, appealing to him. Causam quoque Lupicini Episcopi illic jubemus audiri. Cui multum & saepius postulanti communionem hac ratione red­didimus: quoniam cum ad nostrum judicium provocasset im­merito eum, pendente negotio, a communione videbamus fu­isse suspensum. In which Epistle also he saith; Quod nunc utcunque patimur esse veniale, inultum postmodum esse non poterit, si quisquam id, quod omnino interdiximus, usur­pare praesumpserit. Manifest also, that they did at that time what he appointed concerning Apiarius: and pro­mised observance of the two Canons, till the return of the copy of the Nicene canons out of the East; and, after this return, some expressions in their letter they let fall, as if they would not offer to throw off altogether his interest in their affairs. Impendio deprecamur, ut deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes, non facilius admittatis. [Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus. (4. l. 8. c. 32. n.) Rogant, ut Episcopi non tam facile audiantur, [i.e. a Roman Pontifice,] nisi videlicet notoria & manifesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus, aut maxima eorum parte. For he grants there, ubi gravis & notoria est suspicio erga proprios & primarios Judices, Ep sco­pos reos potuisse ad aliena [or extera] judicia, praesertim vero ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere. and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Caetilian's case.] —And voluit obser­vari [i.e. the Council of Nice,] ne in sua Provincia com­munione suspensi, a tua sanctitate vel festinato, vel prapro­pere, vel ind [...]bite, videantur communioni restitui. And the 22. canon of the Milevitan Council, held by them about the time of this contest, prohibits transmarine Appeals only to the inferior Clergy: Placuit, ut Presby­teri, Diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici, in causis, quas habuerint &c non provocent, nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum &c.

[Page 34] § 14 Again: Notwithstanding what hath bin said by the Africans in this matter,Whether transma­rine Ap­peals in some cases very neces­sary, yet here may be made still a Quaere; Whether, in a controversie between Bishops and their Metropolitan; and much more in controversies be­tween Metropolitans, or Primates; or also Patriarchs themselves, such transmarine Appeals were not necessa­ry, and were, at all, or at least justly, by the African Bi­shops, in any-such cases, opposed. For the mere prov­ing of an opposition engageth us no more to the opi­nion of one side than of the other; neither may we ar­gue the Bishop of Rome unjustly claimed it, because they opposed it; no more than that they unjustly opposed it, because he claimed it. As for the 5th Nicene Canon urged by them, themselves grant it, and it is manifest to any Reader, to speak in express terms only of infe­rior Clergy; and in their application of it to Bishops, they qualify it with a —ne festinato, ne praepropere. For the common practice of former times, in Athanasius, &c, shews, that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons to admit into his communion any Bishop, excommunicated by his Province, if he found him wrongfully Suspended; and therefore tis true also, that the 6th canon, Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commisit, but not in every case unappealably to Superi­ors, as appears by the African Bishop's qualification in that Epistle. Ne festinato, ne praepropere, quoted before. As for the several Reasons they give, to these it may be replied on the other side: That the Patriarch, tho he were neither more prudent, nor better informed from others in difficult matters, nor more assisted from Hea­ven, (yet tis probable, that such might, as having a more choice election, both be more knowing, and, ac­cording to the eminency of his place, assisted, both with [Page 35]a wiser Council, and a greater portion of God's Spirit,) yet must he needs be a less partial Judge in such mat­ters; because not so nearly interessed, in the cause, nor in the persons, as the Metropolitan often must be; or also other Bishops, who live upon the place, and are sub­ject to his power. That the Provincial Councils, which they mention, tho their judgment were never so entire, were not always to be had, and were much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint; much rarer yet Councils universal: neither of them (by reason of the great trouble) fit, upon every such difference, to be cal­led. And hence fails that Apology, which Dr. Field (5. l. 39 c. p. 563.) makes for the Africans in these words. ‘The Africans, tho within the Patriarchship of Rome, disliked the Appeals of Bishops to Rome; be­cause they might have right against their Metropoli­tans in a general Synod of Africk, wherein the Primat sate as President: for otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the canons appeal to their own Patriarch.’ Thus far he. Therefore the Africans, denying this, went against the canons. That the canons of the Council of Sardica, which the African Bishops (then) knew not of, were sufficient to warrant his receiving of such appeals; and if any former African decrees be pleaded against him, much more may these of Sardica, for him. That many cases are not matter of fact, where witnesses are necessary, but questions de jure, where the fact is confessed; and that in such, no more plea can be made to have them tried at home, than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have de­manded not to have this matter arbitrated at Jerusalem; or Arius of Alexandria, at Nice. That for the conveni­ency of hearing witnesses, where necessary in such ap­peals, it was ordered indeed anciently, that, whenso­ever [Page 36]it could safely be done, such causes should be arbi­trated in the same, or some adjoining Provinces; by some Judges, either sent thither, or there delegated by the Patriarch, (of which the 7th canon of Sardica seems to take special care,) in the non-observance of which ca­nons some Roman Bishops perhaps may have bin culpa­ble, and caused great affliction to their subjects: but yet, that other exigencies might occur, (every cause not being fit to be decided by delegates,) which required the trial to be at the Patriarchal residency, to which the trouble of witnesses must give place; which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council, (see Conc. Sard. can. 4.) And this grave Assembly, we have no reason to think, but that they weighed the troubles of such ap­peals, as well as the Africans afterward, or we now; but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences, to avoid greater mischiefs; namely, in the intervals of Councils, schisms and divisions between Provincial, and between National, Churches, by the Church her having thus so many Supremes, terminating all Spiritual causes with­in themselves, as there were Provinces or countries, Christian. See Dr. Field, allowing such appeals, (be­low, §. 20.) and especially S. Austin, Ep. 162. where he justifies the appeal of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage, wronged by a Council of 70. Bishops held in Africk, whereof was President the Primat of Numidia, whose power and authority Dr. Hammond equals to that of Pa­triarchs, (Schism 3. c. p. 58.) to a transmarine judgment, (tho Donatus his party much crying out against such appeals, and tho it was in a matter meerly of fact; name­ly, whether Caecilian was ordained by some, who were traditores sacrorum Codicum igni, in time of persecution,) because such judgment was dis-engaged in the quarrel. His words are, —Sibi [i.e. Caeciliano] videbat apud Ec­clesiam [Page 37]transmarinam, a privatis inimicitiis & ab utraque parte dissensionis alienam, incorruptum & integrum examen suae causae remanere. —And again, Qui [i.e. Caecilianus] posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum, [i.e. in Africk,] cum se videret & Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus, & caeteris terris —per communicatorias literas esse conjunctum, ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere: (for all Churches had power to clear and examin his cause, in respect of enter­taining communion with him, and sending their com­municatory letters &c. tho all Churches had not such power, in respect of righting him against his adversa­ries, but only his superior Patriarch): Again, —An for­te non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium, quod ab Afris septuaginta, ubi Primas [Numidiae] Tigisita­nus praesedit, fuerat terminatum? Quid, quod nec usurpa­vit? Rogatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, & de tota illa causa, quod justum videretur, statuerent. This transmarine judgment here you see S. Austin justifies, notwithstanding the Donatists might have used the foresaid (§. 12.) plea of the African Fa­thers of the 6th Council, and of Cyprian; especially in the trial of a matter of fact.

§. 15[But concerning this foreign judgment of Caecilians cause, before I leave it, I must not conceal to you, what Calvin (Instit. l. 4. c. 7. s. 10.) relates thereof, in prejudice of the Pope's authority: objecting there; That Caecilian had his cause tried indeed by the Bishop of Rome; but, by him only as the Emperor's Delegate; and not by him singly, but with other special Dele­gates join'd with him; that, from this judgment, an appeal being made by Caecilian's adversaries, then the [Page 38]Emperor Constantine, so great an honorer of the Church's privileges, appointed the Bishop of Arles in France; Qui sedet Judex (saith he) ut post Roman. Pontificem, quod visum fuerit, pronunciet. And again, an appeal be­ing made from him also, ('tis further urg'd), That the Emperor judg'd the cause, after all, himself. For answer to which, I refer you to the relation of this story by St. Augustin, against the Donatists, Epist. 162. where you will find those Assessors to be join'd by the Emperor to the Bishop of Rome, ad preces Donatista­rum; who well knew Melchiades much favouring Cae­cilian's cause. (You may see Constantine's Letter to Mel­chiades, and Marcus, one of his Assessors, in Eus. l. 1. c. 5.) The Donatists, here cast, pretending some new evidence, requested of the Emperor yet another hearing of their cause; upon which,—dedit Ille (saith St. Austin) aliud Arelatense judicium, aliorum scil. Episcoporum [this was the Council of Arles, assembled in Constantine's time, of which see more below § 23. n. 7. consisting of two hundred Bishops, as Baronius conjectures out of St. Au­stin, which Council included, with more added to them, Caecilian's former Judges] non quia jam necesse erat; sed eorum perversitatibus cedens, & omni modo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere.— Afterward they importunately appealing also from this Council to the Emperor's own judgment; He, very earnest by any means to quell this growing division in the African Churches, cessit eis (saith St. Austin) ut de illa causa post Episcopos judica­ret, a sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus: dum tamen illi quod ulterius dicerent non haberent, si ejus sen­tentiae non obtemporarent. See likewise Dr. Field's con­cessions (l. 5. c. 53. p. 682.) concerning this business, both that the cause was judg'd by a Synod at Arles; and that the Emperor's hearing the cause after them [Page 39]was irregular. After this you may review what truth there is in the objection of Calvin.]

§ 16 Excuse this digression which I have made from § 12. concerning the difference between the African and Ro­man Bishop, arising from these Canons of Sardica there urged. Against which Canons whereas it is pretended; 1. That they authorize the Roman Bishop only to judg such causes by his Deputies upon the place, often said by Dr. Field; see in him p. 530. 2. That the 9th Ca­non of Chalcedon, a Council following this, in ordering the Appeal ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur, contains something con­trary to them. The first appears not true; by can. 4. Sard. —[& proclamaverit (i. e. Episcopus depositus) agen­dum sibi negotium in urbe Roma—& nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata]: By the privilege granted to the Constantinopolitan, and inferior Patriarch to the Roman, Con. Chal. c. 9. [ut eorum ibi negotium ter­minetur]: By the ordinary practice of the Roman Bi­shops in those early times; thence therefore is the Afri­can Expostulation with him, [Quomodo judicium trans­marinum ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae &c. adduci non possunt?] And the like you may see urg'd by Cyprian, see Field p. 563. Lastly, by Dr. Field's con­fession (l. 5. c. 34. p. 531.) ‘That the Pope with his Western Bishops might examine and judge, at Rome, the differences between two Patriarchs; or between a Patriarch and his Bishops;’ as 'tis clear he did, a little before the Sardican Council, judg at Rome the cause of Athanasius); how much more then, the differences, when of moment, of the Subjects of his own Patriar­chy? To the second, 'tis confess'd, That that Ca­non, in respect of some parts, namely of the East; and [Page 40]of some differences, namely of Bishops there, with their Metropolitans; doth restrain those of Sardica: But first, The African Controversie was before the Council of Chalcedon. Again, for the West at least, it must be granted, that those Canons stand good still, and are not weaken'd, but strengthen'd rather, and imitated by Chalcedon; which Council thought fit, in this Ca­non, to give that authority which Sardica conferr'd on the Roman, to a Seat inferior to the Roman; much more therefore may the Roman See, if the Constantino­politan, have such privileges. But lastly, we know also, that in this point of the Bishop of Constantinople's Dignity and Power, the Eastern Bishops of that Council were oppos'd by the Bishop of Rome and his Legates.

§. 17 After these Sardican Decrees, concerning these Ap­peals from inferior to superior Ecclesiastical Judges, see the eighth General Council, can. 26. (against which Council, tho the Grecians, in Conc. Florent. sess. 6. op­pose the Decrees of another following it, yet it is not contradicted in this I quote out of it, by that, or any other later Council). —Ʋt qui se laesum arbitrabitur a proprio Episcopo possit Metropolitanum appellare, qui datis dimissoriis ad se causam advocet. Liceat tamen Episcopis provocare ad Patriarcham, si crediderint se injustitiam pati a Metropolitano, a quo litibus finis imponatur. After which Canon, I will set you down that passage of the English Bishops, upon their relinquishing the See of Rome, (in their Book of the Institution of a Christian man, in Sacr. of Orders, quoted by Dr. Hammond, Schism c. 5. and much relied on by King James in Apol. pro jura­mento fidel. p. 124.) that you may see whether things were well-consider'd by them.— ‘It was (say they) many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could [Page 41]acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops, which were not within his Province in Italy. And the Bishops of Rome do now transgress their own pro­fession made in their Creation. For all the Bishops of Rome, always when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See, do make a solemn profession and vow, that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordi­nances made in the Eight first General Councils; a­mong which it is especially provided, that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they begun, and that by the Bishops of the same Province: which absolutely excludes all Papal (i. e. foreign) power out of these Realms.’ Now the Canons the Bishops refer to, are—Conc. Nic. c. 6. 1 Conc. Const. c. 2, 3. and Conc. Milevit. c. 22. which Canons, how little they make for their purpose, see below § 19, &c. and before, § 14. But the Pope making solemn vow to observe Conc. 8. can. 26. as well as these, did he vow contra­dictions? or, if these contradicting, doth not, in Eccle­siastical constitutions, the later stand in force? Again; for not appealing of all persons in every cause to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court, see Conc. Milev. whereof St. Austin was a member, Can. 22. Placuit, ut Pres­byteri, Diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici, in causis quas habuerint, si de judiciis Episcoporum questi fuerint, vicini Episcopi eos audiant, & inter eos quicquid est, finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum. Quod si & ab eis provocandum putaverint, non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellan­dum, a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiantur. But note here, that this Canon was made only concern­ing inferior Clergy, not Bishops (tho some mistakingly urge it against any appeals whatever;) and (as Bellar­min [Page 42]saith) was ratified by Innocentius Bishop of Rome, quoting his Epistle (among St. Austin's the 93.) tho indeed that Epistle confirms nothing else save their De­crees against Pelagius. But however, this is a thing, it seems by Bellarmin, that the Pope will not oppose. See about this non-appealing, Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 562. where he brings in also further, to confirm this, the Imperial Constitution Justin. Novelae Const. 123. c. 22. Lastly, see Bell. (de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 24.) confessing a restraint of some appeals, not allow'd to be made to the Patriarch; where he saith, Quaestio de Apellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyte­rorum & minorum Clericorum, sed de appellationibus Epis­coporum, &c. Therefore in that 'foremention'd conten­tion between Zosimus Bishop of Rome and the African Bishops, met in the 6th Council of Caerthage, about the appeal made to Rome of one Apiarius an African Presby­ter, who had a controversie only with his Bishop, the deciding of which by Canons is referr'd to the Metro­politan and his Council, or to the Episcopi finitimi, (Conc. Sard. can. 17.) it may be made a question, whe­ther the Pope was not mistaken in it, (if he contended not only for appeal of Bishops having controversie with their Metropolitans, but also countenanc'd that of Apia­rius); considering what was deliver'd in the Canons above-cited,§ 18 Those not subjected to any Patri­arch for Ordinati­on, yet sub­jected for decision of Controver­sies, and what is also conceded by the Car­dinal.

As for those Churches, who were under no Patriarch, i. e. in respect of their Metropolitan's receiving his Or­dination from any Patriarch; as Cyprus is conceiv'd by some to be, from Conc Ephes. can. 8. and Conc. Const. in Trullo, can. 39. (If these Canons do not prohibit rather the Patriarch of Antioch from hindering the Me­tropolitans [Page 43]of Cyprus to ordain other Bishops without his concurrence or consent, as the [Rem novam] in the beginning of the 8th Canon of Ephesus, and other expressions, seem to import. see below § 19.) Yet 1.1 They were not free and exempt from all foreign judgments, when any differences and contentions arose in any such Churches; but to them, or at least the prin­cipal of them, were (when question'd) to give ac­count of their Orthodox Faith and Canonical Obedi­ence; if they meant, to retain any Communion with the rest of the Church Catholick, and to receive com­municatory Letters as testimonials thereof. See for this St. Aug. Epist. 162. where he hath discours'd it at large. 2.2 Neither were they free from the jurisdiction of some Patriarch, or other, so far as the Canons of any General Council subjected them thereto. For ex­ample; That 7th Canon of Sardica [Si Episcopus &c.] being deliver'd indefinitely, oblig'd the Cyprian Bishops as much as any other. For the Law of a Legislator, who hath power to oblige all, obligeth all, if none be therein excepted. Now General Councils have just authority of decreeing a subordination, as they please, of Ecclesiastical Persons and Courts, for the unity and peace of the Church; or else their common practice hath mistaken the right. The same may be said of the obligation of the 9th Canon of Chalcedon, &c. Accor­ding to which Canons, since experience hath shew'd, and you may see it in Dr. Field's concessions, that ma­ny of those, whom the Protestants make independent Primates (as those of Carthage, Millain, &c.) have yeilded to the Patriarchal jurisdiction; the practice of these Pri­mates (if allow'd by them) infers the duty of the rest: if disallow'd, they must charge such Primates, not to have known or maintain'd their own privileges. But [Page 40] [...] [Page 41] [...] [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44]3ly,3 such non-subordinate Churches can plead no more privilege, than absolute Patriarchs have, being, if equal to, yet not advanc'd above, these. But amongst Pa­triarchs themselves, in matters of difference and ap­peal, the inferior were liable to the judgment of the superior Patriarchs (as shall be shew'd presently) there­fore must the Cyprians, or other, be the like; there be­ing the same reason of all, the preserving of the unity and communion of the whole Church Catholick, in which one Church is not more concern'd than others. Therefore Dr. Field (l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. where, in an­swer to Bellarmin's pretending a Monarchical Govern­ment of the Church as necessary, he goes to shew how her unity might well be, and was anciently, preserv'd without it, by several subordinations which were in the Church) discourseth thus: ‘If a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only, the chief Primate was Moderator: If, of many [Kingdoms], one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishops of the whole world [was Moderator]: every Church being subordinate to some one of the Patri­archal Churches, and incorporate into the Unity of it. 3ly, The actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Oecumenical.’ And l. 5. c. 39. p. 563. he quotes, the Emperor's Decree (Novel. 123. c. 22.) ‘that Bi­shops being at variance were finally to stand to, and not to contradict, their own Patriarch's judgment.’ And Gregory's (l. 11. ep. 54.) addition to it; ‘That if there be no Patriarch, then the matter must be ended by the Apostolick See, the Head of all Churches.’ —And ac­cordingly we find in the Patriarchal Councils of the West, all the Western Churches whatever (I dispute not here, whether subject, or no, to the Patriarch) assem­bling [Page 45]in them, and subject to the prevailing Votes and Decrees.

§ 19[Against what is said above, is much urged, by the Reformed, the second and third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople. Every Pro­vince not supreme, for finally determin­ing the dif­ferences arising therein. The words are these; Episcopi, qui extra Dioecesim sunt, ad Ecclesias, quae extra terminos earum sunt, non accedant; neque confundant & permisceant Ecclesias. Alexandriae quidem Episcopi so­lius Orientis [Aegypti saith another Translation] curam gerant, servatis honoribus Primatus ecclesiae Antiochenae, qui in regulis Nicaenae Synodi continentur. Sed & Asianae Dioe­cesis Episcopi ea quae sunt in Asia, & quae ad Asianam tan­tummodo Diaecesis habeant curam. Thraciae vero &c. And c. 3. Non invitati Episcopi ultra Dioecesim accedere non debent super ordinandis aliquibus, vel quibuscunque disponen­dis Ecclesiasticis causis. Manifestum namque est, quod per singulas quasque Provincias Provincialis Synodus admini­strare & gubernare omnia debeat; secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita. —5. c. Veruntamen [as it is in one Transla­tion] Constantinopolitanus Episcopus habeat honoris prima­tum post Romanum Episcopum &c. The title to which Canons, being all joined into one, in one Translation is, De ordine singularum Dioeceseon; & de privilegiis, quae Aegyptiis, Antiochenis, Constantinopolitanisque debentur. These Canons are urged to prove; That all Provinces are for power absolute, and supreme: That every cause and controversy between any persons should be deter­mined finally within the Provinces, where the matters did lie; and that by the Bishops of the same Provinces, from whom might be no further appeal: and, That no Bishop should exercise any power out of his own Dio­cess, or Province; and consequently, neither the Roman Bishop, out of his Province in Italy. And, because here [Page 46]follows some preeminence granted to the Constantinopo­litan Bishop post Romanum, that this may not be thought to contradict what goes before, they say, that this preeminence of the Constantinopolitan Bishop is dignitatis only, not potestatis. To all which I answer,

1. That these Canons are capable of another inter­pretation; namely, That neither Patriarch, nor Pri­mat, or Metropolitan, should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy, or Province coordinate, and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs; i. e. over which, neither by ancient custom, nor constitutions of Councils, he could claim any such Superiority. (See the limitation, Concil. Ephes. c. 8. —Quae non prius, atque ab initio &c. and Can. Apostol. 36. Quae illi nullo jure sub­jectae sunt; a clause clause still retained in these canons, to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal.) Not those of Alexandria with the affairs of Antioch, [solius Aegypti curam gerant, servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae,] without encroaching upon them; or the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch medling with the Ordination of Bishops in the Provinces subjected to them. Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace; to whom Thrace owed no subjection. Again, That in every Province the Pro­vincial Synod be the supreme and last Court, above any other authority in that Province; and exclusively to the judgments of the Bishops of any neighbouring Pro­vinces, which are only coordinate with it. See them below, § 28. called by Gregory, Episcopi alieni Concilii; and §. 26. this interpretation further confirmed.

2. That their interpretation of these canons cannot be true: 1.1 Neither in this; that they would make every Province independent, and supreme; because both the Bishop of Alexandria, and of Antioch, which are here mentioned, had more than one Province sub­jected [Page 47]unto them, (yet all called their Diocess or Pro­vince, taken in a larger sence); and the Bishop of Con­stantinople, who is not mentioned or limited in the 2d. Canon (Conc. Constantinop.) as others, had several of the Provinces here-named, as Pontus, Asia, Thrace, sub­jected to him, and that by this very Council. For which see Conc. Chalced. Act. 16. —Centum & quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopi [i.e. the Fathers of this Con­stantipolitan Counci] rationabiliter judicantes &c Ʋrbem [Constant.] in Ecclesiasticis (sicut illa [Roma]) ma­jestatem habere negotiis, —& his, qui de Ponto sunt, & de Asia & Thracia dioecesibus, Metropolitanos ordinari a praedi­ctae Constant. Sedis sanctissima Ecclesia; where these Fa­thers expound what was meant here by Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae, in the words following: namely, ut unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Dioecesium—or­dinet suae regionis Episcopos, sicut divinis Canonibus [i.e. the canons of Nice, and these of Constantinople] est praecep­tum. Thus are Pontus and Asia &c subjected to the See of Constantinople, tho not for the ordaining of their Bishops, yet for the ordinations of their Metropolitans, and also for Appeals: as may be seen in their 9th. and 16th. canons, which seems to be the meaning of that Majestas in Ecclesiasticis negotiis, which they gave him post Romam. And all this they do, after these very ca­nons were first recited in the Council; —definitionem sanctissimorum Patrum sequentes ubique, & regulam, & ea quae nunc relecta sunt [i. e. these canons] centum & quin­quaginta Episcoporum &c. Which to confirm to you yet farther, see the Subscriptions of those Bishops of Asia, and Pontus, &c, of one, —Ego gratum habeo sub sede Constantinopolit. esse, quoniam & ipse ordinavit; of an­other, secundum sententiam Patrum 150 voluntate propria subscripsi. Therefore the Primacy post Romanam, gran­ted [Page 48]by Const. Concil. Constantinopol. to the Bishop thereof, was not dignitatis only, but potestatis, (and therefore much more the Primacy of Rome,) as the Chalcedon Fa­thers expound these canons. But, if we say, that they misunderstood, yet then they have at least sufficiently reversed them, and nulled their force, because they, coming after the other, have made a contrary decree, which at least in matters of Ecclesiastical constitution, annulleth the former.2 2. Neither is their interpreta­tion true in this, viz. That Provincial Councils may finally determin all causes thereof, exclusively to all o­thers whatsoever: for so they would not be subject to Patriarchal, nor Universal Councils; nor would any appeals from them at all be lawful; contrary, to what is said but now, (Con. Chalc. 9. c. see likewise the can. of Sardica.) and to the known common practice of Anti­quity; (of which hereafter follow many instances.) and also in the 8th. canon of this very Council which they urge, (as it is extant in Balsamon,) examinations of matters are remitted from Provincial Councils to a greater Synod of the Diocess. Quod si evenerit, ut Pro­vinciales Episcopi, crimina, quae Episcopo intentata sunt, cor­rigere non possunt, [placuit &c] tunc ipsos [accusatores] accedere ad majorem Synodum Dioecesis illius &c.

3. It may be answered; Whatever these canons mean, that, one part of this Council sitting at Constan­tinople, the other at Rome, they received no confirma­tion from those at Rome: (See, for this, what is said be­fore, § 7.) And it is observable, that tho there is men­tion made in them of Antioch and Alexandria, yet is there none made of the limitations of the Roman, or the Western, Diocesses; no, nor yet of limiting the Constantinopolitan Bishops, whom they ordered to be the second to Rome: for we read not in them, Constantino­politanae [Page 49]Dioecesis Episcopi, ea quae ad Constantinopolitanam tantummodo Dioecesim pertinent, gubernent.

Lastly, Patriarchs themselves,§. 20. n. 1. The Patri­archs also subjected to the judg­ment of a superior Patriarch. and those who had complaints against them, (according to Dr. Field's con­cessions, 5. l. 39. c. and 34. c. p. 530.) might appeal to, ‘and were to be judged by, those of their own rank, in order before them, assisted by inferior Bishops. And the Bishop of Rome, (saith he p. 568.) as first in order amongst the Patriarchs, assisted with his own Bishops, and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty,’ [tho these latter I do not always find necessary, The power of Jurisdi­ction (not only prima­cy of Dig­nity) of the Bishop of Rome a­bove the rest of the Patriarchs and Bi­shops. or present at such judgments, as appears in the instances here following] might ‘judge any of the other Patriarchs; and such as had complaints against them might fly to him, and the Sy­nods of Bishops subject to him; and the Patriarchs themselves, in their distresses, might fly to him and such Synods for relief and help. Tho (saith he) of himself alone he had no power to do any thing. And (5. l. 52. c. p. 668.) when (saith he) there groweth a dif­ference between the Patriarchs of one See, and ano­ther; or between any of the Patriarchs, and the Me­tropolitans and Bishops subject to them; the superior Patriarch (not of himself alone, but with his Metro­politans, and such particular Bishops as are interested) may judge and determin the differences between them.’ And (5. l. 34. c. p. 531.) ‘—He assents to the saying of Gelasius Bishop of Rome, urged by Bellarmin: That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome;’ seeing every other See is inferior to it. Thus He. Whose Concessions if it may be thought that they are too free, and too indulgent to the Church of Rome; and therefore that the testimonies of this sin­gle person ought not to be so much pressed, as I have, [Page 50]and shall press them in this discourse; I first advertise you, that they are such as seem forced from him most-what in his answers to the authorities out of the Pri­mitive times, collected by Bellarmin: and then I desire, that, any perusing the same authorities, would try, if himself can shape any less-yeilding answer that may be satisfactory, (except this; the utter rejecting and re­nouncing all such Authorities which, prudent men see, would give too much advantage to the Roman cause,) and I am content that Dr. Field's concessions, and whatever is built thereon in this discourse, be cancell'd, and nulli­fied. But, in some manner to second Dr. Field's judg­ment and relation of this matter, I will add to it several concessions of the Archbishop of Spalato, a copious wri­ter also on this subject; who of the ancient priviledges of Patriarchs, and, amongst them, especially of the Ro­man, speaks thus. 3. l. 10. c. 26. n. Sicut Metropolita­nus Episcopus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere & corri­gere debet & emendare, ita si Metropolitanus erret sive in moribus, sive in judiciis & actis suis, ne etiam in hoc Sy­nodus semper cum incommodo conveniat, a Patriarchis vo­luit Ecclesiastica consuetudo & lex Metropolitanos emendari; nisi tam gravis sit causa & publica, praesertim fidei, ut totius regionis Synodus, sive & Oecumenica debeat convenire; [of which cause surely the Patriarch is to judge, since he only, not they, hath the authority of convocating such Council.] Ita in Concil. Chalced. cap. 9. statutum est, ut si adversus Provinicae Metropolitanum Episcopus vel Clericus habeat querelam, petat Primàtem Dioeceseos, aut sedem Re­giae Ʋrbis Constantinopolitanae, & apud ipsam judicetur. Et in octava Synodo Generali Canon expressus ponitur de Pote­state Patriarcharum & Metropolitanorum sub his verbis, ‘Haec sancta & magna Synodus tam in seniori & nova Ro­ma, quam in sede Alexandriae &c priscam consuetudinem [Page 51]decernit in omnibus conservari, it a ut eorum Praesules [the Patriarchs] universorum Metropolitanorum, qui ab ipsis promoventur, (sive per manus impositionem, sive per Pallii dationem) Episcopalis Dignitatis firmitatem accipiant, ha­beant potestatem; viz. ad convocandum eos urgente necessi­tate ad Synodalem conventum, vel etiam ad coercendum illos & corrigendum, cum fama eos super quibusdam delictis for­san accusavenit.’ So 4. l. 4. c. 5. n. of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch he saith: Jam introductam consuetudinem ut causae Ecclesiasticae totius Orientis, quae in propriis Provin­ciis terminari vix possent, ad Sedem Constantinopolitanam deferrentur, Concilium hoc Chalcedonense bis confirmavit. And 9. c. 1. n. of the Roman Patriarch thus. —Quia Pa­triarchae (ut disserui 3. l. 10. c.) alia Privilegia habent in quibus superant Metropolitanos, habebit etiam Romanus Pontifex omnia Patriarchalia Privilegia; Palli [...]m sibi sub­jectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus concedere &c eosdem a lege Divina vel sacris Canonibus deviantes corripere, & in officio continere; controversias inter eosdem exortas compo­nere, causasque eorundem interdum [i. e. in causis graviori­bus] audire & decidere; totius Patriarchatus Concilia con­vocare. —Romanum tamen Patriarcham adhuc in qui­busdam peculiari quadam ratione supra omnes etiam Patri­archas excellere jam ostendo. He goes on there 14. n. —Ex loco sui primi Patriarchatus sacrorum Canonum primus ha­bebatur, & praecipuus observator, custos, ac vindex; quos si alicubi violari cognosceret, acer monitor insurgebat. [He seems loth to say, judex, tho he hath said it before.] —15. n. Secundum Privilegium Episcopi Romani fuit, ut ad ipsum quicunque Episcopi cujuscunque Provinciae & Re­gionis [not only of his Patriarchy] qui se ab Episcopis pro­priae Provinciae gravari sentirent, in judiciis Ecclesiasticis, tanquam ad sacram anchoram, confugerent; apud ipsum in­nocentiam suam probaturi: [he seems loth to say, that [Page 52]they repaired to him to have their causes heard and judged by him, and to have restitution to their places from him; tho nothing is more clear than this, in Atha­nasius his, and many other cases instanced-in below: but presently he confesseth,] —Romani Pontifices de fa­cto eos sedibus suis restituebant, & ab objectis criminibus tan­quam si essent supremi judices absolvebant; and this so anciently as Cyprian's time, and before the first General Council of Nice.] —16. n. —Romanus Pontifex prop­ter summam ipsius existimationem, commune quasi vincu­lum & nodus erat praecipuus Catholicae communionis in tota Ecclesia. —Catholicae communionis dux & arbiter, ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret, vel adimeret, caeterae quoque Ecclesiae omnes ordinarie darent pariter, vel adime­rent. (So elsewhere he saith, (8. c. 2. n.) Communio cum Ecclesia Romana maximi semper facta est in Ecclesia totius Imperii Romani universali.) Propter summam ipsius ex­istimationem, saith he; but he mentions not the cause which the Ancients give, because it was Prima Sedes Apostolica, & Cathedra Petri & Pauli; for if he were so then [Dux &c,] for this reason, so he ought to be to all Christians still. —17. n. Quartum fuit Privilegium, ut nihil grave in Ecclesia universali, nisi consulto prius Ro­mano Pontifice, statueretur, aut tractaretur; cujus etiam in his non modo Consilium, sed consensus quoque enixe require­retur. [He joyns.] Ita tamen ut absolute necessarius non esset; neque si abessent, Definitiones cassaret, aut impediret. But this is contrary to the ancient Church-Canon, Sine Romano Pontifice &c. see below 21. §. and how else will he void the Heretical acts of the 2d. Ephesine Coun­cil? —Lastly, 12. c. 5. n. thus he speaks of the Legats of the Roman Bishops. Medio tempore [in which time he reckons Leo Magnus to be, and might-truly have gone higher had he pleased, but Leo was before the 4th [Page 53]General Council] Romani Pontifices coeperunt aut extra­ordinarios Legatos a latere suo in alienas Provincias mittere, aut ordinarios in ipsis Provinciis habere, alicui ex illius Provinciae Episcopis suas vices committentes, & utrosque cum potestate jndiciaria & non sine jurisdictione. Eorum totum munus hoe medio tempore fuit rebus fidei in illa Pro­vincia superintendere, & observare, ne quid ipsa fides detri­menti patiatur; Canonum observationi invigilare, & corri­genda corrigere, & reformare; & judicia, quae putabantur Romam esse deferenda, leviora absolvere, graviora Domino Papae referre. Thus He.

And indeed,§ 20. n 2. frequent examples there are of the Bi­shop of Rome's using a judicial authority, in some ma­ters, over the chiefest members of the Universal Church. Frequent examples of wronged both Bishops and Patri­archs, appealing and repairing unto him for redress, even in early times when his power is said to have bin so great. Which redress he afforded them; By sum­moning their adversaries also, tho under another Patri­archat, to appear before him: By examining their cause, and declaring them innocent by and with his own Patriarchal Council, or with so many Bishops as could well be conven'd, if the cause were of moment: By allowing and retaining them in his communion: By declaring the proceedings and acts of their adversa­ries (when discover'd by him to be against the former Ecclesiastical Canons) null and void. Whilst He, as the prime Bishop of the world, seemed to have a super­intendency in the interval of General Councils, for the observation of the Ecclesiastical Canons established by former Synods, not only (if we may judge by the pra­ctice of those ancient and holy Bishops of Rome) over his own Patriarchat, but over the whole Church; of [Page 54]which see more § 21. and 25. &c. by writing to other Patriarchs and Synods, to do the same, and to permit them quietly to enjoy their Dignities; by pronoun­cing the sentence of Excommunication upon refractory offenders, tho it were those of the highest Dignity: see below § 23. n. 5, 6. § 25, &c.

And lastly, if the greatness of the cause, and of the op­position, and their non-acquiescence, in his judgment, so required, by calling other Bishops of what Dignity soever before him, and his Council, or by citing a Ge­neral Council for their relief. See Dr. Field (l. 5. c. 35. p. 536, 538.) Now why such repair was made to him, and such primacy and power given him, beyond all other Bishops, by ancient Church-custom and Canons; whether from the Dignity of the imperial City, where he was Bishop; or whether from St. Peter and St. Paul's last residence in this their most eminent seat, and Mar­tyrdom there, leaving the Regiment of the Church of God, which they both finally exercis'd in this place, in that Bishop's hands when they died; (for some reason there must be, that Antiquity so specially applied Sedes Apostolica (when-as many others were so too) to that See beyond all others; and that the Appealants, and others, made their honourable addresses to it, not as Sedes Imperialis (for such addresses to Rome ceased not to be still, when the Emperor's chief residence was in the East), but as Sedes Apostolica); or whether for both these (for both these are compatible enough) it little concerns me to examine. Only, de facto such honour and respect to be given him is most evident. So those famous Worthies of the Church (amongst others), Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Paulus and Chryso­stom Bishops of Constantinople, and Theodoret (a Bishop in Syria) when oppressed at home, appeal'd to the Bi­shop [Page 55]of Rome with his Western Synods, (see Field, l. 5. c. 39. p. 570.) In which Appeals, what the Pope's power in those times was accounted to be, and what interest his Authority challeng'd in respect of the Eastern parts of the Church, I think you will remain partly well sa­tisfied (notwithstanding the great contests in this mat­ter), if you please to read these quotations, which, travelling thro by five or six of the first Ages, with some trouble to my self, I have transcribed, to save your pains; lest perhaps you should not have the opportunity, or the leisure, or (at least) the curiosity, to seek them in their several Authors. Wherein yet, I could wish, if you se­riously seek satisfaction in this matter, you would re­view them, I being forc'd, for avoiding further tedious­ness, to omit many circumstances.

§. 21 See the testimony of the Ecclesiastical Historians: The seventh Chapter of the third Book of Sozomen, This power exemplifi­ed in the primitive times, to the end of the 6 Age, the days of Gregory the Great, extending to § 36. who liv'd in the fifth Age, contemporary to St. Leo; where, concerning Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, their repair to the Bishop of Rome, Julius; he saith: Cum, propter Sedis dignitatem, cura omnium ad ips [...]m spectaret, singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit; scripsitque ad Episcopos Orientis eosque incusavit, &c.—deditque mandatum ut quidam illorum, omnium nomine, ad diem constit [...]tum, accederent.—Quin­etiam minatus est se de reliquo non passurum, &c. The 11th Chapter of the second Book of Socrates, where he saith; Julius Bishop of Rome sent Letters to the Orien­tal Bishops, &c. quoniam Ecclesia Romana privilegium praeter caeteras obtinebat; and that Paulus and Athanasius, ad suas ipsorum Ecclesiās redibant literis Jul [...] confisi: con­cerning which priviledg we have less reason to rely on the judgment of those Arrian Bishops, opposing and [Page 56]scoffing at them, than on the orthodox Paulus and Atha­nasius, acknowledging and seeking relief from them. See the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arri­ans; wherein he saith: Judicatum est non semel secundum nos, sed saepius ac saepius: primum quidem in nostra Provin­cia &c.—Secundo Romae: nobis, caeterisque adversariis Eu­sebii, ad ejus criminosas literas in judicio comparentibus. Fuere autem in eo consensu plures quam 50 Episcopi; the Pope with 50 of his Western Bishops hearing his cause. The Epistle of Julius to the Oriental Bishops assembled at Antioch, written before the Council of Sardica (and so before the 7th Canon thereof was compos'd) and publish'd by Athanasius, in that his second Apology, wherein are such passages as these unto them,—Quum iidem illi [those sent from the Eastern Bishosp] autho­res mihi fuerunt, ut vos convocarem, certe id a vobis aegre ferri non debuit, sed potius alacriter ad citationem occur­rere. —Cur igitur & in primis de Alexandrina civitate ni­hil nobis scribere voluistis? An ignari estis, hanc consue­tudinem esse, ut primum nobis scribatur, ut hinc, quod justum est, definiri possit? qua propter si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcopum concepta fuerat, id huc ad nostram Ecclesiam re­ferri oportuit.— Quae accepimus a Beato Petro Apostolo, ea vobis significo.— And the same thing which Julius men­tions here [An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse, &c. and before it, Oportuit secundum Canonem & non isto modo judicium fieri, &c.] is also found urg'd by Innocentius (amongst S. Austin's Epistles, Ep. 91.) Quod illi [i. e. Patres] non humana sed divina decrevere sententia, ut quic­quid de disjunctis remotisque Provinciis ageretur, non prius ducerent finiendum, nisi ad hujus sedis notitiam perveniret, ubi tot a hujus authoritate justa quae fuerit, pronunciatio fir­maretur; indeque sumerent caeterae Ecclesiae velut de natali suo fonte &c. and mention'd in Socrates l. 2. c. 13. Cano­nibus [Page 57]nimirum jubentibus, proeter Romanum nihil decerni Pontificem, and in Sozomen, l. 3. c. 9.

[Concerning which Canon, much stood upon,§ 22. n 1. A Digres­sion concer­ning the meaning of that anci­ent Canon; Sine Ro­mano Pon­tifice ni­hil finien­dum. give me leave to dilate a little, before I produce any more Authorities. Nothing (say some) (of great consequence for the Ʋnity and Communion of the Church, or also which should universally oblige) to be concluded without him; that is, without his knowledg, or without asking his con­sent. So Calvin, Instit. l. 4. c. 7. s. 8. ut absente Romano Episcopo universale de religiose decretum non fiat, siquidem interesse non recuset. The same saith Dr. Field, p. 651. No; not only so: for this, as Bellarmin replies, will signifie no more privilege to this See, than any other Patriarch had; and why canonically and singularly is that granted to one, which is common to all?

In the second place therefore; Nothing to be con­cluded by Councils without him, i. e. without his giving his consent: For in this sense, and not only in the for­mer, Julius and the Roman Bishops urg'd it; and, that anciently it was taken in this sense, is shew'd by the frequent Appeals of Bishops and Patriarchs to the Bishop of Rome (not so to others) for redress from the De­crees of Councils; and those Councils, some of them, in some sense General (as the second Ephesin Council) General, for the meeting, but not for the vote; since neither the Roman Patriarch, nor his Legates, nor the Western Bishops did vote with them, when they thought themselves injur'd thereby. So Flavianus Bishop of Con­stantinople (see Leo Epist. 23. ad Theodosium,—Quia & nostri fideliter reclamarunt, & eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit. And Conc. Chalced. Act. 3.) and Theodoret appeal'd to him from the second Ephesin Council, which sided with Eutyches. So Athanasius, and [Page 58] Paulus, and Chrysostom, from several, and numerous, Eastern Councils. Without his giving his consent then, nothing of moment stood firm,

But thirdly, Without his giving his consent indeed, but so amply understood, as that this his consent involve also that of all the Western Bishops of his Patriarchy (few of which, excepting the Pope's Legates, could be personally present at those remote Councils of the East): or of so many of them, as he could conveniently call to Council (against whom it was presum'd he would do nothing, as a person standing wholly singular, and uni­versally dissented from); for, these making so consi­derable a part of the Church, and as it seems by that passage in the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Julius (Sozomen l. 3. c. 7.) esteem'd more numerous than the East; it was most unreasonable, that any thing of mo­ment, and worthy the cognizance of a General Coun­cil (amongst which this was one, removing Bishops of note from their Seats, or from the Communion of the Church, which might cause great Schisms) should stand in force without their approbation: And upon this that Canon of Chalcedon, advancing the Bishop of Con­stantinople (so much urg'd) justly could have no force, till afterward it was condescended to by the Bishops of Rome; because as not he, so neither the Western Bishops allow'd it. Neither upon this could the fifth Constantino­politan Council be justly call'd General, no more than the 2d Ephesin Council (which being never confirm'd, was never accounted such), when-as neither the Bishop of Rome, nor his Legates, nor his Western Bishops, would be present therein (upon a difference between them and the Orientals: not de fide, wherein both sides agreed, but de personis; Theodorus, Theodoret, and Iba,) until it was afterward confirm'd also by the Pope and his West­ern [Page 59]Party, not long after the ending thereof (because they found it not so injurious to the Council of Chalce­don as was at first fear'd): in like manner as the first Constantinopolitan Council, where none of the West was present, was counted the 2d. General Council from such a post-confirmation of the West. See what is said be­low, § 25, n. 3. and § 26.— But perhaps we may ascend yet a step higher.

4. Nothing to be concluded by General Councils without his giving his single personal consent, § 22. n. 2. tho both Western and Eastern Churches were all united in their vote, (yet I think it cannot be shewed, that the Roman Bishop ever opposed such an universal Vote, where his Western Bishops were joyned with the East against him,) by reason of the dignity and primacy of his See. For so it was thought fit to be ordered by ancient Canons con­cerning Metropolitans, in respect of their particular Provinces; that nothing may be done without them: (see Conc. Antioch. can. 9. and Apostol. Can. 35. &c.) and the reason given; —Sic enim unanimitas erit: and so tis ordered concerning Princes and their Parliaments, for the more peaceable government of States; and why may not this Canon have the same meaning for St. Pe­ter's chair, in respect of General Councils? Especially since it is not denied; That as they can conclude no­thing without him; so neither might He, without Them, (i.e. in the time of their sitting, or assembly,) do any thing which was obligatory to the whole Church. He may indeed in the interval of Councils take care of the due observance of former Ecclesiastical Canons, and, perhaps also, for the present peace of the Church, (see § 18. and below, § 34.) decide dubious matters, upon appeals made to him for the peace of the Church, till such Council meet: for tis both necessary in general, [Page 60]that some standing supreme Tribunal there be, where, in the vacancies of General Synods, Suits should be finally terminated; and also the practice of Appeals from all parts of the Church, for matters of moment, to Rome, do shew his in particular to be that Tribunal. So Metropolitans also do act single, when their Pro­vincial Councils are not convened, who in time of those Councils may act nothing without their concurrence. But yet when a General Council sits, it may upon ma­ture deliberation reverse any thing he hath done with­out it; correct any error he hath committed; neither do his laws prescribe to it. To which purpose hear what S. Austin saith, Epistle 162. in a judgment given against the Donatists, before the Nicen Council, by the Roman and some other Bishops. —Ecee putemus illos Epi­scopos, qui Romae judicarunt, non bonos judices fuisse; resta­bat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium [Nicae­num,] ubi etiam cum ipsis Judicibus causa possit agitari; & si male judicare convicti essent, eorum sententiae solverentur. Solverentur, therefore till such Council such sentence was obliging. The issue therefore of such mutually li­mited power is only this, (which can neither damage the Churches doctrine, nor discipline); That where both (the Council, and this prime Patriarch) agree not, no new law, no change can be made; but all things must remain in statu quo prius, which state of things is no way alterable by the Bishop of Rome: for this Ca­non, if it give him a negative power against what is to be established, it doth not so for what hath bin establish­ed, as well by the former Bishops of Rome, as former Councils. See the concession of Zosimns to this pur­pose, (apud Gratianum. 25. q. contra statuta.) —Contra sta­tuta Patrum condere aliquid vel mutare, nec hujus quidem Sedis potest authoritas. Apud nos enim inconvulsis radicibus [Page 61]vivit antiquitas, cui decreta Patrum sanxere reverentiam. Which former Synods, if he shall happen to trespass a­gainst, and incur the guilt of heresy, upon evidence of the fact, he is condemnable and deposable by the Coun­cil: of which see more 2. part. §. 20. So we find a Pope, Honorius, condemned of heresy, as a Monothelite, by the 6th General Council. but this was done by the Pope, as well as the Council. Hear, what a Bishop of Rome, Adrian the 2d. saith concerning this matter, (in the 8th General Council. Act. 7.) Romanum Pontifi­cem de omnium Ecclesiarum Praesulibus judicasse legimus; de eo vero quenquam judicasse non legimus. Licet enim Honorio ab Orientalibus post mortem anathema sit dictum, sciendum tamen est [quod] qui fuerat super haeresi accusatus, propter quam solum licitum est minoribus majorum suorum motibus resistere, vel pravos suos sensus libere respuere; quamvis & ibi nec Patriarcharum nec caeterorum Antistitum cuipiam de eo, quamlibet fas fuerit proferre sententiam, nisi ejusdem pri­mae Sedis Pontificis consensus proecessisset. and what that Council saith, Can. 21. —Sed ne alium quenquam con­scriptiones contra Sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae ac verba complicare, vel componere liceat &c, quod & nuper Photius [Patriarch of Constantinople, whom this Coun­cil deposed] fecit, & multo ante Dioscorus, [Patriarch of Alexandria.] Quisquis autem tale facinus contra Sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare, aequalem & eandem, quam Illi, condemnationem [i.e. deposition] re­cipiat. Porro si Synodus Ʋniversalis fuerit congregata; & facta fuerit etiam de Sancta Romanorum Ecclesia quaevis ambiguitas aut controversia, oportet venerabiliter, & cum convenienti reverentia de proposita quaestione sciscitari & so­lutionem accipere, aut proficere, aut profectum facere, non tamen audacter sententiam dicere contra summos Senioris Romae Pontifices. Thus that Council in opposition to [Page 62] Photius his former violences toward the Roman See; and thus much of that old Canon, mentioned in the Epistle of Julius to the Orientals, assembled at Antioch. Who since they made an Arrian Creed contrary to the Nicene, and condemned Athanasius, and some other Orthodox Bishops, which things were done, if not by the major party, yet by the prevailing; it is as reasonable to af­firm, That the same persons only, that did these things, writ that Letter to Julius, so invective against the au­thority of the Roman See, and not the major part; whom Spalatensis, to add the more authority to this Letter, contends to have bin Catholick. (See his 3. l. 8. c. 3. n. &c. 4. l. 8. c. 11. n. &c.) However it is clear, that Julius his proceedings are justified against them, both by the Occidental Orthodox Bishops, and by Athana­sius, and other orthodox Bishops of the East, and by the Council of Sardica, and by the Ecclesiastical Historians. See Sozomen, 3. l. 7. c. and 9. c. where the same persons that writ to Julius, (the Historian saith,) contra Concilii Nicaeni decreta res gesserunt, and were accused by Julius, (9. c.) quod clam contra fidem Concilii Nicaeni novas res moliti fuerunt. See Socrates 2. l. 7. c. their changing the Nicene Creed. Thus much concerning the meaning of the ancient Canon. Now to go on.]

See (in Athanas. Apol. 2. and Socrates 2. l. 19. c. and Epiphan. Haer. 68.) Valens and Ʋrsatius, § 23. n. 1. two Bishops, one in Mysia, the other in Pannonia, both very gracious with the Emperour Constantius, and leaders of the Ar­rian faction, (upon repentance of their error, and also calumnies against Athanasius) repairing to Rome, and delivering to Julius, libellum poenitentiae, and begging pardon and reconciliation, tho afterward they relap­sed.

[Page 63]See the 3d, 4th, and 7th Canons of the Council of Sar­dica, set down before, § 11. (in which great Council are reckoned by Athanasius, one present in it, (in 2. Apolog.) some Bishops present from our Britanny, [Episcopi Hispa­niarum, Galliarum, Britanniarum, &c.] Neither is this any wonder; since they were also at Conc. Arelat. 11 years before that of Nice, see Hammond schism. p. 110.) which canons seem to confirm appeals to the Bishop of Rome, and to authorize him to hear and decide the cau­ses (by himself or his Legats) of those Bishops also, who were not under his Patriarchy. For it is not limited to the Western Patriarchy, but generally proposed, [Si in aliqua Provincia Episcopus &c.] Can. 3. and the motive proposed by Hosius, formerly President of Nice, is gene­ral, not more concerning one part of the Church than another, [the honouring of S. Peter's memory,] and these canons were made by that Council not long after Atha­nasius (a Bishop not subject to the Roman Patriarchy, but himself a Patriarch) his appeal to Rome, and the judg­ment of his cause (by witnesses brought out of the East, and his adversaries counter-plea) there: which judg­ment and sentence as the Eastern Bishops at Antioch much slighted and undervalued, so this Sardican Coun­cil approved▪ and if these canons respected all in gene­ral, then, since the Bishops of our Britanny also were there, this was their act, as well as of the rest, and ob­liged Britanny to the same subordinations with the rest.

See the Epistle of St. Basil (Epist. 52.) to Athana­sius, § 23. n. 2. about the suppression of Arrianism in the East; wherein he saith,—Visum est consentaneum scribere ad Episcopum Romanum, ut videat res nostras, & decreti sui judicium interponat.—authoritatem tribuat delectis viris. [Page 64]—qui acta Ariminensis Concilii secum ferant, ad ea rescin­denda, quae illic violenter acta sunt, &c.— See the two Epistles of St. Hierom to Damasus Bishop of Rome, desi­ring to know, what he should hold concerning the word Hypostasis, applied to the Three Persons of the Trinity; and with whom communicate in the East,—wherein thus he; Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum fu­rore collisus, &c. ideo mihi Cathedram Petri, & Rom. 1.8. sidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam. —Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur haereditas. — Ego nul­lum primum nisi Christum sequens, Beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri communione consocior: super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio.—Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit profanus est,—&c.—Ideo hic colleg as tuos Aegyptios Confessores sequor [communicating with them] —Non novi Vitalem: Meletium respuo: ignoro Paulinum. [There being much division and distraction in the Church of Antioch (under which St. Hierom liv'd) be­tween Meletius, and Paulinus (successively Bishops thereof), and Vitalis a Presbyter].—Cui apud Antio­chiam debeam communicare, significes.—decernite, si placet, obsecro: non timebo tres Hypostases dicere, si jubetis.— And in the second Epistle; In tres partes scissa Ecclesia ad se rapere me festinat.—Ego interim clamito; si quis Ca­thedrae Petri jungitur, meus est. Meletius, Vitalis, atque Paulinus [every one of them, tho of several tenents] tibi haerere se dicunt: possum credere, si unus [only one of them] hoc assereret; nunc vero aut duo, aut omnes men­tiuntur. Idcirco obtestor, ut mihi literis tuis, apud quem in Syria debeam communicare, significes. Thus S. Hierom. To which Bellarmin adds Erasmus (a moderate man) his comment upon it; —videri sibi Hieronymum his verbis asserere, omnes Ecclesias subjectas esse Apostolicae Sedi▪ At least it seems, in times of schisms and divisions, this [Page 65]Father thought it (for the season mention'd) the safest way to adhere to the Rom. See: yet speaks he not of the B. of Rome as judging singly, whom he thought liable to Heresie [saying, in catalogo Scriptorum, some such thing of Liberius subscribing Arrianism (tho indeed much apology may be made for Liberius in this matter, yet not such as can free him from all fault, he subscribing only, and that when he was tired out with banishment and other cruelties, the Sirmian Creed, which only o­mitted Consubstantialis, see Part 2. § 41.)] but of him join'd with his Council, or with his Western Bishops. Therefore he saith, apud vos solos &c.— and—Decer­nite, si placet, obsequor, &c. Therefore the more strict vindicators of the Roman inerrability in matters of Faith, take not the Bishop thereof singly and unsynodically, as his private judgment may inform, or passions incline him, especially upon some violence and terrors used (as in Liberius it was); but, as assisted with his Council, he weigheth, judgeth, and defineth such matters (see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2, 3, 4.) in a time when a General Council is not, nor cannot so conveniently be had. In which intervals, it may be presum'd, Christ is not wanting to the supremest Guide of the Church, using what helps he hath at hand; considering what he saith, Mat. 18.19, 20. And Dr. Field, in answer to these places of Hierom (p. 547.) goes thus far: ‘Thirdly, we say, it is more than probable, that the whole Western Church shall never lose or forsake the true profession, (and therefore he may truly be judg'd a prophane person that eateth the Paschal Lamb out of the Communion of the same); tho sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an Heretick, other of his Collegues conti­nuing faithful.’ But then; I ask, according to this, when-as not none at all, or a few, but most, of his [Page 66]Western Collegues are join'd with the Bishop of Rome (in which Communion, no instance in Antiquity can shew him to have been Heretical), and only a few in the West divided from him, which will seem safest (to those who will be guided by authority) in St. Hierom's opinion, to adhere to Cathedra Petri, or the Cathedra elsewhere opposing it? As for what is urg'd (by Dr. Field, ibid.) out of St. Hierom (Epist. ad Evagrium) to counterbalance these, of a deprav'd custom in Rome; when-as this was no way patroniz'd by any Episcopal Constitution; and of his holding Presbyters and Bishops, and again Bishops of Alexandria, and Tanais, ejusdem me­riti & sacerdotit; when-as he meaneth ratione ordinis, not jurisdictionis; or jure divino, not ecclesiastico; for so he saith in the same Epistle; Quod postea unus electus est, qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schismatum remedium factum est. Factum est, i. e. by the Apostles, or the Councils; which sufficiently justifies his allowance of, and submission to, Patriarchal authority. These places seem to me of no force to null, or to qualifie, his former expressions to Damasus. See Optatus, who disputes thus (l. 2.) against the schismatical Donatist Bishops; Videndum est, qui & ubi prior Cathedrâ sederet,—Negare non potes scire te in Ʋrbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse colla­tam, —in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas [Cathedras] sibi quisque defen­derent, ut jam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra sin­gularem Cathedram (.i. e. Petri) alteram collocaret. Ergo Cathedra unica sedit prior Petrus, cui successit Linus, Lino Clemens, &c. Damasus, Damaso Siricius, hodie qui noster est socius Cum quo nobis totus orbis, commercio formatarum, in una communionis societate concordant. Vestrae Cathedrae vos originem reddite.—Sed & habere vos in urbe Roma, partem aliquam dicitis,—Quid est hoc quod pars vestra in urbe Roma [Page 67]Episcopum civem habere non potuit?—Ʋnde est quod claves regni vobis usurpare contenditis, qui contra Cathedram Pe­tri vestris praesumptionibus & audaciis sacrilegio militatis? —Probatum est nos esse in Ecclesia sancta Catholica; apud quos & symbolum Trinitatis est, & per Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est, & caeteras dotes apud nos, esse etiam Sacerdo­tium, &c. [I hope none will say, that Optatus argues thus, because St. Peter's Chair happen'd in his times to be orthodox, but because he took it for granted, that it must be orthodox (and so all the Churches join'd to it) because St. Peter's Chair].

See Damasus Epist. 5. ad Africanos, § 23. n. 3. —Instituta esse ma­jorum, ut cuncta, quae possit aliquam recipere dubitationem ad nos quasi ad caput, ut semper fuit consuetudo, deferre non du­bitetis. Of whom thus Spalatensis, l. 7. c. 5. n. 23. Ex non Apocryphis Damasum primum observo, qui talis sui privilegii metionem fecit, ipsum vero ad sola majorum instituta re­fert. See the Epistle of Siricius Bishop of Rome, A. D. 389, to the Metropolitan Bishop of Tarracon in Spain, c. 15. Explicuimus ut arbitror (Frater charissime) universa quae digesta sunt in querelam; & ad singulas causas, de qui­bus ad Romanam Ecclesiam, utpote ad caput sui corporis, re­tulisti, sufficientia (quatuor opinor) responsa reddidimus. Nunc fraternitatis tuae animum ad servandos canones & te­nenda decretalia constituta magis ac magis invitamus, ut haec in omnium coepiscoporum nostrorum perf [...]rri facias notionem, —ad universos Carthaginenses, atque Baeticos, Lusitanos, atque Gallicos, &c. See the Epistle of Zosimus (a Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time) ad Episc. Salonit. where prohibiting the admitting of Monks, and also Laicks, immediately to be Bishops, without their passing thro, and continuance for some time in, inferior Ecclesiasti­cal Functions, he saith; —Hoc autem speeialiter, & [Page 68]sub Praedecessoribus nostris, & nuper a nobis interdictum con­stat, literis ad Gallias Hispaniasque transmissis. —Ad te potissimum scripta direximus, quae in omnium fratrum & Co­episcoporum nostrorum facies ire notitiam. —Sciet, quis­quis hoc, postposita Patrum & Apostolicae Sedis authoritate, neglexerit, a nobis districtius vindicandum &c.

See the Epistles of the African Bishops,§ 23. n. 4. (in the 5th Car­thaginian, and in the Milevitan, Councils, held there a­gainst P [...]lagianism, amongst whom was S. Austin) sent to Pope Innocent I; and his Answers to them, (being amongst S. Austin's Epistles, the 90, 91, 92, 93.) where the 92. the African Bishops begin thus. —Quia te Do­minus gratiae suae praecipuae munere in Sede Apostolica colloca­vit, talemque in nostris temporibus praestitit, ut &c. and see the close thereof. And (in Epistle 90.) —Hoc itaque gestum, Domine Frater Sancte, charitati tuae intimandum duximus, ut statutis nostroe mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas. And S. Austin (Retract. 2. l. 49. c.) speaketh of the same business in this language: —Postea quam Pelagiana haeresis cum suis authoribus ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanoe, prius Innocentio, deinde Zosimo (cooperantibus Conciliorum Africanorum literis) convicta atque damnata est, scripsi &c. And Possidonius, S. Austin's Collegiat, (in vita August. 18. c. thus. —Et cum iidem (Pelagiani] perversi Sedi Apostolicae, per suam ambitionem, eandem perfidiam persuadere conabantur; instantissime etiam Conciliis Africanis sanctorum Episcoporum gestum est; ut So Papae urbis Romae, & prius venerabili Innocentio, & postea sancto Zosimo ejus successori, persuaderetur; quod illa Secta Catholica fide & abominanda & damnanda fuisset. At illi tantae Sedis Antistites suis diversis temporibus eosdem notantes, atque a membris Ecclesiae [i. e. Catholicae] praeci­dentes datis literis ad Africanas Orientis & Occidentis Ec­clesias, [Page 69]eos anathematizandos & devitandos ab omnibus Ca­tholicis censuerunt. Et hoc tale de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catho­licae probatum judi [...]ium [where he seems to call the Pope's judgment the Catholical] etiam p [...]issimus Imperator Ho­norius audiens & sequens, suis eos legibus damnatos & inter haereticos habere debere constituit. And see the Bishop of Rome's answers, wherein he vindicates the universal authority of that See; something of which is quoted be­fore, § 21.

After which judgment in Africk, both Pelagius, and Cae­lestius (his chief disciple) made their appeals to Rome, to Zosimus the Successor of this Innocentius, under such forms as these: Si forte quispiam ignorantiae error obrep­serit, vestra sententia corrigatur,— and, —Emendari cupi­mus a te, qui Petri & fidem & sedem tenes: and were (up­on a false relation of their tenants) favoured there, to the great offence of the African Bishops, but afterward also condemned by that See; and their condemnation published from thence to all Churches. See for what is said the authorities in S. Austin, and others, quoted by Baronius, A.D. 418. See S. Austin contra Julianum, 1. l. 2. c. where, urging against Julian the testimonies of the Occidental Fathers for Original sin, he saith thus: — An ideo contemnendos putas, quia Occidentalis Ecclesiae sunt omnes. —Puto tibi eam partem orbis sufficere debere, in qua primum Apostolorum suorum voluit Dominus gloriosissi­mo Martyrio coronare. Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem beatum Innocentium si audire voluisses, jam tunc periculosam juven­tutem tuam Pelagianis laqueis exuisses. Quid enim potuit vir ille Sanctus Africanis respondere Conciliis, nisi quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes & Romana cum caeteris tenet per­severanter Ecclesia? —Non est ergo cur provoces ad Ori­entis Antistites &c. See S. Austin's Epistle 261. writ­ten to Caelestine, Bishop of Rome, in his old age; as ap­pears [Page 70]in the end of the Epistle, [si meam senectutem fueris consolatus,] and probably after the contest of the African Council about Appeals, that Council being held 419. and Celestine made Bishop of Rome 423. who outlived S. Austin, who died, 430. Ludov. de Angelis, lib. 4. c. 6. It was written concerning one Antonius, for whom S. Austin had procured the Bishoprick of Fussala, a place formerly in his own Diocess: but being very remote from Hippo he obtained, that a new Bishoprick might be erected there; which Antonius, for some miscarriage, being by the neighbouring Bishops of Numidia removed from that Bishoprick, yet not utterly degraded, had ap­pealed to the Bishop of Rome, and had much threatned by this Bishop's power, to procure a restorement to his place. In this Epistle, thus S. Austin beseecheth the Pope. —Collabora obsecro nobiscum: & jube tibi quae de­creta sunt omnia recitari. —Existat exemplo, ipsa Aposto­lica Ecclesia judicante, vel aliorum judicia firmante, quos­dam pro culpis nec Episcopali spoliatos honore, neque relictos omnimodo impunitos. Quia ergo &c. subveni hominibus opem tuam in Christi mesericordia poscentibus: non sinas ista fieri [i.e. Antonius to be restored by force] obsecro te per Christi sanguinem, per Apostoli Petri memoriam, qui Christianorum praepositos Populorum monuit, ne violenter do­minentur inter Fratres &c. This he saith against the Executores Clericos of the Roman See, many times using unjust violence; but we see he declines not the Bishop of Rome's judgment, but hopes to have it favourable to his cause. —See likewise his Epistle 157. to Optatus: wherein he mentions a legation imposed upon him and some other Bishops, for some Ecclesiastical affair, to Caesarea in Mauritania. —Quo nos (saith he) injuncta no­bis a venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae Sedis Episcopo, Ec­clesiastica necessitas traxerat. Of which also thus Possido­nius [Page 71]Vit. Aug. 14. c. —In Coesarinsem Mauritaniae Civita­tem venire venerabilis mentoriae Augustinum cum aliis Epi­scopis, Sedis Apostolicae literae compulerunt, ad terminandas viz. aliquas Ecclesiae necessitates, &c, [which shews what authority the Roman Bishop used over the African in this Fathers time;] where S. Austin did many good offi­ces for that Province, and had successful disputes with Emeritus, the Bishop of that city. (See Possid. vit. Aug. 14. c. Aug. de gest. cum Emerit.)

See the Epistle of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, § 23. n. 5. to Cele­stin Bishop of Rome, wherein he saith, concerning Ne­storius Bishop of Constantinople, before condemned by any General Council. At quamvis res ita habeat, non prius tamen illius communionem confidenter disserere ausi fu­imus, quam haec ipsa pietati tuae indicaremus. Digneris proinde quid hic sentias declarare, quo liquide nobis con­stet, communicare ne nos cum illo oporteat; an vero libere ei­dem denunciare, neminem cum illo communicare, qui ejusmo­di erroneam doctrinam fovet & praedicat. Again, see the great authority, that Celestin Bishop of Rome, used a­gainst the same Nestorius, which authority was appro­ved and submitted-to by Cyril, and the Alexandrian and also the Ephesine (the 3d. General) Council. Thus Ce­lestin writeth in his Epistle to Cyril: Nostrae Sedis au­thoritate ascita, nostraque vice & loco, cum potestate, usus, ejusmodi sententia exequeris, nempe ut nisi decem dierum in­tervallo ab hujus nostroe admonitionis die numerandorum, nefariam doctrinam suam conceptis verbis anathematizet &c, illico Sanctitas tua illi Ecclesioe prospiciat. Thus Celestin to Nestorius: —Post unam & alteram admonitionem &c, nisi nunc tandem quae perverse docuisti per te corrigantur, in posterum & a nostro consortio & ab omnium Christianorum coetu alienum te fore nihil quicquam dubites.— Upon this, [Page 72]thus Cyril, and his Alexandrian Council, to Nestorius. —Quod sane, nisi juxta tempus in literis Celestini sacratissi­mi reverendissimique Romanorum Episcopi expressum, praesti­teris; certo scias nullam tibi deinceps cum Episcopis & Sacer­dotibus Dei consuetudinem, nullum sermonem, nullum denique inter eos locum futurum esse.— All which proceedings see approved in the Acts of the Ephesine Council, Tom. 2. c. 5. and then see the sentence of the Council against Nestorius, running thus: Per sacros Canones, sanctissimi (que) Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopi Celestini Patris nostri literas, la­chrymis suffusi & pene inviti, ad lugubrem hanc sententiam urgemur. See the like things related by Evagrius, 1. l. 4. c.

See the Epistle of S. Chrysostom, § 23. n. 6. Bishop of Constanti­nople, (in banishment, being deposed by a Synod held there,) appealing to Innocentius Bishop of Rome, and sending to him some of his Bishops, wherein he be­speaks him thus: —Quamobrem ne confusio haec omnem, quae sub coelo est, nationem invadat, obsecro ut scribas; quod haec tam inique facta (& absentibus nobis, & non declinan­tibus judicium) non habeant robur, sicut neque natura sua habent: illi autem, qui adeo impune egisse deprehensi sunt, poenae Ecclesiasticarum legum subjaceant. Upon which suit the Bishop of Rome called a Synod of his Bishops, and pronounced the proceedings of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to be against the canons, and void. (See Field, p. 536. and Epist. Innocent, apud Binnium.) And is said, by Baronius, A.D. 407. (who quotes for it many authors, Gennadius, Nicephorus, Glycas; to which may be added, Georgius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the Edit. Savil. of Chrysostom, 8. Tom. p. 248.) after he heard of Chrysostom's death in banishment, to have excommuni­cated both Arcadius, the Eastern Emperour, and Eudo­xia, [Page 73]and Theophilus, his chief oppressors. But this fact is denied by Dr. Field upon the silence of Historians more ancient. In Innocentius's letter to Arcadius we find these words: Itaque ego minimus & peccator, cui thro­nus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est, segrego, & rejicio te, & illam, a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri. Episcopumetiam omnem, aut Clericum ordinis sanctae Christi Ecclesiae, qui administrare aut exhibere ea vo­bis ausus fuerit, ab ea hora, qua praesentes vinculi mei lege­ritis literas, dignitate sua excidisse decerno, &c. The truth of this Epistle I decide not; but tis certain, that S. Am­brose, before this, excommunicated the Emperour, his Father: and if Arcadius his violences to holy Chrysostom his Bishop deserved the like Ecclesiastical censure, I know not who, after Chrysostom's death, could inflict it more properly than the first See. which also was defen­ded in it by Honorius brother to Arcadius, and Emperour in the West. See, the Epistle of Theodoret, a Syrian Bi­shop, appealing from the 2d. Ephesine Council (by which he was (in absence) condemned and deposed as a Nesto­rian) to Leo Bishop of Rome, whom he sues to in these terms: —post tot sudores & labores, ne in jus quidem voca­tus sum condemnatus. —Ego autem Apostolicae vestrae Sedis expecto sententiam, & supplico & obsecro vestram sanctita­tem, ut mihi opem ferat, justum vestrum & rectum appellanti judicium, & jubeat ad vos accurrere, [for the Emperour had confined him to Cyrus the place of his Bishoprick,] & ostendere meam doctrinam vestigia Apostolica sequentem. And his Epistle to Renatus, one of the Bishop of Rome's Legats in the 2d. Ephesine Council: —Te precor, ut san­ctissimo Archiepiscopo Leoni persuadeas, ut Apostolica utatur authoritate, jubeatque ad vestrurn Concilium adire. Tenet enim sancta ista Sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti orbis Ecclesiarum. —Habet enim sanctissima Romana Sedes om­nem [Page 74]per orbem Ecclesiarum principatum, cum multis aliis de causis, tum maxime, quod haereticae labis immunis permansit, [this was long after the times of Liberius; by which it appears, Antiquity imputed no Arrianism to this See,] & Apostolicam gratiam immaculatam servavit. Whose cause Pope Leo accordingly judged, and cleared him: and afterward, the General Council of Chalcedon, after due examination (some there also opposing Theodoret) did the like. (After examination) I say; (For the Pope's, and his assistant Bishops sentence, it seems, was not ac­counted so authentick, and unrepealable, that a General Council might not review, examin, and, if seeming to them erroneous, reverse it;) upon which judgment of the Council (concurring with his) Leo thus answers The­odoret. —Quae nostro prius ministerio Dominus desinierat, universae fraternitatis [i. e. of the Council] irrefragabili firmavit assensu; ut vere a se prodiisse ostenderet, quod prius a prima omnium Sede firmatum, totius Christiani orbis judi­cium recepisset; ut, in hoc quoque capiti membra concordent. —Nam, ne aliarum Sedium ad cam, quam caeteris omnibus Dominus statuit praesidere, consensus videretur assentatio, inventi prius sunt, qui de judiciis nostris ambigerent &c. See Socrates Eccles. Hist. 50 l. 15. c. where he speaks thus concerning the reconciling of Flavianus, Patriarch of Antioch, to the Roman See. Theophilus [i. e. the Patri­arch of Alexandria] odio in illum [i.e. Flavianum] re­stincto, Isidorum Presbyterum misit, uti Damasi [Siricii it should be, saith Baronius] animum in Flavianum exulce­ratum mitigaret, doceretque in usu Ecclesiae esse, si propter po­puli concordiam peccatum a Flaviano commissum remitteret. Quocirca communione Flaviano ad hunc modum reddita [therefore he had bin formerly by the Roman Bishop excommunicated] populus Antiochenus ad concordiam re­ducitur, [therefore formerly in the want of that com­munion [Page 75]they had refused some obedience and submis­sion to him.] After these clear evidences of the Roman Bishops power, now to look a little back into the for­mer ages; wherein, by reason of the persecutions by heathen Princes, the Church's discipline was not alto­gether so perfectly formed.

See Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Alexandrini; § 23. n. 7. where he relates how Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria (living above fifty years before the Nicene Council) was ac­cus'd by some of Pentapolis, as erroneous in the Doctrine of the Trinity, to Dionysius the then Bishop of Rome; and thereupon writ an Apology to purge himself,— Quidam ex Ecclesia recte quidem sentientes, sed tamen ig­nari &c. Romam ascenderunt, ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt. Re com­perta Alexandrinus postulavit a Romano Praesule, ut ob­jecta sibi indicaret,—[&] non rixandi animo, sed sui pur­gandi, Apologiam scripsit. Here it seems A. D. 266. (long before the cause of Athanasius his) addresses were made by the Alexandrians to the Roman Bishop. See St. Cyprian, contemporary to Dionysius, to procure the deposing of Marcianus Metropolitan Bishop of Arles in France, because he sided with Novatian; writes thus to Stephen Bishop of Rome about it;—Dirigantur in Pro­vinciam & ad plebem Arelatae consistentem a te literae, quibus abstento Marciano, alius in locum ej [...]s substituatur. Where Dr. Field (l. 5 c. 37.) grams, Cyprian rather writ to him to do this, than did it himself, because the Roman Bishop was Patriarch of the West. And it appears from his 68th Epistle, that, in his time two Bishops of Spain, Basilides, and Martialis, ejected for giving their consent to some Idolatry, appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome, to re­store them to their Dignities.— Romam pergens [i. e. [Page 76]Basilides] Stephanum collegam nostrum, longe positum, & gestae rei, ac tacitae veritatis ignarum, fefellit; ut exambiret reponi se injuste in Episcopatum, de quo fuerat juste deposi­tus. In which Epistle he censures Stephen indeed, but not for receiving Basilides his appeal, or hearing his cause, but for judging it amiss: yet some way excuseth him also, as misinform'd,—Neque enim tam culpandus est ille (saith he) eui negligenter obreptum est; quam hic exe­crandus, qui fraudulenter obrepsit. But had Stephen had no just authority to judg this matter, or reponere Basili­dem in Episcopatum; St. Cyprian would not have accused him of negligence; i. e. in believing, without seeking better information, what Basilides or his friends said; but of usurpation, and intrusion, and tyranny, in judg­ing in matters no way belonging to him: But he, allow­ing the Western Patriarchs authority over the Gallican Bishops, (as appears in the last instance) could not ra­tionally deny him the same over the Spanish. There­fore that which this Father saith before, that Basilides his appeal and Stephen's sentence, ordinationem jure per­fect am rescindere non potuit, is to be understood with re­ference to the justness of the cause, not of the authority. (For one may rightly be accus'd of injustice, either who doth a thing, and hath no just power to do it; or who hath a just power to do a thing, and hath no just cause.) And therefore the Spanish ought to seek a reversion of such sentence, by presenting to their Patriarch perfecter informations. Else surely his sentence, who is granted to have the supreme authority to judg, is to stand; and he must give account thereof to God.

And yet higher; before Cyprian's time (about A.D. 200) we find (in Eus. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 22, &c.) that, in a controversie about the celebration of Easter (whe­ther on the Lord's day, or on the same day with the [Page 77]Jews) after many Provincial Councils (in a peaceful time of the whole Christian Church) call'd in several Countries, as well of the East (as Aegypt, Palestine,) as of the West, who all agreed with the Roman Bishop, excepting Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, and the Bishops of Asia minor, who (assembled in Council, as the rest) resolv'd to continue their custom of keeping it the same day with the Jews; and in a Letter to Rome signified so much. We find, I say, that Victor, then Bishop of Rome, either intended, or also executed, an Excommu­nication upon Polycrates and his party, as pertinaci­ously retaining a Mosaical ceremony, which might be an introduction to more. Executed an excommunication; not negative (as Dr. Field would have it, p. 558.) by with-drawing his own communion from them; but privative and authoritative, by rejecting, and debarring, them from communion of the whole Catholick Church; (tho indeed debarring them from the Roman commu­nion, debars them also from all others, that communi­cate with the Roman; for those who may not commu­nicate with an Heretick, neither may communicate with any others, who by communicating with such Here­tick, make themselves partakers of his sin). This seems to me clear, by the words of Eusebius. Victor—totius Asiae Ecclesias a communionis societate abscindere nititur, tanquam in haeresin declinantes, & literas mittit, quibus omnes simul (absque discretione) ab Ecclesiastico faedere segregaret.—Extant Episcoporum literae, quibus asperius objurgant Victorem, velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis con­sulentem. [Ecclesiae, i. e. universalis]. And of Iraeneus, who, amongst the rest, reprehended him, —quod non recte fecerit abscindens a corporis [i. e. Christi, not Romanae Ecclesiae] unitate tot & tantas Ecclesias Dei. And by Polycrates his Letter (Euseb. l. 5. c. 22.) to the Church [Page 78]of Rome; wherein it appears, both that he assembled his Asian Bishops at the Bishop of Rome's intimation; and that some censure had been threaten'd him from thence, upon non-conformity; to which he answers, That it were better to obey God than men. His words are, Sexaginta & quinque [...]nnos aetatis gerens, — non perturbabor ex his, quae ad terrorem proferuntur; quia & majores mei dixerunt: Ob­temperare oportet Deo magis quam hominibus. As for Ire­naeus, or other Bishops, reprehending this fact or purpose of Victors, it was not because he usurp'd or exercis'd an authority of Excommunication over the Asiaticks, not belonging to him; but that he used such authority upon no just, or sufficient, cause: namely, upon such a decli­nation from Apostolical tradition (vel per negligentiam, vel per imperitiam) in so small a matter; some compliance with the Jews, to gain them, partly excusing such a practice. Thus a Prince, who hath lawful power to inflict punishments upon his subjects when delinquent, is reprehensible when punishing the innocent. To this of Victor, I may add another Excommunication, not long after this, by Stephen Bishop of Rome; either in­flicted, or at least threatned, to some of the Asian Chur­ches in Cyprian's time, that held the necessity or Rebap­tization upon the Baptism of Hereticks. Concerning which, see Euseb. Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 4.6. See St. Austin's Epistle 162) the great care and superintendence which Melchiades (Bishop of Rome before Sylvester in Constan­tine's time) used over the African Churches in the Schism of Donatus; —Qualis (saith he) ipsius Mel­chiadis ultima est p [...]rlata s [...]ntentia [i. e. in judging the cause of Donatus] qua neque collegas [i. e. the African Bishops] in quibus nihil constiterat, de coll [...]gio suo [from his Communion] ausus est removere; & Do­nato solo, quem totius mali principem invenerat, maxime [Page 79]culpato, sanitatis recuperandae optionem liberam caeteris fe­cit; par [...] tus communicatorias litteras mittere etiam iis, quos a Majorino [a Donatist Bishop] ordinatos esse constaret; ita, ut quibuscunque in locis [in Africk] d [...]o essent Episcopi (quos diss [...]nsio geminasset) eum confirmari vellet, qui fu­isset ordinatus prior &c. alteri autem eorum plebs alia re­genda provideretur. O filium Christianae pacis! & patrem Christianae plebis! Thus St. Austin of Melchiades Bishop of Rome his ordering the African affairs. See the Coun­cil of Arles (call'd by Constantine before Nice; see in Euseb. l. 10. c. 5. his Epistle summoning the Bishop of Syracuse to it), in which were some Bishops from Eng­land (see Bishop of Derry Vind c. 5. p. 98. Hammond Sch s. c. 6. p. 110.) sending their Decrees to Sylvester then Bishop of Rome, and in their first Canon thus be­speaking him; Quae decrevimus, significamus, &c. —De observatione Paschae Domini, ut uno die & tempore per omnem orbem observetur; & juxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas. Now to go on in the occurrences of the fifth Age.

See the Epistles of Leo (Bishop of Rome before, and in the time of, the fourth General Council) the 53d. Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople; § 23. n. 8. the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus; the 55th to the Empress Pulcheria; wherein he vindicates the derivation of his authority, not from the Imperial City, but the Apostles; and concerning that Act of the Bishops in Conc. Chalc. advancing the Bishop of Constantinople above the second Patriarch, of Alexandria (which he judg'd contrary to the Nicene Canons), he saith, (Epistle to Pulcheria) Consensiones vero Episcoporum sanctorum Canonum aepud Nicaenum conditorum regulis repugnantes, unita nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate, in irritum mittimus, &, per authorita­tem Beati Petri Apostoli, generali prorsus definitione casse­mus, [Page 80]&c. His Epistle 84. to Anastasius Bishop of Thessa­lonica: —Sicut Praedecessores mei Praedecessoribus tuis, ita etiam ego dilectioni tuae, priorum secutus exemplum, vices mei moderaminis delegavi; ut curam, quam universis Ecclestis principaliter ex divina institutione debemus, adjuv [...]res, & long [...]nquis ab Apostolica Sede provinciis, praesentiam quo­dammodo nostrae visitationis impenderes, [see below § 25. n. 13. where the same things are said of the Bishop of Constantinople, as here of Thessalonica:] promptum tibi agnoscere, quid vel tuo studio componeres, vel nostro judicio reservares. And, in the close of the Epistle, —Magna dispositione provisum est, ne omnes sibi omnia vendicarent; sed essent in singulis Provinciis singuli, quorum inter Fra­tres haberetur prima sententia, [Metropolitans,] & rur­sus quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti solicitudinem sus­ciperent ampliorem, [Primats, or those amongst them de­puted by the Patriarch,] per quos ad unam Petri Sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret, & nihil unquam a Ca­pite suo dissideret. This is spoken of the Church Uni­versal. To which may be added that expression of his quoted before, §. 6. Caput orbis effecta latius praesides religione divina, [now], quam dominatione terrena [for­merly.] Seconded by Prosper, 2. l. de vocatione Gen­tium. —Roma per Sacerdotii Principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis, quam solio Potestatis: and (lib. de In­gratis.)

To the latter of these places Dr. Field (5l. 34. c. p. 529. &c.) answers. — ‘That more were subject to it than ever were under the Roman Empire, as it had a presi­dency (amongst them) of Order and Honour, not of Su­preme [Page 81]power.’ To the other he saith: — ‘The care of the Universal Church is to be understood only in respect of things concerning the common faith, and general state of the Church; or of the principal, most eminent, and highest parts and members of the same: [Be it so; for of such only we speak:] none of which things might be proceeded-in without the Bishop of Rome, and his colleagues.’— So a little before, p. 528. he saith: — ‘All things generally concerning the whole Church were, either to take beginning, or (at the least) to seek confirmation from the Roman Bishops, before they were generally imposed and prescribed.’ But Quaere, whether, if this Bishop denied his consent, the rest might proceed no further without it; and whe­ther, if he refused to confirm such acts, they might not be at all imposed; and whether, as the eminentest per­sons in their differences might be judged by Him, so they were bound to submit to his (as to their Superior's) judgment? Else, if he mean only, that they were first to ask his consent, or judgment; but upon a denial or a displeasing sentence, might proceed to establish things against it; how consists this with that conclusion, —ut nihil unquam a capite suo dissideret? To search a little further, to see if the Dr. speaks plainer. Below, in the p. 530. he saith: — ‘In cases which concerned the principal Patriarchs, whether they were differences between them, and their Bishops; or between them­selves; the chief See, as the principal part of the whole Church, might interpose it self: —So as other Patri­archs likewise of the higher thrones might interpose themselves in matters concerning Patriarchs of the lower thrones.— But I ask; How interpose? by judging and determining the causes of their inferiors? by excommunicating, and deposing &c the persons ob­noxious [Page 82]noxious and criminal?’ But then the Presidency of Rome will be a presidency of Power over the rest of the Church, and not of Honour only. And must not he mean some such thing by interpose, since in his instances there, this interposing proves to be judging, excommu­nicating, deposing, &c? and so he grants, that the or­dering and setling of things of the Church of Antioch, the 3d. See, did pertain to the Patriarch of Alexandria, the 2d. See; and he goeth on, and saith: ‘That the Bishops of inferior thrones might not judge the supe­rior; and therefore, That John of Antioch of the 3d. See is reprehended (Act. Conc. Ephes.) for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2d. See: and Dioscor [...]s, Bishop of the 2d. See, is condemned in the Council of Chalcedon (in their Ep. ad Martian. Imp. and ad Leonem Act. 3.) for this thing, among others, That he presumed to judge the first See, [i. e. the Bishop thereof, Leo.’ Where note, That both John's and Dioscorus his judging was excommunicating their superior Bishops, and done not singly, but with their Council of Bishops. And again observe, That had the Eastern Bishops at Antioch judg­ed or excommunicated Julius the Bishop of Rome, who communicated with Athanasius, they might justly have incurred the like censure. Neither could they justly say so, as they do, in their Epistle to Him, (inter decreta Julii, if it be not forged,) contraria celebrabimus, & vo­biscum deinceps nec congregari, nec vobis obedire—volumus, sed per nos quicquid melius elegerimus agere conabimur; nor urge the 5. Can. of Nice against him, supposing his a superior Court.] He proceeds; ‘That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome, seeing every other See is inferior to it, but that the See of Rome, i. e. the Bishops of Rome, and the Bishops of the West, may judge and examine the differ­ences, [Page 83] &c, but neither so peremptorily nor finally, but that such judgment may be reviewed, and re-examined, and revers'd, in a General Council.’ Let this be agreed-to: but I ask; Is it no power that this See hath over the rest, because this power is subordinated to a General Coun­cil? But if it be granted to have the supremest power next to that of a General Council, then when no Gene­ral Council is in being, is it not actually pro tempore the supremest? and do not its determinations stand good, and oblige, till a General Council be assembled? Else, what will this mean which the Dr. saith; ‘The first See must judge and examine the differences of all others, (but none it,) if, it judging and examining, none are bound to submit or obey?’ And from this, [namely, that the first may judge i. e. excommunicate (for this is the thing which is meant by judging, above in the case of John Antioch. and Dioscorus Alexand.) inferior thrones, not they it,] it will appear, that the excommunications of the first See are either authorita­tive and privative in respect of other Sees, i. e. rejecting them from the communion of the Church Catholick; or, if they are negative only, i. e. withdrawing her self only from the communion of others, (of which two sorts of excommunication see Dr. Field, 5. l. 38. c. p. 558. Bishop of Derry's vindicat. 8. c.) that no other Church may use a negative excommunication towards the first See, i.e. may not withdraw themselves from the com­munion thereof; but only it may do so toward others. For some excommunication is granted here to die first See toward others, which others have not towards it. I ask therefore, John Antoch. excommunicating the second See, and Dioscorus Alexand. excommunicating the first, (disallowed by two General Councils,) was it negative, only, by way of Christian caution; or priva­tive, [Page 84]and authoritative, by way of Jurisdiction? Take which you will, yet tis clear, both by the Councils, and Dr. Field's, concession; that in such manner, the second or third See might not excommunicate the first; and that in such manner, the first might excommunicate the second or third. But indeed, it is manifest, That the excommunication both of John and Dioscorus was au­thoritative; neither would they have presumed singly to have done it, but as having a party of a Council of other Bishops, who were not subject to them, joined with them. Yet thus also were they, by the Oecume­nical Synods, censured, for making themselves heads of a Council against their Superiors, the second and first See. And as manifest it is, that the Bishop of Rome's censures were authoritative; many times deposing, as well as excommunicating, Bishops not under the juris­diction of his Patriarchy: as also John Antioch: depo­sed Cyril Alexand. As for Dr. Field's very cautiously every where joining the Western Bishops with the Bi­shops of the first See, in his exercising such judgment over other Sees; he must either mean the Bishops of his ordinary Council, and such others, as (according to the exigent) he can conveniently advise with which may be conceded to Dr. Field: or he must mean all the Bi­shops of the West assembled in a Patriarchal Council. But if so; their ordinary practice anciently in judging such appeals and causes, shews it was otherwise; and reason tells us it could not be thus, unless so great a bo­dy could be so often convened, as such appeals were ne­cessary to be terminated. Thus much of Dr. Field's an­swers. Now to go on in our quotations out of Leo.]

[Page 85]See his Epistle to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria. §25. n. 1. — Quod a Patribus nostris propensiore cura novimus esse ser­vatum, a vobis quoque volumus custodiri, ut non passim die­bus omnibus Sacerdotalis ordinatio cel [...]bretur, sed—mane ipso die Dominico. Ʋt in omnibus observantia nostra con­cordet, illud quoque volumus custodiri; ut cum solennior se­stivitas Conventum populi numerosioris indixerit, —sacrifi­cii oblatio indubitanter iteretur. Epistle 46. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, written to him about receiving some Bishops and others in the East, followers of Euty­ches and Dioscorus, upon their penitence, to the peace of the Church. —Licet sperem dilectionem tuam ad omne opus bonum esse devotam; ut tamen efficacior tua fieri possit industria, necessarium & congruum fuit, fratres meos Lu­centium Episcopum, & Basilium Presbyterum (ut promisi­mus) destinare, quibus tua dilectio societur; ut nihil in his, quae ad Ʋniversalis Ecclesiae statum pertinent, aut dubie aga­tur, aut segniter; cum residentibus vobis, quibus executio­nem nostrae dispositionis injunximus, ea possint agi cuncta moderation &c. — De his autem qui in hac causa gravius peccavere, —si forte resipiscunt, —horum satisfactio—ma­turioribus Apostolicae Sedis Conciliis reservetur; ut exami­natis omnibus &c, quid constitui debeat, aestimetur. And afterward, —Si de aliquibus amplius fuerit deliberandum, celeriter ad nos relatio dirigatur, ut, pertractata qualitate causarum, nostra, quid observari debeat, solicitudo constituat. And see the Rescript of the Emperour Valentinian the Third, (quoted by Baron. Anno 445. inter Novel. Theod. tit. 24.) in the time of Leo, a little before the Council of Chalcedon, sent to Aelius his Vicegerent in France, about quieting the difference between the Archbishops of Arles and Vienna, after that the cause, upon appeal, had bin decided by Leo against Arles. Wherein the Emperour hath these words: Cum Sedis Apostolicae pri­matum, [Page 86]S. Petri m [...]ritum, —sacra etiam Synodi firmarit authoritas, ne quid praeter authoritatem Sedis illius in­licitum praesumptio attentare nitatur; hinc enim demum Ecclesiarum pax ubique servabitur, si Rectorem suum ag­noscat Ʋniversitas. Haec cum hactenus inviolabiliter fu­erint constituta; Hilarius —contumaci ausu &c. —His talibus—per ordinem religiosi viri urbis Papae cognitione discussis, certa in eundem Hilarium— lata sententia est. Et erat ipsa quidem sententia per Gallias, etiam sine Imperiali sanctione valitura. —Sed nostram quoque prae­ceptionem haec ratio provocavit, ne ulterius — cuiquam Ecclesiasticis rebus arma miscere [as it seems Hilarius, or some in his behalf, had done,] aut Praeceptis Romani Pontificis liceat obviare. —Omnibus pro lege sit, quic­quid sanxerit Apos [...]olicae Sedis authoritas: ita ut quis­quis Episcoporum, ad judicium Romani Antistitis evocatus, venire neglexerit, per Moderatorem ejusdem Provinciae adesse cogatur; per omnia servatis, quae Divi Parentes nostri Romanae Ecclesiae detulerunt. —And the like or­ders had bin made by Emperours formerly, it seems, by that rigorous power used in Africk by the execu­tors of the Bishop of Rome's orders there, of which (as you have read before § 12.) the African Bishops so much complained.

See the Epistle of the 4th. G. Council at Chalcedon (the most numerous,§25. n. 2. I think, of any Council which the Church hath had) to the same Leo Bishop of Rome, in which are these expressions. — Quam [fidem] ve­lut auro textam seriem ex veste Christi & praecepto Legisla­toris venientem usque ad nos ipse [Leo] servasti, vocis Beati Petri omnibus constitutus Interpres, ejus fidei beatifi­cationem super omnes adducens. —Quibus [i. e. Episcopis congregates in Concilio] Tu quidem, sicut membris caput, [Page 87]praeeras, in his, qui tuum tenebant ordinem, benevolentiam praeferens, &c. —In vineam irruens [i. e. Dioscorus Bi­shop of Alexandria, a supporter of Eutyches] quam op­time repperit plantatam, evertit—& post haec omnia insuper & contra ipsum, cui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est, extendit insaniam, id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam sanctitatem; & excommunicatione meditatus est contra te, qui corpus Ecclesiae unire festinas. — Haec [i.e. the Honours they conferr'd on the See of Constantinople] velut a tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata, —roboravimus, praesumentes; dum noverimus, quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit [allu­ding to themselves] ad Patres recurrit [alluding to Leo] facientes hoc proprium sibi [i. e. appropriating their Children's actions to themselves]. Rogamus igitur, & tuis decretis nostrum honora judicium; & sicut nos cupidi in bonis adjecimus consonantiam, sic & summitas tua filiis (quod decet) adimpleat. Sic enim & pii Principes [the Emperor &c. very desirous of the advancement of the See Constantinopolitan [...]] complacebunt [will be well pleased] qui, tanquam legem, tuae sanctitatis judicium fir­maverunt; & Constantinopolitanae sedes suscipiet praemium, quae omne semper studium vobis, ad causam pietatis exple­vit, &c. —Eutychen pro impietate damnatum suae tyrannidis decretis innoxium statuit [i.e. Dioscorus, who by a party in the second Ephesine Council restor'd Eutyches, who was a Constantinopolitan Presbyter, and an Archimandrita, Abbot of the Monks there, to his former degree and dignities] & dignitatem, quae a vestra illi oblata fuerat sanctitate, (quippe ut ab eo, qui hac gratia fuerit indignus) ille restituit]. Where know; that Eutyches, depos'd by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in a Synod there, appeal'd (or pretended it) to the Bishop of Rome; to whom also the Emperor sent Letters in his behalf; which Bishop of Rome also, after the business known, [Page 88]ratified his deposition. Concerning which appeal of this Presbyter (where it appears, that, in matters of Faith, and of great consequence, the causes of Presby­ters and inferior Clergy might be brought to the ex­amination and sentence of the chief Patriarch) Leo having (by a miscarriage) receiv'd as yet no Letters from the Bishop of Constantinople, writes thus unto him; Epist. 8. —Accepimus lib [...]llum Eutychetis Presbyteri, qui se queritur—immerito communione privatum, maxime cum —libellum appellationis suae se ass [...]rat obtulisse; nec tamen fuisse susceptum: —Quibus rebus intercedentibus, necdum agnoscimus, qua justa a communione Ecclesiae fuerit separa­tus. Sed respicientes ad causam, facti tui nosse volumus rationem, & usque ad nostram notitiam cuncta deferri; quoniam nos nihil possumus, incognitis rebus, in cujusquam partis praejudicium definire, priusquam universa, quae gesta sunt, veraciter audiamus]. Thus Leo to the Bishop of Constantinople. To return to the Epistle of Conc. Chalc. In the same 'tis said, —Episcopis v [...]tam finientibus, multae turbae nascuntur absque rectore &c. [therefore they say they gave some power to the Constantinopolitan Bishop for the ordering and setling them]. —Quod nec vestram latuit sanctitatem, quum maxime propter Ephesios, unde qui­dam vobis saepius importuni fuerunt. Leo therefore exer­cis'd some authority over the Church of Ephesus. A­gain; Considentes, quia, lucente apud vos Apostolico radio, & usque ad Constantinopolitanorum Ecclesiam, consuete gu­bernando, illum spargentes, hunc saepius expanditis, eo quod absque invidia consueveritis virorum bonorum participa­tione ditare domesticos. Where they say, the Roman Bi­shop dilated his beams to the governing of the Church of Constantinople. And see their Epistle likewise to the Emperor; —Velut signaculum sacrae doctrinae, Concilii hu­jus a vobis [the Emperor]. congregati predicationem, Pe­tri [Page 89]sedis authoritate, roborantes. But yet, tho thus courted by them, in his answer to that Council, Epist. 59. he approv'd not the preferment of the Bishop of Constan­tinople before Alexandria. —Quantumlibet extortis as­sentationibus sese instruat vanitatis elatio [i. e. of the Con­stantinopolitan Bishop] & appetitus suos Conciliorum aesti­met nomine roborandos, infirmum atque irritum erit quic­quid a praedictorum Patrum [i. e. Nicene] canonibus dis­creparit. Quorum regulis Apostolica sedes, quam reveren­ter utatur scriptorum meorum, &c. poterit sanctitas vestra lectione cognoscere; & me, auxiliante Domino, & catholicae fidei, & paternarum traditionum esse custodem.

See Evagrius Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 18, 20, 21.§25. n. 3. And the Epistle of Felix Bishop of Rome A. D. 484, to Acatius Bishop of Constantinople; where we find Felix appeal'd, and complain'd-to, by John the wrong'd Bishop of Alexandria; and (being assisted with a Council of Forty-two Western Bishops) excommunicating Peter, who then unjustly possess'd the Patriarchy of Alexan­dria; as being an Eutychian also, and not submitting to the Council of Chalcedon (see Evagrius l. 3. c. 21.) and excommunicating Acatius also, Bishop of Constan­stinople (after he had first cited him to Rome, and also written to the Emperor Zeno, to compel him to appear, upon the complaints of John Alexand. rationem de rebus, quas Johannes ei objectasset, redditurus, as Evagrius hath it) for his communicating with Peter a condemn'd He­retick, and many other crimes. See his Epistle; at the end of which the form of his Condemnation runs thus: Sacerdotali honore & communione Catholica [not only Ro­mana] nec non etiam a fidelium numero segregatus subla­tum tibi nomen & munus ministerii sacerdotalis agnosce: sancti Spiritus judicio, & Apostolica, per nos, authoritate [Page 90]damnatus. Which proceeding of Felix being much dis­lik'd by some in the East, because a Synod was not spe­cially summon'd for the purpose, especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely City; see Gelasius, the suc­cessor to Felix, A. D. 494. his vindication of this act of the Apostolick See without a Council (at least an Oecumenial one) in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae, an Eastern Province not far from Constantinople: which Epistle is worth the reading, over, the rather, because some places being urg'd out of it by Bellarmin, Dr. Field, in his answer to them, hath these words: ‘Truly there cannot be any better proof against the pretended Supre­macy of the Popes, than this Epistle.’ In this Epistle then Gelasius pleads thus: —Sabellium damnavit Synodus: nec fuit necesse, ut ejus sectatores postea damnarentur, singulas viritim Synodos celebrari: sed, pro tenore constitutionis an­tiquae, cunctos qui vel pravitatis illius, vel communionis, extitere participes, universalis Ecclesia [i e. in a Council] dixit esse refutandos. —Considimus, quod nullus jam veraci­ter Christianus ignoret, uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum (quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus) nullam magis ex­equi sedem prae ceteris oportere, quam primam, quae & unam­quamque Synodum sua authoritate confirmat, & continuata moderatione custodit; pro suo scil. Principatu, quem Beatus Petrus Apostolus Domini voce perceptum [I suppose it should be percepit] Ecclesia nihilominus subsequens & te­nuit semper & tenebit. Haec [i. e. Sedes Apostolica] dum Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a veritate Apostolica deviasse, diutius ista non credens, quippe quem noverat exe­cutorem saepe necessariae dispensationis suae [i. e. Sedis Apostolicae] per triennium fere monere non destitit, &c. cur tanto tempore, dum ista gererentur—non ad sedem Aposto­licam, a qua sibi curam illarum regionum noverat dele­gatum, referre curavit [i. e. Acatius]? —Tandem ali­quando [Page 91]missis literis profitetur [Acatius] se Alexandrino Petro, quem, expetita Apostolicae sedis authoritate, exe­cutor ipse quoque damnaverat, absque sedis Apostolicae no­titia, communione permixtum. Beati autem Petri sedes, ne per Acacium in Petri consortiurn duceretur, ipsum quo­que a sua communione submovit, & multis modis trans­gressorum a sua societate fecit alienum. — Quo tenore Timo­theus etiam atque ipse Alexandrinus Petrus, qui secundam sedem tenuisse videbuntur, non repetita Synodo, tantum­modo sedis, Apostolicae, ipso quoque Acacio postulante, vel exe­quente, probantur esse damnati. —Nec plane tacemus, quod euncta per mundum novit Ecclesia, quoniam quorum­libet sententiis ligata Pontificum sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habeat resolvendi; utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicandi, neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare judicio: si­quidem ad Illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellare [aliquem] voluerunt, ab illa autem nemo sit appellare per­missus. —Sed nec illa praeterimus, quod Apostolicae sedi fre­quenter datum [or dictum] est, ut more majorum, etiam sine ulla Synodo precedente & solvendi, quod Synodus ini­que damnaverat, & damnandi, nulla existente Synodo, quos oportuit, habuerit potestatem. Sanctae memoriae nihilo mi­nus Johannem Constantinopolitanum [i. e. Chrysosto­mum] Synodus etiam Catholicorum Praesulum certe dam­naverat, quem simili modo sedes Apostolica etiam sola, quia non consensit, absolvit. Itemque S. Flavianum Pontificem Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore, quoniam sola Apostolica sedes non consensit, absolvit, potius quam, qui illic receptus fuerat. Dioscorum secundae Sedis praesulem sua authoritate damnavit; & impiam Synodum [i.e. sec. Ephes.] non consentiendo summovit sola: & authori­tate, ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret, sola decrevit. —Po­namus tamen, etiam si nulla Synodus praecessisset, cujus Apost. sedes recte fieret exequutrix, cum quibus erat de Acacio Sy­nodus [Page 92]ineunda? Nunquid cum his, qui jam participes tene­bantur Acacii, & per Orientem totum (Catholicis sacerdoti­bus [such he calls those who adher'd to the Council of Chalcedon] violenter exclusis, & per exilia diversa relega­tis) socii evidenter existentes communionis externae [i. e. extra Ecclesiam Catholicam] prius se ad haec consortia trans­ferrent, quam sedis Apostolicae scita consulerent?—Concilio nec opus erat post primam Synodum, nec talibus habere licebat. —Quae congregatio facta Pontificum [i.e. in Italia Occi­dentalium] non contra Chalcedonensem, non tanquam nova Synodus contra veterem primamque, convenit; sed potius se­cundum tenorem veteris constituti, particeps Apostolica exe­quutionis effecta est; ut satis appareat, Ecclesiam Catholicam, sedemque Apostolicam, quia alibi jam omnino non posset, ubi potuit & cum quibus potuit, nihil penitus omisisse, quod ad fra­ternum pertineret pro intemerata fide & sincera communione tractatum.—]— In this Epistle (amongst others) two things must not be passed by unobserv'd: 1. One; That he contends, he ought not to call to a Council Bishops condemn'd by, and professedly opposing, a for­mer General Council; which being granted, Councils may be rightly call'd General, when they consist not of all, but only of all Catholick Churches. 2. The other; That in the final sentencing and determining of greater persons and causes in the Eastern Church, the Bishop of Constantinople was employ'd only from him, and as his Delegate. —See the Epistle of Pelagius the 2d. (Bishop of Rome A.D. 580.)—Ʋniversis Episcopis, qui il­licita vocatione Johannis Constantinopolitani Episcopi, ad Constantinopolim convenerunt. Wherein he vindi­cates the authority of the Roman See against John, as­sembling a Council there without his consent and leave: and calling himself Universal Bishop (seeking to ex­alt himself above Rome, probably from the supreme [Page 93]dignity and great flourishing of that Imperial City in those time; in which times also the poor City of Rome laboured under great afflictions and desolations by the Goths, Longobards, &c. [whereof Gregory writing to the Empress (4. l. Ep. 34.) saith, Viginti autem jam & septem annos ducimus, quod in hac urbe inter Longobardo­rum gladios vivimus,] and from the Emperour Mauri­tius his countenancing him in it. Out of which Epi­stle some words are quoted by S. Gregory his Successor, (4. l. Ep. 36.)

§ 26 Now in the forenamed Epistle of Pelagius, as he hath these passages: Ʋniversalitatis quoque nomen, A Digres­sion concer­ning the title of U­niversalis Episcopus assumed by the Con­stantino­politan and decli­ned by the Roman, Bishops. quod sibi illicite usurpavit, [i.e. Joannes Constant.] nolite at­tendere &c. Nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur; quia si summus Patriarcha [tho it were the Patriarch of Rome] Ʋniversalis dicitur, Pa­triarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur. Sed absit hoc, absit, &c. —Jactantiam tantam sumpsit [i. e. Jonannes Con­stant.] ita ut universa sibi tentet ascribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent, (videlicet Christo,) per electionem Pompatici sermonis [i.e. Universalis] ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare. —Si enim dici hoc licenter per­mittitur, honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur; & for­tasse is in errore perit, qui Ʋniversalis dicitur, & nullus jam Episcopus in statu veritatis invenitur. I say, as he hath these passages, for which he is quoted by the Reformed, as making much against the power, which the Bishops of the Roman See claim; so hath he other (as it were an Antidote) in the very same Epistle, wherein he establisheth clearly that authority of the Roman Bishop, which they oppose. Whence it follows; either that these places are urged by the Reformed in a mistaken fence, or that he palpably contradicts, himself, [Page 94]and that with the same breath, as it were. Thus there­fore saith he in the same Epistle: —Relatum est ergo ad Apostolicam Sedem Johannem—vos ex hac sua praesumptione ad Synodum convocare Generalem; cum Generalium Syno­dorum convocandi authoritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri sin­gulari privilegio sit tradita, & nulla unquam Synodus rata legatur, quae Apostolica authoritate non fuit fulta. Qua­propter quicquid in praedicto vestro Conventiculo—statuistis, ex authoritate. S. Petri Apostolorum Principis & Domini Salavatoris voce, qua B. Petro potestatem ligandi atque sol­vendi ipse Salvator dedit, quae etiam potestas in Successori­bus ejus indubitanter transivit, Praecipio, omnia quae ibi sta­tuisti, & vana, & cassata esse. —Multis denuo Apostoli­cis, & Canonicis, atque Ecclesiasticis instruimur regulis, non debere absque sententia Romani Pontificis Concilia celebra­ri. —Orate Fratres, ut honor Ecclesiasticus nostris diebus non evacuetur; nec unquam Romana Sedes, quod (instituen­te Domino) Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, Privilegiis suis usquam careat, aut exspolietur. —Haec (Fratres) valde cavenda sunt, & praecepta Domini, atque sanctae Sedis Apo­stolicae, quae vice Domini Salvatoris legatione fungitur, mo­nita fideliter amplectenda & peragenda. Lastly, being consulted by them concerning the subordinate judg­ments of the Church, he writes thus: —Non oportet ut degradetur, vel dehonoretur unaquaeque Provincia, sed apud semetipsam habeat judices [i. e. for its judges] Sacerdotes & Episcopos singulos, viz. juxta ordines suos; & quicunque causam habuerit a suis judicibus judicetur, & non ab alienis; id est, a suae justis judicibus Provinciae, & non ab exteris; nisi (ut jam praelibatum est) a judicandis fuerit appellatum. Si vero—inter ipsius Provinciae Episcopos discrepare coeperit ratio &c, ad majorem tunc Sedem referantur. [As to the Constantinopolitan or Antioch.] Et si illae facile & juste non discernuntur, [i.e. which is the major Sedes in respect [Page 95]of that Province,] ubi fuerit Synodus regulariter congrega­ta, Canonice & juste judicentur. Majores vero & difficiles quaestiones (ut sancta Synodus statuit, & beata consuetudo exigit) ad Sedem Apostolicam semper referantur. Where­by you see, that the first See of Rome interessed her self not in all, but the highest and difficultest matters of controversie, where former judgments were ununani­mous, or were appealed from. Likewise, by the former passages tis plain, that Pelagius challengeth that Supre­macy to the Roman See, which is denied by Protestants; and alloweth the term of Summus Patriarcha, as Sum­mus implies some power and jurisdiction over all the rest, whereby they become subordinate; but not of Ʋniversalis Patriarcha, as Ʋniversalis implies, that there can be none besides, (for that only is universale, extra quod nihil) and is a term whereby all the rest are de­graded. And in this fence also afterward Gregory, Pela­gius his Successor, arguing against the same John Con­stant. took the same word, when he saith, Ep. 34. Con­stant. Augustae. —Despectis omnibus praedictus Frater & Coepiscopus meus, solus conatur appellari Episcopus. (See the same again Ep. 38. Johanni Episcopo Constant.) And Ep. 32. —Ʋniversa Ecclesia cum statu suo corruit, quando is, qui appellatur Ʋniversalis, cadit.— But neither Gregory nor Pelagius denied it (at least as applied to the Roman Bishop) in that sense, in which the Reformed urge it; i.e. as it implies a Supreme power in some one Bishop over all the rest; and as it intimates, not, praeter quem nemo sit, but, qui, remanentibus partibus integris, ipse caete­ris superemineat, (as Baronius hath it). Since in the same place, where they deny the one, as it were with the same breath they maintain the other; and since in that sense this Title was sometimes given to the Ro­man Bishops, tho Pelagius and Gregory do not like the [Page 96]name, because so easily interpretable in a sense not justi­fiable; or rather jealous that the Constantinopolitan Bi­shop, as presiding in the Imperial City, in using that word, unjustly sought to undermine them in their Pri­macy, (at least for the Eastern parts of the Church); they extend the sense of the word to its whole latitude, and further than, in all probability, he meant it, to make it be the sooner laid aside. But not long after, within two or three years of Gregory's death, by the Emperour Phocas (offended with Cyriacus the then Pa­triarch of Constantinople) as this title was taken from the Constantinopolitan, so was it inoffensively applied to the Roman, See: (Yet without the attribution or access of any authority to that See, which cannot be shewed to have bin formerly practised by it,) as also this title had bin aforetime in the Council of Chalcedon given that Bishop, without any contradiction of those Fathers. See Concil. Chalced. Act. 3. Thus much concerning the Title of Oecumenicus, or Ʋniversalis.

§. 27 In the last place; for the anciently-great authority of the Roman Bishop, see the Epistles of Gregory the Great: who, tho with Pelagius his Predecessors he much disrellished the name of Ʋniversal Bishop or Pastor, yet it appears out of these, that he both claimed and exercised such an universal superiority and jurisdi­ction over other both Bishops and Patriarchs, as the Reformed will by no means approve and (as we may gather by his words, 4. l. 37. Ep.) thought a vindication of his just authority well consistent with true humility. There he saith; —Dum Praedicator egregius dicat, Mi­nisterium meum honorificabo, (Rom. 11.13.) qui rursus alias dicens, —facti sumus parvuli in medio vestrum, (1 Thes. 2.7.) exemplum proculdubio nobis se sequentibus [Page 97]ostendit; ut & humilitatem teneamus in mente, & tamen ordinis nostri dignitatem servemus in honore: quatenus nec in nobis humilitas timida, nec erectio sit superba. This premised, see what follows in the same Epistle: —Jo­hannes Constantinopolitanus in Constantinopolitana urbe— Synodum secit, in qua se Ʋniversalem appellare conatus est; quod mox idem Decessor meus [i.e. Pelagius] ut agnovit, di­rectis literis, ex authoritate Sancti Petri Apostoli, ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit. —Cujus ego quoque sententiam se­quens, similia praedicto consacerdoti nostro scripta trans­misi. And 2. l. 10. Indict. 37. Ep. Episcopo Salonitano, [an African Bishop:] —Quod autem vos fatemini Eccle­siasticos ordines ignoran non posse—valde contristor, quia cum rerum ordinem scitis, in me (quod pejus est) sciendo de­liquistis. Postquam enim ad Beatitudinem vestram, & Decessoris mei & mea, in causa Honorati Archidiaconi, scrip­ta directa sunt, tunc contempta utriusque sententia, praefa­tus Honoratus proprio gradu privatus est. [Whose cause, tho only an Archdeacon, upon appeal Gregory having heard, cleared him, and ordered him to be restored to his place.] Quod si quilibet ex quatuor Patriarchis fecis­set, sine gravissimo scandalo, tanta contumacia transire nullo modo potuisset. Tamen postquam fraternitas vestra ad su­um ordinem rediit, nec ego meae, nec decessoris met injuriae memor sum [By which it seems Gregory's orders at last were obeyed.] And 2. l. Indict. 11. Ep. 32. to the same Archdeacon Honoratus, he writes thus. —A cunctis tibi objectis capitulis te plenius absolventes, in tui te ordinis gradu sine aliqua volumus alteratione permanere, ut nihil tibi penitus mota a praefato viro [i.e. Episcopo Salonitano] quaestio qualibet occasione praejudicet.— 11. l. Ep. 42. Epi­scopo Panormitano, [in Sicily.] —Illud autem admone­mus, ut Apostolicae Sedis reverentia nullius praesumptione turbetur; tunc enim status membrorum integer manet, si [Page 98]caput fidei [this must needs be Apostolicam sedem] nulla pulset injuria, & canonum manet incolumis authoritas.— l. 7. epist. 64. Episcopo Syracusano—Nam quod se dicit [i.e. Primas Byzancenus, an African Primate, of whom Gregory saith a little before, that in quodam crimine accu­satum, piissimus Imperator eum, juxta statuta canonica, per nos voluit judicari] Sedi Apostolicae subjici; si qua culpa in Episcopis invenitur, nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit; cum vero culpa non exigit, omnes secundum ratio­nem humilitatis aequales sunt.

[Nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit: i. e. saith Dr. Field [l. 5. c. 34. p. 534.) of those Bishops only within his own Patriarchship,§ 28 alledging Greg. Epist. 54, 11; where Gregory quotes, and seems to acquiesce in, the the Emperor Justinian's Constitution, Novel. 123. c. 22. Si autem & a Clerico aut Laico quocunque aditio contra Episcopum fiat, propter quamlibet causam, apud sanctissi­mum ejus Metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas & no­stras leges causa judicetur. Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum & Patriarcham referatur causa, & Ille secundum canones & leges huic praebeat finem, [I may add out of the Nov. it self], nulla parte ejus sen­tentiae contradicere valente. Whence, thus much is yeilded to Dr. Field; That the Bishops of his own Patriarchy have some subjection to the Bishop of Rome, and his Courts, as he bears the Office of a Patriarch over them, which others of another Patriarchate have not. And therefore we see his Letters, most frequently directed to the Bishops, and negotiating the affairs Ecclesiastical, within this Circuit; which Bishops (as the Doctor rightly notes) he calls Episcopos suos l. 4. c. 34. To the Empress [sed ut Episcopi mei me despiciant, &c. id pecca­tis meis deputo.] But yet this I suppose is yeilded by [Page 99]the Doctor (see before § 20.) that both the Bishops of other Patriarchies, and the Patriarchs themselves, in some cases also (but not in all wherein the rest) were subjected to the judgment and sentence of the first See. And in such sense might he say; Nescio quis Episcopus &c. As for the place of Gregory and the Imperial Con­stitution urg'd:

First, concerning Gregory observe, that he writ this to the Emperor's Prefect, in the behalf of one Stephanus a Bishop, qui invitus ad judicium trahebatur; & qui ab Episcopis alieni Concilii [i. e. who were not his proper Superiors, but of a distinct Province from him] quos hab bat suspectos, judicabatur. In his behalf therefore Gregory quotes this Imperial Constitution; where Pa­triarcha prabeat finem is oppos'd by Gregory (as likewise by Justinian) to Episcopi alieni Concilii, or also to any Civil Judges medling therein: who (according to No­vell. 123. c. 21.) might not hear Ecclesiastical Causes at all. [the words are these, Si autem Ecclesiastica causa est, nullam communionem habeant judices civiles circa talem examinationem, sed sanctissim [...]s Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat. To which effect see the Constitution quoted in the beginning of Gregory's Epi­stle [Si quis contra aliquem Clericum, &c.] After which Constitution urg'd, Gregory goes on thus; Contra haec si dictum fuerit, quia nec Metropol tanum habuit, nec Patri­archam [take Patriarch here in what sense you please] dicendum est, quia a S [...]de Apostolica, quae omnium Eccle­siarum caput est, [this is his reason for it] causa haec au­dienda ac dirimenda fuerat, sicut & praedictus Episcopus pe­tiisse dignoscitur, qui Episcopos alieni Concilii judices habuit omnino suspectos.

Secondly, For the Imperial Constitutions of Justi­nian, they, so far as they concern Ecclesiastical matters, [Page]are only Ratifications of the Church's Canons, and no way opposite to them; who every where commands proceedings and judgments to be made secundum sacras regulas, and in the beginning of his Codex, to shew his submission in these things to the Church (tit. 1. l. 8.) writes thus to the Pope in particular; Nec enim patie­mur quicquid, quod ad Ecclesiarum statum pertinet, quam­vis manifestum & indubitatum sit quod movetur, ut non etiam vestrae innotescat sanctitati, quae caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum. To whom also when the Empe­ror sent his Creed, Agapetus the Pope answer'd Firma­mus, &c. non quia La [...]cis authoritatem praedicationis admit­timus, sed quia studium fidei vestrae patrum nostrorum regu­lis conveniens confirmamus atque roboramus. (Agapet. Ep. 6.) Now if you examine those Constitutions (Novell. 123. c. 22.) they are only these: That two Bishops, ejusdem Concilii, under the same Metropolitan, being at variance, are referr'd to the judgment of their Metro­politan and the Council Provincial. If this refused; then to that of the Patriarcha Dioeceseos illius, nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente. The same course is appointed, if a Clergy-man have any thing against his Bishop; or Bishop, or inferior Clergy-man, against his Metropolitan: But in the differences between a Bishop and his Patriarch, or also between two Patriarchs, he or­dereth nothing. Now what thing is there, in all this, prejudicial to the formerly-asserted authority of the Ro­man Bishop? For (1.) by these within the compass of his own Patriarchate he is the supreme and final Judg, upon all Appeals, as well of other Clergy, as of Bishops; and (2.) so is he also of all other Bishops and Metro­politans, whosoever are not subjected to any other Pa­triarch; and (3.) also in other Patriarchates, where greater contests happen between them and their Bishops, [Page 101]or with one another; here also he interests his power (see before § 20. and 26.) for any thing in these Impe­rial decrees expressed to the contrary. Nay further, (4.) he, as Caput omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum (to use Ju­stinian's stile) where he judgeth other Patriarchs to neg­lect their duty, or sees them overborn in heresy, or o­ther matters of great concernment, for the peace and safety of the Church; he, I say, as appears by many in­stances above, hath exercised authority also over the inferior Clergy of other Patriarchats. as he did in the degradation of Eutyches a Constantinopolitan Prerbyter, (see before § 25. n. 2.) an act approved by the same Council of Chalcedon, that in their 9th. Canon referred the final decision of the ordinary controversies of any Province to their own Bishops, or Patriarch.

§. 29 Pardon this Digression: Now to go on with the obser­vations out of Gregory's writings.] 5. l. 24. Ep. where the Bishop of Ravenna telling S. Gregory, that some said he had no Canonical authority to judge the difference be­tween the said Bishop of Ravenna, and a certain Abbot who had appealed to Gregory: he saith, —Nunquid non ipse nosti, quia in causa, quae a Johanne Presbytero contra Johannem Constantinopolitanum fratrem & coepiscopum nostrum orta est, secundum Canones ad Sedem Apostolicam recurrit, & nostra est sententia definita. Si ergo de illa Ci­vitate, ubi Princeps est, [i. e. Constantinople, where the Emperour then resided] ad nostram causa cognitionem de­ducta est, quanto magis negotium quod contra nos est [done within our own Patriarchat against our authority,] hic est, veritate cognita, terminàndum.—

See Ep. 63. to the same Sicilian Bishop: where an­swering to some objecting, Quomodo Ecclesiam Constan­tinopolitanam disposuit comprimere [i.e. Gregory,] qui ejus [Page 102]consuetudines [i.e. in ordinatione Missae] per omnia sequi­tur? he, denying that the Church of Rome followed the customs of the Greeks, replies thus: —Ʋnde habent [i.e. Graeci] ergo hodie, ut Subdiaconi lineis in tunicis proce­dant, nisi quia hoc a Matre sua Romana Ecclesia perceperunt? And, —Nam de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia, quod dicunt; Quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subie [...]am, quod & Lominus piissimus Imperator; & frater noster Eusebius [I conceive it should be Cyriacus, who, at the first especi­ally, was very compliant with Rome, see Greg. Ep. 6. l. 31. Ep. & 28. Ep.) for there was no Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople in Gregory's time,] ejusdem Civitatis Epi­scopus, assidue profitentur. And see (10. l. 31. Epistle) the form of submission (taken by Gregory's Substitutes) of those who return'd to the unity of the Church, from the Schism which maintained the tria Capitula of the Council of Chalcedon, which were condemned in the 5th General Council. which submission was, —Pro­mitto tibi, & per te Sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi, at (que) ejus Vicario, Beatissimo Gregorio, —semper me in unitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae, & communione Romani Pontifi­cis per omnia permansurum.—

§ 30 A Digres­sion concer­ning the Patriarch­ship of Ra­verna and Justiniana 1^a urged by Dr. Ham­mond. And because Dr. Hammond (schism 6. c. p. 115. and 5. c. 8. §.) quotes, and much stands upon, the Patriarch­ship of Ravenna erected to this dignity (as he saith) by the Emperour Valentinian, and of Justiniana 1^a, and of Carthage erected by the Emperour Justinian; the one being his native soil, the other recovered by him from the Vandals; erected, as utterly independent on the Roman Patriarch, (tho Dr. Field grants all these places to have bin contained under his Patriarchy, 38. c. p. 560.) and this without any contradiction from the said Patri­arch; upon which instances chiefly he there builds [Page 103]this position, [That it is, and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes, within their Dominions to erect, or translate Patriarchates]: I will also set you down some passages in these Epistles of Gregory, (one who lived after, and not long after, these Emperours,) which shew these Primats to have had still dependance (as others) on the Roman See; and, either not to have had conferr'd on them at all, or at least not to have en­joyed, with that Church's consent, those priviledges he pretends, 1. For the Bishop of Ravenna, 1 see Gregory's Epistle (2. l. 54. Ep.) to John 3d. Bishop of Ravenna, (the same that, as Dr. Hammond saith (Answ. to S. disarm'd, p. 156.) stood much upon his special rights in opposition to the Roman See,) where, Gregory reprehending him for an unseasonable using of the Pall, hath these words: — Quod bene hanc consuetudinem generalis Ecclesiae [con­trary to what he used] noveritis, vestris nobis manifestis­sime significastis Epistolis; quibus Praeceptum beatae memoriae Decessoris nostri Johannis Papae nobis subditis, transmisistis annexum, continens omnes consuetudines ex privilegio Prae­decessorum nostrorum concessas vobis Ecclesiaeque vestrae, de­bere servari. [The Priviledges of Ravenna therefore, whatever they were, are, in this contest, pretended by the Bishop thereof, to be received (not from the Empe­rour, or not from him singly, but) from the See Aposto­lick, contrary to what Dr. Hammond affirms, p. 156. and this only is pleaded by John Bishop of Ravenna; That the priviledges granted to his See by former Ro­man Bishops could not be annull'd by Gregory the pre­sent. But such priviledges were denied by Gregory to have bin formerly conceded to Him by his Predecessors; hence he proceeds thus afterward, in the same Epistle. —Aut mos omnium Metropolitanorum est a sua fraternita­te servandus; aut si tuae Ecclesiae aliquid specialiter dicis esse [Page 104]concessum praeceptumve a prioribus Romanae Ʋrbis Pontifi­cibus; quod haec Ravennati Ecclesiae sint concessa, a vobis oportet ostendi.— And to the same Bishop about another thing amiss, (4. l. 1. Ep.) he writes in this stile: —Pro­inde Fraternitas tua hoc, quolibet in loco factum sit, emendare festinet; quia ego nullo modo patiar, ut loca sacra per Cleri­corum ambitum destruantur. Vos itaque ita agite, ut mihi hac de re correctam causam sub celeritate nuntietis.— See 5. l. 8. Ep. his sending the Pall to Maximinianus Bishop of Ravenna, and confirming his privileges. In which Epistle, urged by S. W. Dr. Hammond (Answ. to Schism disarm'd, p. 151.) will have these words [omnia Privi­legia quae tuae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae, nostra au­thoritate firmamus, & illibata decernimus permanere] well to consist with the independency of that Church, for such priviledges, on the See of Rome; and with the Em­peror's conferring these priviledges to all succession, without any joint authority of the Pope; and, bring­ing in [provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine] without mentioning the words immediately before, [Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia atque antiquae consuetudinis ordine provo­catus,] he makes these words refer not to the Popes, but to the Emperor's former grant. But meanwhile judge you, if the Emperour might of his own accord erect Patriarchies, or confer such priviledges without the Bishop of Rome's authority; whether [authoritate nostra firmamus, & illibata decernimus &c, and Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia] be not, not only needless, but also ridiculous. But if the Patriarch of the West's [authori­tate nostra firmamus] was necessary to what the Empe­rour did, then are all such instances rendred useless to the Doctor, who can shew no such [firmamus] to the late erected Patriarchats. And, were not such testimo­nies extant, yet the rescript of the same Emperour Va­lentinian [Page 105](quoted before p 86.) seems a sufficient proof, that no such priviledges, as were prejudicial to the Roman See, were granted by him. 2.2 For the Bishop of Justiniana 1^a; that he continued to receive the Pall, as other Primats, from the Bishop of Rome; and that he had locum Apostolicae Sedis, not the place of a, but of the, Apostolick See; namely, as the Pope's standing delegate for those parts subordinate to him; (the phrase being frequently used in this, but I think never in the other, sence): lastly, that the Bishop of Rome deputed the judgment of causes to him, and, for some misbehaviour in his place, passed Ecclesiastical censures upon him; I say for these things see 4. l. Indict. 13. Ep. 15. Johanni Episcopo 1 ae Justinianae newly elected: —Pallium vero ex more transmisimus, & vices vos Aposto­licae Sedis agere, iterata innovatione, decernimus. Iterata in­novatione; which argues the first concession, that he should have locum Apostolicae Sedis, was from the Roman Bishop; which Baronius (Anno 535.) saith, Justinian, with much importunity, obtained of Vigilius: after Aga­petus his Predecessor had made a demur to grant it, as being a thing too prejudicial to his Neighbour-Metropo­litans. And see 10. l. 5. Indict. 34. Ep. where he refers the cause of Paulus Bishop of Dyaclina to the examination of the Bishop of Justiniana 1^a. And see 2. l. Indict. 11. Ep. 6. to the same Bishop, where reprehending him for a singular act of injustice, he saith, —Quod vero ad praesens attinet, cassatis prius atque ad nihilum redactis prae­dictae sententiae tuae decretis; ex Beati Apostolorum Princi­pis authoritate decernimus, triginta dierum spatio sacra te communione privatum, ab omnipotenti Deo nostro tanti ex­cessus veniam cum summa poenitentia ac lachrymis exorare.— Quod si &c—; contumaciam fraternitatis tuae cognoscas adjuvante Deo severius puniendam.— After these see [Page 106] Justinianan's Constitution it self, (Novell. 131. cap. 3.) which runs thus. —Per tempus autem Beatissimum 1 ae Ju­stinianae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae &c. —& in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae, secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio.— Which last words, how reasonably Dr. Hammond (Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 96.) interprets, that Vigilius defin'd, that the Bishop of Justin. 1^a should be, for ever after, an absolute and free Patriarch, independent on the Bishop of Rome, or why the Emperour should require such a de­finition from Vigilius, who (as the Doctor holds) had no right to hinder it, I leave to your judgment, after that you have well considered what is here alledged. And see likewise this confessed by D^r Field, 5. l. 38. c. p. 561. ‘The same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana the first; who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vice­gerent in those parts, upon signification of the Empe­rour's will and desire that it should be so.’ Thus he. And hence was this power conferred upon him finally to determine causes, namely as the Pope's Delegate for that purpose; and this exclusively, not to Rome, but to other Metropolitans within those Provinces newly sub­jected to him; from whom to him, not so from him to them,3 might be Appeals. 3. As for the third Pri­mate, of Carthage, he is pretended only to be admitted to the like priviledges with Justiniana 1^a.

Thus have I set you down (to save you the pains,§ 31. n. 1. or to prevent the usual neglect, of searching them in the Authors) some of the most notable passages for the first 600 years, (wherein you may find Calvin's confes­sion (Instit. 4. l. 7. c.) true, nullum fuisse tempus, quo non Romana Sedes imperium in alias Ecclesias appetiv. rit, but, [Page 107]I add more, obtinuerit, too,) shewing (as I think) se­veral ways, not only the honour and dignity, before, but the authority and power of the Roman See, over, other Churches, not only those under its Patriarchy, but the Eastern also: the Eastern, not only single, but joined in Councils; power, not only which Roman Bi­shops claimed, but which Councils allowed, testified, confirmed, and established; and the greatest Bishops in the world repaired to for justice; the most of those Roman Bishops, whose authorities I have cited, being eminent for sanctity, and having the same title and re­putation of Saints, as the other ancient Fathers: and the two last of them being quoted by Protestants, as inveighers against an Universal Bishop as a forerunner of Antichrist, (that you may fee how much authority even the most moderate have assumed). and all these transactions being before the times of the Emperour Phocas; who by some Reformed (see Dr. Hammond, reply to Cathol. Gentl. 3. c. 4. s. 14. n.) is said to have laid the first foundations of the modern Roman Greatness, in declaring him Episcopum Oecumenicum & Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, (tho indeed Phocas his act was only (in a quarrel of his against Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople) adjudging the stile of Oecumenicus, before much disputed between those two Bishops, as you have seen, not fit to be used by the Bishop of Constantinople, and due only to the Bishop of Rome). and that Paulus Diaconus (de ge­stis Romanorum, 18. l. quoted by Dr. Hammond) meant no more; see what the same Paulus saith (de gestis Longo­bardorum 4 l. 37. c.): and being of those ages, wherein Dr. Field, thro his 5th book, denies to have bin any Ro­man Supremacy of power. If it be said that the Roman Bishops, out of whose writings many of these authori­ties are produced, then claimed what others denied; I [Page 108]think some other quotations (intermingled) out of those who were no Roman Bishops will shew this to be untrue.

Besides,§. 31. n. 2. In the chief causes of all other divisions from the Roman Church (excepting that of the late Refor­mation) the Roman Church (in the judg­ment of the Refor­med) the more Or­thodox. my chief intention here was not to declare, quo jure such jurisdiction was either claim'd, or yeilded to; but that de facto that power was so long ago assum'd, which being now challeng'd, is by our men deny'd; and (I may add) assum'd with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages. The Bishops of Rome having patroniz'd no Heresies at all, as all the other Patriarchs, at some time or other, did. Such were in the See of Constantinople, Macedonius, Nestorius, Ser­gius, Arch-hereticks: in Alexandria, Dioscorus, the grand Patron of the Eutychians: in Antioch, Paulus Samosate­nus, the Father of the Paulianists, &c. All which He­resies, and several other, which took root in the East, were suppressed, and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved, by the over-ruling power, the threats, the censures, of this See; as any, not over-partial, Reader of the Ecclesiastical History, will easily discern. And perhaps I may ven­ture a little further; That to this day, in the chief point and occasion of breach, for which any other Church besides the Reform'd, stands divided from the Roman Communion, the Reformed do justifie the Roman te­nent against those Churches. The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was be­sides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; as ap­pears by the disputation in the Council of Florence (where both Churches (the Eastern now falling into some distress) heartily sought for an accord) almost wholly spent about this point. Now in this article the [Page 109]Reform'd do side with the Roman Church; and, so far also as we allow of any superiority, we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan, but the Roman Patriarch. The chief Doctrine, for which the other Orientals (as the Assyrian Churches, the Jacobites, Ar­menians, Cophti, Aethiopians, Maronites, &c. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1, &c.) stand separate from Rome, whilst their publick Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek, or Roman, is either Nestorianism, or Eu­tychianism, or Monothelitism, imputed unto them; in which also the Reformed adhere, against them, to the Roman judgment. The like may be said in the anci­enter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches, about Easter; and with the African, and some of the Asian, about Rebaptization. Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches, the Re­form'd will grant, Rome to have continued ortho­dox, and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her, they had been better guided; or at least, that, for those 600 years, she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent au­thority. But if it be said again; That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power, than the instances above shew them anciently to have used; I desire to know first, before this be examin'd, whether we will grant them so much; for whilst we complain, that they now a-days claim more than is due to them, is it not so, that we deny them not the more, but all? And have they done well, who have used the Bishops so, who have used Kings so, upon pretence of their exer­cising an illegal power?

[Page 110] § 32 And now by what hath pass'd, we may the better judge of the meaning (notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them) of those places of the an­cient Fathers,By the in­stances a­bove, judg­ment may be made of the sense of many other (controver­ted) Say­ings of the Fathers. which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows, in Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there, how Hereticks may be easily con­founded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine. —Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam [i. e. a duobus A­postolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundatam] propter poten­tiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Eccle­siam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique fideles, conservata est ea, quae ab Apo­stolis est traditio. In qua, i. e. in unione & adhaesione ad quam, Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserv'd in all other Churches. Let therefore [potentiorem prin­cipalitatem] (if so you can make any sense) be referr'd (as it is by the Reform'd) to the Roman Empire, not Church; yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apo­stolical, which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this, that cannot be ap­ply'd but only to the Church, not as seated in the Im­perial City, but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. Of which Church Tertullian (de praescript. Haereticorum) also saith,—Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo pro­fuderunt. And, after him, thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome (not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Ʋnit. Eccl. Cath. which per­haps seem capable of the exposition which the Refor­med give them)—Nos singulis navigantibus [i.e. from Affrick into Italy] rationem reddentes, scimus nos horta­tos eos esse, ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem & matricem [i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam] agnoscerent & tenerent.—And af­terward, [Page 111]—Ne in urbe [in Rome] schisma factum, ani­mos absentium [i.e. of those in Africk] incerta opinione confunderet [which party they should adhere to] pla­cuit, ut per Episcopos istic positos [African Bishops resi­ding at Rome] literae fierent] to the African Provin­ces] ut te, universi collegae nostri, & communicationem tu­am, id est, Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter, ac chari­tatem, probarent firmiter ac tenerent. And Epist. 52. An­toniano Fratri [a Bishop not communicating with No­vatianus] —Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum litera­rum ad Cornelium [the Bishop of Rome] Collegam no­strum transmitterem, ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sci­ret te secum, hoc est, cum Catholica Ecclesia, communicare. (The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose, Orat. in Satyr. where he saith of his Brother Satyrus, about to receive the Communion, that percunctatus est Episcopum, si cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est, si cum Romana Ecclesia, conveniret)—And thus Cyprian again, in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato & Faelicissimo haereticis [who condemn'd in Africk, appeal'd to Rome.] Post ista ad­huc insuper navigare audent; & ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis [Fortunato &c.] literas ferre; nec cogitare eos [i. e. tales] esse Romanos (quorum fides, Apostolo praedicante, laudata est) ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum. Add to these, in the 46th Epistle, the confes­sion of those who return'd to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus, made in this form;—Nos Cornelium Epis­copum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae, electum—a Christo Do­mino nostro scimus, &c. concluding, Nec enim ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum, unum Spiritum Sanctum, unum Episcopum in Catholica Ecclesia esse debere. Ʋnum, i. e. I suppose unum supereminent in power to the rest, the better to preserve the Church's Unity.

[Page 112] § 33 Lastly; The passages of those Ancients who were in some difference with the Bishop of Rome, which up­braid him for challenging such power, seem to me good arguments, that such power and authority, over other Churches and Bishops, was then so early assum'd by him. So Tertullian (de Pudicitia c. 21.) living in the be­ginning of the third Age, when now a Montanist, and rigidly opposing the Absolution, and restitution to the Church, of lapsed Christians, tho penitents (which thing was practis'd by the Bishop of Rome), mentions there in Irony his Titles of Pontifex Maximus, and Episcopus Episcoporum; and thus expostulates with him,—Ʋnde hoc jus Ecclesiae [i. e. of absolving such sinners] usur­pas? Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus; super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam: Tibi dedi claves regni Coelorum; vel quaecunque alligaveris &c. Qualis es! evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem &c. [But note, that Tertullian here in the Protestants judgment errs, absolution of sinners penitent being not personal to Peter, or the Apostles, but common, not only to the Roman Bishop, but all the successive Clergy, for ever.]— So Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea Cappadociae in his Epistle to St. Cyprian (the 75th amongst Cyprian's) when very passionate in the matter of Rebaptizing those formerly Baptiz'd only by Hereticks, and (as it seems by Eus. Ec. H. l. 7. c. 4.) either punish'd or threaten'd with Excommunication by Ste­phen Bishop of Rome for it, and also being his opposite in the controversie about Easter, thus inveighs against him; —Ego in hac parte juste indignor—quod qui sic de Episcopa­tus sui loco gloriatur & se successionem Petri tenere contendit, super quem fundamenta Ecclesiae collocata sunt, multas alias Petras inducat, & Ecclesiarum multarum nova aedificia con­stituat, dum esse illic [i.e. Heretical Churches] baptisma [Page 113]sua authoritate defendit—Stephanus, qui per successionem Cathedram Petri habere se praedicat, nullo adversus haereticos zelo exeitatur &c. [i.e. in disallowing and nulling their Baptism] —Eos autem qui Romae sunt non ea in omni­bus observare, quae sint ab origine tradita; & frustra Apo­stolorum authoritatem praetendere, scire quis etiam inde po­test &c.— where he blames their keeping of Easter dif­ferently from others in the Asian Churches. —Qui glo­riatur, qui praedicat, qui praetendit: therefore such titles, and such gloriation there was; and such authority chal­lenged by the Roman Bishops (which he calls in that Epistle [ruptio pacis]) long before the Nicen Council; and the judgments, and the pretended Apostolical tra­ditions of these Bishops, tho by these mistaken men cen­sured and opposed, yet by the orthodox followed and embraced.

§ 34 As for the two places urged out of S. Cyprian against the acknowledgment of any such power or superiority of one Bishop over another; and consequently of the Bishop of Rome; the one out of the Council of Carthage (in his works,) wherein, being President, he saith, —Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam no­strum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyranni­co terrrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & po­testatis suae arbitrium proprium; tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest judicare. Sed expectemus uni­versi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet Potestatem—de actu nostro judicandi. —And the other, in the close of his and the Councils Epistle to Stephen, (Epistle 72.) where he saith: —Haec ad consci­entiam tuam Frater Charissime [i.e. Stephane]—pertulimus; [Page 114]credentes etiam tibi, pro religionis tuae & fidei veritate, pla­cere, quae & religiosa pariter & vera sunt. Caeterum scimus quosdam, quod semel imbiberint, nolle disponere, nec proposs­tum s [...]um facile mutare; sed salvo inter collegas pacis & concordiae vinculo, quaedam propria retinere. Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus; cum habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium iberum unusquisque Praepositus [or Bishop,] rationem actus sui Do­mino redditurus.— In the first of these places, the Fa­ther speaks of all Bishops having their free votes in the Council; none lording it over the rest, nor they to give account of such vote, save to God alone. This seems clear from the words immediately preceding: —Super­est ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus, ne­minem judicantes &c. [which words they are pleased not to mention with the rest.] In the second, he only saith of himself and the Council, That they did not vim facere, nor legem dare cuiquam Collegarum. By which col­leagues, he means not Stephen the Bishop of Rome, or any foreign, but only some African, Bishops: who, having no such former custom of rebaptizing any, dis­sented from that Council's judgment; as may be col­lected both from the words preceding here—credimus tibi placere, and from the former Epistle 71. to Quintus, where he saith, Nescio qua praesumptione ducuntur quidam de collegis nostris, ut putent eos qui apud haereticos tincti sunt, quando ad nos venerint baptizari non oportere, [this being spoken of his collegues] Et qui hoc illis patrocinium de authoritate sua praestat, cedit illis & consentit &c. [this being spoken of Stephen, who countenanced his African collegues.] But be these collegues whom they please; of them I ask, Were they subordinate and subject to this Council, or not? If they were; then [legem non damus] must not be made equivalent to [non licet dare.] [Page 115]And, in doubtful matters (as this must needs be on Cy­prian's side, going against the former general practice of the Church except that of his Predecessors) tis many times great prudence legem non dare, where there is a legislative power: or if they were not subordinate; then indeed, non licuit legem illis dare. But this rule [non licet &c.] cannot be extended to other Governors, where there is a subordination of others to them. Now, as there are Bishops and Councils coequal, who therefore may not give the law to one another, (as the Bishop of one Diocess, or one Provincial Council, cannot regulate another); so there are Bishops and Councils superior to others: as above an ordinary Bishop, are Metropoli­tans, Primats, Patriarchs: above Councils Provincial, are Patria chal, General. Therefore either S. Cyprian's words must not be so far extended, as to assert, That no one Bishop nor Council hath any power over another, but all Bishops left to their supreme liberty, only ratio­nem reddituri Domino of their actions, (contrary to the universal practice of the Church; such superior Coun­cils ordinarily censuring, and also anathematizing Bi­shops); or, in the judgment of the Reformed, who also maintain such subordinations, S. Cyprian must be in an error. Now, in the vacancy of any General or Patriar­chal Council, the Patriarch, at least for his own Patri­archat, (as Cyprian was within the Roman Patriarchat,) is the supreme Judge, and therefore Cyprian not exempt from all subjection or subordination to Him. See for this Dr. Field's concessions, (before § 18.) Supreme judge; for the executing of the former Ecclesiastical Canons, and preserving of the doctrines formerly established, and determined by Councils. Supreme Judge thus, over Provincial, not only Bishops but Councils, for from these may be made appeals to him; and a confirmation [Page 116]of their decrees is fought for from him. See that of Milevis and of Carthage in S. Austin's time, (before, § 23. n. 4.) neither ought they to promulgate any doctrine not formerly determined by former Councils against his approbation and consent. See before, § 22. (There­fore Cyprian might not make a contrary Decree to the Western Patriarch, so as to necessitate those under his Primacy to the obedience thereof, as neither he did.) But how far on the other side they stand obliged to conform to the judgment of him, or also of his Provin­cial Council, when defining any such new point against theirs, (the case here between Stephen and Cyprian,) I determin not: Especially considering the liberty Cy­prian took to dissent from Stephen, and considering, what Bellarmin (de Concil. 2. l. 5. c.) and before him S. Austin, grants, that by such dissent he ceased not to be a good Catholick; and considering also the liberty S. Ambrose took, at least, in a ritual, of practising contrary to the custom of the Roman Church. See de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem [i.e. de lotione Pedum] non habeat, cujus typum in omnibus sequi­mur & formam. —In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Ro­manam, [in omnibus; that is, which I can reasonably assent to,] sedtamen & nos homines sensum habemus: Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, & nos recte custodiamus, ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum &c. But neither is Cyprian's authority, whatever he did in this matter, nor any de­cree of an African Council (as Dr. Hammond Schism 6. c. p. 128. urgeth a canon of an African Council in Anasta­sius his time, A.D. 401. (the 71. in Balsamon, the 35. in Crab and Binnius,) which imports thus much; That ‘laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Church to make contrary laws thereunto;’) a sufficient argument clearly to decide [Page 117]this point; namely, that the African Churches, being subject, to this Patriarch, might promulgate a Doctrine contrary to his judgment. For there is no more rea­son we should justifie Cyprian's, or an African Coun­cil's, authority against the Bishop of Rome and his Coun­cil, than this Bishop's and his Council's, against theirs; where if Cyprian for his person were a Martyr for Christ, so was Stephen too. Especially, when we find Cyprian so much erring in the matter of this controversie, whilst he saith, (Epist. 74.) Pompeio—Qui [Stephanus] hae­reticorum causam contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur,— And when we consider the modest and safe grounds Stephen went upon [Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est] having the former custom of the Church on his side, to which St. Cyprian pleads, Consuetudo sine veri­tate est vetustas erroris; and (Epist. 71. Quinto Fratri), Non est consuetudine perscribendum, sed ratione vincendum. Whereas, in this contest, it had bin an happy thing for the Church, and had sav'd St. Austin many sheets a­gainst the Donatists, had he and his Council acquiesc'd in the judgment of their Patriarch. Thus much to those places objected out of Cyprian.

§ 35 As for that pretended Canon of the African Coun­cil, I find the passages in Binnius (with whom the Dr. saith Balsamon agrees in setting down this Canon, but indeed there is some difference, and Balsamon's Tran­slation hardly intelligible) otherwise then the Doctor (in his Reply to Schism Disarm'd p. 209.) relates them.) The business there consulted upon, was about the re­admission of the recanting Donatists, not only to the Unity of the Catholick Church, but also to the former Dignities, which such had held in the Church: con­cerning this a Council had been held already in Italy [Page 118]by Anastasius and his Bishops; wherein it was decreed, that such Donatists should not be admitted to their for­mer honours and places; and a Letter was to this pur­pose sent to the Africans by Anastasius. Concerning which Letter, first this Council saith, Recitatis epistolis beatissimi Fratris & consacerdoti nostri Anastasii, quibus nos paternae & fraternae charitatis solicitudine & sinceritate adhortatus est, ut &c —Gratias agimus Domino nostro, quod illi optimo ac san [...]o Ant [...]stiti suo tam piam curam pro mem­bris Christi (q [...]amvis in div [...]rsitate terrarum, sed in una compage corporis, const tut [...]s) inspirare dignatus est. Then in Can. 33. they say, onsideratis omnibus &c. eligim [...]s cum memoratis hominibus [the Donatists] leniter & pa­cifice agere, upon this reason; that so they might reduce, together with them, many others seduc'd by them. Lastly, in c. 35. which is the Canon urged, they say; Itaque placuit ut literae mittantur ad fratres & co [...]p scopos nostros [i. e. those of the Council which Anastasius had held in Italy] & maxime ad sedem Apostol [...]cam, in qua praesidet memoratus venerabilis Frater & Collega noster Ana­stasius, quo noverit habere Aphricam magnam nec ssitatem, ut ex ipsis Donatistis, quicunque transire voluerint &c. in suis honoribus suscipiantur, si hoc paci Christianae prod [...]sse visum fuerit; i. e. (as they explain themselves after­wards in the same Canon) that such Clerks of the Do­natists should be admitted to their former Dignities, up­on whose reconcilement depended the gaining and re­duction of a multitude also of other Souls, who were their followers. This then they were to write to the Pope and the Bishops of the Italian Council; that such Donatist-leaders might be readmitted not only into the Church's bosom, but to their former places. They go on: Non ut Concilium▪ quod in transmarinis partibus de hac refactum est [who had decreed the contrary] dissolva­tur; [Page 119]sed ut illud maneat [the Council stand good] cirea eos, qui sic transire ad Catholicam volunt, ut nulla per eos unitatis compensatio procuretur (i. e. who do not procure the uniting of many others) per quos autem—adjuvari manifestis fraternarum animarum [of those under the Do­natist Clergy's Spiritual Conduct] lucris Catholica uni­tas visa fuerit, non eis obsit, quod contra honores eorum— in transmarino Concilio statutum est. Then, contracting what is formerly said, they conclude thus; id est, ut or­dinati in parte Donati, si ad Catholicam correcti transire vo­luerint, non suscipiantur in honoribus suis, secundum trans­marinum Concilium; exceptis his, per quos Catholicae uni­tati consuletur. Now some difference there is, between their writing to the Pope, and the Bishops of the for­mer Council; ne obsit, for some; and maneat for the rest; and their decreeing against the Pope and that Council, ne obfuerit for any. Now this close is thus English'd by the Doctor our of Balsamon; ‘That they that have bin Ordain'd on the part of the Donatists, shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod, but shall the rather be receiv'd, as those that take care for the Catholick Unity.’ How well, I leave to your judgment.

§. 36 The Pro­testants or­dinary Re­plies to these, to me seem­ing not sa­tisfactory. Now to these several instances, which I have drawn out of the primitive times, the answers which are usu­ally made by some (for you must expect, that nothing is said by any side, which is not reply'd to by the other) are such as these; That such places, as speak of the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Bishop, speak only of that of Order and Dignity, not of Power or Au­thority; —Apostolicae Cathedrae Principatus; i. e. say they, quoad dignitatem, non quoad potestatem,—Rector domus Dei; —Ecclesiae Catholicoe, or universalis Episcopus; i.e. say they, [Page 120] Ʋnus erectoribus domus Dei; unus ex Episcopis, &c.— That such places as mention appeals to the Bishop of Rome, speak of them as made to him, non ut ad Judi­cem, sed ut ad ejusdem fidei fautorem, ut ejusdem fidei pro­fessores in communionem suam admitteret,—non ob aliquam jurisdicendi authoritatem, sed ob amicam communionis ejus­dem societatem. That the like addresses were made to other Patriarchs and Bishops for their communion and assistance, as to him; and that his Letters were request­ed, and, in behalf of sufferers, directed to all parts of Chcistianity; not by vertue of any authority he had to correct, but by reason of the power he had (from the reverence they gave to the dignity of his place) every where to perswade. That such places of Fathers, or Councils, as affirm, that no publick affairs of the Church may be transacted without the Bishop of Rome, are not appropriate therefore only to him; but verified as much of the rest of the Patriarchs, as of him. That those places which mention his censuring, excommunicating, depo­sing Clergy, that were not under his own Patriarchy, speak not of any authoritative or privative excommu­nication (to use the Bishop of Derry's expression, Vind. c. 8.) by way of jurisdiction, excluding such from the communion of Christ; but only of a negative, in the way of Christian discretion, by with-drawing him, or his, from communion with them; for fear of infection, for declaring his non-currence with, or countenancing of, their fault, &c. There being great difference (as Dr. Field observes p. 558.) between excommunication properly so nam'd, or authoritatively forbidding all men to communicate with such and such; and the reject­ing only of them from our communion and fellowship. [And I also confess and grant, such negations of com­municating with others anciently used: and amongst [Page 121]rest used also by the Bishop of Rome, who often pro­hibited his Legates and others from communicating with some other Bishop (as with the Bishop of Constan­tinople, when he used the stile of Ʋniversalis,) or from going to, and being present at, their celebration of Di­vine Service; when he did not excommunicate the other, nay when also he admitted the ministers of the other, and those who communicated with the other, to come to his communion and celebration of Divine Ser­vice. See Gregory (6. l. 31. Ep. to Eulogius and Ana­stasius) indulging this to those, who were sent from Cy­riacus Bishop of Constantinople to him. But that all the Bishops excommunications of those without his Patri­archy were only such, this is the thing denied.] —That ‘the like may be said of his confirming or restoring his fellow-Bishops; that it was done, not by way of fo­rensical justice, but fraternal approbation: and that all other Patriarchs used excommunicating, deposing, acquitting, and restoring, in the same manner, allow­ing or withdrawing their communion from their fel­low-Bishops, as they saw fit; and that they con­firmed the Roman Bishop by their communicatory let­ters, as he them.’ [Which things, how well they a­gree with the above said forms of such Ecclesiastical cen­sures, and with other practices of the Roman Bishops towards others, much differing from the practices of other Patriarchs either towards him, or towards others; how well they agree with the addresses made from both Church-governors and Councils, upon differences and contentions in the Church, to Rome; addresses not used in the same manner to the other Patriarchs, (yet would have bin done equally to them also, had all Pa­triarchs bin esteemed in their power equal); especially how they agree with what is said § 24. and § 18. upon [Page 122]reviewing the instances I have given, I leave to your judgment.] — ‘That the places, which speak of his judging causes, and inflicting such Ecclesiastical cen­sures &c, speak not of him singly, but as joined with his Western Bishops; they meaning, by this, not some of his Western Bishops only, (whose assistance the Ro­man Bishop ordinarily useth in all his judgments,) but his whole Patriarchal Council. —That those places, which do argue, joining-with the Roman, to be join­ning with the Catholick, communion, (see before § 23. n. 2. and n. 3. and § 32. as it must needs be, that, if God hath appointed any person or Council as a su­preme Guide, whom the rest ought to obey, such mem­bers, as do not obey, cannot be Catholick,) are spoken only with respect to such a Roman Bishop at such a time, who, in their opinion, held the true Profession; and not, that all the Roman Bishops at any time have, or shall, hold it; those, who made these expressions, accounting the Roman Bishop orthodox and catholick, because he then was of such a faith as they approved; not the faith orthodox and catholick, because it was the faith of the Roman Bishop, or which he approved. So Spalatensis, in answer to the places produced out of S. Hierom. in 23. §. saith, (4. l. 10. c. 23. n.) Quod Hie­ronymus Damaso, hoc est Petri cathedrae, consociari velit, sig­nificat privilegium illius Cathedrae adhuc Hieronymi tempore vigens circa fidei puritatem: and 88 n. —Quasi dicat: quia nunc [not perpetuo] in terris video Apostolicam doctri­nam Romae maxime puram conservari, ideo in his dissensio­nibus volo tibi adhaerere.’ [Which answer circularly makes him to judge first in what Church the true do­ctrine is, who is to seek what Church to adhere to, to be guided by it to the true doctrine. Whereas those, who submitted to the Roman, as the most orthodox, [Page 123]gathered it to be orthodox, as being S. Peter's Seat, and the prime Apostolical See.] ‘That most of these te­stimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times; non esse ex prima antiquitate, sed post Nicaenam Synodum; cum schismata & partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt. Yet then; that as their pride claimed much, (as they claimed indeed great au­thority from the beginning,) so were they by the re­soluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed; and what they decreed, seldom executed. And lastly, That much more dominion over the Church of God, than is shewed here to have bin then practised, is now assumed, (but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice?) and, That were it not assum­ed, yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals.’ (But see concerning this what is said before, §. 14.) To such exceptions as these, I will trouble you with no reply: If you do not find the former passages (reviewed) sufficiently to ju­stifie themselves against these limitations and restricti­ons, and to vindicate much more authority to the Apo­stolical See than is here confessed,§. 37. Such power an­ciently ex­ercised by the Bishop of Rome, not only exercised jointly with a Pa­triarchal Council, (which is by some pretended.) for me you may ad­mit them for good answers.

Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy, for regular Ordinations; for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church; and for deciding differ­ences; and amongst these, (from § 11.) the great pow­er given to Patriarchs; and amongst and above them (from § 21.) more particularly, the power and preemi­nence the Roman See hath anciently challenged, or o­thers yeilded to it. In the next place observe; That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Ro­man Bishop, or other Patriarchs, only as joined with, [Page 124]or President in, a Patriarchal Synod; nor in Primates and Metropolitans, only as President in a Provincial; (a refuge, which many willingly fly to, in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present, to the ancient Govern­ment of the Church by them;) but in them, as using only their private council, or the assistance of such neigh­bouring Bishops, as could without much trouble be con­vened: Of which I shall give you an account out of Bi­shop Bramhal, and Dr. Field, who have made it up to my hand.

Thus then Dr. Field, (5. l. 30. c. p. 513.) — ‘Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year. It is very necessary (say the Fathers of the Council of Nice) that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province; that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable. —For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business, and the determining of matters in controversy, we think it were fit (say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch) that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year. [To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see like­wise Canon. Apostol. 38.] —But in process of time, when the Governours of the Church could not conve­niently assemble in Synods twice a year, the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed, (Can. 8.) that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions. Likewise the Seventh General Council (can. 6.) decreeth in this sort: —Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bi­shops in every Province; and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods, the Fathers [Page 125]of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year, and then things amiss to be redressed, we renew this latter canon.— But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings, we shall find that they met not so often, and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year, and Provincial at least once in three years, [and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess. 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus, corrigendis excessibus, controversiis componends, &c.] which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo, Metropolitan of Mil­lain. And so in time, causes growing many, and the difficulties intolerable, in coming together, and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and in­creased, (which he confesseth before to be just consi­derations,) it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans, and such like Ecclesiastical Judges, limited and directed by ca­nons and Imperial laws; than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides.’ Thus Dr. Field.

And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal, (Vindic. p. 257.) ‘What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon­law, the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans, and Bishops of sundry Provinces, within his own Patriarchate: But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own [particular] Diocess, without the concurrence of the major part of the Bi­shops of his Province; nor the Patriarch in like man­ner without the advice and consent of his Metropoli­tans and Bishops. Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority? —In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them; in pronouncing sentence according [Page 126]to plurality of voices, when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences. —I confess, that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops, and keeping them so long together, until all causes were heard and determined; and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence, Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice, to once, in the year; and afterwards to once in three years. And in process of time the hear­ing of Appeals, and such-like causes, and the execution of the canons in that behalf, were referred to Metropoli­tans, until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops].’ Thus the Bishop. Now concerning what they have said, note

1 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled; in the time of whole sitting, as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan, so neither he without them; yet in the intervals of such Synods (which in­tervals were too long, to leave all matters of controver­sy whatever, till then, in suspence; and happened ma­ny times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted) the Metropolitans authority was not void; but they, limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods, were trusted with the execution thereof, and with the doing of many things, especially in ordi­nary causes, by themselves alone; but so, as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sit­ting of the next Council, and, if disliked, repealed.

2 2. That, tho Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent; yet Patriarchal Synods were ne­ver, nor never well could be, so; nor find we any set times appointed for calling them, as for calling the o­ther; [Page 127]so that, as tis plain by many former instances, that the Patriarch ordinarily did, so tis all reason that he should, decide some appeals without them: tho in some cases extraordinary, and of great consequence, such Councils also were assembled.

3. Since, where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone,3 to have bin a practice only of latter times; yet they allow this to be done upon ve­ry rational grounds: observe, that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently: and again, that the practice, they justify for Metropolitans in latter times, they have much more reason to allow to Patri­archs in all times; because the greater the Councils are, with the more trouble are they conven'd. and lastly, that the reformed Metropolitans themselves, who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone, i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod; yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing, themselves alone, i. e. without their Provincial Synod; authorizing their High-commission Court, and blaming his Consistory. Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceedings, without Councils, in respect of appeals from their several Provinces; the same it is, that, in the differences and contests of Patriarchs themselves, and of other greater Bishops, (since it is meet for pre­serving the Church's peace and unity, that some person, or assembly, should have the authority to decide these; and since it is unreasonable, and for the great trouble thereof not feisible, that a General Council, or also Pa­triarchal, in all such differences, should be assembled); the same (I say) it is, that, by ancient custom and Ec­clesiastical canons, hath bin conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council, (tho granted liable to error); He being more eminently honourable than the rest, by [Page 128]reason, of the larger extent of his Patriarchy; of the great power and ancient renown of that City, which in Spiritual matters he governed; but especially, of the two greatest Apostles, Peter and Paul, there ending their days in the government of that See, and leaving him there the Successor of their power. Yet is this office of su­preme judicature so committed unto him, that his judg­ments only stand in force till such a meeting; and may be reviewed, and, where contrary to former canons, re­versed, by it; concerning which see the saying of S. Au­stin, quoted before, § 22. — Restabat adhuc plenarium Ec­clesie universae Concilium &c. and the saying of Zosimus, quoted §. 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius, quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now, all Metropoli­tan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Coun­cils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons, or, at least, to the acting nothing against them, if the question be asked, who shall judge whether so they do? I answer, none but a superior Council; till which their judgment stands good. For (as I have largely shewed elsewhere) if Litigants once may judge of this, when their Judges judge rightly, and not against the laws, and accordingly may yeild or substract their obedience; such obedience is arbitrary. In civil Courts, Princes, or their Ministers, are obliged to judge accor­ding to, or not against, the laws of the Kingdom; may the litigant therefore reject their judgment, when it seems to him contrary to these laws? I believe not.

[Page 129] § 38. That it is schism to deny obe­dience to a­ny Ecclesi­astical pow­er establish­ed by Ec­clesiastical Canon: and that no such power can be law­fully dissol­ved by the power Se­cular. Thus much having bin said of the authority and ju­risdiction given, by Ecclesiastical constitutions and an­cient customs and practice, to some Ecclesiastical per­sons above others; and amongst them, supereminently above all the rest, to the Roman Bishop; and given to these persons, not only as joined with Councils, but as single Magistrates, in the vacancy thereof; in the next place, these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted. First; That whatever authority is thus setled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church, concerning the managing of affairs not ci­vil, but meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, cannot be annulled, and dissolved, nor cannot be conferred, con­trary to the Church's constitutions, on any other person, by any Secular power; neither by Heathen and unbe­lieving Princes, who were enemies to the Church; nor by Christian much less: because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church, and now ob­liged to obey her laws; neither by the one, who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity; nor by the other, who, if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical, might easily hinder the pro­fession of the Orthodox faith, or disturb the Church's peace. Thus Grotius, a great Lawyer, (in Rivet. Apol. discuss. p. 70.) Imperatorum & Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae, in confesso est. At non tale, quale in saeculi negotiis. Ad tutandos, non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparatum est. Nam cum Principes filii sint Eccle­siae, non debent vi in matrem uti. Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi, quibus membra obligentur; hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28. Heb. 13.17. where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus: Cogno­vit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate, & in [Page 130]quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani.— And —Obedite Praepositis, etiam Regibus dictum.— See this discoursed more largely in Success. Clerg. § 64, 65. 2. And fur­ther; That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ec­clesiastical power so established, and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed. I say here, concern­ing matters Ecclesiastical, not Civil; therefore, let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond (schism 6. c. p. 129.) for me stand good, ‘[That a Law, tho made by a General Council, and with the consent of all Christian Prin­ces, [i. e. of that time,] yet, if it have respect to a ci­vil right, may in this or that Nation be repealed, [i. e. by that Prince's Successors];’ provided only, That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church; the assembling of Synods; and decision of controversies of Religion; the ordering Church-service and discipline; the Ecclesiastical cen­sures upon delinquents, and the like, for preventing or suppressing of Heresie, Schism, and Faction; and for pre­serving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice: Provided (I say) that such things be not reckoned a­mongst civil rights; as they may not be; because all these were things used by the Church under the hea­then Emperors, even against their frequent Edicts: yet could they not have bin lawfully so used, if any of these had encroached on civil rights; in any of which civil rights, the heathen Prince might claime as much law­ful power to prohibit them, as the Christian can. And because all these were continued to be used by the Church also under Christian Emperors, without asking their leave to decree such things, or subjecting them to their authority, or depending on their consent, (only with humbly desiring their assistance, yet so as, with­out, it, resolv'd to proceed in the execution thereof as un­der [Page 131]Heathen; as clearly appeared under the the Arian Emperors;) yet which thing she could not lawfully have done, were any of these entrenching upon ano­thers right. For example; the 6th Canon of Nice, and 5. Can. of Constant. Council, would have bin an usur­pation of an unjust authority, if the subordination of Episcopal Sees, and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince. Upon the same grounds let also those instances (collected by Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. 7. c.) of several Princes and States, on many occasions opposing the Pope's authority, stand good and be justified, so far as he doth not shew these Secular powers to have op­posed him in any right belonging to him, by Church-canons, in Ecclesiastical matters. But if in any of those examples, they are also found to oppose him in these, the proving of such facts to have bin done, justifies not their lawfulness to be done. Tho also he confesseth, that this fact of Hen. 8. in abolishing the usurped (as he calls it) jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions, he cannot fellow abroad. See what he saith, Vindic. 7. c. p. 184.. Neither do such facts, as he urgeth to be done abroad, hinder such Princes for living still in the external communion with the Church of Rome; which facts he urgeth as a defence of the Reformed's necessary relinquishing this communion. Again, I said, That no such Spiritual authority can he conferred, or translated to others, contrary to such Church Canons, &c. Else, whenever it is not contrary to these Canons, I grant that Inferior Councils, or Church-governors, or also Secular powers with their consent, may change and alter many things, both in respect of Ecclesiastical persons and af­fairs: therefore many cases concerning the Kings of England, with such consent of inferior Councils or Church-governors, erecting or translating Bishopricks, [Page 132] &c. (instanc'd in by D. Hammond or Bishop Bramhall) are justifiable, where any wore not contrary to the Laws of the Church, i. e. of superior Councils: but in any other examples, where such Laws are transgressed, ei­ther by the Prince, or also by their particular Clergy, the proving such facts to have bin done, justifies not their law­fulness to be done, tho such acts were done without any express or present controul. Things being thus explain'd, I say, (to give a particular instance of the former pro­position), No Prince or Emperor, Heathen or Christian, &c. can, for his own Dominions, dissolve or abrogate the authority, concerning Ecclesiastical affairs, of those Patriarchs or Primates constituted (or confirm'd) in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice, (the Church not commanding obedience to Patriarchs at random, or to such as the Secular Prince should set over us; but also nominating and constituting, from time to time, the Sees, which had or should have such preeminence), if these be since by no other General Council revers'd: nor can any, who by that Canon is subjected (for in­stance) to the Patriarch of Alexandria, deny obedience in such Ecclesiastical matters to him without Schism; tho his Secular Prince should command the contrary, or subject him to another.

And if these things here said be true, then also so far as the Bishop of Rome's Authority is found to be con­firm'd, in matters Spiritual, by the Church's Canons, and ancient custom, over any Churches Provincial or National, it will be Schism for any such Christian Prince or People to oppose it; so long, till the like Council re­verseth it. Hence; to those three pretended rights of the Roman Bishop over the Church of England, where­by Schism is said to be incurr'd, mention'd by Dr. Ham­mond (see Schism p. 138.) namely, his right 1. As St Pe­ter's [Page 133]Successor; or 2. By conversion of the Nation to Christianity; or 3. By the voluntary concession of Kings; I suppose I may add a 4th, with his good leave; name­ly, his right by ancient Constitutions and Canons of the Church; and may rightly affirm, that if any such right could be prov'd, the English Clergy must be Schis­maticks in opposing it, tho all the other pretences be overthrown: For such a sort of Schism Dr. Hammond mentions p. 66. It may be observ'd indeed in our wri­ters: That they freely determine; 1. That the Secu­lar Prince hath a just external authority in Ecclesiasti­cal affairs committed to him by God to enforce the exe­cution of the Church's Canons upon all, as well Clergy as Laity, within his Dominions (a thing denied by none). 2. Again; That the Secular Prince hath no internal Ecclesiastical authority delegated to him by God, as to Administer the Sacraments, to Absolve, Ex­communicate, &c. 3. Again, That the Secular Prince hath no just authority to determine any thing concern­ing Divine Truths; or perhaps other Ecclesiastical af­fairs without the Clergy's help and assistances. But whether such Ecclesiastical Determinations, or Laws, are obligatory when the Prince makes these, being as­sisted only with some small portion of the Clergy, and oppos'd by the rest; or also by a superior Council, or Court Ecclesiastical: Or, whether the Prince, against these, provided that he have some lesser number of Clergy on his side, may reverse former Canons, or en­act new, to oblige the Clergy and Laity under his Do­minion: This they seem to me not freely to speak to; most what to pass over, and some of our later Writers, when they are forc'd upon it, rather to deny it. And indeed neither is there any thing in the Oath of the King's Supremacy (except it be in that general clause [Page 134] [I will defend all Jurisdictions, &c.] granted), nor in the 37 Article of the Church of England (which treats of the King's power in Ecclesiasticals) that may seem to af­firm or determine it. For whereas the Oath in gene­ral makes the King only supreme Governor in Ecclesi­asticals, he may be so for some thing, and yet not for every thing (not therefore the supreme decider of all Divinity controversies). And whereas the 34th Arti­cle expounds the Supremacy thus, [That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal; and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers]. All this he may do, and yet be ty'd in all things to the Laws of the Church; and to leave to the Church's sole judgment who are evil-doers, or Heretical persons, &c. when any controversie ariseth in Divine matters, about the lawfulness of some Practice, or truth of some Te­net.

§. 39 Now let us search therefore, how far the concessions of Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Hammond may extend to the confirmation of the foresaid assertions.The Con­cessions of B. Bram­hall und of Dr. Ham­mond, in this mat­ter. The Bishop (Vindic. c. 8. p. 232.) hath this proposition (indeed with application thereof to the Pope, as guilty therein), ‘To rebel against the Catholick Church, and its repre­sentative a General Council, which is the last visible Judg of controversies, and the supreme Ecclesiastical Court, either is gross Schism; or there is no such thing as Schismatical pravity in the world.’ To rebel against such a Council; i. e. against the constitutions thereof in affairs meerly Spiritual; therefore if their Canons establish such and such Patriarchates, to rebel against these will be Schism. So (p. 269.) he saith, ‘In cases that are indeed Spiritual, or meerly Ecclesiastical (such [Page 135]as concern the Doctrine of Faith, or Administration of the Sacraments, or the Ordaining or Degrading of Ecclesiastical persons [I add, or those mention'd but now § 38.’ which relate not to the Civil State, but meerly to the well governance of the Church] ‘Sove­raign Princes have (and have only) an Architectoni­cal power, to see that Clergy-men do their duties [i. e. according to such Church-decrees].’ Else, had Princes in such matters a negative or destructive power, this would be the right of Heathen Potentates also; and the primitive Church guilty of Rebellion in disobeying, in these things, their strictest prohibitions. Again (p. 257.) he saith; ‘Thus neither the Papal power, which we have cashier'd, nor any part of it, was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons; and by consequence the separation is not Schismatical.’ Therefore it seems it had been Schismatical, had such power been given him by the Canons.

§ 40 Now to view Dr. Hammond, &(c. 3. p. 54.) he saith, ‘It is manifest, that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches, and over the Presbyters, Deacons, and People, under them; such as could not be cast off by any, without the guilt and brand of Schism; so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary in­ferior Cities, were (for the preserving of unity, and many other good uses) subjected to the higher power of Archbishops, or Metropolitans. Nay, we must yet ascend one degree higher, from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans, to that supreme, of Primates or Pa­triarchs;’ the division of which is thus clear'd, &c.— And (p. 60.) ‘The uppermost of the standing powers in the Church, are Archbishops, Primates, and Patri­archs, to whom the Bishops themselves are appointed [Page 136]in many things to be subject;’ and this power [I add, and the particular Sees to whom it shall belong, ‘and subjection defin'd and asserted by the ancient Canons; and most ancient (even immemorial Apostolical) tra­dition and custom is avouch'd for it [I add, especially for the eminency of the Roman See] as may appear, Conc. Nicaen. Can. 4, 6. —Conc. Antioch. c. 9. c. 20.—Conc. Chalc. c. 19. &c.’ After all which, p. 66. of the same Chapter (the Title of which is, Of the several sorts of Schism) he concludes, ‘That there may be a disobe­dience and irregularity, and so a Schism, even in the Bishops, in respect of their Metropolitans, and of the Authority which these have by Canon and primitive cu­stom over them. Which was therefore to be added to the several species of Schism set down in the former Chap­ters.’ Where, tho the Doctor is pleased not to name particularly Patriarchs, yet the quotation p. 54. [We must yet ascend &c.] and p. 60. shews you, that he, upon the same reason of Church-Canons and primitive Custom, doth and must hold, that there may be a Schism also in the Metropolitans (and consequently in all those under the Metropolitans) in respect of their Patriarch. The uniting, as of several Diocesses in one Metropolitan, and of several Provinces and Metropolitans in one Pri­mate, so of many Nations and Primates in one Patri­arch, exceedingly conducing to the peaceable govern­ment and cohesion of the Church Catholick, and sup­pression of Heresies and Schisms, oft'ner National, than Diocesan only, or Provincial. Quae vero est causa (saith Grotius in his first Reply upon Rivet. ad Art. 7.) cur, qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholicos, maneant in eodem cor­pore, non rupta communione; contra, qui inter Protestantes dissident idem facere nequeant, utcunque multa de dilectione fraterna loquantur? Hoc qui recte expender it inveniet, quan­ta [Page 137]sit vis Primatus. Which Primacy St. Hierom observes, even amongst the Apostles themselves (adversus Jovi­nianum l. 1. c. 14.) Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia; li­cet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat; & cuncti claves regnorum Coeli accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Eccle­siae fortitudo solidetur: tamen, propterea, inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto, schismatum tollatur occasio. Capite, that is, not only in dignity, but also in some au­thority; else can such Head not remedy Schisms. Pa­triarchs therefore, as well as Metropolitans, much con­ducing to the removing of Schisms, and preserving the Church's unity, I suppose, whatever the Prince or Em­peror should attempt against such Metropolitan or Pa­triarch, either to oppose him in the managing of those spiritual matters, and to deny him to exercise (either by himself or his Ministers) his jurisdiction in any Pro­vince which is by Church Canons subjected unto him, or to depose him from his See, or to transfer his autho­rity and jurisdiction on some other, whom he more ap­proves of (as if Valentinian, much affected to the Ar­rians, should have transferr'd St. Ambrose his Archiepis­copal jurisdiction upon Auxentius, an Arrian Bishop, whom he much affected; as his Mother Justina, I think, actually did, wanting only possession of the Church; which Ambrose, assisted also by the people, stoutly re­sisted) yet still▪ according to Dr. Hammond's judgment, as long as the Canons of the Church remain the same, it would be Schism in any to disobey such Metropolitan (or to side with the Prince), and Schism in the Prince himself as well as in the rest. Again, —S. W. replying thus upon these words of his (Schis. p. 125.) [the Ca­nons of Councils have mostly been set out, and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors]; ‘That never was it heard, that an Emperor claim'd a negative Voice [Page 138]in making a Canon of a Council valid, which concern'd matters purely spiritual; nay, not disaccepted them decreed unanimously by the Fathers, but all the world look'd upon him as an unjust and tyrannical Encroa­cher.’ To this Dr. Hammond (Ans. to Schism Disarmed p. 203.) speaks thus; ‘For the appendage &c. I need not reply; having never pretended, or seem'd to pre­tend, what he chargeth on me concerning the Empe­ror's negative Voice in the Council: what I pretended I spake out in plain words [that the Canons have bin mostly set out, and receiv'd their authority, by the Emperors, (and this receiving their authority is (I suppose) in order to their powerful reception in their Dominions) and this he acknowledgeth—and so we are Friends.’ Thus Dr. Hammond. Now all that which S. W. there acknowledgeth, is, ‘That the supreme Secular power is oblig'd to see, that the Church's De­crees be receiv'd, and put in execution.’ By Dr. Ham­mond's consent then, a negative Voice the Prince hath not, to reverse or contrary the Church's Canons in spi­ritual matters; only he thus may be said to give autho­rity to them (methinks the phrase is very improper, and liable to be mistaken) to see them in his Domini­ons to be put in execution. Note, that what is said here of the Secular Prince, is also to be said of any par­ticular Clergy, in respect of superior Councils. Again, that what is said of the Prince or Clergy of the same Age, wherein such Canons are enacted, is to be said of their successors, till the same authority which imposeth, abrogate such Canons. (As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents, bind the Children, without the Legislative power's asking their consent).

[Page 139] § 41 Many, I find, are the shifts to get loose from these Canons, and such links of Church-relations;Several pretences to weaken such Canons (to me seeming) vain. many the pretences to null their force; but to me seeming inva­lid and vain.—Grotius (Disc. Riv. Apol. p. 69.) bring­ing forth against Rivet the testimony of Blondel, [non negari a Protestantibus dignitatem Sedis Apostolicae Roma­nae; neque primatum ejus super Ecclesias vicinas; imo ali­quatenus super omnes; sed referri hoc ab iis ad jus Eccle­siasticum]. Rivet (Grot. disc. dialys.) thus replies to it; —Ad jus Ecclesiasticum; Hoc est, ad institutum hu­manum: Quo postea abusi sunt Episcopi Romani ad Monar­chiam stabiliendam. Itaque quod ab hominibus initio con­cessum, cum ad jus Dei evertendum postea fuerit conversum, merito possessoribus injustis denegatur. (See the same plea in Bishop Bramhall, Vindic. p. 252. &c.) That Institu­tum Ecclesiasticum is jus humanum: True. And that it may be taken away: True. By the Church, that con­ferr'd it; i. e. by another General Council, but not by Laicks, or some few Ecclesiasticks. and may be denied injustis possessoribus. True; so much as they possess un­justly; i. e. contrary to Canon.

§ 42 Those plea's also, which Bishop Bramhall (Vind. c. 9.) makes in answer to that objection, [That the English have cast off Canonical obedience, I seem to me very infirm: As this, (p. 257.) ‘Since the division of Brit­tain from the Empire, no Canons are, or ever were, of force with us, further than they were receiv'd, and by their incorporation became Britanick Laws.’ True; as to any Secular coactive power in the execution of them, which is deriv'd only from the Prince. Like unto which is that passage, p. 268. ‘We draw, or de­rive, from the Crown, liberty and power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the subjects of the Crown, [Page 140]that habitual jurisdiction which we receive at our Or­dination. And that in Reply to B. Chalced. c. 7. p 291. That Ecclesiastical persons, in excommunicating and absolving, are the King's substitutes; i. e. (as he ex­pounds himself afterward) by the King's application of the matter; namely, his Subjects, to receive their absolution from such Ecclesiastical persons.’ No more true, than that any King's Subjects may not lawfully receive Baptism, or turn Christian, without his Licence. Some or other Clergy may and ought to do these things, both Preach, Baptize, Absolve, and Excommunicate, in any Prince's Dominions, as their duty shall require, tho the Prince gain-saying. Of many Clergy capable to do it, that one of them, not another, shall be nominated and admitted to do it, may belong to Princes. Are then the Canons and Constitutions or the Church, made in her representative (a General Council) not obligatory to the several members of the Church, (I mean, as to the extent of Ecclesiastical Censures upon Delinquents,) save where their temporal Soveraign first admits them? What if these be Heathen? What if Heretick? Again, if the actual exercise of their Office he held from the Crown; then have they no authority over any Nation or Province, if the Secular power deny it them: And what Secular power deny'd it not in the primitive times? Or is this a priviledge of Christian Princes only over God's Clergy, not of Heathen? Do Christ's Mi­nisters gain this by converting Kings to the Faith, that they lose their former power over their Subjects? But what if such Christian Prince prove Heretical or Schis­matical? What if he silence or banish the Orthodox, are they to obey Him now rather than God? Is their Commission from Christ, to go and teach all, and conse­quently that, Nation, upon such a Prince's Edict void­ed, [Page 141]or lying dormant? And may they now forbear speak­ing the things which they have heard? We cannot but speak (said the Apostle, when the Magistrate silenc'd them) Act. 4.20. The same thing may be said of the un­lawfulness of Princes prohibiting any authorized for this purpose by the supreme Magistrates of the Church-Ca­tholick, from entring their Dominions (except those who are known to be sent on secular designs). So (suppose in a State over-run with Arrianism or Socinia­nism) an Heretical Prince cannot justly forbid the en­trance of Patriarchal Missions to reduce him and his Subjects to Truth. And again, an Orthodox Prince cannot reasonably exclude such Missions, who consent with him in judgment, and whose intendments are spi­ritual.— As this also, p. 256. ‘The King and the whole Body of the Kingdom, by their Legislative power sub­stracting their obedience from a just Patriarchal power, and erecting a new Patriarchate within their own Do­minions, it is a sufficient warrant to all English men, to suspend their obedience to the one, and apply them­selves to the other.’ May then Princes and States, in Ecclesiastical affairs, make Laws contrary to those of the Church? Or, have they a Legislative power in Spi­rituals, contrary to General Councils? I had thought their power had in these things been only Architecto­nical; to see things done according to the Church-Decrees. And may they nominate Patriarchs contrary to those the Church elects? Or may some small part of the Clergy do these things against all the rest of their Body? Or, the Prince, or that particular Clergy erring in thus doing, are the people oblig'd to, or excused in following, them in their error?— As this, p. 254. ‘The sentence of the Law, and the notoreity of the fact are sufficient [i. e. for inferiors to deny their obedience [Page 142]to Superiors] the sentence of the Judge [i. e. of a Ge­neral Concil] is not necessary.’ We know who have lately made use of such principles, of Inferiors judging of the evidence of laws, and facts, to the confusion and destruction of a most flourishing temporal Kingdom. Are inferiors then not liable to be mistaken, and plead clear sentence of law, and notoreity of fact, where others as judicious think there is no such matter? But whither tends this? That if we find the Patriarch clearly usurping some power the Church canons have not given him, we are thence-forth free from yeilding any obedience also to that authority which the Canon hath given him. Apply this to a temporal Gover­nor, and it seems an unreasonable consequence. and we are convinced in it by the example of many Nati­ons, who having made resistance to their Patriareh in some injunctions, conceived by them not Canonical, yet continue still their obedience in the rest. Consider the late contest of the State of Venice, and the present opposals both of France and Spain in some matters (See Vind. 7. c.) How can the Bishop then reasonably make use of those examples, wherein (Vindic. 7. c.) he hath copiously shew­ed other Princes, casting off the Pope's usurpations and oppressions, to have retained still submission to his Su­premacy, to prove or countenance, that Hen. 8. might lawfully cast off, both those, and also his Supremacy? Especially since it cannot be shewed, but that it is ab­solutely in his power, who hath the sword, to cast off only so much as he pleaseth, and retain the rest. Un­less the sword in England cannot divide usurpations and lawful rights, as beyond the Seas now it doth, and did here before Hen. 8. but must necessarily cut off both at once. —As this (p. 253) ‘When a Steward chosen in trust by his fellow-servants, violates his trust, and u­surps [Page 143]a dominion &c, it is not want of duty, but fide­lity, [for such servants] to substract their obedience from him.’— But what, when most of the servants say, he doth no such thing in those matters, wherein the rest accuse him; and therefore continue their obedience to him? and also the Master of the house, for the peace of his family, hath ordered, that the rest in all differences shall be swayed with the votes of the major part? shall not this small part, in departing from the whole, and rejecting their governour, and setting up another Stew­ard of their own, or every one assuming to be his own Master, be held guilty of making a division in the fami­ly? —So (p. 129. and p. 134.) ‘Many extortions and rapines, and violations of rights, both Civil and Eccle­siastical, committed by such Patriarchs,— are urged:’ But will these things, done contrary to the Canon, make a rejection of Canonical obedience to such authority lawful? Is it a good argument, against a King; He hath bin tyrannous, or done many things against law, therefore depose him and his succession, or hereafter yeild him no obedience, where due by the laws? Or, against Bishops; They have usurped some unjust pow­er, or, otherways much violated their function; there­fore root out Episcopacy, and yeild no more, tho never so Canonical, obedience unto them? Thus, as we have measured to others, it hath bin meted to us again. But, if it be meant, That obedience, such as is Canoni­cal, to Patriarchs, infers the violation of any civil rights; the contrary I think is shewed elsewhere (in Authority of Clergy derived▪ from Christ,) more at large, whi­ther I remit you. tho perhaps this may be enough to answer it, That General Councils, who made the Ca­nons, were of the contrary opinion to him. Nay, if it should be said, that such preeminences, as, not the Ca­non, [Page 144]but only some of the Roman writers, more obse­quious to the Papacy, give to the Bishop of Rome, are injurious to Civil rights: yet the Bishop himself, after some vehemency against them, seems to wipe off this aspersion in saying thus. (Vindic. 8. c. p. 243.) ‘The best is; that they, who give these exorbitant privi­ledges to Popes, do it with so many cautions and reser­vations, that they [such priviledges as they give him] signify nothing, and may be taken away with as much ease, as they are given.’— Which afterward he shews in the particulars of his Infallibility, and his temporal power. Did Popes practise therefore only what these write, much wrong could not be done. —Again, in his Replication to Bishop of Chalced. p. 230. tis urged, ‘—That to whom a Kingdom is granted, all necessary Power is granted, without which a Kingdom cannot be governed: and (p. 238.) that had the Britannick Churches bin subjected to the Bishop of Rome by Gene­ral Councils, yet it had bin lawful for the King and Church of England to substract their obedience from the Bishop of Rome, and to have erected a new Primate at home amongst themselves, upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire, and great variation of affairs since those times.— For to persist (saith he, p. 241.) in an old observation, when the grounds of it are quite changed; and the end, for which the observation was made, calleth upon us for an alteration; is not obedi­ence, but obstinacy. And, (p. 243.) We pursue the same ends with them, [i. e. General Councils] —that is, the conforming of the one regiment [i. e. the Ecclesia­stical] to the other, [i. e. the Civil.]’ Thus he; for Princes taking away the Bish. of Rome's authority, (sup­posing General Councils had conferred any upon him) Yet, p. 293. speaking of that clause in the oath of Su­premacy, [Page 145] [that no foreign Prelates ought to have any ju­risdiction within this realm,] he saith, A General Council is neither included here, nor intended.) To which tis ea­sily answered; That there is no Church-canon detract­ing, from Princes, any of that power, without which a Kingdom is not governable; that the division of one Empire into many Dominions, doth not necessarily re­quire any alteration of the Oeconomy of the Church, as appears in those States, which conforming to these Ca­nons, still subsist and flourish, without any disturbance of the civil peace. (But Quaere, whether the throwing-off these Canons, hath not bin the destruction of a King­dom; whose ruin took its beginning from divisions in Religion.) —That the Church's end in constituting, I say not of Metropolitans or Primats, but of superior Patriarchs above them, and of an Ecclesiastical Supreme, (to whom, from several countreys, might be the last ap­peal of greater controversies in Religion) was not the conforming of the Ecclesiastical government to the Ci­vil, (which end the Bishop pleads,) but the conserving of the Church, tho sojourning under never so many temporal Scepters, still as one body and government united in it self, free from being divided and cantonized. Which end is frustrated, if so many Princes as there are, there become so many independent Ecclesiastical Supremes. Nay, but rather, the more the Civil Go­vernments are multiplied, the more need there is in the Church of but one, or a few, Supremes. That there may not be so many modes or sects in Christianity, as there are Princes. So Vindic. p, 145. Many inconveni­ences by foreign jurisdiction are urged: That (as the ‘Bishops of Rome exercised it) it was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical discipline, which [discipline] in part is to preserve publick peace and tranquillity, [Page 146]to retain subjects in due obedience, and to oblige peo­ple to do their duties more conscientiously.’— (See likewise p. 146.) To the actual exercise of the foreign jurisdiction of Patriarchs I have nothing to say: as one Patriarch may use it culpably, so the next may use it justly. But the foreignness of the jurisdiction is no way guilty of the things here objected. Nay, where are these ends of discipline more failed, than where this Patriarchal jurisdiction hath bin banished? Do not we see in other Kingdoms, not deserting the Patriarch, the things above-named, both Royalty and Episcopacy, peace in the State, and in the Church of such countreys, better preserved? What former Prince, or Clergy, of this Kingdom, under the Patriarch's obedience, (take him with all his faults,) have suffered more, than these in our days have done, since that yoke broken? What subject, trained up in his Principles, hath bin so disobe­dient? But 2ly; Is any one free from a Law or Ca­non, to eject it, when he can give some reason that it is inconvenient? Or, did not the wisdom of those, who established such Canons, and such subordination to Pa­triarchs, see their jurisdiction (for example, in respect of Africk) to be foreign, and weigh the inconveniences thereof, as well as we now do? but they weighed these together with the benefits, serving for preserving unity; for doing more entire justice being less engaged; for de­ciding controversies more truly, being persons of more eminent wisdom, enabled with a more selected Coun­cil, &c. (See before, §. 14.) And now have other Na­tions lost their reason, who, notwithstanding the foreign­ness of the jurisdiction, in obedience to the Church-ca­nons, submit to this power? ‘But what if a Patriarch should change the Bible into an Alcoran, (as he urg­eth elsewhere, Reply to Bishop of Chalced.)’ "should, in [Page 147]Spiritual matters misguide us? I answer, when you can find any to obey, who may not be faulty in his govern­ment, leave the Patriarch, and go to him. Are we more secure, then, under the Supremacy of a Secular power? or of some other Archbishop? What if the Se­cular power throw down Bishops, destroy the publick Liturgies, silence the orthodox Ministry, &c? And what if the Archbishop change the Bible? or will we be our own Supreams, and blot out the name of Canonical obedience?

§ 43 In the next place Dr. Hammond's plea (Schism 6. c. p. 115.) seems to me not true, nor his proofs and instances sufficient, and the assertion in the consequences there­of dangerous to the government and unity of the Church Catholick: where he saith, ‘That it is, and hath always bin, in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes, within their Dominions, to erect Patriar­chats, or to translate them from one city to another. And therefore (saith he) whatever title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island, upon the first plantation of the Gospel here, [whatever:’ I will there­fore suppose his title to have bin from ancient Church­canon and custom, whereby he hath bin confirmed Pa­triarch of the Western Provinces; I say, not that such a thing was, now, but suppose such a thing were,] this ‘cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since, but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury, and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate, independently from any foreign Bishop.’— I say, this Thesis seems to me very untrue; if he mean, That Prin­ces may do any such thing by their own just power, without the authoritative concurrence of the Church, [Page 148]or contrary to her former Canons and ancient Customs, (as his instancing in Ravenna and Justiniana prima, and Carthage, and Grado, formerly under the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch, imply, that he means thus); For example: I say, it is not lawful, supposing ancient Ca­nons or immemorial custom (to use his own word) of the Church, had made the Roman Bishop Patriarch of the West, or of France, for the King of France either with or without the consent of his own particular Cler­gy within his Dominions, to erect a new Patriarchate, or elect another Patriarch. This I think is plain from the Discourse and the Concessions preceding. And he seems to say the like himself (Answer to Schism Dis­arm'd, p. 164.) ‘A power Princes have to erect Metro­poles; but if it be exercis'd so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church, this certainly is an abuse.’ Thus he. But how it coheres with what else is said there, I see not. But if secular Princes have such power to set up Patriarchs within their own Dominions, I ask, whether General Councils have not also the same; and that within the same Dominions of Secular Princes? Will he deny this power to Councils, or at least their power to do it within the Secular Prince's Dominions? But then the Church hath no power to do it at all. For where are the Church's Subjects, for whom she makes Laws, as she thinks fit, but under the government of some or orther Secular Power? But the contrary of these things is most evident; and many are her canons to this purpose. The Council of Chalcedon, the same, upon two Canons of which Balsamon founds, and by which the Doctor proves, this authority of Princes to make Patriarchs, did erect Constantinople into a Pa­triarchy next to Rome (which also was done before by Conc. Constant. 1. but not confirm'd by the Roman and [Page 149] Occidental Bishops): and this not only to an empty Dig­nity, or precedency in place, but to a real jurisdiction over some of the Emperor's Provinces, to receiving and judging appeals, &c. see Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. and Can. 9. and 16. And when the Bishop of Rome much opposed this Act of the Council, the Emperor then making Con­stantinople the Seat of his Empire, and much desiring the advancement of its Bishop, yet appeared not at all in this promoting of him, nor claim'd any such right as due to him; tho this happen'd long after Valentinian is pretended to have advanc'd Ravenna to a Patriarch­ship, and independency on Rome. Nor the Council, in their Letter to Leo (see Act. 3.) pleaded any such power as belonging to the Emperor at all (but to themselves) only they say, Nos carantes tam piissimos & Christi ami­cos Imperatores, qui super hoc delectantur, quam clarissi­mum senatum, &c. and sic enim & pii Principes complace­bunt, &c. This power then cannot with any modesty be deny'd to Councils. If both of them then have this power, and that in the same place (as I have shew'd it must be) what if they disagree? Suppose the one gives Rome jurisdiction over Ravenna, the other ex­empts it, and makes Ravenna supreme for it self; who must be obey'd? If the Prince may reverse what the Council hath done, then their Canons in these Spiri­tual matters are subordinate to his Edicts; then [Sedes Romana in omnibus & per omnia prima] (Conc. Chalc. Act. 16.) holds no longer than during the Emperor's pleasure. Then why so much courting Leo's consent for a thing in the Emperor's gift? Or doth Dr. Ham­mond here mean only a power in Princes to make some inferior Patriarchs, subordinate not only in Dignity, but Jurisdiction to these supreme ones (as the name of Patriarchs in some times hath been communicated to [Page 150]inferior Bishops): But then this Thesis of his, if true, will serve little to his purposes, as long as he leaves his Patriarchs under the yoke of a superior? You see how I cast about, and yet cannot set these things streight. The Doctors proofs for what he saith are these:

§. 44 ‘The Emperor Justinian's erecting Justiniana Prima into a Patriarchate, with independency on Rome, and afterward Carthage to the like priviledges: And, the Emperor Valentinian's constituting Ravenna an inde­pendant and Patriarchal Seat.’ To which instances, see what I have said before in this Discourse, § 30. and what authority the Western Patriarch exercised over the Doctor's Patriarchs, both after Justinian's days, and before; which argues either them not made Patri­archs in such an independency on any superior, as the Doctor imagines; or the Emperor's act disobey'd by the Western Patriarch, as contrary to the Canons. As for the reason he gives, to secure the lawfulness there­of (Answ. to Schism Disarm'd p. 112.) (‘because never check'd at, nor noted as an intrenchment on the juris­diction of the Church of Rome (that we discern, or is pretended) either by any Council, or by any Bishops of the Church then living:’) It seems many ways in­sufficient; because, if there be a Canon prohibiting it, hence it will become unlawful: and many things may be unlawfully done, and yet not actually question'd and condemn'd: And again, may be condemn'd; and yet not this condemnation recorded: Yet is there re­cord enough of the condemning of any such Supremacy in those Bishopricks, in the authority we find used over them still by the Roman Patriarch. Next, he urgeth the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, as intimating, that this Prince's making Patriarchs was a frequent (I suppose he means, and allow'd of by the Church) [Page 151]usage in the East, at that time. And after this, the 17th Canon Conc. Chalc. and Can. 38. Conc. Constant. in Trullo. ‘Which Canons (he saith Schis. p. 119.) do more expresly attribute this power to the Prince; or yeild it to be a power belonging to the Prince.’ But being a little exagitated for this by the Replier; espe­cially when Balsamon (whose judgment the Doctor much followeth) saith, the Church by these Canons conferr'd this power on the Prince; he (in his Answer to him p. 174) saith thus: ‘Whether it were from God immediately conferr'd on them, and independant­ly from the Church; or whether the Church, in any notion, were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them, truly I neither then was, nor now am, inclined, either to enquire, or take upon me to determine.’ Now to see what may be deduced from them, in this matter of no small moment, I will transcribe you these three Canons. —Conc. Chalc. can. 12. Pervenit ad nos, quod quidam, praeter Ecclesiasticos ordines, affectantes potentiam per pragmaticam sacram [i. e. by an Imperial Constitution] unam Provinciam in duas dividant, ita ut ex hoc inveniantur duo Metropolitani Epis­copi in eadem, una, esse Provincia. Statuit ergo sancta Sy­nodus deinceps nihil tale attentari a quolibet Episeopo. Eos vero qui tale aliquid attentaverint, de proprio gradu cadere. Si quae vero antea civitates per pragmaticum [alias, lite­ris Imperialibus] Imperialem Metropolitani nominis honore decoratae sunt, nomine solo perfruantur: & qui Ecclesiam ejus [Civitatis] regit Episcopus [i. e. nomine solo Me­tropolitani perfruatur,] [Salvis scilicet verae Metropoli privilegiis suis]. Privilegio Metropolitano Episcopo jure proprio reservato.—Can. 17. [Statutum est, or decrevi­mus, alias singularem Ecclesiasticarum rusticas Paro­chias] Per singulas▪ Ecclesias rusticanas Parochias sive pos­sessiones [Page 152]manere immobiles apud eos Episcopos, qui eas reti­nent, &c.—Si vero quaelibet Civitas per authoritatem Im­perialem renovata est, aut si renovetur in posterum, civili­bus & publicis ordinationibus etiam Ecclesiasticarum Paro­chianarum sequatur ordinatio.—In another Copy; Si qua vero civitas potestate Imperiali novata est [i. e. noviter constructa] aut si protinus innovetur, civiles dispositiones & publicas Ecclesiarum quoque Parochiarum ordines sub­sequantur. —Conc. Constant. in Trullo, can. 38. —Canonem, qui a Patribus factus est [referring to this Canon Conc. Chalc.] Nos quoque observamus, qui sic edicit: Si qua ci­vitas a regia potestate innovata est vel innovabitur, civilem ac publicam formam Ecclesiasticarum quoque rerum ordo con­sequatur. In the first of these, Conc. Chalc. c. 12. there is the Emperor by his Letters making another City (upon the ambition and solicitation of the Bishop there­of) Metropolitan in a Province, wherein there was a Metropolitan already; but this fact of the Emperors disallow'd by the Council, as a thing against Canon, (which Canon was, as the Doctor acknowledges, That there should be but one Metropolitan of one Province) and order'd, that, for the future, whatever Bishop sought such a thing should be degraded; and for what was al­ready past, that the City and Bishop should enjoy the Title of Metropolitan, but none of the Priviledges; but that these be still retain'd to the former Metropolitan. When-as the Doctor pretends, it was the Prince's right, both to confer the Title and the Priviledges of Metro­politan on what City he pleased. One would think then, according to this the Doctor saith, That the Council, if the Bishop were faulty and offended against the Canon, in soliciting such a thing, should punish him only; another person, whom they approv'd, being substituted in his place to enjoy the rights, which the [Page 153]Prince had conferr'd upon it; and not, that they should by their authority (as if these things were in their disposal, not in the Prince's) continue the Title only, and reverse the Priviledges, and fix them to their former possessors. The Bishop might have been punish'd, and yet not the Emperor's act rescinded by them, as to the new Metropolitans power or priviledges; as it is plain, it was. Yet Dr. Hammond makes use of this Canon (by shewing such things were then done by Princes) to prove, that suppose the Bishop of Rome were Patri­arch of France, yet the King of France might lawfully make the Bishop of Paris Patriarch, and confer the Pope's priviledges on him. This S. W. (replying upon his Treatise of Schism) wonders at; and the Doctor en­deavours to clear all, in following Balsamon's judgment, and distinguishing between the Prince's erecting such a Metropolitanship [...], of his own motion, when (he saith) it stands good: Or upon base solici­tation, when the Council (it seems) may reverse it. But I ask; when such a thing is done of his own incli­nation, stands it good, if against the Canon [that there should be but one Metropolitan in one Province]? if so, what means he to say (Answ. p. 164.) ‘A Prince's power to erect Metropoles, if exercised so by him, as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church, this certainly is an abuse. And again (p. 165.) 'Such power stands valid to all effects, if duly exercis'd by him, without wrong to any, [i. e. other Metro­politan.]’ As for that which is urged from the Canon of a Council held under Alexius Comnenus, an Eastern Em­peror after 1080, what is establish'd by such a Synod, not General, is too weak to overthrow any former rights of the Church. Neither is Balsamon's (a later Greek Wri­ter's) authority much to be stood upon in this controver­sie. [Page 154]Neither speaks he home in this point, whether the Patriarch is to admit what the Emperor doth [...] after he hath represented to the Emperor, that it is a­gainst the Canons. Thus much of the 12th Canon. In the 17th Canon, and the 38th in Trullo: Here is only (upon the Emperor's building a new City, (or perhaps upon his transferring the Civil right and pri­viledges of having the seats of Judicature, &c. from one City in a Province unto another), and upon this subjecting some other inferior Cities or Towns (call'd Parochia's) when being the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop, (see Hammond Schism p. 57.) unto it); the sub­jecting also of the Bishops of those Parochiae under that City, to the Bishop of that City. Where note, First, that these Canons speak only of the subjecting of Pa­rochial Bishops to new Metropolitans, where new Ci­ties are builded; and not of altering any thing in the jurisdiction of old; which the 12th Canon of the same Council so expresly opposeth. Secondly, Only of sub­jecting Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans; not of subjecting Metropolitans to new Patriarchs, nor yet to new Primates. For 'tis most clear, that this very Council, that made this Canon, never dreamt of any power the Emperor had to erect a new Patriarch (as I have shew'd before § 43.) and much less Leo the Bi­shop of Rome, who confirm'd these Canons; yet vehe­mently opposed the Council seeking to erect Constanti­nople into a Patriarchy; much more would he have op­posed the Emperor. Thirdly, Whatever priviledge the Emperor here receives; methinks their ordering that such a thing should be done [subsequatur] is far from sounding, that they yeilded such a thing to belong to the Emperor by right, as Dr. Hammond expounds it (Schis. p. 119.) But then, if the Emperor hold such [Page 155]priviledge from the Church, the Church, when they please, may resume this power; for so himself argues, concerning any priviledges which Secular Princes have formerly conceded to the Bishop of Rome; and then hear, what the 21th Canon of the 8th General Coun­cil saith (if we will trust later Councils, not far di­stant in time, better to understand the concessions of former), Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum, qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt, inho­norare, aut movere a proprio throno tentare. Sed omni reve­rentia & honore dignos judicare, praecipue quidem sanctissi­mum Papam senioris Romae, &c.

§ 45 As for the things mention'd afterward by the Doctor, (p. 120, &c.) the power of changing the seat of a Bi­shop, or dividing one Province into many; as likewise, the presenting of particular persons to several Dignities in the Church, which also private Patrons do, with­out claiming any superiority in Church-matters, (some of which seem of small consequence as to Ecclesiastical affairs): Yet are not these things justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority, without the approbation first of Church-Governors: But the same things may be acted by the Church alone, the Prince gain-saying; if he be either Heathen or Heretick, (which also shews his power when orthodox, in the regiment of the Church, to be only executive and dependent on the Ecclesiasti­cal Magistrate's). No persons are, or at least ought to be put into any Church-dignities, without the autho­ritative consent and concurrence of the Clergy; who, if they reject such persons (tho presented by Princes) as unorthodox, or otherwise unfit, they cannot be in­vested in such Offices Hear what the 8th General Council saith of this matter, Can. 22. Sancta & univer­salis [Page 156]Synodus definit, neminem Laicorum principum vel po­tentum semet inserere electioni vel promotioni Patriarchae, vel Metropolitae, aut cujuslibet Episcopi, ne videlicet, &c. Prae­sertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam potestati­vorum vel caeterorum Laicorum habere conveniat.—Quisquis autem saecularium principum & potentum vel alterius digni­tatis Laicae adversus communionem ac consentaneam atque Canonicam electionem Ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit, Anathema sit. The transplanting of Bishopricks, and division of Provinces, probably was never order'd by Princes; but either first propos'd, or assented-to, by the Clergy (see that instance of Anselm, Hammond of Schis. p. 122.) or upon some more general grant, indulgently made to some pious Princes from the chief powers of the Church. Tho Historians commonly in relation of such facts, mention only the King's power, as by whose more apparent and effectual authority such things are put in execution: in which things negative arguments [that such persons, as are not mention'd, did not con­cur; especially when they are mention'd to concur in some other acts of the same nature] are very fallacious. But imagine we once the power of erecting Patriarchies and Primacies, and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several priviledges thereof, solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince, and then this Prince not orthodox (a supposition possible); and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church; strictly tyed in Canonical obedi­dience to such Superiors, and submitting to their judg­ment, and decisions, in spiritual matters; by which the King may sway the controversies in Religion, within his own Dominions, what way he pleaseth; unless we will imagine, there shall be no Ecclesiasticks at all of his own perswasions, whom he may surrogate into the [Page 157]places of those who gainsay. Such were the times of Constantius. And by such violent and uncanonical ex­pulsion and intrusion of Prelates, the face of Religion was seen changed and re-changed so often here in Eng­land within a few years (according to the fancies of the present Prince), as if there were in her no certain form of truth. And the same thing we have seen done before our eyes in our own days: The removing, inducting, deposing, promoting Ecclesiastical persons, as the Se­cular power pleaseth; being also a changing of the Church's Doctrine as it pleaseth. Thus much to what Dr. Hammond hath said, Schis. p. 120, &c.

§. 46 Lastly, (Schis. p. 125.) he makes three instances; in the fact of the Kings of Judah; in the fact of St. Paul; and in the fact of the Christian Emperors; tending to this purpose, that their authority is supreme in Ecclesiasti­cal causes, as well as Civil, and therefore may erect Patriarchies. His words there are: ‘The authority of Kings is supreme in all sorts of causes, even those of the Church, as well as Civil,—as appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture: David ordering the courses of the Priests: Solomon consecrating the Temple: He­zekiah (2 Chron. 29.—2 King. 18.) and Josiah (2 King. 22.) ordering many things belonging to it. And so St. Paul appeal'd from the judgment of the chief Priests, to the Tribunal of Caesar. So in the [...], the whole third Book is made up of Justinian's (i. e. the Emperor's) constitutions, De Episcopis, Clericis & Sa­cris. And the Canons of Councils have (mostly) bin set out (and receiv'd their authority) by the Emperors.’

Concerning the first instance here, of the Kings of the Jews; I must remind you of what Dr. Hammond [Page 158]hath conceded, set down before, §. 40. That Kings are so Supremes in Ecclesiastical matters, that they have no negative voice in the decrees of Councils; so that Da­vid, Hezekiah, &c, if we speak only of their Kingly, not of a Prophetical, power, did (nor could lawfully do) nothing of all that they did about the Priests, or the Temple, contrary to the orders and rules of the Priests: but only according to these, in which they had always the Priest, not opposing but, concurring with them in all their new models or reformations, (as is shewed else­where in Authority of Clergy derived from Christ, p. 47.) tho the King, as the chief Executioner (and perhaps first motioner also) of such designs, is singly named. But if Dr. Hammond callenge to the Prince more autho­rity than this, for some Ecclesiastical matters; namely, those of external order, (as he calls them, Answ. to Schis. disar. p. 187, and 195.) and urgeth (Schis. p. 124.) a saying of Constantine's to that purpose; (Euseb. de vita Constant. 4. l. 24. c.) [...]: which he trans­lates, Ye are Bishops of the Church, for those things which are celebrated within it; but, for external things, I am con­stituted Bishop by God. As if Princes may govern and ad­minister these, without, or against, the judgment of the clergy: then I demand; Whether erecting Patri­archates, subordination of Bishops, Metropolitans, Pri­mates, &c, ordering of their Councils how often to be kept, by whom called, directing of Appeals, Fasts, Fe­stivals, &c, be reckoned by him such things of external order? If they be; then General Councils in ordering these things, (for example, the Nicene Council in com­posing their 6th Canon,) either were only the Prince's deputies and instruments, and all such canons were void without his ratification; or else they usurped an [Page 159]authority not belonging unto them: for their canons we find full of such orders. But if they be not; then Dr. Hammond's external orders will be nothing to the matter he is discoursing of. As for the words of Con­stantine; it seems plain to me by the chapter preceding, that he speaks here of his playing the Bishop over those persons who were without the Church; both gentes sub­jectas Romano imperio, & legiones; quibus (saith Eusebius by the Emperor's injunctions) Idololatriae fores clausae e­rant; repressumque quodvis idolis sacrificandi genus &c, over which persons the Bishops of the Church had no authority; and I conceive the words ought to be ren­dred thus. Ye are Bishops [...], for or amongst those, [persons] I say; S. W. saith [affairs] which are within the Church, but I am Bishop for the persons or affairs without the Church. But the Doctor's translation seems forced, both to the words, and to the context: in which I ap­peal to any, that will take the pains to consider the words, and to view the place. Besides that, I see not how the Emperour can call the prohibition of sacrificing to Idols, the observing of the Lord's day, &c, things of external order, as the Doctor will have them.—

Concerning the second; S. Paul's appeal from the the High-Priest and the Sanedrim to Caesar, (by which the Doctor seems to justifie such Supremacy of the Prince above the clergy, that from the highest court of Ecclesiasticks, in matters Ecclesiastical, appeals may be made to him, and to him, tho an infidel,) I demand, Whether the H. Priest and Sanedrim were the highest Ecclesiastical Court, or Council, by God at that time appointed for deciding the controversies of Religion, (such as S. Paul's is by him supposed to be) or no. If it were; then ought the controversy at Antioch to have bin brought before them, and not before the Council of [Page 160]the Apostles: If it were not; then the Doctors instance fits not his purpose. But, the Apostle here accused of sedition, and, before any judgment given, laid wait for to be killed by his very Judges, who justified him, in some part, for his religion, [the tenent of the resurrection,] appeals to the Sovereign power for his necessary protecti­on, from the violence of those, who, in Spiritual matters, had no reason to judge him. As for any appeal, in these matters, from the highest Ecclesiastical court to secular Princes, it hath bin often prohibited to the clergy in se­veral Councils, (see before, §. 9.) and is so, as I con­ceive, by S. Paul (1 Cor. 6.1, 6.) to unbelieving Princes, such as Caesar was.

To the third, the Emperors constitutions, such as are in matters purely Ecclesiastical, tis sufficient to say, that such never were contrary to any laws of the Church; or when they were so, were so often void, in Dr. Hammond's judgment; who grants the Emperor to have no negative voice in Councils, i.e. to annull any of their constitutions; but surely he annulls them, who lawfully enacts contrary. Such therefore were his Ec­clesiastical constitutions, (so far as lawful,) as that the clergy consented to, or at least dissented not from, them. Which shews the legislative power primarily in them, not in him. For there cannot be two Lawgivers in the same matters, over the same persons, both whom they shall be obliged to obey, unless they can obey contra­dictions. Therefore if the Emperor in these Church-matters have no negative voice in respect of the decrees of Councils, they must needs have a negative voice in respect of the decrees of Emperors; and so how much of his laws they disallow, or deny, is cancelled. As for the other expression, [that Canons of Councils mostly receive their authority by Emperors,] see before, § 40. [Page 161]how S.W. hath caused the Doctor to explain himself, in his answer to Schism disarmed.

§ 47 Thus much from § 38. concerning that proposition, [That whatever Authority the Church Canons and Customs have given to any Ecclesiastical person,That obe­dience due may not be withheld upon Go­vernors undue claims. can­not be annull'd, &c. by Seculars; and, That it is Schism to oppose any authority so established]. Next; This pro­position also I think undeniable: That none may sub­stract obedience from any in matters, where it is due, because such person requires also obedience in matters, where it is not due: But, that whilst the one is oppo­sed, the other ought to be yeilded. Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil rights of Princes, or their Subjects, these may not hence invade his Ecclesiastical: And if the Priest (Patriarch, or Bi­shop) would in some things act the Prince, therefore may not the Prince justly take upon him to act the Priest; or to alter any thing of that Spiritual Hierar­chy establish'd by Christ, or by the Church; much to the good, but nothing at all to the damage, of Tem­poral States. If any thing happen to be unjustly de­manded, it excuseth us not from paying justs debts. The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Per­son. Neither can never so many examples, brought for such things, done by Princes,§ 48 That Ec­clesiastical Councils may change their for­mer Eccl. Laws, tho Lay-Ma­gistrates may not. be a sufficient war­rant to any Prince, to do the like; much less, to ad­vance beyond such patterns, and do something more. See before § 42.

After these, a third proposition must also be granted: That tho Seculars, Princes or others, cannot; yet Coun­cils may, change some former Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs; and when they do so, are to be obey'd in [Page 162]their change. Therefore the [ [...]] in the Nicene Council, and [Jura, quae jam inde ab initio habent, serventur]; and [nullus invadat Provinciam, quae non prius atque ab initio sub illius fuerat potestate] in the Ephesine Council (frequently press'd by Dr. Hammond, see Sch. p. 61, 65, 100.) so far as these refer not to Apo­stolical traditions, but Ecclesiastical constitutions, must be understood to oblige all the Church's subjects only so long, till the Church shall think fit to change any thing in them. Nor did they hinder, but that afterward she advanc'd (the Roman Church at last yeilding also her consent) the See of Constantinople (contrary to [...]) both before Alexandria and Antioch, into a Supremacy, the next to Rome. In whose power it is (as in Secular Law-givers) to alter her Laws at pleasure. Nor can any G. Council decree, that no General Council after them (in matters of humane institution) shall change their Decrees.§ 49 Nor can any particular Church claim that liberty unto them by any former Canons,That Pre­lates, and others, stand obli­ged to those Church-Canons, which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Pre­decessors, till such Councils shall re­verse them. of which by later Canons (made by the same authority) they re­ceive a restraint.

The truth of this fourth proposition also I think ought not to be doubted of; That where the Bishops or Metropolitans (suppose subjected to no Patriarch) yet are present in Councils presided in by one, or more Patriarchs, and do consent to the Decrees thereof; such Provinces, and the Prelates thereof, stand obliged to those Decrees; and cannot afterward at pleasure reverse them, and restore to themselves their former liberty. Else Metropolitans, who are under no Patriarch, will be liable to the Decrees of no Councils at all; no not of such, wherein they appear, wherein they vote, where­in they oblige themselves. But, supposing, they are [Page 163]as free as Patriarchs themselves; yet where in Coun­cils many Patriarchs meet, the vote of the major part obligeth all. (Review what is said before § 18.)

§ 50 Now to make some Reflections (if you have not made them already) upon what hath been discoursed here,Reflections on what hath been said. in relation to the Church of England.

§ 51 1. It cannot reasonably be denied, that (supposing she had not receiv'd her Conversion from the See of Rome, That the Church of England seems ob­liged in as much obser­vance to the Roman See, as the former in­stances have shew­ed the Ori­entals to have yeild­ed to it. nor the Nicene or other Canons had constituted the Bishop of this City sole Patriarch of the West (of which thing review what is said before § 3.) yet) she is bound to render so much not only honour, but submis­sion also, to that See (for what cause soever it was, that such was given to that last Seat of the two great Apostles Peter and Paul, as it hath been shew'd by the instances made above, in those primitive times,) that the whole Church of God, the Oriental Churches and Bishops, the Patriarchs themselves, and even Cyprus (so much pleaded; concerning which review § 18.) have render'd unto him, in appeals, decision of controver­sies, approbation of Prelates, Ecclesiastical censures, &c. For example: If the rule (spoken of § 22.) [praeter, or sine, Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum] have any obliga­tion upon the Oriental, the same it will have upon the English, Bishops, or Synods. And the same power the Roman Bishop hath of receiving or hearing Appeals (suppose from Alexandria, as in Athanasius his cause; review § 21.) the same he hath in those from Eng­land: For what exemptions can England plead, more than Alexandria?

[Page 164] § 52 2. Yet farther, There seems to be the same ground of her submission to him as Patriarch (however this submission be founded) as of other Western Provinces,That the Church of England seems ob­liged to yeild the same obser­vance to the Roman See, as other We­stern Pro­vinces, up­on the 6th Nicene Canon. her Neighbours; who still continue obedience to that See. And the Mos antiquus obtineat, seems to put all the Occidental coast of the world, who ever were then al­ready, or whoever thenceforward should be, converted, under his jurisdiction, (see § 3). In which Canon, as not Brittain, so no other Western Province, is particu­larly nam'd; tho it appears, from some instances above, that before Nice, both Spain, and France, and Africk were Christian, and subject to the Roman See, (see § 6.) And then was the Brittish Nation also already Christian; three of its Bishops being present at the Council of Arles in France, ten years before this of Nice, (see Hamm. Sch. p. 110.), and many suffering Martyr­dom here in Dioclesian's days; amongst the rest, the fa­mous St. Alban. And the Arms of Lichfield, represent­ing many mangled Bodies, are said to be born in remem­brance of the many Christians, who in that persecution suffer'd there. Christian yet higher; before Tertullian's and Origen's time, who testifie so much of it, (Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 4. Quando terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem? Quando terra Maurorum? &c. Nunc vero, propter Ecclesias, quae mundi limites tenent, universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Domi­num Israel. Tertull. adv. Judaeos, c. 7. Cui [Christo] crediderunt, —jam Getulorum varietates & Maurorum multi fines, Hispaniarum omnes termini, & Galliarum diversae nationes, & Brittannorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vero subd ta; see also his Apologet.) Christian in the days of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, A. D. 183. saith Venerable Bede, Hist. Ang. l. 1. c. 4. At which time, (Christianity, by the late favourable Edicts of Antoni­nus [Page 165]Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, enjoying much tranquil­lity), one Lucius or Leuer Maur, a King of some part of Brittain, bearing some affection to the Religion or Chri­stians, from their good conversation which recommen­ded it, and also for the miracles which confirm'd it, is said to have sent two learned men, Elvanus Avalonius [or of Glastenbury], and Medvinus de Belga [or of Wells], to the Bishop of Rome, to desire from him, some holy men to instruct him in Religion; and some Roman Imperial Laws to direct him in his Civil Go­vernment: Which Bishop sent to him Fugatius and Da­mianus, by whom this King, and his Queen, and many others, were converted to the Faith, and receiv'd Bap­tisme &c. Where, his having already with him men learned in the Scriptures, (see Spelm. Apparat. p. 12.) and yet sending for others from the Roman Bishop; and his sending to the Bishop of Rome so remote, when as there were then many Christian Bishops in France, and particularly the famous Irenaeus Bishop at Lions, at that very time, (methinks) shew plainly, that the Britains had learned already, that there was some preeminence and authority attributed to him, superior to the rest of the Occidental Prelates. as likewise doth the title of that Bishop's letter to Lucius, (but it is much doubted whether this letter be authentick); Scripsit Dominus Elentherius Papa Lucio Regi Britanniae, ad correctionem Regis, & Procerum regni Britanniae; others read it, ad petitionem. In which letter, whereas it is urged (see Hammond Schis. p. 109. and Bramh. vindic. p. 155.) that he calls the King vicarium Dei in regno suo; tis to be observed, that he stiles the King so, before he was Chri­stian; and seems to urge it in respect of civil laws; which laws the King desiring that they would send un­to him from Rome, the Bishop adviseth him with his [Page 166]Council rather to take them out of the Bible, the law of God, whose Vicar he is, than out of the Roman or Cae­sars laws. But let it be granted in Ecclesiastical mat­ters also that he is Vicarius Dei, that is, in promulgat­ing the Ecclesiastical laws, and enforcing them upon his subjects, with the denouncing of temporal punish­ments; but not in making them; for this the Bishop of Rome cannot alienate from Synods to Princes. Chri­stian, yet higher, in the days of Tiberius: Interea glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae [Britannicae] verus ille Sol universo orbi praefulgidum sui lumen ostendens, radios suos primum indulget, id est, praecepta sua, Christus. Tempore (ut scimus) summo [extremo] Tiberii Caesaris; quo [tempore] absque ullo impedimento, ejus propagabatur religio, indicta (Senatu nolente) a Principe morte delatoribus militum ejusdem; [Christianorum,] alluding to Hegesippus his story of Ti­berius.] Thus saith Gildas, a Britain, who writ in the end of the 5th age; and therefore why may not mos antiquus, concerning the presidency of the Roman See over the West, be meant of this, as well as the other anciently-Christian Provinces there? But when ever Britain first became Christian, tho such were after the passing of that canon of Nice, yet many converted since the last conversion of the Saxons here in England (as the Germans, and some other Northern nations, some of them converted by the English) have also come un­der the jurisdiction of that See upon the same account; namely of this Bishops having committed to him the primacy over the whole Church, or at least the Patri­archate of the whole West. And therefore Austin the Monk required subjection to this Bishop, not only of the Saxons, as converted by him; but also of the Bri­tains, who were Christian before: subjection, not upon this title of conversion, but from the submission which [Page]was thought otherwise due to this prime Apostolick See. [The judgment and actions of which holy man (by this Nation to be had in eternal veneration) ought not so easily to be condemned or slighted; since he was blessed here with such success, and honoured by God with so many miracles. Of which miracles of his, and his companions, Gregory, who sent him, overjoyed, writes thus to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Ep. 7. l. In­dict. 1.30. Ep. —Jam nunc de ejus [Augustini] salute & opere ad nos scripta pervenerunt; quia tantis miraculis vel ipse, vel hi qui cum eo transmissi sunt, in gente eadem coruscant, ut Apostolorum virtutes in signis, quae exhibent, imitari videantur.— And to Austin, thus in another Epistle, (9. l. 58. Ep.) exhorting him to the preservation of his humility in receiving so high favours. —Scio quod potens Deus per dilectionem tuam in Gente, quam eligi vo­luit, magna miracula ostendit; unde necesse est, ut de eodem dono caelesti, & timendo gaudeas, & gaudendo pertimescas, &c.]

§. 53 But if it be replied, that many of the Western Na­tions were originally converted by that See, (and there­fore may seem anciently to have had a nearer relation to, or dependance on, it:) but not so this Island; yet

That this Nation chiefly (if not only) owes its conversion to the Ro­man See. 1. 3. This title of Conversion seems not wanting (so much as is pretended) for the plea of the Roman Juris­diction. For 1. for all the rest of this Nation, except the ancient Britains, namely for the Saxons, and those other invaders, who followed them, this title is not dis­puted. so that, what was Pope Innocent's pretence (see before, § 3.) concerning other parts of the West, may be Gregory's, and his Successor's, concerning the chief bo­dy of this Kingdom, (supposing that the Church's cu­stoms [Page]or canons did entitle any authority upon this ground): and for whom the Roman See hath performed the same maternal and fundative offices as for the rest of the West; it seems not unreasonable, that they should return her the same duty, as do the rest. To that ob­jection of Dr. Hammond (Schism p. 114.) in behalf of these Saxons liberty; ‘That S. Paul's and his Substi­ture's converts,’ yet were not all subjected to one and the same See; it is granted to him, That conversion doth not of it self necessarily induce subjection to the converter, or to his See: but nevertheless tis as true, That the Church (upon whose customs and canons such subjection is pleaded) in her appointing some chief and Patriarchal Sees, for the preserving by such subordina­tions unity and peace amongst her several members, hath used this of conversion, as a chief motive (tho not this always, or the only, motive) to subject several Churches rather to such a Mother-church, than to ano­ther. See before, § 6.)

This for the Saxons, §. 54. n. 1.2. and others, whose race most-what we English are. But then for the Britains also, it seems, That tho their conversion might have its first beginning in Tiberius his reign, or very early; yet it was for the most part of it wrought in latter times by several degrees, after their subjection to the Ro­man Empire, either by Christians, who flowed in hi­ther from Rome, and Italy, and other Provinces nearer hand, (especially in times of persecution,) with the Roman Officers and Lieutenants, (some of which before, were favourers, and after Constantine's time, were also professors of Christianity, as amongst the rest Theodosius, who was Valentinian's Lieutenant here, before Empe­rour): or by several Missions from the Pope of Rome [Page 169]made either to plant and propagate Christianity in these Islands of Britain and Ireland, or to reform it.

Such was that Legation of Fugatius, and Damianus, § 54. n. 2. mentioned before, § 52. and such that, afterward, of S. Germanus a French Bishop, famous for learning and sanctity, about A. D. 430. whom (as Prosper, a French Bishop, who lived also in those times, relateth) Pope Celestin, hearing that Pelagianism had gotten some foot­ing in this Island, sent hither for the suppression thereof. Prosper's words are in Chronico; —Pelagianus, Severiani Pelagiani Episcopi filius, Ecclesias Britanniae dogmatis sui insimulatione corrupit; sed, ad actionem Palladii Diaconi, Papa Caelestinus Germanum Altisiodorensem Episcopum vice sua mittit, ut deturbatis Haereticis Britannos ad Catholicam fidem dirigat. Vice sua, as his Legat; as if the care of such reformation did some way especially concern the Pope; ad actionem Palladii, at the suite and request of Palladius, a zealous opposer of, and writer also against, Pelagianisme. In this Legation, another holy French Bishop, Lupus, is mentioned also to have accompanied Germanus into Britanny; of which two Bishops Bede indeed (Hist. 1. l. 17. c.) delivers the story thus: That, upon the request of the Britain Clergy (so unwilling to receive Pelagianism, as unable sufficiently to confute it) these two Bishops were sent hither by a Council in France. But, what Bede saith, being taken out of Con­stantius, one who writ at a greater distance from Germa­nus his times than Prosper did, is liable to the more doubt. and 2ly, this may well consist with what Pros­per saith; since all those Occidental Synods had a sub­jection to the Western Patriarch, and might receive di­rections from him. The same Prosper saith, that the forementioned Palladius was, by the same authority, [Page 170]and care of the same Pope Celestine, ordained Bishop, and sent into the more Northern parts of this Island, to the Scots. —Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius, & primus Episcopus mittitur. See the same in Bede, 1. l. 13. c.

Besides these Germanus and Palladius, Bede and others make mention of Ninyus a Britain, who finished his stu­dies at Rome, and was made Bishop, and sent from thence, not long after the other, for the conversion of the Picts, a Nation lying between the Scots and Britans. Episcopus Reverendissimus, & Sanctissimus vir, de natione Britonum, qui erat Romae, regulariter fidem & mysteria ve­ritatis edoctus, saith Bede, Hist. 3. l. 4. c. —Quem, audi­ens Romanus Pontifex quosdam in occiduis Britanniae par­tibus necdum fidem Christi suscepisse, ad Episcopatus gradum consecravit, & praemissae genti, data benedictione, Apostolum destinavit. (v. Broughton's Monasticon Briton. 7. c. and Capgrave Catal. Sanctorum.) Likewise Patricius, who finished the conversion of the Irish begun by Palladius, is said to have received his education, and learnt his Di­vinity from Germanus, and Lupus; and going to Rome, and there made Bishop, accepisse ab Apostolica Sede ad ejus Gentis conversionem Apostolatum. (V. Baron, A.D. 431. Sigebert Chronol. and Sir H. Spelman A.D. 449. who out of Matt. Westmon. saith, both of Palladius and Patri­cius, ad Britanniam pervenisse missos a Papa Celestino, ibi (que) praedicasse verbum Dei.) Dubritius also, the first Arch­bishop of Caerleon that we know of, (to which Arch­bishop only the British clergy, in their conference with Augustin, acknowledged their subjection,) was another Disciple of S. Germanus; and by him, and Lupus, with the consent of the King, and a Synod of the Clergy, consecrated Bishop, and possessed of this Archbisho­prick. See Spelman A. D. 512. and Apparat. p. 25. and [Page 171]in the same manner did this Brittish Archbishop receive his Commission from Germanus, sent by the Roman See, as the English Bishops from Augustin; by the persuasion of which English or Saxon Bishops also, afterwards both the Scots, and some at least of the Brittains, about A. D. 700, were reduc'd from those errors, whereof Augustin had taxed them, and conformed to the Customs of the Church Catholick. V. Bede Hist. l. 5. c. 16, 19, 22. Se­veral of which English Clergy also in those days travel'd to Rome, the more perfectly to learn the Laws and Cu­stoms of the Apostolick See; or also there to receive their Ordination. and St. Wilfrid, among the rest, went thither three several times, and sate there also in a Sy­nod, and being twice ejected out of his Bishoprick, twice had his cause heard there, and was twice restor'd by the Pope's Letters. See these things in Bede's Hist. l. 5. c. 20, 21.—l. 5. c. 12.—l. 3. c. 4, 7, 29.—l. 4. c. 1. These particulars I have set down, to shew the care, interest, authority, esteem, which the Roman Bishops had in these two Western Islands in all those ancient times, wherein History gives posterity some light to know, what was done in them.]

But next; however these things be: Yet supposing only then the subjection of the Saxons, §54. n. 3. and the English Clergy (upon this title of Conversion), to the Roman See, it seems the Brittains, for the present, can claim no liberty from the same subjection; because those in Wales being subject to the Bishop of Carleon, or after­ward to St. Davids; and St. David's being subject to Canterbury; [I suppose this Canonically done; of which see Sir Hen. Spelman's Appar. p. 26. that it was order'd so by a Council at Rhemes, and by the Pope; to both which were made Addresses about it. As for the Bri­bery [Page 172]that is by some supposed in it; I see no reason why it should not be judg'd an uncharitable suspition, being a thing every where imputable, when rich and poor contend;] subjected also at that time, when Can­terbury was professedly subject to Rome, in the Reign of K. Hen. I. Hence it follows, I say, that these Brittains must needs be subjects also to that See, to which must Canter­bury is subject; and that Church, hath which any Juris­diction over Canterbury, will also have the same over St. David's; (suppose in Appeals, or the like). And again, those Brittains who were out of Wales, dispers'd among the Saxons, becoming subjects to the Saxon Bi­shops there, who were the Pope's subjects, must also be subject to the Pope.

Yet fourthly;§ 55. n. 1. And hath in ancient Councils, together with other Churches, subjected it self to that See before the Saxon Conversion. If the Brittains were not converted by that See, it may be shew'd, that they had submitted themselves, and join'd with the rest of Christianity in those Conciliary acts, which had given some supremacy of Jurisdiction, to the See of Rome, (amongst others) over them. For we find some of the Brittain Bishops pre­sent, as at the Council of Ariminum; where, as Seve­rus (Hist. l. 2.) and Spelman (Appar. p. 24.) say, three of them, being poor, were maintain'd on the Emperor's charge; so, before this, at the Council of Sardica (assembled some twenty years after that of Nice) as Athanasius, who was also present there, him­self witnesseth (see before § 23. n. 1.) and therefore may the Canons of that Council be presum'd, amongst the rest, to be ratified by them, or at least, being pass'd by the major part of that Occidental Council, to oblige them. Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop, how they constitute him supreme in Appeals, see before § 11.

[Page 173][Against this (urg'd by S. W.) Bishop Bramhall (Rep. to S.W. § 4. p. 24.) replies; 1. That it doth not appear,§55. n. 2. that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon. 2. That the Council of Sardica was no G. Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed, as they were before the making of that Canon. 3. That the Canons of the Council of Sardica were never receiv'd in England, or incorporated into the English Laws; and that without such incor­poration, they did not bind English Subjects. 4. Lastly, That this Canon was contradicted by the great General Council of Chalcedon. To which I answer: That this Council at least was a full and compleat Occidental Council. That Canons pass'd by the most part of such a Council, are obliging to the rest contradicting, whether Persons, Churches, or Christian States. That where no contradiction of any person, Church, or State appears, they are presumed to assent, (in justification of which, see a more large discourse in Par. 2. § 4. and 24.) That if the Canons of Councils only receive force in a Chri­stian State by being incorporated into their Laws, then by being expung'd again at pleasure out of these, they lose their force: And then where is the Church's au­thority in her Decrees, which are valid only till any particular State pleaseth to eject them? That thus he will find, either not all Canons, which he grants obli­ging, incorporated into the English Laws, (I mean those before the Reformation), or more; namely, those of Councils held since the first four, or seven or eight, Oecumenical ones. Lastly, that the Council of Chalce­don no-where contradicts or reverseth this Canon, for the Western Provinces at least, but rather establishes it, in giving the Patriarch of Constantinople like priviledge [Page 174]in the East; even the Cypriots not being exempted there­from. (See before § 11.)

From this Council,§ 55. n. 3. twenty years after Nice, let us ascend to the Council of Arles in France, convocated by Constantine the Emperor ten years before that of Nice, (of which see before, § 23. n. 7.) and in this also we find the presence and subscription of Brittain Bishops (see Hammond, Schis. p. 110. Bramh. Vind. p. 98.) of which Bishops, thus Sir Hen. Spelm. A. D. 314. Aderant e Britannia celebriores (ut videtur) tres Episcopi (surely in Dignity much preceding, and much ancienter than the Bishop of Carleon] nempe Eboracensis, Londoniensis, & de civitate Coloniae Londinensium (quae alias dicitur Ca­melodunum) una cum Sacerdote Presbytero, & Diacono, qui & canones assensu suo approbabant, & in Britannia redeun­tes, secum deferebant observandos. Now, there you may review the first Canon thereof, setling the matter of Easter to be kept through all Churches on the same day; and the divulgation of this thro all Churches committed to the Bishop of Rome, secundum consuetu­dinem.

Therefore the speech of the Abbot of Bangor (urg'd by Dr. Hammond Schis. p. 111.§56 n. 1. and B. Bramhall Vindic. p. 103.) that he knew no obedience due to him, whom they call'd the Pope, but the obedience of Love. where B. Bramhall saith; Observe what strangers the Brittains were to the Papacy, that man whom they call the Pope; seems (if perhaps authentick) full of ignorance; who, after all that power exercis'd by this man call'd the Pope over the whole Church of God, especially over the We­stern Provinces, and so much respect return'd him from them, as is set down above in this discourse (for I have [Page 175]made scarce any quotation but before, or in, this Abbot's time), after the presence of the Brittain Bishops at so many famous Councils, after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bishop of Rome's delegation, should be such a stranger to his Per­son, or Authority, or his Titles (the like Titles to which given him in this Abbot's, see given him in Cyprian's, time, § 33.) after A. D. 600. Where also you may observe; That the Irish Bishops yeilded all obedience to this Roman Bishop at this very time, when the Brit­tish thus denied it; as appears, both in that they are said by Bede (the South Irish at least) to have return'd very early to a right observation of Easter, ad admonitio­nem Apostolicae Sedis Antistitis (Hist. l. 3. c. 3.) And also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory, then Bishop of Rome, to know, after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were convert­ed from Nestorianism; to whom he sends his orders con­cerning it, directed Quirino Episcopo & caeteris Episcopis in Hibernia Catholicis, Epist. 61. of l. 9.

And as for this plea,§ 56. n. 2. of the Brittain's subjection only to the Archbishop of Caerleon, you may note; That the first Archbishop of this City, that is known or spoken of, is Dubricius; who, after much service done by him against Pelagianism, was consecrated Archbishop by Germanus and Lupus, sent from Rome, as is said above § 54. n. 2. the third or fourth from whom possess'd that Chair when Austin came. Meanwhile, be­fore Austin's coming, the Brittains had other Bishops preeminent to Caerleon, a Bishop of York (the chief Bi­shop of the whole Nation, as that City then was the principal City, the Roman Praetorium being there. See Spelm. Appar. p. 22.) a Bishop of London, and of some [Page 176]other places, who were present at the Council of Ar­les, where is no mention of Carleon's Bishop; of which Bishops, Todiacus Archbishop of York, and Theonus Bi­shop of London, being persecuted by the Saxons, fled into Wales with their Clergy, A. D. 586. Within eleven years after whose flight thither, Augustin came into England, and upon it their persecution in part ceas'd. Now there being no mention of any opposi­tion made, by any of these Bishops or their Clergy (which in eleven years space could not all be de­ceas'd) to Augustin, but only by the Welch under Caer­leon, it is probable, that they conform'd to the rest of the West, in such submission to it's Patriarch, as was due to him by the Canons of those Councils, which their predecessors had allow'd; and was render'd to him by their neighbour-Prelacy of Ireland (see Greg. l. 9. Ep. 61.); as likewise, that they celebrated Easter accord­ing to those Conciliary Canons, and the Roman man­ner; and lastly, that, returning into some of those parts of Brittain from whence they fled,§57. n. 1. The Brit­tain's ob­servation of Easter different from Rome not agree­ing with the Orien­tals; and no argu­ment, that they re­ceiv'd Chri­stianity from thence. they aided Augu­stin in the conversion of the Saxons.

2. That Argument, [That the Brittains were not formerly converted by any sent from Rome, but rather by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, or some other Eastern Doctors, because their observation of Easter was contrary to the usage receiv'd at Rome, (see Ham. Sch. p. 113. Bramh. Vind. p. 104.)] seems of no force. 1. Because the observation of the Orientals (those of Asia minor only excepted) was the same with the Ro­man (see Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5, c. 21.); and it is to be presumed, Joseph, or Simon, had they founded this Church, did celebrate this Feast on no other day than Peter, and James, and Paul, did. But 2ly, Tho the [Page 177] Brittain's observation, when Austin the Monk came hither, was found contrary to the Roman; yet so it was also contrary to the Quarto-Decimans of Asia. For the Brittains observ'd it on the Lord's day only, as well as the Romanists; only their Lord's day was that which happen'd from the 14th day of the Moon in March in­clusively, to the 20th day; but the Lord's day of the Romanists was from the 15th to the 21th, [the 14th day, tho it were also the Lord's day, being avoided, because it was the Judaical observation]; or indeed ra­ther, because (as Ceolfrid the Abbot discourseth it at large to Naitan, King of the Picts, in Bede, l. 5. c. 22.) with the Jews also the first day of the Paschal Feasts, or of unleaven'd Bread, was not the 14th but the 15th day of the Moon, to which 15th day (as in all other Festi­vals) the even preceding, wherein the Paschal Lamb was eaten, is reckon'd to belong as the beginning there­of (and not to the 14th); therefore this Even also began the use of Bread unleven'd, Exod. 12.18. So that the Bri­tain's kept it a week sometimes before the Romanists, namely, when the Lords day fell on the 14th. Of this thus Bede, (Hist. 3. l. 4. c.) Quem tamen [diem Paschatis] non semper Luna 14 ma cum Judaeis, ut quidam rebantur, sed in die quidem Dominica; alia tamen, quam decebat, heb­domada, celebrabant. and so he saith, (hist. 3. l. 25. c.) that Oswy King of Northumberland (observing the Britain and Scotch mode] brake up his Fast, and solemnized the Feast, when the Queen with Prince Alkfrid continued their Fast, and kept that day their Palm-Sunday. Therefore to Colman, in a dispute before these Princes, urging (as the Asian Churches had done) the practice of S. John the Evangelist, desiring in their variance from the Western Churches, to adhere to those in the East; Wilfrid returns this answer: That the Scots and Bri­tains [Page 178]neither followed the example of S. John, [i. e. ac­cording to the Asian Churches,] nor S. Peter, [accord­ing to the West,] nor did their celebration of Easter agree either with the [Judaical] Law, or the Gospel; be­cause they kept not Easter but on a Sunday. See Bede, ib.

This Error perhaps was propagated to the Britains (not long before) from the Scots. §57. n. 2. Or both Britains and Scots might incur at first a mistake therein, from the rudeness and ignorance of those times, over-run with civil wars, (which Bede also hinteth, Hist. 3. l. 4. c. —Sci­ebant enim resurrectionem Dominicam prima Sabbati esse celebrandam: sed ut Barbari & rustici, quando eadem pri­ma Sabbathi venerit, minime didicerunt. Or it might arise (as Bede ib. 3. c. saith it did) from some of their Doctors misunderstanding the Egyptian computation or Cycle of Anatolius. Whose writings also Colman, the Scotch Bi­shop, urgeth in their defence in the disputation had be­fore K. Oswi about this matter; and Wilfrid there also shews them to be orthodox, and mistaken. v. Bed. 3. l. 25. c. But upon what ground, or in what time soever this erroneous custom began here, (since we find those Bishops, which were sent from Rome (see before, § 54. n. 2.) from time to time so welcomly entertained, and so readily submitted to, by these two Islands, and in particular find S. Germanus, who came hither two seve­ral times, solemnly keeping his Easter here with the Britain clergy, (see Bede, 1. l. 20. c.)) it follows; either that their observation of Easter was then altogether ca­tholick; or that, if it was otherwise, yet by reason that the difference happeneth not every year, but only then, when the Lord's day chanceth to be on the 14th of the Moon, i.e. only once in many years, it was then by these Bishops not taken notice of, till the coming hither [Page 179]of Augustin; who first appears about A.D. 604 to have observed, and endeavoured to have reformed it, in the Western Church of Britain. and afterward his Succes­sors, and others, well-instructed in the Churches pra­ctice, to have endeavoured the same in the North and in the Scots. concerning which controversy letters being sent to Rome to consult the Pope, several answers also were directed from thence to the Scots condemning their practice. v. Bede 2. l. 19. c. Yet was it, still, re­tain'd for some time both by them, and the Britains; till, after a fuller conviction, about A.D. 700, or not long after, both were at last reduced to the Catholick obser­vance, (See Bede 5. l. 16, 19, 22, c.) as the South-Irish were, by the Pope's admonition long before. Bede 3. l. 3. c. Meanwhile many Saints and holy men there were, who so observed it, as their Ancestors had misled them, in this observation also being much more tolerable than the 14 mani. Neither doth it seem any great fault in them, but only in those of later times, in whom obsti­nacy after due information of the Church's decrees made it so.]

3. After this decree of the Church Catholick,§ 57. n. 3. when­ever manifested to them, it cannot be denied, that the Britains became now schismatical; as offending both against the canon of Arles, mentioned before, (where were present some of their own Bishops,) and afterward against that of Nice. This business being one of the two causes of the meeting of that famous Council; and being by them unanimously setled all the world over. Whose words are these, in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria. Socrat. Hist. 1. l. 6. c. —Quod autem ad omnium consensum de sacratissimo festo Paschatis celebrando attinet, scitote, quod controversia de re suscepta prudenter [Page 180]& commode sedata est; ita ut omnes Fratres, qui Orientem incolunt, jam Romanos, nos, & omnes vos sunt consentien­tibus animis in eodem celebrando deinceps sedulo secuturi. And hence it was, that in those later times, when the Churches orders were well known here in England, the Ordinations by the British or Scotch Bishops were ac­counted unlawful; and several of the Saxon Kings, to preserve themselves from the Schism, sent their cler­gy, to be consecrated Bishops, into France, (amongst whom S. Wilfrid was one), and to be consecrated Arch-Bishop, to Rome. See Bede Hist. 3. l. 17. c. 28, 29. c. —4. l. 1, 2. c. and elsewhere. Where also S. Chad, the holy Bishop of Lichfield having bin consecrated (in the vacan­cy of the See of Canterbury, and some other orthodox Sees) by three Bishops, two of which were Britains, and unconformable to the Church, (tho the third, Wini, Bi­shop of Winchester, was ordained in France, and ortho­dox, (Bede 3. l. 7. c.) Theodore, the next Archbishop of Canterbury, is said Ceaddam arguisse, non fuisse eum rite consecratum, —& Ordinationem ejus denue Catholica ratio­ne consummasse. And the same was observed also in the Ordination of Presbyters. v. Bed. 4. l. 2. c.

4. Lastly,§ 57. n. 4. It seemeth also clear enough, that they followed not the practice of their Forefathers herein; both from the presence of the former Britain Bishops in the Council of Arles, which determined this matter, (of whom see what Sir H. Spelman saith above, § 55. n. 3.) and also from Constantine's letter, Socrat. Hist. 1. l. 6. c. to perswade the Asian Churches to uniformity with the rest of the world. In which he writes thus. —Quoni­am modus ille eximius decorusque esset servandus, quem om­nes Ecclesiae totius orbis partes, vel ad occidentem, vel ad meridiem, vel ad septentriones, incolentes, servant, ac non­nullae [Page 181]quoque quae in locis ad orientem spectantibus habitant. But lest you may think [omnes Ecclesiae & c] may admit some small exception of the Church of Pritanny, after­wards he names it in particular, (which thing he might also experimentally know, from some part of his educa­tion there.) In me recepi &c, ut quod in urbe Roma, in Italia, in Africa, in toto Aegypto, Hispania, Gallia, & Bri­tannia, &c, —una & consentiente sententia conservatur unless we will say the Scotch and Welch Bishops ancient­ly to have observed Easter in this fashion, whilst the rest of the British Bishops, viz. York, London, &c, kept it in the Roman manner. Add to this what Bede saith of the origin of this Error in the Scotch Nation, (and the same may be presumed in the British,) (Hist. 2. l. 19. c.)—Nu­perrime temporibus illis hanc apud eos haeresim exortam, & non totam eorum gentem, sed quosdam ex iis, hac fuisse im­plicitos. Which Honorius, and other Roman Bishops, with their letters (see Bede ib) endeavoured as soon as might be to suppress. And judge you by these things, how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy or Councils of that time mentioned (Bram. vind. p. 104.) were in opposition to Augustin the Monk; who only re­quired of them in this thing to follow the tradition of the Church; and objected against them,—quod in multis Romanae consuetudini immo universalis Ecclesiae contraria gererent; & quod suas traditiones universis, quae per orbem sibi invicem concordant, Ecclesiis praeferrent. All which was true, and the proponent also confirmed this truth before them with a miracle, restoring his sight to a blind man. See Sr. H. Spelm. A.D. 601.

§ 58 Now if it be here wondred at, (see Bishop Bramhal's vindic. p. 97.) that in the Britains ancient subjection to the Roman Patriarch there should appear no more foot­steps [Page 182]of any acknowledgment thereof; no such inter­course of Epistles between him and British Prelats, in a nation so anciently Christian, as those of other Western Provinces: The reason thereof seems to be; because Christian Religion, tho early planted here, yet made little growth, lighting in a soil then very rude and bar­barous, and being miserably oppressed and disturbed, from its very first appearance, with wars foreign and civil; the lately subdued natives either taking up arms against the Romans, to shake off their new yoke; or, when the more civilized part submitted thereto, inva­ded by their Northern and Western neighbours, the Picts, and Scots, and the Irish; and their former conque­rors the Romans, by reason, of civil divisions between the Emperors themselves, and afterward of the frequent inroads into the Empire of barbarous Nations, no way able to protect or succour them. Lastly, (upon their cal­ling in other foreign auxiliaries, the potent Saxons), forced to combat also with those whom they brought-in for their aid for almost two hundred years, till at last they became their slaves. Thus did this poor Nation live in much distress (see Gildas, and S. H. Spelman in his Apparat. p. 12.) even from Constantine's time, when Christianity elsewhere enjoyed some rest, until the set­tlement of the Saxons, and their conversion to Christ. Which also may be the reason, that for the first 600 years, in those, elsewhere so learned and nourishing times, there are not extant, or at least not divulged, the works of any one Britain writer (born and residing here) in theological matters, excepting Gildas; nor so much as the names known to posterity of the chief British Bi­shops who lived in these times, save of a very few, (see Spelm. apparat. 22. p.) who for the 300 years between Constantine's days and the coming of Austin, mentions [Page 183]some three or four Bishops of York the prime Seat, and as many of London; and the first known Bishop of Caer­leon, after A.D. 500.

§ 59 5. But, let these obligations aforesaid go for none at all; and let not the Britain only, but the Saxon also,That the English na­tion is suf­ficiently tyed to such subjection by the De­crees of lat­ter Coun­cils, where­in her Pre­lats have yeilded their con­sent. be originally free from any subjection due to the Roman Patriarch, both in, and after, the days of Archbishop Augustin. Yet by the 3d. and 4th. Propositions made before, (§ 48. and 49.) such liberty can be no way pre­tended, (see Hammond schis. p. 65. 100. Bramh. vindic. p. 96.) if frequent canons of latter Councils, especially, wherein the English Bishops have bin present, and given their suffrage, have restrained it. Now how many Councils are there since 600 or 700 years after Christ, (as the 8. General Council, the Lateran, Constance, Ba­sil, Florentine, &c,) whereof the English Bishops were either members, or at least in absence accepted their Acts; which have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those jurisdictions over the whole Church, (excepting the Question of his Superiority to General Councils,) or at least over the Western part thereof, (conformed-to likewise by the ordinary practice of the English Pre­lats,) which the present Reformation denies him? See the 8th and 15th Session of Concil. Constantiense (much urged by Protestants, as no flatterer of the Pope, and wherein, the Council voting by Nations, the English were one of the four,) condemning, against Wickliff and Huss, such Propositions as these. Sess. 8. —Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Christi & Apostolorum. —Sum­mus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares.— Sess. 15. —Petrus non fuit, neque est Caput Ecelesiae sanctae Catholicae. —Papae prae­fectio & institutio a Casaris potentia emanavit. —Papa [Page 184]non est manifestus & verus Successor Apostolorum—Princi­pis Petri, si vivit moribus contrariis Petro. —Non est scin­tilla apparentiae, quod oporteat esse unum Caput in Spirituali­bus regens Ecclesiam, quod [caput] semper cum ipsa mili­tanti Ecclesia conservetur, & conservatur.— Now these canons of a Council, supposed not General, but Patriar­chal only, are obligatory, at least, to the members there­of, and consequently (by what is said § 40.) to their posterity, until a Council of equal authority reverse them.

6. Whereas Dr. Hammond thinks to free Prince and People,§ 60 Laity and Clergy, from any submission that former canons may require,That the principle, upon which Dr. Ham­mond sets the Eng­lish clergy & nation free from such for­mer obli­gations, hath bin shewed to be errone­ous. or from any concessions that the clergy, or the former, or also the present, Prince, hath made to the Bishop of Rome, or to any other Pa­triarch, upon this ground which he builds much upon; [That it is in the power of Christian Princes, within their Dominions, to erect or translate Patriarchates.] For thus he saith, (Schis. p. 115.) — ‘To put this whole matter out of controversy; it is, and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes, within their Dominions, to erect Patriarchates, or to translate them, &c.— And (p. 132.) —"Upon that one ground laid in the former chapter, the power of Kings in general, and particularly ad hunc actum, to remove Patriarchats, whatever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdoms, will easily be an­swered.— And (p. 137.) —"The whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry, Whether at that time of the Reign of Hen. 8. the Bishop of Rome had any re­al authority here, which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other.— And (p. 138.)—The 3d. will appear to have received its determination also [Page 185]by the absoluteness of the power of our Princes, —and by the rights of Kings, to remove, or erect, Patriar­chats.— And (p. 140) —"If the Pope held his Supre­macy here in England by the Title of Regal concession, [as Dr. Hammond holds he did, see p. 138. 142.] then he may dispose it from him to some other, as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chan­cellor &c. And (p. 142.) —Thus certainly the King, being the fountaine of all power and authority, as he is free to communicate this power to one, so is he equally free to recall and communicate it to another.— And this takes-off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power. —Which freedom from that obedience immediately clears the whole bu­siness of Schism, as that is a departure from the obedi­ence of a lawful Superior.’— Thus He. Now I say, whereas he builds so much on this ground, to remove thereby all difficulties and objections; I think, I have above (by the first Proposition §. 38. and by answering his proofs thereof, §. 43, and also by so many contrary examples brought in the former part of this Discourse) sufficiently shewed it to fail him, and to be untrue. On­ly here observe one thing concerning this right of Prin­ces; That the Doctor [it being much pressed by S. W. (upon the Doctors quoting some Church-canons for it, of which review § 44.) ‘That if Princes had any such right, they had it not as their proper right, inde­pendent on the Church, or her canons,] in his answer to this (p. 174.)’ seems somewhat uncertain and waver­ing, by what Title Princes hold it. His words there are. ‘I, that meant not to dispute of such mysteries of State, desirous to unite the Civil and Ecclesiastical power, and not to sow seeds of jealousies and dissensions [Page 186]betwixt them, finding the same thing assumed by Kings as their right, and yeilded them by the Church to be enjoyed by them, thought I might hence con­clude this to be unquestionably their due; but whe­ther it were from God immediately conferred on them, and independently from the Church, or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used, now under the Gospel, to confer it on them; truly I neither then was, nor now am, inclined either to en­quire, or to take upon me to determin.— And afterward. —If it were not formerly the Prince's right, but the Churche's, then sure it is become so by that donation.’ Now then if Princes should happen to hold this right only from the voluntary concessions of the Church or Councils, or particularly from the clause of one canon passed in the Council of Chalcedon, (upon which canon the Doctor (Schis. p. 120) confesseth, Balsamon, a great stickler for Regal authority, to found it,) then I leave to their consideration, whether the same reason he pleads (upon the instance of former Kings of England conceding Supremacy to the Pope) for Princes reversing the donation of their right when they please, may not be returned him for the Church or her representative, the Council. For if the Prince cannot give his right away, but so that he may recall and resume it, so nei­ther can the Church. And then, after so many canons in, and since, Chalcedon, reserving to such particular nominated Patriarchs their priviledges, (the Church of England according with the rest,) and extending this their jurisdiction over some Princes subjects at least, who have the same power and rights as the Kings of England; and expresly prohibiting Princes to remove Patriarchs, (8. Gen. Counc. can. 21.) where will his plea be?

[Page 187] § 61 Yet farther; (but, in what I shall say now, I will not be too peremptory,That some rights once resigned, and parted with, can­not after­wards be justly re­sumed.) suppose the erecting and translating Patriarchates to be the Prince's right; and that originally: yet it may be such a right, as once parted with, cannot be resumed by the former owner. For such rights there are, as, once passed away, are not to be retracted; and such as we may alienate not only from our selves, but from our successors, if such be the purpose of our donation. And why this right may not be numbred amongst such, I yet seek a reason. If it be said; the King cannot divest himself of such a right, without which his Regal power (which he intends to keep to him and his successors entire) cannot subsist, I willingly grant it. But the Regal power may well subsist, without the right of constituting or translating Patriarchs. For the Regal power is entire in a Prince not Christian; yet such Prince hath no power to erect or remove those Patriarchs, who have a Spiritual Su­premacy over his, so many as are Christian, Subjects. Again; the Prince, when Christian, as now, being a Son of the Church, must also be subject to some Patri­arch, i. e. supreme Church-power (giving to him Ec­clesiastical Laws, and (if need be) inflicting Eccle­siastical censures, &c.) or other; and so must also his successor, if Christian. Neither doth his power to chuse or appoint the person bearing such Office, any way les­sen such submission, so far as it is due; neither doth it impose any more submission upon his successor, than is due. Why therefore this may not be a right alienable and partable with, I see not. When-as the Kings elect­ing a Spiritual Supreme to be over him, seems not to be like the chusing of a Chancellor, or other Officers to serve under him (as the Doctor compares it, Sch. p. 140.) [Page 188]but, rather like the people's electing a Temporal Sove­veraign. Now such people, in electing such a Tem­poral Prince, transfer not their dominion and power (which every single person had before over himself) upon him, or submit their obedience to him, durante bene­placito, or quamdiu se bene gesserit; bene, i. e. in their judgment (for so, who obeyeth only so long as he pleaseth, needs to obey only what he pleaseth; for so soon as any thing displeaseth, he may change his Governors. So, to make instance in the matter in hand, if Ambrose upon just cause exercise some Eccle­siastical censure upon Theodosius, Theodosius may pre­sently remove Ambrose his Metropolitan power to ano­ther); but we tye them to Allegiance; and tell them of their former right now given away, and bind the Children and Successors to the act of their Forefathers.

Thus much of the Authority and Subordinations of the several Ecclesiastical Persons and Orders. In the next Part, I will proceed to shew you the Authority and Subordinations of these, as they are united in seve­ral Bodies of Councils.