A treatise of the Pope's supremacy to which is added A discourse concerning the unity of the church / by Isaac Barrow ...

A TREATISE OF THE Pope's Supremacy. MATTH. 10.2.

Now the names of the twelve Apostles were these; the first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Simon, who is called Peter.

AMONG the Modern Controversies there is scarce any of greater consequence, than that about Universal Supremacy, which the Bishop of Rome claimeth over the Christian Church; the assertion whereof on his side dependeth upon divers Suppositions; namely these: I. That Saint Peter by our Lord's appointment had a Primacy, implying a Sovereignty of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Apostles. II. That the Rights and Prerogatives of this Sovereignty were not personal, but derivable, and transmitted to Successours. III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome. IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation, and was so at his decease. V. That hence of Right to the Bishops of Rome, as Saint Peter's Successours, an Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ doth appertain. VI. That in Fact the said Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Power. VII. That this Power is indefectible; such as by no means can be forfeited or fail.

In order to the discussion and resolution of the first Point, I shall treat upon the Primacy of Saint Peter; endeavouring to shew what Primacy he was capable of, or might enjoy; what he could not pretend to, nor did possess.

SUPPOSITION I. The first Supposition of those, who claim Universal Jurisdiction to the Pope over the Church, is, That Saint Peter had a primacy over the Apostles.

IN order to the resolution of this Point, we may consider, that there are several kinds of Primacy, which may belong to a person in respect of others: for there are, 1. A Primacy of Worth or Personal Excellency. 2. A Primacy of Reputation and Esteem. 3. A Primacy of Order, or bare Dignity and Precedence. 4. A Primacy of Power or Jurisdiction.

To each of these what title Saint Peter might have, let us in order examine.

I. As for the first of these (a Primacy of Worth, or Merit, as some of the Ancients call it) we may well grant it to Saint Peter, admitting that probably he did exceed the rest of his Brethren in personal endowments and capacities (both natural and moral) qualifying him for the discharge of the Apostolical Office in an eminent manner; particularly that in quickness of apprehension, in boldness of spirit,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyrill. in Joh. 21.15. He was a very active and stirring man, exceedingly spurr'd on with much promptness and alacrity in doing and speaking.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Joh. Or. 12. (13.24.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrysost. Tom. 5. Orat. 59.

in readiness of speech, in charity to our Lord, and zeal for his Service, in resolution, activity and industry he was transcendent, may seem to appear by the tenour of the Evangelical and Apostolical Histories; in the which we may observe him upon all occasions ready to speak first, and to make himself the mouth (as the Fathers speak) of the Apostles, in all deliberations nimble at propounding his advice, in all undertakings forward to make the onset; being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , always hot and eager, always prompt and vigorous, as S. Chrysostome often affirmeth concerning him: these things are apparent in his demeanour, and it may not be amiss to set down some instances.

When our Lord observing the different apprehensions men had concerning him,Matt. 16.16. asked the Apostles, but whom say ye that I am, up starteth he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he skippeth forth, Licèt caeteri Apostoli sciant, Petrus tamen respondet pro caeteris. Am • r. in Luc. lib. 6. cap. 9. and preventeth the rest, crying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. The other Apostles were not ignorant of the Point; for they at their Conversion did take Jesus for the Messias, Joh. 1.42, 46. Matt. 26.63. Joh. 1.50. Matt. 14.33. which (even according to the common Notion of the Iews) did imply his being the Son of God; Nathanael (that is, Saint Bartholomew, as is supposed) had in terms confessed it; the whole company, upon seeing our Lord walk on the Sea, had avowed it; Saint Peter before that, in the name of them all had said,Joh. 6.69. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. They therefore had the same Faith, but he from a special alacrity of spirit, and expedition in utterance, was more forward to declare it; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Greg. Naz. Or. 34. He was more hot (saith St. Greg. Naz.) than the rest at acknowledging Christ.

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

When our Lord was apprehended by the Souldiers,Joh. 18.10. presently up was his spirit, and out went his Sword in defence of him.

When our Lord predicted, that upon his coming into trouble all the Disciples would be offended, and desert him; he was ready to say, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, Matt. 26.33, 35. Joh. 13.37. yet will I never be offended; and, Though I should dye with thee, yet will I not deny thee; such was his natural courage and confidence.

When our Lord was discoursing about his Passion, he suddenly must be advising in the case, and urging him to spare himself;Matt. 16.22. upon which St. Chrysostome biddeth us to consider, not that his answer was unadvised, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Tom. 5. Or. 59. but that it came from a genuine and fervent affection.

And at the Transfiguration, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Mark 9.6. Luke 9.33. he fell to proposing about making an abode there, not knowing what he said; so brisk was he in imagination and speech.

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

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

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

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

That in affection to our Lord, and zeal for his service,

Aug. in Joh. Tract. 124.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 24. An extreme lover of Christ.

Saepe diximus nimii ardoris, amorisque quàm maximi fuisse Petrum in Dominum. Hier. in Matt. 16.22.

We have often said that Peter was transported with too much heat, and extraordinary great love of our Lord.

Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Christi amore promptissimus, saepe unus respondet pro omnibus. August. Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. in Matt. 1.

For Peter himself being first in the Order of the Apostles, and most prompt and forward in the Love of Christ, answer'd oftentimes alone for all the rest.

Saint Peter had some advantage over the rest, that Question, Simon Peter, dost thou love me more than these? may seem to imply: (although the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may bear other interpretations, whereby the seeming invidiousness of the Question according to that sense will be removed.) However, that he had a singular zeal for promoting our Lord's service, and propagation of the Gospel, therein outshining the rest, seemeth manifest in the History, and may be inferred from the peculiar regard our Lord apparently did shew to him.

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

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

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

This at least those elogies of the Fathers (styling him the Chief, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ath. disp. c. Arium, p. 122. Prince, Head of the Apostles) do signifie.

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

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

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

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

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

However, supposing this Primacy (at least in respect to the Fathers, who generally seem to countenance it) divers probable reasons may be assigned, why it should especially be conferred on Saint Peter.

Petrus— naturâ unus homo erat, gra • iâ unus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ unus idémque primus Apostolus. Aug. in Joh. tract. 123.

Peter was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by a more abundant grace one and the same prime Apostle.

Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Christi amore promptissimus, saepe unus respondet pro omnibus. Aug. de verbis Dom. sup. Matt. 1. Serm. 13.

For Peter himself being the first in the Order of the Apostles, the most forward in the love of Christ, he alone oft-times answers for all the rest.

1. It is probable, that Saint Peter was first in standing among the Apostles; I mean not that he was the first Disciple, or first converted to Faith in Christ; but first called to the Apostolical Office; or first nominated by our Lord, when out of all his Disciples he chose twelve and called them Apostles; Simon whom he called Peter,

[ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theoph. in Matt. 10.]

Luke 6.14. Matt. 4.18. Mark 1.16. Luke 5.3.

and Andrew his Brother— He was one of the first Believers at large; he was perhaps the first, that distinctly believed our Lord's Divinity; he was probably the very first Apostle;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Epiph. haer. 51.

Primus credidit, & Apostolatûs est Princeps. Hil. in Matt. Can. 7.

Quem primum Dominus elegit. Cypr. Ep. 71.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. de Judicio Dei, Tom. 2. p. 268.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Modest. apud Phot. Cod. 275. Clem. ad Jac.

as the fittest Person in our Lord's eye for that employment. He (saith St. Hilary) did first believe, and is the Prince (or first man) of the Apostleship. He (saith St. Cyprian) was the first, whom the Lord chose. He (saith St. Basil) was by judgment preferred before all the Disciples. He by other Ancients is called the first-fruits of the Apostles. And according to this sense St. Hierome (I suppose) doth call him and his Brother Andrew Principes Apostolorum, Hier. in Jovin. 1. that is (according to frequent usage of the word Princeps in Latin) the first of the Apostles.

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

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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiph. haer. 51.

Peter being the younger in age.

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

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

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

They might induce others to a voluntary concession thereof;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Chrys. in Acts 2.14.

They yield unto him, &c.

for to those, who indisputably do excell in good qualities or abilities, honest and meek persons easily will yield precedence, especially on occasions of publick concernment; wherein it is expedient, that the best qualified persons should be first seen.

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

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

4. The Fathers commonly do attribute his priority to the merit of his Faith and Confession, wherein he did outstrip his Brethren.

Hil. in Matt. Can. 14. p. 566.

Supereminentem beatae fidei suae confessione gloriam promeruit. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. p. 121.

Ideò quia solus profitetur (amorem suum John 21.) ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur. Ambros. in Luc. cap. ult.

He obtained supereminent glory by the confession of his blessed faith, saith St. Hilary. Because he alone of all the rest professeth his love, John 21. therefore he is preferred above all, saith St. Ambrose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The collation of that Power could not well be at any time before the celebration of our Lord's Supper, because before that time Saint Peter was scarce an Ecclesiastical Person; at least he was no Priest, as the Convention of Trent under a curse doth require us to believe;

Si quis dixerit, illis verbis, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Christum non instituisse Apostolos Sacerdotes — anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 2.

If any one shall say that in those words, Doe this in remembrance of me, Christ did not ordain his Apostles Priests— Let him be accursed.

for it were strange, that an unconsecrated Person, or one who was not so much as a Priest, should be endowed with so much spiritual Power.

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

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

5. There was indeed no Office above that of an Apostle known to the Apostles, or to the primitive Church; this (saith St. Chrysostome) was the greatest authority,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 114.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 33.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 8. ubi suprá.

We have heard Paul himself reckoning up powers or authorities, and placing the Apostolical in the highest place.

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

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

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

There was (saith Saint Luke, among the twelve, Luke 22.14. Luke 22.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . at the participation of the Holy Supper) a strife among them, who of them should be accounted the greatest, or who had the best pretence to Superiority; this strife our Lord presently did check and quash; but how? not by telling them, that he already had decided the case in appointing them a Superiour, but rather by assuring them, that he did intend none such to be; that he would have no Monarchy, no exercise of any Dominion or Authority by one among them over the rest; but that notwithstanding any advantages one might have before the other, (as

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Clem. ad Corinth. I. p. 63. apud Clem. Alex. Strom. 6. p. 466.

Let a man be faithfull, let him be powerfull in declaring knowledge, let him be wise in discovering reasons, let him be strenuous in works, by so much the more ought he to be humble-minded, by how much the more he seems to be greater than others; and to seek the common benefit of all, and not of himself.

greater in gifts,So doth St. Clemens interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , alluding to this place. or as preceding in any respect) they should be one as another, all humbly condescending to one another, each being ready to yield help and service to one another; The Kings (said he) of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them; and they that exercise authority over them, are called benefactours, but ye shall not be so; but he▪ that is [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .] greater among you let him be as the younger; and he that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . leader, as he that doth minister; that is, whatever privilege any of you obtaineth, let it not be employed in way of command, but rather of compliance and subserviency, as occasion shall require; let him not pretend to be a Superiour, but rather behave himself as an Inferiour: thus our Lord did smother the debate, by removing from among them, whatever greatness any of them did affect or pretend to; forbidding that any of them should,Luke 22.25, 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , exercise any Dominion or Authority over the rest, as worldly Princes did over their Subjects.

Again upon another occasion (as the circumstances of the place do imply) when two of the Apostles (of special worth and consideration with our Lord,Mark 10.37. Matt. 20.25. Saint James and Saint John the Sons of Zebedee) did affect a preeminence over the rest, requesting of our Lord, Grant unto us, that we may sit one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand in thy glory (or in thy Kingdom, as Saint Matthew hath it, that is, in that new state, which they conceived our Lord was ready to introduce;) which request doth not seem to import any great matter of Authority; nor probably did they desire so much, as our Adversaries do give to Saint Peter; yet our Lord doth not onely reject their sute, but generally declareth, that none of them were capable of such a preferment in his Kingdom; which therein differed from worldly Dominion, because in it there was no room for such an ambition; especially in that state of things, wherein the Apostles were to be placed; which was a state of undergoing Persecutions, not of enjoying Dignity, or exercising Command; all the preferment, which they reasonably could aspire to, being to be dispenced in the future state (whereof they were not aware) according to God's preparation, in correspondence to the patience and industry any of them should exert in God's service (upon which account St. Chrysostome saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 5. Orat. 33. it was a clear case, that Saint Paul should obtain the preference.)

It was indeed (as our Lord intimateth) incongruous for those, who had forsaken all things for Christ, who had embraced a condition of disgrace, who were designed by self-denial, humility, neglect of temporal grandeur, wealth and honour; by undergoing persecution, and undertaking conformity to our Lord (being baptized with the baptism,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Chrys. in Acts 1.26.

Then the Government was not an honour, but a provident care of the governed, &c.

with which he was baptized) to propagate the Faith of a Crucified Master; to seek, or take on them authoritative dignity; for among them there could not well be any need of commanding or being commanded; it was more fit, that all of them should conspire to help and serve one another, in promoting the common design and service of their Lord, with mutual condescension, and compliance; which was the best way of recommending themselves to his acceptance, and obtaining from him answerable reward. Such was the drift of our Lord's discourse; whereunto (as in the other case) he did annex the prohibition of exercising dominion;Matt. 20.26. Ye know (saith he) that the Princes of nations exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be first among you, let him be your servant; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whoever among you hath a mind to special grandeur and preeminence, let him understand, that there is no other to be attained, beside that which resulteth from the humble performance of charitable Offices to his Brethren: the which whoever shall best discharge, he alone will become greatest and highest in the eye of God.

Again at another time, the Apostles dreaming of a secular Kingdom to be erected by our Lord, disputed among themselves, Mark 9.34. Luke 9.46. Matth. 18.1. who should be the greatest; and for satisfaction presumed to enquire of our Lord about it; whenas they surely were very ignorant of Saint Peter's being their head, so there was a fair occasion as could be of our Lord's instructing them in that point, and injoyning their duty towards him; but he did not so, but rather taught him together with the rest not to pretend to any such thing, as preferment above the rest; He sitting down called the twelve and said unto them, If any one desire to be first, Mark 9.35. the same shall be last of all, and servant of all; how could he (considering the occasion and circumstances of that speech) in plainer terms establish equality, or discountenance any claim to superiority among them? Had Saint Peter then advanced such a plea, as they now affirm of right belonging to him, would he not thereby have depressed and debased himself to the lowest degree?

To impress this Rule our Lord then calling a little child, did set him in the midst of them,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Clem. Alex. Str. 5. (p. 409.)

And to those familiar friends striving for the preeminence, he commends equality together with simplicity, saying, that they ought to become as little Children.

telling them that except they were converted (from such ambitious pretences) and became like little children (wholly void of such conceits) they could not enter into the Kingdom of heaven, that is, could not in effect be so much as ordinary good Christians; adjoyning, that whosoever should humble himself as did that little child (not affecting, or assuming more than such an innocent did) should be greatest in the Kingdom of heaven, in real worth and in the favour of God transcending the rest; so that Saint Peter claiming Superiority to himself would have forfeited any title to eminency among Christians.

Again, as to the power, which is now ascribed to Saint Peter by the Party of his pretended Successours, we may argue from another place; where our Saviour prohibiting his Disciples to resemble the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees in their ambitious desires and practices, their affectations of preeminence, their assuming places and titles importing difference of rank and authority, He saith, But be ye not called Rabbi, Matth. 23.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . for there is one Master (one Guide, or Governour) of you, even Christ, but ye are Brethren. How more pregnantly could he have declared the nature of his Constitution, and the relation of Christians one to another established therein, to exclude such differences of Power? whereby one doth in way of domination impose his opinion or his will on others.

Ye are all fellow-scholars, fellow-servants and fellow-children of God; it therefore doth not become you to be any-wise imperious over one another; but all of you humbly and lovingly to conspire in learning and observing the Precepts of your common Lord; the doing which is backed with a Promise, and a Threat sutable to the purpose; He that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that will abase himself shall be exalted; the which sentences are to be interpreted according to the intent of the Rules foregoing.

If it be said, that such discourse doth impugn all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; I answer, that indeed thereby is removed all such haughty, and harsh Rule, which some have exercised over Christians; that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (arbitrary power,) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (absolute, uncontrollable authority) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (tyrannical prerogative) of which the Fathers complain,Chrys. in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Eph. Or. 11. Isid. Pel. Ep. 4.219.2.125. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 1 Pet. 5.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Eph. Orat. 11. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (domineering over their charges) which Saint Peter forbiddeth. We (saith St. Chrysostome) were designed to teach the word, not to exercise empire or absolute sovereignty; we do bear the rank of advisers exhorting to duty.

A Bishop (saith St. Hierome) differeth from a King,

Ille enim nolentibus praeest, hic volentibus. Hier. Ep. 3. ad Nepot.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Chrys. in Tit 1.7.

He ought to rule them so as they may be willing to be ruled, &c.

in that a Bishop presideth over those that are willing, the King against their will; (that is, the Bishop's governance should be so gentle and easie, that men hardly can be unwilling to comply with it;1 Pet. 5. but should obey, as Saint Peter exhorteth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not by constraint, but of their own accord) and,

Sed contenti sint honore suo; Patres se sciant esse non dominos— Hier. Ep. 62. (ad Theoph.) cap. 3.

Amari parens, & episcopus debet, non timeri. Ibid. cap. 1.

Let (saith he) the Bishops be content with their honour; let them know themselves to be Fathers, not Lords; they should be loved, not feared.

Indè denique superintendis, sonante tibi Episcopi nomine non dominium, sed officium. Bern. de Consid. 2.6.And Thou (saith St. Bernard to Pope Eugenius) dost superintend, the name of Bishop signifying to thee not dominion, but duty.

At least those precepts of our Lord do exclude that Power, which is ascribed to Saint Peter over the Apostles themselves, the which indeed is greater, than in likelihood any Pharisee did ever affect; yea in many respects doth exceed any domination which hath been claimed or usurped by the most absolute Monarch upon earth; for the Power of St. Peter, in their opinion was the same, which now the Roman Bishop doth challenge to himself over the Pastours and People of God's Church, by virtue of succession to him; (Saint Peter's Power being the base of the Papal, and therefore not narrower than its superstructure;) but what domination comparable to that hath ever been used in the world?

What Emperour did ever pretend to a rule so wide in extent (in regard either to persons, or matters) or so absolute in effect?

Who ever, beside his Holiness, did usurp a command not onely over the external actions, but the most inward cogitations of all mankind; subjecting the very Minds and Consciences of Men to his dictates, his laws, his censures?

Who ever thundred Curses and Damnations on all those, who should presume to dissent from his Opinion, or to contest his pleasure?

Who ever claimed more absolute Power, in making, abolishing, suspending Laws, or imposing upon men what he pleased, under obligation of Conscience, and upon extremest penalties?

What Prince ever used a style more imperious, than is that which is usual in the Papal Bulls; Let it be lawfull for no man whatever to infringe this expression of our will and command, Nulli hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae voluntatis & mandati infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. or to goe against it with bold rashness?

What Domitian more commonly did admit the appellation of Lord, than doth the Pope? Our most Holy Lord, is the ordinary style, Sanctissimus Dominus noster. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 11. &c. attributed to him by the Fathers of Trent, as if they were his slaves, and intended to enslave all Christendom to him.

Who ever did exempt his Clients and Dependents in all Nations from subjection to Civil Laws, from undergoing common burthens and taxes, from being judged or punished for their misdemeanours and crimes?

Who ever claimed a power to dispose of all things one way or other, either directly or indirectly; to dispose even of Kingdoms, to judge Sovereign Princes, and to condemn them, to depose them from their authority, absolving their Subjects from all allegiance to them, and exposing their Kingdoms to rapine?

To whom but a Pope were ever ascribed prerogatives like those of judging all men, and himself being liable to no judgment, no account, no reproof or blame;

Si Papa suae, &c.

Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6.

so that (as a Papal Canon assureth us) let a Pope be so bad, as by his negligence and male-administration to carry with him innumerable people to Hell, yet no mortal man whatever must presume here to reprove his faults; because he being to judge all men is himself to be judged of no man, except he be catcht swerving from the Faith; which is a case they will hardly suffer a man to suppose possible.

To whom but to a Pope was such Power attributed by his followers, and admitted by himself, that he could hear those words applying to him, Concil. Lat. sub Leone X. Sess. 11. p. 133. (in Orat. Archiep. Patrac.) All Power is given to thee in Heaven and in Earth?

Such Power the Popes are wont to challenge, and when occasion serveth do not fail to execute; as Successours of St. Peter; Hâc itaque fiduciâ fretus, &c. Excommun. Henrici R. in Concil. Rom. 3. sub Greg. 7. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 484. to whom therefore consequently they ascribe it; and sometimes in express terms; as in that brave apostrophe of P. Gregory VII. (the Spirit of which Pope hath possessed his Successours generally) Goe to therefore (said he directing his Speech to Saint Peter and Saint Paul) most Holy Princes of the Apostles, and what I have said confirm by your Authority,

Agite Apostolorum Sanctissimi Principes, &c. Plat. in Greg. VII.

In Concil. Rom. 6. apud Bin. p. 491.

that now at length all men may understand, whether ye can bind and loose; that also ye can take away and give on Earth Empires, Kingdoms, and whatever mortal men can have.

Now if the assuming and exercising such Powers be not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that exalting ones self, that being called Rabbi, Father, Master, which our Lord prohibiteth, what is so? what then can those words signify? what could our Lord mean?

The Authority therefore which they assign to Saint Peter, and assume to themselves from him, is voided by those Declarations and Precepts of our Lord; the which it can hardly be well conceived that our Lord would have proposed, if he had designed to constitute Saint Peter in such a Supremacy over his Disciples and Church.

7. Surveying particulars, we shall not find any peculiar administration committed to Saint Peter, nor any privilege conferred on him, which was not also granted to the other Apostles.

Was Saint Peter an Ambassadour, a Steward, a Minister, a Vicar (if you please) or Surrogate of Christ; so were they, by no less immediate and express warrant than he; for As the Father sent me, so also I send you, said our Lord presently before his departure; by those words (as St. Cyprian remarketh) granting an equal Power to all the Apostles;

Et quamvìs Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat & dicat, Sicut, &c. Cypr. de Vn. Eccl.

2 Cor. 5.20. 1 Cor. 4.1. 2 Cor. 6.4.

and We (saith Saint Paul) are Ambassadours for Christ; we pray you in Christ's stead be reconciled to God; and, So let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God.

Matt. 16.18. Apoc. 21.10, 14.Was Saint Peter a Rock, on which the Church was to be founded? Be it so; but no less were they all; for the Wall of Jerusalem, which came down from Heaven, had twelve foundations, on which were inscribed the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb;Eph. 2.20. and We (saith Saint Paul) are all built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Christ himself being the chief Corner stone; whence Equally (saith St. Hierome) the strength of the Church is setled upon them. Ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.

1 Pet. 2.5. 1 Cor. 3.10.Was Saint Peter an Architect of the Spiritual house (as himself calleth the Church?) so were also they; for I (saith Saint Paul) as a wise Master-builder have laid the Foundation.

Matt. 16.19.Were the Keys of the Church (or of the Kingdom of Heaven) committed to him? So also were they unto them; They had a Power to open and shut it by effectual instruction and persuasion, by dispensation of the Sacraments, by exercise of Discipline, by exclusion of scandalous and heretical Persons; Whatever faculty the Keys did import, the Apostles did use it in the foundation, guidance and government of the Church; and did (as the Fathers teach) impart it to those, whom they did in their stead constitute to feed and govern the Church.

Had Saint Peter a Power given him of binding and loosing effectually? So had they, immediately granted by our Saviour, in as full manner,Matt. 16.19. Matt. 18.18. and couched in the same terms; If thou shalt bind on Earth, it shall be bound in Heaven, said our Lord to him; and Whatsoever things ye shall bind on Earth,

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Phot. Cod. 280. p. 1600.

Those, who by Succession from them (viz. the Apostles,) were endowed with Episcopal Authority, we believe to have the same Power of binding and loosing.

they shall be bound in Heaven, said the same Divine mouth to them.

Had he a privilege to remit and retain sins? it was then by virtue of that common grant or promise;John 20.23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Had he power and obligation to feed the Sheep of Christ (all or some?) so had they indefinitely and immediately: so had others by Authority derived from them;Eph. 4.11. Act. 20.28. who were nominated Pastours; who had this charge laid on them: Take heed unto your selves, and to all the Flock; over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Bloud; whom he doth himself exhort,1 Pet. 5.2. Feed the Flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof; Let feeding signify what it can, instruction, or guidance, or governance, or all of them together (Regio more impera, if you please, as Bellarmine will have it) it did appertain to their charge; to teach was a common duty, to lead and to rule were common functions; Saint Peter could not, nor would not appropriate it to himself; it is his own exhortation,2 Pet. 3.2. when he taketh most upon him, Be mindfull of the commandment (or precept) of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.

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

They (as St. Chrysostome speaketh) were all in common intrusted with the whole world,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115.

Tom. 5. Orat. 47. in 2 Cor. 11.28.

and had the care of all Nations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His temper indeed and zeal commonly did prompt him to be most forward in speaking and acting upon any emergency for the propagation or maintenance of the Gospel;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Act. 1.15.

As being a man hot and earnest, and as entrusted with the flock by Christ, and as the fore-man of the company, he ever begins to speak.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — in Act. 1.26.

Probably so it fell out by reason of the signal vertue of the man.

and the memory of the particular charge which our Lord departing had lately put on him, strongly might instigate him thereto; regard to his special gifts and sufficiency did incline the rest willingly to yield that advantage to him; and perhaps because upon the considerations before touched, they did allow some preference in order to him: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. de Sacerd. Or. 4. but in other respects, as to the main administration of things, he is but one among the rest; not taking upon him in his speech or behaviour beyond others. All things are transacted by common agreement, and in the name of all concurring; no appeal in cases of difference is made singly to him, no peremptory decision or decree is made by him; no orders are issued out by him alone, or in a special way; in Ecclesiastical Assemblies he acteth but as one member; in deliberations he doth onely propound his opinion and passeth a single vote; his judgment and practice are sometime questioned, and he is put to render an account of them; he doth not stand upon his Authority, but assigneth reasons to persuade his opinion, and justify his actions; yea sometimes he is moved by the rest,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Act. 1.16.

Behold him doing all things by common consent; nothing authoritatively, nor imperiously.

receiving orders and employment from them; these things we may discern by considering the instances which follow.

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

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

In that important transaction about the observance of Mosaical Institutions, a great stir and debate being started;Act. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ver. 2. V. 2. which Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas by disputation could not appease, what course was then taken? did they appeal to Saint Peter as to the Supreme Dictatour and Judge of Controversies? not so; but they sent to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem to enquire about the question: when those great messengers were arrived there, they were received by the Church, and the Apostles, V. 4. V. 6. and Elders; and having made their report, the Apostles and Elders did assemble to consider about that matter. V. 7. In this assembly after much debate passed, and that many had freely uttered their sense, Saint Peter rose up, with Apostolical gravity declaring what his reason and experience did suggest conducing to a resolution of the point; whereto his words might indeed be much available, grounded not onely upon common reason, but upon special revelation concerning the case; whereupon Saint James, Act. 15. V. 13— V. 14. v. 15. alledging that revelation and backing it with reason drawn from Scripture, with much authority pronounceth his judgment; Therefore, saith he, I judge, (that is, saith St. Chrysostome,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . V. 19.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys.

I authoritatively say) that we trouble not them, who from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them, &c. And the result was, that according to the proposal of Saint James, it was by general consent determined to send a decretal Letter unto the Gentile Christians, containing a Canon or advice directive of their practice in the case;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. V. 22.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Act. 16.4.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Act. 21.25.

It then seemed good to (or was decreed by) the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send— and the Letter ran thus, The Apostles and Elders, and Brethren to the Brethren of the Gentiles— Now in all this action, (in this leading precedent for the management of things in Ecclesiastical Synods and consistories, where can the sharpest sight descry any mark of distinction or preeminence which Saint Peter had in respect to the other Apostles; did Saint Peter there any-wise behave himself like his pretended Successours upon such occasions? what authority did he claim or use before that Assembly, or in it, or after it; did he summon or convocate it? no,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. (Tom. 5. Or. 59.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in • c.

For he had the Government committed to him— he was empowered.

they met upon common agreement: did he preside therein? no, but rather Saint James, to whom, (saith Saint Chrysostome) as Bishop of Jerusalem the government was committed: did he offer to curb or check any man, or to restrain him from his liberty of discourse there? no, there was much disputation, every man frankly speaking his sense: did he more than use his freedom of speech becoming an Apostle, in arguing the case and passing his vote? no, for in so exact a relation nothing more doth appear: did he form the definitions, or pronounce the Decree resulting? no, Saint James rather did that; for (as an ancient Authour saith) Peter did make an Oration, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hesych. apud Phot. Cod. 275. but Saint James did enact the Law: was, beside his suffrage in the debate, any singular approbation required from him, or did he by any Bull confirm the Decrees? no such matter; these were devices of ambition creeping on and growing up to the pitch where they now are. In short, doth any thing correspondent to Papal pretences appear assumed by Saint Peter, or deferred to him? If Saint Peter was such a man as they make him, how wanting then was he to himself, how did he neglect the right and dignity of his Office, in not taking more upon him, upon so illustrious an occasion, the greatest he did ever meet with? How defective also were the Apostolical College, and the whole Church of Jerusalem in point of duty and decency, yielding no more deference to their Sovereign, the Vicar of their Lord? Whatever account may be framed of these defailances, the truth is, that Saint Peter then did know his own place and duty better, than men do know them now; and the rest as well understood how it became them to demean themselves; St. Chrysostome's reflexions on those passages are very good, that indeed then there was no fastuousness in the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. ibid. and the souls of those primitive Christians were clear of Vanity; the which dispositions did afterward spring up and grow rankly to the great prejudice of Religion, begetting those exorbitant pretences, which we now disprove.

Again, when Saint Peter being warned from Heaven thereto, did receive Cornelius, a Gentile Souldier, unto Communion; divers good Christians, who were ignorant of the warrantableness of that proceeding (as others commonly were,Act. 10.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. 11.12. Act. 11.2. and Saint Peter himself was, before he was informed by that special revelation) did not fear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to contest with him about it; not having any notion (as it seemeth) of his Supreme unaccountable Authority (not to say of that infallibility,

Bell. de Pont. Rom. 4.3, 4, &c. Act. 11.18.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys.

See how free he is from pride and vain-glory; see how he excuses himself, and thinks himself not worthy to have the honour of a Master.

with which the Canonists and Jesuits have invested him) unto whom Saint Peter rendreth a fair account, and maketh a satisfactory Apology for his proceedings; not brow-beating those audacious contenders with his Authority, but gently satisfying them with reason. But if he had known his Power to be such, as now they pretend it to be, he should have done well to have asserted it, even out of goodwill and Charity to those good Brethren;

Ità ut Petrus quoque timens ne culparetur ab ipsis. Iren. 3.12.

N. In the matter at Antioch Saint Peter did comply with Saint James, and the Judaizers, which did not beseem such Authority.

correcting their errour and checking their misdemeanour; shewing them what an enormous presumption it was so to contend with their Sovereign Pastour and Judge.

Farther, so far was Saint Peter from assuming Command over his Brethren, that he was upon occasion ready to obey their Orders; as we may see by that passage, where upon the conversion of divers persons in Samaria, Act. 8.14. it is said, that the Apostles hearing it, did send to them Peter and John, who going down prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. The Apostles sent him, that, had he been their Sovereign, would have been somewhat unseemly and presumptuous; for Subjects are not wont to send their Prince, or Souldiers their Captain; to be sent being a mark of inferiority, as our Lord himself did teach; A servant (said he) is not greater than his Lord, John 13.16. nor he that is sent greater than he that sent him. Saint Luke therefore should at least have so expressed this passage, that the Apostles might have seemed to keep their distance, and observed good manners: if he had said, they beseeched him to go, that had sounded well; but they sent him, is harsh, if he were Dominus noster Papa, as the modern Apostles of Rome do style their Peter. The truth is, then among Christians there was little standing upon punctilio's, private considerations and pretences to power then took small place; each one was ready to comply with that which the most did approve, the community did take upon it to prescribe unto the greatest persons, as we see again in another instance,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 B.

Act. 15.2.13.3.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Clem. ad Cor. p. 69.

Who among you is noble and generous? who has bowels of compassion? who is full of charity? Let him say, If for my sake there be sedition and strife, and divisions, I will depart and go whither you would have me, and doe what shall be enjoyned me by the multitude.

where the Brethren at Antioch did appoint Paul and Barnabas (the most considerable persons among them) to go up unto Jerusalem. They were then so generous, so mercifull, so full of charity, as rather than to cause or foment any disturbance, to recede, or go whither the multitude pleased, and doe what was commanded by it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They went about their business not by Order or Licence from St. Peter, but according to special instinct and direction of God's Spirit (being sent forth by the Holy Ghost;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 13.4.2.16.6, 9. Gal. 2.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

2 Pet. 3.5.

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

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

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

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

The nature of the Apostolical Ministery was such, that the Apostles were not fixed in one place of residence, but were continually moving about the World, or in procinctu,

2 Cor. 11.2 • . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in John 21.23.

For seeing they were to take upon them the inspection and superintendency of all the world, it behoved them not any longer to be mixt or conjoyn'd together, for this had been a great loss and hinderance to the World.

ready in their gears to move whither Divine suggestions did call them, or fair occasion did invite them, for the propagation or furtherance of the Gospel.

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

Saint Thomas preaching in Parthia, Saint Andrew in Scythia, Eus. 3.1. Niceph. 2.38, 39, 40. Tertull. ad Jud. cap. 7. Saint John in Asia, Simon Zelotes in Britain,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. Seleuc. Or. 2.

He that run his race through the whole Universe, and by his so eager running for the Faith made the World as it were too narrow for him.

Col. 1.6, 23. Rom. 10.18.

Saint Paul in many places; other Apostles and Apostolical men in Arabia, in Aethiopia, in India, in Spain, in Gaul, in Germany, in the whole world, and in all the Creation under Heaven (as Saint Paul speaketh) could not well maintain correspondence with Saint Peter; especially considering the manner of his Life, which was not setled in any one known place, but moveable and uncertain; for he continually roved over the wide World, preaching the Gospel, converting, confirming and comforting Christian people, as occasion starting up did induce; how then could he conveniently dispense all about his ruling and judging influence? how in cases incident could direction be fetched from him, or reference be made to him by those subordinate Governours, who could not easily know where to come at him, or whence to hear from him in any competent time? To send to him had been to shoot at rovers; affairs therefore which should depend on his resolution and orders, must have had great stops; he could but very lamely have executed such an office; so that his jurisdiction must have been rather an extreme inconvenience and encombrance, than any-wise beneficial or usefull to the Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence he so often is carefull and cautious to express himself an Apostle by the will and special grace, or favour and appointment,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Cor. 1.1. 2 Cor. 1.1. Eph. 1.1. Colos. 1.1. 2 Tim. 1.1.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Cor. 15.10. Eph. 3.7. 1 Tim. 1.12. 2 Tim. 1.12.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Tim. 1.1. Rom. 1.5.

and command of God; and particularly telleth the Romans, that by Christ he had received grace, grace and Apostleship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When he said he was behind none, he could not forget Saint Peter; when he said none of the chief,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

2 Cor. 11.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2 Cor. 12.11.1.16, 17.

he could not but especially mean him (he did indeed, as St. Chrysostome saith, intend to compare himself with St. Peter;) when he said in nothing, he could not but design that which was most considerable, the Authority of his place; which in the context he did expresly mention. For when he objected to himself the semblance of fondness or arrogance in speaking after that manner, he declared that he did not speak rashly or vainly, but upon serious consideration, and with full assurance, finding it very needfull or usefull to maintain his Authority,Rom. 11.13. or to magnify his Office, as he otherwhere speaketh.

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

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

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

Gal. 2.12, 13, 14.Again, St. Paul at Antioch, observing St. Peter out of fear and policy to act otherwise than became the simplicity and sincerity of Christians, to the prejudice of Evangelical Truth, Charity and Liberty, against his own judgment and former practice,(Vid. P. Pelag. II. apud. Bin. Tom. 4. p. 308. in Epist. ad Eliam.) drawing others by his pattern into the same unwarrantable course of behaviour,

V. 11.14.

Nunquid ideò aut illa ejus sequenda sunt, quae meritò ejus Co-apostolus ejus facta redarguit. Gelas. I. de Anath. (apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 645.)

did withstand him to the face, did openly reprove him before all, because he was blameable, did as P. Gelasius I. affirmeth (to excuse another Pope misbehaving himself) worthily confute him; did (as St. Augustine often doth affirm and urge; in proof that greatest Persons may sometimes err and • ail,) correct him, rebuke him, chide him.

Apostolo Paulo monstrante, & corrigente, Aug. c. Crescon. 1.32.2.32. Ep. 19. de Bap. c. Dor. 2.1, 2. correptus. cont. Don. 2.1. objurgavit. Ep. 8. —qui de minor • causa conversationis ambiguae Petro ipsi non peperci • . Tert. 5.3. (contra Marc.) —who for a smaller matter of doubtfull conversation spared not Peter himself.

Cùm la • detur etsa • Pauli minimi Apostolorum sana ratio atque libertas, quòd Petrum Apostolorum primum adductum in •• pocrisin▪ & non • ectâ viâ in • eden • em ad veritatem Evangelii fidenter improbans, in faciem illi restitit, eúmque coram omnibus coràm obj •• gavit. Fac. Her. 8.6.

Whereas the sound reason and freedom even of Paul the least of the Apostles, is commended, in that, when Peter the chief of the Apostles was carryed away with dissimulation, and walked not in a right way according to the truth of the Gospel▪ he • oldly dislik'd, and withstood him to the face, and reprov'd him openly before all.

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

More unseemly also it had been to report the business as he doth in writing to the Galatians; for to divulge the miscarriages of Superiours, to revive the memory of them, to register them, and transmit them down to all posterity, to set forth our clashing and contests with them, is hardly allowable; if it may consist with justice and honesty, it doth yet little favour of gravity and modesty: It would have been more seemly for Saint Paul to have privately and humbly remonstrated to Saint Peter, than openly and downrightly to have reprehended him; at least it would have become him in cold bloud to have represented his carriage more respectfully, consulting the honour of the Universal Pastour, whose reputation was like to suffer by such a representation of his proceedings. Pope Pelagius II. would have taught Saint Paul better manners; who saith, Non sunt consentiendi, sed reprobandi, qui praelatos suos reprehendunt vel accusant. Pelag. II. Ep. 2. that they are not to be approved, but reprobated, who do reprove or accuse their Prelates; and Pope Gregory would have taught him another lesson, namely,

Bonis subditis sic praepositorum suorum mala displicent, ut tamen haec ab aliis occultent. Greg. M. Moral. 25.15.

Admonendi sunt subditi, nè pr • positorum suoru • vitam temer • judicent, siquid eos fortasse agere reprehensibiliter vident, &c. Greg. Past. part. 3. cap. • . Admon. 5.

that the evils of their Superiours do so displease good Subjects, that however they do conceal them from others; and Subjects are to be admonished, that they do not rashly judge the life of their Superiours, if perhaps they see them doe blameably, &c.

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

But if Saint Peter were not in Office superiour to Saint Paul, but his Collegue, and equal in Authority, although precedeing him in standing, repute and other advantages; then Saint Paul's free proceeding toward him was not onely warrantable, but wholesome, and deserving for edification to be recited and recorded; as implying an example how Collegues upon occasion should with freedom and sincerity admonish their Brethren of their errours and faults; Saint Peter's carriage in patiently bearing that correption also affording another good pattern of equanimity in such cases; to which purpose Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, &c. Cypr. Ep. 71. (ad Quint.) S. Cypr. (alledged and approved by Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 2.2. S. Austin) doth apply this passage; for (saith he) neither Peter whom the Lord first chose, and upon whom he built his Church, when Paul afterward contested with him about circumcision, did insolently challenge, or arrogantly assume any thing to himself, so as to say that he did hold the primacy, and that rather those who were newer and later Apostles ought to obey him, neither despised he Saint Paul, because he was before a persecutour of the Church; but he admitted the counsel of truth, and easily consented to the lawfull course, which Saint Paul did maintain; yielding indeed to us a document both of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own things, but should rather take those things for ours which sometimes are profitably and wholesomely suggested by our Brethren and Collegues, if they are true and lawfull; this St. Cyprian speaketh, upon supposition that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were equals, or (as he calleth them) Collegues and Brethren, in rank co-ordinate; otherwise St. Cyprian would not have approved the action; for he often severely doth inveigh against Inferiours taking upon them to censure their Superiours; What tumour (saith he) of pride, what arrogance of mind, Quis enim hic est superbiae tumor, quae arrogantia animi, quae mentis inflatio ad cognitionem suos praepositos & Sacerdotes vocare? Cpr. Ep. 69. what inflation of heart is it to call our Superiours and Bishops to our cognisance? St. Cyprian therefore could not conceive Saint Peter to be Saint Paul's Governour, or Superiour in Power; he doth indeed plainly enough in the forecited words signifie that in his judgment Saint Peter had done insolently and arrogantly, if he had assumed any obedience from Saint Paul. Aug. c. Don. de Bap. 2.1, 2. Ep. 19. St. Austin also doth in several places of his Writings make the like application of this passage.

The ancient Writer contemporary to St. Ambrose, and passing under his name,

Nam quis eorum auderet Petro primo Apostolo, cui claves regni coelorum Dominus dedit, resistere, nisi alius talis, qui fiduciâ electionis suae, sciens se non imparem, constanter improbaret quod ille sine consilio fecerat? Ambr. in Gal. 2.9.

Paulus Petrum reprehendit, quod non auderet, nisi se non imparem sciret. (Hieron. vel alius quis ad Gal. citatus à Grat. Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 33.)

Paul reprehended Peter, which he would not have dared to doe, had he not known himself to be equal to him.

doth argue in this manner; Who dared resist Peter the first Apostle, to whom the Lord did give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but another such an one; who in assurance of his election knowing himself to be not unequal to him, might constantly disprove, what he had unadvisedly done?

S. Cyril. c. Jul. lib. 9. (p. 325.) Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Aug. Ep. 11. &c. It is indeed well known, that Origen, and after him St. Chrysostome and St. Hierome, and divers of the Ancients beside, did conceive that Saint Paul did not seriously oppose or tax Saint Peter, but did onely doe it seemingly, upon confederacy with him, for promoting a good design.

This interpretation, however strained and earnestly impugned by Saint Austin, I will not discuss; but onely shall observe, that it being admitted doth rather strengthen than weaken our discourse: for, if Saint Peter were Saint Paul's Governour, it maketh Saint Peter to have consented to an act in all appearance indecent, irregular and scandalous; and how can we imagine, that Saint Peter would have complotted to the imparing his own just Authority in the eye of a great Church? doth not such a condescension imply in him a disavowing of Superiority over Saint Paul, or a conspiracy with him to overthrow good Order?

To which purpose we may observe, that St. Chrysostome, Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. in a large and very elaborate discourse, wherein he professeth to endeavour an aggravation of the irregularity of Saint Paul's d • meanour, if it were serious; doth not lay the stress of that aggravation upon Saint Paul's opposing his lawfull Governour; but his onely so treating a Co-apostle of such eminency:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .—

So that 'tis no advantage to me, if▪ when Peter has confuted the charge, Paul appear to accuse his Fellow-apostle boldly and inconsiderately.

neither when to that end he designeth to reckon all the advantages of Saint Peter beyond Saint Paul or any other Apostle, doth he mention this, which was chiefly material to his purpose, that he was Saint Paul's Governour; which observations if we do carefully weigh, we can hardly imagine, that St. Chrysostome had any notion of Saint Peter's Supremacy, in relation to the Apostles.

In fine, the drift of Saint Paul, in reporting those passages concerning himself, was not to disparage the other Apostles, nor merely to commend himself, but to fence the truth of his Doctrine, and maintain the liberty of his Disciples against any prejudice that might arise from any authority, that might be pretended in any considerable respects superiour to his, and alledged against them; to which purpose he declareth by arguments and matters of fact, that his Authority was perfectly Apostolical, and equal to the greatest; even to that of Saint Peter the prime Apostle, of Saint John the beloved Disciple, of Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem; the judgment or practice of whom, was no law to him, nor should be to them farther than it did consist with that Doctrine, which he by an independent Authority,Gal. 1.12. and by special revelation from Christ did preach unto them: He might (as St. Chrysostome noteth) have pretended to some advantage over them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Gal. 1.1. in regard that he had laboured more abundantly than them all, but he forbeareth to do so, being contented to obtain equal advantages.

Well therefore, considering the disadvantage which this passage bringeth to the Roman pretence might this History be called by Baronius, Baron. Anno 51. § 32 — 34, 35. &c. a History hard to be understood, a stone of offence, a rock of scandal, a rugged place, which Saint Austin himself, under favour, could not pass over without stumbling.

It may also be considered,Rom. 11.13. that Saint Paul particularly doth assert to himself an independent authority over the Gentiles, co-ordinate to that which Saint Peter had over the Jews;

Plena authoritas Petro in Judaismi praedicatione data dignoscitur, & Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione Gentium invenitur. Ambros.

There is discerned a full authority given to Peter of preaching to the Jews, and in Paul there is found a perfect power and authority of preaching to the Gentiles.

the which might engage him so earnestly to contest with Saint Peter, as by his practice seducing those, who belonged to his charge; the which also probably moved him thus to assert his authority to the Galatians, as being Gentiles under his care, and thence obliged especially to regard his authority.Gal. 1.6, 7. They (saith Saint Paul) knowing that I was entrusted with the Gospel of uncircumcision, as Peter was entrusted with that of circumcision, —gave unto me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; the which words do clearly enough signifie, that he took himself, and that the other Apostles took him to have under Christ an absolute charge, subordinate to no man, over the Gentiles; whence he claimeth to himself, as his burthen, the care of all the Churches;2 Cor. 11.28. he therefore might well contest for their liberty, he might well insist upon his authority among them.

Thus did St. Chrysostome understand the case; for Christ (saith he) committed the Jews to Peter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. T. 5. Or. 59. but set Paul over the Gentiles; and, He (saith that great Father) farther doth shew himself to be equal to them in dignity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Gal. 2.8. and compareth himself not onely to the others, but even to the ring-leader; shewing that each did enjoy equal dignity.

It may also by any prudent considerer easily be discerned, that if Saint Peter had really been as they assert him, so in Authority superiour to the other Apostles, it is hardly possible, that Saint Paul should upon these occasions express nothing of it.

16. If Saint Peter had been appointed Sovereign of the Church, it seemeth that it should have been requisite, that he should have outlived all the Apostles; for then either the Church must have wanted a Head, or there must have been an inextricable Controversie about who that Head was. Saint Peter dyed long before Saint John (as all agree) and perhaps before divers others of the Apostles. Now, after his departure, did the Church want a Head? (then it might before, and after have none; and our Adversaries lose the main ground of their pretence) did one of the Apostles become Head? (which of them was it; upon what ground did he assume the Headship, or who conferred it on him; who ever did acknowledge any such thing, or where is there any report about it?) was any other person made Head? (suppose the Bishop of Rome, who onely pretendeth thereto;) then did Saint John, and other Apostles become subject to one in degree inferiour to them; then what becometh of Saint Paul's first Apostles, 1 Cor. 12.28. secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers? what do all the Apostolical privileges come to, when St. John must be at the command of Linus, and Cletus, and Clemens, and of I know not who beside? was it not a great absurdity for the Apostles to truckle under the Pastours, Eph. 4.11. and Teachers of Rome?

The like may be said for Saint James, if he (as the Roman Church doth in its Liturgicks suppose) were an Apostle; who in many respects might claim the preeminence. Who therefore in the Apostolical Constitutions is preferred before Clement Bishop of Rome.

17. Upon the same grounds, on which a Supremacy of power is claimed to Saint Peter, other Apostles might also challenge a Superiority therein over their Brethren; but to suppose such a difference of power among the rest is absonous; and therefore the grounds are not valid, upon which Saint Peter's Supremacy is built.

I instance in Saint James and Saint John, who upon the same probabilities had (after Saint Peter) a preference to the other Apostles. For to them our Saviour declared a special regard; to them the Apostles afterwards may seem to have yielded a particular deference; they, in merit and performances seem to have surpassed; they, (after St. Peter and his Brother▪ Matt. 4.21. Luke 5.10. Mark 3.17.) were first called to the Apostolical Office; they (as Saint Peter) were by our Lord new Christned (as it were) and nominated Boanerges, by a name signifying the efficacy of their endeavour in their Master's service;Matth. 17.1. 2 Pet. 1.16. Matt. 26.37. Mark 14.33. Matt. 20.20. Mark 10.35. they, together with Saint Peter, were assumed to behold the transfiguration; they were culled out to wait on our Lord in his agony; they also, with Saint Peter (others being excluded) were taken to attest our Lord's performance of that great Miracle, of restoring the Ruler's Daughter to life; they, presuming on their special favour with our Lord, did pretend to the chief places in his Kingdom.Mark 10.37.

To one of them it is expressed that our Saviour did bear a peculiar affection, he being the disciple who • Jesus loved, John 13.2 • .21. 〈…〉 and who leaned on his bosome; to the other he particularly discovered himself after his Resurrection, and first honoured him with the Crown of Martyrdom.

They in bloud and cognation did nearest touch our Lord; being his Cousin Germans; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hegesipp. apud Euseb. 3.20. They being dismiss and sent away to govern the Churches, as being both Witnesses, and also Kinsmen of our Lord. (which was esteemed by the Ancients a ground of preferment▪) as Hegesippus reporteth.

Their industry and activity in propagation of the Gospel was most eminently conspicuous.

To them it was peculiar, that Saint James did first Suffer for it,Act. 12. • ▪ and Saint John did longest persist in the faithfull Confession of it; whose Writings in several kinds do remain as the richest magazines of Christian Doctrine, furnishing us with the fullest Testimonies concerning the Divinity of our Lord, with special Histories of his Life, and with his divinest Discourses; with most lively incitements to Piety and Charity; with prophe • ical Revelations concerning the state of the Church. He therefore was one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,Gal. 2.9. 2 Cor. 12.11.11.5. chief Pillars and props of the Christian Profession, one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Superlative Apostles.

Accordingly in the Rolls of the Apostles,Mark 3.17. Act. 1.13. and in reports concerning them, their names usually are placed after Saint Peter.

Hence also some of the Fathers do take them, as Saint Peter was, to have been preferred by our Lord

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Matt. 17.1. Taking therefore the chief and principal. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. ib. Wherefore taketh he these onely with him? because these were the chief and principal above the others.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Greg. Naz. Or. 26.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (Ruffinus reddit Apostolorum Episcopum.) Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. 2.1.

; Peter (saith Saint Gregory Nazianzene) and James, and John, who both were indeed, and were reckoned before the others — so indeed did Christ himself prefer them; and Peter, James and John (saith Clemens Alex.) did not as being preferred by the Lord himself, contest for honour, but did chuse James the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem (or as Ruffinus read, Bishop of the Apostles.)

Hence if by designation of Christ, by the Concession of the Apostolical College, by the prefulgency of his excellent worth and merit, or upon any other ground Saint Peter had the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or first place, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or next place in the same kind, by like means, upon the same grounds seem to have belonged unto them; and if their advantage did imply difference not in Power but in Order onely (not authoritative Superiority, but honorary Precedence) then can no more be allowed or concluded due to him.

18. The Fathers both in express terms, and implicitly or by consequence, do assert the Apostles to have been equal or co-ordinate in Power and Authority.

What can be more express, than that of St. Cyprian. The other Apostles were indeed that which Peter was,

Hoc erant utique & cateri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis.

— quamvis Apostolis omnibus pos • resurrectionem suam pare •• potestatem tri •• at, ac dicat, &c. Cypr. de Vn. Eccl.

endowed with equal consortship of honour and power; and again, Although our Lord giveth to all the Apostles after his resurrection an equal power, and saith, As the Father sent me, so I send you.

What can be more plain than that of St. Chrysostome, Saint Paul sheweth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Gal. 2.8. that each Apostle did enjoy equal dignity ▪

Chrys. in Gal. 1.8.How again could St. Chrysostome more clearly signifie his Opinion, than when comparing Saint Paul to Saint Peter, he calleth Saint Paul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Vide Tert. de Praescr. cap. 20. equal in honour to him, adding, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for I will not as yet say any thing more, as if he thought Saint Paul indeed the more honourable.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. Con. Eph. part. 1. p. 209. Peter and John were equal in honour one to another, as were also the Apostles and holy Disciples.

Did Tertullian think Saint Paul inferiour to Saint Peter, when he said, It is well that Peter is even in martyrdom equalled to Paul? Bene quod Petrus Paulo & in martyrio adaequatur. Tert. de Praes. 24.

How also could St. Cyril more plainly declare his sense to be the same, than when he called Saint Peter and Saint John 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , equ •• to one another in honour.

Did not St. Hierome also sufficiently declare his mind in the case, when he saith of the Apostles,

At dicis super Petrum fundatur Eccl • sia, licèt id ipsum alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & ex 〈◊〉 super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.

But you will say, the Church is founded upon Peter, though the same thing in another place is affirmed of all the Apostles, and that, &c.

that the strength of the Church is equally settled upon them?

Doth not Dionysius (the supposed Areopagite) call the decad of the Apostles co-ordinate with their foreman, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Dionys. de Eccl. Hier. cap. 5. Saint Peter? in conformity, I suppose, to the current judgment of his Age.

What can be more full than that of Isidore, (whose words shew how long this sense continued in the Church) The other Apostles did receive an equal share of honour and power; Caeteri Apostoli cum Petro par consortium honoris & potestatis acceperunt, qui etiam in toto orbe dispersi Evangelium praedicaverunt, quib • sque decedentibus successerum Episcopi, qui sunt constitu • i per totum m • ndum in sedibus Aposto ••• am. Isid. Hisp. de Off. 2.5. who also being dispersed in the whole world did preach the Gospel; and to whom departing the Bishops did succeed, who are constituted through the whole world in the Sees of the Apostles.

By consequence the Fathers do assert this equality, when they affirm (as we before did shew) the Apostolical Office to be absolutely Supreme; when also they affirm (as afterwards we shall shew) all the Apostles Successours to be equal as such; and particularly that the Roman Bishop upon account of his succeeding Saint Peter hath no pr • eminence above his Brethren?

Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae sive Eugubii, &c. Hier. ad Evagr. Ep. 85. Clem. ad Corinth.

Iren. 3.12.3.1, 3.

for, wherever a Bishop be, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, at Alexandria, or at Thanis, he is of the same worth, and of the same Priesthood: the force of wealth, and lowness of poverty, doth not render a Bishop more high, or more low; for that all of them are Successours of the Apostles.

19. Neither is it to prudential esteem a despicable consideration, that the most ancient of the Fathers, having occasion sometimes largely to discourse of Saint Peter, do not mention any such Prerogatives belonging to him.

20. The last Argument which I shall use against this Primacy, shall be the insufficiency of those Arguments and Testimonies, which they alledge to warrant and prove it.

If this Point be of so great consequence as they make it; if, as they would persuade us, the subsistence, order, unity and peace of the Church, Agitur de summa rei Christianae, &c. Bell. praef. ad lib. de Pontif. R. together with the Salvation of Christians, do depend on it; if, as they suppose, many great points of truth do hang on this pin; if it be, as they declare, a main Article of Faith, and not onely a simple errour, Est enim reverà non simplex error, sed perniciosa haeresis negare B. Petri primatum à Christo institutum. Bell. de Pont. R. 1.10. but a pernicious heresie to deny this primacy: then it is requisite that a clear revelation from God should be producible in favour of it (for upon that ground onely such points can firmly stand) then it is most probable, that God (to prevent controversies, occasions of doubt, and excuses for errour about so grand a matter) would not have failed to have declared it so plainly, as might serve to satisfie any reasonable man, and to convince any froward gainsayer; but no such revelation doth appear; for the places of Scripture which they alledge do not plainly express it, nor pregnantly imply it, nor can it by fair consequence be inferred from them: No man unprepossessed with affection to their side would descry it in them; without thwarting Saint Peter's Order,2 Pet. 3.16. and wresting the Scriptures they cannot deduce it from them. This by examining their allegations will appear.

I. They alledge those words of our Saviour, uttered by him upon occasion of Saint Peter's confessing him to be the Son of God, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; here, say they,

Matt. 16.18. S. Romana Ecclesia nullis Synodicis constitutis caeteris Ecclesiis praelata est, sed Evangelicâ voce Domini & salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit; Tu es Petrus (inquiens) &c. P. Gelas. 1. dist. 21. cap. 3.

The Holy Church of Rome is not prefer'd before other Churches by any Synodical Decrees, but has obtain'd the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel, saying, Thou art Peter, &c.

Saint Peter is declared the Foundation, that is, the sole Supreme Governour of the Church.

To this I answer.

1. Those words do not clearly signifie any thing to their purpose; for they are metaphorical, and thence ambiguous or capable of divers interpretations; whence they cannot suffice to ground so main a point of Doctrine, or to warrant so huge a Pretence; these ought to stand upon down-right, evident and indubitable Testimony.

It is pretty to observe how Bellarmine proposeth this Testimony; Of which words (saith he) the sense is plain and obvious, that it be understood, Quorum verborum planus & obvius sensus est, ut intelligatur sub duabus metaphoris promissum Petro totius Ecclesiae principatum. Bell. de Pont. 1.10. that under two metaphors the principate of the whole Church was promised; as if that sense could be so plain and obvious, which is couched under two metaphors, and those not very pat or clear in application to their sense.

2. This is manifestly confirmed from that the Fathers and Divines both ancient and modern have much differed in exposition of these words.

[Some (saith Abulensis) say that this rock is Peter— others say, Tostat. in Matth. 16. qu. 67. and better, that it is Christ — others say, and yet better, that it is the confession which Peter maketh.]

1 Cor. 3.11.For some interpret this rock to be Christ himself, of whom Saint Paul saith, Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

St. Austin telleth us in his Retractations, that he often had expounded the words to this purpose,

Scio me postea saepissimè exposuisse, ut super hanc Petram intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus; harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat Lector. Aug. Retr. 1.21. Vide Aug. in Joh. tr. 124. de verb. Dom. in Matt. Serm. 13.

Super hanc, inquit, Petram quam confessus es, aedificabe Ecclesiam meam. Aug. in Joh. tr. 124. & de Verb. Dom. in Matt. Serm. 13. (Tom. 10.)

Super hanc Petram, id est, super me aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Ans. in Matt. 16.18.

although he did not absolutely reject that interpretation which made Saint Peter the rock; leaving it to the Readers choice which is the most probable.

Others (and those most eminent Fathers) do take the rock to be Saint Peter's faith, or profession; Vpon the Rock (saith the Prince of Interpreters) that is upon the faith of his profession;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chrys. in Matt. 16.18. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Joh. 1.50.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 163.

Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est. Hil. de Trin. 6.

and again, Christ said that he would build his Church on Peter's confession; and again, (he, or another ancient Writer under his name) upon this rock, he said not upon Peter, for he did not build his Church upon the man, but upon his faith.

Our Lord (saith Theodoret) did permit the first of the Apostles, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ep. 77. whose confession he did fix as a prop or foundation of the Church, to be shaken.

[Whence Origen saith, that every disciple of Christ is the rock, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Orig. in Matt. 16. p. 275. in virtue of his agreement with Peter in that holy confession.]

In vera fide persistite, & vitam vestram in Petra Ecclesiae, hoc est in confessione B. Petri Apostolorum Principis solidate. Greg. M. Ep. 3.33. Persist in the true Faith, and establish and fix your life upon the rock of the Church, that is, upon the confession of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles.

Super ista confessione aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Felix III. Ep. 5. Vide Nic. I. Ep. 2, 6. Joh. VIII. Ep. 76.

This sense even Popes have embraced.

Vnus pro omnibus loquens, & Ecclesiae voce respondens. Cypr. Ep. 55.

One speaking for all, and answering in the name of the Church.

Cui Ecclesiae figuram gerenti Dominus ait, Super hanc— Aug. Ep. 165.

To whom, representing the whole Church, our Lord saith, Vpon this rock, &c.

Petrus ex persona omnium Apostolorum profitetur. Hier. in loc. Peter professes in the person of all the Apostles.

Others say, that as Saint Peter did not speak for himself, but in the name of all the Apostles, and of all faithfull people, representing the Pastours and people of the Church; so correspondently our Lord did declare, that he would build his Church upon such faithfull Pastours and Confessours.

Others do indeed by the rock understand Saint Peter's person, but do not thereby expound to be meant his being Supreme Governour of the Apostles, or of the whole Church.

Vide Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 27.40.70.71.73.69.The Divines, Schoolmen and Canonists of the Roman Communion do not also agree in exposition of the words; and divers of the most learned among them do approve the interpretation of St. Chrysostome.

Now then how can so great a Point of Doctrine be firmly grounded on a place of so doubtfull interpretation? how can any one be obliged to understand the words according to their interpretation which Persons of so good sense, and so great Authority do understand otherwise? with what modesty can they pretend that meaning to be clear, which so perspicacious eyes could not discern therein? why may not I excusably agree with St. Chrysostome, or St. Austin in understanding the place? may I not reasonably oppose their judgment to the Opinion of any Modern Doctours, deeming Bellarmine as fallible in his conceptions, as one of them; why consequently may I not without blame refuse their Doctrine as built upon this place, or disavow the goodness of this proof?

3. It is very evident that the Apostles themselves did not understand those words of our Lord to signify any grant or promise to Saint Peter of Supremacy over them;Luke 22.14. for would they have contended for the chief place, if they had understood whose it of right was by our Lord's own positive determination? would they have disputed about a question,Mark 9.34. which to their knowledge by their Master was already stated? would they have troubled our Lord to inquire of him who should be the greatest in his Kingdom, when they knew that our Lord had declared his will to make Saint Peter Viceroy? would the Sons of Zebedee have been so foolish and presumptuous as to beg the place,Matth. 18.1. which they knew by our Lord's word and promise fixed on Saint Peter? would Saint Peter among the rest have fretted at that idle overture,

Matth. 20.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation.

whenas he knew the place by our Lord's immutable purpose and infallible declaration assured to him? And if none of the Apostles did understand the words to imply this Roman sense, who can be obliged so to understand them? yea who can wisely, who can safely so understand them? for surely they had common sense as well as any man living now; they had as much advantage as we can have to know our Lord's meaning; their ignorance therefore of this sense being so apparent, is not onely a just excuse for not admitting this interpretation, but a strong bar against it.

4. This interpretation also doth not well consist with our Lord's answers to the contests, inquiries and petitions of his Disciples concerning the point of Superiority; for doth he not (if the Roman expositions be good) seem upon those occasions not onely to dissemble his own word and promise, but to disavow them or thwart them? can we conceive, that he would in such a case of doubt forbear to resolve them, clearly to instruct them, and admonish them of their duty?

5. Taking the Rock as they would have it to be the Person of Saint Peter, and that on him the Church should be built, yet do not the words being a Rock probably denote government; for what resemblance is there between being a Rock and a Governour; at least what assurance can there be that this metaphor precisely doth import that sense; seeing in other respects, upon as fair similitudes, he might be called so?

St. Austin saith, the Apostles were Foundations, because their Authority doth support our weakness. Quare sunt fundamenta Apostoli & Prophetae, quia eorum auctoritas portat infirmitatem nostram. Aug. in Ps. 86.

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

St. Basil saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. in If. 2. p. 86 • . that Saint Peter's Soul was called the Rock, because it was firmly rooted in the Faith, and did hold stiff without giving way against the blows of temptation.

Chrysologus saith, that Peter had his name from a Rock, Petrus à Petra nomen adeptus est, quia primus meruit E • clesiam fidei firmitate fundare. Chrysol. Serm. 53. because he first merited to found the Church by firmness of Faith.

These are fair explications of the metaphor, without any reference to Saint Peter's Government.

But however also admitting this, that being such a Rock doth imply Government and Pastoral Charge; yet do they (notwithstanding these grants and suppositions) effect nothing; for they cannot prove the words spoken exclusively in regard to other Apostles, or to import any thing singular to him above or beside them: He might be a governing Rock, so might others be; the Church might be built on him, so it might be on other Apostles; he might be designed a Governour, a great Governour, a principal Governour, so might they also be; this might be without any violence done to those words.

And this indeed was; for all the other Apostles in Holy Scripture are called Foundations, and the Church is said to be built on them.

If (saith Origen, the Father of Interpreters) you think the whole Church to be onely built on Peter alone,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; &c. Orig. in Matth. 16. p. 275.

Eph. 2.20.

Petra Christus est, qui donavit Apostolis, ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur. Hier. in Amos. 9.12.

Dicis super Petrum sundatur Ecclesia, licèt id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.

what will you say of John the Son of thunder, and of each of the Apostles? &c. largely to this purpose.

Christ (as St. Hierome saith) was the Rock, and he bestowed on the Apostles, that they should be called Rocks. And You say (saith he again) that the Church is founded on Peter, but the same in another place is done upon all the Apostles.

The twelve Apostles (saith another ancient Authour) were the immutable Pillars of orthodoxie, the Rock of the Church.

The Church (saith St. Basil) is built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Basil. in Isa. 2. p. 869. Peter also was one of the Mountains; upon which Rock the Lord did promise to build his Church.

St. Cyprian in his disputes with Pope Stephen did more than once alledge this place,Cypr. Ep. 71, & 73. yet could he not take them in their sense to signify exclusively; for he did not acknowledge any imparity of Power among the Apostles or their Successours. He indeed plainly took these words to respect all the Apostles and their Successours, our Lord taking occasion to promise that to one, which he intended to impart to all for themselves, and their Successours; Our Lord (saith he) ordering the honour of a Bishop, Dominus noster Episcopi honorem, & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens, dicit Petro, Ego tibi dico— Inde per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio, & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur. Cypr. Ep. 27. & de Vnit. Eccl. and the order of his Church, saith to Peter, I say to thee, &c. hence through the turns of times and successions, the ordination of Bishops, and the manner of the Church doth run on, that the Church should be setled upon the Bishops, and every Act of the Church should be governed by the same Prelates: as therefore he did conceive the Church to be built not on the Pope singularly, but on all the Bishops; so he thought our Lord did intend to build his Church not upon Saint Peter onely, but on all his Apostles.

6. It is not said, that the Apostles, or the Apostolical Office should be built on him; for that could not be, seeing the Apostles were constituted, and the Apostolical Office was founded before that promise; the words onely therefore can import that according to some meaning he was a Rock, upon which the Church, afterward to be collected, should be built; he was A Rock of the Church to be built, as Tertullian speaketh▪ Latuit aliquid Petrum aedificandae Ecclesiae Petram dictum. Tertull. de Praescr. cap. 22. the words therefore cannot signify any thing available to their purpose, in relation to the Apostles.

7. If we take Saint Peter himself for the Rock, then (as I take it) the best meaning of the words doth import, that our Lord designed Saint Peter for a prime Instrument,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys.

Peter first of all the Apostles preached Christ.

(the first mover, the most diligent, and active at the beginning, the most constant, stiff and firm) in the support of his Truth, and propagation of his Doctrine, or conversion of men to the belief of the Gospel; the which is called building of the Church; according to that of St. Ambrose, or some ancient Homilist under his name, Petra dicit • r e • quòd primus in natior • bus fidei fundamenta posuerit. Ambr. de Sanctis Serm. 2. He is called the Rock, because he first did lay in the Nations the Foundations of Faith: In which regard as the other Apostles are called Foundations of the Church, (the Church being founded on their labours,) so might Saint Peter signally be so called; who (as Saint Basil saith,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. contra Eunom. lib. 2.

Petra aedificandae Ecclesiae. Tertull. de praes. c. 22.

allusively interpreting our Saviour's words) for the excellency of his Faith did take on him the edifying of the Church.

Both he and they also might be so termed, for that upon their testimonies concerning the Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ the Faith of Christians was grounded; as also it stands upon their convincing discourses, their holy practice, their miraculous performances, in all which Saint Peter was most eminent; and in the beginning of Christianity displayed them to the edification of the Church.

This interpretation plainly doth agree with matter of fact and history; which is the best interpreter of right or privilege in such cases; for we may reasonably understand our Saviour to have promised that, which in effect we see performed, so the event sheweth, the Church was built on him, that is by him; Sic enim exitus docet, in ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est per ipsum, &c. Tert. de pudic. cap. 21. saith Tertullian.

But this sense doth not imply any Superiority of Power, or Dignity granted to Saint Peter above his Brethren; however it may signify an advantage belonging to him, and deserving especial respect; as St. Chrysostome notably doth set out in these words; Although John, although James, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. although Paul, although any other whoever may appear performing great matters; he yet doth surpass them all, who did precede them in liberty of speech, and opened the entrance, and gave to them as to a river carryed with a huge stream to enter with great ease: Doing this, as, I say, it might signify his being a Rock of the Church, so it denoteth an excellency of merit, but not a Superiority in Power.

8. It may also be observed, that Saint Peter before the speaking of those words by our Lord may seem to have had a Primacy, intimated by the Evangelists, when they report his call to the Apostolical Office;Matth. 10.2. and by his behaviour, when in this confession, and before in the like,John 6.69. he undertook to be their mouth and Spokesman; when not being unmindfull of his place (saith St. Ambrose) he did act a Primacy; Loci non imme • or sui primatum egit; — primatum Confessionis, non honoris; Fidei, non ordinis. Ambr. de Incarn. cap. 4. a Primacy (addeth that Father) of Confession, not of honour; of Faith, not of order; his Primacy therefore (such as he had) cannot well be founded on this place, he being afore possessed of it, and (as St. Ambrose conceived) exercising it at that time.

II. They alledge the next words of our Lord, spoken in sequele upon the same occasion, To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Per claves datos Petro intelligimus summam potestatem in omnem Ecclesiam. Bell. de Pont. 1.3. that is, say they, the Supreme power over all the Church; for he (say they) that hath the Keys is Master of the House.

To this testimony we may apply divers of the same answers, which were given to the former; for,

1. These words are figurate, and therefore not clear enough to prove their assertion.

2. They do admit, and have received various interpretations.

3. It is evident, that the Apostles themselves did not understand these words as importing a Supremacy over them, that Saint Peter himself did not apprehend this sense, that our Lord upon occasion inviting to it did not take notice of his promise, according thereto.

4. The words, I will give thee, cannot any-wise be assured to have been exclusive of others, or appropriated to him. He said (as a very learned man of the Roman Communion noteth) to Peter, Dixit Petro, dabo tibi claves, at non dixit, dabo tibi soli. Rigalt. in Epist. Firmil. I will give thee the Keys, but he said not, I gill give them to thee alone; nothing therefore can be concluded from them to their purpose.

5. The Fathers do affirm that all the Apostles did receive the same Keys.

Are (saith Origen) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Orig. in Matt. 16. p. 275. and shall none other of the Blessed ones receive them? but if this, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, be common, how also are not all the things common, which were spoken before, or are added as spoken to Peter?

Quod Petro dicitur, Apostolis dicitur. Ambr. in Psal. 38. What is said to Peter, is said to the Apostles.

Licè • id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant. Hier. in Jov. 1.14.

Though the same thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles, and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

St. Hierome says in express words, that all the Apostles did receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

He (saith Optatus) did alone receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (which were) to be communicated to the rest;

Claves regni coelorum communicandas caeteris solus accepit. Opt. lib. 7.

Communicandas caeteris dixit, qu • s ipse Christus communicaturus erat & caeteris. Rigalt. in Cypr. de Vn. Eccl.

that is (as Rigaltius well expoundeth those words) which Christ himself would also communicate to the rest.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theoph. in loc.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in praef. Evang. Joh.

Theophilact. Although it be spoken to Peter alone I will give thee, yet it is given to all the Apostles.

It is part of Saint John's character in St. Chrysostome, He that hath the Keys of the Heavens.

6. Indeed whatever (according to any tolerable exposition, or according to the current expositions of the Fathers) those Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven do import (whether it be a faculty of opening it by Doctrine, of admitting into it by dispensation of Baptism, Claves intelligit verbum Dei, Evangelium Christi. Rigalt. in Cyp. Ep. 73. and absolution, of excluding from it by Ecclesiastical censure, or any such faculty signified by that metaphorical expression) it plainly did belong to all the Apostles, and was effectually conferred on them; yea after them upon all the Pastours of the Church in their several precincts and degrees; who in all Ages have claimed to themselves the power of the Keys; Episcopi— quos constat esse vicario • Christi, & clavigeros regni coelorum. Conc. Compend. apud. Bin. Tom. 6. p. 361. to be (as the Council of Compeign calleth all Bishops) clavigeri, the Key-bearers of the Kingdom of Heaven.

So that in these words nothing singular was promised or granted to Saint Peter; although it well may be deemed a singular mark of favour, that what our Lord did intend to bestow on all Pastours, that he did anticipately promise to him; or, as the Fathers say, to the Church and its Pastours in him. In which respect we may admit those words of Pope Leo I.

Transivit quidem in Apostolos alios vis istius potestatis, sed non frustra • ni commendatur quod omnibus intimetur. Petro ergò singulariter hoc creditur, quia cunctis Ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. Leo I. in Nat. Petri & Pauli. Serm. 2.

The efficacy of this Power passed indeed upon all the Apostles; yet was it not in vain, that what was intimated to all, was commended to one. Therefore this is committed singly to Peter, because Peter's pattern and example is propounded to all the Governours of the Church.

7. Indeed divers of the Fathers do conceive the words spoken to St. Peter not as a single person, but as a representative of the Church, or as standing in the room of each Pastour therein; unto whom our Lord designed to impart the power of the Keys.

All we Bishops (saith St. Ambrose) have in Saint Peter received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

In B. Petro claves regni coelorum cuncti suscepimus sacerdotes. Ambr. de dign. Sac. 1. Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit, id est, potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata. Aug. tract. 124. in Joh. vide tract. 50.

The Church which is founded upon Christ, received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. the power of binding and loosing Sins.

In typo unitatis Petro Dominus dedit potestatem— Aug. de Bap. 3.17.

Our Lord gave the power to Peter, as a type of Unity.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Phot. Cod. 280.

Such Authority was given to the rest of the Apostles in the person of him who was the chief.

Non sine causa inter omnes Apostolos Ecclesiae Catholicae personas sustinet Petrus; huic enim Ecclesiae claves regni coelorum datae sunt, cùm Petro datae sunt— Aug. de Ag. Chr. cap. 30. in Ps. 108.

Not without cause does Peter among the rest of the Apostles sustain the Person of the Catholick Church; for to this Church are the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given, when they are given unto Peter.

8. These answers are confirmed by the words immediately adjoyned, August. supr. Matt. 18.18. equivalent to these, and interpretative of them, And whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven— the which do import a power or privilege soon after expressly, and in the very same words promised or granted to all the Apostles;John 20.23. as also the same power in other words was by our Lord conferred on them all after the Resurrection.

If therefore the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven do import Supreme Power, then each Apostle had Supreme Power.

9. If we should grant (that which no-wise can be proved,) that something peculiarly belonging to Saint Peter is implyed in those words, it can onely be this, that he should be a prime man in the work of preaching and propagating the Gospel, and conveying the heavenly benefits of it to believers; which is an opening of the Kingdom of Heaven; Sic enim exitus docet, in ipso Ecclesia extruct • est, id est, per ipsum; ipse clavem imbuit; vide quam, Viri Israelitae auribus mandate quae dico, Jesum Nazerenum virum à Deo vobis destinatum, &c. Ipse denique primus in Christi Baptismo reseravit aditum coelestis regni, &c. Tert. de pud. 21. according to what Tertullian excellently saith of him; So (saith he) the event teacheth, the Church was built in him, that is, by him; he did initiate the Key; see which, Ye men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, &c. He in fine in the baptism of Christ did unlock the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven, &c.

10. It seemeth absurd, that Saint Peter should exercise the power of the Keys in respect to the Apostles: for did he open the Kingdom of Heaven to them, who were by our Lord long before admitted into it? —

11. In fine, our Lord (as Saint Luke relateth it) did say to Saint Peter, Luke 5.10. Matth. 4.19. and probably to him first, Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men; might it hence be inferred, that Saint Peter had a peculiar or sole faculty of catching men? why might it not by as good a consequence, as this, whereby they would appropriate to him this opening faculty? Many such instances might in like manner be used.

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

To this allegation I answer.

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

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

3. By these words no new power is (assuredly at least) granted or instituted by our Lord; for the Apostles before this had their Warrant and Authority consigned to them,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyril. in loc.

Peter was ordained to the holy Apostleship together with the rest of the Disciples.

John 20.21.

when our Lord did inspire them, and solemnly commissionate them, saying, As the Father did send me, so I send you; to which Commission, these words, (spoken occasionally, before a few of the Disciples) did not add or derogate. At most the words do onely (as St. Cyril saith) renew the former Grant of Apostleship, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyril. ib. after his great offence of denying our Lord.

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

Our Lord (I say) presently before his departure, when his words were like to have a strong impression on Saint Peter, doth earnestly direct and warn him to express that special ardency of affection, which he observed in him, in an answerable care to perform his duty of feeding, that is, of instructing, guiding,

Paulus Apostolus boni Pastoris implebat Officium; quando Christum praedicabat. Aug. in Joh. • r. 47.

Paul fulfilled the Office of a good Pastour, when he preached Christ.

edifying in faith and obedience those Sheep of his, that is, those Believers, who should be converted to embrace his Religion, as ever he should find opportunity.

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

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

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

Hence particularly St. Chrysostome calleth Saint John a pillar of the Churches over the world, and Saint Paul an Apostle of the world;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. praef. comment. ad Joh.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in 1 Cor. 9.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in 2 Cor. 11.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 39.

who had the care not of one House, but of Cities and Nations, and of the whole Earth; who undertook the World, and governed the Churches; on whom the whole world did look, and on whose soul the care of all the Churches every-where did hang; into whose hands were delivered the Earth, and the Sea, the inhabited and uninhabited parts of the World.

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

7. The words indeed are applicable to all Christian Bishops and Governours of the Church; according to that of St. Cyprian, to Pope Stephen himself, Pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem, & oves Christi universas pascimus. Cypr. Ep. 67. ad P. Steph. we being many Shepherds do feed one flock, and all the sheep of Christ; for they are styled Pastours; they in terms as indefinite as those in this text are exhorted to feed the Church of God, Act. 20.28. which he hath purchased with his own bloud;

Quanto magìs debent usque ad mortem pro veritate certare, & usque ad sanguinem adversus peccatum, quibus oves ipsas pascendus, hoc est docend • s regendasque committit. Aug. in Joh. tr. 123.

How much more ought they to contend for the truth even unto death, and against sin even unto bloud, to whom he committeth his Sheep to be fed, that is, to be taught and governed.

to them (as the Fathers commonly suppose) this Injunction doth reach, our Lord when he spake thus to Saint Peter, intending to lay a charge on them all to express their love and piety toward them in this way, by feeding his Sheep and People.

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

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

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

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

Et quidem, fratres, quod Pastor est, dedit & membris suis; nam & Petrus Pastor, & Paulus Pastor, & caeteri Apostoli Pastores, & boni Episcopi Pastores. Aug. in Joh. tr. 47.

And indeed, brethren, that which a Pastour is, he gave also to his members, for both Peter was a Pastour, and Paul a Pastour, and the rest of the Apostles were Pastours, and good Bishops are Pastours.

Saint Austin comprizeth all these considerations in those words.

How could these great Masters more clearly express their mind, that our Lord in those words to Saint Peter did inculcate a duty no-wise peculiar to him, but equally together with him belonging to all Guides of the Church; in such manner, as when a Master doth press a duty on one Servant, he doth thereby admonish all his Servants of the like duty; whence St. Austin saith,

Vt ergo Petrus quando ei dictum est, Tibi dabo claves, in figura personam gestabat Ecclesiae, sic & quando ei dictum est, Pusc • oves meas, Ecclesiae quoque personam in figura gestabat. Aug. in Psal. 108.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Matt. 24. Or. 77.

This was not spoken to those Priests onely, but to every one of us, who have the care even of a little Flock committed to us.

that Saint Peter in that case did sustain the person of the Church, that which was spoken to him, belonging to all its members, especially to his Brethren, the Clergy.

It was (saith Cyril) a lesson to Teachers, that they cannot otherwise please the Arch-pastour of all, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyril. ibid. than by taking care of the welfare of the rational Sheep.

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

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

Hence we may interpret that saying of St. Chrysostome, which is the most plausible argument they can alledge for them, that our Lord in saying this,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Joh. 21.15.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . in vers. 21.

did commit to St. Peter a charge (or presidency) over his brethren; that is, he made him a Pastour of Christian people, as he did others; at least, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be referred to the Apostles, it must not signifie authority over them, but at most a primacy of order among them; for that Saint Peter otherwise should feed them, St. Chrysostome could hardly think, who presently after saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. V. 23. that seeing the Apostles were to receive the administration of the whole world, they ought not afterward to converse with one another; for that would surely have been a great damage to the world.

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

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

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

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

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

To be even with them, I might assert the Primacy to Saint John, and to that purpose might alledge his Prerogatives (which indeed may seem greater than those of Saint Peter,) namely, that he was the beloved disciple, John 13.24. that he leaned on our Lord's breast, that Saint Peter, not presuming to ask our Lord a question, desired him to doe it, as having a more special confidence with our Lord; that Saint John did higher service to the Church and all posterity, by writing not onely more Epistles, but also a most divine Gospel, and a sublime

Infinita futurorum mysteria continentem. Hier.

Containing infinite mysteries of future things.

Prophecy concerning the state of the Church; that Saint John did Joh. 20.4. outrun Peter, and came first to the Sepulchre (in which passage such acute devisers would find out marvellous significancy) that Saint John was a Virgin; that he did out-live all the Apostles (and thence was most fit to be Universal Pastour;) that St. Hierome comparing Peter and John, doth seem to prefer the latter; for Peter (saith he) was an Apostle,

Petrus Apostolus est, & Johannes Apostolus, maritus & Virgo; sed Petrus Apostolus tantùm, Johannes & Apostolus & Evangelista, & Propheta, &c. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.

Et ut brevi sormone multa comprehendam, doceámque cujus privilegii sit Johannes, —imò in Johanne Virginitas; à Domino Virgine mater Virgo Virgini Discipulo commendatur. Hier. ibid.

and John was an Apostle; but Peter was onely an Apostle, John both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and also a Prophet,— and (saith he) that I may in brief speech comprehend many things, and shew what privilege belongeth to John, —yea Virginity in John; by our Lord a Virgin, his Mother the Virgin is commended to the Virgin Disciple: thus I might by Prerogatives and passages very notable infer the Superiority of Saint John to Saint Peter, in imitation of their reasoning; but I am afraid they would scarce be at the trouble to answer me seriously, but would think it enough to say I trifled; wherefore let it suffice for me in the same manner to put off those levities of discourse.

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

To this I answer.

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

In the Apostolical Constitutions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Const. Apost. 8.33. Saint Paul and Saint Peter being induced jointly prescribing Orders, they begin, I Paul, and I Peter do appoint— so little ambitious or curious of precedence are they represented.

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

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

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

To these and the like allegations I answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act. 24.5. Tertullus calleth Saint Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes; and St. Basil calleth Eustathius Sebastenus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. Ep. 74. foreman of the sect of the Pneumatomachi; did Tertullus mean, that Saint Paul had universal Jurisdiction over Christians; or St. Basil, that Eustathius was Sovereign of those Hereticks?

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

Such words are to be interpreted by the state of things, not the state of things to be inferred from them; and in understanding them we should observe the Rule of Tertullian.

Malo te ad sensum réi quàm ad sonum vocabuli exerceas. Tert. adv. Prax. cap. 3. I had rather you would apply your self to the sense of the thing, than to the sound of the word.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Athan. Orat. 3. adv. Ar. (p. 373.)

For words do not take away the nature of things, but the nature rather changes the words, and draws them to it self.

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

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

Who doth give higher Elogies to him than St. Chrysostome? yet doth he assert all the Apostles to be Supreme, and equal in dignity; and particularly he doth often affirm Saint Paul to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , equal in honour to Saint Peter, as we before shewed.

The like we declared of St. Hierome, St. Cyril, &c. And as for St. Cyprian, who did allow a Primacy to Saint Peter, nothing can be more evident, than that he took the other Apostles to be equal to him in power and honour.

The like we may conceive of St. Austin, who having carefully perused those Writings of St. Cyprian, and frequently alledging them, doth never contradict that his sentiment.

Even Pope Gregory himself acknowledgeth Saint Peter not to have been properly the Head, Certè Petrus Apostolus primum membrum S. & universalis Ecclesiae— sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Greg. I. Epist. 4.38. but onely the first member of the universal Church; all being members of the Church under one head.

6. If Pope Leo I. or any other ancient Pope, do seem to mean farther, we may reasonably except against their Opinion, as being singular, and proceeding from partial affection to their See; such affection having influence on the mind of the wisest men; according to that certain maxime of Aristotle, every man is a bad Judge in his own case.

7. The Ancients, when their subject doth allure them, do adorn other Apostles with the like titles, equalling those of Saint Peter, and not well consistent with them, according to that rigour of sense, which our adversaries affix to the commendations of Saint Peter.

The Epistle of Clemens Rom. to Saint James (an Apocryphal,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Jacobum Episcoporum Principem Sacerdotum Princeps orabat. Clem. Rec. 1.68.

Apostolorum Episcopus. Ruf. Euseb. 2.11

but ancient Writing) calleth St. James our Lord's Brother, The Bishop of Bishops; the Clementine Recognitions call him the Prince of Bishops; Ruffinus, in his translation of Eusebius, The Bishop of the Apostles;

It is likely that Ruffinus did call him so by mistaking that in the Apostolical Constitutions.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Apost. Const. 8.10.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Hesych. Presb. apud Phot. Cod. 275. (p. 1525.)

St. Chrysost. saith of him, that he did preside over all the Jewish believers; Hesychius Presbyter of Jerusalem, calleth him the chief Captain of the New Jerusalem, the Captain of Priests, the Prince of the Apostles, the top among the Heads, &c.

The same Hesychius calleth Saint Andrew, the first-born of the Apostolical Choire, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Hesych. apud Phot. Cod. 269. the first setled pillar of the Church, the Peter before Peter, the foundation of the foundation, the first-fruits of the beginning, &c.

St. Chrysostome saith of Saint John, that he was a pillar of the Churches through the world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Chrys. in Joh. 1.1. he that had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c.

But as occasion of speaking about Saint Paul was more frequent, so the elogies of him are more copious, and indeed so high as not to yield to those of Saint Peter.

He was (saith St. Chrysostome) the ringleader and guardian of the Choire of all the Saints.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Rom. 16.24.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in 1 Cor. 9.2.

He was the tongue, the teacher, the Apostle of the world.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .— He had the whole habitable World committed to his charge.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .—

He was the Teacher of the World, and had all the inhabitants of the Earth committed to his trust.

He had the whole world put into his hands, and took care thereof, and had committed to him all men dwelling upon Earth.

He was the light of the Churches, the foundation of Faith, the pillar and ground of Truth. —

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . in Jud. Or. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . in 1 Cor. Or. 22.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Tom. 7. p. 2.

Did not God put into his hands the whole world?

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . in 2 Tim. 2.1. He had the charge of the whole world.

He had the patronage of the World committed into his hands.

He was better than all men, greater than the Apostles, and surpassing them all.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . de Sacerd. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Tom. 5. Orat. 33.

Who then was better than all other men? who else but that Tent-maker, the Teacher of the world? — If therefore he receive a greater Crown than the Apostles, and none perhaps was equal to the Apostles, and yet he greater than they, it is manifest that he shall enjoy the highest honour and preeminence.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Tom. 5. Or. 47. Nothing was more bright, nothing more illustrious than he.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Tom. 6. Or. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2 Tim. 3.15.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ep. 146.

The most wise, and best Architect or chief builder of the Churches.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Just. M. resp. ad Orthod. Qu. 119.

The blessed Apostle, the Father of the Fathers.

None was greater than he, yea none equal to him.

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

These Characters of Saint Paul I leave them to interpret, and reconcile with those of Saint Peter.

8. That the Fathers by calling Saint Peter Prince, Chieftain, &c. of the Apostles, do not mean Authority over them, may be argued from their joining Saint Paul with him in the same appellations; who yet surely could have no Jurisdiction over them; and his having any would destroy the pretended Ecclesiastical Monarchy.

St. Cyril calleth them together Patrons, or Presidents of the Church. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyrill. Cat. 6.

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

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

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

St. Ambrose, or St. Austin, or St. Maximus Taur. (chuse you which) doth thus speak of them; Beati Petrus & Paulus eminent inter Vniversos Apostolos, & peculiari quâdam praerogativâ praecellunt; verùm inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est, puto enim illos aequales esse meritis, quìa aequales sunt passione, &c. Ambr. Serm. 66. Aug. de Sanct. 27. Max. Taur. Serm. 54. Blessed Peter and Paul are most eminent among all the Apostles, excelling the rest by a kind of peculiar prerogative: but whether of these two be preferred before the other, is uncertain, for I count them to be equal in merit, because they are equal in suffering, &c.

To all this discourse I shall onely adde,

Hae voces Ecclesiae, ex qua habuit omnis Ecclesia initium. Iren. 3.12.

These are the words of the Church, from whence every Church had its beginning.

that if any of the Apostles, or Apostolical men might claim a presidency or authoritative headship over the rest, Saint James seemeth to have the best title thereto; for, Jerusalem was the mother of all Churches,

Isa. 2.3. Luke 14.47. Ecclesia in Hierusalem fundata totius orbis Ecclesias seminavit. Hieron. in Is. 2. The Church founded in Jerusalem was the Seminary of the Churches throughout the whole world.

Theod. 5.9. Vide Tert. de Praescr. cap. 20.

the fountain of the Christian Law and Doctrine, the See of our Lord himself, the chief Pastour.

He therefore, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in 1 Cor. Or. 11. who (as the Fathers tell us) was by our Lord himself constituted Bishop of that City, and the first of all Bishops, might best pretend to be in special manner our Lord's Vicar or Successour. He (saith Epiphanius) did first receive the Episcopal Chair; and to him our Lord first did entrust his own Throne upon Earth.

After that he was seen of James, I suppose to his Brother; for he is said to have ordained him, and made him the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiph. haer. 78.

He accordingly did first exercise the Authority of presiding and moderating in the first Ecclesiastical Synod, as St. Chrysostome in his Notes thereon doth remark.

He therefore probably by Saint Paul is first named in his report concerning the passages at Hierusalem;Gal. 2.9. and to his orders it seemeth that Saint Peter himself did conform; for 'tis said there,Gal. 2.12. that before certain came from Saint James he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come, he withdrew.

Hence in the Apostolical Constitutions, in the Prayer prescribed for the Church, and for all the Governours of it, the Bishops of the principal Churches being specified by name; Saint James is put in the first place; before the Bishops of Rome and of Antioch; Let us pray for the whole Episcopacy under Heaven of those who rightly dispense the word of thy Truth; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Const. Ap. 8.10. and let us pray for our Bishop James with all his Parishes; let us pray for our Bishop Clemens and all his Parishes; let us pray for Evodius and all his Parishes.—

Hereto consenteth the Tradition of those ancient Writers afore cited, who call Saint James, the Bishop of Bishops, the Bishop of the Apostles, &c.

SUPPOSITION II. I proceed to examine the next Supposition of the Church Monarchists, which is, That Saint Peter's Primacy, with its Rights and Prerogatives, was not personal, but derivable to his Successours.

AGainst which Supposition I do assert, that admitting a Primacy of Saint Peter, of what kind or to what purpose soever, we yet have reason to deem it merely personal, and (not according to its grounds and its design) communicable to any Successours, nor indeed in effect conveyed to any such.

It is a rule in the Canon Law; that a personal Privilege doth follow the Person, Privilegium personale Personam sequitur, & cum Persona extinguitur. Reg. Iuris, 7. in Sexto. and is extinguished with the Person; and such we affirm that of St. Peter; for,

1. His Primacy was grounded upon personal acts (such as his chearfull following of Christ, his faithfull confessing of Christ, his resolute adherence to Christ, his embracing special Revelations from God) or upon personal graces (his great Faith, his special love to our Lord, his singular zeal for Christ's Service) or upon personal gifts and endowments (his courage, resolution, activity, forwardness in apprehension, and in speech) the which advantages are not transient, and consequently a preeminency built on them is not in its nature such.

2. All the pretence of Primacy granted to Saint Peter is grounded upon words directed to Saint Peter's Person,Matt. 16.17. John 21.15, 16, 17. characterized by most personal adjuncts, as name, parentage, and which exactly were accomplished in Saint Peter's personal actings, which therefore it is unreasonable to extend farther.

Matt. 16.17▪ Our Lord promised to Simon Son of Jona, to build his Church on him; accordingly in eminent manner the Church was founded upon his Ministery, or by his first preaching, testimony, performances.

Our Lord promised to give him the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom; this Power Saint Peter signally did execute in converting Christians, and receiving them by Baptism into the Church, by conferring the Holy Ghost, and the like administrations.

Our Lord charged Simon Son of Jonas to feed his Sheep; this he performed by preaching, writing, guiding and governing Christians,Joh. 21. 15— as he found opportunity; wherefore if any thing was couched under those promises or orders, singularly pertinent to Saint Peter; for the same reason that they were singular, they were personal; for,

These things being, in a conspicuous manner accomplished in St. Peter's Person, the sense of those words is exhausted; there may not, with any probability, there cannot with any assurance be any more grounded on them; whatever more is inferred, must be by precarious assumption; and justly we may cast at those who shall infer it that expos • ulation of Tertullian, Qualis es ever • ens atque commutan • manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem? Tertull. de pud. 21. What art thou, who dost overturn and change the manifest intention of our Lord, personally conferring this on Peter?

3. Particularly the grand promise to Saint Peter of founding the Church on him cannot reach beyond his person; because there can be no other foundations of a Society, than such as are first laid; the successours of those, who first did erect a Society, and establish it, are themselves but superstructures.

4. The Apostolical Office as such was personal and temporary; and therefore according to its nature and design not successive or communicable to others in perpetual descendence from them.

It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for special purposes, discharged by special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was needfull for the propagation of Christianity, and founding of Churches.

To that Office it was requisite, that the Person should have an immediate designation and commission from God; such as Saint Paul so often doth insist upon for asserting his title to the Office; Paul an Apostle, not from men, Gal. 1.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Ibid. or by man— not by men, saith St. Chrysostome, this is a property of the Apostles.

It was requisite that an Apostle should be able to attest concerning our Lord's Resurrection or Ascension, either immediately as the twelve, or by evident consequence as Saint Paul; thus Saint Peter implyed, at the choice of Matthias, wherefore of those men, which have companyed with us— must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the Resurrection; and, Am I not (saith Saint Paul) an Apostle, have I not seen the Lord? Act. 1.21— 1 Cor. 9.1.15.8. Act. 22.14— according to that of Ananias, The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will, and see that just one, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth; for thou shalt bear witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

It was needfull also that an Apostle should be endowed with miraculous gifts and graces, enabling him both to assure his Authority, and to execute his Office; wherefore Saint Paul calleth these,2 Cor. 12.12. Rom. 15.18— the marks of an Apostle, the which were wrought by him among the Corinthians in all patience (or perseveringly) in signs and wonders, and mighty deeds.

It was also in St. Chrysostome's opinion, proper to an Apostle, that he should be able according to his discretion in a certain and conspicuous manner to impart Spiritual Gifts; as Saint Peter and Saint John did at Samaria;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Act. 8.18. De solis Apostolis legitur, quorum vicem tenent Episcopi, quod per manûs impositionem Spiritum S. dabant. P. Eugenius IV. in Instit. Arm.

'Tis recorded of the Apostles alone, in whose room the Bishops succeed, that they gave the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

which to doe, according to that Father, was the peculiar gift and privilege of the Apostles.

It was also a privilege of an Apostle, by virtue of his commission from Christ, to instruct all Nations in the Doctrine and Law of Christ; He had right and warrant to exercise his function every where, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Joh. 21. His charge was universal and indefinite; the whole world was his Province; he was not affixed to one place, nor could be excluded from any; he was (as St. Cyril calleth him) an Oecumenical Judge, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyrill. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . in Gen. 7. and an Instructour of all the Subcelestial World.

Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner, according to discretion, as being guided by infallible assistence, to the which they might upon occasion appeal,Act. 15.28. and affirm, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. Whence their Writings have passed for inspired, and therefore Canonical, or certain Rules of Faith and Practice.

It did belong to them to found Churches, to constitute Pastours, to settle orders, to correct offences, to perform all such Acts of Sovereign, Spiritual Power, in virtue of the same Divine assistence, according to the Authority, which the Lord had given them for edification; as we see practised by Saint Paul.

In fine, the Apostleship was (as St. Chrysostome telleth us) a business fraught with ten thousand good things; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Rom. 1. Or. 1. Tom. 8. p. 114. both greater than all privileges of grace, and comprehensive of them.

Now such an Office, consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the foundation of the Church, and the diffusion of Christianity, against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages, which it then needs must encounter, was not designed to continue by derivation; for it containeth in it divers things, which apparently were not communicated, and which no man without gross imposture and hypocrisie could challenge to himself.

Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicate it; they did indeed appoint standing Pastours and Teachers in each Church; they did assume Fellow-labourers or Assistents in the work of Preaching and Governance; but they did not constitute Apostles, equal to themselves in Authority, Quis nescit illum Apostolatû • principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum? Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 2.1. Episcopi nullam habent partem verae Apostolicae auctoritatis. Bell. 4.25. Privileges or Gifts. For who knoweth not (saith St. Austin) that principate of Apostleship to be preferred before any Episcopacy? and the Bishops (saith Bellarmine) have no part of the true Apostolical Authority. The Apostles themselves do make the Apostolate a distinct Office from Pastours and Teachers, which are the standing Offices in the Church. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28.

Wherefore Saint Peter, who had no other Office mentioned in Scripture, or known to Antiquity, beside that of an Apostle, could not have properly and adequately any Successour to his Office; but it naturally did expire with his Person, as did that of the other Apostles.

5. Accordingly, whereas the other Apostles, as such, had no Successours, the Apostolical Office not being propagated; the Primacy of Saint Peter (whatever it were, whether of Order or Jurisdiction, in regard to his Brethren) did cease with him; for when there were no Apostles extant, there could be no Head, or Prince of the Apostles in any sense.

6. If some privileges of Saint Peter were derived to Popes, why were not all? why was not Pope Alexander VI. as holy as Saint Peter? why was not Pope Honorius as found in his private judgment? why is not every Pope inspired? why is not every Papal Epistle to be reputed Canonical? why are not all Popes endowed with power of doing miracles? why doth not the Pope by a Sermon convert thousands? (why indeed do Popes never preach) why doth not he cure men by his shadow (he is, say they, himself his shadow:) what ground is there of distinguishing the privileges, so that he shall have some, not others? where is the ground to be found?

7. If it be objected, that the Fathers commonly do call Bishops Successours of the Apostles; to assoil that objection we may consider, that whereas the Apostolical Office virtually did contain the functions of Teaching, and ruling God's people, the which for preservation of Christian doctrine and edification of the Church, were requisite to be continued perpetually in ordinary standing Offices, these indeed were derived from the Apostles, but not properly in way of succession, as by univocal propagation; but by Ordination, imparting all the power needfull for such Offices; which therefore were exercised by persons during the Apostles lives concurrently, or in subordination to them; even as a Dictatour at Rome might create inferiour Magistrates, who derived from him, but not as his Successours; for (as Bellarmine himself telleth us) there can be no proper succession but in respect of one preceding, Non succeditur propriè nisi praecedenti, at simul fuerunt in Ecclesia Apostoli & Episcopi— Bell. de Pont. R. 4.25. but Apostles and Bishops were together in the Church.

The Fathers therefore so in a large sense call all Bishops Successours of the Apostles, not meaning that any one of them did succeed into the whole Apostolical Office; but that each did receive his power from some one (immediately or mediately) whom some Apostle did constitute Bishop, vesting him with Authority to feed the particular Flock committed to him in way of ordinary charge; according to the sayings of that Apostolical person, Clemens Rom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Clem. ad Corinth. 1. p. 54. The Apostles preaching in Regions and Cities did constitute their first Converts, having approved them by the Spirit, for Bishops and Deacons of those who should afterward believe; and having constituted the foresaid (Bishops and Deacons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 57.) they withall gave them farther charge, that if they should dye, other approved men successively should receive their Office: thus did the Bishops supply the room of the Apostles, each in guiding his particular charge, Singulis pastoribus portio gregis adscripta est, quam regat unusquisque & gubernet— Cypr. Ep. 55. all of them together by mutual aid conspiring to govern the whole Body of the Church.

8. In which regard it may be said that not one single Bishop, but all Bishops together through the whole Church do succeed Saint Peter, or any other Apostle; for that all of them in union together have an universal Sovereign Authority, commensurate to an Apostle.

9. This is the notion, which St. Cyprian doth so much insist upon, affirming that the Bishops do succeed Saint Peter, and the other Apostles,

Praepositos, qui Apostolis vicariâ ordinatione succedunt ..... Ep. 69.42.75.

Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & praepositos Dominus elegit. Ep. 65.

Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata— Ep. 40. & Ep. 73. & de unit. Eccl.

Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus. Ep. 5 • .

Episcopatus unus, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. De unit. Eccl.

Et Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus unanimi consentione pascatur. De unit. Eccl.

Nam etsi Pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, & oves universas, &c. Epist. 67.

For though we are many Pastours, yet we feed one flock, and all the sheep, &c.

by vicarious ordination; that the Bishops are Apostles; that there is but one chair by the Lord's word built upon one Peter; One undivided Bishoprick, diffused in the peacefull numerosity of many Bishops, whereof each Bishop doth hold his share; One Flock whom the Apostles by unanimous agreement did feed, and which afterward the Bishops do feed; having a portion thereof allotted to each, which he should govern.

Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, & ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus, eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes.

The mind and meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest in sending his Apostles, and allowing the power given him of the Father to them alone, whose successours we are, governing the Church of God by the same power.

So the Synod of Carthage with St. Cyprian.

So also St. Chrysostome saith, that the Sheep of Christ were committed by him to Peter and to those after him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. de Sacerd. 1. that is, in his meaning, to all Bishops.

10. Such, and no other power Saint Peter might devolve on any Bishop ordained by him in any Church, which he did constitute or inspect; as in that of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Babylon, of Rome.

Hier. ad Evagr.The like did the other Apostles communicate, who had the same power with Saint Peter in founding and settling Churches; whose Successours of this kind were equal to those of the same kind, whom St. Peter did constitute; enjoying in their several precincts an equal part of the Apostolical power; as St. Cyprian often doth assert.

11. It is in consequence observable, that in those Churches, whereof the Apostles themselves were never accounted Bishops, yet the Bishops are called Successours of the Apostles; which cannot otherwise be understood, than according to the sense which we have proposed; that is, because they succeeded those, who were constituted by the Apostles;

Habemus annumerare eos, qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi, & successores eorum usque ad nos— Iren. 3.3.

Proinde utique & caeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent. Tert. de Praes. 32.

according to those sayings of Irenaeus and Tertullian; we can number those, who were instituted bishops by the Apostles and their Successours; and, All the Churches do shew those, whom being by the Apostles constituted in the Episcopal Office they have as continuers of the Apostolical seed.

So although Saint Peter was never reckoned Bishop of Alexandria, yet because 'tis reported that he placed Saint Mark there, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. hist. 4.1. Primus is the fourth from the Apostles who was the Bishop of that place, or obtained the ministery there. the Bishop of Alexandria is said to succeed the Apostles.

And because Saint John did abide at Ephesus, inspecting that Church, and appointing Bishops there, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Clem Alex. apud Euseb. 3.23. Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit autorem. Tert. in Marc. 4.5. Tert. de Praescr. 32. the Bishops of that See did refer their Origine to him.

So many Bishops did claim from Saint Paul.

So St. Cyprian and Firmilian do assert themselves Successours of the Apostles,

Vnitatem à Domino & per Apostolos nobis successoribus traditam. Cypr. Ep. 42.

Adversarii nostri qui Apostolis successimus. Firmi • l. in Cypr. Ep. 75.

who yet perhaps never were at Carthage or Caesarea.

So the Church of Constantinople is often in the Acts of the Sixth General Council,— ab illis Ecclesiis, quae licèt nullum ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posterìores, quae denique quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minùs Apostolicae deputantur, pro consanguinitate doctrinae. Tert. de Praescr. 32. called this great Apostolick Church, being such Churches, as those of whom Tertullian saith, that although they do not produce any of the Apostles, or Apostolical men for their authour, yet conspiring in the same faith, are no less, for the consanguinity of doctrine, reputed Apostolical.

Yea hence St. Hierome doth assert a parity of merit and dignity Sacerdotal to all Bishops; because (saith he) all of them are Successours to the Apostles; having all a like power by their ordination conferred on them.Hier. ad Evagr.

12. Whereas our Adversaries do pretend, that indeed the other Apostles had an extraordinary charge as Legates of Christ, Bell. 4.25, &c. which had no succession, but was extinct in their persons; but that Saint Peter had a peculiar charge, as ordinary Pastour of the whole Church, which surviveth:

To this it is enough to rejoyn, that it is a mere figment, devised for a shift, and affirmed precariously; having no ground either in Holy Scripture, or in ancient Tradition; there being no such distinction in the Sacred or Ecclesiastical Writings; no mention occurring there of any Office which he did assume, or which was attributed to him, distinct from that extraordinary one of an Apostle; and all the Pastoral charge imaginable being ascribed by the Ancients to all the Apostles in regard to the whole Church, as hath been sufficiently declared.

13. In fine, If any such conveyance of power, (of power so great, so momentous, so mightily concerning the perpetual state of the Church, and of each person therein) had been made; it had been (for general direction and satisfaction, for voiding all doubt and debate about it, for stifling these pretended Heresies and Schisms) very requisite, that it should have been expressed in some authentick Record, that a particular Law should have been extant concerning it, that all posterity should be warned to yield the submission grounded thereon.

Indeed a matter of so great consequence to the being and welfare of the Church could scarce have scaped from being clearly mentioned somewhere or other in Scripture, wherein so much is spoken touching Ecclesiastical Discipline; it could scarce have avoided the pen of the first Fathers (Clemens, Ignatius, the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, Tertullian, &c.) who also so much treat concerning the Function and Authority of Christian Governours.

Nothing can be more strange, than that in the Statute-book of the new Jerusalem, and in all the Original Monuments concerning it, there should be such a dead silence concerning the succession of its chief Magistrate.

Wherefore no such thing appearing, we may reasonably conclude no such thing to have been, and that our Adversaries assertion of it is wholly arbitrary, imaginary and groundless.

14. I might add, as a very convincing Argument, that if such a succession had been designed, and known in old times, it is morally impossible, that none of the Fathers (Origen, Chrysostome, Augustine, Cyril, Hierome, Theodoret, &c.) in their exposition of the places alledged by the Romanists for the Primacy of Saint Peter, should declare that Primacy to have been derived and setled on Saint Peter's Successour; a point of that moment, if they had been aware of it, they could not but have touched, as a most usefull application, and direction for duty.

SUPPOSITION III. They affirm, That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome.

COncerning which Assertion we say, that it may with great reason be denyed, and that it cannot any-wise be assured; as will appear by the following Considerations.

1. Saint Peter's being Bishop of Rome would confound the Offices, which God made distinct;1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. for God did appoint first Apostles, then Prophets, then Pastours and Teachers; wherefore Saint Peter after he was an Apostle, could not well become a Bishop; it would be such an irregularity, as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon.

2. The Offices of an Apostle, and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent; for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office, charged with instruction and government of the whole world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115. and calling for an answerable care (the Apostles being Rulers, as Saint Chrysostome saith, ordained by God; Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities, but all of them in common entrusted with the whole world) but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge, affixed to one place, and requiring a special attendance there; Bishops being Pastours, who (as St. Chrysostome saith) do sit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Eph. 4.11. and are employed in one place: Now he that hath such a general care, can hardly discharge such a particular Office; and he that is fixed to so particular attendance, can hardly look well after so general a charge: Either of those Offices alone would suffice to take up a whole man; as those tell us, who have considered the burthen incumbent on the meanest of them; the which we may see described in St. Chrysostome's Discourses concerning the Priesthood.

Baronius saith of Saint Peter, that it was his Office, not to stay in one place, but as much as it was possible for one man to travel over the whole world, Non erat ejus Officii in uno loco consistere, sed quantum homini licuisset universum peragrare orbem, & nondum credentes ad fidem perducere, credentes vero in fide penitus stabilire. Baron. Anno 58. §. 51. and to bring those who did not yet believe to the faith, but thoroughly to establish believers; if so, how could he be Bishop of Rome, which was an Office inconsistent with such vagrancy?

3. It would not have beseemed Saint Peter, the prime Apostle, to assume the charge of a particular Bishop; it had been a degradation of himself, and a disparagement to the Apostolical Majesty for him to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome; as if the King should become Mayor of London; as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras.

4. Wherefore it is not likely, that Saint Peter, being sensible of that superiour charge belonging to him, which did exact a more extensive care, would vouchsafe to undertake an inferiour charge.

We cannot conceive, that Saint Peter did affect the Name of a Bishop, as now men do, allured by the baits of wealth and power, which then were none: if he did affect the Title, why did he not in either of his Epistles (one of which, as they would persuade us, was written from Rome) inscribe himself Bishop of Rome?

Especially considering, that being an Apostle, he hid not need any particular Authority, that involving all power, and enabling him in any particular place to execute all kinds of Ecclesiastical Administrations: there was no reason, that an Apostle (or Universal Bishop) should become a particular Bishop.

5. Also Saint Peter's general charge of converting and inspecting the Jews, dispersed over the World (his Apostleship, as Saint Paul calleth it,Gal. 2.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . of the Circumcision) which required much travel, and his presence in divers places, doth not well agree to his assuming the Episcopal Office at Rome.

Especially at that time, when they first make him to assume it; which was in the time of Claudius, who (as Saint Luke, and other Histories do report) did banish all the Jews from Rome, Act. 18.2. Sueton. in Claud. 25. in Tib. 36. as Tiberius also had done before him: He was too skilfull a Fisherman to cast his Net there, where there were no Fish.

6. If we consider Saint Peter's life, we may well deem him uncapable of this Office; which he could not conveniently discharge: for it, as History doth represent it, and may be collected from divers circumstances of it, was very unsetled; he went much about the World, and therefore could seldom reside at Rome.

Many have argued him to have never been at Rome; which opinion I shall not avow, as bearing a more civil respect to ancient Testimonies and Traditions; although many false and fabulous relations of that kind having crept into History and common vogue;Euseb. 3.3. many doubtfull reports having passed concerning him; many notorious forgeries having been vented about his travels and acts, (all that is reported of him out of Scripture having a smack of the Legend) would tempt a man to suspect any thing touching him, which is grounded onely upon humane Tradition; so that the forger of his Epistle to Saint James might well induce him saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ Petr. ad Jacob. If while I do yet survive, men dare to feign such things of me, how much more will they dare to doe so after my decease?

But at least the discourses of those men have evinced that it is hard to assign the time, when he was at Rome; and that he could never long abide there. For,

The time which old Tradition assigneth of his going to Rome, is rejected by divers learned men,Scal. in Euseb. p. 189. Onuph. apud Bell. 2.6. Vales. in Euseb. 2.16. even of the Roman Party.

He was often in other places;Act. 11.2.15.7. Gal. 1.18.2.9. Gal. 2.11. 1 Pet. 5.13. 1 Cor. 1.12. Euseb. 2.25. 2 Pet. 3.2. 1 Pet. 1.1. sometimes at Jerusalem, sometimes at Antioch, sometimes at Babylon, sometimes at Corinth, sometimes probably at each of those places unto which he directeth his Catholick Epistles; among which Epiphanius saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiph. haer. 27. that Peter did often visit Pontus and Bithynia.

And that he seldom was at Rome, may well be collected from St. Paul's Writings; for he writing at different times one Epistle to Rome, and divers Epistles from Rome (that to the Galatians, that to the Ephesians, that to the Philippians, that to the Colossians, and the Second to Timothy) doth never mention him, sending any salutation to him, or from him.

Particularly Saint Peter was not there, when Saint Paul mentioning Tychicus, Coloss. 4.11. Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus, addeth these alone my fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God, who have been a comfort unto me.

2 Tim. 4.16.He was not there, when Saint Paul said, at my first defence no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.

He was not there immediately before Saint Paul's death (when the time of his departure was at hand) when he telleth Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.6. 2 Tim. 4.21. that all the brethren did salute him, and naming divers of them, he omitteth Peter.

Which things being considered, it is not probable that Saint Peter would assume the Episcopal Chair of Rome, he being little capable to reside there, and for that other needfull affairs would have forced him to leave so great a Church destitute of their Pastour.

7. It was needless that he should be Bishop, for that by virtue of his Apostleship (involving all the power of inferiour degrees) he might whenever he should be at Rome exercise Episcopal Functions and Authority. What need a Sovereign Prince to be made a Justice of Peace—

8. Had he done so, he must have given a bad example of Non-residence,

Conc. Nic. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 3. Conc. Sard. Can. 11, 12. Conc. Trull. Can. 80.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Athan. Apol. 1.

Having read the Scriptures, you know how great an offence it is for a Bishop to forsake his Church, and to neglect the Flocks of God.

Oportet enim Episcop • s curis secularibus expeditos curam suorum agere populorum, nec Ecclesiis suis abesse diutiús. P. Paschal II. Ep. 22.

For Bishops ought to be disentangled from secular cares, and to take charge of their people, and not to be long absent from their Churches.

a practice that would have been very ill relished in the Primitive Church, as we may see by several Canons interdicting offences of kin to it (it being I think then not so known as nominally to be censured) and culpable upon the same ground; and by the sayings of Fathers condemning practices approaching to it.

Even latter Synods in more corrupt times, and in the declension of good Order,

Praecipimus nè conductitiis ministris Ecclesiae committantur, & unaquaeque Ecclesia, cui facultas suppetit, proprium habeat Sacerdotem. Conc. Lat. 2. (sub Innoc. II.) Can. 10.

We enjoyn that Churches be not committed to hired Ministers, but that every Church, that is of ability, have its proper Priest.

Cum igitur Ecclesia ve • Ecclesiasticum ministerium committi debuerit, talis ad hoc persona quaeratur, quae residere in loco, & curam ejus per seipsum valet exercere; quòd si aliter fuerit actum, & qui receperit, quod contra Sanctos Canones accepit, amittat. Conc. • at. 3. (sub Alexandro III.) Cap. 13.

Therefore when a Church or the Ecclesiastical Ministry be to be committed to any man, let such a person be found out for this purpose, who can reside upon the place, and discharge the cure by himself: but if it prove otherwise, then let him who has received, lose that which he has taken contrary to the holy Canons.

yet did prohibit this practice.

Epiphanius therefore did well infer, that it was needfull the Apostles should constitute Bishops resident at Rome; It was (saith he) possible, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiph. haer. 27. that the Apostles Peter and Paul yet surviving other Bishops should be constituted, because the Apostles often did take journeys into other Countries, for preaching Christ, but the City of Rome could not be without a Bishop.

9. If Saint Peter were Bishop of Rome, he thereby did offend against divers other good Ecclesiastical Rules, which either were in practice from the beginning, or at least the reason of them was always good, upon which the Church did afterward enact them; so that either he did ill in thwarting them, or the Church had done it in establishing them, so as to condemn his practice.

10. It was against Rule, that any Bishop should desert one Church, Apost. Can. 14. and transfer himself to another; and indeed against Reason, such a relation and endearment being contracted between a Bishop and his Church, which cannot well be dissolved.

But Saint Peter is by Ecclesiastical Historians reported (and by Romanists admitted) to have been Bishop of Antioch for seven years together.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodor. Ep. 86.

The great City of the Antiochians hath the throne of the great Saint Peter.

He therefore did ill to relinquish that Church, that most ancient and truly Apostolick Church of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 5.6. as the Constantinopolitan Fathers call'd it) and to place his See at Rome.

This practice was esteemed bad, and of very mischievous consequence; earnestly reproved as heinously criminal by great Fathers, severely condemned by divers Synods.

Particularly a transmigration from a lesser and poorer to a greater and more wealthy Bishoprick (which is the present case) was checked by them as rankly savouring of selfish ambition or avarice.

The Synod of Alexandria (in Athanasius) in its Epistle to all Catholick Bishops doth say, that Eusebius by passing from Berytus to Nicomedia had annulled his Episcopacy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 726. making it an adultery, worse than that which is committed by marriage upon divorce; Eusebius (say they) did not consider the Apostle's admonition, Art thou bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Alex. apud Athan. p. 727. for if it be said of a woman, how much more of a Church; of the same Bishoprick; to which one being tyed, ought not to seek another, that he may not be found also an adulterer, according to the Holy Scripture? Surely when they said this, they did forget, what Saint Peter was said to have done in that kind; as did also the Sardican Fathers in their Synodical Letter extant in the same Apology of Athanasius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 765. condemning translations from lesser Cities unto greater Dioceses.

The same practice is forbidden by the Synods of Nice I. of Chalcedon, of Antioch, of Sardica, Syn. Nic. Can. 15. Syn. Chalc. Can. 5. Syn. Ant. Can. 21. Syn. Sard. Can. 1. Syn. Arel. Can. 22. Grat. Caus. 8. qu. 1. cap. 4. of Arles I. &c.

In the Synod under Mennas, it was laid to the charge of Anthimus, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. sub. Menn. p. 9. that having been Bishop of Trabisond, he had adulterously snatched the See of Constantinople, against all Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons.

Yea great Popes of Rome (little considering how peccant therein their Predecessour Pope Peter was) Pope Julius and Pope Damasus did greatly P. Jul. I. apud Athan. in Apolog. 2. p. 744. tax this practice; whereof the latter in his Synod at Rome did excommunicate all those,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 5.11.

Those that pass from their own Churches to other Churches, we esteem so long excommunicate (or strangers from our communion) till such time as they return to the same Cities where they were first ordained.

who should commit it.

Si quis Episcopus, mediocritate Civitatis suae despectâ, administrationem loci celebrioris ambierit, & ad majorem se plebem quacunque occasione transtulerit, non solìon à Cathedra quidem pellatur aliena, sed carebit & propriâ, &c. P. Leo I. Ep. 84. c. 4.

If an Bishop, despising the meanness of his City, seeks for the administration of a more eminent place, and upon any occasion whatsoever transfers himself to a greater people, he shall not onely be driven out of another's See, but also lose his own, &c.

In like manner Pope Leo I.

These Laws were so indispensable, that in respect to them, Constantine M. who much loved and honoured Eusebius (acknowledging him in the common judgment of the world deserving to be Bishop of the whole Church) did not like, that he should accept the Bishoprick of Antioch, to which he was invited; and commended his waving it, as an act not onely consonant to the Ecclesiastical Canons, Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.61. but acceptable to God, and agreeable to Apostolical Tradition; so little aware was the good Emperour, of Saint Peter being translated from Antioch to Rome.

In regard to the same Law, Gregory Nazianzene (a person of so great worth, and who had deserved so highly of the Church at Constantinople) could not be permitted to retain his Bishoprick of that Church, to which he had been call'd from that small one of Sasima: The Synod (saith Sozomen) observing the ancient laws, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. 7.7. and the Ecclesiastical rule, did receive his Bishoprick, from him being willingly offered, no-wise regarding the great merits of the person; the which Synod surely would have excluded Saint Peter from the Bishoprick of Rome:

Illud praeterea commoneo dilectionem vestram, nè patiamini aliquem contra Sta • uta majorum nostrorum de Civitate alia ad aliam transduci, & deserere plebem sibi commissam, &c. P. Damasi Epist. apud Holsten. p. 41. & R. Marc. 5.21.

Moreover this I advise you, that out of your charity you would not suffer any one, against the Decrees of our Ancestours, to be removed from one City to another, and to forsake the people committed to his charge, &c.

and it is observable that Pope Damasus did approve and exhort those Fathers to that proceeding—

We may indeed observe, that Pope Pelagius II. did excuse the translation of Bishops by the example of Saint Peter; for who ever dareth to say (argueth he) that Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles did not act well, Quis enim unquam audet dicere S. Petrum Apostolorum Principem non benè egisse, quando mutavit sedem de Antiochia in Romam? Pelag. II. Ep. 1. when he changed his See from Antioch to Rome?

But I think it more adviseable to excuse Saint Peter from being Authour of a practice, judged so irregular, by denying the matter of Fact laid to his charge.

11. It was anciently deemed a very irregular thing, Contra Ecclesiasticam dispositionem, contra Evangelicam legem, contra Institutionis Catholicae unitatem— Cypr. Ep. 44. (ut & Ep. 46, 52, 55, 58.) contrary (saith St. Cyprian) to the Ecclesiastical disposition, contrary to the Evangelical Law, contrary to the unity of Catholick Institution; a Symbol (saith another Ancient Writer) of dissention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 4.15. and disagreeable to Ecclesiastical Law; which therefore was condemned by the Synod of Nice, Syn. Nic. Can. 8. by Pope Cornelius, by Pope Innocent the First,Cornelius apud Euseb. 6.43. Cypr. Ep. 46. P. Innocentius, apud Sozom. 8.26. Opt. I. Cathedra una. and others, that two Bishops should preside together in one City.

This was condemned with good reason; for this on the Churches part would be a kind of spiritual Polygamy; this would render a Church a monster with two heads; this would destroy the end of Episcopacy, which is unity and prevention of Schisms. In remedium Schismatis. Hier.

But if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome, this irregularity was committed; for the same Authority upon which Saint Peter's Episcopacy of Rome is built, doth also reckon Saint Paul Bishop of the same; the same Writers do make both Founders and Planters of the Roman Church, and the same call both Bishops of it; wherefore if Episcopacy be taken in a strict and proper sense, agreeable to this Controversie, that rule must needs be infringed thereby.

Irenaeus saith, —à gloriofissimis duobus Apostolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundaeta, & constituta Ecclesia. Iren. 3.3.3.1. that the Roman Church was founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; Dionysius of Corinth calleth it the plantation of Peter and Paul; Epiphanius saith, that Peter and Paul were first at Rome both Apostles and Bishops; so Eusebius implyeth, saying that P. Alexander derived a succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Donys. Corinth. apud Euseb. 2.25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiph. Haer. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. 4.1.

Wherefore both of them were Roman Bishops, or neither of them: In reason and rule neither of them may be called so in a strict and proper sense; but in a larger and improper sense both might be so styled.

Indeed that Saint Paul was in some acception Bishop of Rome (that is, had a Supreme superintendence or inspection of it) is reasonable to affirm; because he did for a good time reside there, and during that residence could not but have the chief place, could be subject to no other; He (saith Saint Luke) did abide two whole years in his own hired house, Act. 28.30. and received all that entred in unto him, preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things, which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

It may be enquired, if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome, how he did become such? did our Lord appoint him such, did the Apostles all or any constitute him, did the people elect him, did he put himself into it? of none of these things there is any appearance, nor any probability. Non constat.

SUPPOSITION IV. They affirm, That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation, and was so at his decease.

AGainst which Assertions we may consider:

1. Ecclesiastical Writers do affirm, that Saint Peter (either alone, or together with Saint Paul) did constitute other Bishops; wherefore Saint Peter was never Bishop, or did not continue Bishop there.

Irenaeus saith, that the Apostles founding and rearing that Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Iren. apud Euseb. 5.6. delivered the Episcopal Office into the hands of Linus; if so, how did they retain it in their own hands or persons? could they give, and have?

Romanorum Ecclesiae Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit. Tert. de Praescr. 32. Tertullian saith, that Saint Peter did ordain Clement.

In the Apostolical Constitutions (a very ancient Book, and setting forth the most ancient Traditions of the Church,) the Apostles ordering Prayers to be made for all Bishops, and naming the principal, Ex quìbus electum magnum plebique probatum, Hâc Cathedrâ, Petrus quâ sederat ipse, locatum Maxima Roma Linum primum considere jussit. do reckon, not St. Peter, but Clement, Let us pray for our Bishop James, for our Bishop Clemens, for our Bishop Evodius, Tert. in Marc. 3.9. &c.

These reports are consistent, and reconciled by that which the Apostolical Constitutions affirm; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Const. Apost. 7.46. that Linus was first ordained Bishop of the Roman Church by Paul; but Clemens after the death of Linus by Peter in the second place.

Others between Linus and Clemens do interpose Cletus or Anacletus (some taking these for one,Euseb. 3.4, 13. Aug. Ep. 165. Epiph. Haer. 27. Opt. 2. Tertull. poem. in Marc. 3.9. Phot. Cod. 112. (p. 290.) N. Eusebius (3.2.) saith, that Linus did sit Bishop after the Martyrdom of Saint Peter, but this is not so probable, as that which the Authour of the Constitutions doth affirm, which reconcileth the dissonancies of Writers. others for two persons) which doth not alter the case.

Now hence we may infer, both that Saint Peter never was Bishop; and, upon supposition that he was, that he did not continue so. For,

2. If he had ever been Bishop, he could not well lay down his Office, or subrogate another, either to preside with him, or to succeed him; according to the ancient Rules of Discipline, and that which passed for right in the Primitive Church.

This practice Pope Innocent I. condemned, as irregular and never known before his time; We (saith he in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople) never have known these things to have been adventured by our Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Inn. I. apud Soz. 8.26. but rather to have been hindred; for that none hath power given him to ordain another into the place of one living: He did not (it seems) consider, that Saint Peter had used such a power.

Accordingly the Synod of Antioch (to secure the tradition and practice of the Church, which began by some to be infringed) did make this Sanction, that it should not be lawfull for any Bishop to constitute another in his room to succeed him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Ant. Can. 23. although it were at the point of death.

3. But supposing Saint Peter were Bishop once, yet by constituting Linus, or Clemens in his place, he ceased to be so, and devested himself of that place; for it had been a great irregularity for him to continue Bishop together with another.

That being, in St. Cyprian's judgment, the Ordination of Linus had been void and null; for seeing (saith that H. Martyr) there cannot after the first be any second, Cùm post primum secundus esse non possit; quisquis post unum, qui solus esse debeat, non jam secundus ille, sed nullus est. Cypr. Ep. 52. whoever is after one, who ought to be sole Bishop, he is not now second, but none.

Upon this ground, when the Emperour Constantius would have procured Felix to sit Bishop of Rome together with Pope Liberius, at his return from Banishment (after his complyance with the Arians) the people of Rome would not admit it, exclaiming One God, one Christ, one Bishop; and whereas Felix soon after that dyed, the Historian remarketh it as a special providence of God that Peter's Throne might not suffer infamy;

Theod. hist. 2.17.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

being governed under two Prelates; he never considered, that Saint Peter and Saint Paul, Saint Peter and Linus had thus governed that same Church.

Upon this account St. Austin being assumed by Valerius with him to be Bishop of Hippo, did afterward discern and acknowledge his errour.

Adhuc in corpore posito beatae memoriae patre & Episcopo meo sene Valerio Episcopus ordinatus sum, & sedi cum illo, quod concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, nec ipse sciebat. Aug. Ep. 110.

While my Father and Bishop of blessed memory, old Valerius was yet living, I was ordained Bishop, and held the See with him: which I knew not, nor did he know, to be forbidden by the Council of Nice.

In fine, to obviate this practice, so many Canons of Councils (both general and particular) were made, which we before did mention.

4. In sum, when Saint Peter did ordain others (as story doth accord in affirming) either he did retain the Episcopacy, and then (beside need, reason and rule) there were concurrently divers Bishops of Rome at one time; or he did quite relinquish and finally divorce himself from the Office, so that he did not dye Bishop of Rome,

Ipse sublimavit Sedem, in qua etiam quiescere, & praesentem vitam finire dignatus est. Greg. I. Ep. 6.37. Innoc. I. Ep. 21. P. Nic. I. Ep. 9. p. 509. Grat. caus. 8. q. 1. cap. 1.

He advanced that See, wherein he vouchsafed both to set up his rest, and also to end this present life.

Bell. 2.12. § At verò—

the which overturneth the main ground of the Romish pretence. Or will they say, that Saint Peter, having laid aside the Office for a time, did afterward before his death resume it? then what became of Linus, of Cletus, of Clemens? were they dispossessed of their place, or deposed from their function; would Saint Peter succeed them in it? Petrum Apostolum successisse in Episcopatu Antiocheno alicul ex discipulis, quod est planè intolerandum. Bell. 2.6. this in Bellarmine's own judgment had been plainly intolerable.

5. To avoid all which difficulties in the case, and perplexities in story, it is reasonable to understand those of the Ancients, who call Peter Bishop of Rome, and Rome the place, the Chair, the See of Peter, as meaning that he was Bishop or Superintendent of that Church, in a large sense; because he did found the Church by converting men to the Christian Faith; because he did erect the Chair by ordaining the first Bishops; because he did in virtue both of his Apostolical Office, and his special parental relation to that Church maintain a particular inspection over it, when he was there: which notion is not new, for of old Ruffinus affirmeth that he had it, not from his own invention, but from Tradition of others; Quidam enim requirunt quo modo, cùm Linus & Cletus in urbe Roma ante Clementem hunc fuerint Episcopi, ipse Clemens ad Jacobum Scribens, sibi dicat à Petro docendi Cathedram traditam, cujus rei hanc accepimus esse rationem, quòd Linus & Cletus fuerunt quidem ante Clementem Episcopi in urbe Roma, sed superstite Petro; videlicet ut illi Episcopatûs curam gererent, ipse verò Apostolatûs impleret Officium. Ruffin. in praef. ad Clem. Recogn. Some (saith he) inquire how, seeing Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clement, Clement himself writing to James, could say that the See was delivered to him by Peter; whereof this reason has been given us, viz. that Linus and Cletus were indeed Bishops of Rome before Clement, but Peter being yet living, viz. that they might take the Episcopal charge, but he fulfill'd the Office of the Apostleship.

6. This notion may be confirmed by divers observations.

Const. Apost. 7.46. Iren. 3.3. Tertull.It is observable that the most ancient Writers, living nearest the fountains of Tradition, do not expresly style Saint Peter Bishop of Rome, but onely say, that he did found that Church, instituting and ordaining Bishops there; as the other Apostles did in the Churches which they setled; so that the Bishops there in a large sense did succeed him, and deriving their power from his ordination, and supplying his room in the instruction and governance of that great Church. Yea their words if we well mark them,

Fundantes igitur, & instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt. Iren. 3.3.

The Blessed Apostles therefore founding and instructing the Church delivered the Episcopal power of ordering and governing the Church to Linus.

do exclude the Apostles from the Episcopacy. Which words the later Writers (who did not foresee the consequence, nor what an exorbitant superstructure would be raised on that slender bottom, and who were willing to comply with the Roman Bishops, affecting by all means to reckon Saint Peter for their predecessour) did easily catch, and not well distinguishing did call him Bishop, and St. Paul also, so making two Heads of one Church.

7. It is also observable, that in the recensions of the Roman Bishops, sometimes the Apostles are reckoned in, sometimes excluded.

So Eusebius calleth Clemens the third Bishop of Rome, Euseb. 3.4, 13, 15. Iren. 3.3. yet before him he reckoneth Linus and Anacletus.

And of Alexander he saith, that he deduced his Succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. 4.1. that is, excluding the Apostles.

Iren. 1.28.3.3, 4. Euseb. 4.10.And Hyginus is thus accounted sometime the eighth, sometime the ninth Bishop of Rome.

The same difference in reckoning may be observed in other Churches; for instance, although Saint Peter is called no less Bishop of Antioch, than of Rome, by the Ancients, yet Eusebius saith, that Evodius was first Bishop of Antioch;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. Chron. p. 7. Hist. 3.22.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Pseud. Ignat. ad Ant.

Euseb. counteth Annia •• s the first Bishop of Alexandria. 3.21.

and another bids the Antiocheans remember Evodius, who was first entrusted with the Presidency over them by the Apostles.

Other instances may be seen in the Notes of Cotellerius upon the Apostolical Constitutions, where he maketh this general Observation.

'Tis an usual custome with the Apostles according to their Power ordinary or extraordinary, Celebris mos est Apostolos pro potestate eorum ordinaria vel extraordinaria, Episcopali vel Apostolica, Indiculis antistitum praefigere, aut ex iis eximere. Cotell. Not. p. 299. Episcopal or Apostolical, to prefix, &c. but it was needless to suppose these two Powers, when one was sufficient, it virtually containing the other.

This is an Argument that the Ancients were not assured in opinion; that the Apostles were Bishops; or that they did not esteem them Bishops in the same notion with others.

8. It is observable, that divers Churches did take denomination from the Apostles, and were called Apostolical Thrones, or Chairs, Apostolicae Ecclesiae. Tert. de Praescr. 3 • . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 1.17. not because the Apostles themselves did sit Bishops there, but because they did exercise their Apostleship, in teaching; and in constituting Bishops there,

2 Tim. 1.6. In Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium auctoritatem sequatur, inter quos sanè illae sunt, quae Apostolicas sedes habere, & Epistolas accipere meruerunt. Aug. de doctr. Ch. 2.8.

Let him follow the Authority of those many Catholick Churches in the Canonical Scriptures, among which surely are those which had the honour to have Apostolical Sees, and to receive Epistles from the Apostles.

Proinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent. Tertull. de Praescr. 32.

who (as Tertullian saith) did propagate the Apostolical seed.

So was Ephesus esteemed, because Saint Paul did found it,

Sed & quae est Ephesi Ecclesia à Paulo quidem fundata, Johanne autem permanente apud eos usque ad Trajani tempora, &c. Iren. 3.3.

And also the Church of Ephesus which was founded by Saint Paul, Saint John continuing with them till the time of Trajan, &c.

Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit auctorem. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Apost. Const. 7.46.

and ordain Timothy there; and because Saint John did govern and appoint Bishops there.

So was Smyrna accounted, because Polycarpus was setled there by the Apostles, or by Saint John.

Ab Apostolis in ea quae es • Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus. Iren. 3.3. Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Johanne conlocatum. Tertull. de Praescr. 32. Euseb. 3.36.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. 3.36.

So Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, had a controversie about metropolitical rights with Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, as presiding in an Apostolical See. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. 4.25.

So Alexandria was deemed, because Saint Mark was supposed by the appointment of Saint Peter to sit there.

So were Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi called by Tertullian, because Saint Paul did found them, and furnish them with Pastours;Tertull. de Praes. 36. in which respect peculiarly the Bishops of those places were called Successours of the Apostles.

So Constantinople did assume the title of an Apostolical Church,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 379. & p. 284. Thou despisest this Apostolical Throne. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Niceph. 2.39.

Forasmuch as having appointed holy Stachys the first Bishop, in the Church which he first setled there.

Non dedignetur regiam civitatem, quam Apostolicam non potest facere sedem— P. Leo I. Ep. 54.

Let him not disdain the Royal City, which he cannot make an Apostolick See.

probably because, according to tradition, St. Andrew did found that Church, although Pope Leo I. would not allow it that appellation.

Upon the same account might Rome at first be called an Apostolical See; although afterward the Roman Bishops did rather pretend to that denomination, upon account of Saint Peter being Bishop there; and the like may be said of Antioch. Memento quia Apostolicam sedem regis— Greg. M. Ep. 4.37. Remember you rule an Apostolick See.

Const. Apost. 7.46.9. It is observable, that the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions, reciting the first Bishops constituted in several Churches, doth not reckon any of the Apostles; particularly not Peter, or Paul, or John.

10. Again, any Apostle wherever he did reside by virtue of his Apostolical Office, without any other designation or assumption of a more special Power, was qualifyed to preside there, exercising a Superintendency comprehensive of all Episcopal functions; so that it was needless, that he should take upon himself the character or style of a Bishop.

This (beside the tenour of ancient Doctrine) doth appear from the demeanour of Saint John,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chal. Act. 11. 2 Tim. 1.6.

From holy Timothy till now there have been seven and twenty Bishops, and all ordained at Ephesus.

Johanne autem permanente apud eos, &c. Iren. 3.3.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. hist. 3.23.

who never was reckoned Bishop of Ephesus; nor could be, without displacing Timothy, who by Saint Paul was constituted Bishop there, or succeeding in his room; yet he abiding at Ephesus, did there discharge the Office of a Metropolitan; governing the Churches, and in the adjacent Churches here constituting Bishops, there forming whole Churches, otherwhere allotting to the Clergy Persons designed by the Spirit.

Such Functions might Saint Peter execute in the parts of Rome, or Antioch, without being a Bishop; and as the Bishops of Asia did (saith Tertullian) refer their original to Saint John, so might the Bishops of Italy, Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit auctorem. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5. upon the like ground, refer their original to Saint Peter.

It is observable, that whereas Saint Peter is affirmed to have been Bishop of Antioch seven years before his access to Rome,

Ann. Chr. 39. Baron. § 8. Act. 9.32. Act. 11.20. Denique primum Episcopum Antiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse accepimus, & Romam exinde translatum, quod Lucas penitus omisit. Hier. in Gal. 2.

Lastly, we have received by tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, and from thence translated to Rome: which Luke has altogether omitted.

that is within the compass of Saint Luke's story; yet he passeth over a matter of so great moment; as St. Hierome observeth.

I cannot grant, that if Saint Luke had thought Peter Sovereign of the Church, and his Episcopacy of a place a matter of such consequence, he would have slipped it over, being so obvious a thing, and coming in the way of his story.

He therefore I conceive was no Bishop of Antioch, although a Bishop at Antioch. 'Tis the distinction of a Pope. Rex Etruriae, & Rex in Etruria.

11. If in objection to some of these discourses, it be alledged, that Saint James our Lord's near Kinsman, although he was an Apostle, was made Bishop of Jerusalem; and that for the like reason Saint Peter might assume the Bishoprick of Rome;

I answer.

1. It is not certain, that Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem was an Apostle; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. 1.12. (meaning an Apostle of the primary rank,) for Eusebius (the greatest Antiquary of old times) doth reckon him one of the 70 disciples.

So doth the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions in divers places suppose. Apost. Const. 6.12.6.14.2.55.7.46, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 6.12. We the twelve Apostles together with James.

Hegesippus (that most ancient Historian) was of the same mind, who saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. 2.23. that there were many of this name, and that this James did undertake the Church with the Apostles.

Of the same opinion was Epiphanius, Epiph. Haer. 78. who saith that Saint James was the Son of Joseph by another Wife.

The whole Greek Church doth suppose the same, keeping three distinct solemnities for him, and the two Apostles of the same name.

Gregory Nyssene, St. Hierome, and divers other ancient Writers do concur herein, whom we may see alledged by Grotius, Dr. Hammond,

Grot. in Jac. 1.1. Hamm. dissert. Ignat. 4.3. Vales. in Euseb. 1.12. Blondel. in Epist. Clem. ad Jacob.

Certum est non fuisse unum ex duodecim. Wal. Mess. p. 20.

(who themselves did embrace the same opinion) Valesius, Blondel, &c.

Salmasius (after his confident manner) saith it is certain, that he was not one of the twelve; I may at least say, it is not certain that he was, and consequently the objection is grounded on an uncertainty.

2. Granting that Saint James was one of the Apostles (as some of the Ancients seem to think,

Hierosolymitanam, quam primus Apostolus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit. Aug. c. Cresc. 2.37.

The Church of Jerusalem, which James the Apostle first governed by his Episcopal power.

Gal. 1.19.

calling him an Apostle; and as divers modern Divines conceive, grounding chiefly upon these words of Saint Paul, But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's Brother, and taking Apostles there in the strictest sense) I answer,

That the case was peculiar, and there doth appear a special reason, why one of the Apostles should be designed to make a constant residence at Jerusalem, and consequently to preside there like a Bishop. For Jerusalem was the Metropolis, the Fountain, the Centre of the Christian Religion, where it had birth, where was greatest matter and occasion of propagating the Gospel, most people disposed to embrace it resorting thither; where the Church was very numerous, consisting, as St. Luke (or Saint James in him) doth intimate,Act. 21.20. of divers myriads of believing Jews; whence it might seem expedient, that a person of greatest Authority should be fixed there for the confirming and improving that Church, together with the propagation of Religion among the people, which resorted thither; the which might induce the Apostles to settle Saint James there, both for discharging the Office of an Apostle, and the supplying the room of a Bishop there.

According to him (saith Eusebius) The Episcopal Throne was committed by the Apostles;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. 2.23.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiph. Haer. 78.

or our Lord (saith Epiphanius) did entrust him with his own Throne.

But there was no need of fixing an Apostle at other places; nor doth it appear that any was so fixed; especially Saint Peter was uncapable of such an employment, requiring settlement and constant attendance, who beside his general Apostleship, had a peculiar Apostleship of the dispersed Jews committed to him; who therefore was much engaged in travel for propagation of the Faith, and edifying his Converts every where.

3. The greater consent of the most ancient Writers making St. Iames not to have been one of the twelve Apostles, it is thence accountable, why (as we before noted) Saint James was called by some ancient Writers the Bishop of Bishops, the Prince of Bishops, &c. because he was the first Bishop, of the first See, and Mother Church; the Apostles being excluded from the comparison.

Upon these considerations we have great reason to refuse the assertion or scandal cast on Saint Peter, that he took on him to be Bishop of Rome, in a strict sense, as it is understood in this controversie.

SUPPOSITION V. A father Assertion is this, superstructed by consequence on the former, That the Bishops of Rome, (according to God's institution, and by original right derived thence) should have an Vniversal Supremacy and jurisdiction, (containing the privileges and prerogatives formerly described) over the Christian Church.

THIS Assertion to be very uncertain, yea to be most false, I shall by divers considerations evince.

1. If any of the former Suppositions be uncertain, or false, this Assertion, standing on those legs, must partake of those defects, and answerably be dubious, or false. If either Peter was not Monarch of the Apostles, or if his privileges were not successive, or if he were not properly Bishop of Rome at his decease, then farewell the Romish claim; if any of those things be dubious, it doth totter; if any of them prove false, then down it falleth.

But that each of them is false, hath I conceive been sufficiently declared; that all of them are uncertain, hath at least been made evident.

The Structure therefore cannot be firm, which relieth on such props.

2. Even admitting all those Suppositions, the inference from them is not assuredly valid. For Saint Peter might have an Universal Jurisdiction, he might derive it by Succession, he might be Bishop of Rome; yet no such Authority might hence accrue to the Roman Bishop, his Successour in that See.

For that Universal Jurisdiction might be derived into another Chanel; and the Bishop of Rome might in other respects be Successour to him, without being so in this.

As for instance in the Roman Empire, before any Rule of Succession was established therein, the Emperour was Sovereign Governour, and he might dye Consul of Rome, having assumed that place to himself; yet when he dyed, the Supreme Authority did not lapse into the hands of the Consul, who succeeded him, but into the hands of the Senate, and People: his Consular Authority onely going to his Successour in that Office. So might Saint Peter's Universal Power be transferred unto the Ecclesiastical College of Bishops, and of the Church; his Episcopal inferiour Authority over the singular 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Province of Rome, being transmitted to his Followers in that Chair.

3. That in truth it was thus, and that all the Authority of Saint Peter and of all other Apostles, was devolved to the Church, and to the representative Body thereof, the Fathers did suppose; affirming the Church to have received from our Lord a Sovereign Power.

This (saith St. Cyprian) is that One Church, which holdeth, Haec est una quae tenet & possidet omnem sponsi sui & Domini potestatem, in hac praesidemus, pro honore ejus & unitate pugnamus— Cypr. Ep. 73. and possesseth all the power of its Spouse and Lord, in this we preside; for the honour and unity of this we fight— saith he in his Epistle to Jubaianus, wherein he doth impugn the proceedings of Pope Stephanus; the which Sentence St. Austin appropriateth to himself, speaking it absolutely,Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 4.1. without citing St. Cyprian. To this Authority of the Church, St. Basil would have all that confess the faith of Christ to submit; To which end we exceedingly need your assistence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. Epist. 69. that they who confess the Apostolick faith, would renounce the schisms which they have devised, and submit themselves henceforth to the Authority of the Church.

They (after the Holy Scripture, which saith,1 Tim. 3.5, 15. Act. 20.28. Eph. 4.12. that each Bishop hath a care of God's Church, and is obliged to feed the Church of God— and is appointed to edify the body of Christ) do suppose the administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs concerning the publick state of the Church, the defence of the common Faith,

Collegium Sacerdotum. Cypr. Ep. 67.52.—

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Apost. Const. 8.10.

the maintenance of order, peace and unity jointly to belong unto the whole body of Pastours; according to that of St. Cyprian to Pope Stephanus himself, Therefore, most dear brother, Idcirco enim, frater carissime, copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum, concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut siquis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri, & quasi Pastores utiles & misericordes oves Domini in gregem colligant. Cypr. Ep. 67. the body of Priests is copious, being joined together by the glue of mutual concord, and the bond of unity, that if any of our College shall attempt to make heresie, and to tear or waste the flock of Christ, the rest may come to succour; and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may recollect the sheep into the flock. And again, Cui rei nostrum est consulere, & subvenire, frater charissime, qui divinam clementiam cogitantes, & gubernandae Ecclesiae libram tenentes, &c. Ibid. Which thing it concerns us to look after and redress, most dear brother, who bearing in mind the divine clemency, and holding the scales of the Church-government, &c.

So even the Roman Clergy did acknowledge, Omnes enim nos decet pro corpore totlus Ecclesiae, cujus per varias quasque provincias membra digesta sunt, excu • are. Cler. Rom. apud Cypr. Ep. 30. For we ought all of us to watch for the body of the whole Church, whose members are digested through several Provinces.

Like the Trinity,

Ad Trinitatis instar, cujus una est atque individua potestas, unum esse per diversos Antistites Sacerdotium. P. Symmachus ad Aeonium Arelat.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Const. Apost. 6.14.

Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, & ipsis solis potestatem à Petro sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus, eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes. Conc. Carth. apud Cypr. p. 405.

whose power is one and undivided, there is one Priesthood among divers Bishops.

So in the Apostolical Constitutions, the Apostles tell the Bishops, that an universal Episcopacy is entrusted to them.

So the Council of Carthage with St. Cyprian— Clear and manifest is the mind and meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ, sending his Apostles, and affording to them alone the power given him of the Father; in whose room we succeeded, governing the Church of God with the same power.

Christus Dominus & Deus noster ad Patrem proficiscens, sponsam suam nobis commendavit— Ibid. p. 404. Christ our Lord and our God going to the Father, commended his Spouse to us.

A very ancient Instance of which administration is the proceeding against Paulus Samosatenus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. 7.27. when the Pastours of the Churches, some from one place, some from another did assemble together against him as a pest of Christ's flock, all of them hastning to Antioch; where they deposed, exterminated and deprived him of communion, warning the whole Church to reject and disavow him.

Seeing the Pastoral charge is common to us all, who bear the Episcopal Office, Cùm communis sit omnibus nobis, qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio, quamvis ipse in eo praemineas celsiore fastigio, sp • cula pastoralis— Aug. ad Bonif. contra duas Epist. Pelag. 1.1. although thou fittest in a higher and more eminent place.

Hujus ergo rei gratiâ vobis & nobis sancta commissa est Ecclesia, ut pro omnibus laboremus, & cunctis opem ferre non negligamus— P. Joh. I. Ep. 1. (ad Zachar.) apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 812. Therefore for this cause the Holy Church is committed to you and to us, that we may labour for all, and not be slack in yielding help and assistence to all.

Hence Saint Chrysostome said of Eustathius his Bishop; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 93. For he was well instructed and taught by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that a President or Bishop of a Church ought not to take care of that Church alone, wherewith he is entrusted by the Holy Ghost, but also of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world.

They consequently did repute Schism, or Ecclesiastical Rebellion to consist in a departure from the consent of the body of the Priesthood,

A corpore nostri, & Sacerdotii consensione discesserit— Cypr. Ep. 67.

Qui se ab Ecclesiae vinculo, atque à Sacerdotum Collegio separat—

Cypr. Ep. 52.

as St. Cyprian in divers places doth express it in his Epistles to Pope Stephen and others.

They deem all Bishops to partake of the Apostolical Authority, according to that of St. Basil to St. Ambrose; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Basil. Epist. 56. The Lord himself hath translated thee from the Judges of the Earth unto the Prelacy of the Apostles.

They took themselves all to be Vicars of Christ, and Judges in his stead; according to that of St. Cyprian; For Heresies are sprung up, Neque enim aliunde Haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt Schismata, quàm indè quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperetur, nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur. Cypr. Ep. 55. and Schisms grown from no other ground nor root but this, because God's Priest was not obeyed, nor was there one Priest or Bishop for a time in the Church, nor a Judge thought on for a time to supply the room of Christ. Where that by Church is meant any particular Church, and by Priest a Bishop of such Church, any one not bewitched with prejudice by the tenour of Saint Cyprian's discourse will easily discern. Episcopus personam habet Christi & Vicarius Domini est. Ambr. in 1 Cor. 11. The Bishop sustains the Person of Christ, and is the Vicar of our Lord.

Cypr. Ep. 27.They conceive that our Saviour did promise to Saint Peter the Keys in behalf of the Church, and as representing it.

They suppose the combination of Bishops in peaceable consent, and mutual aid, to be the Rock on which the Church is built.

They alledge the Authority granted to Saint Peter as a ground of claim to the same in all Bishops jointly, and in each Bishop singly, according to his rata pars, or allotted proportion.

Which may easily be understood by the words of our Lord, when he says to blessed Peter,

Quod ex verbis Domini facilè intelligi potest, quibus B. Petro, cujus vicem Episcopi gerunt, ait Quodcunque, &c.

Capit. Caroli M. Lib. 5. cap. 163.

Ego Constantini, vos Petri gladium habetis in manibus.

whose place the Bishops supply, Whatsoever, &c.

I have the sword of Constantine in my hands, you of Peter, said our great King Edgar.

They do therefore in this regard take themselves all to be Successours of Saint Peter, that his power is derived to them all, and that the whole Episcopal Order is the Chair by the Lord's voice founded on Saint Peter: thus St. Cyprian in divers places (before touched) discourseth; and thus Firmilian from the Keys granted to Saint Peter inferreth, disputing against the Roman Bishop; Therefore (saith he) the power of remitting sins is given to the Apostles and to the Churches, Potestas ergò remittendorum peccatorum Apostolis data est, & Ecclesiis qu •• illi à Christo missi constituerunt, & Episcopis qui eis ordinatione vicariâ succedunt. Firmil. apud Cypr. Ep. 75. which they being sent from Christ did constitute, and to the Bishops, which do succeed them by vicarious ordination.

4. The Bishops of any other Churches founded by the Apostles, in the Fathers style are Successours of the Apostles, in the same sense, and to the same intent as the Bishop of Rome is by them accounted Successour of Saint Peter; the Apostolical power, which in extent was universal, being in some sense, in reference to them, not quite extinct, but transmitted by succession; yet the Bishops of Apostolical Churches did never claim, nor allowedly exercise Apostolical Jurisdiction, beyond their own precincts; Responde mihi ad Alexandrinum Episcopum Palestina quid pertinet? Hier. ad Pammach. Ep. 61.15. according to those words of St. Hierome, Tell me, what doth Palestine belong to the Bishop of Alexandria?

This sheweth the inconsequence of their discourse; for in like manner the Pope might be Successour to Saint Peter, and Saint Peter's universal power might be successive, yet the Pope have no singular claim thereto, beyond the bounds of his particular Church.

5. So again, for instance, Saint James (whom the Roman Church, in her Liturgies, doth avow for an Apostle,) was Bishop of Jerusalem more unquestionably, than Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome; Jerusalem also was the root,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodor. 5.9.

Mater Christiani nominis. Imper. Just. ad P. Hornisd. apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 794.

The mother of the Christian name.

and the mother of all Churches, (as the Fathers of the Second General Synod, in their Letter to Pope Damasus himself and the Occidental Bishops did call it, forgetting the singular pretence of Rome to that Title.)

Yet the Bishops of Jerusalem, Successours of Saint James, did not thence claim I know not what kind of extensive Jurisdiction; yea notwithstanding their succession they did not so much as obtain a metropolitical Authority in Palestine, which did belong to Caesarea (having been assigned thereto, in conformity to the Civil Government) and was by special provision reserved thereto in the Synod of Nice;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Nic. Can. 7.

Ibi decernitur, ut Palestinae metropolis Caesarea sit. Hier. Ep. 61.15.

'Tis there decreed that Caesarea should be the metropolis of Palestine.

whence St. Jerome did not stick to affirm, that the Bishop of Jerusalem was subject to the Bishop of Caesarea; for speaking to John Bishop of Jerusalem, who for compurgation of himself from errours imputed to him had appealed to Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, Maluisti occupatis auribus molestion facere, quam debitum metropolitano tuo honorem reddere. Hier. ad Pammach. Ep. 61.15. he saith, Thou hadst rather cause molestation to ears possessed, than render honour to thy Metropolitan, that is, to the Bishop of Caesarea.

By which instance we may discern, what little consideration sometimes was had of personal or topical succession to the Apostles, in determining the extent of Jurisdiction, and why should the Roman Bishop upon that score pretend more validly, than others?

6. Saint Peter probably e'er that he came at Rome did found divers other Churches,Hier. ad Galat. 2. P. Pelag. II. Ep. 1. whereof he was paramount Bishop, or did retain a special superintendency over them; particularly Antioch was anciently called his See, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalced. Act. 7. p. 364. and he is acknowledged to have sate there seven years, before he was Bishop of Rome.

Why therefore may not the Bishop of Antioch pretend to succeed Saint Peter in his universal Pastourship as well as his younger brother of Rome? why should Evodius ordained by Saint Peter at Antioch, yield to Clemens afterward by him ordained at Rome?

Antioch was the first-born of Gentile Churches, where the name of Christians was first heard;Act. 11.26. Antioch was (as the Constantinopolitan Fathers called it) the most ancient and truly Apostolical Church. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 5.9.

Antioch by virtue of Saint Peter's sitting there, or peculiar relation to it,

Vbi Imperator, ibi Roma.

Where the Emperour is, there is Rome.

was (according to their own conceits) the principal See.

Why therefore should Saint Peter be so unkind to it, as not onely to relinquish it, but to debase it; not onely transferring his See from it, but devesting it of the privilege, which it had got?

Why should he prefer before it the City of Rome, the mystical Babylon, Apoc. 17.5. the mother of abominations of the earth, the Throne of Satan's Empire, the place which did then most persecute the Christian Faith, and was drunk with the bloud of the Saints?

Apoc. 17.6. Sic & Babylon apud Joannem nostrum Romanae Vrbis figura est, proinde & magnae & regno superbae, & sanctorum debellatricis. Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. 9.

So also Babylon in our Saint John is a type of the City of Rome, and therefore of a great, royal, and proud City, and a subduer of the Saints.

Bell. 2.12.7. The ground of this preference was, say they, Saint Peter's Will; and they have reason to say so, for otherwise if Saint Peter had died intestate, the Elder Son of Antioch would have had best right to all his goods and dignities. Potuisset Petrus nullam sedem particularem sibi unquam eligere, sicut fecit primis quinque annis— Ibid. Peter might have chosen to himself no particular City, as he did the first five years.

But how doth that Will appear? in what Tables was it written? in what Registers is it extant? in whose presence did he nuncupate it? it is no-where to be seen or heard of.

Neither do they otherwise know of it, than by reasoning it out; and in effect they say onely that it was fit he should will it, but they may be mistaken in their divinations; and perhaps notwithstanding them Saint Peter might will as well to his former See of Antioch, as to his latter of Rome.

8. Indeed Bellarmine sometimes positively and briskly enough doth affirm,

Jubente Domino. 2.1.

Deus ipse jussit Romae figi Apostolicam Petri sedem. 4.4.

that God did command Saint Peter to fix his See at Rome; but his proofs of it are so ridiculously fond and weak, that I grudge the trouble of reciting them; and he himself sufficiently confuteth them, by saying other-where, It is not unprobable, Non est improbabile Dominum etiam apertè jussisse, ut sedem suam Petrus ità figeret Romae, ut Romanus Episcopus absolutè ei succederet. Bell. 2.12. § Et quoniam. that our Lord gave an express command, that Peter should so fix his See at Rome, that the Bishop of Rome should absolutely succeed him.

He saith it is not improbable; if it be no more than so, it is uncertain; it may be a mere conjecture or a dream.

It is much more not-unprobable that if God had commanded it, there would have been some assurance of a command so very important.

9. Antioch hath at least a fair plea for a share in Saint Peter's Prerogatives; for it did ever hold the repute of an Apostolical Church, and upon that score some deference was paid to it; why so, if Saint Peter did carry his See with all its Prerogatives to another place? But if he carried with him onely part of his Prerogative, leaving some part behind at Antioch, how much then I pray did he leave there? why did he divide unequally, or leave less than half? if perchance he did leave half, the Bishop of Antioch is equal to him of Rome.

10. Other persons also may be found, who according to equal judgment might have a better title to the succession of Peter in his Universal Authority than the Pope; having a nearer relation to him than he, (although his Successour in one charge) or upon other equitable grounds.

For instance, Saint John, or any other Apostle, who did survive Saint Peter; for if Saint Peter was the Father of Christians, (which Title yet our Saviour forbiddeth any one to assume) Saint John might well claim to be his eldest Son; and it had been a very hard case for him to have been postponed in the succession; it had been a derogation to our Lord's own choice, a neglect of his special affection, a disparagement of the Apostolical Office for him to be subjected to any other; neither could any other pretend to the like gifts for management of that great charge.

11. The Bishop of Jerusalem might with much reason have put in his claim thereto, as being Successour of our Lord himself, who unquestionably was the High-priest of our Profession, and Archbishop of all our Souls; whose See was the Mother of all Churches; wherein St. Peter himself did at first reside, exercising his Vicarship: If our Lord, upon special accounts out of course had put the Sovereignty into Saint Peter's hands, yet after his decease it might be fit, that it should return into its proper chanel.

This may seem to have been the judgment of the times, when the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions did write, who reporteth the Apostles to have ordered Prayers to be made first for James, then for Clement, then for Evodius.

12. Equity would rather have required, that one should by common consent and election of the whole Church be placed in Saint Peter's room, than that the Bishop of Rome, by election of a few Persons there, should succeed into it.

As the whole body of Pastours was highly concerned in that Succession, so it was reasonable that all of them should concur in designation of a Person thereto; it is not reasonable, to suppose, that either God would institute, or Saint Peter by will should devise a course of proceeding in such a case, so unequal and unsatisfactory.

If therefore the Church considering this equity of the case, together with the expediency of affairs in relation to its good, should undertake to chuse for its self another Monarch, (the Bishop of another See, who should seem fitter for the place) to succeed into the Prerogatives of Saint Peter, that Person would have a fairer title to that Office than the Pope; for such a Person would have a real title, grounded on some reason of the case; whenas the Pope's pretence doth onely stand upon a positive Institution, whereof he cannot exhibit any Certificate: Quòd si per possibile Trevirensis eligeretur pro Capite Ecclesiae. Habet enim Ecclesia potestatem liberam sibi de Capite providendi — Card. Cus. de Conc. Cath. 2.13— This was the mind of a great man among themselves; who saith, that if possibly the Bishop of Triers should be chosen for Head of the Church. For the Church has free power to provide its self a Head.

Bellarmine himself confesseth, that if Saint Peter (as he might have done if he had pleased) should have chosen no particular See, Nam potuisset Petrus nullam sedem particularem sibi unquam eligere, sicut fecit primis quinque annis, & tunc moriente Petro, non Episcopus Ròmanus, neque Antiochenus successissèt sed is quem Ecclesia sibi elegisset. Bell. 2.12. as he did not for the first five years, then after Peter's death, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor of Antioch had succeeded, but he whom the Church should have chosen for it self. Now if the Church upon that supposition would have had such a right, it is not probable, that Saint Peter by his fact would have deprived it thereof, or willingly done any thing in prejudice to it; there being apparently so much equity, that the Church should have a stroke in designation of its Pastour.

In ancient times there was not any small Church, which had not a suffrage in the choice of its Pastour; and was it fitting that all the Church should have one imposed on it without its consent?

Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter Episcopos habeantur, qui nec à Clericis sunt electi, nec à plebibus expetiti, nec à comprovincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio consecrati. P. Leo I. Ep. 92.

No reason will admit, that they should be esteemed Bishops, who are neither chosen by the Clergy, nor desir'd by the People, nor consecrated by the Bishops of the same Province, with the consent of the Metropolitan.

Nullus invitis detur Episcopus: Cleri, plebis, & ordinis consensus requiratur.— P. Celest. I. Ep. 2. Grat. dist. 61. cap. 13.

Let there be no Bishop imposed on any against their wills: Let the consent of the Clergy and People, and his own Order be required.

If we consider the manner in ancient time of electing and constituting the Roman Bishop, we may thence discern not onely the improbability, but iniquity of this pretence: how was he then chosen? was it by a General Synod of Bishops, or by Delegates from all parts of Christendom, whereby the common interest in him might appear; and whereby the World might be satisfied that one was elected fit for that high Office? No; he was chosen, as usually then other particular Bishops were, by the Clergy and People of Rome; none of the World being conscious of the proceeding, or bearing any share therein.

Now, was it equal that such a power of imposing a Sovereign on all the grave Bishops, and on all the good people of the Christian world, should be granted to one City?

Was it fitting, that such a charge, importing advancement above all Pastours, and being entrusted with the welfare of all Souls in Christendom, should be the result of an election liable to so many defects and corruptions? which assuredly often, if not almost constantly, would be procured by ambition, bribery or partiality, would be managed by popular faction and tumults.

It was observed generally of such Elections by Nazianzene; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Naz. Orat. 20. p. 335. that Prelacies were not rather by vertue than by naughtiness; and that Episcopal Thrones did not rather belong to the more worthy, than to the more powerfull.

And declaring his mind or wish that Elections of Bishops should rest onely or chiefly in the best men; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Greg. Naz. Or. 19. p. 211. not in the wealthiest and mightiest; or in the impetuousness and unreasonableness of the people, and among them in those who are most easily bought and bribed; whereby he intimateth the common practice, and subjoineth; but now I can hardly avoid thinking, that the popular (or civil) governances are better ordered than ours, which are reputed to have divine grace attending them.

And that the Roman Elections in that time were come into that course, we may see by the relation and reflexions of an honest Pagan Historian concerning the Election of Pope Damasus (contemporary of Gregory Nazianz. Damasus & Vrsinus supra humanum modum ad rapiendam Episcopalem sedem ardentes scissis studiis acerrim • conflictabantur— Am. Marcell. lib. 27.) Damasus (saith he) and Vrsinus, above humane measure burning with desire to snatch the Episcopal See, did with divided parties most fiercely conflict; in which conflict upon one day in the very Church 130 persons were slain;Sozom. 6.23. so did that great Pope get into the Chair; thus (as the Historian reflecteth) the wealth and pomp of the place naturally did provoke ambition by all means to seek it, Neque ego ab uno ostentationem rerum considerans urbanarum, hujus rei cupidos, &c. Id. Ibid. and did cause fierce contentions to arise in the choice; whence commonly, wise and modest persons being excluded from any capacity thereof, any ambitious and cunning man, who had the art or the luck to please the multitude would by violence obtain it; which was a goodly way of constituting a Sovereign to the Church.

Thus it went within three ages after our Lord; and afterwards in the declensions of Christian simplicity and integrity matters were not like to be mended; but did indeed rather grow worse; as beside the reports and complaints of Historians, how that commonly by ambitious prensations, by Simoniacal corruptions,

Damasus II. — Pontificatum per vim occupat, nullo Cleri populique consensu; Adeo enim in • levera • hic mos, ut jam cuique ambitioso liceret Petri sedem invadere. Plat. (p. 314.)

Damasus II. inv • des the Popedome by force, without any consent of the Clergy and people; For so was it now grown into custom, that any ambitious man might invade Peter's Se • .

Eò enim tum Pontificatus devenerat, ut qui plus largitione & ambitione, non dico sanctitate vita & doctrin • valeret, is tantuminodo dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis & rejectis obtineret; quem morem utinam aliquando non retinuissent nostra tempora. Plat. in Silv.

For the business of the Papacy was come to that pass, that whoever by bribery and ambition, I say not, by holiness of life and learning, got the start of others, he alone obtained that degree of dignity, good men in the mean being depressed and rejected; which custom I would to God our times had not retained.

Cùm jam eò devenissent Ecclesiastici, ut non coacti ut antea, sed sponte & largitionibus Pontificium munus obirent. Plat. in Steph. 6. Baron. Anno 112. § 8.

Whenas now Ecclesiastical persons are come to that pass, that they execute the Papal Office, not being compelled unto it, as heretofore, but of their own accord, and by bribing for it.

Videbat enim Imperator▪ eò licentiae factiosum quemque & potentem, quamvis ignobilem devenisse, ut corruptis suffragiis tantam dignitatem consequeretur, &c. Plat. in Clem. 2. (p. 313.)

For the Emperour saw, that every factious and powerfull person, though base and ignoble, was grown to that height of licentiousness, that he obtained so great Dignity by corruption and buying of Suffrages.

Omne Papale negotium manus agunt: quem dabis mihi de tota maxima Vrbe, qui te in Papam receperit, pretio seu spe pretii non interveniente? Be • n. de Consid. 4.2.

The whole business of making a Pope is managed by gifts: whom can you shew me in all this great City, who took you into the Papacy, without being bribed and corrupted with reward, or at least with hope of it?

by political bandyings, by popular factions, by all kinds of sinister ways, men crept into the place, doth appear by those many dismal Schisms, which gave the Church many pretended Heads, but not one certain one: as also by the result of them, being the choice of persons very unworthy and horribly flagitious.

If it be said, that the Election of a Pope in old times was wont to be approved by the consent of all Bishops in the world, according to the testimony of St. Cyprian, who saith of Cornelius, that he was known by the testimony of his fellow-Bishops whose whole number through all the world did with peacefull unanimity consent. —co-Episcoporum testimonio, quorum numerus universus per totum mundum concordi unanimitate consentit— Cypr. Ep. 52.

Cùm Fabiani locus, id est, cùm locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrum consensione. — Ibid.

When Fabianus's place (i. e.) when the place of Peter, and the degree of the Sacerdotal Chair was vacant; which being obtained by the will of God, and all our consents. —

I answer, that this consent was not in the Election, or antecedently to it; that it was onely by Letters or messages declaring the Election,

Satis erat ut tu te Episcopum factum Literis nunciares, &c. Cypr. Ep. 42.

It was enough that you declar'd by Letters that you were made Bishop.

according to that of St. Cyprian; that it was not any-wise peculiar to the Roman Bishop, but such as was yielded to all Catholick Bishops, Episcopo semel facto, & Collegarum ac plebis testimonio & judicio comprobato— Cypr. Ep. 41. each of whom was to be approved, as St. Cyprian saith, by the testimony and judgment of his Collegues; that it was in order onely to the maintaining fraternal communion and correspondence, signifying that such a Bishop was duly elected by his Clergy and People, was rightly ordained by his neighbour Bishops, did profess the Catholick Faith, and was therefore qualified for communion with his Brethren: such a consent to the Election of any Bishop of old was given, (especially upon occasion, and when any question concerning the right of a Bishop did intervene) whereof now in the Election of a Pope no footstep doth remain.

Euseb.We may also note, that the Election of Cornelius being contested, he did more solemnly acquaint all the Bishops of the world with his case, and so did obtain their approbation, in a way more than ordinary.

13. If God had designed this derivation of Universal Sovereignty, it is probable, that he would have prescribed some certain, standing, immutable way of Election; and imparted the right to certain Persons, and not left it at such uncertainty to the chances of time, so that the manner of Election hath often changed, and the power of it tossed into divers hands.

And though in several times there have been observed several ways as to the Election of the Roman Pontifs, Et licèt diversis temporibus diversi modi super Electione Romanorum Pontificum observati sunt, prout necessitas, & utilitas Ecclesiae exposcebat— Conc. Bas. Sess. 37. p. 98. Vide Grat. dist. 63. per tot. according as the necessity and expediency of the Church required.

Of old it was (as other Elections) managed by nomination of the Clergy, and suffrage of the People.

Afterward the Emperours did assume to themselves the nomination, or approbation of them.

For then nothing was done by the Clergy in the choice of the Pope, Nil enim tum à clero in eligendo Pontifice actum erat, nisi ejus Electionem Imperator approbâsset. Plat. in Pelag. II. unless the Emperour had approv'd his Election.

But he, seeing the Prince's consent was required, Is autem, cùm Principis consensus requireretur, nuncios cum Literis miserat, qui Mauritium obsecrarent, nè pateretur electionem Cleri & populi Romani ea in re valere. Plat. in Greg. M. Vid. Grat. dist. 63.— sent Messengers with Letters, to intreat Mauritius, that he would not suffer the Election made by the Clergy and People of Rome in that case to be valid.

Leo VIII. being tired out with the inconstancy of the Romans, Conc. Tom. 7. p. 182. Leo VIII.— Romanorum inconstantiam pertaesus Auctoritatem omnem eligendi Pontificis à Clero, Populóque Romano ad Imperatorem transtulit. Plat. in Leo VIII. (p. 291.) transferred the whole power and authority of chusing the Pope from the Clergy and People of Rome, to the Emperour.

At some times the Clergy had no hand in the Election; but Popes were intruded by powerfull Men or Women at their pleasure. Nusquam Cleri eligentis, vel postea consentientis aliqua mentio. Baron. Anno 112. § 8. Anno 131. § 1. There was nowhere any mention of the Clergy electing, or afterward consenting.

Afterwards the Cardinals (that is,Grat. dist. 23. cap. 1. Plat. in Nic. II. some of the chief Roman Clergy) did appropriate the Election to themselves; by the Decree of Pope Nicholas II. in his Lateran Synod.

Sometimes (out of course) general Synods did assume the Choice to themselves: as at Constance, Pisa, and Basil.

14. From the Premisses to conclude the Pope's Title to Saint Peter's Authority, it is requisite to shew the Power demised by him to be according to God's institution and intent, immutable and indefectible; for Power built upon the like, but far more certain principles hath in course of times, and by worldly changes been quite lost, or conveyed into other Chanels, than those, wherein it was first put; and that irrecoverably, so that it cannot any-wise be retrieved, or reduced into the first order.

For instance, Adam was by God constituted Universal Sovereign of mankind; and into that Power his eldest Son of right did succeed; and so it of right should have been continually propagated.

Yet soon did that Power fail, or was diverted into other courses; the world being cantonized into several Dominions; so that the Heir at Law among all the descendents of Adam cannot so easily be found, as a Needle in a bottle of Hay; he probably is a Subject, and perhaps is a Peasant.

So might Saint Peter be Monarch of the Church, and the Pope might succeed him, yet by revolutions of things, by several defaults and incapacities in himself, by divers obstructions incident, by forfeiture upon encroaching on other mens rights, according to that Maxime of a great Pope, He loseth his own, Propria perdit qui inde • ita concupiscit. P. Leo I. Ep. 54. who coveteth more than his due, his Power might be clipped, might be transplanted, might utterly decay and fail; to such fatalities other Powers are subject; nor can that of the Pope be exempt from them, as otherwhere we shall more largely declare.

15. Indeed that God did intend his Church should perpetually subsist united in any one political frame of Government, is a principle, which they do assume, and build upon, but can no-wise prove. Nor indeed is it true. For,

If the Unity of the Church designed and instituted by God were onely an Unity of Faith, of Charity, of Peace, of fraternal Communion and Correspondence between particular Societies and Pastours, then in vain it is to seek for the Subject and Seat of Universal Jurisdiction; now that God did not intend any other Unity, than such as those specified, we have good reason to judge, and shall we hope otherwhere sufficiently prove.

16. We may consider, that really the Sovereign Power (such as it is pretended) hath often failed, there having been for long spaces of time no Roman Bishops at all, upon several accounts; which is a sign that the Church may subsist without it.

As, 1. When Rome was desolated by the Goths, Vandals and Lombards.

Vide Bern. Ep. 242, 243. Bell. 4.4.2. In times, when the Romans would not suffer Popes to live with them.

3. In case of discontinuance from Rome, when the Popes (so calling themselves) did for above seventy years abide in France; when they indeed, not being chosen by the Roman People, nor exercising Pastoral care over them, were onely titular, not real Bishops of Rome; (They were Popes of Avignion, not of Rome; and Successours of God knows who, not of Saint Peter) no more than one continually living in England can be Bishop of Jerusalem.

—Inopem me copia fecit. 4. In times of many long Schisms (22 Schisms) when either there was no true Pope, or which in effect was the same, no one certain one.

Baron. ad Ann. 112. § 8.5. When Popes were intruded by violence, whom Baronius himself positively affirmeth to have been no Popes: how then could a Succession of true Popes be continued from them, by the Clergy, which they in virtue of their Papal Authority did pretend to create?

6. When Elections had a flaw in them, were uncanonical and so null.

7. When Popes were Simoniacally chosen; who by their own Rules and Laws are no true Popes;

P. Greg. VII. Ep. 3.7. P. Jul. in Conc. Lat. Sess. 5. p. 57. Non solùm hujusmodi Electio vel assumptio eo ipso nulla existat—&c. Vide sup. § 12.

Such an Election or assumption, let it not onely be upon that account void and null—

being Hereticks, Heresiarchs.

The which was done for long courses of time very commonly, and in a manner constantly.

Vide quaeso quantum isti degeneraverint à majoribus suis; Illi enim utpote viri Sanctissimi Dignitatem ultrò oblatam contemnebant, orationi & Doctrinae Christianae vacantes; hi verò largitione & ambitione Pontificatum quaerentes, & adepti, posthabito divino cultu, &c. Plat. in Serg. 3. (p. 279.) Vid.—in Bened. IV. p. 277.

See, I beseech you, how much they have degenerated from their Ancestours; For they as being very Holy men did contemn that Dignity when freely offered, giving themselves wholly to Prayer and the Doctrine of Christ; but these by bribery and ambition seek and obtain the Papacy.

8. When Popes have been deposed; (as some by the Emperours, others by General Councils) in which case, according to Papal Principles, the Successours were illegal; for the Pope being Sovereign, he could not be judged or deposed; and his Successour is an Usurper.

9. When Popes were Heretical, that is (say they) no Popes.

10. When Atheists, Sorcerers, —

Elections in some of these cases being null,

Plat. in Joh. 10. (p. 275.) Pontifices ipsi à Petri vestigiis discesserant. The Popes had swerv'd from the Examples of Peter. Possessor malae fidei ullo tempore non praescribit. Reg. • ur. 2. in Sexto.

He that has no right to the thing he possesses, cannot prescribe or plead any length of time to make his possession lawfull.

and therefore the Acts consequent to them invalid, there is probably a defailance of right continued to posterity.

And probably therefore there is now no true Pope.

For (upon violent intrusion, or Simoniacal choice, or any usurpation) the Cardinals, Bishops, &c. which the Pope createth are not truly such; and consequently their Votes not good in the choice of another Pope; and so successively.

These Considerations may suffice to declare the inconsequence of their Discourses, even admitting their Assertions, which yet are so false, or so apparently uncertain.

I shall in the next place level some Arguments directly against their main Conclusion it self.

I. My First Argument against this pretence shall be, that it is destitute of any good warrant, either from Divine or Humane testimony; and so is groundless. As will appear by the following Considerations.

I. If God had designed the Bishop of Rome to be for the perpetual course of times Sovereign Monarch of his Church, it may reasonably be supposed, that he would expresly have declared his mind in the case;

Nec vero simile sit, ut rem tam nocessariam ad Ecclesiae unitatem continendam Christus Dominus Apostolis suis non revelârit. Melch. Can. 6.8.

Neither is it likely that our Lord Christ would not have revealed to his Apostles a thing so necessary for preserving the Unity of the Church.

it being a point of greatest importance of all that concern the administration of his Kingdom in the World. Princes do not use to send their Vice Roys unfurnished with Patents clearly signifying their Commission, that no man, out of ignorance or doubt concerning that point, excusably may refuse compliance; And in all equity promulgation is requisite to the establishment of any Law, or exacting obedience. But in all the Pandects of Divine Revelation the Bishop of Rome is not so much as once mentioned, either by name, or by character, or by probable intimation; they cannot hook him in otherwise, than by streining hard and framing a long Chain of Consequences; each of which is too subtile for to constrain any man's persuasion: They have indeed found the Pope in the first Chapter of Genesis; for,

Ad Firmamentum igitur Coeli, hoc est Vniversalis Ecclesiae, fecit Deus duo magna Luminaria, id est, du • s instituit Dignitates, quae sun • Pontificalis auctoritas, & Regalis potestas; sed illa quae praeest diebus, id est, Spiritualibus, major est; quae verò Carnalibus, minor, &c. Innoc. III. in Decret. Greg. I. 33.6.

For the Firmament therefore of Heaven, (i. e.) of the Universal Church, God made two great Lights, (i. e.) he ordained two Dignities or Powers, which are the Pontifical Authority, and the Regal Power; but that which rules the days, (i. e.) Spiritual matters, is the greater, but that which governs Carnal things, is • he lesser, &c.

(if we believe Pope Innocent III.) he is one of the two great Luminaries there; and he is as plainly there, as any where else in the Bible.

Wherefore if upon this account we should reject this pretence, we might doe it justly; and for so doing we have the allowance of the ancient Fathers; for they did not hold any man obliged to admit any point of Doctrine, or rule of Manners which is not in express words, or in terms equivalent contained in Holy Scripture; or which at least might not thence be deduced by clear and certain inference; this their manner of disputing with Hereticks and heterodox People doth shew; this appeareth by their way of defining and setling Doctrines of Faith; this they often do avow in plain words applicable to our case; for, If (saith St. Austin) about Christ, or about his Church, or about any other thing, Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re, quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam Nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, licet si nos, sed omnino quod sequutus adjecit, si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit, praeterquam quod in Scripturis Legalibus ac Evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit. Aug. contr. Petil. 3.6. which concerneth our Faith and Life, I will not say We, who are no-wise comparable to him, who said Although we; but even as he going on did add, If an Angel from Heaven should tell you beside what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema; in which words we have St. Austin's warrant not onely to refuse, but to detest this Doctrine, which being nowhere extant in Law or Gospel, is yet obtruded on us as nearly relating both to Christ and his Church; as greatly concerning both our Faith and Practice.

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

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

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

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

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

6. One might have expected something of that nature from St. Paul himself, who did write so largely to the Romans, and so often from Rome; that at least some word, or some intimation should have dropped from him concerning these huge Rights and Privileges of this See, and of the regard due to it. Particularly then, when he professedly doth enumerate the Offices, instituted by God, for standing use and perpetual duration; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery,

Eph. 3.11, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 12.28. Quarum laudum & gloriae degenerem suisse, maximum crimen est. Cl. Rom. ad Cypr. Ep. 31.

To degenerate from which praise and glory, is an exceeding great crime.

for the edifying of the Body of Christ; till we all come in the Vnity of Faith, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We may add, that divers of them in their Apologies and representations concerning Christianity would have appeared not to deal fairly,

Sentiunt enim Deum esse solum, in cujus solius potestate sunt, à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi, ante omnes & super omnes Deos. Quidni? cùm super omnes homines, qui utique vivunt, & mortuis antistant. Tertull. Apolog. c. 30.

For they think it is God alone in whose power they are, next to whom they are the chief before all, and above all Gods. And why not? when they are above all men alive, and surpass the dead.

or to have been very inconsiderate; when they profess for their common belief assertions repugnant to that Doctrine; as when Tertullian saith, Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo▪ secundum, & solo Deo minorem. Tertull. ad Scap. 2. We reverence the Emperour as a man second to God, and less onely than God; when Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus quì fecit Imperatorem. Opt. lib. 3. Optatus affirmeth, that above the Emperour there is none beside God who made the Emperour; and, that

—dum se Donatus super Imperatorem extollit, jam quasi hominum excesserat modum, ut se ut Deum, non hominem aestimaret. Id. ibid.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2. p. 463.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Chrys. in Rom. • 3.1.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Chrys. suprá.

Por he that is thus wrong'd has not his equal upon earth, for he is King, &c.

Donatus by extolling himself (as some now do) above the Emperour, did in so doing as it were exceed the bounds of men, that he did esteem himself as God, not as a man. When St. Chrysostome asserteth, the Emperour to be the crown and head of all men upon earth; and saith, that even Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, any men whoever are to be subject to the temporal Powers; when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyril. ad Theod. in Conc. Eph. part. 1. cap. 3. p. 20. St. Cyril calleth the Emperour the Supreme top of glory among men, elevated above all others by incomparable differences; &c. When even Popes talk at this rate; as Pope

P. Greg. M. Ep. 2.62.

Quia Sereniss. Domine ex illo jam tempore Dominus meus fuisti, quando adhuc Dominus omnium non eras— Ego quidem jussioni subjectus— Ibid.

Ad hoc enim potestas Dominorum meorum pietati coelitus data est super omnes homines, &c. Ibid. Ego indignus famulus vester. Ib.

Qui honori quoque Imperii vestri se per privatum vocabulum superponit. P. Greg. I. Ep. 4.32.

Gregory I. calling the Emperour his Lord, and Lord of all, telling the Emperour, that his Competitour, by assuming the title of Universal Bishop did set himself above the honour of his Imperial Majesty; which he supposeth a piece of great absurdity and arrogance; and even Pope 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Greg. II. in Epist. 1. ad Leon. Isaur. apud Bin. Tom. 5. p. 502. As King and Head of Christians. Gregory II. doth call that Emperour (against whom he afterward rebelled) the Head of Christians. Whereas indeed if the Pope be Monarch of the Church, endowed with the Regalities which they now ascribe to him, it is plain enough that he is not inferiour to any man living, in real power and dignity: wherefore the modern Doctours of Rome are far more sincere or considerate in their Heraldry, than were those old Fathers of Christendom; who now stick not down-rightly to prefer the Pope before all Princes of the World;

—una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. & Antistite nostro N. & Rege nostro N. & omnibus Orthodoxis, &c.

Together with thy Servant our Pope N. and our Bishop N. and our King N. and all Orthodox, &c.

not onely in Doctrine and Notion, but in the Sacred Offices of the Church; for in the very Canon of their Mass, the Pope (together with the Bishop of the Diocese, one of his Ministers) is set before all Christian Princes; every Christian Subject being thereby taught to deem the Pope superiour to his Prince:

Fiat autem oratio pro dignitate Regia post orationem factam pro Papa, quia potestas suprema Sacerdotalis excedit Regiam antiquitate, dignitate & utilitate, &c. Gab. Biel in Can. mis.

Let prayer be made for the King after prayer made for the Pope, because the supreme Sacerdotal power exceeds the Kingly in antiquity, dignity and utility, &c.

Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. P. Bonif. VIII. in Extrav. com. lib. 1. tit. 38.

Now we must believe (for one Pope hath written it, another hath put it in his Decretals, and it is current Law) that the Papal Authority doth no less surpass the Royal, than the Sun doth outshine the Moon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. So also the Old Writer, under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Dionys. de Hier. Eccl. cap. 5. treating in several places about the degrees of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, was monstrously overseen in omitting the Sovereign thereof: In the fifth Chapter of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he professeth carefully to speak of those Orders, but hath not a word of this supereminent rank, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . De Eccl. Hier. cap. 5. but averreth Episcopacy to be the first and highest of divine Orders, in which the Hierarchy is consummated: and in his Epistle to Demophilus there is a remarkable place, wherein he could hardly have avoided touching the Pope, had there been then one in such vogue as now: for advising that Monk to gentleness and observance toward his Superiours, he thus speaketh: Let passion and reason be governed by you;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Dionys. Ar. Ep. 8.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Max. Schol. Ib.

but you by the holy Deacons, and these by the Priests, and the Priests by the Bishops, and the Bishops by the Apostles, or by their Successours; (that is, saith Maximus, those which we now call Patriarchs) and if perhaps any one of them shall fail of his duty, let him be corrected by those holy persons, who are co-ordinate to him; why not in this case, let him be corrected by the Pope, his Superiour? but he knew none of an Order superiour to the Apostles Successours.

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

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

The counterfeiter therefore of Ignatius did well personate him,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Pseud. Ignat. ad Smyr.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. id ad Trall.

when he saith, that in the Church there is nothing greater than a Bishop; and that a Bishop is beyond all rule and authority; for in the time of Ignatius there was no domineering Pope over all Bishops.

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

20. Clemens Bishop of Rome in the Apostolical times unto the Church of Corinth, then engaged in discords and factions, wherein the Clergy was much affronted (divers Presbyters, who had well and worthily behaved themselves,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Clem. ad Corinth. Ep. 1 p. 58. Jun.

For we see that you have removed some, who behaved themselves well in their Office, out of their ministry blamelesly discharged by them.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

were ejected from their Office, in a seditious manner) did write a very large Epistle; wherein like a good Bishop, and charitable Christian brother he doth earnestly by manifold inducements persuade them to charity and peace; but no-where doth he speak imperiously like their Prince: In such a case one would think, if ever, for quashing such disorders and quelling so perverse folks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 2. who spurned the Clergy, it had been decent, it had been expedient, to employ his Authority, and to speak like himself, challenging obedience, upon duty to him, and at their peril: How would a modern Pope have ranted in such a case; how thundring a Bull would he have dispatched against such outragious contemners of the Ecclesiastical Order? how often would he have spoken of the Apostolick See and its Authority? we should infallibly have heard him swagger in his wonted style, Whoever shall presume to cross our will, Si quis voluntati nostrae contraìre praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Deì, ac Beatorum Petri & Pauli Apostoli se noverit incursurum: in such terms usually the Pope's Bulls do end. let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul: but our Popes, it seemeth, have more wit, or better mettle than Pope Clement; that good Pope did not know his own strength, or had not the heart to use it.

21. Among the Epistles of St. Cyprian there are divers Epistles of him to several Popes (to Cornelius, to Lucius, to Stephanus) in the which,Cypr. Ep. 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 54, 55, 57, 58, 67, 72. although written with great kindness and respect, yet no impartial eye can discern any special regard to them, as to his Superiours in Power, or Pastours in Doctrine,

Et quanquam sciam, frater charissime, pro mutua dilectione, quam debemus & exhibemus invicem nobis, florentissimo illic clero tecum praesidenti, &c. Ep. 55.

And although I know, most dear brother, out of the mutual love and respect, which we owe and yield one to another, &c.

or Judges of Practice; he reporteth matters to them, he conferreth about Points with all freedom; he speaketh his sense and giveth his advice without any restraint or awe; he spareth not upon occasion to reprove their practices, and to reject their opinions; he in his addresses to them and discourses of them styleth them Brethren, and Collegues; and he continually treateth them as such, upon even terms: When (saith he to the Clergy of Rome) dearest Brethren, Cùm de excessu boni viri Collegae mei, rumor apud nos incertus esset Collegae charissimi— Cypr. Ep. 4. there was among us an uncertain rumour concerning the decease of the good man my Collegue, Fabianus; upon which words Rigaltius had cause to remark, How like an equal and fellow-citizen doth the Bishop of Carthage mention the Bishop of Rome, even to the Roman Clergy? Quàm ex aequo, & civilis mentio Episcopi Romani ab Episcopo Carthaginis apud Clerum? Rigalt. Ibid. but would not any man now be deemed rude and sawcy, who should talk in that style of the Pope?

Pope Cornelius also to Saint Cyprian hath some Epistles, Cypr. Ep. 46, 48. wherein no glimpse doth appear of any Superiority assumed by him. But of St. Cyprian's judgment and demeanour toward Popes we shall have occasion to speak more largely, in a way more positively opposite to the Roman pretences.

Eusebius citeth divers long passages out of an Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius Bishop of Antioch against Novatus;Euseb. 6.43. wherein no mark of this Supremacy doth appear; although the magnitude and flourishing State of the Roman Church is described, for aggravation of Novatus his Schism, and ambition.

Pope Julius hath a notable long Epistle, extant in one of Athanasius's Apologies, unto the Bishops assembled at Antioch; wherein he had • he fairest occasion that could be to assert and insist upon this Sovereign Authority, they flatly denying and impugning it; questioning his proceedings as singular, supposing him subject to the Laws of the Church no less than any other Bishop; and downrightly affirming each of themselves to be his equal; about which Point he thought good not to contend with them; but waving pretences to Superiority, he justifieth his actions by reasons, grounded on the merit of the cause, such as any other Bishop might alledge: But this Epistle I shall have more particular occasion to discuss.

Pope Liberius hath an Epistle to St. Athanasius, wherein he not onely (for his direction and satisfaction) doth inquire his opinion about the Point; but professeth, in complement perchance, that he shall obediently follow it; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Liber. ad Ath. Tom. 1. p. 243. Write, saith he, whether you do think as we do and just so about the true faith; that I may be undoubtedly assured about what you think good to command me; was not that spoken indeed like a courteous Sovereign, and an accomplished Judge in matters of Faith?Socr. 4.12. The same Pope in the head of the Western, doth write to a knot of Eastern Bishops, whom they call their beloved Brethren and fellow Ministers; and in a brotherly strain, not like an Emperour.

In the time of Damasus, Successour to Liberius, St. Basil hath divers Epistles to the Western Bishops,

Ep. 61, 69, 70, 74, 182.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. 61.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

We beseech you to have a fellow-feeling of our distractions.

If there be any comfort of love, any fellowship of the Spirit, any bowels and mercies, be ye moved with pity and commiseration to help us.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. 69.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. 70.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

Vid. Ep. 74. ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. 74. (Ep. 293.)

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . — Ep. 48.

wherein having represented and bewailed the wretched state of the Eastern Churches, then overborn with Heresies, and unsettled by Factions, he craveth their charity, their prayers, their sympathy, their comfort, their brotherly aid; by affording to the Orthodox and sound Party the countenance of their Communion, by joining with them in contention for Truth and Peace; for that the Communion of so great Churches would be of mighty weight to support and strengthen their Cause; giving credit thereto among the People, and inducing the Emperour to deal fairly with them, in respect to such a multitude of adherents; especially of those which were at such a distance, and not so immediately subject to the Eastern Emperour; for, If (saith he) very many of you do concur unanimously in the same opinion, it is manifest, that the multitude of consenters will make the doctrine to be received without contradiction; and, I know (saith he again, writing to Athanasius about these matters) but one way of redress to our Churches, the conspiring with us of the Western Bishops; the which being obtained, would probably yield some advantage to the publick,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. 74.

the secular power revering the credibility of the multitude, and the people all about following them without repugnance: and, You (saith he to the Western Bishops) the farther you dwell from them, the more credible you will be to the people.

This indeed was according to the ancient Rule and Practice in such cases, that any Church being oppressed with Errour, or distracted with Contentions, should from the Bishops of other Churches, receive aid to the removal of those inconveniences. That it was the Rule doth appear from what we have before spoken; and of the Practice there be many instances; for so did St. Cyprian send two of his Clergy to Rome to compose the Schism there, moved by Novatian against Cornelius;

Quod servis Dei, & maximè Sacerdotibus justis & pacificis congruebat, frater charissime, miseramus nuper Collegas nostros Caldonium & Fortunatum, ut non tantùm persuasione literarum nostrarum, sed praesentia sua, & consilio omnium vestrum eniterentur, quantum possent, & elaborarent, ut ad Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem scissi corporis membra componerent— Cypr. Ep. 42. ad Cornel. Pallad.

As it becomed the Servants of God, especially righteous and peaceable Priests, most dear Brother, we lately sent our Collegues Caldonius and Fortunatus, that they might, not onely by the persuasion of our Letters, but also by their presence, and the advice of you all, endeavour to their utmost and strive to reduce the members of that divided Body to the Unity of the Catholick Church.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. Ep. 8.

so was St. Chrysostome called to Ephesus (although out of his Jurisdiction) to settle things there; so (to omit divers instances occurring in History) St. Basil himself was called by the Church of Iconium to visit it, and to give it a Bishop; although it did not belong to his ordinary inspection; and he doth tell the Bishops of the

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. 77.

Coasts, that they should have done well in sending some to visit and assist his Churches in their distresses.

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

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

Tom. 7. Epist. 122.St. Chrysostome, having by the practices of envious men combined against him, in a packed assembly of Bishops, upon vain surmises, been sentenced and driven from his See, did thereupon write an Epistle to Pope Innocent I. Bishop of Rome, Vid. Laun. Epist. 1.3. together with his Brethren the Bishops of Italy; therein representing his case, complaining of the wrong, vindicating his innocency, displaying the iniquity of the proceedings against him, together with the mischievous consequences of them toward the whole Church, then requiring his succour for redress: yet, (although the sense of his case, and care of his interest were likely to suggest the greatest deference that could be) neither the style, which is very respectfull, nor the matter, which is very copious, do imply any acknowledgment of the Pope's Supremacy; He doth not address to him as to a Governour of all, who could by his Authority command justice to be done, but as to a brother, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and a friend of innocence, from whose endeavour he might procure relief; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He had recourse not to his Sovereign power, but to his brotherly love; He informed his Charity, not appealed to his bar; He in short did no more than implore his assistence in an Ecclesiastical way; that he would express his resentment of so irregular dealings, that he would avow communion with him, as with an Orthodox Bishop innocent and abused, that he would procure his cause to be brought to a fair trial in a Synod of Bishops, lawfully called and indifferently affected: Had the good man had any conceit of the Pope's Supremacy, he would,

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

But as for us, we who are not condemned nor convicted, nor prov'd guilty, let us continually enjoy the benefit of your Letters, and Love, and all other things as before.

one would think, have framed his address in other terms, and sued for another course of proceeding in his behalf; but it is plain enough that he had no such notion of things, nor had any ground for such an one. For indeed Pope Innocent in his answer to him, could doe no more than exhort him to patience; in another to his Clergy and People could onely comfort them, declare his dislike of the Adversaries proceedings and grounds; signifie his intentions to procure a general Synod, with hopes of a redress thence; his Sovereign power, it seems, not availing to any such purposes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .— Soz. 8.26. But what (saith he) can we doe in such cases? a Synodical cognizance is necessary, which we heretofore did say ought to be called; the which alone can allay the motions of such tempests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we consider that the Pope was Bishop of the Imperial City, the Metropolis of the World; that he thence was most eminent in rank, did abound in wealth, did live in great splendour and reputation; had many dependences, and great opportunities to gratify, and relieve many of the Clergy; that of the Fathers, whose Volumes we have, all well affected towards him, divers were personally obliged to him, for his support in their distress (as Athanasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret,) or as to their Patrons and Benefactours (as St. Hierome:) divers could not but highly respect him as Patron of the cause wherein they were engaged (as Basil, Gregory Nazianzene, Hilary, Gregory Nyssene, Ambrose, Austin:) some were his partizans in a common quarrel (as Cyril:) divers of them lived in places and times wherein he had got much sway, (as all the Western Bishops:) that he had then improved his Authority much beyond the old limits: that all the Bishops of the Western or Latine Churches had a peculiar dependence on him (especially after that by advantage of his Station, by favour of the Court,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Socr. 7.11.

The Bishoprick of Rome is like to that of Alexandria, having now long agoe arrived to that height of Power above and beyond the Priesthood.

by colour of the Sardican Canons, by voluntary deferences and submissions, by several tricks he had wound himself to meddle in most of their chief Affairs:) that hence divers Bishops were tempted to admire, to court, to flatter him; that divers aspiring Popes were apt to encourage the commenders of their Authority which they themselves were apt to magnifie and inculcate; considering, I say, such things, it is a wonder, that in so many voluminous discourses so little should be said favouring this pretence, so nothing that proveth it, [so much that crosseth it, so much indeed (as I hope to shew) that quite overthroweth it.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jactantiam sumpsit ità ut universa sibi tentet adscribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent, vid • licet Christo, per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare. Greg. M. Ep. 4.36.

The same words we have in the Epistle of P. Pelagius (predecessour of St. Gregory) to the Bishops of Constantinople (P. Pelagii Ep. 8.)

And again in another Epistle to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he taxeth the same Patriarch for assuming to boast, so that he attempteth to ascribe all things to himself, and studieth by the elation of pompous speech to subject to himself all the members of Christ, which do cohere to One Sole Head, namely, to Christ.

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

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

We see that according to St. Gregory M. our Lord Christ is the one onely Head of the Church; Vide P. Pelag. Ep. 3. to whom for company let us adjoin St. Basil M. (that we may have both Greek and Latin for it,) who saith, that (according to Saint Paul) we are the body of Christ and members one of another, because it is manifest, that the one and sole truly head,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. M. de Jud. div. Tom. 2. p. 261.

Totus Christus Caput & Corpus est; Caput unigenitus Dei Filius, & corpus ejus Ecclesiae, Sponsus & Sponsa, duo in carne una. Quicunque de ipso Capite ab Scripturis Sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia, &c. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 4. Vid. contra Petil. 3.42.

Whole Christ is the Head and the Body; the Head the onely-begotten Son of God, and his Body the Church, the Bridegroom and the Spouse, two in one flesh. Whoever disagree about the Head it self from the Holy Scriptures though they are found in all places, in which the Church is design'd, they are not in the Church, &c.

It was unhappily expressed by Bellarmine — Ecclesia secluso etiam Christo unum Caput habere debet. De Pont. R. 1.9. §. Ac nè forté. The Church, even Christ himself being set aside, ought to have one Head.

which is Christ, doth hold and connect each one to another unto concord.

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

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

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

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

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

3. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by destroying that brotherly co-ordination and equality, which our Lord did appoint among the Bishops, and chief Pastours of his Church: He did (as we before shewed) prohibit all his Apostles to assume any domination, or authoritative Superiority over one another; the which command, together with others concerning the Pastoral function, we may well suppose to reach their Successours; so did St. Hierome suppose, collecting thence that all Bishops by original Institution are equals, or that no one by our Lord's order may challenge Superiority over another; Whereever (saith he) a Bishop is, Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive Thanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem & Sacerdotii; potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit; caeterùm omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt. Hier. Ep. 85. (ad Evagr.) whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria, or at Thanis, he is of the same worth, and of the same Priesthood; the power of wealth or lowness of poverty do not make a Bishop higher or lower, but all are Successours of the Apostles; where, doth not he plainly deny the Bishop of Eugubium to be inferiour to him of Rome, as being no less a Successour of the Apostles than he? doth he not say these words, in way of proof, Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe; Vbicunque, &c. that the authority of the Roman Bishop or Church was of no validity against the practice of other Bishops and Churches? (upon occasion of Deacons there taking upon them more than in other places, as Cardinal Deacons do now) which excludeth such distinctions, as Scholastical fancies have devised to shift off his Testimony; the which he uttered simply, never dreaming of such distinctions.

This consequence St. Gregory did suppose,

Illud appetunt unde omnibus digniores videantur. Gr. Ep. 4.34.

Quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. Ep. 6.38.

Super caeteros Sacerdotes se extollit. Ib.

Cupis Episcoporum nomen tui comparatione calcare. Ep. 4.38.

Cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris supponere. Ib.

when he therefore did condemn the Title of Vniversal Bishop, because it did imply an affectation of Superiority and dignity in one Bishop above others; of abasing the name of other Bishops in comparison of his own, of extolling himself above the rest of Priests, &c.

This the ancient Popes did remember, when usually in their compellation of any Bishop, they did style them Brethren, Collegues, fellow-Ministers, (Invigiletur ergò ut omnibus co-Episcopis nostris & fratribus innotescat. P. Corn. apud Cyp. Ep. 48.) fellow-Bishops, not intending thereby complement or mockery, but to declare their sense of the original equality among Bishops; notwithstanding some differences in Order and Privileges, which their See had obtained. And that this was the general sense of the Fathers we shall afterward shew.

Hence, when it was objected to them,

Hic non tam optamus praeponi aliis, (sicut praedicas) quàm cum fidelibus cunctis sanctum & Deo placitum habere consortium. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. (ad Euphem. Ep. CP.)

Here we do not so much desire to be advanced above others, as together with all the faithfull to make up a consort holy and well-pleasing to God.

that they did affect Superiority, they did sometimes disclaim it; so did Pope Gelasius I. (a zealous man for the honour of his See.)

4. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture, not onely by trampling down the dignity of Bishops (which according to St. Gregory doth imply great pride and presumption) but as really infringing the Rights granted by our Lord to his Church, and the Governours of it. —Vobis subtrahitur, quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit praebetur. Greg. 7.30. (p. 451.) What is yielded to another more than reason requires, is taken from you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Eph. I. Can. 8. A thing that entrencheth upon the freedom of all others.

For to each Church our Lord hath imposed a Duty, and imparted a Power of maintaining divine Truth,Apoc. 2. & 3. 1 Tim. 3.15. Matt. 18.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 1 Cor. 5.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Vid. v. 4.5. Apoc. 2.20. 1 Cor. 14.40. 1 Thess. 5.14. Rom. 14.19. 1 Cor. 6.1— and so approving it self a pillar and support of truth: of deciding Controversies possible and proper to be decided with due temper, ultimately without farther resort; for that he, who will not obey or acquiesce in its Decision, is to be as a heathen or publican: Of censuring, and rejecting Offenders (in Doctrine, or Demeanour;) Those within (saith Saint Paul to the Church of Corinth) do not ye judge? But them that are without God judgeth; wherefore put away from among your selves that wicked person: Of preserving Order and Decency; according to that Rule, prescribed to the Church of Corinth, let all things be done decently and in order: Of promoting edification: Of deciding Causes.

All which Rights and Privileges the Roman Bishop doth bereave the Churches of, snatching them to himself; pretending that he is the Sovereign Doctour, Judge, Regulatour of all Churches; over-ruling and voiding all that is done by them, according to his pleasure.

The Scripture hath enjoyned and empowered all Bishops to feed, guide and rule their respective Churches, as the Ministers, Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 5.2. 1 Tim. 3.15. Tit. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Apoc. 2, &c. Eph. 4.12. Heb. 13.17. Stewards, Ambassadours, Angels of God; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, for the edification of the Body of Christ: To them God hath committed the care of their People, so that they are responsible for their Souls.

All which Rights and Privileges of the Episcopal Office the Pope hath invaded,

Dei & Apostolicae sedis gratiâ. Vid. post. Superbum nimis est & immoderatum ultra fines proprios tendere, & antiquitate calcatâ alienum jus velle praeripere, atque ut unius crescat dignitas, tot Metropolitanorum impugnare primatus, &c. P. Leo I. Ep. 55.

'Tis too proud and unreasonable a thing for one to stretch himself beyond his bounds, and maugre all antiquity to snatch away other mens right, and that the dignity of one may be enhanced, to oppose the primacies of so many Metropolitans.

doth obstruct, cramp, frustrate, destroy; pretending (without any warrant) that their Authority is derived from him; forcing them to exercise it no otherwise, than as his Subjects, and according to his pleasure. But of this Point more afterward.

Sanctae Ecclesiae universali injuriam facit. Greg. I. Ep. 4.32.

It does wrong to the Holy Catholick Church.

Plebis Majestas. Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Corn. P.) p. 117.

5. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture, by robbing all Christian People of the Liberties, and Rights, with which by that Divine Charter they are endowed; and which they are obliged to preserve inviolate.

Gal. 5.1.Saint Paul enjoyneth the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free; and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage; there is therefore a liberty, which we must maintain, and a power to which we must not submit; and against whom can we have more ground to doe this, than against him, who pretendeth to dogmatize, to define Points of Faith, to impose Doctrines (new and strange enough) on our Consciences, under a peremptory obligation of yielding assent to them? to prescribe Laws, as Divine and necessary to be observed, without warrant, as those Dogmatists did, against whom Saint Paul biddeth us to maintain our Liberty:Gal. 5.1. Coloss. 2.16, 18. (so that if he should declare vertue to be vice, and white to be black, we must believe him, some of his Adherents have said, consistently enough with his pretences;) for,

Against such tyrannical Invaders we are bound to maintain our Liberty, according to that Precept of Saint Paul; the which if a Pope might well alledge against the proceedings of a General Synod; with much more reason may we thereby justify our non-submission to one man's exorbitant domination. P. Leo I. Ep. 28.

This is a Power, which the Apostles themselves did not challenge to themselves, for We (saith Saint Paul) have not dominion over your faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. but are helpers of your joy.

They did not pretend, that any Christian should absolutely believe them, in cases, wherein they had not Revelation (general or special) from God; in such cases referring their Opinion to the judgment and discretion of Christians.1 Cor. 10.1 • .7.12, 25, 40.

They say,Gal. 1.8. Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed; If any man, &c. which Precept, with many others of the like purport, (injoyning us to examine the truth, to adhere unto the received Doctrine, to decline heterodoxies and novelties) doth signify nothing, if every Christian hath not allowed to him a judgment of discretion, but is tyed blindly to follow the dictates of another.

St. Austin (I am sure) did think this liberty such, that without betraying it no man could be obliged to believe any thing not grounded upon Canonical Authority: for to a Donatist his Adversary, citing the Authority of St. Cyprian against him, he thus replieth; Nunc vero quoniam Canonicum non est quod recitas, ea libertate ad quam nos vocavit Dominus, ejus viri, cujus laudem consequi non valeo, cujus multis literis Scripta mea non comparo, cujus ingenium diligo, cujus ore dilector, cujus charitatem miror, cujus martyrium veneror, hoc quod aliter sapuit non accipio. Aug. contr. Cresc. 2.32. But now seeing it is not Canonical which thou recitest, with that liberty to which the Lord hath called us, I do not receive the opinion, differing from Scripture, of that man whose praise I cannot reach, to whose great learning I do not compare my writings, whose wit I love, in whose speech I delight, whose charity I admire, whose martyrdom I reverence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apices & Principes omnium Sacerdotes. Opt. 1. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet. Hier. c. Lucif. 4. The safety of the Church depends upon the dignity of the High-priest.

Ego dignus summo Sacerdotio decernebar. Id Ep. 99. (ad Asell.)

In Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est Princeps Sacerdotum, & Propheta & Evangelista, & caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in ministerio fidelium. Ambros. in Eph. 4.11.

In the Bishop there are all Orders, because he is the first Priest, (i. e.) the Prince of Priests, and Prophet and Evangelist, and all other Offices of the Church, to be fulfilled in the ministery of the faithfull.

Optatus calleth Bishops the tops and Princes of all.

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

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

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

Ideóque id quod tantùm facere Principibus Sacerdotum jussum est, quorum • ypum Moses & Aaron tenuerunt, omnino decretum est, ut Chorepiscopi vel Presbyteri qui filiorum Aaron gestant figuram, arripere non praesumant. P. Leo. Ep. 88. Pontificatus apicem non habent. Ibid. Vid. Ep. 84. cap. 5.

S. Hier. ad Evagr. Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumpt • s de veteri Testamento, Quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri & diaconi vendicant in Ecclesia. Or. 19. p. 309.

It is decreed (saith Pope Leo I.) that the Chorepiscopi or Presbyters, who figure the sons of Aaron, shall not presume to snatch that, which the Princes of the Priests (whom Moses and Aaron did typifie) are commanded to doe. (Note by the way, that seeing according to this Pope's mind (after St. Hierome) Moses and Aaron did in the Jewish Policy represent Bishops, there was none there to prefigure the Pope.)

In those days the Bishop of Nazianzum (a petty Town in Cappadocia) was an High-priest (so Gregory calleth his Father.

A Bishop called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Apost. Const. 8.10, 12.

Summus Christi Pontifex Augustinus. (Paulin. apud Aug. Ep. 36.) Aug. Ep. 35.

Beatissimo Papae Augustino. Hieron. (Aug. Ep. 11, 13, 14, &c.)

Optamus te beatiss. & gloriosissime Papa in Domino semper valere. Ep. 31.

) And the Bishop of a poor City in Africk is styled Sovereign Pontif of Christ, most blessed Father, most blessed Pope; and the very Roman Clergy doth call St. Cyprian, most blessed and glorious Pope; which Titles the Pope doth now so charily reserve and appropriate to himself.

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

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

Again St. Cyprian telleth Pope Cornelius, that in Episcopacy doth reside the sublime and divine power of governing the Church; it being the sublime top of the Priesthood:

—actum est de Episcopatûs vigore, & de Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi, ac divina potestate. Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad P. Cornel.)

Non iste ad Episcopatum subitò pervenit, sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, & in divinis administrationibus Dominum saepe promeritus, ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit. Cypr. Ep. 52.

He (saith the Blessed man concerning Pope Cornelius) did not suddenly arrive to Episcopacy, but being through all Ecclesiastical Offices promoted, and having in divine administrations often merited of God, did by all the steps of Religion mount to the sublimest pitch of Priesthood; where it is visible, that St. Cyprian doth not reckon the Papacy, but the Episcopacy of Cornelius to be that top of Priesthood, (above which there was nothing eminent in the Church) unto which he passing through the inferiour degrees of the Clergy had attained.

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

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

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

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

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

By virtue of these the Superiours of this kind could doe nothing over their subordinates in an arbitrary manner, but according to the regulation of Canons,

Conc. Ant. Can. 9. Vid. Apost. Can. 34. Conc. Carth. apud Cypr. Cod. Asr. Can. 39. Nestorius, Dioscorus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. 8.1.

So Eusebius complaineth of the Bishops in his time—

So Isidor. Pelusiot. Ep. 20.125.4.219.

established by consent in Synods; by which their influence was amplified or curb'd.

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

When Primates did begin to swell and encroach, good men declared their displeasure at it, and wished it removed; as is known particularly by the famous wish of

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Greg. Naz. Orat. 28.

O that there were not at all any Presidency, or any preference in place, and tyrannical prerogative.

Gregory Nazianzene.

But we are discoursing against a Superiority of a different nature, which soundeth it self in the Institution of Christ, imposeth it self on the Church,

So Socrates of the Bishop (not onely of Rome, but) Alexandria. lib. 7. cap. 11.

So St. Chrysostome in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Ep. Orat. 11.

So Greg. Naz. complained of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

is not alterable or governable by it, can endure no check or controll; pretendeth to be endowed with an absolute power to act without, or against the consent of the Church, is limited by no certain bounds but its own pleasure, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

It is commonly observed by Historians,

Suis & ipsa Roma viribus ruit. Hor. Ep. 16.

—quae ab exiguis initiis creverit ut, jam magnitudine laboret sua. Liv. I.

Ac nescio an satius fuerit populo Romano Sicilia & Africa contentos fuisse, aut his etiam ipsis carere dominanti in Italia sua, quàm eo magnitudinis crescere, ut viribus suis conficeretur. Flor. 3.12.

Tunc jam Roma subjugaverat Africam, subjugaverat Graciam, latéque etiam aliis partibus imperans tanquam seipsam ferre non valent, se sua quodammodo magnitudine fregerat. Aug. de Civ. D. 18.45. Tac. Hist. 2. p. 476.

that Rome growing in bigness, did labour therewith, and was not able to support it self; many distempers and disorders springing up in so vast a body, which did throw it into continual pangs, and at length did bring it to ruine: for Then (saith St. Austin concerning the times of Pompey) Rome had subdued Africk, it had subdued Greece; and widely also ruling over other parts, as not able to bear it self did in a manner by its own greatness break it self.

Hence that wise Prince Augustus Caesar did himself forbear to enlarge the Roman Dominion,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Dion. lib. 56. Tac. Ann. 1.

He advised them to be content with what they had, and by no means to endeavour the enlargement of their Empire, for, said he, it will be hardly kept; and this he himself observ'd not in word onely, but in deed: for when he might have gotten more from the barbarous Nations, yet he would not.

Ipsa nocet moles, utinam remeare liceret Ad veteres fines, & moenia pauperis Anci, &c. Clau. de bello Gildon.

and did in his Testament advise the Senate to doe the like.

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

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

What reach of skill and ability would serve for accommodation of Laws to the different humours and fashions of so many Nations? Shall a decrepit old man in the decay of his age, parts, vigour— (such as Popes usually are) undertake this?Exod. 18.18. May we not say to him, as Jethro did to Moses, Vltra vires tuas est negotium; The thing thou doest is not good; thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this People that is with thee; for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thy self alone.

If the care of a small Diocese hath made the most able and industrious Bishops (who had a Conscience and sense of their duty) to grown under its weight, how insupportable must such a thing be?

The care of his own particular Church, if he would act the part of a Bishop indeed, P. Alex. II. (Epist. ad Ger. Rhem.) Bin. p. 284. would sufficiently take up the Pope; especially in some times; whenas Pope Alex. saith, —Vt intestina nostrae specialis Ecclesiae negotia vix possemus ventilare, nedum longinqua ad plenum extricare.

If it be said that Saint Paul testifieth of himself,2 Cor. 11.28. that he had a care of all the Churches incumbent on him; I answer, that he (and other Apostles had the like) questionless had a pious solicitude for the welfare of all Christians, especially of the Churches which he had founded, being vigilant for occasions to edifie them; but what is this to bearing the charge of a standing government over all Churches diffused through the world? that care of a few Churches then was burthensome to him, what is the charge of so many now? to one seldom endowed with such Apostolical graces and gifts as Saint Paul was.

How weak must the influence of such an Authority be upon the circumferential Parts of its Oecumenical Sphere?

How must the outward branches of the Churches faint and fade for want of sap from the root of Discipline, which must be conveyed through so many obstructions to such a distance?

How discomposed must things be in each Country, Tanta me occupationum onera deprimunt, ut ad superna animus nullatenus erigatur, &c. Greg. I. lib. I. Ep. 7, 25, 5. Such a weight of employments presses me down, that my mind can by no means be rais'd to things above. Si administratio illius temporis Mare fuit, quid de praesenti Papatu dicendum erit? Calv. Inst. 4. c. 7.22. If the ordering of affairs in those times was a boundless Sea, what shall we say of the present Papacy? for want of seasonable resolution, hanging in suspence, till information do travell to Rome, and determination come back thence?

How difficult, how impossible will it be for him there to receive faithfull information, or competent testimony, whereupon to ground just decisions of Causes?

How will it be in the power thence of any malicious and cunning person to raise trouble against innocent persons? for any like person to decline the due Correction laid on him? by transferring the Cause from home to such a distance?

How much cost, how much trouble, how much hazard must parties concerned be at to fetch light and justice thence?

Put case a Heresie, a Schism, a Doubt or Debate of great moment should arise in China, how should the Gentleman in Italy proceed to confute that Heresie, to quash that Schism, to satisfie that Doubt, to determine that Cause? how long must it be ere he can have notice thereof? to how many cross accidents of weather and way must the transmitting of information be subject? how difficult will it prove to get a clear and sure knowledge concerning the state of things?

How hard will it be to get the opposite parties to appear, so as to confront testimonies and probations requisite to a fair and just decision? how shall witnesses of infirm sex or age ramble so far? how easily will some of them prepossess and abuse him with false suggestions and misrepresentations of the case? how slippery therefore will the result be, Nunquid mirandum est de tam longinquis terris Episcopos tuos tibi narrare impune quod volunt? Aug. contra Crescon. 3.34. What marvel if the Bishops from so remote Countries tell you what they please without check or Controll? and how prone he to award a wrongfull sentence?

How tedious, how expensive, how troublesome, how vexatious, De lungas vias luengas mentiras. Hispan. Prov. Syn. Basil. Sess. 31. p. 86. how hazardous must this course be to all parties? Certainly Causes must needs proceed slowly, and depend long; and in the end the resolution of them must be very uncertain.

What temptation will it be for any one (how justly soever corrected by his immediate Superiours) to complain; hoping thereby to escape, to disguise the truth, &c. who being condemned will not appeal to one at distance, hoping by false suggestions to delude him?

Vid. Bernard. Ep. 178. de Consid. This necessarily will destroy all Discipline, and induce impunity, or frustration of Justice.

Certainly much more convenient and equal it should be, that there should be near at hand a Sovereign Power, fully capable, expeditely and seasonably to compose differences, to decide causes, to resolve doubts, to settle things without more stir and trouble.

Very equal it is, that Laws should rather be framed, interpreted and executed in every Countrey, with accommodation to the tempers of the People, to the circumstances of things, to the Civil State there, by persons acquainted with those particulars, than by strangers ignorant of them, and apt to mistake about them.

How often will the Pope be imposed upon, as he was in the case of Basilides, of whom St. Cyprian saith, going to Rome he deceived our Collegue Stephen, Romam pergens Stephanum Collegam nostrum longè positum, & gestae rei, ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit; ut exambiret reponi se injustè in Episcopatum, de quo fuerat justè depositus. Cypr. Ep. 67. being placed at distance, and ignorant of the fact, and concealed truth, aspiring to be unjustly restored to the Bishoprick, from which he was justly removed.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Basil. Ep. 10.As he was in the case of Marcellus, who gull'd Pope Julius by fair professions, as St. Basil doth often complain.

As he was in aiding that versatile and troublesome Bishop, Eustathius of Sebastia, Bas. Ep. 73.74. to the recovery of his Bishoprick.

As he was in rejecting the man of God, and most admirable Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .— Bas. Ep. 349. Meletius; and admitting scandalous reports about him, which the same Saint doth often resent; blaming sometimes the fallacious misinformation, sometimes the wilfull presumption, negligence, pride of the Roman Church,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

Some are altogether ignorant of what is here done, others that think they know them declare them unto us more contentiously than truly.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epist. 321. ad. Pet. Alex.

He grieved us when he said that our godly brethren, Meletius and Eusebius were reckoned among the Arians.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Bas. Ep. 10.

What help can we have from the pride of the Africans, who neither know the truth, no • endure to learn it?

in the case.

As he was in the case of Pelagius and Celestius, who did cajole Pope Zosimus to acquit them, P. Zos. I. Ep. 3, & 4. to condemn Eros and Lazarus their accusers, to reprove the African Bishops for prosecuting them.

How many proceedings should we have like to that of Pope Zosimus I. concerning that scandalous Priest, Apiarius; whom being for grievous crimes excommunicated by his Bishop, that Pope did admit to communion,

Deinde quòd inter tantam hominum multitudinem adeò pauci sunt Episcopi, & amplae singulorum Parochiae, ut in subjectis plebibus curam Episcopalis officii nullatenus exequi, aut ritè administrare valeant. P. Greg. VII. Ep. 2.73.

And then because in so great a multitude of People there are so few Bishops, and every one's Diocese very large, that they are in no-wise able to execute or rightly perform the charge of the Episcopal office among the people over whom they are set.

and undertake to patronize; but was baffled in his enterprize.

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

Cypr. Ep. 55. (p. 116.)St. Cyprian therefore saith, that seeing it was a general statute among the Bishops, and that it was both equal and just, that every one's cause should be heard there, where the crime was committed; and that each Pastour had a portion of the Flock allotted to him, which he should rule and govern, being to render unto the Lord an account of his doing.

St. Chrysostome thought it improper that one out of Egypt should administer justice to Persons in Thrace:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Ep. 102. (ad P. Innoc. I.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.

For if this custome prevail, and if they that will may go to other mens Dioceses at so great a distance, and eject whom any man pleases, know that all will go to wrack, &c.

(and why not as well as one out of Italy?)

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

They thought a transmarine judgment could not be firm, Aut quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexûs, vel propter senectutis infirmitatem, vel multis allis impedimentis adduci non poterunt. Ibid. because the necessary persons for testimony, for the infirmity of sex or age, or for many other infirmities could not be brought thither.

Pope Leo himself saw how dilatory this course would be; and that longinquity of region doth cause the examination of truth to become over-dilatory. Nè ergo (quod inter longinquas regiones accidere solet) in nimias dilationes tenderent veritatis examina— P. Leo I. Ep. 34.

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

Therefore divers ancient Canons of Synods did prohibit, that any Causes should be removed out of the bounds of Provinces, or Dioceses;

Inoleverunt autem hactenus intolerabilium vexationum abusus permulti, dum nimium frequenter à remotissimis etiam partibus ad Romanam curiam, & interdum pro parvis & minutis rebus ac negotiis quamplurimi citari ac evocari consueverunt, &c. Vid. Conc. Bas. Sess. 31. (p. 86.)

But hitherto very many intollerable vexatious abuses have prevailed, while too often men have been used to be cited and call'd out even from the remotest parts to the Court of Rome, and sometimes for slight and trivial businesses and occasions.

as otherwhere we shew.

2. Such an Authority, as this pretence claimeth, must necessarily (if not withheld by continual Miracle) throw the Church into sad bondage. All the World must become slaves to one City,

Vid. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 61. Privilegia istius sedis perpetua sunt, divinitùs radicata, atque plantata, impingi possunt, transferri non possunt; trahi possunt, evelli non possunt. P. Nic. I. ad Mich. Imp.

The privileges of this See are perpetual, rooted and founded upon Divine Authority, they may be dash • against, they cannot be removed, they may be drawn aside, they cannot be pluck'd up.

its wealth must be derived thither, its quiet must depend on it. For it (not being restrained within any bounds of place or time, having no check upon it of equal or co-ordinate power, standing upon Divine Institution, and therefore immutably setled) must of its own nature become absolute, and unlimited.

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

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

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

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

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

Vid. Mat. Paris.

Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, & Temporalem Authoritatem Spirituali subjici potestati. Bonif. VIII. Extrav. Com. 1.8.1.

But there must be a sword under a sword, and Temporal Authority subject to Spiritual.

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

It is evident, that the Papacy hath devoured all the privileges and rights of all Orders in the Church,

Quid hodie erant Episcopi, nisi umbra quaedam? quid plus eis restabat quàm baculus & mitra, &c. An. Sylv. de gestis Syn. Bas. lib. 1.

What were Bishops now, but kind of shadows? what had they left more than a Staff and a Miter, &c.

either granted by God, or established in the ancient Canons.

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

It belongeth to him to judge of the whole Church.

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

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

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

It is Idolatry to disobey his commands,

Cùm enim obedire Apostolicae sedi superbè contemnunt, sc • lus idololatriae, teste Samuele, incurrunt. Greg. VII. Ep. 4.2. Nulli f • s est vel velle, vel posse transgredi Apostolicae sedis praecepta. Greg. IV. apud Grat. dist. 19. cap. 5.

No man may nor can transgress the commands of the Apostolick See.

— Ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, perpetuò & irrefragabiliter observandum est. Ibid. cap. 4. (P. Steph.)

— Whatever he decrees, whatever he ordains, must always and inviolably be observed by all.

against their own Sovereign Lord.

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

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

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

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

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

They have rendred true that definition of Scioppius. The Church is a stall, or herd,

Ecclesia est mandra sive grex aut multitudo jumentorum sive asinorum. Eccl. c. 47.

Illí nos fraenant, nos lore alligant, nos stimulant, nobis jugum & onus imponunt. Ibid.

or multitude of Beasts, or Asses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thence emulation, discord, sycophantry will spring.

Vid. ipsum Greg. VII. Ep. 1.42.2.45.

See the description of them in S. Bernard. in Cant. Serm. G • ioc • a • d. in Suppl.

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

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

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

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

That thus it hath happened Experience doth shew; and History doth abundantly testifie. This was soon observed by a Pagan Historian, Am. Marcellin. By St. Basil 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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

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

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

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

That will happen of any Pope,

—Nulla unquam monitione, nulla exhortatione induci jam largo tempore potuit, ut aliquam errorum emendationem Christo placentem, aut no • issimorum abusuu • correctionem in Ecclesia Sancta Dei efficere satageret. Conc. Bas. Sess. 23. (p. 76.) Sess. 31. p. 89.

He could never be brought in this long time by any advice or exhortation, seriously to set upon any amendment of errours or correction of the most gross abuses in the Holy Church of God.

which the Fathers of Basil complained of in Pope Eugenius.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is it, but introducing an old man into a place, by advantage whereof, a Family must make hay while the Sun shines?

—Cùm non ob religionem, & Dei cultum appetere Pontificatum nostri Sacerdotes videantur, sed ut fratrum vel nepotum, vel familiarium ingluviem & avaritiam expleant. Plat. in Joh. XVI. (p. 298.)

Whereas our Priests seem to desire the Popedom, not for Religion and the worship of God, but that they may fill the ravening appetite and covetousness of their brethren or nephews, or familiars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not without suspicion, that the Popes of those times, who ought to have extinguished wars, and put an end to dissentions, did rather raise them up and cherish them.

See Greg. VII. Ep. 4.2.8.21.

Have they not assumed to themselves Superiority over all Princes? The Emperour himself (the chief of Christian Princes) they did call their Vassal, Vid. Concil. Lugd. p. 851. exacting an Oath from them, whereof you have a Form in the Canon Law, and a declaration of Pope Clement V. that it is an Oath of Fealty.

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

Auctoritate Apostolica de fratrum nostrorum consilio declaramus illa juramenta praedicta fidelitatis existere & censeri debere. Clementin. lib. 2. Tit. 9. cap. unicum.

We declare out of our Apostolical authority by the advice of our brethren that the foresaid oaths of fealty ought to be, and be so esteemed.

How many Princes have they pretended to depose, and dispossess of their Authority?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is observable,

Vid. Bod. de Rep. 1.9. (p. 195.) Car les Princes Chrestien avoient presque tous opinion, que le Pape estoit absolvement seigneur sovereigne de tous les Roydumes dela Chrestiente. Bod. ibid. p. 196. Tort. Tort. p. 216, &c.— Greg. VII. Ep. 1.7.2.13. Alex. II. Ep. 8.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. de Jud. Dei, T. 2. p. 259.

So great a dissonancy and jarring there is among men in the Church, while every one swerves from the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, and asserts certain conceits and rules of his own by his own authority, and had rather rule contrary to the Lord, than be rul'd by the Lord.

that the Pope by intermeddling in the affairs of Kingdoms did so wind himself into them, as to get a pretence to be Master of each; Princes being his Vassals and Feudatories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ath.Necessary points may and will by all honest people be known and determined without him, by the clear Testimony of Scripture, by consent of Fathers, by General Tradition.— And other points need not to be determined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we know, Caeterùm scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facilè mutare, sed salvo inter Collegas pacis & concordiae vinculo quaedam propria, quae apud se semel sint usurpata, retinere; qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cùm habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae liberum arbitrium unusquisque praepositus, rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. Cypr. Ep. 72. (ad Stephanum.) that some will not lay down what once they have imbibed, nor will easily change their mind; but, the bond of peace and concord with their Collegues being preserved, will retain some peculiar things, which have once been used by them; in which matter neither do we force any, or give law; whenas every Prelate hath in the administration of his Church the free power of his will, being to render unto the Lord an account of his acting: this saith he, writing to Pope Stephanus, and in a friendly manner,

Haec ad conscientiam tuam, frater charissime, & pro honore communi & pro simplici dilectione pertulimus, &c.

Consensu & auctoritate communi.

out of common respect and single love, (not out of servile obeisance) acquainting him what he and his brethren in a Synod by common consent and authority had established concerning the degradation of Clergy-men, who had been ordained by Hereticks, or had lapsed into Schism.

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

These things I have briefly written back,

Haec tibi breviter pro nostra mediocritate rescripsimus, frater charissime; nemini praescribentes, aut praejudicantes, quo minùs unusquisque Episcoporum quod putat faciat, habens arbitrii sui liberam potestatem. Cypr. Epist. 73. (ad Jubabaianum.)

Quâ in parte nemini verecundia & modestia nostra praejudicat, quo minùs unusquisque quod putat sentiat, & quod senserit faciat. Cypr. Epist. 76. (ad Magnum.)

Nemini praescribentes, quo minùs statuat quod putat unusquisque Praepositus, actûs sui rationem Domino redditurus; secundum quod Apostolus, &c. Ibid.

according to our meanness, dear brother; prescribing to none nor prejudging, that every Bishop should not doe what he thinks good, having a free power of his will.

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

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

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

Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 2.3, &c. We may observe, that St. Austin in his reflexions upon the passages in that Synod, doth approve, yea admire that Preface, passing high commendations on the smartest passages of it which assert common liberty, professing his own conformity in practice to them;

Habemus ergo quaerendi liberum arbitrium ipsius Cypriani nobis mitissimo & veracissimo sermone concessum. Lib. 3. cap. 3.

Nunc si se audent superbae & tumidae cervices haereticorum adversus sanctam humilitatem hujus sententiae extollant. Lib. 2. cap. 3.

Quid mansuetius, quid humilius? Lib. 3. cap. 3.

In this consultation (saith he) is shewed a pacifick soul, overflowing with plenty of charity; and, We have therefore a free choice of inquiry granted to us by the most mild and most veracious speech of Cyprian himself, and, Now if the proud and tumid minds of hereticks dare to extoll themselves against the holy humility of this speech —than which what can be more gentle, more humble?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That this notion did continue long in the Church, we may see by the Elogies of Bishops in later Synods; for instance that in the Synod of Compeigne;

Omnibus in Christiana religione constitutis scire convenit quale sit ministerium Episcoporum— quos constat esse Vicarios Christi, & Clavigeros Regni Coelorum, &c. Syn. Compend. Ann. Dom. 833. (apud Bin. Tom. 6. p. 361.)

Nos omnes licèt indigni, Christi tamen Vicarii, & Apostolorum ipsius Successores. Syn. Meldens. Ann. D. 845. (apud Bin. Tom. 6. p. 402.)

It is convenient all Christians should know what kind of Office the Bishops is — who 'tis plain are the Vicars of Christ, and keep the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

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

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

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

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

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

The Roman Clergy in their Epistle to St. Cyprian told him, Nobis, post excessum nobilissimae memoriae viri Fabiani, nondum est Episcopus propter rerum & temporum difficultatem constitutus, qui omnia ista moderetur— Cl. Rom. ad Cypr. Ep. 31. that because of the difficulty of things and times, they could not constitute a Bishop who might moderate things immediately belonging to them in their own precincts: how much more in that state of things would a Bishop there be sit to moderate things over all the World; when (as Rigaltius truly noteth) the Church being then oppressed with various vexations the communication of Provinces between themselves was difficult and unfrequent.

Variis tunc Ecclesiâ vexationibus oppressâ, difficilis & infrequens erat Provinciarum inter sese communicatio. Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 67.

Verum enim est impeditam suisse eo tempore non parùm Pontificis auctoritatem— propter persecutiones continuas non potuisse Romanos Pontifices liberè exercere eam, quam à Christo acceperant auctoritatem, &c. Bell. de R. P. 2.17.

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

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

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

VII. The Ancients, when occasion did require, did maintain their equality of Office and Authority particularly in respect to the Roman Bishops; not onely interpretatively by practice, but directly and formally in express terms asserting it.

Thus when Felicissimus and his Complices, being rejected by St. Cyprian did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius for his communion and countenance, St. Cyprian affirmed that to be an irregular and unjust course; subjoining, Except to a few desperate and wicked persons, Nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis minor esse videtur auctoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorum, qui jam de illis judicaverunt— the authority of the Bishops constituted in Africk, who have already judged of them, do seem less; that is, inferiour to any other Authority, particularly to that of Rome, unto which they had recourse; what other meaning could he have? doth not his Argument require this meaning?

Another instance is that of the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod,

Fides quam exposuerunt qui affuerunt Episcopi 97— Hilar. de Synodis. (p. 367.)

Congregatam Sanctorum Synodum. Hilar. ibid.

Venerabiles Antiocheni Canones. P. Nicol. I. Ep. 9. (p. 519.)

(being 97 Bishops) the which St. Hilary calleth a Synod of Saints congregated, (the Decrees whereof the Catholick Church did admit into its Code, and the Canons whereof Popes have called Venerable) these in their Epistle to Pope Julius, complaining of his demeanour in the case of Athanasius ▪ did flatly assert to themselves an equality with him; They did not (as Sozomen reciteth out of their Epistle) therefore think it equal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 3.8. that they should be thought inferiours, because they had not so big and numerous a Church.

That Pope himself testifieth the same in his Epistle to them, extant in the second Apology of Athanasius; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Jul. I. apud Athan. in Apol. 2. (p. 744.) If, saith he, ye do truly conceive the honour of Bishops to be equal, and the same; and ye do not, as ye write, judge of Bishops according to the magnitude of Cities; which assertion of theirs so flatly thwarting Papal Supremacy he doth not at all confute, yea not so much as contradict; and therefore reasonably may be interpreted to yield consent thereto; Qui tacet consentiri videtur. the rule, He that holdeth his peace seemeth to consent, never holding better than in this case, when his copyhold was so nearly touched; indeed he had been very blameable to wave such an occasion of defending so important a Truth; or in letting so pestilent an Errour to pass without correction or reproof.

After the Pope had climbed higher than at that time (upon the ladders of dissention and disorders in the Church) yet he was reproved by Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople for preferring himself before his Brethren; Hic non tam optamus praeponi aliis (sicut praedic • s) quàm cum fidelibus cunctis sanctum & Deo placitum habere consortium. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 1. (ad Euphemium.) as we may collect from those words of a zealous Pope, We desire not to be placed above others (as you say) so much as to have fellowship holy and well-pleasing to God with all the faithfull.

That Pope Gregory I. did not hold himself superiour to other Bishops, many sayings of his do infer;—in elatione suâ Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. P. Greg. I. Ep. 6.30. Super caeteros Sacerdotes se extollit. ibid. Christi sibi student membra judicare. P. Greg. I. Ep. 4.36. Solus omnibus praeesse. id. Ep. 4.38. —quibus (Episcopis) cupis temetipsum vocabulo elationis praeponere. ibid. for in this he placeth the fault of the Bishop of Constantinople, which he so often and so severely reprehendeth, that he did prefer himself before and extoll himself above other Bishops.

And would he directly assume that to himself, which he chargeth on another, although onely following his position by consequence?

And when Eulogius the Bishop of Alexandria had complementally said, sicut jussistis, As you commanded; He doth thus express his resentment; That word of command I desire you let me not hear; because I know who I am, Quod verbum jussionis peto à meo auditu removeri; quia scio quis sum, qui estis; loco enim mihi fratres estis, moribus patres, non ergo jussi, sed quae utilia visa sunt, indicare curavi, &c. Greg. I. Ep. 7.30. (ad Eulog. Alex.) and who you are; by place ye are my brethren, in goodness fathers; I did not therefore command, but what seem'd profitable, I hinted to you.

That many such Instances may not be alledged out of Antiquity, the reason is, because the ancient Popes did not understand this Power to belong to them, and therefore gave no occasion for Bishops to maintain their honour; or were more just, prudent and modest than to take so much upon them as their Successours did, upon frivolous pretences.

VIII. The style used by the primitive Bishops in their applications to the Roman Bishop doth signify, that they did not apprehend him their Sovereign; but their equal.

Cypr. Ep. 4.41.58.67.68.45.49. &c. Brother, Collegue, Fellow-bishop are the terms which St. Cyprian doth use in speaking about the Roman Bishops, his contemporaries, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus; and in his Epistles to the three last of them; nor doth he ever use any other, importing higher respect due to them; as indeed his practice demonstrateth he did not apprehend any other due; or that he did take them for his Superiours in Office. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,— Euseb. 7.5. Know now brother, was the compellation of Dionysius (Bishop of Alexandria) to Pope Stephanus. The Synod of Antioch, which rejected Paulus Samosatenus, inscribeth its Epistle to Dionysius (then Bishop of Rome) and Maximus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. 7.30. and all our Fellow-ministers through the world.

The old Synod of Arles directeth their Epistle to Signiour Sylvester, their brother. Athanasius saith, These things may suffice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Athan. Epist. ad Afr. (p. 931.) which have been written by our beloved and Fellow-minister Damasus Bishop of great Rome. Marcellus inscribed to Pope Julius, to his Most blessed Fellow-minister. So Cyril spake of Pope Celestine I.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Marcell. ad P. Jul. Epiph. haer. 72.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Cyril. ad Nest. in Syn. Eph. p. 207.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. Ep. 69.

Athanas. Apol. 2. (p. 761.756.)

Our brother and Fellow-minister the Bishop of Rome. So St. Basil and his Fellow-bishops of the East did inscribe their Epistle, To the beloved of God and our most holy brethren and Fellow-ministers the unanimous Bishops through Italy and France. In this style do the Fathers of Sardica salute Pope Julius; those of Constantinople Pope Damasus;

Theod. 5.9.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Eph. p. 217.

Domino dilectissimo & honoratissimo fratri.— Conc. Afr.

Domino dilectissimo & honorabili fratri Maximino. Aug. Ep. 203.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Socr. 4.12.

those of Ephesus Pope Celestine I. our brother and Fellow-minister Celestine; those of Carthage Pope Celestine I. in the very same terms wherein St. Austin doth salute Maximinus, a Donatist Bishop. Signiour my beloved and most honoured brother. The Oriental Bishops Eustathius, Theophilus and Silvanus did inscribe their Remonstrance to Pope Liberius, To Signiour our brother and Fellow-minister Liberius.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Eph. p. 202.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 4.9.

So John of Antioch to Nestorius writeth to my Master. The Synod of Illyricum call Elpidius, Our seniour and Fellow-minister.

In which Instances and some others of later date we may observe that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Dominus was then (as it is now) barely a term of civility, being then usually given to any person of quality, or to whom they would express common respect; so that St. Chrysostome in his Epistles commonly doth give it not onely to meaner Bishops, but even to Priests; and St. Austin doth thus salute even Donatist Bishops; reflecting thereon thus,

Cùm ergò vel hoc ipso officio literarum per charitatem tibi serviam, non absurdè te Dominum voco, propter • num & verum Dominum nostrum qui nobis ista praecepit. Aug. Ep. 103.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. Ep. 26.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. 68. (71, 75, 77, 84, 91, &c.)

Since therefore by charity I serve you in this Office of writing letters to you, I do not improperly call you Master, for the sake of our one true Master who has commanded us so to doe. —my most honour'd Master. —now therefore having with me my most honour'd Signiour and most reverend Presbyter, &c. —my most honour'd Master Asyncritus the elder.

Pope Celestine himself did salute the Ephesine Fathers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , masters, brethren. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Gel. I. Epist. ad Syn. Eph. Act. 2. (p. 324.) Even in the VI. Council, Thomas Bishop of Constantinople did inscribe according to the old style, to Pope Vitalianus, Conc. 6. Act. 13. p. 224. his brother and Fellow-minister.

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

Such are the terms and titles, which primitive integrity when they meant to speak most kindly and respectfully did allow to the Pope, being the same which all Bishops did give to one another; (as may be seen in all solemn addresses, and reports concerning them:) which is an Argument sufficiently plain, that Bishops in those times did not take themselves to be the Pope's Subjects, or his inferiours in Office; but his fellows and mates, co-ordinate in rank.

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

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

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

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

So did Cornelius write to Fabius of Antioch, beloved brother;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. 6.43.

Omnibus Co-episcopis nostris & fratribus innotescat. P. Corn. apud Cypr. Ep. 48.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Athan. p. 739.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 4.12.

so did he call all other Bishops, —be it known to all our Fellow-bishops and brethren. So Julius to the Oriental Bishops, To our beloved brethren. So Liberius to the Macedonian Bishops, To our beloved brethren and Fellow-ministers: and to the Oriental Bishops,

Fratribus & Co-episcopis. Hil. frag. p. 450.

Soz. 6.23.

To our brethren and Fellow-bishops. So Damasus to the Bishops of Illyricum. So Leo himself frequently in his Epistles. So Pope Celestine calleth John of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Eph. p. 196. Most honoured brother; to Cyril and to Nestorius himself, Beloved brother; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 179, 183. to the Fathers of Ephesus, Signiours brethren. Pope Gelasius to the Bishops of Dardania, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 2. p. 324. Your brotherhood. Fraternitas Vestra. P. Gelas. Ep. 12. Greg.— Epist. 6.24. Fratris & Consacerdotis nostri Cyriaci.— St. Gregory to Cyriacus, Our brother and Fellow-priest, Cyriacus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To that Church there must needs have been a great resort of Christians, going to the seat of the Empire in pursuit of business; as in proportion there was to each other Metropolis; according to that Canon of the Antiochene Synod,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Ant. Can. 9.

which ordered, that the Bishop of each Metropolis should take care of the whole Province, because all that had business did resort to the Metropolis.

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

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

To this Church (said Irenaeus) it is necessary that every Church (that is, Ad hanc Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt ubique fideles. Iren. 3.3. the faithfull who are all about) should resort, because of its more powerfull principality; what is meant by that resort, will be easie to him, who considereth how men here are wont to go up to London, drawn thither by interests of Trade, Law, &c. What he did understand by more powerfull principality the words themselves do signifie,( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I conjecture he said.) which exactly do agree to the Power and Grandure of the Imperial City; but do not well sute to the authority of a Church; especially then when no Church did appear to have either Principality or Puissance. And that sense may clearly be evinced by the context, wherein it doth appear, that St. Irenaeus doth not alledge the judicial Authority of the Roman Church, but its credible Testimony, which thereby became more considerable, because Christians commonly had occasions of recourse to it.

Such a reason of precedence St. Cyprian giveth in another case, Quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma praecedere. Cypr. Ep. 49. Because (saith he) Rome for its magnitude ought to precede Carthage.

For this reason a Pagan Historian did observe the Roman Bishop had a greater authority (that is, Autoritate qua potiores aeternae urbis Episcopi. Amm. Marcell. lib. 15. (p. 47.) a greater interest and reputation than other Bishops.

This reason Theodoret doth assign in his Epistle to Pope Leo, wherein he doth highly complement and cajole him; for this city (saith he) is the greatest, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. Ep. 113. and the most splendid, and presiding over the world; and flowing with multitude of people; and which moreover hath produced the Empire now governing—

This is the sole ground upon which the greatest of all ancient Synods, that of Chalcedon, did affirm the Papal eminency to be founded; for to the throne (say they) of ancient Rome because that was the royal city, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. Can. 28. the Fathers reasonably conferred the privileges: the fountain of Papal eminence was in their judgment not any divine Institution, not the Authority of Saint Peter deriving it self to his Successours; but the concession of the Fathers, who were moved to grant it upon account that Rome was the Imperial City.

To the same purpose the Empress Placidia in her Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Placid. in Syn. Chalc. p. 27. It becometh us to preserve to this city (the which is mistress of all lands) a reverence in all things.

This reason had indeed in it much of equity, of decency, of conveniency; it was equal that he should have the preference and more than common respect, who was thence enabled and engaged to do most service to Religion. It was decent, that out of conformity to the State, and in respect to the Imperial Court and Senate, the Pastour of that place should be graced with repute; it was convenient, that he who resided in the centre of all business, and had the greatest influence upon affairs, who was the Emperour's chief Counsellour for direction and Instrument for execution of Ecclesiastical affairs, should not be put behind others.

Hence did the Fathers of the Second General Synod advance the Bishop of Constantinople to the next privileges of honour after the Bishop of Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Syn. Const. Can. 3. because it was new Rome, and a Seat of the Empire.

And the Fathers of Chalcedon assigned equal privileges to the most Holy See of Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Can. 28. with good reason (say they) judging, that the city, which was honoured with the Royalty and Senate, and which (otherwise) did enjoy equal privileges with the ancient Royal Rome, should likewise in Ecclesiastical affairs be magnified as it, being second after it.

Indeed upon this score the Church of Constantinople is said to have aspired to the supreme Principality,

Sacrosanctam quoque hujus religiosissimae civitatis Ecclesiam, & matrem nostrae pietatis, & Christianorum Orthodoxae religionis omnium, & ejusdem Regiae urbis sanctissimam sedem, &c. Imp. Leo. Cod. Lib. 1. Tit. 2. § 16.

The Holy Church of this most religious city, the mother of our devotion, and of all orthodox Christians, and the most holy See of that imperial city.

Bonifacius III. à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit, magnâ tamen contentione, ut sedes B. Petri. Apostoli, quae caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, ità & diceretur, & haberetur ab omnibus; quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur; faventibus interdum Principibus, affirmantibúsque eo loci primam sedem esse debere, ubi Imperii caput esset. Plat. in Bonif. III. (p. 161.)

Boniface III. (though with a great deal of stir) obtained of the Emperour Phocas, that the See of Saint Peter the Apostle, which is the head of all Churches, should be so called and accounted by all; which dignity the Church of Constantinople did indeed endeavour to assert to it self, Princes sometime favouring them, and affirming that there the chief See ought to be where the head of the Empire was.

Phocas rogante Papâ Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum, quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat. Anastas. in Bonif. III. Idem Sabellicus, Blondus, Laetus, &c. tradunt.

Phocas at the entreaty of Pope Boniface appointed that the Roman See should be the head of all Churches, because the Church of Constantinople wrote her self the chief of all Churches.

when it had the advantage over old Rome, the Empire being extinguished there; and sometimes was styled the Head of all Churches.

It is also natural and can hardly be otherwise, but that the Bishop of a chief City, finding himself to exceed in wealth, in power, in advantages of friendships, dependencies, &c.) should not affect to raise himself above the level: it is an ambition, that easily will seise on the most moderate, and otherwise religious minds. Pope Leo objected it to Anatolius, and Pope Gregory to John (from his austere life called the Faster.)

Upon the like account it was, that the Bishops of other Cities did mount to a preeminency, Metropolitane, Primatical, Patriarchal.

Thence it was that the Bishop of Alexandria before Constantine's time, did acquire the honour of second place to Rome; because that City, being head of a most rich and populous Nation, did in magnitude and opulency (as Gregory Nazianzene saith) approach next to Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Greg. Naz. Orat. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evag. 2.4. & passim. so as hardly to yield the next place to it.

Upon that account also did Antioch get the next place; as being the most large, flourishing, commanding City of the East; the which (as Josephus saith) for bigness and for other advantages had without controversie the third place in all the world subject to the Romans; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Joseph. de Bello Jud. 3.3. and the which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . St. Chrysostome calleth the head of all cities seated in the East.

Saint Basil seemeth to call the Church thereof the principal in the world; for what (saith he) can be more opportune to the Churches over the world than the Church of Antioch? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. Ep. 48. (ad Athanas.) the which if it should happen to be reduced to concord, nothing would hinder, but that as a sound head it would supply health to the whole body.

Upon the same account the Bishop of Carthage did obtain the privilege to be standing Primate of his Province (although other Primacies there were not fixed to places, but followed Seniority) and a kind of Patriarch over all the African Provinces.

Hence did Caesarea, as exceeding in temporal advantages, and being the Political Metropolis of Palestine, o'ertop Jerusalem, that most ancient, noble and venerable City, the source of our Religion.

It was indeed the general Rule and practice to conform the privileges of Ecclesiastical dignity in a proportion convenient to those of the secular Government; as the Synod of Antioch in express terms did ordain; the ninth Canon whereof runneth thus; The Bishops in every Province ought to know that the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis doth undertake the care of all the Province; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Ant. Can. 9. Syn. Chalc. 17. because all that have business do meet together in the Metropolis; whence it hath been ordained that he should precede in honour, and that the Bishops should doe nothing extraordinary without him; according to a more ancient Canon holding from our Fathers (that is, according to the 34th. Canon of the Apostles.)

Sedis Apostolicae primatum S. Petri meritum, (qui Princeps est Episcopalis coronae) Romanae dignitas Civitatis, sacrae etiam Synodi firmavit authoritas. Valentin. Nov. 24. in fin. Cod. Theod.It is true, that the Fathers do sometimes mention the Church of Rome being founded by the two great Apostles, or the succession of the Roman Bishop to them in Pastoral charge, as a special ornament of that Church, and a congruous ground of respect to that Bishop, whereby they did honour the memory of Saint Peter: but even some of those, who did acknowledge this, did not avow it as a sufficient ground of preeminence, none did admit it for an argument of authoritative Superiority.

Cypr. Ep. 55.52.St. Cyprian did call the Roman See the chair of Saint Peter, and the principal Church; yet he disclaimed any authority of the Roman Bishops above his brethren.

Firmilian did take notice, that Pope Stephanus did glory in the place of his Bishoprick,

Atque ego in hac parte justè indignor ad hanc tam apertam & manifestam Stephani stultitiam, quod qui sic de Episcopatûs sui loco gloriatur, & se successionem Petri tenere contendit—

Stephanus qui per successionem Cathedram Petri habere se praedicat— Firmil. apud Cypr. Ep. 75.

and contend that he held the succession of Peter; yet did not he think himself thereby obliged to submit to his authority, or follow his judgment; but sharply did reprehend him as a favourer of Hereticks, an authour of Schisms, and one who had cut himself off from the communion of his brethren.

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

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

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

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

Especially why should the Church of Jerusalem, the Seat of our Lord himself,

Epiph. Synod. Constant. ibid.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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

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

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

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

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

At first each Church was settled apart under its own Bishop and Presbyters; so as independently and separately to manage its own concernments; each was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , governed by its own head, and had its own Laws. Every Bishop as a Prince in his own Church, did act freely according to his will and discretion, with the advice of his Ecclesiastical Senate, and

Cypr. Ep. 52.55.72.73.76.

Omnis hic actus populo erat insinuandus. P. Corn. apud Cypr. Ep. 46.

All this business was to have been imparted to the people.

Secundum arbitrium quoque vestrum, & omnium nostrum commune consilium — ea quae agenda sunt disponere. Cypr. Ep. 40. (Plebi Vniv.)

To order what was to be done according to your judgment, and the common advice of us all.

Et limanda plenius ratio non solùm cum Collegis meis, sed & cum plebe ipsa universa. Cypr. Ep. 28.

And the reason is more throughly to be examined not onely with my Collegues, but with the whole people.

Praejudicare ego & soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. Ep. 18.

I dare not therefore prejudge, nor assume to my self alone a matter which is common to all.

with the consent of his people (the which he did use to consult) without being controllable by any other, or accountable to any, farther than his obligation to uphold the verity of Christian profession, and to maintain fraternal communion in charity and peace with neighbouring Churches did require, in which regard if he were notably peccant, he was liable to be disclaimed by them, as no good Christian, and rejected from communion, together with his Church, if it did adhere to him in his misdemeanours. This may be collected from the remainders of State in the times of St. Cyprian.

But because little, disjointed and incoherent Bodies were like dust apt to be dissipated by every wind of external assault,

Hoc enim & verecundiae & disciplinae & vitae ipsi omnium nostrum convenit, ut Episcopi plures in unum conv • nientes, praesente & stantium plebe, quibus & ipsis pro fide & timore suo honor habendus est) disponere omnia consilia communis religione possimus. Cypr. Ep. 14.

For it becomes the modesty, the discipline, and the manner of our living, that many Bishops meeting together, the people being also present, (to whom respect ought to be had for their faith and fear) we may order all things with the common advice.

or intestine faction; and peaceable union could hardly be retained without some ligature of discipline; and Churches could not mutually support and defend each other without some method of entercourse and rule of confederacy, engaging them:

—quoniam non pancorum, nec Ecclesiae unius aut unius Provinciae, sed totius orbis haec causa est—Cypr. Ep. 14.

—because this is the concern not of a few men or one Church, or one Province, but of the whole world.

Therefore for many good purposes (for upholding and advancing the common interests of Christianity, for protection and support of each Church from inbred disorders and dissentions;

Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum— ut si quis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri— Cypr. Ep. 76.

Therefore the Clergy is a large body — that if any one of our own society should vent an heresie, and attempt to rent and waste the flock of Christ, the rest might come in to their help.

for preserving the integrity of the faith, for securing the concord of divers Churches, for providing fit Pastours to each Church, and correcting such as were scandalously bad Particularly in the dispensation of Church goods. Conc. Ant. Can. 25. or unfaithfull) it was soon found needfull, that divers Churches should be combined and linked together in some regular form of Discipline; Nov. 137. cap. 4.123. cap. 10. that if any Church did want a Bishop, the neighbour Bishops might step in to approve and ordain a fit one; Vid. Can. Apost. 38. (al. 30.) de Synodis. that if any Bishop did notoriously swerve from the Christian rule, the others might interpose to correct or void him; that if any errour, or schism did peep up in any Church, the joint concurrence of divers Bishops might avail to stop its progress, and to quench it; by convenient means of instruction, reprehension and censure; that if any Church were oppressed by persecution, by indigency, by faction; the others might be engaged to afford effectual succour and relief: for such ends it was needfull, that Bishops in certain precincts should convene, with intent to deliberate and resolve about the best expedients to compass them; And that the manner of such proceeding,( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Const. can. 2.) (to avoid uncertain distraction, confusion, arbitrariness, dissatisfaction and mutinous opposition) should be settled in an ordinary course; according to rules known and allowed by all.

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

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

Moreover because in all Societies and Confederacies of men for ordering publick affairs,

Ad hoc divinae dispensationis provisio gradus & diversos constituit ordines in se distinctos, ut dum reverentiam minores potioribus exhiberent, & potiores minoribus diligentiam impenderent, una concordiae fieret à diversitate contentio & rectè officiorum gereretur administratio singulorum. Joh. VIII. Ep. 95.

To this end divine providence hath appointed degrees and divers orders distinct from one another, that while the less reverence the greater, and the greater take care of the less, from this diversity there might arise one frame of concord, and all offices be daily administred.

(for the settling things in motion, for effectual dispatch, for preventing endless dissentions and confusions both in resolving upon and executing things) it is needfull that one person should be authorized to preside among the rest, unto whom the power and care should be entrusted to convoke Assemblies in fit season, to propose matters for consultation, to moderate the debates and proceedings, to declare the result, and to see that what is agreed upon may be duly executed; Such a charge then naturally would devolve it self upon the Prelate of the Metropolis, as being supposed constantly present on the place; as being at home in his own seat of presidence, and receiving the rest under his wing; as incontestably surpassing others in all advantages answerable to the secular advantages of his City; for that it was unseemly and hard, if he at home should be postponed in dignity to others repairing thither; for that also commonly he was in a manner the spiritual Father of the rest, (Religion being first planted in great Cities and thence propagated to others) so that the reverence and dependence on Colonies to the mother City was due from other Churches to his See.

Wherefore by consent of all Churches, grounded on such obvious reason of things, the presidency in each Province was assigned to the Bishop of the Metropolis, who was called the first Bishop, the Metropolitane, (in some places the Primas Provinciae. Cod. Afr. Can. 19. Primate, the Archbishop, the Patriarch, the Pope) of the Province. The Apostolical Canons call him the first Bishop (which sheweth the Antiquity of this Institution:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Can. Apost. 27.

The Bishops of each Nation ought to know who is chief among them.

Cod. Afr. Can. 39. Dist. 99. cap. 3.

) the African Synods did appoint that name to him as most modest, and calling him Primate in that sense; other ancient Synods style him the Metropolite; and to the Metropolites of the principal Cities they gave the Title of Archbishop. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria peculiarly were called Popes; although that name was sometimes deferred to any other Bishop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afterward,Zos. lib. 2. p. 63. Sextus Rufus, Brev. Constantine having introduced a new partition of the Empire, whereby divers Provinces were combined together into one Territory, under the regiment of a Vicar, or a Lieutenant of a Praefectus-praeterio, which Territory was called a Diocese; the Ecclesiastical state was adapted in conformity thereto; new Ecclesiastical Systems,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 388.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epist. Orient. ad Rusum. in Syn. Eph. p. 396.

Dist. 99. cap. 1, 2.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 2. (p. 211.)

Ephesi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evag. 3.6.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Zon. ad 28. Can. Chalc.

Novell. 137. cap. 5. & 123. cap. 10.

P. Greg. I. Ep. 11, 56.

Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, id est in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitanis, atque Episcopis. Isid. dist. 21. cap. 1.

Dionysius Ex. translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Primatem. in Syn. Chalc. Can. 9, & 17.

and a new sort of spiritual Heads thence springing up; so that in each Diocese, consisting of divers Provinces an Ecclesiastical Exarch (otherwise sometimes called a Primate, sometimes a Diocesan, sometimes a Patriarch) was constituted, answerable to the Civil Exarch of a Diocese; who by such constitution did obtain a like Authority over the Metropolitanes of Provinces, as they had in their Province over the Bishops of Cities; so that it appertained to them to call together the Synods of the whole Diocese, to preside in them, and in them to dispatch the principal affairs concerning that precinct, to ordain Metropolitanes, to confirm the Ordinations of Bishops, to decide Causes and Controversies between Bishops upon appeal from Provincial Synods.

Some conceive the Synod of Nice did establish it; but that can hardly well be; for that Synod was held about the time of that division, (after that Constantine was setled in a peacefull enjoyment of the Empire) and scarce could take notice of so fresh a change in the State;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Can. 18.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Can. 6.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Can. 7.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

that doth not pretend to innovate, but professeth in its sanctions specially to regard ancient custome, saving to the Churches their privileges of which they were possessed; that onely mentioneth Provinces, and representeth the Metropolitanes in them as the chief Governours Ecclesiastical then being; that constituteth a peremptory decision of weighty causes in Provincial Synods, which is inconsistent with the Diocesan Authority; that taketh no notice of Constantinople, the • rincipal Diocese in the East,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Syn. Laod. Can. 12.

That Bishops should be constituted by the judgment of the Metropolitanes and the neighbouring Bishops.

as seat of the Empire; (and the Synod of Antioch, insisting in the footsteps of the Nicene, doth touch onely Metropolitanes (Can. 19.) and the Synod of Laodicea doth onely suppose that Order.) In fine, that Synod is not recorded by any old Historian to have framed such an alteration; which indeed was so considerable, that Eusebius who was present there could not well have passed it over in silence.

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

Some think the Fathers of the Second General Synod did introduce it, seeing it expedient that Ecclesiastical administrations should correspond to the Political; for they did innovate somewhat in the form of Government; they do expresly use the new word Diocese, according to the civil sense, as distinct from a Province; they do distinctly name the particular Dioceses of the Oriental Empire, as they stood in the civil establishment;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Syn. Const. Can. 6.

But if it so happen that the Bishops of any Province cannot rectify those things which are laid to the charge of a Bishop, they shall then go to a greater Synod of the Bishops of that Diocese, met together for that purpose.

The Fathers of Constantinople in their Synodick Epistle distinguish the Province and Diocese of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. 5.9.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 5.8.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodor. Epist. 86. (ad Flavianum.)

For, says Theodoret, the Blessed Fathers meeting together in the Imperial City, distinguish'd Dioceses agreeably to what the Nicene Fathers had done, and allotted to every Diocese what belonged to it: on the contrary charging that no one of one Diocese should encroach upon another.

they do prescribe to the Bishops in each Diocese to act unitedly there, not skipping over the bounds of it; they order a kind of appeal to the Synod of the Diocese, prohibiting other appeals: The Historians expresly do report of them, that they did distinguish and distribute Dioceses, that they did constitute Patriarchs, that they did prohibit that any of one Diocese should intrude upon another.

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

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

Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople is said by the Synod of Chalcedon to have presided in the Synod of Constantinople. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (in prosphonetico ad Imper.)

A good Argument is drawn from the very Canon of the Synod of Constantinople it self;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Can. 2.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Can. 6.

which doth speak concerning Bishops over Dioceses as already constituted, or extant; not instituting that Order of Bishops, but supposing it, and together with an implicit confirmation regulating practice according to it, by prohibiting Bishops to leap over the bounds of their Diocese, so as to meddle in the affairs of other Dioceses; and by ordering appeals to the Synod of a Diocese.

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

As particularly that the See of Constantinople did assume to it self Ordination and other acts of Jurisdiction, in three Dioceses, before any such power was granted to it by any Synodical Decree; the which to have done divers instances shew; some whereof are alledged in the Synod of Chalcedon;

Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. (p. 463.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 11. (p. 411.)

as St. Chrysostome, of whom it is there said, That going into Asia he deposed fifteen Bishops, and consecrated others in their room.

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

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

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

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

This form of government is intimated in the Synod of Ephesus;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Eph. Can. 8.

[There is mention of Dioceses in Strabo.]

by those words in which Dioceses and Provinces are distinguished; and the same shall be observed in all Dioceses and all Provinces every were.

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

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

Quem autem Primatem Dioeceseos S. Synodus dixerit, praeter Apostoli primi Vicarium, nullus penitus intelligitur— None can understand whom the Holy Synod should call Primate of a Diocese, except the Vicar of the prime Apostle.

Tantundem valet dixisse Primatem Dioeceseos, quantum si perhibuisset Dioeceseon. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. (p. 507.) To say the Primate of a Diocese is as much as to say of Dioceses.

Pope Nicholas I. doth very jocularly expound this Canon; affirming that by the Primate of the Diocese is understood the Pope (Diocese being put by a notable figure for Dioceses) and that an appeal is to be made to the Bishop of Constantinople, onely by permission, in case the Party will be content therewith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Synods of Constantinople did allow him honourary privileges or precedence before all other Bishops,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Can. 3.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Syn. Ch. Act. 16.

assigning the next place after him to the Bishop of Constantinople.

4. In other privileges the Synod of Chalcedon did equall the See of Constantinople to the Roman. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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

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

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

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

The Bishops of Cities, which were Heads of Dioceses,

N. A Roman Synod, Anno 378. consisting of Italian Bishops did give the Pope such a privilege as the Synod of Constantinople did to the Bishop of that See. (Marc. de Primat. p. 103. ex app. Cod. Theodos. vide Baron.)

But there is difference between a General Synod, and an Italian Synod: and what had an Italian Synod to prescribe to all the Provinces of the Roman Empire, or rather of the West? P. Greg. I. Ep. 7, 8.

either did not know of these Canons (which is probable, because Rome did smother the notice of them:) or were hindred from using them; the Pope having so winded himself in and got such hold among them, as he would not let go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Patriarchs are an humane Institution.

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

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

4. The Patriarchate of the Pope beyond his own Province or Diocese doth not subsist upon any Canon of a General Synod.

5. He can therefore claim no such power otherwise than upon his invasion or assumption.

6. The Primates and Metropolitans of the Western Church cannot be supposed otherwise than by force or out of fear to have submitted to such an authority as he doth usurp.

7. It is not really a Patriarchal Power (like to that which was granted by the Canons, and Princes) but another sort of power which the Pope doth exercise.

8. The most rightfull Patriarch, holding false Doctrine, or imposing unjust Laws, or tyrannically abusing his power may and ought to be rejected from communion.

9. Such a Patriarch is to be judged by a free Synod, if it may be had.

10. If such a Synod cannot be had by consent of Princes, each Church may free it self from the mischiefs induced by his perverse doctrine or practice.

11. No Ecclesiastical Power can interpose in the management of any affairs within the Territory of any Prince without his concession.

12. By the Laws of God and according to ancient Practice Princes may model the bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, erect Bishopricks, enlarge, diminish, or transfer them as they please.

13. Wherefore each Prince (having Supreme Power in his own Dominions, and equal to what the Emperour had in his) may exclude any foreign Prelate from Jurisdiction in his Territories.

14. It is expedient for peace and publick good that he should doe thus.

15. Such Prelate, according to the rules of Christianity, ought to be content with his doing so.

16. Any Prelate, exercising power in the Dominion of any Prince, is eatenus, his Subject: as the Popes and all Bishops were to the Roman Emperours.

17. Those joints of Ecclesiastical Discipline, established in the Roman Empire by the confirmation of Emperours, were (as to necessary continuance) dissolved by the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

18. The power of the Pope in the Territories of any Prince did subsist by his authority and favour.

19. By the same reason as Princes have curbed the exorbitancy of Papal power in some cases (of entertaining Legats, making Appeals, disposing of Benefices, &c.) by the same they might exclude it.

20. The practice of Christianity doth not depend upon the subsistence of such a form instituted by man.

Having shewed at large that this Universal Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Christian Church hath no real Foundation either in Scripture or elsewhere, it will be requisite to shew by what ways and means so groundless a claim and pretence should gain belief and submission to it, De pusillo crescere. P. Leo. Ep. 55. from so considerable a part of Christendom; and that from so very slender roots (from slight beginnings and the slimmest pretences one can well imagin) this bulk of exorbitant power did grow, the vastest that ever man on earth did attain, or did ever aim at, will be the less wonderfull, if we do consider the many causes which did concur and contribute thereto; some whereof are proposed in the following Observations.

1. Eminency of any kind (in wealth, in honour, in reputation, in might, in place, or mere order of dignity,) doth easily pass into advantages of real power and command over those who are inferiour in those respects, and have any dealings or common transactions with such Superiours.

For to persons endowed with such eminency by voluntary deference the conduct of affairs is wont to be allowed; none presuming to stand in competition with them, every one rather yielding place to them than to their equals.

The same conduct of things, upon the same accounts, and by reason of their possession, doth continue fast in their hands, so long as they do retain such advantages.

Then from a custom of managing things doth spring up an opinion or a pretence of right thereto; they are apt to assume a title, and others ready to allow it.

Men naturally do admire such things, and so are apt to defer extraordinary respect to the possessours of them.

Advantages of wealth and might are not onely instruments to attain, but incentives spurring men to affect the getting authority over their poorer and weaker neighbours: for men will not be content with bare eminency, but will desire real power and sway, so as to obtain their wills over others, and not to be crossed by any. Pope Leo had no reason to wonder, Quid illi satisfaciet, si • tantae urbi • magnificentia & claritudo non sufficit? Leo Ep. 55. that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople was not content with dry honour. Men are apt to think their honour is precarious, and standeth on an uncertain foundation, if it be not supported with real power; and therefore they will not be satisfied to let their advantages lie dead, which are so easily improveable to power, by inveigling some, and scaring or constraining others to bear their yoke: and they are able to benefit and gratifie some, and thereby render them willing to submit, those afterwards become serviceable to bring others under, who are disaffected or refractory.

So the Bishops of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, at first had onely privileges of honour; but afterward they soon hooked in power.

Now the Roman Bishops from the beginning were eminent above all other Bishops in all kinds of advantages.

He was seated in the Imperial City, the place of general resort; thence obvious to all eyes,

Euseb. 6.43. (Anno 254.)

Oblationibus matronarum ditati. Amm. Marc. l. 27. (p. 337.) Anno 367.

Circumspectè vestiti. Amm. Marc. l. 27. (p. 337.) Anno 367.

and his name sounding in all mouths. He had a most numerous, opulent, splendid flock and Clergy. He had the greatest income (from liberal oblations) to dispose of. He lived in greatest state and lustre.Euseb. He had oportunities to assist others in their business, and to relieve them in their wants. He necessarily thence did obtain great respect and veneration. Hence in all common affairs, the conduct and presidence were naturally devolved on him, without contest.

No wonder then, that after some time the Pope did arrive to some pitch of authority over poor Christians, especially those who lay nearest to him; improving his eminency into power, and his pastoral charge into a kind of Empire; according to that observation of Socrates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 7.11. that long before his time the Roman Episcopacy had advanced it self beyond the Priesthood into a Potentacy.

Socr. 7.7.And the like he observeth to have happened in the Church of Alexandria, upon the like grounds, or by imitation of such a pattern.

2. Any small power is apt to grow and spread it self; a spark of it soon will expand it self into a flame:Matt. 13.32. it is very like to the grain of mustard seed, which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Encroaching (as Plutarch saith) is an innate disease of Potentacies. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Plut. in Pyrrh. Whoever hath any pittance of it, will be improving his stock, having tasted the sweetness of having his will (which extremely gratifieth the nature of man) he will not be satisfied without having more; he will take himself to be straitned by any bounds, and will strive to free himself of all restraints.

Any pretence will serve to ground attempts of enlarging power, and none will be balked. For Power is bold, enterprizing, Subrependi occasiones non praetermittit ambitio—P. Leo I. Ep. 62. restless: it always watcheth, or often findeth, never passeth opportunities of dilating it self. Every accession doth beget farther advantages to amplifie it; Faciliùs crescit dignitas quàm incipit. Sen. Ep. 101. Primae dominandi spe • in arduo; ubi sis ingressus, adsunt studia & ministri. Tacit. Ann. 4. (p. 143.) as its stock groweth, so it with ease proportionably doth encrease; being ever out at use. As it groweth, so its strength to maintain and enlarge it self doth grow; it gaining more wealth, more friends, more associates and dependents.

None can resist or obstruct its growth without danger and manifold disadvantages; for as its adherents are deemed loyal and faithfull, so its opposers are branded with the imputations of rebellion, contumacy, disloyalty; and not succeeding in their resistence they will be undone.

None ever doth enterprise more than to stop its careir; so that it seldom loseth by opposition; and it ever gaineth by composition. If it be checked at one time, or in one place, it will, like the Sea, at another season, in another point, break in. If it is sometimes overthrown in a Battel, it is seldom conquered in the War.

It is always on its march forward, and gaineth ground; for one encroachment doth countenance the next, and is alledged for a precedent to authorize or justifie it. It seldom moveth backward; for every Successour thinketh he may justly enjoy what his Predecessour did gain, or which is transmitted into his possession; so that there hardly can ever be any restitution of ill-gotten power.

Thus have many absolute Kingdoms grown; the first Chief was a Leader of Volunteers; from thence he grew to be a Prince with stated Privileges; after he became a Monarch invested with high Prerogatives; in fine he creepeth forward to be a Grand Seigniour usurping absolute dominion: so did Augustus Caesar first onely assume the style of Prince of the Senate, demeaning himself modestly as such; but he soon drew to himself the administration of all things; and upon that foundation his Successours very suddenly did erect a boundless power. If you trace the foot-steps of most Empires to the beginning you may perceive the like.

So the Pope when he had got a little power, continually did swell it. The puny pretence of the succeeding Saint Peter, and the name of the Apostolical See; the precedence by reason of the Imperial City; the honorary Privileges allowed him by Councils; the Authority deferred to him by one Synod of revising the Causes of Bishops; the countenance given to him in repressing some Heresies, he did improve to constitute himself Sovereign Lord of the Church.

3. Spiritual power especially is of a growing nature, and more especially that which deriveth from Divine Institution; for it hath a great awe upon the hearts and consciences of men; which engageth them to a firm and constant adherence. It useth the most subtile arms, which it hath always ready, which needeth no time or cost to furnish, which cannot be extorted from its hand; so that it can never be disarmed. And its weapons make strong impression, because it proposeth the most effectual encouragements to its abettours, and discouragements to its adversaries; alluring the one with promises of God's favour and eternal happiness, terrifying the other with menaces of vengeance from heaven and endless misery; the which do ever quell religious, superstitious, weak people; and often daunt men of knowledge and courage.

It is presumed unchangeable and unextinguishable by any humane power; and thence is not (as all other power) subject to revolutions. Hence like Achilles it is hardly vincible, because almost immortal. If it be sometime rebuffed or impaired; it soon will recover greater strength and vigour.

The Popes derive their Authority from Divine Institution; Dist. 21. cap. 2, 3. and their weapons always are sentences of Scripture; they pretend to dispense remission of sins; and promise heaven to their abettours. They excommunicate, curse and damn the opposers of their designs.

They pretend they never can lose any power that ever did belong to their See: they are always stiff, Privilegia Romanae Ecclesiae nullum possunt sustinere detrimentum— P. Nic. I. Ep. 36. (32 —) and they never recede or give back. The privileges of the Roman Church can sustain no detriment.

4. Power is easily attained and augmented upon occasion of dissentions. Each faction usually doth make it self a Head, the chief in strength and reputation which it can find inclinable to favour it; and that Head it will strive to magnifie, that he may be the abler to promote its cause; and if the cause doth prosper he is rewarded with accession of Privileges and Authority: Especially those who were oppressed, and find relief by his means, do become zealously active for his aggrandisement.

Thus usually in civil broils the Captain of the prevalent Party groweth a Prince, or is crowned with great Privileges (as Caesar, Octavian, Cromwell, &c.)

So upon occasion of the Arian faction, and the oppression of Athanasius, Marcellus, Paulus and other Bishops, the Pope who by their application to him had occasion to head the Catholick Party did grow in power; for thereupon the Sardican Synod did decree to him that Privilege, which he infinitely enhanced, and which became the main engin of rearing himself so high.

And by his interposal in the dissensions raised by the Nestorians, the Pelagians, the Eutychians, the Acatians, the Monothelites, the Image-worshippers, and Image-breakers, &c. his authority was advanced; for he adhering in those causes to the prevailing Party, was by them extolled, obtaining both reputation and sway.

5. All power is attended by dependencies of persons sheltred under it, and by it enjoying subordinate advantages; the which proportionably do grow by its encrease.

Such persons therefore will ever be inciting their Chief and Patron to amplifie his power; and in aiding him to compass it, they will be very industriously, resolutely and steadily active; their own interest moving them thereto.

Wherefore their mouths will ever be open in crying him up, their heads will be busie in contriving ways to further his interests, their care and pains will be employed in accomplishing his designs; they with their utmost strength will contend in his defence against all oppositions.

Thus the Roman Clergy first, then the Bishops of Italy, then all the Clergy of the West became engaged to support, to fortifie, to enlarge the Papal authority; they all sharing with him in domination over the Laity; and enjoying wealth, credit, support, privileges and immunities thereby. Some of them especially were ever putting him on higher pretences, and furthering him by all means in his acquist and maintenance of them.

6. Hence if a Potentate himself should have no ambition, nor much ability to improve his power; yet it would of it self grow, he need onely be passive therein; the interest of his partisans would effect it; so that often power doth no less thrive under sluggish and weak Potentates, especially if they are void of goodness, than under the most active and able: Let the Ministers alone to drive on their interest.

7. Even persons otherwise just and good do seldom scruple to augment their power by undue encroachment, or at least to uphold the usurpations of their foregoers; for even such are apt to favour their own pretences, and afraid of incurring censure and blame, if they should part with any thing left them by their Predecessours. They apprehend themselves to owe a dearness to their place, engaging them to tender its own weal and prosperity, in promoting which they suppose themselves not to act for their own private interest; and that it is not out of ambition or avarice, but out of a regard to the grandeur of their Office that they stickle and bustle; and that in so doing they imitate Saint Paul who did magnifie his office. They are encouraged hereto by the applause of men, especially of those who are allied with them in interest, and who converse with them; who take it for a Maxime, Boni Principis est ampliare imperium: The extenders of Empire are admired and commended however they doe it, although with cruel Wars, or by any unjust means.

Hence usually the worthiest men in the world's eye are greatest enlargers of power; and such men bringing appearances of vertue, ability, reputation to aid their endeavours, do most easily compass designs of this nature, finding less obstruction to their attempts; for men are not so apt to suspect their integrity, or to charge them with ambition and avarice; and the few, who discern their aims and consequences of things, are overborn by the number of those, who are favourably conceited and inclined toward them.

Thus Julius I. Damasus I. Innocent I. Gregory I. and the like Popes, whom History representeth as laudable persons, did yet confer to the advancement of Papal grandeur. But they who did most advance that interest, as Pope Leo I. Gelasius I. Pope Nicholas I. Pope Gregory VII. in the esteem of true zelots pass for the best Popes. Hence the distinction between a good Man, a good Prince, a good Pope.Sixtus V.

8. Men of an inferiour condition are apt to express themselves highly in commendation of those who are in a superiour rank, especially upon occasion of address and intercourse; which commendations are liable to be interpreted for acknowledgments or attestations of right, and thence do sometimes prove means of creating it.

Of the generality of men it is truly said, that it doth fondly serve fame, —qui famae servit ineptus, Ac stupet in titulis & imaginibus— Hor. and is stonn'd with titles and images; readily ascribing to Superiours whatever they claim, without scanning the grounds of their title. Simple and weak men out of abjectedness or fear are wont to crouch, and submit to any thing upon any terms. Wise men do not love brangling, nor will expose their quiet and safety without great reason; thence being inclinable to comply with greater persons. Bad men out of design to procure advantages or impunity are prone to flatter and gloze with them. Good men out of due reverence to them, and in hope of fair usage from them, are ready to complement them, or treat them with the most respectfull terms. Those who are obliged to them will not spare to extoll them; paying the easie return of good words for good deeds.

Thus all men conspire to exalt power; the which snatcheth all good words as true, and construeth them to the most favourable sense; and alledgeth them as verdicts and arguments of unquestionable right. So are the complements or terms of respect used by Hierome, Austin, Theodoret, and divers others toward Popes, drawn into Argument for Papal Authority; whenas the actions of such Fathers, and their discourses upon other occasions do manifest their serious judgment to have been directly contrary to his pretences: wherefore the Emperour of Constantinople in the Florentine Synod had good reason to decline such sayings

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Flor. Sess. 25. (p. 848.)

for arguments; for if (saith he) any of the Saints doth in an Epistle honour the Pope, shall he take that as importing privileges?

9. Good men commonly (out of charitable simplicity, meekness, modesty and humility, love of peace, and aversness from contention) are apt to yield to the encroachments of those who any-wise do excell them; and when such men do yield, others are ready to follow their example. Bad men have little interest to resist, and no heart to stand for publick good; but rather strike in presently, taking advantage by their compliance to drive a good market for themselves. Hence so many of all sorts in all times did comply with Popes, or did not obstruct them; suffering them without great obstacle to raise their power.

10. If in such cases a few wise men do apprehend the consequences of things, yet they can doe little to prevent them. They seldom have the courage with sufficient zeal to bustle against encroachments; fearing to be overborn by its stream, to lose their labour, and vainly to suffer by it. If they offer at resistence, it is usually faint and moderate: whereas power doth act vigorously, and push it self forward with mighty violence; so that it is not onely difficult to check it, but dangerous to oppose it.

Ambiguity of words (as it causeth many debates, Ità de vocabulorum occasionibus plurimùm quaestiones subornantur, sicut & de verborum in communionibus. Tertull. de Resur. Carn. 54. so) yieldeth much advantage to the foundation and amplification of power: for whatever is said of it, will be interpreted in favour of it, and will afford colour to its pretences. Words innocently or carelesly used are by interpretation extended to signifie great matters, or what you please. For instance,

The word Bishop may import any kind of superintendency or inspection; hence Saint Peter came to be reckoned Bishop of Rome, because in virtue of his Apostolical Office he had inspection over that Church founded by him, and might exercise some Episcopal acts.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Can. Apost. 34.The word Head doth signifie any kind of eminency, the word Prince any priority, the word to preside any kind of superiority or preeminence; hence some Fathers attributing those names to Saint Peter, they are interpreted to have thought him Sovereign in power over the Apostles. And because some did give like terms to the Pope, they infer his Superiority in power over all Bishops; notwithstanding such Fathers did express a contrary judgment.

The word Successour may import any derivation of power; hence because Saint Peter is said to have founded the Church of Rome, and to have ordained the first Bishop there, the Pope is called his Successour.

The word Authority doth often import any kind of influence upon the opinions or actions of men (grounded upon eminence of place, worth,

Quia duobus Episcopis, quorum eâ tempestate summa authoritas erat, non illuserat— Sulp. Sev. 2.63.

Because he had not deluded the two Bishops who had the greatest authority in those times.

Non mediocris authoritatis Episcopus Carthag. Aug. Epist. 162.

The Bishop of Carthage was of no mean authority.

—audiuntur authoritate suadendi potiùs quàm jubendi potestate. Tac. de mor. Germ. (p. 640.)

Evander—ea authoritate magìs quàm imperio retinebat loca. Liv. 1.

Verbum Judico frequenter in ea significatione usurpatur, ut idem sit quod sentio seu opinor. Can. loc. 6. cap. 8. (comp. lib. 6.1.)

reputation, or any such advantage.) Hence because the Pope of old sometimes was desired to interpose his authority, they will understand him to have had right to command or judge in such cases; although authority is sometimes opposed to command, as where Livy saith, that Evander did hold those places by authority rather than by command; and Tacitus of the German Princes saith, They are heard rather according to their authority of persuading, than power of commanding. The word Judge (saith Canus) is frequently used to signifie no more than I do think or conceive; whereby he doth excuse divers Popes from having decreed a notable errour (for Alexander III. says of them, that they judged that after a matrimony contracted, not consummated; another may be valid, that being dissolved.) Yet if the Pope is said to have judged so or so in any case, it is alledged for a certain argument of proper Jurisdiction.

11. There is a strange inchantment in words; which being (although with no great colour of reason) assumed, do work on the fancies of men, especially of the weaker sort. Of these power doth ever arrogate to it self such as are most operative, by their force sustaining and extending it self.

So divers prevalent Factions did assume to themselves the name of Catholick; and the Roman Church particularly hath appropriated that word to it self, even so as to commit a Bull, implying Rome and the Universe to be the same place; and the perpetual canting of this Term hath been one of its most effectual charms to weak people. I am a Catholick, that is, an Vniversal, therefore all I hold is true, this is their great Argument.

The words Successour of Peter, Apostolick See, Prima Sedes, have been strongly urged for Arguments of Papal Authority; the which have beyond their true force (for indeed they signifie nothing) had a strange efficacy upon men of understanding and wisedom.

12. The Pope's power was much amplified by the importunity of persons condemned or extruded from their places, whether upon just accounts,

—ut ad Domini mei tanti Pontificis & piissimi Patris, omnium ad se confugientium tutissimi defensoris ac protectoris, &c. Rothaldi appell. (in P. Nich. I. Ep. 37. p. 563.)

—my Lord so great a Pontif, and most pious a Father, the safe defender and protectour of all those that flee unto him for succour.

or wrongfully and by faction; for they finding no other more hopefull place of refuge and redress, did often apply to him: for what will not men doe, whither will not they go in straits?

Thus did Marcion go to Rome, and sue for admission to communion there. So Fortunatus and Felicissimus in St. Cyprian, Cypr. Ep. 68. being condemned in Africk did fly to Rome for shelter, of which absurdity St. Cyprian doth so complain. So likewise Martianus and Basilides, in St. Cyprian, Epist. 55. being outed of their Sees for having lapsed from the Christian profession did fly to Stephen for succour, to be restored. So Maximus (the Cynick) went to Rome, to get a confirmation of his election at Constantinople. So Marcellus, being rejected for Heterodoxy, went thither to get attestation to his Orthodoxy (of which St. Basil complaineth.) So Apiarius, being condemned in Africk for his crimes, did appeal to Rome.

And on the other side, Calendion of Antioch, Liber. cap. 18. Athanasius being with great partiality condemned by the Synod of Tyre, Paulus and other Bishops being extruded from their Sees for Orthodoxy; St. Chrysostome being condemned and expelled by Theophilus and his complices; P. Leo, Ep. 89. Marc. 5.32. P. Nich. I. • Ep. 38. (p. 564.) Rothaldus. Flavianus being deposed by Dioscorus, and the Ephesine Synod; Theodoret being condemned by the same, —did cry out for help from Rome. Chelidonius, Bishop of Resanon, being deposed by Hilarius of Arles, (for crimes) did fly to Pope Leo. Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, being extruded from his See by Photius, did complain to the Pope.

13. All Princes are forward to heap honour on the Bishop of their Imperial City; it seeming a disgrace to themselves, that so near a relation be an inferiour to any other: who is as it were their Spiritual Pastour, who is usually by their special favour advanced. The City it self and the Court will be restless in assisting him to climb.

Thus did the Bishop of Constantinople arise to that high pitch of honour, and to be Second Patriarch, who at first was a mean Suffragan to the Bishop of Heraclea; this by the Synods of Constantinople and Chalcedon is assigned for the reason of his advancement. Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 2. cap. 16. And how ready the Emperours were to promote the dignity of that Bishop, we see by many of their Edicts to that purpose; as particularly that of Leo.

So, for the honour of their City, the Emperours usually did favour the Pope, assisting him in the furtherance of his designs, and extending his Privileges by their Edicts at home, and Letters to the Eastern Emperours, recommending their affairs.

So in the Synod of Chalcedon we have the Letters of Valentinian, together with those of Placidia and of Eudoxia the Empresses to Theodosius, in behalf of Pope Leo, for retractation of the Ephesine Synod; wherein they do express themselves engaged to maintain the honour of the Roman See; Seeing that (saith Placidia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. (p. 27.) Mother of Theodosius) it becometh us in all things to preserve the honour and dignity of this chief City, which is the Mistress of all others.

Qualiter (Imperatores) eam diversis beneficiis extulerint, donis ditaverint, beneficiis ampliaverint, qualiter illam, &c. P. Nic. I. Ep. 8. (p. 513.)

—Romanus tempore prisco

Pauper erat Praesul, Regali munere crevit, &c. Gunth. Lig. lib. 6.

So Pope Nicholas confesseth, that the Emperours had extolled the Roman See with divers privileges, had enriched it with gifts, had enlarged it with benefits (or benefices,) &c.

14. The Popes had the advantage of being ready at hand to suggest what they pleased to the Court, and thereby to procure his Edicts (directed or dictated by themselves) in their favour, for extending their power, or repressing any opposition made to their encroachments.

Baronius observeth that the Bishops of Constantinople did use this advantage for their ends; for thus he reflecteth on the Edict of the Emperour Leo in favour of that See: Haec Leo, sed Acaci • fastu tumentis proculdubio verbis concepta, & stylo superbiae exarata. Baron. Ann. 473. § 4. These things Leo; but questionless conceived in the words of Acacius, swelling with pride.

And no less unquestionably did the Popes conceive words for the Emperour in countenance of their Authority. Apud Marc. 5.32.

Such was the Edict of Valentinian in favour of Leo against Hilarius Bishop of Arles, Bin. ad P. Hil. Ep. 11. (p. 576.) (in an unjust cause as Binius confesseth) who contested his Authority to undo what was done in a Gallicane Synod. And we may thank Baronius himself for this Observation, Ex his intelligis, Lector, cum de rebus sacris Imperatores leges sanxivere, id ipsum admonitione ss. Praesulum requirentium eorum officium ex scriptis legibus statuisse. Baron. Ann. 458. § 4. By this, Reader, thou understandest, that when the Emperours ordained Laws concerning Religion, they did it by transcribing and enacting the Laws of the Church upon the admonition of the Holy Bishops requiring them to doe their duty. It was a notable Edict, which Pope Hilarius alledgeth, It was also decreed by the Laws of Christian Princes, Christianorum quoque Principum lege decretum est, &c. P. Hilarius, Ep. 11. (p. 576.) that whatsoever the Bishop of the Apostolick See should upon examination pronounce concerning Churches and their Governours, &c. should with reverence be received and strictly observed, &c.

Such Edicts by crafty suggestions being at opportune times from easie and unwary Princes procured, did hold, not being easily reversed: and the Power which the Pope once had obtained by them, he would never part with; P. Nich. I. Ep. 36. Theod. 5.2. fortifying it by higher pretences of Divine immutable right.

The Emperour Gratian, having gotten the World under him, did order the Churches to those who would communicate with Pope Damasus. This and the like countenances did bring credit and authority to the Roman See.

15. It is therefore no wonder, that Popes being seated in the Metropolis of the Western Empire (the head of all the Roman State) should find interest sufficient to make themselves by degrees what they would be; for they not onely surpassing the Provincial Bishops in wealth and repute, but having power in Court, who dared to pull a feather with them, or to withstand their encroachments? What wise man would not rather bear much, than contest upon such disadvantages, and without probable grounds of success?

16. Princes who favoured them with such concessions and abetted their undertakings, did not foresee what such encrease of power in time would arise to; or suspect the prejudice thence done to Imperial Authority. They little thought that in virtue thereof Popes would check, and mate Princes; or would claim superiority over them; for the Popes at that time did behave and express themselves with modesty and respect to Emperours.

17. Power once rooted doth find seasons and favourable junctures for its growth; the which it will be intent to embrace.

The confusions of things, the eruptions of Barbarians, the straits of Emperours, the contentions of Princes, &c. did all turn to account for him; and in confusion of things he did snatch what he could to himself.

The declination and infirmity of the Roman Empire gave him opportunity to strengthen his interests, either by closing with it, so as to gain somewhat by its concession; or by opposing it, so as to head a Faction against it. As he often had opportunity to promote the designs of Emperours and Princes, so those did return to him encrease of Authority; so they trucked and bartered together. For when Princes were in straits, or did need assistence (from his reputation at home) to the furtherance of their designs, or support of their interest in Italy, they were content to honour him, and grant what he desired: as in the case of Acacius, which had caused so long a breach, the Emperour to engage Pope Hormisdas, did consent to his will. And at the Florentine Synod, the Emperour did bow to the Pope's terms, in hopes to get his assistence against the Turks.

When the Eastern Emperours, by his means chiefly, were driven out of Italy,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —

When the Oak is fallen every one gets some wood.

he snatched a good part of it to himself, and set up for a Temporal Prince.

When Princes did clash, he by yielding countenance to one side, would be sure to make a good market for himself: for this pretended Successour to the Fisherman, was really skilled to angle in troubled Waters.

They have been the incendiaries of Christendom, the kindlers and fomenters of War. And would often stir up Wars,

Anast. in Vit. Zach. P. Nich. I. Ep. 25.30, &c.

Non sine suspicione, quod illorum temporum Pontifices, qui bella extinguere, discordias tollere debuissent, suscitarent ea potiùs atque nutrirent. Modruviensi • Episc. in Conc. Lat. su • Leone X. Sess. 6. (p. 72.)

and inclining to the stronger part, would share with the Conquerour; as when he stirr'd up Charles against the Lombards. They would, upon spiritual pretence, be interposing in all affairs.

He did oblige Princes by abetting their Cause when it was unjust or weak; his spiritual Authority satisfying their Conscience: whence he was sure to receive good acknowledgment and recompence. Anno 752. As when he did allow Pepin's usurpation.

He pretended to dispose of Kingdoms, and to constitute Princes; reserving obeisance to himself. Anno 1060. Gregory VII. granted to Robert Guislard Naples and Sicily beneficiario jure. Anno 1139. Innocent II. gave to Roger the title of King.

There is scarce any Kingdom in Europe which he hath not claimed the Sovereignty of, by some pretence or other. Princes sometime for quiet sake have desired the Pope's consent and allowance of things appertaining of right to themselves, whence the Pope took advantage to claim an original right of disposing such things.

The proceeding of the Pope upon occasion of Wars is remarkable; when he did enter League with a Prince to side with him in a War against another, he did covenant to prosecute the Enemy with Spiritual Arms (that is, with Excommunications and Interdicts) engaging his Confederates to use Temporal Arms. So making Ecclesiastical Censures tools of Interest.

When Princes were in difficulties, (by the mutinous disposition of Princes, the emulation of Antagonists) he would, as served his interest, interpose; hooking in some advantage to himself.

In the tumults against our King John, he struck in, and would have drawn the Kingdom to himself.

He would watch opportunity to quarrel with Princes, upon pretence they did intrench on his Spiritual Power: as about the point of the investiture of Bishops, and receiving homage from them.

Gregory VII. did excommunicate Henry III. (Anno 1076.) Calixtus II.— Henry IV. (Anno 1120.) Adrian IV. — Frederick. (Anno 1160.) Celestinus III. — Henry V. (Anno 1195.) Innocent III.— Otho (Anno 1219.) Honorius III. and Gregory IX.— Frederick II. (Anno 1220.) Innocent IV. in the Ludg. Conc. 1245.)

18. The ignorance of times did him great service; for then all the little Learning which was, being in his Clients and Factours, they could instill what they pleased into the credulous People. Then his Dictates would pass for infallible Oracles, and his Decrees for inviolable Laws: whence his veneration was exceedingly encreased.

19. He was forward to support factious Churchmen against Princes,

Anselme Anno 1109. Eadmer. Matt. Par.

Becket Anno 1154. Eadmer. Matt. Par.

upon pretence of spiritual Interest and Liberty. And usually by his importunity and arts getting the better in such contests, he thereby did much strengthen his Authority.

20. He making himself the Head of all the Clergy, and carrying himself as its Protectour and Patron, did ingage thereby innumerable most able heads, tongues and pens; who were devoted to maintain whatever he did, and had little else to doe.

21. So great a Party he cherished with exorbitant Liberties, suffering none to rule over them or touch them beside himself.

22. He did found divers Militias and bands of spiritual Janisaries, to be Combatants for his Interests; who depending immediately upon him, subsisting by his Charters, enjoying exemptions by his authority from other Jurisdictions, being sworn to a special obeisance of him, were entirely at his devotion, ready with all their might to advance his Interests, and to maintain all the pretences of their Patron and Benefactour.

These had great sway among the People, upon account of their religious guises and pretences to extraordinary heights of sanctimony, austerity, contempt of the World. And learning being mostly confined to them, they were the chief Teachers and Guides of Christendom; so that no wonder, if he did challenge and could maintain any thing by their influence.

They did cry up his Power as superiour to all others. They did attribute to him titles strangely high, Vice-god, Spouse of the Church, &c. strange attributes of Omnipotency, Infallibility, &c.

23. Whereas Wealth is a great sinew of Power, he did invent divers ways of drawing great store thereof to himself. Pro pallio omninò aliquid dare prohibeo. Greg. I. Ep. 4.44.

By how many tricks did he proll money from all parts of Christendom? as by

Dispensations for Marriage within degrees prohibited, or at uncanonical times, —for Vows and Oaths; for observance of Fasts and Abstinences; for Pluralities and incompatible Benefices, Non-residences, &c.

Indulgences, and Pardons, and freeing Souls from the pains of Purgatory.

Reservations, and provisions of Benefices, not bestowed gratís. Vendit plumbum pro auro. Taxa Camerariae—

Consecrated Presents; Agnus Dei's, Swords, Roses, &c.

Confirmations of Bishops; In the times of Henry I. the Bishop of York did pay 10000 l. Sterling for his Pall. Matt. Par. (p. 274.) sending Palls.

Appeals to his Court.

Tributes of Peter-pence, Annates, Peter-pence. Plat. p. 257. Tithes— introduced upon occasion of Holy Wars, and continued.

Playing fast and loose, tying knots, and undoing them for gain.

Sending Legates to drein places of money.

Commutations of Penance for money.

Inviting to Pilgrimage at Rome.

Hooking in Legacies. What a mass of Treasure did all this come to? Quantas nobis divitias peperit haec fabula Christi? what a Trade did he drive?

24. He did indeed easily by the help of his mercenary Divines transform most Points of Divinity in accommodation to his interests of Power, Reputation and Gain.

25. Any pretence, how slender soever, will in time get some validity; being fortified by the consent of divers Authours, and a current of sutable practice.

Any story serving the designs of a Party, will get credit by being often told, especially by Writers bearing a semblance of gravity; whereof divers will never be wanting to abet a flourishing Party.

26. The Histories of some Ages were composed onely by the Popes Clients, Friars and Monks, and such People; which therefore are partial to him, addicted to his interests, and under awe of him.

For a long time none dared open his mouth to question any of his pretences, or reprehend his practices, without being called Heretick, and treated as such.

27. Whereas the Pope had two sorts of Opposites to subdue, temporal Princes and Bishops; his business being to o'ertop Princes, and to enslave all Bishops; or to invade and usurp the rights of both; he used the help of each to compass his designs on the other; by the Authority of Princes oppressing Bishops, and by the assistence of Bishops mating Princes.

28. When any body would not doe as he would have them, Quando & Apostolica praeceptio ad injuriam B. Petri in illis partibus non observatur, & à te spernitur & violatur. P. Nich. I. Ep. 37. he did incessantly clamour or whine, that Saint Peter was injured.

29. The forgery of the Decretal Epistles (wherein the ancient Popes are made expresly to speak and act according to some of his highest pretences, devised long after their times, and which they never thought of, good men) did hugely conduce to his purpose; authorising his encroachments by the suffrage of ancient Doctrine and Practice: a great part of his Canon-law is extracted out of these, and grounded on them.

The Donation of Constantine, fictitious Acts of Councils, and the like counterfeit stuff did help thereto; the which were soon embraced, as we see in Pope Gregory II.—

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2 Thess. 2.10. Twisd. p. 17. Non necessitatis, sed honoris causâ peto. As also Legends, Fables of Miracles, and all such deceivableness of unrighteousness.

30. Popes were so cunning as to form grants, and impute that to Privileges derived from them, which Princes did enjoy by right or custome.

31. Synods of Bishops called by him at opportune seasons, consisting of his Votaries or Slaves. Extortis assentationibus. P. Leo. Epist. (ad Syn. Chalc.) None dared therein to whisper any thing to the prejudice of his Authority. He carried whatever he pleased to propose, without check or contradiction. Who dared to question any thing done by such numbers of Pastours styling themselves the Representative of Christendome?

32. The having hampered all the Clergy with strict Oaths of universal obedience to him (beginning about the times of Pope Gregory VII.) did greatly assure his power.

33. When intolerable oppressions and exactions did constrain Princes to struggle with him, if he could not utterly prevail, things were brought to composition; whereby he was to be sure for that time a gainer, and gained establishment in some Points, leaving the rest to be got afterward in more favourable junctures.

Witness the Concordates between Henry II. and P. Alex. III. Anno 1172. Edw. III. and P. Greg. XI. Anno 1373. Henry V. and P. Mart. V. Anno 1418.

34. When Princes were fain to curb their exorbitances by Pragmatical Sanctions, they were restless till they had got those Sanctions revoked. And when they found weak Princes, or any Prince in circumstances advantaging their design, they did obtain their end. So Pope Leo X. got Lewis XI. to repeal the Pragmatical Sanctions of his Ancestours.

35. The power he did assume to absolve men from Oaths and Vows, to dispence with prohibited Marriages, &c. did not onely bring much grist to his Mill; but did enable him highly to oblige divers persons (especially great ones) to himself. For to him they owed the quiet of their Conscience from scruples. To him they owed the satisfaction of their desires, and legitimation of their issue, and title to their possessions.

36. So the device of Indulgences did greatly raise the veneration of him; for who would not adore him, that could loose his bands, and free his Soul from long and grievous pains?—

SUPPOSITION VI. The next Supposition is this, That in Fact the Roman Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Sovereign Power.

THIS is a Question of Fact which will best be decided by a particular consideration of the several Branches of Sovereign Power, that so we may examine the more distinctly whether in all Ages the Popes have enjoyed and exercised them, or not.

And if we survey the particular Branches of Sovereignty, we shall find that the Pope hath no just title to them, in reason, by valid Law, or according to ancient practice, whence each of them doth yield a good argument against his pretences.

1. If the Pope were Sovereign of the Church, he would have power to convocate its supreme Councils and Judicatories; and would constantly have exercised it.

This power therefore the Pope doth claim; and indeed did pretend to it a long time since,

Distinct. 17. Cùm etiam solum Rom. Pontificem pro tempore existentem, tanquam auctoritatem super omnia Concilia habentem, Conciliorum indicendorum, transferendorum ac dissolvendorum plenum jus & potestatem habere— manifestè constet. Con. Later. Sess. 11. (p. 152) Ann.

—Cui jussione Domini, & meritis B. Petri Apostoli, singularis congregandarum Synodorum authoritas, & Sanctorum Canonum ac Venerandorum Patrum decretis multipliciter privata tradita est potestas. P. Hadrian. I. apud Bin. Tom. 5. p. 565. (Ann. 785.)

Cùm generalium Synodorum convocandi auctoritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri singulari privilegio sit tradita— P. Pelag. II. Epist. 8. (Bin. Tom. 4. p. 476.) Ann. 587. qu. an haec Epistola sit Pelagii II?

Negat Launoius.

before they could obtain to exercise it: It is manifestly apparent (saith Pope Leo X. with approbation of his Laterane Synod) that the Roman Bishop for the time being (as who hath authority over all Councils) hath alone the full right and power of indicting, translating and dissolving Councils: and, long before him, To the Apostolical authority (said Pope Adrian I.) by our Lord's command, and by the merits of Saint Peter, and by the decrees of the Holy Canons and of the Venerable Fathers, a right and special power of convocating Synods hath many-wise been committed; and, yet before him, The authority (saith Pope Pelagius II.) of convocating Synods hath been delivered to the Apostolical See by the singular privilege of Saint Peter.

But it is manifest, that the Pope cannot pretend to this power by virtue of any old Ecclesiastical Canon; none such being extant or produced by him: Nor can he alledge any ancient custome; there having been no General Synod before Constantine: and as to the practice from that time, it is very clear, that for some Ages the Popes did not assume or exercise such a power, and that it was not taken for their due. Nothing can be more evident, and it were extreme impudence to deny that the Emperours at their pleasure, and by their authority did congregate all the first General Synods; for so the oldest Historians in most express terms do report, so those Princes in their Edicts did aver, so the Synods themselves did declare. The most just and pious Emperours, who did bear greatest love to the Clergy, and had much respect for the Pope, did call them without scruple; it was deemed their right to doe it, none did remonstrate against their practice, the Fathers in each Synod did refer thereto, with allowance, and commonly with applause; Popes themselves did not contest their right, yea commonly did petition them to exercise it.

These things are so clear and so obvious, that it is almost vain to prove them; I shall therefore but touch them.

In general Socrates doth thus attest to the ancient practice; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 5. prooem. We (saith he) do continually include the Emperours in our history, because upon them, ever since they became Christians, Ecclesiastical affairs have depended, and the greatest Synods have been and are made by their appointment: and Justinian in his prefatory type to the Fifth General Council beginneth thus: Semper studium fuit Orthodoxis, & piis Imperatoribus, pro tempore exortas Haereses per congregationem religiosissimorum Episcoporum amputare, & recta fide sincerè praedicata in pace Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam custodire— Justin. in Syn. 5. Collat. 1. (p. 209.) Graecé. p. 368. magìs Emphaticé. It hath been ever the care of Pious and Orthodox Emperours by the assembling of the most religious Bishops to cut off Heresies, as they did spring up, and by the right faith sincerely preached to keep the Holy Church of God in peace: and to doe this was so proper to the Emperours: that when Ruffin did affirm Saint Hilary to have been excommunicated in a Synod, Saint Hierome to confute him, did ask; tell me, What Emperour did command this Synod to be congregated; implying it to be illegal or impossible that a Synod should be congregated without the Imperial command. Doce—quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari. Hier.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. de Vit. Const. I. 44.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. Hist. 10.5. Epist. ad Chrestum. Ad Arelatensium civitatem piissimi Imperatoris voluntate adducti, say the Fathers, in their Epistle to P. Sylvester himself.

Vid. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 4. cap. 41, 42, 43. & Socr. 1.28.

Particularly Eusebius saith of the first Christian Emperour, that as a common Bishop appointed by God he did summon Synods of God's Ministers; so did he command a great number of Bishops to meet at Arles, (for decision of the Donatists cause;) so did he also command the Bishops from all quarters to meet at Tyre for examination of the affairs concerning Athanasius; and that he did convocate the great Synod of Nice (the first and most renowned of all General Synods) all the Historians do agree, he did himself affirm, the Fathers thereof in their Synodical remonstrances did avow; as we shall hereafter, in remarking on the passages of that Synod shew.

The same course did his Son Constantius follow, without impediment; for although he was a favourer of the Arian Party, yet did the Catholick Bishops readily at his call assemble in the great Synods of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodor. 2.4· Soz. 3.11. Socr. 2.16, 20. Athan. Tom. 1. p. 761. Hil. in fragm. p. Jubet ex toto orbe apud Sardicam Episcopos congregari. Sulp. 2.52. Sardica, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Syn. Arim. Epist. ad Const. Socr. 2.37. Ariminum, of Socr. 2.39. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ann. 381. Seleucia, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.99. Soz. 4.6. Sirmium, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 1.36. Soz. 4.9. Milan, &c. Which he out of a great zeal to compose dissentions among the Bishops did convocate.

After him the Emperour Valentinian, understanding of dissensions about divine matters to compose them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 4.7. did indict a Synod in Illyricum.

A while after, for settlement of the Christian State (which had been greatly disturbed by the Persecution of Julian and of Valens, and by divers Factions,) Theodosius I. did command (saith Theodoret) the Bishops of his Empire to be assembled together at Constantinople;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 7.7. Socr. 5.8.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 5.7.

the which meeting accordingly did make the Second General Synod; in the congregation of which the Pope had so little to doe, that Baronius saith, Repugnante Damaso celebrata, &c. Baron. Ann. 553. § 224. it was celebrated against his will.

Afterwards, when Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, affecting to seem wiser than others in explaining the mystery of Christ's Incarnation, had raised a jangle to the disturbance of the Church, for removing it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 7.34. Evagr. 1.3. the Emperour Theodosius II. did by his edict command the Bishops to meet at Ephesus; who there did celebrate the Third General Council: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . in the beginning of each Action it is affirmed, that the Synod was convocated by the Imperial decree; the Synod it self doth often profess it; the Pope's own Legate doth acknowledge it;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Eph. Act. 1. p. 291.

The holy Synod assembled by the grace of God, according to the Decree of our most Religious Emperours, &c.

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 297.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Act. 5. p. 347.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 404.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Which Synod our most Christian and gracious Emperours appointed, saith Philip, the Pope's Legate. Act. 3. p. 330.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —

To the holy Synod assembled by the grace of God, and the command of our Emperours, &c. So do Cyril and Memnon inscribe in their Epistle. Act. 4. p. 337.

and so doth Cyril the President thereof.

The same Emperour, upon occasion of Eutyches being condemned at Constantinople, and the stirs thence arising, did indict the Second General Synod of Ephesus, (which proved abortive by the miscariages of Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) as appeareth by his Imperial Letters to Dioscorus, and the other Bishops, summoning them to that Synod:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. pars 1. p. 53.

Episcopale concilium, quod haberi apud Ephesum praecepistis. P. Leo. I. Ep. 2 • . (& 24.) ad Theod.

— We have decreed that the most holy Bishops meeting together, &c. After the same manner the other most reverend Bishops were written to, to come to the Synod. And as Pope Leo doth confess; calling it the council of Bishops which you (Theodosius) commanded to be held at Ephesus.

The next General Synod of Chalcedon was convocated by the authority of the Emperour Marcian; Ann. 451. as is expressed in the beginning of each Action,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (Act. 6. p. 345.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 6.346.

as the Emperour declareth, as the Synod it self in the front of its definition doth avow; the holy, great and Oecumenical Synod, gather'd together by the grace of God and the command of our most dread Emperours, &c. has determin'd as follows.

Ann. 533.The Fifth General Synod was also congregated by the authority of Justinian I. and the Emperour's Letter authorizing it, Act. p. 368. Gr. p. 309. Lat. beginneth (as we saw before) with an Assertion (backed with a particular enumeration) that all former great Synods were called by the same power: the Fathers themselves do say, that they had come together according to the will of God,

Pro Dei voluntate, & jussione piissimi Imperatoris ad hanc vrbem convenimus Collat. 8.

Vt quae resistente Romano Pontifice fuerit congregata. Baron. Ann. 553. § 219.

and the command of the most pious Emperour. So little had the Pope to doe in it, that, as Baronius himself telleth us, it was congregated against his will, or with his resistence.

The Sixth General Synod at Constantinople was also indicted by the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus; as doth appear by his Letters, as is intimated at the entrance of each Action, as the Synod doth acknowledge, as Pope Leo II. (in whose time it was concluded) doth affirm. The Synod in its definition, as also in its Epistle to Pope Agatho doth inscribe it self The Holy and Oecumenical Synod,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 18. p. 255. & p. 285. (in Epist. ad P. Agath.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 18. p. 256. in definitione Synodica.

congregated by the grace of God, and the altogether religious Sanction of the most pious, and most faithfull great Emperour Constantine; and, in their definition they say, By this doctrine of peace dictated by God, our most gracious Emperour through the divine wisedom being guided, as a defender of the true faith, and an enemy to the false, having gather'd us together in this holy and Oecumenical Synod, has united the whole frame of the Church, &c. In its acclamatory Oration to the Emperour it saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — P. Leo. II. in Epist. ad Constant. Imp. p. 305. &c. Act. 18. p. 271. We all acquiescing in your most sacred commands; both the most holy President of (Rome) the most ancient and Apostolical city, and we the least, &c.

These are all the great Synods, which posterity with clear consent did admit as General; for the next two have been disclaimed by great Churches (the Seventh by most of the Western Churches, the Eighth by the Eastern) so that even P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 247. P. Nich. I. Ep. 7, 8, 10. P. Hadrian. II. Ep. 26. divers Popes after them did not reckon them for general Councils; and all the rest have been onely Assemblies of Western Bishops, celebrated after the breach between the Oriental and Occidental Churches.

Yet even that Second Synod of Nice, which is called the Seventh Synod, doth avow it self to have convened by the Emperour's command; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 7. p. 831. Act. 1. p. 519. Act. 2. p. 551. Act. 3. p. 586. Act. 4. p. 609. Act. 5. p. 696. Act. 6. p. 722. Act. 7. p. 812. Defin. Synod. Act. 7. p. 817. and in the front of each Action, as also of their Synodical definition, the same style is retained.

Hitherto it is evident, that all General Synods were convocated by the Imperial authority; and about this matter divers things are observable.

It is observable in how peremptory a manner the Emperours did require the Bishops to convene at the time and place appointed by them. Constantine in his Letter indicting the Synod of Tyre hath these words;Euseb. de Vit. Const. 4.42. (Vid. in 5. p. 30.) If any one presuming to violate our command and sense, &c.

Theodosius II. summoneth the Bishops to the Ephesine Synod in these terms; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Jun. Ep. ad Cyril. Conc. Eph. par • 1. p. 226 We taking a great deal of care about these things will not suffer any one if he be absent to go unpunish'd; nor shall he find excuse either with God or us, who presently without delay does not by the time set, appear in the place appointed.

In like terms did he call them to the Second Ephesine Synod; If any one shall chuse to neglect meeting in a Synod so necessary and gratefull to God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodos. in Ep. ad Diosc. in Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 53. and by the set time do not with all diligence appear in the place appointed, he shall find no excuse, &c.

Marcian thus indicteth the Synod of Nice (after by him translated to Chalcedon) It properly seemeth good to our clemency that an holy Synod meet in the city of Nice, in the Province of Bithynia. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In Epist. ad Episc. Syn. Chal. pars 1. p. 34.

Again we may observe, that in the Imperial Edicts or Epistles whereby Councils effectually were convened, there is nothing signified concerning the Pope's having any authority to call them; it is not as by licence from the Pope's Holiness, but in their own Name and Authority they Act: which were very strange if the Popes had any plea then commonly approved for such a power.

As commonly Emperours did call Synods by the suggestion of other Bishops 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evagr. 1.3., so again, there be divers instances of Popes applying themselves to the Emperours with petitions to indict Synods; wherein sometimes they prevailed, sometimes they were disappointed: so Pope Liberius did request of Constantius to indict a Synod for deciding the cause of Athanasius; Ecclesiastical judgments (said he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 2.16. as Theodoret reports) should be made with great equity; wherefore if it please your piety, command a Judicatory to be constituted; and in his Epistle to Hosius, produced by Baronius, he saith, Many Bishops out of Italy met together, Multi ex Italia Episcopi convenerunt, qui mecum religiosissimum Imperatorem fuerant deprecati, ut juberet, sicut ipsi placuerat, dudum concilium Aquileiense congregari. Baron. Ann. 353. § 19. who together with me had beseecht the most Religious Emperour, that he would command, as he had thought fit, the Council of Aquileia to meet.

So Pope Damasus, having a desire that a General Synod should be celebrated in Italy for repressing Heresies and Factions then in the Church, did obtain the Imperial Letters for that purpose directed to the Eastern Bishops; as they in their Epistle to the Western Bishops do intimate: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 5.9. But because expressing a brotherly affection toward us, ye have called us as your own members by the most pious Emperour's Letters to that Synod which by the will of God ye are gathering at Rome.

Bell. de Pont. R. 2.13.It is a wonder that Bellarmine should have the confidence to alledge this passage for himself.

So again Pope Innocent I. being desirous to restore Saint Chrysostome, did (as Sozomen telleth us) send five Bishops and two Priests of the Roman Church to Honorius and to Arcadius the Emperour,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 8.28.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

requesting a Synod, with the time and the place thereof; in which attempt he suffered a repulse; for the Courtiers of Arcadius did repell those Agents, as troubling another government, which was beyond their bounds, or wherein the Pope had nothing to doe, that they knew of.

Humiliter ac sapienter exposcite, ut petitioni nostrae, quâ plenariam indici Synodum postulamus, clementissimus Imperator dignetur annuere, (saith Pope Leo, to the Clergy and People of Constantinople. Ep. 23)

Vnde si pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere, ut intra Italiam haberi jubeatis Episcopale Concilium, citò auxiliante Deo poterunt omnia scandala resecari. P. Leo I. Ep. 9.

So also Pope Leo I. (whom no Pope could well exceed in zeal to maintain the Privileges, and advance the eminence of his See) did in these terms request Theodosius to indict a Synod; whence if your piety shall vouchsafe consent to our suggestion and supplication, that you would command an Episcopal Council to be held in Italy; soon, God aiding, may all scandals be cut off: upon this occasion the Emperour did appoint a Council (not in Italy according to the Pope's desire, but) at Ephesus; the which not succeeding well, Omnes partium Ecclesiae nostrarum, omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus & lacrymis supplicant sacerdotes, ut generalem Synodum jubeatis intra Italiam celebrari. P. Leo. I. Ep. 42. Pope Leo again did address to Theodosius in these words, All the Churches of our parts, all Bishops with groans and tears do supplicate your Grace, that you would command a General Synod to be celebrated within Italy; to which request (although back'd with the desire of the Western Emperour) Theodosius would by no means consent; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Leont. de Sect. Act. 4. for, as Leontius reporteth, when Valentinian being importuned by Pope Leo, did write to Theodosius II. that he would procure another Synod to be held for examining whether Dioscorus had judged rightly or no, Theodosius did write back to him saying, I shall make no other Synod.

The same Pope did again of the same Emperour petition for a Synod to examin the cause of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople: Let your clemency (saith he) be pleased to grant an Vniversal Council to be held in Italy; as with me the Synod, which for this cause did meet at Rome, doth request: Thus did that Pope continually harp upon one string to get a General Synod to be celebrated at his own doors; but never could obtain his purpose, the Emperour being stiff in refusing it.

The same Pope, with better success, (as

Sanctum clementiae vestrae studium, quo ad reparationem pacis Ecclesiasticae Synodum habere voluistis, adeò libenter accepi, ut quamvis eam fieri intra Italiam poposcissem, &c. Leo. Ep. 50.

Poposceram quidem à gloriosissima clementia vestra, ut Synodum, quam pro reparanda Orientalis Ecclesiae pace à nobis etiam petitam necessariam judicâstis, aliquantisper differri ad tempus opportunius juberetis.— P. Leo. Ep. 43.44.50.

Sed eo defuncto, cùm Martianus Imperii culmen fuisset adeptus, pro illa Papae & Principum Romanorum petitione Vniversale Concilium in Nicea congregari jussit. Lib. Brev. cap. 13.

to the thing, though not as to the place) did request of the Emperour Marcian a Synod; for he (concurring in opinion that it was needfull) did (saith Liberatus) at the petition of the Pope and the Roman Princes command a General Council to be congregated at Nice.

Now, if the Pope had himself a known right to convocate Synods, what needed all this application, or this supplication to the Emperours? would not the Pope have endeavoured to exercise his Authority? would he not have clamoured or whined at any interruption thereof? would so spiritfull and sturdy a Pope as Leo Fortissimus Leo. Liber. cap. 12. have begged that to be done by another, which he had authority to doe of himself, when he did apprehend so great necessity for it, and was so much provoked thereto? would he not at least have remonstrated against the injury therein done to him by Theodosius?

All that this daring Pope could adventure at, was to wind in a pretence that the Synod of Chalcedon was congregated by his consent; for, it hath been the pleasure (of whom I pray) that a General Council should be congregated, — in causa fidei, propter quam Generale Concilium & ex praecepto Christianorum Principum, & ex consensu Apostolicae Sedis placuit congregari. Ep. 61. both by the command of the Christian Princes, and with the consent of the Apostolick See, saith he very cunningly; yet not so cunningly, but that any other Bishop might have said the same for his See.

This power indeed upon many just accounts peculiarly doth belong to Princes: It suteth to the dignity of their state, it appertaineth to their duty, they are most able to discharge it. They are the Guardians of publick tranquillity, which constantly is endangered, which commonly is violated by dissensions in religious matters; (whence we must pray for them,1 Tim. 2.2▪ that by their care we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,) they alone can authorize their Subjects to take such Journeys, or to meet in such Assemblies; they alone can well cause the expences needfull for holding Synods to de exacted and defrayed; they alone can protect them, can maintain Order and Peace in them, can procure Observance to their Determinations; they alone have a Sword to constrain resty and refractory persons (and in no cases are men so apt to be such as in debates about these matters) to convene, to confer peaceably, to agree, to observe what is settled: They,Isa. 49.23. Sap. 6.4. Rom. 13.3. as nursing Fathers of the Church, as Ministers of God's Kingdom, as encouragers of good works; as the Stewards of God, entrusted with the great Talents of Power, Dignity, Wealth, enabling them to serve God, are obliged to cause Bishops in such cases to perform their duty; according to the example of good Princes in Holy Scripture, who are commended for proceedings of this nature; for so King Josias did convocate a General Synod of the Church in his time, then (saith the Text) the King sent, 2 Chron. 34.29, &c. and gathered together all the Elders of Judah and Jerusalem; In this Synod he presided, standing in his place; and making a covenant before the Lord; its Resolutions he confirmed, causing all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to that Covenant; and he took care of their Execution, making all present in Israel effectually to serve the Lord their God.

So also did King Hezekiah gather the Priests and Levites together, 2 Chron. 29.4, 15, 20, 21, &c. Vers. 11. did warn, did command them to doe their duty, and reform things in the Church: My Sons (said he) be not now negligent, for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that ye should minister unto him, and burn incense.

Beside them none other can have reasonable pretence to such a Power, or can well be deemed able to manage it: so great an Authority cannot be exercised upon the Subjects of any Prince without eclipsing his Majesty, infringing his natural right, and endangering his State. He that at his pleasure can summon all Christian Pastours, and make them trot about, and hold them when he will, is in effect Emperour, or in a fair way to make himself so. It is not fit therefore that any other person should have all the Governours of the Church at his beck, so as to draw them from remote places whither he pleaseth; to put them on long and chargeable Journeys; to detain them from their charge; to set them on what deliberations and debates he thinketh good. It is not reasonable that any one without the leave of Princes should authorize so great conventions of men, having such interest and sway; it is not safe, that any one should have such dependencies on him, by which he may be tempted to clash with Princes, and withdraw his Subjects from their due obedience. Neither can any success be well expected from the use of such Authority by any, who hath not Power, by which he can force Bishops to convene, to resolve, to obey; whence we see that Constantine, who was a Prince so gentle and friendly to the Clergy, was put to threaten those Bishops, who would absent themselves from the Synod indicted by him at Tyre; and Theodosius (also a very mild and religious Prince) did the like in his summoning the two Ephesine Synods.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 7.42.

We likewise may observe, that when the Pope and Western Bishops, in a Synodical Epistle, did invite those of the East to a great Synod indicted at Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 5.8. these did refuse the journey, alledging that it would be to no good purpose; so also when the Western Bishops did call those of the East,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 7.11.

Both they and Gratian the Emperour wrote, calling the Eastern Bishops into the West.

for resolving the difference between Flavianus and Paulinus, both pretending to be Bishops of Antioch, what effect had their summons? and so will they always or often be ready to say, who are called at the pleasure of those who want force to constrain them; so that such Authority in unarmed hands (and God keep Arms out of a Pope's hands) will be onely a source of discords.

Either the Pope is a Subject, as he was in the first times, and then it were too great a presumption for him to claim such a power over his fellow-Subjects in prejudice to his Sovereign; (nor indeed did he presume so far, untill he had in a manner shaken off subjection to the Emperour) or he is not a Subject; and then it is not reasonable that he should have such power in the Territories of another Prince.

The whole business of General Synods, was an expedient for Peace, contrived by Emperours, and so to be regulated by their order. Hence even in times and places where the Pope was most reverenced, yet Princes were jealous of suffering the Pope to exercise such a power over the Bishops their Subjects; Philip of France. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 906. (Ann. 1302.) and to obviate it, did command all Bishops not to stir out of their Territories without licence; particularly our own Nation, Decretum est—non licere—exire Regnum absque licentia Regis. Conc. Clarend. vid. Matt. Par. Ann. 1164. in the Council at Clarendon, where it was decreed, that they should not go out of the Kingdom without the King's leave.

To some things above said, a passage may be objected which occurreth in the acclamation of the Sixth Synod to the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus; wherein 'tis said, that Constantine and Sylvester did collect the Synod of Nice,

Syn. Sext. Act. 18. p. 272.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .—

Theodosius I. and Damasus (together with Gregory and Nectarius) the Synod of Constantinople; Theodosius II. with Celestine and Cyril the Ephesine Synod, and so of the rest: To which I answer, that the Fathers mean onely for the Honour of those Prelates to signifie, that they in their places and ways did concur and co-operate to the celebration of those Synods; otherwise we might as to matter of Fact and History contest the accurateness of their relation; and 'tis observable, that they joyn other great Bishops then flourishing, with the Popes; so that if their suffrage prove any thing, it proveth more than our Adversaries would have, viz. that all great Bishops and Patriarchs have a power or right to convocate Synods.

As for passages alledged by our Adversaries, that no Synod could be called, or Ecclesiastical Law enacted, without consent of the Pope, they are no-wise pertinent to this question; for we do not deny that the Pope had a right to sit in every General Synod; and every other Patriarch at least had no less; as all reason and practice do shew;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Anteacta Syn. Nic. II. p. 518.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Syn. 7. Act. 6. p. 725.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. 8. Act. 1. p. 930.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 5. p. 945.

and as they of the Seventh Synod do suppose, arguing the Synod of Constantinople, which condemned the Worship of Images, to be no General Council, because it had not the Pope's co-operation, nor the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs. Syncellus the Patriarch of Jerusalem's Legate in the Eighth Synod, says, for this reason did the Holy Spirit set up Patriarchs in the World, that they might suppress Scandals arising in the Church of God: And Photius is in the same Synod told that the judgment past against him was most equal and impartial, as proceeding not from one but all the four Patriarchs.

That a General Synod doth not need a Pope to call it, or preside in it, appeareth by what the Synods of Pisa and Constance define, Sess. 39. (p. 1109.) for provision in time of Schisms.

II. It inseparably doth belong to Sovereigns in the General assemblies of their States to preside, and moderate affairs; proposing what they judge fit to be consulted or debated; stopping what seemeth unfit to be moved; keeping proceedings within order and rule, and steering them to a good issue; checking disorders and irregularities, which the distemper or indiscretion of any persons may create in deliberations or disputes.

This privilege therefore the Pope doth claim; not allowing any General Council to be legitimate, wherein he in person, or by his Legates, doth not preside and sway. All Catholicks, says Bellarmine, Catholici omnes id munus proprium esse docent summi Pontificis, ut per se, vel per Legatos praesideat, & tanquam supremus judex omnia moderetur. Bell. de Conc. 1.19. teach this to be the chief Pontif's proper Office, that either in person or by his Legate he preside, and as a chief Judge moderate all.

But for this prerogative no express Grant from God, no ancient Canon of the Church, no certain Custom can be produced.

Nor doth ancient practice favour the Pope's claim to such a Prerogative, it appearing that he did not exercise it in the first General Synods.

Act. 15.Saint Peter himself did not preside in the Apostolical Synod at Jerusalem, where he was present; but rather Saint James, as we before have shewed.

In all the first Synods, convocated by Emperours, they did either themselves in person, or by honourable persons authorized by them, in effect preside, governing the proceedings.

In the Synod of Nice Constantine was the chief Manager, Directer, and Moderatour of the Transactions; and under him other chief Bishops did preside; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. 3.13. but that the Pope's Legates had any considerarable influence or sway there doth by no evidence appear; as we shall hereafter out of History declare.

In the Synod of Sardica, (which in design was a General Council, but in effect did not prove so, being divided by a Schism into two great parts) Hosius Bishop of Corduba did preside, (or by reason of his age and venerable worth) had the first place assigned to him, and bore the Office of Proloquutor; so the Synod it self doth imply; All we Bishops (say they in their Catholick Epistle) meeting together,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Athan. Apol. 2. p. 761.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Athan. ad Solit. p. 819.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . — Soz. 12.13.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 2.15.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Syn. Chalc. ad Imp. Marc. p. 468.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. apud Athan. p. 767.

and especially the most ancient Hosius, who for his age, and for his confession, and for that he hath undergone so much pains, is worthy all reverence; so Athanasius expresly doth call him; The holy Synod (saith he) the Proloquutor of which was the great Hosius, presently sent to them, &c. The Canons of the Synod intimate the same, wherein he proposeth matters, and asketh the pleasure of the Synod; the same is confirmed by the subscriptions of their General Epistle; wherein he is set before Pope Julius himself. (Hosius from Spain, Julius of Rome, by the Presbyters Archidamus, and Philoxenus.) In this all Ecclesiastical Histories do agree; none speaking of the Pope's presiding there by his Legates.

Baron. Ann. 553. § 224. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 7.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Chalc. in Epist. ad Imp. Marc. (pag. 469.)In the Second General Synod at Constantinople the Pope had plainly no stroke; the Oriental Bishops alone did there resolve on matters, being headed by their Patriarchs; (of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) as Sozomen saith; being guided by Nectarius and Saint Gregory Nazianzene, as the Council of Chalcedon in its Epistle to the Emperour doth aver.

Prioris Ephesinae Synodi, cui sanctae memoriae. Cyrillus Episcopus tunc praesedit. P. Leo. I. Ep. 47. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Relat. Act. Eph. cap. 60.In the third General Synod at Ephesus, Cyril Bishop of Alexandria did preside; as Pope Leo himself doth testifie; he is called the Head of it, in the Acts.

We may note, Digress. that the Bishop of the place where the Synod is held, did bear a kind of presidency in all Synods; so did Saint James Bishop of Jerusalem in the First Synod, as St. Chrysostome noteth; so did Protogenes at Sardica, and Nectarius at Constantinople, and Memnon in this of Ephesus. —

It is true, that according to the Acts of that Synod, and the reports of divers Historians, Pope Celestine (according to a new politick device of Popes) did authorize Cyril to represent his person, and act as his Proctour in those affairs; assigning to him (as he saith) jointly both the authority of his throne (that is, his right of voting) and the order of his place (the first place in sitting;) but it is not consequent thence, that Cyril upon that sole account did preside in the Synod. He thereby had the disposal of one so considerable suffrage,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Celest. ad Cyril. Relat. cap. 16.

N. Yet the Fathers in their Epistle to Pope Celestine do onely take notice of Arcadius, Projectus, and Philippus supplying his place. Act. p. 353.

or a legal concurrence of the Pope with him in his actings; He thereby might pretend to the first place of sitting and subscribing (which kind of advantages it appeareth that some Bishops had in Synods by the virtue of the like substitution in the place of others) but he thence could have no authoritative Presidency; for that the Pope himself could by no delegation impart, having himself no title thereto, warranted by any Law, or by any Precedent; that depended on the Emperour's will, or on the Election of the Fathers, or on a tacit regard to personal eminence in comparison to others present: This distinction Evagrius seemeth to intimate, when he saith, that the divine Cyril did administer it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evag. 1.4. and the place of Celestine (where a word seemeth to have fallen out) and Zonaras more plainly doth express; saying, that Cyril Pope of Alexandria did preside over the Orthodox Fathers,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Zon. in Syn. Eph. Can. 1.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

and also did hold the place of Celestine: and Photius; Cyril did supply the seat, and the person of Celestine. If any latter Historions do confound these things, we are not obliged to comply with their ignorance or mistake.

Indeed as to Presidency there we may observe,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Chalc. Act. 4. p. 302.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cler. Const. in Syn. Eph. p. 418. Cui praefuit Cyrillus. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 173.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. desin. in Act. 5. p. 338. & Act. 4. p. 300.

The Bishops of Isauria to the Emperour Leo say, that Cyril was partaker with Pope Celestine, &c. Dum B. Celestino incolumis Ecclesiae Romanorum particeps—Part. 3. Syn. Chalc. p. 522.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eph. Act. 4. p. 338. (p. 420. & 422.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 5. p. 347.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Relat. Syn. p. 406. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Relat. p. 411.

that sometime it is attributed to Cyril alone, as being the first Bishop present, and bearing a great sway; sometimes to Pope Celestine, as being in representation present, and being the first Bishop of the Church in Order; sometimes to both Cyril and Celestine; sometimes to Cyril and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, who as being very active, and having great influence on the proceedings, are styled the Presidents and Rulers of the Synod. The which sheweth, that Presidency was a lax thing, and no peculiarity in right or usage annexed to the Pope; nor did altogether depend on his grant or representation, to which Memnon had no title.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Relat. ad. Imp. p. 422. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Act. 2. p. 322. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 4. p. 340.The Pope himself and his Legats are divers times in the Acts said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to sit together with the Bishops; which confidence doth not well comport with his special right to Presidency.

Yea it is observable, that the Oriental Bishops, which with John of Antioch did oppose the Cyrillian Party in that Synod, did charge on Cyril, that he, (as if he lived in a time of Anarchy) did proceed to all irregularity;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Relat. ad Imper. Act. Eph. p. 380.

and that, snatching to himself the Authority, which neither was given him by the Canons, nor by the Emperours Sanctions, did rush on to all kind of disorder, and unlawfulness; whence it is evident, that in the judgment of those Bishops, (among whom The Bishops of Syria being then the most learned in the World; as John of Antioch doth imply. p. 377. were divers worthy and excellent persons) the Pope had no right to any authoritative Presidency.

This word Presidency indeed hath an ambiguity, apt to impose on those, who do not observe it; for it may be taken for a privilege of Precedence, or for Authority to govern things; the first kind of presidence the Pope without dispute, when present at a Synod,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. 6. p. 285.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 297.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . justin. Cod. Tit. 1.

would have had among the Bishops (as being the Bishop of the first See, as the Sixth Synod calleth him; and the first of Priests, as Justinian called him) and in his absence his Legates might take up his Chair (for in General Synods each See had its Chair assigned to it, according to its order of dignity by custom.) And according to this sense the Patriarchs, and chief Metropolitans are also often (singly or conjunctly) said to preside: as sitting in one of the first Chairs.

But the other kind of Presidency was (as those Bishops in their complaint against Cyril do imply, and as we shall See in practice) disposed by the Emperour, as he saw reason; although usually it was conferred on him, who among those present, in dignity did precede the rest: this is that authority, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Syrian Bishops complained against Cyril for assuming to himself, without the Emperour's warrant; and whereof we have a notable Instance in the next General Synod at Ephesus. For,

In the Second Ephesine Synod, (which in design was a General Synod, lawfully convened, for a publick cause of determining truth, and settling peace in the Church; but which by some miscarriages proved abortive:) although the Pope had his Legates there,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evag. 1.10.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 59.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chal. Act. 1. p. 160.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evag. 1.10.

— Si is qui sibi locum principalem vindicabat, Sacerdotalem moderationem custodire voluisset — Leo I. Ep. 25, 26, &c.

yet by the Emperour's order Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria did preside, We (said Theodosius in his Epistle to him) do also commit to thy godliness the authority, and the preeminency of all things appertaining to the Synod now assembled; and in the Synod of Chalcedon it is said of him, that he had received the authority of all affairs, and of judgment; and Pope Leo I. in this Epistle to the Emperour saith, that Dioscorus did challenge to himself the principal place; (insinuating a complaint, that Dioscorus should be preferred before him, although not openly contesting his right.)

The Emperour had indeed some reason not to commit the Presidency to Pope Leo, because he was looked upon as prejudiced in the cause, having declared in favour of Flavianus, against Eutyches; whence Eutyches declined his Legate's interessing in the judgment of his cause, saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 80. they were suspected to him, because they were entertained by Flavianus with great regard. And Dioscorus, being Bishop of the next See, was taken for more indifferent, and otherwise a person (however afterward it proved) of much integrity and moderation; He did (saith the Emperour) shine, by the grace of God, both in honesty of life,

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ep. ad Diosc. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 59.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ep. 60.

and orthodoxy of faith; and Theodoret himself, before those differences arose, doth say of him, that he was by common fame reported a man adorned with many other kinds of vertue, and that especially he was celebrated for his moderation of mind.

It is true, that the Legates of Pope Leo did take in dudgeon this preferment of Dioscorus; and (if we may give credence to Liberatus) would not sit down in the Synod, Ecclesiae Romanae Diaconi, vice • habentes P. Leonis assidere non passi sunt, eò quòd non data fuerit praesessio sanctae Sedi eorum. Liber cap. 12. because the presession was not given to their Holy See; and afterwards in the Synod of Chalcedon the Pope's Legate Paschasinus (together with other Bishops) did complain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 62. that Dioscorus was preferred before the Bishop of Constantinople; but notwithstanding those ineffectual mutinies, the Emperour's will did take place, and according thereto Dioscorus had, (although he did not use it so wisely and justly as he should) the chief managery of things.

It is to be observed, that to other chief Bishops the Presidency in that Synod is also ascribed, by virtue of the Emperour's appointment; Let the most reverend Bishops (say the Imperial Commissaries in the Synod of Chalcedon) to whom the authoritative management of affairs was by the Royal Sovereignty granted, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 65. speak why the Epistle of the most Holy Archbishop Leo was not read: and,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Ibid. p. 77.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. 2. p. 202. & Act. 4. p. 288. (Evag. 2.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Ibid. p. 70.

Siquidem penè omnes, qui in consensum Praesidentium aut traducti fuerant, aut coacti. Leo. Ep. 51.

Ibi Primates Synodi nec resistentibus, &c. P. Leo. I. Ep.

You (say they again) to whom the power of judging was given; and of Dioscorus, Juvenalis (Bishop of Jerusalem) Thalassius (of Caesarea) Eusebius (of Ancyra) Eustathius (of Beristus) Basilius (of Selencia) it is by the same Commissioners said that they had recieved the authority, and did govern the Synod which was then; and Elpidius, the Emperour's Agent in the Ephesine Synod it self did expresly style them Presidents; and Pope Leo himself calleth them Presidents and Primates of the Synod.

Whence it appeareth, that at that time, according to common opinion and practice, authoritative Presidency was not affixed to the Roman Chair. In his fratribus—me Synodo vestrae frateunitas existimet praesidere. P. Leo. I. E. 47.

In the Synod of Chalcedon Pope Leo did indeed assume to himself a kind of Presidency by his Legates; and no wonder that a man of a stout and ardent Spirit (impregnated with high conceits of his See, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Epist. ad Leon. p. 473. and resolved with all his might to advance its interests, as his Legates themselves did in effect declare to the world) should doe so; having so favourable a time, by the misbehaviour of Dioscorus and his adherents; against whom the Clergy of Constantinople, and other Fathers of the Synod being incensed were ready to comply with Leo (who had been the Champion and Patron of their Cause) in allowing him extraordinary respect, and whatever advantages he could pretend to.

Yet in effect the Emperour by his Commissioners did preside there; they propounding and allowing matters to be discussed; Act. 1. p. 50. & p. 202. Act. 2. p. 211. moderating debates by their interlocution and driving them to an issue, maintaining order and quiet in proceedings; performing those things, which the Pope's Legates at Trent, or otherwhere in the height of his power did undertake.

To them supplicatory addresses were made for succour and redress by persons needing it; (as for instance) Command (said Eusebius of Dorylaeum) that my supplications may be read. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 1. p. 50.

Of them leave is requested for time to deliberate; Command (saith Atticus in behalf of other Bishops) that respite be given, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 1. p. 219. so that within a few days, with a calm mind, and undisturbed reason, those things may be formed which shall be pleasing to God and the Holy Fathers.

Accordingly, they order the time for consultation; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 4. p. 289. Let (said they) the hearing be deferred for five days, that in the mean time your Holiness may meet at the house of the most Holy Archbishop Anatolius, and deliberate in common about the faith, that the doubtfull may be instructed.

They were acknowledged Judges; and had thanks given them for the issue by persons concerned; I (said Eunomius Bishop of Nicomedia) do thank your Honour for your right judgment. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 13. p. 420. And in the cause between Stephanus and Bassianus concerning their title to the Bishoprick of Ephesus;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 12. p. 409.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . ibid. p. 414.

they having declared their sense, the Holy Synod cryed, this is right judgment; Christ hath decided the case, God judgeth by you: And in the result, upon their declaring their opinion; the whole Synod exclaimed, This is a right judgment, this is a pious order.

When the Bishops, transported with eagerness and passion, did tumultuously clamour, they gravely did check them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 1. p. 55. saying, These vulgar exclamations neither become Bishops, nor shall advantage the parties.

In the great contest about the privileges of the Constantinopolitan See, they did arbitrate and decide the matter,— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chal. ad Leon. Ep. p. 475. even against the sense and endeavours of the Pope's Legates; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 16. p. 464. the whole Synod concurring with them in these acclamations; this is a right sentence, we all say these things, these things please us all, things are duely ordered; let 〈◊〉 things ordered be held.

The Pope's Legates themselves did avow this authority in them; for, If (said Paschasinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. 4. p. 315. in the case of the Egyptian Bishops) your authority doth command, and ye injoin that somewhat of humanity be granted to them, &c.

And in another case, If, said the Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 16. p. 451. supplying the place of the Apostolical See, your Honours do command, we have an information to suggest.

Neither is the Presidency of these Roman Legates expressed in the Conciliar Acts; but they are barely said Act. 5. Act. 7. Act. 8. p. 366. Act. 9. Act. 11. Act. 13.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to concur) and Act. 3. (p. 230.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to sit together) with the other Fathers; and accordingly although they sometimes talked high, yet it is not observable that they did much there; their Presidency was nothing like that at Trent, and in other like Papal Synods. It may be noted, that the Emperour's Deputies are always named in the first place, at the entrance of the Acts, before the Pope's Legates, so that they who directed the Notaries were not Popish. In effect the Emperour was President, though not as a Judge of Spiritual matters, yet as an Orderer of the Conciliar transactions; as the Synod doth report it to Leo; the faithfull Emperours (said they) did preside, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Relat. Syn. ad Leon. 473. (or govern it) for good order sake.

In the Fifth General Synod, Pope Vigilius indeed was moved to be present, and (in his way) to preside; but he out of state or policy declined it; wherefore the Patriarch of Constantinople was the Ecclesiastical President, Ideò petimus Praesident • nobis vestrâ beatitudine, sub tranquillitate, & mansuetudine Sacerdotali, sanctis propositis Evangeliis, communi tracta •• , &c. Coll. 1. p. 212. (& in Consti • . Vigil.) as in the beginning of every Collation doth appear; whence clearly we may infer that the Pope's Presidency is no-wise necessary to the being of a General Council.

In the Sixth General Synod the Emperour in each Act is expesly said to preside, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. in person or by his Deputies; although P. Agatho had his Legates there.

In the Synod of Constance sometimes the Cardinal of Cambray, sometimes of Hostia did preside (by order of the Synod it self) and sometime the King of the Romans did supply that place; Dominus Rom. Rex indutus vestibus Regalibus recessi • de Sede sua solita, & transivit ad aliam Sedem positam in fronte Altaris, tanquam Praesidens pro tunc in Concilio. Syn. Const. Sess. 14. (p. 1044.) so little essential was the Pope's Presidency to a Council deemed even then, when Papal authority had mounted to so high a pitch.

Nor is there good reason why the Pope should have this privilege, or why this Prerogative should be affixed to any one See; so that (if there be cause; as if the Pope be unfit, or less fit; if Princes, or the Church cannot confide in him; if he be suspected of prejudice or partiality; if he be party in causes or controversies to be decided; if he do himself need correction) Princes may not assign, or the Church with allowance of Princes may not chuse any other President, more proper in their judgment for that charge; in such cases the publick welfare of Church and State is to be regarded.

Were an Erroneous Pope (as Vigilius or H •• orius) fit to govern a Council, gathered to consult about defining Truth in the matter of their Errour?

Where a Lewd Pope (as Alexander VI, John XII, Paul III, innumerable such, scandalously vitious) worthy to preside in a Synod convocated to prescribe strict Laws of Reformation?

Were a Furious, Pugnacious Pope (as Julius II —) apt to moderate an Assembly drawn together for settlement of Peace?

Were a Pope engaged in Schism (as many have been) a proper Moderatour of a Council, designed to suppress Schism?

Were a Gregory VII, or an Innocent IV, or a Boniface VIII, an allowable manager any where of Controversies about the Papal Authority?

Were now indeed any Pope fit to preside in any Council, wherein the Reformation of the Church is concerned, it being notorious that Popes as such do most need Reformation, that they are the great obstructours of it, that all Christendom hath a long time a Controversie with them for their detaining it in bondage?

In this and many other cases we may reject their Presidency, as implying iniquity; according to the Rule of an old Pope; I would know of them where they would have that judgment they pretend, Quaero tamen ab his, judicium quod praetendunt, ubinam possit agitari, an apud ipsos, ut iidem sint inimici, & testes, & judices? Sed tali judicio nec humana debent committi negotia, nedum divinae legis integritas. P. Gel. Ep. 4. examin'd, what by themselves, that the same may be adversaries, witnesses and judges? to such judgment as this even humane affairs are not to be trusted, much less the integrity of the divine Law.

It is not reasonable that any person should have such a Prerogative which would be an engine of mischief: for thereby (bearing sway in general Assemblies of Bishops) he would be enabled and irresistibly tempted to domineer over the world, to abuse Princes, and disturb States; to oppress and enslave the Church; to obstruct all Reformation;Nic. II. Lugd. Lat. IV. & V. to enact Laws; to promote and establish Errours serviceable to his Interest: the which effects of such power exercised by him in the Synod of Trent, and in divers other of the later General Synods, experience hath declared.

III. If the Pope were Sovereign of the Church, the Legislative power wholly or in part would belong to him; so far at least, that no Synod, or Ecclesiastical Consistory could without his consent determine or prescribe any thing; His approbation would be required to give life and validity to their Decrees; He should at least have a negative, so that nothing might pass against his will: This is a most essential ingredient of Sovereignty; and is therefore claimed by the Pope, who long hath pretended that no Decrees of Synods are valid without his consent, and confirmation.

But the Decrees made by the Holy Popes of the chief See of the Roman Church, Decretalia autem, quae à sanctis Pontificibus primae Sedis Romanae Ecclesiae sunt instituta, cujus auctoritate atque sanctione omnes Synodi, & sancta Concilia roborantur, & stabilitatem sumunt, cur vos non habere, vel observare dicitis? Papa Nic. I. Ep. 6. (ad Photium.) by whose authority and sanction all Synods and holy Councils are strengthened and established, why do you say, that you do not receive and observe them?

Lastly, Denique ut in universalibus Conciliis quid ratum vel quid prorsus acceptum, nisi quod Sedes B. Petri probavit (ut ipsi scitis) habetur; sicut è contrario quod ipsa sola reprobavit, hoc solummodo consistat hactenus reprobatum. P. Nich. I. Ep. 7. as you know nothing is accounted valid or to be receiv'd in universal Councils but what the See of Saint Peter has approv'd: so on the other side whatever she alone has rejected, that onely is rejected.

We never read of any Synod that was valid,

—Nulla unquam Synodus rata legatur, quae Apostolicâ auctoritate non fuerit fulta. P. Pelag. II. Ep. 8. (Dist. 17.)

Confidimus quòd nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum, quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus, non aliquam magìs exequi Sedem prae caeteris oportere, quàm primam; quae & unamquamque Synodum sua auctoritate confirmat, & continuatâ moderatione custodit, pro suo scilicet principatu, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.) vid. p. 647. tract. de Anath.

God hath promised to bless particular Synods, Matt. 18.19.

unless it were confirm'd by the Apostolick authority.

We trust no true Christian is now ignorant that no See is above all the rest more oblig'd to observe the Constitution of each Council which the consent of the universal Church hath approv'd, than the prime See which by its authority confirms every Synod, and by continued moderating preserves them according to its principality, &c.

But this pretence, as it hath no ground in the Divine Law, or in any old Canon, or in primitive Custom; so it doth cross the sentiments and practice of Antiquity; for that in ancient Synods divers things were ordained without the Pope's consent, divers things against his pleasure.

What particular or formal confirmation did Saint Peter yield to the Assembly at Jerusalem?

That in some of the first General Synods he was not apprehended to have any negative voice, is by the very tenour and air of things, or by the little regard expressed toward him, sufficiently clear. There is not in the Synodical Epistles of Nice, or of Sardica any mention of his confirmation.

Interpretatively all those Decrees may be supposed to pass without his consent, which do thwart these pretences; for if these are now good, then of old they were known and admitted for such; and being such we cannot suppose the Pope willingly to have consented in derogation to them.

Wherefore the Nicene Canons establishing Ecclesiastical administrations without regard to him, and in authority equalling other Metropolitans with him, may be supposed to pass without his consent.

The Canons of the Second General Council, and of all others confirming those;

Persuasioni tuae in nullo penitus suffragatur, quorundam Episcoporum ante 60, ut jactas, annos, nunquámque à praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Sedis transmissa notitiam. — Leo. Epist. 53. (ad Anat.) Conc. Constant. Can. 3.

Concil. Chalc. Can. 9, 17, 28. Syn. Trull. Can. 36.

as also the Canons of all Synods, which advanced the See of Constantinople, his Rival for Authority, above its former state, first to a proximity in Order, then to an equality of Privileges with the See of Rome, may, as plainly contrary to his interest and spirit, be supposed to pass without his consent; And so divers Popes have affirmed; if we may believe Pope Leo, (as I suppose) the Canons of the Second Council were not transmitted to Rome; they did therefore pass, and obtain in practice of the Catholick Church, without its consent or knowledge. Pope Gregory I. saith, that the Roman Church did not admit them, Romana autem Ecclesia • osdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet, nec accipit; in hoc autem eandem Synodum accepit quod est per eam contra Macedonium definitum P. Greg. M. Ep. 6.31. wherein it plainly discorded with the Catholick Church, which with all reverence did receive and hold them; and in despight to the Canon of that Synod, advancing the Royal City to that eminency,

The same Pope Leo I. doth affirm. Ep. 53.

—ejus civitatis quae non solùm inter Sedes numeratur, sed nec inter Metropolitanorum jura censetur, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.)

Pope Gelasius I. would not admit it for so much as a Metropolitan See; O proud insolency, O contentious frowardness, O rebellious contumacy against the Catholick Church and its peace! (Such was the humour of that See, to allow nothing which did not sute with the interest of its Ambition.)

But farther, divers Synodical Decrees did pass expresly against the Pope's mind and will: I pass over those at Tyre, at Antioch, at Ariminum, at Constantinople, in divers places of the East (the which do yet evince that commonly there was no such Opinion entertained of this privilege belonging to the Pope) and shall instance onely in General Synods.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (in fine Actorum. p. 464.) Inde enim fratres nostri, ab Apostolica Sede directi, qui vice meâ Synodo praesidebant, probabiliter atque constanter illicitis ausibus obstiterunt, apertè reclamantes, &c. Leo. I. Ep. 53, 54.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (Act. 16. p. 469. against P. Leo's assertion, that the consent was extorted.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , say the Fathers to Pope Leo p. 475.) By a Synodical vote we have confirm'd this ancient custom.

In the Synod of Chalcedon equal privileges were assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople, as the Bishop of Rome had; this with a general concurrence was decreed and subscribed; although the Pope's Legates did earnestly resist, clamour and protest against it; The Imperial Commissioners, and all the Bishops not understanding, or not allowing the Pope's negative voice.

And whereas Pope Leo (moved with a jealousie, that he who thus had obtained an equal rank with him, should aspire to get above him) did fiercely dispute, Ep. 53, 54, 55, 61, 62. exclaim, inveigh, menace against this Order, striving to defeat it, pretending to annull it, labouring to depress the Bishop of Constantinople from that degree, which both himself, and his Legates in the Synod had acknowledged due to him: In which endeavour divers of his Successours did imitate him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. (p. 462.) supra. Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, said, I have willingly subscrib'd, because I have read this Canon to the most holy Pope of Rome, the Clergy of Constantinople being present, and he receiv'd it.

Yet could not he or they accomplish their design; the veneration of that Synod and consent of Christendom overbearing their opposition; the Bishop of Constantinople sitting in all the succeeding General Synods in the second place, without any contrast; so that at length Popes were fain to acquiesce in the Bishop of Constantinople's possession of the second place in dignity among the Patriarchs.

Eum (Theodorum) nostrâ non audemus damnare sententiâ, sed nec ab alto quopiam condemnari concedimus. Vig. Const. p. 186.

Stat • imus atque decernimus nihil in injuriam atque obtrectationem probatissimi in Chalcedonensi Synodo viri, ho • est Theodoreti Episcopi Cyri, sub taxatione nominis ejus à quoquam fieri vel proferri. Ibid.

Idémque regulariter Apostolicae Sedis desiniunt constituta, nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis; sed in hoc relinqui, in quo unumquemque supremus dies invenit.—

Hac praesentis Constitutionis dispositione quàm maximè providemus, nè (sicut suprà diximus) personis, quae in pace & communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt, sub hac damnati à nobis perversi dogmatis occasione aliquid derogetur. Ibid.

In the Fifth General Synod Pope Vigilius did make a Constitution, in most express terms prohibiting the condemnation of the three Chapters (as they are called) and the anathematization of persons deceased in peace of the Church; We dare not our selves, says he, condemn Theodorus, neither do we yield to have him condemn'd by any other: and in the same Constitution he orders and decrees, That nothing be said or done by any to the injury or discredit of Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, a man most approv'd in the Synod of Chalcedon; and the same, says he, have the Decrees of the Apostolical See determined, that no man pass a new judgment upon persons dead, but leave them as death found them. Lastly by that Constitution he specially provides that (as he had before said) nothing might be derogated from persons dying in the peace and communion of the universal Church, by his condemning that perverse opinion.

Yet did the Synod (in smart terms reflecting on the Pope,

Quoniam autem post haec omnia impietatis illius defensoris injuriis contra creatorem suum dictis gloriantes dicebant non oportere eum post mortem anathematizare— qui haec dicunt nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt, nec Apostolicarum pronunciationum, nec paternarum traditionum. Coll. 8. p. 289.

Condemnamus autem & anathematizamus unà cum omnibus aliis haereticis & Theodorum. Coll. 8. p. 291.

Quod dicitur à quibusdam quòd in communicatione & pace, defunctus est Theodorus, mendacium est, & calumnia magìs adversus Ecclesiam. Coll. 5. p. 250.

Si quis conatus fuerit contra haec quae piè disposuimus, vel tradere, vel docere vel scribere, siquidem Episcopus vel Clericus sit iste tanquam aliena à Sacerdotibus & statu Ecclesiastico faciens, denudabitur Episcopatu vel Clericatu: si autem Monachus vel Laicus sit, anathematizabitur. Coll. 8. (p. 293.)

and giving him the lie, not regarding his opinion or authority) decree, that persons deceased were liable to be anathematized; they did anathematize Theodorus, they did expresly condemn each of the Chapters; they threatned deposition or excommunication on whoever should oppose their Constitutions; Si quis defendit—& non anathematizat eum—anathema sit. Ibid. they anathematize whoever doth not anathematize Theodorus.

But Pope Vigilius did refuse to approve their Doctrine and Sentence; and therefore (which was the case of many other Bishops,—contra ipsius (Pontificis Rom.) decreta ab ea (Synodo) pariter sententia dicta. Baron. Ann. 553. § 219. Non consentientes depositi in exilium missi sunt. Lib. cap. 24. Baron. Ann. 553. § 223. as Baronius himself doth confess and argue) was driven into banishment; wherein he did expire.

Yet posterity hath embraced this Synod as a legitimate and valid General Synod; and the Popes following did profess the highest reverence thereto,

Greg. Ep. 1.24. Quintam quoque Synodum pariter veneror, &c. 1.24.

Pelag. II. Ep. —

Agatho. Syn. 6. Act. 4.

Leo. Syn. 6. Act. 18.

Hadrian. ad Nectar.

equally with the preceding General Synods: so little necessary is the Pope's consent or concurrence to the validity of Synodical definitions.

Upon this Baronius hath an admirable reflexion: Here stay (saith he) O Reader, Hîc siste, Lector, atque rem attentè considera; non esse hoc novum, ut aliqua Synodus, cui nec per Legatos ipse Pontifex interfuerit, sed adversatus fuerit, titulum tamen obtinuerit Oecumenicae; cùm postea ut hujusmodi titulum obtineret, Romani Pontificis voluntas accessit, Baron. Ann. 553. § 224. and consider the matter attently (Ay, do so I pray) That it is no new thing, that some Synod, in which the Pope was not even present by his Legates, but did oppose it, should yet obtain the title of an Oecumenical Synod; whenas afterward the Pope's will did come in, that it should obtain such a title.

So in the opinion of this Doctour, the Pope can easily change the nature of things, and make that become a General Synod which once was none; yea which, as it was held, Si ad numeros omnes, &c. Plenè consenties ipsam non Oecumenicae tantùm, sed nec privatae Synodi mereri nomen. Id. Ann. 553. § 219. did not deserve the name of any Synod at all. O the virtue of Papal Magick! or rather O the Impudence of Papal Advocates!

The Canons of the sixth General Council, exhibited by the Trullane (or Quinisext) Synod clearly and expresly do condemn several Doctrines and Practices of Rome; Can. 2, 7, 13, 36, 55, 58, 67. I ask whether the Pope did confirm them? they will to be sure, as they are concerned to do,

— in quibus diversa capitula Romanae Ecclesiae contraria scripta inerant.

Anast. in Vit. Joh. VII.

answer No: and indeed Pope Sergius, as Anastasius in his Life reporteth, did refuse them; yet did they pass for legitimate in the whole Church; for in their general Synod (the second Nicene) without contradiction, one of them is alledged (out of the very original paper, wherein the Fathers had subscribed) as a Canon of the Holy General Sixth Synod; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Nic. II. Act. 4. (631.) and avowed for such by the Patriarch Tarasius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. both in way of argument of defence and of profession in his Synodical Epistle to the Patriarchs; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 3. p. 592. (where he saith, that together with the divine doctrines of the Sixth Synod he doth also embrace the Canons enacted by it;) of which Epistle Pope Adrian in his Answer thereto doth recite a part containing those words, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. ib. (p. 363.) Act. 6. p. 732. (Dist. 16. cap. 5, &c.) applaud it for Orthodox; signifying no offence at his embracing the Trullane Canons. And all those 102 Canons are again avowed by the Synod in their Antithesis to the Synod of Constantinople. In fine, Sed hic humana fragilitate timidus hos nequaquam tomos emendans per suprafatos Metropolitas direxit ad Principem. Anast. in Vit. Joh. VII. if we believe Anastasius, Pope John VII. did being timorous out of humane frailty direct these Canons, without amendment, by two Metropolites, to the Emperour, that is he did admit them so as they stand.

But it may be instanced that divers Synods have asked the Popes consent for ratification of their Decrees and Acts.

So the Fathers of the Second General Synod, having in an Episstle to Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops, declared what Constitutions they had made, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Theod. 5.9. in the close speak thus—In which things, being legally and canonically settled by us, we do exhort your reverence to acquiesce out of spiritual charity and fear of the Lord—

So the Synod of Chalcedon did, with much respect, ask from Pope Leo the confirmation of its Sanctions. That you may know how that we have done nothing for favour or out of spite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. ad P. Leon. I. p. 476. but as guided by the divine direction, we have made known to you the force of all that has been done, for your concurrence and for the confirmation and approbation of the things done.

Of the Fifth Synod Pope Leo II. saith, — that he agrees to what was determin'd in it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Leo. II. Ep. (p. 306.) and confirms it with the authority of the Blessed Saint Peter.

To these allegations we reply, That it was indeed the manner of all Synods, (for notification of things, and promulgation of their Orders; for demonstration and maintenance of concord, for adding weight and authority to their determinations, for engaging all Bishops to a willing complyance in observing them, for attestation to the common interest of all Bishops in the Christian truth, and in the governance and edification of the Church) having framed Decrees concerning the publick State, to demand in fairest terms the consent to them of all Catholick Bishops, who were absent from them, to be attested by their subscription.

So did Constantine recommend the Nicene Decrees to all Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —de Vit. Const. 3.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. 3.19. undertaking that they would assent to them.

So (more expresly) the Synod of Sardica, in their Epistle to all Bishops of the Catholick Church; Do ye also, our brethren and fellow-ministers, the more use diligence,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Sard. Epist. apud Athan. in Apol. 2. p. 766.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 4.11.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 4.1.

as being present in spirit with our Synod, to yield consent by your subscription, that concord may be preserved every where by all the fellow-ministers.

So did Pope Liberius request of the Emperour Constantius, that the faith delivered at Nice might be confirmed by the subscription of all Bishops.

So did Athanasius procure a Synod at Alexandria to confirm the Decrees at Sardica, and in Palestine concerning him.

So the Macedonian Bishops are said to have authorized their Agents to ratifie the faith of Consubstantiality. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 4.12.

Many such Instances occur in story, by which it may appear, that the Decrees of Synods concerning Faith, or concerning any matters of common interest were presented to all Bishops, and their consent requested or required; because,—quoniam nec firmum decretum potest esse, quod non plurimorum videbitur habere consensum. Cler. Rom. apud Cyp. Ep. 31. say the Roman Clergy in Saint Cyprian, a decree cannot be firm which has not the consent of many.

Whence it is no wonder, if any Synods did thus proceed toward so eminent a Bishop as was he of Rome, that they should endeavour to give him satisfaction; that they should desire to receive satisfaction from him of his conspiring with them in Faith, of his willingness to comply in observing good Rules of Discipline; that (as every vote had force, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. ad Leon. p. 476. so) the suffrage of one in so great dignity and reputation might adjoin some regard to their judgment.

The Pope's confirmation of Synods, what was it in effect, but a declaration of his approbation and assent, the which did confirm by addition of Suffrage; as those who were present by their Vote, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .— Epist. Syn. Chalc. ad Leon. p. 475. and those who were absent by their Subscription are said to confirm the Decrees of Councils; every such consent being supposed to encrease the authority; whence the number of Bishops is sometimes reckoned according to the subscriptions of Bishops absent;Socr. 2.20. & Vales. Ann. ibid. as the Council of Sardica is sometimes related to consist of three hundred Bishops, although not two hundred were present, the rest concurring by subscription to its definitions. Sententi •• fratrum omnei sequimur, omnes confirmamus, omnes observandas esse decernimus. Conc. Rom. P. Hil. p. 579.

Other Bishops in yielding their suffrage, do express it by I confirm, I define, I decree.]

But the effectual confirmation of Synods, which gave them the force of Laws, was in other hands, and depended on the Imperial Sanction.

His itaque omnibus per diversa tempora subsecutis, praedicti piae recordationis nostri Patres ea quae in unoquoque Concilio judicata sunt, legibus suis corroboraverunt, & confirmaverunt; & haereticos qui definitionibus praedictorum S. quatuor Conciliorum resistere, & Ecclesias conturbare conati sunt, expulerunt. Justin. in Conc. V. Coll. 1. (p. 210.)So Justinian affirmeth generally: All these things at diverse times following, our above-named predecessours of pious memory, corroborated and confirm'd by their Laws what each Council had determin'd, and expell'd those Hereticks who attempted to resist the definitions of the aforesaid four Councils and disturb the Churches.

So particularly Constantine (as Athanasius himself reporteth) did by Law confirm the decrees of the great Synod of Nice;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Athan. apud. Theodor. 2.4.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.23.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. ibid. 3.20.

and Eusebius assureth the same; He (saith he) did ratifie the decrees of the Synod by his authority; His Letters are extant, which he sent about the world exhorting and requiring all to conform to the constitutions of that Synod.

So Theodosius did confirm the Decrees of the Second General Synod; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 7.9. adding (saith Sozomen) his confirmatory suffrage to their decree; the which he did at the supplication of the Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Praef. ad Can. Conc. Constant. (apud Bin. p. 660.) addressed to him in these terms; We therefore do beseech your Grace, that by your pious Edict the sentence of the Synod may be authorized; that as by the letters of convocation you did honour the assembly, so you would also confirm the result of things decreed.

The third General Synod was also confirmed by Theodosius II. as Justinian telleth us; Sed praedictus piae recordationis Theodosius vindicans ea, quae ità rectè contra Nestorium, & ejus impietatem fuerant judicata, fecit firmiter obtinere contra eum factam condemnationem. Justin. in Quinto Conc. Coll. 1. The above-named Theodosius of pious memory, maintaining what had been so justly determined against Nestorius and his impiety, made his condemnation valid.

And this Emperour asserted this privilege to himself, as of right and custom belonging to him; writing to the Synod in these words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epist. Theod. ad Syn. Eph. in Actis Conc. p. 375. for all things, so as may please God, without contentiousness and with truth being examined ought so to be established by our religiousness.

The other abortive Synod at Ephesus was also confirmed by Theodosius Junior, as Dioscorus in his defence alledged in these words, which shew the manner of practice in this case; We then indeed did judge the things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chal. Act. 1. p. 59. which were judged; the whole Synod did accord with us, and gave verdict by their own votes, and subscribed; and they were referred to the most religious Emperour Theodosius of happy memory; and he did by a general Law confirm all things judged by the Holy and Oecumenical Synod.

So also did the Emperour Marcian confirm the Synod of Chalcedon; as himself telleth us in his Royal Edict: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Chal. Part. 3.478. We (saith He) having by the sacred Edict of our serenity confirmed the Holy Synod, did warn all to cease from disputes about religion: with which Pope Leo signifieth his compliance in these terms; Quia verò omnibus modis obediendum est pietati vestrae, religiosissimaeque voluntati, Constitutionibus Synodalibus, quae mihi de confirmatione fidei Catholicae & haereticorum damnatione placuerunt, libens adjeci sententiam meam. P. Leo. I. Ep. 59. (ad Mart. Aug.) But because by all means your piety and most religious will must be obeyed, I have willingly approv'd the Synodical Constitutions about confirming the Catholick faith and condemning hereticks, which pleased me.

Justinian did with a witness confirm the Fifth Synod, punishing with banishment all who would not submit to its determinations.

In the Sixth Synod the Fathers did request the Emperour, according to custom, to confirm its definitions, in these very words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. VI. Act. 18. p. 275. To what we have determined set your Seal, your royal ratification by writing, and confirmation of them all by your sacred edicts and holy constitutions according to custom.

We beg that by your sacred signing of it you would give force to what we have defined and subscribed.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 283.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 284.

We intreat the power of our Lord guided by God's wisedom to confirm, for the great strength and security of the orthodox faith, the copies of our determination read in the hearing of your most serene Majesty, and subscribed by us, that they may be delivered to the five Patriarchal Sees with your pious confirmation.

Accordingly he did confirm that Synod by his Edict; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sancimus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Ibid. Edict. Const. p. 294. All these things being thus ordered by this Sixth Holy and Oecumenical Synod; We decree, that none whosoever trouble himself farther about this faith, or advance any new inventions about it.

So he told Pope Leo II. in his Epistle to him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Ibid. p. 298. & p. 302. This divine and venerable determination the Holy Synod has made, to which we also have subscribed, and confirmed it by our Religious Edicts, exhorting all our people who have any Love for Christ, to follow the faith there written.

Pope Leo tells his name-sake Leo the Emperour, Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non solùm ad mundi Regimen, sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam, &c. Leo M. Ep. 75. That he must always remember that the Imperial power was given him not onely to rule the world, but more especially to protect the Church.

So by long prescription, commencing with the first General Synod, did the Emperour enjoy this Prerogative; and with good reason, He having an unquestionable warrant and obligation to promote the welfare of the Church, designed by those Conventions; He being the Guardian of Concord among his Subjects, and protectour of their Liberties, which might be nearly concerned in Conciliar proceedings; the power of enacting Laws being an incommunicable branch of Sovereign Majesty; He alone having power committed to him, able to enforce the observance of Decrees, without which they would in effect signifie little.

Because also commonly the Decrees of Synods did in a manner retrench some part of the Royal Prerogative, translating or imparting to others Causes before appropriate to his Jurisdiction (as in the case of appeals, and of prohibiting addresses to Court, ordered in the Sardican and other Synods; of exempting Clergymen from secular Jurisdiction, from taxes and common burthens, &c.) which ought not to be done without his licence and authority.

So that the Oriental Bishops had good reason to tell the Emperour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Rel. Orient. ad Imp. Act. Syn. Eph. p. 372. that it was impossible without his authority to order the matters under consideration with good law and order.

It is no-wise reasonable, that any other should have this power, it being inconsistent with publick peace that in one State there should be two Legislative powers; which might clash the one with the other, the one enacting Sanctions prejudicial to the interest and will of the other: wherefore the Pope being then a Citizen of Rome, and a Subject to the Emperour, could not have a Legislative power, or a negative Vote in Synods, but that wholly did belong to the Imperial authority.

But it is opposed, that some Synods have been declared invalid for want of the Pope's confirmation; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 6.23. for to the Decrees of the Synod at Ariminum it was excepted, that they were null, because the Bishop of Rome did not consent to them: There could not (say the Roman Synod in Theodoret) be any prejudice from the number of those assembled in Ariminum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .— Theod. 2.22. it being plain, that neither the Roman Bishop, whose suffrage ought first to have been received, nor Vicentius, who for so many years did hold his Episcopacy blameless, nor others agreeing to such things. To which exception I answer, that

1. That which is alledged against the Synod of Ariminum, is not the defect of the Pope's confirmation subsequent, but of his consent and concurrence before it, or in it; P. Liberius being absent, detained from it by violence in banishment. which is very reasonable, because he had a right to be present, and to concur in all such Assemblies, especially being so eminent a Bishop.

2. The same exception every Bishop might alledge, all having a like right and common interest to Vote in those Assemblies.

3. Accordingly the dissent of other Bishops, particularly of those eminent in dignity or merit, is also alledged in exception; which had been needless, if his alone dissent had been of so very peculiar force.

4. The Emperour, and many other Bishops did not know of any peculiar necessity of his confirmation.

Again it may be objected, that Popes have voided the Decrees of General Synods; as did Pope Leo the Decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon, concerning the Privileges of the Constantinopolitan See, in these blunt words: But the agreements of Bishops repugnant to the Holy Canons made at Nice, Consensiones verò Episcoporum, Sanctorum Canonum apud Niciam conditorum regulis repugnantes, unitâ nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate, in irritum mittimus, & per authoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassamus. P. Leo. I. Ep. 55. (ad Pulcher. Aug.) your faith and piety joyning with us, we make void, and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Saint Peter, by a general determination we disanull; and in his Epistle to those of that Synod, Quantumlibet enim extortis assentationibus sese instruat vanitatis elatio, & appetitus suos Conciliorum aestimet nomine roborandos, infirmum atque irritum erit, quicquid à praedictorum Patrum Canonibus discrepârit. Ep. 61. (ad Syn. Chalced.) For however vain conceit may arm it self with extorted compliances, and think its wilfulness sufficiently strengthened with the name of Councils: yet whatever is contrary to the Canons of the above-nam'd fathers will be weak and void. Lastly in his Epistle to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, he says, He has such a reverence for the Nicene Canons, Tanta apud me est Nicenorum Canonum reverentia, ut ea quae sunt à Sanctis Patribus constituta nec permiserim nec patiar aliquâ novitate violari. Leo. Ep. 62. (ad Max. Antioch.) that he will not permit or endure that what those holy fathers have determined be by any novelty violated.

This behaviour of Pope Leo (although applauded and imitated by some of his Successours) I doubt not to except against in behalf of the Synod, that it was disorderly,

P. Gelas. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.) p. 642. & in Tract. de Anathem. (pag. 647.)

P. Pelag. II. Ep. 5. (ad Eliam. p. 474—.)

Greg. M. Ep.

factious and arrogant; (proceeding indeed from ambition and jealousie) the leading act of high presumption in this kind, and one of the seeds of that exorbitant ambition, which did at length overwhelm the dignity and liberty of the Christian Republick: Yet for somewhat qualifying the business it is observable, that he did ground his repugnancy and pretended annulling of that Decree (or of Decrees concerning Discipline) not so much upon his authority to cross General Synods, as upon the inviolable firmness and everlasting obligation of the Nicene Canons; the which he (although against the reason of things, and rules of Government) did presume no Synod could abrogate or alter. In fine, this opposition of his did prove ineffectual by the sense and practice of the Church, maintaining its ground against his pretence.

It is an unreasonable thing, that the opinion or humour of one man (no wiser or better commonly than others) should be preferred before the common agreement of his brethren, being of the same Office and Order with him; so that he should be able to overthrow and frustrate the result of their meetings and consultations, when it did not square to his conceit or interest; especially seeing there is not the least appearance of any right he hath to such a Privilege, grounded in Holy Scripture, Tradition or Custom; for seeing that Scripture hath not a syllable about General Synods, seeing that no Rule about them is extant in any of the first Fathers till after 300 years, seeing there was not one such Council celebrated till after that time, seeing in none of the First General Synods any such Canon was framed in favour of that Bishop, what ground of right could the Pope have to prescribe unto them, or thwart their proceedings? Far more reason there is, (in conformity to all former Rules and Practice) that he should yield to all his Brethren, than that all his Brethren should submit to him: and this we see to have been the judgment of the Church, declared by its Practice in the cases before touched.

IV. It is indeed a proper endowment of an absolute Sovereignty, immediately and immutably constituted by God, with no terms or rules limiting it, that its will declared in way of Precept, Proclamations, concerning the Sanction of Laws, the Abrogation of them, the Dispensation with them, should be observed.

This Privilege therefore in a high strein the Pope challengeth to himself; asserting to his Decrees and Sentences the force and obligation of Laws; so that the body of that Canon Law, whereby he pretendeth to govern the Church, doth in greatest part consist of Papal Edicts, or Decretal Epistles, imitating the Rescripts of Emperours, and bearing the same force.

In Gratian we have these Aphorisms from Popes concerning this their Privilege.

No person ought to have either the will or the power to transgress the precepts of the Apostolick See. Nulli fas est vel velle vel posse transgredi Apostolicae Sedis praecepta. P. Greg. IV. Dist. 19. c. 5.

—Quanto potiùs quae ipsa (sedes Apostolica) pro Catholica fide, profanis (l. pro sanis) dogmatibus, pro variis & multifariis Ecclesiae necessitatibus & fidelium moribus diverso tempore scripsit, omni debent honore praeferri, & ab omnibus prorsus in quibuslibet opportunitatibus discretione vel dispensatione magistrâ reverenter assumi? P. Nic. I. Epist. Dist. 19. c. 1. —Those things which by the Apostolick See have at several times been written for the Catholick faith, for sound doctrines, for the various and manifold exigency of the Church and the manners of the faithfull, how much rather ought they to be preferr'd in all honour, and by all men altogether, upon all occasions whatsoever to be reverently received?

Decretales Epistolas, quas beatissimi Papae diversis temporibus ab urbe Roma pro diversorum Patrum consultatione dederunt, venerabiliter suscipiendas decernimus. P. Gelas. I. (in decreto) lit. a Nic. P. Ep. 42. ad Epist. Galliae. Dist. 19. c. 1. Those Decretal Epistles which most holy Popes have at divers times given out from the City of Rome upon their being consulted with by divers Bishops, we decree that they be received with veneration.

Si decreta Romanorum Pontificum non habetis, de neglectu atque incuria est is arguendi; si verò habetis & non observatis, de temeritate estis corripiendi & increpandi. P. Nic. I. Ep. 6. ad Phot. Dist. 20. cap. 2.

Sic omnes Apostolicae Sedis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam ipsius Divini Petri voce firmatae sunt. P. Agatho. Dist. 19. c. 2. Vid. Syn. VI. Act. 4. p. 35.

Quia in speculum, & exemplum S. Romana Ecclesia, cui nos Christus praeesse voluit, proposita est, ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, perpetuo & irrefragabiliter observandum est. P. Steph. (Dist. 19. cap. 3.) P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. de dispens. (p. 633.)

Qui secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare. P. Inn. III. Decret. Greg. Lib. 3. tit. 8. c. 4.

Sedes haec —quod singulari etiam auctoritate perficere valet, multorum saepe sacerdotum decernit definire consensu. P. Nic. I. Ep. 18. (ad Carolum R.)

Leo. I. Ep. 1. cap. 5. P. Hilarius in Conc. Rom. p. 578. Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 4. P. Urb. Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 6. P. Anas. ad Imp. Anast. P. Siric. Ep. 1. (p. 691.)

If ye have not the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome, ye are to be accused of neglect and carelesness; but if ye have them, yet observe them not; ye are to be chidden and rebuk'd for your temerity.

All the Sanctions of the Apostolick See are so to be understood, as if confirm'd by the voice of Saint Peter himself.

Because the Roman Church, over which by the will of Christ we do preside, is proposed for a mirrour and example; whatsoever it doth determine, whatsoever that doth appoint is perpetually and irrefragably to be observed by all men.

We who according to the plenitude of our power have a right to dispense above Law or right.

This See —that which it might doe by its sole authority, it is often pleased to define by consent of its Priests.

But this power he doth assume and exercise merely upon Usurpation, and unwarrantably; having no ground for it in original right or ancient practice.

Eph. 4.5. Jam. 4.12.Originally the Church hath no other General Law-giver beside our one Lord and one Law-giver.

As to practice we may observe

1. Anciently (before the First General Synod) the Church had no other Laws, beside the Divine Laws; or those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Constantinop. Can. 2. which were derived from the Apostles by Traditional custom; or those which each Church did enact for it self in Provincial Synods; or which were propagated from one Church to another by imitation and compliance; or which in like manner were framed and setled.

Whence according to different Traditions, or different reasons and circumstances of things, several Churches did vary in points of Order and Discipline.

The Pope then could not impose his Traditions, Laws, or Customs upon any Church; if he did attempt it, he was liable to suffer a repulse; as is notorious in the case, when Pope Victor would (although rather as a Doctour than as a Law-giver) have reduced the Churches of Asia to conform with the Roman in the time of celebrating Easter; wherein he found not onely stout resistence, but sharp reproof.

In St. Cyprian's time every Bishop had a free power according to his discretion to govern his Church; and it was deemed a tyrannical enterprise for one to prescribe to another, or to require obedience from his Collegues; as otherwhere by many clear allegations out of that Holy man we have shewed. Neque enim quisquam nostrûm Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, du • tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omn • Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium proprium; támque judicari ab alio non possit, quàm nec ipse potest alterum judicare. Cypr. in Conc. Carthag. For none of us (saith he) makes himself a Bishop of Bishops, or by a tyrannical terrour compels his Collegues to a necessity of obedience; since every Bishop according to the licence of his own liberty and power hath his own freedom, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.

If any new Law were then introduced, or Rule determined for common practice, it was done by the general agreement of Bishops or of a preponderant multitude among them, to whom the rest out of modesty and peaceableness did yield complyance; according to that saying of the Roman Clergy to Saint Cyprian (upon occasion of the debate concerning the manner of admitting lapsed persons to communion) that Decree cannot be valid, Quoniam nec firmum Decretum potest esse, quòd non plurimorum videbitur habuisse consensum. Cler. Rom. ad Cypr. (Epist. 31.) that hath not the consent of the major part.

The whole validity of such Laws or Rules did indeed wholly stand upon presumption of such consent; whereby the common liberty and interest was secured.

2. After that by the Emperours Conversion the Church enjoying secular protection and encouragement, did reduce it self as into a closer union and freer communication of parts, so into a greater uniformity of practice; Idem enim omnes credimur operati, in quo deprehendimur eâdem omnes censurae & disciplinae consensione sociati. Cler. Rom. ad. Cypr. Ep. 31. especially by means of great Synods, wherein (the Governours and Representatives of all Churches being called unto them and presumed to concur in them) were ordained Sanctions, taken to oblige all. The Pope had indeed a greater stroke than formerly, as having the first place in order, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or privilege of honour in Ecclesiastical Assemblies, where he did concur; yet had no casting Vote, or real advantage above others; all things passing by majority of Vote: This is supposed as notorious in the Acts of the Fifth Council: Illo certè constituto, quòd in Conciliū non unius vel secundi interlocutionem attendere oportet, sed haec quae communiter ab omnibus vel amplioribus definiuntur. Concil. 5. Collat. 6. p. 263. This (say they) is a thing to be granted, that in Councils we must not regard the interlocution of one or two, but those things which are commonly defined by all, or by the most.

So also in the Fifth Council, George Bishop of Constantinople saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . VI. Syn. Act. 16. p. 249. that seeing every where the Council of the multitude, or of the most doth prevail, it is necessary to anathematize the persons before mentioned.

3. Metropolitan Bishops in their Provinces had far more power, and more surely grounded, than the Pope had in the whole Church (for the Metropolitans had an unquestioned authority, settled by custome, and confirmed by Synodical Decrees) yet had not they a negative voice in Synodical debates: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Nic. Can. 6. for it is decreed in the Nicene Synod, that in the designation of Bishops (which was the principal affair in Ecclesiastical administrations) plurality of votes should prevail.

It is indeed there said, that none should be ordained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without the opinion of the Metropolitan; but that doth not import a negative voice in him, but that the transaction should not pass in his absence, or without his knowledge, advice and suffrage: for so the Apostolical Canon (to which the Nicene Fathers there did allude and refer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Apost. Can. 34. meaning to interpret it) doth appoint, that the Metropolitan should doe nothing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without the opinion of all, that is without suffrage of the most, concluding all; (for surely that Canon doth not give to each one a negative voice) And so the Synod of Antioch, (held soon after that of Nice, which therefore knew best the sense of the Nicene Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Ant. Can. 19. and how the custome went) doth interpret it, decreeing, that a Bishop should not be ordained without a Synod, and the presence of the Metropolitan of the Province; in which Synod yet they determine,

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Nic. Can. 6.

that plurality of votes should carry it; no peculiar advantage in the case being granted to the Metropolitan.

Seeing therefore Provincial Synods were more ancient than General, and gave pattern to them; if we did grant the same privilege to the Pope in General Synods, as the Metropolitans had in Provincial (which yet we cannot do with any good reason or ground) yet could not the Pope thence pretend to an authority of making Laws by himself.

4. It was then a passable opinion, that He as one was in reason obliged to yield to the common judgment of his Collegues and Brethren; as the Emperour Constantius told Pope Liberius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 2.16. that the Vote of the plurality of Bishops ought to prevail.

5. When Pope Julius did seem to cross a rule of the Church, by communicating with persons condemned by Synods, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.15. the Fathers of Antioch did smartly recriminate against him, shewing that they were not to receive Canons from him.

6. So far was the Pope from prescribing Laws to others, that he was looked upon as subject to the Laws of the Church no less than others: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — P. Julii Epist. apud Athanas. in Apol. 2. p. 748. as the Antiochene Fathers did suppose, complaining to Pope Julius of his transgressing the Canons; the which charge he doth not repell by pretending exemption, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. p. 748. but by declaring that he had not offended against the Canons, and retorting the accusation against themselves; as the African Fathers supposed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Epist. ad P. Celest. I. when they told Pope Celestine, that he could not admit persons to communion, which had been excommunicated by them, that being contrary to a Decree of the Nicene Synod; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiph. Haer. 42. as the Roman Church supposed it self, when it told Marcian that they could not receive him without leave of his Father who had rejected him. This the whole tenour of Ecclesiastical Canons sheweth, they running in a general style, never excepting the Pope from the Laws prescribed to other Bishops.

7. The privilege of dispensing with Laws had then been a strange hearing,

It was then a Maxime becoming the mouth of a Pope, Vniversae pacis tranquillitas non aliter poterit custodiri, nisi sua Canonibus reverentia intemerata servetur. P. Leo I. Ep. 62.

The tranquillity of an universal peace cannot otherwise be kept, unless due reverence be paid to the Canons.

when the Pope could in no case dispense with himself for infringing them, without bringing clamour and censure upon him.

8. It had indeed been a vain thing for Synods with so much trouble and solemnity to assemble, if the Pope without them could have framed Laws, or could with a puff of his mouth have blown away the results of them by dispensation.

9. Even in the growth of Papal Dominion, P. Hil. Ep. 2. N. B. P. Innoc. I. Ep. 2.12. P. Hil. Ep. 4. P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 9. p. 634. Ep. 13. p. 639. De Anathem. p. 645. and after that the Seeds of Roman ambition had sprouted forth to a great bulk, yet had not Popes the heart or face openly to challenge power over the universal Canons, or exemption from them; but pretended to be the chief observers, guardians, defenders, and executours of them; or of the Rights and Privileges of Churches established by them; for while any footsteps of ancient liberty, simplicity and integrety did remain, a claim of paramount or lawless Authority would have been very ridiculous and very odious.

P. Zos. I. Ep. 7. (ad Episc. Vienn. & Narb.)

Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 7.

Pope Zosimus I. denieth that he could alter the Privileges of Churches.

10. If they did talk more highly, P. Siric. Ep. 1. requiring observance to their Constitutions, it was either in their own precinct, or in the Provinces where they had a more immediate jurisdiction,Leo M. Ep. 1. cap. 5. P. Gelas. Ep. 9. or in some corners of the West, where they had obtained more sway; and in some cases, wherein their words were backed with other inducements to obedience; for the Popes were commonly wise in their generations, accommodating their discourse to the state of times and places.

11. It is also to be observed, that often the Popes are supposed to speak and constitute things by their own authority, which indeed were done by Synods,

P. Siric. Ep. 4.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Eph. p. 332.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. VI. Act. 4. p. 60.

N. The Pope did in those Councils ask the Placets. P. Hil. in Conc. R. (p. 578.)

consisting of Western Bishops more closely adhering to that See, in regard to those Regions; the Decrees of which Synods were binding in those places, not so much by virtue of Papal authority, as proceeding from the consent of their own Bishops: how ready soever He were to assume all to himself, pretending those Decrees as precepts of the Apostolical See.

Whence all the Acts of modern Popes are invalid, and do not oblige, seeing they do not act in Synod; but onely of their own Head, or with the advice of a few Partizans about them, men linked in common interest with them to domineer over the Church.

12. Yet even in the Western Countries, in later times, their Decrees have been contested, when they did seem plainly to clash with the old Canons, or much to derogate from the Liberties of Churches; nor have there wanted learned Persons in most times, who so far as they durst, have expressed their dislike of this Usurpation.

For although the Bishop of Rome be more venerable than the rest that are in the world, Licèt namque Pontifex Romanae Ecclesiae ob dignitatem Apostolicae Sedis caeteris in orbe constitutis reverentior habeatur, non tamen ei licet transgredi in aliquo Canonici moderaminis tenorem; sicut enim unusquisque Orthodoxae Ecclesiae Pontifex ac Sponsus propriae Sedis uniformiter speciem gerit Salvatoris, ità generaliter nulli convenit quippiam in alterius procaciter patrare Episcopi Dioecesi. Glab. Rod. 2.4. Vid. Baron. Ann. 996. § 22, 23. upon account of the dignity of the Apostolical See, yet it is not lawfull for him in any case to transgress the order of Canonical governance; for as every Bishop who is of the Orthodox Church, and the Spouse of his own See, doth intirely represent the Person of our Saviour; so generally no Bishop ought pragmatically to act any thing in anothers Diocese.

13. In the times of Pope Nicolas I. the Greeks did not admit the Roman Decrees; Circa Ann. 860. so that Pope in an Epistle to Photius complains that he did not receive the Decrees of the Popes whenas yet they ordained nothing but what the Natural, Noli quia Decreta ipsorum non susceperis ampliùs asseverare, cùm ipsi nihil nisi quod Naturalis, quod Mosaica, necnon & Gratiae Lex jussit, instituant. P. Nic. I. Ep. 11. (ad Phot.) what the Mosaical, and what the Law of Grace required. Decretalia autem, quae à Sanctis Pontificibus Primae Sedis Romanae Ecclesiae sunt instituta, — cur vos non habere vel observare dicitis? Id. Ep. 6. (ad Phot.) And in another Epistle he expostulates with him for saying that they neither had nor did observe the Decrees made by the Holy Popes of the Prime See of the Roman Church.

14. That which greatly did advance the Papal Jurisdiction, and introduced his Usurpation of obtruding new Decrees on the Church, was the venting of the forged Decretal Epistles under the name of Old Popes; Vidi Hin • m. which when the Pope did alledge for authorizing his practices, the French Bishops, Quanquam quidam vestrum scripserint haud illa decretalia priscorum Pontificum in toto codicis Canonum corpore contineri descripta, &c. P. Nic. I. Ep. 42. (ad Galliae Episc.) endeavouring to assert their Privilege, did alledge that they were not contained in the whole body of their Canons.

15. The power of enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching extoriour Discipline did of old belong to the Emperour. And it was reasonable that it should; because old Laws might not conveniently sute with the present state of things and the publick welfare; because new Laws might cond • ce to the good of Church and State, the care of which is incumbent on him; because the Prince is bound to use his power and authority to promote God's Service, the best way of doing which may be by framing Orders conducible thereto.

Accordingly the Emperours did enact divers Laws concerning Ecclesiastical matters, which we see extant in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian.

These things (saith the Council of Arles) we have decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour, Haec—Domino Imperatori praesentanda decrevimus, poscentes ejus clementiam ut siquid hic minus est, ejus prudentià suppleatur, si quid secus quàm se ratio habet, ejus judicio emendetur; si quid rationabiliter taxatum est, ejus adjutorio divinâ opitulante clementiâ perficiatur. Conc. Arel. 4. c. 26. Ann. 813. (sub Carolo M.) desiring his clemency that if any thing be defective it may be supplied by his prudence, if any thing be unreasonable it may be corrected by his judgment, if any thing be reasonably ordered it may by his help, the Divine Grace assisting, be perfected.

We may observe, that Popes did allow the validity of Imperial Laws. Pope Gregory I. doth alledge divers Laws of divers Emperours concerning Ecclesiastical affairs as authentick and obligatory Rules of practice. P. Greg. I. Ep. 11.56.

16. Divers Churches had particular rights of independency upon all power without themselves.

Such as the Church of Cyprus in the Ephesine Synod did claim and obtain the confirmation of.

Such was the ancient Church of Britain, before Austin came into England.

The Welch Bishops are consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids, Episcop • Walliae à Menevensi Antistite sunt consecrati, & ipse similiter ab aliis tanquam saffragane is est constitutus, nullâ penitus alii Ecclesiae facta professione vel subjectione. Girald. Cambr. Itin. 2.1. and he himself in like manner is ordained by others who are as it were his Suffragans, professing no manner subjection to any other Church.

V. Sovereign power, immediately by it self when it pleaseth, doth exercise all parts of Jurisdiction, setting it self in the Tribunal; or mediately doth execute it by others, as its Officers or Commissioners.

Wherefore now the Pope doth claim and exercise Universal Jurisdiction over all the Clergy;Bell. 2.18, 26. requiring of them engagements of strict submission and obedience to him; demanding that all causes of weight be referred to him;

Per hoc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare— P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 4.

Cunctos ipsè judicaturus à nemine est judicandus. Dist. 40. cap. 6.

Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 45, &c.

Sacra statuta & veneranda decreta Episcoporum causas, utpote majora negotia nostrae definiendas censurae mandârunt. P. Nic. I. Ep. 38.

citing them to his bar, examining and deciding their causes; condemning, suspending, deposing, censuring them, or acquitting, absolving, restoring them, as he seeth cause, or findeth in his heart; He doth encourage people to accuse their pastours to him, in case any doth infringe his Laws and Orders.

But (in general) that originally or anciently the Pope had no such right appropriate to him may appear by arguments, by cross instances, by the insufficiency of all pleas, and examples alledged in favour of this claim. For,

1. Originally there was not at all among Christians any Jurisdiction like to that which is exercised in Civil Governments, and which now the papal Court doth execute. For this our Saviour did prohibit, and Saint Peter forbad the Presbyters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .1 Pet. 5. And St. Chrysostome affirmeth the Episcopal power not to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .Chrys. in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Eph. Orat. 11. Hier. Ep. 3. & Ep. 62. Isid. Pelus. Ep. 20.125.4.219. And Ecclesiastical History doth inform us, that such a Jurisdiction was lately introduced in the Church, as by other great Bishops, so especially by the Bishop of Rome: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 7.7. For (saith Socrates) from that time the Episcopacy of Alexandria, beyond the Sacerdotal Order did assume a domineering power in affairs.

The which kind of power the Roman Bishops had long before assumed; for, (saith he) the Episcopacy of Rome, in like manner as that of Alexandria, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 7.11. had already a great while agoe gone before in a domineering power beyond that of the Priesthood.

At first the Episcopal power did onely consist in Paternal admonition, and correption of offenders, exhorting and persuading them to amendment; and in case they contumaciously did persist in disorderly behaviour, bringing them before the Congregation,

1 Cor. 5.4, 12. — 2 Cor. 2.6. —

Examinabuntur singulae praesentibus, & judicantibus vobis. Cypr. Ep. 12. (fratribus in plebe.)

Secundùm vestra divina suffragia. Cypr. Ep. 40.

Secundùm arbitrium quoque vestrum.

Ibid. (Ep. 46.)

Tertul. Apol. 39. ibidem—

and the cause being there heard and proved, with its consent imposing such penance or correction on them as seemed needfull for the publick good, or their particular benefit: All things (saith St. Cyprian) shall be examin'd you being present and judging. And (elsewhere) according to your divine suffrages; according to your pleasure.

2. Originally no one Bishop had any Jurisdiction over another, or authority to judge his actions; as St. Cyprian (who well knew the current judgment and practice of his age) in many places doth affirm: who particularly doth reflect on the Roman Bishop, for presuming to censure his brethren, Expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiam suam gubernatione & de actu nostro judicandi. Cypr. in Conc. Carth. who dissented from him: Let us all (saith he) expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who onely hath power to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of what we doe.

3. Even the community of Bishops did not otherwise take notice of, or intermeddle with the proceedings of any Bishop in his precinct and charge; except when his demeanour did concern the general state of the Church, intrenching upon the common faith, or publick order and peace.

In other cases for one or more Bishops to meddle with the proceedings of their brother, was taken for an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a pragmatical intrusion upon anothers business; and an invasion of that Liberty which did belong to each Bishop, by the grant of our Lord, and the nature of his Office.

As by those passages of St. Cyprian, and the declaration of the Synod with him doth appear.

4. In cases needing decision for the publick good of the Church, the Law and custom of the Church, confirmed by the Nicene Synod, did order, that jurisdiction should be exercised, and all causes finally determined in each Province; Can. 5. so that no regard is had to the Pope, no exception in favour of him being expressed or implyed.

In venerabilis Concilii Niceni contumelia saepe versatus, alienarum tibi Provinciarum jura temerariè rapuisti. P. Felix Acacio. apud Baron. Ann. 484. § 17.The which Constitution, if we believe Pope Leo himself, cannot in any case by any power be revoked or infringed.

That is most expresly confirmed by the Synod of Antioch, in the Code of the Universal Church, If any Bishop accused of certain crimes shall be condemned by all the Bishops in the Province, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Ant. Ca. 16. and all shall unanimously vote against him, he shall not be judged again by others; but the unanimous sentence of the Bishops of the Province shall remain valid.

Here is no consideration or exception from the Pope.

5. Accordingly in practice, Synods without regard or recourse to the Pope, did judge Bishops upon offences charged against them.

6. The execution of those judgments was entrusted to Metropolitan Bishops; or had effect by the peoples consent; for it being declared that any Bishop had incurred condemnation, the people did presently desert him.

Every Bishop was obliged to confer his part to the execution; Quod non solùm praesuli Apostolico facere licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quoslibet & quemlibet locum, secundum regulam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Catholica communione discernant. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4. as Pope Gelasius affirmeth.

7. If the Pope had such judicial power, seeing there were from the beginning so many occasions of exercising it, there would have been extant in History many clear instances of it, but few can be alledged; and those (as we shall see) impertinent, or insufficient.

8. Divers Synods (great and smaller) did make Sanctions contrary to this pretence of the Pope; appointing the decision of Causes to be terminated in each Diocese; and prohibiting appeals to him; which they would not have done if the Pope had originally, or according to common law and custom, a supreme judicial power.

9. The most favourable of ancient Synods to Papal interest, that of Sardica, did confer on the Pope a power, qualified in matter and manner, of causing Episcopal causes to be revised; which sheweth that before he had no right in such cases; nor then had an absolute power.

10. The Pope's power of judging Bishops hath been of old disclaimed as an illegal and upstart encroachment.

When the Pope first nibbled at this bait of ambition, St. Cyprian and his Bishops did reprehend him for it.

The Bishop of Constantinople denied that Pope Gelasius alone might condemn him;

Euphemium verò miror, si ignorantiam suam ipse non perspicit, qui dicit Acacium ab uno non posse damnari — P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4.

Nobis opponunt Canones — Ib.

according to the Canons— The Pope ranteth at it, and reasoneth against it; but hath no material argument or example for it, (concerning the Papal authority peculiarly) beside the Sardican Canon.

11. The Popes themselves have been judged for Misdemeanour, Heresie, Schism; as hereafter we shall shew.

12. The Popes did execute some judgments, Quod non solùm praesuli Apostolico facere licet, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4. (supr. in arg. 6.) Vid. Epist. 13. onely by a right common to all Bishops; as Executours of Synodical Decrees.

13. Other Bishops did pretend to Judicature, by Privilege: as Juvenalis. Bishop of Jerusalem did pretend that to him did belong the Judgment of the Bishop of Antioch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Eph. Act. 4. (p. 340.)

14. The Popes were subject to the Emperours; who when they pleased did interpose to direct or qualifie all Jurisdiction;Justin. Nov. 123. cap. 3. Jubemus Episc. Rom. commanding the Popes themselves — wherefore the Popes were not Judges Sovereign, but subordinate.

Pope Gregory I. did refer the great Question about the title of Oecumenical Bishop to the judgment of the Emperour Mauricius. — ut piissimus Dominus Mauritius ipsum illud negotium judicare dignaretur. Greg. Ep. 4.32.

These things will more fully appear in the discussion of the particulars concerning the chief Branches of Jurisdiction; more especially under the Tenth Branch of Sovereignty.

They alledge that passage of Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. S • n. Chalc. p. 25. That the most blessed Bishop of Rome, to whom Antiquity hath given a Priesthood over all, hath a See and Power to judge both of Faith and Priests.

This was suggested by Pope Leo and his adherents to the young Emperour — but it signifieth no more, but that in the Judgment of Priests (as of Faith) he was to have his share; or at most to be a leading person therein.

Theodosius (a mature, grave, pious Prince) did not regard that pretence of Leo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Ibid. p. 28. nor the appeal of Flavianus.

Upon a Sovereign all Inferiour Magistrates depend.VI. To the Sovereign of any State belongeth the Choice, Constitution, Confirmation, Commissionating of all inferiour Magistrates; that none uncapable, unworthy, or unfit for Offices, or disaffected to the State, be entrusted with the management of Affairs.

Wherefore the Pope doth claim and exercise these Prerogatives so far as he can; pretending at least that no Bishop can be constituted without his designation, or his licence, and his confirmation of the nomination, collation or election.

Bell. 4.24.And these Privileges by the great Advocates are upon highest terms asserted to him.

In this matter may be distinguished,

1. The Designation of the Person by Election or otherwise.

2. The Confirmation of that.

3. The Ordination or Consecration of him to his Office; the which conferreth on him his Character and Authority.

4. The Authority by which he acteth.

Into all these the Pope hath intruded himself, and he will have a finger in them.

1. He gladly would have drawn to himself the collation and disposal of all Benefices, challenging a general right to dispose of all at his pleasure; Licèt Ecclesiarum, Personatuum, Dignitatum, aliorúmque Beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum plenaria dispositio ad Romanum noscatur Pontificem pertinere, &c. Clem. IV. in Sexto. lib. 3. tit. 4. cap. 2. Vid. ib. c. 4.10.12.20. but not having been able wholly to deprive Princes and Patrons of their Nominations, and Corporations of their Election; yet he hath by Reservations, Provisions, Collations of Vacancies apud Sedem,

Ib. c. 14, &c.

Although the plenary disposal of all Churches, Parsonages, Dignities and other Ecclesiastical Benefices be known to belong to the Pope of Rome, &c.

Resignations, Devolutions, and other such tricks extremely encroached on the rights of all, to the infinite vexation, damage and mischief of Christendom.

2. He pretendeth that no Bishop shall be ordained without his Licence.

3. He obligeth the person Ordained to swear obedience to him.

4. He pretendeth that all Bishops are his Ministers and Deputies.

But no such Privileges have any foundation or warrant in Holy Scripture, in Ancient Doctrine, or in Primitive Usage: they are all Encroachments upon the original Rights and Liberties of the Church, derived from Ambition and Avarice; subsisting upon Usurpation, upheld by Violence.

This will appear from a Survey of Ancient Rules and Practices concerning this matter.

The first constitution after our Lord's decease of an Ecclesiastical person was that of Matthias into the vacant Apostolate, or Bishoprick of Judas;

Act. 1.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . V. 20.

Vers. 15.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vers. 23.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vers. 24.

wherein (upon Saint Peter's motion) all the disciples present did by consent present two; out of whom God himself did elect one, by determining the lot to fall upon Matthias; so that this designation being partly humane, partly divine; so far as it was humane, it went by free election of the whole fraternity; and Saint Peter, beside generally suggesting the matter to be done, did assume nothing peculiar to himself.

The next constitution we meet with is that of Deacons to assist the Apostles and Elders in discharge of inferiour Offices; wherein the Apostles did commit the designation of the persons to the multitude of the disciples, Act. 6.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vers. 5. who elected them; and presented them to the Apostles, who by prayer and laying on of hands did ordain them. Nor had Saint Peter in this action any particular stroke.

As to the Constitution of Bishops, in the first Apostolical times the course was this; The Apostles, and Apostolical persons (who were authorized by the Apostles to act with their power, and in their stead) did in Churches founded by them constitute Bishops, such as divine inspiration,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Tit. 2.5.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Cor. 12.10.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eus. 3.23.

or their grace of discretion did guide them to; So did Saint John in Asia, setting those apart for the Clergy whom the Spirit had markt out.

This was not done without the consent of the Christian people,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Clem.

Epist. p. 57.

as Clemens Romanus telleth us in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians: But he doth not acquaint us (although he were himself Bishop of Rome) that the Pope had any thing to doe in such Constitutions, or in confirmations of them; the whole Church (saith he) consenting; Why doth he not add, for his own sake, and the Pope confirming?

In the next times, when those extraordinary persons and faculties had expired, when usually the Churches planted were in situation somewhat incoherent and remote from each other, upon a vacancy the Clergy and people of each Church did elect its Bishop; in which action commonly the Clergy did propound and recommend a person, or persons, and the people by their consent approve, or by their suffrages elect one;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Tim. 3.10.

Praesident probati quique seniores, honorem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti. Tertull. Apol. 39.

Plenâ diligentiâ, exploratione sincerâ. Cypr. Ep. 68.

a strict examination of his Life and Doctrine intervening: the which Order Tertullian briefly doth intimate in those words, The Presidents of the Church are certain Elders well approved, who have obtained that honour not by price, but by proof.

It may be enquired, how a Bishop then was Ordained, in case his City was very remote from any other Churches?

Did they send for Bishops from distant places to Ordain him? Or did the Presbyters of the place lay their hands on him? Or did he receive no other Ordination than that he had before of Presbyter? Or did he abide no Bishop till opportunity did yield Bishops to Ordain him? Or did providence order, that there should be no such solitary Churches? The ancient Commentatour, contemporary to St. Ambrose,

Primùm Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet, &c. Vid. Dist. 66. cap. 2.

At first Presbyters were called Bishops that one departing the next might succeed him.

and bearing his name, did conceive, that upon decease of a Bishop the elder of the Presbyters did succeed into his place. In Eph. 4.11. Whence had he this, out of his invention and conjecture, or from some Tradition and History?

Afterward, when the Faith was diffused through many Provinces, that Churches grew thick and close, the general practice was this: The neighbour Bishops (being advertised of a vacancy or want of a Bishop) did convene at the place; then in the Congregation the Clergy of the place did propound a person, yielding their attestation to his fitness for the charge; which the people hearing did give their suffrages, accepting him, if no weighty cause was objected against him; or refusing him, if such cause did appear: Then upon such recommendation and acceptance, the Bishops present did adjoin their approbation and consent; then by their devotions, and solemn laying on of their hands, they did Ordain or Consecrate him to the Function.

Of this course most commonly practised in his time we have divers plain Testimonies in St. Cyprian, the best Authour extant concerning these matters of ancient Discipline: For which reason, Propter quod diligenter de traditione divina & Apostolica observatione observandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque & ferè per Provincias universas tenetur; ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrand • s, ad eam plebem cui praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente, quae singillòrum vitam plenissimè novit, & uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit; quod & apud vos factum videmus in Sa • ini Collegae nostri ordinatione, ut de universae fraternitatis suffragio, & de Episcoporum, qui in praesentia convenerant, quíque de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio Episcopatus ei deferetur. Cypr. Ep. 68. saith he, that from divine tradition and Apostolical observation is to be observed and held; which also is with us, and almost through all Provinces, kept; that for duely celebrating ordinations unto that people, for whom a Bishop is ordained, all the neighbour Bishops of the same (Province, or people) should resort; and a Bishop should be chosen the people being present, which most fully knoweth the life of each one, and hath from his conversation a thorough insight into his practice; the which we see done with you in the ordination of our Collegue Sabinus, that by the suffrage of all the fraternity, and by the judgment of all the Bishops, which had assembled in the presence, and had sent letters to you about him, the Bishoprick should be deferr'd to him.

Again, A people obedient to the Lord's commands, and fearing God, ought to separate it self from a wicked Bishop (such a notoriously wicked Bishop as those were of whom he treateth, who had renounced the Faith) and not to mingle it self with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest; Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis & Deum metuens à peccatore praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificia miscere; quando ipsa maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi; quod & ipsum videmus de divina auctoritate descendere; ut Sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque idonens publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur— Cypr. Ep. seeing especially that it hath a power either to chuse worthy Priests, or to refuse those who are unworthy; the which also we see to descend from divine authority that a Bishop should be chosen the people being present, before the eyes of all; and that he who is worth and fit should be approved by publick judgment and testimony.

Again,

Suffragio totius populi Cyprianus eligitur. Optat. 1.

Caeterùm quando Episcopus in locum defuncti substituitur, quando populi universi suffragio in pace deligitur — Cui si secundum magisteria divina obtemperaret fraternitas universa, nemo adversum Sacerdotum Collegium quidquam moveret; nemo post divinum judicium, post populi suffragium, post coepiscorum consensum, judicem se jam non Episcopi sed Dei faceret—Cypr. Ep. 55.

when (saith he concerning himself) a Bishop is substituted in the place of one deceased, when he is peaceably chosen by the suffrage of all the people— and whom if according to the divine instructions the whole fraternity would obey, no man would move any thing against the College of Priests; none after the divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after the consent of the fellow-Bishop would make himself judge not indeed of the Bishop, but of God.

Again,

Factus est autem Cornelius Episcopus de Dei, & Christi ejus judicio, de Clericorum penè omnium testimonio, de plebis, quae tunc affuit, suffragio, & de Sacerdotum antiquorum & bonorum virorum Collegio — Cypr. Ep. 52.

Cornelio in Catholica Ecclesia de Dei judicio, & Cleri ac plebis suffragio ordinato— Cypr. Ep. 67.

Cornelius was made Bishop by the judgment of God and his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the Clergy, by the suffrage of the people being then present, and by the College of Priests, ancient and good men— and Cornelius being in the Catholick Church ordained by the judgment of God, and by the suffrage of the Clergy and people.

Again, When a Bishop is once made, Episcopo semel facto, & Collegarum ac plebis testimonio & judicio combrobato— Ep. 41. (ad Cornel.) and is approved by the testimony and the judgment of his Collegues, and of the people—

The Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions thus in the person of Saint Peter very fully and clearly describeth the manner of Ordination of Bishops in his times:

Const. Apost. 8.4.

Postquam haec erit precatus, &c.

After one of the chief Bishops present has thus prayed, the rest of the Priests with all the people shall say, Amen; and after the prayer, one of the Bishops shall deliver the Eucharist into the hands of the person ordained, and that morning he shall be plac'd by the rest of the Bishops in his Throne, all of them saluting him with a kiss in the Lord. After the reading of the Law and Prophets, of our Epistles, the Acts and Gospel, he who is ordained shall salute the Church with these words, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all, Amen. And let all answer, And with thy spirit. After which words let him exhort the people.

Thus it was then, in a practice so obvious and observable, that a Pagan Emperour took good notice of it, and chose to imitate it in constituting the Governours of Provinces, and other Officers; When (saith Lampridius of Alexander Sever • s) he would either give rulers to Provinces or make presidents, Vbi aliquos voluisset vel rectores Provinciis dare, vel praepositos facere, vel procuratores id est rationales ordinare, nomina eorum proponebat, hortans populum, ut siquid haberet criminis, probaret manifestis rebus; si non probâsset, subiret poenam capitis; dicebatque grave esse, quum id Christiani & Judaei facerent in praedicandis Sacerdotibus qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in Provinciarum Rectoribus, quibus & fortunae hominum committerentur & capita. Lamprid. in Alex. Sev. cap. 45. or ordain procuratours, he set up their names, exhorting the people if they had any thing against them, to prove it by manifest evidence, if they could not make their accusation good they were to die for it, and he said 'twould be hard not to doe that in the choice of Governours of Provinces, to whom the lives and fortunes of men were entrusted, which the Christians and Jews did in setting up those who were to be ordained Priests.

Afterward in process of time, when (the gaps of distance being filled up, and Christendom becoming one continued Body) Ecclesiastical Discipline was improved into a more complete shape, for Constitution of a Bishop, all the Bishops of a Province did convene, (or such as could with convenience, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Constantinop. Theod. 5.9. the others signifying their mind by writing) and having approved him who was recommended by the Clergy, and allowed by the people, they did ordain him; the Metropolitan of the Province ratifying what was done.

So the Nicene Synod, regarding the practice which had commonly obtained, did appoint with a qualification to be generally observed: It is most fit (say they) that a Bishop be constituted by all Bishops in the Province; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Conc. Nic. Can. 4. but if this be hard, either because of urgent necessity, or for the length of the way, then three of the body being gathered together (those also who are absent conspiring in opinion, and yielding their consent in writing) let the Ordination be performed, Vid. Can. Apost. 1. Conc. Antioch. Can. 19. Conc. Laod. Can. 12. — Conc. Afr. Can. 13. but let the ratification of what is done be assigned to the Metropolite in each Province.

In this Canon (the which is followed by divers Canons of other Synods) there is no express mention concerning the interest of the Clergy and people in election of the Bishops; but these things are onely passed over, as precedaneous to the Constitution or Ordination, about which onely the Fathers did intend to prescribe; supposing the election to proceed according to former usual practice.

That we ought thus to interpret the Canon, so that the Fathers did not intend to exclude the people from their choice, doth appear from their Synodical Epistle; wherein they Decree concerning Bishops constituted by Meletius, who returning to communion with the Church did live in any City, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 1.9. Theod. 1.9. that, If any Catholick Bishop should happen to die, then should those who were already received ascend into the honour of him deceased; in case they should appear worthy, and the people should chuse, the Bishop of Alexandria withall adding his suffrage to him, and his confirmation; the which words with sufficient evidence do interpret the Canon not to concern the Election, but the Ordination of Bishops.

Thus the Fathers of the second General Synod plainly did interpret this Canon by their proceeding;Theod. 5.9. for they in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops, did assure him, that they in the Constitution of Bishops for the principal Eastern Sees, had followed this Order of the Synod of Nice,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

together with the ancient law of the Church; in agreement whereto they had ordained Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople; with common consent, under the eyes of the most religious Emperour Theodosius, and of all the Clergy, the whole City adjoining also its suffrage;— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and that for Antioch, the Bishops of the Province, and of the Eastern Diocese concurring had canonically ordained Flavianus Bishop, the whole Church consenting as with one voice to honour the person.

Ath. Apol. 2. p. 726.Indeed the practice generally doth confirm this, the People every where continuing to elect their Bishop: So did the people of Alexandria demand Athanasius for their Bishop. So Pope Julius did complain that Gregory was intruded into the place of Athanasius; not being required by the Presbyters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ath. ibid. p. 749. not by the Bishops, not by the People. So Gregory Nazianzene describeth the Elections of Bishops in his times to be carried by the power of wealthy men, Orat. 19. p. 310. Epist. 21. and impetuousness of the people. So Austin intimateth the same in his Speech about designation of a Successour to himself, I know, says he, Scio post obitus Episcoporum per ambitiosos aut contentiosos solere Ecclesias perturbari—Aug. Ep. 110. that after the decease of Bishops the Churches are wont to be disturbed by ambitious and contentious men. Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.59, 60. Socr. 1.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Sozom. 6.23. Marcell. lib. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Socr. 1.24. Soz. 3.4. Theod. 4.6. So the tumults at Antioch, in chusing a Bishop after Eustathius; at Rome after Liberius; at Constantinople after Alexander; at Milain when St. Ambrose was chosen.

So Stephanus Bishop of Ephesus in justification of himself saith,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. p. 404.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

Me forty Bishops of Asia by the suffrage of the most noble and of the substantial Citizens, and of all the most reverend Clergy, and of all the rest of the whole City, did Ordain; and his Competitour Bassianus, Me, with great constraint and violence, the people and the Clergy, and the Bishops did install—

In the Synod of Chalcedon, Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. p. 462. that the whole City of Gangra did come to him bringing their suffrages. Posidius telleth us of St. Austin,

In ordinandis verò Sacerdotibus & Clericis consensum majorem Christianorum, & consuetudinem Ecclesiae sequendam esse arbitrabatur. Posid. in Aug. Vit. cap. 20.

Nullus invitis detur Episcopus; Cleri, plebis, & ordinis consensum ac desiderium requiratur— Celest. I. Ep. 2.

that in ordaining Priests and Clergymen he deemed the greater consent of Christians, and the custom of the Church was to be followed.

So Celestine the First: Let no Bishop be given them against their wills; let the consent and request of the Clergy, the people and the order be expected; and Pope Leo the First, Cùm ergò de summi Sacerdotis electione tractabitur, ille omnibus praeponatur, quem Cleri plebísque consensus concorditer postulârint; ità ut si in aliam fortè personam partium se vota deviserint, Metropolitani judicio is alteri praeferatur, qui majoribus & studiis juvatur & meritis, tantùm ut nullus invitis, & non petentibus ordinetur; nè Civitas Episcopum non optatum aut contemnat aut oderit, & fiat minùs religiosa quàm convenit, cui non licuit habere quem voluit. P. Leo I. Ep. 84. ad Anastas. When there shall be an election of a Bishop, let him be preferr'd who has the unanimous consent of the Clergy and people; so that if the votes be divided and part for another person, let him, by the judgment of the Metropolitan, be preferr'd whose merits and interest are greatest, onely that none may be ordained against their wills or without their desire, lest the unwilling people contemn or hate a Bishop whom they never desired, and become less religious than they ought, because they could not have such a Bishop as they would. And in other of his Epistles, Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter Episcopos habeantur, qui nec à Clericis sunt electi, nec à plebibus expetiti, nec à Provincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio consecrati. P. Leo I. Ep. 92. There is no reason that they should be accounted Bishops, who were neither chosen by the Clergy, nor desired by the people, nor with the Metropolitan's order consecrated by the Provincial Bishops—

Certainly the desires of the Citizens, Expectarentur certè vota Civium, testimonia populorum, quaereretur honoratorum arbitrium, electio Clericorum, quae in Sacerdotum solent ordinationibus ab his qui nôrunt Patrum regulas custodiri. P. Leo Ep. 89. Dist. 63. cap. 27. and the testimonies of the people should have been expected, with the judgment of the honourable and the choice of the Clergy, which in the Ordinations of Priests use to be observ'd by those who know the rules of the Fathers— When peaceably and with such concord as God loves, Quum per pacem, & D • o placitam concordiam consonis omniu • studiis qui doctor pacis futurus est 〈◊〉 . Ibid. he who is to be a teacher of peace is ordained by the agreement of all— Let Priests who are to be ordained be required peaceably and quietly: Per pacem & quietem Sacerdotes qui praefuturi sunt postulentur; teneatur subscriptio Clericorum, honoratorum testimonium, ordinis consensus & plebis; qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur. Ibid. let the subscription of the Clergy, the testimony of the honourable, the consent of the order and people be observed; let him who is to preside over all be chosen by all. And Pope Nicholas I. Because we know the custom of your Royal City,

P. Nich. I. Ep. 5. Quia consuetudinem vestram novimus in Regia Vrbe, minimò apicem Archieraticae potestatis aliquem posse habere sine Ecclesiasticae plebis assensu, atque Imperiali suffragio—.

P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 70. Dist. 62.

that none can arrive at the top of the highest Priestly power without the assent of the Ecclesiastical people and the Emperour's suffrage.

Now in all these proceedings it is most apparent that there was no regard had to the Pope, or any thought of him, out of his particular Territory; which he had as Metropolitan, (or afterward as Primate in some parts of the West.) No where else had he the least finger in the Constitution of a Bishop any where through the whole Church; no not of the least Clergy-man.

Vid. P. Leo Ep. 84.101.107.When by Saint Cyprian so largely and punctually the manner of Constituting Bishops is declared; when the Nicene Canons and those of other Synods do so carefully prescribe about the Ordination of them; when so many reports concerning the Election of Bishops do occur in History, why is there not a tittle of mention concerning any special interest of the Roman Bishops about them?

So true is that of Alb. Crantzius: There was no need then of Apostolical confirmation, Nihil tum opus erat Apostolicâ confirmatione; satìs erat electionem ab Archiepiscopo comprobari: nunc ad se omnium Ecclesiarum jura traxit Romana Ecclesia. Crantz. Metrop. 7.45. it was sufficient if the Election were approv'd by the Archbishop: now the Church of Rome has assum'd to her self the rights of all Churches.

We may by the way observe, that in the first times they had not so much as an absolute power of ordaining a Presbyter in the Church of his own City without leave of the Clergy and People; as may be inferred from that passage in Eusebius, where Pope Cornelius relateth that the Bishop who ordained Novatus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Cornel. apud Eus. 6.43. being hindred from doing it by all the Clergy and by many of the Laity, did request that it might be granted to him to ordain that one person; and he that so hardly could ordain one Priest in his own Church, what authority could he have to constitute Bishops in all other Churches?

Bell 2.18.20.To all these Evidences of Fact our Adversaries do oppose some Instances of Popes meddling in the Constitution of Bishops; as, Pope Leo I, saith, that Anatolius did by the favour of his assent obtain the Bishoprick of Constantinople.

Satìs est quòd vestrae pietatis auxilio, & mei favoris assensu Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit. P. Leo Ep. 54.

De Marc 3.14. § 1.

The same Pope is alledged as having confirmed Maximus of Antioch. The same doth write to the Bishop of Thessalonica (his Vicar) that he should confirm the Elections of Bishops by his authority. Vt ordinationem ritè celebrandam tua quoque firmet authoritas. P. Leo Ep. 84. (ad Anastas.) He also confirmed Donatus an African Bishop, — we will that Donatus preside over the Lord's flock upon condition that he remember to send us an account of his faith. Donatum—ità Dominico volumus gregi praesidere, ut libellum fidei suae ad nos meminerit dirigendum—P. Leo Ep. 87. Also Gregory I. doth complain of it as of an inordinate Act, Salonitanae Civitatis Episcopus ne ac responsali meo nesciente ordinatus est, & facta res est, quae sub nullis anterioribus principibus evenit. Greg. Ep. 4.34. that a Bishop of Salonae was ordained without his knowledge. Pope Damasus did confirm the Ordination of Peter Alexandrinus; The Alexandrians (saith Sozomen) did render the Churches to Peter being returned from Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. 6.39. with the Letters of Damasus, which confirmed both the Nicene Decrees, and his Ordination: But what, I pray, doth Confirmation here signifie but approbation; for did he otherwise confirm the Nicene Decrees? did they need other confirmation?

To the former Instances we answer, that being well considered they do much strengthen our Argument; in that they are so few, so late, so lame, so impertinent; for if the Pope had enjoyed a power of constituting Bishops, more instances of its exercise would have been producible; indeed it could not be but that History would have been full of them; the constitution of Bishops being a matter of continual use, and very remarkable. At least they might have found one Instance or other to alledge before the time of that busie Pope Leo; in whose time and by whose means Papal Authority began to overflow its banks. And those which they produce do no-wise reach home to the point; Anatolius did obtain the Bishoprick of Constantinople by the help of the Emperour, Nos enim vestrae fidei & interventionis habentes intuitum, cùm secundum suae consecrationis authores ejus initia titubarent, benigniores erga ipsum quàm justiores esse voluimus— P. Leo Ep. 55. (ad Martianum.) and by the assent of the Pope's favour: what then? Anatolius being put into that See in the room of Flavianus, by the influence of Dioscorus (whose Responsal he had been) and having favoured the Eutychian Faction, Pope Leo might thence have had a fair colour to disavow him as uncapable of that Function and Dignity,

Decessore enim tuo B. memoriae Flaviano propter defensionem Catholicae veritatis ejecto, non immeritò credebatur quòd ordinatores tui contra Sanctorum Canonum Constituta viderentur sui similem consecrâsse—Post illa itaque ordinationis tuae non inculpata principia—P. Leo Ep. 53. ad Anatol.

Lib. cap. 12.

he being so obnoxious; both having such a flaw in his Ordination, and having been guilty of great faults, adherence to the party of Dioscorus, and irregularly ordaining the Bishop of Antioch; but he out of regard to the Emperour's intervention did acknowledge Anatolius for Bishop; this was the favourable assent, with which he upbraideth Anatolius, having displeased him; and what doth this signifie?

Again Pope Leo did not reject Maximus Bishop of Antioch from communion,

Quod nos amore reparandae fidei, & pacis studio retractare cessavimus. P. Leo Ep. 54. (ad Martian.)

Conc. Chalc. Act. 10.

nor disclaimed his Ordination, although liable to exception: what then; is this a confirmation of him? No such matter; it was onely, which in such a vixonely Pope was a great favour, a forbearance to quarrel with him, as not duely ordained; which any other Bishop might have done. If a Pope had a flaw in his Ordination, another Bishop might refuse him.

Again Pope Leo did injoin the Bishop of Thessalonica to confirm Ordinations: what is that to the purpose? It belonged to that Bishop, as a Metropolitan, by the Canons to confirm those in his Province, or as a Primate, to confirm those in his Diocese; It belonged to him as the Pope's Vicar in those Territories, to which the Pope had stretched his Jurisdiction, to execute the Pope's Orders; but what is this to Universal Authority? It is certain, that Illyricum was then in a more special manner subjected to the Pope's Jurisdiction, than any of the other Eastern Churches; what therefore he did there, cannot be drawn into consequence as to other places.

The same may be said in answer to the complaint of Pope Gregory, and to any the like Instances.

Moreover, surreptitious, presumptuous, pragmatical intrusions, or usurpations of power do not suffice to found a right in this or any other case; to which purpose, and wholly to invalidate any such pleas, these Observations may be considered.

1. There do occur divers Instances of Bishops, who did meddle in Ordinations of other Bishops so as to bear great stroke in constituting them; who did not thereby pretend to Universal Jurisdiction; and it would be extremely ridiculous thence to infer they had any reasonable claim thereto.

Thus it was objected to Athanasius, that he presum'd to ordain in Cities which did not belong to him.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 3.21.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 2.5.

Socr. 4.14.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 4.21.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 3.6. Socr. 6.2.

Eusebius of Constantinople did obtrude Eusebius Emissenus to be Bishop of Alexandria. Eustathius of Antioch did ordain Evagrius Bishop of Constantinople. Euzoius delivered unto Lucius the Bishoprick of Alexandria. Lucifer, a Sardinian Bishop, did ordain Paulinus Bishop of Antioch; they for a Salvo say, as the Pope's Legate, but upon what ground or testimony? why did not Historians tell us so much? The Pope had then been hissed at, if he had sent Legates about such errands; it was indeed out of presumption and pragmatical zeal to serve a party, then ordinary in persons addicted to all parties, right and wrong; it not being then so expresly forbidden by the Canons as afterward.

Theognis and Theodorus did make Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople.

Soz. 2.6.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 6.2.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 7.9.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.13.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 7.2, 3.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.238.

Post consecrationem Antiocheni Episcopi, quam tibimet contra Canonicam regulam vendicâsti— P. Leo I. Epist. 53. (ad Anatol.)

Theophilus of Alexandria did ordain St. Chrysostome. The Egyptian Bishops surreptitiously did constitute Maximus, the Cynick Philosopher, Bishop of Constantinople. Acacius, (who had as little to doe there as the Pope) did thrust Eudoxius into the throne of Constantinople. Meletius of Antioch did constitute St. Gregory Nazianzene to the charge of Constantinople. Acacius and Patrophilus, extruding Maximus did in his room constitute Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem. Pope Leo doth complain of Anatolius, that against the Canonical rule he had assumed to himself the Ordination of the Bishop of Antioch.

2. To obviate these irregular and inconvenient proceedings, having crept in upon the dissensions in Faith and especially upon occasion of Gregory Nazianzene being constituted Bishop of Constantinople by Meletius, and Maximus being thrust into the same See by the Egyptians (whose Party for a time the Roman Church did countenance) the second General Synod did ordain that no Bishop should intermeddle about Ordinations without the bounds of his own Diocese.

3. In pursuance of this Law, or upon the ground of it, the Pope was sometimes checked, when he presumed to make a sally beyond his bounds in this or the like cases.

As when Pope Innocent I. did send some Bishops to Constantinople for procuring a Synod to examine the cause of St. Chrysostome; those of Constantinople —did cause them to be dismissed with disgrace as molesting a government beyond their bounds. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. 8.28.

4. Even in the Western parts, after that the Pope had wrigled himself into most Countries there, so as to obtain sway in their transactions, yet he in divers places did not meddle in Ordinations; —we do not, Non enim nobis ordinationes vestrarum Provinciarum defendimus. P. Leo Ep. 89. says Pope Leo I. arrogate to our selves a power of ordaining in your Provinces.

Even in some parts of Italy it self the Pope did not confirm Bishops till the times of Pope Nicholas I. as may be collected from the submission then of the Bishop of Ravenna to that condition,— & ne electos etiam Canonicè in Flaminia Episcopos consecrandi facultatem haberet, nisi id sibi à Sede Apostolica literis concederetur. Plat. in P. Nichol. I. that he should have no power to consecrate Bishops canonically elected in the Regio Flaminia, unless it were granted him by letters from the Apostolick See.

And it was not without great opposition and struggling that he got that power other-where than in his original precincts, or where the juncture of things did afford him special advantage.

5. If Examples would avail to determine Right, there are more, and more clear Instances of Emperours interposing in the Constitution of Bishops, than of Popes. As they had ground in Reason, and authority in Holy Scripture.1 King. 2.35. And Zadock the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar. Constantine did interpose at the designation of a Bishop at Antioch in the room of Eustathius. Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.59, 60. Upon Gregory Nazianzene's recess from Constantinople, Theodosius (that excellent Emperour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. 7.8. who would not have infringed right) did command the Bishops present to write in paper the names of those whom each did approve worthy to be ordained, and reserved to himself the choice of one; and accordingly they obeying, he out of all that were nominated did elect Nectarius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. 3.4. Constantius did deliver the See of Constantinople to Eusebius Nicomediensis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 3.6. Constantius was angry with Macedonius, because he was ordain'd without his licence. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodor. 2.27. He rejecting Eleusius and Sylvanus did order other to be substituted in their places. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. 4.7. When, before St. Ambrose, the See of Milain was vacant, a Synod of Bishops there did intreat the Emperour to declare one. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. 5.23. Flavianus said to the Emperour Theodosius, Give forsooth, O King, the See of Antioch to whom you shall think good.

Visum est Imperatoribus nullum ordinare de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia Pontificem—

Nestorium quasi utilem ad docendum Constantinopolin Principes evocaverunt. Lib. Brev. 6. Socr. 7.29.

Quem tanto Imperii judicio electum, tanto Sacerdotum studio prosecutum — Vinc. Lir. p. 330.

Tunc Papa principis favore Menam pro eo (Anthimo) ordinavit Antistitem. Lib. cap. 21.

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evag. 4.38.

Conc. Tolet. 12. cap. 6. apud Gr. Dist. 63. cap. 25.

The Emperour did call Nestorius from Antioch to the See of Constantinople; and he was (saith Vincentius Lir.) elected by the Emperour's judgment. The favour of Justinian did advance Menas to the See of Constantino ••• : and the same did prefer Eutychius thereto. He did put in Pope Vigilius—

In Spain the Kings had the Election of Bishops by the Decrees of the Council of Toledo.

That the Emperour Charles did use to confirm Bishops Pope John VIII. doth testifie, reproving the Archbishop of Virdun, Quem Clerus & populus Civitatis eligerat, praeque memoriae Carolus Imperator suo consensu firmaverat— P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 70. for rejecting a Bishop, whom the Clergy and people of the City had chosen, and the Emperour Charles had confirmed by his consent.

When Macarius Bishop of Antioch for Monothelitism was deposed in the sixth Synod, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. VI. Act. 12. (p. 208.) the Bishops under that throne did request the Presidents of the Synod to suggest another to the Emperour to be substituted in his room.

In Gratian there are divers passages wherein Popes declared, that they could not ordain Bishops to Churches, even in Italy, without the Emperour's leave and licence. As

Dist. 63. cap. 9. Greg. I. Ep. 4.15. cap. 15. cap. 16, 17, 18.

P. Leo IV. & Steph.

Distinc. 63. c. 6, 7. Distinc. 63. c. 1, 2.

indeed there are also in later times other Decrees (made by Popes of another kidney, or in other junctures of affairs) which forbid Princes to meddle in the elections of Bishops; as in the seventh Synod, and in the eighth Synod as they call it, upon occasion of Photius being placed in the See of Constantinople by the power of the Court.

Ibid. cap. 4.

[It is a notorious thing, that most Princes in the West, in Germany, France, England, did invest Bishops, till the time of Pope Gregory VII. when that boisterous man did raise so much stir in Christendom to dispossess them of that right; which they enioyed not onely as Princes, but as Founders, Patrons, Benefactours, Protectours of Churches.]

And that of Pope Nicholas I. By which discordance in practice we may see the consistence and stability of Doctrine and Practice in the Roman Church.

The Emperours for a long time did enjoy the privilege of constituting or confirming the Popes: for, says Platina, in the Life of Pelagius II.

Nihil à Clero in eligendo Pontifice actum erat nisi ejus electionem Imperator approbâsset. Plat. in Pelagio II. (p. 154.)

Distinct. 63. Plat. p. 155.

Vid. Joh. Diac. & Anastas.

Dist. 63. cap. 21.

Hadrianus autem Papa cum universa Synodo tradiderunt jus & potestatem eligendi Pontificem, & ordinandi Apostolicam Sedem — Insuper Archiepiscopos & Episcopos per singulas Provincias ab eo investituram accipere definivit; & nisi à Rege laudetur & investiatur Episcopus, à nemine consecretur; & quicunque contra hoc decretum ageret, anathematis vinculo eum innodavit. Distinct. 63. cap. 22.

nothing was then done by the Clergy in electing a Pope unless the Emperour approv'd the election. He did confirm P. Gregory I. and P. Agatho.

Pope Adrian with his whole Synod did deliver to Charles the Great the right and power of electing the Pope and ordaining the Apostolick See— He moreover defined that Archbishops and Bishops in every Province should receive investiture from him; and that if a Bishop were not commended and invested by the King, he should be consecrated by none; and whoever should act against this Decree, him he did noose in the band of anathema.

Largimur in perpetuum facultatem successorem, atque summae Sedis Apostolicae Pontificem ordinandi, ac per hoc Archiepiscopos seu Episcopos, &c. Distinc. 63. cap. 23.

Qui statim Romanorum inconstantiae pertaesus authoritatem omnem eligendi Pontificis à Clero populóque Romano ad Imperatorem transtulit— Plat. in Leo. VIII. p. 291.

The like privilege did Pope Leo VIII. attribute to the Emperour Otho I. We give him, says he, for ever power to ordain a successour and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See, and change Archbishops, &c. And Platina, in his Life, says, That being weary of the inconstancy of the Romans, he transferr'd all authority to chuse a Pope from the Clergy and people of Rome to the Emperour.

Now I pray if this power of confirming Bishops do by Divine Institution belong to the Pope, how could he part with it, or transfer it on others? Is not this a plain renunciation in Popes of their Divine pretence?

6. General Synods by an authority paramount have assumed to themselves the constitution and confirmation of Bishops. Conc. Const. Sess. 40. Conc. Bas. Sess. 37. (p. 98.) So the Second General Synod did confirm the Ordination of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. 5.9. and of Flavianus Bishop of Antioch, (this Ordination, say they, the Synod generally have admitted) although the Roman Church did not approve the Ordination of Nectarius, and for a long time after did oppose that of Flavianus. So the Fifth Synod it seemeth did confirm the Ordination of Theophanius Bishop of Antioch. So the Synod of Pisa did constitute Pope Alexander V. that of Constance Pope Martin V. that of Basil Pope Felix V.

7. All Catholick Bishops in old times might and commonly did confirm the Elections and Ordinations of Bishops, to the same effect as Popes may be pretended to have done; that is by signifying their approbation, or satisfaction concerning the orthodoxy of their Faith, the attestation of their Manners, the legality of their Ordination, no canonical Impediment; and consequently by admitting them to communion of peace and charity, and correspondence in all good Offices, which they express by returning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in answer to their Synodical— communicatory Letters.

Thus did St. Cyprian and all the Bishops of that Age confirm the Ordination of Pope Cornelius, being contested by Novatian; as St. Cyprian in terms doth affirm,

Cùm locus Petri & gradus Cathedrae Sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrum consensione firmato. Cypr. Ep. 52. (ad Anton.)

Ad comprobandam ordinationem tuam factam auctoritate majore— Ep. 45. ad Corn.

When the See of Saint Peter the Sacerdotal Chair was vacant, which by the will of God being occupied and by all our consents confirm'd, &c.— to confirm thy Ordination with a greater authority.

To which purpose, each Bishop did write Epistles to other Bishops (or at least to those of highest rank) acquainting them with his Ordination and enstallment, making a profession of his Faith, so as to satisfie them of his capacity of the Function.

8. But Bishops were complete Bishops before they did give such an account of themselves; so that it was not in the power of the Pope, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. VI. Act. 12.198. or of any others to reverse their Ordination; or dispossess them of their places. There was no confirmation importing any such matter: this is plain; and one instance will serve to shew it; that of Pope Honorius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — P. Honor. Ib. p. 198. and of Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, who speak of Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem; that he was constituted Bishop before their knowledge, and receipt of his Synodical Letters.

9. If the designation of any Bishop should belong to the Pope, then especially that of Metropolitans, who are the chief Princes of the Church; but this anciently did not belong to him. In Africk the most ancient Bishop of the Province (without election) did succeed into that dignity. Where the Metropoles were fixed, all the Bishops of the Province did convene, and with the consent of Clergy, persons of quality, and the commonalty did elect him

Metropolitano defuncto, cùm in locum ejus alius fuerit subrogandus, Provinciales Episcopi ad Civitatem Metropolitanam convenire debebunt, ut omnium Clericorum atque omnium Civium voluntate discussâ ex Presbyteris ejusdem Ecclesiae, vel ex Diaconibus optimus eligatur. P. Leo. Ep. 88.

The Metropolitan being dead, when another is to be put in his place, the Provincial Bishops ought to meet in the Metropolitan City, that by the Votes of the whole Clergy and Citizens, out of the Priests or Deacons of the same Church, the fittest person may be chosen.

. So was St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage elected. So Nectarius of Constantinople, Flavianus of Antioch, and Cyril of Jerusalem, as the Fathers of Constantinople tell us. So Stephanus and Bassianus rival Bishops of Ephesus did pretend to have been chosen, as we saw before.

And for Confirmation, there did not need any, there is no mention of any; except that Confirmation of which we spake, a consequent approbation of them from all their fellow-Bishops, as having no exception against them, rendring them unworthy of communion. In the Synod of Chalcedon it was defined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal Privileges with the Bishop of Rome; yet it is expresly cautioned there, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. 16. p. 464. that he shall not meddle in Ordination of Bishops in any Province, that being left to the Metropolitan— For a good time, Vid. Concil. Aur. Can. 7. Apud de Marc. VI. 4. § 8. even in the Western parts the Pope did not meddle with the Constitution of Metropolitans; leaving the Churches to enjoy their Liberties. Afterwards with all other Rights he snatched the Collation, Confirmation, &c. of Metropolitans.

VII. Sovereigns have a power to Censure and Correct all inferiour Magistrates in proportion to their Offences: and in case of great misdemeanour or of incapacity they can wholly discharge and remove them from their Office.

Vid. Gelas. Ep. 13. (p. 640.)This Prerogative therefore He of Rome doth claim as most proper to himself, by Divine Sanction.

God Almighty alone can dissolve the spiritual marriage between a Bishop and his Church— Therefore those three things premised (the Confirmation, Et ideò tria haec quae praemisimus non tam Constitutione Canonica, quàm Institutione Divinâ soli sunt Romano Pontifici reservata. P. Innoc. III. in Gregor. Decret. Lib. 1. Tit. 7. cap. 2. Translation and Deposition of Bishops) are reserved to the Roman Bishop, not so much by Canonical Constitution, as by Divine Institution.

Causae criminales graviores contra Episcopos, etiam haeresis quod absit, quae depositione aut privatione dignae sunt, ab ipso tantùm summo Romano Pontifice cognoscantur, & terminentur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. cap. 5.This power the Convention of Trent doth allow him; thwarting the ancient Laws, and betraying the Liberties of the Church thereby, and endangering the Christian Doctrine to be inflected and corrupted to the advantage of Papal Interest.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Const. Ap. 8.28.

A Bishop may depose any Clerk who deserves it, except he be a Bishop, whom to deprive, one Bishop alone is not sufficient.

But such a power anciently did not by any Rule, or Custom in a peculiar manner belong to the Roman Bishop.

Premising what was generally touched about Jurisdiction: in reference to this Branch we remark.

1. The exercising of Judgment and Censure upon Bishops (when it was needfull for general good) was prescribed to be done by Synods; Provincial, or Patriarchal (Diocesan.) In them Causes were to be discussed, and Sentence pronounced against those who had deviated from saith, or committed misdemeanours. So it was appointed in the Synod of Nice; Syn. Nic. Can. 5. as the African Synod (wherein St. Austin was one Bishop) did observe, and urge in their Epistle to Pope Celestine; in those notable words, Whether they be Clergy of an inferiour degree, or whether they be Bishops, the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed them to the Metropolitans charge, Decreta Nicena sive inferioris gradûs Clericos, sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commiserunt: prudentissimè enim justissiméque viderunt quaecunque negotia in suis locis ubi orta sunt finienda; nec unicuique Provinciae gratiam S. Spiritûs defuturam. Syn. Afr. Ep. ad P. Celest. I. for they have most prudently and justly discerned that all matters whatsoever ought to be determined in the places where they do first begin; and that the grace of the holy spirit would not be wanting to every particular Province. The same Law was enacted by the Synod of Antioch, by the Synods of Constantinople, Syn. Ant. Can. 15. Chalcedon, &c.

Thus was Paulus Samosatenus for his errour against the Divinity of our Lord,(Ann. 269.) Euseb. 7.30. and for his scandalous demeanour deposed by the Synod of Antioch. Thus was Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (being accused of Sabellianism,

Socr. 1.24.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 2.19.

and of other faults) removed by a Synod of the same place; the which Sentence he quietly did bear. Thus another Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia (for his uncouth garb,Socr. 2.43. Soz. 3.14. and fond conceits against marriage) was discarded by the Synod of Gangra. Thus did a Synod of Constantinople abdicate Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, Socr. 1.36. for heterodoxy in the point concerning our Lord's Divinity. For the like cause was Photinus Bishop of Sirmium deposed by a Synod there,Socr. 2.29. gathered by the Emperour's command. So was Athanasius tryed,Socr. 1.28— and condemned (although unjustly as to the matter and cause) by the Synod of Tyre. So was St. Chrysostome (although most injuriously) deposed by a Synod at Constantinople. Theod. 2.10. So the Bishops at Antioch (according to the Emperour's order) deposed Stephanus Bishop of that place, for a wicked contrivance against the fame of Euphratas and Vincentius.

In all these Condemnations, Censures and Depositions of Bishops (whereof each was of high rank and great interest in the Church) the Bishop of Rome had no hand, nor so much as a little finger. All the proceedings did go on supposition of the Rule, and Laws, that such Judgments were to be passed by Synods.

St. Chrysostome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Deposed fifteen Bishops. Act. 11. Syn. Chalc. p. 411. Haec § cum 4. jungenda.

2. In some case a kind of deposing of Bishops was assumed by particular Bishops, as defenders of the Faith, and executours of Canons; their Deposition consisting in not allowing those to be Bishops, whom for erroneous Doctrine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Celest. in Nest. Sent. Eph. Act. p. 195. or disorderly Behaviour (notoriously incurred) they deemed incapable of the Office, presuming their places ipso facto void.

This Pope Gelasius I. proposed for a Rule, Quod non solùm praesuli Apostolico facere licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quoslibet & quemlibet locum secundum regulam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Catholica communione discernant. Ep. 4. That not onely a Metropolitan, but every other Bishop hath a Right to separate any persons or any place from the Catholick Communion, according to the Rule by which his heresie is already condemned. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. sub Men. (p. 10.) And upon this account did the Popes for so long time quarrel with the See of Constantinople, because they did not expunge Acacius from the roll of Bishops, who had communicated with Hereticks.Cypr. Ep. 67. So did Saint Cyprian reject Marcianus Bishop of Arles for adhering to the Novatians. Soz. 3.21. So Athanasius was said to have deposed Arian Bishops,Socr. 2.42. and substituted others in their places. So Acacius and his Complices deposed Macedonius and divers other Bishops. And the Bishops of those times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , factiously applying a Rule taken for granted then,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.24.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 1.37.

deposed one another: So Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem deposed Athanasius. So Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned to depose Alexander of Constantinople, if he would not admit Arius to communion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.38. Acacius and his Complices did extrude Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem. Theod. 2.26. He also deposed and expelled Cyril of Jerusalem: Sozom. 4.24. and deposed many other Bishops at Constantinople.

Socr. 7.34.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

Cyril deposed Nestorius, and Nestorius deposed Cyril, and Memnon. Cyril and Juvenalis deposed John of Antioch.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. Syn. Eph. p. 380.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 320.

John of Antioch with his Bishops deposed Cyril and Memnon.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 7.34.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 11. (p. 405.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 406.

Baron. Ann. 457. § 34.

P. Felix III. Ep. 4.

Yea after the Synod of Ephesus, John of Antioch, gathering together many Bishops did depose Cyril. Stephanus concerning Bassianus; Because he had entred into the Church with swords— therefore he was expelled out of it again by the holy Fathers, both by Leo of Rome the Imperial City, and by Flavianus; by the Bishop of Alexandria, and also by the Bishop of Antioch. Anatolius of Constantinople did reject Timotheus of Alexandria. Acacius Bishop of Constantinople did reject Petrus Fullo.

3. St. Cyprian doth assert the power of Censuring Bishops, upon needfull and just occasion, to belong to all Bishops, for maintenance of common Faith, Discipline and Peace.

Therefore (saith he, writing to Pope Stephanus himself) dear brother, Idcircò enim, frater charissime, copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum, concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut siquis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare, & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri, & quasi pastores utiles & misericordes oves Dominicas in gregem colligant. Cypr. Ep. 67. (ad Steph.) the body of Bishops is copious, being coupled by the glue of concord, and the band of unity, that if any of our College shall attempt to frame a heresie, or to tear and spoil the flock of Christ, the rest may succour, and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may gather together the sheep of our Lord into the flock.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — &c. Conc. Eph. Act. 2. p. 324.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 325.

The like Doctrine is that of Pope Celestine I. in his Epistle to the Ephesine Synod.

Vid. Hier. 67, & 78.In matter of Faith any Bishop might interpose Judgment— Theophilus did proceed to condemn the Origenists without regard to the Pope.

Epiphanius did demand satisfaction of John of Jerusalem.

4. This common right of Bishops in some cases is confirmed by the nature of such Censures, which consisted in disclaiming persons notoriously guilty of Heresie, Schism or Scandal; and in refusing to entertain communion with them; which every Bishop,

Cypr. Ep. 67. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thalass. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 191.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Agapet. ad Petr. Hier. (p. 24.)

as entitled to the common Interests of Faith and Peace, might do.

5. Indeed in such a case every Christian had a right (yea an obligation) to desert his own Bishop.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Menas (Tom. 4. p. 10.)

Plebs, &c. Cypr. Ep. 68.

Deum metuens— Cypr. Ep. 68.

Vid. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. (p. 506.)

So John of Hierusalem having given suspicion of Errour in Faith,

Cunctis monachis ab eodem Epiphanio scripta venerunt, ut absque satisfactione fidei nullus ei temerè communicaret. Hier. Ep. 61. (ad Pammach.) cap. 15.

Alicubíne dictum, aut tibi alicubi mandatum est, quòd sine satisfactione fidei communionem tuam subiremus? Ibid.

Quòd tibi non communicemus, fidei est. Ibid. cap. 16.

St. Epiphanius did write Letters to the Monks of Palestine not to communicate with him, till they were satisfied of his Orthodoxy. Upon which account St. Hierome living in Palestine did decline communication with the Patriarch thereof; asking him if it were any where said to him or commanded that without satisfaction concerning his faith, they were bound to maintain communion with him. So every Bishop, yea every Christian hath a kind of Universal Jurisdiction.

6. If any Pope did assume more than was allowed in this case by the Canons, or was common to other Bishops of his rank, it was an irregularity and an usurpation. Nor would Examples, if any were producible, serve to justifie him; or to ground a right thereto, any more than the extravagant proceedings of other pragmatical and factious Bishops in the same kind (whereof so many instances can be alledged) can assert such a power to any Bishop. Theophilus, John of Antioch, Dioscorus.

7. When the Pope hath attempted in this kind, Novam legem, &c. Vid. de Conc. Sard. his power hath been disavowed, as an illegal, upstart pretence.

8. Other Bishops have taken upon them, when they apprehended cause, to discard and depose Popes. So did the Oriental Faction at Sardica depose Pope Julius for transgressing, as they supposed,Soz. 3.11. the Laws of the Church, in fostering hereticks, and criminal persons condemned by Synods.Soz. 3.8. So did the Synod of Antioch threaten Deposition to the same Pope.Evag. 2.4. Hilar. fragm. So did the Patriarch Dioscorus make shew to reject Pope Leo from communion. So did St. Hilary anathematize Pope Liberius.

9. Popes, when there was great occasion, and they had a great mind to exert their utmost power, have not yet presumed by themselves, without joint authority of Synods, to condemn Bishops; An qui in hominem Imperatorem peccâsse dicebatur, nullâ interveniente Synod • dejici debuerunt? P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. so Pope Julius did not presume to depose Eusebius of Nicomedia, his great Adversary, and so much obnoxious by his patronizing Arianism. Pope Innocent did not censure Theophilus and his Complices, who so irregularly and wrongfully had extruded St. Chrysostome, although much displeased with them; but endeavoured to get a General Synod to doe the business. Pope Leo I. (though a man of spirit and animosity sufficient) would not, without assistence of a Synod attempt to judge Dioscorus, who had so highly provoked him, and given so much advantage against him, by favouring Eutyches, and persecuting the Orthodox.

Indeed often we may presume that Popes would have deposed Bishops, if they had thought it regular, or if others commonly had received that opinion, so that they could have expected success in their attempting it. But they many times were angry when their horns were short, and shewed their teeth when they could not bite.

10. What has been done in this kind by Popes jointly with others, or in Synods, (especially upon advantage, when the cause was just and plausible) is not to be ascribed to the authority of Popes as such. It might be done with their influence, not by their authority: so the Synod of Sardica (not Pope Julius) cashiered the enemies of Athanasius;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyril. ad Joh. Ant. Conc. Eph.— p. 197.332. Syn. p. 11, 60. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Const. Sacra. in Syn. VI. p. 11.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Ibid. p. 60.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. Eph. p. 332.

Sit haec in te fixa damnatio à me, & ab his qui sub me constituti Episcopales Sedes gubernare noscuntur— P. Felix. ad Petrum Antioch. apud Baron. Ann. 483. § 68.

so the Synod of Chalcedon (not Pope Leo) deposed Dioscorus; so the Roman Synod (not Pope Celestine) checked Nestorius; and that of Ephesus deposed him. The whole Western Synod (whereof he was President) had a great sway.

11. If Instances were Arguments of Right, there would be other pretenders to the Deposing power. Particular Bishops would have it, as we before shewed.

12. The People would have the power; for they have sometimes deposed popes themselves, with effect.

So of Pope Constantine Platina telleth us, at length he is deposed by the people of Rome, Tandem à Sede dejicitur à populo Romano irâ & indignitate rei percito. Plat. p. 223. P. Leo VIII. p. 291. Anastasius. Plat. p. 131. being very much provoked by the indignity of the matter.

13. There are many Instances of Bishops being removed or deposed by the Imperial authority. This power was indeed necessarily annexed to the Imperial dignity; for all Bishops being Subjects of the Emperour, he could dispose of their persons, so as not to suffer them to continue in a place, or to put them from it, as they demeaned themselves, to his satisfaction or otherwise, in reference to publick utility. It is reasonable, if they were disloyal or disobedient to him, that he should not suffer them to be in places of such influence, whereby they might pervert the people to disaffection. It is fit that he should deprive them of temporalties.

1 King. 2.35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 1.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodor. 1.20.The example of Solomon deposing Abiathar.

Constantine M. He threatned Athanasius to depose him — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 1.27. Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 778. commanded Eusebius and Theogonius to depart out of the Cities over which they presided as Bishops.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.7 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.37. Constantius deposed Paulus of Constantinople.

Constantius ejected all that would not subscribe to the Creed of Ariminum.

The Emperour Leo deposed Timotheus Aelurus, Evag. 2.11. Lib. cap. 15. P. Leo I. Epist. 99. for which Pope Leo did highly commend and thank him.

The Emperours discarded divers Popes.

Constantius banished Pope Liberius, and caused another to be put in his room.

Otho put out John the Twelfth.

Justinian deposed Pope Silverius, and banished Pope Vigilius. Lib. cap. 22.

Justinian banished Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, Evag. 4.41. Evag. 4.11. extruded Anthimus of Constantinople, and Theodosius of Alexandria.

Neither indeed was any great Patriarch effectually deposed without their power or leave.

Flavianus was supported by Theodosius against the Pope.

Dioscorus subsisted by the power of Theodosius Junior.

The Deposition of Dioscorus in the Synod of Chalcedon was voted with a reserve of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 2. p. 202. If it shall please our most sacred and pious Lord.

In effect the Emperours deposed all Bishops which were ordained beside their general Laws: as Justinian having prescribed conditions and qualifications concerning the Ordinations of Bishops, subjoineth, But if any Bishop be ordained without using our forementioned Constitution, Si quis autem citra memoratam observationem Episcopus ordinetur, jubemus hunc omnibus modis Episcopatu depelli. Justin. Novell. 123. cap. 1. we command you that by all means he be removed from his Bishoprick.

14. The Instances alledged to prove the Pope's Authority in this case, are inconcludent and invalid.

They alledge the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles; concerning whom (for abetting Novatianism) St. Cyprian doth exhort Pope Stephanus,

Cypr. Ep. 67.

Dirigantur in Provinciam & ad plebem Arelate consistentem literae, quibus abstento Marciano alius in ejus locum substituatur—

that he would direct Letters to the Bishops of Gaul, and the people of Arles, that he being for his schismatical behaviour removed from communion, another should be substituted in his room.

The Epistle, grounding this Argument, is questioned by a great Critick; but I willingly admit it to be genuine, seeing it hath the style and spirit of St. Cyprian, and suteth his Age, and I see no cause why it should be forged; wherefore omitting that defence, I answer, that the whole matter being seriously weighed, doth make rather against the Pope's cause than for it; for if the Pope had the sole or Sovereign authority of rejecting Bishops, why did the Gaulish Bishops refer the matter to St. Cyprian? why had Marcianus himself a recourse to him?

St. Cyprian doth not ascribe to the Pope any peculiar authority of Judgment or Censure, but a common one, which himself could exercise, which all Bishops might exercise, It is (saith he) our part to provide and succour in such a case;

Cui rei nostrum est consulere, & subvenire—

Idcircò copiosum est corpus Sacerdotum—

Quando ipse est ab universis Sacerdotibus judicatus—

for therefore is the body of Priests so numerous, that —by joint endeavour they may suppress heresies and schisms.

The case being such, St. Cyprian earnestly doth move Pope Stephanus to concur in exercise of Discipline on that Schismatick; and to prosecute effectually the business by his Letters; persuading his fellow-Bishops in France, that they would not suffer Marcianus to insult over the College of Bishops; Facere te oportet plenissimas literas ad co-Episcopos nostros in Galliis constitutos, nè ultra Marcianum Collegio nostro insultare patiantur.— (for to them it seemeth the transaction did immediately belong.)

To doe thus St. Cyprian implieth and prescribeth to be the Pope's special duty, not onely out of regard to the common Interest, but for his particular concernment in the case; Multo magìs tu— that schism having been first advanced against his Predecessours.

Quod nedum videatur à nobis abstentus. St. Cyprian also (if we mark it) covertly doth tax the Pope of negligence, in not having soon enough joined with himself and the community of Bishops in censuring that Delinquent.

We may add, that the Church of Arles and Gaul, being near Italy, the Pope may be allowed to have some greater sway there, than otherwhere in more distant places; so that St. Cyprian thought his Letters to quicken Discipline there, might be proper and particularly effectual.

These things being duly considered, what advantage can they draw from this Instance? doth it not rather prejudice their cause, and afford a considerable objection against it?

We may observe, that the strength of their argumentation mainly consisteth in the words quibus abstento, the which (as the drift of the whole Epistle, and parallel expressions therein do shew) do signifie no more, than quibus efficiatur ut abstento, which may procure him to be excomunicated, not quae contineant abstentionem, which contain excommunication, as P. de Marca glosseth; although admitting that sense, it would not import much, seeing onely thereby the Pope would have signified his consent with other Bishops; wherefore de Marca hath no great cause to blame us,Marc. 7.1.6. that we do not deprehend any magnificent thing in this place for the dignity of the Papal See; indeed he hath, I must confess, better eyes than I, who can see any such mighty things there for that purpose.

As for the substitution of another in the room of Marcianus, that was a consequent of the excommunication; and was to be the work of the Clergy and people of the place; for when by common judgment of Catholick Bishops any Bishop was rejected, the people did apply themselves to chuse another.

I adjoin the Resolution of a very learned writer of their communion, in these words,

In this case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles, if the right of excommunication did belong solely to the Bishop of Rome, In hac Marciani Episcopi Arelatensis causa si jus abstinendi sive excommunicandi competebat soli Episcopo Romano, cur Faustinus Episcopus Lugdunensis Cypriano Episcopo Carthaginiensi longè dissito semel atque iterum significat ea de Marciano, quae jam utique ipse Faustinus & alii ejusdem Provinciae Episcopi nunciav • rant Stephano proximiori, & omnium Episcoporum principi? Dicendum igitur factum id fuisse aut per negligentiam Stephani; aut quod magìs videtur, per disciplinam quae tunc in Ecclesia vigeba • , ut omnes quidem in circumpositis locis, sed praesertim Vrbium clarissimarum Episcopi in commune consulerent Ecclesiae, videréntque nè quid detrimenti res Christiana Catholica caperet. Itaque super isto Marciani Arelatensis facinore, Lugdunensem Episcopum ad Romanum & Carthaginiensem dedisse literas, istum verò ut remotissimum dedisse vicissim suas ad Romanum, ut fratrem & Collegam, qui in propinquo faciliùs posset de negotio & cognoscere & statuere. Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 67. wherefore did Faustinus Bishop of Lyons advertise Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who was so far distant, concerning those very things touching Marcianus, which both Faustinus himself, and other Bishops of the same Province, had before sent word of to Stephen (Bishop of Rome) who lived nearest, being moreover of all Bishops the chief? It must either be said that this was done because of Stephen's negligence; or what is more probable, according to the discipline then used in the Church, that all Bishops of neighbouring places, but especially those presiding over the most eminent Cities, should join their Counsels for the welfare of the Church, and that Christian Religion might not receive the least damage in any of its affairs whatsoever: Hence it was that in the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles, the Bishop of Lyons writ Letters to the Bishop of Rome and Carthage; and again, that the Bishop of Carthage, as being most remote, did write to the Bishop of Rome as being his brother and Collegue, who by reason of his propinquity might more easily know and judge of the whole matter.

The other Instances are of a later date (after the Synod of Nice) and therefore of not so great weight; yea their having none more ancient to produce, doth strongly make against the antiquity of this right; it being strange, that no memory should be of any deposed thereby for above three hundred years, but however such as they are, they do not reach home to the purpose.

They alledge Flavianus Bishop of Antioch deposed by Pope Damasus, as they affirm. But it is wonderfull they should have the face to mention that Instance; the story in short being this, The great Flavianus (a most worthy and Orthodox Prelate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. whom St. Chrysostome in his Statuary Orations doth so highly commend and celebrate) being substituted in the place of Meletius, by the Quire of Bishops; Theod. 5.23. Socr. 5.15. Soz. 8.3. a party did adhere to Paulinus; and after his decease they set up Evagrius, ordaining him (as Theodoret, who was best acquainted with passages on that side of Christendom, reporteth) against many Canons of the Church.

Yet with this party, the Roman Bishops, not willing to know any of these things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ib. (three of them in order, Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius) did conspire, instigating the Emperour against Flavianus, and reproaching him as supporter of a Tyrant against the Laws of Christ.

But the Emperour having called Flavianus to him, and received much satisfaction in his demeanour and discourse, did demand and settle him in his place; The Emperour (saith Theodoret) wondring at his courage and his wisedom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ib. did command him to return home, and to feed the Church committed to him; at which proceeding when the Romans afterward did grumble, the Emperour gave them such reasons and advices that they complyed and did entertain communion with Flavianus.

It is true, that upon their suggestions and clamours, the Emperour was moved at first to order that Flavianus should go to Rome, and give the Western Bishops satisfaction: but after that he understood the quality of his plea, he freed him of that trouble, and without their allowance settled him in his See.

Here is nothing of the Pope's deposing Flavianus; but of his embracing in a Schism the side of a Competitour, it being in such a case needfull that the Pope or any other Bishop should chuse with whom he must communicate, and consequently must disclaim the other; in which choice the Pope had no good success; not deposing Flavianus, but vainly opposing him; wherefore this allegation is strangely impertinent, and well may be turned against them.

Indeed in this Instance, we may see how fallible that See was in their judgment of things, how rash in taking parties and somenting discords; how pertinacious in a bad cause, how peevish against the common sense of their brethren; (especially considering, that before this opposition of Flavianus the Fathers of Constantinople had in their Letter to Pope Damasus and the Occidental Bishops approved, and commended him to them; highly asserting the legitimateness of his Ordination;) In fine,Theod. 5.9. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . how little their authority did avail with wise and considerate persons, such as Theodosius M. was.

Socr. 5.15. Marc. 3.14. § 1. De Marca representeth the matter somewhat otherwise out of Socrates; but take the matter as Socrates hath it and it signifieth no more, than that both Theophilus and Damasus would not entertain communion with Flavianus, as being uncapable of the Episcopal Order, for having violated his Oath and caused a division in the Church of Antioch: what is this to judicial Deposition? and how did Damasus more depose him than Theophilus, who upon the same dissatisfaction did in like manner forbear communion? whenas indeed a wiser and better man than either of them, St. Chrysostome, did hold communion with him, and did at length (saith Socrates, not agreeing with Theodoret) reconcile him to them both.

They alledge the Deposition of Nestorius. But who knoweth not, that he was for heretical Doctrine deposed in and by a General Synod?

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — P. Celest. ad Cyril. in Conc. Eph. Act. p. 281.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. Epist. ad Nest. p. 186.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (ad Joh. Ant. p. 196.)

Pope Celestine did indeed threaten to withdraw his communion, if he did not renounce his errour. But had not any other Bishop sufficient authority to desert a perverter of the Faith? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Celest. ad Clerum, &c. Const. Act. Eph. p. 190. Did not his own Clergy doe the same, being commended by Pope Celestine for it? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyril. Ep. ad Celest. Act. Eph. p. 177. Did not Cyril in writing to Pope Celestine himself affirm, that he might before have declared, that he could not communicate with him? Did Nestorius admit the Pope's judgment? no, as the Papal Legates did complain,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Eph. Act. 3. p. 331.

Vid. Theodos. 2. Epist. in Conc. Eph. p. 224, & 225.

He did not admit the constitution of the Apostolical Chair. Did the Pope's Sentence obtain effect? No, not any; for notwithstanding his threats, Nestorius did hold his place till the Synod; the Emperour did severely rebuke Cyril for his fierceness, (and implicitly the Pope) and did order that no change should be made, till the Synod should determine in the case; not regarding the Pope's judgment: So that this instance may well be retorted, or used to prove the insignificancy of Papal authority then.

They alledge also Dioscorus of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo: but the case is very like to that of Nestorius, and argueth the contrary to what they intend; He was, for his misdemeanours, and violent countenancing of heresie, solemnly in a General Synod accused, tried, condemned and deposed; the which had long before been done, if in the Pope, his professed and provoked Adversary, there had been sufficient power to effect it.

Bellarmine also alledgeth Pope Sixtus III. deposing Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem: But no such Polychronius is to be found in the Registers of Bishops then, or in the Histories of that busie time, between the two great Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon; and the Acts of Sixtus, upon which this allegation is grounded, have so many inconsistences, and smell so rank of forgery, that no conscionable nose could endure them; and any prudent man (as Binius himself confesseth) would assert them to be spurious. Baron. Ann. 433. § 38, 39. P. Nich. I. Epist. 8. (ad Mich.) Wherefore Baronius himself doth reject and despise them; who gladly would lose no advantage for his Master. Yet Pope Nicholas I. doth precede Bellarmine in citing this trash; no wonder, that being the Pope, who did avouch the wares of Isidore Mercator.

They alledge Timotheus the Usurper of Alexandria deposed by Pope Damasus;Fac. Herm. p. 150. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Orient. ad Rufum. apud Bin. p. 396. and they have indeed the sound of words attesting to them; These are Heads upon which the B. Damasus deposed the Hereticks Apolinarius, Vitalius and Timotheus.

The truth is, that Apolinarius, with divers of his Disciples, in a great Synod at Rome, at which Petrus Bishop of Alexandria together with Damasus was present, was condemned and disavowed for heretical Doctrine; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 6.25. whence Sozomen saith that the Apolinarian Heresie was by Damasus and Peter, at a Synod in Rome, voted to be excluded from the Catholick Church.

On which account if we conclude that the Pope had an authority to depose Bishops, we may by like reason infer that every Patriarch and Metropolitan had a power to doe the like; there being so many Instances of their having condemned and disclaimed Bishops supposedly guilty of heresie; as particularly John of Antioch, with his convention of Oriental Bishops, did pretend to depose Cyril and Memnon as guilty of the same Apolinarian heresie; alledging that to exscind them was the same thing as to settle Orthodoxy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Relat. Orient. ad Imp. in Act. Eph. p. 380. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. p. 385. The which Deposition was at first admitted by the Emperour.

The next Instance is of Pope Agapetus (in Justinian's time, Ann. 536. Vict. Tun. for so deep into time is Bellarmine fain to dive for it) deposing Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople. But this Instance being scanned will also prove slender and lame. The case was this: Anthimus having deserted his charge at Trabisonde did creep into the See of Constantinople (a course then held irregular and repugnant to the Canons) and withall he had imbibed the Eutychian heresie. Yet for his support he had wound himself into the favour of the Empress Theodora, Evag. 4.10. a countenancer of the Eutychian Sect. Things standing thus, Pope Agapetus (as an Agent from Rome to crave succour against the Goths pressing and menacing the City) did arrive at Constantinople. Whereupon the Empress desired of him to salute and consort with Anthimus. But he, by petitions of the Monks, Denique petentibus Principibus, ut Anthimum Papa in salutatione & communicatione susciperet; ille fieri inquit posse, si se libello probaret orthodoxum, & ad Cathedram suam reverteretur. Lib. c. 21. &c. understanding how things stood, did refuse to doe so, except Anthimus would return to his own charge, and profess the Orthodox doctrine. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Libell. Monach. p. 7. Thereupon the Emperour joined with him to extrude Anthimus from Constantinople,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —Ib.

Et. Syn. decr. p. 43.

Imper. Sanct. p. 128.

and to substitute Menas. He (say the Monks in their Libel of request to the Emperour) did justly thrust this Anthimus from the Episcopal Chair of this City; your Grace affording aid and force both to the Catholick faith, and the divine Canons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Synodi decr. p. 43. The act of Agapetus was (according to his share in the common Interest) to declare Anthimus in his judgment uncapable of Catholick communion and of Episcopal Function by reason of his heretical Opinions, and his transgression of Ecclesiastical Orders; which moved Justinian effectually to depose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — and extrude him; You (say they) fulfilling that which he justly and canonicaly did judge, and by your general edict confirming it; and forbidding that hereafter such things should be attempted— And Agapetus himself saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 24. that it was done by the Apostolical authority and the assistence of the most faithfull Emperours. The which proceeding was completed by Decree of the Synod under Menas, and that again was confirmed by the Imperial Sanction. Whence Evagrius reporting the story, doth say concerning Anthimus and Theodosius of Alexandria, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evag. 4.11. that because they did cross the Emperour's commands, and did not admit the decrees of Chalcedon, they both were expelled from their Sees.

It seemeth by some passages in the Acts, that before Agapetus his intermedling, p. 10. the Monks and p. 16. Orthodox Bishops had condemned and rejected Anthimus; according to the common Interest, which they assert all Christians to have in regard to the common Faith.

As for the substitution of Menas it was performed by the choice and suffrage of the Emperour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — the Clergy, Nobles, and People conspiring; the Pope onely (which another Bishop might have done) ordaining or consecrating him; Tunc Papa Principis favore Menam pro eo ordinavit Antistitem, consecrans eum manu suâ— Lib. cap. 21. Then (saith Liberatus) the Pope by the Emperour's favour did ordain Menas Bishop, consecrating him with his hand.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. p. 24.And Agapetus did glory in this, as being the first Ordination made of an Eastern Bishop by the hands of a Pope: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — p. 24. And this (said the Pope) we conceive doth add to his dignity, because the Eastern Church never since the time of the Apostle Peter did receive any Bishop besides him by the imposition of hands of those who sate in this our Chair.

If we compare the proceedings of Agapetus against Anthimus with those of Theophilus against St. Chrysostome; they are (except the cause and qualities of persons) in all main respects and circumstances so like, that the same reason, which would ground a pretence of Universal Jurisdiction to one, would infer the same to the other.

Baronius alledgeth Acacius Bishop of Constantinople deposed by Pope Felix III.Baron. Anno 484. § 19. Vid. P. Felic. III. Ep. 6. P. Gelas. Ep. 4. But Pope Gelasius asserteth, that any Bishop might, in execution of the Canons, have disclaimed Acacius, Ad cujus praecipuè vocatus examen vel venire vel mitter • non curavit. Gelas. Ep. 13. as a favourer of Hereticks. And Acacius did not onely refuse to submit to the Pope's Jurisdiction, but slighted it. And the Pope's act was but an attempt, not effectual; for Acacius dyed in possession of his See.

VIII. If Popes were Sovereigns of the Church, they could effectually, whenever they should see it just and fit, when a Bishop was unjustly censured upon malice or mistake; — when he did repent of his errour or miscarriage— when the case would upon any account bear favour or Pity— absolve— restore any Bishop excommunicated from the Church, or deposed from his Office by Ecclesiastical Censure; for Relief of the Oppressed, or Clemency to the Distressed, are noble Flowers in every Sovereign Crown.

Wherefore the Pope doth assume this power, and reserveth it to himself as his special Prerogative; 'Tis says Baronius, a privilege of the Church of Rome onely,

Privilegium quidem solius Ecclesiae Romanae esse reperitur, ut depositus à Synodo Episcopus absque alia Synodo majoris numeri restitui possit per Romanum Pontificem. Baron. Ann. 449. § 127.

Quorumlibet Sententiis ligata Pontificum Sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habet resolvendi. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13.

Sedes Apostolica frequenter more majorum, etiam sine ulla Synodo praecedente & absolvendi quos Synodus iniquè damnaverat, & damnandi nullâ existente Synodo quos oportuit habuit facultatem— Ibid.

that a Bishop deposed by a Synod, may without another Synod of a greater number be restor'd by the Pope; and Pope Gelasius I. says, That the See of Saint Peter the Apostle has a right of loosing whatever the Sentences of other Bishops have bound— That the Apostolick See, according to frequent ancient custome, had a power, no Synod preceding, to absolve those whom a Synod had unjustly condemned, and without a Council to condemn those who deserv'd it.

It was an old pretence of Popes, that Bishops were not condemned, except the Pope did consent, renouncing communion with them. So Pope Vigilius saith of St. Chrysostome and Flavianus, that although they were violently excluded, —qui licèt violenter exclusi sunt, non tamen pro damnatis sunt habiti, eò quòd semper inviolatam eorum communionem Rom. Pontifices servaverant. P. Vigilius in Constit. Athan. &c. yet were they not look'd upon as condemned, because the Bishops of Rome always inviolably kept communion with them.

And before him Pope Gelasius saith, Quem (Joannem Chrys.) Sedes Apostolica etiam sola, quia non consensit, absolvit. P. Gelas. Ep. 13. that the Pope by not consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius, Chrysostome, Flavianus, did absolve them.

But such a power of old did not belong to him. For,

1. There is not extant any ancient Canon of the Church, nor apparent footsteps of custome allowing such a power to him.

2. Decrees of Synods (Provincial in the former times, and Diocesan afterwards) were inconsistent with, or repugnant to such a power, for judgments concerning Episcopal Causes were deemed irrevocable, and appointed to be so by Decrees of divers Synods; and consequently no power was reserved to the Pope of thwarting them by Restitution of any Bishop condemned in them.

3. The Apostolical Canons (which at least serve to prove or illustrate ancient Custome) and divers Synodical Decrees did prohibit entertaining communion with any person condemned or rejected by canonical Judgment; without exception, Can. Apost. 10, 11, 12, 31. Conc. Nic. Can. 5. Sard. 16, 17. Cod. Afr. 9. Conc. Antioch. 6, 15. Evag. 2.4. or reservation of power of infringing or relaxing that Prohibition; and Pope Gelasius himself says, That he who had polluted himself by holding communion with a condemned person, Damnati hominis communione pollutus, damnationis ejus factus est particeps. P. Gelas. Ep. 13. (p. 640.) did partake of his condemnation.

4. Whence in elder times Popes were opposed and checked when they offered to receive Bishops rejected in particular Synods. So St. Cyprian declared the Restitution of Basilides by Pope Stephanus to be null.Cypr. Ep. 68. So the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did reprehend Pope Julius for admitting Athanasius and Marcellus to communion, or avowing them for Bishops, after their condemnation by Synods. And the Oriental Bishops of Sardica did excommunicate the same Pope for communicating with the same persons. Which Instances do shew, that the Pope was not then undoubtedly, or according to common opinion endowed with such a power.

But whereas they do alledge some Instances of such a power, I shall premise some general Considerations apt to clear the business, and then apply answers to the particular Allegations.

1. Restitution commonly doth signifie no more, than acknowledging a person (although rejected by undue Sentence) to be de jure worthy of communion, and capable of the Episcopal Office; upon which may be consequent an Obligation to communicate with him, and to allow him his due Character; according to the Precept of Saint Paul, Follow righteousness, 2 Tim. 2.22. faith, charity, peace with them that call upon the Lord with a pure heart.

This may be done, when any man notoriously is persecuted for the Truth and Righteousness. Or when the iniquity and malice of pretended Judges are apparent, to the oppression of Innocence. Or when the Process is extremely irregular: as in the cases of Athanasius, of St. Chrysostome,— And this is not an act of Jurisdiction, but of Equity and Charity; incumbent on all Bishops; And there are promiscuous Instances of Bishops practising it. Thus Socrates saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.24. that Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem did restore communion and dignity to Athanasius. And so Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, being reconciled and reduced to a good understanding of each other, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 7.33. did restore to each other their Sees; rescinding the Censures, which in heat they had denounced each on other. Which sheweth that Restitution is not always taken for an act of Jurisdiction; wherein one is Superiour to another; for those persons were in rank and power co-ordinate.

2. Restitution sometime doth import no more than a considerable influence toward the effects of restoring a person to communion or Office; no judicial act being exercised about the case— The Emperour writing that Paulus and Athanasius should be restor'd to their Sees, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.20. availed nothing— That was a Restitution without effect.

Thus a Pope's avowing the Orthodoxy, or Innocence, or Worth of a person, after a due information about them, (by reason of the Pope's eminent rank in the Church, and the regard duely had to him) might sometimes much conduce to restore a person; and might obtain the name of Restitution, by an ordinary scheme of speech.

3. Sometimes persons said to be restored by Popes are also said to be restored by Synods, with regard to such instance or testimony of Popes in their behalf. In which case the Judicial Restitution, Note, It is an ordinary style of Votes in Synods for the Restitution of a Bishop, I restore, Vid. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 165. That is, I give my Vote for his Restitution. giving right of Recovery and completion thereto, was the act of the Synod.

4. When Cases were driven to a legal debate, Popes could not effectually resolve without a Synod, their single acts not being held sufficiently valid. So notwithstanding the Declarations of Pope Julius in favour of Athanasius, for the effectual resolution of his case the great Synod of Sardica was convened. So whatever Pope Innocent I. did endeavour, he could not restore St. Chrysostome without a General Synod.

Nor could Pope Leo restore Flavianus, deposed in the Second Ephesine Synod, without convocation of a General Synod, the which he did so often sue for to the Emperour Theodosius, for that purpose. Pope Simplicius affirmed, that Petrus Moggus having been by a common decree condemned as an adulterer (or Usurper of the Alexandrian See) could not without a common Council be freed from condemnation. Oportebat communi decreto damnatum tanquam adulterum communi concilio damnatione liberari. Lib. cap. 18.

5. Particular instances do not ascertain right to the Person, who assumeth any power; for busie bodies often will exceed their bounds.

6. Emperours did sometimes restore Bishops. Constantine, as he did banish Eusebius of Nicomedia and others, so he did revoke and restore them; so says Socrates,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 1.14.

Theod. 5.23.

They were recall'd from banishment by the Emperour's command and receiv'd their Churches. Theodosius did assert to Flavianus his right, whereof the Popes did pretend to deprive him; which did amount to a Restitution (at least to the Romanists who do assert Flavianus to be deposed by the Popes. Rescriptum eliciunt, quo calcatis quae priùs decreta erant, restitui Ecclesiis jubebantur: hoc frèti Instantius & Priscillianus repetivere Hispanias. Sulp. Sev. 2.63. Revocari Romam Silverium jussit, & de literis illis judicium fieri, ut—si falsae fuissent probatae, restitueretur Sedi suae. Liberat. Breviar. cap. 22.) Instantius and Priscillianus were by the rescript of the Emperour Gratianus restored to their Churches. Justinian did order Pope Silverius to be restored, in case he could prove his Innocence.

7. Commonly Restitution was not effectual without the Emperour's consent; whence Theodoret, although allowed by the great Synod, did acknowledge his Restitution especially due to the Emperour; as we shall see in reflecting on his case.

Now to the particular Instances produced for the Pope, we answer.

1. They pretend, that Pope Stephanus did restore Basilides and Martialis Spanish Bishops, who had been deposed; for which they quote St. Cyprian's Epistle, where he says, Basilides going to Rome, imposed upon our Collegue Stephen, Romam pergens Stephanum Collegam nostrum longè positum, & gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exambiret reponi se injustè in Episcopatum, de quo fuerat justè depositus. Cypr. Ep. 68. who lived a great way off and was ignorant of the truth of the matter; seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bishoprick from which he had justly been deposed.

But we answer; The Pope did attempt such a Restitution by way of Influence and Testimony, not of Jurisdiction; wherefore the result of his act in St. Cyprian's judgment was null, and blameable; which could not be so deemed, —quare etsi aliqui de Collegis nostris extiterunt, qui Deificam disciplinam negligendam putant— if he had acted as a Judge; for a favourable Sentence, passed by just Authority,

(Nec censurae congruit Sacerdotum mobilis atque inconstantis animi levitate reprehendi. Cypr. Ep. 55.)

—Episcopatum gerere, & Sacerdotium Dei administrare non oportere.

Desideràstis solicitudinem vestram vel solatio vel auxilio sententiae nostrae sublevari.

Nec personam in ejusmodi rebus accipere, aut aliquid cuiquam largiri potest humana indulgentia; ubi intercedit & legem tribuit divina praescriptio.

—quantum possumus adhortamur, nè vos cum profanis & maculatis Sacerdotibus communicatione sacrilegâ misceatis.

Sed cur ad Cyprianum si potestas infinita penes Romanum? Rigalt. ibid.

—datis ad Cyprianum literis appellavere Carthaginiensem adversus Romanum. Id.

is valid, and hardly liable to Censure. The Clergy of those places, notwithstanding that pretended Restitution did conceive those Bishops uncapable; and did request the judgment of St. Cyprian about it; which argueth the Pope's judgment not to have been peremptory and prevalent then in such cases. St. Cyprian denieth the Pope or any other person to have power of restoring in such a case; and exhorteth the Clergy to persist in declining the communion of those Bishops. Well doth Rigaltius ask, why they should write to St. Cyprian if the judgment of Stephanus was decisive; and he addeth that indeed, the Spaniards did appeal from the Roman Bishop to him of Carthage. No wonder, seeing the Pope had no greater authority, and probably St. Cyprian had the fairer reputation for wisedom and goodness. Considering which things, what can they gain by this Instance? which indeed doth considerably make against them.

2. They alledge the Restitution of Athanasius, and of others linked in cause with him, by Pope Julius. He, says Sozomen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 3.8. as having the care of all by reason of the dignity of his See, restored to each his own Church.

I answer, the Pope did not restore them judicially,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 3.8.

Julii Epist. apud Ath. in Apol. 2.

but declaratively; that is, declaring his approbation of their right and innocence, did admit them to communion. Julius in his own Defence did alledge, that Athanasius was not legally rejected; so that without any prejudice to the Canons he might receive him; and the doing it upon this account, plainly did not require any Act of Judgment.

Nay it was necessary to avow those Bishops, as suffering in the cause of the common Faith. Besides, the Pope's proceeding was taxed, and protested against as irregular; nor did he defend it by virtue of a general power that he had judicially to rescind the acts of Synods. And lastly, the Restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops, had no complete effect, till it was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica, backed by the Imperial authority; which in effect did restore them. This instance therefore is in many respects deficient as to their purpose.

Socr. 1.36.3. They produce Marcellus being restored by the same Pope Julius.

But that Instance, beside the forementioned defects, hath this, that the Pope was grievously mistaken in the case;Bas. Ep. 10. whence St. Basil much blameth him for his proceeding therein.

4. They cite the Restitution of Eustathius (Bishop of Sebastia) by Pope Liberius, out of an Epistle of St. Basil, where he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Bas. Ep. 74. What the most blessed Bishop Liberius proposed to him, and to what he consented we know not; onely that he brought a Letter to be restored, and upon shewing it to the Synod at Tyana was restored to his See.

I answer,Soz. 4.24. That Restitution was onely from an invalid Deposition by a Synod of Arians at Melitine; importing onely an acknowledgment of him, upon approbation of his Faith professed by him at Rome; the which had such influence to the satisfaction of the Diocesan Synod at Tyana, that he was restored. Although indeed the Romans were abused by him, he not being sound in Faith; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Basil. ibid. for He now (saith Saint Basil) doth destroy that faith, for which he was received—

5. They adjoin, that Theodoret was restored by Pope Leo I. for in the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. 1. p. 53. that be did receive his place from the Bishop of Rome.

I answer, The act of Leo did consist in an approbation of the Faith, which Theodoret did profess to hold; and a reception of him to communion thereupon; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —Syn. Chalc. Act. 8. p. 368. which he might well do, seeing the ground of Theodoret's being disclaimed was a misprision, that he (having opposed Cyril's Writings, judged Orthodox) did err in Faith, consenting with Nestorius.

Theodoret's state before the Second Ephesine Synod, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Imp. Theod. Epist. ad Diosc. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 53. is thus represented in the words of the Emperour, Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, whom we have before commanded to mind onely his own Church, we charge not to come to the Holy Synod, before the whole Synod being met, it shall seem good to them that he come and hear his part in it.

He was not perfectly deposed; Pro Theodoreto autem & Eusebio nullus ordinatus est. Liberat. 12. as others were who had others substituted in their places. He was deposed by the Ephesine Synod. Vid. Con • . Chalc. part. 3. p. 490. Excludi verò ab Episcopatu, &c. in Imperatoris Theod. rescripto.

The Pope was indeed ready enough to assume the Patronage of so very learned and worthy a man, who in so very suppliant and respectfull a way had redressed to him for succour; for whom doth not courtship mollifie? And the majority of the Synod, (being inflamed against Dioscorus and the Eutychian Party) was ready enough to allow what the Pope did in favour of him. Yet a good part of the Synod (the Bishops of Egypt, of Palestine, of Illyricum) notwithstanding the Pope's Restitution (that is, his approbation in order thereto) did stickle against his admission into the Synod; crying out, have pity on us, the faith is destroyed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. p. 54. the Canons proscribe this man, cast him out, cast out Nestorius his Master. So that the Imperial Agents were fain to compromise the business, permitting him to sit in the Synod, as one whose case was dependent, but not in the notion of one absolutely restored: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Ibid. Theodoret's presence shall prejudice no man, each one's right of impleading being reserved both to you and him.

He therefore was not entirely restored, till upon a clear and satisfactory profession of his Faith he was acquitted by the judgment of the Synod. The effectual Restitution of him proceeded from the Emperour, who repealed the proceedings against him:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. Ep. 139. (ad Asperam.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Ep. 138. (ad Anatol.)

as himself doth acknowledge; All these things, says he, has the most just Emperour evacuated — to these things he premised the redressing my injuries; and the Imperial Judges in the Synod of Chalcedon join the Emperour in the Restitution — Let the most reverend Theodoret enter and bear his part in the Synod, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. 1. p. 53. since the most holy Archbishop Leo, and sacred Emperour have restored his Bishoprick to him. Hence it may appear that the Pope's Restitution of Theodoretus was onely opinionative, dough-baked, incomplete; so that it is but a slimme advantage, which their pretence can receive from it.

IX. It belongeth to Sovereigns to receive Appeals from all lower Judicatures, for the final determination of Causes; so that no part of his Subjects can obstruct resort to him, or prohibit his revision of any Judgment.

This Power therefore the Pope doth most stifly assert to himself. At the Synod of Florence, this was the first and great Branch of Authority, which he did demand of the Greeks explicitely to avow: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Syn. Flor. Sess. 25. p. 846. — he will (said his three Cardinals to the Emperour) have all the Privileges of his Church, and that Appeals be made to him. When Pope Alexander III. was advised not to receive an Appeal in Becket's Case, he replied in that profane allusion, Haec est gloria mea, quam alteri non dabo. This is my glory, which I will not give to another. He hath been wont to encourage all People, even upon the slightest occasions, iter arripere (as the phrase is obvious in their Canon Law) to run with all haste to his Audience; Concerning Appeals for the smallest causes we would have you hold,

De appellationibus pro minimis causis volumus te tenere, quòd eis pro quacunque levi causa fiant, non minus est, quàm si pro majoribus fierent, deferendum. Alex. III. Ep. ad Vigorn. Episc. in decret. Greg. lib. 2. tit. 28. cap. 11.

Caus. 2. qu. 6. Caus. 3. qu. 6. Caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 16.

that the same deference is to be given them for how slight a matter soever they be made, as if they were for a greater. See, if you please in Gratian's Decree, Caus. 2. quaest. 6. where many Papal Decrees (most indeed drawn out of the spurious Epistles of ancient Popes, but ratified by their Successours, and obtaining for current Law) are made for Appeals to the See of Rome.

It was indeed one of the most ancient encroachments, and that which did serve most to introduce the rest; inferring hence a title to an universal Jurisdiction: They are the Canons, says Pope Nicholas I. which will that all Appeals of the whole Church he brought to the examination of this See, Ipsi sunt Canones, qui appellationes totius Ecclesiae ad hujus Sedis examen voluere deferri; ab ipsa verò nusquam prorsus appellari debere sanxerunt; ac per hoc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare, ipsam ad nullius commeare judicium. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. and have decreed that no appeal be made from it, and that thus she judge of the whole Church, but her self goes to be judged by none other; and the same Pope, in another of his Epistles,

Sacra statuta, & veneranda decreta Episcoporum causas, utpote majora negotia nostrae definiendas censurae mandàrunt. P. Nich. I. Ep. 38.

Majores vero & difficiles quaestiones (ut sancta Synodus statuit, & beata cousuetudo exigit) ad Sedem Apostolicam semper referantur. P. Pelag. II. Epist. 8.

Ipsi sunt canones qui appellationes totius Ecclesiae ad hujus Sedis examen voluere deferri. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4.

says, The holy statutes and venerable decrees have committed the causes of Bishops, as being weighty matters, to be determined by us — As the Synod has appointed and usage requires, let greater and difficult cases be always referred to the Apostolick See, says Pope Pelagius II. They are the canons which will have the appeals of the whole Church tryed by this See, saith Pope Gelasius I.

But this power is upon various accounts unreasonable, grievous and vexatious to the Church; as hath been deemed and upon divers occasions declared by the ancient Fathers, and grave persons in all times; upon accounts not onely blaming the horrible abuse of Appeals, but implying the great mischiefs inseparably adherent to them.

The Synod of Basil thus excellently declared concerning them:

Concil. Basil. Sess. 31. (p. 86.)

Inoleverunt autem hactenus intolerabilium vexationum abusus permulti, dum nimium frequenter à remotissimis etiam partibus ad Romanam Curiam, & interdum pro parvis & minutis rebus ac negotiis quamplurimi citari, & evocari consueverunt, atque ità expensis & laboribus fatigari, ut nonnunquam commodius arbitrentur juri suo cedere, aut vexationem suam gravi damno redimere, quàm in tam longinqua regione litium subire dispendia, &c. Vid. Opr.

Hitherto many abuses of intolerable vexations have prevailed, whilst many have too often been called and cited from the most remote parts to the court of Rome, and that sometime for small and trifling matters, and with charges and trouble to be so wearied, that they sometime think it their best way to recede from their right, or buy off their trouble with great loss, rather than be at the cost of suing in so remote a Countrey.

Saint Bernard complaineth of the mischiefs of Appeals in his times in these words,

Bern. de Consid. lib. 3. cap. 2.

Quousque murmur universae terrae aut dissimulas, aut non advertis? — &c.

How long will you be deaf to the complaints of the whole World, or make as if you were so? why sleep you? when will the consideration of so great confusion and abuse in appeals awake in you? they are made without right or equity, without due order and against custome. Neither place, nor manner, nor time, nor cause, nor person are considered: they are every where made lightly and for the most part unjustly: with much more passionate language to the same purpose.

But in the Primitive Church the Pope had no such power.

1. Whereas in the first times many causes and differences did arise, wherein they who were condemned and worsted, would readily have resorted thither where they might have hoped for remedy, if Rome had been such a place of refuge, it would have been very famous for it; and we should find History full of such examples; whereas it is very silent about them.

2. The most ancient Customs and Canons of the Church are flatly repugnant to such a power, for they did order causes finally to be decided in each Province.

So the Synod of Nice did Decree; as the African Fathers did alledge, in defence of their refusal to allow appeals to the Pope: Decreta Nicena sive inferioris gradûs Clericos sive Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commiserunt. Syn. Afr. in Ep. ad P. Celest. The Nicene decrees (said they) most evidently did commit both Clergymen of inferiour degrees and Bishops to their Metropolitans.

So Theòph. — in his Epistle, Arbitror te non ignorare quid praecipiant Niceni Concilii Canones, sancientes Episcopum non judicare causam citra terminos suos— nam— Pallad. cap. 7. I suppose you are not ignorant what the Canons of the Nicene Council command, ordaining that a Bishop should judge no cause out of his own district.

3. Afterward when the Diocesan administration was introduced, the last resort was decreed to the Synods of them (or to the Primates in them) all other appeals being prohibited;

Note, That the Synod of Constantinople (Can. 6.) mentioning Appeals to the Emperour, secular Judicatories, a General Synod, saith,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Syn. Const. Can. 6.

Concil. Constantinop. Can. 2, 6.

Concil. Chalced. Can. 2, 17.

Nam contra horum Antistitum Sententias non esse locum Appellationi à majoribus nostris constitutum est. Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 4. cap. 29.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 11.16.

Nov. 123. cap. 22.

Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 4. § 29. Vid. Graec.

as dishonourable to the Bishops of the Diocese; reproaching the Canons, and subverting Ecclesiastical Order; To which Canon the Emperour Justinian referred; For it is decreed by our Ancestours that against the Sentence of these Prelates there should be no Appeal. So Constantius told Pope Liberius — that those things which had a form of Judgment past on them could not be rescinded. This was the practice (at least in the Eastern parts of the Church) in the times of Justinian; as is evident by the Constitutions extant in the Code and in the Novels.

Can. 12. Conc. Ant. Can. 15. Conc. Carth. Can. 31.4. In derogation to this pretence divers Provincial Synods expresly did prohibit all Appeals from their decisions.

Non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum; ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo infra Africam in communionem suscipiatur. Conc. Milev. cap. 22. Conc. Afr. Can. 72.That of Milevis, — Let them appeal onely to African Councils or the Primates of Provinces; and he who shall think of appealing beyond Sea, let him be admitted into communion by none in Africk.

Nam si de inferioribus Clericis in Concilio Niceno hoc praecaverunt; quanto magìs de Episcopis voluit observari? Conc. Afr. Can. 105. (vel Epist.) For if the Nicene Council took this care of the inferiour Clergy, how much more did they intend it should relate to Bishops also?

5. All persons were forbidden to entertain communion with Bishops condemned by any one Church, which is inconsistent with their being allowed relief at Rome.

6. This is evident in the case of Marcion, by the assertion of the Roman Church at that time.

7. When the Pope hath offered to receive Appeals, or to meddle in cases before decided, he hath found opposition and reproof. Thus when Felicissimus and Fortunatus, Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Cornelium.) having been censured and rejected from communion in Africk, did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius, with supplication to be admitted by him; Saint Cyprian maintaineth that fact to be irregular and unjust, and not to be countenanced, for divers reasons. Likewise, when Basilides and Martialis, being for their crimes deposed in Spain, Cypr. Ep. 68. had recourse to Pope Stephanus for Restitution, the Clergy and People there had no regard to the judgment of the Pope; the which their resolution Saint Cyprian did commend and encourage.

When Athanasius, Marcellus, Paulus, &c. having been condemned by Synods, did apply themselves for relief to Pope Julius; the Oriental Bishops did highly tax this course as irregular; disclaiming any power in him to receive them, or meddle in their cause. Nor could Pope Julius by any Law or Instance disprove their plea; Nor did the Pope assert to himself any peculiar authority to revise the Cause, or otherwise justifie his proceeding than by right common to all Bishops of vindicating Right and Innocence, which were oppressed; and of asserting the Faith, for which they were persecuted. Indeed at first the Oriental Bishops were contented to refer the cause to Pope Julius as Arbitratour; which signifieth that he had no ordinary right; but afterward, either fearing their Cause or his Prejudice, they started, and stood to the canonicalness of the former decision.

The contest of the African Church with Pope Celestine, in the Cause of Apiarius is famous; and the Reasons which they assign for repelling that Appeal, are very notable and peremptory.

8. Divers of the Fathers alledge like reasons against Appeals. Refer. ad § 7. Vid. Supr. Oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere, & testes sui criminis possint. Cypr. Ep. 55. Saint Cyprian alledgeth these:

1. Because there was an Ecclesiastical Law against them.

2. Because they contain iniquity; as prejudicing the right of each Bishop granted by Christ, in governing his flock.

3. Because the Clergy and People should not be engaged to run gadding about.

4. Because Causes might better be decided there, where witnesses of fact might easily be had.

5. Because there is every where a competent authority, equal to any that might be had otherwhere.

6. Because it did derogate from the gravity of Bishops to alter their Censure —

Pope Liberius desired of Constantius, that the Judgment of Athanasius might be made in Alexandria for such reasons, because there the accused, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. 11.16. the accusers, and their defender were.

St. Chrysostome's Argument against Theophilus meddling in his case may be set against Rome as well as Alexandria.

9. St. Austin in matter of appeal, or rather of reference to candid Arbitration (more proper for Ecclesiastical causes) doth conjoin other Apostolical Churches with that of Rome; For the business, says he, Neque enim de Presbyteris aut Diaconis, aut inferioris ordinis Clericis, sed de Collegis agebatur qui possunt aliorum Collegarum judicio, praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum, causam suam integram reservare. Aug. Ep. 162. was not about Priests and Deacons or the inferiour Clergy, but the Collegues [Bishops,] who may reserve their cause entire for the judgment of their Collegues, especially those of the Apostolical Churches. He would not have said so, if he had apprehended that the Pope had a peculiar right of revising Judgments.

10. Pope Damasus or rather Pope Siricius) doth affirm himself incompetent to judge in a case, which had been afore determined by the Synod of Capua; —but, Sed cùm hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis judicium— advertimus quòd à nobis judicandi forma competere non possit. says he, since the Synod of Capua has thus determined it, we perceive we cannot judge it.

11. Anciently there were no Appeals (properly so called or jurisdictional) in the Church; they were, as Socrates telleth us, introduced by Cyril of Hierusalem; who first did appeal to a greater Judicature, against Ecclesiastical rule and custome. This is an Argument,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

Being deposed he sent a libell of Appeal to them who deposed him, appealing to a greater Judicature.

that about that time (a little before the great Synod of Constantinople) greater Judicatories, or Diocesan Synods were established; whenas before Provincial Synods were the last resorts.

12. Upon many occasions Appeals were not made to the Pope as in all likelihood they would have been, if it had been supposed that a power of receiving them did belong to him. Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to the Emperour.

Illos verò ab Ecclesiastico judicio provocâss • , &c. Aug. Ep. 162.

Ad Imperatorem appellaverunt. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 16.

The Donatists did not appeal to the Pope, but to the Emperour. Their Cause was by the Emperour referred not to the Pope singly (as it ought to have been, Quid quod nec ipse Vsurpavit; rogatus Imperator judices misit Episcopos qui cum ipso sederent, & de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent. Aug. Ep. 162. and would have been by so just a Prince if it had been his right) but to him and other Judges as the Emperour's Commissioners. Athanasius did first appeal to the Emperour. St. Chrysostome did request the Pope's Succour, but he did not appeal to him as Judge; although he knew him favourably disposed, and the Cause sure in his hand; but he appealed to a General Council; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. 8.26. the which Innocent himself did conceive necessary for decision of that Cause.

[There are in History innumerable Instances of Bishops being condemned and expelled from their Sees, but few of Appeals; which is a sign that was no approved remedy in common opinion.]

Infrà. Infrà. Eutyches did appeal to all the Patriarchs. Theodoret did intend to appeal to all the Western Bishops.

13. Those very Canons of Sardica (the most unhappy that ever were made to the Church) which did introduce Appeals to the Pope, do yet upon divers accounts prejudice his claim to an original right; and do upon no account favour that use of them, to which (to the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical liberty and good discipline) they have been perverted. For,

1. They do pretend to confer a Privilege on the Pope; which argueth that he before had no claim thereto.

2. They do qualifie and restrain that Privilege to certain Cases and Forms; which is a sign, that he had no power therein flowing from absolute Sovereignty; for it is strange, that they who did pretend and intend so much to favour him should clip his power.

3. It is not really a power which they grant of receiving Appeals in all Causes; but a power of constituting Judges, qualifyed according to certain conditions, to revise a special sort of causes concerning the Judgment and Deposition of Bishops. Which considerations do subvert his pretence to original and universal Jurisdiction upon Appeals.

14. Some Popes did challenge Jurisdiction upon Appeals, as given them by the Nicene Canons, meaning thereby those of Sardica; which sheweth they had no better plea, and therefore no original right. And otherwhere we shall consider, what validity those Canons may be allowed to have.

15. The General Synod of Chalcedon (of higher authority than that of Sardica) derived Appeals, at least in the Eastern Churches, into another chanel; namely to the Primate of each Diocese, or to the Patriarch of Constantinople. That this was the last resort doth appear, Can. 9, 17. from that otherwise they would have mentioned the Pope.

16. Appeals in cases of Faith, or general Discipline were indeed sometimes made to the consideration of the Pope; but not onely to him, but to all other Patriarchs and Primates, as concerned in the common maintenance of the common Faith, or Discipline. So did Eutyches appeal to the Patriarchs. Baron. Ann. 865.— P. Nich. I. Ep. 37, &c. Vid. Matt. Paris. Ann. 1094. Statutes of Provisors, Premunire, &c.

17. The Pope even in later times, even in the Western parts hath found rubs in his trade of Appeals. Consider the scuffle between Pope Nicholas I. and Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes.

18. Christian States, to prevent the intolerable vexations and mischiefs arising from this practice, have been constrained to make Laws against them. Particularly England.

In the Twelfth Age Pope Paschal II. complained of King Henry I. Vos oppressis Apostolicae Sedis appellationem subtrahitis. Eadm. p. 113. That he deprived the oppressed of the benefit of appealing to the Apostolick See. It was one of King Henry I. Laws,

Nullus inde clamor, nullum inde judicium ad Sedem Apostolicam destinantur. Eadm. p. 113.

Peregrina judicia modis omnibus submovemus. Henr. I. Leg. cap. 31.

Ibi semper causa agatur, ubi crimen admittitur. Ibid.

Quòd Anglici extra regnum in causis auctoritate Apostolicâ trahuntur. Matt. Paris. p. 699.10.

—none is permitted to cry from thence, no judgment is thence brought to the Apostolick See. Foreign judgments we utterly remove. —there let the cause be tried where the crime was committed. It was one of the Grievances sent to Pope Innocent IV. That Englishmen were drawn out of the Kingdom by the Pope's authority, to have their causes heard.

Nor in after-times were Appeals by Law in any case permitted without the King's leave; although sometimes by the facility of Princes, or difficulty of times, the Roman Court (ever importunate and vigilant for its profits) did obtain a relaxation or neglect of Laws inhibiting Appeals.

19. There were Appeals from Popes to General Councils very frequently. Vid. The Senate of Paris after the Concorda • s between Lewis XI. and Pope Leo X.

20. By many Laws and instances it appeareth, that Appellations have been made to the Emperours in the greatest Causes; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Rom. 13.1. and that without Popes reclaiming or taking it in bad part. St. Paul did

Act. 25.

Ad Imperatorem appellaverunt. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 16.

appeal to Caesar. Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to Aurelianus. So the Donatists did appeal to Constantine. Apol. 2. p. 804. Athanasius to Constantine. The Ath. Apol. 2. p. 797, 798. Egyptian Bishops to Constantine.

Ad Principem provocavit. Sulp. Sev. 2.64. Sulp. Sev. 2.63. Conc. Ant. Can.

P. de Marca 4.4.—

Priscillianus to Maximus. Idacius to Gratian. So that Canons were made to restrain Bishops from recourse ad Comitatum.

21. Whereas they do alledge Instances for Appeal, those well considered do prejudice their Cause; for they are few, in comparison to the occasions of them, that ever did arise; they are near all of them late, when Papal encroachments had grown; some of them are very impertinent to the cause; some of them may strongly be retorted against them; all of them are invalid.

If the Pope originally had such a right (known, unquestionable, prevalent) there might have been producible many, ancient, clear, proper, concluding Instances.

Bell. 2.21.All that Bellarmine (after his own search, and that of his Predecessours in Controversie) could muster, are these following; upon which we shall briefly reflect: (adding a few others, which may be alledged by them.)

Ann. 142.He alledgeth Marcion, as appealing to the Pope.

The truth was, that Marcion for having corrupted a Maid was by his own Father,

Epiph. haer. 42.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Bishop of Sinope, driven from the Church; whereupon he did thence fly to Rome, there begging admittance to communion, but none did grant it; at which he expostulating, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . they replied, We cannot without the permission of thy honourable Father doe this; for there is one faith, and one concord; and we cannot cross thy Father our good fellow-Minister: this was the case and issue; and is it not strange this should be produced for an Appeal, which was onely a supplication of a fugitive criminal to be admitted to communion; and wherein is utterly disclaimed any power to thwart the Judgment of a particular Bishop or Judge, upon account of unity in common faith and peace? should the Pope return the same answer to every Appellant, what would become of his Privilege? So that they must give us leave to retort this as a pregnant Instance against their pretence.

He alledgeth the forementioned address of Felicissimus and Fortunatus to Pope Cornelius;Cypr. Ep. 55. Ann. 252. the which was but a factious circumcursation of desperate wretches; the which, or any like it, St. Cyprian argueth the Pope in law and equity obliged not to regard; because a definitive Sentence was already passed on them by their proper Judges in Africk, from whom in conscience and reason there could be no Appeal. So Bellarmine would filtch from us one of our invincible Arguments against him.

Cypr. Ep. 68.He also alledgeth the case of Basilides; which also we before did shew to make against him; his application to the Pope being disavowed by St. Cyprian, and proving ineffectual.

These are all the Instances which the first three hundred years did afford; so that all that time this great Privilege lay dormant.

Ann. 350.He alledgeth the recourse of Athanasius to Pope Julius; but this was not properly to him as to a Judge, but as to a fellow-Bishop, a friend of truth and right, for his succour and countenance against persecutours of him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.20. chiefly for his Orthodoxy. The Pope did undertake to examine his Plea, partly as Arbitratour upon reference of both Parties; partly for his own concern to satisfie himself whether he might admit him to communion. And having heard and weighed things, the Pope denied that he was condemned in a legal way by competent Judges; and that therefore the pretended Sentence was null; and consequently he did not undertake the cause as upon Appeal. But whereas his proceeding did look like an exercise of Jurisdiction, derogatory to a Synodical resolution of the case, he was opposed by the Oriental Bishops, as usurping an undue power.Socr. 2.20. Unto which charge he doth not answer directly by asserting to himself any such authority by Law or Custome; but otherwise excusing himself. In the issue, the Pope's Sentence was not peremptory; untill upon examining the merits of the cause it was approved for just as to matter by the Synod of Sardica. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Athanasius & Paulus) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Socr. 2.20. These things otherwhere we have largely shewed? and consequently this Instance is deficient.

He alledgeth St. Chrysostome,

Tom. 7. Epist. 122, 123.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

as appealing to Pope Innocent I. but if you reade his Epistles to that Pope, you will find no such matter; he doth onely complain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and declare to him the iniquity of the process against him, not as to a Judge, but as to a friend and fellow-Bishop concerned, that such injurious and mischievous dealings should be stopped; requesting from him not judgment of his cause, but succour in procuring it by a General Synod;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 8.17.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 5.34.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 8.26.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

to which indeed he did appeal, as Sozomen expresly telleth us; and as indeed he doth himself affirm. Accordingly Pope Innocent did not assume to himself the judgment of his cause, but did endeavour to procure a Synod for it, affirming it to be needfull; why so, if his own Judgment, according to his Privilege did suffice? why indeed did not Pope Innocent, (being well satisfied in the case, yea passionately touched with it) presently summon Theophilus and his adherents, undertaking the Trial? did Pope Nicholas I. proceed so in the case of Rhotaldus? why was he content onely to write Consolatory Letters to him, and to his people; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theoph. Soz. 8.26. not pretending to undertake the decision of his cause? If the Pope had been endowed with such a Privilege, it is morally impossible that it should not have shone forth clearly upon this occasion; it could hardly be that St. Chrysostome himself should not in plain terms avow it; that he should not formally apply to it as the most certain and easie way of finding relief; that he should not earnestly mind and urge the Pope to use his Privilege: why should he speak of that tedious and difficult way of a General Synod, when so short and easie a way was at hand? but the truth is, he did not know any such power the Pope had by himself. St. Chrysostome rather did conceive all such foreign Judicatures to be unreasonable and unjust; for the Argument which he darteth at Theophilus doth as well reach the Papal Jurisdiction upon Appeals; for It was (saith he) not congruous, that an Egyptian should judge those in Thrace: why not an Egyptian as well as an Italian?

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Epist. 122.

and If (saith he) this custome should prevail, and it become lawfull for those who will to go into the Parishes of others, even from such distances, and to cast out whom any one pleaseth doing by their own authority what they please, know that all things will go to wreck— Why may not this be said of a Roman as well as of an Alexandrian? Scripsimus ista & ad Venerium Mediolanensem, & ad Chromatium Aquilegiensem Episcopum. Pallad. cap. 2. St. Chrysostome also (we may observe) did not onely apply himself to the Pope, but to other Western Bishops; particularly to the Bishops of Milain and Aquileia; whom he called Beatissimi Domini: did appeal to them?

He alledgeth Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople appealing to Pope Leo: Flavianus autem contra se prolatâ sententiâ per ejus legatos Sedem Apostolicam appellavit libello. Liber. cap. 12. but let us consider the story. Flavianus for his Orthodoxy (or upon other accounts) very injuriously treated and oppressed by Dioscorus, Necessitate coactus fuit ità agere, eò quòd reliqui Patriarchae adessent— Marc. 7.7. who was supported by the favour of the Imperial Court; having in his case no other remedy did appeal to the Pope; who alone among the Patriarchs had dissented from those proceedings. The Pope was himself involved in the cause, being of the same persuasion; having been no less affronted and hardly treated (considering their power, and that he was out of their reach) and condemned by the same Adversaries.

To him therefore as to the leading Bishop of Christendom, in the first place interested in defence of the common Faith, together with a Synod, not to him as sole Judge, did Flavianus appeal. He (saith Placidia in her Letter to Theodosius) did appeal to the Apostolick See,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Placidia.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 26.

and to all the Bishops of these parts; that is to the rest of Christendom, which were not engaged in the Party of Dioscorus; and to whom else could he have appealed?

Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith, that he did appeal according to the manner of Synods; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 25. and whatever those words signifie, that could not be to the Pope as a single Judge; for before that time in whatever Synod was such an appeal made? what custome could there be favourable to such a pretence?

But what his Appeal did import is best interpretable by the proceeding consequent; which was not the Pope's assuming to himself the Judicature either immediately or by delegation of Judges, but endeavouring to procure a General Synod for it; the which endeavour doth appear in many Epistles to Theodosius and to his Sister Pulcheria, soliciting that such a Synod might be indicted by his order: Omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus & lachrymis supplicant Sacerdotes, ut quia & nostri fideliter reclamârunt, & eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit, generalem Synodum jubeatis intra Italiam celebrari— P. Leo Epist. 25. All the Bishops (saith Pope Leo) with sighs and tears do supplicate your Grace, that because our Agents did faithfully reclaim, and Bishop Flavianus did present them a libel of appeal, you would command a General Synod to be celebrated in Italy.

Dioscorus and his Party would scarce have been so silly as to condemn Flavianus, if they had known, (which, if it had been a case clear in law or obvious in practice, they could not but have known) that the Pope, who was deeply engaged in the same cause, had a power to reverse (and revenge) their proceedings. Nor would the good Emperour Theodosius so pertinaciously have maintained the proceedings of that Ephesine Synod, if he had deemed the Pope duly Sovereign Governour and Judge; or that a right of ultimate Decision upon Appeal did appertain to him. Nor had the Pope needed to have taken so much pains in procuring a Synod, if he could have judged without it. Nor would Pope Leo (a man of so much spirit and zeal for the dignity of his See (have been so wanting to the maintenance of his right, as not immediately to have proceeded unto Trial of the Cause, without precarious attendence for a Synod, if he thought his pretence to such Appeals as we now speak of, to have been good or plausible in the world at that time.

The next case is that of Theodoret. His words indeed, framed according to his condition, needing the patronage of Pope Leo, being then high in reputation, do sound favourably; but we abstracting from the sound of words must regard the reason of things. His words are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ep. 113, (ad P. Leonem.) I expect the suffrage of your Apostolick See, and beseech and earnestly entreat your holiness to succour me who appeal to your right and just Judicature.

He never had been particularly or personally judged, and therefore did not need to appeal as to a Judge; nor therefore is his application to the Pope to be interpreted for such; but rather as to a charitable succourer of him in his distress,

Vid. Ep. 112. ad Domnum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epist. 138.

by his countenance and endeavour to relieve him.

He onely was supposed erroneous in Faith,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Epist. 145. Vid. Theod. Epist. supr. & Epist. 127, 129. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Ep. 138, 136.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epist. 113.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. 118.

and a perillous abettour of Nestorianism, because he had smartly contradicted Cyril; which prejudice did cause him to be prohibited from coming to the Synod of Ephesus; and there in his absence to be denounced Heterodox.

His Appeal then to the Pope (having no other recourse in whom he did confide, finding him to concur with himself in opinion against Eutychianism) was no other than (as the word is often used in common speech, when we say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I appeal to your judgment in this or that case) a referring it to the Pope's consideration, whether his Faith was sound and Orthodox; capacitating him to retain his Office: the which upon his explication and profession thereof (presented in terms of extraordinary respect and deference) the Pope did approve; thereby as a good Divine rather than as a formal Judge) acquitting him of Heterodoxy: the which approbation (in regard to the great opinion then had of the Pope's skill in those points, and to the favour he had obtained by contesting against the Eutychians) did bear great sway in the Synod; so that, (although not without opposition of many, and not upon absolute terms) he was permitted to sit among the Fathers of Chalcedon.

Observations.

1. We do not reade of any formal Trial the Pope made of Theodoret's case; that he was cited, that his Accusers did appear, that his Cause was discussed: but onely a simple approbation of him.

2. We may observe, that Theodoret did write to Flavianus in like terms: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Epist. 86. We entreat your holiness to fight in behalf of the faith which is assaulted, and to defend the Canons which are trampled under foot.

3. We may observe, that Theodoret expecting this favour of Pope Leo; and thence being moved to commend the Roman See to the height, and to reckon its special advantages, doth not yet mention his Supremacy of Power, or Universality of Jurisdiction: For those words, it befitteth you to be prime in all things, are onely general words relating to the advantages which he subjoineth;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ep. 116. (ad Renatum Presb.)

That holy See has the principality over the Churches in all the world for many reasons; but especially because she continued free from the taint of heresie, and none otherwise minded ever sate in her, she having kept the Apostolick state always unmixt.

of which he saith, for your throne is adorned with many advantages, in a florid enumeration whereof he passeth over that of peculiar Jurisdiction; he nameth the magnitude, splendour, majesty and populousness of the City; the early faith praised by Saint Paul, the Sepulchres of the two great Apostles, and their decease there; but the Pope's being Universal Sovereign and Judge (which was the main advantage whereof that See could be capable) he doth not mention; why? because he was not aware thereof, else surely he would not have passed it in silence.

4. We may also observe, that whatever the opinion of Theodoret was now concerning the Pope's power, he not long before did hardly take him for such a Judge, when he did oppose Pope Celestine, concurring with Cyril, at the first Ephesine Synod. He then indeed looking on Pope Celestine as a prejudiced Adversary, did not write to him but to the other Bishops of the West, as we see by those words in his Epistle to Domnus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Epist. 112. And we have written to the Bishops of the West about these things, to him of Milain, I say, to him of Aquileia and him of Ravenna, testifying, &c.

5. Yea we may observe, that Theodoret did intend with the Emperour's leave to appeal or refer his cause to the whole body of Western Bishops, as himself doth express in those words to Anatolius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. Ep. 119. (ad Anatol.) I do pray your magnificence, that you would request this favour of our dread Sovereign, that I may have recourse to the West, and may be judged by the most religious and holy Bishops there.

Bellarmine farther doth alledge the appeal of Hadrianus Bishop of Thebes to Pope Gregory I. the which he received and asserted by excommunicating the Archbishop of Justiniana Prima, Greg. lib. 2. Indict. 11. Ep. 6. for deposing Hadrianus without regard to that appeal. I answer,

1. The example is late, when the Popes had extended their power beyond the ancient and due limits: those Maxims had got in before the time of that worthy Pope; who thought he might use the power of which he found himself possessed.

2. It is impertinent, because the Bishop of Justiniana had then a special dependence upon the Roman See; from whence an Universal Jurisdiction upon appeal cannot be inferred.

3. It might be an Usurpation; nor doth the opinion or practice of Pope Gregory suffice to determine a question of right, for good men are liable to prejudice, and its consequences.

To these Instances produced by Bellarmine, some add the Appeal of Eutyches to Pope Leo; to which it may be excepted, that if he did appeal, it was not to the Pope solely, but to him with the other Patriarchs; so it is expresly said in the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod; His deposition being read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. he did appeal to the Holy Synod of the most Holy Bishop of Rome, and of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem, and of Thessalonica; the which is an argument, that he did not apprehend the right of receiving Appeals did solely or peculiarly belong to him of Rome.

Liberatus saith, Ingressus est ad Calendionem Antiochenum Patriarcham, & sumptis ab eo intercessionis Synodicis Literis Romanum Pontificem Simplicium appellavit, sicut B. fecerat Athanasius, & suasit scribere pro se Acacio Constantinopolitano Episcopo — Liber. cap. 18. Baron. Ann. 483. § 1. that Johannes Talaida went to Calendion Patriarch of Antioch, and taking of him intercessory Synodical Letters, appeal'd to Simplicius Bishop of Rome, as Saint Athanasius had done, and persuaded him to write in his behalf to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople.

In regard to any more Instances of this kind we might generally propose these following considerations.

1. It is no wonder, that any Bishop being condemned, especially in causes relating to Faith or common Interest, should have recourse to the Roman Bishop, or to any other Bishop of great authority for refuge or for relief; which they may hope to be procured by them by the influence of their reputation, and their power among their dependents.

2. Bad men, being deservedly corrected, will absurdly resort any whither with mouths full of clamour and calumny; if not with hope of relief, yet with design of revenge; as did Marcion, as did Felicissimus, as did Apiarius to the Pope.

3. Good men being abused will express some resentment, and complain of their wrongs, where they may presume of a fair and favourable hearing: so did Athanasius, Flavianus, St. Chrysostome, Theodoret apply themselves to the same Bishops, flourishing in so great reputation and wealth.

So did the Monks of Egypt (Ammonius and Isidorus) from the persecutions of Theophilus fly to the protection and succour of St. Chrysostome; which gave occasion to the troubles of that incomparable Personage; the which is so illustrious an instance, that the words of the Historian relating it deserve setting down.

They jointly did endeavour, that the trains against them might be examined by the Emperour as Judge, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Soz. 8.13. and by the Bishop John; for they conceived that he having conscience of using a just freedom, would be able to succour them according to right: but he did receive the men applying to him courteously, and treated them respectfully, and did not hinder them from praying in the Church— He also writ to Theophilus to render communion to them, as being Orthodox; and if there were need of judging their case by law, that he would send whom they thought good to prosecute the cause.

If this had been to the Pope, it would have been alledged for an Appeal; and it would have had as much colour as any Instance which they can produce.

4. And when men, either good or bad, do resort in this manner to great friends, it is no wonder if they accost them in highest terms of respect, and with exaggerations of their eminent advantages; so inducing them to regard and favour their cause.

5. Neither is it strange, that great persons favourably should entertain those, who make such addresses to them, they always coming crouching in a suppliant posture, and with fair pretences; it being also natural to men to delight in seeing their power acknowledged; and it being a glorious thing to relieve the afflicted: for Eminence is wont to incline toward infirmity, and with a ready good will to take part with those who are under. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Greg. Naz. Orat. 23. So when Basilides, when Marcellus, when Eustathius Sebastenus, when Maximus the Cynick, when Apiarius were condemned the Pope was hasty to engage for them; more liking their application to him than weighing their cause.

6. And when any person doth continue long in a flourishing estate, so that such addresses are frequently made to him, no wonder that an opinion of lawfull power to receive them, doth arise both in him and in others; so that of a voluntary Friend he become an authorized Protectour, a Patron, a Judge of such persons in such cases.

X. The Sovereign is fountain of all Jurisdiction; and all inferiour Magistrates derive their Authority from his warrant and Commission, acting as his Deputies or Ministers,1 Pet. 2.13. according to that intimation in St. Peter, —whether to the King as Supreme, or to Governours as sent by him.

Accordingly the Pope doth challenge this advantage to himself that he is the fountain of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; pretending all Episcopal power to be derived from him.

The rule of the Church (saith Bellarmine) is Monarchical; Regimen Ecclesiae est Monarchicum, ergo omnis auctoritas est in uno, & ab illo in alios derivatur. Bell. 4.24. therefore all authority is in one, and from him is derived to others; the which Aphorism he well proveth from the form of creating Bishops, as they call it, Providemus Ecclesiae tali de tali Persona, & praeficimus eum in Patrem, & Pastorem & Episcopum ejusdem Ecclesiae, committentes ei administrationem in temporalibus & spiritualibus; in nomine, &c. Ibid. We do provide such a Church with such a person; and we do prefer him to be Father and Pastour and Bishop of the said Church, committing to him the administration in temporals and spirituals in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Pope Pius II. in his Bull of Retractation, thus expresseth the sense of his See, In Ecclesia militanti, quae instar triumphantis habet, unus est omnium moderator & arbiter Jesu Christi vicarius, à quo tanquam capite omnis in subjecta membra potestas & authoritas derivatur, quae à Christo Domino sine medio in ipsum influit. P. Pius II. in Bull. Retract. In the militant Church, which resembleth the triumphant, there is one moderatour and Judge of all, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, from whom, as from the Head, all power and authority is derived to the subject members; the which doth immediately flow into it from the Lord Christ.

A Congregation of Cardinals appointed by Pope Paulus III. speaking after the style and sentiments of that See, did say to him, Sanctitas vestra ità gerit curam Ecclesiae Christi, ut Ministros plurimos habeat, per quos curam exerceat; hi autem sunt Clerici omnes, quibus mandatus est cultus Dei; Presbyteri praesertim, & maximè Curati, & prae omnibus Episcopi— apud Cham. de Pont. Oecum. 10, 13. Your Holiness doth so bear the care of Christ's Church, that you have very many Ministers, by which you manage that care, these are all the Clergy, on whom the service of God is charged; especially Priests, and more especially Curates, and above all Bishops.

Durandus Bishop of Mande, according to the sense of his Age, saith, Summus Pontifex caput est omnium Pontificum, â quo illi tanquam à capite membra descendunt, & de cujus plenitudine omnes accipiunt quos ipse vocat in partem solicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis. Durand. Mimat. Offic. 2.1.17. The Pope is head of all Bishops, from whom they as members from an head descend, and of whose fulness all receive; whom he calls to a participation of his care, but admits not into the fulness of his power.

This pretence is seen in the ordinary Titles of Bishops, who style themselves Bishops of such a place, N. Dei & Apostolicae Sedis gratiâ Episcopus Colon— By the grace of God and of the Apostolick See. O shame!

The men of the Tridentine Convention (those great betrayers of the Church to perpetual slavery, and Christian truth to the prevalency of falshood, till God pleaseth) do upon divers occasions, pretend to qualifie and empower Bishops to perform important matters,This was an expedient. Vid. Concil. originally belonging to the Episcopal Function, as the Pope's Delegates.

But contrariwise according to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture, and the sense of the Primitive Church, the Bishops and Pastours of the Church do immediately receive their Authority and Commission from God; being onely his Ministers.

The Scripture calleth them the Ministers of God, Col. 1.7.4.7. 1 Thess. 3.2. 1 Tim. 4.6. Tit. 1.7. 2 Tim. 2.24. Act. 20.28. Naz. Or. 30. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.29. and of Christ (so Epaphras, so Timothy in regard to their Ecclesiastical function are named) the Stewards of God, the Servants of God, Fellow-servants of the Apostles.

The Scripture saith, that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to feed the Church of God, that God had given them, and constituted them in the Church; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, for the edifying of the body of Christ; that is, to all effects and purposes concerning their Office: Ordo confertur à Deo immediatè, jurisdictio mediatè. Bell. 4.25. for the work of the Ministery comprizeth all the duty charged on them whether in way of Order or of Governance; as they now do precariously and groundlesly in reference to this case distinguish. And edifying the body doth import all the designed effects of their Office; particularly those which are consequent on the use of Jurisdiction; the which Saint Paul doth affirm was appointed for edification; 2 Cor. 10.8.13.10. according (saith he) to the authority which God hath given me for edification, and not for destruction. They do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Thess. 5.12. preside in the Lord. They allow no other Head but our Lord,

Eph. 4.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ign. ad Magnes.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ign. ad Eph. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ign. ad Trall.

from whom all the body, &c.

The Fathers clearly do express their Sentiments to be the same.

St. Ignatius saith, that the Bishop doth preside in the place of God; and that we must look upon him as our Lord himself (or as our Lord's Representative) that therefore we must be subject to him as unto Jesus Christ.

St. Cyprian affirmeth each Bishop to be constituted by the judgment of God, and of Christ; De Dei & Christi ejus judicio. Cypr. Ep. 52. & alibi saepe. Vnus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex, vice Christi. Cypr. Ep. 55. Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro judicandi. Cypr. in Con. Carthag. and that in his Church he is for the present a Judge in the place of Christ: — and that our Lord Jesus Christ, one and alone hath a power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Baf. Const. Mon. cap. 22.St. Basil, A Prelate is nothing else but one that sustaineth the person of Christ.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Coloss. Orat. 3.St. Chrysostome, We have received the commission of Ambassadours and come from God, for this is the dignity of the Episcopal Office.

Oportere nos omnes, qui Deo auctor • sumu • in Sacerd • r •• constituti illius certaminibus ob • iate, &c. Anatol. in Syn. Chalc. p. 512. It behoveth us all who by divine authority are constituted in the Priesthood to prevent, &c.

Wherefore the ancient Bishops did all of them take themselves to be Vicars of Christ, not of the Pope, and no less than the proudest Pope of them all; whence it was ordinary for them in their addresses and compellations to the Bishop of Rome, and in their speech about him to call him their Brother, their Collegue, their Fellow-minister; which had not been modest, or just, if they had been his Ministers or Shadows. Yea the Popes themselves, even the highest and haughtiest of them, who of any in old times did most stand on their presumed preeminence,Leo Ep. 84. did yet vouchsafe to call other Bishops their Fellow-bishops and Fellow-ministers.

Those Bishops of France with good reason did complain of Pope Nicholas I. for calling them his Clerks; Seièsque nos non tuos esse ne • e jactas & extollis Clericos, quos ut fratres & Co-episcopos recognoscere si elatio permitteret, debueras. Ann. Pith. whenas, if his pride had suffered him, he should have acknowledged them for his Brethren and Fellow-bishops.

In fine, the ancient Bishops did not alledge any Commission from the Pope to warrant their Jurisdiction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — S. Chrys. sup. but from God; If Moses his Chair were so venerable, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Coloss. Orat. 3. that what was said out of that ought therefore to be heard, how much more is Christ's Throne so? we succeed him, from that we speak, since Christ has committed to us the ministery of reconciliation.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Chrys. in Joh. Orat. 83. That which is committed to the Priest, 'tis onely in God's power to give.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (l. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Flavian. in Chalc. Act. 1. p. 4. Since we also by the mercy of Christ our King and God were made Ministers of the Gospel.

This is a modern dream born out of Ambition and Flattery, which never came into the head of any ancient Divine.

It is a ridiculous thing to imagine, that Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostome, Austin, &c. did take themselves for the Vicegerents or Ministers of the Popes; if they did, why did they not, so frequent occasion being given them, in all their Volumes, ever acknowledge it? why cannot Bellarmine and his Complices after all their prolling shew any passage in them importing any such acknowledgment; but are fain to infer it by far-fetched Sophisms, from Allegations plainly impertinent, or frivolous?

The Popes indeed in the Fourth Century began to practise a fine trick, very serviceable to the enlargement of their power; which was to confer on certain Bishops, as occasion served, or for continuance, the title of their Vicar or Lieutenant; thereby pretending to impart Authority to them; whereby they were enabled for performance of divers things, which otherwise by their own Episcopal or Metropolitical power they could not perform. By which device they did engage such Bishops to such a dependence on them, whereby they did promote the Papal Authority in Provinces, to the oppression of the ancient Rights and Liberties of Bishops and Synods; doing what they pleased under pretence of this vast power communicated to them; and for fear of being displaced, or out of affection to their favourer doing what might serve to advance the Papacy.

Thus did Pope Celestine constitute Cyril in his room.Evagr. Act. Eph. p. 134.

Pope Leo appointed Anatolius of Constantinople.

Pope Felix Acacius of Constantinople.

Pope Hormisdas Epiphanius of Constantinople. Act. Conc. sub Menna p. 70.

Pope Simplicius to Zeno Bishop of Seville, We thought it convenient that you should be held up by the vicariat authority of our See. Congruum duximus vicariâ Sedis nostra te auctoritate fulciri. Baron. An. 482. § 46.

So did Siricius and his Successours constitute the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their Vicars in the Diocese of Illyricum, wherein being then a member of the Western Empire they had caught a special jurisdiction; to which Pope Leo did refer in those words, which sometimes are impertinently alledged with reference to all Bishops, Vices enim nostr • ità tuae credidimus charitati, ut in partem sis voca ••• soli • itudinis, non in plenitudinem potestati • . P. Leo. Ep. 84. (ad Anastas. Thessal.) but concern onely Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica; We have entrusted thy Charity to be in our stead, so that thou art called into part of the solicitude, not into plenitude of the authority.

So did Pope Zozimus bestow a like pretence of Vicarious power upon the Bishop of Arles, P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 93. which city was the seat of the temporal Exarch in Gaule.

So to the Bishop of Justiniana prima in Bulgaria (or Dardania Europaea) the like privilege was granted [by procurement of the Emperour Justinian, native of that place.]

Afterwards temporary or occasional Vicars were appointed (such as Austin in England, Boniface in Germany—) who in virtue of that concession did usurp a paramount authority; and by the exercise thereof did advance the Papal interest; depressing the authority of Metropolitanes, and provincial Synods.

So at length Legates, upon occasion dispatched into all Countries of the West, came to doe there what they pleased, using that pretence to oppress and abuse both Clergy and people very intolerably.

Whence divers Countries were forced to make legal provisions for excluding such Legates, finding by much experience that their business was to rant and domineer in the Pope's name, P. Pasch. II. Epist. apud Eadm. p. 113, &c. to suck money from the People, and to maintain luxurious pomp upon expence of the Countries where they came.

Extrav. commun. 1.1. (p. 310.)

Occulti inimici regni. Matt. Par. p. 524.

Of this John XXII. doth sorely complain; and decrees that all people should admit his Legates, under pain of interdicts.

In England, Pope Paschal finds the same fault in his letter to King Henry I. Sedis Apostolicae nuncii vel literae praeter jussum Regiae Majestatis nullam in potestate tua susceptionem aut aditum promerentur, nullus inde clamor, nullum judicium ad sedem Apostolicam destinantur— P. Pasch. II. Eadm. p. 113. Nuncio's or letters from the Apostolick See, unless by your Majestie's command, are not thought worthy any admittance or reception within your jurisdiction: none complains thence, none appeals thence for judgment to the Apostolick See.

The Pope observing what authority and reverence the Archbishops of Canterbury had in this Nation, whereby they might be able to check his attempts, did think good to constitute those Archbishops his Legates of course, (Legatos natos) that so they might seem to exercise their Jurisdiction by authority derived from him, and owing to him that mark of favour, or honour, with inlargement of power, might pay him more devotion and serve his interests.

Bell. 2.10. Bellarmine doth from this practice prove the Pope's Sovereign power, but he might from thence better have domonstrated their great cunning. It might from such extraordinary designation of Vicegerents with far more reason be inferred, that ordinarily Bishops are not his Ministers.

XI. It is the privilege of a Sovereign, that he cannot be called to account, or judged, or deposed, or debarr'd communion, or any-wise censured and punished; for this implyeth a contradiction or confusion in degrees, subjecting the superiour to inferiours; this were making a river run backwards; this were to damm up the fountain of justice; to behead the State; to expose Majesty to contempt.

Bell. 2.26. de Conc. 2.17. Grat. Dist. 40. cap. 6. Dist. 21. cap. 7. Caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 10.— Extrav. comm. lib. 1. tit. 8. cap. 1. P. Leo. IX. Ep. 1. cap. 10.— 17. P. Nich. 1. Ep. 8. (p. 504.) P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 75. (p. 31.) P. Gelas. Ep. 4. (p. 625, 626.) Ep. 13. (p. 640.) P. Greg. VII. Ep. 8. Ep. 21.Wherefore the Pope doth pretend to this privilege, according to those Maxims in the Canon Law, drawn from the sayings of Popes (either forged or genuine, but all alike) obteining authority in their Court.

And according to what P. Adrian let the 8th Synod know, because, says he, the Apostolick Church of Rome stoops not to the judgment of lesser Churches. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. Adrian. in Syn. VIII. Act. 7. pag. 963. They cite also three old Synods (of Sinuessa, of Rome under Pope Silvester, of Rome under Sixtus III.) but they are palpably spurious, and the learned among them confess it.

But antiquity was not of this mind; for it did suppose him no less obnoxious to judgment and correction than other Bishops, if he should notoriously deviate from the faith, or violate canonical discipline.

The Canons generally do oblige Bishops without exception to duty, and (upon defailance) to correction: why is not he excepted, if to be excused, or exempted?

It was not questioned of old, but that a Pope in case he should notoriously depart from the faith, or notably infringe discipline, might be excommunicated; the attempting it upon divers occasions do shew their opinion, although it often had not effect because the cause was not just and plausible; the truth and equity of the case appearing to be on the Pope's side.

St. Isidore Pelusiota denieth of any Bishop's office that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an uncontrollable government.

In the times of Polycrates and Pope Victor the whole Eastern Church did forbear communion with the Pope. Firmilian told Pope Stephanus,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiph. haer. 70. Audianorum.

Dum enim putas omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti. Firm. apud Cypr. Ep.

that by conceiting he might excommunicate all other Bishops, he had excommunicated himself. The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did threaten to excommunicate and depose Pope Julius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sozom. 3.8. They did promise to Julius, peace and communion, if he did admit the deposition of those whom they had expelled, and the constitution of those whom they had ordained; but if he did resist their decrees, they denounced the contrary. Sozom. 3.11. The Oriental Bishops at Sardica did excommunicate and depose him. Anathema tibi, Papa Liberi. Hil. fragm. St. Hilary did anathematize Pope Liberius, upon his defection to the Arians. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evag. 2.4. Dioscorus did attempt to excommunicate Pope Leo. Niceph. 16.17. Baron. Ann. 484. § 35. Acacius of Constantinople renounced the communion of Pope Felix. Baron. A. 457. § 25. Timotheus Aelurus cursed the Pope. Africani Antistites Vigilium Rom. Episc. damnatorem Capitulorum Synodaliter à Catholica communione, reservato ei poenitentiae loco, recludunt. (l. excludunt) Vict. Tun. post Cons. Basilii V. C. Ann. 10. The African Bishops did Synodically excommunicate Pope Vigilius. Plat. p. 131. & Dist. 19. cap. 21, 22. Pope Anastasius was rejected by his own Clergy. Plat. p. 223. Pope Constantine by the people, and so was Plat. p. 291. Pope Leo VIII. P. Pelag. II. Ep. 3.13. Divers Bishops of Italy and Illyricum did abstain from the Pope's communion for a long time, because they did admit the fifth Synod. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vit. Ignatii Patr. apud Bin. p. 892. Baron. Ann. 863— Photius did excommunicate and depose Pope Nicholas I.

Baron. Ann. 669. § 2.

—Communi totius Sancti Concilii consensu depositus. Luitprand. 6.6.

Maurus Bishop of Ravenna did anathematize Pope Vitalianus. —Concilium indicit, convocatis Episcopis Italiae, quorum judicio vita sceleratissimi hominis dijudicaretur. Plat. in Joh. 13. (pro XII.) vid. Baron. Ann. 960. & Binium. The Emperour Otho II. having with good advice laboured to reclaim Pope John XII. without effect did indict a Council, calling together the Bishops of Italy, by the judgment of whom the life of that wicked man should be judged; and the issue was, that he was deposed. Grat. Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 41. Pope Nicholas I. desired to be judged by the Emperour. The fifth Synod did in general terms condemn Pope Vigilius, and the Emperour Justinian did banish him for not complying with the decrees of it. The sixth and seventh General Synods did anathematize Honorius by name; when he was dead, because his heresie was not before confuted; and they would have served him so, if he had been alive. Divers Synods (that of Worms, of Papia, of Brescia, of Mentz, of Rome, Ann. 1076. Vid. Baron. Ann. 1033. § 3. &c.) did reject Pope Gregory VII. Pope Adrian himself in the VIII. Synod (so called) did confess, that a Pope being found deviating from the faith might be judged, as Honorius was.Baron. Ann. 992. § 44.— Conc. Bas. Sess. 38. (p. 101.) Gerbertus (afterward Pope Sylvester II.) did maintain that Popes might be held as Ethnicks and Publicans, if they did not hear the Church. The Synod of Constance did judge and depose three Popes. The Synod of Basil did depose Pope Eugenius; affirming that The Catholick Church hath often corrected and judged Popes when they either err'd from the faith, Ecclesia Catholica saepenumerò summos Pontifices sive à fide delirantes, sive pravis moribus notoriè Ecclesiam scandalizantes correxit, & judicavit.— Conc. Bas. Sess. 12. or by their ill manners became notoriously scandalous to the Church.

Mos est Romanae Ecclesiae sacerdoti noviter constituto formam fidei suae ad sanctas Ecclesias praerogare. P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 1. ad Laur.The practice of Popes to give an account of their faith (when they entred upon their office) to the other Patriarchs and chief Bishops, approving themselves thereby worthy and capable of communion, doth imply them liable to judgment. Of the neglect of which practice Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople did complain.Gelas. Ep. 9. Baron. Ann. 492. § 10.

Vid. tract. de Vnit. Eccl. Of this we have for example the Synodical Epistles of Pope Gregory I.

XII. To the Sovereign in Ecclesiastical affairs it would belong to define and decide controversies in faith, discipline, moral practice; so that all were bound to admit his definitions, decisions, interpretations. He would be the supreme Interpreter of the divine law, and Judge of controversies. No point or question of moment should be decided without his cognizance. This he therefore doth pretend to; taking upon him to define points, and requiring from all submission to his determinations. Nor doth he allow any Synods to decide questions.

But the ancients did know no such thing. In case of Contentions, they had no recourse to his judgment; they did not stand to his opinion, his authority did not avail to quash disputes. They had recourse to the Holy Scriptures, to Catholick Tradition, to reason, they disputed and discussed points by dint of argument.

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Vincentius Lirinensis and others discoursing of the methods to resolve points of Controversie, did not reckon the Pope's authority for one. Divers of the Fathers did not scruple openly to dissent from the opinions of Popes; nor were they wondred at, or condemned for it.

Gall. 2.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .So Saint Paul did withstand Saint Peter. So Polycarpus dissented from Pope Elutherius. So Polycrates from Pope Victor. So St. Cyprian from Pope Stephen. So Dionysius Alex. from Pope Stephen: all which persons were renowned for wisedom and piety in their times.

Highest Controversies were appeased by Synods out of the Holy Scripture, Catholick Tradition, the Analogy of faith, and common Reason, without regard to the Pope. Divers Synods in Africk and Asia defined the Point about rebaptization without the Pope's leave, and against his opinion. The Synod of Antioch condemned the doctrine of Paulus Samosatenus, without intervention of the Pope; before they gave him notice. In the Synod of Nice the Pope had very small stroke. The General Synod of Const. declared the Point of the Divinity of the H. Ghost against Macedonius, without the Pope; who did no more than afterward consent: This the Synod of Chalcedon in their compellation to the Emperour Marcian did observe. The Fathers met in Sardica to suppress the reliques of Arianism, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Chalced. ad Marc. Orat. p. 468. communicated their decrees to the Eastern Bishops; and they who here discovered the pestilence of Apolinarius, made known theirs to the Western.

The Synod of Africk defined against Pelagius, before their informing Pope Innocentius thereof; not seeking his judgment, but desiring his consent to that, which they were assured to be truth.

Divers Popes have been incapable of deciding Controversies, themselves having been erroneous in the questions controverted: as Pope Stephanus (in part,) Pope Liberius, P. Felix, P. Vigilius, P. Honorius, &c. And in our opinion all Popes for many ages.

It is observable how the Synod of Chalcedon in their allocution to the Emperour Marcian do excuse P. Leo for expounding the faith in his Epistle (the which it seems some did reprehend as a novell method disagreeable to the Canons;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. Syn. Chalc. p. 465.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —

) Let not them (say they) object to us the Epistle of the marvellous Prelate of Rome, as obnoxious to imputation of novelty; but if it be not consonant to the Scriptures, let them confute it; or if it be not consentaneous to the Fathers who have preceded; or if it be not apt to confute the irreligious, &c.

It was not his judicial authority, which they did insist upon, to maintain his Epistle, but the orthodoxie and intrinsick usefulness of it to confute errours; upon which account they did embrace and confirm it by their suffrage.

XIII. If the Pope were a Sovereign of the Church as they make him, it were at least expedient that he should be infallible; for why otherwise should he undertake confidently to pronounce in all cases, to define high and difficult Points, to impose his Dictates, and require assent from all? If he be fallible, it is very probable that often he doth obtrude errours upon us for matters of Faith and Practice.

Wherefore the true fast friends of Papal interest do assert him to be infallible, when he dictateth as Pope,Bell. lib. 4. and setting himself into his Chair doth thence mean to instruct the whole Church. And the Pope therefore himself, who countenanceth them, may be presumed to be of that mind.

Pighius said bouncingly, Longè certius est unius Apostolicae Sedis cum Concilio domesticorum Sacerdotum judicium, quàm sine Pontifice judicium universalis Concilii totius Orbis terrarum. Pighius de Hier. lib. 6. The judgment of the Apostolick See with a Council of domestick Priests, is far more certain than the judgment of an universal Council of the whole earth without the Pope.

This is the Syllogism we propose:

The Supreme Judge must be infallible,

The Pope is not infallible, Therefore.

The Major the Jesuits, Canonists and Courtiers are obliged to prove, it being their Assertion; and they do prove it very wisely and strongly.

The Minor is asserted by the French Doctours, and they do with clear evidence maintain it.

The Conclusion we leave them to infer who are concerned.

It is in effect Pope Gregory's Argumentation; No Bishop can be Universal Bishop, (or Universal Pastour and Judge of the Church) because no Bishop can be Infallible; for that the lapse of such a Pastour would throw down the Church into ruine, by errour and impiety. Therefore the Vniversal Church, Vniversa ergò Ecclesia, quod absit, à statu suo corruit, quando is qui vocatur Vniversalis cadit. Greg. M. Epist. 4.32. Totius familiae Domini status & ordo nutabit, si quod requiritur in corpore, non inveniatur in capite. P. Leo. Ep. 87. which God forbid, falls, when he falls who is call'd Vniversal. —The state and order of our Lord's family will decay when that which is required in the body is not to be found in the head.

But that he is not infallible, much Experience and History do abundantly shew.

The Ancients knew no such pretender to infallibility; otherwise they would have left disputing, and run to his Oracular Dictates for information. In nullo aliter sapere quàm res se habet angelica perfectio est. Aug· de Bapt. c. Don. 2.5. Not to think of a thing otherwise than tis, is an angelical perfection. They would have onely asserted this point against Hereticks. We should have had Testimonies of it innumerable. It had been the most famous point of all.

I will not mention Pope Stephanus universally approving the Baptism of Hereticks against the Decrees of the Synod of Nice and other Synods. Nor Pope Liberius complying with Arianism. Nor Pope Innocent I. and his followers at least till Pope P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. p. 636. Gelasius first asserting the Communion of Infants for needfull. Nor Pope Vigilius dodging with the Fifth Synod. Nor Pope Honorius condemned by so many Councils and Popes for Monothelitism. De Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 12. But surely Pope Leo and Pope Gelasius were strangely deceived, when they condemned Partaking in one kind. Pope Gregory was foully out, when he condemned the Greg. Ep. 7.110. Ep. 2.62. Ep. 4.32, 36.38.6.30. In Job. lib. 19. cap. 13. In Job. lib. 18. cap. 14. worship of Images; and when he so declaimeth against the title of Vniversal Bishop; and when he avowed himself a Subject to the Emperour Mauritius; and when he denied the Books of Maccabees to be Canonical; and when he asserted the perfection of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo II. was mistaken, when he did charge his infallible Predecessour Honorius of Monothelitism. If many Popes had been writers, we should have had more errours to charge them with. Pope Nicholas was a little deceived when he determined the Grat. de Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 42. attrition of Christ's Body. Pope Vrban II. was out, when he allowed it Grat. Caus. 23. qu. 5. cap. 47. lawfull for good Catholicks to commit murther on Persons excommunicate. Mancipia Papae. Matt. Paris. Anno 1253. Pope Innocent IV. erred, when he called Kings, The Pope's Slaves.

Surely those Popes did err, who confirmed the Synods of Constance and Basil; not excepting the determinations in favour of General Councils being Superiour to Popes.Joh. 22. Gerson. Serm. in Pasch. occam. Celestinus— Alph. à Castro. Haer. 1.4. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 994. All those Popes have devilishly erred, who have pretended to dispose of Kingdoms, to depose Princes: to absolve Subjects of their Oaths. Pope Adrian II. did not take the Pope to be infallible, when he said he might not be judged, excepting the case of Heresie; and thereby excuseth the Orientals for anathematizing Honorius, he being accused of Heresie.

There is one Heresie, of which, if all Histories do not lie grievously,

P. Greg. VII. Ep. lib. 3.7. Simoniaca haeresis.

P. Jul. II. Conc. Lat. Sess. 5. (p. 57.)

Idem electus non Apostolicus, sed Apostaticus, & tanquam haeresiarcha, &c. Ibid. Tract. 4. § 12. & § 16.

Decernimus, quòd—sed etiam contra dictum sic electum vel assumptum à Simoniaca labe opponi & excipi possit sicut de vera & indubitata haeresi—

divers Popes have been guilty; a Heresie defined by divers Popes; the Heresie of Simony; How many such Hereticks have sate in that Chair? of which how many Popes are proclaimed guilty with a loud voice in History? The hand, says St. Omne Papale negotium manus agunt; quem dabis mihi de tota maxima Vrbe, qui te in Papam receperit pretio non in • ercedente? Bern. de Consid. 4.2. Bernard, does all the Papal business, shew me a man in all this greatest City who would admit thee to be Pope without the mediation of a bribe? Yea how few for some Ages have been guiltless of this Heresie? I may be answered, they were no Popes because their Election was null; but then the Church hath often and long been without a Head. Then numberless Acts have been void; and Creations of Cardinals have been null; and consequently there hath not probably been any true Pope for a long time.

In the judgment of so many great Divines, which did constitute the Synod of Basil, many Popes (near all surely) have been Hereticks; who have followed or countenanced the opinion that Popes are superiour to General Councils; the which there is flatly declared Heresie. Pope Eugenius by name was there declared a pertinacious Heretick, A fide devius, pertinax haereticus— Concil. Basil. Sess. 34. p. 96. & p. 107. deviating from the faith—

It often happeneth that the Pope is not skilled in Divinity, as Pope Innocent X. was wont to profess concerning himself (to wave discourse about Theological points) he therefore cannot pronounce, in use of ordinary means, but onely by miracle, as Balaam's Ass. So Pope Innocent X. said, that the Vicar of Jesus Christ was not obliged to examine all things by dispute; Le Pape respondit, che le Vicaire de J. C. ne estoit point oblige d'examiner toutes choses par la dispute; que la verite de ses decrets dependoit seulement de l'Inspiration divine. Memor. Hist. de 5. Propos. for that the truth of his decrees depended onely on divine Inspiration: what is this but downright Quakerism, Enthusiasm, Imposture?

Pope Clemens V. did not take himself to be infallible, when in his great Synod of Vienna, the question, whether beside remission of sin, also vertue were conferred to Infants, he resolved thus very honestly, —The second opinion, — Opinionem secundam, quae dicit tam parvulis quàm adultis conferri in baptismo informantem gratiam & virtutes, tanquam probabiliorem ac Doctorum modernorum Theologiae magìs consonam & concordem sacro approbante Concilio duximus eligendam. Clem. in Tit. 1. which says that informing grace and vertues are in baptism conferred both upon infants and adult persons, we think fit with the consent of the holy council to be chosen; as being more probable, and more consonant and agreeable to the Divinity of the modern Doctours.

Which of the two Popes were in the right, Pope Nicholas IV. who decided that our Lord was so poor that he had right to nothing,Bell. 4.14. (p. 1318.) Confer Sext. lib. 5. tit. 12. cap. 3. Extrav. Joh. XXII. tit. 14. cap. 3, 4, 5. or Pope John XXII. who declared this to be a Heresie, charging our Lord with injustice?

XIV. A Sovereign is in Dignity and Authority Superiour to any number of Subjects, however conjoined or congregated; as a Head is above all the Members however compacted; He is not Supreme, who is any-wise subject or inferiour to a Senate, or any Assembly in his Territory.

Therefore the Pope doth claim a Superiority over all Councils;Bellarm. de Concil. 2.15. pretending that their determinations are invalid without his consent and confirmation; that he can rescind or make void their Decrees; that he can suspend their Consultations, and translate or dissolve them.

And Baronius reckons this as one errour in Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes,

Planè significat majoris esse auctoritatis in Ecclesia Dei Canones Conciliorum decretis Pontificum: haec quàm sint absurda & ab omni ratione penitus aliena, &c. Baron. ad Ann. 992. § 56.

Concil. Later. V. Sess. 11. p. 152. Th. Cajet. Orat. in Conc. Lat. p. 36.

that he held as if the canons of councils were of greater authority in the Church of God than the decrees of Popes, which, says he, how absurd and unreasonable an opinion it is, &c.

Apostolicae verò Sedis auctoritas, quod cunctis seculis Christianis Ecclesiae praelata sit universae, & canonum serie paternorum, & multiplici traditione firmatur. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 8. (O impudentiam!) That the authority of the Apostolick See in all Christian Ages has been preferred before the universal Church, both the canons of our predecessours and manifold tradition do confirm.

This is a question stiffly debated among Romanists; but the most (as Aeneas Sylvius, afterward Pope Pius II. did acutely observe) with good reason to adhere to the Pope's side, because the Pope disposeth of Benefices, but Councils give none.

But in truth anciently the Pope was not understood Superiour to Councils: for greater is the authority of the world than of one city, Ma • or est auctoritas orbis quàm urbis. Hier. ad Evag. says St. Hierome. He was but one Bishop, that had nothing to doe out of his precinct. He had but his Vote in them; He had the first Vote, as the Patriarch of Alexandria the second, of Antioch the third— but that order neither gave to him or them any advantage, as to decision; but common consent, or the suffrages of the majority did prevail. He was conceived subject to the Canons no less than other Bishops. Councils did examine matters decreed by him, so as to follow or forsake them as they saw cause. The Popes themselves did profess great veneration and observance of Conciliar Decrees. Pope Leo I. did oppose a Canon of the Synod of Chalcedon, (not pretending his Superiority to Councils, but the inviolability of the Nicene Canons) but it notwithstanding that opposition did prevail.

Even in the dregs of times, when the Pope had clambred so high to the top of power, this Question in great numerous Synods of Bishops was agitated, Concil. Const. Sess. 4. (p. 1003.) Concil. Bas. Sess. 2. & Sess. 33. and positively decided against him; both in Doctrine and practice.

Veritas Catholicae fidei, cui pertinaciter repugnans est censendus haereticus. Concil. Bas. Sess. 33.

Nec unquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit summum Pontificem in his quae fidem concernunt judicio eorundem Conciliorum universalium esse subjectum. Conc. Basil. decret. p. 117.

Concilium habet potestatem immediatè à Christo, cui Papa obedire tenetur— Conc. Bas. Sess. 38. p. 101.

The Synod of Basil affirmeth the matter of these Decrees to be a verity of the Christian faith, which whoever doth pertinaciously resist, is to be deemed a heretick— Those Fathers say that none of the skilfull did ever doubt of this truth, that the Pope in things belonging to faith, was subject to the judgment of the same General Councils. —that the Council has an authority immediately from Christ which the Pope is bound to obey. Those Synods were confirmed by Popes, without exception of those determinations.

Great Churches, most famous Vniversities, a mighty store of learned Doctours of the Roman Communion have reverenced those Councils, and adhered to their Doctrine. Insomuch that the Cardinal of Lorrain did affirm him to be an Heretick in France, who did hold the contrary.

These things sufficiently demonstrate that the Pope cannot pretend to Supremacy by universal Tradition; and if he cannot prove it by that, how can he prove it? not surely by Scripture, nor by Decrees of ancient Synods, nor by any clear and convincing reason.

XV. The Sovereign of the Church is by all Christians to be acknowledged the chief Person in the world, inferiour and subject to none; above all commands; the greatest Emperour being his Sheep and Subject.

He therefore now doth pretend to be above all Princes.As in Israel Saul was the Head. 1 Sam. 15.17. Divers Popes have affirmed this Superiority. They are allowed and most favoured by him, who teach this Doctrine. In their Missal he is preferred above all Kings, being prayed for before them.

But in the primitive times this was not held; for St. Paul requires every soul to be subject to the higher powers. Rom. 13.1. Then the Emperour was avowed the first person, next to God; To whom, says Tertullian, they are second,

— • quo sunt secundi, post quem primi ante omnes, & super omnes Deos; quidni? cùm super omnes homines, qui utique vivunt. Tertull. Apol. cap. 30.

Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 2.

Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem. Opt. 3. Vid. Tr. 5. § 14.

Dum se Donatus super Imperatorem extollit, jam quasi hominum excesserat modum ut se ut Deum non hominem aestimaret. Id. Ibid.—

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 463.

after whom they are first, before all and above all Gods. Why? &c. — we worship the Emperour as a man next to God, and less onely than God. And Optatus, — since there is none above the Emperour but God who made him. —while Donatus extolleth himself above the Emperour, he raises himself as it were above humanity, and thinks himself to be God and not Man. For the King is the top and head of all things on earth. Then even Chrys. in Rom. 13.1. Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, all men whoever were subject to the Emperour. The Emperours did command them, Jubemus igitur beatissimos Episcopos & Patriarchas hoc est senioris Romae, & Constantinopoleos, & Alexandriae, & Theopoleos & Hierosolymorum. Justinian. Novel. 123. cap. 3. P. Greg. M. Ep. 2.62. Supra in praef. § 4. Tract. 5. § 14. even the blessed Bishops and Patriarchs of old Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Theopolis and Jerusalem. Divers Popes did avow themselves subject to the Emperour.

XVI. The Confirmation of Magistrates, elected by others, Vid. § 5. Dist. 63. c. 4. P. Nic. I. Ep. Ann. 482. § 1. is a Branch of Supremacy which the Pope doth assume.

Baronius saith that this was the ancient custome; and that Pope Simplicius did confirm the Election of Calendion Bishop of Antioch.

Meletius confirm'd the most holy Gregory in the Bishoprick of Constantinople. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theod. 5.8.

But the truth is, that anciently Bishops being elected did onely give an account of their choice unto all other Bishops; especially to those of highest rank, desiring their approbation and friendship, for preservation of due communion, correspondence and peace. So the Synod of Antioch gave account to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —Euseb. 7.30. and all their Fellow-ministers throughout the world, &c. of the election of Domnus after Paulus Samosatenus. So the Fathers of Constantinople acquainted Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops with the Constitution of Nectarius, Flavianus, &c.

This was not to request Confirmation, as if the Pope or other Bishops could reject the Election if regular, but rather to assure whom they were to communicate with. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. Ibid. We have (say the Fathers of the Synod against Paulus Samosatenus) signified this (our chusing of Domnus into Paulus his room) that you may write to him and receive letters of communion from him— And St. Cyprian; Vt scires tu, & Collegae nostri quibus scribere, & literas mutuò à quibus vos accipere oporteret— Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Cornel.) That you and our Collegues may know to whom they may write, and from whom they may receive letters.

Thus the Bishops of Rome themselves did acquaint other Bishops with their Election, their Faith, &c. So did Cornelius; Vid. P. Greg. Tract. de Vnit. Eccl. whom therefore St. Cyprian asserteth as established by the consent and approbation of his Collegues;

Cum locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae Sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato— Cypr. Ep. 52.

—& Co-episcoporum testimonio, quorum numerus universus per totum mundum concordi unanimitate consensit. Ibid.

When the place of Peter and the Sacerdotal Chair was void, which by God's will being occupied, and with all our consents confirmed, &c. —and the testimony of our Fellow-bishops, the whole number of which all over the world unanimously consented.

The Emperour did confirm Bishops, as we see by that notable passage in the Synod of Chalcedon; where Bassianus, Bishop of Ephesus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. (p. 404.) pleading for himself saith, Our most religious Emperour knowing these things presently ratified it, and by a memorial published it, confirming the Bishoprick; afterwards he sent his rescript by Eustathius the Silentiary again confirming it.

XVII. It is a Privilege of Sovereigns to grant Privileges, Exemptions, Dispensations.

Vid. Bern.This he claimeth; but against the Laws of God and Rights of Bishops. Against the Decrees of Synods—against the sense of good men in all times.

XVIII. It is a Prerogative of Sovereign power, to Erect, Translate Spiritual Presidencies.

P. Innoc. III. in Greg. decr. li. 1. tit. 7. c. 1.—&c. Wherefore this the Pope claimeth. Cum ex illo, &c.

But at first he had nothing to doe therein, except in his own Province or Diocese.

As Christianity did grow and enter into Cities, so the neighbour Bishops did ordain Bishops there.

Princes often, as they did endow, so they did erect Episcopal Sees, and did, as was sutable, change places.

Pope Paschal II. doth by complaining attest to this, writing to the Archbishop of Poland▪ Quid super Episcoporum translationibus loquar, quae apud vos non auctoritate Apostolicâ, sed nutu Regis praesumuntur? P. Pasch. II. Ep. 6. Praeter authoritatem nostram Episcoporum translationes praesumitis— Eadm. p. 115. What shall I say of the translations of Bishops, which among you are presumed to be made, not by Apostolick authority, but the King's command?

XIX. It is a great Prerogative of Sovereignty to impose Taxes on the Clergy or People.

Wherefore the Pope doth assume this; as for instance that Decree of Pope Innocent IV. in the First Synod of Lions; By the common consent of the Council we ordain that all the Clergy, Caeterùm ex communi Concilii approbatione statuimus, ut omnes omnino Clerici, tam subditi quàm praelati, vigesimam Ecclestarum proventuum usque ad triennium conferant in subsidium terrae sanctae, per manus eorum, qui ad hoc Apostolicâ fuerint providentiâ ordinati. —sciántque se omnes ad hoc fideliter observandum per excommunicationis sententiam obligatos. Lugdun. Concil. 1. (Anno 1245) as well those who are under authority as the Prelates, pay for three years a twentieth part of their Ecclesiastical revenues towards the assistence of the holy Land, into the hands of those who shall be thereto appointed by the prudence of the Apostolick See. —and let all know that this they are bound faithfully to doe under pain of excommunication.

But Antiquity knew no such Impositions: when the Church, the Clergy, the Poor were maintained and relieved by voluntary Offerings, or Obventions.

Even the invidious splendour of the Roman Bishop was supported by the Oblations of Matrons, as Marcellinus observeth. Vt ditentur Oblationibus Matronarum. Marcell. 27. Vid. Const. Apost. 2.25. Nam qui constituerunt vel fundârunt sanctissimas Ecclesias pro sua salute & communis Reipublicae, reliquerunt illis substantias, ut per eas debeant sacrae liturgiae fieri, & ut in illis à ministrantibus piis Clericis Deus colatur. Cod. Lib. 1. Tit. 3. § 42.

This is an encroachment upon the right of Princes, unto whom Clergymen are Subjects, and bound to render tribute to whom tribute belongeth. Rom. 13.7.

SUPPOSITION VII. A farther grand Assertion of the Roman Party, is this, That the Papal Supremacy is indefectible, and unalterable.

BUT good reasons may be assigned, why even supposing that the Pope had an Universal Sovereignty in virtue of his Succession to Saint Peter conferred on him, it is not assuredly consequent, that it must always, or doth now belong to him. For it might be settled on him not absolutely but upon conditions, the which failing his authority may expire. It might be God's will that it should onely continue for a time. And there are divers ways, whereby according to common rules of justice, he might be disseised thereof.

1. If God had positively declared his will concerning this Point, that such a Sovereignty was by him granted irrevocably and immutably, so that in no case it might be removed or altered, then indeed it must be admitted for such; but if no such declaration doth appear, then to assert it for such is to derogate from his power and providence; by exemption of this case from it. It is the ordinary course of providence so to confer power of any kind or nature on men, as to reserve to himself the liberty of transferring it, qualifying it, extending or contracting it, abolishing it, according to his pleasure, in due seasons and exigencies of things. Whence no humane power can be supposed absolutely stable or immovably fixed in one person or place.

2. No power can have a higher source, or firmer ground, than that of the Civil Government hath, for all such power is from heaven, and in relation to that it is said, There is no power but from God, the powers that are, are ordained by God: Joh. 19.11. Rom. 13.1— But yet such power is liable to various alterations, and is like the Sea, having ebbs and flows, and ever changing its bounds either personal or local.

Any temporal Jurisdiction may be lost by those revolutions and vicissitudes of things, to which all humane Constitutions are subject; and which are ordered by the will and providence of the most High, Dan. 5.21. Psal. 75.7. who ruleth in the Kingdom of men, appointing over it whom he pleaseth; putting down one and setting up another.

Adam by God's appointment was Sovereign of the world; and his first-born Successours derived the same power from him: yet in course of time that order hath been interrupted, and divers independent Sovereignties do take place.

Every Prince hath his authority from God, or by virtue of Divine Ordination within his own Territory; and according to God's Ordinance the lawfull Successour hath a right to the same authority; yet by accidents such authority doth often fail totally or in part, changing its extent.

Why then may not any Spiritual power be liable to the same vicissitudes? why may not a Prelate be degraded as well as a Prince? why may not the Pope, as well as the Emperour, lose all, or part of his Kingdom?

Why may not the Successour of Peter, no less than the Heir of Adam, suffer a defaileur of Jurisdiction?

That Spiritual Corporations, Persons and Places are subject to the same contingences with others, as there is like reason to suppose, so there are Examples to prove; God removed his Sanctuary from Shiloh, Go ye now unto my place, Jer. 7.12. Jer. 7.14. Apoc. 2.5. which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at first, &c. He deserted Jerusalem. He removeth the Candlesticks. He placed Eli (of the Family of Ithamar) in the High-Priesthood, and displaced his Race from it:1 Sam. 2.30. 1 King. 2.27. I said indeed (saith God) that thy house, and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever, but now the Lord saith Be it far from me, &c.

3 The reason and exigency of things might be sufficient ground for altering an Universal Jurisdiction; for when it should prove very inconvenient or hurtfull, God might order such an alteration to happen, and men be obliged to allow it.

As God first did institute one Universal Monarchy, but that form (upon the multiplication of mankind, and peopling of the earth) proving incommodious, providence gave way for its change, and the setting up of particular Governments; to which men are bound to submit; So God might institute a singular Presidency of the Church; but when the Church grew vastly extended, so that such a Government would not conveniently serve the whole, he might order a division, in which we should acquiesce.

4. It hath ever been deemed reasonable, and accordingly been practised, that the Church in its exteriour form and political administrations should be suted to the state of the world, and Constitution of worldly Governments; that there might be no clashing or disturbance from each to other.

Wherefore seeing the World is now settled under so many Civil Sovereignties, it is expedient that Ecclesiastical Discipline should be so modelled, as to comply with each of them.

And it his reasonable, that any pretence of Jurisdiction should veil to the publick good of the Church and the World.

That it should be necessary for the Church to retain the same form of policy or measure of power affixed to persons or places, can no-wise be demonstrated by sufficient proof, and it is not consistent with experience; which sheweth the Church to have subsisted with variations of that kind.

There hath in all times been found much reason or necessity to make alterations as well in the places and bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as of Secular Empire.

Wherefore Saint Peter's Monarchy, reason requiring, might be cantonized into divers spiritual Supremacies; and as other Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions have been chopp'd and chang'd, enlarged or diminished, removed and extinguished, so might that of the Roman Bishop. The Pope cannot retain power in any State against the will of the Prince: he is not bound to suffer correspondences with Foreigners, especially such who apparently have interests contrary to his honour and the good of his people.

5. Especially that might be done, if the continuance of such a Jurisdiction should prove abominably corrupt, or intolerably grievous to the Church.

6. That power is defectible which according to the nature and course of things doth sometime fail.

But the Papal Succession hath often been interrupted by contingencies (of Sedition, Schism, Intrusion, Simoniacal Election, Deposition, &c. as before shewed) and is often interrupted by Vacancies from the death of the Incumbents.

7. If leaving their dubious and false suppositions, (concerning Divine Institution, Succession to Saint Peter, &c.) we consider the truth of the case, and indeed the more grounded plea of the Pope, that Papal preeminence was obtained by the wealth and dignity of the Roman City, and by the collation or countenance of the Imperial authority; then by the defect of such advantages it may cease or be taken away: for when Rome hath ceased to be the Capital City, the Pope may cease to be Head of the Church. When the Civil powers, which have succeeded the Imperial, each in its respective Territory, are no less absolute than it, they may take it away, if they judge it fit; for whatever power was granted by humane Authority, by the same may be revoked; and what the Emperour could have done, each Sovereign power now may doe for it self.

An indefectible power cannot be settled by man; because there is no power ever extant at one time greater than there is at another; so that whatever power one may raise, the other may demolish; there being no bounds whereby the present time may bind all posterity.

However no humane Law can exempt any Constitution from the providence of God; which at pleasure can dissolve whatever man hath framed. And if the Pope were devested of all adventitious power, obtained by humane means, he would be left very bare; and hardly would take it worth his while to contend for Jurisdiction.

8. However or whencesoever the Pope had his Authority, yet it may be forfeited by defects and defaults incurred by him.

If the Pope doth encroach on the rights and liberties of others, usurping a lawless domination, beyond reason and measure, they may in their own defence be forced to reject him, and shake off his yoke.

If he will not be content to govern otherwise than by infringing the Sacred Laws, and trampling down the inviolable Privileges of the Churches, either granted by Christ, or established by the Sanctions of General Synods; he thereby depriveth himself of all Authority; because it cannot be admitted upon tolerable terms, without greater wrong of many others (whose right out-weigheth his) and without great mischief to the Church, the good of which is to be preferred before his private advantage.

This was the Maxime of a great Pope, a great stickler for his own dignity; for when the Bishop of Constantinople was advanced by a General Synod above his ancient pitch of dignity, that Pope opposing him did say, that whoever doth affect more than his due, Propria pordit, qui indebita concupiscit. P. Leo I. Ep. 54. doth lose that which properly belonged to him; the which Rule if true in regard to another's case, may be applied to the Pope, for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

On such a supposition of the Papal encroachment, Superbum nimis est & immoderatum ultra fines proprios tendere, & antiquitate calcatâ alienum jus velle praeripere; utque unius crescat dignitas, tot Metropolitanorum impugnare primatus — P. Leo I. Ep. 55. we may return his words upon him; It is too proud and immoderate a thing to stretch beyond ones bounds, and in contempt of antiquity, to be willing to invade other mens right, and to oppose the Primacies of so many Metropolitans, on purpose to advance the dignity of one.

Privilegia enim Ecclesiarum, sanctorum Patrum Canonibus instituta, & venerabilis Nicenae Synodi fixa Decretis, nullâ possunt improbitate convelli, nullâ novitate mutari. Ibid. For the privileges of Churches, being instituted by the Canons of the holy Fathers, and fixt by the Decrees of the venerable Synod of Nice, cannot be pluckt up by any wicked attempt, nor altered by any innovation.

Absit hoc à me, ut Statuta Majorum Con-sacerdotibus meis in qualibet Ecclesiâ infringam, quia mihi injuriam facio, si fratrum meorum jura perturbo. Greg. I. Epist. 2.37. Far be it from me, that I should in any Church infringe the Decrees of our Ancestours made in favour of my Fellow-priests; for I do my self injury, if I disturb the rights of my brethren.

The Pope surely (according to any ground of Scripture, or Tradition, or ancient Law) hath no Title to greater Principality in the Church, than the Duke of Venice hath in that State; Now if the Duke of Venice in prejudice to the publick right and liberty, should attempt to stretch his power to an absoluteness of command, or much beyond the bounds allowed him by the constitution of that Common-wealth, he would thereby surely forfeit his Supremacy, (such as it is) and afford cause to the State of rejecting him: the like occasion would the Pope give to the Church by the like demeanour.

9. The Pope by departing from the Doctrine and Practice of Saint Peter, would forfeit his Title of Successour to him; for in such a case no succession in place or in name could preserve it; Pontifices ipsi à Petri vestigiis discesserant. Plat. in Joh. 10. (p. 275.) The Popes themselves had swerved and degenerated from the example of Peter.

Non Sanctorum Filii sunt, qui tenent l • ca Sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum— Hieron. ad Heliod. apud Grat. Dist. 40. cap. 2. They are not the Sons of the Saints, who hold the places of the Saints, but they that doe their works. (Which place is rased out of St. Hierome.)

Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri fidem non habent, quam impiâ divisione discerpunt. Ambr. de Poen. 1.6. They have not the inheritance of Peter, who have not the faith of Peter, which they tear asunder by ungodly division.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Greg. Naz. Or. 21.So Gregory Nazianzene saith of Athanasius, that he was Successour of Mark, no less in piety than presidency: the which we must suppose to be properly succession: otherwise the Mufti of Constantinople is Successour to St. Andrew, of St. Chrysostome, &c. the Mufti of Jerusalem to St. James.

If then the Bishop of Rome instead of teaching Christian Doctrine doth propagate Errours contrary to it; If instead of guiding into Truth and Godliness, he seduceth into Falshood and Impiety; If instead of declaring and pressing the Laws of God, he delivereth and imposeth Precepts opposite, prejudicial, destructive of God's Laws; If instead of promoting genuine Piety, he doth (in some instances) violently oppose it; If instead of maintaining true Religion, he doth pervert and corrupt it by bold Defalcations, by Superstitious additions, by Foul mixtures and alloys; If he coineth new Creeds, Articles of Faith, new Scriptures, new Sacraments, new Rules of Life, obtruding them on the Consciences of Christians; If he conformeth the Doctrines of Christianity to the Interests of his Pomp and Profit; making gain godliness; If he prescribe Vain, Profane, Superstitious ways of Worship, turning Devotion into Foppery and Pageantry; If instead of preserving Order and Peace, he fomenteth Discords and Factions in the Church; being a Make-bate and Incendiary among Christians; If he claimeth exorbitant Power, and exerciseth Oppression and tyrannical Domination over his Brethren; cursing and damning all that will not submit to his Dictates and Commands; If instead of being a Shepherd, he is a Wolf,

Non facit Ecclesiastica dignitas Christianum. Hier.

Ecclesiastical dignity makes not a Christian.

Non omnes Episcopi Episcopi sunt. Id.

All Bishops are not Bishops.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Athan. Const. Ap. 8.2.

They with them are scouts or spies, not Overseers or Bishops.

worrying and tearing the Flock by cruel Persecution: He by such behaviour ipso facto depriveth himself of Authority and Office; He becometh thence no Guide or Pastour to any Christian; there doth in such case rest no obligation to hear or obey him; but rather to decline him, to discost from him, to reject and disclaim him.

This is the reason of the case, this the Holy Scripture doth prescribe, this is according to the Primitive Doctrine, Tradition and Practice of the Church. For,

10. In reason, the nature of any spiritual Office consisting in Instruction in Truth and Guidance in Vertue toward attainment of Salvation; if any man doth lead into pernicious Errour or Impiety, he thereby ceaseth to be capable of such Office: As a blind man, by being so, doth cease to be a Guide; and much more he, that declareth a will to seduce; for,Luk. 6.39. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Who so blind as he that will not see?

No man can be bound to follow any one into the ditch: Matt. 15.14. or to obey any one in prejudice to his own Salvation; to die in his iniquity. Ezek. 3.18. Seeing God saith in such a case, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In vain do they worship me, Matt. 15.9. teaching for Doctrines the Precepts of men.

They themselves do acknowledge that Hereticks cease to be Bishops;Bell. de P. R. 2.30. (p. 1083.) and so to be Popes. Indeed they cease to be Christians; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such a one is subverted.

11. According to their Principles, the Pope hath the same relation to other Bishops and Pastours of the Church, which they have to their people; he being Pastour of Pastours: But if any Pastour should teach bad Doctrine, or prescribe bad Practice, his people may reject and disobey him; therefore in proportion, the Pastours may desert the Pope misguiding or misgoverning them. In such cases any Inferiour is exempted from obligation to comply with his Superiour, either truly or pretendedly such.

12. The case may be that we may not hold communion with the Pope, but may be obliged to shun him; in which case his Authority doth fail, and no man is subject to him.

13. This is the Doctrine of the Scripture. The High Priest and his fellows, under the Jewish Oeconomy, had no less Authority than any Pope can now pretend unto;Matt. 23.2. Matt. 15.6. they did sit in the Chair of Moses, and therefore all their True Doctrines and Lawfull Directions the people were obliged to learn and observe; but their false Doctrines,

Matt. 16.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vers. 12.

Beware and take heed of the leaven— of the doctrine.

and impious Precepts they were bound to shun; and consequently to disclaim their Authority so far as employed in urging such Doctrines and Precepts: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Let them alone, saith our Saviour,Matt. 15.14. they are blind leaders of the blind. Under the Christian dispensation, the matter is no less clear; our Lord commandeth us to beware of false Prophets;Matt. 7.15. and to see that no man deceive us; although he wear the cloathing of a Sheep, or come under the name of a Shepherd (coming in his name—).Matt. 24.4. Gal. 1.8, 9. Saint Paul informeth us, that if an Apostle, if an Angel from heaven doth preach beside the old Apostolical Doctrine (introducing any new Gospel, or a Divinity devised by himself) he is to be held accursed by us. He affirmeth, that even the Apostles themselves were not Lords of our faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. nor might challenge any power inconsistent with the maintenance of Christian Truth and Piety;2 Cor. 13.7, 8. We (saith he) can doe nothing against the truth, but for the truth; the which an ancient Writer doth well apply to the Pope, saying,

Nec aliquid contra veritatem, sed pro veritate, plus suis Con-sacerdotibus potest. Fac. Hermian. 2.6.

Gal. 2.11, 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

that he could doe nothing against the truth more than any of his Fellow-priests could doe; which S. Paul did in practice shew, when he resisted Saint Peter, declining from the truth of the Gospel. He chargeth, that if any one doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , teach heterodoxies, 1 Tim. 6.3, 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . we should stand off from him; that, if any brother walketh disorderly, and not according to Apostolical tradition,

2 Thess. 3.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —

Rom. 16.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

we should withdraw from him; that if any one doth raise divisions and scandals beside the doctrine received from the Apostles we should decline from him; that we are to refuse any heretical person. He telleth us that grievous Wolves should come into the Church, Tit. 3.10. Act. 20.29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . not sparing the flock; that from among Christians there should arise men speaking perverse things, Act. 20▪ 30. to draw disciples after them; but no man surely ought to follow, but to shun them.

These Precepts and Admonitions are general, without any respect or exception of Persons great or small, Pastour or Lay-man: nay, they may in some respect more concern Bishops than others; for that they declining from truth, are more dangerous and contagious.

14. The Fathers (in reference to this case) do clearly accord, both in their Doctrine and Practice. St. Cyprian telleth us, Plebs obsequens praecepti • Dominicis & Deum metuens à peccatore praeposito separare se debet. Cypr. Ep. 68. that a people obedient to the Lord's commandments, and fearing God, ought to separate it self from a sinfull Bishop, that is, from one guilty of such sins which unqualifie him for Christian Communion or Pastoral charge; Nec sibi plebs blandiatur, quasi immunis esse à contagio delicti possit cum Sacerdote peccatore communicans. Ibid. and Let not (addeth he) the common people flatter it self, as if it could be free from the contagion of guilt, if it communicate with a sinfull Bishop; whose irreligious Doctrine or Practice doth render him uncapable of communion; Quomodo enim possunt integritati & continentiae praeesse, si ex ipsis incipiant corruptelae & vitiorum magisteria procedere? Cyp. Ep. 62. for how (saith he otherwhere) can they preside over integrity and continence, if corruptions and the teaching of vices do begin to proceed from them?

They who reject the commandment of God, Qui mandatum Dei rejiciunt, & traditionem suam statuere conantur, fortiter à vobis & firmiter respuantur. Cypr. Ep. 40. (p. 73.) and labour to establish their own tradition, let them be strongly and stoutly refused and rejected by you.

St. Chrysostome, commenting on Saint Paul's words, If I or an Angel— saith,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Gal. 1.9.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. 1.8.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.

that Saint Paul meaneth to shew, that dignity of persons is not to be regarded where truth is concerned; that, if one of the chief Angels from heaven should corrupt the Gospel, he were to be accursed; that, not onely if they shall speak things contrary, or overturn all, but if they preach any small matter beside the Apostolical doctrine, altering the least point whatever, they are liable to an anathema.

And other-where, very earnestly persuading his Audience to render due respect and obedience to there Bishop, he yet interposeth this exception, If he hath a perverse opinion, although he be an Angel do not obey him;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in 2 Tim. Orat. 2.

Ecclesiastici Judices ut homines plerunque falluntur — Aug. c. Cresc. 2.21.

Quia nec Catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi fortè falluntur, 〈◊〉 contra Canonicas Dei Scriptur • s aliquid sentiant. August. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 10.

but if he teacheth right things, regard not his life but his words.

Ecclesiastical Judges as men are for the most part deceived.

For neither are Catholick Bishops to be assented to, if peradventure in any case they are mistaken, so as to hold any thing contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God.

If there be any Church which rejects the faith, Si qua est Ecclesia, quae fidem resp •• at, nec Apostolicae praedicationis fundamenta possideat, nè quam l • bem perfidia possit asperg • re deserenda est. Ambr. in Luc. 9. (p. 85.) and does not hold the fundamentals of the Apostolical doctrine, it ought to be forsaken, lest it infect others with its heterodoxy.

If in such a case we must desert any Church, then the Roman; if any Church, then much more any Bishop, particularly him of Rome.

This hath been the Doctrine of divers Popes.

Which not onely the Apostolical Prelate,

Quod non solùm Praesuli Apostolico facere licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quoslibet & quemlibe • locum, secundum regulam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Catholica communione discernant. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4.

Fides universalis est, omnium communis est, non solùm ad Clericos, verùm etiam ad Laicos, & ad omnes omni •• pertinet Christianos. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. p. 506.

Oves ergò quae pastori suo commissae fuerint, • um nec reprebendere, nisi à recta fide exorbitaverit, debent— P. Joh. I. Ep. 1. (apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 812.)

but any other Bishop may doe, viz. discriminate and severe any men, and any place from the Catholick communion, according to the rule of that fore-condemned heresie.

Faith is universal, common to all, and belongs not onely to Clergymen but also to Laicks, and even to all Christians.

Therefore the sheep which are committed to the cure of their Pastour, ought not to reprehend him, unless he swerve and go astray from the right faith.

15. That this was the current opinion, common practice doth shew, there being so many instances of those who rejected their Superiours, and withdrew from their communion, in case of their maintaining errours, or of their disorderly behaviour; such practice having been approved by General and Great Synods as also by divers Popes.

When Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople did introduce new and strange Doctrine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Conc. Eph. part. I. p. 220. divers of his Presbyters did rebuke him, and withdraw communion from him; which proceeding is approved in the Ephesine Synod.

Particularly Charisius did assert this proceeding in those remarkable words presented to that same Synod; 'Tis the wish and desire of all well affected persons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Charis. in Conc. Eph. Act. 6. p. 358. to give always all due honour and reverence especially to their spiritual Fathers and Teachers: but if it should so happen that they who ought to teach, should instill unto those who are set under them such things concerning the faith, as are offensive to the ears and hearts of all men, then of necessity the order must be inverted, and they who teach wrong Doctrine must be rebuked of those who are their inferiours.

Pope Celestine I. in that case did commend the people of Constantinople, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cel • st. I. in Conc. Eph. p. 190. deserting their Pastour; Happy flock (said he) to whom the Lord did afford to judge about its own Pasture.

St. Hierome did presume to write very briskly and smartly in reproof of John Bishop of Hierusalem, in whose Province he a simple Presbyter did reside.

Quis scindit Ecclesiam? nos quorum omnis domus in Bethlehem in Ecclesia communicat; an tu qui aut benè credis, & superbè de fide taces, aut malè & verè scindis Ecclesiam?— An tu solus Ecclesia es; & qui to offenderit à Christo excluditur? Hier. Ep. 61. cap. 16. Ep. 62. Who makes a schism in the Church? we whose whole house in Bethlehem communicate with the Church, or thou, who either believest aright, and proudly concealest the truth, or art of a wrong belief, and really makest a breach in the Church? Art thou onely the Church? and is he who offendeth thee excluded from Christ?

Malchion disertissimus Antiochenae Ecclesiae Presbyter, adversus Paulum Samosatenum, qui Antiochenae Ecclesiae Episcopus dogma Artemonis instaurârat disputavit. Hieron. in Catal. Malchion, Presbyter of Antioch disputed against Paulus Samosatenus his Bishop.

Beatus Presbyter confuted his Bishop Elipandus of Toledo.

Quòd si à fide exorbitaverit Rector, tunc arguendus erit à subditis. Isid. Hisp. de Offic. 3.39. Vid. Thomam Aq. in 4. Dist. 19. Art. 2. But if the Rectour swerve from the faith, he is to be reproved by those who are under him.

16. The case is the same of the Pope; for if other Bishops, who are reckoned Successours of the Apostles, and Vicars of Christ within their precinct; if other Patriarchs, who sit in Apostolical Sees, and partake of a like extensive Jurisdiction, by incurring heresie or schism, or committing notorious disorder and injustice, may be deprived of their Authority, so that their Subjects may be obliged to forsake them, then may the Pope lose his: for truth and piety are not affixed to the Chair of Rome more than to any other; there is no ground of asserting any such Privilege either in Holy Scripture or in old Tradition; there can no promise be alledged for it, having any probable shew (that of Oravi pro te, being a ridiculous pretence) it cannot stand without a perpetual miracle; there is in fact no appearance of any such miracle; from the ordinary causes of great errour and impiety (that is, ambition, avarice, sloth, luxury) the Papal state is not exempt, yea apparently it is more subject to them than any other; all Ages have testified and complained thereof.

17. Most eminent persons have in such cases withdrawn communion from the Pope; as other-where we have shewed by divers Instances.

18. The Canon Law it self doth admit the Pope may be judged if he be a Heretick. Quia cunctos ipse judicaturus à nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur à fide devius. Gra. dist. 40. cap. 6. Vid. P. Innoc. III. apud Laun. contra Baron.—— Because he that is to judge all persons is to be judged of none, except he be found to be gone astray from the faith.

The supposition doth imply the possibility, and therefore the case may be put that he is such, and then he doth (according to the more current Doctrine ancient and modern) cease to be a Bishop, yea a Christian; Hence no obedience is due to him; yea no communion is to be held with him.

19. This in fact was acknowledged by a great Pope, allowing the condemnation of Pope Honorius for good, because he was erroneous in point of Faith: for (saith he, in that which is called the Eighth Synod) although Honorius was anathematized after his death by the Oriental Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syn. VIII. Act. 7. p. 963. it is yet well known, that he was accused for heresie; for which alone it is lawfull for inferiours to rise up against superiours.

Now that the Pope (or Papal succession) doth pervert the truth of Christian Doctrine, in contradiction to the Holy Scripture, and Primitive Tradition; that he doth subvert the practice of Christian piety in opposition to the Divine commands; that he teacheth falshoods, and maintaineth impieties, is notorious in many particulars, some whereof we shall touch.

We justly might charge him with all those extravagant Doctrines and Practices which the high flying Doctours do teach, and which the fierce Zealots upon occasion do act; for the whole succession of Popes of a long time hath most cherished and encouraged such folks, looking squintly on others, as not well affected to them; But we shall onely touch those new and noxious or dangerous positions, which great Synods, managed and confirmed by their Authority, have defined; or which they themselves have magisterially decreed; or which are generally practised by their influence or countenance.

It is manifest, that the Pope doth support and cherish as his special Favourites the Venters of wicked Errours; such as those who teach the Pope's infallibility, his power over temporal Princes, to cashier and depose them, to absolve subjects from their allegiance— the Doctrine of equivocation, breach of faith with hereticks, &c. the which Doctrines are heretical, as inducing pernicious practice; whence whoever doth so much as communicate with the maintainers of them, according to the principles of ancient Christianity, are guilty of the same crimes.

The Holy Scripture and Catholick Antiquity do teach and injoin us to worship and serve God alone,

Matt. 4.10. Apoc. 19.10.22.9. Col. 2.18. Rom. 1.25.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bas. apud Sozom. 6.16.

our Creatour; forbidding us to worship any Creature, or Fellow-servant; even not Angels. For I who am a Creature will not endure to worship one like to me.

Similiter & Sanctos una cum Christo regnantes venerandos atque invocandos esse.— atque horum reliquias esse venerandas. Pii IV. Profess. fid. Bonum atque utile esse eos invocare— Sanctorum quoque corpora— à fidelibus veneranda esse. Conc. Trid.But the Pope and his Clients do teach and charge us to worship Angels, and dead men; yea even to venerate the reliques and dead bodies of the Saints.

1 Cor. 4.5. Rom. 14.4.The Holy Scripture teacheth us to judge nothing (about the present or future state of men, absolutely) before the time, untill the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of hearts, and then each man shall have praise of God.

But the Pope notoriously (in repugnance to those precepts, anticipating God's judgment, and arrogating to himself a knowledge requisite thereto) doth presume to determine the state of men, canonizing them, declaring them to be Saints, and proposing them to be worshipped; and on the other side, he damneth, curseth and censureth his Fellow-servants.

God in his Law doth command us not to bow down our selves unto any image, or worship the likeness of any thing in heaven, Exod. 20.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .— or earth, or under the earth; the which Law (whether Moral or Positive) the Gospel doth ratifie and confirm,1 Joh. 5.21. 1 Cor. 10.14, 7. charging us to keep our selves from idols, and to fly worshipping of idols, that is, to observe the Second Commandment;Clem. Alex. Tertull. the validity whereof the Fathers most expresly assert; and divers of them were so strict in there opinion about it, that they deemed it unlawfull so much, as to make any Image.

But the Pope and his Adherents (in point-blank opposition to Divine Law, and Primitive Doctrine) doth require us to fall down before and to worship Images. Imagines porrò— Sanctorum in Templis praesertim habendas, & retinendas, císque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam— ità ut per Imagines, quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, Christum adoremus, & Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Moreover we decree that the Images of Saints be especially had and retain'd in Churches, and that due honour and veneration be imparted to them— so that by those Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and fall down, we adore Christ, and venerate the Saints whose likeness they bear.

Neither is he satisfied to recommend and decree these unwarrantable venerations, but (with a horrible strange kind of uncharitableness and ferity) doth he anathematize those, who teach or think any thing opposite to his decrees concerning them; Siquis autem his decretis con • raria docuerit, aut senserit, anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. so that if the ancient Fathers should live now, they would live under this curse.

Ezek. 18. Luk. 15. Rom. 10.9. Mark 1.15.The Holy Scripture, under condition of Repentance and amendment of life, upon recourse to God and trust in his Mercy, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, doth offer and promise Remission of sins, Acceptance with God, Justification and Salvation; this is the tenour of the Evangelical Covenant; nor did the Primitive Church know other terms.

But the Pope doth preach another Doctrine, and requireth other terms as necessary for Remission of sins and Salvation; for he hath decreed the confession of all and each mortal sin, which a man by recollection can remember, to a Priest, to be necessary thereto; anathematizing all who shall say the contrary;

Si quis dixerit in Sacramento poenitentiae ad remissionem peccatorum necessarium non esse jure divino confiteri omnia & singula peccata mortalia, quorum memoria cum debita & diligenti praemeditatione habeatur— anathema sit. Sess. 14. de Poen. Can. 7.

If any one shall say, that in the Sacrament of Penance, it is not necessary by divine right to confess all and singular mortal sins, the remembrance whereof may be had by due and diligent premeditation— let him be anathema.

although the Fathers (particularly St. Chrysostome frequently) have affirmed the contrary.

The which is plainly preaching another Gospel (forged by himself and his abettours) as offering Remission upon other terms than God hath prescribed; and denying it upon those which Christianity proposeth.

He teacheth that no sin is pardoned without absolution of a Priest.

He requireth satisfaction imposed by a Priest, besides repentance and new obedience, as necessary. Which is also another Gospel.

Si quis negaverit ad integram & perfectam peccatorum remissionem requiri—contritionem, confessionem & satisfactionem. Sess. 14. Can. 4.

If any shall deny that contrition, confession and satisfaction, is required to the entire and perfect remission of sin.

He dispenseth pardon of sin upon condition of performances unnecessary and insufficient;

Et qui Hierosolymam proficiscuntur, & ad Christianam gentem defendendam, & tyrannidem infidelium debellandum efficaciter. auxilium praebuerint, quorum peccatorum remissionem concedimus— Conc. Lat. 1. Can. 11.

And whoever go to Jerusalem and powerfully afford help to defend Christian people, and to subdue the tyranny of Infidels, to them we grant forgiveness of their sins—

such as undertaking Pilgrimages to the Shrines of Saints, Visiting Churches, making War upon Infidels or Hereticks, Contributing money, Repeating Prayers, undergoing Corporal Penances, &c. Which is likewise to frame and publish another Gospel.

These Doctrines are highly presumptuous, and well may be reputed heretical.

God hath commanded that every soul should be subject to the higher powers temporal, as to God's Ministers; so as to obey their Laws,Rom. 13.1. — Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Chrys. Si omnis & vestra— si quis tentat excipere, conatur decipere. Bern. Ep. 42. to submit to their Judgments, to pay Tribute to them— And the Fathers expound this Law to the utmost extent and advantage. If every soul, then yours, if any attempt to except you, he goes about to deceive you.

But the Pope countermandeth, Lex Canonica simpliciter eos eximit. Bell. de Cler. cap. 1. Sanè quia Laici quidam Ecclesiastica • personas & ipsos etiam Episcopos suo judicio stare compellunt, eos qui de caetero id praesumpserint, à communione fidelium decernimus segregandos. Conc. Lat. III. Can. 14. Con. Lat. II. Can. 15. Steph. VI. Ep. 1. (Tom. 1. p. 130.) Nichol. 1. Ep. 8. (Tom. 6. p. 513.) and exempteth all Clergy-men from those duties, by his Canon Law; excommunicating Lay-Judges, who shall perform their Office in regard to them. Because indeed some Lay-persons constrain Ecclesiasticks, yea and Bishops themselves, to appear before them and to stand to their judgment, those that henceforth shall presume to doe so, we decree that they shall be separate from the communion of the faithfull.

The Scriptures do represent the King (or Temporal Sovereign) as Supreme over his Subjects,Tertull. Opt. Cyrill. &c. alibi. Greg. Ep. 2.62. Agatho, &c. to whom all are obliged to yield special respect and obedience: The Fathers yield him the same place, above all next to God; and subject to God alone: The ancient good Popes did acknowledge themselves Servants, and Subjects to the Emperour.

2 Thess. 2.4.But later Popes, like the man of sin in Saint Paul, have advanced themselves above all Civil power; claiming to themselves a supereminency not onely of Rank but of Power over all Christian Princes; even to depose them. Christus beato aeternae vitae Clavigero terreni simul & coelestis Imperii jura commisit. P. Nich. II. apud Grat. dist. 22. cap. 1. Greg. VII. Ep. 8.21. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 3. Christ has committed the rights both of terrestrial and celestial government to that blessed man who bears the keys of eternal life.

Seculi potestates si fideles sunt, Deus Ecclesiae Sacerdotibus voluit esse subjectas— Imperatores Christiani subdere debent executiones suas Ecclesiasticis praesulibus, non praeferre. P. Joh. VIII. apud Grat. dist. 96. cap. 11. If the secular power be believers, God would have them subject to the Priests of the Church— Christian Emperours ought to submit, and not prefer the execution of their Laws to the Rulers of the Church.

God by indispensable Law hath obliged us to retain our obedience to the King even Pagan; charging us under pain of damnation to be subject to him, and not to resist him—

But the Pope is ready upon occasion to discharge Subjects from that obligation, to absolve them from their solemn Oaths of Allegiance, to encourage Insurrection against him; Nos sanctorum Praedecessorum nostrorum Statuta tenentes, eos qui excommunicatis Fidelitate aut Sacramento constricti sunt, Apostolicâ auctoritate à Sacramento absolvimus; & nè eis Fidelitatem observent omnibus modis prohibemus, quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. Greg. VII. in Syn. Rom. Grat. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 4. to prohibit obedience—We observing the Decrees of our holy Predecessours, by our Apostolical Authority absolve those from their Oath who were bound by their Fealty and Oath to excommunicated persons: and we forbid them by all means that they yield them no Allegiance, till they come and make satisfaction.

Thus doth he teach and prescribe Rebellion, Perjury— together with all the Murthers and Rapines consequent on them: which is a far greater Heresie, than if he should teach Adultery, Murther or Theft to be lawfull. For they are enjoined by no authority to perform the Allegiance which they have sworn to a Christian Prince, Fidelitatem enim quam Christiano Principi jurârunt, Deo ejúsque Sanctis adversanti, eorum praecepta calcanti, nullà cohibentur auctoritate persolvere— P. Urb. II. apud Grat. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 5. who is an adversary to God and his Saints, and contemns their commands.

Ezek. 13.3, &c. Not onely the Holy Scripture, but Common Sense doth shew it to be an enormous presumption to obtrude for the Inspirations, Oracles and Dictates of God, any writings or Propositions, which are not really such.

S • quis autem libros ipsos integros cum suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, & in veteri vulgata Latina Editione habentur, pro Sacris & Canonicis non susceperit— anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 4.

But if any shall not receive for Sacred and Canonical, those whole Books with the parts of them, according as they have been wont to be read in the Catholick Church, and are had in the old vulgar Latin Edition; let him be Anathema.

This the Pope doth notoriously, charging us to admit divers writings, (which the greatest part of learned men in all Ages have refused for such) as Sacred and Canonical; anathematizing all those who do not hold each of them for such.—Even as they are extant in a Translation, not very exact, and framed partly out of Hebrew, partly out of Greek, upon divers accounts liable to mistake; as its Authour St. Hierome doth avow.

According to which Decree, all who consent with St. Hierome, St. Austin, St. Athanasius, &c. with common sense, with the Authour of the Second of Maccabees himself, must incur a curse— what can be more uncharitable, more unjust, more silly than such a Definition?

He pretendeth to Infallibility, or encourageth them who attribute it to him; which is a continual Enthusiasm and profane bold Imposture.

The Scripture doth avow a singular reverence due to it self, as containing the Oracles of God.—

But the Pope doth obtrude the Oral Traditions of his Church (divers of which evidently are new, dubious, —nec non traditiones ipsas—continuâ successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit, & veneratur. Syn. Trid. Sess. 4. vain —) to be worshipped with equal reverence as the Holy Scripture. And also receives and venerates with the like pious respect and reverence the Traditions themselves—which have been preserved by continual succession in the Catholick Church.

Among which Traditions they reckon all the tricks and trumpery of their Mass-service; together with all their new notions about Purgatory, Extreme unction, &c. He also used several ceremonies, Caeremonias item adhibuit, ut mysticas benedictiones, lumina, thymiamata, vestes, aliáque id genus multaex Apostolica disciplina & traditione—Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 5.11. de sacrif. Miss. as mystical benediction, lights, incensings, garments, and many other such things, from Apostolical discipline, and tradition.

The Scriptures affirm themselves to be written for common instruction, comfort, edification in all piety; they do therefore recommend themselves to be studyed and searched by all people;2 Tim. 3.15.—Rom. 15.4. 1 Cor. 9.10.10.11. 2 Pet. 1.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Joh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. Psal. 119.— Hier. ad Laet. Epitaph. Paul. Vit. Hilar.— Chrys. in Colos. Or. 9. Aug. Serm. 55. de temp. as the best and surest means of attaining knowledge and finding truth. The fathers also do much exhort all people, (even women and girles) constantly to reade, and diligently to study the Scriptures.

But the Pope doth keep them from the people,N. P. Pius IV. did authorize certain rules for prohibition and permission of books; in which it is permitted to Bishops to grant a faculty of reading the Scriptures translated—but to this rule there is added an observation, that this power was taken from Bishops by command of the Roman Vniversal Inquisition. Ind. Lib. prohib. à Clem. VIII. locked up in Languages not understood by them; prohibiting Translations of them to be made, or used— The Scripture teacheth, and common sense sheweth, and the Fathers do assert (nothing indeed more frequently or more plainly) that all necessary points of faith and good morality are with sufficient evidence couched in Holy Scripture, so that a man of God, or pious men may thence be perfectly furnished to every work;2 Tim. 3.17. But they contrary-wise blaspheme the Scriptures as obscure, dangerous, &c.

Common sense dictateth, that devotions should be performed with understanding and affection; and that consequently they should be in a known tongue: And Saint Paul expresly teacheth, that it is requisite for private and publick edification; from this Doctrine of Paul it appears, 1 Cor. 14.14.—Ex hac Pauli doctrina habetur, quòd melius est ad Ecclesiae aedificationem orationes publicas, quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici linguâ communi Clericis & populo, quàm dici Latiné. Cajet. in 1 Cor. 14. that it is better for the edification of the Church, that publick prayers, which are said in the audience of the people, should be said in a tongue common to the Clergy and the people, than that they should be said in Latin.

All ancient Churches did accordingly practise; and most others do so, beside those which the Pope doth ride.

But the Pope will not have it so, requiring the publick Liturgy to be celebrated in an unknown tongue; and that most Christians shall say their devotions like Parrots. He anathematizeth those, who think the Mass should be celebrated in a vulgar tongue;

—aut linguâ tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere— anathema sit.

Sess. 22. Can. 9.

that is all those who are in their right wits, and think it fit to follow the practice of the ancient Church.

The Holy Scripture teacheth us that there is but one Head of the Church; and the Fathers do avow no other (as we have otherwhere shewed.)

But the Pope assumeth to himself the headship of the Church, A quo tanquam Capite omnis in subjecta membra potest • s & authoritas derivetur. P. Pius II. in Bull. Retract. affirming all power and authority to be derived from him into the subject members of the Church.

Definimus Romanum Pontificem — verum Christi Vicarium, totiúsqùe Ecclesiae caput— Defin. Syn. Flor. We decree that the Roman Pontife is the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church.

The Scripture declareth that God did institute marriage for remedy of incontinency and prevention of sin; forbidding the use of it to none,Matt. 19.11. who should think it needfull or convenient for them; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ;— 1 Cor. 9.5. reckoning the prohibition of it among heretical doctrines; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Tim. 4.3. implying it to be imposing a snare upon men. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Cor. 7.35.

But the Pope and his Complices do prohibit it to whole Orders of men, Vid. Tom. 7. Conc. p. 465. Syn. Trid. Sess. 24. de matr. Can. 9. (Priests, &c.) engaging them into dangerous vows.

Matt. 5.32.19.7. 1 Cor. 7.10.Our Lord forbiddeth any marriage lawfully contracted to be dissolved, otherwise than in case of adultery.

Contracta quoque matrimonia ab hujusmodi personis disjungi— Conc. Lat. I. cap. 21. Lat. II.

Trid. Sess. 24. Can. 9.—

But the Pope commandeth Priests married to be divorced. And that marriages contracted by such persons should be dissolved.

He dissolveth matrimony agreed, by the profession of monkery of one of the espoused. Si quis dixerit matrimonium ratum, non consummatum, per solennem religionis professionem alterius conjugum non dirimi, anathema sit. Sess. 24. Can. 6. If any shall say, that matrimony confirmed, not consummate, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion of either party, let him be Anathema,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Matt. 26.27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Joh. 6.53.Our Saviour did institute and enjoin us (under pain of damnation, if we should wilfully transgress his order) to eat of his body, and drink of his bloud, in participation of the Holy Supper.

The Fathers did accordingly practise, with the whole Church, till late times.

But notwithstanding Christ's institution (as they express it) Papal Synods do prohibit all Laymen,

Non obstante. Conc. Const. Sess. 13.

Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 8. & Can. 3. Sess. 21. cap. 4. & Can. 3.

and Priests not celebrating to partake of Christ's bloud; so maiming and perverting our Lord's Institution: This P. Leo I. condemneth. De Quadr. Serm. 4. (p. 38.) Sanguinem redemptionis nostrae haurire declinant.— P. Gelasius calleth the division of the Sacrament a grand Sacrilege. Gratian. in De Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 12. and yet they decline to drink the bloud of our redemption.

In defence of which practice, they confound body and bloud; Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 3. Sess. 13. Can. 3. and under a curse would oblige us to believe▪ that one kind doth contain the other; or that a part doth contain the whole.

Whereas our Lord saith,Joh. 6.54. that whoso eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath eternal life, and consequently supposeth,

Si quis dixerit tantum in usu, &c.

Trid. Conc. Sess. 13. cap. 8. & Can. 4. —

that bad men do not partake of his body and bloud; yet they condemn this assertion under a curse

The Holy Scripture, and the Fathers after it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Cor. 11.26. commonly do call the elements of the Eucharist, after consecration, bread and wine;Theod. Gelas.— affirming them to retain their nature.

But the Popish Cabal anathematizeth those who say, that bread and wine do then remain. Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis & vini— anathema sit. Trid. Conc. de Euch. Sess. 13. Can. 2.

If any shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remain —let him be Anathema.

The nature of the Lord's Supper doth imply communion and company;

Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus sacerdos solus sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse, anathema sit.

Sess. 22. de sacr. Miss. Can. 8. Sess. 13. Can. 8.

but they forbid any man to say that a Priest may not communicate alone; so establishing the belief of non-sense, and contradiction.

The Holy Scripture teacheth us, that our Lord hath departed, and is absent from us in body; untill that he shall come to judge, which is called his presence;2 Cor. 5.6.— Act. 2.33. Col. 3.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Heb. 10.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .— Act. 3.21. that heaven, whither he ascended, and where he sitteth at God's right hand, must hold him till the times of the restitution of all things.

But the Pope with his Lateran and Tridentine Complices draw him down from heaven, and make him corporally present every day, in numberless places here.

The Scripture teacheth us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Heb. 2.17. that our Lord is a man, perfectly like to us, in all things.

But the Pope and his adherents make him extremely different from us, as having a body at once present in innumerable places; insensible, &c. devested of the properties of our body; thereby destroying his humane nature, and in effect agreeing with Eutyches, Apollinarius, and other such pestilent Hereticks.

The Scripture representeth him born once for us; but they affirm him every day made by a Priest, uttering the words of consecration; as if that which before did exist, could be made; as if a man could make his Maker.

The Scripture teacheth, that our Lord was once offered for expiation of our sins;Heb. 9.26.10.10, 12, 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . but they pretend every day to offer him up as a propitiatory Sacrifice.

These devices without other foundation, than a figurative expression (which they resolve to expound in a proper sense, although even in that very matter divers figurative expressions are used, as they cannot but acknowledge) they with all violence and fierceness obtrude upon the belief as one of the most necessary and fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion.

Eph. 2.8, 9. Tit. 3.5. Rom. 3.24. Luk. 17.10.The Scripture teacheth us humbly to acknowledge the rewards assigned by God to be gratuitous and free; and that we, after we have done all, must acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants.

But the Papists curse those who, although out of humility and modesty, will not acknowledge the good works of justified persons to be truly meritorious; Sess. 6. de Justif. Can. 32. deserving the encrease of grace, eternal life, and augmentation of glory: so forcing us to use saucy words and phrases, if not impious in their sense.

The Scripture teacheth one Church diffused over the whole world; whereof each part is bound to maintain charity, peace and communion with the rest, upon brotherly terms.

But the Romanists arrogate to themselves the name and privilege of the onely Church; Orbis terra • um Apostatavit, & sola remansit Donati Communio. Aug. de Vnit. 12.— 1 Joh. 4.1. Jer. 29.8.— condemning all other Churches beside their own, and censuring all for Apostatical who do not adhere to them or submit to their yoke; Just like the Donatists, who said that the world had apostatized, excepting those who upon their own terms did communicate with them; onely the communion of Donatus remained the true Church.

The Holy Scripture biddeth us take care of persons pretending to extraordinary Inspirations; charging on the Holy Spirit their own conceits and devices.

Such have been their Synods, boldly fathering their Decrees on God's Spirit— And their Pope is infallible, by virtue of inspiration communicated to him, when he pleaseth to set himself right in his Chair. Whence we may take them for bodies of Enthusiasts and Fanaticks: the difference onely is, that other Enthusiasts pretend singly, they conjunctly and by conspiracy. Others pretend it in their own direction and defence, these impose their dreams on the whole Church.

Luk. 11.13. Jam. 1.5. 1 Joh. 2.27. Heb. 8.11. Rom. 8.9. Act. 5.32. Aug. Doctr. Christ. Ep. ad Jen.If they say that God hath promised his Spirit to his Church; it is true, but he hath no less plainly and frequently promised it to single Christians, who should seek it earnestly of him.

The ancient Fathers could in the Scriptures hardly discern more than two Sacraments or Mysterious Rites of our Religion, by positive Law and Institution of our Saviour to be practised.

But the Popes have devised others, and under uncharitable curses propound them to be professed for such; Si Sacramenta essent pauciora, magna impietas fuisset, & superstitio, &c. Bell. de Sacr. 2.25. If the Sacraments were fewer there would have been great impiety and superstition, &c. affirming them to confer grace by the bare performance of them.

Every Clergy-man and Monk is bound by Pius IV. to profess there are just seven of them;

Profiteor quoque septem esse propriè & verè Sacramenta. Bulla Pii IV.

Si quis dixerit— esse plura vel pauciora quàm septem— anathema sit. Syn. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1.

and the Tridentine Synod anathematizeth all those, who do say there are more or fewer; although the Ancients did never hit on that number.

But these our Sacraments both contain grace,

Haec verò nostra & continent gratiam, & ipsam dignè suscipientibus conferunt. P. Eug. in Instr. Arm.

Si quis dixerit per ipsa novae legis Sacramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam— anathema sit. Ibid. Can. 8.

and also confer it upon those who worthily receive them.

They require men to believe under a curse that each of those were instituted of Christ, and confer grace by the bare performance.

Particularly, they curse those, Si quis dixerit matrimonium non esse verè ac propriè unum ex septem legis Evangelicae Sacramentis, à Christo Domino institutum— neque gratiam conferre, anathema sit. Sess. 24. Can. 1. who do not hold matrimony for a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, and conferring grace. What can be more ridiculous than to say, that marriage was instituted by Christ, or that it doth confer grace?

Yet with another anathema they prefer Virginity before it: Sess. 24. Can. 10. and why forsooth is not that another Sacrament? And then they must be comparing the worth of these Sacraments, condemning those heavily, who may conceive them equal, as being Divine Institutions.

If any say that these seven Sacraments are so equal one to another, Si quis dixerit haec septem Sacramenta ità esse inter s • paria, ut nullâ ration • aliud sit alio dignius, anathema si • . Sess. 7. Can. 3. that one is in no respect of more worth than another, let him be Anathema.

The first, as it seemeth, who reckoned the Sacraments to be seven, was Peter Lombard;

Novae legis septem sunt Sacramenta, &c. P. Eug. in Instr. Arm.

Bellarmine could find none before him. Vid. de Sacram. 2.25.

whom the Schoolmen did follow; and Pope Eugenius IV. followed them; and afterward the Trent men formed it into an Article back'd with an Anathema.

Upon which rash and peremptory Sentence touching all ancient Divines, we may note;

1. Is it not strange that an Article of Faith should be formed upon an ambiguous word, or a term of art, used with great variety?

2. Is it not strange to define a Point whereof it is most plain that the Fathers were ignorant, were in they never did agree or resolve any thing?

3. Yea whereof they speak variously.

4. Is it not odd and extravagant to damn or curse people for a point of so little consideration or certainty?

5. Is it not intolerable arrogance and presumption to define, nay indeed to make an Article of Faith, Multa di • untur à veteribus Sacramenta praeter ista septem. Bell. de Sacr. 2.24. Many things are by the Ancients called Sacraments besides these seven. without any manner of ground or colour of Authority either from Scripture or the Tradition of the ancient Fathers?

The Holy Scripture forbiddeth us to call any man Master upon earth, Matt. 23.8. 2 Cor. 1.24. 1 Thess. 5.21. Col. 2.8. Matt. 15.9. or absolutely to subject our Faith to the dictates of any man; It teacheth us that the Apostles themselves are not Lords of our faith, so as to oblige us to believe their own inventions; It forbiddeth us to swallow whole the Doctrines and Precepts of men, without examination of them. It forbiddeth us to admit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Heb. 13.9. various and strange doctrines.

But the Pope and Roman Church exact from us a submission to their Dictates, admitting them for true, without any farther enquiry or discussion, barely upon his Authority. They who are provided of any Benefices whatever, having cure of Souls, Provisi de beneficiis quibuscunque curam animarum habentibus— in Romanae Ecclesiae obedientiam spondeant ac jurent. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. cap. 12. de Ref. —n • c non veram obedientiam summo Pontifici spondeant & profiteantur. Sess. 25. cap. 2. de Ref. let them promise and swear obedience to the Roman Church.

They require of us without doubt to believe, to profess, to assert innumerable Propositions, divers of them new and strange no-wise deducible from Scripture or Apostolical Tradition, the very terms of them being certainly unknown to the Primitive Church, devised by humane subtilty, curiosity, contentiousness — divers of them being (in all appearance, to the judgment of common sense) uncertain, obscure and intricate; divers of them bold and fierce; divers of them frivolous and vain; divers of them palpably false. Namely all such Propositions, as have been taught by their Great Junto's, allowed by the Pope, especially that of Trent.

Moreover all other things delivered, defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils, Caetera item omnia à Sacris Canonibus & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipuè à Sacrosancta Tridentina Synod • tradita, definita, & declarata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteor; simúlque contraria omnia, atque haereses quascunque ab Ecclesia damnatas & rejectas & anathematizatas ego pariter damno, respuo & anathematizo. P. Pii IV. profess. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nulla salus esse potest. Ibid. and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent, I undoubtedly receive and profess; and also all things contrary thereunto, and all heresies whatsoever condemned and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I in like manner do condemn, reject and anathematize— This is the true Catholick Faith, out of which there can be no Salvation.

This Usurpation upon the Consciences of Christians (none like whereto was ever known in the world) they prosecute with most uncharitable censures; cursing and damning all who do not in heart and profession submit to him, obliging all their consorts to join therein, against all charity and prudence.

Rom. 14.1.15.1, 7.The Scripture enjoineth us to bear with those who are weak in faith, and err in doubtfull or disputable matters.

But the Popes with cruel uncharitableness, not onely do censure all that cannot assent to their devices, which they obtrude as Articles of Faith; but sorely persecute them with all sorts of punishments; even with death it self; a practice inconsistent with Christian meekness, with equity, with reason; and of which the Fathers have expressed the greatest detestation.

Totam Theologiam à capite usque ad calcem retexuerunt, & ex divina Sophisticam fecerunt. Erasm. praef. ad Hieron. They have unwoven and altered all Theology from head to foot, and of Divine have made it Sophistical.

The Pope with his pack of mercenary Clients at Trent, did indeed establish a Scholastical or Sophistical, rather than a Christian Theology; framing Points, devised by the idle wits of latter times, into Definitions, and peremptory Conclusions, back'd with Curses and Censures: concerning which Conclusions it is evident

Formaliter justos. Sess. 6. Can. 10. Ex opere operato. Sess. 7. Can. 8. Character. Sess. 7. Can. 9.That the Apostles themselves would not be able to understand many of them.

That ancient Fathers did never think any thing about them.

That divers of them consist in application of artificial terms and phrases devised by humane subtilty.

That divers of them are in their own nature disputable; were before disputed by wise men, and will ever be disputed by those who freely use their judgment.

That there was no need of defining many of them.

That they blindly lay about them, condemning and cursing they know not who, Fathers, Schoolmen, Divines, &c. who have expresly affirmed points so damned by them.

That many Truths are uncharitably back'd with Curses, which disparageth them; (seeing a man may err pardonably — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) in many things we offend all.

For instance; what need was there of defining, Sess. 5. Can. 5. Rom. 7. what need of cursing those, who think concupiscence to be truly and properly sin, upon Saint Paul's Authority, calling it so?

That Adam presently upon his transgression did lose the sanctity and justice in which he was constituted. Cùm mandatum Dei in paradiso fuisset transgressus, statim sanctitatem & justitiam in qua constitutus fuerat amisisse. Ibid. Can. 1.

What need of cursing those, Sess. 6. Can. 11.— who say that men are justified by the sole remission of sins, according to Saint Paul's notion, and use of the word Justification?

What need of cursing those, Sess. 6. Can. 11. Aut etiam gratiam qua justificamur esse tantùm favorem Dei. Sess. 6. Can. 12. who say the grace of God by which we are justified, is onely the favour of God, whereas it is plain enough that God's grace there in Saint Paul, doth signifie nothing else, applied to that case.

Or that Faith is nothing else, but a reliance in God's mercy, remitting sins for Christ; seeing it is plain that Saint Paul doth by Faith chiefly mean the belief of that principal point of the Gospel.

Or that good works do not cause an encrease of justification; Sess. 6. Can. 24. Non autem ipsius augendae causam. — Vt nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis exolvendae— Sess. 6. Can. 30. Sess. 14. de poenit. Can. 15. seeing Saint Paul doth exclude justification by works; and it is a free work of God— uncapable of degrees.

Or that after remission of sin in justification, a guilt of paying temporal pain doth abide.

Or that a man cannot by his works merit encrease of grace, and glory, Sess. 6. Can. 32. and eternal life; seeing a man is not to be blamed, who doth dislike the use of so sawcy a word; the which divers good men have disclaimed.

What need of cursing those,

De Sacramentis.

Si quis dixerit— esse plura vel pauciora quàm septem. Sess. 7. Can. 1.

who do not take the Sacraments to be precisely Seven? or who conceive that some one of their seven may not be truly and properly a Sacrament; seeing the word Sacrament is ambiguous, and by the Fathers applied to divers other things, and defined generally by St. Austin, Signum rei sacrae; and that before Peter Lombard ever did mention that number.

What need of damning those, Sess. 7. Can. 3. who do conceive the Sacraments equal in dignity?

What need of defining, Sess. 7. Can. 8. Non imprimi characterem in anima. Sess. 7. Can. 9. Hoc est signum quoddam spirituale, & indelebile. Ibid. Sess. 7. Can. 11. that Sacraments do confer grace ex opere operato; which is an obscure Scholastical phrase.

What need of cursing those who say, that a Character is not impressed in the soul of those who take Baptism, Confirmation, or Orders; seeing what this Character is (or this spiritual and indeleble mark) they do not themselves well understand or agree.

What need of cursing those, who do not think that the validity of Sacraments (and consequently the assurance of our being Christians) dependeth on the Intention of the Minister?

What need of cursing those, Sess. 7. Can. 13. who think that a Pastour of the Church may change the Ceremonies of administring the Sacraments; seeing St. Cyprian often teacheth that every Pastour hath full authority in such cases within his own precinct?

Sess. 4.What need of defining the Second Book of Maccabees to be Canonical, against the common opinion of the Fathers (most expresly of St. Austin himself) of the most learned in all Ages, of Pope Gelasius himself (in decret. Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus Vt quisque linguâ nequior. Solvunt ligàntque quaestionum vinculà Per Syllogismos plectiles. — Prudent. in Apotheos. ) which the authour himself (calling his work an Epitome, and asking pardon for his errours) disclaimeth? and which common sense therefore disclaimeth.

Their new Creed of Pius IV. containeth these novelties and heterodoxies. 1. Seven Sacraments. 2. Trent Doctrine of Justification and Original sin. 3. Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. 4. Transubstantiation. 5. Communicating under one kind. 6. Purgatory. 7. Invocation of Saints. 8. Veneration of Reliques. 9. Worship of Images. 10. The Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. 11. Swearing Obedience to the Pope. 12. Receiving the Decrees of all Synods and of Trent.