The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 25
CHAP. 25. Of that which paſt in the Council of Chalcedon, and of the Canons made in the ſame about the order of the Patriarchs, and the Eccleſiaſtical policy.
IN the fourth Action of this Council a memorable accident happened.(a)This is added to the Canons of Chalcedon, in the Greek copies of du Tillet, and in Balſamon, in the end of the ſame Council. The Legats of Leo Biſhop of Rome having produced in the Council the Epiſtle of Leo, comprehending the wholeſome doctrine about the two natures of Chriſt, did inſtantly require that the Biſhops of Egypt ſhould approve and ſubſcribe it, that it might appear that they were not of the ſect of their Patriarch Dioſcorus, who a few dayes before had been depoſed by the Council. But the Biſhops of Egypt refuſed to ſubſcribe, ſaying that they had no Archbiſhop, without whoſe authority it was not lawful for them to do any thing. Whereupon they deſired the Council to give them leave to aſſemble apart to elect an Archbiſhop; which being elected, they would do what they ſhould command them; Their requeſt was granted, and they elected an Archbiſhop in the place of Dioſcorus, by whoſe leave they might afterwards ſign the ſaid Epiſtle. This example ſheweth, that the Biſhops of Egypt held not themſelves ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome nor to his Legats, ſince they thought it not lawful for them to do what the ſaid Legats required of them, without the permiſſion of their Patriarch. Who alſo was elected by the Biſhops of Egypt only.
In the ſame Council this Canon, related before, ch. 19. was made, which is the ninth.(b)The Greek text of this Canon is in the margent of the 19. ch. of this book 6. If a Clark hath ſome difference with his Biſhop, or with any other Biſhop, let him be judged by the Synod of the Province. But if a Biſhop or a Clark hath a difference with the Metropolitan of the ſame Province, let him addreſs himſelf either to the Exarch of the Dioceſe, or to the See of the Royal City of Conſtantinople. In the Roman Empire there were thirteen or fourteen Dioceſes, and every Dioceſe contained many Provinces, each of which had many Biſhops, and over theſe Biſhops a Metropolitan. The firſt Biſhop of the Dioceſe was called Exarch, to whom many Metropolitans obeyed: Such Exarchs were the Biſhops of Alexandria, Antioch, Ceſarea, Cappadocia, Carthage, Rome, Conſtantinople, Theſſalonica, Epheſus, Arles, &c. Among which ſome by an eſpecial honour were called Patriarchs, as the Biſhops of Rome, Conſtantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeruſalem, and had preheminence among the Exarchs, ſave only the Patriarch of Jeruſalem, who was even ſubject to the Biſhop of Ceſarea, becauſe Ceſarea was the Capital City of Paleſtina, according to the civil order. For the Biſhops of the Roman Empire had their places according to the dignity of the Cities. I find alſo in Gregory of Tours in book 5. of the hiſtory of the Franks, ch. 20. and in the Council of Maſcon, that the Biſhop of Lyons is called a Patriarch.
This digreſſion was neceſſary for the intelligence of that Canon: Of which the ſenſe is this: That if a Clark hath a difference with his Biſhop, he muſt be judged by the Synod of his Province. If he have a difference with the Metropolitan Biſhop, let him addreſs himſelf to the Exarch of his Dioceſe. And among the Exarchs that priviledge is given to that of Conſtantinople, that from all Dioceſes Appeals may come to him: and that who ſo will not undergo the judgement of his Exarch, may remove the cauſe, and evocate it to the judgement of the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, who ſhall judge the cauſe ultimately, and without Appeal. A certain proof that there was no Appeal from his judgement to the Biſhop of Rome.
This is that Canon which Pope Nicolas the firſt in the Epiſtle to the Emperor Michael doth wickedly corrupt, putting Dioceſes for Dioceſe, the plural for the ſingular; and by the Exarch of the Dioceſes, meaning the Biſhop of Rome only; as if the Canon ſaid, Let him addreſs himſelf to the Exarch of the Dioceſes, that is, to the Roman Pope. A great licentiouſneſs, to corrupt and change the words of ſuch an expreſs Canon; which though we ſhould paſs by and wink at it, ſtill this would remain, that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is by that Canon equalled unto the Biſhop of Rome; if ſo be that the Canon decreeth, that he that hath a difference with a Metropolitan, muſt addreſs himſelf to the Pope of Rome, or to the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, and giveth no leave to Appeal from the judgement, either of the one or the other.
The twelfth Canon of the ſame Council acknowledgeth, that when the Emperors made a City to be Metropolitical for civil cauſes; according to the increaſe of the civil dignity, the Eccleſiaſtical dignity grew alſo, and the Biſhop was ſtyled Metropolitan. The words of the Canon are,(c)foreign. Let all the Cities which by Royal letters have already been honoured with the title of Metropolitan, enjoy that only honour, &c.
The ſeventeenth Canon ſaith the ſame,(d)foreign. If by the Imperial power a City hath received, or hereafter ſhall receive ſome new degree, let the order of Eccleſiaſtical Pariſhes be alſo conformable to the civil and publick form. There the word Pariſh ſignifieth all that is under a Biſhops juriſdiction, and is the ſame thing as is now called a Dioceſe. The ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch confirms that very thing, ſaying. The Biſhops of every Province muſt acknowledge the Biſhop of the Metropolitical City, and take care of the whole Province; becauſe all they that have buſineſſes reſort to the Metropolitical City: therefore we have decreed that he ſhould be preheminent in honour. Of which we have an example in the ſecond Novel of Juſtinian: where that Emperor giveth to the firſt Juſtinianea (the City of his birth) the title of Metropolitical and Archiepiſcopal over many Provinces.
This is the true ſource and origine of the preheminence of the Biſhop of Rome, even becauſe Rome was the Capital City of the Roman Empire: As it is ſaid in very expreſs terms in the ſame Council of Chalcedon, in the twenty eighth Canon,(f)foreign. The Fathers have with good reaſon given prerogatives to the See of the antient Rome, becauſe that City raigneth. That is, it is the Capital City of the Empire.
If the antient Church had regarded Peters being at Rome, and dying there; no doubt but the Church of Antioch where they ſay that St. Peter kept his See ſeven years, ſhould have preceded the Church of Alexandria founded by St. Mark only. And the Church of Jeruſalem where Chriſt taught, and where he dyed,(e)foreign. and where all the Apoſtles a long time reſided, ought to have been the firſt. But becauſe in the civil order Alexandria was before Antioch, and that Jeruſalem was ſubject to Ceſarea the Metropolitical City of Paleſtina, the Biſhops alſo ſate according to that order, and followed the civil order.
For this reaſon the firſt Council of Conſtantinople, in the third Canon, decreeth, that ſince the City of Conſtantinople is become another Rome, and the ſecond Capital City of the Empire, that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople alſo ſhould have the preheminence next to the Biſhop of Rome, which was a poſteriority in order without any ſubjection. So much is declared by the title of the 31. Novel of Juſtinian, De ordine ſedendi Patriarcharum. Of the order of ſitting among the Patriarchs. Which the Council of Chalcedon hath more plainly expreſt in the 28. Canon, where the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is declared equal to the Biſhop of Rome in all things, although according to the civil order Conſtantinople be the ſecond after Rome. To which Canon that made ſo much noiſe, and which ſtill makes our adverſaries heart ake, we owe a Chapter apart.