Of Schism, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. The Evidences from the Biſhop of Romes ſucceeding S. Peter examined.
§. 1.No privilege by ſucceſſion from S. Peter, but ſuch as S. Peter is proved to have himſelf. FRom this argument of the pretenders as it reſpects S. Peters perſon, and hath thus been manifeſted to be utterly incompetent to inferre the deſigned concluſion, It is now very eaſie, but withall very unneceſſary to proceed to the other part of it, as it concerns S. Peters ſucceſſors in his Epiſcopal, or (which is all one as to this matter) his Apoſtolical ſeat, and power at Rome, For certainly what he had not himſelf, he cannot devolve to any of his ſucceſſors upon that one skore of ſucceeding him, and therefore as this of S. Peters perſonal power, and eminence is the principal, So it is in effect the only ground of the Romaniſts pretenſion, this other of derivative power in his ſucceſſor, being like water that flowes from a ſpring, apt to aſcend no higher, then the fountain ſtood, and therefore I again think fit to remind the Romaniſt, and peremptorily to inſiſt on this exception, that if he cannot make good S. Peters Oecumenical power, and Paſtorſhip over all the reſt of the Apoſtles, from the donation of Chriſt (which I ſuppoſe hath been evidenced he cannot do, and for any proofs made uſe of by any to that purpoſe, and drawn either from Feed my ſheep, and lambs, or from the mention of the two ſwords, or from Thou art Peter— they have ſo little apparence of ſtrength in them, and have ſo often been anſwered by thoſe of our perſwaſion, that I cannot think it uſeful, or ſeaſonable to deſcend to any farther ſurvey of them) his other pretenſions are at an end for the Ʋniverſal Paſtorſhip of the Pope his ſucceſſor, whoſe power, and authority over all other Biſhops cannot farther be extended (upon this account of ſucceſſion) then S. Peter's was over all other Apoſtles, the ſeveral Biſhops of the world holding from (as ſucceeding) ſome Apoſtle or other, as certainly as the Biſhop of Rome can by any be ſuppoſed to ſucceed S. Pe-Peter, according to that of *De Praeſcript. c. 32.Tertullian, Sicut Smyrnaeorum Eccleſia Polycarpum à Joanne collocatum refert, Sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit, perinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apoſtolis in Epiſcopatum conſtitutos Apoſtolici ſeminis traduces habent, As the records of the Church of Smyrna deduce Polycarp their Biſhop from S. John, and as the Church of Rome relates that Clement (their Biſhop) was ordained by S. Peter, in like manner the reſt of the Churches ſhew us the Biſhops which they have had conſtituted by the Apoſtles, and who have brought down and derived the Apoſtolick ſeed unto them.
§. 2. What therefore I ſhall now adde in return to the ſecond branch of this argument, concerning the power of S. Peters ſucceſſor, as ſuch, will be perfectly ex abundanti, more then needs, and ſo I deſire it may be looked on by the reader, whoſe curioſity perhaps may require farther ſatisfaction, when his reaſon doth not, and in compliance therewith I ſhall propoſe theſe few conſiderations. *The privileges attending S. Peters ſucceſſor belonging rather to the Biſhop of Antioch then of Rome.Firſt whether S. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Jewiſh believers at Antioch, and leave a ſucceſſor Biſhop there, as at Rome he is ſuppoſed to have done? 2. Whether this were not done by him, before ever he came to Rome? 3. Whether the Conceſſion of theſe two unqueſtioned matters of fact ▪ doe not devolve all power, and Juriſdiction on the Biſhop of Antioch S. Peters ſucceſſor there, which by that tenure and claim of ſucceſſion from S. Peter can be pretended to by the Biſhop of Rome, S. Peters ſucceſſor alſo? Nay, Whether the right of Primogeniture be not ſo much more conſiderable on this ſide, then any circumſtance on the other ſide, which can be offered to counterbalance it, that he which ſucceeded him in his firſt ſeat (Antioch) is, if there be force in the argument of ſucceſſion, to be looked on as the chief of his ſtrength, partaker of more power by virtue of that ſucceſſion, then he that afterward ſucceeded him at Rome?
§. 3. This we know, that anciently there were three Patriarchates, and Antioch was one of them, as Rome was another; and though I, who lay not that weight on the argument of ſucceſſion from S. Peter, am not engaged to affirme that Antioch was the chief of theſe, yet this I contend, that there is much leſſe reaſon, that any precedence, which is afforded Rome by the ancient Canons, ſhould be deemed imputable to this ſucceſſion from S. Peter, when 'tis evident that claim belongs to Antioch, as well as to Rome, and firſt to Antioch, and afterwards to Rome, and no otherwiſe to Rome, then as it was firſt competible to Antioch.
§. 4. The Primacy belonged to Rome upon another ſcore.Of Rome it is confeſſed that the primacy of dignity or order belonged to that, the next place to Alexandria, the third to Antioch, which is an evidence that the ſucceſſion from S. Peter was not conſidered in this matter, for then Alexandria, which held only from S. Mark, muſt needs have yeelded to Antioch which held from S. Peter. The original of this precedence, or dignity of the Biſhop of Rome is ſure much more fitly deduced by the fourth General Councel holden at Chalcedon, Can. penult.confirming the decree of the Councel of Conſtantinople, that that See ſhall have foreign, equal privileges, and dignities, and advantages with Rome, upon this account, that Conſtantinople was New Rome, and the ſeat of the Empire at that time, which, ſay they, was the reaſon (and not any donation of Chriſts to S. Peter, or ſucceſſion of that Biſhop from him) that Rome enjoyed ſuch privileges (foreign) and therefore foreign, The Fathers at Conſtantinople being moved with the ſame reaſons had rightly judged that now the ſame privileges ſhould belong to that Church or City, foreign, and that this being next to Old Rome ſhould in all Eccleſiaſtical affaires have the ſame dignity, or greatneſſe that Old Rome had. Where, as the Original of the dignity of that See is duly ſet down, and (which is obſervable) in the whole conteſt never ſo much as quarelled at by the Legats, viz. the reſidence of the Imperial Majeſty there (a thing very remarkable in the ſeveral degrees of dignity in the Church, that of Patriarchs, Primates, Archbiſhops, Biſhops, which generally obſerved their proportions with the civil ſtate, as hath been ſhewed) ſo is the nature of it alſo, no ſupremacy of power over all the Biſhops of the world (for that monarchical power is not at once competible to two equals or rivals) and withall the moveableneſſe or communicableneſſe of that dignity, as that which may follow the Imperial ſeat, whitherſoever it is removeable, and is not fixed at Rome by any commiſſion of Chriſt or ſucceſſion from S. Peter.
§. 5. The Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon rejected by the Romaniſts.But becauſe I ſhall ſuppoſe that a Canon, though of an Ʋniverſal Councel, when it is found thus derogatory to the height which Rome now pretends to, ſhall not by the Romaniſt be acknowledged to be authentick, as wanting that which the Romaniſt makes abſolutely neceſſary to the validity of Councels or Canons, the ſuffrage of the Biſhop of Rome and conſent of his Legates; and becauſe I mean not here to goe out of my way to vindicate (which I could very readily doe) the authority of that Canon, or to ſhew the ſtrangeneſſe of this dealing, not to admit any teſtimony againſt them, but wherein they have given their own ſuffrage (a method of ſecurity beyond all amulets, if no man ſhall be believed againſt me, till I have joyned with him to accuſe and condemne my ſelf) I ſhall therefore lay no more weight on this, then will, without this ſupport, be otherwiſe upheld, and is in ſome meaſure evident by the Romaniſts rejecting this Canon, and adding that the Church of Antioch rejected it alſo; which argues that that which the Church of Conſtantinople was willing to acquire by this decree, was as derogatory to the dignity of Antioch as of Rome. And as that concludes that Antioch had profeſſedly the foreign, equal privileges with Rome, the dignity of a Patriarchate, and the attendants and pompes of that, So it proceeds on a conceſſion, that all that Conſtantinople wanted, or in which this New came ſhort of the Old Rome, was only the dignity of a Patriarchate, without any ordinary juriſdiction over other Churches. Which again ſhewes us what was the nature of the preeminence of the Roman See at that time; no ſupreme authoritative power over other Primates, The dignity of Patriarchs reconcileable with the independency of Primates.but only a precedence, or priority of place in Councels, an eminence in reſpect of dignity, which is perfectly reconcileable with the foreign and independence, the no-ſubordination or ſubjection of other Primates.
§. 6. The Canon of Epheſus againſt encroaching on any others Province.This hath formerly been manifeſted, when we diſcourſed of the original, and power, and dignity of Primates, and Patriarchs, and is put beyond all controll by that Canon of the Councel of Epheſus in the cauſe of the Archbiſhop of Cyprus, over whom the Patriarch of Antioch, though Patriarch of all the Orient, was adjudged to have no manner of power. And this independency of Cyprus, not only from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from all others whomſoever, was conteſted then, as from the Apoſtles times, and aſſerted, and vindicated by that Councel, and order given indefinitely againſt all invaſions for time to come, in whatever Dioceſe, that no Biſhop ſhall encroach upon anothers Province, or uſurp a power, where from the Apoſtles times he had not enjoyed it; which how directly it (is applicable to, and) prejudgeth the pretenſions of Rome, as well as of Antioch, is ſo manifeſt, that it cannot need farther demonſtrating.
§. 7. Inſtances of Independent power in Archbiſhops.Of the ſame kind, two farther inſtances I ſhall here adde; firſt of the Archbiſhop of Carthage, who being the chief Primate, or Metropolitan (for theſe two words in the African ſtyle, different from the uſage of other Churches, are obſerveable to ſignifie the ſame thing) in Africk, i. e. in one of the thirteen Dioceſes of the Empire, appears to have been independent from all other power, an abſolute Primate, ſubject to no ſuperiour, or Patriarch, whether of Alexandria, or Rome. This is evident by Juſtinian in the 131 Novel, where the Emperour gives the ſame privileges to the Archbiſhop of *foreign.Carthage, which he had formerly given to the Biſhop of Juſtiniana prima; which being the ſecond example I meant to mention, I ſhall briefly ſhew what that Prerogative was, which equally belonged to theſe two.
§. 8. Juſtiniana Prima was the head of aCaetera Provinciae ſub ejus ſint authoritate, i. e. tam ipſa mediterranea Dacia, quàm Dacia Ripenſis, nec non Myſia, Secunda Dardania, & Praevalitana Provincia & ſecunda Macedonia, & pars ſecunda etiam Pannoniae, quae in Bacen…i eſt civitate. Juſtin: de Privileg: Archiep: Juſt: Prim: ed: à Gothofred:Dacia the new; a Dioceſe (as that ſignifies more then a Province, a bVolumus ut Primae Juſtinianae patriae noſtrae pro tempore ſacroſanctus Antiſtes, non ſolùm Metroplitanus, ſed etiam Archiepiſcopus fiat. Ibid.Primat's, a Patriarch's dominion) erected by Juſtinian the Emperour; and that city thus dignified, as the cMultis & variis modis noſtram patriam augere cupientes, in qua Deus praeſtitit nobis ad hunc modum (So Gothofred reads, but certainly it ſhould be ad, or in hunc mundum) quem ipſe condidit, venire. Ibid. Neceſſarium duximus ipſam glorioſiſſimam Praefecturam, quae in Pannoniâ erat, in noſtrâ foeliciſſimâ patriâcollocare. Ib.place where he had been born, and the Archbiſhop thereof made Primate of all that Dioceſe. This is thus expreſſed in the Imperial Conſtitutions, Nov. 11. that he ſhall have omnem cenſuram Eccleſiaſticam, ſummum Sacerdotium, ſummum faſtigium, ſummam dignitatem, all power of Eccleſiaſtical juriſdiction, the ſupreme Prieſthood, ſupreme honour and dignity; And in the Conſtitutions ſet out by Gothofred out of an old MS. Copy, Tu & omnes Juſtinianae primae Antiſtites, quicquid oriatur inter eos diſcrimen, ipſi hoc dirimant, & finem eis imponant, & nec ad alium quendam eatur, ſed ſuum agnoſcant Archiepiſcopum omnes praedictae Provinciae — that all the Provinces ſhall in the laſt reſort make their appeal to him for all controverſies. And Nov. 131. c. 3. that in all that Dioceſe he ſhall have locum Apoſtolicae ſedis, the place or dignity of an Apoſtolical ſeat; which gave Nicephorus occaſion (in his relation of this matter) to affirme that the Emperour made it a free city, and foreign an head unto itſelf, with full power independent from all others: And though the firſt Biſhop thereof was conſecrated by Vigilius Biſhop of Rome, as by ſome Biſhop it is certain he muſt, yet that is of no force againſt the concluſion, to which I deſigne this inſtance, it being evident that being conſecrated, he was abſolute, and depended not on any, and his *Quando autem te ab …âc▪ luce decedere contigerit, pro tempore Archiepiſcopum ejus à venerabili ſuo Concilio Metropolitanorum ordinari ſancimus, quem ad modum decet Archiepiſcopum omnibus honoratum Eccleſiis provehi. Ibid.ſucceſſors were to be ordained by his Councel of Metropolitanes, and not by the Pope.
§. 9. Which as it makes a ſecond inſtance of the point in hand, ſo when it is remembred, that all this independent abſolute power was conferred upon this city (the Emperors favorite) only by his making it a Primate's, or chief Metropolitane's See, and that Carthage's being the Prime Metropolis of Africk is expreſſed by having the ſame privileges, that Juſtiniana Prima had, It will follow (what is moſt certain, and might otherwiſe be teſtified by innumerable evidences) that every Primate, or chief Metropolitane was abſolute within his own circuit, neither ſubject nor ſubordinate to any forein Superiour, whether Pope, or Patriarch; And that was all which was uſeful (much more then was neceſſary) to be here demonſtrated. And being ſo, there remains to the See of Rome no farther claim to the ſubjection of this Iſland, nor appearance of proof of the charge of ſchiſme, in caſting off that yoke, upon this firſt ſcore of S. Peter's, or his ſucceſſors right to the Ʋniverſal Paſtorſhip.
§. 10. The unreaſonableneſſe of confining the Catholick Church to the number of thoſe that live in the Roman ſubjection.Upon this head of diſcourſe depends alſo all that is, or can be ſaid for the confining the Catholick Church to the number of thoſe, who live in obedience to the Roman Church, or Biſhop. For if there have been from the Apoſtles times, an independent power veſted in each Primate, or chief Metropolitane (as hath been evidently ſhown) then how can it be neceſſary to the being of a member of the Catholick Church, to be ſubject to that one Primate? 'Tis certainly ſufficient to the conſervation of the unity of the whole Church, that every one pay an obedience, where an obedience is due, and no way uſefull toward that end, that thoſe that are born free, ſhould reſigne up, diveſt themſelves of that privilege, and become foreign ſervants or ſubjects of their own making. But I ſhall not enlarge on this matter, but conclude with that of our Biſhops in Convocation, Anno Chr: 1537. in their Book intituled, [The Inſtitution of a Chriſtian man:] that it was many hundred years before the Biſhop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Biſhops, which were not within his Province in Italie, And that the Biſhops of Rome doe now tranſgreſſe their own profeſſion made in their Creation, For all the Biſhops of Rome alwaies when they be conſecrated and made Biſhops of that See, doe make a ſolemn profeſſion and vow, that they ſhall inviolably obſerve all the Ordinances made in the eight firſt General Councels, among which it is eſpecially provided, that all cauſes ſhall be determined within the Province, where they be begun, and that by the Biſhops of the ſame Province; which abſolutely excludes all Papal, i. e. forein power out of theſe Realms.