A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. An Anſwer to the Exceptions made to the fift Chapter.
Sect. I.
Of ſlight paſſing over Paſce oves, and Tues Petrus.
Num. 1 THe firſt thing he here excepts againſt, is my too ſlight paſſing over two, which he thinks the moſt conſiderable texts, to ſupport the ſupremacie of S. Peter, In theſe words,
Num. 2 In the fift Chapter he lightly paſſeth over the two moſt conſiderable Texts of Scripture fit to be alledged for S. Peter's ſupremacie, viz: Feed my ſheep, and, Thou art Peter: becauſe they have no appearance, and have been often anſwered: Why no appearance? becauſe he and his fellows ſay ſo, and as if being ſo often repeated was not as likely to ſhew the anſwer was naught, as the anſwering to impeach the ob…ecter: but who underſtands the principles of Catholick Faith, knows, that as well for other points of our Faith, as for this of S. Peter's ſupremacy we relie not onelyonly upon ſuch places of Scripture.
Num. 3 For this of the light paſſing over thoſe two places of Scripture, I think I can give a very reaſonable account, 1. From his own words p. 10. where he tells me that I am miſtaken in thinking that the Catholick ought to prove that the Pope hath an univerſal Primacy, For if he be not obliged to prove it, if the right pretended depend wholly upon poſſeſſion, why ſhould not I make haſte, through thoſe proofs, which ſome have ex abundanti (as to him it ſeems) made uſe of.
Num. 4 Secondly, I did in the ſimplicity of my heart verily believe (what here is recited from me) that thoſe two texts had ſo very little appearance of ſtrength in them, and this ſo often manifeſted by the variety of anſwers made to them by our writers, that no Romaniſt would in earneſt have laid ſuch weight on them, as to require of me a more punctual anſwer to them, than I had before given in the former Chapter. There I had evidenced that the whole world was not S. Peter's province, but onelyonly one portion of one part of the world, the Jewiſh believers in Antioch and Rome &c. the Gentile Chriſtians in thoſe very cities being under S. Paul, and the Jewiſh of other conntreys under other Apoſtles, thoſe of Aſia under John &c.
Num. 5 This to my underſtanding made it evident, that in caſe Chriſt's Paſce oves &c. Feed my ſheep and my lambs, were granted to be a form of commiſſion, inſtating of power on him, it muſt yet be reſtrained to his particular Province, ſo as to leave other his fellow Apoſtles their Provinces alſo, and not extended to an Vniverſal Paſtorſhip.
Num. 6 But then when this farther conſideration was behinde, that indeed this of Paſce oves] was not the form of commiſſion to S. Peter, but that in the former Chapter, Joh. 20. 21. as my Father ſent me, ſo ſend I you &c. and that to S. Peter in common with the reſt of the Apostles, and not the leaſt indication of any branch of power appropriated to him (on which I have already inſiſted in this Reply, though in that Tract of Schiſme I did not think it neceſſary) I hope I may have pardon for not returning to a ſtrict ſurvey of it in that fift Chapter.
Num. 7 As for that of Tues Petrus, that was the very text wherein the donation of the Keyes was promiſed to S. Peter, Mat. 16. 18. and that had particularly been examined in both parts of it, both as to the Keyes, and the compellation, in the fourth Chap: and the Keyes promiſed him, manifeſted by other texts to belong equally to all the other Apoſtles, and ſo the compellation of ſtone, or (which is all one, as was there ſhewed) foundation, or foundation-ſtone in the building of the Church, beſtowed equally upon the reſt of the twelve Apoſtles alſo. And ſo conſidering what I had already done my ſelf, and what others had done much more largely, there remained little appearance of force in thoſe texts, which might ſuggeſt to me a more diligent ſurvey of them. And all theſe together, if not two of them alone, were a competent reaſon of paſſing lightly over them in that fift Chapter, where I was ingaged in a new ſtage, i. e. of not returning afreſh, and loco non ſuo, to a yet larger conſideration of them.
Num. 8 I ſhould now from this notice of his displeaſure indevour to pacifie him by reforming my former omiſſion, and enter upon a yet more ſolemn ſurvey of theſe two texts, but that I ſee him already reſolved not to truſt his cauſe to the ſupport which thoſe texts can afford him, telling me in the cloſe, that he relies not onelyonly on ſuch places of Scripture, and if I ſhould dwell longer upon them, I ſhould be thought impertinent, and again reprehended, as forgetting what matter I handle, And therefore till he pleaſe to tell me how farre he relies on them, and ſhew me that I have not yet removed them from being a foundation ſo farre to be relied on, I ſhall ſpare mine own and the Readers pains, and flatter my ſelf, that I have ſaid much more to invalidate any concluſion, which he ſhall inferre to his advantage from theſe two places, than he hath yet ſaid in my hearing, to confirm his pretenſions from both or either of them.
Sect. II.
The Biſhop of Antioch's title from ſucceſſion to S. Peter equal to the Biſhops of Rome. Peter formed a Church there. His dying at Rome no argument.
Num. 1 AFter his velitation he now proceeds to the weightier impreſſion, excepting firſt to an argument taken from the Primogeniture of Antioch, Thus,
Num. 2 Next he urgeth that if the ſucceſſion to S. Peter were the baſe of the Popes ſupremacy, Antioch ſhould be the chief See, becauſe S. Peter ſat there, wherein to omit his firſt and ſecond queſtion, whereof the firſt is untrue, I anſwer to the third negatively, that the conſtituting a Church and Biſhop at Antioch, before at Rome, did conferre no privilege extraordinary on that Church, and the reaſon is clearly deduced out of his ſecond Quaere, becauſe it was before Rome, for he could not give any ſuch authority, but by diveſting himſelf, ſince there cannot be two heads to one body, and therefore this authority and privilege of S. Peter can reſt and be no where but where he died.
Num. 3 In this matter I muſt firſt premiſe what I had warned the Reader of in that 5 Chap. §. 2. that what I there produced againſt the power of the Biſhop of Rome, under the notion of ſucceſſour to S. Peter, was perfectly ex abundanti, more than needed, the whole matter being ſufficiently concluded in the former Chapter, which concerned S. Peter's perſon, and had ſhewed that S. Peter himſelf had no Vniverſal Paſtorſhip belonging to him, or ſupremacy over any other Apoſtle, from whence it was evidently conſequent, that to his ſucceſſour, as ſuch, no ſuch power pertained.
Num. 4 This being premiſed, I did not pretend, that what ſhould then follow, ſhould proceed with that evidence as to demonſtrate again what was ſo ſufficiently cleared already, OnelyOnly to thoſe, whoſe curioſity was not ſatisfied, when their reaſon was, I propoſed ſome conſiderations, which pretended to no more than this, that beſide that Peter had no ſupremacy, there were alſo other defects in the Biſhop of Rome's tenure, particularly this, that he did no more ſucceed S. Peter, than the Biſhop of Antioch did, nay, that S. Peter having left a ſucceſſour Biſhop at Antioch, before he did at Rome, the Biſhop of Antioch had in a manner the Primogeniture, and by that, as good (if not a better) title to praeeminence, as any the Biſhop of Rome had, upon that tenure of ſucceſſion from S. Peter.
Num. 5 Now to this part of diſcourſe which pretended but to probability, there can lie no exception, unleſſe it appear either to be untrue in any part, or in the whole leſſe probable than what is offered by the Romaniſt for the other ſide; And this is now to be examined.
Num. 6 And 1. ſaith he, the firſt queſtion is untrue; But he is ſo reſerved as not to expreſſe his reaſon for ſo ſaying. I ſhall therefore give my reaſons to the contrary, 1. becauſe a queſtion cannot be untrue, all truth and falſhood being in affirmations and negations (and asking a queſtion, or propoſing a thing to conſideration whether it be ſo or no, is neither of thoſe) in anſwering not in asking of questions.
Num. 7 Secondly, Becauſe this queſtion being reſolved into an affirmation, viz: that Peter as truely planted a Church at Antioch, and left a ſucceſſour Biſhop there, as he is or can be ſuppoſed to have done at Rome, it relies on the uncontradicted Teſtification of antient writers.
Num. 8 By planting a Church I mean not that he was the firſt that preacht the Gospel at Antioch (though Leo the Great ſeems to affirm it, (in Antiochenà Eccleſiâ primùm praedicante beato Apostolo Petro, Chriſtianum nomen exortum eſt, Ep: 53.) and from thence pleads the right of precedence to belong to that Church, (in paternae conſtitutionis ordine perſeveret) againſt Anatholius Biſhop of Conſtantinople) for that ſeems by S. Luke to be attributed to thoſe that were ſcattered abroad upon the perſecution that roſe about S. Stephen, Act. 11. 19. but his forming them into a Church or regular aſſembly. And that ſo he did, and left Euodius Biſhop there, and after his death Ignatius the Martyr, is elſewhere manifeſted at large, and I ſhall not repeat it, but onelyonly adde one Teſtimony (which I ſuppoſe will be authentick with him) of Leo the Great, Biſhop of Rome, Ep: 62. to Maximus Biſhop of Antioch, bidding him be mindfull of that doctrine, quam praecipuus Apoſtolorum omnium, beatiſſimus Petrus per totum mundum quidem uniformi praedicatione, ſed speciali Magiſterio in Antiochenâ & Romanâ urbe fundavit. Where it is the clear affirmation of that Pope, that S. Peter founded the doctrine of Chriſt firſt in Antioch, then in Rome by a ſpecial authority, or power, or magiſterie, which he had in thoſe two cities, more than in the reſt of the world. And ſo I cannot gueſſe what untruth there could be in that affirmation, if it had been ſuch, which was but a conſideration, or queſtion, as he calls it.
Num. 9 Next, he ſaith, that S. Peter's conſtituting a Church and Biſhop at Antioch, before he did the like at Rome, is a proof that he conferred no extraordinary privilege on Antioch, and renders the reaſon for it, becauſe he could not doe it without diveſting himſelf, and conſequently this privilege muſt reſt no where but where he died, and conſequently at Rome onelyonly, becauſe he died there.
Num. 10 That he left any extraordinary privilege at Antioch I doe not believe, any more than he did ſo at Rome, and therefore I cannot be required to prove any more than this, that it is as reaſonable for me to affirm it of Antioch upon the title of ſucceſſion, as for him to aſſume it of Rome, upon the ſame title.
Num. 11 From Chriſt there is nothing that will fix it at Rome, rather than at Antioch, and in the Law of Nations concerning inheritances, nothing is or can be applied to this purpoſe. It muſt needs be then from the free act of S. Peter's will, whatſoever is pretended to. And in reſpect of that 'tis ſure as reaſonable to believe, that he which planted a Church, and placed a Biſhop firſt in one, after in another city, ſhould delegate the foreign double portion, the greater dignity and privileges to the former as to the latter. If the right of Primogeniture be no right in this matter, yet ſure the younger ſiſter hath neither law, nor cuſtome, that the inheritance ſhould belong to her.
Num. 12 And for his own reaſon here offered, that it cannot belong to the Elder, that is no reaſon; For S. Peter might doe, as Chriſt did, make an aſſignation of power in his life time, fix it by promiſe, yet not deveſt himſelf of it till his death, And if S. Peter had done ſo, if at his planting a Biſhop at Antioch, on conſideration that in that city they were firſt called Christians, he had decreed that after his own death that Biſhop ſhould ſucceed to all that authority, which he had received from Chriſt, with power to communicate it to any, I ſhall ask this Gentleman whether he might not have done it without either deveſting himſelf whilſt he lived, or making two heads to one body, or whether his bare dying at Rome, would have invalidated any ſuch former act of his, in caſe he had done ſo. If it would, there muſt then be more owing to his death than to his life, to his martyrdome than to his preaching or ordaining of Biſhops, that this privilege belongs to Rome. And then again Jeruſalem, where Chriſt himſelf died, will by that title of his blood ſhed there, have a more unqueſtionable right, than that city where Peter did but faintly tranſcribe that copie, which had in a more eminent manner been ſet him by Chriſt.
Num. 13 Laſtly, if by this argument of Rome's being the place where Peter died, the ſupremacy had belonged to that See, preciſely or peculiarly, how could it be transferred to Avenion, as we know it was, and there continued for ſome time? But I ſhall no longer inſiſt on ſuch fiction of caſe, as this, if that had been which never was, what then would certainly have followed, whether if S. Peter had been Vniverſal Paſtor, it muſt eo ipſo be concluded that his ſucceſſour of Rome, and not at Antioch was ſuch after him, when it hath been rendred evident in the former Chapter, that S. Peter had no ſuch ſupremacy.
Sect. III.
The Act of the Councell of Chalcedon; of the ground of Rome's precedence. The ſafety of the Church reconcileable with removing the chief See. Of the Biſhop of Conſtantinople being aſhamed of that act. No tumult in the Councell. The ſtory of it.
Num. 1 THe next diſlike is to my deriving the original of that precedence which belongs to Rome, as the Councel of Chalcedon had derived it, Thus,
Num. 2 Then he tells you that the dignity or precedence of the Biſhop of Rome is ſurely much more fitly deduced by the Councel of Chalcedon from this, that Rome was then the Imperial city, or ordinary reſidence of the Emperour: a very wiſe judgment, that the quality upon which the unity, that is the ſafety of the Church Vniverſal relies, ſhould be planted upon a bottome fallible and ſubject to fail, but the reſolution was ſo ſhamefull, that the very Patriarch was aſhamed, and imputed it to his ambitious clergie, who how tumultuary and unruly they were, is to be ſeen in the Acts of the Councel.
Num. 3 Here two objections are made to the wiſdome of that Act or judgment of that Councel, and I that foreſaw it would be thus rejected by him,Sect. 5. and from thence obſerved how little Councels are conſidered by them, when they define not as they would have them, and therefore laid no more weight on that Canon, than the Romaniſts very rejecting it allowed me, might now ſpare the pains of defending the judgment of that Councel. Yet it is ſo eaſie to return anſwer in few words to his two objections, that I ſhall not decline doing it.
Num. 4 To the firſt, that the precedence of Rome, which there I ſpeak of, being a Primacy onelyonly of dignity and order, and not of Power, is no ſuch quality, on which the unity and ſafety of the Church relies. For how can that be concerned what Biſhop ſits uppermoſt, gives the firſt or laſt ſuffrage in a Councel? This Gentleman thinks of a ſupremacy of power, when he thus ſpeaks, but that he cannot but know is denied by us to be placed in any one Biſhop, and therefore muſt not imagine me to aſſigne the original of that, to which I deny a being. And it matters not though he ſay I am injurious in denying it, for beſides that that is petitio principii on his ſide, to ſay ſo, tis alſo certain that the queſtion now betwixt us in this Paragraph, is not whether I am juſt in denying that ſupremacy, but whether it be more than a Primacy of order, which I divolve to this original.
Num. 5 Nay if I had ſpoken of the ſupremacy it ſelf, and fixed it on a bottome ſo farre fallible, as that it might be removed by the change of Empires from one city to another, if it were but reſolved that the ſupreme Eccleſiaſtical power, and ſo the fountain of unity ſhould follow the Imperial ſeat, I ſee not why the ſafety of the Church might not by this means be provided for.
Num. 6 Let it but be judged of in little firſt, as it is eaſily ſuppoſeable. Suppoſe the Church of England foreign, nay for argument's ſake, ſuppoſe there were no other Church but that of England, and ſuppoſe there were a ſupremacy in one Biſhop, in him, whoſoever were the Biſhop of that city, where the royal throne were placed, and ſuppoſe that that were for the preſent removed to Yorke, and ſo that the Biſhop of Yorke were the ſupreme Biſhop, and by that means the unity and ſafety of the Church competently provided for, I ſhall then demand, in caſe the royall ſeat ſhould be removed to Wincheſter, could there be any queſtion, but the ſupreme Epiſcopal See would be removed ſo too? and might not all appeals be made from thenceforth to Wincheſter, and the ſafety of the Church be as well provided for by this way, as by it's being fixt unmoveably at Yorke?
Num. 7 The Primacy we know hath oft thus been removed, and never more inconvenience come of it, than by S. Peter's See being removed to Avenion. And if any ſupremacy belonged to any ſucceſſion of Biſhops over the whole world, and that were never mutable, but by the removal of the Emperial ſeat, a certain, illuſtriouſly viſible thing, it is not eaſily diſcernible, how this ſhould more prejudice the ſafety of the Church, than the change of that power from one Biſhop that dies, to his ſucceſſour in the ſame See. But this is ſtill much more than needed to have been ſaid.
Num. 8 As for the Patriarch's (I ſuppoſe he muſt mean of Conſtantinople) being aſhamed of that reſolution of that Councel, and imputing it to his ambitious Clergie, …. he gives us not any teſtimony for this, onelyonly ſaith, that in the Acts of that Councel may be ſeen how tumultuary and unruly they were. And to that affirmation, and that not very pertinent roof of it, I have two things to ſay, which indeed the Acts of that Councel, and the Epiſtles both of Anatolius Biſhop of Conſtantinople, and Leo Biſhop of Rome may aſſure us to have truth in them. 1. That if by being aſhamed be meant retracting or renouncing this reſolution of the Councel, It then hath no truth in it, that the Patriarch was aſhamed.
Num. 9 For …. it is ſo evident that of all Leo's reprehenſions in this matter of the Primacy adjudged him by that Councel, Anatolius choſe to take no notice, and to return no anſwer, that Leo tells the Emperor of it, Ep: 59. maluit praedictus Antiſtes meam gratulationem tacere, quam ſuam ambitum publicare, and chargeth it upon Anatolius himſelf, that he made no reply to what he had ſaid to him; Ad quas cum non reſcriberes ipſe te à colloquii nostri conſortio ſeparâſti, by not making any return to my admonitory letters, thou haſt thy ſelf ſeparated thy ſelf from the communion of our diſcourſe. Ep: 71.
Num. 10 'Tis true indeed when Leo charged it upon him, as an act of ambition and pride, that he had procured that Canon to be made (as he doth at large,*Colon: Edit. fol. 118. Ep: 53. making it an invaſion of the Biſhop of Alexandria and Antioch his right ſetled by the Councel of Nice, and ſo in his*Ep: …4 fol. 119. Epiſtle to Martian the Emperour, and†Ep: 55. fol. 120. another to the Empreſſe Pulcheria) Anatolius writing to him upon occaſion, tells him that the Clergie of the Church of Conſtantinople, and*Culpam, quam de augendâ poteſtate, alienâ (ut aſſeris) adhortatione contraxeras, etſi non ad ſola Clericorum sonfilia tranſtuliſſes. Leo. Ep: 71. not he, brought this matter before the Councel, and therefore Leo needed not be ſo angry with him, and complain ſo ſharply againſt his ambition.
Num. 11 And this I ſuppoſe is it which this Gentleman muſt referre to, if there be the leaſt colour of truth in his ſuggeſtion; But ſure this diſclaiming of pride or ambition in what was done, regularly, according to a long continued custome, and the Canon of the Councel of Conſtantinople is much more the justifying his innocence, than the acknowledgment of any fault, an act of confidence and aſſurance, no indication either of guilt or ſhame, no diſowning the dignity confirmed to him by the Councel.
Num. 12 Many evidences there are in the ſtory of thoſe times that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople did no way reject this power and dignity, which that Councel had confirmed to him; Tis annext to the Acts of that Councel, how he exerciſed it in an eminent manner on the Patriarch of Alexandria, Leo the Emperour having put wholly into his hands the judging of a great affair, and quieting a diſturbance in that Church, ſee the*Edit: Pariſ: Tom: 3. p. 504. &c. third part of that Councel of Chalcedon. In which matter may be obſerved that in the Epiſtle of the Aegyptian Biſhops, and Clergy of Alexandria, in a re…itation of the Biſhops of the whole world, the firſt place being reſerved to Leo the Biſhop of Rome, the ſecond is given*Ibid p. 506. B. Regiae Conſtantinopolis Anatolio, to Anatolius of Conſtantinople the Royal ſeat, and then follow Baſil of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jeruſalem.
Num. 13 And indeed if it be but remembred, 1. That what was done here at Chalcedon was for the main but the reciting and confirming what was done formerly at the Councel of Conſtantinople (a judgment, ſaith*Lib. 2. in fine. Euagrius, that this matter was well-ordered already, foreign, and what the Biſhop of Conſtantinople held by Cuſtome before that Councel alſo,*Epiſt: Concil: Chalt ad Leon: Pap: Concil: t. 3 p. 475. B. foreign, a cuſtome that had been long in force, and*ſubſcript: Eleu…herii Chalced: Ep: Ibid: p. 46. F. foreign by a precedaneous cuſtome &c. Secondly, that this was done by this Councel (if their profeſſions may be believed) foreign, not ſo much to adde any thing to the See of Conſtantinople, as to provide for the quiet of other Metropoles in Aſia, Pontus and Thracia. Thirdly, that the Councel atteſted all this, and ſent a relation of it to the Biſhop of Rome, foreign, being perſwaded that he being rightly informed would receive and confirm it, though his Legates had obſtinately oppoſed it. Fourthly, That all the objections, which the Pope or his Legates had to it, were propoſed and clearly anſwered in the*Concil: …. 3. p 460. Councel; that of the contrariety of the Canon to the decree of the Councel of Nice, by reading that Decrce, and ſhewing that it was perfectly reconcileable to it; That of invading the rights of the Metropoles of Aſia, Pontus and Thracia, by the ſeverall Biſhops of thoſe regions being examined by the Emperours proxies, p. 461. D.whether they conſented to it foreign, by their own will, or by any neceſſity impoſed on them, and their ſeveral cheerful anſwers, foreign, I ſubſcribed willingly as in the preſence of God, and the like; To which if we adde the depreſſion of the Biſhop of Antioch, which*ad Maxim. Antioch: Ep: 62. fol 124. Leo objects, it is likewiſe anſwered by Maximus the Biſhop of Antioch his ſubſcription to this Canon. Laſtly, that as this was enacted, by*Tom: 6. An: 454 N. 13.&c. Baronius's own confeſſion by 600 Biſhops, i. e. by the whole Councel, not onelyonly by a party of it, So the Biſhop of Conſtantinople Anatolius *p. 453.ſubſcribed it in the firſt place, and next after him the Biſhop of Antioch, there will be no poſſibility of finding any truth in this Gentleman's affirmation, that the Patriarch was aſhamed of this judgment of the Councel.
Num. 14 It is much more reaſonable to affirm on the other ſide, that the Pope, though not Leo, was aſhamed of his oppoſing it, for within 30 years after, we finde Felix He. of his own accord conſenting to his Primacy, and acknowledging Acacius Biſhop of Conſtantinople to have power over the Biſhops that were under him, Ep: 1 and Innocent III. confirms it with a ſolemn conſtitution ap: Antiqua: de Privileg: that I adde not the eſtabliſhment of it again by the Councel of Florence, ſeſſ: ult: in lit. Vnion….
Num. 15 As for the reaſon which is here offered to confirm the truth of his affirmation, it hath it ſelf no truth in it, and ſo cannot be a reaſon of the affirmation. It is not true; for there was no tumult nor unrulineſs in the Councel, onelyonly the Pope's Legates oppoſed the Canon, and made their complaint to the Judges, and were heard moſt regularly in all they could pretend, and at length the Canon was defined by the chearfull conſent of all but them. See the ſtory of it in Binius, foreign:
Num. 16 After the paſſing of the Canon, the Legates, Paſchaſinus and Lucentius make their addreſſe to the Judges, the foreign, that ſupplied the Emperours place, who bad them ſpeak what they would have; They ſay, that yeſterday, after the Judges and they were riſen, ſome things were done againſt the Canons, and deſire they may be read. That was appointed to be done; but firſt Aetius Archdeacon of Conſtantinople makes a relation, how after matters of faith agreed on, they proceeded according to the manner to ſome conſtitutions, in theſe they deſired the Legates to joyn with them, they refuſed ſaying, they had received comands from Rome to do ſo, which being remonſtrated to the Judges they had bid the Councel proceed, and hereupon the Councel had unanimouſly decreed; Appealing to them all, whether it were not true, nothing being done foreign, clancularly or by ſtealth, but foreign, of courſe, regularly and canonically. Then the Canon was read, being a plain recitation of what was before done in the Councel of Conſtantinople, and then all the ſubſcriptions follow. Then the Legates deſire it may be inquired, whether none have ſubſcribed by force, ſuggeſting that the Conſtantinopolitan Canon was contrary to the Nicene; Thereupon the Canons were both read, and upon the Judges appointment, they that were moſt concerned, the Biſhops of Aſia, Pontus, and Thracia, who were now brought under the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople, being ſuppoſed formerly to be free, were called out ſeverally and asked whether they had acted under any force, and they ſeverally profeſſe the contrary. p. 463.Whereupon the Judges ſumme up the buſineſs and conclude, that they had weighed all, and found that none had injury, the priviledges of the Biſhop of Rome were preſerved intire according to the Canons, and that the Biſhop of new Rome, Conſtantinople, was to have equal priviledges with him, &c And this being their ſenſe, they deſire the whole Councel to deliver theirs, and they all cried out, foreign, This is a juſt ſentence. This we all ſay, let this be conſigned and confirmed, deſiring they may now be diſmiſs'd every man to his home, and ſo the Judges pronounce, foreign, The Synod hath confirmed all.
Num. 17 No diſſent of any but of the Legates, and that, it ſeems, went for nothing when the reſt ſo univerſally conſented; ſo farre is this ſuggeſtion from all ſhew of truth, that the Clergy of Conſtantinople were tumultuary and unruly.
Num. 18 If any the leaſt unrulineſs there were, it was on the Legate's part, who would thus ſtand out and complain without the leaſt reaſon to doe ſo, not on the Councels, which proceeded according to the precedent cuſtome and Canon, and ſuch grounds to which neither the Pope nor his Legate did then ſo much as object any thing, viz: the ſame title by which Rome it ſelf aſcended to her greatneſs, *foreign.by being the Imperial city.
Sect. IV.
The Popes judging in his own cauſe. His Legates ſuffrages in Councels, Of what neceſſity. Antioch's equality to Rome. Conſtantinople preferred to no more but a Patriarchy. The dignity of the Biſhop of Rome meerly from Rome's being the Imperial city.
Num. 1 IN this matter of that Councel of Chalcedon two exceptions more he offers (which are not ſo weighty but they may be put together) in theſe words,
Num. 2 Secondly, he cavilleth at the privilege of Supreme Magiſtracy, calling it a method of ſecurity beyond all amulets: then he tells us of Antioch's being equal to Rome, and that Conſtantinople deſired but the ſame privileges, againſt the very nature of the ſtory; for Conſtantinople being then a Patriarchy, if that made it equal to Rome, as this Doctor feigneth, what did it pretend foreign for? ſeeing the Doctor aſſumes before that all Patriarchs were equall, neither Rome it ſelf, and leſſe Antioch had cauſe to complain.
Num. 3 For the former of theſe, which he calls my cavilling at the privilege of ſupreme Magiſtracy, that ſure is but gratis dictum, and a begging of that, which in the whole controverſie he knows to be moſt denied him.
Num. 4 That he, that aſſumes a ſupreme Magiſtracy to himſelf, ſhould by no means be concluded to be an aſſumer, till he make his own confeſſion of it, and give his ſuffrage to his condemnation, I mentioned, and cannot but look upon ſtill, as a method of perfect ſecurity, beyond all amulets and defenſatives; For how can it be imagined, that he, that conteſts a right, ſhould at the ſame time acknowledge it not to belong to him, when he knows that nothing but this confeſſion is ſufficient to deprive him of it? As for any ſuch priviledge belonging to ſupreme Magiſtracy in generall, or any way applicable to the Biſhop of Rome, in relation to a General Councel, it may be worth conſidering a while.
Num. 5 And firſt for ſupreme Magiſtracy in general, This privilege doth not extend to all matters. In a conteſt of particular right between a ſupreme Magiſtrate and a ſubject, brought before any legal judicature, 'tis certain the ſupreme Magiſtrate may be concluded without his own ſuffrage or conſent, and agreeable to that it was, when the queſtion was brought in this Councel before the Judges by the complaint of the Pope's Legates, whether the Canon were the day before, after the Legate's departure, duly paſſed or no, For if it were not ſo, what needed this complaint to the Iudges, the bare abſence, and ſo not conſenting of the Legates had been ſufficient to caſſate and annull the Acts: Whatſoever Magiſtracy therefore was then pretended to by the Biſhop of Rome, this Privilege doth not then ſeem to have belonged to it, that his, or his Legate's ſuffrages ſhould be neceſſary to the paſſing every Canon.
Num. 6 That they might have liberty to come to the Councell, that nothing were done clancularly or by ſtealth, at a time when they knew not of it, that no force were uſed on thoſe that were preſent, nor the like to hinder the preſence of any, this was neceſſary to the freedome, and ſo to the very being of a Councel, and conſequently to the validity of every act thereof, and accordingly on theſe heads it was that the Legates in their complaint to the Iudges inſiſted (and ſo doth*Tom. 6. Ann: 451. Num: 143. Baronius, ſtyling that loſt Action of that Councel, ſpuriam & clandeſtinam, & ab Anatolio furtim adjectam, a ſpurious clandeſtine action ſtollen in by Anatolius) as alſo, on the authority of the Nicene Canons, which they pretended to be infringed by that latter of Conſtantinople, on which this of Chalcedon was founded, and this they thought ſufficient to caſſate this Act, but for this of the want of the Pope's or his Legate's ſuffrage, that it ſhould invalidate that decree, it is not ſo much as pretended by the Legates, in the relations of the paſſages of that Councel.
Num. 7 And therefore according to that ſaying of S. Hierome, put into their Canon Law, Decret: par: 1. diſt: 193. c. Legimus.ſi authoritas quaeritur, orbis major eſt urbe, if authority be looked for, the whole world is more than the one city of Rome, it is the reſolution of*de author: Eccl: 7. Almain, merito Concilium Chalcedonenſe Leoni reſistenti praevaluiſſe, that the Councel of Chalcedon did well in ſtanding out againſt Pope Leo, and did juſtly prevail againſt him.
Num. 8 This amulet it ſeems had not virtue to ſtand him in ſo much ſtead, as*Ann: 454. Num: 13, &c. Baronius is pleaſed to phanſie, ſetting out the power and greatneſs of Pope Leo by this, that he did alone caſſate what this Councel had decreed by the ſuffrages of 600 Biſhops. Which how well it conſiſts with his former affirmation, that this Canon was ſpurious and clandeſtine, and ſtollen in by Anatolius, I ſhall not here examine. 'Tis ſure, if the Popes authority were ſo ſoveraign, the act needed not have been made ſpurious firſt, to qualifie it for the caſſation. But this of the power or ſuperiority of a Pope over an OEcumenical Councel, is a queſtion not ſo neceſſary here to be debated, unleſſe what this Gentleman was pleaſed to mention of the privilege of ſupreme Magiſtracy, had been indevoured ſome way to be proved by him.
Num. 9 Next he quarrels my ſaying that Antioch was equall to Rome, and that Conſtantinople deſired but the ſame privileges, and this he ſaith is againſt the very nature of the ſtory.
Num. 10 That Antioch had the foreign equal privileges with Rome, ſo farre as to the dignity of a Patriarchate &c. (allowing to Rome the Primacy of order and dignity) I thought was competently concluded from the Pope's pretenſions againſt that Canon of Chalcedon, making it an invaſion of the rights of Antioch, and as derogatory to that as to Rome; And ſo ſtill it ſeems to me, For if Antioch had not foreign equal privileges with Rome, how could Conſtantinople's aſpiring to equal privileges with Rome, be as derogatory to Antioch as to Rome? But I need not this help from Pope Leo's argument, the thing aſſerted by me, is not denied, that I know of, by any Romaniſt, viz: that Antioch had the dignity of a Patriarchate, for that is all that I expreſſe my ſelf to mean by Antioch's having foreign equal privileges with Rome, and I that maintain (as this Gentleman truely ſaith I doe) that all Patriarchs are equal (in reſpect of Power, differing onelyonly in order or precedence) cannot be imagined to mean any thing elſe by it.
Num. 11 So again that Conſtantinople deſired no more but the privileges of a Patriarch, and that that is the meaning of the foreign equal privileges, is by me ſaid in oppoſition to acquiring any ordinary juriſdiction over other Churches, and this inſtead of being contrary to the nature of the ſtory, is directly agreeable to the whole courſe of it, and to the expreſſe words of the Canon, which defines, that as the city of Conſtantinople was honoured with the Empire and Senate, and injoyed equal privileges with old Imperial Rome, ſo the Church of Conſtantinople (foreign) ſhould be exalted to the ſame height with that, foreign, having the next place after it, adding that the Metropolitans (and none elſe of Aſia, Pontus and Thraeia, &c. ſhould be ordained by the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, the Biſhops of each of thoſe Provinces being left to be ordained by their reſpective Metropolitans; This is ſo plain that there can be no need of farther proof of it.
Num. 12 And for this Gentleman's objection, by way of Queſtion, that Conſtantinople being then a Patriarchy, if that made it equal with Rome, for what did it pretend foreign, I anſwer 1. that Conſtantinople being by cuſtome, and by Act of the Councel held in that city, a Patriachate already, it ſought not to acquire any new advantage or increaſe by this Canon of Chalcedon, but onelyonly to continue what already it had.
Num. 13 This again appears by the ſtory, where that Canon of Conſtantinople was produced and read, as the foundation on which this new Canon was built, and ſo by the expreſſe words in the beginning of the Canon, foreign &c. following conſtantly the definitions of the Holy Fathers, and knowing the Canon newly read of the 150 Biſhops aſſembled in the reign of the Emperour Theodoſius at the Imperial city Conſtantinople or new Rome. And agreeably Euagrius ſets down the ſtory, that in this Councel of Chalcedon foreign it was thought juſt or determined that the Conſtantinopolitan See foreign was rightly and duly placed next after Rome.
Num. 14 And when this Gentleman aſſumes, that if this were ſo, the neither Rome it ſelf, and leſſe Antioch had cauſe to complain, I ſhall moſt willingly joyn with him in it, being no way obliged by my pretenſions to juſtifie the Pope or his Legates diſlike to that Canon. And for Antioch I am ſure enough that the Biſhop thereof, Maximus, though he had received an Epiſtle from the Pope to exasperate and perſwade him to ſtand upon his right, did very readily ſubſcribe it, ſetting his name and conſent next after the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, as hath formerly been ſet down out of the ſtory.
Num. 15 And if Antioch did ſo, who was the loſer by it, if precedence ſignifie any thing, I confeſſe I can render no cauſe (unleſſe it be the Pompejúſve parem, impatience of any equal) why the Biſhop of Rome, who loſt not ſo much as precedence by this advancement or confirmation of dignity to the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, ſhould be ſo obſtinately and implacably offended at it.
Num. 16 Thus have I anſwered every attempt and tittle of exception offered by this Gentleman in this matter, and have now leiſure to complain, that the one thing that I deſired to be taken notice of from this Canon, is not ſo much as conſidered, or at all replied to by him, viz: that the Dignity that old Rome had by antient Canons in oyed was given it upon this account, foreign becauſe Rome was the Imperial ſeat; which as it is the proof of my whole pretenſion, that the Pope was not Vniverſal Paſtor, upon title of his ſucceſſion from S. Peter, (for if whatſoever he had, the Councels gave it him, foreign, ſaith the Canon, and gave it him as Biſhop of the Imperial See, then ſure 'twas no inheritance from S. Peter) ſo it was truely obſerved out of the ſtory of the Councel of Chalcedon, and may be ſeen both in the Legate's complaint to the Judges, and in the Epistles of Leo to the Emperour Martianus, the Empreſſe Pulcheria, Anatolius Biſhop of Conſtantinople and Maximus of Antioch, and his inſtructions to his Legates, that he never made any exception to that branch of the Canon that thus derived the original of his greatneſſe from the Imperial dignity of the city, never thought himſelf injured by this way of ſetting down his title.
Sect. V.
Of the Canon of Epheſus. The power of Metropolitans, of Primates. The caſe of the Archbiſhop of Cyprus no peculiar caſe. The deduction thence againſt the Popes Vniverſal Pastorſhip. Of the Popes tenure by the inſtitution of Chriſt.
Num. 1 THE next exception concerns the Canon of the Councel of Epheſus, thus,
Num. 2 As for the Canon of Epheſus touching the Archbiſhop of Cyprus, it plainly ſheweth that the Metropolitans were ſubordinate to the Patriarchs, ſeeing this caſe of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted caſe, the reaſon given doth ſhew that the ſuperiority of Patriarchs was by custome received from their Anceſtors, contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed, however it is ſtill nothing to the purpoſe, becauſe the authority, which we ſay belongs to the Pope, is neither Patriarchal, nor derived from any inſtitution or cuſtome of the Church, but from the inſtitution of Chriſt.
Num. 3 This Canon of Epheſus, ſaith he, plainly ſhews that Metropolitans were ſubordinate to Patriarchs, ſeeing this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted caſe. To this I ſee not how any pretenſions of ours oblige me to make any return, yet becauſe it may be ſubject to ſome miſtake for want of explicating, I ſhall clear that whole matter by theſe three Propoſitions.
Num. 4 Firſt, that the controverſie, which occaſioned that Canon, was this, Whether the Biſhop of Conſtance, Metropolitan of the Province of Cyprus, was to be ordained by the Patriarch of Antioch, or (without ſeeking abroad) by his own Synod, the Biſhops of Cyprus. Thus is the ſtate of the queſtion ſet down in the Councels, Tom. 2. p. 670. at the beginning of the 7 Action. Diſcuſſa eſt controverſia inter Rheginum Epiſcopum Conſtantiae Cypri, & Johannem Antiochenum, qui ſibi Cyprias Eccleſias ſubdere moliebatur. The controverſie was diſcuſſed between Rheginus Biſhop of Conſtance of Cyprus, and John of Antioch, who endevoured to bring the Cypriotes Churches into ſubjection to himſelf.
Num. 5 Secondly, that the antient cuſtome had been favourable to Rheginus his pretenſion, and ſo the claim of Antioch is defined foreign, a thing innovated againſt the Eccleſiaſtical Lawes, and ſo foreign, that which, by the example, or preſident, would concern the liberty of all Churches. Cod: Can: Eccl: Un:foreign
Num. 6 Thirdly, that the Councel defined on the Cypriots ſide, that according to the Canous, and antient cuſtome, the Biſhops of Cyprus ſhould retein their previlege inviolable, foreign, ordaining their Biſhops within, and by themſelves, and conſequently that it was an act of aſſuming, and invaſion in the Biſhop of Antioch, to claim foreign to make any Ordinations within Cyprus. And what was thus adjudged in the caſe of the Cypriots, was by that Councel in the ſame Canon thought fit to be extended in like manner to all other Provinces (foreign, the ſame ſhall be obſerved alſo through all Dioceſes and Provinces every where) foreign &c. that no Biſhop ſhall meddle with another Province, which hath not from the beginning been under him, i. e. under his predeceſſors power. And ſo there is no truth in what is here ſuggeſted, that this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted caſe; It certainly, by the expreſſe words of the Canon, belonged to all other Metropolitans and their Provinces over all the world, that neither Biſhop of Antioch nor of Rome was to meddle with any ordinations except in their own particular Provinces, but the Synod of the Biſhops of each Province, foreign, to make the ordinations of their Biſhops by themſelves.
Num. 7 What he adds of the ſuperiority of Patriarchs by custome received from their Anceſtors, Firſt, that the reaſon given in that Epheſine Canon doth ſhew it; Secondly, that it is contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed; Thirdly, that it is ſtill nothing to the purpoſe in hand, of the authority of the Pope; hath not, that I can diſcern, any truth in any part of it. For as to the firſt, whatſoever ſuperiority Patriarchs be acknowledged to have, there is no word of mention concerning it in that Canon, neither was there any occaſion to define any thing of it; It was the Synod, and Biſhops of Cyprus their right, that was invaded, and of that onelyonly that Canon ſpeaks, devolving it to original cuſtome, and Canons, and ſo for all other Metropolitans. But that is not the ſuperiority of Patriarchs. Secondly, for my affirmation, certainly it was never ſuch as could be deemed contrary either to that Epheſine Canon about ordination of their Metropolitans, or that due ſuperiority, which by Canons or cuſtomes doth belong to Primates or Patriarchs; what this is I have often ſet down, and need not again repeat it.
Num. 8 Laſtly, for the application of this Canon to the preſent affair of the Vniverſal Paſtorſhip of the Biſhop of Rome, thus much is evident, Firſt, that all Provinces every where, foreign were concluded by this Canon, that they ſhould ordain their Biſhops within themſelves, and then I pray how can the foreign power of ordaining all belong to the Biſhop of Rome, and ordination and juriſdiction going together, how can he have the Vniverſal Juriſdiction, or which is all one the Vniverſal Paſtorſhip?
Num. 9 Secondly, if the Pope his authority be not Patriarchal, as this Gentleman here ſaith, then till he hath proved that it is more than Patriarchal, and anſwered all that is ſaid to the contrary in that Tract of Schiſme, that which is by the Epheſiue Canon judged in order to the Patriarch of Antioch, will alſo conclude him.
Num. 10 And thirdly, that which is held by the inſtitution of Chriſt being certainly derived foreign from the beginning, muſt needs be included in the words of this Canon, which requires that all ſhould remain, as by cuſtome (immemorial) from the beginning it had been, to which therefore we appeal, and inquire, whether Cyprus was not as Independent from Rome at that time, as from Antioch; if not, how any ſuch dependance at that time appears, or how is it imaginable there ſhould be any ſuch, when all Provinces every where were to be ruled and ordered foreign by their own Synod and Biſhops.
Num. 11 As for the tenure, by which the Pope is now, in the cloſe of this Paragraph, clearly ſaid to ſtand, not from any inſtitution or cuſtome of the Church, but from the institution of Chriſt. Firſt, this is more than ever this Gentleman would acknowledge before, telling us p. 14. that who underſtands the Principles of the Catholick faith, knows they relie not onelyonly upon ſuch places of Scripture, as, Thou art Peter, and Feed my ſheep, From whence I thought my ſelf obliged to conclude they relied not onelyonly on Chriſt his inſtitution, for that I ſuppoſe muſt be ſet down in ſome, and if in any, ſure in thoſe Scriptures, And in another place, that I forget my ſelf when I think a Catholick ought to prove that the hope hath an Vniverſal Primacie (referring all to his Poſſeſſion) whereas in caſe he pretend to hold by the inſtitution of Chriſt (as here he ſaith) certainly he is obliged to produce that inſtitution, and that is to prove his pretenſion.
Num. 12 But then ſecondly, that there is indeed any ſuch thing, that the Pope holds by Inſtitution of Chriſt, is ſtill the thing denied by us, and the contrary, I think, demonſtrated in the former chapter, and all the places producible for it, anſwered, and ſo it muſt not be here begged or aſſumed, without any word added for the proof of it.
Sect. VI.
The exemption of Juſtiniana prima, The ſeveral exceptions againſt this inſtance anſwered.
Num. 1 HIS next Paragraph pretends to be anſwer to the evidence brought from the example of Juſtiniana prima, which was by the Emperour made independent from any other Eccleſiaſtical power. His anſwer is this,
Num. 2 Then he goes on with two examples, in which he would perſwade us that Juſtiniana prima, and Carthage were made exempt cities by the Emperour, and ſeeth not that his own inſtance giveth the anſwer, for as in the temporal donation, he doth not exempt them from his own ſubjection, ſo neither from the Popes in ſpiritual, nor as much as giveth them the ſtyle of Patriarchs; though the Biſhop of Conſtantinople in his own city ordinarily had it.
Num. 3 That Juſtiniana prima was by Juſtinian exempted from all others (and ſo from the Biſhop of Rome his) Iuriſdiction (and ſo Carthage alſo, being inveſted with the ſame privileges) I thought ſufficiently proved by the plain words of the conſtitution, that for any differences that ſhould befall in that Province, the Archbiſhop of that new erection from time to time, ſhould decide them finally, nec ad alium quendam eatur, and they ſhould go to no other for deciſion, or by way of appeal and ſo in the Novell, foreign &c. he ſhall have under his own juriſdiction the Biſhops of Dacia, &c. which what is it, but a perfect exemption and independency?
Num. 4 The ſame appears alſo by the other part of the conſtitution, that concerning ordination of that Archbiſhop, It was, as was ſaid, to be done by his own Synod of Metropolitans. To which agrees that of the Novell 131. foreign He muſt be ordained by his own Synod.
Num. 5 To this the anſwer given here, and given, ſaith he, by my own inſtance, is no more than this, that as in the temporal donation he doth not exempt them from his own ſubjection, ſo neither from the Popes in ſpiritual. But ſure there is no force in this compariſon; For the not exempting him in temporal things from his own power, doth no way conclude a nonexemption from the Pope; When Henry VIII. removed the Papal power out of this nation, no man thinks he diveſted himſelf of the regal; the Archbiſhop of Canterbury was made Independent, and exempt from the Biſhop of Rome, but remained ſtill ſubordinate to the King: So in like manner Iuſtinian might doe, make Inſtiniana a Primacy, and yet leave the Biſhop and his whole Province in the ſame ſubjection to the Emperour, that before it had been; And as this is very poſſible, ſo if it were not the plain truth of the fact, that muſt be made appear by the ſtory, or by the inveſtiture.
Num. 6 In that there is no ſound of any word for the exempting that Biſhop from the Imperial ſubjection, and ſo we cannot imagine, without any ground, that there was any ſuch thing, but for Eccleſiaſtical judicature and ordination, they are both diſtinctly ſpecified, that he and his Metropolitans ſhould have them within themſelves, without fetching them abroad from any other; and ſo by that the Biſhop of Rome is explicitly excluded from having any thing to doe there.
Num. 7 This farther appears, not onelyonly by the matter of fact, for after the firſt Archbiſhop was ordained by Pope Vigilius, his ſucceſſors were conſtantly ordained by their own Metropolitans, and not by the Biſhop of Rome, but alſo by farther expreſſe words in the*foreign. Novell, foreign, In the Provinces ſubject to him he ſhall hold the place of the Apoſtolical ſeat of Rome, i. e. doe all within thoſe Provinces that the Biſhop of Rome was wont to doe, before this Primacy was erected, and this, it ſeems, by direct conſent of Vigilius then Pope, as there it follows, foreign, according to what was defined by the Holy Father Vigilius.
Num. 8 Which words if they be conceived to denote no more than a deputation from the Pope by which this power was held, and ſo be made uſe of as an argument to inferre his continued dependence on the See of Rome, that will be found to be a miſtake, the whole inveſtiture giving the Archbiſhop there an foreign a perfect freedome, and abſoluteneſſe, to be head within his Province, independent from all others. And ſhould it by any other way appear that Vigilius, who ordained the firſt Biſhop there (as 'tis ſure he muſt be ordained by ſome body, and none fitter for it than the Biſhop of old Rome) did farther give him a deputation, as I ſee it affirmed (but not by this Gentleman) both of Vigilius, and after him of Gregory, yet certainly this was but a formality, without any farther effect or influence on the inveſtiture, the privileges of that See came to it meerly by the Act of the Emperour (and that Act was entred a Part of the Imperial Law) to which the ſuppoſed addition of the Pope's deputation can be no prejudice; And ſecondly, the Biſhop of Carthage, which by that Conſtitution is inveſted with the very ſame privileges by the Emperour, is not pretended to have received any ſuch deputation from the Pope, and yet by virtue of the Emperours act was freed from all former dependence, and injoyed the foreign and foreign the privilege of a Metropolitan, in the ſame manner, as Iuſtiniana did.
Num. 9 What this Gentleman adds, that the Emperour gave not ſo much as the ſtyle of Patriarch to the Biſhop of Iuſtiniana, though the Biſhop of Conſtantinople in his own city ordinarily had it, will ſoon appear to ſignifie nothing; For firſt, the power, not the title is that we ſpeak of, and that may be had in plenitude, without the name; the Archbiſhop of Cyprus was by the Councel, of Epheſus adjudged to have all power within himſelf, ſo as to go neither to Antioch nor to Rome for it, and yet was not raiſed to any higher title, than that of Archbiſhop.
Num. 10 Secondly, I ſuppoſe Primate and Patriarch to be perfectly all one, as to matter of power and dignity; that the Archbiſhop of Conſtantinople and Hieruſalem, ſo ſtyled in the antient Canons, were yet ordinarily called Patriarchs, was no injury to the Patriarch of Antioch, ſaith Theod: Balſamon, himſelf Patriarch of Antioch in his foreign, becauſe of the identity of the honour. And accordingly in the Councels the Archbiſhop of Conſtantinople, under that title is placed before the Patriarch of Antioch, yea and of Alexandria, who yet by the foreign divine and holy writings (i. e. the Canons) by the foreign traditions of the Fathers, was ſtyled Pope, ſaith Balſamon. And therefore for Juſtiniana alſo this was ſufficient; It was made a Primacy, and then it matters not, though it were not ſtyled a Patriarchy; The exemption from Rome and all other forreign power is all I pretend this city had, and of that there can be no queſtion, whatſoever title belonged to it.
Num. 11 Thirdly, this Gentleman's ſaying that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople had the title of Patriarch in his own city, would make one believe that he had it not elſewhere, which yet it is notorious that he had, foreign; he and the Archbiſhop of Jeruſalem were publickly called Patriarchs, ſaith Balſamon, and he renders the reaſon, foreign, becauſe the five Patriarchs (of which number they were two) held the place of the head of the body, to wit, of the holy Churches of God. But whatſoever the title were, it is ſtill ſure enough it had the power and dignity of a Patriarchate, firſt by cuſtome, then by Canons of two General Councels, Conſtantinople and Chalcedon (for I ſuppoſe the ſetting it next and equal to Rome, and before Antioch and Alexandria, foreign.will amount to this) alſo by that very Novell of Juſtinian, where the privileges are conferred on Juſtiniana, foreign, the Archbiſhop of new Rome, Conſtantinople, hath the next place after the Apoſtolical See of old Rome, and the precedence of honour before all others. And ſo much for the Exceptions to the fift Chapter.