A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. An Anſwer to the Exceptions made to the ſixt Chapter.
Sect. I.
The plea for the Popes power from the converſion of England, Of acquiring of right by two titles.
Num. 1 THE plea from plantation, which was conſidered in the ſixt Chapter, he now proceeds to, in theſe words,
Num. 2 In his ſixt Chapter he examineth another title peculiar to England, viz: that our Nation was converted by miſſion from Rome, Sect. 1.and this is totally beſide the queſtion, for no man is ſo ſtupid as to pretend S. Peter or the Church of Rome to have power over the Vniverſal Church, becauſe his ſucceſſors converted England: But ſome pretend a ſpecial title of gratitude, the violation of which aggravateth the ſin of ſchiſmatizing from the Church of Rome in our nation, yet no man, as farre as I can underſtand, thinks this latter obligation of ſo high a nature, as that for no occaſion or never ſo great cauſe, it may not be dispenſed with; but onelyonly preſſe it then when the benefit is ſlighted, or by colourable arguments to the contrary unworthily avoided: And yet this Doctor quite miſtaking the Queſtion frameth an argument,Sect. 2. as full of words as empty of matter, affirming there cannot be two ſucceſſive titles to poſſeſſion of the ſame thing, telling us, that he who claimeth a reward as of his own labour and travel muſt diſclaim a donation, &c. if any paſſed before, and that if a King have right by deſcent, he cannot claim any thing by conqueſt, by which you may ſee his underſtanding the Law is not much more than his underſtanding of our principles.
Num. 3 What this Gentleman here premiſeth, that this plea from the Converſion of this nation by miſſion from Rome is not uſed by the Romaniſt to prove us ſchiſmaticks, I have no reaſon to confute but ſhall from thence ſuppoſe that that ſixt Chapter might have been ſpared out of that little Treatiſe, and our Church competently juſtified by the precedent Chapters; And then all that I ſhall need added, is, Firſt, that I hope what was by me added ſuperfluouſly, above the neceſſities of our cauſe, will not deſtroy what was before ſaid pertinently, and then as I ſhall onelyonly have loſt my pains, and there is no farther hurt done, ſo it muſt needs be very unneceſſary for this Gentleman to adapt any farther anſwers to that ſixt Chapter, when he hath once adjudged all that is there ſaid to be totally beſide the Queſtion.
Num. 4 Secondly, That if others had been as prudent, as this Gentleman, I had certainly ſpared that Chapter, It being no intereſt of mine to invent pleas for the Romaniſt, and although, as this Gentleman hath pleaſed to ſet it, it be a competent ſtupidity, and that which I never thought any Romaniſt guilty of, to make the converſion of England a plea to power over the Vniverſal Church, yet England, and not the Vniverſal Church, being the ſubject of our Queſtion, there is not quite ſo much ſtupidity in it, to plead the Popes power over England from the ſuppoſed Converſion of England, And certainly I did not dream that ſome Romaniſts have thus pleaded, but, as I ſaid before, if this Gentleman will not inſiſt on it, neither ſhall I farther importune him about it.
Num. 5 For that of gratitude which he now mentions onelyonly as an aggravation of the ſin of ſchiſmatizing, wch that we are guilty of, he acknowledges muſt be proved by ſome other means, I yeild to the force of it, that it might juſtly adde a weight to the obligation, which formerly lay upon us, ſuppoſing any ſuch there were, but cannot lay an obligation to obedience where before it was not due, much leſſe were it due unto another. All the benefits that can be heaped on me by any man that gives me not my being, cannot oblige or engage my ſubjection to him, without the intervenience of my own conſent, if I am perfectly free to chooſe my Sovereign, and without the conſent of my former Sovereign, if I have any.
Num. 6 So that the whole Queſtion muſt be, whether by any original right the Biſhop of Rome had power over this Kingdome, and ſo whether by that, our obedience was due to him, for if it were, then this gratitude was not the tenure, but that other; and if it were not, then neither of the titles are in force againſt us; not the firſt, which hath no beeing; nor the ſecond, which whatſoever it be, obligeth not to obedience.
Num. 7 This I thought was apparent by the inſtance of the ſeveral claims to a Kingdome, by deſcent, and by conqueſt, the one of which, if it ſtood, as the title, ſuperſedeth the other, he that holds by inheritance, cannot be properly ſaid to hold by conqueſt, even when it is true that he hath conquered alſo. For in that caſe, when the right heir being forced to make uſe of his ſword to give him poſſeſſion, is ſucceſsfull and victorious in it, all that his ſword doth, is to give him poſſeſſion, not to give him right, for that he had before by inheritance.
Num. 8 That the ſame right cannot be held by two tenures appears by this; becauſe if it might, it being evidently poſſible that thoſe two tenures might be ſeparated and placed in ſeveral ſubjects, the inheritance in one, the conqueſt in another, it muſt follow from thence, that each of thoſe perſons ſhall have the right; which as it is unimaginable, ſpeaking of the whole right or propriety in integrum to the whole power, for if one have it all, the other can have no part of it, ſo if it be applied to a partial right (which more than one may have, either ſeverally, or ſocially, and jointly, to the ſame thing) then that is the changing of the Queſtion which ſpake of the whole right, and not onelyonly of ſome one or more parts or branches of it.
Num. 9 And therefore as this Gentleman agrees with me in the concluſion, that Rome hath no title to our obedience, from that of converting us, or if it had, it could not plead the ſame from S. Peter's univerſal Paſtorſhip, ſo I cannot diſcern, why my way of inferring it was diſliked, or my ignorance in the Lawes cenſured, for ſaying that the title of deſcent is excluſive to that of conqueſt, meaning it not of ſeveral parts, of which one comes by deſcent, the other by conqueſt, but of the ſame whole thing, of which he that hath the right by deſcent, may by the ſword and conqueſt vindicate his right, and acquire quiet poſſeſſion, but cannot be ſaid to acquire his right by thoſe means, being ſuppoſed to have had it, before he made uſe of them.
Sect. II.
The Britiſh Church not converted from Rome.
Num. 1 HAving granted me my concluſion, that our obedience to Rome is not due from the Nation's converſion by miſſion from thence, he is yet reſolved to examine my arguments, by which I prove what he grants. And there be three things, that here he takes notice of. The firſt in theſe words,
Num. 2 But to come to ſome matter, His firſt arguments is that this Iſland was converted before S. Auguſtine's time, ſurely he means by the name of Iſland, the Land and Mountains and trees, for if he ſpeak of the men, what hath the converſion of the former Iſlanders to doe with the ſubjection and duty which the Saxons owe.
Num. 3 I anſwer, by this Iſland, I mean not the mountains, nor trees, on one ſide, any more than the preſent individual perſons on the other ſide, but the inhabitants of it indefinitely, who have ſucceeded one another, whether Britiſh or Saxon by extraction. For, firſt, of the Britiſh it is certain that they were not converted by miſſion from Rome, but were Christians long before S. Auguſtine's coming hither, And Secondly, of the Saxons it may be remembred, that Augustine did not abſolutely introduce Chriſtianity among them here, but Luidhardus, that came out of France with Bertha, Ethelred's Wife, and was a Biſhop here, had prepared the way for Auguſtine. See Bede Hiſt: Eccl: lib. 1. c. 25, 26. And Thirdly, if Auguſtine were the firſt converter of the Saxons, and ſo that be, without farther queſtion, granted of him, yet that cannot belong to the whole Iſland, the Dominion of Wales being neither of Saxon extraction, nor converted from Rome to Chriſtianity. And this is the deſigne of that argument of mine, In caſe there were a duty owing to that See, from whence the converter came, and in caſe that were acknowledged to pertain to the Saxons, yet ſtill the Britiſh part would not be concluded by either of theſe, it being certain that their Anceſtors were not comprehended in this number.
Num. 4 But becauſe this Gentleman waves this title from converſion, neither ſhall I farther inſiſt to diſprove it; But rather ask, why no anſwer was made to thoſe teſtimonies, which in that place were occaſionally vouched to ſhew that at the time of Auguſtine's coming into this Iſland, the Chriſtian Church here acknowledged no ſubjection to Rome, or to any other Church, to be due from them, which certainly is ſome prejudice to the claim drawn from the Vniverſal Paſtorſhip of S. Peter and his ſucceſſor at Rome.
Num. 5 To that which is there ſaid for the evidencing this out of the Annals of Giſburne, It will not be amiſſe here to adde what our ſtories tell us, that when the Pelagian hereſie, which firſt ſprang from Morgan a Britain, was by Agricola brought into this Iſland, the Britains *Ne que ſuſcipere dogma perverſii vellent, neque verſutiam nefariae perſuaſioni… refutare verbis certando ſufficevent: Bed. l. 1. c. 17.unwilling to receive their infuſions, and yet unable to reſiſt them without aſſiſtance from ſome other Church, in this time of need, applied not themſelves to Rome, as in their*Bed. l. 1. c. 12, 13. ſecular diſtreſſes they had accuſtomed, but to their neighbours of France, who calling a Councel ſent Germanus Altiſiodorenſis and Lupus to their aid, by which means the Catholick Faith was much revived and increaſed and propagated among them.
Sect. III.
S. Paul's plantations an argument againſt the Vniverſal Paſtorſhip of S. Peter. S. Paul's being Biſhop of Rome, no anſwer to it.
Num. 1 THE argument which he next ſpeaks to, is that wherein from Paul's having planted ſome Churches, which yet are not ſubjected to the Chair, where S. Paul ſate (whether Antioch or Rome) I conclude againſt this claim of power from the title of converſion: To this he thus ſpeaks,
Num. 2 His next Argument demandeth, whether all that S. Paul converted,Sect. 8. were obliged to be under him; truly if it were to purpoſe, I believe there might be proof that S. Paul expected it; but he doth not remember that he told us S. Paul was Biſhop of Rome, and ſo it cometh to the ſame queſion, but indeed he quite miſſeth the matter, for no body ſtateth this for the Popes title, but aggravation of the ſchiſme.
Num. 3 3. To what purpoſe it is to ſay there might be proof, and yet to produce none, I know not; This onelyonly I deſire to note, that if any ſuch proof were produced, and, without that, by the bare pretending that it might be proved, S. Peter's univerſal Paſtorſhip muſt be diſclaimed, and conſequently all right which derives its original from thence.
Num. 4 For S. Paul's labours being more abundant than all the Apoſtles, 'tis certain great numbers were converted by him, and if all they were to be under S. Paul, how can S. Peter be Paſtor and Ruler of all, it being certain, that S. Paul was not ſubordinate to S. Peter.
Num. 5 And it is of little force what I am reminded of (though ſure I never forgot it) that S. Paul was Biſhop of Rome, and ſo it cometh to the ſame queſtion: For 1. S. Paul being Biſhop of the Gentile part of the Roman Chriſtians, as S. Peter of the Jewiſh, and thoſe then disparate congregations, S. Paul cannot be thought in his converting the Gentiles of other nations, to bring in ſubjects to S. Peter; And 2. it is evident that S. Paul was not Biſhop of Rome when he placed Timothy over Aſia, and Titus over Crete, and conſequently the converſion and eſtabliſhment of thoſe Churches was not in any reaſon to acquire any Dominion to Rome, which S. Paul had never ſeen at that time, and which was it ſelf converted after thoſe, and that was it which I was proving.
Num. 6 But he bethinketh himſelf at laſt, and confeſſeth that this of converſion is not the Pope's title to England, And having done ſo before, why might he not have permitted me to bring undeniable evidences for the proof of it?
Sect. IV.
The concernments of Rome in the Princes power to remove Patriarchates. The examples of it. Juſtiniana, the Canon of Chalcedon, and the 6t Councel. Valentinian making Ravenna a Patriarchate. foreign.
Num. 1 TO put this whole matter out of controverſie, viz: that the Church of England is not bound to be ſubject to that Church, from which it firſt received the Faith, one head of argument I pitcht on, the power of Kings to remove or erect Primacies and Patriarchates, which if it have truth in it, evidently proves, that in caſe we were once under the See of Rome, as our Patriarchate or Prime See (ſuppoſing that of Vniverſal Paſtorſhip diſproved before, and not reconcileable with this title to England by having converted) yet it was in the power of our Kings to remove that from Rome to Canterbury. For the proof of this, evidences were brought both from the Councel (and that OEcumenical) of Chalcedon, and from the practice of Princes, particularly Juſtinian in an eminent inſtance, and Valentinian and others before the Councel of Chalcedon, and many the like examples in the Records of this Kingdome, and of others, as is ſhewed at large, and the ground of all inſiſted on, the ſupreme power of Kings in Eccleſiaſtical affairs, and this is done in 16 ſections, from the 9th to the end of that Chapter. Againſt all which (that we may ſee how true the title of this Gentleman's Book is, An Anſwer to the moſt material parts &c.) that which is confronted, is contained in theſe words,
Num. 2 Thirdly, He ſaith it was in the Emperors power to conſtitute Patriarchs: whether that be ſo or not, it will not be much to our purpoſe to dispute here, onelyonly this I ſay, that he ſeems neither to underſtand the queſtion, nor proves what he would; he underſtands not the question, which hath no dependency on the nature of Patriarchs, or terms of gratitude, but on the donation of Chriſt: he proves not what he would, for he produceth onelyonly the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannical towards the Church, without proof and diſcuſſion whether it was well or ill done, which was requiſite to make good his proof; neither doth he ſay whether the thing were done or no by the conſent of Biſhops, especially ſince the Pope was an Actor in the buſineſſe, he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian the third, for giving of privileges purely Eccleſiaſtical to the Biſhop of Ravenna, which out of his liberality he makes a Patriarch, but on the whole matter this is to be obſerved, that generally the Biſhops conſents were praedemanded or praeordered, as in the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 7. it is ordered that the Church ſhould tranſlate their Biſhoprick… according to the Emperours changing of his City, and when the Emperours did it, it is ſaid they did it according to the power given them, to wit, by the Church, ſo that a few examples to the contrary, produced in the reigns of headſtrong and Tyrannical Princes, as the moſt of thoſe are noted to be, under whom they are urged, prove nothing, and if they did, yet cannot they be taken as teſtimonies, when theſe matters of fact are onelyonly ſo attributed to Princes, as no way to exclude the Church, but whatſoever it was, it doth not at all appertaine to the queſtion, ſince the Popes authority, in the ſenſe he calls him Pope, is not properly Patriarchal, nor hath any dependency upon, or from change of places made by the command of Princes.
Num. 3 The firſt thing here anſwered is, that it is not much to the Romaniſts purpoſe to dispute, whether or no the Emperour hath power to conſtitute Patriarchs. (He ought to have added, or to tranſlate them from one City to another, for that is in that Tract alſo expreſly proved, but this I ſuppoſe not without reaſon omitted, becauſe the power to erect or constitute, ſuppoſes and implies the power to tranſlate them) And if this be not this Gentleman's intereſt to diſpute, I ſhall then by his good leave, ſuppoſe it yeilded me, and obſerve what the conſequences will be.
Num. 4 And 1. In caſe the power of the Pope be a Patriarchal power, and no more, and that appear to be all that the antient Councils ever allowed it to be, then it immediately followes, that it is in the power of the Emperour to tranſlate and remove it from that to any other See, and in that caſe what befell Conſtantinople by way of advancement, from the title of an ordinary Suffragan Biſhops See, it aſcended to equal dignity and privileges with Rome it ſelf, will in the reverſe be the condition of Rome; from the firſt Patriarchal See in the whole world, nothing hinders but that it may become the See of the moſt ordinary Biſhop And ſure 'twill be the Romaniſts concernment to diſpute that principle, from which this may poſſibly be the undeniable concluſion.
Num. 5 But if, as here it ſeems to be interpoſed, the power of Rome be that of Vniverſal Paſtorſhip, no way dependant on the nature of Patriarchs, or on any other tenure, but the donation of Chriſt to Saint Peter, then 1. it muſt be remembred that after the refuting of any ſuch right from Chriſts donation in the former Chapters, the removal alſo of this was in all reaſon to prove of ſome intereſt to the Romaniſt, and ſo it muſt, all the proofes of thoſe Chapters be perfectly anſwered, which yet hath not been done in any degree, as this reply to the few anſwers applyed to thoſe Chapters hath ſhewed.
Num. 6 Secondly, This adhering thus wholly to this donation of Chriſt, and the Vniverſall Paſtorſhip deduced from thence, is the direct diſclaiming of all the Canonical Privileges belonging to Rome, on the ſcore of Patriarchy, and ſo in caſe that firſt tenure ſhall faile, it is the degrading of Rome from that dignity, which by antient Canon belong'd to it, that of the Prime Patriarchy, and ſo cuts the Romaniſt off from all the advantage he can reape either from the affirmation of Fathers or Councels, any farther than they are founded in, and referre to Chriſts donation of Vniverſal Paſtorſhip to Saint Peter, which whether it will prove to be the intereſt of this Gentleman, I muſt leave him to judge for himſelfe, and onelyonly adde in the laſt place, that againſt him that aſſerts the Biſhop of Romes Vniverſal Paſtorſhip upon what title ſoever, this will neceſſarily be a ſhrewd prejudice, if it be not diſputed but yeilded, that it is in the power of Princes to erect or tranſlate Patriarchies, by Patriarchies underſtanding (as it is evident I doe in that diſcourſe) chiefe Independent authorities over other Churches, ſuch as was by Juſtinian conferred on Juſtiniana Prima and Carthage, by Valentinian on Ravenna, without any ſubordination to, or dependence on any other, particularly on the See of Rome.
Num. 7 Can any thing be more prejudicial to the Vniverſall Paſtorſhip of Rome than this? Can Rome be Paſtor of thoſe who have no dependance on her? or can that be Vniverſal, from which ſome particulars are exempt?
Num. 8 This made it but neceſſary for this Gentleman to undertake two things in the following words, that I neither underſtand the queſtion, nor prove what I would; for if I ſhall yet appear to judge aright of the queſtion, even as it is by this Gentleman brought back to that which had been debated in the former Chapters, whether the Biſhop of Rome be Vniverſal Paſtor by Chriſts donation to Saint Peter, and if I have really proved that it is in the power of Emperours and Princes to conſtitute and remove Patriarchies, It will certainly follow, that I have done all that I undertook to doe, evinced the matter of the queſtion, and ſhewd that it is in the power of Princes to exempt ſome Churches from the Popes dominion, and ſo ſuperſeded the Vniverſality of his Paſtorſhip.
Num. 9 As for the validity of my proofes, that muſt be judged by the view of the Anſwers applyed to them, 1. that I produce onelyonly the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannicall towards the Church. To this I anſwer, 1. that the word [onelyonly] excluding all others, the propoſition can have no truth in it, it being evident that I produce many other acts of the ſame Imperial power, as the Reader may finde by caſting his eye on the place, the latter part of that 6. Chap: and this Gentleman himſelfe ſhall be my witneſſe, (who ſaith of me [he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian] which though it be not a recitation of all that are by me added, yet is ſufficient to tefie the contrary, to what the [onelyonly] had affirmed.
Num. 10 Secondly, The character that is given that Emperour, whoſe act I firſt produced, that he is accounted Tyrannicall towards the Church, will, I ſuppoſe, ſignifie but this, that he that did any thing derogatory to the Vniverſal Paſtorſhip of the Biſhop of Rome, is by this prejudged from yeilding us any competent teſtimony in this diſpute, which is in effect that this Gentleman is in the right, and all that is, or ſhall, or can be brought againſt him muſt ſignifie nothing, which ſure is not the way of anſwering arguments, but adhering to concluſions, without weighing what is or can be brought againſt them.
Num. 11 Thirdly, For that particular act, and the Emperor which is thus cenſured: It is Juſtinian, that great and famous Emperour, his making the Biſhop of Juſtiniana Prima the head of all Daciae, &c. of which this Gentleman had paſt a very different judgement, when it came under his view in the former Chapter.
Num. 12 There his anſwer was, the Emperour exempted it not from the Popes ſubjection, pag 15. and yet now when the very ſame paſſage comes in his way againe, he hath forgotten himſelfe, and the Emperour, that juſt now had as great care of the Popes ſpiritual power, as of his owne civill, is in a moment become Tyrannicall towards the Church. I deſire one of theſe anſwers, being thus engaged, may make good the conteſt againſt the other.
Num. 13 But then 4. whatſoever can be ſaid of that Emperor in other reſpects, 'tis certaine that this erecting of Juſtiniana was no act of tyranny againſt the Church, but the very thing that is authoriſed by the 17 Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon (which is one of thoſe that the Pope at his conſecration ſolemnly vows to obſerve, and all the Ordinances made in them) for that reſolves that if any City be built or reſtored by the Kings power, the Eccleſiaſtical order muſt follow the Political, foreign i. e. the foreign, ſaith the Scholiaſt, the Imperial decrees concerning that City *Balſam. in Concil: in Trull: Can. 38.foreign to have the dignity of an Epiſcopal or Metropolitical See. And the ſame againe in the ſame words was decreed by the 6. Council in Trullo, Can. 38. from whence certainly Balſamon's concluſion is irrefragable, *1 Concil. Chal. c. 17.foreign that it is lawfull (and ſo ſure not Tyrannical) for a Prince to take away (or remove) the privileges of the Church of any City, and*Ib. pag. 342. foreign, to determine, as he ſhall pleaſe, concerning the Privileges of Biſhops.
Num. 14 His ſecond anſwer is, that I doe not ſay whether the thing were done or no by the conſent of Biſhops, eſpecially ſince the Pope was an Actor in the buſineſſe. To which I anſwer, that when I have made it appear to be the act of the Emperour, and that by the Canons of Councels it was acknowledged fully lawfull for the Emperour, and ſo for other Princes, to doe ſo, I need neither inquire whether the conſent of Biſhops, or of the Pope himſelf were added to it, ſuch formalities of conſent may be had or omitted without any diſturbance to, or influence on the matter.
Num. 15 His third anſwer is applied to that Act of Valentinian, which made Ravenna a Patriarchate, and firſt he calls the Decree of that Emperour an Apocryphall decree; 2. He ſaith that it was giving to the Biſhop privileges purely Eccleſiaſtical, reproving me for making him a Patriarch; For the firſt, I anſwer, that as I never thought it any piece of the Canon of Scripture, by which Valentinian did this or any more than a Reſcript of an Emperour, which, if ſuch, is certainly ſufficient to expreſſe it an Imperial Act, ſo the authorities for this may reſcue it from farther queſtion, for though it were not Baronius's intereſt to believe it, and ſo it is by him ſuspected of forgery, An. 432. n. 93. yet even he acknowledgeth it to be very antient, and owned by ſeveral Writers, n. 92. and afterwards, when the ſame authorities which are produced for this, Hier: Rubeus, and the Records of Ravenna, ſeem to favour his grand deſign, i. e. make for Rome, he can then very fairly make uſe of them, though it be but a narration of a viſion, An. 433. n. 24. But I need not lay more weight on this, than the Apocryphal (as he calls it) Decree will be able to ſupport, this is no ſingular preſident, many examples there are of the like which are there mentioned in the Tract of Schiſme.
Num. 16 For the ſecond, Patriarchal power Ravenna had without any dependance on the Biſhop of Rome, and I pretend no more for the Biſhop of Canterbury, and therein alſo ſhall bate bim the title of Patriarch, What he adds (by way of obſervation on the whole matter) 1. that generally the Biſhops conſents were praedemanded or praeordered, as in the Councel of Chalcedon, Can. 17. Secondly, that what the Emperours did, they did by the power given them by the Church, will ſoon appear to bring him little advantage, For
Num. 17 1. The Biſhop's (I ſuppoſe he means the Biſhop of Rome his) conſent was not asked; One part of the ſtory is, that when the Biſhop of Ravenna, being fain to flie to the Biſhop of Rome for ſupport againſt the Longobards, ſubmitted himſelf to him, the people of Ravenna thought themſelves injured thereby; And 2. it is not truly ſaid, that it was praeordered, and the Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon cannot be brought to that purpoſe, this act of Valentinians dated Anno 432. being 19 years before the Councel of Chalcedon, which was aſſembled Anno 451. and ſo ſure not praeordained by that which was ſubſequent; And indeed the Canon of that Councel mentioning Cities and Churches in the plural, which had been*foreign, Can. 12. before their Seſſion made Metropoles by ſeveral Kings, is a clear evidence that there were other ſuch, beſide that of Ravenna, and*foreign, Balſam: in Can: 12. Balſamon expreſſeth them by the name of Madyta, and Abydus &c.
Num. 18 Thirdly, If this be acknowledged an act of Councel confirming the lawfulneſs of what the Emperours had thus done, and decreeing (as clearly the Councel of Chalcedon and that other in Trullo did) that generally it ſhould be thus, that as the Prince made an ordinary City a Metropolis, the Church of that City ſhould be a Metropolitical Church, then ſtill this is the fuller evidence, that it was lawfull for Princes thus to doe, and that as oft as they did, ſuch changes in the Churches followed, for ſure a King was not obliged to ask the Churches leave to repair or build a city.
Num. 19 Laſtly, What out of Balſamon was cited by me, that what the Emperors did in this matter they did according to the power that was given them] was, it ſeems, either an occaſion of ſtumbling to this Gentleman, or an excuſe of it; For from hence he concludes that this power was given them by the Church; This, if it be true, is the thing that I would demand, and ſo farre, from anſwering mine inſtance: for if the Church have given Princes this power, then they may freely and lawfully make uſe of it; and Juſtinian's doing ſo could be no tyrannical act againſt the Church. But let us view*in Chalced: Can. 12. Balſamon's words, They are theſe, foreign, ſuch definitions are made by Kings according to the power given them from above. That word foreign from above, ſometimes ſignifies in reſpect of time, ſometimes alſo in reſpect of place; In the firſt reſpect it ſignifies from of old, and is oft joyned with foreign, from the beginning; and if it be ſo taken here, as Gentianus Hervetus interprets it olim, it muſt then ſignifie that this power was yeilded to Kings either by the Apoſtles, or by the Primitive Canons of the Church, and if it were thus given them by the Church, then ſure they might juſtly challenge and exerciſe it freely. But in the ſecond ſenſe, it is as certain that foreign ſignifies from above, i. e. from heaven, ſo Joh. 19. 11. Chriſt tells Pilate, thou couldſt have no power over me, foreign, unleſſe it were given thee from above, i. e. ſure from heaven, from God, by whom Kings reign and have their power, and ſo it very frequently ſignifies in the*Jam. 1. 17. 3. 15, 17. &c. Scripture; And if that be the the meaning, then this Gentleman ſees how well he hath inferred his concluſion from this paſſage.
Num. 20 By all this it already appears what truth there is in this ſuggeſtion, that the examples produced are but few, and thoſe of tyrannical Princes, and no way excluding the Church] juſt as much, and no more, as was in the premiſſes, which induced it, and thoſe being diſcovered already, it is ſuperfluous to make repetitions ſo ſoon in this place.
Num. 21 In the cloſe he thinks ſit to retire again to his old fortreſſe, that the Popes power is not Patriarchal, and ſo that he is ſtill ſafe from all that hath been ſaid on that head; But it hath now appeared, that if any other be made a Patriarch or Primate, or (whatever the ſtyle be) a Biſhop without any dependence on the Pope, this is a prejudice ſufficient to his Vniverſal Paſtorſhip, and other diſadvantages he is rather in reaſon to expect by diſclaiming the Patriarchal authority, which the Canons have allowed him, than hope to gain any thing by contemning his inheritance.