A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Exceptions to the third Chapter anſwered.
Sect. I.
The Diviſion of Schiſme justified. Of Schiſme againſt the authority of Councells. Of Vnanimity of belief in the disperſion of the Churches.
Num. 1 THe exceptions againſt the third Chap: are reducible to 4 heads. The firſt about the inſufficiency of the diviſion of Schiſme, in theſe words,
Num. 2 In his third Chapter, what is chiefly to be noted to our purpoſe, is, that his diviſion is inſufficient, for he maketh Schiſm to be only againſt Monarchicall power, or againſt fraternall charity, which is very much beſides the principles of thoſe Proteſtants, who pretend ſo much to the authority of Councels, me thinks he ſhould have remembred there might be ſchiſme againſt conciliatory authority, whether this be called ſo when the Councell actually ſitteth, or in the unanimity of belief in the diſperſion of the Churches, ſo that the Doctor (ſuppoſing he concluded againſt the Pope) hath not concluded himſelf no ſchiſmatick, being ſeparated form the Catholick world.
And again in the next page, by way of recollection or ſecond thoughts, thus,
But I muſt not forget here what I omitted to inſert before, that in his diviſion of Schiſme he omitteth the Principall, if not indeed, and in the uſe of the word by the Antients, the onelyonly ſchiſm, which is when one breaketh from the whole Church of God: for though a breach made from the immediate ſuperior, or a particular Church, may in ſome ſort, and in our ordinary manner of ſpeaking be called a ſchiſme, yet that by wich one breaketh away from the communion of the whole Church, is properly, and in a higher ſenſe called Schiſme, and is that out of which the preſent question proceedeth, whereas other diviſions, as long as both parts remain in communion with the Vniverſall Church, are not properly ſchiſmes, but with a diminutive particle, ſo that in this diviſion he left out that part which appertained to the queſtion.
Num. 3 My diviſion of ſchiſm is that which I could not conceive ſubject to the exceptions of any rationall man, of what perſwaſions ſoever; ſchiſm being a breach of unity and communion; as many ſorts as were conceivable of unity and communion, ſo many, and no more, I ſet down of ſchiſme, ſome as breaches of the ſubordination which Chriſt ſetled in his Church, others of mutuall charity, which he left among his Diſciples.
Num. 4 For is it not evident, that all men in the world are either our ſuperiors, or inferiors, or our equals? and can I break communion with any, as long as being an inferior, I live regularly under all my ſuperiors, and brotherly with all my equals? There is certainly no place of doubt in this. When therefore in his ſecond period here ſet down, he mentions it, as the principall, (and in the Antients uſe of the word) the onelyonly Schiſm, when one breaketh from the whole Church of God, It is ſtrange he ſhould think that man was not compriſed in either member of my diviſion, when certainly he is guilty of both. For how can he ſeparate from the whole Church, unleſſe he ſeparate both from his ſuperiors and his equals too? And if he ſeparate from both, then queſtionleſſe he ſeparates from one, and from more than one of them.
Num. 5 Was it poſſible for any care more ſollicitouſly to have prevented this exception, than that which by me was uſed, when among the branches of equality, with which every one is obliged to preſerve unity and communion, I reckoned up, not only the believers of the ſame Congregation, &c. but the ſeverall communities of Chriſtian men from Pariſhes and Dioeceſes, to climes of the whole Chriſtian world, Chap. 3. §. 5. And indeed it is a great piece of auſterity, that when I have indevoured to prove that we of the Church of England have not voluntarily ſeparated (and that onelyonly is the crime of Schiſm) from any one particular Church, and no one of thoſe proofs is invalidated, nor as yet ſo much as excepted againſt, it ſhould yet be thought ſeaſonable to reply, that we have broken off from the whole Church of God.
Num. 6 Is not that whole made up of theſe ſeverals, as a body of limbs, the univerſal of particulars? And can the hand be broken off from the whole body, when it is not broken off, but remains in perfect union with every part of the body? If the arm be broken from the body, the hand, which remains united to the arm, may yet be ſeparate from the whole body, becauſe by being faſtned to the arm 'tis united but to one, and not to all the members of the body. But an union to all the members of the body ſuppoſes a ſeparation from no one part that remains in the body, and ſure that muſt be an union with the whole body, which is nothing elſe, but all the members together.
Num. 7 And ſo as his ſecond thoughts were effects, not remedies of his forgetfulneſs, the very ſame, which he had mentioned before under the ſtyle of ſeparation from the Catholick world, ſo certainly they were again effects of his inobſervance, that his principall ſort of ſchiſme, ſeparation from the whole Church, was comprehended by me under this ſtyle, ſeparation from the ſeverall communities of the whole Christian world.
Num. 8 As to the former branch of his exception, that in my diviſion of ſchiſme, into that which is againſt Monarchical (I ſaid, and when he recites my words, he ſhould doe ſo too, paternal) power, and that which is againſt fraternall charity, I omit to mention the authority of Councels, It is evidently a cauſleſſe ſuggeſtion. For 1. if Councels, as he ſaith, have any authority, that will certainly be reducible to paternal power. And if they have none, any farther than by way of counſell and advice, that will directly fall under the head of fraternall charity.
Num. 9 Secondly, If by Councels he mean Provinciall Councels, it is evident that the power which ſeverally belongs to the Biſhops of each Province, is united in that of a Provinciall Councell, where all the Dioceſan Biſhops are aſſembled, and the deſpiſing of that is an offence under the firſt ſort of ſchiſme, a breach of the ſubordination to the Biſhop, yea, and the Metropolitan too, who preſides in the Provinciall Councell.
Num. 10 So again, if he mean Nationall Councells, the power of the Biſhops of all the Provinces there aſſembled, divolves upon this aſſembly, compounded of all of them, the despiſing thereof is the deſpiſing of theſe Eccleſiaſticall ſuperiours of the whole nation, and culpable, and ſchiſmaticall upon that account.
Num. 11 As for Oecumenicall or Generall Councells, if they be truly ſuch, the power of all the Biſhops of all the Provinces in all Chriſtian nations divolves upon that, and ſo cannot be deſpiſed without despiſing of all ranks of our Eccleſiaſticall ſuperiors, Biſhops, Metropolitans, Primates or Patriarchs, and therefore this ſort of ſchiſme could not be deemed to be omitted, where all thoſe other branches, of which it is made up, were ſo particularly handled.
Num. 12 That any more ſpeciall conſideration was not taken of Generall Councells in that diſcourſe, the account (beſide that which is now given) is more than intimated in that Tract of Schiſm, pag. 60. firſt becauſe they were remedies of ſchiſme, and extraordinary, not any ſtanding Judicatures, to which our conſtant ſubordination and ſubjection was required. 2. Becauſe theſe were ſuch, as without which the Church continued for the firſt 300 years, and ſo could not belong to a generall diſcourſe, which ſpake of all the certain and ordinary and conſtant ſorts of ſchiſme, and ſuch as all times were capable of, and inlarged not to thoſe other of accidentall emergencies. 3. Becauſe they are now morally impoſſible to be had, the Chriſtian world being under ſo many Empires, and divided into ſo many communions, that it is not viſible to the eye of man how they ſhould be regularly aſſembled.
Num. 13 As for thoſe that are already paſt, and are on due grounds to be acknowledged truly Oecumenicall, the communion, which is poſſible to be had or broken with them, is that of compliance with, or receſſion from their definitions, and our innocence in that reſpect is avowed, p. 160. as the congregating of the like (when poſſible, and probable toward the end) is recommended, p. 158. as a ſupply, when there ſhould be need of extraordinary remedies.
Num. 14 Laſtly, If none of this had been done, or if this had not been undertaken ſo ſolemnly and formally, as ſome other ſuppoſed branches of ſchiſm were, in that Tract, yet the account of that is viſible to any, becauſe the principal ſort of ſchiſme charged by the Romaniſt on the Church of England is that of caſting out the Biſhop of Rome, not contemning the authority of Councels, and therefore I was in reaſon to apply my diſcourſe moſt largely and particularly to that head, to which their objections, not my own choice directed me. So evidently contrary to the notoriety of the fact is this complaint of this Gentleman, that my diviſion of ſchiſm was inſufficient, and that I took no notice of this (as he pleaſes to call it) conciliatory authority.
Num. 15 That to make his ſuggeſtion ſeem more probable, he adviſedly choſe to change the tearms of my diviſion from that which was againſt Paternal, to that which is againſt Monarchical power, upon this apprehenſion, that Paternal power would viſibly include that of the Fathers in Councel aſſembled, as well as in ſeveral; but Monarchical power could not ſo fitly bear it, I ſhall not enter into his ſecrets to divine. This I am ſure of, that the unanimity of belief in the disperſion of the Churches, cannot with any propriety (as by him it is) be defined a branch of Conciliatory authority, for certainly the Churches disperſed are not met together, the foreign or disperſion of the Jewes differed much from the Councel aſſembled at Jeruſalem, and the Chriſtian Church at this day is without queſtion no Oecumenical Councel.
Num. 16 And then what authority ſcattered members can have, which never legally command, or exerciſe authority, but when they are in conjunction, I ſhall not here make ſtay to demonſtrate: whatſoever there is of this nature will moſt properly be compriſed under the head of communion or unity Fraternal, and the ſchiſme which is a tranſgreſſion of that, being at large handled alſo, Chap. 8. 9, 10. there was no inſufficiency, in any juſtice, to be charged on this diviſion.
Sect. II.
Of the extent of the Roman Province. The Biſhops of Italy diſtinct from thoſe that belong to Rome. The Eccleſiaſtical diſtributions agreeable with the Civil. Ruffinus vindicated.
Num. 1 THe ſecond charge on this Chapter is about the extent of the Roman Patriarchie, in theſe words:
Num. 2 In this Chap: he telleth us many things, ſome true, ſome not ſo, but all either common to us both, or not appertaining to the controverſie, untill he concludes, that certainly the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it ſelf to all Italy, and this he does out of a word in Ruffinus, which he ſuppoſeth to be taken in a ſpeciall propriety of law, whereas indeed that author's knowledge in Grammar was not ſuch as ſhould neceſſarily exact any ſuch belief, especially learned men ſaying the contrary.
Num. 3 The place, to which this exception belongs, is not ſet down by this Gentleman, but by annexing the teſtimony out of Ruffinus, I diſcern it to be that of pag. 52. where ſpeaking of the Picenum ſuburbicarium and Annonarium, I ſay the former belonged to the Praefecture of Rome; the latter, with the ſeven Provinces in the broader part of Italy, belonged to the Dioceſe (as it was antiently called) of Italy, of which Milan was the Metropolis.
Num. 4 This being the affirmation which he excepteth againſt, I did not, nor yet doe make any queſtion of vindicating, and defending it againſt any objection.
Num. 5 That learned men ſay the contrary, is here ſuggeſted, in the cloſe, but as there is not one learned man named, nor teſtimony produced (which therefore amounts no higher than the bare opinion or affirmation of this one Gentleman, without any one reaſon or authority to ſupport it) ſo when any ſuch learned mens names and teſtimonies ſhall be produced, it will be eaſie to ſhew, that there is very little of their learning expreſt in ſo ſaying.
Num. 6 On the other ſide I had (pag. 50. in the margent) referred to ſome teſtimonies whereon my aſſertion was founded, viz: thoſe which manifeſtly diſtinguiſht the Province of the Biſhop of Rome from the Province of Italy, which could not have had truth in them, if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy.
Num. 7 Such was that of*l. 7. c. foreign. Euſebius diſtinctly mentioning the Biſhops of the Cities of Italy, and the Biſhops that belong to the City of the Romans. The teſtimony out of the Edict of the Emperor Aurelian, in the controverſie betwixt Paulus Samoſatenus and Domnus, where it is decreed, that the houſe, about which they contended, ſhould be delivered foreign, to thoſe to whom the Biſhops through Italy and the City of the Romans ſhould decree it.
Num. 8 The like was that of the Councel of Sardice ſet down in *Apoll: 2. ad Imp: Conſt: Edit: Par: Tom: 1. p. 756.Athanaſius in the title of their Epiſtle to the Alexandrians, Thus, foreign, &c. The holy Synod by God's grace aſſembled at Sardice, from Rome, and Spain, France, Italy, &c.
Num. 9 So in*foreign, Pariſ: Ed: t. 1. p. 827. C. Athanaſius's declaration of his own affairs, and the (foreign) agreement of many Biſhops with him, he ſpecifies, who and how many they were, foreign, &c. There were more than four hundred both from great Rome, and from all Italy, and from Calabria, &c. Where the Biſhops of the Roman Province are diſtinguiſht from the Biſhops of Italy, as thoſe again from the Biſhops of Calabria, &c.
Num. 10 So among the names prefixt to the*Concil: tom: 1. p. 266. firſt Councel of Arles, we have ex provinciâ Italiae, civitate Mediclanenſi, &c. ex urbe Româ, quos Sylveſter Epiſcopus miſit ex Provinciâ Romanâ, civitate Portuenſi, &c. of the Province of Italy, from the city of Milan &c. from the city of Rome thoſe Whom Biſhop Sylveſter ſent, of the Province of Rome, from the City of Porta &c. ſuch and ſuch were aſſembled at that Councel, where again the matter is clear as to the diſtinction of thoſe Provinces of Rome and Italy, the former under the preſidency of the Biſhop of Rome, the later of the Biſhop of Milan.
Num. 11 By this it might have appeared to this Gentleman (if as he pleaſed to mention the much Greek, in his Preface, ſo he had been at leiſure to conſider the importance of it) that beſide the teſtimony (which he will call a word) of Ruffinus, I had made uſe of other waies of proof, that the preſidency of the Biſhop of Rome (I ſuppoſe that he muſt mean by the Roman Patriarchie) did not extend it ſelf to all Italy.
Num. 12 Again after the teſtimony of Ruffinus, I mentioned another evidence, from the proportioning Eccleſiaſtical juriſdictions to the Temporal of the Lieutenants; This may appear in theſi, by the words of*Cont: Celſ: l. 3. Origen, of which I ſhall now, becauſe I did not there, take notice, foreign, It is fit that the Prefect of the Church of each City, ſhould correſpond to the Governour of thoſe which are in the City. And that ſo it was, appears by the ſecond Canon of the Councel of Conſtantinople, where the juriſdictions of the Biſhops are ſtill proportioned to the condition of the Cities where they were, the Biſhop of Alexandria to have power over all Aegypt, the Metropolis whereof was Alexandria, and ſo in the reſt. And this is in the Tract of Schiſm largely deduced and cleared alſo, p. 54, 55, &c. and need not be here again repeated, And ſo here was more again than the word of Ruffinus, for what I ſaid.
Num. 13 Lastly, that for which Ruffinus was cited, being but this, that the Biſhop of Rome was authorized by the Nicene Canon to take care of the ſuburbicarian regions, I could not ſure be miſtaken in thinking, that he took the word ſuburbicarian in ſuch a propriety (I ſay not of law, but) of common language, as will conclude the Picenum ſuburbicarium to belong to the Roman Prefecture, as the Annonarium did to the Dioceſe of Italy.
Num. 14 And certainly Ruffinus, that lived ſo neer after the Councel of Nice, and that in Italy, a Preſbyter of Aquileia, knew how that was diſtributed in his time, better than this Gentleman at this diſtance can pretend to doe, may alſo be allowed to know ſo much of Grammar, as to expreſſe his own ſenſe (in a Paraphraſe) of that Nicene Canon.
Num. 15 In a matter ſo clear I ſhall adde no more, but the words of a moſt excellent perſon, Jac: Leſchaſſerius in his Conſultatio ad Clariſ: Venet: Ruffino bellum indicunt ſcriptores Romani hujus temporis, &c. The Romaniſts of this time are diſpleaſed with Ruffinus, not knowing what Churches they were, which the Nicene Canon underſtands to be under the firſt and ordinary power of the Pope. Whereas Ruffinus underſtood it of the Churches of the ſuburbicarian Provinces and regions, which are four, the firſt the Roman, with the bounds of the Prefecture of the City, and three other with which that is incompaſt, All Campania, Picenum ſuburbicarium, and Tuſcia ſuburbicaria, of which there is frequent mention in the Notitiae of the Roman Empire. And of this the ſame Authour hath written a learned Tract, And ſo here is a diſtinct teſtimony of a very learned man, and this is a ſufficient anſwer to his bare indefinite affirmation that learned men ſay the contrary.
Sect. III.
The identity of the office of Primates and Patriarchs, the authorities of Gratian, and Anacletus, and Anicetus.
Num. 1 THe third charge wherein this third Chapter is concerned, remains about the identity of the office of Primates, and P…triarchs, in theſe words:
Num. 2 Then he telleth you that the office of Primates and Patriarchs was the ſame, He urgeth Gratian too.onelyonly authoriſing that affirmation from an Epiſtle of Anacletus, the which, as ſoon as occaſion ſerveth, he will tell you is of no authority, but fictitious.
Num. 3 What I ſaid of Primates and Patriarchs, that though the Patriarchs had the precedence, in Councels, the deference in reſpect of place, yet the power and juriſdiction of Primates was as great as of Patriarchs, and the office the ſame, I thought had ſufficiently been evidenced to the Romaniſt p. 58. For as one manifeſt indication of it was there mentioned, viz: that in Authors the very titles are confounded, witneſs Juſtinian who commonly gives Primates the name of Patriarchs of the Dioceſes, ſo the reference to thoſe two authorities ſo acknowledged and owned by the Romaniſts, the Epiſtle of Anacletus, and the Decree of Gratian, ſeemed to me to put it out of all queſtion.
Num. 4 For in the body of their Canon Law corrected and ſet out by Pope Gregory XIII. as Gratian's decree makes up the firſt and principall part▪ ſo in that, par: 1. diſtinct: 99. we have theſe words, De Primatibus autem quaeritur quem gradum in Eccleſiâ tenuerint, an in aliquo à Patriarchis differant, The queſtion is made concerning Primates, what degree they have in the Church, and whether in any thing they differ from Patriarchs. And the anſwer is, Primates & Patriarchae diverſorum ſunt nominum, ſed ejuſdem officii, Primates and Patriarchs are of different names, but of the ſame office.
Num. 5 What could have been ſaid more punctually and expreſly to the buſineſs in hand? What more authentick and dilucid teſtimony could have been produced to any Romaniſt, with whom I had to doe? And 'tis a little ſtrange, that this Gentleman ſhould ſay that I onelyonly authorize my affirmation from an Epiſtle of Anacletus, and then either he, or ſome Superviſor for him, put in as a marginal note, He urgeth Gratian too, When 1. if I urged Gratian, I did not urge Anacletus onelyonly; and 2. it is evident I did urge Gratian as punctually as Anacletus, and 3. Gratian's words are ſo expreſſe as nothing can be more, and 4. Gratian's authority with them is as great as any could have been produced; and 5. there is not one word offered to avoid the force of Gratian's teſtimony, as to that other of Anacletus there is, which argues that this Gentleman was concluded by Gratian, yet would not conſent to the propoſition unanſwerably inferred from him. And this may ſuffice to be noted concerning that teſtimony.
Num. 6 Then for Anacletus 1. his words are theſe, Provinciarum diviſio ab Apoſtolis eſt renovata, The diviſion of Provinces was renued by the Apoſtles, Et in capite Provinciarum—Patriarchas vel Primates, qui unam formam tenent, licèt diverſa ſint nomine, leges divinae & Eccleſiaſticae poni & eſſe juſſerunt, ad quos Epiſcopi, ſi neceſſe fuerit, confugerent, eoſque appellarent, And in the head of the Province—Patriarchs, or Primates, who hold the ſame form (are of the ſame nature) though they be divers names, are placed by divine and Eccleſiaſticall laws, ſo that to them the Biſhops, when 'tis needfull, may reſort and make their appeals. This teſtimony again as punctuall to the purpoſe as could have been deviſed.
Num. 7 And then ſecondly, this being by the Romaniſts received as a Decretall Epiſtle of that Pope and antient Biſhop of Rome, was in reaſon, whatſoever it were to us, to ſtand with the Romaniſt in full authority.
Num. 8 Thirdly, This being in perfect concord with the decree of Gratian, is in the aforeſaid body of their Canon law approved, and ſet out by Pope Gregory XIII. annext to that decree of Gratian, Diſtinct: 99. C. 1.
Num. 9 And fourthly, whereas this Gentleman ſaith, that as ſoon as occaſion ſerves I will tell you this Epiſtle of Anacletus is of no authority, I muſt ſay 1. that I have no where, that I remember, ever ſaid ſo. 2. That this Gentleman cannot without divining tell me now, what I ſhall doe hereafter. 3. That occaſion not yet requiring it of me, but Anacletus affirming what I affirm, I have no temptation to doe ſo, and ſo as yet he can have no pretence to make uſe of this ſubterfuge. 4. That there are things called argumenta ad homines, arguments that may binde him who acknowledges the authority, from which they are drawn, though they conclude not him that allows not thoſe authorities, and ſuch is this of Anacletus his Epiſtle, to a Romaniſt.
Num. 10 And by the ſame Logick that he can inferre that Anacletus's authority was unduely produced by me, who (as he but thinks) will not ſtand to Anacletus's authority, I may ſure conclude that Anacletus's authority was duly produced by me, becauſe againſt him, who, I have reaſon to preſume, muſt ſtand to Anacletus's authority.
Num. 11 A third teſtimony of the ſame nature I ſhall now adde, which muſt again have force with a Romaniſt, that of Anicetus ad Epiſcopos Galliae, which follows there in the*Decret: Grat: par: 1. diſt: 92. c. 2. Corpus Juris Canonici. Primarum civitatum Epiſcopos Apoſtoli & ſucceſſores Apoſtolorum regulariter Patriarchas & Primates eſſe conſtituerunt. The Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors regularly appointed that the Biſhops of the Prime Cities ſhould be Primates and Patriarchs, And till ſomewhat be produced to the contrary, as 'tis ſure here is nothing offered by this Gentleman, this may at the preſent ſuffice in this place.
Sect. IV.
The ſupreme Eccleſiaſticall power of Patriarchs. The power of convoking Councells, a prerogative of Supremacy. That the Biſhop of Rome is not over Patriarchs. Proofs from the Councells, and Canons Apoſtolick, and the Corpus Juris, and Pope Gregorys arguing.
Num. 1 THe laſt exception concerns the ſupreme Power of Patriarchs, or the no ſuperiority of any Eccleſiaſticall power over them, Thus.
Num. 2 Then he ſaith there was no power over the Patriarchs, his proof is becauſe the Emperour uſed his ſecular authority in gathering of Councels, concluding, that becauſe the Pope did not gather general Councels, therefore he had no authority over the Univerſal Church, which how unconſequent that is, I leave to your judgment.
Num. 3 That there was no ſupreme power in the Biſhop of Rome, nor in any other above that of Primates and Patriarchs, but onelyonly that of the Emperour in the whole Chriſtian world, as of every ſoveraign Prince in his dominions, I thought ſufficiently proved by this, that the power of convoking Councels did not belong to the Biſhop of Rome, but to the Prince in every nation, and the Emperour in the whole world. And I deemed this a ſufficient proof, not becauſe there are no other branches of a ſupreme authority imaginable, or which are claimed by the Biſhop of Rome ſave onelyonly this; but I. becauſe this of convoking Councels is certainly one ſuch prerogative of the ſupreme power, inſeparable from it, and he that hath not that, hath not the ſupreme power (as in any nation ſome prerogatives there are, which alwaies are annext to the Imperial Majeſty, and wherever any one of them truely is, there is the ſupreme power, and 'tis treaſon for any but the ſupreme, to aſſume any one of them, and one of that number is calling of national Aſſemblies) And ſecondly, becauſe the Biſhop of Rome doth as avowedly challenge this power of convoking General Councels, as any other I could have named or inſiſted on. And truely that was the onelyonly reaſon why I ſpecified in this, becauſe this of all others is moſt eminent in it ſelf, moſt characteriſtical of the ſupreme power, and moſt challenged by the Biſhop of Rome, and moſt due to him, in caſe he be the Vniverſal Paſtor.
Num. 4 And then where there be ſeveral branches of a power, all reſident in the ſame ſubject inſeparably, from the abſence of one to collect the abſence of all, I muſt ſtill think, a ſolid way of probation, and cannot diſcern the infirm part, or inconſequence of it. If I could, it would be no difficult matter to repair it, and ſupply the imperfectneſſe of the proof, by what is put together in the Corpus Juris Canonici (even now cited) Decret: par: 1. diſt: 99. c. 3, 4, 5.
Num. 5 The thing that I had to prove, was, that there was not antiently any ſummum genus, any ſupreme either of, or over Patriarchs, beſide the Prince or Emperour. To this, as farre as concerns the negative part, that the Biſhop of Rome is not this ſummum genus, I now cite from that third Chap. Primae ſedis Epiſcopus non appelletur Princeps ſacerdotum, vel ſummus ſacerdos, The Biſhop of the firſt ſeat ought not to be called Prince of the Prieſts, or ſupreme Prieſt. And this teſtified out of the African Councel, Can: 6. where the very words are recited with this addition of [aut aliquid hujuſmodi] he is not to be called by any other title of the ſame kinde, ſed tantum primae ſedis Epiſcopus, but onelyonly Biſhop of the firſt See, and there were three ſuch at that time, (thoſe named in the Nicene Canon) Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, as is ſufficiently known.
Num. 6 And that he may ſee the practice of the Church was perfectly concordant with that definition, I referre this Gentleman to the Milevitan Councell, cap. 22. where ſpeaking of appeals from their Biſhops, the rule is, non provocent niſi ad Africana concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum ſuarum, They muſt appeal to none but the African Councels, or the Primates of their own Provinces. Ad tranſmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur. But if any ſhall think fit to appeal to any tranſmarine (forreign) judicature, they are not to be admitted to communion by any within Africa.
And indeed the ſame had been before defined by the firſt Nicene Councel, Num. 7 c. 5. where the ſentence pronounced againſt any by the Biſhops in each Province was to ſtand good according to the Canon (I ſuppoſe the 12 Apoſtolick) which pronounces foreign, that they which are excommunicated by ſome, ſhall not be received by others. And accordingly in the Synodical Epiſtle of the African Councel to Pope Caeleſtine, which is in the Book of Canons of the Roman Church, and in the Greek collection of the Canons of the African Church, we finde theſe words, foreign, We intreat you (the ſtyle of one Church to another) that for the future you will not eaſily admit thoſe who have come to you from hence, and that you will not receive to your communion thoſe who are excommunicate by us, ſeeing the Councell of Nice hath thus defined, as you may eaſily diſcern.
Num. 8 By all which put together by the African out of the Nicene, and by the Nicene out of the Apoſtolick Canon, it is evident that the Biſhop of Rome hath not power to abſolve any perſon excommunicate by any Biſhop of another Province, and that 'tis unlawfull for any ſuch to make appeal to him, which certainly will conclude againſt every the moſt inferior branch of his pretended authority over the Vniverſal Church.
Num. 9 If this be not enough, then adde the 34 Apoſtolick Canon, foreign. The Biſhops of every nation muſt know him that is the firſt among them, i. e. their Primate, and account him as their head. Which ſure inferres that the Biſhop of Rome is not the one onelyonly head of all Biſhops. The ſame is afterward tranſcribed by the 9 Canon of Antioch.
Num. 10 But to return to their Corpus Juris, ſo again Decret: par: 1. diſt: 99. c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex univerſalis est appellandus. The Pope of Rome is not to be called Vniverſal Biſhop, citing the Epiſtle of Pope Pelagius II. Nullus Patriarcharum Vniverſalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur, quia ſi unus Patriarcha unverſalis dicatur, Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur. No Patriarch muſt ever uſe the title of Vniverſal, for if one be called univerſal Patriarch, the name of Patriarch is taken from all the reſt, And more to the ſame purpoſe; the very thing that I was here to prove.
Num. 11 So again Ch. 5. out of the Epiſtle of Pope Gregory to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, where refuſing the title of Vniverſalis Papa, Vniverſal Pope, or Father, or Patriarch, and calling it ſuperbae appellaetionis verbum, a proud title, he addes, ſi enim Vniverſalem me Papam veſtra Sanctit as dicit, negat ſe hoc eſſe, quod me fatetur Vniverſum, If the Patriarch of Alexandria call the Pope univerſal Father, he doth thereby deny himſelf to be that which he affirms the Pope to be univerſally; The meaning is clear, If the Pope be univerſal Patriarch, then is he Patriarch of Aegypt, for ſure that is a part of the Vniverſe; and then as there cannot be two ſupremes, ſo the Biſhop of Alexandria cannot be Patriarch of Aegypt, which yet from S. Mark's time was generally reſolved to belong to him, and the words of the Nicene Canon are expreſſe to it, that according to the foreign original, Primitive cuſtomes, the Biſhop of Alexandria ſhould have power over all Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, adding foreign, &c. ſeeing this is alſo cuſtomary with the Biſhop of Rome, of Antioch, &c. foreign, that the privileges ſhould be preſerved to the Churches.
Num. 12 All which arguing of that Pope, yea, and that great Councel were perfectly unconcluding (inconſequent, as mine was ſaid to be) if the Biſhop of Rome, or any other, had power over Patriarchs, or authority over the univerſal Church, which here this Gentleman is pleaſed to affirm, and ſo ſure muſt think Gregory more than fallible, when he thus proteſted, and diſputed the contrary.
Num. 13 How much higher than this the ſame Gregory aſcended in expreſſing his deteſtation of that title, is ſufficiently known from his Epiſtle to Mauritius the Emperor, In regiſt: 1. 4. Ep: 30. I ſhall not here trouble him with the recitation of it.
Num. 14 What is after theſe paſſages ſet down in their body of the Law, ſhews indeed that the Popes continued not alwaies of this minde, Neither was I of opinion that they did, the ſtory being known to all how Boniface III. with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniverſal juriſdiction of the Church of Rome (ſee Paul: Diac: de Geſt is Romanorum, l. 18.) which yet is an argument that till then it had no foundation.
Num. 15 Whether there were antiently any ſuch, higher than Patriarchs, and whether now there ought to be, was the queſtion before me, and both thoſe I muſt think concluded by what I have here ſet down, as farre as relates to any true, i. e. original right, from any appointment of …hriſt, or title of ſucceſſion to S. Peter.
Num. 16 Much more might be eaſily added to this head, if it were not evident that this is much more than was neceſſary to be replied to a bare ſuggeſtion, without any ſpecifying what that power is, which may belong to the Pope over the Vniverſal Church, though convoking of Councels did not belong to him, and without any offer of proof, that any ſuch did really belong to him.