The Antiquities of the British Churches, Book · Chapter 3

The Antiquities of the British Churches · Book · Chapter 3

p. 88CHAP. III Of the Succession of the British Churches from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum.

GReat Probabilities that the British Bishops were present in the Council of Nice.

The Testimonies of Constantine's being born in Britain clear'd.

The particular Canons of the Council of Nice relating to the Government of Churches explained.

How far the right of Election was devolved to the Bishops.

Of the Authority of Provincial Synods there settled.

Particular Exceptions as to the Bishops of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch from ancient Custome.

They had then a Patriarchal Power within certain bounds.

No Metropolitans under the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria.

The just Rights of the British Churches clear'd.

No evidence that they were under the Roman Patriarchate.

The Cyprian Privilege vindicated from all late Exceptions.

The Patriarchal Rights examin'd; And from them the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches at large disputed and overthrown.

Pope Leo's Arguments against the Patriarch of Constantinople held for the Western Churches against him.

The British Bishops present in the Council of Sardica.

What Authority granted by them to the Bishop of Rome, and how far it extends.

HAving deduced the Succession of the British Churches down to the Appearance of the British Bishops at the first Council of Arles, I now come to the famous Council of Nice; And although the Subscriptions still remaining p. 89which are very imperfect and confused in the best Copies, do not discover any of the British Bishops to have been there present, yet there are many Probabilities to induce us to believe that they were. For (1.) Constantine declares, that his Design was, to have as full an Appearance of Bishops there from all parts as he could well get together. To that end he sent forth an universal Summons for the Bishops to come out of all Provinces, foreign is the word used by (a)(a)Euseb. de vit. Const. l. 3. c. 6.Eusebius. And presently after he saith Constantine's Edict was divulged foreign, in all Provinces of the Empire. How can this be, if there were no Summons in the Provinces of Gaul and Britain? And to prevent all Objections, as to difficulty and charges of Passage, Eusebius adds, That he had given order to have the publick Carriages ready, and all Expences to be defrayed for them. To this purpose Tractoriae were to be given them by the Emperour's Order, which secured their Passage and Provision in all Places; The form of which is exstant in (b)(b)Baron. A.D. 314. n. 48.Baronius. And the Classis Britannica lying near to Britain to secure these Coasts from the Franks and Saxons, who were then troublesome, (and over which Carausius so lately was appointed Admiral to clear these Seas) the Bishops here could not want conveniency to transport them. (2.) Constantine expressed great satisfaction in the Numbers that did appear from all parts. So that there is no reason to question, That they did answer his expectation. For in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, (c)(c)Socrat. l. 1. c. 9.he saith, He had brought together a great number of Bishops; But more fully in his Epistle to the Churches; That to the Settlement of the Christian Faith it was then necessary, that all the Bishops should meet together, or at least the greatest part: Therefore he had assembled as many as he could. But when it appears by the Council of Arles, what numbers of Bishops there were in these Western Provinces, how could Constantine use such Expressions as these, if they were not summoned to appear? And (d)(d)Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 6, 7.Eusebius saith, Those that were summon'd did come according to appointment with great readiness, not onelyonly for the sake of the Council, but of the Emperour; And he after saith, That the most eminent Bishops of all Churches, p. 90as well those of Europe as Asia and Africa did come to Nice. Did not Eusebius know of the Churches of Britain? Yes, most certainly, For he mentions their early conversion to Christianity, as I have already shew'd; And in that very Book of the Life of Constantine, Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 19.he mentions the Churches of Britain, as well as those of Gaul and Spain: And there Constantine insists upon the consent of the Western and Northern Churches about Easter, as well as the Southern and some of the Eastern. Now if their Consent were so considerable as to add weight in this matter, It is not to be supposed they should be left out, when he designed an Oecumenical Council, as far as it was in his power to make it so, which certainly extended to all the Provinces within the Empire. (3.) It is not probable the Churches of Britain should be left out, considering Constantine's relation to Britain. For he was not onelyonly proclaimed Emperour here on the death of his Father; But, if the Panegyrist who lived in that time may be believed, He was born here. For, comparing (e)(e)Panegyr. Max. & Constant.Constantius and him together, he saith, That his Father deliver'd Britain from Slavery, Tu etiam Nobiles illic oriendo fecisti: The question now is, Whether these words relate to his Birth, or to his being proclaimed Caesar here? Livineius is for the latter, after (f)(f)Lipsius de Mag. Rom. l. 4. c. 11. in Notis.Lipsius; But I see no reason to decline the most natural and proper sense, viz. That he brought a great honour to Britain by being born in it. (g)(g)Eumen. Panegyr. Constant. §▪ 9.Eumenius, in another Panegyrick, applauds the happiness of Britain, That had the first sight of Constantine Caesar. This is likewise capable of both senses; But he immediately falls into a high commendation of Britain, for its Temper, Fertility, Riches and Length of days. If this were Constantine's own Countrey, this was done like an Oratour; If not, to what purpose is all this? And then he parallels Britain with Egypt, where Mercury was born; Which shews that he spake of the Place of Nativity. Besides, the former Panegyrist made his Oration to Maximianus and Constantine together, upon his Marriage of Theodora his Daughter; But it is not so probable that he would to him so much own Constantine's being made Caesar in Britain; For that was not according to the Rules of Government, in the p. 91Court of Maximianus and Dioclesian; for as Galerius told Dioclesian when he would have had four Augusti; No, saith he, That is against your own Maxim, which is to have onelyonly two Augusti, and for them to name two Caesars. Therefore it is not likely, That the Oratour should, to Maximianus his face, own him to be made Caesar, without the consent of those who were then Augusti: But if he speaks of his being made Caesar by Galerius, it is very doubtfull whether he were then in Britain. For (h)(h)Lactant. de Morte Persec. c. 25.Lactantius saith, he took time to consider about it, and was very hardly brought to it: But (f)(f)Nazar. Paneg. n. 16.Nazarius, and (k)(k)Phot. Cod. 62.Praxagoras, both say, That Constantine went into Gaul soon after his Father's death; And therefore Gaul first saw him Caesar, according to the constitution of the Empire at that time. So that this one Testimony of the Panegyrist weighs more with me than ten Cedrenus's or Nicephorus's who say he was born in the East. But I produce this onelyonly as an argument of the improbability, That the British Churches should be omitted by Constantine in the Summons to his Oecumenical Council; or, That they being summon'd should neglect to go. (4.) They were certainly summon'd, and did go to the Councils of Sardica and Ariminum after, and to that of Arles before, and why should we believe them left out in that of Nice? This argument alone prevailed with Mr. (l)(l)Selden. in Eutych. p. 117, 123.Selden to believe them present at the Council of Nice. And we are now forced to make use of the best Probabilities, since Athanasius his (m)(m)Socr. l. 1. c. 9.Synodicon hath been so long lost, wherein all their Names were set down who were then present; And that Catalogue of them, if it were distinct, which (n)(n)Epiph. har. 69.Epiphanius had seen.

There being then so much reason to believe the British Bishops present in the Council of Nice, we have the more cause to look into the Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Government there settled, that so we may better understand the just Rights and Privileges of the British Churches. After the Points of Faith and the Time of Easter were determined; The Bishops there assembled made twenty Canons for the Government and Discipline of the Church, in which they partly re-inforced the Canons of the Council of Arles, and partly added p. 92new. Those that were re-inforced were, (1.) Against Clergy-mens taking the customary Vsury then allow'd, Can. 17. (2.) Against their removing from their own Diocese, Can. 15. which is here extended to Bishops; and such removal is declared null. (3.) Against Deacons giving the Eucharist to Presbyters, and in the presence of Bishops, Can. 18. (2.) As to Lay Communion; The Canon against re-baptizing is re-inforced by Can. 19. wherein those onelyonly who renounced the Trinity are required to be re-baptized, and the Canon against being excommunicated in one Church, and received into Communion in another, Can. 5. whether they be of the Laity of Clergy.

For the New Canons about Lay Communion, they chiefly concerned the Lapsed in times of Persecution. As (1.) If they were onelyonly Catechumens, that for three years they should remain in the lowest Form, not being admitted to join in any Prayers of the Church, but onelyonly to hear the Lessons read, and the Instructions that were there given, Can. 14. (2.) For those that were baptized, and fell voluntarily in the late Persecution of Licinius, They were for three years to remain among those who were admitted onelyonly to hear, for seven years to continue in the state of Penitents, and for two years to join onelyonly with the People in Prayers, without being admitted to the Eucharist, Can. 11. (3.) For those Souldiers who (in that Persecution when Licinius made it necessary for them to sacrifice to Heathen Gods if they would continue in their Places) first renounced their Employments, and after by Bribery or other means got into them again, for three years they were to be without joining in the Prayers of the Church, and for ten years to remain in the state of Penitents; But so as to leave it to the Bishop's Discretion to judge of the sincerity of their Repentance, and accordingly to remit some part of the Discipline, Can. 12. (4.) If persons happen'd to be in danger of Death before they had passed through all the methods of the Churches Discipline, they were not to be denyed the Eucharist; But if they recover, they were to be reduced to the state of Penitents, Can. 13. But there was one Canon added of another nature, which concerned Vniformity, and that is the last of the Genuine Canons. It had been an ancient p. 93Custome in the Christian Church to forbear kneeling in the publick Devotion on the Lord's days, and between Easter and Whitsontide, but there were some who refused to observe it; And therefore this Canon was made to bring all to an Vniformity in that Practice, Can. 20.

But there are other Canons which relate more especially to Ecclesiastical Persons, and those either concern the Discipline of the Clergy, or the Government of the Church.

(1.) For the Discipline of the Clergy, they are these.

(1.) None who had voluntarily castrated themselves were to be admitted into Orders, Can. 1. For it seems Origen's Fact, however condemned by some, was as much admired by others, and (o)(o)Christian. Lup. Not. in Concil. Nicaen. Can.Christianus Lupus thinks the Sect of the Valesii, who castrated all, came from him; But I do not find that Origen did propagate any Sect of this kind; And Epiphanius makes one Valens the Authour of it; However this great Council thought fit to exclude all such from any Capacity of Church Employments; But it is generally supposed, and not without reason, that the Fact of Leontius, a Presbyter of Antioch, (p)(p)Baron. A.D. 325. n. 146. Vide Athan. ad solit. vit. agent. p. 812, 828, 827.castrating himself because of his suspicious Conversation with Eustolia, gave the particular Occasion to the making this Canon. (2.) None who were lately Catechumens, were to be consecrated Bishops or ordained Presbyters, Can. 2. For however it had happen'd well in some extraordinary Cases, as of St. Cyprian before, and others after this Council, as St. Ambrose, Nectarius, &c. yet there was great reason to make a standing Rule against it. (3.) None of the Clergy were to have any Women to live in the House with them, except very near Relations, as Mother, or Sister, &c. Can. 3. For some, pretending greater Sanctity, and therefore declining Marriage, yet affected the familiar Conversation of Women, who made the same pretence. For (q)(q)Bud. Com. L. Gr. p. 148.Budaeus hath well observed that foreign is a Companion of Celibacy; So that when two Persons were resolved to continue unmarried and agreed to live together, one of these was foreign to the other. And (r)(r)Tertull. de Ma…g. c. 16. De Exhort. Castit. c. 12.Tertullian, writing against second Marriages, seems to advise this Practice, Habe aliquam p. 94Vxorem spiritualem; adsume de Viduis Ecclesiae, &c. And it soon grew into a Custome in Africa, as appears by (s)(s)Cypr. Ep. 4. ed. Oxon.St. Cyprian who writes vehemently against it, and shews the Danger and Scandal of it. And that this Conversation was under a Pretence of Sanctity appears by (t)(t)Hieron. ad Rustic. ad Gaudent. ad Eustoch.St. Jerom's words, speaking of such persons, Sub nominibus pietatis quaerentium suspecta consortia; and again, Sub nomine Religionis & umbra Continentiae. But elsewhere he calls it Pestis Agapetarum, for it spread like the Plague, and was restrained with great Difficulty; And at last Laws were added to Canons, these being found ineffectual. (4.) If any persons were admitted loosely and without due Examination into Orders, or upon Confession of lawfull Impediments had Hands notwithstanding laid upon them, such Ordinations were not to be allowed as Canonical, Can. 9. which is more fully expressed in the next Canon as to one Case, viz. That if any lapsed persons were ordained, whether the Ordainers did it ignorantly or knowingly they were to be deprived, Can. 10. (5.) If any among the Novatians returned to the Church, and subscribed their Consent to the Doctrine and Practice of it, their Ordination seems to be allowed. Justellus, and some others, think a new Imposition of hands was required by this Canon; If any of the Novatian Clergy were admitted into the Church. And so Dionysius Exiguus and the old Latin Interpreter do render it. But Balsamon, Zonaras and others understand it so, as that the former Imposition of hands, whereby they were admitted into the Clergy were hereby allow'd. If the words of the Canon seem to be ambiguous, and their Sense to be taken from the Practice of the Nicene Fathers in a parallel Case, then they are rather to be understood of a new Imposition of hands. For in the Case of the Meletians who were ordained in Schism too, they determined in their Synodical Epistle that they should be received foreign, with a more sacred Imposition of hands; But it is not agreed whether this implies a Reordination or not. (u)(u)Vales. Not. in Socrat. l. 1. c. 9.Valesius thinks it doth, but others take it onelyonly for a simple Benediction, or the Laying on of hands upon Reconciliation to the Church. And (w)(w)Lavie de S. Athan. l. 2. c. 13. in no….Godfrey Hermant hath at large proved Reordination in this Case to have been against the sense p. 95of the Church; wherein he hath the advantage of Valesius: as is evident to any one that reflects on the Occasion of the Luciferian Schism; which began upon the Council of Alexandria's allowing the Ordination of the Arian Bishops. And it would be very strange if Schism were more destructive to Orders than plain Heresie. But the Novatian Bishop was to have no Jurisdiction where there was one of the Catholick Church; Can. 8.

Among the Canons which relate to the Settlement and Polity of the Church, these three are very material. (1.) About Election and Consecration of Bishops. (2.) About Provincial Synods. (3.) About the Bounds of Jurisdiction. For the seventh Canon is but a Complement to the Bishop of Jerusalem, giving him the honour of a Metropolitane without the Jurisdiction.

(1.) About Election and Consecration of Bishops. The Canon is, That a Bishop ought chiefly to be constituted by all the Bishops in the Province; But if this be too difficult, either through urgent Occasions, or the length of the way, yet three must be present for that purpose, and have the Consent of the absent under their Hands, and so to make the Consecration. But the Confirmation of all things done in the Province must be reserved to the Metropolitane, Can. 4. By this Canon the Government of the Church came now to be settled under Constantine, and with his Approbation. And here we find, That every Province had a number of Bishops within it self, who were to take care of the Ecclesiastical Government of it, but so as the consent of the Metropolitane were obtained: So that the Rights of Metropolitans, as to the chief Ecclesiastical Government of every Province, are hereby secured; For the last Clause doth not merely refer to the Consecration of Bishops; But takes in that, with other Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Province. The onelyonly difficulty lies in the first Clause, What is meant by the Bishops of the Province, constituting a new Bishop; Whether the right of Election is hereby devolved to them, or whether it be onelyonly the right of Consecration upon the Election of the People? Which is therefore here fit to be enquired into, because the ancient Practice of the British Churches may from hence be gathered; which we may justly presume was agreeable to the Nicene Canon. p. 96And because the signification of the Greek word is ambiguous, we shall first see, what Sense the Greek Writers do put upon it. Balsamon interprets foreign by foreign which is chusing by Suffrage; And he in plain terms saith, by this Canon, the right of Election was taken from the People, and given to the Bishops of the Province. And it is not Balsamon alone, as some imagine, that was of that Opinion, but Zonaras, Aristenus, Matthaeus Blastares, as any one may find. But we are told, If they are all of that mind, they are greatly mistaken, because this Council, in their Synodical Epistle to those of Alexandria and Egypt, declare their Iudgment, (x)(x)Socrat. l. 1. c. 9.That if any Bishops decease, others reconciled to the Church may be admitted in their room, if they be worthy, and the People do chuse them, foreign. One would think by this, That the Council of Nice had put this matter wholly into the Peoples hands, but if we look into that Synodical Epistle, we shall find it much otherwise. For the case was this. The Council declares their tenderness towards those that had been made Bishops and Priests in the Meletian Schism, allowing their Orders upon due Submission, but not to exercise any Jurisdiction to the prejudice of those in Possession; But if any Bishops died, those Meletian Bishops might succeed, but with these three Provisoes. (1.) That they be judged worthy; By whom? by the People? No certainly; For then there had been no need of the following Clause, but this Judgment belonged to the Bishops of the Province, according to this Canon. (2.) If the People chuse them? What People? The Meletian party? No; They are excluded, because of their being in Schism, from having any thing to doe in the Choice, although they were admitted to Communion. For they are forbidden before foreign, to put up the names of the Persons to be chosen, or to hold up their hands; And so all right of Suffrage was taken from them on the account of their Schism; So that what right of choice was in the People, it was onelyonly in the sound and untainted Party, and, after all, it was no more but a Nomination by the People; For the true right of Election was still in the Bishops. For (3.) all this signified nothing without the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria, which p. 97immediately follows the other. And is it a fair thing to mention that Clause onelyonly in the middle, and to leave out the two other, which reduce it to a bare Nomination, and the Meletian party excluded too? Would those who contend among us for popular Elections like them upon these terms? It is one thing for the People to propose or nominate Persons to be chosen; And another for them to have the right of Election: And it is one thing for a Person chosen to have the consent of the People, and another for them to have the Power to reject him, because he doth not please them: And again, it is one thing for the People to be allowed to enjoy some Privileges till the Inconveniences of them have made them be taken away by just Laws: And another for them to challenge such a right as inherent in themselves, and without which there lies no obligation on them to submit. If these things were better understood, it would allay some mens heats about these matters; For granting that in the time of the Council of Nice, the People had the liberty of proposing names, or objecting against the Persons to be chosen; And although their consent were generally desired, yet all this doth not put the right of Election in them; For all that they could doe signified nothing without the Consent of the Bishops and Metropolitane; and none are properly said to chuse but those upon whose Judgment the Determination depends, the rest do but propose and offer Persons to be chosen. So that the utmost the People could have by this Canon was a right of Nomination; Which upon Seditions and Tumults was justly alter'd: And there can be no Plea for resuming it, unless it be proved to be a divine and unalterable Right, which can never be done, nor is it so much as pretended by those who seem to court the Peoples favour, by pleading for popular Elections at this day from the Precedents of former times.

But I will not deny the People then had a farther Right of Exception against the Persons chosen, but therein they were considered as Witnesses, and not as Judges: If their Exceptions were just and well proved, the Bishops as Judges were to proceed canonically against them, and then they went to a new Nomination, but still the p. 98Judgment rested in the provincial Synod. So in the 16 Canon in the Council of Antioch it is provided, That although all the People chuse one actually a Bishop, yet if he takes Possession of his See without a perfect Provincial Synod, the Metropolitane being present, he is to be cast out. This Canon doth more fully explain the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice; for here the Case is put of the Peoples choice, which is there onelyonly implied: And here it is put concerning one actually a Bishop, and so needing no new Consecration, but being out of employment in his own See, by some extraordinary accident, is chosen into another by consent of the People. Now if the People had there the Power of Election, what hindred this Bishop, from being fully possessed of his Bishoprick? And yet this Canon determines, that such a one was to be cast out, if he did not come in, by the full consent of the Metropolitane and a Provincial Synod; And to shew the force of this Canon, by virtue of it, Bassianus was rejected from being Bishop of Ephesus, by the general (y)(y)Concil. Chalced. Act. 11.Acts 11Council of Chalcedon, where 630 Bishops are said to have been present. The Case was this, Bassianus was consecrated Bishop of Euaza, by Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, but it was against his Will, and he never went thither. Basilius, who succeeded Memnon, sends another Bishop to that City in a Provincial Synod, but leaves Bassianus the dignity of a Bishop; Basilius being dead, Bassianus is chosen by the People of Ephesus, and enthronized by Olympius without a Provincial Synod. But after four years, Stephanus is put in his room, because he came not in canonically. The Case was heard at large by the Council of Chalcedon, and this Canon of Antioch was alledged against him, and so he was thrown out by the Council. From whence I infer; (1.) That the choice of the People at that time was not allowed, but the main force of Election lay in the Provincial Synod. And so Maximus Bishop of Antioch, Julianus Coensis, Diogenes Cyzicensis declared that it belonged to the Bishops of the Province to appoint a new Bishop, as being most competent Judges, and this was the way to prevent disorder in the City. (2.) That the Bishops appointing was not mere ordaining or consecrating, as some say. For this p. 99Canon of Antioch speaks of a Bishop already consecrated, and so likewise the 12 Canon of Laodicea is to be understood; The same case being supposed which is mention'd in the Canon of Antioch. And if he were unconsecrated before, the Laodicean Canon refers the whole matter, as far as I can discern, as to the Capacity and fitness of the Person, to the Provincial Synod. And if the following Canon 13. be understood of Bishops, the Consequence will be, that the People will be wholly excluded from their Election, till it can be made appear, that at that time the generality of the People were shut out, and the Election restrained to the Common Council; which is contrary to the Examples brought for Popular Elections, as appears by the instance of Alexandria in the choice of Athanasius, where the whole multitude is mention'd, and the Suffrages of the whole People, and afterwards the Plebis Vulgíque Iudicium in St. Jerom, the Vota Civium in Leo is as much spoken of as the Honoratorum Arbitrium; and by the same reason, any of the People may be excluded, the rest may; or at least it shews, that the People have no inherent and unalterable Right, without which all other Pretences signifie nothing, where Law and Customs have determined the contrary. And that the Customs even then differ'd appears from St. Jerom ad Rusticum, where he mentions either the People or the Bishop chusing.

(2.) Another Canon is, about the frequency of Provincial Synods. For in the fifth Canon, it is Provided, That no person excommunicated by one Bishop, should be received into Communion by another; according to the Council of Arles; but then no Provision was made for the Case of Appeals; If any Person complain'd, that he was unjustly excommunicated, which it is natural for men to doe. For this purpose, the Nicene Council decrees, That Provincial Synods be held twice a year, in Lent and Autumn, which was confirmed by many other (z)(z)Concil. Antioch. cap. 20. Chalced. c. 19. African. c. 62. Regiens. c. 7. Araus. c. 19. Agath. c. 71. Emerit. c. 7. Ferrand. tit. 143. Mart. Bracar. tit. 28. Innocent. ad Vict. Leo ad Anastas. Hincmar. ep. 47. c. 20.Canons. And at these all such Causes were to be heard and determined, and Persons excommunicated were to be held so by all, unless the Provincial Synod repealed the Sentence. And although the case of Bishops be not here mention'd; Yet the p. 100African Fathers with great reason said, it ought to be understood, Since Causes are to be heard within the Province, and no Jurisdiction is mention'd by the Council of Nice, beyond that of a Metropolitane, those onelyonly excepted whose Rights are secured according to the Prescription then in use in the following Canon. For if any other superior Authority had then been known, that was the proper place to have inserted it, where the right of Appeal is determin'd, that being the most plausible Pretence for removing Causes to a superiour Court. And it is impossible that the Nicene Fathers should have stopt at Provincial Synods, if they had known or believed, that Christ had appointed a Vicar upon Earth, who was to be Supreme Iudge in all Ecclesiastical Matters; For it would have been as absurd as if our Judges should declare, that all Causes are to be determin'd in the Countrey Courts, when they know there are superior Courts of Iudicature appointed in Westminster-hall.

It hath been thought a matter of some difficulty to state the difference between the Rights of a Patriarch and a Metropolitane. But there are two things chiefly, wherein the distinction lies, viz. a greater extent of Iurisdiction founded on the Consecration of Metropolitane Bishops in several Provinces; and a Power of receiving Appeals, or, Judicium in majoribus causis, even after Provincial Synods have determined them. And since in matters of Appeal, there must be a stop somewhere, the onelyonly question before us is, Where the Council of Nice fixed it. I say, in a Provincial Synod by this Canon; for I am certain, it takes notice here of no Ecclesiastical Iudicatory beyond this. In matters of Faith, or upon extraordinary Occasions, by the Summons of an Emperour, or a general Concurrence of Christian Princes a general Council is the highest Court; But in the standing and ordinary Method of Proceeding, (where there have been no. ancient Privileges to the contrary, of which the following Canon is to be understood) a Provincial Synod is the last Court of Appeal, according to the Council of Nice. So that all foreign Jurisdiction is excluded by this Canon; And the British Churches had a full Power within themselves to end all Causes that p. 101did arise within their own Provinces. And it was mere usurpation in any Foreign Bishop to interpose in any differences in the British Churches, Because the Council of Nice had circumscribed the Liberty of Appeals to Provincial Synods. And this was it which made the African Fathers so stout in defence of their just Rights, against the manifest incroachments of the Bishop of Rome; and the British Churches had as great Privileges and as just Rights in these matters as the African Churches.

(3.) About settling the ancient Bounds of Jurisdiction as to Patriarchal Churches in the famous sixth Canon. Which hath been the occasion of so many warm Debates. In the former Canon, the Nicene Fathers fixed the general Right of Appeals; And in this Canon they settle the particular Bounds of Patriarchal Jurisdiction, according to ancient Custome: So that none ought to violate the Privileges which Churches had hitherto enjoy'd. The Words are, Let ancient Customs prevail, for the Bishop of Alexandria to have Jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis; Because the Bishop of Rome hath a like Custome; Likewise in Antioch, and other Provinces, let the Privileges of Churches be preserved; Let no man be made a Bishop without the consent of his Metropolitane. If Differences arise, let the Majority of Votes determine. In this Canon there are three things principally design'd. (1.) To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees; as Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. (2.) To secure the Privileges of other Churches against their encroachments upon them. (3.) To provide for the quiet establishment of Metropolitane Churches, which last is so plain that it will need no farther discourse; But the other two are of great consequence to our design. (1.) To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees; which had gotten the extent of more than a bare Metropolitane Power to themselves, as is plain in the case of Alexandria, which seems to have been the occasion of this Canon. Not merely from the Schism of Meletius (as is commonly thought) which the Council took care of another way, in the (a)(a)Theodor. l. 1. c. 9.Synodical Epistle to the Churches of Egypt. But because p. 102so large a Jurisdiction as had been exercised by the Bishops of Alexandria, and Rome, and Antioch, seem'd repugnant to the foregoing Canon about Provincial Synods. It is true that Meletius after the Schism did consecrate Bishops in Egypt, in opposition to the Bishop of Alexandria; But the question between them was, not concerning the Bounds of Jurisdiction, but about the Validity of Meletius his deposition by Peter of Alexandria; Which Meletius, not regarding, fell into a Schism, and, to maintain this Schism, he consecrated near Thirty Bishops, as appear'd by the list he gave in to Alexander, after the Council of Nice extant in (b)(b)Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 789.Athanasius. Whereby it is evident, That Meletius his Schism could not be the Occasion of this Canon;Vide Athanas. ib. p. 777. For that Schism did not at all relate to the several Province… of Egypt here mention'd, which would have continued, if the Bishop of Alexandria's Authority had been confined to a single Province, and what stop could it put to the Schism, to say, his Authority extended over all the Roman Provinces in Egypt? For, the question was, Who had the Authority? not, How far it extended? But, upon the former Canon about Provincial Synods, there was a very just occasion, to add this concerning the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome: For if no Salvo had been made for them, as to the largeness of their Jurisdiction, the next thing had been for all the Provincial Synods to have immediately cast off all respect to them; except onelyonly those of their own Province. Now in Egypt here are three distinct Provinces mention'd as subject to the Bishop of Alexandria, viz. Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis; And so the Nicene Fathers reckon them in their Epistle to the Churches of Egypt, and in these (c)(c)At…anas. Ap…l. 2. p. 788.Athanasius mentions an hundred Bishops; But sometimes he names onelyonly Egypt and Libya, as in his Epistle to the African Bishops; sometimes Egypt, and the two Libya's; and in both comprehending Thebais under Egypt; sometimes he names Thebais; and several times, as it is here, onelyonly Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. Which, as Justellus saith, comprehend the whole Egyptian Diocese; But (d)(d)Am. Marcel. l. 22. c. 16.Ammianus Marcellinus reckons them otherwise, viz. Egypt, Thebais and Libya, to which Posterity, he saith, added Augustamnica and Pentapolis: But Pentapolis was p. 103not comprehended under Libya, being always a distinct Province, and by the Division of Augustus, was under the Proconsul of Crete, by the Name of Cyrenaica. However (e)(e)Epiph. haer. 68. n. 1.Epiphanius takes in Libya, Pentapolis, Thebais, Ammoniaca and Mareotis: And saith plainly, That all the Provinces of Egypt were under the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria. And this, he saith, was the Custome before the Council of Nice. For he speaks of the quarrel between Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, and Meletius, then Bishop of Thebais; of whom he saith, That he was next to the Bishop of Alexandria, but in subjection to him, all Ecclesiastical matters being referred to him. For it is the Custome for the Bishop of Alexandria to have the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over all Egypt. By which it is plain, that the Bishop of Alexandria had then a true Patriarchal power by ancient Custome, i. e. an Ecclesiastical Authority over the Bishops in several Provinces, answering to the Power which the Praefectus Augustalis had over them in the Civil Government. It is not at all material whether the name of Patriarch or Diocese (in that sense as it takes in the extent of Patriarchal Jurisdiction) were then in use, for it is the thing we enquire after, and not the use of words: And if the Bishop of Alexandria had at that time the Power of Consecration of Bishops, of calling Councils, of receiving Appeals throughout all Egypt, no men of Sense can deny, that he had a true Patriarchal power. I grant he had no Metropolitanes then under him in the several Provinces. But, what then? the manner of Administration of the Patriarchal power might be different then, from following times; but the extent of the power is the thing in question. Either then the Bishop of Alexandria had a barely Metropolitical power or Patriarchal. If barely Metropolitical, then it could not reach beyond one Province; If it extended to more Provinces, with full Jurisdiction, then it was Patriarchal. And it is a wonder to me, some learned men in their warm Debates about this Canon could not discern so plain a Truth. But it is often said, That there were no such things as Patriarchs at this time in the Church, nor any Dioceses here taken notice of, as they imply an Vnion of several Provinces under a Patriarchal Jurisdiction. Suppose there were p. 104not under those Names; but a Jurisdiction over several Provinces there was in the Bishop of Alexandria: which is a true Patriarchal power; and Appeals were brought to him out of the several Provinces, as appears not onelyonly by the plain Testimony of Epiphanius in the case of Meletius, but by the Jurisdiction exercised by Dionysius over Pentapolis, long before the Council of Nice. And (f)(f)Athanas. de sent. Dionys. p. 552.Athanasius saith, the Care of those Churches then belong'd to the Bishop of Alexandria. If it be said, That there were then no Metropolitanes under the Bishop of Alexandria, but he was the sole Metropolitane, and therefore this was no Patriarchal, but a Metropolitane power. I answer, (1.) This doth not solve the difficulty, but rather makes it greater; because it doth more overthrow the Metropolitane Government of the Church here settled by the Council of Nice. For then there were several Provinces without Metropolitanes; How then could the Canons here made be ever observed in them, as to the Consecration of Bishops and Provincial Synods? (2.) I do confess there was something peculiar in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria. For all the Provinces of Egypt were under his immediate care, which was Patriarchal as to Extent, but Metropolitical in the Administration. And so was the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome at the time, which is the true reason of bringing the Custome of Rome to justifie that of Alexandria. For as it is well observed by ggLup. in Canon. Part. 5. p. 808.Christianus Lupus, The Bishop of Rome had then no Metropolitanes under him within the Provinces subject to his Iurisdiction; and so all Appeals lay immediately from the several Bishops to him. And therein lay the exact parallel between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria. So that, I do not question, but the first part of this Canon, was brought in as a Proviso to the former, which put the last resort into Provincial Synods. For Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, could not but think himself extremely concerned in this matter, and although he prevailed against Arius in matter of Doctrine, yet if he had gone home so much less than he came thither, having great part of his Authority taken from him by Provincial Synods, this would have weakned his Cause so much in Egypt, that for his sake the Nicene Fathers p. 105were willing to make an Exception as to the general Rule they had laid down before; Which proved of very ill consequence afterwards: For upon this encouragement, others in following Councils obtained as large Privileges, though without pretence of Custome, and the Church of Rome, though but named occasionally here, to avoid envy. yet improved this to the utmost advantage; And the Agents of the Bishop of Rome had the impudence in the (h)(h)Concil. Chalced. Act. 16.Acts 16Council of Chalcedon to falsifie the Title of this Canon, and to pretend a Supremacy owned by it, which was as far from the intention of this Council as a limited Patriarch is from being Head of the Church. And it is impossible for them with all their Arts and Distinctions they have used, to reconcile this Canon with an universal and unbounded Supremacy in the Bishop of that Church. For it would be like the saying that the Sheriff of Yorkshire shall have Jurisdiction over all three Ridings, because the King of England hath power over all the Nation. What Parallel is there between these two? But if the Clause be restrained to his Patriarchal power; then we are certain the Council of Nice did suppose the Bishop of Rome to have onelyonly a limited power within certain Provinces; Which according to Ruffinus, who very well understood the Extent of the Bishop of Romes Jurisdiction was onelyonly to the Suburbicary Churches; Which is the greater Diocese mention'd by the Council of Arles, it so very much exceeding the Diocese of any Western Bishop besides; And it is observable, that (i)(i)Athanas. ad solit. vit. agent. p. 832.Athanasius, as he calls Milan the Metropolis of Italy, i. e. of the Italick Diocese, so he calls Rome the Metropolis of Romania, i. e. of the Roman Diocese. But the Council of Nice fixing the last Appeal to Provincial Synods in other Places, utterly overthrows a patriarchal as well as unlimited Jurisdiction; where ancient Custome did not then prevail.

(2.) This Canon was designed to secure the Privileges of other Churches. For that is the general nature of Exceptions to make the Rule more firm in cases not excepted. So that all Churches are to enjoy their just Rights of having the last resort to Provincial Synods, that cannot be brought within these Exceptions allow'd p. 106by the Council of Nice. And here we fix our Right as to the British Churches, that they were not under any Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Nice, i. e. That he never had the Authority to consecrate the Metropolitanes or Bishops of these Provinces; That he never called them to his Councils at Rome; That he had no Appeals from hence; That the British Bishops never owned his Jurisdiction over them, and therefore our Churches were still to enjoy their former Privileges of being govern'd by their own Provincial Synods. It was upon this ground, the Cyprian Bishops made their Application to the Council of Ephesus; Because the Bishop of Antioch did invade their Privileges contrary to the Nicene Canons pretending to a Right to consecrate their Metropolitane, which they knew very well was a design to bring their Churches in subjection to him. The Council upon hearing the Cause declared their opinion in favour of the Cyprian Privilege; and not onelyonly so, but declared it to be a common Cause that concerned other Churches which were bound to maintain their own Rights against all Vsurpations; And that no Bishops should presume to invade anothers Province; And if they did usurp any authority over them, they were bound to lay it down, as being contrary to the Canons; Savouring of Worldly ambition; and destructive of that Liberty which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us with his own Bloud. And therefore the Council decreed, That every Province should enjoy its own Rights pure and inviolable, which it had from the beginning, according to the ancient Custome. This important Canon is passed over very slightly by Baronius and others, but (k)(k)Geograph. Sacr. Patriarch. Antio…hen.Carolus à Sancto Paulo saith it proceeded upon a false suggestion, although the Bishops of Cyprus do most solemnly avow the truth of their ancient Privilege. (l)(l)Lupus in Can. Ephes. p. 368.Christianus Lupus imputes the Decree to the Partiality of the Council against the Bishop of Antioch; although he confesses, they insisted upon the Nicene Canons. Which even (m)(m)Leo Epist. 78, 79, 80. ed. N…v.Leo I. in his eager Disputes with Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pleads for as inviolable, and as the Standard of the Rights of Churches. And by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus, all Churches are bound to stand up for their own p. 107Rights against the Usurpations of foreign Bishops.

But (n)(n)Morin. Exercit. Eccles. l. c. 4.Sir 50Joh. Morinus apprehending the force of this consequence, makes it his business to overthrow it by shewing that this was a particular and occasional thing, and therefore not to be made an Example to other Churches. A twofold occasion he assigns; First, the difficulty of Passage by Sea from Cyprus to Antioch, especially in Winter, when it was very possible a Metropolitane might die, and rather than live so long without one, they chose to set up one themselves; Another is the fourty years Schism in the Church of Antioch, between Euzoius, Meletius and Paulinus. But these are onelyonly slight and frivolous Evasions. For the Cyprian Bishops never alledged the first Inconveniencie, nor did the Bishop of Antioch the second: No, not when Alexander was unanimously chosen, as Morinus confesseth, and made his Complaint of the Cyprian Privilege to Innocentius I. as may be seen by his 18 Epistle; To whom the Pope gave an ignorant Answer, as appears by Morinus himself: For he pretends that the Cyprian Bishops had broken the Nicene Canons, in consecrating their own Metropolitane, because, saith he, The Council of Nice had set the Church of Antioch, not over any Province, but over the Diocese; By which he must mean the Eastern Diocese, within which Cyprus was comprehended: But there is not one word of the Diocese in the Nicene Canons, and these things are refer'd to ancient Customs, as Morinus acknowledgeth; And he saith, the Diocese of the Orient, as distinguished from Asiana and Pontica was not settled at the time of the Nicene Council. And yet he brings the Testimony of Innocentius to disprove the allegation of the Cyprian Bishops; when he confesses, that he was so mistaken in the Nicene Canons, on which he grounds that Right; And the Cyprian Bishops had the Nicene Canons to plead for themselves, as the general Council of Ephesus thought, who understood them far better than Innocentius seems to have done. If what he saith had been true, it is not to be thought that the Council of Ephesus would have determin'd in favour of the Cyprian Bishops. But Morinus urges against them. (1.) That they named onelyonly three Bishops, Troilus, Sabinus and Epiphanius. But do they not ayer that it had been always p. 108so from the Apostles time? (2.) That no one pleaded for the Bishop of Antioch. What then? If they were satisfied of the truth of their Allegation, the Nicene Council, had already determin'd the case. (3.) They onelyonly doe it conditionally, if it were so: But they enjoy'd their Privilege by virtue of it; which shews it could not be disproved. (4.) The Cyprian Privilege was granted in Zeno's time, upon finding the Body of St. Barnabas. But it is evident they enjoy'd it before; by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus. And it was not properly a Privilege; For that implies a particular exemption; But it was a Confirmation of their just Rights: And not onelyonly as to them, but as to all Provincial Churches. So that this Decree is the Magna Charta of Metropolitane Churches, against any Incroachments upon their Liberties: And so the Council thought it, when it appoints all Metropolitanes to take Copies of it, and voids all Acts that should be made against it.

It is necessary now to enquire, whether the Bishop of Rome had a Patriarchal power over the British Churches, before the Council of Nice: And the onelyonly way to doe that, is to examine the several Patriarchal rights which were allow'd in the Church. And if the Marks of none of them do appear; We have reason to conclude, he had no Patriarchal power. For however some urge the Conversion of Britain by Eleutherius as a Pretence to the Bishop of Rome's Authority, yet, allowing it to be true, no man of understanding can pretend to derive a Patriarchal power from thence, unless there were a concurrence of Jurisdiction from that time. Neither were it of force, if Saint Peter himself had preached the Gospel here; and settled the Bishops of these Churches. For, by the same reason, there could have been no Patriarchates at Antioch or Alexandria, (where he is supposed to have placed Saint Mark) but if notwithstanding, the Bishops of those Churches had a true Patriarchal power; Then so might the Metropolitanes of the British Churches have their proper Rights. Although Saint Peter himself had founded these Churches. (o)(o)Morin. Exercit. Eccles. l. 1. …. 29.Sir 50:1Sir 50:29Morinus saith, The Patriarchal power consisted in these four things. (1.) In the Consecration of Metropolitanes, and the Confirmation of other Bishops. (2.) In p. 109calling Councils out of the several Provinces under his Iurisdiction. (3.) In receiving Appeals from Provincial Synods. (4.) In the Delegation of persons with authority from him to act in the several Provinces. The first is that upon which the rest are founded: As we see in the case of the Bishop of Antioch and the Bishops of Cyprus; For if he could have carried the Point of Consecration of the Bishop of Constance, he knew all the rest would follow. In the Patriarchate of Alexandria it appears by the Epistles of (p)(p)Synes. Epist. 67, 76.Synesius, That the Bishops of Pentapolis, although then under a Metropolitane of their own, yet had their Consecration from the Bishop of Alexandria. When Justinian advanced the Bishop of Justiniana prima to the dignity of a Patriarch, by giving him power over seven Provinces, he (q)(q)Novell. 131. c. 3.expresses the Patriarchal power by this; That all the Bishops of those Provinces should be consecrated by him, and consequently be under his Jurisdiction, and be liable to be called to his Council, as Justinian elsewhere determines: And when the (r)(r)Novell. 123. & 137.Bishop of Justinianopolis removed from Cyprus thither, he not onelyonly enjoy'd the Cyprian privilege there, but was allow'd for a Patriarch by the Council in Trullo, and consequently, the Consecration of the Bishops in the Province of Hellespont belong'd to him.

And when the Patriarchal power was settled at Constantinople, that was the chief thing insisted upon, at least as to Metropolitanes. The first attempt the Bishop of Constantinople made towards any true Patriarchal power (for all that the (s)(s)Concil. Const. c. 3.Council of Constantinople gave him was a mere honorary Title) was the Consecrating Bishops in the Dioceses of Asiana, and Pontica, and Thracia: And this was charged on St. Chrysostome as an Innovation in the Synod (t)(t)Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 59.ad Quercum, i. e. in the Suburbs of Chalcedon. And his (u)(u)Soz. l. 8. c. 6.actings in the Council at Ephesus, and Consecrating of many Bishops in that Diocese, could not be justified by the Canons of the Church: The best excuse is what (w)(w)Pallad. vit. Chrys. p. 133.Palladius makes, viz. That his going into Asia, was upon the great importunity of the Bishops and Clergy there: For what (x)(x)Morin. Exercit. Eccles. l. 1. c. 14.Sir 50:1Morinus saith, That he did this by the Pope's authority, is ridiculous; It being not once thought of by St. Chrysostome or his Friends. And for a Bishop of Constantinople p. 110to act by authority from the Bishop of Rome, was then as absurd, as for the Czar of Muscovy to act by Commission from the Emperour of Germany. For it is plain, That one stood upon equal Privileges with the other; As fully appears by the Council of Chalcedon, and the warm Debates which follow'd it, between the two Sees. And what could have served Leo's turn better against Anatolius, than to have produced St. Chrysostome's Delegation from one of his Predecessours? But in the Council of Chalcedon, where the Right of the Patriarch of Constantinople was at large debated, this Act of St. Chrysostome was alledged as a remarkable Precedent to prove a Patriarchal power: And there (y)(y)Concil. Chalced. c. 28.a Canon was passed, That the Metropolitanes of those three Dioceses should be consecrated by the Bishop of Constantinople, which was the establishment of his Patriarchal authority over them. Upon this Pope Leo insisted on the Council of Nice and the Canons there made, and pleaded strongly, That this was an unjust Invasion of the Rights of those Churches which ought to be inviolably preserved. And we desire no better Arguments against the Pope's pretended Patriarchal power over these Western Churches, than what Leo insisted on for the Dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, against the Patriarchal power of the Bishop of Constantinople. For we plead the very same things; That all Churches ought to enjoy the Rights of Provincial Synods: And that no Person can be excused in violating the Nicene Canons. But if it be pretended, That the Bishop of Rome had always a Patriarchal power over the British Churches; Let any one Instance be given of it: Let them tell us when he consecrated the Metropolitanes or Bishops of the three Provinces of Britain; or summon'd them to his Councils; or heard their Causes; or received Appeals from hence; or so much as sent any one Legate to exercise Authority in his Name; And if they can produce nothing of this kind, there is not then the least appearance of his Patriarchal power.

We do not deny that the Bishop of Rome had any Patriarchal power in those times; But we say, It was confined within the Roman Diocese; As that did comprehend the Churches within the Suburbicary Provinces; And within these he exercised the same Authority that p. 111the Eastern Patriarchs did, i. e. He consecrated Bishops, called Synods and received Appeals, which are the main Patriarchal rights. But if we go beyond these Provinces, (z)(z)Pet. de Marca de Concord. l. 1. c. 7. n. 7.Petrus de Marca himself is extremely put to it to prove the exercise of a Patriarchal power; He confesses the matter is not clear either as to Consecrations or Councils, but he runs to References, Consultations and Appeals in greater causes; And yet he (a)(a)Id. c. 10. n. 1.confesses, as to Appeals (which onelyonly do imply a just Authority) There is no one certain evidence of them before the Council of Sardica. So that by the confession of the most learned and judicious of those who plead for the Pope's being Patriarch of the West; No proper Acts of Patriarchal power can be proved beyond the Roman Diocese, before the Council of Nice. And the same (b)(b)L. 6. c. 4. n. 6, 7, 8, 9.learned Archbishop doth grant, that the Bishop of Rome did not consecrate even in Italy out of the Roman Diocese, as appears by the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia; Nor in Africa, nor in Spain, nor in Gaul. And, after these Concessions, it is impossible to prove the Bishop of Rome Patriarch of the Western Churches. Which some late Writers of that Church have been much concerned at, and have endeavour'd to shew the contrary.(c)(c)Lup. in Canon. Part. 5. p. 764. Christianus Lupus hath written a Dissertation on purpose; But the greatest thing he saith to prove it is, That to affirm, that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority, is an Eusebian and Schismatical Errour, and came first from the Council of Philippopolis; yet he grants,p. 790. That in the Western Provinces, the Metropolitanes did consecrate their Suffragans, and they their Metropolitanes. But all this he saith, was done by special privilege. But where is any such privilege to be seen? It is evident by the Nicene Canons, every Province had its own just Rights for these things. And if there were any privilege, it must be produced on the other side. He doth not deny, That (d)(d)Leo Ep. 89. c. 8.Leo disown'd having any thing to doe in the Consecration of the Gallican Bishops, in his Epistle to the Bishops of Vienna, or that (e)(e)Hincmar. Ep. 47. c. 21.Hincmarus saith, The Transalpine Bishops did not belong to the Consecration or Councils of the Bishop of Rome. And therefore Ecclesiastical Causes were to be heard and determin'd by Provincial Synods: But he thinks to bring off all at last, by p. 112saying, (f)(f)Lup. ib. p. 813.That these were privileges indulged, because of distance from Rome. Which is a mere Shuffle, without any colour for it, unless such privileges could be produced, for otherwise it will appear to be common Right, And yet this is the main, which a late Authour, (g)(g)Concil. Antioch. Can. 9. cap. 14. p. 473.Emanuel à Schelstraet hath to say about this matter. But this hath been the common Artifice of Rome; Where any Bishops insisted on their own Rights and ancient Customs, and Canons of Councils, to pretend that all came from privileges allow'd by the See of Rome; And the Defenders of it are now shamefully driven to these Arts, having nothing else left to plead for the Pope's Usurpation. But this last (h)(h)Antiquit. illustr. Dissert. 2.Authour (the present Keeper of the Vatican Library, which makes so great a noise in the World for Church Records) having endeavour'd, in a set Discourse, to assert the Pope's Patriarchal power over the Western Churches, I shall here examine the strength of all that he produceth to that purpose. He agrees with us in determining the Patriarchal Rights, which he saith lie in these three things: (1.) In the right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitanes. (2.) In the right of summoning them to Councils. (3.) In the right of Appeals. All which he proves to be the just and true Patriarchal Rights from the seventeenth Canon of the eighth General Council. And by these we are contented to stand or fall.

(1.) As to the Right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitanes throughout the Western Churches. C. 4. Act. 1. n. 94.Acts 1He confesses, That such a Right was not exercised, Because the Metropolitanes in the several Provinces were allow'd to consecrate the Bishops belonging to them, upon the Summons of the Provincial Synod; And for this he produces the 4th Canon of the Council of Nice. Here then is a plain allowance of the Metropolitane Rights by this General Council; But how doth this prove the Patriarchal? Or rather, is it not a plain derogation from them? No, saith he, The Patriarchal Rights are preserved by the sixth Canon. I grant it; But then it must be proved, That the Patriarchal Rights of the Bishop of Rome, did at the time of the Council of Nice extend to all the Western Churches, which I utterly deny. Yet I grant farther, p. 113That the Bishop of Rome had all the Patriarchal Rights, within the Provinces, which were then under his Jurisdiction, and were therefore called the Suburbicary Churches. But these were so far from taking in all the Western Churches, that they did not comprehend the Provinces of Italy properly so called: But he offers to prove out of Gratian, and from the Testimony of Pelagius, Bishop of Rome, n. 96.That by reason of the length of the way, the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia did consecrate each other. But is such Authority sufficient to prove that the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia were of old subject to the Roman Patriarchate? We have nothing to prove this, but the bare word of one who was too much concerned to be a competent Witness; and too much alone to be a sufficient Witness in this matter. The length and difficulty of the way was no hindrance afterwards for obtaining the Pope's consent for the Consecration of the Bishop of Milan, as appears by the instance of Gregory produced by him; Why then should that be alledged as the Reason before? For the Ways were not one jot shorter or easier to pass. But if we compare the Election and Consecration of St. Ambrose at Milan, with that of Deus dedit in St. Gregory's time; We shall see an apparent difference in the Circumstances of them. For at the first there was a Provincial Synod by the Emperour's appointment, as (i)(i)Theod. l. 4. c. 5, 6.Theodoret relates it, who referr'd the choice to the Emperour; But he declining it, and the City falling into great heats about it, St. Ambrose was of a sudden chosen, being then Governour of the Province, and so was Inthronized, by the Bishops there present. Not one word here of the consent of the Bishop of Rome required, or so much as mention'd; And yet Pope Damasus was as ready to assert any thing that looked like a Right of his See, as Pelagius or Gregory. But at that time St. Ambrose, at Milan, had as great authority as Damasus at Rome; And the Italick Diocese was as considerable as the Roman. If the length and difficulty of the Way were the true Reason why St. Ambrose did not go to Rome; yet why no Messenger sent? Why no Agent from the Pope to declare his consent? But then the Extent of the Roman Diocese was better understood, p. 114wherein all the Bishops were to receive Consecration from the Bishop of Rome, having no Metropolitane of their own; But this did not reach so far as Milan. This Roman Diocese was truly Patriarchal, having several Provinces under it, and was therein peculiar and made a Precedent for the Bishop of Alexandria, all the other Western Churches being then govern'd by their several Bishops and Metropolitanes. (k)(k)Les Occurres de Leschassier, p. 454.Jac. Leschassier thinks that five of the eleven Provinces of Italy made up this Diocese; I mean the Provinces of Augustus, and not of Constantine; And within these were about seventy Bishops who belonged to the Consecration of the Bishop of Rome, having no other Metropolitane; And with this, as he observes, the old Notitia of the Vatican, produced by (l)(l)Baron. A. D. n. 23.Baronius, agrees; wherein the Suffragans of the Bishop of Rome are said to be the Bishop of Campania, the Marsi, Tuscia, Vmbria and Marchia: which Notitia is the same with the Provinciale Romanum, published by (m)(m)Mirae. Notit. Episcop. p. 64.Miraeus, and compared by him with four MSS. wherein are set down all the Bishops of the Roman Province, as it is there called. (n)(n)Ughell. Ital. Sacr. To. 1.Ferd. Vghellus reckons up seventy Bishops of those who were immediately under the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction, and had no Metropolitane over them; These were within the Provinces of Latium, Valeria, Tuscia, Picenum and Vmbria; which neither answering exactly to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Prefect, nor to that of the Vicarius Vrbis; We are not to judge of the Extent of this Diocese from that of the Civil Government, but from ancient Custome, to which the Council of Nice doth expresly attribute it. In the Diurnus Romanus, lately published by (o)(o)Garn. Diurn. Rom. c. 3. p. 52.Rom 3Garnerius out of an ancient Manuscript, there is one Title, De Ordinatione Episcopi Suburbicarii à Romano Pontifice, where the whole Process, as to the Consecration of a new Bishop, is set down, but from thence it appears, that none but the Suburbicary Bishops belonged to his Consecration. We freely grant then, That the Bishop of Rome had a Patriarchal power over several Provinces; as the Bishop of Alexandria was allowed to have by the Council of Nice in imitation of him; And that within this Diocese he did exercise this as a Patriarchal right to consecrate Bishops within those several Provinces, as p. 115the Bishop of Alexandria did: But we deny that ever the Bishop of Rome did exercise this part of his Patriarchal power beyond the foremention'd Provinces.

But to prove the larger Extent of the Pope's Power as to Consecrations the Epistle of Siricius to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica (p)(p)Schelstraet. n. 97, &c.is urged, whom the Pope makes his Legate in the Part of Illyricum, and charges him, that no Consecrations should be allowed which were made without his consent: And the same appears by the Epistles of Boniface to the Bishops of Thessaly and Illyricum, and of Leo to Anastasius. All which are published together by Holstenius out of the Barberine Library; or rather out of his Transcripts by Card. Barberine (but (q)(q)H. Alexander. de Region. suburbic. Diss. 2. p. 167.Hieron. Alexander cites a Passage out of the same Collection as in the Vatican Library) but from whencesoever it came, the Objection seems to be the more considerable, because, as (r)(r)Holsten. Not. ad Coll. Rom. p. 295.Holstenius in his Notes observes, (s)(s)Primau…è p. 393.Blondel had denied that it could be proved by any Monument of Antiquity, That the Bishop of Thessalonica was Legate to the Pope before the time of Leo.

But, to give a clear account of this matter, Leo himself, in his Epistle to Anastasius, derives this Authority no higher than from Siricius, who gave it to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica, certa tum primum ratione commisit, ut per illam Provinciam positis, quas ad disciplinam teneri voluit, Ecclesiis subveniret. Siricius immediately succeeded Damasus, who died according to (t)(t)Holsten. Diagrammat. Chronog. Pontif. Damasi.Holstenius, 11 Dec. 384. Three years after the Council of Constantinople had advanced that See to the Patriarchal dignity; which gave great occasion of Jealousie and Suspicion to the Bishops of Rome, that being the Imperial City as well as Rome; And (u)(u)Socr. l. 5. c. 8.Socrates observes, That from that time Nectarius the Bishop of Constantinople, had the Government of Constantinople and Thrace, as falling to his share. This made the Bishops of Rome think it high time to look about them, and to inlarge their Jurisdiction, since the Bishop of New Rome had gained so large an accession by that Council; And to prevent his farther Incroachments Westwards, his Diocese of Thrace bordering upon Macedonia, the subtilest Device they could think of, to secure that Province and to inlarge their own Authority, was, to persuade p. 116the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from the Bishop of Rome: So that he should enjoy the same privileges which he had before. And being back'd by so great an Interest, he would be better able to contest with so powerfull a Neighbour as the Bishop of Constantinople. And if any objected, That this was to break the Rules settled by the Council of Nice; They had that Answer ready; That the Bishop of Constantinople began: and their Concernment was, to secure the Rights of other Churches from being invaded by him; By which means they endeavour'd to draw those Churches bordering on the Thracian Diocese, first to own a Submission to the Bishop of Rome as their Patriarch; Which yet was so far from giving them ease, which some it may be expected by it, that it onelyonly involved them in continual Troubles, as appears by that very Collection of Holstenius. For the Bishops of Constantinople were not negligent in promoting their own Authority in the Provinces of Illyricum, nor in withstanding the Innovations of the Bishop of Rome. To which purpose they obtained an Imperial Edict to this day extant in both (w)(w)Theod. 16. l. 45. t. de Episc. C. Just. de SS. Eccl. l. 6.Sir 50:6Codes, which strictly forbids any Innovation in the Provinces of Illyricum, and declares, That if any doubtfull Case happen'd, according to the ancient Custome and Canons, it was to be left to the provincial Synod, but not without the advice of the Bishop of Constantinople. The occasion whereof was this, Perigenes being rejected at Patrae, the Bishop of Rome takes upon him to put him into Corinth, without the consent of the provincial Synod: This the Bishops of Thessaly, among whom the chief were, Pausianus, Cyriacus and Calliopus, look upon as a notorius Invasion of their Rights; and therefore in a provincial Synod they appoint another Person to succeed there. Which Proceeding of theirs is heinously taken at Rome, as appears by (x)(x)Collect. Rom. p. 54, 65, 69.Boniface's Epistles about it, both to Rufus of Thessalonica, whom he had made his Legate, and to the Bishops of Thessaly, and the other Provinces. But they make Application to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who procures this Law, in favour of the ancient provincial Synods, and for restraint of the Pope's Incroachments, but withall, so as to reserve the last resort to p. 117the Bishop of Constantinople. At this Boniface shews himself extremely nettled, as appears by his next Epistle to Rufus, and incourages him, to stand it out to the utmost; And gives him authority to excommunicate those Bishops, and to depose Maximus, whom they consecrated according to the ancient Canons. But all the Art of his management of this Cause lay, in throwing the Odium of it upon the Ambition of the Bishop of Constantinople; And thus the Contention between the Bishops of the two Imperial Cities proved the destruction of the Ancient Polity of the Church, as it was settled by the Council of Nice.

It is said by (y)(y)De Concord. l. 4. c. 2. n. 1.Petrus de Marca and Holstenius, That all this attempt of Theodosius was to no purpose; Because afterwards the Bishops of Macedonia submitted to the Pope's power; And that Rescript was revoked by another of Theodosius published in the Roman Collection. It cannot be denied, That for some time the Bishop of Rome prevailed, but it appears, that it was not long, by the sad Complaint made to Boniface II. of the Prevalency of the Patriarch of Constantinople in those parts made by Stephen, Bishop of Larissa, the Metropolis of Thessaly, and his Brethren Theodosius, Elpidius and Timotheus: And our (z)(z)Concil. Antioch. c. 13. act. 1. n. 2. p. 421.Author himself confesses, that it appears by the Notitiae, That these Provinces were at last wholly taken away from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and made subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

From which account of the matter of Fact we have these things very observable. (1.) That there was no Precedent could be produced as to the Pope's interposing in their Consecrations before the time of Siricius. It is true, Damasus his Epistle to Acholius is mention'd sometimes by the following Popes; But any one that reads both his Epistles in the(a)(a)Collect. Rom. p. 37. Roman Collection will find, that neither of them do relate to this matter: And the former is not onelyonly directed to Acholius, but to several other Bishops; And the Design of it is, To advise them to take care, that a worthy person be put into the See of Constantinople in the approaching Council; And to the same purpose is the following Epistle to Acholius. p. 42.But what is this to the Pope's power about Consecrations p. 118in the Provinces of Illyricum? And how was Acholius more concern'd than Euridicus, Severus, Vranius, and the rest of the Bishops? (2.) That the Bishop of Rome's interposing in their Consecrations was disliked and opposed as an Innovation by the Bishops of those Provinces. Which appears by the Epistles of Pope Boniface about the Case of Perigenes: For by the Canons of the Church, the Consecration and Designation of the Bishops of the Province was left to the provincial Synods: And therefore they did not understand on what account the Bishop of Rome should interpose therein. (3.) That the Law of Theodosius was principally designed to restore the Canonical Discipline and the Authority of provincial Synods. For the words are, Omni innovatione cessante, vetustatem & Canones pristinos Ecclesiasticos, qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici Provincias servari praecipimus. Which cannot be well understood of any other Canons than such as relate to the Ecclesiastical Government of Provinces, and not of any peculiar Customs there, as Gothofred mistakes the meaning of them: And in case any difference did arise, it was to be left Conventui sacerdotali sanctóque Iudicio, i. e. To the provincial Synod, and not to any Legate of the Bishop of Rome; Whose incroachment was that Innovation which was to be laid aside: as is now plain by the Roman Collection, without which this Law was not rightly understood, as appears by the several attempts of Baronius, Peron and Gothofred. (4.) That although by the means of Honorius, upon the importunity of the Bishop of Rome this Rescript was recalled by (b)(b)Collect. Rom. p. 81, 83.Theodosius: Yet the former onelyonly was enter'd into the Codes both of Theodosius and Justinian; which hath all the formality of a Law, being directed to the P. P. of Illyricum, and hath the date by Consuls annexed; but the Revocation is onelyonly a Rescript from Theodosius to Honorius, and refers to an Edict sent to the P. P. of Illyricum; which not appearing, the other being enter'd into the Code, gives great ground to believe that this Revocation was voided, and the former stood as the Law; Which ought rather to be presumed to be the Act of Justinian himself, the Privileges of Constantinople being concerned herein, than merely the Pique of Tribonian p. 119and the Collectours of the Laws against the Roman See, as (c)(c)Holsten. Not. ad Collect. Rom. p. 284.Holstenius suggests. So that from this whole matter it appears what Opposition the Pope's interposing in foreign Consecrations met with, not onelyonly from the Bishops of those Provinces, but from the Imperial Laws.

But let us now see what Patriarchal Authority, as to Consecrations, the Bishops of Rome exercised in these more Western Churches. As to Gaul, our (d)(d)Antiquit. illustr. Dissert. 2. c. 4. act. 1. n. 101.Authour confesseth, That the Bishops of Rome did not challenge the practice of Consecrations to themselves, as appears by the Words of Leo to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna, which he produces. Non nobis Ordinationes vestrarum Provinciarum defendimus: (for so he understands these Words of Consecrations, although they are capable of another meaning, viz. That he did not take upon him to manage the Affairs of the Gallican Churches, but onelyonly took care that they should doe it themselves according to the Canons, which was Leo's Pretence in that (e)(e)Leo, Epist. 10. c. 8. ed. Nov.Epistle) but then he distinguisheth between the Right it self, and the Exercise of it, which may be parted with by particular privileges granted, but the Right it self may be still reserved; And the same he after saith in general of the (f)(f)Schelstr. ib. n. 105. 106.Western Provinces, wherein he can trace no Footsteps of the practice, and therefore concludes, it must be from privileges granted by the Bishops of Rome, by reason of distance, which the Patriarch of Alexandria would not grant. But we are now proving the Right by the Practice, and therefore it is unreasonable to alledge a Right without it; For this way of proving is ridiculous; viz. to prove that the Pope had patriarchal Rights, because he did exercise them; And then to say, Though he did not exercise them, yet he had them; And so to prove that he had them, because he was Patriarch of the West. Yet this is in truth the way of proof this late Authour useth; He sheweth from Lupus, That all Consecrations of metropolitane and provincial Bishops belong to the Patriarch: Then to prove a patriarchal Power, it is necessary to prove, that all the Consecrations within the Provinces do belong to that See. But how doth this appear as to the Western Provinces? Did all the Consecrations of Bishops within them belong p. 120to the Bishops of Rome? If not, then they were not within the Roman Patriarchate: If they did, we expect the proof of it by the practice. No, he confesseth, the practice was different; But still they had the patriarchal Right. How so? Yes, saith he, That is plain, because the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of the West. This way of proving may be good against De Marca, who had granted the Pope to be the Western Patriarch; but it is ridiculous to those that deny it.

But he attempts something farther, viz. ggId. n. 101.That the Bishop of Rome had, before the Council of Nice, the power of deposing Bishops in Gaul, as appears by Martianus of Arles deposed by Stephanus. This hhCypr. Ep. 68. ed. Ox.Martianus had openly declared himself of the Novatian party; At which Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, and other Bishops in Gaul were very much troubled, and expressed their Resentments of it, but he slighted their Censures of him: Both parties made Applications to St. Cyprian, and Martianus desired to preserve Communion with him; But he was utterly rejected there for joining in the Novatian Schism. But it seems, by St. Cyprian's Epistle, he had still hopes not to be condemned at Rome, although the Schism began there. For, saith he, How ill would it look, after Novatian himself had been so lately and universally rejected, to suffer our selves to be deceived by his Flatterers? St. Cyprian and his Collegues were in no danger, for they had already detected and condemned him, therefore this must be understood of Stephen, which is the Reason he presses him so hard, and with some Authority to dispatch his Letters to the People of Arles to chuse another Bishop in the place of Martianus, Dirigantur in Provinciam & ad Plebem Arelatae consistentem à te Literae, &c. And a little before he tells him, He ought to send his mind at large to their Brethren the Bishops of Gaul, That they ought not suffer him to insult over their Fraternity, &c. And the Reason he gives for this Freedom which he useth with him is, Because they held the Balance of the Government of the Church in common among them; And, being several Pastours, they took care of the same Flock, who ought all to join in condemning such a Follower of Novatian, and thereby preserve the reputation of their Predecessours, Cornelius p. 121and Lucius, who were glorious Martyrs: and he especially who succeeded them. And so, not doubting his compliance, in a friendly manner he desires him, to let him know who succeeded Martianus at Arles, that he might know to whom to write. I appeal to any Man of common Sense, whether this looks like the Application made to the Western Patriarch, to whom St. Cyprian himself owed subjection as such. For when the Bishops of Rome began to challenge a patriarchal Power over the Churches of Thessaly, they expected Application to be made to them in a Style suitable to that Dignity, as is very remarkable in the iiCollect. Rom. p. 20.Roman Collection; As in the Petition of Stephanus, Bishop of Larissa, the Metropolis of Thessaly, Domino meo sancto ac beatissimo & revera venerando Patri Patrum, & Archiepiscopo atque Patriarchae Bonifacio data supplicatio à Stephano exiguo: And in the very same style Elpidius, p. 31.Stephanus and Timotheus. These write like men that knew their distance, and what Authority the Bishop of Rome then challenged; But the meek and humble St. Cyprian seems to stand upon equal Terms with the Bishop of Rome, or rather, as if he were upon the higher Ground, he takes upon him to tell him his duty, and rather checks him for his neglect in it, than owns any Authority in him superiour to his. So that if any patriarchal Power be to be inferr'd from this Epistle, it would be much rather, that St. Cyprian was Patriarch of the West, than the Bishop of Rome; since he is rather superiour, who directs what another should doe, than he who doeth what is directed; And if from hence it follows, That the execution of the Canons was in the Bishop of Rome, it will likewise follow, that the directing that execution was in the Bishop of Carthage.

But we are told, kkSchelstraet. ib. n. 102.that, even in Africa, no Consecrations were allow'd, without the consent of the Bishop of Rome: This is great News indeed, of which the African Code gives us no information: But llNot. in Coll. Rom. p. 265.Holstenius finds it in an Epistle of Siricius or of Innocentius, (which he pleases, for the same Rules are in both) onelyonly in the Canon Law it is taken from Innocentius, and the true Sense is given of it, Extra conscientiam, Metropolitani Episcopi, nullus audeat ordinare Episcopum. But what is p. 122this to the Roman Patriarchate? And our Authour doth not seem to rely upon it; But he alledges a Passage in Optatus, that Eunomius and Olympius, two Bishops, were sent to Carthage to consecrate a Bishop in the place both of Cecilian and Donatus: And Albaspinaeus saith, they were sent by the Pope's Authority. But this Observation of his he hath not from mmOptat. l. 1.Optatus, by whom it rather appears, that they were sent by the Emperour, who stopt Cecilian at Brixia. And no one that reads the Passages about Milthiades at that time, and how Constantine joined Marinus, Maternus and Rheticius in Commission with him, can ever imagine, that the Bishop of Rome was then esteemed the Patriarch of the West; and, as such, to have had Jurisdiction over the Bishops of Africa.

The last (n)(n)…lstraet. …, 101.Attempt to prove the Pope's patriarchal Power, as to Consecrations in the Western Churches, is from his Authority of giving Palls to the Metropolitanes. Which he proves from Gregory's Epistles, as to the Bishops of Arles and London; And from an Epistle of Boniface, Bishop of Mentz, wherein, he saith, it was agreed in France, That the Metropolitanes should receive Palls from the Roman See. But how far are we now gone from the Council of Nice and the Rules of Church-politie then established? We do not deny, that the Bishops of Rome did assume to themselves in following Ages a more than patriarchal Power over the Western Churches: But we say there are no footsteps of it in the time of the Council of Nice; And that what Power they gained, was by Vsurpation upon the Rights of Metropolitanes and provincial Synods then settled by general consent of the Bishops of the Christian Church. But this Vsurpation was not made in an Instant, but by several Steps and Degrees, by great Artifice and Subtilty, drawing the Metropolitanes themselves, under a Pretence of advancing their Authority, to betray their Rights. And among the Artifices of the Court of Rome this of the Pall was none of the least; For by it the Popes pretended to confirm and inlarge the privileges of Metropolitanes which hereby they did effectually overthrow, as though they received them merely from the Favour of the Bishop of Rome, which did undoubtedly p. 123belong to them by ancient Right. But that this was a mere Device to bring the Metropolitanes into dependence on the Court of Rome, appears by the most ancient Form of sending the Pall in the ooDiurn. Rom. p. 88.Diurnus Romanus, where it is finely called, the shewing their unanimity with St. Peter. But what the Nature and Design, and Antiquity of the Pall was, is so fully set forth by ppDe Concord. l. 6. c. 5, 6, 7.Petrus de Marca, and qqGarner. App. ad Not. c. 4. Diurn. Rom.Garnerius, that I shall say no more of it: OnelyOnly that from hence the ancient Rights of the Metropolitane Churches do more fully appear, because it was so long before this Badge of Subjection was received in these Western Churches; For the Synod which Boniface mentions, wherein the Metropolitanes consented to receive Palls from Rome, was not till the middle of the 8^th Century: And great Arts and Endeavours were used in all the Western Churches, before they could be brought to yield to this real Badge of the Pope's patriarchal Power over them. Which is particularly true of the British Churches which preserved their Metropolitane Rights, as long as their Churches were in any tolerable condition; And that without suffering any diminution of them from the Pope's patriarchal Power: As will farther appear in this Discourse.

(2.) The next Patriarchal Right to be examined, is that of calling Bishops within their Jurisdiction to Councils. It is truly observed by rrDe Concord. l. 1. c. 7. n. 3.de Marca, That those who received Consecration from another, were bound by the ancient Discipline of the Church attend to his Councils; And in the Sense of the old Canon Law, ssDe Constantin. Patriarch. p. 162.those two Expressions, To belong to the Consecration, or to the Council, were all one. And so every Metropolitane had a Right to summon the Bishops of his Province, and the Primates or Patriarchs, as many as received Consecrations from them. Thus the Bishop of Rome's patriarchal Council consisted of those within his own Diocese or the Suburbicary Churches. Where there being no Metropolitanes, the Roman Council did much exceed others in the number of Bishops belonging to it: thence Galla Placidia relates, how she found the Bishop of Rome compassed about with a great number of Bishops which he p. 124had gather'd out of innumerable Cities of Italy, by reason of the Dignity of his Place. It seems then no Bishops of other Western Churches were summon'd to the Roman Councils. But the Bishops of Sicily were then under the Italian Government, and reckon'd with the Italian Bishops. It may be question'd, whether in Ruffinus his time they were comprehended within the Suburbicary Churches. But in Leo's time the Bishops of Rome had inlarged their Jurisdiction so far, as to summon the Bishops of Sicily to their Councils. This is evident from Leo's Epistle to all the Bishops of Sicily, where he charges them every year to send three of their Number to a Council in Rome; And this he requires in pursuance of the Nicene Canons; From whence it seems probable, That the Bishop of Rome did by degrees gain all the Churches within the Jurisdiction of the Vicarius Vrbis as his patriarchal Diocese. For Sicily was one of the ten Provinces belonging thereto. But our (t)(t)Schelstraet. ib. n. 108.Authour saith, That the Council of Nice speaks there onelyonly of provincial Councils, and not of patriarchal. What then? Was Sicily within the Roman Province, considering the Bishop of Rome merely as a Metropolitane? That is very absurd, since Sicily was a Province of it self, and as such, ought to have had a Metropolitane of its own: And so all the other neighbour Provinces to Rome; whereas we reade of none there; but as far as the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction extended, it was immediate, and swallow'd up all Metropolitane Rights. I know (u)(u)De Concord. l. 1. c. 7. n. 4.Petrus de Marca thinks there were Metropolitanes within the Suburbicary Churches; But I see no Authority he brings for it besides the Nicene Canon and the Decrees of Innocentius and Leo which relate to other Churches. But any one that carefully reads the Epistles of Leo to the Bishops within those Provinces, and compares them with those written to the Bishops without them, will, as (w)(w)Not. in Leon. Epist. 17.Quesnel hath well observed, find so different a strain in them, that from thence he may justly infer, that there were no Metropolitanes in the former, but there were in the latter. When he (x)(x)Leo. Ep. 6. c. 2.writes to the Bishop of Aquileia he takes notice of his provincial Synod, and directs the Epistles of general concernment to the Metropolitane; as he doth not onelyonly to him, but to (y)(y)Ep. 120.the Bishop of p. 125Ravenna too. And when (z)(z)Ep. 135.Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, wrote to him, he gives an account of the provincial Council which he held. But there is nothing like this, in the Epistles sent to the Bishops within the ten Provinces, no mention is therein made of Metropolitanes, or of any provincial Synods. But here we find the Bishops of Sicily in common summon'd to send three of their number to an annual Council at Rome. From whence I conclude, That the Pope's Patriarchal Council lay within the compass of these Suburbicary Churches. I do not deny but upon occasion there might be more Bishops summon'd to meet at a Council in Rome; As when (a)(a)Euseb. l. 7. c. 24.Aurelian gave the Bishops of Italy leave to meet at Rome in the Case of Paulus Samosatenus. And when they met with Julius, in the Case of Athanasius, and such like Instances of an extraordinary Nature and very different from the fixed canonical Councils; which were provincial elsewhere, but in the Roman Diocese they were Patriarchal; yet they extended no farther than to the Bishops within the Suburbicary Churches. And whosoever considers the Councils of Italy in Saint Ambrose's time, published by (b)(b)Sirmond. Append. ad C. Theod. p. 97.Sirmondus, will find that the Bishops of the Italick Diocese did not think themselves obliged to resort to Rome for a Patriarchal Council. And, which is more observable, the latter of them extremely differs from Damasus about the same matter; which was the Consecration of Maximus to be Bishop of Constantinople. For (c)(c)Collect. Rom. p. 37.Damasus, in his Epistle to Acholius, &c. bitterly exclaims against the setting up Maximus, as though all Religion lay at stake, and admonished them at the next Council at Constantinople to take care that a fitter Person be chosen in his room: And the same he re-inforces in another Epistle to Acholius alone. But (d)(d)Append. p. 104.St. Ambrose, and the Bishops of Italy with him, in a Conciliar Address to Theodosius, justifie the Consecration of Maximus, and dislike that of Gregory and Nectarius. Now in this Case I desire to know, whether this Council own'd the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal Power? For (e)(e)Schelstraet. ib. n. 109.Em. à Schelstraet, following Christianus Lupus, saith, That in the Pope's patriarchal Power is implied, that the Bishops are onelyonly to consult and advise, but the determination doth wholly belong to the p. 126Pope as Patriarch; And that the Bishop of Alexandria had the same power appears by the Bishops of Egypt declaring they could not doe any thing without the Bishop of Alexandria. Let us then grant, That the Bishop of Rome had the same Authority within his Patriarchal Diocese, doth not this unavoidably exclude the Bishops of the Italick Diocese from being under his Patriarchate? For if they had been under it, would they have, not barely met, and consulted, and sent to the Emperour without him, but in flat opposition to him? And when afterwards the Western Bishops met in Council at Capua, in order to the composing the Differences in the Church of Antioch, although it were within the Roman Patriarchate, yet it being a Council of Bishops assembled out of the Italick Diocese as well as the Roman, the Bishop of Rome did not preside therein, but St. Ambrose; as appears by (f)(f)Ambros. Ep. l. 10. ep. 78.St. Ambrose his Epistle to Theophilus, about the proceedings of this Council; For he saith, He hopes what Theophilus and the Bishops of Egypt should determine in that Cause about Flavianus, would not be displeasing to their Holy Brother, the Bishop of Rome. And there follows another (g)(g)Epist. 79. ed. Erasm.Epistle in St. Ambrose which overthrows the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches by the confession of the Pope himself. For that which had passed under the name of St. Ambrose is now found by (h)(h)Collect. Rom. p. 189.Holstenius to be written by Siricius, and is so published in the Roman Collection, and since in the (i)(i)Concil. Labb. T. 2. p. 1033.Collection of Councils at Paris. This Epistle was written by Siricius to Anysius and other Bishops of Illyricum, concerning the Case of Bonosus, which had been referr'd to them by the Council of Capua, as being the neighbour Bishops, and therefore, according to the Rules of the Church, fittest to give Judgement in it. But they, either out of a complement or in earnest, desired to know the Pope's opinion about it. So his Epistle begins, Accepi literas vestras de Bonoso Episcopo, quibus, vel pro veritate, vel pro modestia, nostram sententiam sciscitari voluistis. And are these the Expressions of one with Patriarchal Power, giving answer to a Case of difficulty which canonically lies before him? But he afterwards declares, he had nothing to doe in it, since the Council of Capua had referr'd it to them, p. 127and therefore they were bound to give Judgment in it. Sed cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis judicium—advertimus quod nobis judicandi forma competere non possit. If the Bishop of Rome had then patriarchal Power over all the Western Churches, how came he to be excluded from judging this Cause by the Proceedings of the Council of Capua? Would Pope Siricius have born this so patiently and submissively, and declined meddling in it, if he had thought that it did of Right belong to him to determine it? If the Execution of the Canons belongs to the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Patriarch, how comes the Council of Capua not to refer this matter immediately to him, who was so near them; But, without so much as asking his Judgment, to appoint the hearing and determining it to the Bishops of Macedonia? We have no reason to question the sincerity of this Epistle which Card. Barberine published as it lay with others in Holstenius his Papers taken out of the Vatican, and other Roman MSS. by the express Order of Alexander VII. And although a late (k)(k)Des Iugemens Canon. des Evesques, p. 562.Advocate for the Pope's Power in France against De Marca, hath offer'd several Reasons to prove this Epistle counterfeit, yet they are all answer'd by a (l)(l)De antiqui… & majoribus Episc. causis, c. 29.Doctour of the Sorbon. So that this Epistle of Siricius is a standing Monument, not onelyonly against the Pope's absolute and unlimited Power, but his patriarchal, out of his own Diocese.

But to justifie the Pope's patriarchal Power in calling the Western Bishops to his Council at Rome, we have several (m)(m)Schelstraet. ib. n. 113, 115.Instances brought; As of some Gallican Bishops present at the Council under Damasus; Wilfrid, an English Bishop under Agatho a Legate from the Council held in Britain; with Felix of Arles and others; and some others of later times. But what do extraordinary Councils, meeting at Rome, prove, as to the Bishop of Rome's being Patriarch of the Western Churches? Do the Western Councils, meeting at Milan, Arles, Ariminum, Sardica, or such Places, prove the Bishops of them to be all Patriarchs? These things are not worth mentioning, unless there be some circumstance to shew that the Bishop of Rome called the Western Bishops together by his patriarchal Power, for which there is no p. 128evidence brought. But there is a very great difference between Councils assembled for Vnity of Faith or Discipline from several Dioceses, and provincial Synods, and patriarchal Councils called at certain times to attend the patriarchal See, as is to be seen in the nnDiurn. Rom. p. 66.Diurnus Romanus, where the Bishops, within the Roman Patriarchate, oblige themselves to obey the Summons to a Council at Rome, at certain fixed times, as Garnerius shews; which, he saith, was three times in the year. But he adds, this extended no farther than to the Bishops within the Suburbicary Churches, who had no Primate but the Bishop of Rome, and so this was a true patriarchal Council.

(3.) But the last Right contested for, is, that of Appeals in greater Causes. By which we understand such Application of the Parties concerned as doth imply a Superiour Jurisdiction in him they make their resort to, whereby he hath full Authority to determine the matters in difference: For otherwise Appeals may be no more than voluntary Acts in the Parties, and then the Person appealed to hath no more Power than their Consent gives him. Now in the Christian Church, for preservation of Peace and Unity, it was usual to advise in greater Cases with the Bishops of other Churches, and chiefly with those of the greatest Reputation, who were wont to give their Judgment, not by way of Authority, but of Friendly correspondence; not to shew their Dominion, but their Care of preserving the Unity of the Church. Of this we have a remarkable Instance in the Italick Council, of which St. Ambrose was President, who did interpose in the Affairs of the Eastern Church; not with any pretence of Authority over them, but merely out of Zeal to keep up and restore Unity among them. They knew very well how suspicious the Eastern Bishops were of the Western Bishops meddling in their matters ever since the Council of Sardica (of which afterwards) but they tell them, it was no new thing for the Western Bishops to be concerned when things were out of order among them. ooApp. ad Cod. Theod. p. 106.Non Praerogativam, say they, vindicamus examinis, sed Consortium tamen debuit esse communis arbitrii. They did not challenge a Power of calling them to account, but they p. 129thought there ought to be a mutual Correspondence for the general good, and therefore they received Maximus his Complaint of his hard usage at Constantinople. Will any hence infer, that this Council or St. Ambrose had a Superiour Authority over the Patriarch of Constantinople? So that neither Consultations, Advices, References, nor any other Act which depends upon the Will of the Parties, and are designed onelyonly for a common good, can prove any true Patriarchal Power. Which being premised, let us now see what Evidence is produced from hence for the Pope's patriarchal Power over the Western Churches. And the main thing insisted upon is, ppSchelstraet. ib. n. 123.The Bishop of Rome's appointing Legates in the Western Churches to hear and examine Causes, and to report them. And of this, the first Instance is produced of the several Epistles of Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica in the Roman Collection. Of which a large account hath been already given: And the first beginning of this was after the Council of Sardica had out of a Pique to the Eastern Bishops and Jealousie of the Emperour allow'd the Bishop of Rome the Liberty of granting a re-hearing of Causes in the several Provinces; which was the pretence of sending Legates into them; And this was the first considerable step that was made towards the advancing the Pope's power over the Western Churches. For a present qqDe antiqui… & majoribus Episcoporum causis, p. 71.Doctour of the Sorbon confesseth, that in the space of 347 years, i. e. to the Sardican Council, No one Instance can be produced of any Cause, wherein Bishops were concerned, that was ever brought to Rome by the Bishops that were the Iudges of it. But if the Pope's Patriarchal Power had been known before, it had been a regular way of proceeding from the Bishops in Provincial Synods to the Patriarch. And withall, he saith,p. 75. before that Council no instance can be produced of any Iudges Delegates for the review of Iudgment passed in provincial Synods: And whatever Privilege or Authority was granted by the Council of Sardica to the Bishop of Rome, was wholly new, and had no Tradition of the Church to justifie it; And was not then received either in the Eastern or Western Churches. p. 91, &c. 132, &c.So that all the Pleas of a Patriarchal Power, as to the Bishop of Rome, with respect to greater Causes must fall very p. 130much short of the Council of Nice. As to the Instance of Marcianus of Arles, that hath been answered already; And as to the Deposition of Bishops in England by the Pope's authority in later times, it is of no importance, since we do not deny the matter of Fact, as to the Pope's Vsurpations; But we say, they can never justifie the exercise of a Patriarchal Power over these Churches by the Rules established in the Council of Nice.

But it is said, That the Council of Arles, before that of Nice, attributes to the Bishop of Rome, Majores Dioceses, i. e. according to De Marca, all the Western Churches; But in answer to this, I have already shew'd how far the Western Bishops at Arles were from owning the Pope's Patriarchal Power over them, because they do not so much as desire his Confirmation of what had passed in Council; But onelyonly send the Canons to him to publish them. But our Authour and Christianus Lupus say, that such is the Patriarch's Authority, That all Acts of Bishops in Council are in themselves invalid without his Sentence, which onelyonly gives Life and Vigour to them; As they prove by the Patriarch of Alexandria. But if the Bishop of Rome were then owned to be Patriarch over seven or eight Dioceses of the West, according to De Marca's exposition; how came they to sit and make Canons, without the least mention of his Authority? So that either they must deny him to be Patriarch, or they must say he was affronted in the highest manner by the Western Bishops there assembled. But as to the expression of Majores Dioceses, it is very questionable, whether in the time of the Council of Arles, the distribution of the Empire by Constantine into Dioceses were then made, and it seems probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice, Dioceses not being mentioned there, but onelyonly Provinces; And if so, this Place must be corrupt in that expression, as it is most certain it is in others; And it is hard to lay so great weight on a place that makes no entire sense. But allowing the expression genuine, it implies no more than that the Bishop of Rome had then more Extensive Dioceses than other Western Bishops; Which is not denied, since even then he had several Provinces under p. 131his immediate Government, which no other Western Bishop had.

(r)(r)Schelstraet. ib. n. 77.St. Basil's calling the Bishop of Rome, Chief of the Western Bishops, implies nothing but the dignity of his See, and not any Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches.

It must be a degree of more than usual subtilty to infer Damasus his Patriarchal Power over the West, ssId. n. 78.because St. Jerome joins Damasus and the West together, as he doth Peter and Egypt: Therefore Damasus had the same Power over the West which Peter had over Egypt. It seems St. Jerome's language about the different Hypostases, did not agree with what was used in the Syrian Churches, and therefore some charged him with false Doctrine; he pleads for himself, that the Churches of Egypt, and the West, spake as he did, and they were known then neither to favour Arianism nor Sabellianism; And, to make his Allegation more particular, he mentions the names of the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome. But a Cause extremely wants Arguments which must be supported by such as these.

If ttId. n. 79.St. Augustine makes Innocent to preside in the Western Church; he onelyonly thereby shews the Order and Dignity of the Roman See; but he doth not own any Subjection of the Western Churches to his Power, since no Church did more vehemently withstand the Bisho… of Rome's Incroachments than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time; As is notorious in the business of Appeals, which transaction is a demonstration against his Patriarchal Power over the African Churches. And the Bishop of Rome never insisted on a Patriarchal Right, but on the Nicene Canons wherein they were shamefully baffled.

It cannot be denied that uuId. n. 80.Pope Innocent, in his Epistle to Decentius Eugubinus, would bring the Western Churches to follow the Roman Traditions, upon this pretence, That the Churches of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and the Islands lying between, were first instituted either by such as were sent by St. Peter or his Successours. But whosoever considers that Epistle well, will not for Innocent's sake lay too much weight upon it. For, p. 132Is it reasonable to think, that the double Vnction, the Saturday Fast, the Eulogiae sent to the several Parishes in Rome were Apostolical Traditions which all the Western Churches were bound to observe, because they were first planted by those who were sent from Rome? But the matter of Fact is far from being evident, for we have great reason to believe, there were Churches planted in the Western parts, neither by St. Peter nor by those who were sent by his Successours. Yet let that be granted; What connexion is there between receiving the Christian Doctrine at first by those who came from thence, and an Obligation to be subject to the Bishops of Rome in all their Orders and Traditions? The Patriarchal Government of the Church was not founded upon this, but upon the ancient Custome and Rules of the Church; as fully appears by the Council of Nice. And therefore the Churches of Milan and Aquileia though in Italy, the Churches of Africa though probably the first Preachers came from Rome, never thought themselves bound to follow the Traditions or observe the Orders of the Roman Church, as is very well known both in St. Cyprian's and St. Augustine's times. But if the Pope's power be built on this ground, what then becomes of the Churches of Illyricum? Was the Gospel brought thither from Rome? And, as to the British Churches, this very Plea of Innocent will be a farther evidence of their exemption from the Roman Patriarchate; since Britain cannot be comprehended within those Islands which lie between Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa and Sicily, which can onelyonly be understood of those Islands which are situate in the Mediterranean Sea.

And if no Instance can be produced of the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal Jurisdiction over the British Churches, why should not we claim the same benefit of the Nicene Canons which Leo urges so vehemently in such a parallel Case? Neither can it be said, that afterwards, Subjection and Consent makes a just Patriarchal Power; for neither doth it hold as to the British Churches, whose Bishops utterly refused to submit to Augustine the Monk; And if it doth, all the force of Leo's Arguments is taken away. For there were both Prescription p. 133pleaded, and a Consent of the Bishops of the Dioceses concerned in the Council of Chalcedon. But Leo saith, the Nicene Canons are beyond both these, being dictated by the Spirit of God, and passed by the common consent of the Christian Church; And that it was a Sin in him to suffer any to break them. Quoniam dispensatio mihi credita est, & ad meum tendit reatum, si paternarum regulae Sanctionum, quae in Synodo Nicaena ad totius Ecclesiae Regimen, Spiritu Dei instruente, sunt traditae me, quod absit, connivente violentur. Leo ad Marcian. Aug. Ep. 78. c. 3. Quoniam contra Statuta paternorum Canonum, quae ante longissimae aetatis annos in Vrbe Nicaena spiritualibus sunt fundata Decretis, nihil cuique audere conceditur. Leo ad Pulcher. Ep. 79. n. 2. Superbum nimis est & immoderatum, ultra proprios terminos tendere, & antiquitate calcatâ alienum jus velle praeripere, atque ut unius crescat Authoritas, tot Metropolitanorum impugnare Primatus quietísque Provinciis, & olim Sanctae Synodi Nicenae moderatione dispositis, bellum novae perturbationis inferre, atque ut venerabilium Patrum Decreta solvantur, quorundam Episcoporum praeferre consensum cui tot annorum series negavit effectum. Nam 60 ferre annus hujus conniventiae esse jactatur qua se praedictus Episcopus aestimat adjuvari, frustra cupiens id sibi prodesse, quod etiam si quisquam ausus est velle, nullus tamen potuit obtinere. Id. ib. Nulla sibimet de multiplicatione congregationis synodalia Concilia blandiantur, neque trecentis illis decem atque octo Episcopis quantumlibet copiosior numerus Sacerdotum vel comparare se audeat vel praeferre: cum tanto divinitus privilegio Nicaena sit Synodus consecrata, ut sive per pauciores sive per plures Ecclesiastica Iudicia celebrentur omni penitus auctoritate sit vacuum quicquid ab illorum fuerit constitutione diversum. Ad Anatol. Ep. 80. n. 1.Either this is true or false. If false, how can the Pope be excused who alledged it for true? If true, then it holds as much against the Bishop of Rome as the Bishop of Constantinople. And as to the Prescription of 60 years, he saith, the Canons of Nice were before, and ought to take place, if the practice had been never so constant, which he denies. Nay, he goes so far as to say, Though the numbers of Bishops be never so great that give their consent to any alteration of the Nicene Canons, they signifie nothing, and cannot bind. Nothing can be more emphatical or weighty to our purpose than these Expressions of Pope Leo, for securing the Privileges of our Churches, in case no Patriarchal Power over them can be proved before the Council of Nice. And it is all the reason in p. 134the World, That those who claim a Jurisdiction should prove it, Especially when the Acts of it are so notorious that they cannot be conceal'd; as the Consecration of Metropolitanes, and matters of Appeals are, and were too evident in latter times, when all the World knew what Authority and Jurisdiction the Pope exercised over these Churches. I conclude this with that excellent Sentence of Pope Leo, PRIVILEGIA ECCLESIARVM SANCTORVM PATRVM CANONIBVS INSTITVTA, ET VENERABILIS NICAENAE SYNODI FIXA DECRETIS, NVLLA POSSVNT IMPROBITATE CONVELLI NVLLA NOVITATE VIOLARI. The privileges of Churches which were begun by the Canons of the Holy Fathers and confirmed by the Council of Nice can neither be destroy'd by wicked Usurpation nor dissolved by the humour of Innovation.

In the next great Council of Sardica, which was intended to be general by the two Emperours Constans and Constantius, it is commonly said, that (w)(w)Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 720.Athanasius expresly affirms the British Bishops to have been there present. But some think this mistake arose from looking no farther than the Latin Copy in Athanasius, in which indeed the words are plain enough to that purpose; but the sense in the Greek seems to be the same. For Athanasius pleads his own Innocency from the several Judgments which had passed in his Favour. First, by 100 Bishops in Egypt; next, by above 50 Bishops at Rome; thirdly, in the great Council at Sardica, foreign, in which, as some say, above 300 Bishops out of the several Provinces there mention'd consented to his p. 135Innocency. But here lies an insuperable difficulty, for **Ad solit. vit. agent. p. 818.Athanasius himself elsewhere affirms, that there were but 170 Bishops in all there present: and therefore it is impossible he should make 300 there present. Which some have endeavour'd to reconcile, by saying, the latter was the true number present; but the former of those Bishops scattered up and down who did agree in the Sentence which passed in favour of Athanasius: But then the Greek here cannot be understood of those present in Council; and, on the other side, if it be not so understood, then the words do not prove what he designs, viz. that he was acquitted in the Sardican Council; in which, although the number were not so great, I see no reason to exclude the British Bishops.

It is true, that in the (x)(x)Athan. p. 756.Synodical Epistle of that Council, onelyonly Italy, Spain and Gaul are mention'd; And so likewise in the (y)(y)Athan. p. 767.Subscriptions. But it is well observed by (z)(z)Bucher. Belg. Roman. l. 9. c. 4. n. 4.Bucherius, that Athanasius reckons up the British Bishops among those of Gaul. And (a)(a)Hilar. de Synodis.Hilary, writing to the Gallican Bishops of Germania prima and Germania secunda, Belgica prima, Belgica secunda, Lugdunensis prima, Lugdunensis secunda, Provincia Aquitanica and Provincia novem populona; after he hath distinctly set down these, he then immediately adds, And to the Bishops of the Provinces of Britain. Which makes me apt to think, that about that time the Bishops of Britain were generally joyn'd with those of Gaul, and are often comprehended under them where they are not expresly mention'd. And, to confirm this, (b)(b)Sulpic. Sev. l. 2.Sulpicius Severus, speaking of the Summons to the Council of Ariminum, mentions onelyonly of these Western parts Italy, Spain and Gaul; But afterwards saith, That the Bishops of Britain were there present. So that Britain was then comprehended under Gaul, and was so understood at that time; as Sicily was under Italy, as (c)(c)Sirmond. Advent. c. 5.Sirmondus shews. And Sextus Rufus doth put down the description of Britain under that of Gaul, as (d)(d)Berter. Diatr. 1. c. 3.Berterius hath observed. For otherwise, who could have thought that Athanasius had meant the Bishops of Britain, when he reckons up onelyonly the Provinces of Gaul? But he declared that they were present with the Gallican Bishops.

p. 136But it hath been urged with great appearance of Reason, that since the British Bishops were present at the Council of Sardica, The British Churches were bound to observe the Canons of it; and Appeals to the Bishop of Rome being there established, they were then brought under his Jurisdiction, as Patriarch of the Western Churches. To give a clear account of this, we must examine the Design and Proceedings of that Council. The occasion whereof was this; Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, being deposed for some pretended misdemeanours by two Synods of Eastern Bishops, and finding no redress there, by the prevalency of the Arian Faction, makes Application to the Western Bishops, and to Julius Bishop of Rome, as the chief of them, and earnestly desires that his Cause might be heard over again, bringing great Evidence from the Bishops of Egypt and other places, that he never had a fair Hearing, but was run down by the Violence of the Eusebian party at Tyre and Antioch. The Bishop of Rome communicating this with the Western Bishops, as at large appears by Julius his Epistle in Athanasius, he, in their name as well as his own, sends to the Eastern Bishops, That this Cause might be heard before indifferent Judges: And to that end, that they would come into these Parts, and bring their Evidences with them. This they decline; Upon which, and a fuller Examination of the matter, they receive Athanasius, Marcellus and others into Communion with them. This gives a mighty distaste to the Eastern Bishops; at last the two Brothers, Constantius and Constans, agree, there should be a general Council called at Sardica, to hear and determine this matter. The Bishops meet; But the Western Bishops would have the restored Bishops admitted to Communion, and sit in Council; This the Eastern Bishops utterly refuse; and upon that withdrew to Philippopolis; And declare against their Proceedings at Sardica, as repugnant to the Nicene Canons: The Western Bishops continued sitting, and made new Canons to justifie their own Proceedings. This is the true state of the matter of Fact; as far as I can gather it out of the authentick Writings on both Sides. For the one side insists upon the Justice of re-hearing a Cause, wherein there was p. 137so great suspicion of soul dealing; And the other, that the matters which concerned their Bishops, were not to be tried over again by others at a distance; And that this was the Way to overthrow the Discipline of the Church, as it had been settled by the Council of Nice and the ancient Canons of the Church. It is apparent by the Synodical Epistle of the Greek Bishops who withdrew to Philippopolis. That this was the main Point insisted on by them; That it was the bringing a new Law into the Church; For the Eastern Bishops to be judged by the Western; The ancient Custome and Rule of the Church being; That they should stand or fall by their own Bishops. The Western Bishops on the other side pleaded, That this was a Cause of common concernment to the whole Church; That there had been notorious partiality in the management of it; That Athanasius was condemned, not for any pretended miscarriages so much, as for his Zeal against Arianism; That the Cause was not heard in Egypt, where he was charged, but at a great distance, and therefore in common Justice, it ought to have a new hearing by the Eastern and Western Bishops together. But the Eastern Bishops finding that the Western would not forsake the Communion of Athanasius and the rest, they look'd on the Cause as prejudged, and so went away. However the other proceeded to the clearing the Bishops accused, which they did by a Synodical Epistle, and then made several Canons, as against Translations from mean Bishopricks to better, Can. 1. and using Arts to procure them, Can. 2. Against placing Bishops in such places where a single Presbyter would serve, and the absence of Bishops at Consecrations, Can. 6. Against their unseasonable Applications to the Court, Can. 7, 8, 9, 20. Against being made Bishops per Saltum, Can. 10. Against their Non-residence, Can. 11, 12. Against receiving those who were excommunicated by others, Can. 13. About the Appeal of Presbyters, Can. 14. Against taking Presbyters out of anothers Diocese, Can. 15. Against their Non-residence, Can. 16. About the Reception of banished Bishops, Can. 17. About Eutychianus and Musaeus, and the persons ordained by them, Can. 18, 19.

But the main Canons of this Council are the third, fourth and fifth, which concern the re-hearing of the Causes of Bishops; And the interest the Bishop of Rome was p. 138to have therein. For the right understanding whereof we are to consider the several steps and methods of Proceeding therein established. (1.) That the Causes of Bishops in the first Instance were still to be heard and determin'd by the Bishops of the Province; That is plain by the first part of Can. 3. Which forbids any Bishop in case of difference with another, to call Bishops out of a neighbour Province to hear it. This was agreeable to the Nicene Can. 5. Herein it is supposed that they reflect on the Council of Antioch's Proceedings against Athanasius; But the Council of Antioch did not proceed upon St. Athanasius in the first Instance, but upon this ground, viz. That being deposed in the Council of Tyre, he afterwards returned to the Bishoprick of Alexandria, without being first restored by a greater Synod. But this seems to have been very hard usage of so great a man; For they first made the Canons themselves, Can. 4, 12. and out of them they framed an Article, by virtue whereof they deprived Athanasius. And herein lay the Art of the Eusebian party, for if they had framed the Canon so as it is extant in (e)(e)Pallad. vit. Chrysost. p. …8.Palladius, it would never have passed the Council; For it was not a Council of mere Arians, as is commonly thought, but of many (f)(f)Hilar. de Synod. p. 227, 228.Orthodox Bishops, together with them who in some things were overreached by the Artifices of the Eusebian party; And they did not meet purposely against Athanasius; But 97 (g)(g)Athanas. de Synod.Bishops were summon'd by the Emperour to meet at the solemn Dedication of the great Church at Antioch called Dominicum Aureum; (h)(h)Phot. Bibliot. Cod. 257.as they had done before on the like occasion at Jerusalem; And (i)(i)Euseb. l. 10. c. 3.Eusebius saith, Such Assemblies of Bishops were frequent at such times. These, being met together, framed several Canons, for the better Ordering and Government of the Churches, out of which, being passed by general Consent, the Eusebians, who hated Athanasius, framed sufficient Articles against him. For, by the fourth Canon, if a Bishop, being deposed by a Synod, doth officiate, he is never to be restored; By the twelfth, If a Bishop deposed, makes Application to the Emperour, and not to a greater Council of Bishops, he is not to be restored. But now Athanasius, being deposed by the Tyrian Synod, was restored upon his Application to the Emperour, without p. 139any Synod called to that end, and did execute his Office as Bishop of Alexandria; and for this reason, the Council of Antioch confirmed his Deposition.

A (k)(k)Schelstraet. de Concil. Antioch. dissert. 5. c. 3.late Authour goes about to prove, That the Canon against Athanasius did not pass the Council of Antioch, but that it passed an Assembly of 40 Eusebians, when the rest were gone: But this is incredible (as (l)(l)Baron. A. D. 341. n. 5.Baronius his Conceit is ridiculous, who takes the 36 Mansions that Antioch was distant from Alexandria for 36 Arian Bishops) and there is no Testimony of Antiquity to prove it. But there is no reason to imagine any other Canon against Athanasius besides these two, for they effectually did his business. That which Palladius saith, That in the Canon it was said, whether the Bishop were deposed justly or unjustly is very improbable; But that which gave occasion for him to say so was, because the ancient Canon called Apostolical 28. had in it the word foreign, justly, which they left out, the better to effect their Design; That so the merits of the Cause might not be enquired into. But there was an Errour in the first Instance committed, not by the Council of Antioch, but by that of Tyre; unless the extraordinary Summons of that Council by the Emperour's Command, as (m)(m)Euseb. vit. Constant. l. 4. c. 41, 42.Eusebius saith, be a dispensation, as to the regular Proceedings in common Cases; But there was scarce any thing regular in the Proceeding of that Council; For, according to the Rules of the Church, this Cause ought to have been heard in Egypt, by the Bishops there; And they justly complain of the Neglect of this in their (n)(n)Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 726, &c.Synodical Epistle; And (o)(o)Concil. Labb. To. 2. p. 778.Liberius made a reasonable Proposition to Constantius; That a Council might be summoned at Alexandria; That this Cause, which had given so much disturbance, should be heard upon the Place, all Parties being present. Which was the best Expedient at last; But the most natural way was to have begun there; And therefore the Sardican Council did very well to reduce the Nicene Canon about proceeding within the Province in the first Instance.

(2.) If the Party be grieved at the Sentence passed against him, then that there be a re-hearing of it granted, Can. 2. This the Council of Antioch allow'd p. 140Can. 12. by a greater Synod of Bishops, but takes away all hopes of Restitution from him that made his Appeal to the Emperour. The meaning of the Canon is, not to exclude an Address for a greater Synod; but an Appeal, to have the Emperour reverse the Sentence, without any farther hearing by another Assembly of Bishops. So that the final resort was hereby settled in a greater Council, from which no Appeal should lie. This Canon is supposed to be particularly design'd against Athanasius; But I do not find that he made Application to the Emperour to be restored with a Non-obstante to the Sentence of the Tyrian Council; But to have a more indifferent hearing by another Council. So the Bishops of Egypt testify in their Synodical Epistle extant in Athanasius; But their Proceeding against him at Antioch was, because after this he took Possession of his See without another Sentence of a greater Synod; But the great difficulty is, to reconcile this Canon with the fifteenth of the same Council, which takes away all Liberty of Appeal from the unanimous Sentence of a provincial Synod. (p)(p)De Con…ord. l. 7. c. 2. n. 6.Petrus de Marca, a Man of more than ordinary Sagacity in these matters, was sensible of this appearance of Contradiction; and he solves it thus, That no Appeal is allow'd from a provincial Synod, Can. 15. But notwithstanding, by Can. 12. there is a Liberty of proceeding by way of Petition to the Emperour, for a re-hearing the Cause by a greater Synod. And in this Case the Emperour was to be Judge, whether it were fit to grant another hearing or not, and although by this Canon, in the case of a general Consent, no neighbour Bishop could be called in; as they might in case of Difference by Can. 14. Yet if the Emperour thought they proceeded partially, he might either join Bishops of another Province with them, or call a more general Council out of the Province, as Constantine did at Tyre. This was the undoubted Right of the Emperours, to call together Assemblies of Bishops for what Causes they thought expedient. But (q)(q)Socr. l. 2. …. 40.Socrates expresly saith, That no Appeal was allow'd by the Canons of the Church; For speaking of Cyrill of Jerusalem's being deposed, he saith, he appealed to a greater Court of Judicature, which Appeal Constantius p. 141allow'd; but then he adds, That he was the first and onelyonly person who, contrary to the Custome and Canons of the Church, made such an Appeal. H. Valesius contradicts Socrates, because of the Appeal of the Donatists to Constantine from the Council of Arles. But this is nothing to the purpose; for the actions of the Donatists were not regarded; And besides, their Appeal was to Constantine, to hear the Cause himself; But here Cyrill appealed to a greater number of Bishops, according to the Canon of Antioch. And then appear'd at the Council of Seleucia to have his Cause heard. (r)(r)Baron. A.D. 359. n. 75.Baronius is much puzzled with this Expression of Socrates, because it would take away Appeals to the Pope; But the Eastern Bishops never understood any such thing; And Cyrill made his Appeal to a greater Synod. The Canons of Sardica, which Baronius quotes, were not received and scarce known in the Eastern Church. Athanasius fled to the Western Bishops, because he was so ill used in the East, not because of any Authority in the Bishop of Rome to receive Appeals. But Cyrill went according to the Canons of Antioch, making application to Constantius to be heard, by a greater Synod. (s)(s)Sozom. l. 4. c. 16.Sozomen saith, that Constantius recommended the Cause of Cyrill to the Council of Ariminum; But that cannot be, since (t)(t)Hilar. in Fragm. l. 2. p. 44, 45.he expresly forbad the Western Bishops in that Council to meddle with the Causes of the Eastern Bishops; And declares, whatever they did in that matter should have no effect. Therefore the Council to which Constantius referred this Cause, must be that of Seleucia, which was assembled at the same time. Which seeming to take off from the Right of Provincial Synods established in the Council of Nice, Socrates condemns as uncanonical, and saith, He was the first that proceeded in this method of seeking to the Emperour for a greater Council.

But then, (3.) The Council of Sardica made an Innovation in this matter. For although it allows the liberty of a re-hearing, yet it seems to take away the Power of granting it from the Emperour, as far as in them lay, and gives it to Julius, Bishop of Rome, for the honour of St. Peter; And, if he thought sit, he was to appoint the Neighbour Bishops of the Province to hear p. 142it, and such Assessours as the Emperour was wont to send. To which was added, Can. 4. That no Bishop should enter into the vacant Bishoprick upon a deposition, and application for a new hearing; till the Bishop of Rome had given Sentence in it: But then, Can. 5. it is said, That if the Cause be thought fit to be re-heard, Letters are to be sent from him to the neighbour Bishops to hear and examine it. But if this do not satisfie, he may doe as he sees cause. Which I take to be the full meaning of Can. 5. And this is the whole Power which the Council of Sardica gives to the Bishop of Rome.

Concerning which we are to observe, (1.) That it was a new thing; for if it had been known before, that the supreme Judgment in Ecclesiastical Causes lay in the Bishop of Rome, These Canons had been idle and impertinent. And there is no colour in Antiquity for any such judicial Power in the Bishop of Rome, as to re-hearing of causes of deposed Bishops before these Canons of Sardica; So that (v)(v)De Concord. l. 7. c. 3. n. 6.Petrus de Marca was in the right, when he made these the foundation of the Pope's Power. And if the Right of Appeal be a necessary consequent from the Pope's Supremacy; Then the non-usage of this practice before, will overthrow the claim of Supremacy. In extraordinary Cases, the great Bishops of the Church were wont to be advised with; as St. Cyprian, as well as the Bishop of Rome, in the Cases of Basilides and Marcianus; But if such Instances prove a right of Appeals, they will doe it as much for the Bishop of Carthage as of Rome. But there was no standing Authority peculiar to the Bishop of Rome given or allow'd before this Council of Sardica. And the learned Publisher of (w)(w)Tom. 2. dissert. 5. c. 14, &c.Leo's Works hath lately proved at large, That no one Appeal was ever made from the Churches of Gaul, from the beginning of Christianity there to the Controversie between Leo, and Hilary of Arles, long after the Council of Sardica. But such an Authority being given by a particular Council upon present Circumstances, as appears by mentioning Julius Bishop of Rome, cannot be binding to posterity, when that limited Authority is carried so much farther, as to be challenged for an absolute and supreme Power founded upon a Divine Right, and not upon the Act of p. 143the Council. For herein the difference is so great, that one can give no colour or pretence for the other. (2.) That this doth not place the Right of Appeals in the Bishop of Rome, as Head of the Church; But onelyonly transfers the Right of granting a re-hearing from the Emperour to the Bishop of Rome. And whether they could doe that or not is a great Question; But in all probability Constantius his openly favouring the Arian Party was the occasion of it. (3.) That this can never justifie the drawing of Causes to Rome by way of Appeal; because the Cause is still to be heard in the Province, by the neighbour Bishops, who are to hear and examine all Parties, and to give Iudgment therein. (4.) That the Council of Sardica it self took upon it to judge over again a Cause which had been judged by the Bishop of Rome, viz. The Cause of Athanasius and his Brethren. Which utterly overthrows any Opinion in them, That the supreme Right of Judicature was lodged in the Bishop of Rome. (5.) That the Sardican Council cannot be justified by the Rules of the Church, in receiving Marcellus into Communion. For not onelyonly the Eastern Bishops in their Synodical Epistle say, That he was condemned for Heresie by the Council at Constantinople in Constantine's time, and that Protogenes of Sardica and others of the Council had subscribed to his Condemnation; But (x)(x)Suipit. Sever. l. 2.Athanasius himself afterwards condemned him; And (y)(y)Basil. Ep. 50.St. Basil blames the Church of Rome for admitting him into Communion: And (z)(z)Bar. A. D. 347. n. 55. n. 61.Baronius confesses, that this brought a great disreputation upon this Council, viz. the absolving one condemned for Heresie, both before and after that Absolution. (6.) That the Decrees of this Council were not universally received, as is most evident by the known Contest between the Bishops of Rome and Africa about Appeals. If these Canons had been then received in the Church, it is incredible that they should be so soon forgotten in the African Churches; For there were but two Bishops of Carthage, Restitutus and Genethlius between Gratus and Aurelius. (a)(a)Christian. Lup. in Can. Sardic. p. 215.Christianus Lupus professes he can give no account of it. But the plain and true account is this, There was a Design for a General Council; But the Eastern and Western Bishops p. 144parting so soon, there was no regard had by the whole Church to what was done by one side or the other. And so little notice was taken of their Proceedings, that (b)(b)Aug. c Cresc. l. 3. c. 34.St. Augustine knew of no other than the Council of the Eastern Bishops; and even (c)(c)Nic. Fabric. Opusc. p. 39.Hilary himself makes their Confession of Faith to be done by the Sardican Council. And the calling of Councils was become so common then, upon the Arian Controversies; And the Deposition of Bishops of one side and the other were so frequent, that the remoter Churches very little concerned themselves in what passed amongst them. Thence the Acts of most of those Councils are wholly lost, as at Milan, Sirmium, Arles, Beziers, &c. onelyonly what is preserved in the Fragments of Hilary, and the Collections of Athanasius, who gathered many things for his own vindication. But as to these Canons, they had been utterly forgotten, if the See of Rome had not been concerned to preserve them; But the Sardican Council, having so little Reputation in the World; The Bishops of that See endeavoured to obtrude them on the World, as the Nicene Canons. Which was so inexcusable a piece of Ignorance or Forgery, that all the Tricks and Devices of the Advocates of that See, have never been able to defend.