The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 2 · Chapter 6

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 2 · Chapter 6

p. 422CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop.

In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity. A threefold acceptation of it; as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches, which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity, besides the Bishop of Rome, as is largely proved. 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire. This accounted then Oecumenical, thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops: and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches. 3. Nothing Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it, so never given in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome. The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon, about the Popes Supremacy. Of the Grammatical and Metaphorical sense of this Title. Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gregory should understand it in the Grammatical sense. The great absurdities consequent upon it. S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it which is admitted in the Church of Rome. Of Irenaeus his opposition to Victor. Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops, argues no authority he had over them. What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is. Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated. The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Roman Empire. The Pope no Infallible successor of S. Peter, nor so acknowledged to be by Epiphanius. S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles.

§. 1HIs Lordship having undertaken to give an account, How the Popes rose by degrees to their Greatness under the Christian Emperours; in prosecution of that, necessarily falls upon the Title of Vniversal Bishop affected by John the Patriarch of Constantinople, and condemned by Pelagius 1. and Gregory 2. This you call a trite and beaten way, because I suppose the truth is so plain and evident in it; but withall, you tell us, This Objection hath been satisfied a hundred times over; if you had said, the same Answer had been repeated so often over, you had said true; but if you say, that it hath been satisfied once, you say more than you are able to defend, as will evidently appear by your very unsatisfactory Answer, which at last you give to it. So that if none of your party have been any wiser than your self in this matter; I am so far from being satisfied with what they say, that I can only pitty those persons, whose interest swayes their understandings p. 423so much (or at least their expressions) as to make them say any thing that seems to be for their purpose, though in it self never so senseless or unreasonable. And I can scarce hold my self from saying with the Oratour, when a like Objection to this was offered him, because multitudes had said so, Quasi verò quidquam sit tam valdè, quàm nihil sapere, vulgare, That truth and reason are the greatest Novelties in the world. For seriously, Were it possible for men of common understanding, to rest satisfied with such pitiful shifts as you are fain to make, if they would but use any freedom in enquiring, and any liberty of judging when they had done? But when once men have given (not to say sold away) the exercise of their free reason, by addicting themselves to a particular interest, there can scarce any thing be imagined so absurd, but it passeth currently from one to another, because they are bound to receive all blindfold, and in the same manner to deliver it to others. By which means it is an easie matter, for the greatest nonsense and contradictions to be said a hundred times over. And, Whether it be not so in the present case, is that we are now to enquire into. And for the same ends which you propose to your self, viz. that all obscurity may be taken away, and the truth clearly appear; I shall in the first place set down, What his Lordship saith, and then distinctly examine What you reply in Answer to it. Thus then his Lordship proceeds. About this time brake out the ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople, affecting to be Vniversal Bishop. P. 178.He was countenanced in this by Mauricius the Emperour, but sowrely opposed by Pelagius, and S. Gregory: Insomuch that S. Gregory plainly sayes, That this Pride of his shews that the times of Antichrist were near. L. 4. ep. 78.So as yet (and this was near upon the point of six hundred years after Christ) there was no Vniversal Bishop; no one Monarch over the whole Militant Church. But Mauricius being deposed and murthered by Phocas; Phocas conferred upon Boniface the third, that very Honour which two of his predecessors had declaimed against as monstrous and blasphemous, if not Antichristian. Where, by the way, either these two Popes, Pelagius and S. Gregory erred in this weighty business, about an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church: Or, if they did not erre, Boniface and the rest, which after him took it upon them, were in their very predecessors judgement Antichristian. Before you come to a particular Answer, you think it necessary to make a way for it, by premising two things. 1. That the Title of Vniversal Bishop, was anciently attributed to the Bishops of Rome;P. 196. n. 1, … but they never made use of it. 2. That the ancient Bishops of Constantinople never intended by this usurped Title, to deny the Popes Vniversal Authority, even over themselves. These two things I shall therefore consider, because they tend much to the clearing the main Controversie. I begin therefore with the Title of Vniversal Bishop attributed to the Bishop of Rome; and before I answer your particular allegations, we must more fully consider, in what sense that title of Vniversal Bishops was taken in Antiquity, and in what manner it was attributed to him. For when titles have different senses, and those senses evidently made use of by the ancient Writers, it is a most unreasonable thing meerly from the title to inferr one determinate sense, which is the most contrary to the current of Antiquity. The title then of Vniversal Bishop, may be conceived to import one of these three things. 1. A general care and solicitude over all the Churches of the Christian world. 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Empire. 3. Vniversal Jurisdiction over all Churches, so that all exercise of it in the Church is derivative from him as Vniversal Pastor and Head of the Church. This last is that which p. 424you attribute to the Pope; and though you find the name of Vniversal Bishop a hundred times over, in the records of the Church, yet if it be taken in either of the two former senses, it makes nothing at all to your purpose. Our business is therefore now, to shew, that this title was used in the Church in the two former senses; and that nothing from hence can be inferred for that Oecumenical Pastorship, which you say, doth, of Divine Right, belong to the Bishop of Rome.

§. 2.I begin with the first, as this Title may import a general care and solicitude over all the Christian Churches: and I deny not but in this sense this title might be attributed in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome; but then I assert, that nothing peculiar to him can be inferred from hence, because expressions importing the same care, are attributed to other Bishops, especially such who were placed in the greater Sees, or were active in promoting the Churches interest. For which we must consider, that power and authority in the Bishops of the Church, is given with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church; so that if it were possible that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church, they have authority enough by their Function to do it. But it not only being impossible that every Bishop should do it, but it being inconsistent with peace and order, that all should undertake it; therefore it was necessary that there should be some restraints and bounds set, for the more convenient management of that authority which they had. From hence came the Original of particular Dioceses, that within such a compass they might better exercise that power which they enjoyed. As if many lights be placed in a great Room, though the intention of every one of these is to give light to the whole Room; yet that this might the better be done, these lights are conveniently placed in the several parts of it. And this is that which S. Cyprian means in that famous expression of his, That there is but one Bishoprick in the whole world, a part of which is held by every Bishop; For the Church in common is designed as the Diocese of all Bishops, which is set out into several appartiments for the more advantagious governing of it. As a flock of many thousand sheep, being committed to the care of many Shepherds, these all have an eye to the good of the whole Flock, but do not therefore sit altogether in one place to over-see it; but every one hath his share to look after, for the benefit of the Whole: But yet so, that upon occasion, one of them may extend his care beyond his own division, and may be very useful for the whole, by counsel and direction. Thus we shall find it was in the Primitive Church; though every Bishop had his particular Charge, yet still they regarded the common good of the whole Church, and upon occasion did extend their counsel and advice far beyond their particular Churches; and exercised their Functions in other places besides those, which the Churches convenience had allotted to them. Hence it was, that, dissentions arising between the Asian and Roman Churches, Polycarp comes to Rome, and there,Euseb. l. 5. cap. 24. Not. in l. as Eusebius from Irenaeus tells us, He exercised with Anicetus his consent, his Episcopal Function. For, as Valesius observes, it cannot be understood, as Franciscus Florens would have it, of his receiving the Eucharist from Anicetus, but something of honour is implied in the word foreign, whereas there was nothing but what was common in the other. Hence the several Epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and others, for the advising, confirming,Euseb. l. 4. c. 25 and settling Churches. Hence Irenaeus concerned himself so much in the business between Victor and the Asian Churches, either to prevent, or repeal his sentence of Excommunication against them. Hence p. 425S. Cyprian writes into Spain about the deposing Basilides and Martialis, Cyprian. ep. 68two Apostatizing Bishops, and checks Stephen Bishop of Rome, for his inconsiderate restoring them. Hence, Faustus Bishop of Lyons writes to S. Cyprian, in the case of Martianus of Arles, Cypr. ep. 67.and he writes to Stephen as being nearer, and more concerned in the business of Novatianism (for the honour of his predecessors) in order to his Deposition; yet so, as he looks on it as a common cause belonging to them all (cui rei nostrum est consulere & subvenire, frater charissime) in which they were all bound to advise and help. Hence S. Cyprian writes to the Bishop of Rome, as his Brother and Colleague, without the least intimation of deriving any Jurisdiction from him, but often expressing that charge which was committed to every Bishop, which he must look to as mindful of the account he must give to God. Hence Nazianzen saith of S. Cyprian, Nazian. Orat. 18. p. 281.That he not only governed the Churches of Carthage and Africa, but all the Western parts, and even almost all the Eastern, Southern, and Northern too, as far as his fame went. Athanas. Ap. ad Imp. Const. p. 786. Tom 1. Nazianz. Orat. 21. p. 392. Basil. ep. 52. Tom. 3. p. 79. Chrysost. Tom. 5. p. 631. ed Savil.Hence Arsenius writes to Athanasius, We embrace Peace and Vnity with the Catholick Church, over which thou, through the Grace of God, dost preside. Hence Gregory Nazianzen saith of Athanasius, That he made Laws for the whole earth. Hence S. Basil writes to him, That he had care of all the Churches, as of his own; and in the same Epistle calls him, The Head and chief over all. Hence S. Chrysostome in the praise of Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch, saith, That he was instructed by the Divine Spirit, that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set, but of the whole Church throughout the world. Hence came the great endeavours of Theophilus and Cyril, Patriarchs of Alexandria, Hieron. ep. 71. Ruffin. l. 11. c. 27, 30, 31.of Eusebius Vercellensis, Hilarius Pictaviensis, and several others, for rooting out of Heresies; not confining themselves to those Provinces allotted to them, but extending their care over other Churches. Theodoret. l. 5. c. 4.Hence came frequent ordinations of persons out of their own Dioceses, as of Paulinus at Antioch by Lucifer Caralitanus, of many Bishops in Syria and Mesopotamia by Eusebius Samosatenus; and of a Presbyter at Bethleem by Epiphanius; who when he was quarrel'd at by John of Hierusalem for it,Hieron. ep. 60 he defends his action by this saying, That, In Sacerdotio Dei nulla est diversitas, i. e. whereever a Bishop was, he might exercise his power as such, although the Churches prudence had set limits to their ordinary Jurisdiction. From these things then we see, that a general care and solicitude of the Vniversal Church, doth belong to every Bishop, and that some of them have been expresly said to have had the care of the whole Church, which in other terms is to say, They were Vniversal Bishops. So that from this sense of the Title, you gain nothing to your purpose, though the care of the Vniversal Church be attributed to the Bishop of Rome, though he acts and calls Councils, and orders other things out of his own Province, yet all this proves not the Supremacy you intend; for this is no more than other Bishops did, whom you will not acknowledge to be Heads of the Church, or Vniversal Bishops in that sense.

2. An Vniversal Bishop denotes a peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire: For which, two things will be sufficient to manifest it.§. 3. 1. That the Roman Empire was then accounted Vniversal. 2. That some Bishops in the Great Churches, were on that account called Oecumenical or Vniversal Bishops. 1. That the Roman Empire was then accounted Vniversal; for which multitudes of testimonies might be cited, in which orbis Romanus, and orbis humanus were looked on as Synonymous; thence Trebellius Pollio in Macrianus, qui ex diversis partibus orbis Romani restituant: p. 426and as Salmasius witnesseth in those writers of the Imperial History;Not. in Hist. August. p. 306 most of the ancient M S S. for orbis Romanus have orbis humanus; for, as he saith, Eâ gloriâ fuerunt Romani, ut totum orbem suum vocarent; hinc orbis Romanus passim apud auctores reperitur pro universo orbe; thence they called the Roman people, omnium gentium victorem; and from hence Ammianus Marcellinus calls Rome, Amm. Marcel. l. 14. l. 16.caput mundi (the head of the world) and the Roman Senate, Asylum mundi totius (the Sanctuary for the whole world;) thence Spartianus saith of Severus, Spartian. in Severo.orbem terrarum Romam que despexit, when, as Casaubon observes, he speaks only of the Roman Provinces. And from hence, whatever was out of the Roman Empire, was called Barbaria, thence the rura vicina Barbariae in Lampridius, Lamprid. in Alex. Sev. Marcel. l. 18. Justel. Not. in Cod. Afric. Can. 58.for the Marches which lay next to the enemies Country; thence Marcellinus, visus est in Barbarico miles, and in the Imperial Constitutions, as Justellus observes, Barbari vocantur; quicun que Imperio Romano non parebant (all were called barbarous out of the Roman Empire) and in the same sense barbaricum is used in the 58. Canon of the African Code, and in the 206. Canon of the Code of the Vniversal Church, that the Bishops foreign,Cod. Eccles. Uni Can. 206. & ibi Justel. i. e. out of the Roman Empire, should be ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Now, since the Roman Empire was called orbis Romanus, and in Greek, foreign, (as appears, in that Augusius, Luk. 2.1. is said to tax foreign, the whole world, which could be only the Roman Empire; and the famine in the same, is said to be foreign, Act. 11.28.) it is no wonder if these Bishops who enjoyed the greatest dignity in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical; and those Councils so too, which consisted of the Bishops within those bounds. I come therefore to the second thing, That some Bishops in the Great Churches in the Roman Empire, were called Oecumenical, as that relates to the foreign, viz. the Roman Empire. For which we may consider, the primary ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople, was the greatness of the City, as is undeniably manifest by the proceedings of the Councils of Constantinople, and Chalcedon about him; wherein it was decreed, since that was New-Rome, that it should enjoy equal priviledges with the old. And in all probability the ground of the Patriarch of Constantinople's usurping the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness of his City, which at the time of the contest between Pope Gregory, and him, was in a better condition than Rome it self; being the seat of the Empire, and therefore he thought it suitable thereto, to be called Oecumenical Patriarch. But besides this peculiarity of Constantinople, it was no unusual thing for the Bishop of the Patriarchal Churches, to have expressions given them, tantamount to the title of Vniversal Bishop in any sense but that of the Vniversal Jurisdiction; which I shall prove as to the three Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. First, Of Alexandria: So Greg. Nazianzen saith of Athanasius, foreign. Nazianzen. 21. p. 377.being made Bishop there, he had the Government of that people committed to him, which is as much as to say, of the whole world; and John of Hierusalem,Tu quidem ut homo Dei & Apostolicâ …rnatus gratiâ curam omnium Ecclesiarum sustines. Apud Hieronym. ad Pammach. To. 2. ep. 61. c. 15. writing to Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, saith, That he had the care of all the Churches. And St. Basil writes to Athanasius about the establishing of Meletius as Patriarch of Antioch, foreign. Basil. ep. 50.that so he might govern as it were the whole body of the Church. But most clear and full to that purpose is the testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius p. 427being made Patriarch of Constantinople. He was intrusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople,foreign. Theodoret. haeret. fabul. l. 4. c. 12. p. 245. To. …. oper. and thereby of the whole world. What work would you make with so illustrious a testimony in Antiquity for the Bishop of Rome as this is for the Patriarch of Constantinople? Use therefore and interpret but these testimonies as kindly as you do any for the Roman See, and will you not find as large a power over the Church attributed to the other Patriarchs as you do to the Bishop of Rome? What is it then you would infer from the title of Vniversal Bishop being attributed to him? Will the very title do more then what is signified by it? Or must it of necessity import something more when given to the Bishop of Rome then it doth when given to other Bishops? if it doth, you must prove it from some other Arguments, and not barely from the title being attributed to them. Thus you see, though the title were granted to be attributed to him, there is nothing new, nothing peculiar in it.

But we must further examine, Who they are that attribute this title to him, and what the account is of their doing it. For this,§. 4. you cite the Council of Chalcedon in a letter inserted in the Acts of it, P. 196.the Council of Constantinople sub Mena, John Bishop of Nicopolis, Constantinus Pogonatus the Emperour, Basil the yonger, and Balsamon himself. To the first I Answer. 1. That this title was not given by the Council of Chalcedon. 2. If it had, no more was given to the Bishop of Rome, then to the Bishops of other Patriarchal Churches. 1. That this title was not given by the General Council of Chalcedon; this I know Gregory 1. in his Epistles about this subject repeats usque ad nauseam, that the title of Vniversal Bishop was offered to the Bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon and that he refused it; but there is as little evidence for the one as the other. That the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was attributed to the Bishop of Rome by some Papers read and received in that Council I deny not, but we must consider the persons who did it, and the occasion of it. The persons were such who came to inform the Council against Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria, Concil. Chalced. Act. 3. part 3. p. 243.Acts 3and they were no other then Athanasius a Presbyter, Theodorus and Ischyrion two Deacons, and Sophronius a Laick of Alexandria: now these persons not in a letter (as you relate it) but in their bills exhibited to the Council against Dioscorus give that title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Archbishop to Leo the Bishop of Rome. And is this now the offer made of the title of Vniversal Bishop by the Council of Chalcedon? But you say, This was inserted into the Acts of the Council? I grant it was, but on what account? not with any respect to the title, but as containing the Accusations against Dioscorus. But where do any of the Bishops of that Council attribute that title to Leo? which of them mentions it in their subscriptions to the Deposition of Dioscorus, though many of them speak expresly of Leo and Anatolius together with the same titles of honour to them both. Why did not the Council superscribe their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo with that title? so indeed Binius rather supposes they should have done,Bin. not. in Chalced. Con. Tom. 3. Concil. p. 562. then proves they ever did it: and that only from Gregories Epistle (not Leo's as he mistakes it) to Eulogius where he mentions this offer, but upon what grounds we have seen already. But suppose, 2. We should grant, that the Council of Chalcedon should have offered the title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome; there are none who understand any thing of the nature of that title, or the proceedings of that Council, who can imagine p. 428they should intend any acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy by it. For the title it self as to the importance of it was common to other Bishops, especially of the Patriarchal Sees, as I have proved by some instances already, and might do yet by more; but I shall content my self with the ingenuous confession of Sim. Vigorius; That when the Western Fathers, Et harum rerum ignari Andabatae nostri, non advertunt, cum Occidentales Patres, Pontifices Romanos vocant, universalis Ecclesiae Episcopos, id more suarum Ecclesiarum facere, & eâ notione, non quod putent totius orbis universalis, universales esse Episcopos, sed eâdem quâ Constantinopolitanus, Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus, dicuntur Universales: aut ut universales Ecclesiarum quae sunt sub eorum Patriarchatu: aut quod in Conciliis Oecumenicis toti Ecclesiae praesint. Vigorius Comment. ad Resp. Synodal. Concil. Basil. p. 36.call the Roman Bishops, Bishops of the Vniversal Church, they do it from the custome of their Churches, not that they look on them as Vniversal Bishops of the whole Church, but in the same sense that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, are call'd so; or as they are Vniversal over the Churches under their Patriarchate; or that in Oecumenical Councils they preside over the whole Church. And after acknowledgeth, that the title of Vniversal or Oecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy in the Church. And if it doth not so when given by the Western Fathers, much less certainly when given by the Eastern, especially those who met in the Council of Chalcedon; For it is evident by their 16 Session, the 28 Canon, and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo, they designed the advancement of the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome. And therefore if they gave the Pope the title of Oecumenical Patriarch, or Bishop, it was that he might be willing that the Patriarch of Constantinople might be call'd so too. And if, as Gregory saith, the Bishops of Rome would not accept the title of Vniversal Bishop, the truest account I know of it, is, lest the Patriarch of Constantinople should share with him in it; but we see when the great Benefactor to your Church the Benigne Phocas, as Gregory himself styles him, gave it to the Bishop of Rome alone, then hands and heart and all were ready to receive it. And I much fear Leo 1. and St. Gregory himself would have been shrewdly tempted to receive it, if it had been offered them upon those terms, that no one else should have it besides them; but they scorned it till they could have it alone. And for all their declamations against the pride of Anatolius and John, Patriarchs of Constantinople, they must look very favourably on the actions of those two Popes, that discern not their own Pride in condemning of them for it. For usually men shew it as much in suspecting or condemning others for it, as in any other way whatsoever. Thus it was in these persons; they thought the Patriarchs of Constantinople proud and arrogant, because they sought to be equal with them. But, Was it not their own greater Pride, that they were able to bear no equals? and it is to be feared, it was their desire to advance their own Supremacy which made them quarrel so much with Anatolius, and John, and Cyriacus. For would they but have been contented to truckle under the Roman Bishops they had been accounted very meek and humble men. And St. Gregory himself, would not sure have thought much to have call'd them so, who most abominably flatters that monster Phocas, after the murder of Mauricius and his Children: for he begins his Epistle to him with, Gloria in excelsis Deo: Glory to God on high, Greg. l. 11. ep. 36. Ind. 6.who, according to what is written, changes times and transfers Kingdomes: and after, in such notorious flattering expressions congratulates his coming to the Throne, that any one who reads them would think Phocas the greater Saint; he rejoyces, that the benignity of his piety was advanced to the Imperial Throne, nay (laetentur coeli & exultet terra) let the heavens rejoyce and the earth be glad, and all the people which p. 429hath been hitherto in much affliction, revive at the benignity of your actions. O rare Phocas! Could he do any less then pronounce the Bishop of Rome Vniversal Bishop after this, when poor Cyriacus at Constantinople suffered for his opposing him for the execrable murder of his Master? Therefore these proceedings of Leo and Gregory yield shrewd matter of suspicion, what the main ground of their quarrel against the Patriarchs of Constantinople was. For before, the Emperours stood up for the honour of Constantinople as being the seat of their Empire, and Rome began to sink, the Empire decaying there; but now, there was a fit time to do something for the honour of the Roman See; Cyriacus was in disgrace with the Tyrant Phocas; and no such time as now to fall in with him and caresse him: and we see Gregory did it prety well for a Saint, but he lived not to enjoy the benefit of it; but Boniface did however.

After the Patriarchate of Constantinople was erected,§. 5. the Popes had a double game to play, to advance themselves, and depress that, which it was very hard for them to do, because all the Eastern Bishops, as well as the Emperour favoured it. But after equal priviledges were decreed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome, by the Council of Constantinople, they could no longer dissemble their choler; but had no such occasion ministred to them to express it as after the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, (wherein were present 630 Bishops) which confirmed the former. For then Leo fumes and frets and writes to Martianus, and Pulcheria, to Anatolius and the Bishops of the East; but still pretends that he stood up for the priviledges of the other Patriarchs and the Nicene Canons, and what not? but one might easily discern what it was that pinched him, viz. the equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople with himself. Which it is apparent he suspected before, by the instructions he gave his Legats Paschasinus and Lucentius, to be sure to oppose whatever was proposed in the Council concerning the Primacy of that See. And accordingly they did; and complained that the Canon was surreptitiously made. Which they were hugely overseen in doing while the Council sat, for upon this the whole matter is reviewed, the Judges scan the business, the Bishops protest there were no practises used; that they all voluntarily consented to it; and all this in the presence of the Roman Legats? How comes it then to pass that this should not be a regular and Conciliar action? Were not the Bishops at age to understand their own priviledges? Did not the Bishop of Antioch know his own interest as well as Pope Leo? Must he be supposed more able to understand the Nicene Canons then these 630 Bishops? Why then was not this Canon as regular as any other. Why forsooth, The Pope did not consent to it. So true is that sharp censure of Ludovicus Vives, that, those are accounted lawful Canons and Councils which make for their interest, Itaque illa demum eis videntur edicta & concilia quae in rem suam faciunt, reliqua non pluris aestimanda, quam conventum muliercularum in textrinâ vel thermis. Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civit. Dei I. 20. cap. 26.but others are no more esteemed then a company of tattling Gossips. But what made the Pope so angry at this Canon of the Council of Chalcedon? He pretends the honour of the Nicene Canons, the preserving the priviledges of other Patriarchs; But Binius hath told us the true reason of it; because, they say, Bin. not. in Chalced. Con… p. 561.that the Primacy of Rome came, by its being the seat of the Empire; and therefore not by Divine right: and since Constantinople was become the seat of the Empire too, therefore the Patriarch there should enjoy equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome. If Rome had continued still the sole seat of the Empire, this reason would not have been quarrelled at; but now Rome sinking p. 430and Constantinople rising, this must not be endured, but all the arts and devices possible must be used to keep it under. And this is the true account of the pique which the Bishops of Rome had to the Patriarchs of Constantinople: From whence we may easily, guess how probable it is that this Council of Chalcedon did acknowledge the Pope Oecumenical Bishop in any other sense then they contended the Patriarch of Constantinople was so too. And the same answer will serve for all your following Instances. For, as you pretend that the Council of Constantinople sub Menna did call Pope Agapetus Oecumenical Patriarch, so it is most certain that it call'd Mennas the Patriarch of Constantinople so too. And which is more, Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Tharasius of Constantinople in the second Nicene Council calls him Vniversal Bishop. If therefore the Greek Emperours and Balsamon call the Pope so, they import nothing peculiar to him in it, because it is most evident they call'd their own Patriarch so likewise. So that you find little advantage to your cause from this first thing which you premise, viz. that the Pope was anciently call'd Vniversal Bishop. But you say further,P. 196. n. 2. 2. That the Bishops of Constantinople never intended to deny by this usurped title, the Popes Vniversal Authority even over themselves. This is ambiguous, unless it be further explained what you mean by Vniversal Authority; for, it may either note some kind of prae-eminence and dignity which the Bishop of Rome had as the chief Patriarch, and who on that account had great Authority in the Church, and this your instances prove that the Patriarchs of Constantinople did acknowledge to belong to the Pope: but if by Vniversal Authority be meant Vniversal Jurisdiction over the Church as appointed the head of it by Christ, then not one of your instances comes near the shadow of a proof for it.

Thus having considered what you premise, we come to your Answer it self.§. 6. P. 197. n. 3.For which you tell us, We are to take notice, that the term [Vniversal Bishop] is capable of two senses; the one Grammatical, the other Metaphorical. In the Grammatical sense it signifies Bishop of the Vniversal Church, and of all Churches in particular, even to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops; and consequently displaceable at his pleasure; as being only his, not Christs officers; and receiving authority from him, and not from Christ. In the Metaphorical sense, it signifies only so high and eminent a dignity above all other Bishops throughout the whole Church, that though he, who is stiled Vniversal Bishop, hath a true and real Superintendency, Jurisdiction, and Authority over all other Bishops, yet that they be as truly and properly Bishops in their respective Provinces and Dioceses as he himself. This being clear'd (say you) 'tis evident that St. Gregory when he inveighs against the title of Vniversal Bishop, N. 4.takes it in the literal and Grammatical sense; which you very faintly endeavour to prove out of him, as I shall make it presently appear. This being then the substance of that Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over, must now once for all pass a strict and severe examination. Which it shall receive in these two Enquiries, 1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory should take Vniversal Bishop in the literal and Grammatical sense? 2. Whether all the Arguments which he useth against that title, do not hold against that Vniversal Jurisdiction which you attribute to the Pope as Head of the Church?

1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory should take Vniversal Bishop in the literal and Grammatical sense which you give of it? And he which can think so, must have some other way of understanding his meaning then by his words and arguments, which I confess I do not p. 431pretend to. But if we examine them, we shall find how impossible it is that St. Gregory should ever think that John pretended to be the sole Bishop of this world. 1. Because Gregory saith, That same title which John had usurped was offered to the Roman Bishops by the Council of Chalcedon,Greg. ep. l. 4. ep. 32. but none of them would ever use it, because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops. Now I pray think with your self, whether ever 630 Bishops would consent together to give away all their power and Authority in the Church? For you say, The literal sense of Vniversal Bishop doth suppose him to be Bishop of all particular Churches, to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops, and are displaceable at his pleasure. Can it now enter into your mind that Gregory should ever think that these Bishops should all make themselves the Popes Vassals of their own free choice? We see even under the great Vsurpations of the Bishop of Rome since, though they pretend (for all that I can see) to be Oecumenical Bishops in a higher sense then ever John pretended to, that yet the Bishops of the Roman Communion are not willing to submit their office wholly to the Papal Jurisdiction; witness the stout and eager contests of the Spanish Bishops in the Council of Trent about the Divine Institution of the Episcopal office, against the pretences of the Italian Party. And shall we then think when the Pope was far from that power which he hath since Usurped, that such multitude of grave and resolute Bishops should throw their Miters down at the Popes feet and offer him in your literal sense, to be sole Bishop of the World. That they would relinquish their power, which they made no question they had from Christ, and take it up again at the Popes hands? But whether you can imagine this of so many Bishops or no, Can you conceive that Gregory should think so of them? and he must do it, if he took the title of Vniversal Bishop in your literal sense; and yet this Gregory saith,Greg. l. 4. ep. 36 Hoc Vniversitatis nomen oblatum est, That very name of Vniversal Bishop was offered to the Pope by the Council of Chalcedon; Sed nullus unquam Decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano Vocabulo uti consensit. Nothing then can be more plain, then that John took that which the Pope refused. And he that can believe that this title should ever be offered in this literal sense, I despair without the help of Physick to make him believe any thing. 2. This very title was not usurped wholly by John himself, but was given him in a Council at Constantinople. This Gregory confesseth in his Epistle to Eulogius and Anastasius, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, Ibid.that about eight years before, in the time of Pelagius his predecessor, John called a Council at Constantinople in which he endeavours to be called Vniversal Bishop; so Gregory: Greg. ep. l. 4. ep. 34.but he confesseth elsewhere that he effected it. And it appears by the Epistle of Pelagius himself writ on that occasion, that it was more then a meer endeavour, and that they did consent to it; else, Why doth Pelagius say, Quicquid in vestro conventiculo statuistis, Pelag. 2. ep. 8. apud Bin. To. 4▪ Concil.Whatever they had determin'd in their Conventicle (as on this account Pelagius calls it, because it wanted his approbation)? And it is evident from Gregories zealous writing to the other Patriarchs about it, that they did not …ook on themselves as so much concerned about it. Now in this Council which met at Constantinople, Evagr. hist. l. 6. c. 7.which was called together in the case of Gregory the Patriarch of Antioch, all the Patriarchs either by themselves or substitutes were present, as Evagrius tells us, and not only they but several Metropolitans too; now if they had taken this in the literal sense, Can you think they would have yielded to it? Were not they much more concerned about it then either Pelagius or Gregory were? for they were near him, and were sure to live p. 432under this usurped power of his, and to smart by it, if it were so great as you suppose it to be. But it is apparent by their yielding to it, they looked on it, to be sure, not in the Literal sense, and it may be as no more than the Honorary Title of Oecumenical Patriarch.

§. 7.3. How comes it to pass, that none of the successors of John and Cyriacus did ever challenge this Title in the Literal sense of it? For we do not see that they quitted it, for all Phocas gave it to Pope Boniface, since by your own confession, in the Greek Canon-Law, Sisinnius, German, Constantine, Alexius, and others are called Oecumenical Patriarchs: And it appears by the Epistles of Pelagius and Gregory, that was the Title which John had then given him.Ibid. Si summus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen caeteris denegatur, saith Pelagius. Si enim hoc dici licentèr permittitur, honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur, saith Gregory. From which words I think it most probable, that the main ambition of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, was not meerly that they would be called Oecumenical Patriarchs, but that Title should properly belong to them as excluding others from it, which was it that touched the Bishops of Rome to the quick; because then Constantinople flourished, as much as Rome decayed by the oppressions of the Lombards; and Gregory complained of this to Constantia the Empress, that for seven and twenty years together they had lived in Rome, L. 4. ep. 34.inter Longobardorum gladios (among the swords of the Lombards) and this made them so jealous, that the honour of the Roman See was then sinking, and therefore they stickle so much against this Title, and draw all the invididious consequences from it possible, the better to set the other Patriarchs against it; and because that would not extend far beyond the Patriarchs themselves, they pretend likewise, that this was to make himself Vniversal Bishop. But not certainly in your Literal sense; for then Gregory would have objected some actions consequent upon this Title; in depriving Bishops of their Jurisdiction, and displacing some, and putting in others at his pleasure; which you say, is the natural effect of this Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop. But we read of nothing of this nature done either by John or Cyriacus; they acted no more than they did, only enjoyed a higher Title. And this is proved further,

4. By the carriage of the Emperour Mauricius in this business. Gregory writes a pitiful moaning Letter to him about it, and uses all the Rhetorick he had to perswade the Emperour, that he would either flectere, or coercere, incline, or force him to lay aside that arrogant Title: But for all this it appears by Gregory's Letter to the Empress, That the Emperour had checked him for medling in it, and was so far from opposing the Patriarchs Title,Triste mihi aliquid sere…issimus Dominus innuit, quòd non eum corripuit qui superbit, sed me magis ab intentione med declinare studuit. Greg. l. 4. ep. 34. that in effect he bid him trouble himself no more about it: Which poor S. Gregory took very ill. And afterwards, when Cyriacus succeeded John in Constantinople, the Emperour being somewhat fearful, lest Gregory at the coming in of a new Patriarch, might, on the account of this new Title, deny his Communicatory Letters, he dispatches a Letter to him to quicken him about it. And he takes it very unkindly that the Emperour should suspect his indiscretion so much, that for the sake of this Title, which he saith,Greg. l. 6. ep 30. had sorely wounded him, he should deny Communion in the Faith with him; and yet in the same Epistle saith, That whosoever took the Title of Vniversal Bishop upon him, was a forerunner of Antichrist. But if this name had been apprehended in that which you call, The Literal and Grammatical sense, Would not the Emperour (being commended by Gregory too for p. 433his Piety) have rather encouraged him in it? where as he plainly tells him, It was a contest about a frivolous name, and nothing else; De quâ re mihi in suis jussionibus pietas praecepit dicens, ut pro appellatione frivoli nominis inter nos scandalum generari non debeat. Greg. ibid. Sed rogo ut imperiatis pietas penset, quia alia sunt frivola valdè innoxia, alia valdè nociva. Ibid.and that there ought to be no scandal among them about it. Upon which Gregory is put to his distinctions of two sorts of frivolous things, some that are very harmless, and some that are very hurtful, i. e. frivolous things are either such as are frivolous,, or such as are not; for, Who ever imagined, that such things as are very hurtful, are frivolous? But however, S. Gregory speaks excellent sense; for his meaning is, that the Title it self may be frivolous, but the consequences of it may be dreadful, and so we have found it since his time. So that this appears to be the true state of the business between them; the Patriarch of Constantinople, he challengeth the Title of Oecumenical Patritriarch or Bishop, as belonging of right to him, being Patriarch of the chief Seat of the Empire, but in the mean time challengeth no Vniversal Jurisdiction by virtue of this Title: On which account the Emperour and Eastern Bishops admit of it: On the other side, the Bishops of Rome, partly looking at their own interest in it (for so it appears by one of Gregory's Epistles to the Emperour, that he suspected it to be his own interest which he stood so much up for) and partly foreseeing the dangerous consequences of this,Nunquid ego hâc in re pessime Domine propriam causam desendo? nunquid specialem injuriam vindico? Id. l. 4. ep. 32. if Vniversal Jurisdiction were challenged with it, they resolutely oppose it, not meerly for the Title sake, but for that which might follow upon that Title, taking it not in your Literal, but in your Metaphorical sense, as I shall shew presently. But neither party was so weak and silly, as to apprehend it in your Literal sense; for then neither would the Emperour have sleighted it, nor the Popes opposed it on those terms which they do, and on such grounds which reach your Metaphorical sense.

5. The same Title in the same sense which Gregory opposed it, did Boniface accept of, from the Emperour Phocas. This you confess your self, when you say, That all that Phocas did, P. 199. n. 5.was but to declare that the Title in contest did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome only; therefore the same Title which the Patriarch of Constantinople took to himself before, was both given by Phocas, and taken by Pope Boniface. This then being confessed by you, let me now seriously ask you, Whether the Title of Vniversal Bishop, which Pope Gregory opposed, was to be taken in the Grammatical or Metaphorical sense? Take now, Whether of them you please; if in the Metaphorical, all his arguments hold against the Popes present Vniversal Jurisdiction, by your own confession; if in the Literal and Grammatical, then Pope Boniface had all those things belonging to him, which Gregory condemns that Title for. Then by your own confession Pope Boniface must be the forerunner of Antichrist, he must equal himself to Lucifer in pride, he must have that name of blasphemy upon him, and all those dreadful consequences must attend him and all his followers, who own that Title of Vniversal Bishop, in that which you call the Literal or Grammatical sense of it.

6. Lastly, it appears from S. Gregory himself,§. 6. that the Reasons which he urgeth against the Title of Vniversal Bishop, are such as hold against that which you call the Metaphorical sense of it; which in short is, An Vniversal Pastor exercising Authority and Jurisdiction over the whole Church. And It is scarce possible to imagine, that he should speak more clearly against p. 434such an Vniversal Headship than he doth; and urges such arguments against it, which properly belong to that Metaphorical sense of it. As when he saith to John the Patriarch, What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church in the day of judgement, Tu quid Christo universalis sc. Ecclesiae capiti, in extremi judicii examine dicturus es, qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris universalis appellatione supponere. Greg. l. 4. ep. 38.who dost endeavour to subject all his members to thee, under the name of Vniversal Bishop? What is there in these words which doth not fully belong to your Metaphorical sense of Head of the Church? Doth he not subject all Christs members to him? Doth he not challenge to himself proper Jurisdiction over them? What then will he be able to answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church, as St. Gregory understands it exclusivè of any other? Doth not he arise to that height of singularity, Ad culmen conatus est singularitatis cr…mpere, ut & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus praeesse videretur. Id. ib.that he is subject to none, but rules over all? yet these are the very words he uses; and, Can any more expresly describe your Head of the Church than these do? Yet herein he saith, He imitates the Pride of Lucifer, who, according to St. Gregory, endeavoured to be the Head of the Church Triumphant, as the Pope of the Church Militant. And follows that parallel close, That an Vniversal Bishop imitates Lucifer in exalting his Throne above the Starrs of God: For (saith he) What are all the Brethren the Bishops of the Vniversal Church, Quid enim fratres tui omnes universalis Ecclesiae Episcopi, nisi astra coeli sunt? Ib.but the Starrs of Heaven? and after parallels them with the Clouds, and so this terrestrial Lucifer ascends above the heights of the clouds. And again, saith he, Surely the Apostle Peter, was the first member (not the Head) of the Holy and Vniversal Church. Paul, Andrew, and John, Certè Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae & universalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, Andreas, Johannes, quid aliud quam singularium sunt plebum capita? Et tamen sub uno capite omnes sunt membra Ecclesiae. Ibid.What are they else but the Heads of particular Churches? And yet they are all members of the Church under one Head. Can any thing be more clear against any Head of the Vniversal Church, but Christ himself? when St. Peter is acknowledged to be only a prime member of the Church? How then come his successors to be the Heads of it? And, as he goes on, The Saints before the Law, and under the Law, and under Grace, who all make up the body of our Lord, they were all but members of the Church, and none of them would be called Vniversal. And, I pray, let his Holiness consider his following words, Let your Holiness acknowledge what pride it is to be called by that name, Vestra autem Sanctitas agnoscat, quantum apud se tumeat, quae illo nomine vocari appetit, quo vocari nullus praesumpsit, qui veraciter sanctus fuit. Ibid.which none that was truly holy was ever call'd by. And, Do you think now that these expressions do not as properly reach your Head of the Church, as if they had been spoken by a Protestant against that Doctrine which you all own? What is there in all this, that implies that others should be no Bishops, but only titular? yes, they may be as much Bishops as you acknowledge them to be, i. e. as to their power of Order, but not as to their Jurisdiction. For this, you say and defend, comes from the Head of the Church; or else your Monarchical Government in the Church signifies nothing. Do not you make the Pope Vniversal Pastor of the Church, in as high a sense as any of these expressions carry it? And when St. Gregory urges so often, That if there be such an Vniversal Bishop, if he fails, the Church would fail too; Do you deny the consequence as to the Pope? Doth not Bellarmine tell us, when he writes of the Pope, he writes de summâ rei Christianae, Of the main of all Christianity, and surely then the Church must fail if the Popes Supremacy doth? And I pray now consider with your self, Whether this Answer which you p. 435say hath been given a hundred times over, can satisfie any reasonable man? Nay, Doth it not appear to be so absurd and incongruous, that it is matter of just admiration, that ever it should have been given once; and yet you are wonderfully displeased that his Lordship should bring this Objection upon the stage again. But, Do you think your Answers, like your Prayers, will do you good by being said so often over? Indeed therein they are alike, that they are both in an unknown tongue. Your Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop being in this case no more intelligible than your Latin-Prayers to a Country Congregation.

These things being thus clear, I have prevented my self in the second Enquiry, in that I have proved already,§. 9. that the Reasons which St. Gregory produceth hold against that sense of Vniversal Bishop, which you own and contend for, as of right belonging to the Bishop of Rome. Although it were no difficult matter to prove, that, according to the most received Opinion in your Church, viz. that all Jurisdiction in Bishops is derived from the Pope (which opinion you cannot but know is most acceptable at Rome, and was so at the Council of Trent) that that which you call the Literal sense, doth follow your Metaphorical, i. e. If the Pope hath Vniversal Jurisdiction as Head of the Church, then other Bishops are not properly Bishops, nor Christ's Officers, but his. For what doth their power of order signifie as to the Church without the power of Jurisdiction? And therefore, if they be taken only in partem solicitudinis, and not in plenitudinem potestatis, according to the known distinction of the Court of Rome, it necessarily follows, that they are but the Pope's Officers, and are taken just into so much authority as he commits to them, and no more.Bellarm. de Pontif. l. 4. cap. 24. Hist. Concil. Trid. l 7. p. 611 And this Bellarmine proves from the very form of the Pope's consecration of Bishops, whereby he commits the power of governing the Church to him, and the administration of it in spirituals and temporals. And you may see by the speech of Father Laynez, in the Council of Trent, How stoutly he proves that the power of Jurisdiction was given wholly to the Bishop of Rome, and that none in the Church besides hath any spark of it but from him; that the Bishop of Rome is true and absolute Monarch, with full and total power and Jurisdiction, and the Church is subject unto him, as it was to Christ. And, as when his Divine Majesty did govern it, it could not be said that any of the faithful had any the least power or Jurisdiction, but meer, pure, and total subjection; so it must be said in all perpetuity of time, and so understood, that the Church is a Sheepfold and a Kingdom. And, that he is the Only Pastor, is plainly proved by the words of Christ, when he said, He hath other sheep which he will gather together, and so one Sheepfold should be made, and one Shepherd. What think you now of the Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop, for the Only Bishop? Are not the Only Bishop, and the Only Pastor all one? Will not all those words of St. Gregory reach this, which any of you make use of to prove, that he takes it in the worst and Literal sense; nay, it goes higher. For Gregory only argues, that from the Title of Vniversal Bishop he must be sole Bishop, and others could not be any true Bishops;Greg. l. 4. ep. 34. l. 7. ep. 69. but here it is asserted in plain terms, that the Bishop of Rome is the only Pastor, and that as much as if Christ himself were here upon earth; and therefore if your Literal sense hath any sense at all in it,Consentive in hoc scelesto vocabulò, est fidem perdere. Greg. l. 4. ep. 39. Absit à cordibus Christianorum nomen istud blasphemiae, in quo omnium Sacerdotum honor adimitur dum ab uno sibi dementèr arrogatur. l. 4. ep. 32. it is much more true of the Bishop of Rome, than ever it could be of the Patriarch of Constantinople. And therefore I pray think more seriously of what he saith, That to agree in that prophane word, is to lose the Faith; That such a blasphemous name should be far from p. 436the hearts of Christians, in which, by the arrogance of one Bishop, the honour of all is taken away. Neither will it serve your turn to say (which is all that you have to say) that this is not the definitive sentence of your Church, but that many in your Church hold otherwise, That there is power of Jurisdiction properly in Bishops. For, although these latter are not near the number of the other, nor so much in favour with your Church, but are looked on as a discontented party, as appears by the proceedings in the Council of Trent; yet that is not it, we are to look after, What all in your Church are agreed on, but what the Pope challengeth as belonging to himself. Was not Father Laynez his Doctrine highly approved at Rome, as well as by the Cardinal Legats at Trent, and all the Italian party? Were not the other party discountenanced and disgraced as much as might be? Doth not the Pope arrogate this to himself, to be Oecumenical Pastor, and the sole Fountain of all Jurisdiction in the Church? If so, all that ever St. Gregory said against that Title, falls most heavily upon the Pope. For, St. Gregory doth not stand upon what others attributed to him, but what he arrogated to himself, that therein, he was the Prince of Pride, the forerunner of Antichrist, using a vain, new, rash, foolish, proud, prophane, erroneous, wicked, hypocritical, singular, Greg. l. 4: ep. 32, 34, 38, 39. l. 6. ep. 2.34.presumptuous, blaspemous Name. For all these goodly Epithets doth S. Gregory bestow upon it; and, I believe, if he could have thought of more, and worse, he would as freely have bestowed them. If therefore John the Patriarch was said by him to transgress God's Laws, violate the Canons, dishonour the Church, despise his Brethren, imitate Lucifer, How much more doth this belong to him, that not only challengeth to be Oecumenical Patriarch, but the sole Pastor of the Church, and that all Jurisdiction is derived from him? And by this time I hope you see, that the Answer you say hath been given a hundred times over, is so pitifully weak, absurd and ridiculous, that you might have been ashamed to have produced it once, and much more to repeat it without saying any more for it than you do. For, your other discourse depends wholly upon it, and all that being taken away, the rest doth fall to the ground with it.

We must now therefore return to his Lordships discourse, in which he goes on to give an account of the rise of the Pope's Greatness. §. 10.As yet, saith he, The right of Election, or ratification of the Pope, continued in the Emperour:P. 179. but then the Lombards grew so great in Italy, and the Empire was so infested with Saracens, and such changes happened in all parts of the world, as that neither for the present, the homage of the Pope was useful for the Emperour; nor the protection of the Emperour available for the Pope. By this means the Bishop of Rome was left to play his own game by himself. A thing which as it pleased him well enough, so both he and his Successors made great advantage by it. For, being grown to that Eminence by the Emperour, and the greatness of that City and place of his aboad; he found himself the more free, the greater the Tempest was, that beat upon the other. And then first he set himself to alienate the hearts of the Italians from the Emperour. Next he opposed himself against him. And about A. D. 710. Pope Constantine 1. did also first of all openly confront Philippicus the Emperour, in defence of Images; as Onuphrius tells us. After him Gregory 2. and the 3. did the same by Leo Isaurus. By this time the Lombards began to pinch very close, and to vex on all sides, not Italy only, but Rome also. This drives the Pope to seek a new Patron. And very fitly he meets with Charls Martell in France, that famous warrior against the Sarazens. Him p. 437he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards. This address seems very advisedly taken, at least it proves very fortunate to them both. For in short time it dissolved the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy, which had then stood two hundred and four years, which was the Popes security. And it brought the Crown of France into the house of Charls, and shortly after the Western Empire: And now began the Pope to be great indeed. For by the bounty of Pepin Son of Charls, that which was taken from the Lombards, was given to the Pope. So that now of a Bishop, he became a Temporal Prince. But when Charls the Great had set up the Western Empire, then he resumed the ancient and original power of the Emperour, to govern the Church, to call Councils, to order Papal Elections. And this power continued in his posterity. For this right of the Emperour was in force and use in Gregory the seventh's time. Who was confirmed in the Popedom by Henry the fourth, whom he afterward deposed. And it might have continued longer, if the succeeding Emperours had had abilities enough to secure, or vindicate their own Right. But the Pope keeping a strong Council about him, and meeting with some weak Princes, and they oft-times distracted with great and dangerous warrs, grew stronger till he got the better. So this is enough to shew, How the Popes climed up by the Emperours, till they over-topt them, which is all I said before, and have now proved. And this was about the year 1073. Yet was it carried in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different success. The Emperour sometimes plucking from the Pope, and the Pope from the Emperour, winning and losing ground, as their spirits, abilities, aids, and opportunities were, till at the last the Pope settled himself upon the grounds laid by Gregory 7. in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christian world. To all this you return a short Answer, in these words; We deny not but that in Temporal power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours. But what is this to the purpose? P. 200.If he would have said any thing material, he should have proved that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholick Church; which is the only thing they claim jure divino, and which is so annexed to the dignity of their office by Christ's institution, that, were the Pope deprived of all his Temporalties, yet could not his Spiritual Authority suffer the least diminution by it. But 1. Doth his Lordships discourse only contain an account of the Popes temporal greatness by the Patronage of Christian Emperours? Doth he not plainly shew, How the Popes got their power by rebelling, and contesting with the Emperours themselves, How they assumed to themselves a power to depose Emperours: and, Do they claim these things jure Divino too? 2. What you say of the Popes Spiritual Authority, will then hold good when it is well proved; but bare asserting it, will never do it. We must therefore have patience till you have leisure to attempt it.

But in the mean time we must consider, How you vindicate the famous place of Irenaeus concerning, as you say,§. 11. the Pope's Supreme Pastoral Authority, from his Lordships interpretation. Yet, before we come to the Authority, it self, there are some light skirmishes (as you call them) to be passed through; and those are, concerning Irenaeus himself. For his Lordship saith, That his Adversarie is much scanted of ancient proof, if Irenaeus stand alone; besides, Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallican Church, P. 181. n. 13.and a very unlikely man to captivate the liberty of that Church under the more powerful principality p. 438of Rome. And how can we have better evidence of his judgement, touching that principality, then the actions of his life? When Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches, foreign, all at a blow, was not Irenaeus the chief man that reprehended him for it? A very unmeet and undutiful thing sure it had been in Irenaeus, in deeds to tax him of rashness and inconsiderateness, whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him, the Supreme and Infallible Pastour of the Vniversal Church. To which you Answer, 1. To the liberty of the Gallican Church; As if (forsooth) the so much talked of liberties of the Gallican Church, had been things known or heard of in St. Irenaeus his time;P. 201. n. 6. as though there were no difference between not captivating the Liberty of that Church to Rome, and asserting the Liberties of the Gallican Church in her obedience to Rome, yet these two must be confounded by you to render his Lordships Answer ridiculous; which yet is as sound and rational as your cavil is vain and impertinent But this you pass over and fix, 2. VponUpon his reprehending Pope Victor, where (you say) that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension, but rather a friendly and seasonable perswasion: his words are foreign &c. he exhorts him after a handsome manner, as reflecting on the Popes dignity, and clearly shews that the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops, and by consequence over the whole Church. For otherwise it had been very absurd in St. Irenaeus to perswade Pope Victor, not to cut off from the Church so many Christian Provinces had he believed (as Protestant, contends he did) that the Pope had no power at all to cut them off. Just as if a man should entreat the Bishop of Rochester, not to excommunicate the Archbishop of York and all the Bishops of his Province; over whom he hath not any the least pretence of Jurisdiction. I Answer, that if you say, that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension, it is a sign you have not read what Eusebius saith. For, doth not he expresly say, That the Epistle of some of the Bishops are yet remaining, foreign, &c. Euseb. l. 5. c. 24,in which they do severely rebuke him? Among whom (saith he) Irenaeus was one, &c. It seems, Irenaeus was one of those Bishops who did so sharply reprehend him; but it may be, you would render foreign kissing his Holiness feet, or, exhorting him after a handsome manner; and indeed, if they did it sharply, they did it foreign suitably enough to what Victor deserved for his rash and inconsiderate proceedings in this business. But withall to let you see how well these proceedings of his were resented in the Christian world, Eusebius tells us before, That Victor by his letters did declare those of the Eastern Churches to be excommunicate: foreign. Euseb. ibid.and he presently adds, But this did no wayes please all the Bishops; wherefore (foreign) they countermanded him, that he might mind the things of peace and unity and brotherly love. And will you still render that word too, by exhorting him after a handsome manner, when even Christopherson renders it by magnoperè adhortabantur, Valesius by ex adverso hortati sunt: and although these seem not to come up to the full emphasis of the word, yet surely they imply somewhat of vehemency and earnestness in their perswading him as well as their being hugely dissatisfied with what Victor did. I grant that these persons did reflect (as you say) on the Pope, but not as you would have it on his dignity, but on his rashness and indiscretion, that should go about to cast the Asian Churches out of Communion, for such a trifle as that was in Controversie between them. But you are the happiest man at making inferences that I have met with: for, because Irenaeus in the name p. 439of the Gallican Bishops, writes to Victor, not to proceed so rashly in this action thence you infer, that the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops, and by consequence over the whole Church. Might you not every jot as well inferr, that when a man in passion is ready: to kill those that stand about him; whoever perswades him not to do it, doth suppose he might lawfully have done it, if he would. But if those Bishops had so venerable an esteem (as you would perswade us they had) then of the Bishop of Rome, How come they to dispute his actions in so high a manner as they did? If they had looked on him as Vniversal Pastor of the Church, it had more become them to sit still and be quiet, then severely to reprehend him who was alone able to judge what was fit to be done and what not in those cases. If the Pope had call'd them to Council to have known their advise, it might have been their duty to have given it him in the most humble and submissive manner that might be. But for them to intrude themselves into such an office as to advise the Head of the Church what to do in a matter peculiarly concerning him, as though he did not know what was fit to be done himself; methinks you should not imagine that these men did act foreign, as became them, in doing it. Could they possibly in any thing more declare, how little they thought it necessary for all Churches to conform to that of Rome, when they plead for dissenters in such a matter which the Pope had absolutely declared himself about? And how durst any of them slight the thunderbolts which the Pope threatned them with? Yet not only Polycrates and the Asian Bishops who joyned with him profess themselves not at all affrighted at them; but the other Churches looked not on themselves as obliged to forsake their communion on that account. If this be such an evidence of the Popes power in one sense, I am sure it is a greater evidence of his weakness in another: It seems the Head of the Church began betimes to be troubled with the fumes of passion; and it is a little unhappy, that the first Instance of his Authority should meet with so little regard in the Christian world. If the Pope did begin to assume so early, you see it was not very well liked of by the Bishops of other Churches. But it seems he had a mind to try his power and the weight of his Arm; but for all his haste, he was fain to withdraw it very patiently again. Valesius thinks that he never went so far as to excommunicate the Asian Bishops at all,Vales. not. in Euseb. l. 5. c. 24, but the noise of his threatning to do it being heard by them, (it seems the very preparing of his thunderbolts amazed the world) Irenaeus having call'd a Synod of the Bishops of Gaul together, doth in their name write that Letter, in Eusebius, to Victor to disswade him from it, and that it wrought so effectually with him, that he gave it over. And this he endeavours to prove. 1. Because Eusebius saith, he only endeavour'd to do it. But Cardinal Perron supposeth Eusebius had a worse meaning then so in it; i. e. that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate, yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in communion with them; and therefore he calls Eusebius an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome, when yet all the records of this story are derived from him. 2. Because the Epistles of Irenaeus tend to perswade him not to cut them off; whereas, if they had been excommunicate, it would have been rather to have restored them to Communion; and that Photius, saith that Irenaeus writ many letters to Victor to prevent their excommunication. But because Eusebius saith expresly, That he did by letters pronounce them out of the Communion of the Church, Euseb. ibid.the common opinion seems more probable, and so Socrates understands it;Socrat. l. 5. c. 2… but still I p. 440am to seek for such an Argument of the acknowledgement of the Popes Authority then, as you would draw from it. Yes, say you, because they do not tell him, He had no Authority to do what he did; which they would have done if they could without proclaiming themselves Schismaticks ipso facto and shaking the very Foundation of the Churches Discipline and Vnity. But all this proceeds from want of understanding the Discipline of the Church at that time; for excommunication did not imply any such authoritative act of throwing men out of the Communion of the whole Church, but only a declaring that they would not admit such persons to communion with themselves. And therefore might be done by equals to equals, and sometimes by Inferiours to Superiours. In equals it is apparent by Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicating Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria; and I suppose you will not acknowledge it may be done by Inferiours, if we can produce any examples of Popes being excommunicated; and what say you then to the African Bishops excommunicating Pope Vigilius as Victor Tununensis an African Bishop himself relates it:Africani Antistites Vigilium Romanum Episcopam damnatorem trium capitulorum Synodalitèr à Catholic… communione, reservat… ei poenitentiae loco, recludunt. Victor Tununens. Chronic. p. 10. Will you say now that Victors excommunicating the Asian Churches argued his authority over them, when another Victor tells us, that the African Bishops solemnly excommunicated the Pope himself? And I hope you will not deny but the Bishop of Rochester might as well excommunicate the Archbishop of York, as these Africans excommunicate the Bishop of Rome. What say you to the expunging the name of Felix Bishop of Rome out of the Diptychs of the Church, by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople? What say you to Hilary's Anathema against Pope Liberius? If these excommunications did not argue just power and authority over the persons excommunicated, neither could Pope Victors do it. For it is apparent by the practise of the Church that excommunication argued no such superiority in the persons who did it; but all the force of it lay in the sense of the Church; for by whomsoever the sentence was pronounced, if all other Churches observed it, (as most commonly they did while the Vnity of the Church continued) then they were out of the Communion of the Catholick Church; if not, then it was only the particular declaration of those persons or Churches who did it. And in this case the validity of the Popes excommunication of the Asian Bishops depended upon the acceptance of it by other Churches, which most consenting to it, he could not throw them out of the communion of the whole Church, but only declare, that if they came to Rome, he would not admit them to communion with him. And therefore Ruffinus well renders that place in Eusebius out of Irenaeus his Epistle to Victor, foreign: by these words, Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclesiae societate, aut venientes ab illis partibus non sunt suscepti, so that foreign may as well signifie not to receive as to cast out; for the Churches not receiving, is her casting out. Thus, I hope, it is evident that his Lordship hath received no injury by these lighter skirmishes.

We now follow you into hotter service; For you say, he ventures at last to grapple with the Authority it self, §. 12.P. 201.alleadged by A. C. out of St. Irenaeus; where, in the first place, you wink and strike; and let your blows fall besides him, for fear he should return them, or some one for him. You quarrel with his translation of the Authority cited by him: but that the ground of this quarrel may be understood; we must first enquire what his Lordship hath to say for himself. The place of Irenaeus is, To this p. 441Church (he speaks of Rome), propter potentiorem principalitatem, for the more powerful Principality of it, 'tis necessary that every Church, that is the faithful undique round about, Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, i. e. eo… qui sunt undique fideles: In quâ semper ab …is qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio. Iren. l. 3. c. 3.should have recourse. Now for this, (his Lordship saith) there was very great reason in Irenaeus his time, that upon any difference arising in the faith, Omnes undique Fideles, all the faithful, or, if you will, all the Churches round about, should have recourse, that is, resort to Rome being the Imperial City, and so a Church of more powerful Principality, then any other at that time in those parts of the world. But this (his Lordship saith) will not exalt Rome to be Head of the Church Vniversal. Here your blood rises, and you begin a most furious encounter with his Lordship for translating undique round about, as if (say you) St. Irenaeus spake only of those neighbouring Churches round about Rome, and not the Churches throughout the world; whereas undique as naturally signifies, every where, and, from all parts: witness Thomas Thomasius, where the word undique is thus Englished, From all parts, places, and corners, every where. Can you blame me now if I seek for a retreat into some strong-hold, or if you will, some more powerful Principality when I see so dreadful a Charge begun, with Thomas Thomasius in the Front? You had routed us once before with Rider, and other English Lexicons; but it seems Rider had done service enough that time, now that venerable person Thomas Thomasius must be upon duty, and do his share for the Catholick Cause. You somewhere complain how much Catholicks are straitned for want of Books, Would any one believe you that find you so well stored with Thomas Thomasius, Rider, and other English Lexicons? You would sure give us some cause of suspition that there is some Jesuits School taught in England, and that you are the learned Master of it, by your being so conversant in these worthy Authours. But although the Authority of Th. Thomasius signifie very little with us, yet that of the Greek Lexicons might do much more if we had the original Greek of Irenaeus instead of his barbarous Latin Interpreter. For now it is uncertain what word Irenaeus used, and so it is but a very uncertain conjecture which can be drawn from the signification of foreign, unless we knew, which of them was the genuine word in the Greek of Irenaeus. But you say, all of them undeniably signifie, from all parts Vniversally: and that because they are rendred by the word undique. So that this will make an excellent proof, undique must signifie from all parts; because foreign do signifie so in Greek; and that these do undeniably signifie so much, appears because they are rendred by undique. And I grant they are so: for in the old Glossary which goes under the name of Cyril, undique is rendred by foreign, and …ully (than whom we cannot possibly desire a better Authour in this case) renders foreign by undi que . For in his Book de Finibus, De Finib. l. 2. v. Hen▪ Steph. Lexicon Ciceron. p. 55.he translates that of Epicurus foreign by undique complerentur voluptatibus; and so he renders that passage in Plato's Timaeus foreign by undique aequabilem, although as Hen. Stephanus notes, that be rather the signification of foreign then foreign, but still there is some difference between foreign, and foreign, and so foreign in Greek Authours notes ex omni parte terrae, but foreign only ex quâvis parte; so that the one signifies Vniversally, the other indefinitely: undique relating properly to the circumference, as undique aequalis, on all sides it is equal, so that qui sunt undique fideles, are, those which lye upon all quarters round about. And so it doth not imply that all p. 442persons were bound to come, but that from all quarters some did come; as Herodian speaks of Rome, Herod. hist. l. 1. p. 18.foreign, that it was very populous, and did receive them which came from all parts; which doth very fitly explain the sense of Irenaeus, that to Rome being the Imperial City, men came from all quarters. But the sense of this will be more fully understood by a parallel expression in the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch, Concil. Antioch. Can. 9.in which it is decreed that the Metropolitan should have the care of all the Bishops in his Province, foreign, because all persons who have business from all parts, resort to the Metropolis: here foreign, is the very same with the undi que convenire, in Irenaeus; so that it relates not to any Obligation on Churches to resort thither, but that being the Seat of the Empire, all believers from all parts did make their recourse thither. Which is most fully expressed by Leo, speaking of S. Peter's coming to Rome, Leo Sermon. de S. Petro & Paulo.Cujus nationis homines in hâc Vrbe non essent? aut quae uspiam gentes ignorarent, quod Roma didicisset? And so, if I grant you that it extends to all parts, I know not what advantages you will get by it: for Irenaeus his design is, to shew that there was no such secret Tradition left by the Apostles, as the Valentinians pretended. And for this he appeals to the Church of Rome, which being seated in the Imperial City, to which Believers from all parts did resort, it is impossible to conceive that the Apostles should have left such a Tradition, and it not to be heard of there: which is the plain, genuine meaning of Irenaeus his words. Not as you weakly imagine, That all Churches in all doubts of Faith, were bound to have their recourse thither, P. 202.as to their constant guide therein. For Irenaeus was not disputing, What was to be done by Christians in doubts of Faith; but was enquiring into a matter of fact, viz. Whether any such Tradition were ever left in the Church, or no; and therefore nothing could be more pertinent or convincing, than appealing to that Church to which Christians resorted from all parts; for it could not be conceived, but, if the Apostles had left such a Tradition any where, it would be heard of at Rome. And you most notoriously pervert the meaning of Irenaeus, when you would make the force of his argument to lye in the necessity of all Christians resorting to Rome, because the Doctrine or Tradition of the Roman Church was, as it were, the touchstone of all Apostolical Doctrine. But, I suppose you deal in some English Logicians, as well as English Lexicons, and therefore I must submit both to your Grammar and Logick: but your ingenuity is as great as your reason; for you first pervert his Lordships meaning, and then make him dispute ridiculously, that you might come out with your triumphant language, Is not this fine Meandrick Logick, well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth? Whereas his Lordships reasoning is so plain and clear, that none but such a one as had a Labyrinth in his brains, could have imagined any Meanders in it: As appears by what I have said already, in the explication of the meaning of Irenaeus.

But that I may see the strength of your Logick out of this place of Irenaeus, §. 13.I will translate undi que and semper, as fully as you would have me, and give you the words at large, in which, by those who come from all places, the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies conserved. What is it you inferr hence? From the Premises you argue thus: All the faithful every where, must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome,P. 203· by reason of her more powerful principality. This is S. Irenaeus his proposition. But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church, by reason of her more powerful principality, if her said power extended not to them all. This is evident to reason. p. 443Ergo, this more powerful principality of the Roman Church, must needs extend to all the faithful every where, and not only to those of the Suburbicary Churches, or Patriarchal Diocese of Rome, as the Bishop pleads. Now I see, you are a man at arms, and know, not only how to grapple with his Lordship, but with Irenaeus to boot. But we must first see, How Irenaeus himself argues, that we may the better understand the force of what you deduce from him. The Question, as I have told you already, was, Whether the Apostles left any such Tradition in the Church, as the Valentinians pretended: Irenaeus proves they did not, because, if there had been any such, the Apostolical Churches would certainly have preserved the memory of it; but because it would be too tedious to insist on the succession of all Churches; he therefore makes choice of the most famous, the Church of Rome, in which the Apostolical Tradition had been derived by a succession of Bishops down to his own time; and by this (saith he) we confound all those who through vain glory, or blindness, do gather any such thing. For (saith he) to this Church for the more powerful principality all Churches do make resort, i. e. the believers from all parts, in which by those who come from all parts the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies preserved. We must now see, How Irenaeus argues according to your sense of his words. If all the faithful every where, must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome, for her more powerful principality; then there is no secret Tradition left by the Apostles. But, Where lyes the connexion between these two? What had the Valentinians to do with the power of the Church of Rome over other Churches? That was not the business they disputed; their Question was, Whether there were no such Tradition as they pretended? And Rome might have never so great power over all Churches, and yet have this secret Tradition too. For now we see, when she pretends to the greatest power, nay, to Infallibility, she pretends the highest to Traditions. Where then lyes the force of Irenaeus his argument? Was it in this, that the Valentinians did acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church of Rome then, in Traditions? This were indeed to the purpose, if it could be proved; Or, Doth Irenaeus go about to prove this first? But by what argument doth he prove it so, that the Valentinians might be convinced by it? Yes, say you, he saith, That all the faithful must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome? This is your way of proving indeed, to take things for granted; but, How doth this necessity appear? because, say you, she hath the more powerful principality: But, What principality do you mean? over all Churches? But that was the thing in Question. So that if you will make Irenaeus speak sense, and argue pertinently, his meaning can be no other than this. If there be such a Tradition left, it must be left somewhere among Christians: if it be left among them, it may be known by enquiry, Whether they own any such or no. But because it would be troublesome searching of all Churches, we may know their judgement more compendiously; there is the Church of Rome near us, a famous and ancient Church, seated in the chief City of the Empire, to which all persons have necessities to go; and among them, you cannot but suppose, but that out of every Church some faithful persons should come, and therefore it is very unreasonable to think, that the Apostolical Tradition hath not alwaies been preserved there, when persons come from all places thither. Is not every thing in this account of Irenaeus his words very clear and pertinent to his present dispute? But in the sense you give of them, they are little to the purpose, and very precarious and inconsequent. p. 444And therefore since the more powerful principality is not that of the Church, but of the City; since the necessity of recourse thither, is not for doubts of Faith, but other occasions: therefore it by no means follows thence, That this Churches power did extend over the faithful every where; thus by explaining your Proposition, your Conclusion is ashamed of it self, and runs away. For your argument comes to this; If English men from all parts be forced to resort to London, then London hath the power over all England; or if one should say, If some from all Churches in England must resort to London, then the Church at London hath power over all the Churches in England; and if this consequence be good, yours is; for it is of the same nature of it; the necessity of the resort, not lying in the Authority of the Church, but in the Dignity of the City, the words in all probability in the Greek, being foreign, and so relate to the dignity of Rome, as the Imperial City.

From whence we proceed to the Vindication of Ruffinus, in his Translation of the 6. Canon of the Council of Nice. §. 14.The occasion of which is this. His Lordship saith, Supposing that the powerful principality be ascribed to the Church of Rome, yet it follows not that it should have power over all Churches; for this power was confined within its own Patriarchate and Jurisdiction; P. 183.and that (saith he) was very large, containing all the Provinces in the Diocese of Italy (in the old sense of the word Diocese) which Provinces the Lawyers and others term Suburbicaries. There were ten of them; the three Islands, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, and the other seven upon the firm Land of Italy. And this, I take it, is plain in Ruffinus. For he living shortly after the Nicene Council, as he did, and being of Italy, as he was, he might very well know the bounds of the Patriarchs Jurisdiction, as it was then practised. And he sayes expresly, that according to the old custom, the Roman Patriarchs charge was confined within the limits of the Suburbican Churches. Apud Alexandriam ut in Urbe Romā, vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut ille Aegypti ut hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerat. Ruffin. Eccles. hist. l. 1. c▪ 6.To avoid the force of this testimony, Cardinal Perron laies load upon Ruffinus. For he charges him with passion, ignorance, and rashness. And one piece of his ignorance is, that he hath ill translated the Canon of the Council of Nice. Now, although his Lordship doth not approve of it as a Translation; yet he saith, Ruffinus living in that time and place, was very like well to know and understand the limits and bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome, in which he lived. This (you say) is very little to his Lordships advantage, since it is inconsistent with the vote of all Antiquity, P. 203. n. 7.and gives S. Irenaeus the lye; but if the former be no truer than the latter, it may be very much to his advantage, notwithstanding what you have produced to the contrary. What the ground is, Why the Roman Patriarchate was confined within the Roman Diocese, I have already shewed in the precedent Chapter, in explication of the Nicene Canon. We must now therefore examine the Reasons you bring, Why the notion of Suburbicary Churches must be extended beyond the limits his Lordship assigns; that of the smalness of Jurisdiction compared with other Patriarchs, I have given an account of already, viz. from the correspondency of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Government; for the Civil Dioceses of the Eastern part of the Empire did extend much farther than the Western did; and that was the Reason, Why the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, had a larger Metropolitical Jurisdiction than the Bishop of Rome had. But you tell us, That Suburbicary Churches must be taken as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any waies subordinate to the City of Rome; which was at that time known by the name of Urbs, or City, foreign, by way of excellency; p. 445not as it related to the Praefect or Governour of Rome, in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction, we confess it commanded only those few places about it in Italy; but as it related to the Emperour himself; in which sense the word Suburbicary, rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire; as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory, as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this subject. But, this is one instance of what mens wits will do, when they are resolved to break through any thing: For, whoever that had read of the Suburbicary Regions and Provinces in the Code of Theodosius, or other parts of the Civil Law, as distinguished from other Provinces under the Roman Empire, Cod. Theodos. l. 11. tit. 1. c 9. tit. 16. c. 12. tit. 28.12and those in Italy too, could ever have imagined that the notion of Suburbicary Churches had been any other than what was correspondent to those Regions and Provinces. Adventor. p. 2. de Eccles. suburbic. c. 1.But let that be granted which Sirmondus so much contends for, That the notion of Suburbicary may have different respects, and so sometimes be taken for the Churches within the Roman Diocese, sometimes for those within the Roman Patriarchate, and sometimes for those, which are under the Pope as Vniversal Pastor; yet, How doth it appear that ever Ruffinus took it in any other than the first sense? No other Provinces being called Suburbicary, but such as were under the Jurisdiction either of the Roman Prefect within a hundred miles of the City (within which compass, references and appeals were made to him) or at the most, to the Lieutenant of the Roman Diocese, whose Jurisdiction extended to those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions. It is not therefore, In what sense words may be taken, but in what sense they were taken, and what Evidence there is that ever they were so understood. Never was any Controversie more ridiculous, than that concerning the extent of the Suburbicary Regions or Provinces, if Suburbicary were taken in your sense for all the Cities within the Roman Empire. But this extending of the Suburbicary Churches, as far as the Roman Empire, is like the art of those Jesuits, who in their setting forth Anastasius de vitis Pontificum, in Stephanus 5. turn'd Papa Vrbis into Papa Orbis: for that being so mean and contemptible a title, they thought much it should remain as it did; but Papa Orbis was magnificent and glorious. I wonder therefore, that instead of extending the signification of Suburbicary Churches, you do not rather pretend that it ought to be read Suborbicary, and so to suit exactly with the Papa Orbis, as importing all those Churches which are under the power of the Vniversal Pastor. For, Why should you stop at the confines of the Roman Empire; How comes his Jurisdiction to be confined within that? By what right did he govern the Churches within the Empire, and not those without? Surely not, as Primate, Metropolitan, or Patriarch of the Roman Empire, for those are titles yet unheard of in Antiquity; if as Head of the Church, How comes the Jurisdiction of that to be at all limited? Were there no Churches without the Empire then? I hope you will not deny that: If there were, To whom did the Jurisdiction over them belong? to the Pope, or not? If not, How comes he to be Head of the Church, and Vniversal Pastor? If they did, Why were not these Suburbicary Churches, as well as those within the Empire? Besides, it is confessed by the learnedest among you, that when the notion of Suburbicary is extended beyond the Suburbicary Provinces, it is not out of any relation to the City, but to the power of the Bishop of the City, and therefore the Suburbicary Churches may be larger than the Suburbicary Provinces. But if this be true (as it is the only probable evasion) then it is impossible for you, to confine the p. 446Suburbicary Churches within the Roman Empire, without confining the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop within those bounds too. For if the inlarging the notion of Surburbicary Churches depends upon the extent of his power, the fixing the limits of those Churches, determines the bounds of his power too. Which is utterly destructive to your pretences of the Pope's being Head of the Vniversal Church, and not barely of the Churches within the Roman Empire. But if it had been Ruffinus his design to express by Suburbicary Churches, all those within the Roman Empire, surely he made choice of the most unhappy expression to do it by, which he could well have thought of. For, it being then so well known what the Suburbicary Provinces were, that in the Code of Theodosius, where they are so often mentioned, they are not distinctly enumerated, because they were then as well understood as the African, Gallican, or Britannick Provinces; How absurd were it for him, to take a word in common use, and so well known, and apply it to such a sense, as no example besides can be produced for it. For if any one at that time should have spoken of the African, Gallican, or Britannick Churches, no one would have imagined any other than those which were contained in the several Provinces under those names. What reason is there then, that any thing else should be apprehended by the Suburbicary Churches? I know the last refuge of most of your side, instead of explaining these Suburbicary Churches, hath been to rail at Ruffinus, and call him Dunce and Blockhead, and enemy to the Roman Church (instances were easie to be given, if it were at all necessary) but besides that, it were easie to make it appear, that Ruffinus was no such fool, as some have taken him for: (And if they think so, because S. Hierom gives him such hard words, they must think so of all whom S. Hierom opposed) he is sufficiently vindicated in this translation by the Ancient Vatican Copy of the Nicene Canons, out of which this very Canon is produced by Sirmondus, and the very same word of Suburbicary therein used. And that in such a manner, as utterly destroies your sense of the Suburbicary Churches, De primatu Ecclesiae Romana & aliarum civitatum Episcopis. Antiqui moris est, ut Episcopus Urbis Romae habeat Principatum; ut Suburbicaria loca, & omnem Provinciam suam sollicitudine gubernet. Codex Vaticanus apud Sirmond. de Region. & Eccles. Suburb.for such as are within the Roman Empire; for that Copy calls them, Loca Suburbicaria; and, Will you say, those are the Provinces within the Roman Empire too? Can any one rationally think that any other places should be called Suburbicary, but such as lye about the City; And by the same interpretation which you here use, you may call all England the Suburbs of London; because London is the City, foreign, as you speak; and therefore all the Churches of England must be Suburbicary to London. But if you think this incongruous, you may on the same account judge the other to be so too: It appears then, that the Suburbicary places in the Vatican Copy (and in that very Ancient Copy which Justellus had, which agrees with the Vatican) are the same with the Suburbicary Churches in Ruffinus; and, if you will explain these latter of the Roman Empire, you must do the former too. But not only the Vatican Copy, but all other different Versions of the Nicene Canon utterly overthrow this Opinion of Cardinal Perron, that the Suburbicary Churches must be taken for those within the Roman Empire. For in the Arabick Version published by Turrianus, it is thus rendred, Siquidem similitèr Episcopus Romae, i. e. successor Petri Apostoli, potestatem habet omnium civitatum, & locorum quae sunt circa eam. Are all the Cities and places in the Roman Empire, circa eam, about the City of Rome? If not, neither can the Churches be? And in that Arabick paraphrase, p. 447which Salmasius had of the famous Peireskius, it is translated much more agreeably to the Nicene Canon in these words; Propterea quod Episcopus Romanus etiam hunc morem obtinet, & hoc ei adjunctum est, ut potestatem habeat supra civitates, & loca quae prope eam sunt. Which is yet more full, to shew the absurdity of your exposition, for these Suburbicary Churches must be then in places near the City of Rome. And agreeably to these, Aristinus, the Greek Collector of the Canons hath it, foreign, which Ruffinus his Suburbicary doth exactly render. By whom now, must we be judged, What is meant by these Suburbicary Churches? by you who make a forced and strained interpretation of the word Suburbicary to such a sense, of which there is no evidence in Antiquity, or Reason, and is withall manifestly repugnant to the design of the Canon, which is to proportion the Dioceses of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandrina, by the example of Rome (which had been very absurd if these Suburbicary Churches did comprehend the Dioceses of Alexandria and Antioch, and all other Provinces, as you make them)? or else must we be judged by the ancient Versions of the Nicene Canon, Latin and Arabick, and by other Greek Paraphrases, all which unanimously concurr to overthrow that Figment, that the Suburbicary Churches are all those within the Roman Empire. And this the learned Petrus de Marcâ was so sensible of, that he saith,De Concordi… Sacerdot. & Imp. l. 1. c. 7. sect. 6. Ruffinus did rectissimè & ex usu recepto, very agreeably both to reason and custom, compare the Alexandrian and Roman Bishop in this, that he should have the power over the Diocese of Aegypt, by the same right that the Bishop of Rome had over the Vrbicary Diocese; or, saith he, ut Ruffinus-eligantissime loquitur, In Ecclesiis Suburbicariis, id est, in iis Ecclesiis quae decem Provinciis Suburbicariis continebantur; as Ruffinus most elegantly speaks (sure then he thought him no such ignorant person, as Perron and others from him have reproached him to be) In the Suburbicary Churches, that is, in those Churches which are contained in the ten Suburbicary Provinces. For, as as he goes on, the calling of Synods, the ordination of Bishops, the full administration of the Churches in those Provinces, did belong to the Bishop of Rome; as to the Bishop of Alexandria in the Aegyptian Diocese, and to the Bishop of Antioch in the Oriental. Which he likewise confirms by the ancient Latin Interpreter of the Nicene Canons, who, he saith, was elder than Dionysius Exiguns; in whose interpretation, he makes the Suburbicaria loca to contain the four Regions about Rome, which made the proper Metropolitan Province of the Roman Bishop comprehending sixty nine Bishopricks; and that which he calls his Province, to be the Vrbicary Diocese, contained in those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions.

But the Pope's being Vniversal Bishop having so little evidence elsewhere,§. 15. his Lordships adversary at last hath recourse to this, That the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's successor, and therefore to him we must have recourse. To which his Lordship answers; The Fathers I deny not, P. 185. n. 14.ascribe very much to S. Peter; but 'tis to S. Peter in his own person. And among them Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter, as any of them: And yet did he never intend to give an absolute principality to Rome in S. Peter's right; which he at large manifests by a place particularly insisted on, in which he proves, that the building of the Church on S. Peter in Epiphanius his sense, is not as if he and his successors were to be Monarchs over it for ever: but it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ, by the Confession which S. Peter made. And so, saith he, he expresses himself elsewhere most plainly, that Christ's building his Church upon this Rock, was upon p. 448the Confession of S. Peter, and the solid Faith contained therein. And that Epiphanius could not mean that S. Peter was any Rock or Foundation of the Church, so as that he and his successors must be relyed on in all matters of Faith, and govern the Church like Princes and Monarchs, he proves not only by the Context, but because he makes S. James to succeed our Lord in the principality of the Church. And Epiphanius, saith he, was too full of learning and industry, to speak contrary to himself in a point of this moment. This is the summ of his Lordships discourse: to which you answer, That it is clear even by the Texts of Epiphanius, that this promise by Christ to S. Peter, is derived to his successors;P. 204. n. 9. which you prove from hence, because he saith, That by the Gates of Hell, Heresies and Hereticks are understood; now this, say you, cannot be understood of S. Peter's person alone; for then, Why not Heresies and Hereticks prevail against the Church after S. Peter's death; yea so far as utterly to extinguish the true Faith? But, Cannot God preserve the Church from being extinguished by Heresies, though S. Peter hath no Infallible Successor? Is not the promise, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church? It doth not say, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against any that shall pretend to be his Successors at Rome: For if Heresies be those Gates, they have too often prevailed against him. And, Is this your way indeed to secure the Church, by providing S. Peter such successors, which may be Hereticks themselves? But much more wisely did S. Gregory say, If one pretends to be Vniversal Bishop, then upon his falling, the Church must fall too; much more wisely the Council of Basil in their Synodal Epistle, object this as the necessary consequent of the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, that, errante Pontifice, quod saepe contigit & contingere potest, tota erraret Ecclesia; that, in case the Pope erre, which often hath happened, and often may, the whole Church must erre too. And yet this is your way to secure the Church from errours and heresies. If you designed to ruine it, you could not do it in a more compendious way, than to oblige the whole Church to believe the dictates of one, who is so far from that Infallibility which S. Peter had, that he follows him in nothing more than his Falls: I wish he would in his Repentance too, and that would be the best way to secure the Church from Errours and Heresies. Which she can never be secured from, as long as one pretends to be her Head, who may not only erre himself, but propound that to be believed infallibly, which is notoriously false. For that Popes as Popes may erre, and propound false Doctrine to the Church, not only Protestants, but some of your own Communion have abundantly proved; particularly Sim. Vigorius in his defence of Richerius in his Commentary on the forecited Synodal Epistle of the Council of Basil.Vigorius Com. in ep. Synod. Concil. Basil. c. 7. p. 63. And calls that opinion, That the Pope may erre as a private Doctor, but not as Pope, ineptissimam opinionem, a most foolish opinion. For otherwise, as he saith, it would be most absurd to say, That the Pope might be deposed for Heresie; for he is not deposed as a private Doctor, but as Pope. And this he proves by the contradictious decrees of Adrian 3. to Adrian 1. and Leo 7. and so of Formosus, Martinus, Romanus, to Johannes, Stephanus, and Sergius; Nay, he instanceth in that famous decree of Boniface 8. in pronouncing so definitively, that it was de necessitate salutis, subesse Romano Pontifici (necessary to salvation to be subject to the Pope) and that he decreed this as Pope, appears by those words, Declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus, omnino esse▪ de necessitate salutis; than which words, nothing can be more express and definitive, and yet Pope Innocent 3. asserts, that the King of France hath no superiour upon p. 449earth. Is not the Church like then to be well secured from Heresies, when her Infallible Heads may so apparently contradict each other, and this acknowledged by men of your own Communion. Nothing then can be more absurd or unreasonable, than to say, That the Church cannot be preserved from being extinguished by Heresie, unless the Pope be S. Peter's successor, as Head of the Church. To his Lordships testimonies out of Epiphanius, that S. James succceded our Lord in the principality of the Church, P. 205.you answer, 1. That in the places he alledges, there's not a word of the Churches principality. 2. That he only implies that he was the first of the Apostles made Bishop of any particular place, viz. at Hierusalem, which is called Christs Throne, as any Episcopal Chair is in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers. But, whosoever will examine the places in Epiphanius, will find much more intended by him, than what you will allow: For not only he saith, that he first had an Episcopal Chair, Epiph. haeres. 78. p. 1039.but that our Lord committed to him foreign, his Throne upon Earth, which surely is much more than can be said of any meer Episcopal Chair; and I believe you will be much to seek where Hierusalem was ever called Christ's Throne upon earth after his Ascension to Heaven. Besides, if it were, it is the strongest prejudice that may be against the principality of the Roman See; if Jerusalem was made by Christ his Throne here. And, that a principality over the whole Church is intended by Epiphanius, seems more clear by that other place which his Lordship cites, wherein he not only saith, That James was first made Bishop, Haeres. 29. p. 119.but gives this reason for it, because he was the Brother of our Lord; and if you observe, How Epiphanius brings it in, you will say, he intended more by it, than to make him the first Bishop. For he was disputing before, How the Kingdom and the Priesthood did both belong to Christ, and that Christ had transfused both into his Church, foreign, but his Throne is established for ever in his holy Church; consisting both of his Kingdom and Priesthood, both which he communicated to his Church; quare Jacobus primus omnium est Episcopus constitutus, as Petavius renders it, so that he seems to settle James in that principality of the Church, which he had given to it; and what reason can you have to think, but that Christ's Throne, in which Epiphanius, saith James, was settled in the other place, is the same with his Throne in the Church which he mentions here? And, What would you give for so clear a testimony in Antiquity for Christ's settling S. Peter in his Throne at Rome, as here is for his placing S. James in it at Jerusalem?

His Lordship goes on. And he still tells us, the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's successor. Well, suppose that, What then? What? Why then, §. 16.he succeeded in all S. Peter's prerogatives which are ordinary, P. 187. n. 15.and belonged to him as a Bishop, though not in the extraordinary, which belonged to him as an Apostle. For that is it which you all say, but no man proves. Yes, you say, Bellarmine hath done it in his disputations on that subject. For this you produce a saying of his, That when the Apostles were dead, the Apostolical Authority remained alone in S. Peter's successor. I see with you still, saying and proving are all one. But since you referr the Reader to Bellarmine for▪ proofs, I shall likewise referr him to the many sufficient Answers which have been given him.

You argue stoutly afterwards, That because Primacy in the modern sense of it implies Supremacy, P. 206.therefore wherever the Fathers attribute a Primacy to Peter among the Apostles, they mean his Authority and power over them. I see, you are resolved to believe that there cannot be one, two, and three; but p. 450the first must be Head over all the rest. A Primacy of Order, his Lordship truly saith, was never denied him by Protestants; and an Vniversal Supremacy of power was never granted him by the Primitive Christians. Prove but in the first place that S. Peter had such a Supremacy of power over the Apostles, and all Christian Churches, and that this power is conveyed to the Pope, you will do something. In the mean time we acknowledge as much Primacy, Reynolds against Hart. c. 5. div. 3.Authority, and Principality in S. Peter, as D. Reynolds proves in the place you cite; none of which come near that Supremacy of power which you contend for, and we must deny till we see it better proved than it is by you.Hieronym. l. 1. Jovin. c. 14. But you offer it from S. Hierom, because he saith, The Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism, but a meer precedency of order is not sufficient for that. But, Doth not S. Hierom in the words immediately before, say, That the Church is equally built on all the Apostles, and that they all receive the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them; and, Can he possibly then mean in the following words any other Primacy, but such as is among equals, and not any Supremacy of power over them? And certainly you think the Apostles very unruly, who would not be kept in order by such a Primacy as this is, unless a S. Peter's full jurisdiction over them. And since it is so evident, that S. Hierom can mean no other but such a preheminence as this for preventing Schism, you had need have a good art, that can deduce from thence a necessity of a Supremacy of power in the Church for that end. For, say you, Whatsoever power or jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for preventing Schisms, must, à fortiori, be necessary in all succeeding ages; but still be sure to hold to that power or jurisdiction which was in the Apostles times, and we grant you all you can prove from it. You still dispute gallantly, when you beg the Question, and argue as formally as I have met with one, when you have supposed that which it most concerned you to prove; Which is, that God hath appointed a Supremacy of power in one particular person, alwaies to continue in the Church for preservation of Faith and Unity in it. For, if you suppose the Church cannot be governed, or Schism prevented without this, you may well save your self a labour of proving any further. But, so far are we from seeing such a Supremacy of power as you challenge to the Pope to be necessary for preventing Schisms, that we are sufficiently convinced that the Vsurping of it hath caused one of the greatest ever was in the Christian world.