The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 2 · Chapter 5

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 2 · Chapter 5

p. 382CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority.

The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon. How far our Church, in reforming her self, condemns the Church of Rome. The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs, asserted. The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious. The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice. The Rights of Primates and Metropolitans settled by it. The suitableness of the Ecclesiastical, to the Civil Government. That the Bishop of Rome had then a limited Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches; as Primate of the Roman Diocese. Of the Cyprian Priviledge; that it was not peculiar, but common to all Primates of Dioceses. Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons; how far pertinent to our dispute. How far the Pope's Confirmation requisite to new elected Patriarchs. Of the Synodical and Communicatory Letters. The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops. The Instances brought for it, considered. The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius, truly stated. The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared, and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy. Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome, how far allowed by the Canons of the Church. The great case of Appeals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed. That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited, as well as those of the inferiour Clergy. T. C's. fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops, for acknowledging Appeals to Rome. The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface, and the other to Coelestine. The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome, asserted. The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered. The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk. The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion. Of the state of the African Churches, after their denying Appeals to Rome. The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours. Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod, in case of Appeals: Whether ever received by the Church: No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy. Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene. The weakness of the pleas for it, manifested.

§. 1.THat which now remains to be discussed in the Question of Schism, is, concerning the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome, Whether that be so large and extensive, as to bind us to an universal submission, so that by renouncing of it, we violate the Vnity of the Church, and are thereby guilty of Schism? But, before we come to a particular discussion of that,Chap. 14. we must cast our eyes back on the precedent Chapter, in which the title promiseth us, That Protestants should be further convinced of Schism; but upon examination of it, there appears not so much as the shadow of any new matter, but it wholly depends upon principles already refuted, and so contains a bare repetition of what hath been abundantly answered in the first part. So your first Section hath no more of strength, than what lyes in your Churches Infallibility: For, when you would plead, That though the Church of Rome be the accused party, yet she may judge in her own cause;P. 171, 172. you do it upon this ground, That you had already proved the Roman p. 383Church to be infallible, and therefore your Church might as well condemn her accusers, as the Apostles theirs; and that Protestants not pretending Infallibility cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church. Now, What doth all this come to, in case your Church be not infallible, as we have evidently proved she is not, in the first part; and that she is so far from it, that she hath most grosly erred, as we shall prove in the third part? Your second Section supposes the matter of fact evident,P. 173. That Protestants did contradict the publick Doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world, which we have lately proved to be an egregious falsity, and shall do more afterwards. The cause of the Separatists, and the Church of England, is vastly different, Whether wee look on the authority, cause, or manner of their proceedings; and in your other Instances you still beg the Question, That your Church is our Mother-Church, and therefore we are bound to submit to her judgement, though she be the accused party. But as to this whole business of Quô Judice, nothing can be spoken with more solidity and satisfaction, than what his Lordship saith. If it be a cause common to both, as certain it is here (between the Protestant and Roman Church) then neither part alone may be Judge; if neither alone may judge, P. 157.then either they must be judged by a third, which stands indifferent to both, and that is the Scripture: or if there be a jealousie, or a doubt of the sense of the Scripture, they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church, and submit to that; or both call and submit to a General Council, which shall be lawfully called, and fairly and freely held with indifferency to all parties; and that must judge the Difference according to Scripture, which must be their Rule as well as private mens. When you either attempt to shew the unreasonableness of this, or substitute any thing more reasonable instead of it, you may expect a further Answer to the Question, Quô Judice? as far as it concerns the difference between your Church, or ours. The remainder of this whole Chapter is only a repetition of somewhat concerning Fundamentals, ad p. 181.and a further expatiating in words, without the addition of any more strength from reason or authority upon the Churches Infallibility being proved from Scripture; which having been throughly considered already, and an account given, not only of the meaning of those places (one excepted, which we shall meet with again) but of the reason, Why the sense of them as to Infallibility should be restrained to the Apostles, I find no sufficient motive inducing me to follow you, in distrusting the Readers memory, and trespassing on his patience, so much as to inculcate the same things over and over, as you do. Passing by therefore the things already handled, and leaving the rest (if any such thing appear) to a more convenient place, where these very places of Scripture are again brought upon the stage in the Questions of the Pope's Authority and Infallibility of General Councils, I come to your following Chapter, in which you enter upon the Vindication of the Roman Churches Authority.

2. That which his Lordship hath long insisted on,§. 2. and evidently proved, is, The Right which particular Churches have to reform themselves, when the General Church cannot for impediments, or will not for negligence do it. And your Answers to his proofs have had their weakness sufficiently laid open; the only thing here objected further, is, Whether in so doing particular Churches do not condemn others of Errours in Faith? To which his Lordship answers, That to reform themselves, and to condemn others, P. 166.are two different works, unless it fall out so, that by reforming themselves, they do p. 384by consequence condemn any other, that is guilty in that point, in which they reform themselves; and so far to judge and condemn others, is not only lawful but necessary. A man that lives Religiously doth not by and by sit in judgement, and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers: but yet while he is silent, his very life condemns them. To what end his Lordship produceth this Instance, any one may easily understand; but you abuse it, as though his Lordship had said, That Protestants only by their Religious lives do condemn your Church; and upon this run out into a strange declamation about Who the men are that live so Religiously? P. 182. n. 1.They who to propagate the Gospel the better, marry wives contrary to the Canons and bring Scripture for it? Yes surely, much more then they who to propagate your Church, enjoy Concubines; for which if they can bring some Canons of your Church, I am sure they can bring no Scripture for it. They who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women? I see, you are still as loth to part them, as they are to be parted themselves; but if all their lives be no more Religious then the most of them have been; the pulling of them down might be a greater act of Religion then living in them. They who cast Altars to the ground? More certainly then they who worshipped them. They who partly banish Priests, and partly put them to death? Or they who commit treasons and do things worthy of death? But you are doubtless very Religious and tender-hearted men, whose consciences would never suffer you to banish or put any to death for the sake of Religion; no not in Queen Maries time here in England! They who deface the very Tombs of Saints, and will not permit them to rest even when they are dead? Or they who profess to worship dead Saints, and martyr living ones with Fire and Faggot? If this be your religious living, none who know what Religion means will be much taken with it. I shall easily grant that you stick close to the Pope, but are therein far enough from the Doctrine or life of St. Peter. If any of you have endured Sequestrations, Imprisonments, Death it self, I am sure it was not for any good you did; not for the Catholick Faith, but if you will, for some Catholick Treasons, such as would have enwrapt a whole Nation in misery. If this be your suffering persecution for righteousness sake, you will have little cause to rejoyce in your Fellow-sufferers. But if you had not a mind to calumniate us, and provoke us to speak sad truths of you, all this might have been spared; for his Lordship only chose this Instance, to shew that a Church or person may be condemned consequentially, which was not intentionally. But you say, Our Church hath formally condemned yours, by publick and solemn censures in the 39. Articles. Doth his Lordship deny that our Church in order to our own reformation hath condemned many things which your Church holds? No, but that our Churches main intention was to reform it self; but, considering the corruption and degeneracy of your Church, she could not do it, without consequentially condemning yours: and, that she did justly in so doing, we are ready on all occasions to justifie.

§. 3.But his Lordship asks, If one particular Church may not judge or condemn another, P. 167.What must then be done where particulars need reformation? To which his Adversary gives a plain Answer, That particular Churches must in that case (as Irenaeus intimateth) have recourse to the Church of Rome, which hath more powerful principality; and to her Bishop, who is the chief Pastour of the whole Church, as being St. Peters Successour, &c. This is the rise and occasion of the present Controversie. To this his Lordship Answers, That it is most true indeed; the Church of Rome hath had, and hath yet, more p. 389powerful Principality, then any other particular Church. But she hath not this power from Christ. The Roman Patriarch by Ecclesiastical constitutions might perhaps have a Primacy of order: but for principality of power, the Patriarchs were as even, as equal, as the Apostles were before them. The truth is, this more powerful Principality the Roman Bishops got under the Emperours, after they became Christian; and they used the matter so, that they grew big enough to oppose, nay to depose the Emperours, by the same power which they had given them. And after this, other particular Churches, especially here in the West, submitted themselves to them for Succour and Protections sake. And this was one main cause that swel'd Rome into this more powerful Principality, and not any right given by Christ to make that Prelate, Pastour of the whole Church. To this you Answer, That to say that the Roman Churches Principality is not from Christ, P. 183.is contrary to St. Austin and the whole Milevitan Council, who in their Epistle to Innocent the first profess that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. But whoever seriously reads and throughly considers that Epistle will find no such thing as that you aim at there.Arbitramur—adjuvante misericordiā Domini nostri Jesu Christi—Authoritati Sanctitati… tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum Authoritate depromptae, facilius eos qui tam perversa & perniciosa sentiunt, esse cessur…s. Aug. ep. 92. For the scope of the Epistle is to perswade Pope Innocent to appear against Coelestius and Pelagius; to that end they give first an account of their Doctrine, shewing how pernicious and contrary to Scripture it was; after which they tell him that Pelagius being at Jerusalem was like to do a great deal of mischief there, but that many of the Brethren opposed him and especially St. Hierom. But we, say they, do suppose that through the mercy of our Lord Christ assisting you, those which hold such perverse and pernicious principles may more easily yield by your Authority drawn out of Scripture. Where they do not in the least dream of his Authority as Vniversal Pastor being grounded on Scripture, but of his appearing against the Pelagians with his Authority drawn out of Scripture, that is, to that Authority which he had in the Church, by the reputation of the Roman See, the Authority of the Scripture being added, which was so clear against the Pelagians, or both these going together were the most probable way to suppress their Doctrine. And it hath been sufficiently proved by others, by very many instances of the writers about that Age, that Authoritas was no more then Rescriptum; as particularly appears by many passages in Leo's Epistles, in which sense no more is expressed by this, than, that by the Pope's Answer to the Council drawn out of the Authority of Scripture, the Pelagians might more probably be suppressed. But what is this to an Vniversal Pastorship given by Christ to him; any otherwise then to those who sat in any other Apostolical Sees?

But your great quarrel is against his Lordship, for making all the Patriarchs even and equal, as to Principality of power: and when he saith, Equal as the Apostles were, you say, that is aequivocal; for though the Apostles had equal jurisdiction over the whole Church, yet St. Peter alone had jurisdiction over the Apostles; but this is neither proved from John 21. nor is it at all clear in Antiquity as will appear when we come to that Subject.

But this assertion of the equality of Protestants is so destructive to your pretensions in behalf of the Church of Rome, §. 4.that you set your self more particularly to disprove it; which you offer to do by two things. 1. By a Canon of the Nicene Council. 2. By the practise of the ancient Church. P. 184.You begin with the first of them, and tell us, That 'tis contrary to the Council of Nice, In the third Canon whereof, which concerns the jurisdiction p. 390of Patriarchs, the Authority (or Principality if you will) of the Bishop of Rome is made the Pattern, and Model of that Authority and Jurisdiction which Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops. The words of the Canon are these. Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus, qui sub ejus potestate sunt, sicut ille qui tenet sedem Romae, caput est & princeps omnium Patriarcharum, The Patriarch (say they) is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority, as he who holds the See of Rome is head and Prince of the Patriarchs. And in the same Canon the Pope is afterwards styled, Petro similis & Authoritate par, resembling St. Peter and his equal in Authority. These are big words indeed and to your purpose, if ever any such thing had been decreed by the Council of Nice; but I shall evidently prove that this Canon is supposititious, and a notorious piece of Forgery. Which forgery is much increased by you when you tell us, these words are contained in the third Canon of the Council of Nice: Which in the Greek Editions of the Canons by du Tillet, and the Codex Canonum by Justellus, and all other extant, in the Latin versions of Dionysius Exiguus, and Isidore Mercator, is wholly against the foreign, i. e. such kind of women which Clergy men took into their houses, neither as wives or Concubines, but under a pretext of piety. In the Arabick Edition of the Nicene Canons, set out by Alphonsus Pisanus, the third Canon is against the ordination either of Neophyti or criminal persons, and so likewise in that of Turrianus. So that in no Edition, whether Arabick or other, is this the third Canon of the Council of Nice; and therefore you were guilty either of great ignorance and negligence in saying so, or of notorious fraud and imposture if you knew it to be otherwise, and yet said it that the unwary reader might believe this Canon to be within the 20. which are the only genuine Canons of the Council of Nice. Indeed such a Canon there is in these Arabick Editions, but it is so far from being the third, that in the Editions both of Pisanus and Turrianus it is the thirty ninth, and in it I grant those words are; but yet you will have little reason to rejoyce in them, when I have proved, (as I doubt not to do) that this whole farrago of Arabick Canons is a meer forgery; and that I shall prove both from the true number of the Nicene Canons, and the incongruity of many things in the Arabick Canons with the State and Polity of the Church at that time.

In those Editions set out by Pisanus and Turrianus from the Copy which they say was brought by Baptista Romanus from the Patriarch of Alexandria there are no fewer then eighty Canons; whereas the Nicene Council never passed above 20. Which if it appear true, that will sufficiently discover the Forgery and Supposititiousness of these Arabick Canons. Now that there were no more then twenty genuine Canons of the Council of Nice, I thus prove. First from Theodoret, who after he had given an account of the proceedings in the Council against the Arrians, he saith, That the Fathers met in Council again, and passed twenty Canons relating to the Churches Polity: foreign. Theodoret. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 7. ed. Sirmond. 1642. foreign. Gelas. Acta Concil. Nicen. lib. 2. foreign. Niceph. Ecclesiast. hist. l 8. c 19. Quanquam Graci omnes asserant et tu…antur, Nicaeni Concilii Canones viginti tantum …uisse, &c. Bin not. in Concil. Nicaen p 366.10.1.Sir 50:1and Gelasius Gricenus whom Alphonsus Pisanus set forth with his Latin version, recounts no more then twenty Canons; the same number is asserted by Nicephorus Callistus; and we need not trouble our selves with reciting the testimonies of more Greek Authors, since Binius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say, there were no more then twenty Canons then determined. But although certainly the Greeks were the most competent p. 391Judges in this case, yet the Latins themselves did not allow of more.Ruffin. Ecclesiast. hist. lib. 1. cap. 5. For although Ruffinus makes twenty two, yet that is not by the addition of any more Canons, but by splitting two into four.Viginti tantum capitula Nicanae Synodi in Sanctâ Romanâ Ecclesiâ haberi. Gratian▪ distinct. 16. c. 20. And if we believe Pope Stephen in Gratian, the Roman Church did allow of no more then twenty. And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches, Deinde etiam 20. capitulis Nicani Concilii recitatis, communi decreto statuerunt capitula 37. (sive 39.) quae subsequuntur. Vid. Justell. not. in Cod. Eccles. African. p. 14.A.D. 773. the same number of the Nicene Canons appears still. And in a M S. of Hincmarus Rhemensis against Hincmarus Laudunensis, Quod non nisi viginti capitula quae habemus in Nicaeno Concilio fuerunt constituta. c. 21. apud Justell. ibid.this is not only asserted but at large contended for, that there were no more Canons determined at Nice, then those twenty which we now have, from the testimonies of the Tripartite history, Ruffinus, the Carthaginian Council, the Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople, and the twelfth action of the Council of Chalcedon. So that if both Greeks and Latins say true, there could be no more then twenty genuine Canons of the Council of Nice; which may be yet further proved by two things, viz. the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons and the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae, both which yield an abundant testimony to our purpose. If ever there was a just occasion given for an early and exact search into the authentick Canons of the Council of Nice, it was certainly in that grand Debate between the African Fathers and the Roman Bishops in the case of Appeals. For Zosimus challenging not only a right of Appeals to himself, but a power of dispatching Legats unto the African Churches to hear causes there, and all this by vertue of a Canon in the Nicene Council, and this being delivered to them in Council by Faustinus, Philippus, and Asellus whom Zosimus sent into Africa, to negotiate this affair; no sooner did they hear this, but they were startled and amazed at it, that such a thing should be challenged by vertue of a Canon in the Council of Nice which they had never heard of before. Upon this they declare themselves willing to yield to what should appear to be determined by the Nicene Canons; thence they propound that a more exact search might be made into the authentical Copies of them: for they profess no such thing at all to appear, in all the Greek copies which they had among them; although Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage were present in the Council of Nice and brought home those Copies which were preserved in the Church of Africa. For in all the subscriptions of the Nicene Council, whether Arabick or others, the name of Caecilian appears; now Caecilian was immediate Predecessor in Carthage to Aurelius who presided in that Council wherein these things were debated. And there it is expresly said,Codex Can. Eccles. Afric; p: 58. There were but twenty Canons. But in order to further satisfaction, they decree that a message should be sent on purpose to Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria to find out the authentick Copies of the Nicene Canons, and after a most diligent search no more Canons could be found then what the African Fathers had before. And thence in the Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople written to the Council of Carthage, he acquaints them that he according to their desire had sent them the true and compleat Canons (foreign) of the Nicene Council. Codex Canon. p. 363.And to the same purpose Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria mentioning their desires of having foreign the most true and authentick copies out of the Archives of that Church, so he tells them he had p. 392sent (foreign) the most faithful copies of the authentick Synod of Nice.Id. p 360. Now if there had been any ground in the world for Turrianus his conjecture,Turrian. praef. in Canon. Arab. that the Nicene Canons were translated into Arabick by Alexander who was present at the Council, for the Benefit of those in Pentapolis or Aegypt who only understood that language, (and that before the Nicene Canons were burnt, of which Athanasius complains); who was more likely to have found out these Arabick Canons then Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria upon this occasion especially, when the full and authentick Copies were so extreamly desired? And since no such thing at all appeared then, upon the most diligent inquiry, What can be more evident, then that these eighty Arabick Canons are the imposture of some latter age? Besides, if these Canons had been genuine and authentick, what imaginable reason can be given why they were not inserted in the Codex Canonum as the other twenty were? For, as Jacobus Leschasserius well observes, we are not to imagine that the Ancient Church was governed at Randome by loose and dispersed Canons, whereby it had been an easie matter to have foisted in false and supposititious Canons;Consultatio de Controvers. inter Paul. 5: & Rempub. Venet. apud Goldast. Monarch. Tom. 3. p. 444. but that there was a certain body and collection of them digested into an exact order; so that none could add to or take away any thing from it: and whatever Canons were not contained in this body had no power or force at all in the Church. And that there was such a Codex Canonum, that learned Person hath abundantly proved from the Council of Chalcedon, which hath many passages referring to it; so that there is now no question made, but that which Justellus published is the true collection of those Canons of the Vniversal Church which were inserted into the Codex; in which we find but only the twenty Canons of the Nicene Council; and that there could possibly be no more, appears by the number of the Canons as they are reckoned in the Council of Chalcedon. From whence it follows that only these twenty Canons were ever own'd by the Vniversal Church; for had the Fathers of the Church known of so many other Canons of the Nicene Council, (as surely at least the Patriarchs of Alexandria could not be ignorant of them if there had been any such) can we possibly think that those who had so great a Veneration for the Nicene Council, should have left the far greater part of the Canons of it, out of the Code of the Churches Canons? I am not ignorant of what is objected by Binius, Bellarmin, and others, to prove that there were more then twenty Canons of the Council of Nice; but those proofs either depend upon things as supposititious as the Arabick Canons themselves, such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum; or else they only prove that several other things were determined by the Nicene Council as concerning the celebration of Easter, rebaptizing Hereticks, and such like, which might be by the Acts of the Council without putting them into the Canons, as Baronius confesseth; but there cannot be any evidence brought of any Canon which concerned the Churches Polity (for about that Theodoret and Nicephorus tell us the Canons were made) which was not among these twenty. So that it appears that these Arabick Canons are a meer forgery of later times, there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four General Councils: Quoniam hac ignorâsse majores visi sunt, quando …borta controversia in Ecclesiâ African…, de iis mentio necessaria incubuisset; haec libentius aliis disserenda relinquemus. Baron. ad. An. 325. parag. 108.and therefore Baronius, (notwithstanding the pretences of Pisanus and Turrianus from the Alexandrian Copy, and that out of Marcellus his Library, yet) since these Canons were unknown in the p. 393Controversie of the African Church about the Nicene Canons, leaves the Patronage of them to such as might be able to defend them. And Spondanus in his contraction of him, (though in his marginal note he saith,Quamobrem quod in epistol… quâdam Marci nomine 70. recenseantur.—quod que Tur…ianus profiteatur 80. inventos Arabicá linguá Scriptos, Latinitate se donâsse—quoniam haec omnia scripta quibus ingens ille numerus Canonum stabilitur, prorsus incertae vel potius nullius sunt fidei; nec aliquis unquam probatus antiquitatis auctor amplius quam 20. Canones Nicenae Synodi agnovisse reperiatur, ceteros ab aliis assertos libentius rejicimus. Spondan. Epitom. Baron. ad A. 325. n. 42. Baronius was sometimes more inclinable to the inlarged number of the Nicene Canons) yet he relates it as his positive opinion, that he rejected all but the twenty, whether Arabick or other as spurious and supposititious. You see then what a fair choice you have made of the third Canon of the Council of Nice to prove the superiority of the Pope over other Patriarchs by; when neither is it the third Canon, nor any Canon at all of the Council of Nice, but a spurious figment like those of Isidore Mercator, who thought all would pass for gold which made for the Interess of the Church of Rome.

But were there not such a strong and pregnant evidence from authority to make it appear that these Canons were supposititious, §. 5.yet the incongruity of them, with the state of the Church at that time would abundantly manifest it, if we had time to compare many of those Canons with it. But that which is most material to our purpose, concerning the equality of the Patriarchs, your following words will put us upon a further enquiry into. This also, say you (viz. That the Pope was head and Prince of all the Patriarchs) the practise of the Church shews, P. 184.which is alwayes the best expositor and assertor of the Canons. For not only the Popes confirmation was required to all new elected Patriarchs, but it belonged likewise to him to depose unworthy ones, and restore the unjustly deposed by others. Nicol. Pap. …p. ad Michael. Imperat▪We read of no less then eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome. Sixtus the third deposed also Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem, as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie. On the contrary, Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople,Zozom. l. 3. c. 7. were by Julius the first restored to their respective Sees having been unjustly expelled by Hereticks. The same might be said of divers others; over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority: which he could never have done, upon any other ground, then that of Divine Right, and as being generally acknowledged St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church. Three things I shall return you in Answer to this Discourse. 1. That the practise of the Church doth not shew any such inequality as you contend for between the Pope and other Patriarchs. 2. That no such practise of the Church can be proved from the instances by you brought; And therefore, lastly, It by no means follows that the Pope exercised any such authority by Divine right, or was acknowledged to be St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church. I begin with the practice of the ancient Church, which is so far from being an evidence of such an inequality of Patriarchs as that you contend for, that nothing doth more confirm that which his Lordship saith concerning the equality of them then that doth. For which we appeal to that famous testimony to this purpose in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council. foreign Concil. Nicen. Can. 6.Let ancient customes prevail; according to which, let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them who are in Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; because this was likewise the custome for the Bishop of Rome. And accordingly in Antioch and other Provinces, let the priviledges be preserved to the Churches. Which Canon is the more remarkable, p. 394because it is the first that ever was made by the ancient Church for regulating the rights and priviledges of Churches over each other; which there was like to be now more contest about, not only by reason of the Churches liberty under Constantine, but because of the new disposition of the Empire by him, which was made not long before the sitting of the Council of Nice. But the particular occasion of this Canon is generally supposed to be this. Meletius an ambitious Bishop in Aegypt, much about the time that Arrius broached his Heresie at Alexandria, takes upon him to ordain Bishops and others in Aegypt, without the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria. This case being brought before the Nicene Fathers, they pronounce these ordinations null, depose Meletius, and, to prevent the like practises for the future, do by this Canon confirm the ancient customs of that nature in the Church; so that the Bishop of Alexandria should enjoy as full right and power over the Provinces of Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, as the Bishop of Rome had over those subject to him, as likewise Antioch and other Churches should enjoy their former priviledges. Where we plainly see that the ground of this extent of power is not attributed to any Divine right of the Bishop of Rome, or any other Metropolitan, but to the ancient custome of the Church; whereby it had obtained that such Churches that were deduced (as it were so many colonies) from the Mother-Church, should retain so much respect to and dependence upon her, as not to receive any Bishop into them without the consent of that Bishop who governed in the Metropolis. Which was the prime reason of the subordination of those lesser Churches to the Metropolis: And this custome being drawn down from the first plantation of Churches, and likewise much conducing to the preserving of unity in them, these Nicene Fathers saw no reason to alter it, but much to confirm it. For otherwise, there might have been continual bandying and opposition of lesser Bishops and Churches against the greater; and therefore the Discipline and Vnity of the Church did call for this subordination; which could not be better determined then by the ancient custome which had obtained in the several Churches. It being found most convenient that the Churches in their subordination should be most agreeable to the civil disposition of the Empire. And therefore for our better understanding the force and effect of this Nicene Canon, we must cast our eye a little upon the civil disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantine, then lately altered from the former disposition of it under Augustus and Adrian. He therefore distributed the administration of the Government of the Roman Empire under four Praefecti Praetorio; but for the more convenient management of it, the whole body of the Empire was cast into several Jurisdictions containing many Provinces within them which were in the Law call'd Dioeceses; over every one of which there was appointed a Vicarius, or Lieutenant, to one of the Praefecti Praetorio, whose residence was in the chief City of the Diocese, where the Praetorium was, and justice was administred to all within that Diocese, and thither appeals were made. Under these were those Proconsuls or Correctores who ruled in the particular Provinces; and had their residence in the Metropolis of it, under whom were the particular Magistrates of every City; now according to this disposition of the Empire, the Western part of it contained in it seven of these Dioceses, as, under the Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum, was the Diocese of Gaul, which contained seventeen Provinces; the Diocese of Britain, which contained five, (afterwards but three in Constantines time) the Diocese of Spain, seven. Under p. 395the praefectus Praetorio Italiae, was the Diocese of Africa, which had six Provinces, the Diocese of Italy, whose seat was Milan, 7. the Diocese of Rome, 10. Under the Praefectus Praetorio Illyrici, was the Diocese of Illyricum, in which were seventeen Provinces. In the Eastern Division, were the Diocese of Thrace, which had six Provinces, the Diocese of Pontus 11. and so the Diocese of Asia, the Oriental (properly so called) wherein Antioch was, 15. all which were under the Praefectus Praetorio Orientis; the Aegyptian Diocese, which had six Provinces, was under the Praefectus Augustalis; in the time of Theodosius the elder, Illyricum was divided into two Dioceses, the Eastern, whose Metropolis was Thessalonica, and had eleven Provinces, the Western, whose Metropolis was Syrmium, and had six Provinces. According to this division of the Empire, we may better understand the Affairs and Government of the Church, which was model'd much after the same way; unless where Ancient custom, or the Emperour's edict, did cause any variation. For as the Cities had their Bishops, so the Provinces had their Arch-Bishops, and the Dioceses their Primates, whose Jurisdiction extended as far as the Diocese did; and as the Conventus Juridici were kept in the chief City of the Diocese for matters of Civil Judicature, so the chief Ecclesiastical Councils for the affairs of the Church, were to be kept there too; for which there is an express passage in the Codex of Theodosius, whereby care is taken, That the same course should be used in Ecclesiastical, which was in civil matters; Codex Theodos. de Episcop. l. 23. Qui mos est causarum civilium, iidem in negotiis Ecclesiasticis obtine…di sunt, ut, si qua sunt —ad religionis observantiam pertinentia, locis suis & à suae dioec…s…os Synodis audiantur.so that such things which concerned them should he heard in the Synods of the Diocese. Where the word Diocese is not used in the sense the African Fathers used it in, for that which belonged to one Bishop (as it is now used) but as it is generally used in the Codex of Theodosius and Justinian, and the Novells and Greek Canons; for, that which comprehends in it many Provinces, as a Province, takes in several Dioceses of particular Bishops.

These things being premised,§. 5. we may the better understand the scope of the Canon of the Council of Nice; in which three things are to our purpose considerable; 1. That it supposeth particular bounds and limits set to the Jurisdiction of those who are mentioned in it. 2. That what Churches did enjoy priviledges before this Council had them confirmed by this Canon, as not to be altered. 3. That the Churches enjoying these priviledges were not subordinate to each other.

1. That particular bounds and limits were supposed to the power of those Churches therein mentioned. For, although we grant that this Canon doth not fix or determine, What the bounds were of the Roman Bishops power, yet that it doth suppose that it had its bounds, is apparent from the example being drawn from thence for the limits of other Churches. For, What an unlikely thing is it, that the Church of Rome should be made the pattern for assigning the limits of other Metropolitan Churches, if that had not its known limits at that time? And, Can any thing be more absurd or unreasonable, than the Answer which Bellarmin gives to this place, That the Bishop of Alexandria ought to govern those Provinces, Quarta igitur & vera expositio est, Alexandrinum debere gubernare illas provincias, quia Romanus Episcopus ita consuevit, …d est, quia Romanus Episcopus ante omnem Co…ciliorum definitionem consuevit pe…mittere Episc…po Alexandrino regimea Aegypti, Libyae & Pentapolis. Bellarm. de Rom. ont, l. 2. c▪ 13.because the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed, i. e. saith he, To let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them. Here is an id est with a witness. What will not these men break through, that can so confidently obtrude such monstrous interpretations upon the credulous world▪ p. 396Is it possible to conceive when the Canon makes use of the parallel of the Roman Bishop, and makes that the ground why the Bishop of Alexandria should enjoy full power over those Provinces, because the Bishop of Rome did so; that the meaning should be, That he gave the Bishop of Alexandria power to govern those Provinces? They who can believe such things, may easily find arguments for the Pope's unlimited Supremacy every where. I make no scruple to grant what Bellarmin contends for, from the Epistle of Nicolaus 1, That the Council did not herein assign limits to the Church of Rome, but made that a pattern whereby to order the Government of other Churches. And from thence it is sufficiently clear to any reasonable man, that the limits of her Government were, though not assigned, yet supposed by the Council. For otherwise, How absurd were it to say, Let the Bishop of Alexandria govern Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of the Church of Rome hath no limits at all, but governs the whole Church? Doth not foreign import some parallel custom in the Church of Rome, and name therefore what that is, supposing he hath no limits set to his Jurisdiction? Yes, it may be you will reply, He had limits as a Metropolitan, but not as Head of the Church. Grant me then, that he had limits as Metropolitan, and then prove you, that ever he had any unlimited power acknowledged as Head of the Church. Would they ever have made such an instance in him, without any discrimination of his several capacities, if they had known any other power that he had, but only as a Metropolitan? Nay, might not the Bishops of Antioch, and Alexandria, be rather supposed to have the greater power, because their Provinces were much larger here than his. And although Bellarmin useth that as his great argument, Why Ruffinus his exposition cannot hold, Because the Bishop of Rome would have a lesser Diocese assigned him, than either the Bishops of Antioch, or Alexandria; yet when we consider, What hath been said already of the agreement of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Government, a sufficient account may thence be given of it. For as the Praefectus Augustalis had all the Provinces of Aegypt for his Diocese, so had the Bishop of Alexandria; and, as the Lieutenant of Antioch had that which was properly called the Orient, containing fifteen Provinces under him, so had the Bishop of Antioch; and by the same proportion, the power of the Bishop of Rome did correspond to the Diocese of the Roman Lieutenant, which was over those ten Provinces, which were subject to his Jurisdiction, as it was distinct from the Diocese of Italy, which was under that Lieutenant, whose residence was at Milan. Here we see then a parity of reason in all of them: and therefore I cannot but think that the true account of the Suburbicary Churches in Ruffinus his exposition of this Canon, is, that which we have now set down, viz. those Churches which lay within the ten Provinces subject to the Roman Lieutenant. But of them more afterwards. That which I now insist on, is, that the Bishop of Rome had then a limited Jurisdiction, as other Metropolitans and Primats had. Nay, if we should grant that the title produced by Paschasinus in the Council of Chalcedon to this Canon, were not such a forgery as that of Zosimus, yet the most that it could prove, was only this, That the Roman Church had alwaies the primacy within her Diocese, i. e. all Metropolitical power; but not that it had an unlimited primacy in the whole Church, which was a thing none of those Fathers who lived in the time of the four Councils, did ever acknowledge; but alwaies opposed any thing tending to it, as appears by those very proceedings of Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon, and by the Canons of that Council, and of the p. 397Council of Constantinople. And it is a rare Answer to say, That those Canons are not allowed by the Roman Church; for by that very Answer it appears, that they did oppose the Pope's Supremacy, or else doubtless they would have been allowed there. But that the Pope's Metropolitical Power was confined within the Roman Diocese, so as not to extend to the Italick, we have this pregnant evidence, that it appears by the occasion of the Nicene Canon, that the main Power contested for, was that of Ordination; and it is evident by Theodoret and Synesius his Epistles,Theodoret. l. 1. c 9. Syncs. ep. ad Theophil. Alexand. that the Bishop of Alexandria did retain it as his due by virtue of this Canon, to ordain the Bishops of Pentapolis as well as Aegypt. But now the Bishop of Rome did not ordain the Bishop of Milan who was in the Italick Diocese; for S. Ambrose was ordained Bishop by a Synod of Italy at the appointment of the Emperour Valentinian, and by an Epistle of Pelagius 1. A. D. 555. it appears that the Bishops of Aquileia and Milan, were wont to ordain each other; which, though he would have believed, was only to save charges in going to Rome; yet as that learned and ingenuous person Petrus de Marcâ observes, the true reason of it, was, because Milan was the Head of the Italick Diocese, as appears by the Council of Aquileia,Cùm vera hujus instituti ratio in eo consistat, quòd cum Mediolanum esset caput Dioeces…os Italicae, ut constat ex Concilio Aquileiensi, ordinatio Metropolitae Aquileie…sis ad Episcopum Mediolanensem optimo jure pertinebat; Primatis verò Mediolanensis ordinatio ad Aquileiensem Episcopum, quòd primus esset inter Metropolitanos Synodi Generalis Dioeceseos Italicae. Petrus de Marcâ de Concord. Sacerdot. & Imp. l. 6. c. 4. sect. 7. and therefore the ordination of the Bishop of Aquileia, did of right belong to the Bishop of Milan; and the ordination of the Bishop of Milan did belong to him of Aquileia, as the chief Metropolitan of the general Synod of the Italick Diocese. Although afterwards the Bishops of Rome got it so far into their hands, that their consent was necessary for such an ordination, yet that was only when they began more openly to encroach upon the liberties of other Churches. But, as the same learned Author goes on,Ibid. sect. 8. those Provinces which lay out of Italy, did undoubtedly ordain their own Metropolitans, without the authority or consent of the Bishop of Rome, which he there largely proves of the African, Spanish, and French Churches. It follows then from the scope of the Nicene Canon, and the practice of the Church, that the Bishop of Rome had a limited Jurisdiction, as the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch, and other Primates had.

2. That what Churches did enjoy priviledges before, §. 6.had them confirmed by this Canon, as not to be altered. For it makes provision against any such alteration, by ordaining that the ancient Customs should be in force still. And accordingly we find it decreed in the second Canon of the Constantinopolitan Council, That the same limits of Dioceses should be observed, which were decreed in the Council of Nice; and that none should intrude to do any thing in the Dioceses of others. And by the earnest and vehement Epistles of Pope Leo to Anatolius, we see the main thing he had to plead against the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was, that by this means the most sacred Decrees of the Council of Nice would be violated. We see then, that those priviledges which belonged to Churches then, ought still to be inviolably observed; so that those Churches which then had Primates and Metropolitans of their own, might plead their own right by virtue of the Nicene Canon. So we find it decreed in that Council of Ephesus in the famous case of the Cyprian Bishops; for their Metropolitan being dead (Troilus the Bishop of Constance) the Bishop of Antioch pretended that it belonged to him to ordain their Metropolitan, Concil Ephes. act. 7. part. …. p. 424.because Cyprus was within the civil Jurisdiction of the Diocese of Antioch; upon this the Cyprian Bishops make their complaint to the General Council at Ephesus, and ground p. 398it upon that ancient custom which the Niccne Canon insists on, viz. that their Metropolitan had been exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, and was ordained by a Synod of Cyprian Bishops; which priviledge was not only confirmed to them by the Ephesine Council, but a general decree passed, That the rights of every Province should be preserved whole and inviolate, which it had of old according to ancient custom. foreign. Concil. Ephes. Can 8. in edit. verò Binii ante Canones habetur. Tom. 2. Concil. Part. 2. Act. 7. p. 426.Acts 7Which was not a decree made meerly in favour of the Cyprian Bishops, but a common asserting the rights of Metropolitans, that they should be held inviolate. Now therefore it appears, that all the Churches then were far from being under one of the three Patriarchs, of Rome, Antioch, or Alexandria; for, not only the three Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia, were exempt (although afterwards they voluntarily submitted to the Patriarch of Constantinople) but likewise all those Churches which were in distinct Dioceses from these, had Primates of their own, who were independent upon any other. Upon which account it hath not only been justly pleaded in behalf of the Britannick Churches, that they are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop; but it is ingenuously confessed by Father Barns,Insula autem Britanniae gavisa est olim privilegio Cyprio ut nullius Patriarchae legibus subderetur. Hoc autem privilegium et si abolitum olim fuit bellorum tumultibus & vi, tamen cum tempore Henrici 8. totius regni consensu fuerit repetitum, & ab eo tempore pacificè praescriptum: videtur pacis ergô retineri debere, sine dispendio Catholicism…, & abs que Schismatis ullius notâ▪ Barns Catholico-Romanus Pacificus MS. sect. 3. That the Britannick Church might plead the Cyprian priviledge, that it was subject to no Patriarch. And, although this priviledge was taken away by force and tumult, yet being restored by the consent of the Kingdom, in Henry 8. time, and quietly enjoyed since, it ought to be retained for peace sake, without prejudice of Catholicism, and the brand of Schism. If so, certainly it can be no Schism, to withdraw from the usurped Authority of the Roman Church. But, these things have been more largely insisted on by others, and therefore I pass them over.

3. From thence it follows, that there was then an equality, not only among the Patriarchs (whose name came not up till some time after the Council of Nice) but among the several Primates of Dioceses, all enjoying equal power and authority over their respective Dioceses, without subordination to each other. But here it is vehemently pleaded by some, who yet are no Friends to the unlimited power of the Roman Bishop, That it is hardly conceivable, that he should have no other power in the Church, but meerly as Head of the Roman Diocese, and that it appears by the Acts of the Church he had a regular preheminence above others in ordering the Affairs of the Church. To which I answer, 1. If this be granted, it is nothing at all to that Vniversal Pastorship over the Church, which our Adversaries contend for, as due by divine right, and acknowledged to be so by consent of the Church. Let the Bishop of Rome then quit his former plea, and insist only on this, and we shall speedily return an Answer, and shew, How far this Canonical Primacy did extend. But, as long as he challengeth a Supremacy upon other grounds, he forfeits this right, whatever it is, which comes by the Canons of the Church. 2. What meerly comes by the Canons of the Church, cannot bind the Church to an absolute submission, in case that authority be abused to the Churches apparent prejudice. For the Church can never give away her Power to secure her self against whatever incroachments tend to the injury of it. This power then may be rescinded by the parts of the Church, when it tends to the mischief of it. 3. This Canonical preheminence is not the main thing we dispute with the Church of Rome; let her p. 399reform her self from all those errours and corruptions which are in her communion, and reduce the Church to the primitive purity and simplicity of Faith and Worship, and then see if we will quarrel with the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, according to the Canons, or any regular preheminence in him meerly in order to the Churches Peace and Unity. But this is not the case between us and them, they challenge an unlimited power, and that by divine right, and nothing else will satisfie them but this, although there be neither any ground in Scripture for it, nor any evidence of it in the practice of the Ancient Church.

But however, we must see, what you produce for it; First, you say, The Pope's Confirmation was required to all new elected Patriarchs. To that I shall return the full and satisfactory Answer of the late renowned Arch-Bishop of Paris, Petrus de Marcâ, Quod ad Patriarchas attinet, responderi potest, Confirmationem illam non esse signum jurisdictionis, sed tantum susceptionis in communionem, & testimonium quo conslabat, summum Pontificem consentire consecratio… jam peractae. Petrus de Marcâ de Concord. c. Sacerdot. & Imper. l 6. c 5. sect. 2.where he propounds this as an Objection out of Baronius, and thus solves it; That the confirmation of Patriarchs by the Bishop of Rome, was no token of Jurisdiction, but only of receiving into Communion, and a testimony of his consent to the consecration already performed. And this was no more than was done by other Bishops in reference to the Bishop of Rome himself;Factus est autem Cora…lius Episcopus de Dei & Ch…isti ejus judicio, de Cle…icorum pen… omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tan… affu…t suffragio, & de Sacerdotum a…liquorum & bono…um …irorum Coll…gio—Cum Fabiani …ocus vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntare & omnium nostrûm consentione Firmato. Cyprian. ep. 52. p. 75. ed. Rigalt. for S. Cyprian writing to Antonianus about the election of Cornelius, saith, That he was not only chosen by the suffrage of the people, and testimony of the Clergy; but that his election was confirmed by all their consent. May not you then as well say, That the Bishop of Carthage had power over the Bishop of Rome, because his ordination was confirmed by him, and other African Bishops. Quippe usu receptum erat per illas tempestates, ut Patriarchae, & ipse etiam Romanus Pontifex recens electus, literas de suâ ordinatione mitterent; quibus addebatur prefessio fidei in Synodicis eorum Epistolis conscripta. Petrus de Marcâ. ib.But any one who had understood better than you seem to do, the proceedings of the Church in those ages, would never have made this an argument of the Pope's Authority over other Patriarchs, since, as the same Petrus de Marcâ observes, It was the custom in those times, that not only the Patriarchs but the Roman Bishop himself upon their election, were wont to send abroad Letters, testifying their ordination, to which was added a profession of Faith contained in their Synodical Epistles. Upon the receipt of which, Communicatory Letters were sent to the person newly ordained, to testifie their Communion with him, in case there were no just impediment produced. So that this was only a matter of Fraternal Communion, and importing nothing at all of Jurisdiction; but the Bishops of Rome, who were ready to make use of all occasions to advance their own Grandeur, did in time make use of this for quite other ends, than it was primarily intended; for, in case of any suspicions and jealousies of any thing that might tend to the dis-service of their See, they would then deny their Communicatory Letters as Simplicius did in the case of the Patriarch of Alexandria. And in that Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo 1. which Baronius so much insists on, Leo himself gives a sufficient account of it, viz. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the world. Ut per totum mundum una nobis sit unius Communionis integr…tas, in quâ societatem tuae dilectionis amplectimur, & gestorum quae sumpsim…s serien…, necessariis munitam subscription…bus approbamus. Leo 1. ep. 38.So that if the Pope's own judgement may be taken, this Confirmation of new elected Patriarchs imported nothing of Jurisdiction. But, in case the Popes did deny their Communicatory Letters, that did not presently p. 400hinder them from the execution of their office; as appears by the instance of Flavianus, the Patriarch of Antioch: for although three Roman Bishops successively opposed him,Theodoret. l. 5. c. 13. Damasus, Syricius, and Anastasius, and used great importunity with the Emperour, that he might not continue in his place, yet because the Churches of the Orient, Asia, Pontus, and Thracia, did approve of him, and communicate with him, he opposed their consent against the Bishops of Rome. Upon which, and the Emperour's severe checking them for their pride and contention, they at last promised the Emperour, that they would lay aside their enmity, and acknowledge him. So that, notwithstanding whatever the Roman Bishops could do against him, he was acknowledged for a true Patriarch, and at last their consent was given only by renewing Communion with him; which certainly is far from being an instance of the Pope's power over the other Patriarchs.

§. 8.Whereby we also see, What little power he had in deposing them; although you tell us,P. 184. That it belonged likewise to him to depose unworthy ones, & restore the unjustly deposed by others. But, that the power of deposing Bishops was anciently in Provincial Councils, appears sufficiently by the fifth Canon of the Nicene Council, and by the practice of the Church, both before and after it; and it is acknowledged by Petrus de Marcâ, that the sole power of deposing Bishops, was not in the hands of the Bishop of Rome, till about eight hundred years since; and refutes the Cardinal Perron for saying otherwise;De Concord. l 7. c. 1. sect▪ 6. and afterwards largely proves, that the Supreme authority of deposing Bishops, was still in Provincial Councils, and that the Pope had nothing to do in it, till the decree of the Sardican Synod, in the case of Athanasius; which yet, he saith, did not (as is commonly said) decree Appeals to be made to Rome, but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to Review their actions, but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in. All the power which he then had, was only this, that he might decree that the matters might be handled over again, but not that he had the power himself of deposing or restoring Bishops: Which is proved with that clearness and evidence by that excellent Author, that I shall refer you to him for it: and consider the instances produced by you to the contrary. We read (say you) of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome. Surely if you had read this your self, you would have quoted the place, with more care and accuracy than you do: for you give us only a blind citation of an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus, to the Emperour Michael, neither citing the words, nor telling us which it is, when there are several, and those no very short ones neither. But however, it is well chosen, to have a Pope's testimony in his own cause, and that such a Pope who was then in contest with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and that too so long after the encroachments of the Bishops of Rome, it being in the ninth Century; and yet for all this, this Pope doth not say those words which you would fasten upon him; that which he saith, is, That none of the Bishops of Constantinople,Au… nunquam omnino, aut certè vix, horum aliquis sine consensu Romani Pontificis reperitu… ejectus. Nicol. 1. epist. 8. Michael. Imp. Tom. 6. Concil. p. 506. or scarce any of them, were ejected without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. And then instanceth in Maximus, Nestorius, Accacius, Anthimus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus; but his design in this, is only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his consent. But what is all this to the Pope's sole power of deposing? when even at that time the Pope did not challenge it: But, supposing the Popes had done it before, it doth not follow that it was p. 401in their power to do it, and that the Canons had given them right to do it, but least of all certainly that they had a Divine right for it, which never was in the least acknowledged by the Church as to a deposition of Patriarchs, which you contend for. But besides this, you say, Sixtus the third, deposed Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem. Whereas Sixtus only sent eight persons from a Synod at Rome to Hierusalem, who when they came there, did not offer to depose Polychronius by vertue of the Popes power; but a Synod of seventy or more neighbour Bishops were call'd, by whom he was deposed; and yet after all this, Binius himself condemns those Acts which report this story, for spurious; there being a manifest repugnancy in the time of them,Tom. 2. Concis. p. 685. and no such person as Polychronius ever mentioned by the Ecclesiastical Historians of that time, and other fabulous Narrations inserted in them. Yet these are your goodly proofs of the Popes power to depose Patriarchs.

But we must see whether you have any better success in proving his power to restore such as were deposed; for which you only instance in Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius; whose case must be further examined, which, in short, is this: Athanasius being condemned by the Synods of Tyre and Antioch, goes to Rome, where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius, who would not accept of the Decree of the Eastern Bishops which was sent after him to Rome. For Pope Julius did not formally offer to restore Athanasius to his Church, but only owned and received him into Communion as Bishop of Alexandria, and that because he looked on the proceedings as unjust in his condemnation. And all that Julius himself pleads for, is, not a power to depose or restore Patriarchs himself, but only that such things ought not to have been done without communicating those proceedings to him, which the Vnity of the Church might require. And therefore Petrus de Marca saith, that Baronius, Bellarmin, and Perron are all strangely out in this story,L. 7. c. 4. sect. 6. when they would infer, That the causes of the Eastern Bishops upon appeal were to be judged by the Bishop of Rome: whereas all that Julius pleads for, is, that such things should not be done by the Eastern Bishops alone, which concerned the deposition of so great a person in the Church as the Patriarch of Alexandria, but that there ought to be a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops; on which account afterwards the Sardican Synod was call'd. But when we consider with what heat and stomack this was received by the Eastern Bishops, how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings, then they had with theirs; when they say, that the Pope by this usurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed, we see what an excellent instance you have made choice of, to prove the Popes power of restoring Bishops by Divine right, and that this was acknowledged by the whole Church.

The next thing to be considered is that speech of St. Augustine, §. 9.That in the Church of Rome there did alwayes flourish the Principality of an Apostolick chair. In Romana Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus. S. Aug. Epist. 162.As to which his Lordship saith, That neither was the word Principatus so great, nor the Bishops of those times so little, P. 168.as that Principes and Principatus are not commonly given them both by the Greek and Latin Fathers of this great and learnedst age of the Church made up of the fourth and fift hundred years, alwayes understanding Principatus of their spiritual power, and within the limits of their several jurisdictions, which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed. And there is not one word in St. Augustine, that this p. 402Principality of the Apostolick chair in the Church of Rome was then, or ought to be now exercised over the whole Church of Christ as Bellarmin insinuates there, and as A. C. would have it here. To all this you say nothing to purpose; but only tell us, That the Bishop by this makes way to some other pretty perversions (as you call them) of the same Father. P. 184.For we must know, say you, that he is entering upon that main Question concerning the Donatists of Africk; and he is so indeed, and that not only for clearing the meaning of St. Augustine in the present Epistle, but of the whole Controversie, to which a great light will be given by a true account of those proceedings. Thus then his Lordship goes on. And to prove that St. Augustine did not intend by Principatus here to give the Roman Bishop any power out of his own limits (which God knows were far short of the whole Church) I shall make it most manifest out of the same Epistle. P. 169.For afterwards (saith St. Augustine) when the pertinacy of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops, only they gave them leave to be heard by forraign Bishops. And after that he hath these words: And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church, Pergant ad Fratres & Collegas nostros transmarinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopos. S. Aug. Ep 162. An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melciades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris Septuaginta, ubi Primas Tigisitanus praesedit, fuerit terminatum. Quid quod nec ipse usurpaverit? Rogatus quippe Imperator, Judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo seder…nt, & de totâ illâ causâ, quod justum videretur, statuerent. S. Aug. ib.with his Colleagues the transmarine Bishops, non debuit, ought not to usurp to himself this judgement which was determin'd by seventy African Bishops; Tigisitanus, sitting Primate. And what will you say if he did not usurp this power? for the Emperour being desired, sent Bishops Judges, which should sit with him, and determine what was just upon the whole cause. In which passage, saith his Lordship, there are very many things observable. As first, That the Roman Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops. Secondly, That if the Pope had come in without this leave, it had been an Vsurpation. Thirdly, That when he did thus come in, not by his own Authority, but by Leave, there were other Bishops made Judges with him. Fourthly, That these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperour and his power; that which the Pope least of all will endure. Lastly, Lest the Pope and his Adherents should say, this was an Vsurpation in the Emperour, St. Austin tells us a little before in the same Epistle still, that this doth chiefly belong ad curam ejus, to the Emperours care and charge, Ad cujus curam, de quâ rationem Deo redditurus est, res illa maximè pertinebat. Id. ib.and that he is to give an account to God for it. And Melciades did sit and judge the business with all Christian Prudence and Moderation. So at this time the Roman Prelate was not received as Pastour of the whole Church, say A. C. what he please; nor had he Supremacy over the other Patriarchs. In order to the better shaping your Answer to this Discourse, you pretend to give us a true Narrative of the Donatists proceedings, by the same figure that Lucians Book is inscribed De vera historia. There are several things therefore to be taken notice of in your Narrative, before we come to your particular Answers, whose strength depends upon the matters of fact.

First, You give no satisfactory account at all, Why, if the Popes Vniversal Pastourship had been then owned, the first appeal on both sides was not made to the Bishop of Rome; for in so great a Schism as that was between the different parties of Caecilian and Majorinus, To whom should they have directly gone but to Melchiades then Bishop of Rome? How comes it to pass that there is no mention at all of his judgement by either party, till Constantine had appointed him to be one of the Judges? St. Austin indeed pleads in behalf of Caecilian, why he would not be judged by p. 403the African Synod of LXX. Bishops, that there were thousands of his Colleagues on the other side the Sea, whom he might be tryed by? But why not by the Bishop of Rome alone, if the Vniversal Pastorship did belong to him?Aug. ep. 162. But your Narrative gives us a rare account, why the Donatists did not go to the Pope before they went to the Emperour, viz. That they durst not appear there, or else knew it would be to little purpose. P. 185.But by what Arguments do you prove they durst not appear there before, when we see they went readily thither after the Emperour had appointed Rome for the place, where their cause was to be heard; if they thought it were to so little purpose? For we see the Donatists never except against the place at all, or the person of the Bishop of Rome; but upon the command of Constantine made known to them by Analinus the Proconsul of Africa, ten of their party go to Rome to negotiate their affairs before the Delegates. This is but therefore a very lame account, why the first appeal should be to the Emperour and not to the Pope, if he had been then known to be the Vniversal Pastour of the Church. But say you further, The Emperour disliked their proceedings and told them expresly, That it belonged not to him, neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops. But on what grounds he durst not do it, we may easily judge by his undertaking it at last, and passing a final judgement in this cause himself after the Councils at Rome, at Arles, could not put an end to it. If Constantine had judged it unlawful, could their importunity have excused it? and could it be any other then unlawful if the Pope were the Vniversal Pastour of the Church? Do you think it would be accounted a sufficient plea among you now, for any Prince to assume to himself the judgement of any cause already determin'd by the Pope, because of the importunity of the persons concerned in it? Indeed Constantine did at first prudently wave the business himself, and that I suppose the rather because the Donatists in their Petition had intreated that some of the Bishops of Gaul might umpire the business; either because that was then the place of the Emperours residence, or else that Gaul under Constantius had escaped the late persecution, and therefore were not lyable to the suspicion of those crimes whereof Caecilian and Felix of Aptung were accused. But however though Constantine did not sit as Judge himself, he appointed Marinus, Rheticius, and Maternus, to joyn with Melchiades the Bishop of Rome in the determining this case. But this he did, you say, to comply with the Donatists. What, to joyn other Bishops with the Head of the Church in equal power for deciding Controversies? and all this meerly to comply with the Schismatical Donatists? was this, think you, becoming one who believed the Popes Vniversal Pastourship by Divine Right? Well fare then the Answer of others who love to speak plain truths, and impute all these proceedings to Constantines Ignorance of his duty, being yet but a Catechumen in Christian Religion, and therefore did, he knew not what: But methinks the Vniversal Pastour or some of those nineteen Bishops who sat at Rome in this business, or of those two hundred whom you say met afterwards at Arles about it, should have a little better instructed him in his duty; and not let him go so far on in it, as from delegating Judges to hear it, and among them the Head of the Church, to resume it afterwards himself both to hear and determine it. If the Emperour had (as you say) protested against this as in it self unlawful, would none of the Bishops hinder him from doing it?P. 186. But where doth Constantine profess against it as in it self unlawful? if so, no circumstances, no importunities could ever make it lawful: Unless you think the importunity p. 404of Josephs Mistress would have made adultery no sin in him. If Constantine said he would ask the Bishops pardon in it, that might be, as looking on them as the more competent Judges, but not thinking it unlawful in it self for him to do, as you say.

Well but you tell us, It was rather the justice and moderation of the Roman Prelate, §. 10.that he came not in before it was due time, and the matter orderly brought before him. I am very much of your mind in this, and if all Popes since Melchiades had used the same justice and moderation, to have staid till things had been orderly brought to them, and not usurped upon the priviledges of other Churches, things had been in a far better condition in the Christian world then they are. Had there been none but such as Melchiades, who shewed so much Christian prudence and moderation in the management of this business, that great Schism, which your Church hath caused by her arrogant pretences, might have been prevented. But how come you to know, that this case did properly belong to the Popes cognizance? who told you this? to be sure not the Emperour Constantine, who in his Epistle to Miltiades, extant in Eusebius, intimates no such thing; but only writes to him as one delegated to hear that cause with the other Bishops and gives him Instructions in order to it.Euseb. l. 10. c. 5. Do the Donatists or their Adversaries mention any such thing? Doth the Pope himself ever express or intimate it? It seems, he wanted your information much at that time. Or it may be, like the late Pope Innocent in the case of the five propositions, he might say, he was bred no Divine, and therefore might the less understand his duty. But can it possibly enter into your head, that this case came to the Pope at last by way of regular appeal, as you seem to assert afterwards. Is this the way of appeals to go to the Emperour and Petition him to appoint Judges to hear the case? If the case of appeals must be determined from these proceedings, to be sure, the last resort will be to the Emperour himself, as well as the first appeal.

Whether the African Bishops gave leave to the Donatists to be heard by forraign Bishops, or they took it themselves, is not much material; because the Schism was so great at home, that there was no likelihood of any ending the Controversie by standing to a fair arbitration among themselves. And therefore there seemed a necessity on both sides of referring the business to some unconcerned persons who might hear the Allegations and judge indifferently between them. And no other way did the nineteen Bishops at Rome proceed with them, but as indifferent Arbitrators; and therefore the Witnesses and Allegations on both sides were brought before them; but we read of no power at all challenged absolutely to bind the persons to the judgement of the Church of Rome, as the final judgement in the case.P. 187. The Question, Whether the Pope had usurped this power or no, depends not upon the Donatists Question, Whether Melchiades ought to have undertaken the judgement of that cause which had been already determined by a Synod of LXX. Bishops in Africk? But upon St. Augustines Answer, who justifies the lawfulness of his doing it, because he was thereto appointed by the Emperour. But when you say, St. Austin gives this answer only per foreign, by way of condescension to his adversaries way of speaking: you would do well to prove elsewhere from St. Austin that when he lay's aside his Rhetorick he ever speaks otherwise, but that it would have been an Vsurpation in the Pope to challenge to himself the hearing of those causes which had been determined by African Bishops. But what St. Augustines judgement as well as the other African Fathers was in this point abundantly p. 405appears from the Controversies between them and the Bishop of Rome in the case of Appeals. It sufficiently appears already, That neither our Saviour, nor the Canons of the Vniversal Church gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius and other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church; and therefore you were put to your shifts when you run thither for security. But that which follows is notoriously false, That when he did so interpose, no man (no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffered by his judgement) complained or accused him of usurpation; when in the case of Athanasius it is so vehemently pleaded by the Eastern Bishops that the Pope had nothing at all to do in it; but they might as well call in Question what was done at Rome, as he what was done at Antioch. Nay name us any one cause in that age of the Church, where the Pope did offer to meddle in matters determined by other Bishops, which he was not opposed in, and the persons concern'd did not complain and accuse him of meddling with what he had no right to, which are but other words for Vsurpation.

You say, The Bishops whom the Emperour sent as Judges with the Pope, §. 11.were an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence. It seems three to one are with you an inconsiderable number. But say you, The Pope to shew his authority added fifteen other Bishops of Italy to be his Colleagues and Assistants in the business. Either these fifteen Bishops were properly Judges in the cause, or only assistants for better management and speedier dispatch; if they were Judges, how prove you that Constantine did not appoint them, if they were only assistants and suffragans to the Bishop of Rome, as is most probable (except Merocles Bishop of Milan) what authority did the Pope shew in calling his Suffragans to his assistance in a matter of that nature, which required so much examination of Witnesses. But the Pope had more effectually shewn his authority if he had refused the Bishops whom Constantine sent; and told him he medled with that which did not concern him, to appoint any Judges at all in a matter of Ecclesiastical Cognisance, and that it was an unsufferable presumption in him to offer to send three underling Bishops to sit with him in deciding Controversies; as though he were not the Vniversal Pastour of the Church himself, to whom alone by Divine right all such things did belong. Such language as this would have become the Head of the Church; and in that indeed he had shewn his authority. But for him sneakingly to admit other Bishops as joynt-commissioners, forsooth, with him; and that by the Emperours appointment too; What did he else but betray the rights of his See, and expose his Infallible Headship to great contempt? Do you think that Pope Hildebrand or any of his Successours would have done this? No, they understood their power far better then so; and the Emperour should have known his own, for offering such an Affront to his Holiness. And if his Bay-leaves did not secure him, the Thunder-bolts of Excommunication might have lighted on him to his prejudice. For shame then never say, That Pope Miltiades shewed his authority; but rather give him over among those good Bishops of Rome but bad Popes, who knew better how to suffer Martyrdom, then assert the Authority of the Roman See. I pray imagine but Paul 5. or any other of our stout-spirited Popes in Miltiades his place, Would they have taken such things at Constantines hands as poor Miltiades did? and, for all that we see, was very well contented too; and thought he did but his duty in doing what the Emperour bid him. Would they have been contented to have had a cause once passed p. 406the Infallible judgement of the Roman See, to be resumed again, and handled in another Council, as though there could be any suspicion that all things were not rightly carried there? and that after all this too, the Emperour should undertake to give the final decision to it? would these things have been born with by any of our Infallible Heads of the Church? But good Miltiades must be excused, he went as far as his knowledge carried him, and thought he might do good service to the Church in what he did; and that was it he looked at more then the grandeur of his See. The good Bishops then were just crept out of the Flames of persecution, and they thought it a great matter that they had liberty themselves, and did not much concern themselves about those Vsurpations which the Pride and Ease of the following ages gave occasion for. They were sorry to see a Church that had survived the cruel Flames of Dioclesians persecution, so suddenly to feel new ones in her own bowels; that a Church whose constitution was so strong as to endure Martyrdomes, should no sooner be at ease but she begins to putrifie, and to be fly-blown with heats and divisions among her members; and that her own Children should rake in those wounds, which the violence of her professed enemies had caused in her; and therefore these good Bishops used their care and industry to close them up; and rather rejoyced they had so good an Emperour who would concern himself so much in healing the Churches breaches, then dispute his Authority or disobey his Commands. And if Constantine doth express himself unwilling to engage himself to meddle in a business concerning the Bishops of the Church, it was out of his tender respect to those Bishops who had manifested their piety and sincerity so much in their late persecutions, and not from any Question of his own Authority in it. For that he after sufficiently asserted, not only in his own actions, but when the case of Felix of Aptung was thought not sufficiently scanned at Rome, in appointing (about four months after the judgement at Rome) Aelianus the Proconsul of Africa to examine the case of Felix the Bishop of Aptung, Valesius de Schismate Donatist. cap. 11.who had ordained Caecilian. To this the Donatists pleaded,Ait quidam, Non debuit Episcopus Procons… lari judicio purgari: quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparaverit, ac non Imperator ita quaeri jusserit, ad cujus curam de quâ rationem Deo redditurus esset, res illa maximè pertinebat. Augustin. ep. 162. That a Bishop ought not to be tryed by Proconsular judgement: to which St. Austin Answers, That it was not his own seeking, but the Emperours appointing, to whose care and charge that business did chiefly belong, of which he must give an account to God. And can it now enter into any head but yours, that for all this the Emperour looked on the judgement of this cause as a thing not belonging to his Authority? They who can believe such things as these, and notwithstanding all the circumstances of this story can think the Popes Vniversal Pastourship was then owned, the most I can say of them, is, that they are in a fair way to believe Transubstantiation; there being nothing so improbable, but upon equal grounds they may judge it true.

§. 12.That the Pope had no Supremacy over other Patriarchs, his Lordship saith, That, P. 170.were all other Records of Antiquity silent, the Civil Law is proof enough; And that's a Monument of the Primitive Church. The Text there is, A Patriarchâ non datur appellatio. From a Patriarch there lyes no appeal. No appeal. Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his own Patriarchate. Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacy over the whole Church. …od. l. 1. Tit. 4. l. 29. Authent. Collat. 9 ti… 15. c. 22.Therefore certainly not then received as universal Pastor. Two things you answer to this. 1. That this reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves, p. 407who must have some higher ordinary Tribunal, where such causes may be heard and determined. Very well argued against the Pope's power of judging:P. 188. n. 4. for, in case of a difference between him and the other Patriarchs, who must decide the difference? Himself no doubt! But still, it is your way to beg that you can never prove; for you herein suppose the Pope to be above all Patriarchs, which you know is the thing in dispute. Or, Do you suppose it very possible, that other Patriarchs may quarrel and fall out among themselves, but that the Popes are alwaies such mild and good men, that it is impossible any should fall out with them, or they with others; that still they must stand by as unconcerned in all the quarrels of the Christian world, and be ready to receive complaints from all places. If therefore a General Council must not be the Judge in this case, I pray name somewhat else more agreeable to reason, and the practice of the Church. But you answer. 2. What the Law saith, is rightly understood, and must be explicated of inferiour Clerks only, who were not (of ordinary course) to appeal further than the Patriarch, or the Primate of their Province. For so the Council of Africk determines. But 'tis even there acknowledged, Concil. Afric. Can 101. Epist. ad Bonifac.that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome. This answer of yours necessarily leads us to the debates of the great case of appeals to Rome, as it was managed between the African Bishops, and the Bishops of Rome, by which we shall easily discover the weakness of your answer, and the most palpable fraud of your citation; by which we may see, What an excellent cause you have to manage, which cannot be defended but by such frauds as here you make use of, and hope to impose upon your Reader by. Your Answer therefore in the general, is, That the Laws concerning appeals, did only concern inferiour Clergy-men; but that Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome, even by the Council of Africk, which not only decreed it, but acknowledged it in an Epistle to Pope Boniface. And therefore for our through understanding the truth in this case, those proceedings of the African Church must be briefly explained, and truly represented. Two occasions the Churches of Africa had to determine in the case of Appeals to Rome; the first in the Milevitan, the second in the Carthaginian Councils: in both which we have several things very considerable to our purpose. In the Milevitan Council they decree, That whosoever would appeal beyond the Sea, should not be received into Communion by any in Africa; which decree is supposed by some to be occasioned by Coelestius, having recourse to Pope Zosimus, after he had been condemned in Africa. No doubt, those prudent Bishops began to be quickly sensible of the monstrous inconvenience which would speedily follow upon the permission of such appeals to Rome; for by that means they should never preserve any discipline in their Churches, but every person, who was called in Question for any crimes,Item placuit ut Presbyteri, diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici, in causis quas habuerint, si de judiciis episcoporum suorum questi fuerint, vicini episcopi, eos cum consensu episcopi sui audiant, & inter eos definiant, adhibiti ab eis episcopi: quod si & ab iis provocandum putaverint, non provocent ad transmarina judicia; sed ad primites suarum provinciarum, aut ad Universale Concilium; Sicut de Episcopis saepe constitutum est. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo intra Africam ad Communionem suscipiatur, Codex Canon. Eccles African. Can. 28. would slight the Bishops of those Churches, and presently appeal to Rome. To prevent which mischief, they make that excellent Canon, which allows only liberty of appealing to the Councils of Africa, or to the Primates of their Province, but absolutely forbids all forein appeals. All the difficulty is, Whether this Canon only concerned the Inferiour Clergy, as you say, (and which is all that the greatest of your side have said in it) or, Whether it doth not take away all appeals of Bishops too. For which we need no more than produce the Canon it self, as it is extant in the authentick collection of the Canons of the African Church. In which is an express clause, declaring p. 408that the same thing had been often determined in the case of Bishops. Which, because it strikes home, therefore Perron and others have no other shift, but to say, That this clause was not in the original Milevitan Canons, but was inserted afterwards. But why do not they, who assert such bold things, produce the true authentick Copy of these Milevitan Canons? that we may see, What is genuine, and what not: But, suppose we should grant, that this clause was inserted afterwards, it will be rather for the advantage, than prejudice of our cause. For which we must consider, that in the time of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, there had been very many Councils celebrated there: no fewer than seventeen Justellus and others reckon. But a general Council meeting at Carthage A. D. 419. (which was about three years after that Milevitan Council which was held 416. as appears by the Answer of Innocentius to it, A. D. 417.) at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of those lesser Councils, and out of them all composed that Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae, as Justellus at large proves in the preface to his edition of it. So that if this clause were inserted, it must be inserted then, for it is well known, that the case of Appeals was then at large debated; and by that means it received a more general authority by passing in this African Council. And hence it was that this Canon passed with this clause into the Greek Churches; for Balsamon and Zonaras both acknowledge it; and not only they, but many ancient Latin Copies had it too, and is so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes; as Hincmarus, and others, have already proved. But Gracian hath helped it well out, for he hath added a brave Antidote at the end of it, by putting to it a very useful clause, Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit; by which the Canon makes excellent sense, that none shall appeal to Rome, unless they do appeal to Rome; for none who have any understanding of the state of those Churches at that time, do make the least Question, but the intent of the Canon was to prohibit appeals to Rome; but then, say they, They were only the appeals of the Inferiour Clergy, which were to be ended by the Bishops of their own Province.

But this Answer is very unreasonable on these accounts. 1. If Appeals do of right belong to the Bishop of Rome, §. 13.as Vniversal Pastor of the Church, then, Why not the Appeals of the Inferiour Clergy, as well as Bishops? Indeed, if Appeals were challenged only by virtue of the Canons, and those Canons limit one, and not the other (as the most eager pleaders for Appeals in that age, pleaded only the Canons of the Church for them) then there might be some reason, Why one should be restrained, and not the other; but if they belong to him by Divine Right, then all Appeals must necessarily belong to him. 2. If Appeals belong to the Pope, as Vniversal Pastor, then no Council or persons had any thing to do to determine who should appeal, and who not. For this were an usurping of the Pope's priviledge, for he to whom only the right of Appeals belongs, can determine, Who should appeal, and who not; and where, and by whom those Controversies should be ended. So that the very act of the Council in offering to limit Appeals, implies that they did not believe any such Vniversal Pastorship in the Pope; for, had they not done so, they would have waited his judgement, and not offered to have determined such things themselves. 3. The Appeals of the upper and inferiour Clergy, cannot be supposed to be separate from each other. For the Appeal of a Presbyter doth suppose the impeachment of the Bishop for some wrong done to him, as in the p. 409case of Apiarius accusing Vrban the Bishop of Sicca for excommunicating him. So that the Bishop becomes a party in the Appeal of a Presbyter. And if Appeals be allowed to the Bishop, it is supposed to be in his favour, for clearing of his right the better; and if it be denied to the Presbyter, it would savour too much of injustice and partiality. 4. The reason of the Canon extends to one as well as the other, which must be supposed to prevent all those troubles and inconveniencies which would arise from the liberty of Appeals to Rome; and, would not these come as well by the Appeals of Bishops, as of Inferiour Clergy? Nay, Doth not the Canon insist on that, that no Appeals should be made from the Council of Bishops, or the Primates of Africa; but, in case of Bishops Appeals, this would be done as well as the other: and therefore they are equally against the reason and design of the Canon. 5. The case of Presbyters, may be as great and considerable as that of Bishops, and as much requiring the judgement of the Vniversal Pastor of the Church. As, for instance, that very case which probably gave occasion to the Milevitan Canon, viz. the going of Coelestius to Rome, being condemned of Heresie in Africa: Now, What greater cause could there be made an Appeal to Rome in, than in so great a matter of Faith as that was, about the necessity of Grace. De Concord. Sacerdot. & Imp. l. 7. c. 13. sect. 6, 7, 9.And therefore Petrus de Marcá proves at large against Perron, that in the Epistle of Innocent to Victricius, where it is said, That the greater causes must be referred to the Apostolick See, is not to be understood only of the causes of Bishops, but may referr to the causes of Presbyters too, i. e. when they either concern matter of Faith, or some doubtful piece of Church-discipline. 6. The Pope, notwithstanding this Canon, looked on himself as no more hindred from receiving the Appeals of Presbyters, than those of Bishops. If therefore any difference had been made by any act of the Church, surely the Pope would have remanded Presbyters back to their own Provinces again; but, instead of that, we see, he received the Appeal of Apiarius. But, for this, a rare Answer is given, viz. that though the Presbyters were forbidden to appeal, yet the Pope was not forbidden to receive them, if they did appeal. But, to what purpose then were such prohibitions made, if the Pope might by his open incouragement of them upon their Appeals to him, make them not value such Canons at all; for they knew, if they could but get to Rome, they should be received for all them.

Notwithstanding all which hath been said, you tell us, That in the Council of Africk it was acknowledged, §. 14.that Bishops had power in their own cause, to appeal to Rome; for which you cite in your Margent, part of an Epistle of the Council to Boniface. But, with what honesty and integrity you do this, will appear by the story. Apiarius then appealing to Zosimus, he sends over Faustinus to Africa, to negotiate the business of Appeals, and to restore Apiarius, for which he pleads the Nicene Canons (an account of which will be given afterwards) the Fathers all protest they could find no such thing there, but they agree to send Deputies into the East, to fetch the true Canons thence (as hath been related already) in the mean time Zosimus dyes, and Boniface succeeds him; but for the better satisfaction of the Pope, the Council of Carthage dispatch away a Letter to Boniface, to give him an account of their proceedings; in which Epistle (extant in the African Code of Canons) after they have given an account of the business of Apiarius, they proceed to the instructions which Faustinus brought with him to Africa, the chief of which is that concerning Appeals to be made to Rome, and then follow those words which you quote, in which they p. 410say, That in a Letter written the year before to Zosimus, they had granted liberty to Bishops, to appeal to Rome; and that therein they had intimated so much to him. Ut Romam liceat Episcopis provocare & ut Clericorum causae apud suarum provinciarum episcopos finiant…r, jam priore anno etiam literis nostris ad eundem ven…rabilis memoriae Zosimum episcopum datis, insinuari curavimu…, &c. Ut ea servare sine ullâ ejus injuriâ paulisper sinerem…s, us que ad exquisitionem statutorum Concilii Niceni.Thus far you are right; but there is usually some mystery couched in your, &c. for you know very well, where to cut off sentences; for, had you added but the next words, they had spoiled all your foregoing; there being contained in them, the full reason of what went before, viz. that because the Pope pretended that the Appeals of Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons, they were contented to yield that it should be so, till the true Canons were produced. And is this now all their acknowledgement, that Bishops might in their own causes appeal to Rome, when they made only a Provisional decree, What should be done till the matter came to a resolution? But if you will throughly understand what their final judgement was in this business, I pray read their excellent Epistle to Pope Celestine, who succeeded Boniface; after they had received the Nicene Canons out of the East. Which being so excellent a Monument of Antiquity, Praesato ita que debitae Salutationis officio, Impendio deprecamur, ut deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes non faciliùs admittatis, nec à nobis excommunicatis in communionem ultrà velitis excipere; quia hoc etiam Nicaeno Concilio definitum facilè advertet Venerabilitas tua. Nam et si de inferioribus Cleric…s vel de Laicis videtur ibi praecaveri, quanto magis hoc de episcopis voluit observari, nè in suá provinciâ à communione suspensi à tuâ Sanctitate praeproperè, vel indebitè videantur communioni restitui. Presbyterorum quo que & sequentium Clericorum improbaref… gia, sicut te dignum est, …epellat sanctitas tua, quia & nullâ Patrum definitione hoc ecclesiae derogatum est Africanae, & decre… Nicena sive inferioris gradus Ciericos sive ipsos episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commisérunt. Prudentissimè enim justissime que vidêrunt, qu… cun que negotia in suis locis, ubi o…a sunt, finicuda; nec unicui que provinciae gratiam Sancti Spiritus defuturam: quae aequitas à Christi Sacerdotibus, & prudentèr videatur, & constantissimè teneatur: maximè quia unicui que concessum est, si jud…c…o offensus suerit cognitorum, ad Concilia suae provinciae, vel etiam Universale provocare. Nisi forte quisquam est qui credat, unicuilib…t posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam; & innumerabilibus co…gregatis in Concili… Sacerdotibus denegare. Aut quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexus, vel pro…ter senectutis infirmitatem, vel multis aliis impedimentis adduci non poterunt? Nam ut aliqui tanquam à tu… sanctitatis latere mittantur, nullâ invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum. Quia illud quod pridem per eundem cocpiscopu… Faustinum tanquam ex parte Niceni Concilii exinde transmisistis, in Conci…iis verioribus qua accipiuntur Ni…ni, à S. Cyrill… coepiscopo nostro Alexandrinae Ecclesiae, & à venerabili Attico Constantinopolitano Antistite, ex authentico missis, quae etiam ante hoc per Innocentium Presbyterum & Marcellum Subdiaconum, per quos ad nos abiis directa sunt, venerabilis memoriae Bonifacio episcop… dec…ssori vestro à nobis transmissa sunt, in quibus tale aliquid non potuimus invenire. Executores etiam Clericos vestros quibus que petentibus nolite mittere, nè …umosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi quae lucem simplicitatis & humilitatis d…m, Deum videre cupientibus praefert, videamur inducere. Nam de fratre nostro Faustino (amoto jam, pro suis nefandi… n…quit…is, de Christi Ecclesiâ dolendo Apiario) securi sumus, quod cum probitate ac moderatione tuae sanctitatis, salvâ fraternâ charitate ulterius Africa minimè patiatur. Concil. Carthag. Epist. ad Caelestinum.and giving so great light to our present Controversie, I shall at large recite and render it, so far as concerns this business. After our bounden duty of Salutation, we earnestly beseech you, that hereafter you admit not so easily to your ears those that come from hence, and that you admit no more into communion, those whom we have cast out: for your Reverence will easily perceive, that this is forbid by the Council of Nice. For if this be taken care for, as to the Inferiour Clergy and Laity, How much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops; that so they who are in their own Province suspended from communion, be not hastily or unduly admitted by your Holiness. Let your Holiness also reject the wicked refuges of Priests and Inferiour Clerks; for no Canon of the Fathers hath taken that from the Church of Africk; and the decrees of Nice hath subjected both the Inferiour Clergy, and Bishops, io their Metropolitans. For they have most wisely and justly provided, that every business be determined in the place where it begun: and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting to every Province, that so equity may be prudently discovered, and constantly held by Christ's Priests. Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one, if he be offended, to appeal to the Council of the Province, or even to an Vniversal Council. Vnless perhaps some body believe that God can inspire to every one of us, the justice of examination of a cause, and refuse it to a multitude of Bishops assembled in Council. Or, How can a judgement made beyond the p. 411Sea be valid, to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought, by reason of the infirmity of their sex and age, or of many other intervening impediments. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness, we do not find commanded by any Synod of the Fathers. And as for that which you did long since send to us by Faustinus our Fellow-Bishop, as belonging to the Council of Nice, we could not find it in the truest Copies of the Council, sent by holy Cyril our Colleague, Bishop of Alexandria, and by the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople: which also we sent to your predecessor Boniface, of happy memory, by Innocent a Presbyter, and Marcellus a Deacon. Take heed also of sending to us any of your Clerks for executors, to those who desire it, lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ, which beareth the light of simplicity, and the brightness of humility before them that desire to see God. And concerning our Brother Faustinus (Apiarius being now for his wickedness cast out of the Church of Christ) we are confident, that our brotherly love continuing through the goodness and moderation of your Holiness, Africa shall no more be troubled with him. Thus I have at large produced this noble Monument of the prudence, courage, and simplicity of the African Fathers; enough to put any reasonable man out of the fond conceit of an Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome. I wonder not that Baronius saith, There are some hard things in this Epistle, that Perron sweats and toils so much to so little purpose, to enervate the force of it; for, as long as the records of it last, we have an impregnable Bulwark against the Vsurpations of the Church of Rome. And methinks you might blush for shame to produce those African Fathers, as determining the Appeals of Bishops to Rome, who, with as much evidence and reason, as courage and resolution, did finally oppose it. What can be said more convincingly against these Appeals, than is here urged by them: That they have neither authority from Councils, nor any Foundation in Justice and Equity; that God's presence was as well in Africk as Rome (no doubt then they never imagined any Infallibility there) that the proceedings of the Roman Bishop were so far from the simplicity and humility of the Gospel, that they tended only to nourish swelling pride, and secular ambition in the Church. That the Pope had no authority to send Legats to hear causes, and they hoped they should be no more troubled with such as Faustinus was. All these things are so evident in this testimony, that it were a disparagement to it to offer more at large to explain them. I hope then, this will make you sensible of the injury you have done the African Fathers, by saying, that they determined, the causes of Bishops might be heard at Rome.

Your Answer to the place of S. Gregory, §. 15.which his Lordship produceth concerning Appeals,Greg. l. 11. Indict▪ 6. ep. 54 viz. that the Patriarch is to put a final end to those causes, which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Arch-Bishops, is the very same, that it speaks only of the Inferiour Clergy, and therefore is taken off already. But you wonder his Lordship should expose to view the following words of S. Gregory, where there is neither Metropolitan, nor Patriarch of that Diocese, there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick, as being the Head of all Churches. Then surely it follows, say you, the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction, is not only over the Western, and Southern Provinces, but over the whole Church, whither the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs and Metropolitans never extended. See how well you make good the common saying, That Ignorance is the cause of Admiration; for, Wherefore should you wonder at his Lordships producing these words; if you had either understood, or considered the abundant Answers which he gives to them?P. 171. 1. That if p. 412there be a Metropolitan, or a Patriarch, in those Churches, his judgement is final, and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome. 2. It is as plain, that in those ancient times of Church-Government, Britain was never subject to the See of Rome (of which afterwards.) 3. It will be hard for any man to prove, that there were any Churches then in the world, which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitan. 4. If any such were, 'tis gratis dictum, and impossible to be proved, that all such Churches, where-ever seated in the world, were obliged to depend on Rome. And, Do you still wonder why his Lordship produces these words? I may more justly wonder why you return no Answer to what his Lordship here sayes. But still the Caput omnium Ecclesiarum sticks with you; if his Lordship hath not particularly spoken to that, it was, because his whole discourse was sufficient to a man of ordinary capacity, to let him see, that no more could be meant by it, but some preheminence of that Church above others in regard of order and dignity, but no such thing as Vniversal Power and Jurisdiction was to be deduced from it. And if Gregory understood more by it, as his Lordship saith, 'Tis gratis dictum, and Gregory himself was not a person to be believed in his own cause. But now, as you express it, his Lordship takes a leap from the Church of Rome,P. 188. to the Church of England: No, neither his Lordship, nor we, take a leap from thence hither; but you are the men who leap over the Alps, from the Church of England, to that of Rome, We plead as his Lordship doth truly, That in the ancient times of the Church, Britain was never subject to the See of Rome, but being one of the Western Dioceses of the Empire, it had a Primate of its own. This, you say, his Lordship should have proved,P. 189. and not meerly said. But, What an unreasonable man are you, who would put his Lordship to prove Negatives; if you challenge a right which the Pope hath over us, it is your business to prove it; his Lordship gave a sufficient reason for what he said, in saying that Britain was one of the Dioceses of the Empire, and therefore had a Primate of her own. This you deny not, but say, this only proves, That the Inferiour Clergy could not appeal to Rome. What again? but this subterfuge hath been prevented already. But to pass by what without any shadow of proof you say of the Patriarch of Constantinople's being subject to the Pope; and Pope Urban's calling Anselm the Patriarch of the other world; which we are far from making the least ground to make Canterbury a Patriarchal See; which, as far as concerns the rights of Primacy, was so long before the Synod of Bar in Apulia; we come to that which is more material, viz. your attempt to prove, That Britain was anciently subject to the See of Rome; for which you instance in Wilfrid Arch-Bishop of York appealing to Rome, about A. D. 673. who was restored to his Bishoprick by virtue of the sentence passed in his behalf at Rome;Ibid. n. 5. Bed. l. 5. c. 20. and so being a second time expelled, appealed as formerly, and was again restored. To which I shall return you a clear and full Answer in the words of another Arch-Bishop, the late learned L. Primate of Ireland.Bramhall Just. Vindication. c. 4. p. 60. The most famous, saith he, (I had almost said the only) appellant from England to Rome that we read of before the Conquest, was Wilfride Archbishop of York, who, notwithstanding that he gained sentence upon sentence at Rome in his Favour; and notwithstanding that the Pope did send express Nuncio's into England, on purpose to see his sentence executed; yet he could not obtain his restitution or the benefit of his sentence for six years during the Raigns of King Egbert and Alfrede his son. Yea King Alfrede told the Popes Nuncio's expresly, That he honoured them as his Parents for their grave lives and honourable p. 413aspects; but he could not give any assent to their Legation, because it was against reason, Spelman. Concil. An. 705.that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English should be restored upon the Popes letter. If they had believed the Pope to be their competent Judge, either as Universal Monarch, or so much as Patriarch of Brittain, or any more then an honourable Arbitratour (which all the Patriarchs were, even without the bounds of their proper jurisdictions) How comes it to pass that two Kings successively, and the great Councils of the Kingdom, and the other Archbishop Theodore with all the prime Ecclesiasticks, and the flower of the English Clergy, did so long and so resolutely oppose so many sentences and messages from Rome, and condemn him twice whom the Pope had absolved? Consider that Wilfride was an Archbishop, not an Inferiour Clerk; and if an appeal from England to Rome had been proper or lawful in any case, it had been so in this case. But it was otherwise determined by those who were most concerned. Malmsbury supposeth, either by Inspiration, or upon his own head, that the King and the Archbishop Theodore, were smitten with remorse before their deaths, for the injury done to Wilfride, and the slighting the Popes sentence, letter, and Legats. But the contrary is most apparently true; For first, it was not King Alfrede alone, but the great Council of the Kingdome also; not Theodore alone, but the main body of the Clergy, that opposed the Popes letter, and the restitution of Wilfride in that manner as it was decreed at Rome. Secondly, after Alfrede and Theodore were both dead, we find the Popes sentence, and Wilfrides restitution, still opposed by the surviving Bishops in the Raign of Alfredes son. To clear the matter past contradiction, let us consider the ground of this long and bitter contention; Wilfride the Archbishop was become a great Pluralist, and had ingrossed into his hands too many Ecclesiastical Dignities. The King and the Church of England thought fit to deprive him of some of them, and to confer them upon others. Wilfride appealed from their sentence to Rome. The Pope gave sentence after sentence in favour of Wilfride. But for all his sentences, he was not, he could not be restored, untill he had quitted two of his Monasteries which were in Question, Hongestilldean, and Ripon, which of all others he loved most dearly, and where he was afterwards interred. This was not a Conquest, but a plain waving of his sentences from Rome, and yielding of the Question; for those had been the chief causes of the Controversie. So the King and the Church after Alfredes death still made good his conclusion, That it was against reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Popes Bull. And as he did not, so neither did they give any assent to the Popes Legation. This I hope may suffice as a most sufficient Answer to your Objection from Wilfrides Appeal.

But you would seem to urge yet further for the ancient subjection of Britain to the Church of Rome, in these words, Again, §. 16.is it not manifest out of him (Bede),Bed l. 1. c. 29▪ that even the Primitive original Institution of our English Bishops is from Rome? And for this you cite a letter of Pope Gregory 1. to Augustine the Monk, whom you call our English Apostle; in which Gregory grants to him the use of the Pall, the proper badge or sign of Archiepiscopal Dignity, and that he condescended, that he should ordain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction, &c. Behold here, say you, the original Charter, as I may say, P. 190.of the Primacy of Canterbury; in this Letter and Mandate of the Pope it is p. 414founded; nor can it with any colour of reason be drawn from other origin. And by vertue of this Grant, have all the succeeding Bishops of that See enjoyn'd the Dignity and Authority of Primats of this Nation. From whence you very civilly charge his Lordship, either with gross Ignorance if he knew it not; or with great Ingratitude if he knew it. To which I Answer; that his Lordship knowing this no doubt very well, that Gregory sent Austin into England, &c. could not from thence think himself bound to submit to the Roman Bishop; and it had been more pertinent to your purpose, not to charge him with Ingratitude, but with Disobedience. For that was it which you ought to prove hence, that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought still to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, because Gregory 1. made Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury. A wonderful strong Argument no doubt! which out of charity to you, we must further examine; for you tell us, The Original Charter of the Primacy of Canterbury is contained in that Grant. To satisfie you as to this, two things are to be considered, the Primacy it self, and the exercise of it by a particular person in some particular place. If you speak of the Primacy it self, i. e. the independent right of Governing the Churches within the Provinces of Britain, then we utterly deny that this was contained in that Grant. For Britain having been a Province before, in which Bishops did Govern Independently on any Forrein Bishop, no Forrein Bishops could take away that Priviledge from it. I will not stand here to deduce the History of the Bishops of Britain, before Augustines coming into England; but it is as certain that there were such, as it is that St. Augustine ever came hither. For not only all our own Historians and Bede himself confess it; but it is most evident from the subscriptions of three of them to the first Council of Arles, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelfius de civitate Coloniâ Londinensium (which some will have to be a mistake for Colonia Camaloduni, whether by that, Colchester, Maldon, or Winchester be meant as it is differently thought) from the presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod and the Council of Ariminum, as appears by Athanasius and others; but this I suppose you will not deny, that there were Bishops in England before Austin came. And, that these Bishops had then no dependence on the See of Rome, if it were not sufficiently evident from other Arguments, the relation of the proceedings in Bede himself between Austin and them, about submission, would abundantly discover, as likewise that there was then an Archbishop with Metropolitical power over them, whose ancient seat had been Caerleon. But I consider not this Primacy now as in any particular place, but in general as belonging to the Provinces of Britain, which I say had a Primacy belonging to it, (whether at York or London is not material) at the time of the Council of Nice (according to what hath been formerly said about the state of Churches then) now the Council of Nice takes care that the priviledges of all Churches should be preserved, i. e. That where there had been a Primacy it should so continue. Now therefore I ask, How came this priviledge of Britain to be lost, which was not only confirmed with others by the Nicene Council, but by that of Chalcedon and Ephesus, in which the ancient priviledges of Churches are secured? what right had Austin the Monk to cassate the ancient Metropolitical power of the Britannick Church, and to require absolute subjection to himself? If the Pope made him Archbishop of Canterbury, by what right was he Primate over the Britain Church? How came the Archbishop then in being to lose his Primacy by Austins coming into England? Was it because the Britannick Church was p. 415then over-run with Pagan-Saxons, and the visible power of it confined to a narrow compass? Yet I doubt not, but there were many Brittish Christians living here among the Saxons, though oppressed by them, as they were after by the Normans (for, Where is it that any conquest hath carried away all the inhabitants?) and that these did many of them retain their Christianity, though not daring publickly to own it, there are many not improbable circumstances to lead us to suppose. But we will grant that the face of the Britannick Church was only in Wales; what follows thence? that the whole Province had lost its right? Let us suppose a case like this; as that the Church of Rome should be over-run with a Barbarous people (as it was by the Goths and Vandals) and the inhabitants destroyed; these Barbarous people continuing in possession of it, and that a Bishop should have been sent from Britain to convert them to the Faith, and upon their Conversion to Govern those Churches, and should be made Bishop of that place by the Brittish Bishops; Whether would he be bound to continue alwayes in subjection to them or no? If not; but you say, by his succession in the See of Rome he enjoyes the priviledges of that See, though the inhabitants be altered; the same I say of the Britannick Churches, though the inhabitants were altered, and Saxons succeeded the Britains, yet the priviledge of the Church remains still as to its Primacy and Independency. And therefore the Popes making Augustine Archbishop, so as to give him withall the Primacy over the Churches in the Province of Britain, was an Vsurpation upon the rights of our Church, which had an absolute and Independent Primacy within it self; as it was in the case of the Cyprian Bishop. As supposing those ancient Sects of Churches which are over-run with Turks should again be converted to Christianity, the Bishops of those Churches as of Ephesus or the like would enjoy the same rights which the ancient Bishops had; so we say it was in our case, though the Nation was then over-spread with Paganism, yet Christianity returning, the priviledges of our Churches did return with it; and whosoever were rightly consecrated Bishops of them would enjoy the same rights which they did before. So that Gregory might make Austin a Bishop and send him to convert this Nation, by which he was capable to Govern the Churches here which he did convert, but he could not give to him the right over these Churches, which Gregory had no power over himself; neither could Austin or any other Archbishop of Canterbury give away the Primacy of England by submitting himself to the Roman See. What therefore is Gregories Grant to Austin, to the Primacy of England? If you ask then, How the Archbishops of Canterbury come to be Primates of England? I Answer, 1. This Primacy must be lodged somewhere; and it is not unalterably fixed to any certain place, because the Primacy belongs to the Church and not to a particular See. 2. It is in the power of Princes to fix the Metropolitan See in what place is judged most convenient; thence have been the frequent removes of Episcopal and Archiepiscopal See's; as is evident in many examples in Ecclesiastical history, particularly in Justiniana Prima made a Metropolis by Justinian. 3. Where ever the Primacy is lodged it retains its ancient priviledges; so that there is no need of a succession of our Archbishops from the Brittish Archbishops of Caerleon to preserve the Brittish Primacy; but that See being removed by the Power of Princes; the Primacy still remains the same, that it was in the Brittish Metropolitans. And thus I hope I have shewn you, that the Original Charter of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Primacy, was not contained in the Popes grant to Austin.

p. 416§. 17.From hence we proceed again to the case of the African Churches; for (as his Lordship saith) the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melchiades his temper, P. 172.set themselves to assert their own liberties, and held it out stoutly against Zozimus, Boniface 1, and Caelestine 1. who were successively Bishops of Rome. At last, it was concluded in the sixth Council of Carthage, (wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeen Bishops, of which St. Augustine himself was one) that they would not give way to such a manifest encroachment upon their rights and liberties; and thereupon gave present notice to Caelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them, lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal separation from the Church of Rome; and to have continued for the space of somewhat more then one hundred years. For which his Lordship produceth two publick instruments extant among the ancient Councils; the one an Epistle from Boniface 2. in whose time the reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage; but the separation, instigante Diabolo, by the Temptation of the Devil. The other is an exemplar precum, or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius, in which he damns and curses all those his Predecessours which went against the Church of Rome. Now his Lordship urges from hence; Either these Instruments are true, or false. If they be false, then Boniface 2. and his Accomplices at Rome, or some for them are notorious forgers, and that of Records of great consequence to the Government and peace of the whole Church of Christ, and to the perpetual Infamy of that See, and all this foolishly and to no purpose: On the other side, if these instruments be true; then 'tis manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome; which separation was either unjust, or just; if unjust then St. Austin, Eugenius, Fulgentius, and all those Bishops and other Martyrs which suffered in the Vandalike persecution, dyed in actual and unrepented Schism, and out of the Church; If it were just, then is it far more lawful for the Church of England by a National Council to cast off the Popes Vsurpation, as she did, than it was for the African Church to separate; because then the African Church excepted only against the Pride of Rome in case of Appeals, and two other Canons less material; but the Church of England excepts (besides this grievance) against many corruptions in Doctrine, with which Rome at that time was not tainted. And St. Austin and those other famous men durst not thus have separated from Rome, had the Pope had that powerful Principality over the whole Church of Christ, and that by Christs own Ordinance and Institution as A. C. pretends he had. This is the substance of his Lordships discourse to which we must consider what Answer you return. Which in short is, That you dare not assert the credit of those two Instruments, P. 191.but are very willing to think them forgeries; but you say, the Schismatical separation of the African Church from the Roman is inconsistent with the truth of story, and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances, which prove that the Africans notwithstanding the context in the sixth Council of Carthage touching matter of Appeals, were alwayes in true Catholick Communion with the Roman Church, even during the term of this pretended separation. For which you produce the Testimony of Pope Caelestine concerning St. Austin, the proceeding of Pope Leo in the case of Lupicinus, the Testimonies of Eugenius, Fulgentius, Gregory, and the presence of some African Bishops at Rome. To all which I Answer; that either the African Fathers did persist in the decree of the Council of Carthage, or they did not: if they did persist in it, and no separation followed; then the casting off the Vsurpations of the p. 417Roman See cannot incur the guilt of Schism; for these African Bishops did that, and it seems continued still in the Roman Communion; by which it is evident that the Roman Church was not so far degenerated then as afterwards, or that the Authority of those persons was so great in the Church, that the Roman Bishops durst not openly break with them, which is a sufficient account of what Caelestine saith concerning St. Austin, that he lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church. If you say the reason why they were in Communion with the Roman Church was because they did not persist; you must prove it by better instances then you have here brought; for some of them are sufficient proofs of the contrary. As appears by the case of Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing to Leo, Leo. ep. 87. c. 2.who indeed was willing enough to receive him; but what of that? Did not the African Bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis excommunicate him notwithstanding that appeal, and ordained another in his place; and therefore the Pope very fairly sends him back to be tryed by the Bishops of his Province. Which instance as it argues the Popes willingness to have brought up Appeals among them, so it shews the continuance of their stoutness in opposing them. And even Pope Gregory so long after,Greg. l. 1 ep. 75 though in his time the business of Appeals was much promoted at Rome; yet he dares not challenge them from the Bishops of Africa, but yields to them the enjoyment of those priviledges which they said they had enjoyed from the Apostles times. And the testimonies of Eugenius, and Fulgentius imply nothing of subjection to Rome, but a Praeeminence which that Church had above all others, which it might have without the other; as London may I hope be the Head-City of England, and yet all other Cities not express subjection to it. But if after that Council of Carthage the Bishops of Rome did by degrees encroach upon the liberties of the African Churches, there is this sufficient account to be given of it; that as the Roman Bishops were alwayes watchful to take advantages to inhance their power, and that especially when other Churches were in a suffering condition, so a fit opportunity fell out for them to do it in Africa; For not long after that Council of Carthage, fell out that dismal persecution of the African Churches by the irruption of the Vandals; in which all the Catholick Bishops were banished out of Africa, or lived under great sufferings; and by a strict edict of Gensericus, no new Bishops were suffered to be ordained in the places of the former. This now was a fair opportunity for the Bishop of Rome to advance his Authority among the suffering Bishops; St. Peters pretended Successour loving to fish in troubled waters, and it being fatal to Rome from the first Foundation of it, to advance her self by the ruins of other places.

But we are call'd off from the ruins of other Churches, §. 18.to observe the methods whereby the Popes grew great under the Emperours which his Lordship gives an account of from Constantines time to Charles the Great, about five hundred years, which begins thus, So soon as the Emperours became Christian, the Church began to be put in better order; P. 175. n. 12▪For the calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferiour Clergy, that was a thing of known use and benefit for preservation of Vnity and Peace in the Church. Which was confessed by St. Hierom himself, and so settled in mens minds from the very Infancy of the Church, that it had not been to that time contradicted by any. The only difficulty then was to accommodate the places and precedencies of Bishops, among themselves, for the very necessity of order and Government. To do this the most equal and impartial way was, that as the Church is p. 418in the Common-wealth, not the Common-wealth in it, (as Optatus tells us) So the Honours of the Church should follow the Honours of the State; and so it was insinuated if not ordered (as appears) by the Canons of the Councils of Chalcedon and Antioch. And this was the very Fountain of the Papal Greatness; the Pope having his Residence in the great Imperial City. But Precedency is one thing, and Authority another; It was thought fit therefore, that among Bishops there should be a certain subordination and subjection. The Empire therefore being cast into several Divisions (which they call'd Dioceses) every Diocese contained several Provinces, every Province several Bishopricks; The chief of a Diocese was call'd foreign, and sometimes a Patriarch; the chief of a Province a Metropolitan; next the Bishops in their several Dioceses (as we now use that word), among these there was effectual subjection respectively grounded upon Canon, and Positive Law, in their several Quarters; but over them, none at all: all the Difference there, was but Honorary not Authoritative. To all this part of his Lordships Discourse, you only say, That it is founded upon his own conjectural presumptions more then upon any thing else; P. 192.and that you have shewed a far different Fountain of the Popes Authority from Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, &c. The meaning of what you say, is, That his Lordships Discourse hath too much Truth and Reason to be Answered solidly; but because it is against the Popes interest you defie him, and cross your self, and cry, Tu es Petrus, &c. and think, this will prevent its doing you any harm. For if we look for one dram of Reason against it, we must look somewhere else then in your Book, though you tell us, You have often evidenced the contrary; but when and where I must profess my self to seek, and I doubt shall continue so to the end of your Book.P. 177. But his Lordship proceeds. If the ambition of some particular persons did attempt now and then to break these bounds, it is no marvel: For no calling can sanctifie all that have it. And Socrates tells us, that in this way the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome advanced themselves to a great height foreign even beyond the quality of Bishops. Now upon view of story it will appear, that what advantage accrewed to Alexandria, was gotten by the violence of Theophilus Patriarch there. A man of exceeding great Learning and no less violence; and he made no little advantage out of this, that the Empress Eudoxia used his help for the casting of St. Chrysostome out of Constantinople. But the Roman Prelats grew by a steady and constant watchfulness upon all occasions to increase the honour of that See. Interposing and assuming to themselves to be Vindices Canonum (as Greg. Naz. speaks) Defenders and Restorers of the Canons of the Church, which was a fair pretence and took extreamly well. But yet the world took notice of this their aim. For in all Contestations between the East and West, which were not small, nor few, the Western Bishops objected Levity to the Eastern; and they again arrogancy to the Bishops of the West, as Bilius observes, and upon very warrantable testimonies. For all this, the Bishop of Rome continued in good obedience to the Emperour, enduring his censures and judgements: and being chosen by the Clergy and people of Rome, he accepted from the Emperour, the ratification of that choice. Insomuch, that about the year 579. when all Italy was on fire with the Lombards, and Pelagius the second constrained through the necessity of the times contrary to the example of his Predecessours, to enter upon the Popedome without the Emperours leave, St. Gregory then a Deacon was shortly after sent on Embassie to excuse it. To all these things you give one general Answer,P. 193. by calling them impertinencies, which is a general name for all that you cannot Answer. The Popes obedience to the Emperours p. 419you say was constrained, their ratifications of Popes elections only declaring them Canonical, Socrates was a Heretick, the Eastern Bishops partial: This is the substance of all you say; whereof the two former are manifestly contrary to the truth of stories (as, when you desire it, may at large be manifested) and the two latter the pitiful shifts of such who have nothing else to say.

But, though you cannot answer particulars,§. 19. you can overthrow his whole design (though you cannot Fiddle, it seems you can conquer Cities, but they must be very weak then.) His main design, you tell us,P. 193. n. 9. is to overthrow the Pope's Supremacy, by shewing, it was not lawful to appeal to Rome; but Catholick Authours (to be sure you are in the number) frame an unanswerable argument for his Supremacy, even from the contrary, thus; it was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome in Ecclesiastical affairs, from all the parts of Christendom; therefore, say they, The Pope must needs be Supreme Judge in Ecclesiastical matters. This is evidenced out of the 4, and 7, Canons of the Council of Sardica, accounted anciently an Appendix of the Council of Nice, and often cited as the same with it.

Will you give us leave to come near and handle this unanswerable argument a little? for persons of your profession use to be very shie of that. But however, since it is exposed to common view, we may take leave to do it. And seriously, upon consideration of all the parts and circumstances of it, I am of your mind, without flattering you, that it is an unanswerable argument, but quite to another purpose than you brought it for, even against the Pope's Supremacy, as I shall presently discover; so that those Catholick Authors have served you just as Lazarillo did his blind Master, in bidding him leap over the water, that he might run his head full butt against the tree. For that which your best Authors shun as much as may be, and use their best arts to get besides it, you run blindly, and therefore boldly upon it, as though it were an excellent argument to your purpose. You say, The evidence for Appeals, is from the Canons of the Sardican Synod, but if this be an unanswerable argument for the Pope's Supremacy. 1. How come these Appeals to be pleaded from the Sardican Synod? 2. How come these Appeals to be denied, notwithstanding the Canons of it? The former will prove that the Supremacy, if granted from hence, was not acknowledged from Divine Right; the latter, that it was not universally acknowledged by the Church after; and therefore both of them will make an unanswerable argument against that which you would prove, viz. the Pope's Supremacy. First, If the Pope's Supremacy be evidenced from hence. 1. How comes it at all to depend on the Canons? 2. Why no sooner than the Canons of Sardica? 3. Why not at all mentioned in them? 1. How comes the Pope's Supremacy, if of Divine Right, to depend at all upon the Canons of the Church? We had thought it had been much more to your purpose, not to have mentioned any Canons at all of the Church about it, but to have produced evidences, that this was constantly acknowledged as of Divine Institution. But we must bear with you, in not producing that which is not to be found. For nothing can be more apparent, than that when the Popes began to pierk up, they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the Church for what they did, as Julius to the Oriental Bishops, Zosimus to the African, and so others. If it had been ever thought then, that this Supremacy was of Divine Right; What senseless men were these, to make use of the worst pleas, and never mention the best. For, supposing they had such a Supremacy granted them by the Canons of the Church, p. 420Doth not this imply that their authority did depend upon the Churches grant? and, what the Church might give for her own conveniency, she might take it away, when she saw it abused to her apparent prejudice. And therefore if they had thought that God had commanded all Churches to be subject to them, it was weakly done of them to plead nothing but the Canons of the Church for it. 2. Why no sooner than the Canons of Sardica? Was the Church of Rome without her Supremacy till that time? Will no Canons of the Church evidence it before them? When this Council was not held till eleven years after the death of Constantine. Had the Pope no right of Appeals till it was decreed here? Yes, Zosimus pleads the Nicene Canons for it; But upon what grounds, will appear suddenly. 3. Why is not the Pope's Supremacy mentioned as the ground of these Appeals then? Certainly those Western Bishops, who made those Canons, should have only recognized the Divine Right of the Pope's Supremacy; and not made a Canon in such a manner as they do; that would make any one be confident they never knew the Popes Supremacy. For their decree runs thus; That in case any Bishop thought himself unjustly condemned; if it seem good to you, foreign—foreign. Concil. Sardic. c. 3.let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, that it be written by those who have judged the cause, to Julius the Bishop of Rome; and if it seem good, let the judgement be renewed, and let them appoint such as may take cognizance of it. Were these men mad to make such a Canon as this, if they believed the Popes Supremacy of Divine Institution? What a dwindling expression is that, for the Head of the Church, to call him Bishop of Rome only, when a matter concerning his Supremacy is decreeing? And why to Julius Bishop of Rome, I pray? Had it not been better to S. Peter's successor, whosoever he be? so it would have been, no doubt, if they had intended a Divine or Vniversal Right. And why for the honour of S. Peter's memory? Had it not been more becoming them to have said, out of obedience to Christ's Commands, which made him Head of the Church? And all this come in with an foreign, if it please you? What, if it please you, Whether the Pope should be Vniversal Pastor, or no? If it please you, Whether the Church should be built super hanc Petram, or no? If it please you, Whether the Bishop of Rome succeeds S. Peter, or no? Are these the men that give such evidence for the Popes Supremacy? You had better by far never mention them; for if that was the Lesson they had to say, never any Boyes at School said their Lesson worse than they do. They wanted such as you among them, to have penned their Canon for them; and no doubt it had run in a better strain; For as much as our Lord and Saviour did appoint S. Peter Head of the Church, and the Bishop of Rome to succed him as Christ's Vicar upon earth; these are to let you know that he hath an absolute power by Divine Right over all persons and causes, and that men are bound to obey him upon pain of eternal damnation. This had been something like, if you could have found in some Canons of the Church; but, to produce a poor sneaking, If it please you, What do you else but betray the Majesty and Grandeur of your Church? And yet after all this, no such thing as absolute Appeals to Rome are decreed here neither, but only that the Bishop of Rome should have power to review the case; and in case it was thought necessary, that other persons should be appointed to examine it. But, How much a Review differs from an Appeal, and that nothing but a power to review cases is here given to the Bishop of Rome; are fully manifested by p. 421Petrus de Marcâ, to whom I again referr you.De Concord. sacerd. & Imp. l. 7. c. 3. sect. 6, 7, &c. l. 7. c. 4. sect. 2. So that we see from hence you have very comfortable evidence for the Pope's Supremacy.

2. Suppose it had been decreed here, you had not gained much by it; Because, notwithstanding this decree, it was far from being acknowledged by the Vniversal Church. Which I prove from hence,§. 20. That the Sardican Canons were not received by the Church: Nothing can be more evident, than that these Canons were not so much as known by the African Bishops, when Pope Zosimus fraudulently sent them under the name of the Nicene Canons; insomuch that Cusanus questions,Concord Cathol. l. 2. c. 15 Whether ever any such thing were determined by the Sardican Synod or no: And it appears by S. Austin, that the Council of Sardica was of no great credit in Africa; for when Fortunius the Donatist-Bishop would prove that the Sardican Synod had written to some of their party, because one Donatus was mentioned in it;Aug ep. 163. S. Austin tells him, It was a Synod of Arrians; by which it seems very improbable, that they had ever received the decrees of the Western, Contra Cresc. l. 3. c. 34. l. 4. c. 44.but only of the Eastern part of it, which adjourned to Philippopolis. Neither was this ever acknowledged for an Oecumenical Council, for although it was intended for such by the Emperours, Constans, and Constantius, yet but 70. of the Eastern Bishops appeared to 300. of the Western; and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew from the other, and decreed things directly contrary to the other. So that Balsamon and Zonaras, as well as the elder Greeks, say, The decrees of it can at most only bind the Western Churches; and the arrogating of this power of reviewing causes decided by the Eastern Churches by Western Bishops, was apparently the cause of the divisions between them: the Eastern and Western Churches being after this divided by the Alpes Succiae between Illyricum and Thracia. And, although Hilary and Epiphanius expresly call this a Western Council, yet it was a long time, before the Canons of it were received in the Western Church. Which is supposed to be the reason, Why Zosimus would not mention the Sardican, but called them the Nicene Canons; which forgery was sufficiently detected by the African Bishops. And it is the worst of all excuses, to lay the blame of it (as you do) on the Pope's Secretary; for, Do you think Pope Zosimus was so careless of his business, as not to look over the Commonitorium, which Faustinus carried with him? Do you think Faustinus would not have corrected the fault when the African Bishops boggled so at it? What made him so unwilling that they should send into the East to examine the Nicene Canons, but intreated them to leave the business wholly with the Pope, if he were not conscious of some forgery in the business? But, you say, as a further plea in Zosimus his excuse, That the Council of Sardica was an Appendix to the Nicene Council rather than otherwise. P. 195▪An excellent Appendix, made at two and twenty years distance from the other, and called by other Emperours, consisting of many other persons, and assembled upon a quite different occasion. If this had been an Appendix to the Nicene Council, How comes that to have but twenty Canons? How came Atticus and Cyrillus not to send these with the other? How come all the Copies of Councils and Canons to distinguish them? How came they not to be contained in the Code of Canons, produced in the Council of Chalcedon, in the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus? If this were the same Council, because some of the same things were determined, How comes that in Trullo not to be the same with the 6. Oecumenical? How comes the Council of Antioch not to be an Appendix to the Council of Nice, if this was; when it was celebrated before this, and the Canons of it inserted in the p. 422Code of Canons owned by the Council of Chalcedon? So that by all the shifts and arts you can use, you cannot excuse Zosimus from Imposture in sending these Sardican under the name of the Nicene Canons. And, on what account the Pope satisfied the Canons then, is apparent enough, viz. for the advancing the Interess of his See; and this the African Fathers did as easily discern afterwards, as we do now. But by this we see, What good Foundations the Pope's claim of Supremacy had then, and what arts (not to say frauds) they were beholding to for setting it up, even as great as they have since made use of to maintain it.