Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 5 · Section 4
SECT. IV.
His fifteenth Section. Of retrenching the Roman Patriarchy. His mistaking the question. Difference between Metropolitical power and Patriarchate. Ruffinus's words only of the former, and so mine. The double use of the word Patriarch. The City of Rome and Italy distinct Provinces. His causelesse censure of the unintelligible testimony. The strange contumelies heaped on Ruffinus, without all provocation. Christs praecepts how much for our ease, if obeyed. St. Jeroms displeasure to Ruffinus. Palladius's testimony of him. Erasmus's censure common to him and Hilary (his mistake of Orbis Deucaleon) His calling James Bishop of the Apostles. His grounds for it. The agreement of others, Hesychius, the author de aetat. Eccl. His rendring foreign Macarius. The mistake of Pamphilus for Eusebius. S. W's rendring of the Nicene Canon. His proofs uneffectual, and his rendring disproved. St. Basils testimony little for the Popes credit. St. Jerom and he, only for his Patriarchate of the West. So Nilus and Zonaras their words.
1. HIs fifteenth Section is all spent on my retrenching the Roman Patriarchy, as the Catholike Gentleman was pleased to call it, and vindicating Ruffinus. And many artifices he hath made use of, to advance from hence a seeming exception against the Tract of Schisme.
2. To clear this whole businesse, it must be remembred how this dispute began. What I first said on that subject, came in*See Tr. of Schisme, p, 50, 51. l. 3. p. 52. l. ult. incidentally, and only as an example of Metropolitical power, in Scripture and the first antiquity, as in Timothy, and Titus, and James of Jerusalem, and the Angels of the seven Churches, so in the Bishop of Rome over the Province, or Region to him belonging, called the Ʋrbicarian or Suburbicarian, as distinguished from the Province of Italy, under the Archbishop of Milane. This was then set down at large from several passages of ancient story, and from the observations of Leschasser, and Mr. Brerewood, and from Ruffinus's Paraphrase of the Nicene Canon. Then in the Reply to Cath. Gentl. it was resumed, and in every part vindicated. And now the Dispatcher comes with his renewed assault, and his first undertaking is to evidence that the quaestion was of the extent of the Roman Patriarchy.] I might be allowed to know best, what was the subject of the quaestion, but I shall not assume so much to my self, but leave it to the Readers eyes, which will finde it most evident and certain (as hath been shewed from the first proposing of it) that it was of the Metropolitical power of the Bishop of Rome, never mentioned by me in any opposition to any greater dignity, than of the chief Primate, or Patriarch of the West, which he (long after Ignatius's time of which I speak) obtained, but only as a pattern of Metropolitical power in the infancy of the Church. This being adverted to, takes away the whole dispute between us in this matter, for I that confined the Bishop of Rome his Metropolitical power to the Suburbicarian Region, never doubted but his Patriarchate extended farther, to the whole West, as hath oft been granted by me.
3. But, saith he, (in despight of my gainsaying, or appeal to the Readers own eyes, or testimony concerning my own words) it is evident the quaestion is of the Roman Patriarchy. And how is it evident? Why, both by bringing Ruffinus's testimony upon the stage, who acknowledg'dly spake of Patriarchal Jurisdiction, as also by the Doctors words Repl. p. 33. l. 2. and p. 34. l. 4, 5. But as to the citations from my Reply, the Reader will easily satisfie his own eyes, that I had respect only to the Catholike Gentlemans word (and used it only as his dialect, who had called it the Roman Patriarchy) and so demonstrated p. 33. that that Province of the Patriarch of Rome i. e. that which I had called the Province of the Bishop of Rome, but he the Roman Patriarchy, extended not to all Italy, and p. 34. I speak expressely of the Praesidency of the Bishop of Rome, as that which I suppose he must mean by the Roman Patriarchy, but therein never dream'd of that greater dignity among Primates, whereby 'tis vulgarly known there were first three, and after five Patriarchs in the whole world, and the Bishop of Rome the first of these, and Patriarch of the whole West, and so of a greater extent than the Picenum Suburbicarium, yea than all Italie, which yet never belonged to his Metropolitical power.
4. As for Ruffinus's speaking acknowledgedly of Patriarchal Jurisdiction, 'tis suggested without any colour of truth, for 'tis evident, I bring Ruffinus's words Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere, to declare only the extent of his Metropolitical power. And besides I have oft shewed that Patriarchs, as they differ from Metropolitanes and Primates, have no Jurisdiction, but only an addition of honour or dignity, and if by the phrase he should mean no more, but the foreign or honourable priviledges of a Patriarch, in distinction from a Metropolitane or a Primate, then 'tis certain Ruffinus is not acknowledged to have spoken of those, nor consequently I by citing the testimony of Ruffinus. And so there is the upshot of his evidences.
5. And then with what face can he*P. 154. say that I conclude against the extent of the Patriarchal power by impugning the farther extent of the Metropolitical, when 'tis certain I only speak, in that place, of his Metropolitical power, and never so much as glance at his Patriarchate at all. 'Tis true I†Tr. of Schis. p. 54. §. 21. after said, in another Paragraph, that that of Primates or Patriarchs was an higher degree, than that of Archbishops and Metropolitans, but this is in that notion of Primates, wherein 'tis*See Tr. of Schis. p. 57. known there were fourteen of them in the whole Empire, each of which might sometime be called Patriarch, but not in that use of the word Patriarch (more received) wherein there were but three, the Bishop of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, (till Jerusalem and Constantinople were added to the number) and by this latter saying of mine of that other matter, no more can be concluded but this, that as the Bishop of the City of Rome, was also Metropolitan of the Suburbicarium, so he was, in another capacity, one of the fourteen Primates, and one, and the chief of the whether three or five Patriarchs, But still this is not to confine the extent of his Patriarchy to that of his Primacy, or the extent of his Primacy to that of his Metropolitical power, any more than I confine the extent of his Metropolitical power to that of his Episcopal, making the bare City the subject of the one, and the Suburbicarium of the other.
6. All this is so manifest in my first handling this matter, and since in my defense of it, that for him still to affirm with all confidence that I*P. 145. blunder and†P. 146. mixe and jumble authorities together for my own ends, is a most palpable slander, upon which alone is founded all that he hath put together against me and Ruffinus in this whole Section, neither of which have said a syllable against any Romanists interests in this matter, if the Catholike Gentleman at first, and since S. W. had had the patience to understand plain words, instead of faigning adversaries, and then confuting them.
7. Next he arraigns my testimonies which I produced, as manifestations that the Province of the Bishop of Rome was distinguish'd from the Province of Italy, which I said could not have truth in them, if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy (by the way, and to supersede his farther mistaking, by Patriarch of Rome must be understood in this place, the Metropolitan of the Roman Province, which the Catholike Gentleman, not I, but as from him, called the Roman Patriarchy.) Against my testimonies his objection is, that there is not one word found in any of them making mention of the Patriarchy, nor yet of the Province of the Bishop of Rome at all, nay the three first only mention the City of Rome.] I answer for the mention of the Patriarchy, it matters not, that was not my word, but the Catholike Gentlemans, not understanding or not adverting to the common use of words, nor is it my interest to maintain it, but the contrary rather.
8. But for the mention of the Province of the Bishop of Rome it is enough that it is in every of the testimonies so express'd, as to oppose the City of Rome to Italy, for that shewes that these were not the same, but distinct Provinces, and to all that understand any thing of the style of the old Lawyers, or the Notitia Provinciarum, is known to signifie the famous division into the Province or Region Suburbicarian, and the Province of Italie, and in the fourth or last of the testimonies there is expresse mention of Provincia Romana, as in Ignatius's Epistle 'tis called foreign, the place of the Region of the Romans.
9. Of that fourth testimony he hath pleased to take so much notice, as to resolve that it is not intelligible in the Latine, and, as I cannot (saith he) but know, very corrupt. The words are these,*Concil. To. 1. p. 266. Ex urbe Roma, quos Silvester Episcopus misit, Claudius et Vitus Presbyters Eugenius & Quiriacus Diaconi. Ex Provincia Italia civitate Mediolanensi Orosius Episcopus, Nazaraeus Lector, and afterwards Ex Provincia Romana, civitate Portuensi Gregorius Episcopus. From the City of Rome, Claudius and Vitus Presbyters, Eugenius and Quiriacus Deacons, sent by Bishop Sylvester, or whom Bishop Sylvester sent. From the Province of Italy, from the City of Milane Orosius the Bishop, Nazaraeus the Reader. From the Roman Province from the City of Portua Bishop Gregory. Is not this plain and intelligible Latine? Where did the Club of wits conferre, or what shift have they made to perswade any man else, or themselves, that 'tis unintelligible, and not simply corrupt, but very corrupt? If S. W's†Who hath set it Ex urbe Roma quod Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provincia Romana, only mending in the table of Errata, quod into quos, but not inferring the Comma after misit. Printer have not those wits in his belly, I know no man on earth, that doth or can think either corrupt or unintelligible, but as distinct, and expresse, as any thing could be imagined, to make difference betwixt the City of Rome, (strictly taken for no more than the City) the Roman Province, and the Province of Italy, and if it mean (as now he saith) the Popes Metropolitical Jurisdiction, never so much as naming his Patriarchal, that he knowes, is the very thing I would have, and for the proving it produced that, and the other testimonies.
10. What he concludes from my treating of the four Praefecti Praetorio in Constantines time, that the Patriarchy of Rome must needs extend to all Italy] hath already been answered, viz. that as a Primacy is of a larger extent, and power, than the Metropolitical authority, so 'tis granted, that all Italy was under the Primate of Rome; but he now knowes I spake only of the Metropolitical power of that Bishop, and that extended not to all Italy.
11. And now what can be more confident, and more groundlesse than that all my testimonies are finally reduced to that authority from Ruffinus? When every testimony that I brought (being understood, as alone the ancient style permits them to be understood) and the Subscriptions in the Councel of Arles, expressely and irrefragably define the very same thing; which also is farther confirmed, and I hope must not in any reason be blasted by the addition of the clear words of Ruffinus, of which being not confident enough to say again, as so lately with no greater reason he did, that they are unintelligible and very corrupt, he must flie to new arts, but yet those with which he hath been long acquainted, of calling him a*P. 149. great Knave, and accusing him of†P. 151. syllinesse and ignorance of propriety of speech, *P. 153.and doltish ignorance, the monster of that and all future ages for eminence in that talent, and at once concluding him†P. 151. a knave and fool both, and as if that were not enough, with the addition of Old Knave and old Fool, for no other reason but because he was an ancient Writer, And all this his but just reward, that he durst say, what, meerly for want of understanding, S. W. would not have had him say, though when it were duely weighed, it is as much for his turn, as mine, i. e. wholly impertinent to the main cause betwixt us, of Schisme, and as much to the retrenching the extent of the Roman Patriarchate, the passage belonging wholly to the Bishop of Rome his Metropolitical power, and not his dignity Patriarchal.
12. What an infelicity then is it to fall into the hands of a displeased S. W. whose passion will not permit him to discern whether Ruffinus have done him any wrong or no, and whose principles of bitter zeal praesently break out into Great Knave and fool, and dolt and monster, where ever he but apprehends himself or his cause to have received the least opposition. How much better were it to look, before he leaps into such impertinent unprovoked rages, or to resolve on the Apostles method towards real, much more phansied enemies, of overcoming evil with good. What is eminently observable in Christs Supplemental praecepts, that they are not additions of burthen to humane life, but make the former Lawes of nature more easie and practicable, will be very appliable to S. W. in this matter, for had he made conscience of calling his Brother Racha, or thou fool, he had never been guilty of those other excesses against nature and common humanity, of accumulating those highest contumelies and slanders of Knave and old Knave on one who had not deserved the least ill of him.
13. As it is, I shall not, I hope, now need farther to vindicate (him with whom I have had nothing to doe, but as he is a Paraphrast of that one Canon) from all the accusations that St. Hierome (and*See De vero usu Patr. p. 278. & 279. Mr. Daille, only out of St. Hieroms opinion, and as an instance how that Father dealt with his adversaries) hath heaped upon him, as an Origenist, or a Pelagian, with either of which haeresies this Canon certainly is not defiled by him.
14. 'Tis certain St. Hierome was a passionate Writer, and†Hoc unum denuntio & repetens iterum iterumque monebo, cornutam bestiam petis. Hieron. contr. Ruffin, To. 2. p. 311. B. again and again tells Ruffinus, that he must know that he deals with an horned beast. And such indeed his severe and goring language approved him to be. And then no wonder at any thing that is cited from him. 'Tis certain others, which knew as well, have given another manner of character of Ruffinus, witnesse Palladius Lausiac. Hist. C. 118. who speaking of him, affirms, foreign, there was not found among men any thing more knowing and more milde, or temperate, or moderate than he; and if the latter of these were, or because it might be the reason, that he was not so diligent in defending himself, and paying St. Hierome in his own Coin, it will not be just to impute it to the want of the former.
15. 'Tis here suggested against him from Erasmus, that he took to himself not the liberty of an Interpreter, but the license of a Contaminator of other mens writings. This is cited from his†β. 3. Praeface to Hilary, but looking it there, the words ly thus, Hilarie never translated any thing out of Greek but with that liberty of rendring the sense at his own pleasure, leaving out also and adding as he thought good. Poggius took the same liberty in translating Diodorus Siculus, and Ruffinus in all almost that he rendred, specially in the Books of Origene, and Eusebius's History, But this, saith he, is not the liberty of an Interpreter, but the license rather of one that contaminates other mens writings. Where 'tis evident he charges no more on Ruffinus, than on St. Hilary himself,β. 2. of whom yet in the same Praeface he tells us, that St. Hierome that almost contemned St. Augustine, and attributed not much to St. Ambrose, doth yet with so much veneration cite Hilarie, that he calls him sometimes the Deucalion of the world, (where, by the way, I think that learned man was miastaken, applying to Hilarius Pictav. what Jerom had spoken of Hilarius Diaconus, that joyned to Lucifer Calaritanus in his Schisme, and went farther, to rebaptize as many as had lapsed in time of persecution, and for that cause was called Deucalion by St. Jerom, as is manifest in his book adversus Luciferian.) the Trumpet of the Latine speech, the Rhoan, or great River of Latine Eloquence, and much more in the profusest commendation of him.
16. Among the special ignorances imputed to Ruffinus, it is one, that he in Hist. Eccl. Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. makes of James Bishop of Jerusalem, James Bishop of the Apostles; Whether he did rightly translate Eusebius herein, I need not inquire, for if the Greek Copy before him had then, as now it is in our books, [foreign] it is sure he could not truely render that, [of the Apostles] But then there is as little reason to impure that mifrendring to his doltish ignorance; for it cannot be imagined that he that translated a Greek Author, should not know the true rendring of foreign Jerusalem. It is therefore unquaestionable, that either the Copies he used, had foreign of the Apostles, where we now have foreign of Jerusalem, and then he is not so much as blameable in the least degree, or else that reading as we doe, he used the liberty of a Paraphrast, as 'tis sure he oft did, and whatever other crime this Paraphrase shall affix upon him, be it that which St. Hierome chargeth on him, of being a Contaminator of other mens writings, yet still this is farre enough from S. W's present charge, that of monstrosity for doltish ignorance. But even for all other guilts in this Paraphrase, it may not be amisse a while to examine, before we credit S. W. that he was the monster of that and all future ages. And first in that very*l. 2. c. 1. place of Eusebius, where from Clemens we read, that James the Just was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem, this other passage is subjoyned from the same Clemens, that the Lord foreign, delivered the knowledge or faith, after his resurrection to James the Just, and John and Peter, foreign, they delivering it to the rest of the Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy. And if this were so, what great iniquity, or contamination was it, to call this James, which was one of those three, a Bishop of the Apostles, the delivering the faith to them being not incompetent to have given him the yet higher title of an Apostle (I say not, the, by way of eminence over all, because John and Peter are joyned with him in it, but an Apostle) of the Apostles. Nay farther yet, were not the Apostles at this time all of them members of the Church of Jerusalem? If they were, then those very Apostles, nay the principal of them, making him, whilest they abode there, Bishop of Jerusalem, i. e. of the Church there, what monstrous absurdity was it to call him Bishop of the Apostles? as when so many Bishops of a Province choose, and ordain their Metropolitan. That this had truth in the utmost propriety, I need not interpose my sentence, lest it solemnly commence a new head of Controversie between S. W. and me, every word that is said, like the teeth sown, being so apt to spring up into a contention. 'Tis sufficient to the refuting of him, if I give him some instances of the like sayings in that or future ages, for then he is not the monster of all; And first let him consult these passages in*Ap. Phot. foreign. p. 125. Hesychius a Presbyter in this Church of Jerusalem, who styles him, in Photius's Epitome (from whom alone we have this book, as many others) foreign, the chief Captain of the new Jerusalem, the Leader of the Priests, the Prince or chief Ruler of the Apostles, adding more, which I shall reserve for another occasion, this being sufficient for the present, to keep any man from deeming it a Prodigy, that he that is styled the foreign, should be called the Bishop of the Apostles. I shall adde but one more,Cap. IV. the Anonymous Author de Aetatib. Eccles. neer three hundred years since, who from this very testimony of Clements in Eusebius, thinks reasonable to conclude, quod Jacobus super Apostolos accepit principatum, that James received a principality over the Apostles, and sedem Domini Jesu accepit possidendam, received the See of our Saviour to possesse; Let this serve to remove the first great praejudice against Ruffinus.
17. The second, of making the Greek word foreign happy, a Saint by name Macarius, I cannot account for, not guessing, as I am not directed, what passage it referres to, but sure the error, if it be any, is not monstrous, nor much above the proportion of those that render foreign Lu. 1. and Act. 1. Theophilus, and foreign, Dorcas, especially when a Saint if dead, is so solemnly called foreign, whatsoever his name be.
18. His third instance of doltishnesse is that he makes of Eusebius of Pamphilus haeretick and Arian, Pamphilus Catholike, and Martyr, where I shall not inquire why he chose so obscure a phrase, as to English ears [Eusebius of Pamphilus] must be, (The Reader might understand it, as well, as before he did Simon of Cananee) but suppose there was design in it, to make Ruffinus's mistake more grosse, and yet more credible, by the affinity betwixt the names, Eusebius of Pamphilus, and Pamphilus, and yet the distance betwixt the men, the one an haeretick and Arian, the other a Catholike and Martyr. But there is somewhat more in that agnomen of Eusebius foreign, than the Reader was to be told of. He was so called because of the great friendship between him and Pamphilus (and S. W. that resolves the one to have been an haeretick and Arian, may learn from thence, that a Catholike and Martyr may have the closest friendship with some that are called haereticks) so we have it in the life of Eusebius, foreign, because of his friendship to Pamphilus, he had that agnomen given him, And as he was his special friend,*Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 8. c. 17. the dearest and most loved of all his acquaintance, so he was his fellow Student too, foreign, saith the Writer of his Life, he together with Pamphilus was the most diligent Searcher of the Divine Library (i. e. of Origens and other Ecclesiastical Writers Books, as Eusebius interprets the phrase, foreign.) This neer acquaintance, I say, and communication of studies was the Original of this title, or agnomen of his, foreign, Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus, or Pamphilus's Eusebius, And then, as they read, why might they not write Books together? And so that Apologie for Origene may have been laboured between them, and so Ruffinus not confound these two persons,) or take one for the other, an haeretick for a Catholike, an Arian for a Martyr (as S. W. will needs have it) but say that book was written by Pamphilus, which yet is acknowledged to be written by Eusebius. That this is not a bare possibility, or whimpering may be, as he is elsewhere pleased to speak, but indeed the single truth of the matter, I appeal to his own Baronius, Tom. 11. Ann. 256. n. 40. or to a more authentick witnesse, Eusebius, that best knew, in his*foreign. Ecclesiastick History, where speaking of Origene, he saith, foreign. What was necessary to declare concerning him, may be read in an Apology laboured by us and Pamphilus the holy Martyr of our time, which we labouring together composed with diligence for their sakes who love to finde fault. Which concludes irrefragably that the Apology for Origene was framed by the joynt labours of Eusebius and Pamphilus, and so that Ruffinus was not mistaken in citing that as written by Pamphilus, which Eusebius, that could not be ignorant, saith was written or laboured by him and Pamphilus. 'Tis true†Ep. 65. ad Pamm. & advers. Ruff. l. 2. St. Hierome expresseth his opinon, that Eusebius wrote that Apologie, not Pamphilus, but what heed is to be given to his conjectures, against Eusebius's expresse affirmation of a thing which he was so neerly concerned to know, the Reader will soon judge; But S. W's conclusion from hence, crudely put down, as his assertion of a plain matter of fact; that Ruffinus makes of Eusebius of Pamphilus haeretick and Arian, Pamphilus Catholike and Martyr,] and this as an instance of his doltish ignorance, and proof that he was the monster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent, will not be thus excused, that St. Hierome lead him into that error, for as bitter as that Father was against Ruffinus, he makes this no instance of his doltishnesse; if he had, we now see how unjust a temerity he had been guilty of.
19. By these instances the Reader will be satisfied what justice is to be expected in the rest of the suggestions of S. W. against Ruff…nus, and spare me the pains of proceeding to a view of the severals; Only when for an upshot, he resolves to adde the words (as he saith) of their most famed Daille (against whom he is sure I will not take up the Cudgels, being a person so highly commended by the Lords Falkland and Digby) who l. 2. c. 4 characters Ruffinus to be an arrant wooden Statue, a pitifull thing, one that had scarce any reason in what he said, and yet much lesse dexterity in defending himself, which also are the very words of Mr. White in his*P. 243. Answer to Daille, and are there remark'd with a reference to those that account of so fundamental a passage of his in the interpretation of the Canons of the Councel of Nice— (I hope I shall not hence be accused, as Ruffinus was, to make S. W. Mr. White) I shall beseech the Reader to turn to Mr. Daille's Book, and examine this citation, or, to save him the pains, I shall do it for him. It is in his book de vero usu Patrum, p. 278. 279. where speaking of St. Hieroms manner of treating his adversaries, how he drawes their sayings beyond their sense, and affixes most remote meanings to them, which are not in their words, and then sets upon them most hostilely with contumelies, stinging speeches— gives an instance first in his dealing with St. Augustine, and then with Ruffinus, the former, saith he, he gibes as sarcastically and wittily as he can, Cum homine futili pugnabat, palo vulnerae infligebat, cujus et causa ipsa fortasse deterior, industria quidem certè ad sui defensionem nulla erat.but deals otherwise with Ruffinus, for then he fought with an inconsiderable man, and wounded a stake, who perhaps had a worse cause, and indeed had no industry to defend himself, and so after he had scoured the poor man from head to foot, and wounded him as sharply as he could, he tells him at last, that through fear of God he abstain'd from revenge, and lent not words to his raging breast, but with the Psalmist set a guard upon his mouth. I now leave the Reader to consider, which of these two Ancients had most of Mr. Daille's favour at this time, Ruffinus, that was thus scourged by St. Hierome, or St. Hierome that thus dealt with him, and others that he met with, and whether [an arrant wooden Statue, a pitifull thing, one that had scarce any reason in what he said, and yet much lesse dexterity in defending himself] which are all noted by the change of the letter, to be the words of the citation, be all to be found in Mr. Daillee; If they are, I am sure he must be beholden to the false English Translator for them, and 'twill hardly be worth my pains to pursue it thither.
20. But how severe soever the sentence be, that is gone out against Ruffinus's person, and learning, and what liberty soever he took in paraphrasing that Canon, 'tis not imaginable how the Romanist should be provoked, or the Papal greatness suffer by it (though it is true that Baronius, and other jealous advocates have suspected there lay some poyson under it) when whatsoever can be deemed of his Patriarchate, 'tis certain, he was Bishop of Rome, and Metropolitane of the Roman Province, and Primate of a foreign, and each of these of narrower circuit than the Patriarchate of the West; and for Ruffinus to set down in one place, what was the peculiar circuit that belonged to him in any of the three former relations, particularly as to a Metropopolitane, 'tis impossible it should be any praejudice to the fourth.
21. And therefore for S. W. in this Panick fright to flie to his arts of new interpretation, and give the Canon so strange a rendring, is much more unseasonable, than any thing committed by Ruffinus in his Pamphrastical translation of it.
22. His rendring of the Canon is not so literal, as that he should allow himself to be angry at a Paraphrast; The words are these, foreign. To which S W. cannot imagine a more proper sense then this, that the Bishops of Aegypt, Lybia and Pentapolis should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria, because the Pope had used to hold them for so. And his proofs are two, 1. Because foreign quandoquidem manifests that the words following are the reason of the decree, 2. because hoc and foreign cannot possibly referre to any thing but the thing decreed.] But 1. 'tis certain his proofs gain him nothing, for in Ruffinus's, and the vulgar way of rendring the Canon, 'tis apparent that both the latter part, beginning at foreign, is the reason of the former, (It is to be so at Alexandria, because it is proportionably at Rome, and Antioch) and the foreign that, is the thing decreed, viz. that those lesser Cities and Regions of Aegypt, &c. should be under the Bishop of the Metropolis, because this course is customary in other places, at Rome, and Antioch, &c. But either or both of these proofs not so much as offering at that, where the only difficulty is, are farre from concluding S. W's to be the truest rendring, for to omit that there is not in the Greek Canon any mention either of the word Patriarch, or Pope; (which yet were*Not one word is found in any of the testimonies making mention of the Patriarchy— p. 46. even now weighty objections against my conclusion from three of the four testimonies) both which are here inserted by S. W. instead of Bishop and Bishop, I demand, what is there in the Canon, of which these words [the Pope had used to hold them so] are either the version, or Paraphrase? foreign,] they that have any the lightest knowledge of Greek (and S. W. much†P. 18. loves the language, though he seem not to discover any great skill in it) will be able to construe for him, this is customary for the Bishop which is at Rome, (what in the Greek is there answerable to [holds them for so]?) and so the practice at Rome is set as a Copy of what is to be at Alexandria, and is not that honour enough to Rome, unlesse withall the Nicene Canon be founded in the Popes handling and judging matters belonging to Alexandria? Whereas 'tis clear that the foundation of the Canon is layd in the foreign, the Primordial customes in Aegypt, &c. which sure depended not on the Popes judgement or holding them for so.
23. So strange, and uncouth, and groundlesse an interpretation could not well have been looked for, but from S. W (yet if Bellarmine had it before him, de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 13. §. Quarta igitur, and if Pope Nicholas the first suggested it to him, Epist. ad Michael Imper. P. 541.he must not then enclose the honour of it.) And by this means (one would think, sufficiently improbable) though the Metropolitical rights be most expressely referred to, by the latter part of the Canon, [foreign, if any man shall be made a Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitane] and those aequally specified in Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch, the three most eminent Metropoles in the whole world, yet the Canon is, without all colour of excuse, detorted to Patriarchy, and Papacy, and the latter praesumed to have jurisdiction over the former, P. 154.when yet in his production of proofs for his side, he ascends no higher than to his Patriarchy over all the West, which certainly is not sufficient to give him any jurisdiction over his fellow Patriarchs in other Climes.
24. It is therefore observable in the last place, that in case Ruffinus's Paraphrase of the Metropolitical power over the Suburbicarian Province, should not hold, but the Canon were indeed to be understood of Patriarchs (as his testimonies out of Basil, Hierome, Nilus, and Zonaras import, and being the first that ever S. W. produced, to my best remembrance, 'twere even pity not to be convinced by them) yet his interpretation, which consists in asserting the Popes Jurisdiction over other Patriarchs, must needs destroy it self, and then I cannot imagine, why either in point of manners, or knowledge in Greek, or propriety of rendring, Ruffinus may not be fit to compare with S. W. unless it be that the one is not as Old as the other. And thus much for this main important affair of Ruffinus.
25. Meanwhile I may be allowed to make my best of that sprinkling of testimonies which S. W. hath afforded me in this place, not knowing when I shall have another such largesse from him. And then if*Epist. 10. St. Basil call the Bishop of Rome the Coryphaeus or head of the Western Churches (he there mentions indeed foreign the Western Brow, or Pride, in one place, and foreign their Coryphaeus in another, and betwixt them saith that they†foreign— Basil. To. 2. p. 795. D. neither know nor endure to learn the truth, but are praepossess'd with false praesumptions, contending with those that annuntiate truth to them, but by themselves establishing haeresie, and then what hath he to doe with that Brow of the West? as the African Fathers in their Synodical Epistle to Boniface mention istum typhum, and in their Epistle to Caelestine, the introducing fumosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi, speaking of the transmarine Appeals, and Carolus Calvus in his Rescript to Pope Adrian II. c. 10. hath the like, umbrosum seculi typhum— why then may not I conclude, that that of Coryphaeus or Antesignanus of the West, was his highest title, which it must be in that Fathers perswasion, who asks what hath he (and so sure disclaims having any thing) to doe with him, quite contrary to the Ʋniversality of his Pastorship, and then allowing him to have been possess'd of that by the courtesie of the Church, as the other testimonies expresse, what praetense can there be of his being Ʋniversal Pastor from Christ?
26. So again if St. Hierome account it the self same thing to be condemned by Damasus and by the West (he hath indeed these words,*Ep. 77. p. 252. haereticum me cum Occidente, haereticum cum Aegypto, hoc est cum Damaso, Petroque condemnent) let Damasus be confined to the west, and allowed the chief there, as Peter in Aegypt, in St. Hieroms time, and then what becomes of the jus divinum of the Ʋniversal Pastorship.
27. So if Nilus be to be heard in distributing the climes, and accordingly the west be to be allowed the Bishop of Rome, by force of the Nicene Canon (as I shall willingly grant to be his words,†De Prim. Pap. p. 67. and sense, foreign, it is given to the Bishop of Rome to praeside or have power over the west) then 1. that is a praejudice to S. W's rendring of the Canon, for that gives him jurisdiction over the East, instead of power and praesidency over the west, which are prettily distant, and 2. the authority of the same Nilus may be extended farther,P. 49. as that the Pope having two things, 1. to be the Bishop of Rome, as the Synods witnesse, and 2. to be the first of all Bishops, the former he hath from St. Peter, the latter from the holy Fathers and pious Kings a long while after, for orders sake, P. 53.and again, that the priviledges are given the Pope by the Fathers, because it was the Imperial City, and not because he is St. Peters successor, P. 94.2. that Leo Bishop of Rome writing to Theodosius the Emperour, begges it as a mighty boon (the words of the Letter are, they doe all *Omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus & lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes— Leo Epist. 24.foreign with tears beseech his clemency) that he will command a special Synod (so foreign, or rather foreign, is to be rendred, as appears by the title of Leo's 24th Ep. by that meaning a General Synod on a special occasion) to be held in Italy, which, saith he, he would not so humbly have begged, if before he had had any right to it. And many the like passages, which will yield small advantage to S. W's interests, yet must in reason be taken in, to give the due and full sense to the words cited from Nilus, that it may appear what he meant by the Patriarch of the West, one that was so dignified by the Church, upon that accidental consideration of Rome, being the Seat of the Empire, and one that had not power enough by it to assemble all the Bishops of Italy in a Synod, if the Emperor did not issue out his writs for the congregating them.
28. So if that be the meaning of the Nicene Canon, which Zonaras gives, that the ancient custome had given to the Bishop of Rome foreign to praeside over the West, then first this may be allowed to be the full sense of it, contrary to S. W's rare conjecture of jurisdiction over the East, 2. the marginal note of the Romanist, affix'd to that Exposition of Zonaras [that he and Balsamon had added this, whereas the Pope was known to have had authority over the East and all the whole world] must goe for a fiction, and very unnatural glosse upon that Canon.
29. Lastly, if the same Zonaras's note on the VI. Sardican Canon be of any force, to prove more than the former; viz. that over and above the Provinces of the Western Empire, almost all those Provinces of the Eastern also, which lay westwardly, were granted the Bishop of Rome (Zonaras's words are [At that time foreign, almost all the Western Churches, P. 368. A.the Macedonian, Thessalonian, Illyrian, Graecian, Peloponnesian, and the Church of Epirus, which afterward came to be under Constantinople) then sure the whole world, even in those dayes, was not under his government, and yet even of that which belonged to him much was cut off, and assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople, and no Schisme committed by that means.
30. The Exposition on the same Canon addes,P. 367. that the Popes had endeavoured by that Sardican Canon to draw appeals from Bishops to them in whatsoever cause; and affirmed it to have been framed in the first Nicene Councel, but being proposed in the Councel of Carthage it was found not to accord with truth, it being not made by the Nicene Fathers, nor at all pertaining to all Churches, but those which were subject to him. Which, I must suppose, concludes, that all were not so subjected.
31. And now in the name of truth let S. W. reap the fruit of his testimonies. And so at length I shall dismisse his 15th Section.