Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 5 · Section 9
SECT. IX.
His sixteenth Section. Indicting of Councels belongs to saecular Magistrates; The Popes entreaty humble not authoritative. Instances in Pope Leo and Agatho. The being an act of extraordinary power, no praejudice to the being an act of soveraignty. Of this power divolving to a private man in S. W's judgement. Calling the Pope Summum Genus. His answer to the Milevetan Canon of appeals proved null. The Africans free from Papal jurisdiction. His answer to the Nicene and Apostolick, frustrated. A principle of Papal tyranny. The Popes presence and consent not necessary to give the Nicene Canon force. The Primates being called head a praejudice to the Ʋniversal Pastorship. The title of Head peculiar to the highest. Peter and Paul Heads in Agatho. Names not belonging signifie Negation of power. Christs example that Masters may be called so: His second, and third answer superseded. The Popes refusing the Title, no modesty. His fourth answer. S. W's answer contrary to the Popes words. His fifth. St. Gregories humility, in denying himself to be a Priest, examined. Four answers more. Gregories assuming what he disclaimed. The Bizacene Primate. The Popes power from, or in subordination to the Emperour, in cases referred to him by him. Other testimonies from Gregory answered. The Patriarch of Constantinople his praetended conf…ssion of his subjection. The case of John of Constantinople. Six strange misadventures in one answer. Pontifex maximus. Episcopus Episcoporum. Tertullians testimony, in jeer to the Pope. Cyprian. Balsamon. The Canon of Chalcedon as schismatical as Protestants. Phocas's donation of the title of Ʋniversal.
1. HIs 16. Section, the last of his first part, comes to the power of calling Councels, which I had mention'd to belong, National, to each Prince, and, General, to the Emperor, and to be a proof, that none is above Primates in the Church, but only the Soveraign Prince.
2. To this he saith he gave in Schis. Disar. three answers the two former of which 1. that my proofs were nothing unlesse they proved that the Emperors called Councels without the Popes signifying their desires to them, next, that if they did it without this I must prove they did it lawfully] he complains, had not their due consideration from me. But having given him a complete answer to the third, and thereby shewed that this of convoking Councels is a praerogative inseparable from the supreme power, and now most challenged by the Bishop of Rome, as such, and is indeed the most eminent in it self, and most characteristical of the supreme power, there was no great need to cast away time on the two former.
3. For suppose there were any such causa sine qua non, or that there were customarily any such civility payd the Pope, that Emperors would not exercise this their undoubted power, till he thought the time seasonable, and the extremities of the Chu…ch so pressing, as to request the Emperor to repair to that remedy, and so when it were done, without that respect to the Pope, it were not done lawfully, as to that circumstance, yet what praejudice were that to the residing of the supreme power in the Emperor? Would it thence follow that the Pope could lawfully doe it without the Emperor? Which yet, by this arguing, he certainly might, if he were the supreme power.
4. But to satisfie the importunity of his first answer (and that being done there is no place of doubt or scruple for the second) I shall demand what he means by [the Popes signifying such his desires] is it his authoritative declaration of his pleasure, or is it his humble request and petition? The latter would not much agree with a supreme Potentate, humbly to beseech his Vassal, yet in the very last Section I casually gave him an example of Pope Leo begging it foreign with tears of the Emperor Theodosius's clemency, foreign, that he will command a Synod to be held in Italy, which is pretty distant from the Popes commanding it, or the Emperors being unable to doe it, without authoritative signification of the Popes desires.
5. I*Ch. 2. Sect. 3. n. 18. formerly gave him another instance (on another occasion) of Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the Emperors, concerning the calling a General Councel; where he mentions with great veneration and thanksgiving, the Emperors purpose to call a Councel, †Concil. Tom. V. p. 60. E. F.foreign, and foreign, with praise we admire your purpose well-pleasing to God (the style was not, [well pleasing to the Pope) and for these commands of yours by your divine writ we are rejoyced, and with groans out of the depth of our heart we have begun to give God thanks. And store of the like might be afforded him; and then what joy will he have from the Popes signifying their so humble desires, which are farre from any marks of the least, much lesse of the highest power in him.
6. Next he endeavours to reconcile this of the Emperors calling Councels, to his Phaenomena, by telling us this is no ordinary act of standing Jurisdiction, but an extraordinary affair] so I conceive the Kings power of calling a Parliament is no ordinary act of every dayes exercise, yet sure it belongs to the supreme power, and is an evidence that the Kings in our Nation have been alwayes acknowledged such, and the more extraordinary the affair is, the more worthy it is of the supreme power to take care of it, and the more unreasonable, that any body else should assume it.
7. What he then tells me, that if I think it inseparable from the Pope, I am in a great mistake] might sure have been spared, for I think it so farre from being inseparable from him, that I believe it not to belong to him at all (and not only, as he is pleased to yield, when the see is vacant, or the Pope unsound in the Faith, or distracted, or imprisoned, or in case there be an Antipope—) and as little to the Cardinals, in defect of him, much lesse to any private man, as at last he saith, for that to such it is lawfull in any case, much lesse duty, so that he not only may but ought to congregate Assemblies, or assume that, which belongs to the supreme power (if by saying [he ought to apply his power and skill, as much as in him lies, to praevent the harm of the publike] he mean any thing lesse than assembling of Councels, then sure he speaks not to his purpose) is a maxim in S. W's Politicks sit to be bound up with Mr. Whites rare Book of Government, but sure is not as yet received into the number of Aphorismes, whereby all Christian Monarchies and Churches, yea the most Democratical States are content to be regulated.
8. For my great unhappinesse in calling the Pope a Summum Genus, I am sharply chastised, but am not so fully, as I might desire, convinced of my error, For if above all Priests, Bishops, Metropolitanes, Primates, Patriarchs, there be still one that is every of these, and yet somewhat more than (and transcendentally superior to) all of them, I know not what either nibbling at wit was betrayed, or what unfortunacy in using this ordinary style; sure I am, his objection against it, viz. that the summum Genus in Logick is perfectly included in every individual under it, but the Popes power is not in every Priest] is of no force; for as in one respect Genus is pars actualis, so in another it is totum potentiale, and so contains as much, and somewhat more, than any species or Individuum; and then the species is but part of that, and the whole on that fashion will not be intirely contained in every part, and in this most comprehensive notion of Genus I might be allowed to use the phrase, when I speak of the Popes supreme assumed power over Emperors and Kings, as well as Patriarchs and Primates, and so much for his hypercritical Logick observation.
9. Then he comes to Marshal, and surveigh my arguments against this Supremacy of the Pope. And beginning with the head of Appeals, the first is that from the*Can. 22. Milevitan Canon, where speaking of Appeals from their Bishops, the rule is, non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum, they must not appeal save to the African Councels, or the Primates of their own Provinces. To this his answer is,†P. 160. it only forbids the Appeals of Priests from their Bishops, but leaves it indifferent whether the Bishops, Archbishops, nay even Primates themselves may appeal to the Pope.]
10. The vanity of this answer I shall thus evidence. This Canon, as to the substance, we have twice reputed in the African Codex, Can. XXVIII. and Can. CXXV. In the latter the words are, as we have already set them down, with this addition, that he that will appeal to the transmarines, foreign, he shall not be received to Communion in Africk, and in the former somewhat more largely, thus, foreign, Priests and Deacons &c. must not appeal to the transmarine Judicatures (i. e. without quaestion to the*See August. Ep. 162. Roman) but to the Primates of their own Provinces (the Latine Manuscripts in Thuanus and Bochards Libraries adde, aut ad Ʋniversale Concilium, or to an Ʋniversal Councel, and the†Ad Concilia suae Provincia vel etiam Universale provocare. Synodical Epistle to Pope Caelestine confirms the reading, meaning no doubt the Ʋniversal Councels of the whole foreign of Africk, called the Councels of Africk. i. e. of all Africk in the latter Canon, in opposition to their Provincial Councels, there being Six Provinces in that foreign) as it hath often been defined concerning Bishops. But they that appeal to the transmarine Judicatures shall not be received to communion by any in Africk.
11. Here it is evident that the same Law of Appeals that holds for Presbyters, &c. holds for Bishops also, that they shall not appeal to the Roman Judicatures, and this as a thing oftentimes formerly resolved among the Africans, an instance whereof we have Can. XXIII. where 'tis interdicted Bishops to goe beyond sea, i. e. to Rome, in the notion of those Canons, foreign, unlesse it be by the consent of his own Primate of every Region. Nothing could more particularly have praevented S. W's foreign, obstructed his subtile evasion; he saith it belongs to Priests only, the Canon saith expressely it belongs to Bishops, as well as Priests, I hope this will satisfie him. And what thinks he of the case of Athanasius, who was not a bare Presbyter but a Bishop, yet when Julius received him to communion contrary to the Eastern Bishops, I formerly told him out of their Epistle, and*l. III. c. VII. Sozomen assures him of the truth of it, that foreign foreign. They complained of it as of an injury done to their Synod, and accused the fact as unjust and disagreeable to the Ecclesiastical Canons.
12. Let him also, if he please, consult St. Augustines 162 Epistle, and there he will finde it his resolution, that Melchiades Bishop of Rome with his transmarine Colleague Bishops, i. e. the Pope and a Councel of his Bishops, non debuit sibi il…ud usurpare judicium— ought not to usurp to himself that judgement which had been determined by a Councel of seventy Africans under their Primate. And if the Pope had nothing to do with a determination of an African Councel of Bishops, and it was an usurpation in him to meddle in it, let him shew me, how the Bishops, Metropolitans, and Primates of Africa were still under his Jurisdiction.
13. The second testimony was that of the Nicene *Can. V.Canon out of the twelfth Apostolick, that they which are excommunicated by some, shall not be received by others.] But saith he, those words are not universally true; for then there can be no appeal from a Bishop to an Archbishop, Primate or Councel. But I answer, that though it hold not so universally, as to exclude all appeal from inferior to superior Bishops in the scale of due subordination, yet it holds against appeals to foreign transmarine, and so from England to Romane judicatures. This was before evidenced to him to be the meaning of the Canon by the Synodical Epistle of the Africane fathers to Pope Caelestine, which is in the Romane as well as the Africane Code, where beseeching him that he will not for the time to come easily receive those that come to him from Africk, nor admit to his communion those whom they had excommunicated, the reason is rendred foreign— because he might easily find this decreed at Nice also. This if he had marked it, I had†Repl. p. 40. formerly set down as the means to secure him of the sense of that Nicene and Apostolical Canon, that it did expressely belong to appeals to Rome, and if as I put them together in a paragraph, the one to interpet the other, so he had taken them into his consideration, this answer of his had been anticipated, as also his return to those words of the Africane Fathers, which he proceeds to as my third testimony, and saith of it, that 'tis so far from gainsaying the Popes power, that being onelyonly a request that he would not admit their appeals easily, 'tis an acknowledgement of it, This 'tis to pull things asunder, and then break them single, which in conjunction were not easily to be broken. I hope it is not strange for Christians to be civil to their aequals, especially to those that are more highly dignified, and to intreat such (not command, or sullenly to admonish them) not to do them injury unprovoked, upon any light or no occasion. This the Africans there do to the Pope, yet from thence I conclude not that the Pope had not that Power over them, but from the concluding reason, foreign—because this is also determined in the Councel of Nice. The determinations of that Counsel the Pope was surely bound to observe, and swears now at his inauguration that he will observe them, and this being first a Canon Apostolical, which might lay a competent obligation on him, and also a Canon of the Nicene Faethers, they civilliy tell him his duty, and 'tis not in the power of their soft intreating language to prejudice the force of those Canons. And so both his answers to the second and third (as he stiles them) testimonies are perfectly superseded by putting them together, the former by the Africans application of it, as an interdict to Romes taking Appeals from Carthage, the latter by their fortifying their request with the double Canon, Apostolical and Nicene, which is an evidence, that he might not lawfully, not onelyonly an intreaty that he would not (as the phrase is) easily admit such foreigne appellants to his Communion.
P. 162.14. What he addes here of the Popes violating Lawes of General Councels (which yet we know he hath sworn to keep inviolate) when evidence of publick good licences him to use extraordinary authorty, and to proceed now not upon Laws, but upon the dictates of nature, the ground and rule of all lawes] I shall not now take into stricter considerations, but lay it up among his Politick Aphorismes, which will make good room for tyranny, wheresoever 'tis admitted (laying the proportion betwixt the Pope receiving an Appeal from foreigners, and breaking lawes on pretense of publick good) but withall will make the Popes some amends for the infallibility, that Mr. White hath deprived them of, by allowing them to be the sole Judges of extremities and publick good, and so giving them not a Superiority onelyonly to Councels, which I had thought a disciple of Mr. White would not have allowed them, but also a power to break the lawes of the most venerable of them, and that very frequently, and in that sense, ordinarily, as oft as any foreign, i. e. forbidden appeal shall be made to them.
15. An intimation he*P. 160. gives, that the Popes presence in the Nicene Councel, and consequently his consent to the framing that Can n keeps it from being any detriment to his authority, and so I think indeed, that what the Nicene Canon inacted, was no prejudice or detriment to any authority which the Pope before that injoyed, but this not upon his reason, the Popes presence and consent (though ever on that head, if he were granted to have excluded himself, 'twere not reasonable for him to exercise the power, of which he had by consent in a General Councel devested himself) but because if he mark it, the Nicene Canon was but the reciting and confirming of the Apostolick, which as it was not past by the Popes consent, or received any validity thereby, so it was of full force to the obliging him, before he consented to the Nicene.
16. The fourth and last testimony that the Bishops of every nation must account their Primate their head, I designed against the proofs of the Romanist taken from the title of head given either to Saint Peter, or to his successors Bishops of Rome, and so in like manner the title foreign to the same sense, whereas the Bishops being by the†Can. 34. Apostolick Canon instructed in their duty, whom they are foreign, to esteem their head, they are led no further then their own Primate, and that is a shrewd prejudice to the Popes being an head to be acknowledged by any, but those of his own foreign, or Primacy, and abundantly shews, that as I said, he is not the one onelyonly head, meaning by that phrase, such an head, as none is beside himself, which if he be not, he is not then the Vniversal Pastor, as he pretends, for sure such an one would be the one onelyonly head, there being not in one body more heads than one, more Supreme Princes in a Monarchy.
17. And therefore although S W. for his own ends is pleased to call a Priest an head, meaning of a Parish, and so a Bishop an head, meaning of a Diocese, yet I had as little thought that either of these should indeed have been called an head, as a first or Primate, which we know is not the title allowed the fourth, in relation to the fifth and sixth, or the second, in relation to the third, but onelyonly to him which is simply first, in relation to all after him, as the shoulders are not wont to be called the head, in relation to the sides, which are below them, or the neck, in relation to the chine, but simply, and by way of inclosure, the one onelyonly uppermost part, is in all propriety of language afforded that title, upon the notion of the but one head in a natural, and not monstrous body.
19. Yet after all this, if he shal shew me any Canon (of aequal authority with that which I cited for the headship of the Primate in every Nation) for the whole worlds acknowledging the Pope as their head, or, which I acknowledge aequivalent, for St. Peters Ʋniversal Pastorship, I shall depart from this testimony, and yield it hath no force in it.
20. But I may be allowed the insolence of perswading my self confidently, that this will not be done by S. W. in the Apostolical times, when so long after as Agatho's age we finde the style somewhat distant, that Pope himself in his letter to the Emperors, Concil. To. V. p. 61. B.formerly cited, calling Peter and Paul foreign, the heads or Antesignani, first or chief of the Apostles, which as it aequals St. Paul to St. Peter in the Primacy, so it evidently concludes, that the sole absolute Primacy belonged to neither of them.
21. The second sort of testimonies produced by me he calls arguing from names and titles denyed him, as Princeps Sacerdotum, Summus Sacerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, Prince of Priests, chief Priest, or any thing of the like sort, Ʋniversalis, and Ʋniversalis Episcopus, Ʋniversal, and Ʋniversal Bishop.] And truely I that thought such names as these, titles that belonged or belonged not to Sees, might be a convincing argument, from which to conclude, what power did pertain, or not pertain to them, did adventure by S. W's good leave, thus to make use of them.
22. But, saith he, first these testimonies come short of what they are intended for, in this, that none speaks of the right of Jurisdiction, but only of names, and titles, appelletur— which denote no exception against the authority, but against the titular expression of it only, which sounded proudly, and seemed inconvenient and new at that time.] An essay again what feats the wits, when they are set on it, can practice upon a wordish testimony. He told me these testimonies were arguments from names and titles, and so I intended they should be, and now he acknowledges they speak of names and titles, and yet they come short of what they were intended for. But how can that be, when from those names not belonging to them, the whole conclusion was regularly drawn, that if the names, did really not belong to them, and thereupon were forbidden, then the powers signified by those names were certainly forbidden also: are not titles expressive of powers? Is it imaginable the Church should acknowledge that Christ hath constituted the Pope Ʋniversal Pastor, and so supreme Governour of all Priests and Bishops in the world, and yet forbid that title of Supreme Bishop, Ʋniversal Bishop, Prince of Bishops to be bestowed on him? Can any man by instinct, or intuition come to know that he is such, which he must doe, before he can obey him as such, when the Church from whom in S. W's Scheme, he hath his Faith, tells him that title doth not belong to him? Nay can that Church forbid him to be called by it, if it be his due? Doth not Christ tell them, they doe well in calling him Master, when indeed he is so? Did he, in his profoundest meeknesse and humility of heart, which he proposes to be transcribed by his Disciples, Mat. XI. 29. ever refuse the title of Master and Lord, from those Disciples?
23. And why should that or the like seem inconvenient or new at that time, or sound proudly for the Pope, if indeed from Christ to St. Peter, from St. Peter to him it were infallibly devolved upon him? Might not the argument hold much better on the other side, that, if these titles had indeed by the civility of the Church been given him, without any farther proof of the power conferred by them, then these were but titular expressions? But though titles do not sometimes convincingly prove real power, it cannot thence follow, that denyal of titles, which is the contesting that such titles are not his due, is not denyal of power, when there is no reason why the title should be denyed, but that the power doth not belong to him.
24. If this answer of his satisfie not, you may be sure he hath another as good, viz. that it is a great weaknesse in understanding the nature of words (and then there is a weaknesse of the Doctors to be scored up, and numbred in the Index) not to advert, that the vogue of the World altering from plainnesse to complementalnesse, as it doth still daily, the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time, which could n…t at another.] But 1. he must remember I spake of Conons forbidding it to be bestowed upon him, and of his own confession, that it belonged not to him, and not only of its being counted pride, if he assumed it, 2. complementalnesse, as opposed to plainnesse, must signifie giving titles of civility, that really doe not belong to those, to whom they are thus given. And if that be the observable of later ages, in relation to this matter, then the title of Ʋniversal Pastor, in later times bestowed on the P…pe, is hence concluded but a complement of his Flatterers, or civil admirers, but no title, that in plain truth belongs unto him, and so S. W. ere he was aware, hath stated the whole difficulty.
25. A third answer he hath for failing (and there was need of it) that Ʋniversalis Papa in St. Gregories time, if taken in a due sense seemed tolerable both by the example given in the Councel of Chalcedon in order to Pope Leo, and by Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria's letter giving it to Pope Gregory, but 'twas refused by that prudent and humble Pope because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurp'd it in an illegitimate and intolerable sense. I answer, In what sense the Fathers of Chalcedon gave or offered it him, may be guess'd by what they Synodically decreed, that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have foreign aequal priviledges and titles with him, and then sure it was not in such a sense, as should belong to none, but him, i. e. not the modern notion of universal Pastor, and what Eulogius meant by it, S. W. hath already minded us, by telling us, that one age is more complemental than the former. But then 3. that Pope Gregory refused it, was not to be imputed to any peculiar humility of his, or any peculiar motive arising from the consideration of the present circumstances, the pride of the Patriarch of Constantinople, because 'tis manifest his Praedecessors uniformly had done the like, and that on the score of justice, not modesty, Pope Leo in the time of the Councel of Chal…edon, and all after him, by name Pelag us, that saith that none must ever use it, and to that Gregories reasons, as well as prudence, give evidence, when he resolves the contrary Diabolical and Antichristian, for I suppose it no eminent modesty to abstain from that, that none but the Devil hath pride enough to admit of. Lastly, I desire to be told, in what sense did the Bishop of Constantinople usurp it? I may answer my self; that it was not p…ssible it should be in any larger sense than that wherein the Pope now assumes it, viz. thereby to signifie his supreme power over the whole world (meaning by that word this inferior world, and not taking in Angels, which some Court flatterers have added to his foreign) I do not believe the Patriarch of Constantinople meant so much, but if he had this is no more than the Pope now means by it, and if that were the intolerable illegitimate sense, wherein that (therefore proud) Patriarch was to be blamed for assuming it, and Gregory was prudent, as well as humble, and therefore refused it, because that other proud Patriarch usurp'd it in this sense, then sure he would not himself assume it in that highest, and proudest, and most intolerable sense, which is all that I inferred (and I must by this his answer suppose now granted) from these testim…nies.
26. But a fourth answer will ('tis to be expected of such a Demonstrator as S. W.) supply all the defects and vacuities of the three former, and it is this, that the sense of that title in the Testimonies being this, that none could be Patriarchs but himself, and the Romanists tenet being not such as shall debarre other subordinate degrees, and, in particular, Bishops and Patriarchs to be truely what they are called, it is …vident likewise, that the Romanists meaning is different from what the objectors take it in.] But we have no more reason to believe that the Bishop of New Rome designed his title of Vniversal to the destroying of all other Patriarchs power, then that the Bishop of Old Rome designs the same by assuming that title. Yet Gregory himself tells us the natural consequences of it both to Patriarchs and other Bishops, restat ut vos Episcopi non sitis, And how true this was, and now is, they that know the practises of the Papacy, and opinions of the Jesuites in point of Episcopacy may passe some judgement. As for Patriarchs alone, 'tis manifest that the Vniversal Pastorship of one is a praejudice to that, because a Primate, or Patriarch (by the notation of each word) being one that hath none over him in respect of authority or power, and so is absolutely first in his own foreign, the supposing a supreme universal power in one, must needs praejudge that, as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompetible with an Aristocracy. And this was the very reason, why Pelagius and Gregory refused it, because they must do wrong to the rest of the Patriarchs in assuming it. And if that very reason, for which they were bound to refuse it, can now be a satisfactory account, why they might, and now may assume it, then either those Popes, or this S. W. must be extremely ill Disputants, for otherwise so contrary conclusions could never follow from the same praemisses. And the competition being thus laid by this answer, which were the more rational Disputers, two Popes of the learned'st and best sort, or one wit a playing upon wordish testimonies, I shall not need offend Mr. White in pressing the infallible authority of the former, to cast the scale, at this one time, on the Popes side. At another time perhaps he may out-wit or out-dispute many Popes, but at this medium, that one universal supreme excludes five or fourteen aequal Supremes, the old Popes, which I hope are not old, as Ruffinus was, may be able to manage the dispute against him.
27. But, saith he, we grant him only such an higher degree of power over Patriarchs, as an Archbishop hath over Bishops. And then sure Pelagius and Gregory were to blame, to be so obstinate, as to say it was praejudicial to the rest of the Patriarchs, But the Popes Ghosts will answer, that the Bishop is not a Primate, as the Patriarch is, with an advantage, and therefore he is not wronged in being under a Metropolitane, because the Apostle that set Titus in Crete, and Timothy at Ephesus gave them power to ordain or rule Bishops under them in every Church, who therefore suffer no detriment by being obliged to that subordination, but for Primates and Patriarchs they are simply independent, and supreme every one of them in his Dominions, and for that very reason they are called foreign, and then unlesse there may be some body before the first without praejudicing his fi…stship or Primacy, the Popes carry it in the dispute most clearly against S. W. as cunning an artificer as any, if he had but a better cause, or keener tools to manage, or deal in.
28. Fifthly then he must provide him better tools, and they are soon ready at hand, for, saith he, No wonder St. Gregory (such was his humility) should deny to accept what was due to him, who denies himself even to be a Priest, 4. Ep. 31.] But doth he so indeed? Let the Reader judge. The Epistle is to the Emperor Mauritius, who had, it seems, severely reprehended him, and, as he saith, laid to his charge (urbane, more civilly than S. W. did to Ruffinus, who yet was, I hope, not so much under him, as St. Gregory acknowledges himself under the Emperor) folly and lying. To these two charges he replies, Sed et si Sacerdos non sum, scio gravem ess… hanc injuriam Sacerdoti, ut veritati serviens fallax credatur. But if also I am no Priest, I know it is a great injury to a Priest, that he should be believed a Lyer, who serveth the truth. What more can be concluded from these words, but that he that was reprehended for lying, when he thought himself most guiltlesse, and most obliged, as a Priest, to be so (not insisting on the charge of simplicity and folly, having been indeed*Ab A…nulph…i astutiâ deceptus. deceived by the craft of Arnulphus, as the Reader might have been, if he had believed S. W's citation) thought he might by the same hand be accused of any thing, and debased to the lowest and vilest degree, and not acknowledged a Priest any longer; [If also I am not a Priest] saith he, i. e. if this will not be believed of me, or if it be believed, that by so grosse a crime, as is lying, I have made my self irregular, &c. where yet by what followes, [that Priests must not be injured and charg…d of lying, when they are not guilty of it, and their office is to serve the truth] it is manifest he took himself to be a Priest, and so is farre from denying it: so,†P. 790. A. soon after in the same Epistle, sacerdotibus autem non ex terrena potestate dominus noster citius indignetur, but let not our Lord be too soon angry with P…iests, meaning himself quaestionlesse under that title, and so on, giving him reasons, why he should so farre honour the Priests, as to imitate Constantine in burning accusations against them.
30. But he hath also these words, to which I divine not whether S. W. might not referre, Haec non pro me, sed pro cunctis sacerdotibus suggero, ego enim Homo peccator sum. These things I suggest not for me, but for all Priests, for I am a sinfull man. But neither is that the denying himself to be a Priest, but affirming that he pleads not his own cause to an offended Emperor, who, he thinks, would not heed him in that, but the cause of all the Priests in the world, which yet were very impertinent to his businesse in hand, if he were not comprehended in that number.
31. And now let S. W. himself say, if St. Gregorie denyed himself to be a Priest, as he refused to be called Vniversal; Did he say 'twas impious, Antichristian, Luciferian to assume to be a Priest, as he said it was to assume to be Vniversal Bishop? If he did no such thing, if he pleaded the cause of Priests, and his own evidently in that notion, then away with these artificers, that can make testimonies unintel…igible when they please, and when it is for their turn, can understand in them what they neither said, nor meant, For so 'tis evident S. W. hath done in his fifth answer.
32. But he hath four more still behinde, and if one of them do not hit, he is indeed very unfortunate in his diligence, but cannot be accused for it, for 'tis evident he hath done what might be done for a Client, and the truth is, I set so much stresse upon these Testimonies, being so unreconcileable to the Vniversal Pastorship, as that is the foundation of the whole cause in debate between us that I must in justice attend him to the utmost he hath attempted on this head, and therefore I shall yet proceed further to the other four.
33. His Sixth answer then is, that whosoever reads Gregories Epistles sent throughout …he whole Church, it is impossible but he should see, that however he denyed the word of Vniversal Bishop which sounded then proudly, yet he both challenged and practised the thing it self.] If this were true, it is evident what the consequence would be, even that Gregory, offended against his own conscience, and solemnest professions, really assumed that, which he acknowledged to be most impious to assume, and if that were the interpretation of profound humility, to inveigh bitterly at a vice in another, and give arguments, why he might not by any means admit it himself, and yet more than by surprize, or weaknesse admit it, even without all modesty challenge and practice it, as if he declaimed against it, to bring others out of love with it, that he might himself have the inclosure of it, I doubt not but that humble Bishop might have many followers at this time. But S. W. must pardon my charity, if I do not easily believe so ill of his profoundly modest Pope, lest I should come under temptation to quaestion also the profoundest humility, of aequal depth with his knowledge, which S. W. hath elsewhere mentioned of another, with whom he hath more familiarly convers'd than with St. Gregory, and may be allowed to be more partial to him.
34. But he hath instanced in some passages that shall prove this. A perfect instance, saith he, is found 7. Ep. 65. Ind. 2. Where he saith, siqua culpa, &c. If there be any fault found in Bishops, every Bishop is subject to the Apostolical See, but when their fault doth not exact it (i. e. make it necessary for him to use his authority) that then upon the account of humility all were his aequals.] If the Reader shall turn to the place in Gregory l. 7. Ep. 65. Ind. 2. he will not there meet with these words, but I desire not to take any advantage of that. In the Epist. 64. the words are found, si qua culpa— The contexture of the whole Epistle lies thus, The Bishop of Syracuse had from one, that came from Africk, communicated to Pope Gregory a secret, something it seems, that concerned him: Gregory returns him thanks, but tells him, he did not exactly understand the businesse in hand, and therefore he declares it to him, that the Primas Byzancenus, Primate (it should sure be) of Byzacium, (a Province in Africk, as*Ann. 599 n. 4. Baronius affirms, and as the subsequent mention of Theodorus inforces, a man of great authority in Africk, to whom†Corp. Jur. Civil. Dion. Gothofredi Constit. ex Juliano Antecess. Rescripts are directed there by Justinus II. and also by Tiberius and Mauritius) and not of Byzantium or Constantinople (as the*De Episcopo Constantinopolitano, de crimine accusato. title of the Epistle suggests) that, I say the Primate of the†In quodam crimine Byzancenus Primas fuerat accusatus, & piissimus Imperator eum juxta Statuta Canonica per nos voluit judicari. Byzacene Province in Africk, was accused of a fault, and the Emperor would have him judged by Gregory according to the Canonical Statutes, But, saith he, Theodorus a great Officer was bribed, that it might not be. Yet the Emperor admonished us to do what was Canonical— But now the Primate saith somewhat of his own purpose, and it is very doubtfull whether he say it intirely, or indeed because he is opposed by his Fellow Bishops. For that he saith that he is subject to the Apostolike See, If there be any fault in Bishops, I know not what Bishop is not subject, but when fault exacts it not, all are aequal according to the account of humility.
35. Here you have the total of this testimony, where (if we shall suppose that this Pope at that time did avowedly assume, what in a private letter to a Bishop, that had given him an information, he praetends to, but in this moderate style, Nescio quis non, I know not who is not subject in this case? Yet it must be kept in remembrance, what the case was, The Byzacene Primate, only, which (as all Primates) was under no other Bishop, was accused of a fault. To whom was he accused? to the Pope? no certainly, to the Emperor, of whom it is said, Pijssimus Imperator eum per nos voluit judicari, the Emperor would have him judged by us, and so 'tis an instance, to whom appeals ly from a Primate, viz. to none but the Supreme Magistrate, who in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical as well as civil, is under Christ Supreme Governour. To which purpose it may be remembred, that in the cause of Maximus Bishop of Salona, who had been irregularly ordained, and thereupon decreed excommunicate by Gregorie, l. 3. Ep. 20. l. 4. Ep. 34. l. 7. Ep. 1. Yet still his sentence is with this Reserve and Submission, nisi prius a serenissimis Dominis cognoscerem si hoc ipsi fieri jussissent, Ʋnlesse I should first understand by my most serene Lords (the Emperors) that they commanded it to be done. And if he will abide by that, then before we go any farther, the whole cause between S. W. and me is at an end, being finally decided by this testimony, if it be allowed to have any force in it, and if it be not, why was it produced?
36. Well, the Emperor to whom that Primate was subject, would not himself take cognisance of the cause, but appoints Pope Gregory to take it, and†Juxta Statuta Canonica judicari, and quicquid esset Canonicum judicaremus. Ibid. judge according to the Canons, and according as the Canons should direct, and herein no doubt he did that which was very reasonable; the*A Coepiscopis suis impetitur. Bishops of his own Diaecese accused him, and therefore 'twas not reasonable to referre him to a Councel of his accusers, and the Bishop of Rome was the prime Patriarch of the world, in order of place superior to the Bishop of Constantinople, and the other three Patriarchs were after him even in place.
37. When the Emperor hath thus remitted the cause to be judged by him, 'tis then certain, that Apostolicae sedi subjicitur, he is subjected to the Apostolical See, and the Pope may truely say, that he knowes not quis ei subjectus non sit, what Bishop, be he never so great, may not be thus subjected, si qua culpa invenitur, if any fault be found in him, i. e. (according to the tenure of the present case) if he be accused to the Emperor of any misdemeanour, and the cause by the Emperor remitted to the Pope to be heard by him, and judged according as the Canons, which were in force in the Empire, directed.
38. And in this case, suppose the Bishop of Rome had stood, as the Byzacene Primate did, accused to the Emperor by his own Bishops (this case cannot be strange to be supposed, when so lately we saw from l. 4. Ep. 31. that this very Gregory was charged by the Emperor of folly and lying) might not the Emperor have referred his cause to be heard and Canonically determined by the Bishop of Constantinople? If he might, then what hath S. W. gained by this testimony? If he say he might not, let any tolerable account be given, why he, whose subject the Pope acknowledged himselfe to be, as hath formerly been shewed, and appears every where in his Epistles to the Emperor, might not either judge him himself, or appoint that other Bishop, next dignified to him, to determine the cause Canonically; Especially when the same Gregory confesses, that cum culpa non exigit, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt, When fault exacts it not, all are aequal according to the account of humility; Which concludes not, that it was his supererrogatory humility to say so, or that he said it not upon obligation of justice, but as S. W. renders it, upon account of humility (and accordingly he hath his id est, like other frail mortals, when their fault doth not exact it, i. e. saith he, make it necessary for him to use his authority) but that indeed they were aequal as to any jurisdiction belonging to one over the other, and that to assume jurisdiction over any Primate (or even Bishop, that was not Canonically subject to him, as Primate or Patriarch) was directly contrary to that humility, which was his necessary duty, expected from him by Christs ordinance, and the contrary to which he himself had so oft censured to be Luciferian pride, and so was in any other case, but this, when fault exacted, when a Primate was accused to the Emperor for misdemeanour, and the cause by him referred to be heard and Canonically determined by the Pope. He that were really a Subject, must be so, when he is innocent, as well as when he is criminous, and so this also is a praejudice to the Supreme Pastorship, which if it were truely his, would belong to him alwayes, and not only when faults had been committed.
39. And so much for his first and perfect instance, Those that follow, doe not praetend to that perfection, yet for them we are referred to l. VII. Ep. 64. where, saith he, he puts it as undoubted, that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolike See, and this to be acknowledged by the Emperor and Bishop of Constantinople himself, and again to another expresse testimony to the same purpose, l. V. Ep. 24.
40. Here by his citation from l. VII. Ep. 64. I shall suppose he meant Ep. 63. for there in an Epistle to the same Bishop of Syracuse, he hath the passage here referred to, De Constantinopolitanâ Ecclesiâ quod dicunt, quis eam dubitet sedi Apostolicae esse subjectam? Quod et Dominus piissimus Imperator, & frater noster Eusebius ejusdem civitatis Episcopus assidue profitentur. As to that which they say of the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt but it is subjected to the Apostolike See? Which the Emperor and our Brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City daily professe. To this testimony the substance of the former answer will be aequally applyable, as shall soon appear.
41. In the beginning of this Epistle we finde quod aliqui murmurant dicentes quomodo Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam disposuit comprimere— Here it seems the Popes dealing with Constantinople is disliked, and murmured at by some, and his whole account for it is given in these words, that the Emperor and Eusebius a Bishop of the same City, daily profess'd it, and therefore none can doubt but 'twas subjected to him. Which in any other sense, than what we have delivered in answer to the former testimony (unlesse perhaps in point of place and degree of dignity, wherein the Pope by the Councel of Chalcedon was allowed the first, and Constantinople the second place) cannot be imagined to have any truth in it.
42. For 1. I demand, Who was this Eusebius Bishop of the same City? If we can believe S. W. it was the Bishop of Constantinople. But, by his leave, there was never any Patriarch of Constantinople of that name contemporary to St. Gregorie; John and Cyriacus are all that sate in that See within his time, witnesse Zonaras, witnesse their own Baronius, John, saith he,Zonar. Tom. 3. p. 62. l. 56. Baron. Ann. 596. n. 2, 3. was Patriarch there seven years before Gregory came to the Papacy, and Cyriacus immediately succeeded John, and he out-lived Gregory, and still contested, and at last was cast by Phocas in Bonifaces time. All this is most evident, and assures us there was no Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople to make daily acknowledgements of subjection to Gregory, and so though observation of historical directions would not, yet the want of it may make a shift to make wordish testimonies unintelligible.
43. Secondly, 'tis as evident by all Gregories Epistles, that the Bishops of Constantinople resisted him all his time, and were resisted by him; John being the man that assumed the title of Ʋniversal. And besides, what possibility is there, that this Church should at this time professe subjection to Gregory, which was so lately raised to foreign, aequal priviledges with Rome it self, and at this very time maintain'd its own right so vigorously, yea and had the favour of the Emperor Mauritius in it, of whom therefore it cannot be said with any more credibility, that he, viz. Mauritius, profess'd it daily in this sense.
44. It remains therefore, that the subjection spoken of, as profess'd both by Eusebius the Bishop, and the Emperor, must be 1. no acknowledgement of the Patriarch, 2. no more then of subjecting him in a particular cause, to St. Gregories cognisance, no subjecting him to his ordinary or real Jurisdiction, much less 3. any supreme jurisdiction of divine right from Christ, which alone serves S. W's turn, and is sufficiently praejudiced (instead of being confirmed) in that it is never so much as named in either of these Epistles.
45. In this place I shal not ask S. W. why he would take upon him to create a Bishop of Constantinople, being himself but a Priest, but rather leave the Reader to consider more seasonably, whether [frater noster Eusebius ejusdem civitatis Episcopus] may not, though improperly, signifie some Bishop belonging to that Patriarchate of Constantinople, by name the Archbishop of Thessalonica, to whom about this time we finde an Epistle of Gregories, Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi, lib. VII. Ep. II. Indict. 1. and again Ep. 7. Ind. 2.
46. I should not propose this, if it were imaginable, there should be any such man so called, Patriarch, and, in that notion, Bishop of Constantinople at that time, And therefore if any shall dislike this proposal, I wish he would shew the contrary reconcileable with story. But if he cannot, then what other truth can there be in Gregories words, but this, that the Emperor, and that Bishop, most probably the Metropolitane of a City (and Primate of a Region under the Patriarch of Constantinople) viz. of Thessalonica in Macedonia, did daily professe that the Church of Constantinople was subjected to the Apostolick See; Which as it is not the acknowledgement of the Bishop of Constantinople himself, on which alone S. W's argument was built, so it is clearly agreeable to our former interpretation, that another Primate or Bishop having complained to the Emperor against the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Emperor had subjected the cause (and so farre the Church or Patriarch) to the Pope, as to the chief Bishop, prime Patriarch of the world, to passe his judgement of it; and the Bishop that had complained, willingly submitted his cause to be heard and judged by him, and daily profess'd the Caurch of Constantinople it self, viz. in this particular case, to be thus duely subjected.
47. But how the Patriarch himself liked it, is no farther here express'd, than that some murmured at Gregory, saying, quomodo Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam disposuit comprimere? Which though it be no convincing argument against, is sure no proof of S. W's conclusion, that the Patriarch profess'd subjection to him.
48. From what hath been said the Reader will guesse at the reason, that Baronius, who had diligently survey'd Gregories Epistles, and collected arguments out of them for his assuming the power of Ʋniversal Pastor, Ann. 595. n. 34, 35. makes no use there of this confession of Eusebius, nor any where else, that I have observed.
49. The third testimony to which he referres, from L. V. Ep. 24. belongs indeed to the Bishop of Constantinople, that John that contended for the title of Ʋniversal, it referres to somewhat that had pass'd before, in the case of John a Presbyter, and must be understood by reflecting on that story. But first the words are these, Nunquid non ipse nosti quia in causâ quae a Johanne Presbytero contra Johannem Constantinopolitanum fratrem & coepiscopum nostrum orta est, secundum Canones ad sedem Apostolicam recurrit, et nostrâ est sententiâ definita? Do you not not know that in the cause which by John the Presbyter was raised against John our fellow Bishop of Constantinople, according to the Canons it resorted to the Apostolical See, and there was defined by our sentence.
50. Of this cause betwixt John the Presbyter and John the Patriarch of Constantinople somewhat we have Indict. XI. l. 2. Ep. 52. where it appears that that John the Presbyter having been beaten in the Church, made his complaint to Pope Gregory, who presently, as he saith, wrote twice about that and one other matter of the Monks of Isauria to the Patriarch, who it seems answered him not himself, but*Alier mihi secularis quidam sub ejus nomine lequebatur. another, a secular person, his Secretary, I suppose, in his name, telling him that he knew not de qua causa scriberet, what the matter was about which he wrote; This answer, it seems,†Obstupui. Ibid. displeased the good Bishop, and thereupon he makes him this dilemma, that if it were true that he said, that indeed he knew not the matter, nothing could be worse than that such things should be done against the Servants of God, and he that ought to take care of them and defend them, should know nothing of them, But, if he knew it, and yet wrote those words, Ego nescio, I know not, this must be a falsity. Hereupon he is willing to suppose, that it was not John, but this other secular person, whom he calls familiaris vester juvenculus, which wrote the letter, and therefore exhorts him that he will first correct him, and not be ruled by him, or*Si illum audit, scio quia pacem cum suis fratribus habere non poterit. if he be, he knowes that he can have no peace with his brethren, adding that as he earnestly desires to have peace with all men, and especially with him, whom he vehemently loves, †Si ipsi quos novi vos estis,if he be the man he took him for, so if he observe not the Canons, but will break the Lawes established by their Ancestors, he*Non cognosie qui estis. knowes not who he is, disclaims that fraternal communion, or having any thing to do with him. Then he tells him, that he may evidently shew that he seeks nothing per elationem by way of lifting himself up above him, that if it were not for the power that young man holds with him, *Quae mihi de Canonibus supperunt tacere potuissem.he would conceal what the Canons allow him to doe, and would at the first have transmitted the Plaintiffes to him, being confident that he would charitably receive them. As it is, he now exhorts him either to receive them to their places, and afford them peace, or, if he would not, then without alteration he should observe the Statutes of their Ancestors, and the bounds of Canons, But if he would do neither, he would not inferre rixam, begin the quarrel, yet neither would he avoid or refuse it, if it came from (or were begun by) John. And then tells him what the Canons say against Bishops that are strikers (in relation to the beating of the Presbyter) and that he hath sent Sabinian his Deacon to give him his Ecclesiastical answer, and to speak with him more exactly. Another short†L. 2. Ep. 63. Indict. XI. Epistle there is on the same subject written to Narses, where he professes himself much concern'd, and resolved with all vigour and weight to require right to be done to the injured, and if he see the Canons of the Apostolick See not to be kept, God will direct him what to doe against the Contemners. This is all that appears in this story, unlesse it be, that (as is repeated from Narses's letter) before the time of this latter Epistle to Narses, the Patriarch of Constantinople had*Ipsum puto adversarium patimur, quem asseris velle Canones custodire. declared himself resolved to observe the Canons, yet, it seems, took it not well, that the Pope had thus interposed.
51.†Ann. 595. n. 34. Baronius indeed addes, according to his manner, much more to this story, that the Patriarch acknowledged himself his subject when he was severely reprehended by him, and sent the acts of the cause to Rome to be discussed, than that he obeyed, fearing the threats brought by Sabinian, and sent the acts of his judgement to Rome, whither the appeal had before been made. And so fain he would have it a formal appeal as from a lower to an higher judicature, and this acknowledged, and pleaded to by the Patriarch, and finally obedience payd to the Popes judicature. But for all this, beside his own phansie, which was alwayes fruitfull on this theme, he offers not the least proof, save only from those*De qua extat Epistola Gregorii ad ipsum data Greg. l. 2. Ep. 52. & Ep. 64. ad Narsetem. two Epistles, which therefore having now been set down, as farre as concerns that matter, the Reader may judge, how farre they inferre his conclusion.
52. It is true that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch (there being no lawfull superior, who had power over him) the injured person sometimes made his complaint to the Bishop of Rome, as being the most eminent person in the Church, and in such case he quaestionlesse might, and ought in all fraternal charity to admonish the Primate or Patriarch what his duty was, and disclaim communion with him, unlesse he reform, which is the interpretation of having no peace with his brethren (but differs much from jurisdiction of a superior over inferiors) and for this Gregory pleads ancient Canons, and the Bishop of Constantinople, though he acknowledged not any of his power, and so expresses his dislike of his interposing, yet, it seems, he doth justice to the injured person, and signifies his intention not to break but to observe all Canons, and so this is the utmost that this third testimony amounts to, and that which Gregory must be supposed to mean by saying the cause according to the Canons came to the Apostolick See, and was defined by his sentence, i. e. the Patriarch of Constantinople was as carefull to doe justice to the injured party, as he to have him.
53. If by this, and the like passages Gregorie were willing to draw some authority and accession of power to his See by praetense of Canons, this was not any essay of his profound humility, yet farre from any claim of universal Pastorship held by divine right, or donation of Christ to St. Peter, for I appeal to S. W. whether that were the interpretation of secundum Canones? and yet he knowes that no other tenure but that will stand him in stead. But if he only desired to praeserve the due reverence to the Apostolike See, by which he might be able to succour all that were injured, and had none to appeal to, in the direct line of superior jurisdiction, as some eminent persons in all times have had that veneration and so authority among their neighbours, and some Princes, through all Europe, that they have been the constant Vmpires of all differences, (so our Histories tell us of our Henry VIII. for some years) I cannot think he did amisse, or that he thwarted, in the least, his profess'd disclaiming of universal Rule, especially if either the Emperor or the Canons of the Church referred the case to him (alwayes praeserving that great moderation, which he requires of his Officer the Defensor, that he*Lib. 7. Ep. 65. goe reverently to the Bishop, and intercede for the person, that praetends to be injured, that so he may both relieve him that desires his help, & jura praepositi non turbentur, and not disturb the right of the Bishops.) The only unhappinesse is, that such acts of (at first) but necessary fraternal charity, were by ambitious men drawn into example, and means of assuming power, which yet as they praetend from Christ to St. Peter, on the score of Vniversal Pastorship, cannot be more vehemently praejudiced by any thing than by these examples, which being rightly considered, praetend no higher than Ecclesiastical Canons, and the Vnive…sal Lawes of Charity, and relieving the oppress'd, by admonishing the opposers (fraternal charity still, not paternal authoritative Jurisdiction) but never made claim to any supremacy of power over all Bishops by divine Institution. So that still it appears not, after all S. W's endeavours, that Gregorie was an hypocrite, as he would have him, in practising or challenging that office of Ʋniversal Pastorship which in word he so vehemently denyed. And so much for these three testimonies, which make up his sixth Answer.
54. His 7th Answer is short, but yet somewhat extraordinary, Those words, Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus, are not, saith he, found either in the Councel of Carthage it self, or in the ancient Copies, but are Gratians addition only, wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took them, whose Epistle he cites to make good those words.] I dare say never any wit did practice an higher piece of self-denyal for the avoiding the force of a wordish testimony, than is here discoverable.
55. For 1. what should he project in this subtile observation, that those words, Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex—are not found in the Councel of Carthage it selfe?] Did any man cite them from that Councel. 'Tis certain I did not. My words are visible, Repl. p. 40. n. 10. [But to return to their Corpus Juris, so again Decret. par. 1. Dist. 99. c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus, the Pope of Rome is not to be called universal Bishop, citing the Epistle of Pope Pelagius the II.—] 'Tis then Corpus Juris, i. e. Gratians collection that I cite, and that is not the Councel of Carthage. And it is as visible, that that Corpus, or Gratian cite not the Councel of Carthage in that place, but the Pope Pelagius. Who then is it that thus cited it, and was therefore thus to be refuted, by reminding him that the words are not found in the Councel of Carthage? Sure none but S. W's own phansie, that can connect any things most distant, confound Pelagius the Pope, and the Councel of Carthage, rather than not adde a 7th answer to an argument that lay upon his hands.
56. Secondly, what should he mean by the ancient Copies? the ancient Copies of the Councel of Carthage? So it must be, if it signifie any thing. And then 1. what need was there of that addition? What other image can we have of that Councel, held so long before our time, than by the ancient Copies of the Acts of it? when therefore he had said [it was not found in the Councel it self] the Reader would well enough have understood his meaning, that so it was not found in the ancient Copies of it, I divine not what tolerable account can be given of this addition, unlesse he would perswade us, that having found it in some later Copies of that Councel, yet searching the ancient, he found it missing there; And that were very fine, when, as hath been said, it is not so much as cited, or praetended to be fetch'd from any either old or new Copies of that Councel, but from Gratians collection out of a Popes Epistle.
57. Thirdly, with what truth can it be said, that it is Gratians addition only? If he knowes what belongs to the Corpus Juris, he must discern, that those words [Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus] are the title of the 4th Chapter, that title written by Gratian, the Chapter it self being the proof of it, from a testimony in Pelagius's Epistle, to which yet it can be no addition, because the words of the Epistle unavoidably inferre it, Nullus Patriarcharum universalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur—Let none of the Patriarchs ever use the name of Vniversal— applying this in the conclusion to himself, being then Pope, as one of that number. And so, if he were Romanus Pontifex, and he might not be called Vniversalis, or if he were a Patriarch, and no Patriarch might be called Vniversalis, then sure here was nothing added by him, that said [Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex, not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Vniversal Bishop.
58. Fourthly, if they were Gratians addition only, as he saith they were, how can he say, they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took them? Did then Pope Pelagius use them? so he must, or he could not take them in any sense. If he used them, and, as also he saith, Gratian cited them from his Epistle, how can it be true that they were Gratians addition only?
59. Fifthly, Is not S. W. a Romanist? If he be, then he cannot but know that the Corpus juris, and that part of it which he thus despises, with the title of Gratians addition only is in full force with his Church, and the authority as constringent, as if it had (which is impossible) been cited out of any Councel of Carthage.
60. Sixthly and lastly (for here are misadventures enough in a short but pithy answer) the words shall submit to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took them; But what then is that sense? On the resolving of this, the whole weight of the answer necessarily depended, and yet he hath not given the least intimation of that, nor vouchsafed so much as to praetend, that Pelagius took them in any sense, but what I and all men understand them in. This indeed is numbring answers by the poll, and not so much as ever considering, whether the Reader be able to advance any higher with all his stock of rational faculties, then just to tell seven, or ten. If he can but do that, and no more, he is a Reader after S. W's own heart, and by the judgement of common sense he must resolve that the Romanists is the true Religion, else how could S. W. give so many answers to one argument?
61. Passe we then to his eighth Answer, it is this, Aequivalent terms to what they mean by those words were farre more antiently given to the Bishop of Rome Zephyrinus by Tertullian l. 1. de pudicitia, where he calls him Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum.] But what are the [those words]? That must be supplyed from the words of the Testimony recited in the seventh answer [Vniversalis est appellandus] the only antecedent to this relative. What then the Romanist means by Vniversal Bishop, is if we will believe S. W. aequivalent to Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum. What the meaning of those words is, we cannot be ignorant, Pontifex Maximus was the title of the chief Ruler of all sacred things in heathen Rome, and was frequently assumed by the Emperor, and proportionable to him, in Christian Rome, the Supreme Governour, at least in matters of Ecclesiastical cognisance, through the whole world. And so Episcopus Episcoporum, the Bishop of Bishops, is he to whom all other Bishops were subject. This then I confesse to be aequivalent to the title of Vniversalis, and then 'tis strange indeed that both Pelagius and Gregory should disclaim being called Vniversal, and censure them for Antichristian that received it, when yet their Ancestors assumed to be Bishops of all the Bishops in the world. It remains then that we examine the testimony on which this is fathered.
62. And by the first sound of Tertullian de pudicitia, we know 'twas a book written in haeresie, by a Montanist, in opposition to the Church, and then, though that would carry little authority with it, to prove that a truth, for which it were produced, yet it is hereby rendred the lesse probable, that he that divided from the Roman Church at that time, should give the Bishop of Rome the title of Vniversal Pastor, or any thing aequivalent to it, for that were to professe himself a Schismatick. Secondly what is the interpretation of L. 1. de Pudicitia? Did Tertullian write more books with that title? other folks have heard but of one; but who can tell, what rarities S. W's greater diligence hath met with in his travails in Antiquity?
63. But passing by these infirmities, 'tis yet sure, that Tertullian in his one book de Pudicit. hath these words, and the Reader, if he please, may view them, soon after the beginning of the Book, where in meer jeer and ironie he saith, Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, & quidem peremptorium, Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum dicit. I hear that an Edict is set out, and that a peremptory one, The High-priest forsooth, and the Bishop of Bishops saith, And some haereticks perhaps might smile to see, how glad Pamelius is of this catch, Bene habet, & adnotatu dignum, quod etiam jam in haeresi constitutus, & contra Ecclesiam scribens Pontificem Romanum Episcopum Episcoporum nuncupet, & infra c. 13. bonum Pastorem & bened…ctum Papam, &c. 21. Apostolicum. And 'tis very true he doth all this, but no man left to his own eyes could have miss'd to see, in what sense; 'tis all delivered by an enemy, in perfect scoffe, as of a decree that he saith is in prostibulis appendendum, to be hanged up in the Stewes, as opening the way to sins by proposing impunity to them, exactly in the same dialect, as S. W. would have cryed Saint, and Preaching, when he meant haeretical and talking nonsense. And yet this is a demonstrative argument on his side, fit to be opposed to two Popes, Pelagius, and Gregories disclaiming this title, for certainly an haereticks jeer hath more convincing force in it with S. W than two fallible Popes ('tis archhaeresie, saith Mr. White, to hold them any other) most seriously and solemnly protesting the contrary.
64. But least he may yet mistake this jeer for great earnest, when the words he gives him are capable of a good sense, I shall referre him to St. Cyprian, that came not long after Tertullian, and professes to be a great Reader of him, and in much more earnest than he, even in a Councel of Carthage, Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore, ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adegit, for no one of us hath made himself to be a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terror hath driven his fellow Bishops to a necessity of obedience. Which that it was spoken by him particularly in relation to Stephen, Bishop of Rome at that time, is resolved by*Ann. 258. n. 24. Baronius himself, and so needs not be more largely proved to a Romanist.
65. But after all this, there is a ninth and last answer behinde, which, saith he, puts this whole businesse out of doubt, Balsamon confesses, that that title was forbidden, to take away the arrogancy of names, and that for that reason many Patriarchs did style themselves foreign, vile and base. See Bals. Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 42. Where though he mingles something of his own Schisme, yet thus farre he is clear for S. W. that the name or title was only treated there, not the thing or Jurisdiction.] This is a killing answer indeed, and I shall confesse with Balsamon, that these names were forbid, to take away arrogance, but can never imagine, that leaving off a proud name, and keeping up all the height, that is signified by the name, could ever be by wise or pious men look'd on as a supersedeas for, or an antidote against arrogance. For indeed why should the name be arrogant, if the power that were express'd by it, were not so? and why the shadow conscientiously disclaimed and layd down as long as the solider part, the power, or Jurisdiction were retained? If this be the answer of answers, and that which puts all out of doubt, which is no other in effect but the yielding as much as I or any other of my dear friends (as he saith) demand, the Reader will know hereafter, what is the meaning of nine answers to a difficulty, all which, I willingly consent, shall be judged of by this last irrefragable one.
66. Only 'tis by the way to be observed, what it is, that in that place Balsamon mingles of his own Schism, even nothing in the world but his citing of the 9th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon, and the 6th & 7th of Sardice, but especially directing the Reader to observe that of Chalcedon, foreign, which was the later, not as the Latine Interpreter reads, quae est antiquior, which is the more ancient. This is all he saith in that place, beside what S. W. hath cited for his own interest, and this it seems was naughtily done of Balsamon, who might else, at this turn, have stood intirely upright in S. W's favour, had he not cited three Canons of Councels, especially a more late one of Chalcedon; and what is that later Schismatical Canon? Why, that a Clerk must not leave his own Bishop, and flie to secular Judicatures (which, if he remember, St Paul had said, before that Canon) that if he have any contention with his own Bishop, he shall be judged by the Synod of a Province, that if a Bishop or Clerke have a Controversie with the Metropolitane of the Province, he shall goe to the Exarch of the Diaecese, i. e. in the ancient style, to the Primate, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople.
67. This then was the crime, and Schisme of no lesse than an Ʋniversal Councel, which the Pope himself is sworn not to violate, and with that company poor Balsamon, and the Protestants must be content to fall, in case S. W. have by this answer put this whole businesse out of doubt. Meanwhile if one of the four general Councels be not Schismatical, 'tis as good as confess'd that neither are we, and to that issue this whole businesse is come, and there we are content to leave it, whilest S W. declaims and calculates with his kinde Reader, the manifold weaknesses of this Section. Which yet he will not conclude, till he hath considered the other part of my testimonies of Phocas's giving Boniface the title of Ʋniversal Bishop.
68. On this he frames a Dilemma, that if I mean the name and title before forbidden, but then first allowed by him, then nothing followeth against them who maintain a real power. But if I mean the supreme Jurisdiction over the whole Church, then besides that this Jurisdiction they dispute of was over Kings and Emperors, and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Emperor, they must be put to imagine that an Ʋniversal Government in Ecclesiastical matters over the whole Christian world could be introduced without any visible effects of siding, opposing, &c. and then he is gotten again into his safe fortresse of Rushworthian no lesse than demonstrative Theologie: To that, being, before this time, become a thredbare repetition, I shall not, I hope, need to attend him, for as I do not take all Rushworths demonstrations to be such indeed, many of them falling short of probability, so 'tis not in the power of a thousand improbabilities to praejudice one matter of fact, sufficiently testified, it being ordinary to see those things actually done, which were most improbable, and even contrary to the greatest, and most important interests of the doers.
69. Only to his Dilemma I shall return my short answer that all that Phocas can be imagined to have afforded Boniface, was the title of Vniversal, which being then gained from him, but no more than a Sceleton, being unaccompanied with power, hath ever since endeavoured its utmost, to gather flesh and juice, strength and verdure to it, and now takes upon it, as S. W. saith, to be a jurisdiction over all Kings and Emperors, but hath not had the desired successe in attaining it.
70. For the Testimonies of this donation of Phocas's, morer, then that of Paulus Diaconus, I have in this answer formerly spoken, and therefore this shall suffice to his 16th Section, and so we are at length arrived to an end of his first part.
End of the text · Henry Hammond, Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist (1660)