The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 5 · Section 3
SECT. III.
The Privilege of Ravenna. The Authority of it. Hieron. Rubeus, no partial Writer against Rome. Baronius's Dislikes. S.W. his Objections to the Privilege answered. In nomine Domini, a Style of Donatians. Edicts of one Emperour without the name of the other. Valentinian's peculiar respect to Ravenna. Valentinianus Major Imperator. Mediolanense Concilium. Regum Placentia, &c. Brixillis, not under Milan. The Pall. Caesareum Paludamentum, not the Pastorall. The Pope's Consent, not Authoritative. The Pope's Vision about P. Chrysologus. The duration of Ravenna's foreign. The Contest betwixt P. Gregory, and John of Ravenna. The no proof of their Schisme. P. Gregory's dislike of the title of Universall Pastor.
HIs next attempt is against the Instance of Ravenna, and he sets out with a special piece of wit, that when I say, the Emperor Valentinian did by h…s Rescript constitute Ravenna a Patriarchal seat, I quote no Author but Ann. Dom. 432.] where 1. 'Tis strange, that he that hath yet (to my best remembrance) produced but one citation of his own, and withall, hath oft reproacht my unnecessary citations should yet now exact of me the producing of Authors for every period; and yet more strange, that when I quote the Emperours Rescript, wherein it was thus constituted, he should yet say I quoted no Author: The Emperour himself was vouched as my Author, and his Rescript the Testimony; and yet upon the Catholick Gentleman's doubt of this, I produced the Author, which conveyed this record to us, one very fit for the turn, the writer of the history of that city H…eronymus Rubeus, who sets down the words of this priv…ledge out of as most ancient record, which saith he, in tabulario Ʋrsiano adhuc servatur, is still kept in the Archieves of that city. Of this Author who produces it, it may be considered, 1. That his History was at a second publication of it, 17. yeares after the former, dedicated to the Pope Sixtus V. by the Senate of Ravenna (who testifie that it was collected ex tabulariis potissimùm civitatis, out of the Records of the city;) And 2. that it was by himself dedicated to their A…chbishop, a Cardinall, appealing to his knowledge, that he had been in antiquitate investigandâ satis accuratus, sufficiently accurate in the search of antiquity: And 3. to remove all suspition of partiality to his own city against Rome, he hath approved himself to be as great an admirer of the Papacy, as any, calls it in his Preface, sedem de coelo in terras demissam, a See sent down from heaven to ea…th, for Learning most divine, for Religion most holy, f…r Empire most sublime. And in this very matter of Ravenna's contending with Rome, de Principatu, he is very bitter against his own Countreymens temerity, and perfidiousnesse, together with insolent pride, affirming the Popes to be Vicars of Christ; in E…clesiae Ʋniversalis administratione, in the administration of the Ʋniversall Church. If these be indications of the Preposterous love of his countrey, which Rubeus is blamed for by S.W. it will be very hard to gain his favour; And 4. to conclude, his authority with the Romanists is such, as Baronius, the principall Author, that hath questioned this priv…lege, makes use of his testimony with confidence, when it is for his turn, (though in a matter much more liable to mistake the relation of a vision) himself also confessing, that the Rescript is very ancient, and acknowledged by severall writers.
And truly that Annalists and his followers disputing against it by those little probable arguments, which S. W. hath here transcribed (as nothing was ever really done, but some light colours might be brought against it) as it signifies no more, but that this act of the Emperour's was repugnant to the interest which that learned Annalist had professedly espoused, the absolute Ʋniversall Dominion of the Romish See, so is it an evidence irrefragable, that that privilege which Ravenna is pretended to have had, was not rec…ncileable with the pretensions of Rome, which yet was in effect, no g eater, than those which without doubt were soon after conferred on Justiniana and others, by other Emperours, before either of these, and to which the Council of Chalcedon had laid the foundation, that the foreign order Ecclesiasticall should follow, and beare proportion with the foreign the imperiall acts of building, or repairing, or inlarging, and dignifying of cities.
As for the objections against the authenticknesse of that decree, I shall need say no more, but that they are very unproportionable to be put in the balance against the originall record and testification of the fact in the plain words of the Edict. First, saith he, it begins in a different manner from the constant tenor of all other Rescripts,] but he did not think good to tell us how it began, lest that might discover the vanity of the exception, nor to remember what was the subject matter of this Rescript which might fitly occasion and own this difference. It was the Donation of a Privilege to the Church, to the honour of God, and accordingly it begins in such a form, as most exactly accords therewith, and is the ancient, as well as modern style in such matters. In Nomine Domini Dei Salvatoris Nostri Jesu Christi, In the name of the Lord God our Saviour Jesus Christ. This, as it had been lesse proper for some other secular matters, so was most agreeable to the matter of an Ecclesiasticall priviledge, or collation. So in the Novels of the Emperours, which conferre, or confirm priviledges, to the Church, there is nothing more frequent. The first of Heraclius, being of this sort, begins so,†Jus Graeco. Rom. l. 2. p. 90. foreign — In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our God, Heraclius— to Sergius— And so the*P. 77. second, and the†P. 83. fourth. So begins Justinian's Edict, de fide Orthodoxâ, *Ib. l 8. p. 521.foreign— In the name of God the Father, and of his onelyonly begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the holy Ghost. I shall trouble the Reader with no more examples. And then, what could have been objected more unseasonably, or untruly, than that this manner of beginning differs from the constant tenor of all other Rescripts?
Next, saith he, The decree is singular, and consequently to be suspected in this; that all the other Rescripts made in the reigne of the two Emperours, though constituted by one of them onelyonly, yet were ever authorised by both their names, whereas the name and authority of the Emperou… Theodosius was wanting to this.] But there is as little truth in this, as in the former suggestion. In the constitutions of Heraclius, the first indeed begins with the names of both the Emperours, foreign, and to the fourth after the like manner. But then in the second the style is singular, foreign — and the third in like manner, foreign, Heraclius alone without naming the other. 'Tis strange such matters of ordinary visible practice, should be so confidently denied, to gain a poor, pitifull, probable argument against an Edict, that is irrefragably testified by the Records, and is no way concerned in such Topicks as these, if they had (as they have not the least) truth in them: But besides, if it were reasonable to conclude a matter of fact by reason, 'tis cleare there is reason of this also. Valentinian was born in this city, as before*Rub. Hist R…v. l. 2. p 90. Rubeus, Marcellus Comes delivers, and now resided there (as Honorius had long done, ever since Alaricus's coming into Italy) and accordingly makes that a special motive of giving this privilege (Et maximè ubi serenitatis nostrae praefulget praesentia) in the words of the Edict: And of him particularly 'tis*Ibid p. 98. noted and cited from Agnellus, a grave Author, that he both re-built, and inlarged the walls of the city, and constituted it, after Rome, the head of Italy. All which being peculiar acts of his kindnesse to the city, and not common to Theodosius with him, as they make it reasonable, that they should beare none but his name in the front of the Donation, so without question they no way invalidate the authority of it.
The third objection is, that the Inscription, Imperator Major, is new, and unheard of, all the r…st intitling Valentinian Imperator Maximus.] But the Inscription is, Valentinianus fidelis Jesu Christi Major imperator. Aug. The [Major] is not here subjoyned to Imperator, but to Valentinian (as Augustus to Imperator) and is, I suppose to distinguish him from others of the same name, as Theodosius, foreign, the little, that reigned with Valentinian, is so called to distinguish him from Theodosius, foreign the Great, Hon…rius's Father. So Leo foreign, and Leo foreign, and so Valentinianus Major to distinguish this from Valentinianus, Gratian's Father, who in respect of him was Maximus. 2. As for the title of Imperator Maximus (Maximus subjoyned to Imperator) it might have been worth his pains to set down some of those Edicts (which he calls all the rest) that so intitle him. I am sure Rubeus affords him none. Pontifex Maximus was once an ordinary title for the Emperours, and Imperator Clementissimus, and the like, but sure Imperator Maximus was not so; And yet 3. if it were so, it would prove little; for this Valentinian, which is here styled Major, is ordinarily known by the title of Junior; Major, in respect of Maximus, being Junior, as Theodosius foreign the Little is ordinarily Theodosius Junior in the Comparative, and many such like, so that still I have no reason to admire S. W. his Arguments.
4. He objects from the mention of Regium, Placentia, and Brixillis named in the Rescript, as under the Jurisdiction of Ravenna, which, saith S. W. is a plain forgery, since not long after, Pope Leo commanding Eusebius Bishop of Milan, to gather a provincial Council of the Bishops subject to him, those three Bishops met there, and subscribed in that Council, as appeares by the Synods Epistle yet extant.] Of this suggestion some parts are true, but that on which alone the whole force of the Objection against the Rescript depends, hath no offer of proofe nor yet appearance of truth in it. And therefore it was prudently done, to cite the Synodal Epistle for the subscription of these names, but neither to direct us where to finde that Synodal Epistle, nor to offer any reason or testimony, that all that subscribed there were subject to Milan.
The truth of the whole matter lies thus, In the yeare 450. Pope Leo sent foure Legates, two Bishops, and two Presbyters to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, successor to Flavianus, with an Epistle, anathematizing Eutyches and Nestorius, and all their followers, which was accordingly read, and fully consented to, and subscribed in Council by Anatolius, and the neighbouring Bishops, assembled with him, and sent to all the Metropolitanes of the East to be subscribed by them. See Concil. Tom. 3. p. 701, 702. Upon the return of these Legates, Leo commands them to go to Eusebius the Bishop of Milan (in the most antient Notitiae, the Prime Metropolis of Italy) and treat with him for a meeting of other Bishops of Italy, which, we know, consisted of many Provinces, to subscribe and professe the reception of the same doctrine against those H…reticks, to the end that in the meeting of a Generall Council, the Pope's Legates might go, in the name of the whole Westerne Church, and informe the Council of the judgment of those Bishops, who should not be able to be present there: And accordingly it was done, and upon this meeting (called thence Mediolanense Concilium in the Councils, T. 2. p. 702.) the Bishop of Milan, and nineteen other Bishops of Italy, some of his Province, and some of others, wrote a Letter to Leo, and subscribed their consent to that confession of faith, which he had sent into the East. The Epistle is to be seen among Leo's, with this title, Eusebii Mediolanensis Episcopi cum aliis Episcopis consentientibus, and after him the first that are named are the Bishops of Regium, Placentia, and Brixillis. But now, that all the Bishops that are there named, were of this particular Province of Milan, and subject immediately to that Bishop, as it is the onelyonly thing of force in the present objection, so it hath no offer of proof, or that I discern appearance of truth in it. Of the 19. Bishops, which are there named to subscribe after M…lan, Miraeus, out of the Ancient Roman Provincial, sets down but twelve, under the Metropolis of Milan, and two of them with an Asterisk for exempts, Placentinus, and Papiensis (which is all one with Ticinensis in these subscriptions) so that beside Placentia, Regium, and Brixillis, here named in the Edict, the second of which he places expresly under Ravenna, and the third was destroyed Ann. 586. saith*P. 181. Rubeus, there remaines Augustana under the Archbishop of Mentz, Comensis under Aquileia, Curiensis in Rhaetia Prima, under the Archbishop of Mentz, Genuensis and Albingaunensis, both in Liguria, none of which can with any reason be pretended to be under the particular Province of Milan, and so this is sufficient to evacuate the seeming force of that argument.
2. It must be farther remembred, that in order to this design of having this Profession of Leo's faith, subscribed by the Bishops of Italy, it was as necessary that other Bishops consents should be had, as those of the particular Province of Milan. The Legates were sent in like manner to the Galliae, and from thence the subscription come of*Leo Ep. 51. 44. Bishops, which sure were not all of one Province: In a word, there is little reason to believe, but all Italy were as much concerned in this action, as those under Milan, onelyonly the meeting being in that place, as that which had been antiently the prime Metropolis of the Dioecese of Italy, there were more of that present there, than of any other particular Province, yet the three first of the subscribers, the Bishops of these cities under Ravenna, which was a compleat number for that Exarchate; so that still this Edict may passe for authentick, though it put Regium, &c. under the Archbishop of Ravenna, for there still they are, for ought this of the Mediolanense concilium proves to the contrary.
Or if this be not yet sufficient, then I shall oppose the authority of Blondus and Sabellicus, for the confirming the Edict, and invalidating this pitifull shew of objections. Blondus, who had said (from other evidences, and not from this Rescript) that the Emperour subjected twelve Bishops to the See of Ravenna, naming Regium and Placentia for two of them, and Sabellicus in his Enneads, and others with him, affirm there were fourteen, as the Edict doth, and so doth Miraeus, out of the antient Roman Pontificall, though in specifying the names of them, he differ from this Edict.
But his last argument is that on which he seemes to place his confidence, as a Rub which, saith he puzzeled Rub…us, that the same Rescript which gives them an Archbishoprick, granted them also the use of the Pall, which saith he, was never used to be given by the Emperors but by the Popes onelyonly, as appeares by the Epistle of Gregory the Great to the then Archbishop of Ravenna; and this, saith he, forced Rub…us to explicate that Pall to be Caesar…um pa…udamentum, such an imperial Robe as the Caesars used to wear, whereas besides the unlikelinesse of the a…tion, it is contra…y to the Rescript it self; whi…h grants them such a Pall, sicut caeteri sub nostrâ Christianissimâ potestate saepe degentes f…uuntur Metropoli…ae, as the rest of the Metropolitanes in his Dominions after wore; which, saith he, every one who hath but tasted of the study of antient History, knowes to have been another manner of thing than the Emperours robe.]
What solidity of truth there is in all this, will be soon discerned: For 1. that this rub is said to have puzzled Rubens, and that to smooth it, he was forced to explicate it of the Caesareum paludamentum,] hath no kind of truth in it: What he saith is not from any such necessity, to avoid the importunity of any objection, but as an instance of the Emperors gratitude to that Church, and John the Archbishop thereof, maximum beneficium adjecit, he added this greatest favour, a Pall, but that such an one as in the city, and in any pomp, or solemnity, the Caesars alone were wont to use, as an universall and perpetual prerogative of him and his successors in that See.
But then 2. if Constantine's Donation to Sylvester, which is entred into their*Decret par. 1. Dist. 96. c. 13. Consta…tinus. Corpus Juris, and must not be despised by the Romanists, be by S. W. believed to have any truth in it, or if the fiction of it be not founded in gross absurdity, & impossibility, we cannot but learn this from it, which here S. W. will not allow any man to think that hath but tasted of the study of anti…nt History, viz. that the superhumerale, the Pall, that belongs to Archbishops, was the lorum quod Imperiale circundare solebat collum, the very imperial ornament, that incompast his neck (and so the purple robe, and the scarlet gown, and omnia Imperialia indumenta, all the imperiall vestiments) communicated from the Emperour to the Pope, and by him imparted to Archbishops. The same we are taught by Balsamon from the Greek Church, that severall Ensignes of the Imperiall authority were communicated to the Patriarchs *foreign. P. 445. Jus Graeco. Rom. l. 7.foreign, this privilege (speaking of the foreign) was allowed to none but the Kings and Patriarchs (having before said expresly, that the Archbishop of Bulgarie, and some others, had received them, foreign, from the Emperours especial munificence, and*Pithan. l. 2 c. 1 Philippus Berterius, who, I hope, had tasted of antient history, cites it from him, and subjoyns foreign, Pallia & caetera hujusmodi quae f…re omnia tandē Metropolitanis sunt concessa, almost all kind of habits, particularly the Pal, all which almost were at length allowed to the Metropolitans, he might have said (as far as belongs to the East) to the Bps. also Thus when Anthimus of Constantinop was deposed,*Liberat. Diac. Breviar c. 22. it is said of him, that when he saw himself turned out of his See, he restored the Pall which he had, to the Emperors. And*Ep. ex Reg. l. 1. indict. 9. Ep. 27. P. Gr. himself speaking of the return of Anastas. Patriarch of Alexandria, saith that he had made *Suggestionem summis precibus plenam. ibid. quantis valui precibus postulavi, ib. Ep. 7.earnest request to the Emperours, ut concesso usu Pallii ad Beati Petri limina — transmittere debuissent, that they would grant him the use of the Pall and send him to Rome to him, to officiate with him quatenus mecum in honore suo viveret, and to live and enjoy his Patriarchall honour with him.
Sure these are more than obscure indications, that the Pall having this original from the Emperours donation, was, and consequently may, by the Emperour, particularly be bestowed upon a See, advanced by him to some more than ordinary eminence, after the manner of those, whom a King will honour, by putting some part of his royal ornaments upon them, and it will otherwise be hard to imagine, from whence the Pope himselfe shall originally have received it, if not from the favour of the Emperour, for as to that of the Sheep taken upon the Pastors shoulders which may be thought to deduce it from S. Peter, it is sure as Apocryphal, as Constantine's donation can by any be imagined to be, and beside other Anomalies in the Emblem, 'tis that which must equally belong to every Bishop, whose office is as perfectly Pastoral, as any Metropolitane, Primate, Patriarch, or the Pope himself can be pretended to be, though his Dioecese be not so wide, nor his power so absolute, and so can by no Analogie be the Ensigne discriminative of an Archbishop.
But I shall not need to insist farther on this, for if I should grant, that the Pall were originally Ecclesiasticall, and a thing perfectly distant from the Imperiale lorum, and so that the Emperour could with no propriety conferre it, as from himselfe; this notwithstanding would be very incompetent to prejudge, or disparage Valentinian's Rescript, in the forme, wherein Hier: Rubeus hath conveyed it to us, for of it this may very fitly be the interpretation, that the Archbishop of Ravenna being thus exalted by the Emperour, the said Emperour ordained and decreed, that as other Metropolitanes in his Dominions, have the use of the Pall, receiving it from their Patriarch, according to custome, upon their consecrating, so should he receive it from the Bp. of Rome, the Patriarch of the West. And this being the onelyonly objection against the Rescript, which hath any shew of validity in it, it now appeares, I suppose, that this is but a shew, and so the Rescript may yet stand firme upon the vanishing of it.
Yet is this Argument of such force with S. W. that he is resolved (and he cannot, he saith, in reason think other) it must (some way or other) invalidate this instance of Ravenna, but which way it shall do it he is not yet resolved, onelyonly he hath pitcht on one of these two wayes, either that the Rescript is false, forged in the time of the Schisme, or at least, that it cannot be imagined to have beene made without the Popes consent.]
These conjectures are distant enough & so prove themselves to be but conjectures, for if the Rescript were false, and forged in time of the Schisme, then sure the Pope never gave consent to it, and if he gave consent to it, then sure 'twas not false, nor forged in time of the Schisme. And yet he tenders his proof for each of these, which fighting thus unreconcileably one with another, it were almost pity to interpose, it being certain that the leaving them thus ingaged, must be the shortest end of the Controversie. But I shall not give him the example of despising tenders of reason.
For the first then, that the Rescript is false, and forged in the time of the Schism, (besides what hath already been mentioned of the Pall, and I suppose removed) he hath no farther offer of argument, but this, that no new Bishop of Ravenna could use the Pall without a new concession from the Pope, as (saith he) appeares in S. Gregory, l. 5. Ep. 8. and therefore it was forged in time of the Schisme, that they might have some pretence to retaine still the use of the Pall, which they accounted honourable.]
Whether the new Bishop were to receive the Pall from the hands of the Pope, I shall not need dispute; This might be a formality due to him as Patriarch of the West, and is perfectly reconcileable with the Emperours conferring this priviledge on this See, to all succession (as the Edict declares) without any active concurrence, or joynt authority of the Pope. But he that shall look on that*Ep. ex Regist. l. 5. Indict. 14. c 108. Epistle, will finde no more than this, that Pope Gregory sends the Bishop of Ravenna a Pall (provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine, moved thereto by the order of antient custome) *Ep ex Reg. l. 5. indict. 14. c. 108.for him to use at the times, and in the manner, as, he saith, he doubts not his predecessor had used it, adding, Omnia enim privilegia quae tuae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae, nostrâ authoritate firmamus, & illibata decernimus, permanere, for all the privileges which appeare to have beeen heretofore granted to your Church, we confirme by our authority and decree that they shall remain untoucht; and (beside some good admonitions to adorn his office and dignity, with the probity of manners and works) this is all that is to be found in that Epistle.
And considering that the privileges which he formally confirmed, were acknowleged by him to be pridem concessa, granted to the See of Ravenna long before, without mention of their being granted to him by the Popes, and so must most probably referre to this act of the Emperour Valentinian, which gave it th…se privileges; all this doth very well agree with the Edict, and conclude that it must have been unjust in the Pope to deny the Pall to any new Bishop of that See; And then the least that can be said, is, that S. W. will never be able by any Engine to fetch out from this Ep…stle his designed conclusion, that this Rescript was forged in the time of the Schism; and if it were not then forged, I mean while Ravenna stood upon her Indecendency from Rome (for that, I suppose, he will have deemed a Schism, by a mean begging the question) there can be no time imaginable for the forging it, for while Ravenna yielded to Rome all that she desired, this cannot sensibly be suggested: And so still here is not the least colour of pretense for the forging of it.
What followes upon the other branch of his conjecture, to make it probable, that it was not made without the Pope's consent, if it have any appearance of force in it, it again concludes, that it was not forged, nor then lookt on by any (not by the Pope himself) as an Innovation, for the Emperour thus to advance a Church to this independency; and against this I have no reason to dispute, but shall most willingly yield it to S. W. his affirmation, without the least tender of proof, and onelyonly resolve from thence, that Valentinian herein did nothing contrary to the duty of a very good Emperour, nothing but by the very Bishop of Rome's very good liking, and consequently, that the Ravennates that insisted on this their privilege, were farre from being Schismaticks, or culpable in so doing, as my Disarmer will have believed to be the acknowledgement of all the world.
If any more than such a consent as this, a good liking, or not ch…cking at it, be here meant by S. W. as the mention of the Pope's appointing and constituting (even those at Ravenna at fi…st being unwilling) S. Peter Chrysologus to succeed in that See, after the decease of John] seems willing to conclude, viz. an anthoritative consent, or that which hath any thing of jurisdiction in it; I shall then answer, that supposing the Edict to have been really made (as in thus arguing S. W. supposes, for else how could the Pope thus consent to the making it) it is most evident that the Pope had thus nothing to do in the making of it. The words are plain, Imperiali authoritate sancimus, we decree by our imperial authority, that it shall be thus advanced, to the Metropoliticall dignity: and constituimus, the Emperour again by his authority, constitutes, or appoints the disposition of the whole Province of Aemylia, under the government of that Church, and the creations of all those 14. Bishops, &c. adding, Conferentes ei ob decorem Apostolicae dignitatis honorem Pallii & omnem Pontificalis decoris usum, conferring on him for the glory of the Apostolick dignity, the honour of the Pall, and all the use of Pontificall glory or splendor, and this, as was said, not to the person of the present Bishop John, but to the Church, atque Ʋniversos postea Praesules, all Bishops which should succeed in that See. Which puts the matter beyond dispute, that the Pope had neither in the making of the decree, nor in the Bishops succeeding to the benefit of it, any authoritative consent. It came wholly from the Imperial munificence, the same by which it was once resolved in Honorius's time (as Rubeus cites it from*In hist. Princip. Estens. Johannes Baptista Pigna) that the seat of the Empire should be translated from Rome to Ravenna.
What he saith of the Pope's appointing and constituting Chrysologus to succeed in that See, even those of Ravenna, at first being unwilling] lies thus clearly, in the story, That t…e Ravennates sent the Archbishop whom they had created, to Pope Xystus III. for his customary confirmation. …he Pope had seen a vision that night, wherein S. Peter and S. Apollinaris, the first Bishop of that See, having a young man between them, foretold him, that he should create him Bishop of Ravenna, and should not confirm him whom the Ravennates had chosen; this therefore he did obey, and rejecting their Bishop, ordain'd Peter Chrysologus to that See, and the Ravennates taking it ill, he told them his vision, and then they acquiesced in reverence to S. Peter. If there be truth in this story, 'tis little to the advantage of the Pope's authority, the vision being evidently that, which gave Peter Chrysologus this dignity, which the Pope could not have done without the vision. If it be not true, sure S. W. can conclude nothing from it, unlesse it be this, that Rub…us is to be believed by a Romanist in the relation of a Legend, which looks a little kindly to the Romanists side, but must not be believed in the vouching an ancient Record, when that should seem against them.
He next tells us, the after-Bishops of Ravenna were sometimes Schismaticks, none excusing them, or bringing that action of theirs for a testimony or example, till such as D. H. arose, who were involved in the same crime.] But herein is manifest injustice. For wholly to omit the inquiry, whether the B…shops of Ravenna were afterwards schismaticall, or no, I know every thing which seems averse to the plenitude of all power in the Romish See, shall be sure to be looked on by them as an act of Schisme, or else we had never lain under that charge: to omit this, I say (though it be but a begging the main question in him that suggests it) it is manifest that the testimony produced by me was not founded in the actions of those after-Bish ps, but in the first collation of dignity on that Chur…h by the Edict of the Emperor, that being the one thing that was pertinent, and fully concludent to the matter, which I had then in hand, from Sect 9. the power of Kings to erect or translate Prim…cies or Patriarchates: For if Val ntinian had that power, and actually made use of it, Imperiali authoritate sancire, constituere, conferre, to advance Ravenna to that ho…our and power, to assigne him such a Province, and to conferre such privil…ges, on that See for ever, and no check made against this at that time, either by the Popes, or other Bishops of the Church, as against an innovation, or usurpation of undue power in the Emperour; then sure another Prince, which hath the same power in his Kingdome, which Valentinian had in his Dominions, may as lawfully do the same, foreign, which was the onelyonly thing which by this example of Ravenna, and testimony of that Edict, I attempted to demonstrate.
But now follows an intollerable mistake of the Doctor's, which must needs have some of S. W. his Discipline. And what is the mistake? Why, That from Valentinians's time Ravenna held the Patriarchate without depend…nce on the Bishop of Rome, till the time of Constantinu… Pogonatus.] For this my Disa…mer hath not yet so approved his fid…l ty, that his own bare word should be concluding: From his tribunall I appeal to Anastasius, in vita Doni Hujus temporibus, i. e. Constantini Pogonati, saith he, Ecclesia Ravennatum, quae se ab Ecclesiâ Romanâ segregaverat causâ autocephaliae, denuò se pristinae sedi Apostolicae subjugavit, In the times of Constantinus Pogonatus the Church of Ravenna which had separated it self from the Ch: of Rome, upon the account of being independent, and an head too or within it self, subjected it self again to the former Apostolick See. What can be more punctual for the full defence of my intolerable mistake? And yet, saith he, eve…y one meanly versed in History, knowes 'tis thus. But I demand whether Anastasius were not so, nay, whether there can be produced any one Historian, that doubts of it, much lesse that affirme the contrary.
But, saith he, 'Tis manifest by Pope Gregory's Letters to the Bishops of that place, who was made Pope in the yeare 590. whereas Pogonatus began his reigne in the yeare 668.] This is a manifestation indeed fit for one who had once spent so may lines to set down the nature of an evid…nce, as the standard for future discourse between us. And what if one should put this into mood, and figure, and exact of it a conformity, with the most vulgar of those necessary rules? It would then run thus, Pogonatus began his reigne 78. yeares after Gregory ascended to the Papacy and G…ego…y wrote Letters to the Bishops of Ravenna, therefore Rav…nna held not the patriarchate without dependance from Rome, from the reign of Valentinian to Pogonatus. A conclusion very irrefragably inferred, and yet there is no possibility to assist this medium of his, unlesse it may some way appeare from those Epistles of Gregory, that Ravenna was not independent in his time. But that from S W. his arguing no way appeares, no one passage being by him tendred from thence, unless what was before cited from Li. 5. Ep 8. and that hath already been accounted for, and cleared to have no such intimation in it, but onelyonly that he sent him the Pall, and confirmed the privileges of his Church, which by the Emperours Rescript were sufficiently authorized, if he had not confirmed them.
Many other Epistles indeed this G…egory wrote to the several Bishops of Ravenna, many to John, l. 1. and 2. some to Marinian, l. 4. and 5. and to the whole Church, l. 5. and in these he oft takes upon him to finde fault, especially for the frequent using the Pall in publick processions; but this proves not their dependance on him, either de jure, or de facto, either that it was really due, or by them acknowledged, and yielded to him. Nay many indications there are to the contrary, privileges pleaded by them, though by him denyed to belong to them. And indeed, had he really consulted either the story, or Gregories Epistles, he must have discerned the truth of mine, and the groundlesnesse of his affirmation. For of John III. to whom Gregory's Epistles are written, l. 1. and 2. it is by the writers for the most part, resolved, that he was the first Archbishop of Ravenna, qui palam tentaverit, who made a publick attempt this way, drawing many of the Bishops of Italy to his side. See Hist Raven. l. 4. p 181. and 184. where the whole contest is set down, collected punctually out of G egory's Epistles, (and he that shall compare them, shall find it done exactly) together with a copy of John's Epistle to him, modest, but yet standing to his privileges, with a Nullus ergo contra me Domino meo conetur sucripere, quia si vult, Deo custode non esse potest, quòd à me al…qua novitas fuisset introdu…ta, & …djuro vos per ipsam sedem Apostolicam, ut in nullo, Ravennati E…clesiae privil…gia quibus huc usqu… usa est, minuatis— looking on Gregory's disputing his privileges, as an invasion, and intolerable innovat…on, and adjuring him by the dignity of his place not to be guilty of it. And so nothing can with the least shew be inferred from the Epistles of Gregory, against the truth of what I affirmed from Anastasius, concerning the independence of this Church, held out till Pogonatus's time, i. e. till the necessity of their affaires, (occasioned by the invasion of the Longobards, and want of relief and support from the Greek Emperours Vicarii) drave them to the Bishop of Rome for aid, who would not give it, but upon this price of giving up their former liberties.
What he addes again of the Ravennates being Schismaticks as well as we, (though even now one of his answers was taken from the Pope consenting to the Edict, and I am sure Gregory ost professes to have confirmed their privileges) ought not to be of much force with any that knows his Notion of Schismaticks, such as yield not obedience to the Ʋniversall Pastorship of the Pope, which is evidently the question at this time, and should be gained and won, not assumed and begged by him.
But at length he is content that plain reason should judge in this Controversie. And what reason doth he offer to prove, that the Ravennates pretended foreign from the time of Valentinian's Edict was an act of Schisme? Why, saith he, at the breach of the Ravennates from their subjection, the Popes made head against them, and stood upon their authority, as Ʋniversall Pastors, which therefo…e in all likelihood would have been looked on by the rest of the Catholick Bishops, as a proud usurpation, and being against their common interest to let the Pope pretend this, ought in all reason to have ingaged them in the Ravennates quarrel, and there being no news of such siding, one may at least conjecture, that they thought the Popes pretence to the P…imacy lawful.
Here is the plain reason we were promised, which at the beginning of the Paragraph undertook to judge in the controversie, and yet when it hath had audience, the utmost that S. W. that produced this plain, decisive (that sure must be demonstrative) reason, can dare to say of it, is, that it is able to induce a conjecture, and in a matter of fact contrary to his interest, they would indeed be strangely weak grounds, on which one, i. e. S.W. would not found a favourable conjecture. And yet this is the solid pregnant reasoning, beyond all possible confute, 'Tis pity to enter farther into the secrets of it. Yet I cannot but mark, 1 that the Ravennates foreign, given them by the Emperors edict, was of the same nature exactly with the many other examples frequent in the Church, of Primacies conferred by the Imperiall Constitutions, which were never resisted, or checkt at, at the time of their first donations. 2. That if S. W. his way of arguing hold, then it follows as consequently, that what Valentinian did, was no innovation or assuming of undue power. For then in all likelihood it would have been lookt on by the Catholike Bishops as such, and this no way appearing, one may as reasonably conjecture, that they never deemed it unlawful, especially if to this we adde, what the stories tell us, that John III. of Ravenna, that contested with Gregory about the Pall, had gotten many of the Bishops of Italy to his side. See Hist. Raven. p. 180. Thirdly, That if the collation of this Independency be it, which S. W. calls the breach of the Ravennates from their subjection, it is in no degree true, that at that breach, i. e. at the time of their first assuming this foreign, the Popes made head against them. This I shall assume from what he even now supposed, when it appeared usefull to him, viz. that the Edict was made not without the Pope's consent, (and by Pope Gregory's confirming their privileges) for if so, then sure they did not make head against it, for that were strongly to dissent, and expresse their dissent, which consequently must have been visible, and then he could never have been so blind, as to deem them consenting. 4ly. That the first dissent that S. W. takes notice of, is that of P. Greg. who, according to his own just computation ascended to the Papacy, An 590. and that is 158. years after the date of the Rescript of Valentinian, and for ought yet appeares, the Independency was undisputed for all that time, a pretty competent space for a proscription. Fifthly, It is not yet proved by S. W. that the Popes thus early, no not this Gregory himself, which disputed Ravenna's privileges, stood upon their authority, as Ʋni…ersall Pastors of the Church (as he assures me the Doctor will grant, and thereby signifies not…ing, but that he is not very ready to prove it) I am sure he sadly*Ep ex Reg. l. 4. Indict. 13. Ep 32. and l. 7. Ep. 30. complaines to Mauritius the Emperour of the proud and pompatick style, the name of vanity, the new and profane words of Ʋniversall Bish…p, which John Bishop o… Constantinople had attempted to assume, adding, that for all the elogies and promises made to S. Peter, he was not yet called Ʋniversal Pastor, and inferres this horrible absurdity upon it, that whereas some of his Predecessor Bishops had been Hereticks, Nestorius, and Macedonius; if this title had belonged to that See, it must follow, that the Ʋniversal Church, à statu suo corruit, fell from her state, when he that was thus styled Ʋniversall Bishop fell; withall assuring the Emperour, that he did not plead his owne cause, or avenge his private injury: which assures my charity, that this Pope could never assume this title of Ʋniversal Pastor of the Church, or make head against Ravenna, standing upon this, (i. e. the Papal, as that is above, Patriarchal) claim of authority: And indeed, this was before Boniface's time, who was the first, to whom Phocas gave that title, and therefore I may with all reason assume, that as yet the Popes could not make head against Ravenna; on that score.
Sixtly, When this title was assumed, and then the Ravennates Independency became such an Ey-sore, most intolerable to the See of Rome, there is no necessity, that all that lookt upon it, as an usurpation, should engage in the Ravennates quarrell (though, as hath been said, many of the Bishops of Italy sided with them) weaknesse and feare, and many other secular considerations might interpose, and leave the just cause to be oppressed by the unjust; and there is no consequence to be drawn from not ingaging in the cause, to the not approving of the innocence. The Greek: aided the Ravennates a while, but the Longobards were too hard for them; and the Papacy taking this advantage, would either leave them to be devoured, or would themselves prey upon them; and the Ravennates were not the first examples of those, that bought their lives at this price of subjection to the Romans. So perfectly vaine, from one end to the other, is all my Disarmer's discourse in this matter; 'tis a long work to discover most hastily all the flawes and nullities in this procedure, and judgement of his plaine reason.
Lastly, When he demands how the Ravennates behaved themselves in the businesse, d…d they stick close to, and constantly claime their non-subjection from Canons or Scripture?] The answer is obvious, they stood to it, as long as they were able, and at length they yielded to necessity, mean while never vouched either Scripture, or Canons. It is the Popes singular privilege to vouch both those, without all right to either: the later, as long agoe he did in the African Council, from the Canon of Nice, when no authentick of the Council sought for in the East, could be found to own any semblance of any such Canon; the former, as his Successors have oft done from tu es Petrus, and Pasce oves— where the words being found, cannot be discerned to have any such importance. The Ravennates pretended, what they had, the Edict of the Emperour, and long continued custome, for the injoying of their privileges, and could not have been refuted in this plea, if their secular affaires had not first made it necessary to wave the insisting on it, and if afterward the Pope had not prevailed with another Emperour Justinianus foreign, to subdue, and inflict severity on them. And thus I doubt not, the steadiest, and best radicated privileges may be extirpated, and if rescinded by the same power, that first gave them, I shall after that, no longer plead for the continuance of them: and so I was farre enough all this while, from falling justly under the censure of resisting the decision of those who were lawfull Judges in the matter; all that I did was to vouch the privilege when it was given, and before it was judged fit to be taken away again by the Emperour, and that S. W. cannot but know, is all, that was any way usefull for me in this Testimonie.