A treatise of the Pope's supremacy to which is added A discourse concerning the unity of the church / by Isaac Barrow ...

A TREATISE OF THE Pope's Supremacy.

MATTH. 10.2.

Now the names of the twelve Apostles were these; the first,* 1.1 Si∣mon, who is called Peter.

AMONG the Modern Controversies there is scarce any of greater consequence, than that about Universal Supremacy, which the Bishop of Rome claimeth over the Christian Church; the assertion whereof on his side dependeth upon divers Suppositions; namely these:

• I. That Saint Peter by our Lord's appointment had a Primacy, implying a Sovereignty of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Apostles.
• II. That the Rights and Prerogatives of this Sovereignty were not perso∣nal, but derivable, and transmitted to Successours.
• III. That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome.
• IV. That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation, and was so at his decease.
• V. That hence of Right to the Bishops of Rome, as Saint Peter's Suc∣cessours, an Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ doth appertain.
• VI. That in Fact the said Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Power.
• VII. That this Power is indefectible; such as by no means can be forfei∣ted or fail.

In order to the discussion and resolution of the first Point, I shall treat upon the Primacy of Saint Peter; endeavouring to shew what Primacy he was capable of, or might enjoy; what he could not pretend to, nor did possess.

SUPPOSITION I. The first Supposition of those, who claim Universal Ju∣risdiction to the Pope over the Church, is, That Saint Peter had a primacy over the Apostles.

IN order to the resolution of this Point, we may consider, that there are several kinds of Primacy, which may belong to a person in re∣spect of others: for there are,

• 1. A Primacy of Worth or Personal Excellency.
• 2. A Primacy of Reputation and Esteem.
• 3. A Primacy of Order, or bare Dignity and Precedence.
• 4. A Primacy of Power or Jurisdiction.

To each of these what title Saint Peter might have, let us in order examine.

I. As for the first of these (a Primacy of Worth, or Merit, as some of the Ancients call it) we may well grant it to Saint Peter, admitting that probably he did exceed the rest of his Brethren in personal endow∣ments and capacities (both natural and moral) qualifying him for the discharge of the Apostolical Office in an eminent manner; particularly that in quickness of apprehension, in boldness of spirit,* 1.2 in readiness of speech, in charity to our Lord, and zeal for his Service, in resolution, activity and industry he was transcendent, may seem to appear by the tenour of the Evangelical and Apostolical Histories; in the which we may observe him upon all occasions ready to speak first, and to make him∣self the mouth (as the Fathers speak) of the A∣postles, in all deliberations nimble at propounding his advice, in all undertakings forward to make the onset; being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, always hot and eager, always prompt and vigorous, as S. Chrysostome often affirmeth concerning him: these things are apparent in his demeanour, and it may not be amiss to set down some instances.

When our Lord observing the different apprehensions men had con∣cerning him,* 1.3 asked the Apostles, but whom say ye that I am, up star∣teth he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he skippeth forth,* 1.4 and preventeth the rest, crying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. The other Apostles were not ignorant of the Point; for they at their Conversion did take Jesus for the Messias,* 1.5 which (even accor∣ding to the common Notion of the Iews) did imply his being the Son of God; Nathanael (that is, Saint Bartholomew, as is supposed) had in terms confessed it; the whole company, upon seeing our Lord walk on the Sea, had avowed it; Saint Peter before that, in the name of them all had said,* 1.6 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, We have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. They therefore had the same Faith, but he from a special alacrity of spirit,

and expedition in utterance, was more forward to declare it;* 1.7 He was more hot (saith St. Greg. Naz.) than the rest at acknowledging Christ.

When our Saviour walked on the Sea,* 1.8 who but He had the Faith and the Courage to venture on the Waters towards him?

When our Lord was apprehended by the Souldiers,* 1.9 presently up was his spirit, and out went his Sword in defence of him.

When our Lord predicted, that upon his coming into trouble all the Disciples would be offended, and desert him; he was ready to say, Though all men shall be offended because of thee,* 1.10 yet will I never be offen∣ded; and, Though I should dye with thee, yet will I not deny thee; such was his natural courage and confidence.

When our Lord was discoursing about his Passion, he suddenly must be advising in the case, and urging him to spare himself;* 1.11 upon which St. Chrysostome biddeth us to consider, not that his an∣swer was unadvised,* 1.12 but that it came from a genuine and fervent affection.

And at the Transfiguration,* 1.13 he fell to proposing about making an a∣bode there, not knowing what he said; so brisk was he in imagination and speech.

Upon the good Womans report that our Lord was risen from the dead, he first ran to the Sepulchre,* 1.14 and so (as Saint Paul implieth) did obtain the first sight of our Lord after the Resurrection; such was his zeal and activity upon all occasions.

At the Consultation about supplying the place of Judas, he rose up,* 1.15 proposed, and pressed the matter.

At the Convention of the Apostles and Elders about resolving the de∣bate concerning observance of Mosaical Institutions, he first rose up,* 1.16 and declared his sense.

In the Promulgation of the Gospel, and Defence thereof before the Jewish Rulers, he did assume the conduct, and constantly took upon him to be the Speaker; the rest standing by him, implying assent, and ready to avow his word;* 1.17 Peter (saith Saint Luke) standing with the rest lift up his voice, and said unto them; so did they utter a common voice (saith St. Chrys.) and he was the mouth of all.

That in affection to our Lord, and zeal for his service,* 1.18 Saint Peter had some advantage o∣ver the rest, that Question, Simon Peter, dost thou love me more than these? may seem to im∣ply: (although the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may bear other interpretations, whereby the seeming in∣vidiousness of the Question according to that sense will be removed.) However, that he had a singular zeal for promoting our Lord's service, and propagation of the Gospel, therein outshi∣ning the rest, seemeth manifest in the Hi∣story, and may be inferred from the peculi∣ar regard our Lord apparently did shew to him.

Upon these Premises we may well admit that Saint Peter had a Pri∣macy of Worth; or that in personal accomplishments he was most emi∣nent among the twelve Apostles; (although afterward there did spring up one,* 1.19 who hardly in any of these respects would yield to him; who could confidently say, that he did not come be∣hind the very chief Apostles:* 1.20 and of whom St. Am∣brose saith, * 1.21 Neither was Paul inferiour to Peter— being well to be compar'd even to the first, and second to none: and St. Chrysostome, † 1.22 For what was greater than Peter, and what equal to Paul?) This is the Primacy which Eusebius attributeth to him,* 1.23 when he calleth him, the excellent and great Apostle, who for his virtue was the proloquutor of all the rest.

II. As to a Primacy of Repute; which Saint Paul meaneth, when he speaketh of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.24 those which had a special reputation, of those who seemed to be Pillars, of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supereminent Apostles; this advantage cannot be refused him; being a necessary consequent of those eminent qualities resplendent in him, and of the illustrious performances atchieved by him, beyond the rest.

This may be inferred from that advantageous renown, which he hath had propagated from the beginning to all posterity.

This at least those elogies of the Fathers (styling him the Chief,* 1.25 Prince, Head of the Apostles) do signifie.

This also may be collected from his being so constantly ranked in the first place, before the rest of his Brethren.

III. As to a Primacy of Order, or bare Dignity, importing, that commonly in all meetings and proceedings the other Apostles did yield him the precedence, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or privilege of speaking first (whether in propounding matters for debate, or in delivering his ad∣vice) the conduct and moderation of affairs; that this was stated on him, may be questioned; for that this were a kind of womanish privilege; and that it doth not seem to befit the gravity of such per∣sons, or their condition and circumstances to stand upon ceremo∣nies of respect; for that also our Lord's Rules do seem to exclude all semblance of ambition, all kinds of inequality, and distance be∣tween his Apostles; for that this practice doth not seem constantly and thoroughly to agree to his being endowed with this advantage; especially seeing all that practice which favoureth it, may fairly be assigned to other causes; for that also the Fathers Authority (if that be objected, as a main argument of such a Primacy) in points of this nature, not bordering on essentials of Faith, is of no great strength; they in such cases speaking out of their own ingeny and conjecture; and commonly indulging their imaginations no less freely than other men.

But yet this Primacy may be granted, as probable upon divers ac∣counts of use and convenience; it might be usefull to preserve order, and to promote expedition, or to prevent confusion, distraction and di∣latory obstruction in the management of things; yea to maintain con∣cord, and to exclude that ambition or affectation to be formost, which is natural to men.

For seeing all could not goe, speak, or act first, all could not guide affairs, it was expedient that one should be ready to undertake it, knowing his cue; See (saith St. Chry∣sostome,* 1.26 noting on Act. 2.14. where Saint Peter speaketh for the rest) the concord of the Apostles; they yield unto him the speech, for they could not all speak;* 1.27 and One (saith St. Hierome) is chosen among the twelve, that a head being appointed, an occasion of Schism might be removed.

St. Cyprian hath a reason for it somewhat more subtile and mystical, supposing our Lord did confer on him a preference of this kind to his Brethren (who otherwise in power and authority were equal to him) that he might intimate and recommend unity to us;* 1.28 and the other A∣frican Doctours (Optatus and St. Austin) do commonly harp on the same notion: I can discern little solidity in this conceit,* 1.29 and as little harm.

However, supposing this Primacy (at least in respect to the Fathers, who generally seem to countenance it) divers probable reasons may be assigned, why it should especially be conferred on Saint Peter.* 1.30

1. It is probable, that Saint Peter was first in standing among the A∣postles; I mean not that he was the first Disciple, or first converted to Faith in Christ; but first called to the Apostolical Office; or first nomina∣ted by our Lord, when out of all his Disciples he chose twelve and called them Apostles; Simon whom he called Peter,* 1.31 and Andrew his Brother— He was one of the first Believers at large; he was perhaps the first, that distinctly believed our Lord's Divinity; he was probably the very first Apostle; * 1.32 as the fit∣test Person in our Lord's eye for that employment. He (saith St. Hilary) did first believe, and is the Prince (or first man) of the Apostleship. He (saith St. Cyprian) was the first, whom the Lord chose. He (saith St. Basil) was by judgment preferred before all the Disciples. He by other Ancients is called the first-fruits of the Apostles. And according to this sense St. Hierome (I suppose) doth call him and his Brother Andrew Principes Apostolorum,* 1.33 that is (ac∣cording to frequent usage of the word Princeps in Latin) the first of the Apostles.

So that as in divers Churches (perhaps when time was, in all) an∣ciently priority in ordination did ground a right to precedence, as it is in ours, with some exception; so might Saint Peter upon this account of being first ordained Apostle, obtain such a Primacy.

2. Saint Peter also might be the first in age; which among Persons otherwise equal is a fair ground of preference; for he was a married man; and that before he was called, as is intimated in Saint Luke; and may be inferred from hence,* 1.34 that he would not have married after that he had left all, and devoted himself to follow our Lord. Upon which account of age St. Hierome did suppose that he was preferred before the beloved Disciple;* 1.35 why (saith he) was not Saint John elected, being a Batchelour? it was deferred to age, because Peter was elder, that a youth and almost a boy might not be preferred before men of good age.

* 1.36I know that Epiphanius affirmeth St. Andrew to have been the elder Brother; but it doth not appear whether he saith it from conjecture, or upon any other ground. And his Authority, although we should suppose it bot∣tomed on tradition, is not great; tradition it self in such matters being very slippery; and often one tradition crossing another.

3. The most eminent qualifications of Saint Peter (such as we before described) might procure to him this advantage.

They might breed in him an honest confidence, pushing him forward on all occasions to assume the former place, and thence by custom to possess it;* 1.37 for qui sibi fidit, Dux regit examen— it being in all action, as in walking, where he that naturally is most vigorous and active doth goe before the rest.

They might induce others to a voluntary con∣cession thereof;* 1.38 for to those, who indisputably do excell in good qualities or abilities, honest and meek persons easily will yield precedence, especially on occasions of publick concernment; wherein it is expedient, that the best qualified persons should be first seen.

They probably might also move our Lord himself to settle, or at least to insinuate this order; assigning the first place to him, whom he knew most willing to serve him, and most able to lead on the rest in his service.

It is indeed observable, that upon all occasions our Lord signified a particular respect to him, before the rest of his Collegues; for to him more frequently than to any of them he directed his discourse; unto him, by a kind of anticipation he granted or promised those gifts and privileges,* 1.39 which he meant to confer on them all; Him he did assume as Spectatour and Witness of his glorious Transfiguration; Him he pic∣ked out as Companion and Attendant on him in his grievous Agony; His Feet he first washed;* 1.40 to him he did first discover himself after his Resurrection (as Saint Paul implieth;) and with him then he did en∣tertain most discourse;* 1.41 in especial manner recommending to him the pa∣storal care of his Church; by which manner of proceeding our Lord may seem to have constituted Saint Peter the first in order among the Apostles, or sufficiently to have hinted his mind for their direction, ad∣monishing them by his example to render unto him a special deference.

4. The Fathers commonly do attribute his priority to the merit of his Faith and Confession, wherein he did outstrip his Brethren.* 1.42 He obtained supereminent glory by the con∣fession of his blessed faith, saith St. Hilary. Because he alone of all the rest professeth his love, John 21. therefore he is preferred above all, saith St. Am∣brose.

5. Constantly in all the Catalogues of the Apostles Saint Peter's name is set in the front; and when actions are reported,* 1.43 in which he was con∣cerned jointly with others, he is usually mentioned first; which seemeth not done without carefull design, or special reason.

Upon such grounds it may be reasonable to allow Saint Peter a pri∣macy of order; such an one as the Ring-leader hath in a Dance, as the primipilar Centurion had in the Legion, or the Prince of the Senate had there, in the Roman State; at least, as among Earls, Baronets, &c. and others co-ordinate in degree, yet one hath a precedence of the rest.

IV. As to a Primacy, importing Superiority in power, command or jurisdiction; this by the Roman Party is asserted to Saint Peter, but we have great reason to deny it, upon the following considerations.

1. For such a Power (being of so great importance) it was needfull that a Commission from God, its Founder, should be granted in down-right and perspicuous terms; that no man concerned in duty grounded thereon, might have any doubt of it, or excuse for boggling at it; * 1.44 it was necessary not onely for the Apostles to bind and warrant their Obedience, but also for us, because it is made the sole foundation of a like duty incumbent on us; which we cannot hear∣tily discharge without being assured of our obligation thereto, by clear revelation, or promulgation of God's will in the Holy Scripture; for it was of old a current and ever will be a true Rule, which St. Austin in one case thus expresseth,* 1.45 I do believe that also on this side there would be most clear authori∣ty of the Divine Oracles, if a man could not be igno∣rant of it, without damage of his salvation; and Lac∣tantius thus, Those things can have no foundation,* 1.46 or firmness, which are not sustained by any Oracle of God's word.

But apparently no such Commission is extant in Scripture; the allega∣tions for it being, as we shall hereafter shew, no-wise clear, nor proba∣bly expressive of any such Authority granted by God; but on the con∣trary divers clearer testimonies are producible derogating from it.

2. If so illustrious an Office was instituted by our Saviour, it is strange that no-where in the Evangelical or Apostolical History (wherein di∣vers acts and passages of smaller moment are recorded) there should be any express mention of that Institution; there being not onely much reason for such a report, but many pat occasions for it: The time when Saint Peter was vested with that Authority; the manner and circumstan∣ces of his Installment therein; the nature, rules and limits of such an Office had surely well deserved to have been noted, among other occur∣rences relating to our Faith and Discipline, by the Holy Evangelists;

no one of them, in all probability, could have forborn punctually to re∣late a matter of so great consequence, as the settlement of a Monarch in God's Church, and a Sovereign of the Apostolical College; (from whom so eminent Authority was to be derived to all posterity, for compliance wherewith the whole Church for ever must be accountable;) particu∣larly it is not credible that Saint Luke should quite slip over so notable a passage,* 1.47 who had (as he telleth us) attained a perfect understanding of all things, and had undertaken to write in order the things that were sure∣ly believed among Christians in his time; of which things this if any, was one of the most considerable.

The time of his receiving Institution to such Authority can hardly be assigned. For was it when he was constituted by our Lord an Apostle? Then indeed probably he began to obtain all the primacy and preemi∣nence he ever had;* 1.48 but no such power doth appear then conferred on him, or at any time in our Saviour's life; at least, if it was, it was so covertly and indiscernibly, that both he himself, and all the Apostles must be ignorant thereof, who a little before our Lord's Passion did more than once earnestly contest about Superiority. And it is observable, that whereas our Lord before his Passion did carefully teach and press on the Apostles the chief duties, which they were to observe in their beha∣viour toward each other,* 1.49 The maintenance of peace, of charity, of uni∣ty, of humility toward one another; yet of paying due respect and obe∣dience to this Superiour he said nothing to them.

The collation of that Power could not well be at any time before the celebration of our Lord's Supper, because before that time Saint Peter was scarce an Ecclesiastical Person; at least he was no Priest, as the Con∣vention of Trent under a curse doth require us to believe;* 1.50 for it were strange, that an unconsecrated Person, or one who was not so much as a Priest, should be endowed with so much spiritual Power.

* 1.51After his Resurrection, our Lord did give divers common Instructions, Orders and Commissions to his Apostles, but it doth not appear that he did make any peculiar grant to St. Peter; for as to the pretence of such an one drawn out of the Appendix to Saint John's Gospel, or grounded on the words Pasce oves, we shall afterward declare that to be invalid.

4. If Saint Peter had been instituted Sovereign of the Apostolical Se∣nate, his Office and state had been in nature and kind very distinct from the common Office of the other Apostles; as the Office of a King from the Office of any Subject; as an ordinary, standing, perpetual, succes∣sive Office from one that is onely▪ extraordinary, transitory, temporary, personal and incommunicable; (to speak according to distinctions now in use, and applied to this case) whence probably, as it was expedient to be, it would have been signified by some distinct name, or title, charac∣terizing it, and distinguishing it from others; as that of Arch-apostle, Arch-pastour, High-priest, Sovereign Pontife, Pope, his Holiness, the Vicar of Christ, or the like; whereby it might have appeared that there was such an Officer, what the nature of his Office was, what specialty of respect and obedience was due to him: But no such name or title (upon any occasion) was assumed by him, or was by the rest attributed

to him, or in History is recorded concerning him; the name of an Apo∣stle being all that he took on him, or by others was given to him.

5. There was indeed no Office above that of an Apostle known to the Apostles, or to the primitive Church; this (saith St. Chrysostome) was the greatest authority,* 1.52 and the top of authorities; there was (saith he) none before an Apostle, none superiour, none equal to him; this he asserteth of all the Apostles, this he particularly applieth to Saint Paul; this he demon∣strateth from Saint Paul himself, who purposely enumerating the chief Officers instituted by God in his Church, doth place Apostles in the highest rank; Our Lord * 1.53 (saith Saint Paul) gave some Apo∣stles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastours and Teachers; and God hath set some in † 1.54 his Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, why not first a Pope, an Universal Pastour, an Oecumenical Judge, a Vicar of Christ, a Head of the Catholick Church? Could Saint Paul be so ignorant, could he be so negligent, or so envious, as to pass by, without any distinction, the Supreme Officer, if such an one then had been? As put case, that one should undertake to recite the Officers in any State, or Republick, would he not do strange∣ly if he should pretermit the King, the Duke, the Consul, the Major thereof? would not any one, confiding in the skill, diligence and inte∣grity of such a relatour, be induced from such an omission to believe there was no such Officer there? St. Chrysostome therefore did hence ve∣ry rationally infer, that the Apostolical Office was the Supreme in the Christian state, having no other Superiour to it.

Saint Peter therefore was no more than an Apostle, and as such he could have no command over those, who were in the same highest rank co-ordinate to him; and who as Apostles could not be subject to any.

6. Our Lord himself, at several times, declared against this kind of Primacy, instituting equality among his Apostles, prohibiting them to affect, to seek, to assume or admit a superiority of Power, one above another.

There was (saith Saint Luke, among the twelve,* 1.55 at the participation of the Holy Supper) a strife among them, who of them should be accounted the greatest, or who had the best pretence to Superiority; this strife our Lord presently did check and quash; but how? not by telling them, that he already had decided the case in appointing them a Superiour, but rather by assuring them, that he did intend none such to be; that he would have no Monarchy, no exercise of any Dominion or Authority by one among them over the rest; but that notwith∣standing any advantages one might have before the other, (as * 1.56 greater in gifts,* 1.57 or as preceding in any respect) they should be one as another, all hum∣bly condescending to one another, each being ready to yield help and service to one another; The Kings (said he) of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them; and they that exercise authority over them, are called benefactours, but ye shall not be so; but he▪ that is † 1.58 greater among you let him be as the younger;

and he that is * 1.59 leader, as he that doth minister; that is, whatever privilege any of you obtaineth, let it not be employed in way of command, but rather of compliance and subserviency, as occasion shall re∣quire; let him not pretend to be a Superiour, but rather behave himself as an Inferiour: thus our Lord did smother the debate, by removing from among them, whatever great∣ness any of them did affect or pretend to; forbidding that any of them should,* 1.60 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, exercise any Dominion or Authority o∣ver the rest, as worldly Princes did over their Subjects.

Again upon another occasion (as the circumstances of the place do imply) when two of the Apostles (of special worth and consideration with our Lord,* 1.61 Saint James and Saint John the Sons of Zebedee) did af∣fect a preeminence over the rest, requesting of our Lord, Grant unto us, that we may sit one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand in thy glory (or in thy Kingdom, as Saint Matthew hath it, that is, in that new state, which they conceived our Lord was ready to introduce;) which request doth not seem to import any great matter of Authority; nor pro∣bably did they desire so much, as our Adversaries do give to Saint Pe∣ter; yet our Lord doth not onely reject their sute, but generally decla∣reth, that none of them were capable of such a preferment in his King∣dom; which therein differed from worldly Dominion, because in it there was no room for such an ambition; especially in that state of things, wherein the Apostles were to be placed; which was a state of undergo∣ing Persecutions, not of enjoying Dignity, or exercising Command; all the preferment, which they reasonably could aspire to, being to be dis∣penced in the future state (whereof they were not aware) according to God's preparation, in correspondence to the patience and industry any of them should exert in God's service (upon which ac∣count St. Chrysostome saith,* 1.62 it was a clear case, that Saint Paul should obtain the preference.)

It was indeed (as our Lord intimateth) incongruous for those, who had forsaken all things for Christ, who had embraced a condition of dis∣grace, who were designed by self-denial, humility, neglect of temporal grandeur, wealth and honour; by undergoing persecution, and under∣taking conformity to our Lord (being baptized with the baptism,* 1.63 with which he was baptized) to propa∣gate the Faith of a Crucified Master; to seek, or take on them authoritative dignity; for among them there could not well be any need of comman∣ding or being commanded; it was more fit, that all of them should conspire to help and serve one another, in promoting the common design and service of their Lord, with mutual condescen∣sion, and compliance; which was the best way of recommending them∣selves to his acceptance, and obtaining from him answerable reward. Such was the drift of our Lord's discourse; whereunto (as in the other case) he did annex the prohibition of exercising dominion;* 1.64 Ye know (saith he) that the Princes of nations exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so a∣mong you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be first among you, let him be your servant; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whoever among you hath a mind to special grandeur and preemi∣nence,

let him understand, that there is no other to be attained, beside that which resulteth from the humble performance of charitable Offices to his Brethren: the which whoever shall best discharge, he alone will become greatest and highest in the eye of God.

Again at another time, the Apostles dreaming of a secular Kingdom to be erected by our Lord, disputed among themselves,* 1.65 who should be the greatest; and for satisfaction presumed to enquire of our Lord about it; whenas they surely were very ignorant of Saint Peter's being their head, so there was a fair occasion as could be of our Lord's instructing them in that point, and injoyning their duty towards him; but he did not so, but rather taught him together with the rest not to pretend to any such thing, as preferment above the rest; He sitting down called the twelve and said unto them, If any one desire to be first,* 1.66 the same shall be last of all, and servant of all; how could he (considering the occasion and cir∣cumstances of that speech) in plainer terms establish equality, or discoun∣tenance any claim to superiority among them? Had Saint Peter then advanced such a plea, as they now affirm of right belonging to him, would he not thereby have depressed and debased himself to the lowest degree?

To impress this Rule our Lord then calling a little child, did set him in the midst of them,* 1.67 telling them that except they were converted (from such ambi∣tious pretences) and became like little children (wholly void of such conceits) they could not enter into the Kingdom of heaven, that is, could not in ef∣fect be so much as ordinary good Christians; ad∣joyning, that whosoever should humble himself as did that little child (not affecting, or assuming more than such an innocent did) should be greatest in the Kingdom of heaven, in real worth and in the favour of God transcending the rest; so that Saint Peter claiming Superiority to himself would have forfeited any ti∣tle to eminency among Christians.

Again, as to the power, which is now ascribed to Saint Peter by the Party of his pretended Successours, we may argue from another place; where our Saviour prohibiting his Disciples to resemble the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees in their ambitious desires and practices, their affec∣tations of preeminence, their assuming places and titles importing diffe∣rence of rank and authority, He saith, But be ye not called Rabbi,* 1.68 for there is one Master (one Guide, or Governour) of you, even Christ, but ye are Brethren. How more pregnantly could he have declared the na∣ture of his Constitution, and the relation of Christians one to another established therein, to exclude such differences of Power? whereby one doth in way of domination impose his opinion or his will on others.

Ye are all fellow-scholars, fellow-servants and fellow-children of God; it therefore doth not become you to be any-wise imperious over one another; but all of you humbly and lovingly to conspire in learning and observing the Precepts of your common Lord; the doing which is bac∣ked with a Promise, and a Threat sutable to the purpose; He that ex∣alteth himself shall be abased, and he that will abase himself shall be exal∣ted; the which sentences are to be interpreted according to the intent of the Rules foregoing.

If it be said, that such discourse doth impugn all Ecclesiastical Juris∣diction; I answer, that indeed thereby is removed all such haughty, and harsh Rule, which some have exercised over Christians; that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (arbitrary power,) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (absolute, uncontrollable au∣thority) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (tyrannical prerogative) of which the Fathers complain,* 1.69 that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (domineering over their charges) which Saint Peter forbiddeth. We (saith St. Chrysostome) were designed to teach the word, not to exercise empire or absolute sovereignty; we do bear the rank of advisers exhorting to duty.

A Bishop (saith St. Hierome) differeth from a King,* 1.70 in that a Bishop presideth over those that are willing, the King against their will; (that is, the Bishop's governance should be so gentle and easie, that men hardly can be unwilling to comply with it;* 1.71 but should obey, as Saint Peter exhorteth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not by constraint, but of their own accord) and,* 1.72 Let (saith he) the Bishops be content with their honour; let them know them∣selves to be Fathers, not Lords; they should be lo∣ved, not feared.

* 1.73And Thou (saith St. Bernard to Pope Eugeni∣us) dost superintend, the name of Bishop signifying to thee not dominion, but duty.

At least those precepts of our Lord do exclude that Power, which is ascribed to Saint Peter over the Apostles themselves, the which indeed is greater, than in likelihood any Pharisee did ever affect; yea in many respects doth exceed any domination which hath been claimed or usur∣ped by the most absolute Monarch upon earth; for the Power of St. Pe∣ter, in their opinion was the same, which now the Roman Bishop doth challenge to himself over the Pastours and People of God's Church, by virtue of succession to him; (Saint Peter's Power being the base of the Papal, and therefore not narrower than its superstructure;) but what domination comparable to that hath ever been used in the world?

What Emperour did ever pretend to a rule so wide in extent (in re∣gard either to persons, or matters) or so absolute in effect?

Who ever, beside his Holiness, did usurp a command not onely over the external actions, but the most inward cogitations of all mankind; subjecting the very Minds and Consciences of Men to his dictates, his laws, his censures?

Who ever thundred Curses and Damnations on all those, who should presume to dissent from his Opinion, or to contest his pleasure?

Who ever claimed more absolute Power, in making, abolishing, su∣spending Laws, or imposing upon men what he pleased, under obliga∣tion of Conscience, and upon extremest penalties?

What Prince ever used a style more imperious, than is that which is usual in the Papal Bulls; Let it be lawfull for no man whatever to infringe this expression of our will and command,* 1.74 or to goe against it with bold rash∣ness?

What Domitian more commonly did admit the appellation of Lord, than doth the Pope? Our most Holy Lord, is the or∣dinary style,* 1.75 attributed to him by the Fathers of Trent, as if they were his slaves, and intended to enslave all Christendom to him.

Who ever did exempt his Clients and Dependents in all Nations from subjection to Civil Laws, from undergoing common burthens and taxes, from being judged or punished for their misdemeanours and crimes?

Who ever claimed a power to dispose of all things one way or other, either directly or indirectly; to dispose even of Kingdoms, to judge So∣vereign Princes, and to condemn them, to depose them from their autho∣rity, absolving their Subjects from all allegiance to them, and exposing their Kingdoms to rapine?

To whom but a Pope were ever ascribed prerogatives like those of judging all men, and himself being liable to no judgment, no account, no reproof or blame;* 1.76 so that (as a Papal Canon assureth us) let a Pope be so bad, as by his negligence and male-administration to carry with him innu∣merable people to Hell, yet no mortal man whatever must presume here to reprove his faults; because he being to judge all men is himself to be judged of no man, except he be catcht swerving from the Faith; which is a case they will hardly suffer a man to suppose possible.

To whom but to a Pope was such Power attributed by his followers, and admitted by himself, that he could hear those words applying to him,* 1.77 All Power is given to thee in Heaven and in Earth?

Such Power the Popes are wont to challenge, and when occasion ser∣veth do not fail to execute; as Successours of St. Pe∣ter;* 1.78 to whom therefore consequently they ascribe it; and sometimes in express terms; as in that brave apostrophe of P. Gregory VII. (the Spirit of which Pope hath possessed his Successours generally) Goe to therefore (said he directing his Speech to Saint Pe∣ter and Saint Paul) most Holy Princes of the Apo∣stles, and what I have said confirm by your Authority,* 1.79 that now at length all men may understand, whether ye can bind and loose; that also ye can take away and give on Earth Empires, Kingdoms, and whatever mortal men can have.

Now if the assuming and exercising such Powers be not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that exalting ones self, that being called Rab∣bi, Father, Master, which our Lord prohibiteth, what is so? what then can those words signify? what could our Lord mean?

The Authority therefore which they assign to Saint Peter, and assume to themselves from him, is voided by those Declarations and Precepts of our Lord; the which it can hardly be well conceived that our Lord would have proposed, if he had designed to constitute Saint Peter in such a Supremacy over his Disciples and Church.

7. Surveying particulars, we shall not find any peculiar administra∣tion committed to Saint Peter, nor any privilege conferred on him, which was not also granted to the other Apostles.

Was Saint Peter an Ambassadour, a Steward, a Minister, a Vicar (if you please) or Surrogate of Christ; so were they, by no less im∣mediate and express warrant than he; for As the Father sent me, so also I send you, said our Lord presently before his departure; by those

words (as St. Cyprian remarketh) granting an equal Power to all the Apostles;* 1.80 and We (saith Saint Paul) are Ambassadours for Christ; we pray you in Christ's stead be reconciled to God; and, So let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God.

* 1.81Was Saint Peter a Rock, on which the Church was to be founded? Be it so; but no less were they all; for the Wall of Jerusalem, which came down from Heaven, had twelve foundations, on which were inscribed the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb;* 1.82 and We (saith Saint Paul) are all built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Christ him∣self being the chief Corner stone; whence Equally (saith St. Hierome) the strength of the Church is set∣led upon them.* 1.83

* 1.84Was Saint Peter an Architect of the Spiritual house (as himself calleth the Church?) so were also they; for I (saith Saint Paul) as a wise Master-builder have laid the Foundation.

* 1.85Were the Keys of the Church (or of the Kingdom of Heaven) commit∣ted to him? So also were they unto them; They had a Power to open and shut it by effectual instruction and persuasion, by dispensation of the Sacraments, by exercise of Discipline, by exclusion of scandalous and heretical Persons; Whatever faculty the Keys did import, the Apostles did use it in the foundation, guidance and government of the Church; and did (as the Fathers teach) impart it to those, whom they did in their stead constitute to feed and govern the Church.

Had Saint Peter a Power given him of binding and loosing effectual∣ly? So had they, immediately granted by our Saviour, in as full man∣ner,* 1.86 and couched in the same terms; If thou shalt bind on Earth, it shall be bound in Heaven, said our Lord to him; and Whatsoever things ye shall bind on Earth,* 1.87 they shall be bound in Heaven, said the same Divine mouth to them.

Had he a privilege to remit and retain sins? it was then by virtue of that common grant or promise;* 1.88 Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Had he power and obligation to feed the Sheep of Christ (all or some?) so had they indefinitely and immediately: so had others by Authority de∣rived from them;* 1.89 who were nominated Pastours; who had this charge laid on them: Take heed unto your selves, and to all the Flock; over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Bloud; whom he doth himself ex∣hort,* 1.90 Feed the Flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof; Let feeding signify what it can, instruction, or guidance, or governance, or all of them together (Regio more impera, if you please, as Bellarmine will have it) it did appertain to their charge; to teach was a common duty, to lead and to rule were common functions; Saint Pe∣ter could not, nor would not appropriate it to himself; it is his own ex∣hortation,* 1.91 when he taketh most upon him, Be mindfull of the command∣ment (or precept) of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.

Was his commission universal, or unlimited? so was theirs, by the same immediate Authority; for All Power (said he to them, when he gave his last charge) is given to me in Heaven and in Earth,* 1.92 Goe there∣fore and teach all Nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you, and Goe ye into all the world,* 1.93 and preach the Gospel to every Creature.

They (as St. Chrysostome speaketh) were all in common intrusted with the whole world,* 1.94 and had the care of all Nations.

Was he furnished with extraordinary gifts, with special graces, with continual directions and assistences for the discharge of the Apostolical Office? so were they;* 1.95 for the promise was common of sending the Ho∣ly Spirit, to lead them into all truth, and cloathing them with the power from on high; and of endowing them with Power to perform all sorts of miraculous works; Our Lord before his departure breathed into them, and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost; All of them (saith Saint Luke) were filled with the Holy Ghost; all of them with confidence and truth could say, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;* 1.96 all of them did abundantly partake of that character, which Saint Paul respected, when he did say,* 1.97 The Signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.

Did Saint Peter represent the Church as recei∣ving privileges in its behalf; as the Fathers affirm? so did they according to the same Fathers;* 1.98 If there∣fore (saith St. Austin, citing the famous place, sicut me misit Pater) they did bear the Person of the Church,* 1.99 and this was said to them as if it were said to the Church it self, then the peace of the Church re∣mitteth Sins.

What singular prerogative then can be imagined appertaining to Saint Peter? what substantial advantage could he pretend to beyond the other Apostles? Nothing surely doth appear; whatever the Pa∣trons of his Supremacy do claim for him, is precariously assumed, with∣out any fair colour of proof; he for it is beholding not to any testimony of Holy Scripture, but to the invention of Roman fancy: We may well infer with Cardinal Cusanus;* 1.100 We know that Peter did not receive more Power from Christ than the other Apostles; for nothing was said to Peter, which was not also said to the others; There∣fore (addeth he) we rightly say, that all the Apostles were equal to Peter in Power.

8. Whereas Saint Peter himself did write two Catholick Epistles; there doth not in them appear any intimation, any air or savour of pretence to this Arch-apostolical Power. It is natural for Persons endowed with unquestionable Authority (howsoever otherwise prudent and modest) to discover a spice thereof in the matter, or in the style of their writing; their Mind conscious of such advantage will suggest an authoritative way of expression; especially when they earnestly exhort, or seriously re∣prove, in which cases their very Authority is a considerable motive to assent or compliance, and strongly doth impress any other arguments; But no Critick perusing those Epistles would smell a Pope in them. The

Speech of Saint Peter, although pressing his Doctrine with considerations of this nature, hath no tang of such Authority.

* 1.101The Elders (saith he) which are among you, I exhort, who also am an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed; by such excellent, but common advantages of his Person and Office he presseth on the Clergy his advices.

Had he been what they make him, he might have said, I the peculiar Vicar of Christ, and Sovereign of the Apostles do not onely exhort, but require this of you; this language had been very proper, and no less for∣cible; but nothing like this, nothing of the Spirit and Majesty of a Pope is seen in his discourse; there is no pagina nostrae voluntatis & mandati, which now is the Papal style; when He speaketh highest, it is in the com∣mon name of the Apostles,* 1.102 Be mindfull (saith he) of the command (that is of the Doctrine, and Precepts) of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.

9. In the Apostolical History, the proper place of exercising this power (wherein, as St. Chrysostome saith,* 1.103 we may see the predictions of Christ, which he uttered in the Gospels, reduced to act, and the truth of them shining in the things themselves) no footstep thereof doth appear.

We cannot there discern, that Saint Peter did assume any extraordina∣ry authority, or that any deference by his Brethren was rendred to him as to their Governour or Judge. No instance there doth occur of his laying commands on any one Apostle, or exercising any act of jurisdic∣tion upon any one; but rather to the contrary divers passages are obser∣vable, which argue, that he pretended to no such thing, and that others did not understand any such thing belonging to him.

His temper indeed and zeal commonly did prompt him to be most forward in speaking and acting upon any emergency for the propagation or maintenance of the Gospel;* 1.104 and the memory of the particular charge which our Lord departing had late∣ly put on him, strongly might instigate him there∣to; regard to his special gifts and sufficiency did in∣cline the rest willingly to yield that advantage to him; and perhaps because upon the considerations before touched, they did allow some preference in order to him:* 1.105 but in other respects, as to the main administration of things, he is but one among the rest; not taking upon him in his speech or behaviour beyond others. All things are transacted by common agree∣ment, and in the name of all concurring; no appeal in cases of difference is made singly to him, no peremptory decision or decree is made by him; no orders are issued out by him alone, or in a special way; in Ec∣clesiastical Assemblies he acteth but as one member; in deliberations he doth onely propound his opinion and passeth a single vote; his judgment and practice are sometime questioned, and he is put to render an account of them; he doth not stand upon his Authority, but assigneth reasons to persuade his opinion, and justify his actions; yea sometimes he is mo∣ved by the rest,* 1.106 receiving orders and employment from them; these things we may discern by considering the instances which follow.

In the designation of a new Apostle, to supply the place of Judas,* 1.107 he did indeed suggest the matter and lay the case before them, he first de∣clared his sense; but the whole company did chuse two, and referred the determination of one to lot, or to God's arbitration.

At the institution of Deacons,* 1.108 the twelve did call the multitude of dis∣ciples, and directed them to elect the persons; and the proposal being ac∣ceptable to them, it was done accordingly; they chose Stephen,* 1.109 &c. whom they set before the Apo∣stles, and when they had prayed, they layd their hands on them.

In that important transaction about the observance of Mosaical Insti∣tutions, a great stir and debate being started;* 1.110 which Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas by disputation could not appease, what course was then taken? did they appeal to Saint Peter as to the Supreme Dictatour and Judge of Controversies? not so; but they sent to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem to enquire about the question: when those great messengers were arrived there, they were received by the Church, and the Apostles,* 1.111 and Elders; and having made their report, the Apostles and Elders did assemble to consider about that matter.* 1.112 In this assembly after much de∣bate passed, and that many had freely uttered their sense, Saint Peter rose up, with Apostolical gravity declaring what his reason and experi∣ence did suggest conducing to a resolution of the point; whereto his words might indeed be much available, grounded not onely upon com∣mon reason, but upon special revelation concerning the case; whereup∣on Saint James,* 1.113 alledging that revelation and backing it with reason drawn from Scripture, with much authority pronounceth his judg∣ment; Therefore, saith he, I judge, (that is, saith St. Chrysostome,* 1.114 I authoritatively say) that we trouble not them, who from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them, &c. And the result was, that according to the proposal of Saint James, it was by ge∣neral consent determined to send a decretal Letter unto the Gentile Christians, containing a Canon or advice directive of their practice in the case;* 1.115 It then seemed good to (or was decreed by) the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send— and the Letter ran thus, The Apostles and Elders, and Brethren to the Bre∣thren of the Gentiles— Now in all this action, (in this leading prece∣dent for the management of things in Ecclesiastical Synods and consisto∣ries, where can the sharpest sight descry any mark of distinction or pree∣minence which Saint Peter had in respect to the other Apostles; did Saint Peter there any-wise behave himself like his pretended Successours upon such occasions? what authority did he claim or use before that As∣sembly, or in it, or after it; did he summon or convocate it? no,* 1.116 they met upon common agree∣ment: did he preside therein? no, but rather Saint James, to whom, (saith Saint Chrysostome) as Bishop of Jerusalem the government was committed: did he offer to curb or check any man, or to restrain him from his liberty of discourse there? no, there was much disputation, every man frankly speaking his sense: did he more than use his freedom of speech

becoming an Apostle, in arguing the case and passing his vote? no, for in so exact a relation nothing more doth appear: did he form the defi∣nitions, or pronounce the Decree resulting? no, Saint James rather did that; for (as an ancient Authour saith) Peter did make an Oration,* 1.117 but Saint James did enact the Law: was, beside his suffrage in the debate, any singular approbation required from him, or did he by any Bull confirm the De∣crees? no such matter; these were devices of ambition creeping on and growing up to the pitch where they now are. In short, doth any thing correspondent to Papal pretences appear assumed by Saint Peter, or de∣ferred to him? If Saint Peter was such a man as they make him, how wanting then was he to himself, how did he neglect the right and digni∣ty of his Office, in not taking more upon him, upon so illustrious an oc∣casion, the greatest he did ever meet with? How defective also were the Apostolical College, and the whole Church of Jerusalem in point of duty and decency, yielding no more deference to their Sovereign, the Vicar of their Lord? Whatever account may be framed of these defai∣lances, the truth is, that Saint Peter then did know his own place and duty better, than men do know them now; and the rest as well under∣stood how it became them to demean themselves; St. Chrysostome's re∣flexions on those passages are very good, that in∣deed then there was no fastuousness in the Church,* 1.118 and the souls of those primitive Christians were clear of Vanity; the which dispositions did afterward spring up and grow rankly to the great prejudice of Religion, begetting those exorbitant pretences, which we now disprove.

Again, when Saint Peter being warned from Heaven thereto, did re∣ceive Cornelius, a Gentile Souldier, unto Communion; divers good Christians, who were ignorant of the warrantableness of that proceeding (as others commonly were,* 1.119 and Saint Peter himself was, before he was informed by that special revelation) did not fear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to contest with him about it; not having any notion (as it seemeth) of his Supreme unaccountable Authority (not to say of that infallibility,* 1.120 with which the Canonists and Jesuits have invested him) unto whom Saint Peter rendreth a fair account, and maketh a satisfactory Apology for his proceedings; not brow-beating those audacious contenders with his Authority, but gently satisfying them with reason. But if he had known his Power to be such, as now they pretend it to be, he should have done well to have asserted it, even out of good∣will and Charity to those good Brethren;* 1.121 correcting their errour and checking their misdemeanour; shewing them what an enormous pre∣sumption it was so to contend with their Sovereign Pastour and Judge.

Farther, so far was Saint Peter from assuming Command over his Brethren, that he was upon occasion ready to obey their Orders; as we may see by that passage, where upon the conversion of divers persons in Samaria,* 1.122 it is said, that the Apostles hearing it, did send to them Peter and John, who going down prayed for them, that they might receive the

Holy Ghost. The Apostles sent him, that, had he been their Sovereign, would have been somewhat unseemly and presumptuous; for Subjects are not wont to send their Prince, or Souldiers their Captain; to be sent being a mark of inferiority, as our Lord himself did teach; A servant (said he) is not greater than his Lord,* 1.123 nor he that is sent greater than he that sent him. Saint Luke therefore should at least have so expressed this passage, that the Apostles might have seemed to keep their distance, and observed good manners: if he had said, they beseeched him to go, that had sounded well; but they sent him, is harsh, if he were Dominus noster Papa, as the modern Apostles of Rome do style their Peter. The truth is, then among Christians there was little standing upon punctilio's, pri∣vate considerations and pretences to power then took small place; each one was ready to comply with that which the most did approve, the community did take upon it to prescribe unto the greatest persons, as we see again in another instance,* 1.124 where the Brethren at Antioch did ap∣point Paul and Barnabas (the most considerable persons among them) to go up unto Jerusalem. They were then so generous, so mercifull, so full of charity, as rather than to cause or foment any disturbance, to recede, or go whither the multitude pleased, and doe what was commanded by it.

10. In all relations, which occur in Scripture, about Controversies in∣cident of Doctrine or Practice, there is no appeal made to Saint Peter's Judgment, or allegation of it as Decisive, no Argument is built on his Authority: dissent from his Opinion, or disconformity to his Practice, or disobedience to his Orders are not mentioned as ground of reproof, as aggravation of any errour, any misdemeanour, any disorder; which were very strange, if then he was admitted or known to be the Univer∣sal Prince and Pastour of Christians, or the Supreme Judge and Arbi∣tratour of Controversies among them: for then surely the most clear, compendious and effectual way to confute any errour, or check any disorder, had been to alledge the Authority of Saint Peter against it; who then could have withstood so mighty a prejudice against his cause? If now a question doth arise about any Point of Doctrine, instantly the Parties (at least one of them, which hopeth to find most favour) hath recourse to the Pope to define it; and his Judgment, with those who ad∣mit his pretences, proveth sufficiently decisive, or at least greatly sway∣eth in prejudice to the opposite Party. If any Heresie, or any Opinion disagreeing from the current sentiments is broached, the Pope presently doth roar, that his voice is heard through Christendom, and thundreth it down; if any Schism or disorder springeth up, you may be sure that Rome will instantly meddle to quash it, or to settle matters as best stan∣deth with its Principles and Interests; such influence hath the shadow of Saint Peter's Authority now; but no such regard was then had to poor Pope Peter himself; he was not so busie and stirring in such cases: the Apostles did not send Hereticks to be knocked down by his Sentence, nor Schismaticks to be scourged by his Censure, but were fain to use the long way of Disputation, striving to convince them by Testimonies of Scripture and rational discourse. If they did use authority,* 1.125 it was their

own; which they challenge as given to them by Christ for edification, or upon account of the more than ordinary gifts and graces of the Divine Spirit,* 1.126 conferred on them by God.

Saint Peter no-where doth appear intermedling as a Judge or Gover∣nour paramount in such cases; yea where he doth himself deal with He∣reticks, and disorderly persons, confuting and reproving them (as he dealeth with divers notoriously such) he proceedeth▪ not as a Pope de∣creeing, but as an Apostle warning, arguing and persuading against them.

It is particularly remarkable how Saint Paul reproving the factions, which were among Christians at Corinth, doth represent the several par∣ties saying,* 1.127 I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ: Now supposing the case then had been clear and certain (and if it were not so then, how can it be so now?) that Saint Peter was Sovereign of the Apostles, is it not wonderfull, that any Christian should prefer any Apostle, or any Preacher before him? as if it were now clear and ge∣nerally acknowledged that the Pope is truly what he pretendeth to be, would any body stand in competition with him, would any glory in a relation to any other Minister before him?

It is observable how Saint Clemens reflecteth on this contention; Ye were (saith he) less culpable for that partiality;* 1.128 for ye did then incline to renowned Apostles, and to a man approved by them; but now, &c.

If it be replyed, that Christ himself did come into the comparison; I answer, that probably no man was so vain, as to compare him with the rest, nor indeed could any there pretend to have been baptized by him (which was the ground of the emulation in respect of the others) but those who said they were of Christ, were the wise and peaceable sort, who by saying so declined and disavowed faction; whose behavi∣our Saint Paul himself in his discourse commendeth and confirmeth, shewing that all indeed were of Christ, the Apostles being onely his Ministers to work faith and vertue in them.* 1.129 * 1.130 None (saith Saint Austin) of those conten∣tious persons were good, except those who said, but I am of Christ.

We may also here observe, that Saint Paul in reflecting upon these contentions had a fair occasion of intimating somewhat concerning Saint Peter's Supremacy, and aggravating their blameable fondness, who compared others with him.

12. The consideration of the Apostles proceeding in the conversion of people, in the foundation of Churches, and in administration of their spiritual affairs, will exclude any probability of Saint Peter's Jurisdiction over them.

They went about their business not by Order or Licence from St. Pe∣ter, but according to special instinct and direction of God's Spirit (being sent forth by the Holy Ghost;* 1.131 going by revelation) or according to their ordinary prudence, and the habitual wisedom given unto them; by those aids, (without troubling St. Peter or them∣selves more) they founded Societies,* 1.132 they ordained

Pastours,* 1.133 they framed Rules and Orders requisite for the edification and good Government of Churches, reserving to themselves a kind of para∣mount inspection and jurisdiction over them; which in effect was onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a paternal care over them;* 1.134 which they particularly claimed to themselves upon account of spiritual parentage, for that they had begotten them to Christ: If (saith St. Paul to the Corinthians) I am not an Apostle to others, I am however so to you? why so? because he had converted them, and could say, As my beloved sons I warn you,* 1.135 for though ye have ten thousand instructours in Christ, yet ye have not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. This paternal charge they did exercise without any dependence, or regard to Saint Pe∣ter, none such appearing, it not being mentioned that they did ever consult his pleasure, or render him an account of their proceedings; but it rather being implyed in the reports of their actions, that they procee∣ded absolutely, by virtue of their universal Office and Commission of our Lord.

If it he alledged that Saint Paul went to Jerusalem to Saint Peter;* 1.136 I answer that it was to visit him out of respect and love;* 1.137 or to confer with him for mutual edification and comfort; or at most to obtain ap∣probation from him and the other Apostles, which might satisfy some doubters, but not to receive his commands or authoritative instructions from him; it being, as we shall afterwards see, the design of Saint Paul's discourse to disavow any such dependence on any man whatever. So doth St. Chrysostome note; What (saith he) can be more humble than this Soul?* 1.138 after so many and so great exploits, having no need at all of Peter, or of his discourse, but being in dignity equal to him (for I will now say no more) he yet doth go up to him▪ as to one greater and ancienter; and a sight alone of Peter is the cause of his journey thither.— And He went (saith he again) not to learn any thing of him, nor to receive any correction from him, but for this onely, that he might see him, and honour him with his presence.

And indeed that there was no such deference of the Apostles to St. Pe∣ter, we may hence reasonably presume, because it would then have been not onely impertinent and needless, but inconvenient and troublesome. For,

13. If we consider the nature of the Apostolical Office, the state of things at that time, and the manner of Saint Peter's Life; in correspon∣dence to those things, he will appear uncapable, or unfit to manage such a jurisdiction over the Apostles as they assign him.

The nature of the Apostolical Ministery was such, that the Apostles were not fixed in one place of residence, but were continually moving about the World, or in procinctu,* 1.139 ready in their gears to move whither Divine suggestions did call them, or fair occasion did invite them, for the propagation or furtherance of the Gospel.

* 1.140The state of things was not favourable to the Apostles, who were dis∣countenanced and disgraced, persecuted, and driven from one place to another; (as our Lord foretold of them.) Christians lay scattered about at distant places, so that opportunities of dispatch for conveyance of in∣structions from him, or of accounts to him were not easily found.

Saint Thomas preaching in Parthia, Saint Andrew in Scythia,* 1.141 Saint John in Asia, Simon Zelotes in Bri∣tain, * 1.142 Saint Paul in many places; other Apostles and Apostolical men in Arabia, in Aethiopia, in In∣dia, in Spain, in Gaul, in Germany, in the whole world, and in all the Creation under Heaven (as Saint Paul speaketh) could not well maintain cor∣respondence with Saint Peter; especially considering the manner of his Life, which was not setled in any one known place, but moveable and uncertain; for he continually roved over the wide World, preaching the Gospel, converting, confirming and comforting Christian people, as occasion starting up did induce; how then could he conveniently dispense all about his ruling and judging influence? how in cases incident could direction be fetched from him, or reference be made to him by those subordinate Governours, who could not easily know where to come at him, or whence to hear from him in any compe∣tent time? To send to him had been to shoot at rovers; affairs there∣fore which should depend on his resolution and orders, must have had great stops; he could but very lamely have executed such an office; so that his jurisdiction must have been rather an extreme inconvenience and encombrance, than any-wise beneficial or usefull to the Church.

Gold and Silver he had none, or a very small Purse to maintain Depen∣dents and Officers to help him; (Nuncio's, Legates à latere, Secretaries, Auditours, &c.) Infinity of affairs would have oppressed a poor help∣less man; and to bear such a burthen as they lay on him no one could be sufficient.

14. It was indeed most requisite, that every Apostle should have a complete, absolute, independent Authority in managing the concerns and duties of his Office; that he might not any-wise be obstructed in the discharge of them; not clogged with a need to consult others, not hampered with orders from those who were at distance and could not well descry what was fit in every place to be done.

* 1.143The direction of him who had promised to be perpetually present with them, and by his Holy Spirit to guide, to instruct, to admonish them upon all occasions, was abundantly sufficient; they did not want any o∣ther conduct or aid beside that special Light and powerfull influence of Grace, which they received from him; the which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did (as Saint Paul speaketh) render them sufficient Ministers of the New Te∣stament.* 1.144

Accordingly their discourse and practice do throughly savour of such an independence; nor in them is there any appea∣rance of that being true,* 1.145 which Bellarmine dictateth, that the Apostles depended on Saint Peter, as on their head and commander.

15. Particularly the discourse and behaviour of Saint Paul towards Saint Peter doth evidence, that he did not acknowledge any dependence on him, any subjection to him.

Saint Paul doth often purposely assert to himself an independent and absolute power, inferiour or subordinate to none other, insisting thereon for the enforcement or necessary defence of his Doctrine and Practice; (I have become a fool in glorying, ye have compelled me, saith he) alledg∣ing divers pregnant arguments to prove and confirm it,* 1.146 drawn from the manner of his call, the characters and warrants of his Office, the tenour of his proceedings in the discharge of it, the success of his endeavours, the approbation and demeanour toward him of other Apostles.

As for his call and commission to the Apostolical Office, he maintain∣eth (as if he meant designedly to exclude those pretences, that other A∣postles were onely called in partem solicitudinis with Saint Peter) that he was an Apostle not from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ,* 1.147 and God the Father; that is, that he derived not his Office immediately or me∣diately from men, or by the ministery of any man; but immediately had received the grant and charge thereof from our Lord; as indeed the History plainly sheweth, in which our Lord telleth him, that he did Constitute him an Officer, and a chosen instrument to him, to bear his name to the Gentiles.* 1.148

Hence he so often is carefull and cautious to ex∣press himself an Apostle by the will and special grace, or favour and appointment,* 1.149 and command of God; and particularly telleth the Romans, that by Christ he had received grace, grace and Apostleship.

For the warrant of his Office, he doth not alledge the allowance of Saint Peter, or any other, but those special gifts and graces which were conspicuous in him, and exerted in miraculous performances; Truly,* 1.150 saith he, the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds; and I will not dare to speak of any of those things, which Christ hath not wrought by me to make the Gentiles obe∣dient by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.

To the same purpose he alledgeth his successfull industry in conver∣ting men to the Gospel; Am I not an Apostle?* 1.151 (saith he) are ye not my work in the Lord? If I am not an Apostle to others, I am surely one to you; for the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord. And,* 1.152 By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace which was on me became not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all.

In the discharge of his Office, he immediately (after that he had re∣ceived his call and charge from our Saviour) without consulting or ta∣king licence from any man, did vigorously apply himself to the work, Immediately, saith he, I conferred not with flesh and bloud,* 1.153 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them, that before me were Apostles; so little did he take himself to be accountable to any man.

In settling order and correcting irregularities in the Church he profes∣sed to act merely by his own Authority, conferred on him by our Lord; Therefore (saith he) being absent I write these things,* 1.154 that being present I may not use severity, according to the authority which the Lord hath gi∣ven me for edification, not for destruction.

Such being the privileges, which he did assert to himself with all confi∣dence, he did not receive for it any check from other Apostles, but the chief of them, knowing the grace that was given unto him,* 1.155 gave unto him the right hand of fellowship; in token of their acknowledgment and al∣lowance of his proceedings.

Upon these considerations (plainly signifying his absolute indepen∣dence in the reception and execution of his Office,) he doth more than once affirm (and in a manner boast) himself to be inferiour in nothing to the very chief Apostles;* 1.156 in nothing, that is in nothing pertinent to the Au∣thority, or substantial Dignity of his place; for as to his personal merit he professeth himself much less than the least of the Apostles, but as to the authentickness and authority of his Office he deemed himself equal to the greatest;* 1.157 being by the grace of God what he was; a Minister of the Gospel, according to the gift of the grace of God, which was given him ac∣cording to the effectual working of his power.

When he said he was behind none, he could not forget Saint Peter; when he said none of the chief,* 1.158 he could not but especially mean him (he did indeed, as St. Chrysostome saith, intend to compare himself with St. Pe∣ter;) when he said in nothing, he could not but design that which was most considerable, the Authority of his place; which in the context he did expresly mention. For when he objected to himself the semblance of fondness or arrogance in speaking after that manner, he declared that he did not speak rashly or vainly, but upon serious consideration, and with full assurance, finding it very needfull or usefull to maintain his Au∣thority,* 1.159 or to magnify his Office, as he otherwhere speaketh.

If things had been, as now we are taught from the Roman School, it is strange, that Saint Paul should compare himself so generally, not ex∣cepting Saint Peter; that he should express (nor by the least touch in∣timate) no special consideration for his,* 1.160 as they tell us, ordinary Pastour; that he should not consider how lyable such words were to be interpre∣ted in derogation to Saint Peter's due prerogatives.

But it is no wonder, that Saint Paul in Saint Peter's absence should thus stand on his own legs, not seeming to mind him, whenas in im∣mediate transactions with him he demeaned himself as his fellow, yiel∣ding to him no respect or deference as to his Superiour. For,

When Saint Paul went to Jerusalem to have conference with Saint Pe∣ter and other Apostles, who were chief in repute, he professeth, that they did not confer any thing to him,* 1.161 so as to change his opinion, or di∣vert him from his ordinary course of practice, which was different from theirs; this was, (it seemeth) hardly proper or seemly for him to say, if Saint Peter had been his Sovereign; but he seemeth to say it on very purpose, to exclude any prejudice that might arise to his Doctrine from their authority or repute; their authority being none over him, their repute being impertinent to the case;* 1.162 for whatsoever (addeth he) they were, it maketh no matter to me, God respecteth no man's person; the which might well be said of Persons greater in common esteem, but not so well of one who was his Superiour in Office; to whose opinion and conduct, as of his Judge and Pastour by God's appointment, he did owe a special regard.

* 1.163Again, St. Paul at Antioch, observing St. Peter out of fear and policy to act otherwise than became the simplicity and sincerity of Christians, to the pre∣judice of Evangelical Truth, Charity and Liberty, a∣gainst his own judgment and former practice,* 1.164 draw∣ing others by his pattern into the same unwarranta∣ble course of behaviour,* 1.165 did withstand him to the face, did openly reprove him before all, because he was blamea∣ble, did as P. Gelasius I. affirmeth (to excuse another Pope misbehaving himself) worthily confute him;

did (as St. Augustine often doth affirm and urge; in proof that greatest Persons may sometimes err and ••ail,) correct him, rebuke him, chide him.* 1.166

Which behaviour of Saint Paul doth not well consist with the Suppo∣sition, That Saint Peter was his superiour in Office; if that had been, Porphyrius with good colour of reason might have objected procacity to Saint Paul in taxing his betters;* 1.167 for he then indeed had shewed us no commendable pattern of demeanour toward our Governours, in so bold∣ly opposing Saint Peter, in so openly censuring him, in so smartly con∣futing him,

More unseemly also it had been to report the business as he doth in writing to the Galatians; for to divulge the miscarriages of Superiours, to revive the memory of them, to register them, and transmit them down to all posterity, to set forth our clashing and contests with them, is hardly allowable; if it may consist with justice and honesty, it doth yet little favour of gravity and modesty: It would have been more seemly for Saint Paul to have privately and humbly remonstrated to Saint Peter, than openly and downrightly to have reprehended him; at least it would have become him in cold bloud to have represented his carriage more respectfully, consulting the honour of the Universal Pa∣stour, whose reputation was like to suffer by such a representation of his proceedings. Pope Pelagius II. would have taught Saint Paul better manners; who saith,* 1.168 that they are not to be approved, but reprobated, who do reprove or accuse their Prelates; and Pope Gregory would have taught him another lesson, namely,* 1.169 that the evils of their Superiours do so displease good Subjects, that however they do conceal them from others; and Sub∣jects are to be admonished, that they do not rashly judge the life of their Superiours, if perhaps they see them doe blameably, &c.

It is plain, that Saint Paul was more bold with Saint Peter, than any man now must be with the Pope; for let the Pope commit never so great crimes,* 1.170 yet no mortal (saith the Canon Law) presume to reprove his faults.

But if Saint Peter were not in Office superiour to Saint Paul, but his Collegue, and equal in Authority, although precedeing him in standing, repute and other advantages; then Saint Paul's free proceeding toward him was not onely warrantable, but wholesome, and deserving for edifi∣cation to be recited and recorded; as implying an example how Col∣legues upon occasion should with freedom and sincerity admonish their Brethren of their errours and faults; Saint Peter's carriage in patiently bearing that correption also affording another good pattern of equanimity in such cases; to which pur∣pose * 1.171 S. Cypr. (alledged and approved by † 1.172 S. Austin)

doth apply this passage; for (saith he) neither Peter whom the Lord first chose, and upon whom he built his Church, when Paul afterward contested with him about circumcision, did insolently challenge, or ar∣rogantly assume any thing to himself, so as to say that he did hold the pri∣macy, and that rather those who were newer and later Apostles ought to obey him, neither despised he Saint Paul, because he was before a perse∣cutour of the Church; but he admitted the counsel of truth, and easily con∣sented to the lawfull course, which Saint Paul did maintain; yielding in∣deed to us a document both of concord and patience, that we should not per∣tinaciously love our own things, but should rather take those things for ours which sometimes are profitably and wholesomely suggested by our Brethren and Collegues, if they are true and lawfull; this St. Cyprian speaketh, up∣on supposition that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were equals, or (as he calleth them) Collegues and Brethren, in rank co-ordinate; otherwise St. Cyprian would not have approved the action; for he often severely doth inveigh against Inferiours taking upon them to censure their Supe∣riours; What tumour (saith he) of pride, what ar∣rogance of mind,* 1.173 what inflation of heart is it to call our Superiours and Bishops to our cognisance? St. Cy∣prian therefore could not conceive Saint Peter to be Saint Paul's Governour, or Superiour in Power; he doth indeed plainly enough in the forecited words signifie that in his judgment Saint Peter had done insolently and arrogantly, if he had assumed any obedience from Saint Paul.* 1.174 St. Austin also doth in several places of his Writings make the like application of this passage.

The ancient Writer contemporary to St. Ambrose, and passing under his name,* 1.175 doth argue in this manner; Who dared resist Peter the first A∣postle, to whom the Lord did give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but another such an one; who in assurance of his election knowing himself to be not unequal to him, might constantly disprove, what he had unadvisedly done?

* 1.176It is indeed well known, that Origen, and after him St. Chrysostome and St. Hierome, and divers of the Ancients beside, did conceive that Saint Paul did not seriously oppose or tax Saint Peter, but did onely doe it seemingly, upon confederacy with him, for promoting a good design.

This interpretation, however strained and earnestly impugned by Saint Austin, I will not discuss; but onely shall observe, that it being ad∣mitted doth rather strengthen than weaken our discourse: for, if Saint Pe∣ter were Saint Paul's Governour, it maketh Saint Peter to have con∣sented to an act in all appearance indecent, irregular and scandalous; and how can we imagine, that Saint Peter would have complotted to the imparing his own just Authority in the eye of a great Church? doth not such a condescension imply in him a disavowing of Superiority over Saint Paul, or a conspiracy with him to overthrow good Order?

To which purpose we may observe, that St. Chry∣sostome,* 1.177 in a large and very elaborate discourse,

wherein he professeth to endeavour an aggravation of the irregularity of Saint Paul's d••meanour, if it were serious; doth not lay the stress of that aggravation upon Saint Paul's opposing his lawfull Governour; but his onely so treating a Co-apostle of such emi∣nency:* 1.178 neither when to that end he designeth to reckon all the advantages of Saint Peter beyond Saint Paul or any other Apostle, doth he mention this, which was chiefly material to his purpose, that he was Saint Paul's Governour; which obser∣vations if we do carefully weigh, we can hardly imagine, that St. Chrysostome had any notion of Saint Peter's Suprema∣cy, in relation to the Apostles.

In fine, the drift of Saint Paul, in reporting those passages concer∣ning himself, was not to disparage the other Apostles, nor merely to commend himself, but to fence the truth of his Doctrine, and main∣tain the liberty of his Disciples against any prejudice that might arise from any authority, that might be pretended in any considerable respects superiour to his, and alledged against them; to which purpose he decla∣reth by arguments and matters of fact, that his Authority was perfect∣ly Apostolical, and equal to the greatest; even to that of Saint Peter the prime Apostle, of Saint John the beloved Disciple, of Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem; the judgment or practice of whom, was no law to him, nor should be to them farther than it did consist with that Doc∣trine, which he by an independent Authority,* 1.179 and by special revelation from Christ did preach unto them: He might (as St. Chrysostome noteth) have pretended to some ad∣vantage over them,* 1.180 in regard that he had laboured more abundantly than them all, but he forbeareth to do so, being contented to obtain equal advantages.

Well therefore, considering the disadvantage which this passage brin∣geth to the Roman pretence might this History be called by Baronius,* 1.181 a History hard to be understood, a stone of offence, a rock of scandal, a rug∣ged place, which Saint Austin himself, under favour, could not pass over without stumbling.

It may also be considered,* 1.182 that Saint Paul particularly doth assert to himself an independent authority over the Gentiles, co-ordinate to that which Saint Peter had over the Jews;* 1.183 the which might engage him so earnestly to contest with Saint Peter, as by his practice sedu∣cing those, who belonged to his charge; the which also probably moved him thus to assert his authori∣ty to the Galatians, as being Gentiles under his care, and thence obliged especially to regard his authori∣ty.* 1.184 They (saith Saint Paul) knowing that I was entrusted with the Gos∣pel of uncircumcision, as Peter was entrusted with that of circumcision, —gave unto me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; the which words do clearly enough signifie, that he took himself, and that the other Apostles took him to have under Christ an absolute charge, subor∣dinate to no man, over the Gentiles; whence he claimeth to himself, as his burthen, the care of all the Churches;* 1.185 he therefore might well con∣test for their liberty, he might well insist upon his authority among them.

Thus did St. Chrysostome understand the case; for Christ (saith he) committed the Jews to Peter,* 1.186 but set Paul over the Gentiles; and, He (saith that great Father) farther doth shew himself to be equal to them in dignity,* 1.187 and compareth himself not onely to the others, but even to the ring-leader; shewing that each did enjoy equal dignity.

It may also by any prudent considerer easily be discerned, that if Saint Peter had really been as they assert him, so in Authority superi∣our to the other Apostles, it is hardly possible, that Saint Paul should upon these occasions express nothing of it.

16. If Saint Peter had been appointed Sovereign of the Church, it seemeth that it should have been requisite, that he should have outlived all the Apostles; for then either the Church must have wanted a Head, or there must have been an inextricable Controversie about who that Head was. Saint Peter dyed long before Saint John (as all agree) and perhaps before divers others of the Apostles. Now, after his departure, did the Church want a Head? (then it might before, and after have none; and our Adversaries lose the main ground of their pretence) did one of the Apostles become Head? (which of them was it; upon what ground did he assume the Headship, or who conferred it on him; who ever did acknowledge any such thing, or where is there any report about it?) was any other person made Head? (suppose the Bishop of Rome, who onely pretendeth thereto;) then did Saint John, and other Apostles become subject to one in degree inferiour to them; then what becometh of Saint Paul's first Apostles,* 1.188 secondly Prophets, thirdly Tea∣chers? what do all the Apostolical privileges come to, when St. John must be at the command of Linus, and Cletus, and Clemens, and of I know not who beside? was it not a great absurdity for the Apostles to truckle under the Pastours,* 1.189 and Teachers of Rome?

The like may be said for Saint James, if he (as the Roman Church doth in its Liturgicks suppose) were an Apostle; who in many respects might claim the preeminence. Who therefore in the Apostolical Consti∣tutions is preferred before Clement Bishop of Rome.

17. Upon the same grounds, on which a Supremacy of power is claimed to Saint Peter, other Apostles might also challenge a Superiori∣ty therein over their Brethren; but to suppose such a difference of pow∣er among the rest is absonous; and therefore the grounds are not valid, upon which Saint Peter's Supremacy is built.

I instance in Saint James and Saint John, who upon the same proba∣bilities had (after Saint Peter) a preference to the other Apostles. For to them our Saviour declared a special regard; to them the Apo∣stles afterwards may seem to have yielded a particular deference; they, in merit and performances seem to have surpassed; they, (after St. Pe∣ter and his Brother▪* 1.190) were first called to the Apostolical Office; they (as Saint Peter) were by our Lord new Christned (as it were) and nomina∣ted Boanerges, by a name signifying the efficacy of their endeavour in their Master's service;* 1.191 they, together with Saint Peter, were assumed to behold the transfiguration; they were culled out to wait on our Lord in his agony; they also, with Saint Peter (others being excluded) were taken to attest our Lord's performance of that great Miracle, of resto∣ring the Ruler's Daughter to life; they, presuming on their special fa∣vour

with our Lord, did pretend to the chief places in his Kingdom.* 1.192

To one of them it is expressed that our Saviour did bear a peculiar af∣fection, he being the disciple who•• Jesus loved,* 1.193 and who leaned on his bo∣some; to the other he particularly discovered himself after his Resurrec∣tion, and first honoured him with the Crown of Martyrdom.

They in bloud and cognation did nearest touch our Lord; being his Cousin Germans;* 1.194 (which was esteemed by the Ancients a ground of preferment▪) as Hegesippus reporteth.

Their industry and activity in propagation of the Gospel was most eminently conspicuous.

To them it was peculiar, that Saint James did first Suffer for it,* 1.195 and Saint John did longest persist in the faithfull Confession of it; whose Writings in several kinds do remain as the richest magazines of Christi∣an Doctrine, furnishing us with the fullest Testimonies concerning the Divinity of our Lord, with special Histories of his Life, and with his divinest Discourses; with most lively incitements to Piety and Charity; with prophe••ical Revelations concerning the state of the Church. He therefore was one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.196 chief Pillars and props of the Christian Profession, one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Superlative Apostles.

Accordingly in the Rolls of the Apostles,* 1.197 and in reports concerning them, their names usually are placed after Saint Peter.

Hence also some of the Fathers do take them, as Saint Peter was, to have been preferred by our Lord * 1.198; Peter (saith Saint Gregory Nazian∣zene) and James, and John, who both were indeed, and were reckoned be∣fore the others — so indeed did Christ himself prefer them; and Peter, James and John (saith Clemens Alex.) did not as being preferred by the Lord himself, contest for honour, but did chuse James the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem (or as Ruffinus read, Bishop of the Apostles.)

Hence if by designation of Christ, by the Concession of the Aposto∣lical College, by the prefulgency of his excellent worth and merit, or upon any other ground Saint Peter had the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or first place, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or next place in the same kind, by like means, upon the same grounds seem to have belonged unto them; and if their advantage did imply difference not in Power but in Order onely (not authoritative Su∣periority, but honorary Precedence) then can no more be allowed or concluded due to him.

18. The Fathers both in express terms, and implicitly or by conse∣quence, do assert the Apostles to have been equal or co-ordinate in Power and Authority.

What can be more express, than that of St. Cyprian. The other A∣postles were indeed that which Peter was,* 1.199 endowed with equal consortship of honour and power; and a∣gain, Although our Lord giveth to all the Apostles af∣ter

his resurrection an equal power, and saith, As the Father sent me, so I send you.

What can be more plain than that of St. Chrysostome, Saint Paul shew∣eth,* 1.200 that each Apostle did enjoy equal dignity▪

* 1.201How again could St. Chrysostome more clearly signifie his Opinion, than when comparing Saint Paul to Saint Peter, he calleth Saint Paul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.202 equal in honour to him, adding, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for I will not as yet say any thing more, as if he thought Saint Paul indeed the more honourable.

* 1.203How also could St. Cyril more plainly declare his sense to be the same, than when he called Saint Peter and Saint John 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, equ•••• to one another in honour.

Did not St. Hierome also sufficiently declare his mind in the case, when he saith of the Apostles,* 1.204 that the strength of the Church is equally settled upon them?

Doth not Dionysius (the supposed Areopagite) call the decad of the Apostles co-ordinate with their foreman,* 1.205 Saint Peter? in conformity, I suppose, to the current judgment of his Age.

What can be more full than that of Isidore, (whose words shew how long this sense continued in the Church) The other Apostles did receive an equal share of honour and power;* 1.206 who also being dispersed in the whole world did preach the Gospel; and to whom departing the Bishops did succeed, who are constituted through the whole world in the Sees of the Apostles.

By consequence the Fathers do assert this equality, when they affirm (as we before did shew) the Apostolical Office to be absolutely Su∣preme; when also they affirm (as afterwards we shall shew) all the Apostles Successours to be equal as such; and particularly that the Ro∣man Bishop upon account of his succeeding Saint Peter hath no pr••∣eminence above his Brethren?* 1.207 for, wherever a Bishop be, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, at Alexan∣dria, or at Thanis, he is of the same worth, and of the same Priesthood: the force of wealth, and lowness of poverty, doth not render a Bishop more high, or more low; for that all of them are Successours of the Apostles.

19. Neither is it to prudential esteem a despicable consideration, that the most ancient of the Fathers, having occasion sometimes largely to discourse of Saint Peter, do not mention any such Prerogatives belon∣ging to him.

20. The last Argument which I shall use against this Primacy, shall be the insufficiency of those Arguments and Testimonies, which they alledge to warrant and prove it.

If this Point be of so great consequence as they make it; if, as they would persuade us, the subsistence, order, unity and peace of the Church,* 1.208 together with the Salva∣tion of Christians, do depend on it; if, as they sup∣pose, many great points of truth do hang on this pin; if it be, as they declare, a main Article of Faith, and not onely a simple errour,* 1.209 but a pernicious heresie to deny this primacy: then it is requisite that a clear revelation from God should be producible in favour of it (for upon that ground onely such points can firmly stand) then it is most probable, that God (to prevent controversies, occasions of doubt, and excuses for errour about so grand a matter) would not have fai∣led to have declared it so plainly, as might serve to satisfie any reaso∣nable man, and to convince any froward gainsayer; but no such reve∣lation doth appear; for the places of Scripture which they alledge do not plainly express it, nor pregnantly imply it, nor can it by fair con∣sequence be inferred from them: No man unprepossessed with affecti∣on to their side would descry it in them; without thwarting Saint Pe∣ter's Order,* 1.210 and wresting the Scriptures they cannot deduce it from them. This by examining their allegations will appear.

I. They alledge those words of our Saviour, uttered by him upon oc∣casion of Saint Peter's confessing him to be the Son of God, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; here, say they,* 1.211 Saint Peter is declared the Foundation, that is, the sole Supreme Governour of the Church.

To this I answer.

1. Those words do not clearly signifie any thing to their purpose; for they are metaphorical, and thence ambiguous or capable of divers interpretations; whence they cannot suffice to ground so main a point of Doctrine, or to warrant so huge a Pretence; these ought to stand upon down-right, evident and indubitable Testimony.

It is pretty to observe how Bellarmine proposeth this Testimony; Of which words (saith he) the sense is plain and obvi∣ous, that it be understood,* 1.212 that under two metaphors the principate of the whole Church was promised; as if that sense could be so plain and obvious, which is couched under two metaphors, and those not very pat or clear in ap∣plication to their sense.

2. This is manifestly confirmed from that the Fathers and Divines both ancient and modern have much differed in exposition of these words.

[Some (saith Abulensis) say that this rock is Peter— others say,* 1.213 and better, that it is Christ — others say, and yet better, that it is the confes∣sion which Peter maketh.]

* 1.214For some interpret this rock to be Christ himself, of whom Saint Paul saith, Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

St. Austin telleth us in his Retractations, that he often had expounded the words to this purpose,* 1.215 although he did not absolutely reject that in∣terpretation which made Saint Peter the rock; leaving it to the Rea∣ders choice which is the most probable.

Others (and those most eminent Fathers) do take the rock to be Saint Peter's faith, or profession; Vpon the Rock (saith the Prince of Interpreters) that is upon the faith of his profession;* 1.216 and again, Christ said that he would build his Church on Peter's confession; and a∣gain, (he, or another ancient Writer under his name) upon this rock, he said not upon Peter, for he did not build his Church upon the man, but upon his faith.

Our Lord (saith Theodoret) did permit the first of the Apostles,* 1.217 whose confession he did fix as a prop or foundation of the Church, to be shaken.

[Whence Origen saith, that every disciple of Christ is the rock,* 1.218 in virtue of his agreement with Peter in that holy confession.]

* 1.219This sense even Popes have embraced.

* 1.220Others say, that as Saint Peter did not speak for himself, but in the name of all the Apostles, and of all faithfull people, representing the Pastours and people of the Church; so correspondently our Lord did declare, that he would build his Church upon such faithfull Pastours and Confessours.

Others do indeed by the rock understand Saint Peter's person, but do not thereby expound to be meant his being Supreme Governour of the Apostles, or of the whole Church.

* 1.221The Divines, Schoolmen and Canonists of the Roman Communion do not also agree in exposition of the words; and divers of the most lear∣ned among them do approve the interpretation of St. Chrysostome.

Now then how can so great a Point of Doctrine be firmly grounded on a place of so doubtfull interpretation? how can any one be obliged to understand the words according to their interpretation which Per∣sons of so good sense, and so great Authority do understand otherwise? with what modesty can they pretend that meaning to be clear, which so

perspicacious eyes could not discern therein? why may not I excusa∣bly agree with St. Chrysostome, or St. Austin in understanding the place? may I not reasonably oppose their judgment to the Opinion of any Modern Doctours, deeming Bellarmine as fallible in his conceptions, as one of them; why consequently may I not without blame refuse their Doctrine as built upon this place, or disavow the goodness of this proof?

3. It is very evident that the Apostles themselves did not understand those words of our Lord to signify any grant or promise to Saint Peter of Supremacy over them;* 1.222 for would they have contended for the chief place, if they had understood whose it of right was by our Lord's own positive determination? would they have disputed about a question,* 1.223 which to their knowledge by their Master was already stated? would they have troubled our Lord to inquire of him who should be the greatest in his Kingdom, when they knew that our Lord had declared his will to make Saint Peter Viceroy? would the Sons of Zebedee have been so foolish and presumptuous as to beg the place,* 1.224 which they knew by our Lord's word and promise fixed on Saint Peter? would Saint Peter among the rest have fretted at that idle overture,* 1.225 whenas he knew the place by our Lord's immutable purpose and infallible declara∣tion assured to him? And if none of the Apostles did understand the words to imply this Roman sense, who can be obliged so to understand them? yea who can wisely, who can safely so under∣stand them? for surely they had common sense as well as any man li∣ving now; they had as much advantage as we can have to know our Lord's meaning; their ignorance therefore of this sense being so appa∣rent, is not onely a just excuse for not admitting this interpretation, but a strong bar against it.

4. This interpretation also doth not well consist with our Lord's an∣swers to the contests, inquiries and petitions of his Disciples concerning the point of Superiority; for doth he not (if the Roman expositions be good) seem upon those occasions not onely to dissemble his own word and promise, but to disavow them or thwart them? can we conceive, that he would in such a case of doubt forbear to resolve them, clearly to instruct them, and admonish them of their duty?

5. Taking the Rock as they would have it to be the Person of Saint Pe∣ter, and that on him the Church should be built, yet do not the words being a Rock probably denote government; for what resemblance is there between being a Rock and a Governour; at least what assurance can there be that this metaphor precisely doth import that sense; seeing in other respects, upon as fair similitudes, he might be called so?

St. Austin saith, the Apostles were Foundations, because their Authority doth support our weak∣ness.* 1.226

St. Hierome saith, that they were Foundations,* 1.227 because the Faith of the Church was first laid in them.

St. Basil saith,* 1.228 that Saint Peter's Soul was called the Rock, because it was firmly rooted in the Faith, and did hold stiff without giving way against the blows of temptation.

Chrysologus saith, that Peter had his name from a Rock,* 1.229 because he first merited to found the Church by firmness of Faith.

These are fair explications of the metaphor, without any reference to Saint Peter's Government.

But however also admitting this, that being such a Rock doth imply Government and Pastoral Charge; yet do they (notwithstanding these grants and suppositions) effect nothing; for they cannot prove the words spoken exclusively in regard to other Apostles, or to import any thing singular to him above or beside them: He might be a governing Rock, so might others be; the Church might be built on him, so it might be on other Apostles; he might be designed a Governour, a great Governour, a principal Governour, so might they also be; this might be without any violence done to those words.

And this indeed was; for all the other Apostles in Holy Scripture are called Foundations, and the Church is said to be built on them.

If (saith Origen, the Father of Interpreters) you think the whole Church to be onely built on Peter alone,* 1.230 what will you say of John the Son of thunder, and of each of the Apostles? &c. largely to this pur∣pose.

Christ (as St. Hierome saith) was the Rock, and he bestowed on the Apostles, that they should be called Rocks. And You say (saith he again) that the Church is founded on Peter, but the same in another place is done upon all the Apostles.

The twelve Apostles (saith another ancient Authour) were the im∣mutable Pillars of orthodoxie, the Rock of the Church.

The Church (saith St. Basil) is built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles,* 1.231 Peter also was one of the Mountains; upon which Rock the Lord did promise to build his Church.

St. Cyprian in his disputes with Pope Stephen did more than once al∣ledge this place,* 1.232 yet could he not take them in their sense to signify ex∣clusively; for he did not acknowledge any imparity of Power among the Apostles or their Successours. He indeed plainly took these words to respect all the Apostles and their Successours, our Lord taking occa∣sion to promise that to one, which he intended to impart to all for them∣selves, and their Successours; Our Lord (saith he) ordering the honour of a Bishop,* 1.233 and the order of his Church, saith to Peter, I say to thee, &c. hence through the turns of times and successions, the ordina∣tion of Bishops, and the manner of the Church doth run on, that the Church should be setled upon the Bi∣shops, and every Act of the Church should be governed by the same Prelates: as therefore he did conceive the Church to be built not on the Pope singularly, but on all the Bi∣shops; so he thought our Lord did intend to build his Church not upon Saint Peter onely, but on all his Apostles.

6. It is not said, that the Apostles, or the Apostolical Office should be built on him; for that could not be, seeing the Apostles were consti∣tuted, and the Apostolical Office was founded before that promise; the

words onely therefore can import that according to some meaning he was a Rock, upon which the Church, afterward to be collected, should be built; he was A Rock of the Church to be built, as Tertullian speaketh▪* 1.234 the words therefore cannot signify any thing available to their purpose, in rela∣tion to the Apostles.

7. If we take Saint Peter himself for the Rock, then (as I take it) the best meaning of the words doth import, that our Lord designed Saint Peter for a prime Instrument,* 1.235 (the first mover, the most diligent, and active at the beginning, the most constant, stiff and firm) in the support of his Truth, and propagation of his Doctrine, or con∣version of men to the belief of the Gospel; the which is called building of the Church; according to that of St. Ambrose, or some ancient Homilist under his name,* 1.236 He is cal∣led the Rock, because he first did lay in the Nations the Foundations of Faith: In which regard as the other Apostles are called Foundations of the Church, (the Church being founded on their labours,) so might Saint Peter sig∣nally be so called; who (as Saint Basil saith,* 1.237 allu∣sively interpreting our Saviour's words) for the ex∣cellency of his Faith did take on him the edifying of the Church.

Both he and they also might be so termed, for that upon their testi∣monies concerning the Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ the Faith of Christians was grounded; as also it stands upon their convincing dis∣courses, their holy practice, their miraculous performances, in all which Saint Peter was most eminent; and in the beginning of Christianity dis∣played them to the edification of the Church.

This interpretation plainly doth agree with matter of fact and histo∣ry; which is the best interpreter of right or privilege in such cases; for we may reasonably understand our Saviour to have promised that, which in effect we see performed, so the event sheweth, the Church was built on him, that is by him;* 1.238 saith Tertullian.

But this sense doth not imply any Superiority of Power, or Dignity granted to Saint Peter above his Brethren; however it may signify an advantage belonging to him, and deserving especial respect; as St. Chrysostome notably doth set out in these words; Although John, although James,* 1.239 al∣though Paul, although any other whoever may appear performing great matters; he yet doth surpass them all, who did precede them in liberty of speech, and opened the entrance, and gave to them as to a river carryed with a huge stream to enter with great ease: Doing this, as, I say, it might signify his being a Rock of the Church, so it de∣noteth an excellency of merit, but not a Superiority in Power.

8. It may also be observed, that Saint Peter before the speaking of those words by our Lord may seem to have had a Primacy, intimated by the Evangelists, when they report his call to the Apostolical Office;* 1.240 and by his behaviour, when in this confession, and before in the like,* 1.241

he undertook to be their mouth and Spokesman; when not being unmindfull of his place (saith St. Am∣brose) he did act a Primacy;* 1.242 a Primacy (addeth that Father) of Confession, not of honour; of Faith, not of order; his Primacy therefore (such as he had) cannot well be founded on this place, he being afore possessed of it, and (as St. Ambrose conceived) exercising it at that time.

II. They alledge the next words of our Lord, spoken in sequele upon the same occasion, To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,* 1.243 that is, say they, the Su∣preme power over all the Church; for he (say they) that hath the Keys is Master of the House.

To this testimony we may apply divers of the same answers, which were given to the former; for,

1. These words are figurate, and therefore not clear enough to prove their assertion.

2. They do admit, and have received various interpretations.

3. It is evident, that the Apostles themselves did not understand these words as importing a Supremacy over them, that Saint Peter himself did not apprehend this sense, that our Lord upon occasion inviting to it did not take notice of his promise, according thereto.

4. The words, I will give thee, cannot any-wise be assured to have been exclusive of others, or appropriated to him. He said (as a very learned man of the Roman Com∣munion noteth) to Peter,* 1.244 I will give thee the Keys, but he said not, I gill give them to thee alone; no∣thing therefore can be concluded from them to their purpose.

5. The Fathers do affirm that all the Apostles did receive the same Keys.

Are (saith Origen) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone,* 1.245 and shall none other of the Blessed ones receive them? but if this, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, be common, how also are not all the things common, which were spoken before, or are added as spoken to Peter?

* 1.246St. Hierome says in express words, that all the Apostles did receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

He (saith Optatus) did alone receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (which were) to be commu∣nicated to the rest;* 1.247 that is (as Rigaltius well ex∣poundeth those words) which Christ himself would also communicate to the rest.

* 1.248Theophilact. Although it be spoken to Peter alone I will give thee, yet it is given to all the Apostles.

It is part of Saint John's character in St. Chryso∣stome, He that hath the Keys of the Heavens.

6. Indeed whatever (according to any tolerable exposition, or accor∣ding to the current expositions of the Fathers) those Keys of the King∣dom of Heaven do import (whether it be a faculty of opening it by Doctrine, of admitting into it by dispensation of Baptism,* 1.249 and absolu∣tion, of excluding from it by Ecclesiastical censure, or any such faculty signified by that metaphorical expression) it plainly did belong to all the Apostles, and was effectually conferred on them; yea after them upon all the Pastours of the Church in their several precincts and degrees; who in all Ages have claimed to themselves the power of the Keys;* 1.250 to be (as the Council of Com∣peign calleth all Bishops) clavigeri, the Key-bearers of the Kingdom of Heaven.

So that in these words nothing singular was promised or granted to Saint Peter; although it well may be deemed a singular mark of favour, that what our Lord did intend to bestow on all Pastours, that he did an∣ticipately promise to him; or, as the Fathers say, to the Church and its Pastours in him. In which respect we may admit those words of Pope Leo I.* 1.251

7. Indeed divers of the Fathers do conceive the words spoken to St. Pe∣ter not as a single person, but as a representative of the Church, or as standing in the room of each Pastour therein; unto whom our Lord de∣signed to impart the power of the Keys.

All we Bishops (saith St. Ambrose) have in Saint Peter received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.* 1.252

8. These answers are confirmed by the words immediately adjoyned, * 1.253 equivalent to these, and interpretative of them, And whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven— the which do import a power or privilege soon after expressly, and in the very same words promised or granted to all the Apostles;* 1.254 as also the same power in other words was by our Lord conferred on them all after the Resur∣rection.

If therefore the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven do import Supreme Power, then each Apostle had Supreme Power.

9. If we should grant (that which no-wise can be proved,) that some∣thing peculiarly belonging to Saint Peter is implyed in those words, it can onely be this, that he should be a prime man in the work of prea∣ching and propagating the Gospel, and conveying the heavenly benefits

of it to believers; which is an opening of the King∣dom of Heaven;* 1.255 according to what Tertullian ex∣cellently saith of him; So (saith he) the event teacheth, the Church was built in him, that is, by him; he did initiate the Key; see which, Ye men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, &c. He in fine in the baptism of Christ did unlock the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven, &c.

10. It seemeth absurd, that Saint Peter should exercise the power of the Keys in respect to the Apostles: for did he open the Kingdom of Hea∣ven to them, who were by our Lord long before admitted into it? —

11. In fine, our Lord (as Saint Luke relateth it) did say to Saint Pe∣ter,* 1.256 and probably to him first, Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men; might it hence be inferred, that Saint Peter had a peculiar or sole faculty of catching men? why might it not by as good a consequence, as this, whereby they would appropriate to him this opening faculty? Many such instances might in like manner be used.

III. They produce those words of our Saviour to Saint Peter, Feed my sheep, that is, in the Roman interpretation, Be thou Vniversal Gover∣nour of my Church.

To this allegation I answer.

1. From words, which truly and properly might have been said to any other Apostle, yea to any Christian Pastour whatever, nothing can be concluded to their purpose, importing a peculiar duty, or singular privilege of Saint Peter.

2. From indefinite words a definite conclusion (especially in matters of this Kind) may not be inferred; it is said, do thou feed my Sheep, it is not said do thou alone feed all my Sheep; this is their arbitrary gloss, or presumptuous improvement of the Text; without succour whereof the words signify nothing to their purpose, so far are they from suffici∣ently assuring so vast a pretence: for instance, when Saint Paul doth ex∣hort the Bishops at Ephesus to feed the Church of God, may it thence be collected, that each of them was an Universal Governour of the whole Church,* 1.257 which Christ had purchased with his own bloud?

3. By these words no new power is (assuredly at least) granted or in∣stituted by our Lord; for the Apostles before this had their Warrant and Authority consigned to them,* 1.258 when our Lord did inspire them, and so∣lemnly commissionate them, saying, As the Father did send me, so I send you; to which Commission, these words, (spoken occasionally, before a few of the Disciples) did not add or derogate. At most the words do onely (as St. Cyril saith) renew the former Grant of Apostleship,* 1.259 after his great offence of denying our Lord.

4. These words do not seem institutive or collative of Power, but ra∣ther onely admonitive or exhortative to duty; implying no more, but the pressing a common duty, before incumbent on Saint Peter, upon a special occasion, in an advantagious season, that he should effectually discharge the Office, which our Lord had committed to him.

Our Lord (I say) presently before his departure, when his words were like to have a strong impression on Saint Peter, doth earnestly di∣rect and warn him to express that special ardency of affection, which he observed in him, in an answerable care to perform his duty of feeding, that is, of instructing, guiding,* 1.260 edifying in faith and obedience those Sheep of his, that is, those Believers, who should be converted to embrace his Religion, as ever he should find oppor∣tunity.

5. The same Office certainly did belong to all the Apostles,* 1.261 who (as Saint Hierome speaketh) were the Princes of our Discipline, and Chieftains of the Christian Doctrine; they at their first vocation had a commission and command to go unto the lost sheep of the house of Is∣rael; that were scattered abroad like sheep not having a shepherd;* 1.262 they before our Lord's Ascension were enjoyned to teach all Nations the Doc∣trines and Precepts of Christ; to receive them into the fold,* 1.263 to feed them with good instruction, to guide and govern their Converts with good Discipline; Hence All of them (as Saint Cy∣prian saith) were shepherds;* 1.264 but the flock did appear one, which was fed by the Apostles with unanimous agreement.

6. Neither could Saint Peter's charge be more extensive, than was that of the other Apostles; for they had a general and unlimited care of the whole Church; that is, according to their capacity and opportuni∣ty, none being exempted from it, who needed or came into the way of their discharging Pastoral Offices for them.

They were Oecumenical Rulers (as St. Chrysostome saith) appointed by God who did not receive several Nations or Cities,* 1.265 but all of them in common were en∣trusted with the world.

Hence particularly St. Chrysostome calleth Saint John a pillar of the Churches over the world, and Saint Paul an Apostle of the world;* 1.266 who had the care not of one House, but of Cities and Nations, and of the whole Earth; who undertook the World, and governed the Churches; on whom the whole world did look, and on whose soul the care of all the Churches every-where did hang; into whose hands were delivered the Earth, and the Sea, the inhabited and uninhabited parts of the World.

And could Saint Peter have a larger Flock committed to him? could this charge, feed my sheep, more agree to him, than to those, who no less than he were obliged to feed all Christian people every-where?

7. The words indeed are applicable to all Christian Bishops and Go∣vernours of the Church; according to that of St. Cy∣prian, to Pope Stephen himself,* 1.267 we being many Shep∣herds do feed one flock, and all the sheep of Christ; for they are styled Pastours; they in terms as inde∣finite as those in this text are exhorted to feed the Church of God,* 1.268 which

he hath purchased with his own bloud;* 1.269 to them (as the Fathers commonly suppose) this Injunction doth reach, our Lord when he spake thus to Saint Peter, intending to lay a charge on them all to express their love and piety toward them in this way, by feeding his Sheep and People.

Which Sheep, saith Saint Ambrose, and which Flock not onely then Saint Peter did receive,* 1.270 but also with him all we Priests did receive it.

Our Lord (saith Saint Chrysostome) did commit his Sheep to Peter,* 1.271 and to those, which came after him, that is, to all Christian Pastours, as the scope of his discourse sheweth.

* 1.272When it is said to Peter (saith Saint Austin) it is said to all, Feed my Sheep.

And we (saith Saint Basil) are taught this (obe∣dience to Superiours) by Christ himself,* 1.273 constituting Saint Peter Pastour after himself of the Church (for Peter, saith he, dost thou love me more than these? feed my Sheep) and conferring to all Pastours and Teachers continually afterward an equal power (of do∣ing so;) whereof it is a sign that all do in like manner bind, and do loose as he.

* 1.274Saint Austin comprizeth all these considerations in those words.

How could these great Masters more clearly express their mind, that our Lord in those words to Saint Peter did inculcate a duty no-wise pe∣culiar to him, but equally together with him belonging to all Guides of the Church; in such manner, as when a Master doth press a duty on one Servant, he doth thereby admonish all his Servants of the like duty; whence St. Austin saith,* 1.275 that Saint Peter in that case did sustain the per∣son of the Church, that which was spoken to him, belonging to all its members, especially to his Brethren, the Clergy.

It was (saith Cyril) a lesson to Teachers, that they cannot otherwise please the Arch-pastour of all,* 1.276 than by taking care of the welfare of the ra∣tional Sheep.

8. Hence it followeth, that the Sheep, which our Saviour biddeth St. Pe∣ter to feed, were not the Apostles, who were his Fellow-shepherds, designed to feed others, and needing not to be fed by him; but the common Belie∣vers or People of God,* 1.277 which St. Peter himself doth call the Flock of God;

Feed, saith he to his fellow-Elders, the flock of God, which is among you; and Saint Paul, Take heed therefore unto your selves, and to all the flock,* 1.278 over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.

9. Take Feeding for what you please; for Teaching, for Guiding— the Apostles were not fit objects of it, who were immediately taught, and guided by God himself.

Hence we may interpret that saying of St. Chrysostome, which is the most plausible argument they can alledge for them, that our Lord in saying this,* 1.279 did commit to St. Pe∣ter a charge (or presidency) over his brethren; that is, he made him a Pastour of Christian people, as he did others; at least, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be referred to the A∣postles, it must not signifie authority over them, but at most a prima∣cy of order among them; for that Saint Peter otherwise should feed them, St. Chrysostome could hardly think, who pre∣sently after saith,* 1.280 that seeing the Apostles were to receive the administration of the whole world, they ought not afterward to converse with one another; for that would surely have been a great damage to the world.

10. But they, forsooth, must have Saint Peter solely obliged to feed all Christ's sheep; so they do impose upon him a vast and crabbed Pro∣vince; a task very incommodious, or rather impossible for him to un∣dergo: how could he in duty be obliged, how could he in effect be able to feed so many flocks of Christian people scattered about in distant Re∣gions, through all Nations under Heaven: he, poor man, that had so few helps, that had no Officers or dependents, nor wealth to maintain them, would have been much put to it to feed the sheep in Britaine, and in Parthia; unto infinite distraction of thoughts such a charge must needs have engaged him.

But for this their great Champion hath a fine ex∣pedient; Saint Peter, saith he,* 1.281 did feed Christ's whole flock, partly by himself, partly by others; so that it seemeth, the other Apostles were Saint Peter's Curates, or Vicars and Deputies: this indeed were an easie way of fee∣ding; thus although he had slept all his time, he might have fed all the sheep under heaven; thus any man as well might have fed them. But this manner of feeding is, I fear, a later invention, not known so soon in the Church; and it might then seem near as absurd to be a shepherd, as it is now (in his own account) to be a just man by imputation; that would be a kind of putative pastorage, as this a putative righteous∣ness. However the Apostles, I dare say, did not take themselves to be St. Peter's Surrogates, but challenged to themselves to be accounted the Ministers, the Stewards,* 1.282 the Ambassadours of Christ himself; from whom imme∣diately they received their Orders, in whose name they acted, to whom they constantly refer their Authority, without ta∣king the least notice of Saint Peter, or intimating any dependence on him.

It was therefore enough for Saint Peter, that he had Authority restrai∣ned to no place, but might, as he found occasion, preach the Gospel, convert, confirm, guide Christians every where to truth and duty; nor can our Saviour's words be forced to signifie more.

In fine, this (together with the precedent Testimonies) must not be interpreted so as to thwart Practice and History; according to which it appeareth, that Saint Peter did not exercise such a Power, and there∣fore our Lord did not intend to confer such an one upon him.

* 1.283IV. Farther in confirmation of their Doctrine they do draw forth a whole shole of Testimonies, containing divers Prerogatives, as they call them, of Saint Peter; which do, as they suppose, imply this Pri∣macy; so very sharp-sighted indeed they are, that in every remarkable accident befalling him, in every action performed by him, or to him, or about him, they can descry some argument or shrewd insinuation of his preeminence; especially being aided by the glosses of some fancyfull Expositour. From the change of his Name, from his walking on the Sea, from his miraculous draught of Fish, from our Lord's praying for him, that his Faith should not fail, and bidding him to confirm his Bre∣thren; from our Lord's ordering him to pay the tribute for them both; from our Lord's first washing his feet, and his first appearing to him after the Resurrection; from the prediction of his Martyrdom; from sick persons being cured by his shadow; from his sentencing Ananias and Saphira to death,* 1.284 from his preaching to Cornelius, from its being said that he passed through all, from his being prayed for by the Church, from Saint Paul's going to visit him; from these passages, I say, they deduce or confirm his Authority: Now in earnest is not this stout ar∣guing? is it not egregious modesty for such a point to alledge such proofs? what cause may not be countenanced by such rare fetches? who would not suspect the weakness of that Opinion, which is fain to use such forces in its maintenance? In fine, is it honest or conscionable dealing so to wrest or play with the Holy Scripture, pretending to de∣rive thence proofs, where there is no shew of consequence?

To be even with them, I might assert the Primacy to Saint John, and to that purpose might alledge his Prerogatives (which indeed may seem greater than those of Saint Peter,) namely, that he was the beloved disciple,* 1.285 that he leaned on our Lord's breast, that Saint Peter, not pre∣suming to ask our Lord a question, desired him to doe it, as having a more special confidence with our Lord; that Saint John did higher ser∣vice to the Church and all posterity, by writing not onely more Epistles, but also a most divine Gospel, and a sublime * 1.286 Pro∣phecy concerning the state of the Church; that Saint John did * 1.287 outrun Peter, and came first to the Sepulchre (in which passage such acute devisers would find out marvellous significancy) that Saint John was a Virgin; that he did out-live all the Apostles (and thence was most fit to be Universal Pastour;) that St. Hierome comparing Pe∣ter and John, doth seem to prefer the latter; for Peter (saith he) was an Apostle,* 1.288 and John was an Apostle; but Peter was onely an Apostle, John both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and also a Prophet,— and (saith he) that I may in brief speech compre∣hend many things, and shew what privilege belongeth to John, —yea Virginity in John; by our Lord a Virgin, his Mother the Virgin is commended to the Virgin Disciple: thus I might by Prerogatives and

passages very notable infer the Superiority of Saint John to Saint Peter, in imitation of their reasoning; but I am afraid they would scarce be at the trouble to answer me seriously, but would think it enough to say I trifled; wherefore let it suffice for me in the same manner to put off those levities of discourse.

V. They argue this Primacy from the constant placing Saint Peter's name before the other Apostles, in the Catalogues and Narrations concer∣ning him and them.

To this I answer.

1. That this Order is not so strictly observed, as not to admit some exceptions; for Saint Paul saith, that James,* 1.289 Cephas and John knowing the grace given unto him— so it is commonly read in the ordina∣ry Copies, in the Text of ancient Commentatours, and in old Translati∣ons; and, whether Paul, whether Apollo, whether Cephas,* 1.290 saith Saint Paul again; and, As the other Apostles, and the brethren of our Lord, and Ce∣phas; and Philip (saith Saint John) was of Bethsaida,* 1.291 the City of An∣drew and Peter; and Clemens Alex. in Eusebius saith,* 1.292 that the Lord after his resurrection delivered the special knowledge to James the Just, and to John, and to Peter, post-poning Saint Peter, as perhaps conceiving him to have less of sublime Revelations imparted to him; that Order therefore is not so punctually constant.

In the Apostolical Constitutions,* 1.293 Saint Paul and Saint Peter being induced jointly prescribing Orders, they begin, I Paul, and I Peter do appoint— so little ambitious or curious of precedence are they repre∣sented.

2. But it being indeed so constant as not to seem casual, I farther say, that position of names doth not argue difference of degree, or superiority in power; any small advantage of age, standing, merit, or wealth ser∣ving to ground such precedence, as common experience doth shew.

3. We formerly did assign other sufficient and probable causes, why Saint Peter had this place. So that this is no cogent Reason.

VI. Farther, (and this indeed is far their most plausible argumenta∣tion) they alledge the Titles and Elogies given to Saint Peter by the Fathers; who call him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Prince) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Ringleader) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Head) * 1.294 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the President) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Captain) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Proloquutor) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Foreman) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Warden) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the choice, or egregious Apostle) Ma∣jorem (the greater, or Grandee among them) primum (the first, or prime Apostle.

To these and the like allegations I answer.

1. If we should say, that we are not accountable for every hyperbolical flash or flourish occurring in the Fathers, (it being well known,* 1.295 that they in their encomiastick speeches, as Oratours are wont, fol∣lowing the heat and gaiety of fancy, do sometimes overlash) we should have the pattern of their greatest Controvertists to warrant us; for Bel∣larmine doth put off their Testimonies by saying that they do sometimes speak in way of excess,* 1.296 less properly, less warily, so as to need benign Exposi∣tion,

&c. as Bishop * 1.297 Andrews sheweth; and it is a common shift of Cardinal Perron, whereof you may see divers instances alledged by † 1.298 M. Dallée.

Which observation is especially applicable to this case; for that elo∣quent men do never more exceed in their indulgence to fancy, than in the demonstrative kind, in panegyricks, in their commendations of persons; and I hope they will embrace this way of reckoning for those expressions of Pope Leo, sounding so exorbitantly, that Saint Peter was by our Lord assumed into consortship of his individual unity;* 1.299 and that no∣thing did pass upon any from God the fountain of good things without the participation of Peter.

2. We may observe, that such turgid Elogies of Saint Peter are not found in the more ancient Fathers; for Clemens Romanus, Irenaeus, Cle∣mens Alex. Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian — when they mention Saint Peter, do speak more temperately and simply, according to the current notions and traditions of the Church in their time; using in∣deed fair terms of respect, but not such high streins of courtship, about him. But they are found in the latter Fathers, who being men of wit and eloquence, and affecting in their discourses to vent those faculties, did speak more out of their own invention and fancy.

Whence according to a prudent estimation of things in such a case, the silence or sparingness of the first sort is of more consideration on the one hand, than the speech, how free soever, of the latter is on the other hand: and we may rather suppose those titles do not belong to Saint Peter because the first do not give them, than that they do, be∣cause the other are so liberal in doing it.

Indeed if we consult the Testimonies of this kind alledged by the Ro∣manists, who with their utmost diligence have raked all ancient Wri∣tings for them, it is strange that they cannot find any very ancient ones; that they can find so few plausible ones; that they are fain (to make up the number) to produce so many, which evidently have no force or pertinency; being onely commendations of his Apostolical Office, or of his Personal Merits, without relation to others.

3. We say, that all those terms or Titles, which they urge, are am∣biguous, and applicable to any sort of Primacy or Preeminency; to that which we admit, no less than to that which we refuse; as by in∣stances from good Authours, and from common use might easily be demonstrated; so that from them nothing can be inferred advantageous to their cause.

* 1.300Cicero calleth Socrates, Prince of the Philosophers; and Sulpitius, Prince of all Lawyers; would it not be ridiculous thence to infer, that Socrates was a Sovereign Governour of the Philosophers, or Sulpitius of the Law∣yers? The same great speaker calleth Pompey, Prince of the City in all mens judgment;* 1.301 doth he mean that he did exercise jurisdiction over the City?

* 1.302Tertullus calleth Saint Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes; and St. Basil calleth Eustathius Sebaste∣nus,* 1.303 foreman of the sect of the Pneumatomachi; did Tertullus mean, that Saint Paul had universal Juris∣diction

over Christians; or St. Basil, that Eustathius was Sovereign of those Hereticks?

So neither did Prince of the Apostles, or any equivalent term, in the sense of those who assigned it to Saint Peter, import Authority over the Apostles, but eminency among them in worth, in merit, in Apostolical performances, or at most in order of precedence.

Such words are to be interpreted by the state of things, not the state of things to be inferred from them; and in understanding them we should observe the Rule of Tertullian.* 1.304

4. Accordingly the Fathers sometimes do explain those Elogies signi∣fying them to import the special gifts and vertues of Saint Peter, where∣in he did excell;* 1.305 so Eusebius calleth Saint Peter the most excellent and great Apostle, who for his vertue was proloquutour of the rest.

5. This Answer is thoroughly confirmed from hence; that even those who give those Titles to Saint Peter, do yet expresly affirm other A∣postles in power and dignity equal to him.

Who doth give higher Elogies to him than St. Chrysostome? yet doth he assert all the Apostles to be Supreme, and equal in dignity; and par∣ticularly he doth often affirm Saint Paul to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, equal in honour to Saint Peter, as we before shewed.

The like we declared of St. Hierome, St. Cyril, &c. And as for St. Cyprian, who did allow a Primacy to Saint Peter, nothing can be more evident, than that he took the other Apostles to be equal to him in power and honour.

The like we may conceive of St. Austin, who having carefully per∣used those Writings of St. Cyprian, and frequently alledging them, doth never contradict that his sentiment.

Even Pope Gregory himself acknowledgeth Saint Peter not to have been properly the Head,* 1.306 but onely the first member of the universal Church; all being members of the Church under one head.

6. If Pope Leo I. or any other ancient Pope, do seem to mean far∣ther, we may reasonably except against their Opinion, as being singu∣lar, and proceeding from partial affection to their See; such affection having influence on the mind of the wisest men; according to that cer∣tain maxime of Aristotle, every man is a bad Judge in his own case.

7. The Ancients, when their subject doth allure them, do adorn other Apostles with the like titles, equalling those of Saint Peter, and not well consistent with them, according to that rigour of sense, which our adversaries affix to the commendations of Saint Peter.

The Epistle of Clemens Rom. to Saint James (an Apocryphal,* 1.307 but ancient Writing) calleth St. James our Lord's Brother, The Bishop of Bishops; the Cle∣mentine Recognitions call him the Prince of Bishops; Ruffinus, in his translation of Eusebius, The Bishop of

the Apostles; * 1.308 St. Chrysost. saith of him, that he did preside over all the Jewish believers; Hesychius Pres∣byter of Jerusalem, calleth him the chief Captain of the New Jerusalem, the Captain of Priests, the Prince of the Apostles, the top among the Heads, &c.

The same Hesychius calleth Saint Andrew, the first-born of the Apostolical Choire,* 1.309 the first setled pillar of the Church, the Peter before Peter, the foundation of the foundation, the first-fruits of the be∣ginning, &c.

St. Chrysostome saith of Saint John, that he was a pillar of the Churches through the world,* 1.310 he that had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c.

But as occasion of speaking about Saint Paul was more frequent, so the elogies of him are more copious, and indeed so high as not to yield to those of Saint Peter.

He was (saith St. Chrysostome) the ringleader and guardian of the Choire of all the Saints.* 1.311

He was the tongue, the teacher, the Apostle of the world.* 1.312 He had the whole world put into his hands, and took care thereof, and had committed to him all men dwelling upon Earth.

He was the light of the Churches, the foundation of Faith, the pillar and ground of Truth. —

* 1.313He had the patronage of the World committed into his hands.

He was better than all men, greater than the Apostles, and surpassing them all.* 1.314

* 1.315Nothing was more bright, nothing more illustrious than he.

* 1.316None was greater than he, yea none equal to him.

Pope Gregory I. saith of Saint Paul, that he was made head of the Na∣tions, because he obtained the principate of the whole Church.* 1.317

These Characters of Saint Paul I leave them to interpret, and re∣concile with those of Saint Peter.

8. That the Fathers by calling Saint Peter Prince, Chieftain, &c. of the Apostles, do not mean Authority over them, may be argued from their joining Saint Paul with him in the same appellations; who yet surely could have no Jurisdiction over them; and his having any would destroy the pretended Ecclesiastical Monarchy.

St. Cyril calleth them together Patrons, or Presi∣dents of the Church.* 1.318

St. Austin (or St. Ambr. or Max.) calleth them Princes of the Churches.* 1.319

The Popes Agatho and Adrian (in their General Synods) call them the ring-leading Apostles.* 1.320

The Popes Nicholas I. and Gregory VII. &c. call them Princes of the Apostles.* 1.321

St. Ambrose, or St. Austin, or St. Maximus Taur. (chuse you which) doth thus speak of them;* 1.322 Bles∣sed Peter and Paul are most eminent among all the Apostles, excelling the rest by a kind of peculiar pre∣rogative: but whether of these two be preferred be∣fore the other, is uncertain, for I count them to be equal in merit, because they are equal in suffering, &c.

To all this discourse I shall onely adde,* 1.323 that if any of the Apostles, or Apostolical men might claim a presidency or authoritative headship over the rest, Saint James seemeth to have the best title thereto; for, Jerusalem was the mother of all Churches,* 1.324 the fountain of the Christi∣an Law and Doctrine, the See of our Lord himself, the chief Pastour.

He therefore,* 1.325 who (as the Fathers tell us) was by our Lord himself constituted Bishop of that Ci∣ty, and the first of all Bishops, might best pretend to be in special manner our Lord's Vicar or Succes∣sour. He (saith Epiphanius) did first receive the Episcopal Chair; and to him our Lord first did entrust his own Throne upon Earth.* 1.326

He accordingly did first exercise the Authority of presiding and mo∣derating in the first Ecclesiastical Synod, as St. Chrysostome in his Notes thereon doth remark.

He therefore probably by Saint Paul is first named in his report con∣cerning the passages at Hierusalem;* 1.327 and to his orders it seemeth that Saint Peter himself did conform; for 'tis said there,* 1.328 that before certain

came from Saint James he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come, he withdrew.

Hence in the Apostolical Constitutions, in the Prayer prescribed for the Church, and for all the Governours of it, the Bishops of the prin∣cipal Churches being specified by name; Saint James is put in the first place; before the Bishops of Rome and of Antioch; Let us pray for the whole Episcopacy under Heaven of those who rightly dispense the word of thy Truth;* 1.329 and let us pray for our Bishop James with all his Parishes; let us pray for our Bishop Clemens and all his Pari∣shes; let us pray for Evodius and all his Parishes.—

Hereto consenteth the Tradition of those ancient Writers afore cited, who call Saint James, the Bishop of Bishops, the Bishop of the Apostles, &c.

SUPPOSITION II. I proceed to examine the next Supposition of the Church Monarchists, which is, That Saint Peter's Primacy, with its Rights and Prerogatives, was not personal, but derivable to his Successours.

AGainst which Supposition I do assert, that admitting a Primacy of Saint Peter, of what kind or to what purpose soever, we yet have reason to deem it merely personal, and (not according to its grounds and its design) communicable to any Successours, nor indeed in effect conveyed to any such.

It is a rule in the Canon Law; that a personal Privilege doth follow the Person,* 1.330 and is extinguished with the Person; and such we affirm that of St. Pe∣ter; for,

1. His Primacy was grounded upon personal acts (such as his chear∣full following of Christ, his faithfull confessing of Christ, his resolute adherence to Christ, his embracing special Revelations from God) or up∣on personal graces (his great Faith, his special love to our Lord, his sin∣gular zeal for Christ's Service) or upon personal gifts and endowments (his courage, resolution, activity, forwardness in apprehension, and in speech) the which advantages are not transient, and consequently a pre∣eminency built on them is not in its nature such.

2. All the pretence of Primacy granted to Saint Peter is grounded up∣on words directed to Saint Peter's Person,* 1.331 characterized by most perso∣nal adjuncts, as name, parentage, and which exactly were accomplished in Saint Peter's personal actings, which therefore it is unreasonable to extend farther.

* 1.332Our Lord promised to Simon Son of Jona, to build his Church on him; accordingly in eminent manner the Church was founded upon his Mini∣stery, or by his first preaching, testimony, performances.

Our Lord promised to give him the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom; this Power Saint Peter signally did execute in converting Christians, and receiving them by Baptism into the Church, by conferring the Holy Ghost, and the like administrations.

Our Lord charged Simon Son of Jonas to feed his Sheep; this he per∣formed by preaching, writing, guiding and governing Christians,* 1.333 as he found opportunity; wherefore if any thing was couched under those promises or orders, singularly pertinent to Saint Peter; for the same reason that they were singular, they were personal; for,

These things being, in a conspicuous manner accomplished in St. Pe∣ter's Person, the sense of those words is exhausted; there may not, with any probability, there cannot with any assurance be any more grounded on them; whatever more is inferred, must be by precarious assump∣tion; and justly we may cast at those who shall in∣fer it that expos••ulation of Tertullian,* 1.334 What art thou, who dost overturn and change the manifest in∣tention of our Lord, personally conferring this on Peter?

3. Particularly the grand promise to Saint Peter of founding the Church on him cannot reach beyond his person; because there can be no other foundations of a Society, than such as are first laid; the succes∣sours of those, who first did erect a Society, and establish it, are them∣selves but superstructures.

4. The Apostolical Office as such was personal and temporary; and therefore according to its nature and design not successive or communi∣cable to others in perpetual descendence from them.

It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for special purposes, discharged by special aids, en∣dowed with special privileges, as was needfull for the propagation of Christianity, and founding of Churches.

To that Office it was requisite, that the Person should have an imme∣diate designation and commission from God; such as Saint Paul so often doth insist upon for asserting his title to the Office; Paul an Apostle, not from men,* 1.335 or by man— not by men, saith St. Chrysostome, this is a property of the Apostles.

It was requisite that an Apostle should be able to attest concerning our Lord's Resurrection or Ascension, either immediately as the twelve, or by evident consequence as Saint Paul; thus Saint Peter implyed, at the choice of Matthias, wherefore of those men, which have companyed with us— must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the Resurrection; and, Am I not (saith Saint Paul) an Apostle, have I not seen the Lord?* 1.336 accor∣ding to that of Ananias, The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will, and see that just one, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth; for thou shalt bear witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

It was needfull also that an Apostle should be endowed with miracu∣lous gifts and graces, enabling him both to assure his Authority, and to execute his Office; wherefore Saint Paul calleth these,* 1.337 the marks of an Apostle, the which were wrought by him among the Corinthians in all pa∣tience (or perseveringly) in signs and wonders, and mighty deeds.

It was also in St. Chrysostome's opinion, proper to an Apostle, that he should be able according to his discretion in a certain and conspicuous manner to impart Spiritual Gifts; as Saint Peter and Saint John did at

Samaria;* 1.338 which to doe, according to that Father, was the peculiar gift and privilege of the Apostles.

It was also a privilege of an Apostle, by virtue of his commission from Christ, to instruct all Nations in the Doctrine and Law of Christ; He had right and warrant to exercise his function every where,* 1.339 His charge was universal and indefinite; the whole world was his Province; he was not affixed to one place, nor could be excluded from any; he was (as St. Cyril calleth him) an Oecumenical Judge,* 1.340 and an Instructour of all the Subcelestial World.

Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner, according to discre∣tion, as being guided by infallible assistence, to the which they might upon occasion appeal,* 1.341 and affirm, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. Whence their Writings have passed for inspired, and there∣fore Canonical, or certain Rules of Faith and Practice.

It did belong to them to found Churches, to constitute Pastours, to settle orders, to correct offences, to perform all such Acts of Sovereign, Spiritual Power, in virtue of the same Divine assistence, according to the Authority, which the Lord had given them for edification; as we see prac∣tised by Saint Paul.

In fine, the Apostleship was (as St. Chrysostome tel∣leth us) a business fraught with ten thousand good things;* 1.342 both greater than all privileges of grace, and comprehensive of them.

Now such an Office, consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the foundation of the Church, and the diffusion of Christianity, against the manifold difficul∣ties and disadvantages, which it then needs must encounter, was not de∣signed to continue by derivation; for it containeth in it divers things, which apparently were not communicated, and which no man without gross imposture and hypocrisie could challenge to himself.

Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicate it; they did indeed appoint standing Pastours and Teachers in each Church; they did as∣sume Fellow-labourers or Assistents in the work of Preaching and Gover∣nance; but they did not constitute Apostles, equal to themselves in Au∣thority,* 1.343 Privileges or Gifts. For who knoweth not (saith St. Austin) that principate of Apostleship to be preferred before any Episcopacy? and the Bishops (saith Bellarmine) have no part of the true Apostolical Au∣thority. * 1.344

Wherefore Saint Peter, who had no other Office mentioned in Scrip∣ture, or known to Antiquity, beside that of an Apostle, could not have properly and adequately any Successour to his Office; but it naturally did expire with his Person, as did that of the other Apostles.

5. Accordingly, whereas the other Apostles, as such, had no Succes∣sours, the Apostolical Office not being propagated; the Primacy of Saint Peter (whatever it were, whether of Order or Jurisdiction, in re∣gard to his Brethren) did cease with him; for when there were no Apo∣stles extant, there could be no Head, or Prince of the Apostles in any sense.

6. If some privileges of Saint Peter were derived to Popes, why were not all? why was not Pope Alexander VI. as holy as Saint Peter? why was not Pope Honorius as found in his private judgment? why is not every Pope inspired? why is not every Papal Epistle to be reputed Ca∣nonical? why are not all Popes endowed with power of doing miracles? why doth not the Pope by a Sermon convert thousands? (why in∣deed do Popes never preach) why doth not he cure men by his shadow (he is, say they, himself his shadow:) what ground is there of distin∣guishing the privileges, so that he shall have some, not others? where is the ground to be found?

7. If it be objected, that the Fathers commonly do call Bishops Suc∣cessours of the Apostles; to assoil that objection we may consider, that whereas the Apostolical Office virtually did contain the functions of Teaching, and ruling God's people, the which for preservation of Chri∣stian doctrine and edification of the Church, were requisite to be conti∣nued perpetually in ordinary standing Offices, these indeed were derived from the Apostles, but not properly in way of succession, as by univocal propagation; but by Ordination, imparting all the power needfull for such Offices; which therefore were exercised by persons during the A∣postles lives concurrently, or in subordination to them; even as a Dicta∣tour at Rome might create inferiour Magistrates, who derived from him, but not as his Successours; for (as Bellarmine him∣self telleth us) there can be no proper succession but in respect of one preceding,* 1.345 but Apostles and Bishops were together in the Church.

The Fathers therefore so in a large sense call all Bishops Successours of the Apostles, not meaning that any one of them did succeed into the whole Apostolical Office; but that each did receive his power from some one (immediately or mediately) whom some Apostle did consti∣tute Bishop, vesting him with Authority to feed the particular Flock committed to him in way of ordinary charge; ac∣cording to the sayings of that Apostolical person, Clemens Rom.* 1.346 The Apostles preaching in Regions and Cities did constitute their first Converts, having ap∣proved them by the Spirit, for Bishops and Deacons of those who should afterward believe; and having con∣stituted the foresaid (Bishops and Deacons,* 1.347) they withall gave them farther charge, that if they should dye, other approved men successively should receive their Office: thus did the Bishops supply the room of the Apostles, each in guiding his particular charge,* 1.348 all of them together by mutual aid conspiring to govern the whole Body of the Church.

8. In which regard it may be said that not one single Bishop, but all Bishops together through the whole Church do succeed Saint Peter, or any other Apostle; for that all of them in union together have an uni∣versal Sovereign Authority, commensurate to an Apostle.

9. This is the notion, which St. Cyprian doth so much insist upon, affirming that the Bishops do succeed Saint Peter, and the other Apostles,* 1.349 by vicarious ordination; that the Bishops are Apostles; that there is but one chair by the Lord's word built upon one Peter; One undivided Bishoprick, diffused in the peacefull nume∣rosity of many Bishops, whereof each Bishop doth hold his share; One Flock whom the Apostles by unanimous agreement did feed, and which afterward the Bishops do feed; having a portion thereof allotted to each, which he should govern.

* 1.350So the Synod of Carthage with St. Cyprian.

So also St. Chrysostome saith, that the Sheep of Christ were committed by him to Peter and to those after him,* 1.351 that is, in his meaning, to all Bishops.

10. Such, and no other power Saint Peter might devolve on any Bi∣shop ordained by him in any Church, which he did constitute or inspect; as in that of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Babylon, of Rome.

* 1.352The like did the other Apostles communicate, who had the same power with Saint Peter in founding and settling Churches; whose Suc∣cessours of this kind were equal to those of the same kind, whom St. Pe∣ter did constitute; enjoying in their several precincts an equal part of the Apostolical power; as St. Cyprian often doth assert.

11. It is in consequence observable, that in those Churches, whereof the Apostles themselves were never accounted Bishops, yet the Bishops are called Successours of the Apostles; which cannot otherwise be un∣derstood, than according to the sense which we have proposed; that is, because they succeeded those, who were constituted by the Apostles;* 1.353 according to those sayings of Ire∣naeus and Tertullian; we can number those, who were instituted bishops by the Apostles and their Successours; and, All the Churches do shew those, whom being by the Apostles constituted in the Episcopal Office they have as continuers of the Apostolical seed.

So although Saint Peter was never reckoned Bishop of Alexandria, yet because 'tis reported that he placed Saint Mark there,* 1.354 the Bishop of Alexandria is said to succeed the Apostles.

And because Saint John did abide at Ephesus, inspecting that Church, and appointing Bishops there,* 1.355 the Bishops of that See did refer their Ori∣gine to him.

So many Bishops did claim from Saint Paul.

So St. Cyprian and Firmilian do assert themselves Successours of the Apostles,* 1.356 who yet perhaps never were at Carthage or Caesarea.

So the Church of Constantinople is often in the Acts of the Sixth General Council,* 1.357 called this great Apostolick Church, being such Churches, as those of whom Tertullian saith, that although they do not pro∣duce any of the Apostles, or Apostolical men for their authour, yet conspiring in the same faith, are no less, for the consanguinity of doctrine, reputed Apostolical.

Yea hence St. Hierome doth assert a parity of merit and dignity Sa∣cerdotal to all Bishops; because (saith he) all of them are Successours to the Apostles; having all a like power by their ordination conferred on them.* 1.358

12. Whereas our Adversaries do pretend, that indeed the other Apo∣stles had an extraordinary charge as Legates of Christ,* 1.359 which had no suc∣cession, but was extinct in their persons; but that Saint Peter had a pe∣culiar charge, as ordinary Pastour of the whole Church, which sur∣viveth:

To this it is enough to rejoyn, that it is a mere figment, devised for a shift, and affirmed precariously; having no ground either in Holy Scrip∣ture, or in ancient Tradition; there being no such distinction in the Sa∣cred or Ecclesiastical Writings; no mention occurring there of any Of∣fice which he did assume, or which was attributed to him, distinct from that extraordinary one of an Apostle; and all the Pastoral charge ima∣ginable being ascribed by the Ancients to all the Apostles in regard to the whole Church, as hath been sufficiently declared.

13. In fine, If any such conveyance of power, (of power so great, so momentous, so mightily concerning the perpetual state of the Church, and of each person therein) had been made; it had been (for general direction and satisfaction, for voiding all doubt and debate about it, for stifling these pretended Heresies and Schisms) very requisite, that it should have been expressed in some authentick Record, that a particular Law should have been extant concerning it, that all posterity should be warned to yield the submission grounded thereon.

Indeed a matter of so great consequence to the being and welfare of the Church could scarce have scaped from being clearly mentioned some∣where or other in Scripture, wherein so much is spoken touching Ec∣clesiastical Discipline; it could scarce have avoided the pen of the first Fathers (Clemens, Ignatius, the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, Ter∣tullian, &c.) who also so much treat concerning the Function and Au∣thority of Christian Governours.

Nothing can be more strange, than that in the Statute-book of the new Jerusalem, and in all the Original Monuments concerning it, there should be such a dead silence concerning the succession of its chief Ma∣gistrate.

Wherefore no such thing appearing, we may reasonably conclude no such thing to have been, and that our Adversaries assertion of it is whol∣ly arbitrary, imaginary and groundless.

14. I might add, as a very convincing Argument, that if such a suc∣cession had been designed, and known in old times, it is morally impos∣sible, that none of the Fathers (Origen, Chrysostome, Augustine, Cyril,

Hierome, Theodoret, &c.) in their exposition of the places alledged by the Romanists for the Primacy of Saint Peter, should declare that Prima∣cy to have been derived and setled on Saint Peter's Successour; a point of that moment, if they had been aware of it, they could not but have touched, as a most usefull application, and direction for duty.

SUPPOSITION III. They affirm, That Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome.

COncerning which Assertion we say, that it may with great reason be denyed, and that it cannot any-wise be assured; as will appear by the following Considerations.

1. Saint Peter's being Bishop of Rome would confound the Offices, which God made distinct;* 1.360 for God did appoint first Apostles, then Pro∣phets, then Pastours and Teachers; wherefore Saint Peter after he was an Apostle, could not well become a Bishop; it would be such an irre∣gularity, as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon.

2. The Offices of an Apostle, and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent; for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office, charged with instruction and government of the whole world,* 1.361 and calling for an answerable care (the Apo∣stles being Rulers, as Saint Chrysostome saith, ordain∣ed by God; Rulers not taking several Nations and Ci∣ties, but all of them in common entrusted with the whole world) but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge, affixed to one place, and requiring a special attendance there; Bishops being Pastours, who (as St. Chrysostome saith) do sit,* 1.362 and are employed in one place: Now he that hath such a general care, can hardly discharge such a particular Office; and he that is fixed to so par∣ticular attendance, can hardly look well after so general a charge: Either of those Offices alone would suffice to take up a whole man; as those tell us, who have considered the burthen incumbent on the meanest of them; the which we may see described in St. Chrysostome's Discourses concerning the Priesthood.

Baronius saith of Saint Peter, that it was his Office, not to stay in one place, but as much as it was possible for one man to travel over the whole world,* 1.363 and to bring those who did not yet believe to the faith, but thoroughly to establish believers; if so, how could he be Bishop of Rome, which was an Office inconsi∣stent with such vagrancy?

3. It would not have beseemed Saint Peter, the prime Apostle, to assume the charge of a particular Bishop; it had been a degradation of himself, and a disparagement to the Apostolical Majesty for him to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome; as if the King should become Mayor of Lon∣don; as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras.

4. Wherefore it is not likely, that Saint Peter, being sensible of that superiour charge belonging to him, which did exact a more extensive care, would vouchsafe to undertake an inferiour charge.

We cannot conceive, that Saint Peter did affect the Name of a Bishop, as now men do, allured by the baits of wealth and power, which then were none: if he did affect the Title, why did he not in either of his E∣pistles (one of which, as they would persuade us, was written from Rome) inscribe himself Bishop of Rome?

Especially considering, that being an Apostle, he hid not need any particular Authority, that involving all power, and enabling him in any particular place to execute all kinds of Ecclesiastical Administrations: there was no reason, that an Apostle (or Universal Bishop) should be∣come a particular Bishop.

5. Also Saint Peter's general charge of converting and inspecting the Jews, dispersed over the World (his Apostleship, as Saint Paul calleth it,* 1.364 of the Circumcision) which required much travel, and his presence in divers places, doth not well agree to his assuming the Episcopal Office at Rome.

Especially at that time, when they first make him to assume it; which was in the time of Claudius, who (as Saint Luke, and other Histories do report) did banish all the Jews from Rome,* 1.365 as Tiberius also had done before him: He was too skilfull a Fisherman to cast his Net there, where there were no Fish.

6. If we consider Saint Peter's life, we may well deem him uncapable of this Office; which he could not conveniently discharge: for it, as History doth represent it, and may be collected from divers circumstan∣ces of it, was very unsetled; he went much about the World, and there∣fore could seldom reside at Rome.

Many have argued him to have never been at Rome; which opinion I shall not avow, as bearing a more civil respect to ancient Testimonies and Traditions; although many false and fabulous relations of that kind having crept into History and common vogue;* 1.366 many doubtfull reports having passed concerning him; many notorious forgeries having been vented about his travels and acts, (all that is reported of him out of Scripture having a smack of the Legend) would tempt a man to suspect any thing touching him, which is grounded onely upon humane Tradi∣tion; so that the forger of his Epistle to Saint James might well induce him saying,* 1.367 If while I do yet sur∣vive, men dare to feign such things of me, how much more will they dare to doe so after my decease?

But at least the discourses of those men have evinced that it is hard to assign the time, when he was at Rome; and that he could never long abide there. For,

The time which old Tradition assigneth of his going to Rome, is rejected by divers learned men,* 1.368 even of the Roman Party.

He was often in other places;* 1.369 sometimes at Jeru∣salem, sometimes at Antioch, sometimes at Babylon, sometimes at Corinth, sometimes probably at each of those places unto which he directeth his Catho∣lick Epistles; among which Epiphanius saith,* 1.370 that Peter did often visit Pontus and Bithynia.

And that he seldom was at Rome, may well be collected from St. Paul's Writings; for he writing at different times one Epistle to Rome, and di∣vers Epistles from Rome (that to the Galatians, that to the Ephesians, that to the Philippians, that to the Colossians, and the Second to Timothy) doth never mention him, sending any salutation to him, or from him.

Particularly Saint Peter was not there, when Saint Paul mentioning Tychicus,* 1.371 Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus, addeth these alone my fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God, who have been a comfort unto me.

* 1.372He was not there, when Saint Paul said, at my first defence no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.

He was not there immediately before Saint Paul's death (when the time of his departure was at hand) when he telleth Timothy,* 1.373 that all the brethren did salute him, and naming divers of them, he omitteth Peter.

Which things being considered, it is not probable that Saint Peter would assume the Episcopal Chair of Rome, he being little capable to re∣side there, and for that other needfull affairs would have forced him to leave so great a Church destitute of their Pastour.

7. It was needless that he should be Bishop, for that by virtue of his Apostleship (involving all the power of inferiour degrees) he might whenever he should be at Rome exercise Episcopal Functions and Autho∣rity. What need a Sovereign Prince to be made a Justice of Peace—

8. Had he done so, he must have given a bad example of Non-resi∣dence,* 1.374 a practice that would have been very ill relished in the Primitive Church, as we may see by several Canons interdicting offences of kin to it (it being I think then not so known as nominally to be censured) and culpable upon the same ground; and by the sayings of Fathers condem∣ning practices approaching to it.

Even latter Synods in more corrupt times, and in the declension of good Order,* 1.375 yet did prohibit this practice.

Epiphanius therefore did well infer, that it was needfull the Apostles should constitute Bishops resident at Rome; It was (saith he) possible,* 1.376 that the Apostles Peter and Paul yet surviving other Bishops should be constituted, be∣cause the Apostles often did take journeys into other Countries, for preaching Christ, but the City of Rome could not be without a Bishop.

9. If Saint Peter were Bishop of Rome, he thereby did offend against divers other good Ecclesiastical Rules, which either were in practice from the beginning, or at least the reason of them was always good, upon which the Church did afterward enact them; so that either he did ill in thwarting them, or the Church had done it in establishing them, so as to condemn his practice.

10. It was against Rule, that any Bishop should desert one Church,* 1.377 and transfer himself to another; and indeed against Reason, such a re∣lation and endearment being contracted between a Bishop and his Church, which cannot well be dissolved.

But Saint Peter is by Ecclesiastical Historians re∣ported (and by Romanists admitted) to have been Bishop of Antioch for seven years together.* 1.378

He therefore did ill to relinquish that Church, that most ancient and truly Apostolick Church of An∣tioch,* 1.379 as the Constantinopolitan Fathers call'd it) and to place his See at Rome.

This practice was esteemed bad, and of very mischievous conse∣quence; earnestly reproved as heinously criminal by great Fathers, se∣verely condemned by divers Synods.

Particularly a transmigration from a lesser and poorer to a greater and more wealthy Bishoprick (which is the present case) was chec∣ked by them as rankly savouring of selfish ambition or avarice.

The Synod of Alexandria (in Athanasius) in its Epistle to all Catho∣lick Bishops doth say, that Eusebius by passing from Berytus to Nicomedia had annulled his Episcopacy,* 1.380 making it an adultery, worse than that which is committed by marriage upon divorce; Eusebius (say they) did not consider the Apostle's admoniti∣on, Art thou bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed;* 1.381 for if it be said of a woman, how much more of a Church; of the same Bishoprick; to which one being tyed, ought not to seek another, that he may not be found also an adulterer, according to the Holy Scrip∣ture? Surely when they said this, they did forget, what Saint Peter was said to have done in that kind; as did also the Sardican Fathers in their Synodical Letter extant in the same Apology of A∣thanasius,* 1.382 condemning translations from lesser Ci∣ties unto greater Dioceses.

The same practice is forbidden by the Synods of Nice I. of Chalcedon, of Antioch, of Sardica,* 1.383 of Arles I. &c.

In the Synod under Mennas, it was laid to the charge of Anthimus,* 1.384 that having been Bishop of Trabisond, he had adulterously snatched the See of Constantinople, against all Ecclesiastical Laws and Ca∣nons.

Yea great Popes of Rome (little considering how peccant therein their Predecessour Pope Peter was) Pope Julius and Pope Damasus did greatly* 1.385

tax this practice; whereof the latter in his Synod at Rome did excom∣municate all those,* 1.386 who should commit it.

* 1.387In like manner Pope Leo I.

These Laws were so indispensable, that in respect to them, Constan∣tine M. who much loved and honoured Eusebius (acknowledging him in the common judgment of the world deserving to be Bishop of the whole Church) did not like, that he should accept the Bishoprick of Antioch, to which he was invited; and commended his waving it, as an act not onely consonant to the Ecclesiastical Canons,* 1.388 but acceptable to God, and agreeable to Apostolical Tradition; so little aware was the good Emperour, of Saint Peter being translated from Antioch to Rome.

In regard to the same Law, Gregory Nazianzene (a person of so great worth, and who had deserved so highly of the Church at Constantinople) could not be permitted to retain his Bishoprick of that Church, to which he had been call'd from that small one of Sasima: The Synod (saith Sozomen) observing the ancient laws,* 1.389 and the Ecclesiastical rule, did receive his Bi∣shoprick, from him being willingly offered, no-wise regarding the great merits of the person; the which Synod surely would have excluded Saint Peter from the Bishoprick of Rome:* 1.390 and it is observable that Pope Damasus did approve and exhort those Fathers to that proceeding—

We may indeed observe, that Pope Pelagius II. did excuse the transla∣tion of Bishops by the example of Saint Peter; for who ever dareth to say (argueth he) that Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles did not act well,* 1.391 when he changed his See from Antioch to Rome?

But I think it more adviseable to excuse Saint Peter from being Au∣thour of a practice, judged so irregular, by denying the matter of Fact laid to his charge.

11. It was anciently deemed a very irregular thing,* 1.392 contrary (saith St. Cyprian) to the Ecclesia∣stical disposition, contrary to the Evangelical Law, contrary to the unity of Catholick Institution; a Sym∣bol (saith another Ancient Writer) of dissention,* 1.393 and disagreeable to Ecclesiastical Law; which there∣fore was condemned by the Synod of Nice,* 1.394 by

Pope Cornelius, by Pope Innocent the First,* 1.395 and others, that two Bishops should preside together in one City.

This was condemned with good reason; for this on the Churches part would be a kind of spiritual Polygamy; this would render a Church a monster with two heads; this would destroy the end of Episcopacy, which is unity and prevention of Schisms.* 1.396

But if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome, this irregularity was commit∣ted; for the same Authority upon which Saint Peter's Episcopacy of Rome is built, doth also reckon Saint Paul Bishop of the same; the same Writers do make both Founders and Planters of the Roman Church, and the same call both Bishops of it; wherefore if Episcopacy be taken in a strict and proper sense, agreeable to this Controversie, that rule must needs be infringed thereby.

Irenaeus saith,* 1.397 that the Roman Church was founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; Dionysius of Corinth calleth it the plantation of Peter and Paul; Epiphanius saith, that Peter and Paul were first at Rome both Apostles and Bishops; so Eusebius implyeth, say∣ing that P. Alexander derived a succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Donys. Corinth. apud Euseb. 2.25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph.* 1.398 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. 4.1.

Wherefore both of them were Roman Bishops, or neither of them: In reason and rule neither of them may be called so in a strict and proper sense; but in a larger and improper sense both might be so styled.

Indeed that Saint Paul was in some acception Bishop of Rome (that is, had a Supreme superintendence or inspection of it) is reasonable to af∣firm; because he did for a good time reside there, and during that resi∣dence could not but have the chief place, could be subject to no other; He (saith Saint Luke) did abide two whole years in his own hired house,* 1.399 and received all that entred in unto him, preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things, which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all con∣fidence, no man forbidding him.

It may be enquired, if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome, how he did be∣come such? did our Lord appoint him such, did the Apostles all or any constitute him, did the people elect him, did he put himself into it? of none of these things there is any appearance, nor any probability. Non constat.

SUPPOSITION IV. They affirm, That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation, and was so at his decease.

AGainst which Assertions we may consider:

1. Ecclesiastical Writers do affirm, that Saint Peter (either alone, or together with Saint Paul) did constitute other Bishops; wherefore Saint Peter was never Bishop, or did not continue Bishop there.

Irenaeus saith, that the Apostles founding and rea∣ring that Church,* 1.400 delivered the Episcopal Office into the hands of Linus; if so, how did they retain it in their own hands or persons? could they give, and have?

* 1.401Tertullian saith, that Saint Peter did ordain Cle∣ment.

In the Apostolical Constitutions (a very ancient Book, and setting forth the most ancient Traditions of the Church,) the Apostles orde∣ring Prayers to be made for all Bishops, and naming the principal,* 1.402 do reckon, not St. Pe∣ter, but Clement, Let us pray for our Bishop James, for our Bishop Clemens, for our Bishop Evodius,* 1.403 &c.

These reports are consistent, and reconciled by that which the Apo∣stolical Constitutions affirm;* 1.404 that Linus was first ordained Bishop of the Roman Church by Paul; but Clemens after the death of Linus by Peter in the second place.

Others between Linus and Clemens do interpose Cletus or Anacletus (some taking these for one,* 1.405 o∣thers for two persons) which doth not alter the case.

Now hence we may infer, both that Saint Peter never was Bishop; and, upon supposition that he was, that he did not continue so. For,

2. If he had ever been Bishop, he could not well lay down his Office, or subrogate another, either to preside with him, or to succeed him; ac∣cording to the ancient Rules of Discipline, and that which passed for right in the Primitive Church.

This practice Pope Innocent I. condemned, as irregular and never known before his time; We (saith he in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople) never have known these things to have been adventured by our Fathers,* 1.406 but rather to have been hindred; for that none hath power given him to ordain another into the place of one living: He did not (it seems) consider, that Saint Peter had used such a power.

Accordingly the Synod of Antioch (to secure the tradition and prac∣tice of the Church, which began by some to be infringed) did make this Sanction, that it should not be lawfull for any Bishop to constitute another in his room to succeed him;* 1.407 although it were at the point of death.

3. But supposing Saint Peter were Bishop once, yet by constituting Linus, or Clemens in his place, he ceased to be so, and devested himself of that place; for it had been a great irregularity for him to continue Bishop together with another.

That being, in St. Cyprian's judgment, the Ordination of Linus had been void and null; for seeing (saith that H. Mar∣tyr) there cannot after the first be any second,* 1.408 who∣ever is after one, who ought to be sole Bishop, he is not now second, but none.

Upon this ground, when the Emperour Constantius would have pro∣cured Felix to sit Bishop of Rome together with Pope Liberius, at his return from Banishment (after his complyance with the Arians) the people of Rome would not admit it, exclaiming One God, one Christ, one Bishop; and whereas Felix soon after that dyed, the Historian remarketh it as a special providence of God that Peter's Throne might not suffer infamy;* 1.409 being go∣verned under two Prelates; he never considered, that Saint Peter and Saint Paul, Saint Peter and Linus had thus governed that same Church.

Upon this account St. Austin being assumed by Valerius with him to be Bishop of Hippo, did afterward discern and acknowledge his errour.* 1.410

In fine, to obviate this practice, so many Canons of Councils (both general and particular) were made, which we before did mention.

4. In sum, when Saint Peter did ordain others (as story doth ac∣cord in affirming) either he did retain the Episcopacy, and then (beside need, reason and rule) there were concurrently divers Bishops of Rome at one time; or he did quite relinquish and finally divorce himself from the Office, so that he did not dye Bishop of Rome,* 1.411 the which overturneth the main ground of the Ro∣mish pretence. Or will they say, that Saint Peter, having laid aside the Office for a time, did after∣ward before his death resume it? then what became of Linus, of Cletus, of Clemens? were they disposses∣sed of their place, or deposed from their function; would Saint Peter succeed them in it?* 1.412 this in Bel∣larmine's own judgment had been plainly intolerable.

5. To avoid all which difficulties in the case, and perplexities in sto∣ry, it is reasonable to understand those of the Ancients, who call Pe∣ter Bishop of Rome, and Rome the place, the Chair, the See of Peter, as meaning that he was Bishop or Superintendent of that Church, in a large sense; because he did found the Church by converting men to the Christian Faith; because he did erect the Chair by ordaining the first Bishops; because he did in virtue both of his Apostolical Office,

and his special parental relation to that Church maintain a particular inspection over it, when he was there: which notion is not new, for of old Ruffinus affirmeth that he had it, not from his own invention, but from Tradition of others;* 1.413 Some (saith he) inquire how, seeing Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clement, Clement himself wri∣ting to James, could say that the See was delivered to him by Peter; whereof this reason has been given us, viz. that Linus and Cletus were indeed Bishops of Rome before Clement, but Peter being yet living, viz. that they might take the Episcopal charge, but he fulfill'd the Office of the Apostleship.

6. This notion may be confirmed by divers observations.

* 1.414It is observable that the most ancient Writers, living nearest the foun∣tains of Tradition, do not expresly style Saint Peter Bishop of Rome, but onely say, that he did found that Church, instituting and ordaining Bi∣shops there; as the other Apostles did in the Churches which they set∣led; so that the Bishops there in a large sense did succeed him, and deri∣ving their power from his ordination, and supplying his room in the in∣struction and governance of that great Church. Yea their words if we well mark them,* 1.415 do exclude the Apostles from the Episcopacy. Which words the later Writers (who did not foresee the conse∣quence, nor what an exorbitant superstructure would be raised on that slender bottom, and who were willing to comply with the Roman Bishops, affecting by all means to reckon Saint Peter for their predecessour) did easily catch, and not well distinguishing did call him Bishop, and St. Paul also, so making two Heads of one Church.

7. It is also observable, that in the recensions of the Roman Bishops, sometimes the Apostles are reckoned in, sometimes excluded.

So Eusebius calleth Clemens the third Bishop of Rome,* 1.416 yet before him he reckoneth Linus and Ana∣cletus.

And of Alexander he saith, that he deduced his Succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul,* 1.417 that is, excluding the Apostles.

* 1.418And Hyginus is thus accounted sometime the eighth, sometime the ninth Bishop of Rome.

The same difference in reckoning may be observed in other Churches; for instance, although Saint Peter is called no less Bishop of Antioch, than of Rome, by the Ancients, yet Eusebius saith, that Evodius was first Bishop of Antioch;* 1.419 and ano∣ther bids the Antiocheans remember Evodius, who was first entrusted with the Presidency over them by the Apostles.

Other instances may be seen in the Notes of Cotellerius upon the A∣postolical Constitutions, where he maketh this general Observation.

'Tis an usual custome with the Apostles according to their Power ordinary or extraordinary,* 1.420 Episcopal or

Apostolical, to prefix, &c. but it was needless to sup∣pose these two Powers, when one was sufficient, it virtually containing the other.

This is an Argument that the Ancients were not assured in opinion; that the Apostles were Bishops; or that they did not esteem them Bi∣shops in the same notion with others.

8. It is observable, that divers Churches did take denomination from the Apostles, and were called Apostolical Thrones, or Chairs,* 1.421 not because the Apostles themselves did sit Bishops there, but because they did exercise their Apostleship, in teaching; and in constituting Bishops there,* 1.422 who (as Ter∣tullian saith) did propagate the Apostolical seed.

So was Ephesus esteemed, because Saint Paul did found it,* 1.423 and or∣dain Timothy there; and because Saint John did govern and appoint Bi∣shops there.

So was Smyrna accounted, because Polycarpus was setled there by the Apostles, or by Saint John.* 1.424

So Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, had a controversie about metropolitical rights with Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, as presiding in an Apostolical See.* 1.425

So Alexandria was deemed, because Saint Mark was supposed by the appointment of Saint Peter to sit there.

So were Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi called by Tertullian, because Saint Paul did found them, and furnish them with Pastours;* 1.426 in which respect peculiarly the Bishops of those places were called Successours of the Apostles.

So Constantinople did assume the title of an Apostolical Church,* 1.427 pro∣bably because, according to tradition, St. Andrew did found that Church, although Pope Leo I. would not allow it that appellation.

Upon the same account might Rome at first be called an Apostolical See; although afterward the Roman Bishops did rather pretend to that

denomination, upon account of Saint Peter being Bishop there; and the like may be said of Antioch.* 1.428

* 1.4299. It is observable, that the Authour of the Apostolical Constituti∣ons, reciting the first Bishops constituted in several Churches, doth not reckon any of the Apostles; particularly not Peter, or Paul, or John.

10. Again, any Apostle wherever he did reside by virtue of his A∣postolical Office, without any other designation or assumption of a more special Power, was qualifyed to preside there, exercising a Superinten∣dency comprehensive of all Episcopal functions; so that it was needless, that he should take upon himself the character or style of a Bishop.

This (beside the tenour of ancient Doctrine) doth appear from the demeanour of Saint John,* 1.430 who never was reckoned Bishop of Ephesus; nor could be, without displacing Timothy, who by Saint Paul was constituted Bishop there, or succee∣ding in his room; yet he abiding at Ephesus, did there discharge the Office of a Metropolitan; go∣verning the Churches, and in the adjacent Churches here constituting Bishops, there forming whole Chur∣ches, otherwhere allotting to the Clergy Persons de∣signed by the Spirit.

Such Functions might Saint Peter execute in the parts of Rome, or Antioch, without being a Bishop; and as the Bishops of Asia did (saith Tertullian) refer their original to Saint John, so might the Bishops of Italy,* 1.431 upon the like ground, refer their original to Saint Peter.

It is observable, that whereas Saint Peter is affirmed to have been Bishop of Antioch seven years before his access to Rome,* 1.432 that is within the compass of Saint Luke's story; yet he passeth over a matter of so great moment; as St. Hierome observeth.

I cannot grant, that if Saint Luke had thought Peter Sovereign of the Church, and his Episcopacy of a place a matter of such consequence, he would have slipped it over, being so obvious a thing, and coming in the way of his story.

He therefore I conceive was no Bishop of Anti∣och, although a Bishop at Antioch.* 1.433

11. If in objection to some of these discourses, it be alledged, that Saint James our Lord's near Kinsman, although he was an Apostle, was made Bishop of Jerusalem; and that for the like reason Saint Peter might assume the Bishoprick of Rome;

I answer.

1. It is not certain, that Saint James the Bishop of Jerusalem was an Apostle;* 1.434 (meaning an Apostle of the primary rank,) for Eusebius (the greatest Antiquary of old times) doth reckon him one of the 70 disciples.

So doth the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions in divers places suppose.* 1.435

Hegesippus (that most ancient Historian) was of the same mind, who saith,* 1.436 that there were many of this name, and that this James did undertake the Church with the Apostles.

Of the same opinion was Epiphanius,* 1.437 who saith that Saint James was the Son of Joseph by another Wife.

The whole Greek Church doth suppose the same, keeping three di∣stinct solemnities for him, and the two Apostles of the same name.

Gregory Nyssene, St. Hierome, and divers other ancient Writers do con∣cur herein, whom we may see alledged by Grotius, Dr. Hammond,* 1.438 (who themselves did embrace the same opinion) Valesius, Blondel, &c.

Salmasius (after his confident manner) saith it is certain, that he was not one of the twelve; I may at least say, it is not certain that he was, and conse∣quently the objection is grounded on an uncertainty.

2. Granting that Saint James was one of the A∣postles (as some of the Ancients seem to think,* 1.439 cal∣ling him an Apostle; and as divers modern Divines conceive, grounding chiefly upon these words of Saint Paul, But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's Brother, and taking Apostles there in the strictest sense) I answer,

That the case was peculiar, and there doth appear a special reason, why one of the Apostles should be designed to make a constant residence at Jerusalem, and consequently to preside there like a Bishop. For Je∣rusalem was the Metropolis, the Fountain, the Centre of the Christian Religion, where it had birth, where was greatest matter and occasion of propagating the Gospel, most people disposed to embrace it resorting thither; where the Church was very numerous, consisting, as St. Luke (or Saint James in him) doth intimate,* 1.440 of divers myriads of believing Jews; whence it might seem expedient, that a person of greatest Au∣thority should be fixed there for the confirming and improving that Church, together with the propagation of Religion among the people, which resorted thither; the which might induce the Apostles to settle Saint James there, both for discharging the Office of an Apostle, and the supplying the room of a Bishop there.

According to him (saith Eusebius) The Episcopal Throne was committed by the Apostles;* 1.441 or our Lord (saith Epiphanius) did entrust him with his own Throne.

But there was no need of fixing an Apostle at other places; nor doth it appear that any was so fixed; especially Saint Peter was uncapable of such an employment, requiring settlement and constant attendance, who beside his general Apostleship, had a peculiar Apostleship of the dispersed Jews committed to him; who therefore was much engaged in travel for propagation of the Faith, and edifying his Converts every where.

3. The greater consent of the most ancient Writers making St. Iames not to have been one of the twelve Apostles, it is thence accountable, why (as we before noted) Saint James was called by some ancient Wri∣ters the Bishop of Bishops, the Prince of Bishops, &c. because he was the first Bishop, of the first See, and Mother Church; the Apostles being excluded from the comparison.

Upon these considerations we have great reason to refuse the assertion or scandal cast on Saint Peter, that he took on him to be Bishop of Rome, in a strict sense, as it is understood in this controversie.

SUPPOSITION V. A father Assertion is this, superstructed by conse∣quence on the former, That the Bishops of Rome, (according to God's institution, and by original right de∣rived thence) should have an Vniversal Supremacy and jurisdiction, (containing the privileges and preroga∣tives formerly described) over the Christian Church.

THIS Assertion to be very uncertain, yea to be most false, I shall by divers considerations evince.

1. If any of the former Suppositions be uncertain, or false, this Asser∣tion, standing on those legs, must partake of those defects, and answe∣rably be dubious, or false. If either Peter was not Monarch of the A∣postles, or if his privileges were not successive, or if he were not proper∣ly Bishop of Rome at his decease, then farewell the Romish claim; if any of those things be dubious, it doth totter; if any of them prove false, then down it falleth.

But that each of them is false, hath I conceive been sufficiently decla∣red; that all of them are uncertain, hath at least been made evident.

The Structure therefore cannot be firm, which relieth on such props.

2. Even admitting all those Suppositions, the inference from them is not assuredly valid. For Saint Peter might have an Universal Jurisdic∣tion, he might derive it by Succession, he might be Bishop of Rome; yet no such Authority might hence accrue to the Roman Bishop, his Succes∣sour in that See.

For that Universal Jurisdiction might be derived into another Chanel; and the Bishop of Rome might in other respects be Successour to him, without being so in this.

As for instance in the Roman Empire, before any Rule of Succession was established therein, the Emperour was Sovereign Governour, and he might dye Consul of Rome, having assumed that place to himself; yet when he dyed, the Supreme Authority did not lapse into the hands of the Consul, who succeeded him, but into the hands of the Senate, and People: his Consular Authority onely going to his Successour in that Of∣fice. So might Saint Peter's Universal Power be transferred unto the Ec∣clesiastical

College of Bishops, and of the Church; his Episcopal infe∣riour Authority over the singular 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Province of Rome, being transmitted to his Followers in that Chair.

3. That in truth it was thus, and that all the Authority of Saint Peter and of all other Apostles, was devolved to the Church, and to the repre∣sentative Body thereof, the Fathers did suppose; affirming the Church to have received from our Lord a Sovereign Power.

This (saith St. Cyprian) is that One Church, which holdeth,* 1.442 and possesseth all the power of its Spouse and Lord, in this we preside; for the honour and unity of this we fight— saith he in his Epistle to Jubaianus, wherein he doth impugn the proceedings of Pope Stephanus; the which Sentence St. Austin appropriateth to himself, speaking it absolutely,* 1.443 with∣out citing St. Cyprian. To this Authority of the Church, St. Basil would have all that confess the faith of Christ to submit; To which end we exceedingly need your assistence,* 1.444 that they who confess the Apostolick faith, would renounce the schisms which they have devised, and submit them∣selves henceforth to the Authority of the Church.

They (after the Holy Scripture, which saith,* 1.445 that each Bishop hath a care of God's Church, and is obliged to feed the Church of God— and is appointed to edify the body of Christ) do suppose the administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs concerning the publick state of the Church, the defence of the common Faith,* 1.446 the maintenance of order, peace and unity jointly to belong unto the whole body of Pastours; according to that of St. Cyprian to Pope Stephanus himself, Therefore, most dear brother,* 1.447 the body of Priests is co∣pious, being joined together by the glue of mutual con∣cord, and the bond of unity, that if any of our College shall attempt to make heresie, and to tear or waste the flock of Christ, the rest may come to succour; and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may recollect the sheep into the flock. And again,* 1.448 Which thing it concerns us to look after and redress, most dear brother, who bearing in mind the divine clemency, and holding the scales of the Church-government, &c.

So even the Roman Clergy did acknowledge,* 1.449 For we ought all of us to watch for the body of the whole Church, whose members are digested through several Provinces.

Like the Trinity,* 1.450 whose power is one and undivi∣ded, there is one Priesthood among divers Bishops.

So in the Apostolical Constitutions, the Apostles tell the Bishops, that an universal Episcopacy is en∣trusted to them.

So the Council of Carthage with St. Cyprian— Clear and manifest is the mind and meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ, sending his Apostles, and affording to them alone the power given him of the Father; in whose room we succeeded, governing the Church of God with the same power.

* 1.451Christ our Lord and our God going to the Father, commended his Spouse to us.

A very ancient Instance of which administration is the proceeding against Paulus Samosatenus;* 1.452 when the Pastours of the Churches, some from one place, some from another did assemble together against him as a pest of Christ's flock, all of them hastning to Antioch; where they deposed, exterminated and deprived him of communion, warning the whole Church to reject and disavow him.

Seeing the Pastoral charge is common to us all, who bear the Episcopal Office,* 1.453 although thou fittest in a higher and more eminent place.

* 1.454Therefore for this cause the Holy Church is committed to you and to us, that we may labour for all, and not be slack in yielding help and assistence to all.

Hence Saint Chrysostome said of Eustathius his Bi∣shop;* 1.455 For he was well instructed and taught by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that a President or Bishop of a Church ought not to take care of that Church alone, wherewith he is entrusted by the Holy Ghost, but also of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world.

They consequently did repute Schism, or Eccle∣siastical Rebellion to consist in a departure from the consent of the body of the Priesthood,* 1.456 as St. Cyprian in divers places doth express it in his Epistles to Pope Stephen and others.

They deem all Bishops to partake of the Aposto∣lical Authority, according to that of St. Basil to St. Ambrose;* 1.457 The Lord himself hath translated thee from the Judges of the Earth unto the Prelacy of the Apostles.

They took themselves all to be Vicars of Christ, and Judges in his stead; according to that of St. Cyprian; For Here∣sies are sprung up,* 1.458 and Schisms grown from no other ground nor root but this, because God's Priest was not obeyed, nor was there one Priest or Bishop for a time in the Church, nor a Judge thought on for a time to supply the room of Christ. Where that by Church is meant any particular Church, and by Priest a Bishop of such Church, any one not bewitched with prejudice by the tenour of Saint Cyprian's discourse will easily discern.* 1.459

* 1.460They conceive that our Saviour did promise to Saint Peter the Keys in behalf of the Church, and as representing it.

They suppose the combination of Bishops in peaceable consent, and mutual aid, to be the Rock on which the Church is built.

They alledge the Authority granted to Saint Peter as a ground of claim to the same in all Bishops jointly, and in each Bishop singly, accor∣ding to his rata pars, or allotted proportion.

Which may easily be understood by the words of our Lord, when he says to blessed Peter,* 1.461 whose place the Bishops supply, Whatsoever, &c.

I have the sword of Constantine in my hands, you of Peter, said our great King Edgar.

They do therefore in this regard take themselves all to be Succes∣sours of Saint Peter, that his power is derived to them all, and that the whole Episcopal Order is the Chair by the Lord's voice founded on Saint Peter: thus St. Cyprian in divers places (before touched) dis∣courseth; and thus Firmilian from the Keys granted to Saint Peter in∣ferreth, disputing against the Roman Bishop; There∣fore (saith he) the power of remitting sins is given to the Apostles and to the Churches,* 1.462 which they being sent from Christ did constitute, and to the Bishops, which do succeed them by vicarious ordination.

4. The Bishops of any other Churches founded by the Apostles, in the Fathers style are Successours of the Apostles, in the same sense, and to the same intent as the Bishop of Rome is by them accounted Succes∣sour of Saint Peter; the Apostolical power, which in extent was uni∣versal, being in some sense, in reference to them, not quite extinct, but transmitted by succession; yet the Bishops of Apostolical Churches did never claim, nor allowedly exercise Apostolical Ju∣risdiction, beyond their own precincts;* 1.463 according to those words of St. Hierome, Tell me, what doth Palestine belong to the Bishop of Alexandria?

This sheweth the inconsequence of their discourse; for in like manner the Pope might be Successour to Saint Peter, and Saint Peter's universal power might be successive, yet the Pope have no singular claim thereto, beyond the bounds of his particular Church.

5. So again, for instance, Saint James (whom the Roman Church, in her Liturgies, doth avow for an Apostle,) was Bishop of Jerusalem more unquestionably, than Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome; Jerusalem also was the root,* 1.464 and the mo∣ther of all Churches, (as the Fathers of the Second General Synod, in their Letter to Pope Damasus himself and the Occidental Bishops did call it, for∣getting the singular pretence of Rome to that Title.)

Yet the Bishops of Jerusalem, Successours of Saint James, did not thence claim I know not what kind of extensive Jurisdiction; yea not∣withstanding their succession they did not so much as obtain a metropo∣litical Authority in Palestine, which did belong to Caesarea (having been assigned thereto, in conformity to the Civil Government) and was by special provision reser∣ved thereto in the Synod of Nice;* 1.465 whence St. Je∣rome did not stick to affirm, that the Bishop of Je∣rusalem was subject to the Bishop of Caesarea; for speaking to John Bishop of Jerusalem, who for compurgation of himself from errours imputed to

him had appealed to Theophilus Bishop of Alexan∣dria,* 1.466 he saith, Thou hadst rather cause molestation to ears possessed, than render honour to thy Metropoli∣tan, that is, to the Bishop of Caesarea.

By which instance we may discern, what little consideration some∣times was had of personal or topical succession to the Apostles, in deter∣mining the extent of Jurisdiction, and why should the Roman Bishop up∣on that score pretend more validly, than others?

6. Saint Peter probably e'er that he came at Rome did found divers other Churches,* 1.467 whereof he was paramount Bishop, or did retain a special super∣intendency over them; particularly Antioch was an∣ciently called his See,* 1.468 and he is acknowledged to have sate there seven years, before he was Bishop of Rome.

Why therefore may not the Bishop of Antioch pretend to succeed Saint Peter in his universal Pastourship as well as his younger brother of Rome? why should Evodius ordained by Saint Peter at Antioch, yield to Clemens afterward by him ordained at Rome?

Antioch was the first-born of Gentile Churches, where the name of Christians was first heard;* 1.469 Antioch was (as the Constantinopolitan Fa∣thers called it) the most ancient and truly Apostolical Church.* 1.470

Antioch by virtue of Saint Peter's sitting there, or peculiar relation to it,* 1.471 was (according to their own conceits) the principal See.

Why therefore should Saint Peter be so unkind to it, as not onely to relinquish it, but to debase it; not onely transferring his See from it, but devesting it of the privilege, which it had got?

Why should he prefer before it the City of Rome, the mystical Baby∣lon,* 1.472 the mother of abominations of the earth, the Throne of Satan's Em∣pire, the place which did then most persecute the Christian Faith, and was drunk with the bloud of the Saints?* 1.473

* 1.4747. The ground of this preference was, say they, Saint Peter's Will; and they have reason to say so, for otherwise if Saint Peter had died in∣testate, the Elder Son of Antioch would have had best right to all his goods and dignities.* 1.475

But how doth that Will appear? in what Tables was it written? in what Registers is it extant? in whose presence did he nuncupate it? it is no-where to be seen or heard of.

Neither do they otherwise know of it, than by reasoning it out; and in effect they say onely that it was fit he should will it, but they may be mistaken in their divinations; and perhaps notwithstanding them

Saint Peter might will as well to his former See of Antioch, as to his lat∣ter of Rome.

8. Indeed Bellarmine sometimes positively and briskly enough doth affirm,* 1.476 that God did command Saint Peter to fix his See at Rome; but his proofs of it are so ridiculously fond and weak, that I grudge the trouble of reciting them; and he him∣self sufficiently confuteth them, by saying other-where, It is not unprobable,* 1.477 that our Lord gave an express command, that Peter should so fix his See at Rome, that the Bishop of Rome should absolutely suc∣ceed him.

He saith it is not improbable; if it be no more than so, it is uncer∣tain; it may be a mere conjecture or a dream.

It is much more not-unprobable that if God had commanded it, there would have been some assurance of a command so very im∣portant.

9. Antioch hath at least a fair plea for a share in Saint Peter's Preroga∣tives; for it did ever hold the repute of an Apostolical Church, and up∣on that score some deference was paid to it; why so, if Saint Peter did carry his See with all its Prerogatives to another place? But if he carri∣ed with him onely part of his Prerogative, leaving some part behind at Antioch, how much then I pray did he leave there? why did he divide unequally, or leave less than half? if perchance he did leave half, the Bishop of Antioch is equal to him of Rome.

10. Other persons also may be found, who according to equal judg∣ment might have a better title to the succession of Peter in his Univer∣sal Authority than the Pope; having a nearer relation to him than he, (although his Successour in one charge) or upon other equitable grounds.

For instance, Saint John, or any other Apostle, who did survive Saint Peter; for if Saint Peter was the Father of Christians, (which Title yet our Saviour forbiddeth any one to assume) Saint John might well claim to be his eldest Son; and it had been a very hard case for him to have been postponed in the succession; it had been a derogation to our Lord's own choice, a neglect of his special affection, a disparage∣ment of the Apostolical Office for him to be subjected to any other; neither could any other pretend to the like gifts for management of that great charge.

11. The Bishop of Jerusalem might with much reason have put in his claim thereto, as being Successour of our Lord himself, who unque∣stionably was the High-priest of our Profession, and Archbishop of all our Souls; whose See was the Mother of all Churches; wherein St. Pe∣ter himself did at first reside, exercising his Vicarship: If our Lord, up∣on special accounts out of course had put the Sovereignty into Saint Pe∣ter's hands, yet after his decease it might be fit, that it should return in∣to its proper chanel.

This may seem to have been the judgment of the times, when the Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions did write, who reporteth the Apostles to have ordered Prayers to be made first for James, then for Clement, then for Evodius.

12. Equity would rather have required, that one should by common consent and election of the whole Church be placed in Saint Peter's room, than that the Bishop of Rome, by election of a few Persons there, should succeed into it.

As the whole body of Pastours was highly concerned in that Succes∣sion, so it was reasonable that all of them should concur in designation of a Person thereto; it is not reasonable, to suppose, that either God would institute, or Saint Peter by will should devise a course of procee∣ding in such a case, so unequal and unsatisfactory.

If therefore the Church considering this equity of the case, together with the expediency of affairs in relation to its good, should undertake to chuse for its self another Monarch, (the Bishop of another See, who should seem fitter for the place) to succeed into the Prerogatives of Saint Peter, that Person would have a fairer title to that Office than the Pope; for such a Person would have a real title, grounded on some reason of the case; whenas the Pope's pretence doth onely stand upon a positive Institution, whereof he cannot exhibit any Certifi∣cate:* 1.478 This was the mind of a great man among themselves; who saith, that if possibly the Bishop of Triers should be chosen for Head of the Church. For the Church has free power to provide its self a Head.

Bellarmine himself confesseth, that if Saint Peter (as he might have done if he had pleased) should have chosen no particular See,* 1.479 as he did not for the first five years, then after Peter's death, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor of Antioch had succeeded, but he whom the Church should have chosen for it self. Now if the Church upon that supposition would have had such a right, it is not probable, that Saint Peter by his fact would have deprived it thereof, or willingly done any thing in prejudice to it; there being apparently so much equity, that the Church should have a stroke in designation of its Pastour.

In ancient times there was not any small Church, which had not a suffrage in the choice of its Pastour; and was it fitting that all the Church should have one imposed on it without its consent?* 1.480

If we consider the manner in ancient time of electing and constituting the Roman Bishop, we may thence discern not onely the improbability, but iniquity of this pretence: how was he then chosen? was it by a Ge∣neral Synod of Bishops, or by Delegates from all parts of Christendom, whereby the common interest in him might appear; and whereby the World might be satisfied that one was elected fit for that high Office? No; he was chosen, as usually then other particular Bishops were, by the Clergy and People of Rome; none of the World being conscious of the proceeding, or bearing any share therein.

Now, was it equal that such a power of imposing a Sovereign on all the grave Bishops, and on all the good people of the Christian world, should be granted to one City?

Was it fitting, that such a charge, importing advancement above all Pastours, and being entrusted with the welfare of all Souls in Christen∣dom, should be the result of an election liable to so many defects and corruptions? which assuredly often, if not almost constantly, would be procured by ambition, bribery or partiality, would be managed by popular faction and tumults.

It was observed generally of such Elections by Nazianzene;* 1.481 that Prelacies were not rather by vertue than by naughtiness; and that Episcopal Thrones did not rather belong to the more worthy, than to the more powerfull.

And declaring his mind or wish that Elections of Bishops should rest onely or chiefly in the best men;* 1.482 not in the wealthiest and mightiest; or in the impe∣tuousness and unreasonableness of the people, and a∣mong them in those who are most easily bought and bribed; whereby he intimateth the common prac∣tice, and subjoineth; but now I can hardly avoid thinking, that the popular (or civil) governances are better ordered than ours, which are reputed to have divine grace atten∣ding them.

And that the Roman Elections in that time were come into that course, we may see by the relation and reflexions of an honest Pagan Historian concerning the Election of Pope Damasus (contem∣porary of Gregory Nazianz.* 1.483) Damasus (saith he) and Vrsinus, above humane measure burning with desire to snatch the Episcopal See, did with divided parties most fiercely conflict; in which conflict upon one day in the very Church 130 persons were slain;* 1.484 so did that great Pope get into the Chair; thus (as the Historian reflecteth) the wealth and pomp of the place naturally did provoke ambition by all means to seek it,* 1.485 and did cause fierce contentions to arise in the choice; whence commonly, wise and modest persons being exclu∣ded from any capacity thereof, any ambitious and cunning man, who had the art or the luck to please the multitude would by violence ob∣tain it; which was a goodly way of constituting a Sovereign to the Church.

Thus it went within three ages after our Lord; and afterwards in the declensions of Christian simplicity and integrity matters were not like to be mended; but did indeed rather grow worse; as beside the re∣ports and complaints of Historians, how that commonly by ambitious prensations, by Simoniacal corruptions,* 1.486 by political bandyings, by popular factions, by all kinds of sini∣ster ways, men crept into the place, doth appear by those many dismal Schisms, which gave the Church many pretended Heads, but not one certain one: as also by the result of them, being the choice of per∣sons very unworthy and horribly flagitious.

If it be said, that the Election of a Pope in old times was wont to be approved by the consent of all Bishops in the world, according to the testimony of St. Cyprian, who saith of Cornelius, that he was known by the testimony of his fellow-Bishops whose whole number through all the world did with peacefull unanimity consent.* 1.487 * 1.488

I answer, that this consent was not in the Election, or antecedently to it; that it was onely by Letters or messages de∣claring the Election,* 1.489 according to that of St. Cypri∣an; that it was not any-wise peculiar to the Roman Bishop, but such as was yielded to all Catholick Bi∣shops,* 1.490 each of whom was to be approved, as St. Cy∣prian saith, by the testimony and judgment of his Collegues; that it was in order onely to the main∣taining fraternal communion and correspondence, signifying that such a Bishop was duly elected by his Clergy and People, was rightly or∣dained by his neighbour Bishops, did profess the Catholick Faith, and was therefore qualified for communion with his Brethren: such a con∣sent to the Election of any Bishop of old was given, (especially upon occasion, and when any question concerning the right of a Bishop did intervene) whereof now in the Election of a Pope no footstep doth remain.

* 1.491We may also note, that the Election of Cornelius being contested, he did more solemnly acquaint all the Bishops of the world with his case, and so did obtain their approbation, in a way more than ordinary.

13. If God had designed this derivation of Universal Sovereignty, it is probable, that he would have prescribed some certain, standing, im∣mutable way of Election; and imparted the right to certain Persons, and not left it at such uncertainty to the chances of time, so that the manner of Election hath often changed, and the power of it tossed into divers hands.

And though in several times there have been ob∣served several ways as to the Election of the Roman Pontifs,* 1.492 according as the necessity and expediency of the Church required.

Of old it was (as other Elections) managed by nomination of the Clergy, and suffrage of the People.

Afterward the Emperours did assume to themselves the nomination, or approbation of them.

For then nothing was done by the Clergy in the choice of the Pope,* 1.493 un∣less the Emperour had approv'd his Election.

But he, seeing the Prince's consent was required,* 1.494 sent Messengers with Letters, to intreat Mauritius, that he would not suffer the Election made by the Clergy and People of Rome in that case to be valid.

Leo VIII. being tired out with the inconstancy of the Romans,* 1.495 transfer∣red the whole power and authority of chusing the Pope from the Clergy and People of Rome, to the Emperour.

At some times the Clergy had no hand in the Election; but Popes were intruded by powerfull Men or Women at their pleasure.* 1.496

Afterwards the Cardinals (that is,* 1.497 some of the chief Roman Clergy) did appropriate the Election to themselves; by the Decree of Pope Ni∣cholas II. in his Lateran Synod.

Sometimes (out of course) general Synods did assume the Choice to themselves: as at Constance, Pisa, and Basil.

14. From the Premisses to conclude the Pope's Title to Saint Peter's Authority, it is requisite to shew the Power demised by him to be ac∣cording to God's institution and intent, immutable and indefectible; for Power built upon the like, but far more certain principles hath in course of times, and by worldly changes been quite lost, or conveyed into other Chanels, than those, wherein it was first put; and that irrecoverably, so that it cannot any-wise be retrieved, or reduced into the first order.

For instance, Adam was by God constituted Universal Sovereign of mankind; and into that Power his eldest Son of right did succeed; and so it of right should have been continually propagated.

Yet soon did that Power fail, or was diverted into other courses; the world being cantonized into several Dominions; so that the Heir at Law among all the descendents of Adam cannot so easily be found, as a Needle in a bottle of Hay; he probably is a Subject, and perhaps is a Peasant.

So might Saint Peter be Monarch of the Church, and the Pope might succeed him, yet by revolutions of things, by several defaults and in∣capacities in himself, by divers obstructions incident, by forfeiture up∣on encroaching on other mens rights, according to that Maxime of a great Pope, He loseth his own,* 1.498 who coveteth more than his due, his Power might be clip∣ped, might be transplanted, might utterly decay and fail; to such fa∣talities

other Powers are subject; nor can that of the Pope be exempt from them, as otherwhere we shall more largely declare.

15. Indeed that God did intend his Church should perpetually sub∣sist united in any one political frame of Government, is a principle, which they do assume, and build upon, but can no-wise prove. Nor in∣deed is it true. For,

If the Unity of the Church designed and instituted by God were one∣ly an Unity of Faith, of Charity, of Peace, of fraternal Communion and Correspondence between particular Societies and Pastours, then in vain it is to seek for the Subject and Seat of Universal Jurisdiction; now that God did not intend any other Unity, than such as those specified, we have good reason to judge, and shall we hope otherwhere sufficient∣ly prove.

16. We may consider, that really the Sovereign Power (such as it is pretended) hath often failed, there having been for long spaces of time no Roman Bishops at all, upon several accounts; which is a sign that the Church may subsist without it.

As, 1. When Rome was desolated by the Goths, Vandals and Lombards.

* 1.4992. In times, when the Romans would not suffer Popes to live with them.

3. In case of discontinuance from Rome, when the Popes (so calling themselves) did for above seventy years abide in France; when they indeed, not being chosen by the Roman People, nor exercising Pastoral care over them, were onely titular, not real Bishops of Rome; (They were Popes of Avignion, not of Rome; and Successours of God knows who, not of Saint Peter) no more than one continually living in Eng∣land can be Bishop of Jerusalem.

* 1.5004. In times of many long Schisms (22 Schisms) when either there was no true Pope, or which in effect was the same, no one certain one.

* 1.5015. When Popes were intruded by violence, whom Baronius himself positively affirmeth to have been no Popes: how then could a Successi∣on of true Popes be continued from them, by the Clergy, which they in virtue of their Papal Authority did pretend to create?

6. When Elections had a flaw in them, were uncanonical and so null.

7. When Popes were Simoniacally chosen; who by their own Rules and Laws are no true Popes;* 1.502 being Hereticks, Heresiarchs.

The which was done for long courses of time very commonly, and in a manner constantly.* 1.503

8. When Popes have been deposed; (as some by the Emperours, others by General Councils) in which case, according to Papal Prin∣ciples, the Successours were illegal; for the Pope being Sovereign, he could not be judged or deposed; and his Successour is an Usurper.

9. When Popes were Heretical, that is (say they) no Popes.

10. When Atheists, Sorcerers, —

Elections in some of these cases being null,* 1.504 and therefore the Acts consequent to them invalid, there is probably a defailance of right con∣tinued to posterity.

And probably therefore there is now no true Pope.

For (upon violent intrusion, or Simoniacal choice, or any usurpati∣on) the Cardinals, Bishops, &c. which the Pope createth are not tru∣ly such; and consequently their Votes not good in the choice of an∣other Pope; and so successively.

These Considerations may suffice to declare the inconsequence of their Discourses, even admitting their Assertions, which yet are so false, or so apparently uncertain.

I shall in the next place level some Arguments directly against their main Conclusion it self.

I. My First Argument against this pretence shall be, that it is desti∣tute of any good warrant, either from Divine or Humane testimony; and so is groundless. As will appear by the following Considerations.

I. If God had designed the Bishop of Rome to be for the perpetual course of times Sovereign Monarch of his Church, it may reasonably be supposed, that he would expresly have declared his mind in the case;* 1.505 it being a point of greatest importance of all that concern the administration of his Kingdom in the World. Princes do not use to send their Vice Roys unfurnished with Patents clearly signifying their Commission, that no man, out of ignorance or doubt concerning that point, excusably may refuse compliance; And in all equity promulgation is requisite to the establishment of any Law, or exacting obedience. But in all the Pandects of Divine Revelation the Bishop of Rome is not so much as once mentioned, either by name, or by character, or by pro∣bable intimation; they cannot hook him in otherwise, than by strein∣ing hard and framing a long Chain of Consequences; each of which is too subtile for to constrain any man's persuasion: They have indeed found the Pope in the first Chapter of Genesis; for,* 1.506 (if we believe Pope Innocent III.) he is one of the two great Luminaries there; and he is as plainly there, as any where else in the Bible.

Wherefore if upon this account we should reject this pretence, we might doe it justly; and for so doing we have the allowance of the an∣cient Fathers; for they did not hold any man obliged to admit any point of Doctrine, or rule of Manners which is not in express words, or in terms equivalent contained in Holy Scripture; or which at least might not thence be deduced by clear and certain inference; this their manner

of disputing with Hereticks and heterodox People doth shew; this ap∣peareth by their way of defining and setling Doctrines of Faith; this they often do avow in plain words applicable to our case; for, If (saith St. Austin) about Christ, or about his Church, or a∣bout any other thing,* 1.507 which concerneth our Faith and Life, I will not say We, who are no-wise comparable to him, who said Although we; but even as he going on did add, If an Angel from Heaven should tell you beside what you have received in the Legal and E∣vangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema; in which words we have St. Austin's warrant not onely to re∣fuse, but to detest this Doctrine, which being nowhere extant in Law or Gospel, is yet obtruded on us as nearly relating both to Christ and his Church; as greatly concerning both our Faith and Practice.

2. To enforce this Argument, we may consider, that the Evangelists do speak about the propagation, settlement, and continuance of our Lord's Kingdom; that the Apostles do often treat about the state of the Church, and its edification, order, peace, unity; about the distinction of its Offi∣cers and Members, about the qualifications, duties, graces, privileges of Spiritual Governours and Guides; about prevention and remedy of He∣resies, Schisms, Disorders; upon any of which occasions how is it pos∣sible that the mention of such a Spiritual Monarch (who was to have a main influence on each of those particulars) should wholly escape them, if they had known such an one instituted by God?

In the Levitical Law all things concerning the High-Priest; not one∣ly his Designation,* 1.508 Succession, Consecration, Duty, Power, Mainte∣nance,* 1.509 Privileges; but even his Garments, Marriage, Mourning, &c. are punctually determined and described;* 1.510 and is it not wonderfull that in the many descriptions of the New-Law, no mention should be made concerning any Duty, or Privilege of its High-Priest? whereby he might be directed in the administration of his Office, and know what obser∣vance to require?

3. Whereas also the Scripture doth inculcate duties of all sorts, and doth not forget frequently to press duties of respect and obedience to∣ward particular Governours of the Church; is it not strange that it never should bestow one precept, whereby we might be instructed and admonished to pay our duty to the Universal Pastour? especially con∣sidering, that God who directed the Pens of the Apostles, and who in∣tended that their Writings should continue for the perpetual instructi∣on of Christians, did foresee, how requisite such a precept would be to secure that duty; for if but one such precept did appear, it would doe the business, and void all contestation about it.

4. They who so carefully do exhort to honour and obey the tempo∣ral Sovereignty, how come they so wholly to wave urging the no less needfull obligations to obey the Spiritual Monarch? while they are so mindfull of the Emperour,* 1.511 why are they so neglectfull of the Pope? in∣somuch, that divers Popes afterward, to ground and urge obedience to them, are fain to borrow those precepts, which command obedience to Princes, accommodating them by analogy and inference to themselves?

* 1.5125. Particularly Saint Peter, one would think, who doth so earnestly injoin to obey the King as Supreme, and to honour him, should not have been unmindfull of his Successours; or quite have forborn to warn Chri∣stians

of the respect due to them: surely the Popes afterward do not follow him in this reservedness; for in their Decretal Epistles they urge nothing so much as obedience to the Apostolical See.

6. One might have expected something of that nature from St. Paul himself, who did write so largely to the Romans, and so often from Rome; that at least some word, or some intimation should have dropped from him concerning these huge Rights and Privileges of this See, and of the regard due to it. Particularly then, when he professedly doth enumerate the Offices, instituted by God, for standing use and perpetual duration; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery,* 1.513 for the edifying of the Body of Christ; till we all come in the Vnity of Faith, &c.

He commendeth them for their Faith, which was spoken of through the whole world; yet giveth them no advantage above others;* 1.514 as St. Chry∣sostome observeth on those words; for obedience to the Faith among all Nations,* 1.515 among whom also are ye; this (saith St. Chrysostome) he saith to depress their conceit, to void their haughtiness of mind,* 1.516 and to teach them (to deem others equal in Dignity with them.)

When He writeth to that Church (* 1.517 which was some time after Saint Peter had setled the Popedom) he doth onely style them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (called Saints) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (beloved of God) which are common adjuncts of all Christians; He saith their Faith was spoken of generally, but of the fame of their Authority being so spread he taketh no notice; that their obedience had come abroad to all men, but their commands had not (it seemeth) come anywhere.

He wrote divers Epistles from Rome, wherein he resolveth many ca∣ses debated, yet never doth urge the Authority of the Roman Church for any point, which now is so ponderous an Argument.

7. But however seeing the Scripture is so strangely reserved, how cometh it to pass that Tradition is also so defective, and staunch in so grand a case? We have in divers of the Fathers, (particularly in Tertullian, in St. Basil,* 1.518 in St. Hie∣rome) Catalogues of Traditional Doctrines and Ob∣servances, which they recite to assert Tradition in some cases supple∣mental to Scripture; in which their purpose did require, that they should set down those of principal moment; and they are so punctual as to insert many of small consideration; how then came they to neg∣lect this, concerning the Papal Authority over the whole Church, which had been most pertinent to their design, and in consequence did vastly surpass all the rest, which they do name?

8. The designation of the Roman Bishop by succession to obtain so high a degree in the Church being above all others a most remarkable and noble piece of History, which it had been a horrible fault in an Ec∣clesiastical History to slip over, without carefull reporting, and reflec∣ting upon it; yet Eusebius that most diligent Compiler of all passages relating to the original Constitution of the Church, and to all transac∣tions therein, hath not ••ne word about it; who yet studiously doth re∣port

the Successions of the Roman Bishops, and all the notable occurren∣ces he knew concerning them, with favourable advantage.

9. Whereas this Doctrine is pretended to be a Point of Faith, of vast consequence to the subsistence of the Church and to the Salvation of men, it is somewhat strange, that it should not be inserted into any one ancient Summary of things to be believed (of which Summaries divers remain, some composed by publick consent, others by persons of Emi∣nency in the Church) nor by fair and forcible consequence should be deducible from any Article in them;* 1.519 especially considering that such Summaries were framed upon occasion of Heresies springing up, which disregarded the Pope's Authority, and which by asserting it were plain∣ly confuted.* 1.520 We are therefore beholden to Pope Innocent III. and his Laterane Synod for first Synodically defining this Point, together with other Points no less new and unheard of before. The Creed of Pope Pius IV. formed the other day, is the first, as I take it, which did con∣tain this Article of Faith.

10. It is much that this point of Faith should not be delivered in any of those ancient Expositions of the Creed (made by St. Austin, Ruffin, &c.) which enlarge it to necessary points of Doctrine, connected with the Articles therein, especially with that of the Catholick Church, to which the Pope's Authority hath so close a connexion; that it should not be touched in the Catechetical Discourses of Cyril, Ambrose, &c. that in the Systemes of Divinity composed by Saint Austin, Lac••antius, &c. it should not be treated on: The world is now changed; for the Ca∣techism of Trent doth not overlook so material a Point; and it would pass for a lame Body of Theology, which should omit to treat on this Subject.

11. It is more wonderfull, that this Point should never be defined, in downright and full terms, by any ancient Synod; it being so noto∣riously in those old times opposed by divers, who dissented in opinion, and discorded in practice from the Pope; it being also a Point of that consequence, that such a solemn declaration of it would have much con∣duced to the ruine of all particular Errours and Schisms, which were maintained then in opposition to the Church.

12. Indeed had this Point been allowed by the main Body of Ortho∣dox Bishops, the Pope could not have been so drowsie or stupid, as not to have solicited for such a definition thereof; nor would the Bishops have been backward in compliance thereto; it being, in our adversa∣ries conceit, so compendious and effectual a way of suppressing all He∣resies, Schisms and Disorders; (although indeed later Experience hath shewed it no less available to stifle Truth, Justice and Piety:) The Popes after Luther were better advised, and so were the Bishops adhe∣ring to his Opinions.

13. Whereas also it is most apparent, that many persons disclaimed this Authority, not regarding either the Doctrines or Decrees of the Popes; it is wonderfull, that such men should not be reckoned in the large Catalogues of Hereticks; wherein Errours of less obvious conside∣ration, and of far less importance did place men; If Epiphanius, Theodo∣ret, Leontius, &c. were so negligent or unconcerned, yet St. Austin, Phi∣lastrius,—Western men, should not have overlooked this sort of desperate Hereticks; Aerius for questioning the dignity of Bishops is set among the Hereticks, but who got that name for disavowing the Pope's Supremacy,

among the many who did it? (It is but lately, that such as we have been thrust in among Hereticks.)

14. Whereas no Point avowed by Christians could be so apt to raise offence and jealousie in Pagans against our Religion as this, which setteth up a Power of so vast extent, and huge influence; whereas no novelty could be more surprizing or startling, than the Erection of an Universal Empire over the Consciences and religious Practices of men; whereas also this Doctrine could not but be very conspicuous and glaring in or∣dinary practice; it is prodigious, that all Pagans should not loudly ex∣claim against it.

It is strange, that Pagan Historians (such as Marcellinus,* 1.521 who often speaketh of Popes, and blameth them for their luxurious way of living, and pompous garb: as Zozimus, who bore a great spight at Christiani∣ty; as all the Writers of the Imperial History before Constantine) should not report it, as a very strange pretence newly started up.

It is wonderfull, that the eager Adversaries of our Religion (such as Celsus, Porphyrie, Hierocles, Julian himself) should not particularly level their Discourse against it, as a most scandalous position and dange∣rous pretence, threatning the Government of the Empire.

It is admirable, that the Emperours themselves, enslamed with emu∣lation and suspicion of such an Authority (the which hath been so terri∣ble even to Christian Princes) should not in their Edicts expresly decry and impugn it; that indeed every one of them should not with extre∣mest violence implacably strive to extirpate it.

In consequence of these things it may also seem strange, that none of the Advocates of our Faith (Justin, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, Cyril, Austin) should be put to defend it, or so much as forced to mention it, in their elaborate Apologies for the Doctrines and Practices, which were reprehended by any sort of Adversaries thereto.

We may add, that divers of them in their Apologies and representations con∣cerning Christianity would have appea∣red not to deal fairly,* 1.522 or to have been very inconsiderate; when they profess for their common belief assertions re∣pugnant to that Doctrine; as when Tertullian saith, ‖ 1.523 We reverence the Em∣perour as a man second to God, and less onely than God; when * 1.524 Optatus affir∣meth, that above the Emperour there is none beside God who made the Emperour; and, that † 1.525 Donatus by extolling himself (as some now do) above the Emperour, did in so doing as it were exceed the bounds of men, that he did esteem him∣self as God, not as a man. When St. Chry∣sostome asserteth, the Emperour to be the crown and head of all men upon earth; and saith, that even Apostles, Evange∣lists,

Prophets, any men whoever are to be subject to the temporal Powers; when † 1.526 St. Cyril calleth the Emperour the Supreme top of glory among men, ele∣vated above all others by incomparable differences; &c. When even Popes talk at this rate; as Pope ‖ 1.527 Gregory I. calling the Emperour his Lord, and Lord of all, telling the Emperour, that his Competitour, by assuming the title of Universal Bishop did set himself above the honour of his Imperial Majesty; which he supposeth a piece of great ab∣surdity and arrogance; and even Pope * 1.528 Gregory II. doth call that Emperour (against whom he afterward rebelled) the Head of Christians. Whereas in∣deed if the Pope be Monarch of the Church, endowed with the Regalities which they now ascribe to him, it is plain enough that he is not inferiour to any man living, in real power and dignity: wherefore the modern Doctours of Rome are far more sincere or considerate in their Heraldry, than were those old Fa∣thers of Christendom; who now stick not down-rightly to prefer the Pope before all Princes of the World;* 1.529 not onely in Doctrine and Notion, but in the Sacred Offices of the Church; for in the very Canon of their Mass, the Pope (together with the Bishop of the Diocese, one of his Ministers) is set before all Christian Princes; every Christian Subject being thereby taught to deem the Pope superiour to his Prince: * 1.530 Now we must believe (for one Pope hath written it, another hath put it in his Decre∣tals, and it is current Law) that the Papal Autho∣rity doth no less surpass the Royal, than the Sun doth outshine the Moon.

Now it is abundantly declared by Papal defini∣tion, as a point necessary to Salvation, that every hu∣mane creature (neither King, nor Kesar excepted) is subject to the Roman High-priest.

Now the mystery is discovered, why Popes, when summoned by Em∣perours, declined to go in Person to General Sy∣nods;* 1.531 because it was not tolerable, that the Empe∣rour (who sometime would be present in Synods) should sit above the Pope; as in the pride of his heart he might perhaps offer to do. (I cannot forbear to note what an ill conceit Bellarmine had of Leo I. and other Popes, that they did forbear coming at Synods out of this villainous pride and haughtiness.)

15. One would admire, that Constantine, if he had smelt this Doc∣trine, or any thing like it in Christianity, should be so ready to embrace it; or that so many Emperours should in those times do so; some Princes

then probably being jealous of their honour, and unwilling to admit any Superiour to them.

It is at least much, that Emperours should with so much indulgence foster and cherish Popes, being their so dangerous rivals for dignity; and that it should be true, which Pope Nicholas doth affirm;* 1.532 that the Emperours had extolled the Roman See with divers privileges, had enriched it with gifts, had enlarged it with benefits; had done I know not how many things more for it: surely they were bewitched thus to advance their concur∣rent Competitour for Honour and Power; one who pretended to be a better man than themselves. Bel∣larmine (in his Apology against King James) saith, that the Pope was (vellet, nollet) constrained to be subject to the Emperours,* 1.533 because his Power was not known to them; it was well it was not: but how could it be concealed from them, if it were a Doctrine commonly avowed by Christians? it is hard keeping so practical a Doctrine from breaking forth into light. But to leave this consideration:

Farthermore, We have divers ancient Writings, the special nature, matter, scope whereof did require, or greatly invite giving attestation to this Power, if such an one had been known and allowed in those times; which yet do afford no countenance, but rather much prejudice thereto.

16. The Apostolical Canons, and the Constitutions of Clement, which describe the state of the Church, with its Laws, Customs and Practices current in the times of those who compiled them (which times are not certain, but ancient,* 1.534 and the less ancient the more it is to our purpose) wherein especially the Ranks, Duties and Privileges of all Ecclesiastical Persons are declared, or prescribed, do not yet touch the Prerogatives of this Universal Head, or the special respects due to him, nor mention any Laws or Constitutions framed by him: Which is no less strange, than that there should be a Body of Laws, or description of the state of any Kingdom, wherein nothing should be said concerning the King, or the Royal Authority: It is not so in our modern Canon-law, wherein the Pope doth make utramque paginam; we reade little beside his Authority, and Decrees made by it.

The Apostolical Canons particularly do prescribe, that the Bishops of each Nation should know him that is first among them, and should esteem him the Head,* 1.535 and should doe nothing considerable (or extraordinary) without his advice; as also that each one (of those Head-bishops) should onely meddle with those affairs, which concerned his own precinct, and the places under it: also, that no such Primate should doe any thing without the opinion of all; that so there may be con∣cord: Now what place could be more opportune to mention the Pope's Sovereign Power? how could the Canonist without strange neglect pass it over? doth he not indeed exclude it, assigning the Supreme disposal (without farther resort) of all things to the arbitration of the whole body of Pastours, and placing the maintenance of concord in that course?

17. So also the Old Writer, under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite,* 1.536 treating in several places about the degrees of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, was monstrously overseen in omitting the Sovereign thereof: In the fifth Chapter of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he professeth carefully to speak of those Orders, but hath not a word of this supereminent rank,* 1.537 but averreth Episcopacy to be the first and highest of divine Orders, in which the Hierarchy is consummated: and in his Epistle to Demophilus there is a remarkable place, wherein he could hardly have avoided touching the Pope, had there been then one in such vogue as now: for advising that Monk to gentleness and observance toward his Superiours, he thus speaketh: Let passion and reason be governed by you;* 1.538 but you by the holy Dea∣cons, and these by the Priests, and the Priests by the Bishops, and the Bishops by the Apostles, or by their Successours; (that is, saith Maximus, those which we now call Patriarchs) and if perhaps any one of them shall fail of his duty, let him be corrected by those holy persons, who are co-ordinate to him; why not in this case, let him be corrected by the Pope, his Superiour? but he knew none of an Order superiour to the Apostles Successours.

18. Likewise, Ignatius in many Epistles frequently describeth the se∣veral Ranks of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, extolleth their Dignity and Authority to the highest pitch, mightily urgeth the respect due to them, yet never doth he so much as mention or touch this Sovereign degree, wherein the Majesty of the Clergy did chiefly shine.

In his very Epistle to the Romans he doth not yield any deference to their Bishop, nor indeed doth so much as take notice of him; is it not strange he should so little mind the Sovereign of the Church? or was it, for a sly reason, because being Bishop of Antioch he had a pique to his brother Jacob, who had supplanted him and got away his birthright?

The counterfeiter therefore of Ignatius did well personate him,* 1.539 when he saith, that in the Church there is nothing greater than a Bishop; and that a Bi∣shop is beyond all rule and authority; for in the time of Ignatius there was no domineering Pope over all Bishops.

19. We have some Letters of Popes, (though not many; for Popes were then not very scribacious, or not so pragmatical; whence to sup∣ply that defect, lest Popes should seem not able to write, or to have slept almost 400 years, they have forged divers for them, and those so wise ones, that we who love the memory of those good Popes, disdain to ac∣knowledge them Authours of such idle stuff; we have yet some Letters of,) and to Popes, to and from divers eminent Persons in the Church, wherein the former do not assume, nor the latter ascribe any such power; the Popes do not express themselves like Sovereigns, nor the Bishops ad∣dress themselves like Subjects; but they treat one another in a familiar way like brethren and equals: this is so true, that it is a good mark of a spurious Epistle (whereof we have good store, devised by colloguing

Knaves, and fathered on the first Popes) when any of them talketh in an imperious strain, or arrogateth such a Power to himself.

20. Clemens Bishop of Rome in the Apostolical times unto the Church of Corinth, then engaged in discords and factions, wherein the Clergy was much affronted (divers Presbyters, who had well and worthily behaved themselves,* 1.540 were ejected from their Office, in a seditious manner) did write a very large Epistle; wherein like a good Bishop, and charitable Christian brother he doth earnestly by manifold inducements persuade them to charity and peace; but no-where doth he speak imperiously like their Prince: In such a case one would think, if ever, for quashing such disorders and quelling so perverse folks,* 1.541 who spurned the Clergy, it had been decent, it had been expedient, to em∣ploy his Authority, and to speak like himself, challenging obedience, up∣on duty to him, and at their peril: How would a modern Pope have ranted in such a case; how thundring a Bull would he have dispatched against such outragious contemners of the Ecclesiastical Order? how often would he have spoken of the Apostolick See and its Authority? we should infallibly have heard him swagger in his wonted style, Whoever shall presume to cross our will,* 1.542 let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Al∣mighty God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul: but our Popes, it seemeth, have more wit, or bet∣ter mettle than Pope Clement; that good Pope did not know his own strength, or had not the heart to use it.

21. Among the Epistles of St. Cyprian there are divers Epistles of him to several Popes (to Cornelius, to Lucius, to Stephanus) in the which,* 1.543 although written with great kindness and respect, yet no impartial eye can discern any special regard to them, as to his Superiours in Power, or Pastours in Doctrine,* 1.544 or Judges of Practice; he reporteth matters to them, he conferreth about Points with all freedom; he speaketh his sense and giveth his advice without any restraint or awe; he spareth not upon occasion to reprove their practices, and to reject their opinions; he in his addresses to them and discourses of them styleth them Brethren, and Collegues; and he continually treateth them as such, upon even terms: When (saith he to the Clergy of Rome) dearest Brethren,* 1.545 there was among us an uncertain rumour concerning the decease of the good man my Col∣legue, Fabianus; upon which words Rigaltius had cause to remark, How like an equal and fellow-citi∣zen doth the Bishop of Carthage mention the Bishop of Rome, even to the Roman Clergy?* 1.546 but would not any man now be deemed rude and sawcy, who should talk in that style of the Pope?

Pope Cornelius also to Saint Cyprian hath some Epistles,* 1.547 wherein no glimpse doth appear of any Superiority assumed by him. But of St. Cy∣prian's judgment and demeanour toward Popes we shall have occasion to speak more largely, in a way more positively opposite to the Roman pretences.

Eusebius citeth divers long passages out of an Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius Bishop of Antioch against Novatus;* 1.548 wherein no mark of this Su∣premacy doth appear; although the magnitude and flourishing State of the Roman Church is described, for aggravation of Novatus his Schism, and ambition.

Pope Julius hath a notable long Epistle, extant in one of Athanasius's Apologies, unto the Bishops assembled at Antioch; wherein he had ••he fairest occasion that could be to assert and insist upon this Sovereign Au∣thority, they flatly denying and impugning it; questioning his procee∣dings as singular, supposing him subject to the Laws of the Church no less than any other Bishop; and downrightly affirming each of them∣selves to be his equal; about which Point he thought good not to con∣tend with them; but waving pretences to Superiority, he justifieth his actions by reasons, grounded on the merit of the cause, such as any other Bishop might alledge: But this Epistle I shall have more particular oc∣casion to discuss.

Pope Liberius hath an Epistle to St. Athanasius, wherein he not onely (for his direction and satisfaction) doth inquire his opinion about the Point; but professeth, in complement perchance, that he shall obediently follow it;* 1.549 Write, saith he, whether you do think as we do and just so about the true faith; that I may be undoubtedly assured about what you think good to command me; was not that spoken indeed like a courteous Sovereign, and an accomplished Judge in matters of Faith?* 1.550 The same Pope in the head of the Western, doth write to a knot of Eastern Bishops, whom they call their beloved Bre∣thren and fellow Ministers; and in a brotherly strain, not like an Em∣perour.

In the time of Damasus, Successour to Liberius, St. Basil hath divers Epistles to the Western Bishops,* 1.551 wherein having represented and bewailed the wretched state of the Eastern Churches, then over∣born with Heresies, and unsettled by Factions, he craveth their charity, their prayers, their sympathy, their comfort, their brotherly aid; by affording to the Orthodox and sound Party the countenance of their Communion, by joining with them in conten∣tion for Truth and Peace; for that the Communion of so great Churches would be of mighty weight to support and strengthen their Cause; giving credit thereto among the People, and inducing the Em∣perour to deal fairly with them, in respect to such a multitude of adherents; especially of those which were at such a distance, and not so immediately sub∣ject to the Eastern Emperour; for, If (saith he) very many of you do concur unanimously in the same opinion, it is manifest, that the multitude of consen∣ters will make the doctrine to be received without con∣tradiction; and, I know (saith he again, writing to Athanasius about these matters) but one way of re∣dress to our Churches, the conspiring with us of the Western Bishops; the which being obtained, would

probably yield some advantage to the publick,* 1.552 the se∣cular power revering the credibility of the multitude, and the people all about following them without repug∣nance: and, You (saith he to the Western Bishops) the farther you dwell from them, the more credible you will be to the people.

This indeed was according to the ancient Rule and Practice in such cases, that any Church being oppressed with Errour, or distracted with Contentions, should from the Bishops of other Churches, receive aid to the removal of those inconveniences. That it was the Rule doth appear from what we have before spoken; and of the Practice there be many in∣stances; for so did St. Cyprian send two of his Clergy to Rome to com∣pose the Schism there, moved by Novatian against Cornelius; * 1.553 so was St. Chrysostome called to Ephesus (although out of his Jurisdiction) to set∣tle things there; so (to omit divers instances occurring in History) St. Basil himself was called by the Church of Iconium to visit it, and to give it a Bishop; although it did not belong to his ordinary inspection; and he doth tell the Bishops of the † 1.554 Coasts, that they should have done well in sending some to visit and assist his Churches in their di∣stresses.

But now how, I pray, cometh it to pass, that in such a case he should not have a special recourse to the Pope? but in so many addres∣ses should onely wrap him up in a community? why should he not hum∣bly petition him to exert his Sovereign Authority for the relief of the Eastern Churches, laying his charge, and inflicting censures on the dis∣senters? why should he lay all the stress of his hopes on the consent of the Western Bishops? why doth he not say a word of the domi∣nion resident in them over all the Church? these things are un∣conceivable, if he did take the Pope to be the man our adversaries say he is.

But St. Basil had other notions; for indeed,* 1.555 being so wise and good a man, if he had taken the Pope for his Sovereign, he would not have taxed him as he doth, and so complain of him; when speaking of the Western Bishops (whereof the Pope was the ringleader, and most con∣cerned) he hath these words: (occasioned as I conceive by the Bishop of Rome's rejecting that excellent person, Meletius Bishop of Antioch;) What we should write, or how to joyn with those that write, I am in doubt— for I am apt to say that of Diomedes, You ought not to request,* 1.556 for he is a haughty man; for in truth observance doth render men of proud manners more contemptuous than other∣wise they are. For if the Lord be propitious to us,* 1.557 what other addition do we need? but if the anger of

God continue, what help can we have from the Western Superciliousness? who in truth neither know, nor endure to learn; but being prepossessed with false suspicions, do now doe those things, which they did before in the cause of Marcellus; affecting to contend with those, who report the Truth to them; and establishing Heresie by themselves: would that excellent Person, (the greatest man of his time in reputation for wisedom and piety) have thus, unbowelling his mind in an Epi∣stle to a very eminent Bishop, smartly reflected on the qualities and proceedings of the Western Clergy, charging them with pride and haughtiness? with a suspicious and contentious humour, with incorrigible ignorance, and indisposition to learn; if he had taken him, who was the leader in all these matters, to have been his Superiour and Sovereign? would he have added the following words, immediately touching him; I would not in the common name have written to their ring∣leader,* 1.558 nothing indeed about Ecclesiastical Af∣fairs, except onely to intimate, that they neither do know the truth of things with us, nor do admit the way by which they may understand it; but in ge∣neral about their being bound not to set upon those, who were humbled with afflictions; nor should judge themselves dignifyed by pride, a sin which alone suffi∣ceth to make one God's enemy: surely this great man knew better what belonged to government and manners, than in such rude terms to accost his Sovereign: nor would he have given him that character, which he doth otherwhere; where spea∣king of his Brother St. Gregory Nyssene, he saith he was an unfit Agent to Rome; because although his address with a sober man would find much reve∣rence and esteem;* 1.559 yet to a haughty, and reserved man sitting I know not where above, and thence not able to hear those below speaking the truth to him, what profit can there be to the publick from the con∣verse of such a man, whose disposition is averse from illiberal flattery? But these speeches sute with that conceit,* 1.560 which St. Basil (as Baronius I know not whence reporteth) expressed by saying, I hate the pride of that Church; which humour in them that good man would not be guilty of fostering by too much obse∣quiousness.

* 1.561St. Chrysostome, having by the practices of envious men combined a∣gainst him, in a packed assembly of Bishops, upon vain surmises, been sentenced and driven from his See, did thereupon write an Epistle to Pope Innocent I. Bishop of Rome,* 1.562 together with his Brethren the Bishops of Italy; therein representing his case, complaining of the wrong, vin∣dicating his innocency, displaying the iniquity of the proceedings against him, together with the mischievous consequences of them toward the whole Church, then requiring his succour for redress: yet, (although the sense of his case, and care of his interest were likely to suggest the greatest deference that could be) neither the style, which is very respectfull,

nor the matter, which is very copious, do imply any acknowledgment of the Pope's Supremacy; He doth not address to him as to a Gover∣nour of all, who could by his Authority command justice to be done, but as to a brother,* 1.563 and a friend of innocence, from whose endeavour he might procure relief;* 1.564 He had recourse not to his Sove∣reign power, but to his brotherly love; He informed his Charity, not ap∣pealed to his bar; He in short did no more than implore his assistence in an Ecclesiastical way; that he would express his resentment of so ir∣regular dealings, that he would avow communion with him, as with an Orthodox Bishop innocent and abused, that he would procure his cause to be brought to a fair trial in a Synod of Bishops, lawfully called and indifferently affected: Had the good man had any conceit of the Pope's Supremacy, he would,* 1.565 one would think, have framed his address in other terms, and sued for another course of proceeding in his behalf; but it is plain enough that he had no such notion of things, nor had any ground for such an one. For indeed Pope Innocent in his an∣swer to him, could doe no more than exhort him to patience; in another to his Clergy and People could onely comfort them, declare his dislike of the Adversaries pro∣ceedings and grounds; signifie his intentions to procure a general Synod, with hopes of a redress thence; his Sovereign pow∣er, it seems, not availing to any such purposes,* 1.566 But what (saith he) can we doe in such cases? a Synodi∣cal cognizance is necessary, which we heretofore did say ought to be called; the which alone can allay the motions of such tempests.

It is true, that the later Popes (Siricius, Anastasius, Innocent, Zozi∣mus, Bonifacius, Celestinus, &c.) after the Sardican Council in their E∣pistles to the Western Bishops, over whom they had encroached, and who were overpowred by them, &c. do speak in somewhat more lofty strain; but are more modest toward those of the East, who could not bear, &c.

22. Farther; It is most prodigious that in the disputes managed by the Fathers against Hereticks (the Gnosticks, Valentinians, Marcionites, Montanists, Manichees, Paulianists, Arians, &c.) they should not, even in the first place alledge and urge the sentence of the Universal Pastour and Judge, as a most evidently conclusive argument, as the most effica∣cious and compendious method of convincing and silencing them: Had this point been well proved and pressed, then without any more con∣certations from Scripture, tradition, reason, all Hereticks had been quite defeated; and nothing then could more easily have been proved, if it had been true; when the light of tradition did shine so brightly; no∣thing indeed had been to sense more conspicuous, than the continual ex∣ercise of such an Authority.

We see now among those, who admit such an Authority, how sure∣ly when it may be had it is alledged, and what sway it hath, to the determination of any controversie; and so it would have been then, if it had been then as commonly known and avowed.

23. Whereas divers of the Fathers purposely do treat on methods of confuting Hereticks, it is strange they should be so blind or dull, as not

to hit on this most proper and obvious way, of referring debates to the decision of him, to whose Office of Universal Pastour and Judge it did belong: Particularly one would wonder at Vincentius Lirinensis; that he on set purpose, with great care discoursing about the means of setling points of Faith, and of overthrowing Heresies, should not light upon this notable way, by having recourse to the Pope's Magisterial sentence; yea, that indeed he should exclude it; for he (after most intent study,* 1.567 and diligent inquiry, consulting the best and wisest men) could find but two ways of doing it; I (saith he) did always and from almost every one receive this answer, that if either I or any other would find out the frauds and avoid the snares of up-start Hereticks,* 1.568 and continue sound and up∣right in the true Faith, he should guard and streng∣then his Faith, God helping him, by these two means, viz. First by the Authority of the Divine Law, and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church. And again;* 1.569 We before have said, that this hath always been, and is at present the custome of Catholicks, that they prove their Faith by these two ways, First by Authority of the Divine Canon, then by the Traditi∣on of the Vniversal Church.

Is it not strange that he (especially being a Western man, living in those parts, where the Pope had got much sway, and who doth express great reverence to the Apostolick See) should omit that way of deter∣mining points, which of all, (according to the modern conceits a∣bout the Pope) is most ready and most sure?

24. In like manner Tertullian professeth the Catholicks in his time to use such compendious methods of confuting Hereticks: We, (saith he) when we would dispatch against Hereticks for the Faith of the Gospel,* 1.570 do commonly use these short ways, which do maintain both the order of times pre∣scribing against the lateness of impostours, and the Authority of the Churches patronizing Apostolical tradition; * 1.571 but why did he skip over a more com∣pendious way, than any of those, namely, standing to the judgment of the Roman Bishop?

25. It is true that both he, and St. Irenaeus before him, disputing a∣gainst the Hereticks of their times, who had introduced pernicious no∣velties of their own devising, when they alledge the general consent of Churches (planted by the Apo∣stles,* 1.572 and propagated by continual successions of Bi∣shops from those whom the Apostles did ordain) in doctrines and practices opposite to those devices, as a good argument (and so indeed it then was, next to a demonstration) against them, do pro∣duce the Roman Church, as a principal one among them, upon several obvious accounts; And this indeed argueth the Roman Church to have been then one competent witness, or credible retainer of tradition; as also were the other Apostolical Churches, to whose Testimony they likewise appeal; but what is this to the Roman Bishop's judicial Power in such cases? why do they not urge that in plain terms? they would cer∣tainly have done so, if they had known it, and thought it of any validity.

Do but mark their words, involving the force of their argumentati∣on; When (saith Irenaeus) we do again (after al∣legation of Scripture) appeal to that tradition,* 1.573 which is from the Apostles, which by successions of Presbyters is preserved in the Churches: and, That (saith Tertullian) will appear to have been delive∣red by the Apostles,* 1.574 which hath been kept as holy in the Apostolical Churches: let us see what milk the Corinthians did draw from Paul; what the Philippi∣ans, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians do reade: what also the Romans our nearer neighbours do say, to whom both Peter and Paul did leave the Gospel sealed with their Bloud; we have also the Churches nursed by John, &c. Again,* 1.575 It is therefore mani∣fest (saith he, in his Prescriptions against Hereticks) that every doctrine, which doth conspire with those Apostolical Churches, in which the Faith originally was planted, is to be accounted true; as undoubtedly holding that, which the Churches did receive from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God; but all other doctrine is to be prejudged false, which doth think against the truth of the Churches, and of the Apostles, and of Christ, and of God: their argumentation then in short is plainly this, that the conspiring of the Churches in doctrines contrary to those, which the Hereticks vented, did irrefragably signifie those doctrines to be Apostolical; which discourse doth no-wise favour the Roman preten∣ces, but indeed, if we do weigh it, is very prejudicial thereto; it there∣by appearing, that Christian Doctrines then in the canvasing of points and assuring tradition had no peculiar regard to the Roman Churche's testimonies, no deference at all to the Roman Bishop's Authority; (not otherwise at least than to the Authority of one single Bishop yielding at∣testation to tradition.)

26. It is odd, that even old Popes themselves in elaborate tracts dis∣puting against Hereticks (as Pope Celestine against Nestorius and Pela∣gius, Pope Leo against Eutyches —) do content themselves to urge te∣stimonies of Scripture, and arguments grounded thereon; not alled∣ging their own definitive Authority, or using this parlous argumentati∣on, I, the Supreme Doctour of the Church and Judge of controversies, do assert thus; and therefore you are obliged to submit your assent.

27. It is matter of amazement, if the Pope were such as they would have him to be, that in so many bulky Volumes of ancient Fathers, li∣ving through many ages after Christ, in those vast treasuries of learning and knowledge, wherein all sorts of truth are displayed, all sorts of duty are pressed; this momentous point of doctrine and practice should nowhere be expressed in clear and peremptory terms; (I speak so, for that by wresting words, by impertinent application, by streining con∣sequences the most ridiculous positions imaginable may be deduced from their Writings.)

It is strange that somewhere or other, at least incidentally, in their Commentaries upon the Scripture, wherein many places concerning the Church and its Hierarchy do invite to speak of the Pope; in their Treatises about the Priesthood, about the Unity and Peace of the Church, about

Heresie and Schism; in their Epistles concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs; in their Historical narrations about occurrences in the Church, in their concertations with heterodox adversaries, they should not frequently touch it, they should not sometimes largely dwell upon it.

Is it not marvellous, that Origen, St. Hilary, St. Cyril, St. Chryso∣stome, St. Hierome, St. Austin, in their Commentaries and Tractates upon those places of Scripture [Tu es Petrus. Pasce oves.] whereon they now build the Papal Authority, should be so dull and drowsie as not to say a word concerning the Pope?

That St. Austin in his so many elaborate Tractates against the Dona∣tists, (wherein he discourseth so prolixly about the Church, its Unity, Communion, Discipline) should never insist upon the duty of Obedi∣ence to the Pope, or charge those Schismaticks with their rebellion a∣gainst him, or alledge his Authority against them?

If we consider that the Pope was Bishop of the Imperial City, the Metropolis of the World; that he thence was most eminent in rank, did abound in wealth, did live in great splendour and reputation; had ma∣ny dependences, and great opportunities to gratify, and relieve ma∣ny of the Clergy; that of the Fathers, whose Volumes we have, all well affected towards him, divers were personally obliged to him, for his sup∣port in their distress (as Athanasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret,) or as to their Patrons and Benefactours (as St. Hierome:) divers could not but highly respect him as Patron of the cause wherein they were engaged (as Basil, Gregory Nazianzene, Hilary, Gregory Nyssene, Ambrose, Au∣stin:) some were his partizans in a common quarrel (as Cyril:) divers of them lived in places and times wherein he had got much sway, (as all the Western Bishops:) that he had then improved his Authority much beyond the old limits: that all the Bishops of the Western or La∣tine Churches had a peculiar dependence on him (especially after that by advantage of his Station, by favour of the Court,* 1.576 by colour of the Sardican Canons, by vo∣luntary deferences and submissions, by several tricks he had wound himself to meddle in most of their chief Affairs:) that hence divers Bishops were temp∣ted to admire, to court, to flatter him; that divers aspiring Popes were apt to encourage the commen∣ders of their Authority which they themselves were apt to magnifie and inculcate; considering, I say, such things, it is a wonder, that in so ma∣ny voluminous discourses so little should be said favouring this pretence, so nothing that proveth it, [so much that crosseth it, so much indeed (as I hope to shew) that quite overthroweth it.]

If it be asked how we can prove this; I answer, that (beside who carefully peruseth those old Books, will easily see it) we are beholden to our Adversaries for proving it to us, when they least intended us such a favour; for that no clear and cogent passages for proof of this pre∣tence can be thence fetched, is sufficiently evident from the very allega∣tions, which after their most diligent raking in old Books they pro∣duce; the which are so few, and fall so very short of their purpose, that without much stretching they signifie nothing.

28. It is monstrous, that in the Code of the Catholick Church (con∣sisting of the decrees of so many Synods, concerning Ecclesiastical or∣der and discipline) there should not be one Canon directly declaring his

Authority; nor any mention made of him, except thrice accidentally; once upon occasion of declaring the Authority of the Alexandrine Bi∣shop,* 1.577 the other upon occasion of assigning to the Bishop of Constanti∣nople the second place of honour, and equal privileges with him.

If it be objected, that these discourses are negative, and therefore of small force; I answer, that therefore they are most proper to assert such a negative proposition; for how can we otherwise better shew a thing not to be, than by shewing it to have no footstep there, where it is suppo∣sed to stand? how can we more clearly argue a matter of right to want proof, than by declaring it not to be extant in the Laws grounding such right; not taught by the Masters, who profess to instruct in such things; not testifyed in records concerning the exercise of it? such arguments indeed in such cases are not merely negative, but rather privative; pro∣ving things not to be, because not affirmed there, where in reason they ought to be affirmed; standing therefore upon positive Suppositions, that Holy Scripture, that general tradition are not imperfect and lame toward their design; that ancient Writers were competently intelligent, faithfull, diligent; that all of them could not conspire in perpetual si∣lence about things, of which they had often fair occasion, and great reason to speak: In fine, such considerations, however they may be deluded by Sophistical Wits, will yet bear great sway, and often will amount near to the force of demonstration, with men of honest pru∣dence. However we shall proceed to other discourses more direct and positive against the Popish Doctrine.

II. Secondly, we shall shew that this pretence, upon several accounts, is contrary to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture.

1. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture, by assigning to an∣other the prerogatives and peculiar Titles appropriated therein to our Lord.

The Scripture asserteth him to be our onely Sovereign Lord and King: To us (saith it) there is one Lord; and, One King shall be King over them;* 1.578 who shall reign over the house of David for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end; who is the onely Potentate; the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; the One Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy.

The Scripture speaketh of one Arch-Pastour and great Shepherd of the Sheep; exclusively to any other; for I will (said God in the Pro∣phet) set up one Shepherd over them; and he shall feed the Sheep: and There (saith our Lord himself) shall be one Fold, and one Shepherd; who that shall be, he expresseth adding, I am the good Shepherd;* 1.579 the good Shepherd giveth his life for the Sheep, (by Pope Boniface his good leave, who maketh Saint Peter or himself this Shepherd.)

The Scripture telleth us, that we have one High-Priest of our Professi∣on, answerable to that one in the Jewish Church, his Type.

The Scripture informeth us, that there is but one Supreme Doctour, Guide, Father of Christians, prohibiting us to acknowledge any other for such; Ye are all Brethren; and call ye not any one Father upon Earth;* 1.580 for one is your Father, even he that is in Heaven; Neither be ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. Good Pope Gregory (not the seventh of that name) did take this for a good argument; for What therefore, dearest Brother,* 1.581 (said he to John of Constantinople) wilt thou say in

that terrible trial of the Judge who is coming; who dost affect to be called not onely Father, but General Father in the World.

* 1.582The Scripture representeth the Church as a building whereof Christ himself is the chief Corner-stone;* 1.583 as a Family, whereof he being the Pa∣ter-familias, as all others are fellow-servants; as one Body,* 1.584 having one Head; whom God hath gi∣ven to be Head over all things to the Church, which is his Body.

He is the One Spouse of the Church; which title one would think he might leave peculiar to our Lord;* 1.585 there being no Vice-husbands; yet hath he been bold even to claim that;* 1.586 as may be seen in the Constit. of Pope Greg. X. in one of their General Synods.

It seemeth therefore a Sacrilegious arrogance (derrogating from our Lord's Honour) for any man to assume or admit those Titles of Sove∣reign of the Church,* 1.587 Head of the Church, our Lord, Arch-Pastour, High∣est-Priest, Chief Doctour, Master, Father, Judge of Christians; upon what pretence, or under what distinction soever: these pompatick,* 1.588 foolish, proud, perverse, wicked, profane words; these names of singularity, elation, vanity, blasphemy; (to borrow the Epithets with which Pope Gregory I. doth brand the Titles of Vniversal Bishop, and Oecumenical Patriarch, no less modest in sound, and far more innocent in meaning, than those now ascribed to the Pope) are therefore to be re∣jected; not onely because they are injurious to all other Pastours, and to the People of God's heritage; but because they do encroach upon our onely Lord, to whom they do onely belong; much more to usurp the things, which they do naturally signifie, is a horrible invasion upon our Lord's Prerogative.

Thus hath that great Pope taught us to argue, in words expressly condemning some, and consequently all of them, together with the things which they signifie: What (saith he, writing to the Bishop of Constantinople, who had admitted the title of Vniversal Bishop or Pa∣triarch) wilt thou say to Christ the Head of the V∣niversal Church,* 1.589 in the trial of the last judgment, who by the appellation of VNIVERSAL dost endeavour to subject all his Members to thee? whom I pray dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but him who despising the Legions of Angels constituted in fellowship with him, did endeavour to break forth unto the top of Singularity, that he might both be subject to none, and alone be over all? who also said, I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars — for what are thy brethren all the Bishops of the Vniversal Church, but the stars of heaven; to whom while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thy self, and to trample on their name in comparison to thee, what dost thou say, but I will climb into heaven? —

* 1.590And again in another Epistle to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he taxeth the same Patri∣arch

for assuming to boast, so that he attempteth to ascribe all things to himself, and studieth by the e∣lation of pompous speech to subject to himself all the members of Christ, which do cohere to One Sole Head, namely, to Christ.

Again, I confidently say, that whoever doth call himself Universal Bi∣shop, or desireth to be so called, doth in his elation forerun Antichrist,* 1.591 be∣cause he pridingly doth set himself before all others.

If these argumentations be sound or signifie any thing, what is the pre∣tence of Vniversal Sovereignty and Pastourship, but a piece of Luciferian arrogance? who can imagine, that even this Pope could approve, could assume, could exercise it? if he did, was he not monstrously senseless and above measure impudent to use such discourses, which so plainly, without altering a word, might be retorted upon him; which are built upon suppositions that it is unlawfull and wicked to assume Superiority over the Church, over all Bishops, over all Christians; the which in∣deed (seeing never Pope was of greater repute, or did write in any case more solemnly and seriously) have given to the pretences of his Succes∣sours so deadly a wound, that no balm of Sophistical interpretation can be able to heal it.

We see that according to St. Gregory M. our Lord Christ is the one one∣ly Head of the Church;* 1.592 to whom for company let us adjoin St. Basil M. (that we may have both Greek and Latin for it,) who saith, that (ac∣cording to Saint Paul) we are the body of Christ and members one of ano∣ther, because it is manifest, that the one and sole truly head,* 1.593 which is Christ, doth hold and connect each one to another unto concord.

To decline these allegations of Scripture, they have forged distincti∣ons, of several kinds of Churches, and several sorts of Heads; the which evasions I shall not particularly discourse, seeing it may suffice to observe in general, that no such distinctions have any place or any ground in Scripture; nor can well consist with it; which simply doth represent the Church as one Kingdom, a Kingdom of Heaven,* 1.594 a King∣dom not of this world; all the Subjects whereof have their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in heaven, or are considered as members of a City there; so that it is vain to seek for a Sovereign thereof in this world; the which also doth to the Catholick Church sojourning on earth usually impart the name and attri∣butes properly appertaining to the Church most universal (comprehensive of all Christians in heaven and upon earth) because that is a visible repre∣sentative of this,* 1.595 and we by joining in offices of piety with that do communicate with this; whence that which is said of one (concerning

the Unity of its King, its Head, its Pastour, its Priest) is to be under∣stood of the other; especially considering that our Lord, according to his promise,* 1.596 is ever present with the Church here, governing it by the efficacy of his Spirit and Grace, so that no other corporeal or visible Head of this Spiritual Body is needfull.

It was to be sure a visible Headship, which St. Gregory did so eagerly impugn and exclaim against; for he could not apprehend the Bishop of Constantinople so wild, as to affect a Jurisdiction over the Church mysti∣cal or invisible.

2. Indeed upon this very account the Romish pretence doth not well accord with Holy Scripture,* 1.597 because it transformeth the Church into another kind of Body, than it was constituted by God, according to the representation of it in Scripture; for there it is represented as a spiritual and heavenly Society,* 1.598 compacted by the bands of one faith, one hope, one Spirit of Charity; but this pretence turneth it into a worldly frame; united by the same bands of interest and design, managed in the same manner,* 1.599 by terrour and allurement, supported by the same props of force, of policy, of wealth, of reputation and splendour, as all other secular Corporations are.

You may call it what you please, but it is evident that in truth the Papal Monarchy is a temporal Dominion, driving on worldly ends by worldly means; such as our Lord did never mean to institute; so that the Subjects thereof may with far more reason, than the People of Con∣stantinople had, when their Bishop Nestorius did stop some of their Priests from contradicting him, say * 1.600 We have a King, a Bishop we have not; so that upon every Pope we may charge that, whereof Anthimus was accused, in the Synod of Constantinople,* 1.601 under Menas; that he did account the greatness and dignity of the Priest∣hood to be not a spiritual charge of souls, but as a kind of politick rule.

This was that, which seeming to be affected by the Bishop of Anti∣och, in encroachment upon the Church of Cyprus, the Fathers of the Ephesine Synod did endeavour to nipp; enacting a Canon against all such invasions,* 1.602 lest under pretext of holy discipline the pride of worldly authority should creep in; * 1.603 and what pride of that kind could they mean beyond that which now the Popes do claim and exercise? Now, do I say, after that the Papal Empire hath swollen to such a bulk; whereas so long ago, when it was but in its budd and strip∣ling age, it was observed of it by a very honest Historian,* 1.604 that the Roman Episcopacy had long since advanced into a high degree of power beyond the Priesthood.

3. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by destroying that brother∣ly co-ordination and equality, which our Lord did appoint among the Bishops, and chief Pastours of his Church: He did (as we before shew∣ed) prohibit all his Apostles to assume any domination, or authoritative Superiority over one another; the which command, together with o∣thers concerning the Pastoral function, we may well suppose to reach their Successours; so did St. Hierome suppose, collecting thence that all Bishops by original Institution are equals, or that no one by our Lord's order may challenge Superiority over another; Whereever (saith he) a Bishop is,* 1.605 whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria, or at Thanis, he is of the same worth, and of the same Priesthood; the power of wealth or low∣ness of poverty do not make a Bishop higher or lower, but all are Successours of the Apostles; where, doth not he plainly deny the Bishop of Eugubium to be inferiour to him of Rome, as being no less a Successour of the Apostles than he? doth he not say these words, in way of proof,* 1.606 that the authority of the Roman Bishop or Church was of no validity against the practice of other Bishops and Churches? (upon occasion of Deacons there taking upon them more than in other places, as Cardinal Deacons do now) which excludeth such distinctions, as Scholastical fancies have devised to shift off his Testimony; the which he uttered simply, never dreaming of such distinctions.

This consequence St. Gregory did suppose,* 1.607 when he therefore did condemn the Title of Vniversal Bi∣shop, because it did imply an affectation of Superiority and dignity in one Bishop above others; of abasing the name of other Bishops in comparison of his own, of extolling himself above the rest of Priests, &c.

This the ancient Popes did remember, when usually in their compellation of any Bishop, they did style them Brethren, Collegues, fellow-Ministers,* 1.608 fellow-Bishops, not intending thereby complement or mockery, but to declare their sense of the origi∣nal equality among Bishops; notwithstanding some differences in Order and Privileges, which their See had obtained. And that this was the general sense of the Fathers we shall afterward shew.

Hence, when it was objected to them,* 1.609 that they did affect Superiori∣ty, they did sometimes disclaim it; so did Pope Gelasius I. (a zealous man for the honour of his See.)

4. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture, not onely by tram∣pling down the dignity of Bishops (which according to St. Gregory doth imply great pride and presumption) but as really infringing the Rights granted by our Lord to his Church, and the Governours of it.* 1.610

For to each Church our Lord hath imposed a Duty, and imparted a Power of maintaining divine Truth,* 1.611 and so approving it self a pillar and support of truth: of deciding Controversies possible and proper to be de∣cided with due temper, ultimately without farther resort; for that he, who will not obey or acquiesce in its Decision, is to be as a heathen or publican: Of censuring, and rejecting Offenders (in Doctrine, or De∣meanour;) Those within (saith Saint Paul to the Church of Corinth) do not ye judge? But them that are without God judgeth; wherefore put away from among your selves that wicked person: Of preserving Order and Decency; according to that Rule, prescribed to the Church of Co∣rinth, let all things be done decently and in order: Of promoting edifica∣tion: Of deciding Causes.

All which Rights and Privileges the Roman Bishop doth bereave the Churches of, snatching them to himself; pretending that he is the So∣vereign Doctour, Judge, Regulatour of all Churches; over-ruling and voiding all that is done by them, according to his pleasure.

The Scripture hath enjoyned and empowered all Bishops to feed, guide and rule their respective Churches, as the Ministers,* 1.612 Stewards, Ambassadours, Angels of God; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, for the edification of the Body of Christ: To them God hath committed the care of their Peo∣ple, so that they are responsible for their Souls.

All which Rights and Privileges of the Episcopal Office the Pope hath invaded,* 1.613 doth obstruct, cramp, frustrate, destroy; pretending (without any warrant) that their Authority is derived from him; forcing them to exercise it no otherwise, than as his Subjects, and according to his pleasure. But of this Point more afterward.

* 1.6145. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture, by robbing all Christian People of the Liberties, and Rights, with which by that Divine Charter they are endowed; and which they are obliged to pre∣serve inviolate.

* 1.615Saint Paul enjoyneth the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty, where∣with Christ hath made us free; and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage; there is therefore a liberty, which we must maintain, and a power to which we must not submit; and against whom can we have more ground to doe this, than against him, who pretendeth to dogma∣tize, to define Points of Faith, to impose Doctrines (new and strange enough) on our Consciences, under a peremptory obligation of yielding assent to them? to prescribe Laws, as Divine and necessary to be obser∣ved, without warrant, as those Dogmatists did, against whom Saint Paul biddeth us to maintain our Liberty:* 1.616 (so that if he should declare vertue to be vice, and white to be black, we must believe him, some of his Adhe∣rents have said, consistently enough with his pretences;) for,

Against such tyrannical Invaders we are bound to maintain our Li∣berty, according to that Precept of Saint Paul; the which if a Pope

might well alledge against the proceedings of a General Synod; with much more reason may we thereby justify our non-submission to one man's exorbitant domination.* 1.617

This is a Power, which the Apostles themselves did not challenge to themselves, for We (saith Saint Paul) have not dominion over your faith,* 1.618 but are helpers of your joy.

They did not pretend, that any Christian should absolutely believe them, in cases, wherein they had not Revelation (general or special) from God; in such cases referring their Opinion to the judgment and discretion of Christians.* 1.619

They say,* 1.620 Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed; If any man, &c. which Precept, with many others of the like purport, (injoyning us to examine the truth, to adhere unto the received Doc∣trine, to decline heterodoxies and novelties) doth signify nothing, if every Christian hath not allowed to him a judgment of discretion, but is tyed blindly to follow the dictates of another.

St. Austin (I am sure) did think this liberty such, that without be∣traying it no man could be obliged to believe any thing not grounded upon Canonical Authority: for to a Donatist his Adversary, citing the Authority of St. Cyprian against him, he thus re∣plieth;* 1.621 But now seeing it is not Canonical which thou recitest, with that liberty to which the Lord hath cal∣led us, I do not receive the opinion, differing from Scripture, of that man whose praise I cannot reach, to whose great learning I do not compare my writings, whose wit I love, in whose speech I delight, whose cha∣rity I admire, whose martyrdom I reverence.

This Liberty, not onely the Ancients, but even divers Popes have ac∣knowledged to belong to every Christian; as we shall hereafter shew, when we shall prove, that we may lawfully reject the Pope, as a Patron of Errour and Iniquity.

6. It particularly doth thwart Scripture by wronging Princes in ex∣empting a numerous sort of People from subjection to their Laws, and Judicatures; whereas by God's Ordination and express Command every soul is subject to them; not excepting the Popes themselves;* 1.622 (in the opinion of St. Chrysostome, except they be greater than any Apostle.)

By pretending to govern the Subjects of Princes without their leave; to make Laws, without his permission or confirmation; to cite his Sub∣jects out of their Territories, &c. which are encroachments upon the Rights of God's unquestionable Ministers.

III. Farther, because our Adversaries do little regard any allegation of Scripture against them (pretending themselves to be the onely Masters of its sense or of common sense, Judges and Interpreters of them) we do alledge against them, that this pretence doth also cross Tradition, and the common Doctrine of the Fathers. For,

1. Common usage and practice is a good interpreter of Right; and that sheweth no such Right was known in the Primitive Church—

2. Indeed the state of the Primitive Church did not admit it.

3. The Fathers did suppose no Order in the Church, by original Right or divine Institution superiour to that of a Bishop; whence they commonly did style a Bishop the Highest Priest,* 1.623 and Episcopacy the top of Ecclesiastical Orders.

* 1.624The chief Priest (saith Tertullian) that is the Bishop, hath the right of giving baptism.

* 1.625Although (saith St. Ambrose) the Presbyters also do it, yet the beginning of the Ministery is from the highest Priest.

* 1.626Optatus calleth Bishops the tops and Princes of all.

The Divine Order of Bishops (saith Dionysius) is the first of Divine Orders;* 1.627 the same being also the extreme and last of them; for into it all the frame of our Hierarchy is resolved and accom∣plished.

This language is common even among Popes themselves, complying with the speech then current; for, Presbyters (saith Pope Innocent I.) although they are Priests,* 1.628 yet have they not the top of High priesthood.

No man (saith P. Zosimus I.) against the precepts of the Fathers should presume to aspire to the highest Priesthood of the Church.* 1.629

* 1.630It is decreed (saith Pope Leo I.) that the Chorepiscopi or Presbyters, who figure the sons of Aaron, shall not presume to snatch that, which the Princes of the Priests (whom Moses and Aaron did typifie) are commanded to doe. (Note by the way, that seeing according to this Pope's mind (after St. Hierome) Moses and Aaron did in the Jewish Policy represent Bishops, there was none there to prefigure the Pope.)

In those days the Bishop of Nazianzum (a petty Town in Cappadocia) was an High-priest (so Gre∣gory calleth his Father.* 1.631) And the Bishop of a poor City in Africk is styled Sovereign Pontif of Christ, most blessed Father, most blessed Pope; and the very Roman Clergy doth call St. Cyprian, most blessed and glorious Pope; which Titles the Pope doth now so charily reserve and appropriate to himself.

But innumerable Instances of this kind might be produced; I shall onely therefore add two other passages, which seem very observable, to the enforcement of this discourse.

St. Hierome, reprehending the discipline of the Montanists hath these words,* 1.632 With us the Bishops do hold the places of the Apostles; with them, a Bishop is in the third place; for they have for the first rank the Patriarchs of Pepusa in Phrygia; for the second those whom they call Cenones; so are Bishops thrust down into the third, that is almost the last place; as if thence Religion became more stately, if that which is first with us, be the last with them: Now doth not St. Hierome here affirm that every Bishop hath the place of an Apo∣stle, and the first rank in the Church? doth not he tax the advance∣ment of any Order above this? may not the Popish Hierarchy most patly be compared to that of the Montanists, and is it not equally liable to the censure of St. Hierome? doth it not place the Roman Pope in the first place, and the Cardinals in the second, detruding the Bishops into a third place? Could the Pepusian Patriarch, or his Cenones either more over-top in dignity, or sway by power over Bishops, than doth the Ro∣man Patriarch and his Cardinals?

Again St. Cyprian telleth Pope Cornelius, that in Episcopacy doth re∣side the sublime and divine power of governing the Church; it being the sublime top of the Priesthood:* 1.633 He (saith the Blessed man concerning Pope Corne∣lius) did not suddenly arrive to Episcopacy, but be∣ing through all Ecclesiastical Offices promoted, and ha∣ving in divine administrations often merited of God, did by all the steps of Religion mount to the sublimest pitch of Priesthood; where it is visible, that St. Cy∣prian doth not reckon the Papacy, but the Episcopacy of Cornelius to be that top of Priesthood, (above which there was nothing eminent in the Church) unto which he passing through the inferiour degrees of the Clergy had attained.

In fine, it cannot well be conceived, that the Ancients constantly would have spoken in this manner, if they had allowed the Papal Office to be such, as now it doth bear it self; the which indeed is an Order no less distant from Episcopacy, than the rank of a King differeth from that of the meanest Baron in his Kingdom.

Neither is it prejudicial to this Discourse (or to any preceding) that in the Primitive Church there were some distinctions and subordinations of Bishops (as of Patriarchs,* 1.634 Primates, Metropolitans, common Bishops) for,

These were according to prudence constituted by the Church it self for the more orderly and peaceable administration of things.

These did not import such a difference among the Bishops, that one should domineer over others to the infringing of primitive fraternity, or common liberty: but a precedence in the same rank, with some mode∣rate advantages for the common good.

These did stand under Authority of the Church; and might be chan∣ged, or corrected as was found expedient by common agreement.

By virtue of these the Superiours of this kind could doe nothing over their subordinates in an arbitrary manner, but ac∣cording to the regulation of Canons,* 1.635 established by consent in Synods; by which their influence was amplified or curb'd.

When any of these did begin to domineer, or ex∣ceed his limits, he was liable to account, and cor∣rection; he was exclaimed against as tyrannical.

When Primates did begin to swell and encroach, good men declared their displeasure at it, and wished it removed; as is known particularly by the famous wish of * 1.636 Gregory Nazianzene.

But we are discoursing against a Superiority of a different nature, which soundeth it self in the Institution of Christ, imposeth it self on the Church,* 1.637 is not alterable or governable by it, can endure no check or controll; pretendeth to be endowed with an absolute power to act without, or against the consent of the Church, is limited by no certain bounds but its own pleasure, &c.

IV. Farther this pretence may be impugned, by many Arguments springing from the nature and reason of things abstractedly considered; according to which the exercise of such an Authority may appear un∣practicable without much iniquity, and great inconvenience, in preju∣dice to the rights of Christian States and People, to the interests of Re∣ligion and Piety, to the peace and welfare of Mankind; whence it is to be rejected as a pest of Christendom.

1. Whereas all the world in design and obligation is Christian; (the utmost parts of the earth being granted in possession to our Lord;* 1.638 and his Gospel extending to every creature under heaven) and may in effect be∣come such, when God pleaseth, by acceptance of the Gospel: whereas it may easily happen, that the most distant places on the Earth may em∣brace Christianity: whereas really Christian Churches have been and are dispersed all about the World; it is thence hugely incommodious, that all the Church should depend upon an Authority resident in one Place, and to be managed by one Person: the Church being such, is too immense, boundless, uncircumscribed, unweildy a bulk to be guided by the inspection, or managed by the influence of one such Authority or Person.

If the whole World were reduced under the Government of one Civil Monarch, it would necessarily be ill governed, as to Policy, to Justice, to Peace: The skirts or remoter parts from the Metropolis or centre of the Government would extremely suffer thereby; for they would feel little light or warmth from Majesty shining at such a distance: They would live under small awe of that Power, which was so far out of sight: They must have very difficult recourse to it for redress of grievances, and relief of oppressions; for final decision of causes and composure of differences; for correction of offences, and dispensation of justice, upon good information, with tolerable expedition: It would be hard to pre∣serve

peace or quell seditions, and suppress insurrections that might arise in distant quarters.

What man could obtain the knowledge or experience needfull skilful∣ly and justly to give Laws, or administer Judgment to so many Nations different in Humour, in Language, in Customs? What mind of man, what industry, what leisure could serve to sustain the burthen of that care, which is needfull to the weilding such an Office?* 1.639 How and when should one man be able to receive all the addresses, to weigh all the ca∣ses, to make all the resolutions and dispatches requisite for such a charge? If the burthen of one small Kingdom be so great, that wise and good Princes do grown under its weight, what must that be of all Mankind? To such an extent of Government there must be allowed a Majesty, and power correspondent, the which cannot be committed to one hand, without its degeneration into extreme Tyranny. The words of Zosimus to this purpose are observable; who saith, that the Romans by admitting Augustus Caesar to the Government, did doe very perillously; for,* 1.640 If he should chuse to manage the Government rightly and justly, he would not be capable of applying himself to all things as were fit; not being able to succour those, who do lie at greatest distance; nor could he find so many Magistrates, as would not be ashamed to defeat the opinion conceived of them; nor could he sute them to the differences of so many manners: Or, if transgressing the bounds of Royalty, he should warp to Tyranny, disturbing the Magistracies, overlooking misdemeanours, bartering right for money, holding the Subjects for slaves (such as most Emperours, or rather near all have been, few ex∣cepted) then it is quite necessary, that the brutish Authority of the Prince should be a publick calamity, for then flatterers being by him dignifyed with gifts and honours do invade the greatest commands; and those who are mo∣dest and quiet, not affecting the same life with them, are consequently dis∣pleased, not enjoying the same advantages; so that from hence Cities are filled with seditions and troubles. And the Civil and Military employments being delivered up to avaritious persons do both render a peaceable life sad and grievous to men of better disposition, and do enfeeble the resolution of Souldiers in war.

Hence St. Austin was of opinion, that it were happy for mankind,* 1.641 if all Kingdoms were small, enjoying a peacefull neighbourhood.

It is commonly observed by Historians,* 1.642 that Rome growing in bigness, did labour therewith, and was not able to support it self; many distempers and disorders springing up in so vast a body, which did throw it into continual pangs, and at length did bring it to ruine: for Then (saith St. Austin concerning the times of Pompey) Rome had subdued Africk, it had subdued Greece; and widely also ru∣ling over other parts, as not able to bear it self did in a manner by its own greatness break it self.

Hence that wise Prince Augustus Caesar did himself forbear to enlarge the Roman Dominion,* 1.643 and did in his Testament advise the Senate to doe the like.

To the like inconveniences (and much greater in its kind; Temporal things being more easily ordered than Spiritual, and having secular Au∣thority, great advantages of power and wealth to aid it self) must the Church be obnoxious, if it were subjected to the government of one So∣vereign, unto whom the maintenance of Faith, the potection of Disci∣pline, the determination of Controversies, the revision of Judgments, the discussion and final decision of Causes upon appeal, the suppression of disorders and factions, the inspection over all Governours, the correc∣tion of Misdemeanours, the constitution, relaxation and abolition of Laws, the resolution of all matters concerning Religion and the publick State, in all Countries must be referred.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what Shoulders can bear such a charge with∣out perpetual miracle? (and yet we do not find that the Pope hath any promise of miraculous assistence, nor in his demeanour doth appear any mark thereof:) what mind would not the care of so many affairs utter∣ly distract, and overwhelm? who could find time to cast a glance on each of so numberless particulars? what sagacity of wit,* 1.644 what variety of learning, what penetrancy of judgment, what strength of memory, what in∣defatigable vigour of industry, what abundance of experience would suffice for enabling one man to weigh exactly all the controversies of Faith, and cases of Discipline per∣petually starting up in so many Regions?

What reach of skill and ability would serve for accommodation of Laws to the different humours and fashions of so many Nations? Shall a decrepit old man in the decay of his age, parts, vigour— (such as Popes usually are) undertake this?* 1.645 May we not say to him, as Jethro did to Moses, Vltra vires tuas est negotium; The thing thou doest is not good; thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this People that is with thee; for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thy self alone.

If the care of a small Diocese hath made the most able and industrious Bishops (who had a Conscience and sense of their duty) to grown under its weight, how insupportable must such a thing be?

The care of his own particular Church, if he would act the part of a Bishop indeed,* 1.646 would sufficiently take up the Pope; especially in some times; whenas Pope Alex. saith, —Vt intestina nostrae specialis Ecclesiae negotia vix possemus ventilare, nedum longinqua ad plenum extricare.

If it be said that Saint Paul testifieth of himself,* 1.647 that he had a care of all the Churches incumbent on him; I answer, that he (and other A∣postles had the like) questionless had a pious solicitude for the welfare of all Christians, especially of the Churches which he had founded, be∣ing vigilant for occasions to edifie them; but what is this to bearing the charge of a standing government over all Churches diffused through the world? that care of a few Churches then was burthensome to him, what is the charge of so many now? to one seldom endowed with such Apostolical graces and gifts as Saint Paul was.

How weak must the influence of such an Authority be upon the cir∣cumferential Parts of its Oecumenical Sphere?

How must the outward branches of the Churches faint and fade for want of sap from the root of Discipline, which must be conveyed through so many obstructions to such a distance?

How discomposed must things be in each Country,* 1.648 for want of sea∣sonable resolution, hanging in suspence, till information do travell to Rome, and determination come back thence?

How difficult, how impossible will it be for him there to receive faithfull information, or competent testimony, whereupon to ground just decisions of Causes?

How will it be in the power thence of any malicious and cunning person to raise trouble against innocent persons? for any like person to decline the due Correction laid on him? by transferring the Cause from home to such a distance?

How much cost, how much trouble, how much hazard must parties concerned be at to fetch light and justice thence?

Put case a Heresie, a Schism, a Doubt or Debate of great moment should arise in China, how should the Gentleman in Italy proceed to con∣fute that Heresie, to quash that Schism, to satisfie that Doubt, to de∣termine that Cause? how long must it be ere he can have notice thereof? to how many cross accidents of weather and way must the transmitting of information be subject? how difficult will it prove to get a clear and sure knowledge concerning the state of things?

How hard will it be to get the opposite parties to appear, so as to con∣front testimonies and probations requisite to a fair and just decision? how shall witnesses of infirm sex or age ramble so far? how easily will some of them prepossess and abuse him with false suggestions and mis∣representations of the case? how slippery therefore will the result be,* 1.649 and how prone he to award a wrongfull sentence?

How tedious, how expensive, how troublesome, how vexatious,* 1.650 how hazardous must this course be to all parties? Certainly Causes must needs proceed slowly, and depend long; and in the end the resolution of them must be very uncertain.

What temptation will it be for any one (how justly soever corrected by his immediate Superiours) to complain; hoping thereby to escape,

to disguise the truth, &c. who being condemned will not appeal to one at distance, hoping by false suggestions to delude him?

* 1.651This necessarily will destroy all Discipline, and induce impunity, or frustration of Justice.

Certainly much more convenient and equal it should be, that there should be near at hand a Sovereign Power, fully capable, expeditely and seasonably to compose differences, to decide causes, to resolve doubts, to settle things without more stir and trouble.

Very equal it is, that Laws should rather be framed, interpreted and executed in every Countrey, with accommodation to the tempers of the People, to the circumstances of things, to the Civil State there, by per∣sons acquainted with those particulars, than by strangers ignorant of them, and apt to mistake about them.

How often will the Pope be imposed upon, as he was in the case of Basilides, of whom St. Cyprian saith, going to Rome he deceived our Collegue Stephen,* 1.652 being placed at distance, and ignorant of the fact, and concealed truth, aspiring to be unjustly restored to the Bishoprick, from which he was justly removed.

* 1.653As he was in the case of Marcellus, who gull'd Pope Julius by fair professions, as St. Basil doth often complain.

As he was in aiding that versatile and troublesome Bishop, Eustathius of Sebastia,* 1.654 to the recovery of his Bishoprick.

As he was in rejecting the man of God, and most admirable Bishop,* 1.655 Meletius; and admitting scanda∣lous reports about him, which the same Saint doth often resent; blaming sometimes the fallacious mis∣information, sometimes the wilfull presumption, negligence, pride of the Roman Church,* 1.656 in the case.

As he was in the case of Pelagius and Celestius, who did cajole Pope Zosimus to acquit them,* 1.657 to condemn Eros and Lazarus their accusers, to reprove the African Bishops for prosecuting them.

How many proceedings should we have like to that of Pope Zosimus I. concerning that scandalous Priest, Apiarius; whom being for grievous crimes excommunicated by his Bishop, that Pope did admit to commu∣nion,* 1.658 and undertake to patronize; but was baffled in his enterprize.

This hath been the sense of the Fathers, in the case.

* 1.659St. Cyprian therefore saith, that seeing it was a general statute among

the Bishops, and that it was both equal and just, that every one's cause should be heard there, where the crime was committed; and that each Pastour had a portion of the Flock allotted to him, which he should rule and govern, be∣ing to render unto the Lord an account of his doing.

St. Chrysostome thought it improper that one out of Egypt should admi∣nister justice to Persons in Thrace:* 1.660 (and why not as well as one out of Italy?)

The African Synod thought the Nicene Fathers had provided most pru∣dently and most justly,* 1.661 that all affairs should be finally determined there where they did arise.

They thought a transmarine judgment could not be firm,* 1.662 because the ne∣cessary persons for testimony, for the infirmity of sex or age, or for many other infirmities could not be brought thither.

Pope Leo himself saw how dilatory this course would be; and that lon∣ginquity of region doth cause the examination of truth to become over-dilatory.* 1.663

Pope Liberius for such reasons did request Constantius, that Athanasius his cause should be tryed at Alexandria;* 1.664 where— he (saith he) that is accused, and the accusers are, and the defender of them, and so we may up∣on examination had agree in our sentence about them.

Therefore divers ancient Canons of Synods did prohibit, that any Causes should be removed out of the bounds of Provinces, or Dioceses;* 1.665 as otherwhere we shew.

2. Such an Authority, as this pretence claimeth, must necessarily (if not withheld by continual Miracle) throw the Church into sad bon∣dage. All the World must become slaves to one City,* 1.666 its wealth must be derived thither, its quiet must depend on it. For it (not being restrain∣ed within any bounds of place or time, having no check upon it of equal or co-ordinate power, standing upon Divine Institution, and therefore im∣mutably setled) must of its own nature become absolute, and unlimited.

Let it be however of right limited by Divine Laws, or Humane Ca∣nons, yet will it be continually encroaching, and stretching its power, untill it grow enormous, and boundless. It will not indure to be pin∣ched by any restraint.* 1.667 It will draw to it self the collation of all prefer∣ments, &c.

It will assume all things to it self; trampling down all opposite claims of right and liberty; so that neither Pastour nor People shall enjoy or doe any thing otherwise than in dependence on it, and at its pleasure.

It will be always forging new prerogatives, and interpreting all things in favour of them,* 1.668 and enacting sanctions to establish them; which none must presume to contest.

It will draw to it self the disposal of all places; the exaction of goods.* 1.669 All Princes must become his Ministers, and executours of his Decrees.

It will mount above all Law, and Rule; not onely challenging to be uncontrollable, and unaccountable, but not enduring any reproof of its proceedings, or contradiction of its dictates: a blind Faith must be yiel∣ded to all its Assertions as infallibly true, and a blind obedience to all its Decrees, as unquestionably holy: whosoever shall any-wise cross it in word or deed, shall certainly be discountenanced, condemned, ejected from the Church;* 1.670 so that the most absolute tyranny, that can be ima∣gined, will ensue: All the World hath groaned and heavily complained of their exactions, particularly our poor Nation; it would raise indig∣nation in any man to reade the complaints * 1.671.

This is consequent on such a pretence according to the very nature of things;* 1.672 and so in experience it hath happened. For,

It is evident, that the Papacy hath devoured all the privileges and rights of all Orders in the Church,* 1.673 either granted by God, or established in the ancient Canons.

The Royalties of Peter are become immense; and consistently to his practice the Pope doth allow men to tell him to his face,* 1.674 that all Power in Heaven and in Earth is given unto him.

It belongeth to him to judge of the whole Church.

* 1.675He hath a plenitude (as he calleth it) of Power, by which he can in∣fringe any Law, or doe any thing that he pleaseth.

It is the tenour of his Bulls; that whoever rashly dareth to thwart his will, shall incur the indignation of Almighty God; and (as if that were not enough) of Saint Peter and Saint Paul also.

No man must presume to tax his faults; or to judge of his judgment.* 1.676

It is Idolatry to disobey his commands,* 1.677 against their own Sovereign Lord.

There are who dare in plain terms call him Omnipotent, and who ascribe infinite power to him. And that he is infallible,* 1.678 is the most com∣mon and plausible opinion; so that at Rome the contrary is erroneous, and within an inch of being heretical.

We are now told,* 1.679 that If the Pope should err by enjoyning vices, or forbidding vertues, the Church should be bound to believe vices to be good, and ver∣tues evil, unless it would sin against Conscience.

The greatest Princes must stoop to his will; otherwise he hath power to cashier, and depose them.

Now what greater inconvenience, what more horrible iniquity can there be, than that all God's people (that free people,* 1.680 who are called to freedom) should be subject to so intolerable a yoke, and miserable a sla∣very?

That tyranny soon had crept into the Roman Church Socrates tel∣leth us.* 1.681

They have rendred true that definition of Sciop∣pius. The Church is a stall, or herd,* 1.682 or multitude of Beasts, or Asses.

They bridle us, they harness us, they spur us, they lay Yokes and Laws upon us.

The greatest tyranny that ever was invented in the world is the pre∣tence of Infallibility: for Dionysius and Phalaris did leave the mind free, (pretending onely to dispose of body and goods according to their will:) but the Pope not content to make us doe and say what he pleaseth, will have us also to think so; denouncing his imprecations and spiritual me∣naces if we do not.

3. Such an Authority will inevitably produce a depravation of Chri∣stian Doctrine, by distorting it in accommodation of it to the promo∣ting its designs and interests. It will blend Christianity with worldly notions and policies.

It certainly will introduce new Doctrines, and interpret the old ones so as may serve to the advancement of the power, reputation, pomp,

wealth and pleasure of those who manage it, and of their de∣pendents.

That which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· to make a trade of Religion,* 1.683 will be the great work of the Teachers of the Church. It will turn all Divines into mercenary, slavish, designing Flatterers.

This we see come to pass, Christianity by the Papal influence being from its original simplicity transformed into quite another thing than it was; from a divine Philosophy designed to improve the reason, to mo∣derate the passions, to correct the manners of men, to prepare men for conversation with God and Angels; modelled to a systeme of politick devices (of notions,* 1.684 of precepts, of rites,) serving to exalt and enrich the Pope, with his Court and Adherents, Clients and Vassals.

What Doctrine of Christian Theology, as it is interpreted by their Schools, hath not a direct aspect, or doth not squint that way? especi∣ally according to the opinions passant and in vogue among them.

To pass over those concerning the Pope (his Universal Pastourship, Judgship in controversies, Power to call Councils, Presidency in them, Superiority over them; Right to confirm, or annull them; his Infallibi∣lity; his double Sword, and Dominion (direct or indirect) over Prin∣ces; his dispensing in Laws, in Oaths, in Vows, in Matrimonial cases, with all other the monstrous prerogatives, which the sound Doctours of Rome, with encouragement of that Chair, do teach)

What doth the Doctrine concerning the exempting of the Clergy from secular jurisdiction, and immunity of their goods from taxes signify, but their entire dependence on the Pope, and their being closely tyed to his interests?

What is the exemption of Monastical places from the jurisdiction of Bishops, but listing so many Souldiers and Advocates to defend and ad∣vance the Papal Empire?

What meaneth the Doctrine concerning that middle Region of Souls, or Cloister of Purgatory, whereof the Pope holdeth the Keys; opening and shutting it at his pleasure, by dispensation of pardons and indulgen∣ces; but that he must be Master of the Peoples condition, and of their purse?

What meaneth the treasure of Merits, and supererogatory works, whereof he is the Steward, but a way of driving a trade, and drawing money from simple People, to his treasury?

Whither doth the entangling of Folks in perpetual Vows tend, but to assure them in a slavish dependance on their interests, eternally, without evasion or remedy; except by favourable dispensation from the Pope?

Why is the opus operatum in Sacraments taught to confer grace, but to breed a high opinion of the Priest, and all he doeth?

Whence did the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation (urged with so furious zeal) issue, but from design to magnify the credit of those, who by saying of a few words can make Our God and Saviour?

and withall to exercise a notable instance of their power over men, in making them to renounce their Reason, and Senses?

Whither doth tend the Doctrine concerning the Mass being a propitia∣tory Sacrifice for the Dead, but to engage men to leave in their Wills good sums to offer in their behalf?

Why is the Cup withholden from the Laity, but to lay it low by so notable a distinction, in the principal mystery of our Religion, from the Priesthood?

Why is saying private Mass (or celebrating the Communion in solitude) allowed, but because Priests are pay'd for it, and live by it?

At what doth the Doctrine concerning the necessity of auricular Con∣fession aim, but that thereby the Priests may have a mighty awe on the Consciences of all People, may dive into their secrets, may manage their Lives as they please?

And what doth a like necessary particular Absolution intend, but to set the Priest in a lofty state of Authority above the People, as a Judge of his condition, and dispenser of his Salvation?

Why do they equal Ecclesiastical Traditions with Scripture, but that on the pretence of them they may obtrude whatever Doctrines, advan∣tageous to their designs?

What drift hath the Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of Churches or Councils, but that when opportunity doth invite, he may call a com∣pany of Bishops together to establish what he liketh, which ever after must pass for certain truth, to be contradicted by none; so enslaving the minds of all men to his dictates, which always sute to his interest.

What doth the prohibition of Holy Scripture drive at, but a mono∣poly of knowledge to themselves, or a detaining of People in ignorance of truth and duty; so that they must be forced to rely on them for di∣rection, must believe all they say, and blindly submit to their dictates; being disabled to detect their errours, or contest their opinions.

Why must the Sacraments be celebrated, and publick devotions exer∣cised in an unknown Tongue, but that the Priests may seem to have a peculiar interest in them, and ability for them?

Why must the Priesthood be so indispensably forbidden marriage, but that it may be wholly untacked from the State, and rest addicted to him, and governable by him; that the Persons and Wealth of Priests may be purely at his devotion?

To what end is the clogging Religion by multiplication of Ceremo∣nies and Formalities, but to amuse the People, and maintain in them a blind reverence toward the * 1.685 Interpreters of the dark mysteries couched in them; and by seeming to encourage an exteriour shew of Piety (or form of godliness) to gain reputation and advantage, whereby they might oppress the interiour virtue and reality of it, as the Scribes and Pharisees did, although with less designs.

Why is the veneration of Images and Reliques, the credence of Mira∣cles and Legends, the undertaking of Pilgrimages, and voyages to Rome, and other places, more holy than ordinary; sprinklings of Holy-water, consecrations of baubles, (with innumerable foppish knacks and trinkets) so cherished; but to keep the People in a slavish credulity and dotage; apt to be led by them whither they please, by any sleeveless pretence; and in the mean while to pick various gains from them by such trade?

What do all such things mean but obscuring the native simplicity of Christianity, whereas it being represented intelligible to all men, would derogate from that high admiration, which these men pretend to from their peculiar and profound wisedom? And what would men spend for these toys, if they understood they might be good Christians, and get to Heaven without them?

What doth all that pomp of Religion serve for, but for ostentation of the dignity of those who administer it: It may be pretended for the ho∣nour of Religion, but it really conduceth to the glory of the Priesthood; who shine in those pageantries.

Why is Monkery (although so very different from that which was in the ancient times) so cryed up as a superlative state of perfection; but that it filleth all places with swarms of lusty People, who are vowed ser∣vants to him, and have little else to doe but to advance that Authority, by which they subsist in that dronish way of life?

In fine, perusing the Controversies of Bellarmine or any other Cham∣pion of Romanism, do but consider the nature and scope of each Doc∣trine, maintained by them; and you may easily discern, that scarce any of them but doth tend to advance the interest of the Pope, or of his sworn Vassals.

Whereas indeed our Lord had never any such design, to set up a sort of men in such distance above their brethren; to perk over them, and suck them of their goods by tricks; it onely did charge People to allow their Pastours a competent maintenance for a sober life, with a moderate respect, as was needfull for the common benefit of God's People; whom they were, with humility and meekness, to instruct and guide in the plain and simple way of Piety.

This is a grievous inconvenience; there being nothing wherein the Church is more concerned than in the preservation of its Doctrine pure and incorrupt from the leaven of hurtfull errours, influential on practice.

4. The errours in Doctrine, and miscarriages in practice, which this Authority in favour to it self would introduce, would be established im∣moveably, to the irrecoverable oppression of Truth and Piety; any re∣formation becoming impossible, while it standeth, or so far as it shall be able to oppose and obstruct it.

While particular Churches do retain their liberty, and Pastours their original co-ordination in any measure, if any Church or Bishop shall of∣fer to broach any novel Doctrine or Practice of bad import, the others may endeavour to stop the settlement or progress of them; each Church at least may keep it self sound from contagion.

But when all Churches and Bishops are reduced into subjection to one Head, supported by the guards of his Authority, who will dare to con∣test, or be able to withstand, what he shall say or doe? It will then be deemed high presumption, contumacy, rebellion, to dissent from his determinations how false soever, or tax the practices countenanced by him however irregular and culpable.

He will assume to himself the privilege not to be crossed in any thing; and soon will claim infallibility, the mother of incorrigibility.

No errour can be so palpable, which that Authority will not protect and shroud from confutation; no practice so enormous, which it will not palliate, and guard from reproof.

There will be Legions of mercenary Tongues to speak, and stipendi∣ary Pens to write in defence of its Doctrines and Practices; so that whoever will undertake to oppose it shall be voted down and overwhel∣med with noise; and shall incur all the discouragement and persecution imaginable. So poor Truth will become utterly defenceless, wretched Vertue destitute of succour or patronage.

This is so in speculation, and we see it confirmed by experience; for when from the influence of this Power (as P. Adri∣an VI. did ingenuously confess) an apparent dege∣neracy in Doctrine, in Discipline,* 1.686 in Practice had seised on Christendom, all the world feeling it, and crying out loudly for reformation, yet how stiff a repugnance did the adherents to this interest make thereto? with what industry and craft did Popes endeavour to decline all means of remedy?

What will not this Party doe rather than acknowledge themselves mistaken or liable to errour? what palliations, what shifts do not they use? what evidence of light do they not outface?* 1.687

5. The same will induce a general corruption of manners.

For the chief Clergy partaking of its growth, and protected by its interest, (reciprocally supporting it, and being sheltred by it from any curb or controll) will swell into great pride and haughtiness; will be tempted to scrape and hoard up wealth, by rapine, extortion, simo∣ny; will come to enjoy ease and sloth; will be immersed in sensuality and luxury, and will consequently neglect their charge.

The inferiours will become enamoured and ambitious of such digni∣ty, and will use all means and arts to attain it.

Thence emulation, discord, sycophantry will spring.* 1.688

Thence all Ecclesiastical Offices will become venal; to be purchased by bribes, flattery, favour.—

The higher ranks will become fastuous, supercilious and domineering. The lower will basely crouch, cogg—

What then must the people be, the guides being such?

Were such guides like to edifie the people by their Doctrine?* 1.689 Were they not like to damnifie them by their Example?

That thus it hath happened Experience doth shew; and History doth abundantly testifie. This was soon observed by a Pagan Historian, Am. Marcellin. By St. Basil 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

What mischief this, what scandal to Religion, what detriment to the Church, what ruins of Souls it produceth is visible.

The descriptions of Rome and of that Church by Mantuan, do in a lively manner represent the great degeneracy and corruptions of it.

6. This Authority as it would induce corruption of manners, so it would perpetuate it; and render the state of things incorrigible.

For this Head of the Church, and the supporters of his Authority will often need reformation, but never will endure it.

That will happen of any Pope,* 1.690 which the Fathers of Basil complai∣ned of in Pope Eugenius.

* 1.691If the Pope would (as Pope Adrian VI.) yet he will not be able to reform; the interests of his dependents crossing it.

If there hath happened a good Pope, who desired to reform; yet he hath been ridiculous when he endeavoured it; and found it impossible to reform even a few particulars in his own house, the incorrigible Roman Court.

The nature and pretended foundation of this spiritual Authority doth encourage it with insuperable obstinacy to withstand all reformation: for whereas if any temporal Power doth grow intolerable, God's Pro∣vidence by Wars and Revolutions of State, may dispense a redress, they have prevented this by supposing that in this case God hath tied his own hands; this Authority being immovably fixed in the same hands, from which no revolution can take it; whence from its exorbitancies there can be no rescue or relief.

* 1.6927. This Authority will spoil him in whom it is seated; corrupting his mind and manners; rendring him a Scandal to Religion, and a perni∣cious Instrument of wickedness by the influence of his example.

* 1.693To this an uncontrollable power (bridled with no restraint) and impunity doth naturally tend, and accordingly hath it been—

How many notorious Reprobates, Monsters of wickedness have been in that See?

If we survey the Lives of the Popes, written by Historians most in∣different, or (as most have been) partial in favour to them, we shall find, at first good ones, Martyrs, Confessours, Saints— but after this exorbitant power had grown, how few good ones? how many extreme∣ly bad? The first Popes before Constantine were Holy men; the next were tolerable, while the Papacy kept within bounds of modesty; but when they having shaked off their Master, and renounced allegiance to the Emperour, (i. e. after Gregory II.) few tolerable; generally they were either rake-hells, or intolerably arrogant, insolent, turbulent and ravenous.

* 1.694Bellarmine and Baronius do bobb off this, by telling us that hence the providence of God is most apparent.

But do they call this preserving the Church; the permission of it to continue so long in such a condition, under the prevalence of such mis∣chiefs?* 1.695 when hath God deserted any People if not then? when such Im∣piety more than Pagan doth reign in it?

But what in the mean time became of those Souls, which by this means were ruined; what amends for the vast damage which Religi∣on

sustained? for the introducing so pernicious Customs hardly to be ex∣tirpated?* 1.696 —

To what a pass of shameless wickedness must things have come, when such men as Alexander VI. having visibly such an impure brood, should be placed in this Chair?

Even after the Reformation began to curb their impudence, and ren∣der them more wary, yet had they the face to set Paul the Third there.

How unfit must such men be, to be the Guides of all Christendom; to breathe Oracles of Truth, to enact Laws of Sanctity?

How improper were those Vessels of Satan to be Organs of that Ho∣ly Spirit of discipline, which will flee deceit,* 1.697 and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide where unrighteousness cometh in?

It will engage the Popes to make the Ecclesiastical Authority an En∣gine of advancing the Temporal concerns of his own Relations (his Sons, his Nephews.)

What indeed is the Popedom now but a Ladder for a Family to mount unto great estate?* 1.698

What is it, but introducing an old man into a place, by advantage whereof, a Family must make hay while the Sun shines?* 1.699

8. This Pretence, upon divers obvious accounts, is apt to create great mischief in the world, to the disturbance of Civil Societies, and destruction or debilitation of temporal Authority, which is certainly God's Ordinance, and necessary to the well-being of mankind; so that supposing it, we may in vain pray for Kings, and all that are in authority,* 1.700 that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

For suppose the two powers (Spiritual and Temporal) to be co-or∣dinate, and independent each of other; then must all Christians be put into that perplexed state of repugnant and incompatible obligations; concerning which our Lord saith; No man can serve two Masters;* 1.701 for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.

They will often draw several ways, and clash in their designs,* 1.702 in their laws, in their decisions; one willing and commanding that, which the other disliketh and prohibiteth.

It will be impossible by any certain bounds to distinguish their Juris∣diction, so as to prevent contest between them; all temporal matters being in some respect spiritual (as being referible to spiritual ends, and in some manner allyed to Religion) and all spiritual things becoming temporal, as they conduce to the secular peace and prosperity of States; there is nothing, which each of these Powers will not hook within the verge of its cognizance and jurisdiction; each will claim a right to meddle in all things; one pretending thereby to further the good of the

Church, the other to secure the interest of the State: and what end or remedy can there be of the differences hence arising; there being no third Power to arbitrate or moderate between them?

Each will prosecute its cause by its advantages; the one by instru∣ments of temporal power, the other by spiritual arms of censures and curses.

And in what a case must the poor people then be? how distracted in their consciences, how divided in their affections, how discordant in their practices? according as each pretence hath influence upon them, by its different arguments or peculiar advantages?

How can any man satisfie himself in performing or refusing obedi∣ence to either? How many (by the intricacy of the point, and con∣trary pulling) will be withdrawn from yielding due complyance on the one hand or the other?

What shall a man doe, while one in case of disobedience to his Com∣mands doth brandish a Sword, the other thundreth out a Curse against him; one threatneth death, the other excision from the Church; both denounce damnation?

What animosities and contentions, what discomposures and confusi∣ons must this Constitution of things breed in every place? and how can a Kingdom so divided in it self stand,* 1.703 or not come into desolation?

Such an advantage infallibly will make Popes affect to invade the temporal Power.

* 1.704It was the reason, which Pope Paschal alledged against Henry IV. be∣cause he did Ecclesiae regnum auferre.

It is indeed impossible, that a co-ordination of these Powers should subsist; for each will be continually encroaching on the other; each for its own defence and support will continually be struggling and clam∣bring to get above the other: there will never be any quiet till one come to subside and truckle under the other; whereby the Sovereign∣ty of the one or the other will be destroyed. Each of them soon will come to claim a Supremacy in all causes, and the power of both Swords; and one side will carry it.

It is indeed necessary, that men for a time continuing possessed with a reverence to the Ecclesiastical Authority, as independent and uncon∣trollable, it should at last overthrow the temporal; by reason of its great advantages above it; for,

The Spiritual Power doth pretend an Establishment purely Divine; which cannot by any accidents undergoe any change, diminutions or translation, to which Temporal dominions are subject: Its power there∣fore,* 1.705 being perpetual, irreversible, depending immediately of God, can hardly be checked, can never be conquered.

It fighteth with Tongues and Pens, which are the most perillous Wea∣pons.

It can never be disarmed; fighting with Weapons that cannot be ta∣ken away, or deprived of their edge and vigour.

It worketh by most powerfull considerations upon the Consciences and affections of men upon pain of damnation; promising heaven, and threatning hell; which upon some men have an infinite sway, upon all

men a considerable influence; and thereby will be too hard for those who onely can grant Temporal Rewards, or inflict Temporal Punish∣ments. It is surely a notable advantage that the Pope hath above all Princes, that he commandeth not onely as a Prince, but as a Guide; so that whereas we are not otherwise bound to obey the commands of Prin∣ces, than as they appear concordant with God's Law, we must observe his commands absolutely, as being therefore lawfull, because he comman∣deth them, that involving his assertion of their lawfulness, to which (without farther inquiry or scruple) we must submit our understan∣ding, his words sufficiently authorizing his commands for just. We are not onely obliged to obey his commands but to embrace his doctrines.

It hath continual opportunities of conversing with men; and there∣by can insinuate and suggest the obligation to obey it, with greatest ad∣vantage, in secrecy, in the tenderest seasons.

It claimeth a power to have its instruction admitted with assent; and will it not instruct them for its own advantage? All its Assertions must be believed—is not this an infinite advantage?

By such advantages the Spiritual Power (if admitted for such as it pretendeth) will swallow and devour the Temporal; which will be an extreme mischief to the world.

The very pretence doth immediately crop and curtail the natural Right of Princes; by exempting great numbers of Persons (the partici∣pants and dependents of this Hierarchy) from subjection to them.* 1.706 By withdrawing Causes from their Jurisdiction. By commanding in their Territories, and drawing people out of them to their Judicatories. By having influence on their Opinions. By dreigning them of Wealth, &c.

To this discourse Experience abundantly doth yield its Attestation; for,* 1.707 How often have the * 1.708 Popes thwarted Princes in the exercise of their power; challenging their Laws and Administrations as prejudicial to Religion? as contrary to Ecclesiastical Liberty?

Bodin (l. 9.) observeth that if any Prince were a Heretick (that is, if the Pope could pick occasion to call him so) or a Tyrant (that is,* 1.709 in his opinion) or any-wise scandalous; the Pope would excommunicate him; and would not receive him to favour, but upon his acknowledg∣ing himself a feudatory to the Pope: So he drew in most Kingdoms to depend on him.

How often have they excommunicated them, and interdicted their people from entertaining communion with them?

How many Commotions, Conspiracies,* 1.710 Rebellions and Insurrections against Princes have they raised in several Countries?

How have they inveigled people from their Allegiance? How many Massacres and Assassinations have they caused? How have they depres∣sed and vilified the Temporal Power?

* 1.711 Have they not assumed to themselves Superiority over all Princes? The Emperour himself (the chief of Christian Princes) they did call their Vassal,* 1.712 exacting an Oath from them, whereof you have a Form in the Canon Law, and a declaration of Pope Clement V. that it is an Oath of Fealty.

Have they not challenged propriety in both Swords, Ecce duo Gla∣dii?

* 1.713How many Princes have they pretended to depose, and dispossess of their Authority?

Consider the Pragmatical Sanctions, Provisors, Compositions, Con∣cordats, &c. which Princes have been forced to make against them, or with them to secure their Interest.

* 1.714Many good Princes have been forced to oppose them, as Henry the Second of England, King Lewis the Twelfth of France, (that Just Prince, Pater Patriae) Perdam Babylonis nomen.

* 1.715How often have they used this as a pretence of raising and fomenting Wars? confiding in their Spiritual Arms; interdicting Princes, that would not comply with their designs, for advancing the interests not onely of their See, but of their private Families?

* 1.716Bodin observeth that Pope Nicholas I. was the first who excommuni∣cated Princes. Platina doth mention some before him: But it is remar∣kable, that although Pope Leo I. (a high spirited Pope (Fortissimus Leo,) as Liberatus calleth him) was highly provoked against Theodosius Juni∣or; Pope Gelasius and divers of his Predecessours and Followers—Pope Gregory II. against Leo— Vigilius against Justinian, &c. yet none of them did presume to excommunicate the Emperours.

All these dealings are the natural result of this Pretence; and, sup∣posing it well grounded, are capable of a plausible justification: for is it not fit, (seeing one must yield) that Temporal should yield to Spi∣ritual?

Indeed, granting the Papal Supremacy in Spirituals, I conceive the high flying Zelots of the Roman Church, who subject all Temporal Powers to them, have great reason on their side, for co-ordinate Pow∣er cannot subsist, and it would be onely an eternal Seminary of perpe∣tual discords.

The quarrel cannot otherwise be well composed than by wholly dis∣claiming the fictitious and usurped power of the Pope: for,

Two such Powers (so inconsistent and cross to each other, so apt to interfere, and consequently to breed everlasting mischiefs to mankind be∣tween them) could not be instituted by God. —

He would not appoint two different Vicegerents in his Kingdom at the same time. —

But it is plain, that he hath instituted the civil Power; and endowed it with a Sword.* 1.717 That Princes are his Lieutenants * 1.718.

That in the ancient times the Popes did not claim such Authority, but avowed themselves Subjects to Princes.

9. Consequently this Pretence is apt to engage Christian Princes a∣gainst Christianity; for they will not endure to be crossed,* 1.719 to be depres∣sed, to be trampled on.

This Popes often have complained of; not considering it was their own insolence that caused it.

10. Whereas now Christendom is split into many parcels,* 1.720 subject to divers civil Sovereignties, it is expedient that correspondently there should be distinct Ecclesiastical Governments, independent of each other, which may comply with the respective civil Authorities in promoting the good and peace both of Church and State.

It is fit, that every Prince, should in all things govern all his Subjects; and none should be exempted from subordination to his Authority: As Philosophers, and Physicians of the Body; so Priests, and Physicians of the Soul; not in exercising their Function, but in taking care that they do exercise it duly for the honour of God, and in consistence with pub∣lick good: otherwise many grievous inconveniences must ensue.

It is of perillous consequence, that foreigners should have authorita∣tive influence upon the Subjects of any Prince; or have a power to in∣termeddle in affairs.

Princes have a natural Right to determine with whom their Subjects shall have intercourse; which is inconsistent with a Right of foreigners to govern or judge them in any case, without their leave.

Every Prince is obliged to employ the power entrusted to him, to the furtherance of God's Service, and encouragement of all good works; as a Supreme power, without being liable to obstruction from any other power.

It would irritate his power, if another should be beyond his coercion.

It is observable,* 1.721 that the Pope by intermeddling in the affairs of King∣doms did so wind himself into them, as to get a pretence to be Master of each; Princes being his Vassals and Feudatories.

11. Such an Authority is needless and useless; it not serving the ends which it pretendeth; and they being better compassed without it.

It pretendeth to maintain Truth; but indeed it is more apt to op∣press it.

Truth is rather (as St. Cyprian wisely observeth) preserved by the multitude of Bishops, whereof some will be ready to relieve it, when as∣saulted by others.

Truth cannot be supported merely by humane Authority; especially that Authority is to be suspected, which pretendeth dominion over our minds. What Controversie, being doubtfull in it self, will not after his Decision continue doubtfull? his Sentence may be eluded by interpre∣tation as well as other Testimonies or Authorities.

The opinion of a man's great wisedom or skill may be the ground of assent, in defect of other more cogent Arguments; but Authority of Name or Dignity is not proper to convince a man's understanding. Men obey, but not believe Princes more than others, if not more learned than others.

It pretendeth to maintain Order: but how? by introducing Slave∣ry; by destroying all Rights; by multiplying Disorders; by hindring Order to be quietly administred in each Countrey.

It pretendeth to be the onely means of Unity and Concord in Opini∣on, by determining Controversies: which its Advocates affirm neces∣sary.* 1.722

But how can that be necessary which never was de facto? not even in the Roman Church?

Hath the Pope effected this? do all his followers agree in all points? do they agree about his Authority? Do not they differ and dispute about infinity of questions? Are all the points frivolous, about which their Divines and Schoolmen dispute? Why did not the Council of Trent it self, without more adoe, and keeping such a disputing, refer all to his Oracular Decision.

* 1.723Necessary points may and will by all honest people be known and determined without him, by the clear Testimony of Scripture, by con∣sent of Fathers, by General Tradition.— And other points need not to be determined.

That he may be capable of that Office, he must be believed appointed by God thereto; which is a question it self to be decided without him, to satisfaction. His power is apt no otherwise to knock down Contro∣versies, than by depressing Truth; not suffering any Truth to be asser∣ted, which doth not favour its Interests.

Concord was maintained and Controversies decided without them in the ancient Church; in Synods, wherein he was not the sole Judge, nor had observable influence.

The Fathers did not think such Authority needfull, otherwise they would have made more use of it.

* 1.724A more ready way to define Controversies, is for every one not to prescribe to others, or to prosecute: for then men would more calmly see the Truth and consent.

It pretendeth to maintain Peace and Unity. But nothing hath raised more fierce Dissentions, or so many bloudy Wars in Christendom as it.

It is apt by tyrannical administration to become intolerable, and so to break the Ecclesiastical State; to raise Schisms and Troubles.

It is like to extinguish genuine Charity, which is free and uncom∣pelled.

All the peace and charity which it endureth, is by force and com∣pulsion, not out of choice and good affection.

V. The Ancients did assert to each Bishop a free, absolute, indepen∣dent Authority, subject to none, directed by none, accountable to none on Earth, in the administration of affairs properly concerning his par∣ticular Church.

This is most evident in St. Cyprian's Writings; out of which it will not be amiss to set down some passages, manifesting the sense and prac∣tice of the Church in his time, to the satisfaction of any ingenuous mind.

The Bond of concord abiding, and the Sacrament (or Doctrine) of the Catholick Church persisting un∣divided,* 1.725 every Bishop disposeth and directeth his own acts, being to render an account of his purpose to the Lord: this he writeth, when he was pleading the cause of Pope Cornelius against Novatian; but then, it seemeth, not dreaming of his Supremacy over o∣thers.

But we know,* 1.726 that some will not lay down what once they have imbibed, nor will easily change their mind; but, the bond of peace and concord with their Collegues being preserved, will retain some peculiar things, which have once been used by them; in which matter neither do we force any, or give law; whenas every Prelate hath in the administration of his Church the free power of his will, being to render unto the Lord an account of his acting: this saith he, writing to Pope Stephanus, and in a friendly manner,* 1.727 out of common respect and single love, (not out of servile obeisance) acquainting him what he and his bre∣thren in a Synod by common consent and authority had established concerning the degradation of Clergy-men, who had been ordained by Hereticks, or had lapsed into Schism.

For seeing it is ordained by us all, and it is likewise equal and just,* 1.728 that each man's cause should be there heard where the crime is committed; and to each Pa∣stour a portion of the Flock is assigned, which each should rule and govern, being to render an account to his Lord; those indeed over whom we preside ought not to ramble about: this saith he in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius, upon occasion of some factious Cler∣gy-men addressing themselves to him with factious suggestions, to gain his countenance.

These things I have briefly written back,* 1.729 according to our meanness, dear brother; prescribing to none nor prejudging, that every Bishop should not doe what he thinks good, having a free power of his will.

In which matter our bashfulness and modesty doth not prejudge any one; so that every one may not judge as he thinketh, and act as he judgeth: Prescribing to none, so that every Bishop may not resolve what he thinks good, being to render an account to the Lord, &c.

* 1.730It remaineth that each of us do utter his opinion about this matter, judging no man, nor removing any man, if he dissenteth, from the right of communion; for neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terrour driveth his Collegues to a necessity of obeying; whenas every Bishop hath upon account of his liberty and authority his own free choice, and is no less exempted from being judged by an∣other, than he is uncapable to judge another; but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, and who alone hath power both to prefer us to the go∣vernment of his Church, and to judge of our acting: these words did St. Cyprian speak as Proloquntour of the great Synod of Bishops at Carthage; and what words could be more express or more full in assertion of the Episcopal Liberties and Rights against almost eve∣ry branch of Romish pretences?

He disavoweth the practice of one Bishop excluding another from communion for dissent in opinion about disputable points: He rejecteth the pretence that any man can have to be a Bishop of Bishops, or superi∣our to all his Brethren: He condemneth the imposing opinions upon Bi∣shops, and constraining them to obedience; He disclaimeth any power in one Bishop to judge another; He asserteth to each Bishop a full liber∣ty and power to manage his own concerns according to his discretion; He affirmeth every Bishop to receive his power onely from Christ, and to be liable onely to his judgment.

* 1.731We may observe, that St. Austin in his reflexions upon the passages in that Synod, doth approve, yea admire that Preface, passing high commendations on the smartest passages of it which assert common li∣berty, professing his own conformity in practice to them;* 1.732 In this consultation (saith he) is shewed a pacifick soul, overflowing with plenty of charity; and, We have therefore a free choice of inquiry granted to us by the most mild and most veracious speech of Cypri∣an himself, and, Now if the proud and tumid minds of hereticks dare to extoll themselves against the holy humility of this speech —than which what can be more gentle, more humble?

Would St. Austin have swallowed those Sayings, could he have so much applauded them, if he had known a just power then extant and radiant in the World, which they do impeach and subvert? No, I trow; he did not know, nor so much as dream of any such; although the Pope was under his nose while he was discussing that point, and he could hardly talk so much of St. Cyprian without thinking of Pope Stephen.

However let any man of sense honestly reade and weigh those passa∣ges, considering who did write them, to whom he writ them, upon what occasions he writ them, when he writ them; that he was a great Primate of the Church, a most holy, most prudent, most humble and meek person; that he addressed divers of them to Bishops of Rome; that many of them were touching the concerns of Popes, that he writ them in times of persecution and distress, which produce the most sober and serious thoughts; then let him if he can, conceive, that all-Christian Bi∣shops

were then held subject to the Pope, or owned such a power due to him as he now claimeth.

We may add a contemporary Testimony of the Roman Clergy, ad∣dressing to St. Cyprian in these words; Although a mind well conscious to it self,* 1.733 and supported by the vi∣gour of Evangelical discipline, and having in heaven∣ly doctrines become a true witness to it self, is wont to be content with God for its onely judge; and not to de∣sire the praises, nor to dread the accusations of ano∣ther; yet they are worthy of double praise, who when they know they owe their consciences to God onely as judge, yet desire also their actions to be approved by their brethren themselves; the which it is no wonder that you, brother Cyprian, should do, who according to your modesty and natural industry would have us not so much judges as partakers of your Counsels— Then it seems the College of Cardinals, not so high in the instep as they are now, did take St. Cyprian to be free, and not accountable for his ac∣tions to any other Judge but God.

That this notion of liberty did continue a good time after in the Church, we may see by that Canon of the Antio∣chene Synod;* 1.734 ordaining that every Bishop have pow∣er of his own Bishoprick, govern it according to the best of his care and discretion, and provide for all the Country belonging to his City, so as to ordain Priests and Deacons, and dispose things aright.

The Monks of Constantinople in the Synod of Chalcedon, said thus; We are sons of the Church,* 1.735 and have one Father, after God, our Archbishop: they forgot their Sovereign Father the Pope.

The like notion may seem to have been then in England,* 1.736 when the Church of Canterbury was cal∣led the common mother of all under the disposition of its Spouse Jesus Christ.

VI. The Ancients did hold all Bishops, as to their Office, originally according to Divine Institution,* 1.737 or abstracting from humane Sanctions framed to preserve Order and Peace, to be equal; for that all are Suc∣cessours of the Apostles, all derive their Commission and Power in the same tenour from God, all of them are Ambassadours, Stewards, Vicars of Christ; entrusted with the same Divine Ministeries of instructing, dis∣pensing the Sacraments, ruling and exercising Discipline; to which Fun∣ctions and Privileges the least Bishop hath right, and to greater the big∣gest cannot pretend.

One Bishop might exceed another in Splendour, in Wealth, in Repu∣tation, in extent of Jurisdiction, as one King may surpass another in am∣plitude of Territory; but as all Kings, so all Bishops are equal in Office and essentials of Power, derived from God.

Hence they applied to them that in the Psalm,* 1.738 Instead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children, whom thou mayst make Princes in all the earth.

This was St. Hierome's Doctrine in those famous words; Whereever a Bishop be, whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhe∣gium,

at Alexandria or at Thenis, he is of the same worth, and of the same Priesthood; the force of wealth, and lowness of poverty doth not render a Bishop more high or more low; for that all of them are Successours of the Apostles: to evade which plain assertion, they have forged distinc∣tions, whereof St. Hierome surely did never think, he speaking simply concerning Bishops, as they stood by Divine Institution, not according to humane Models, which gave some advantages over other.

That this notion did continue long in the Church, we may see by the Elogies of Bishops in later Synods; for instance that in the Synod of Compeigne;* 1.739 It is convenient all Chri∣stians should know what kind of Office the Bishops is — who 'tis plain are the Vicars of Christ, and keep the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

And that of the Synod of Melun; And though all of us unworthy, yet are the Vicars of Christ and Suc∣cessours of his Apostles.

In contemplation of which verity, St. Gregory Nazianzene observing the declension from it introduced in his times by the ambition of some Prelates, did vent that famous exclamation; O that there were not at all any presidency,* 1.740 or any preference in place, and tyrannical enjoyment of prerogatives— which earnest wish he surely did not mean to level against the Ordinance of God, but against that which lately began to be intruded by men: And what would the good man have wished, if he had been aware of those pretences, about which we discourse; which then did onely begin to bud and peep up in the World?

1. Common practice is a good Interpreter of common sentiments in any case; and it therefore sheweth that in the primitive Church the Pope was not deemed to have a right of Universal Sovereignty; for if such a thing had been instituted by God, or established by the Apostles, the Pope certainly with evident clearness would have appeared to have pos∣sessed it; and would have sometimes (I might say frequently, yea con∣tinually) have exercised it in the first Ages; which that he did not at all, we shall make, I hope, very manifest by reflecting on the chief pas∣sages occurring then; whereof indeed there is scarce any one, which duly weighed doth not serve to overthrow the Roman pretence; but that matter I reserve to another place; and shall propound other conside∣rations, declaring the sense of the Fathers; onely I shall add, that indeed

2. The state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such an universal Sovereignty. For that did consist of small bodies incoherently situated and scattered about in very distant places, and consequently un∣fit to be modelled into one political Society, or to be governed by one Head. Especially considering their condition under Persecution and Po∣verty. What convenient resort for Direction or Justice could a few di∣stressed Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Parthia, India, Mesopotamia, Sy∣ria, Armenia, Cappadocia, and other Parts have to Rome? what trouble, what burthen had it been to seek Instruction, Succour, Decision of Ca∣ses thence? Had they been obliged or required to doe so, what offences, what clamours would it have raised? seeing that afterward, when Chri∣stendom was connected, and compacted together; when the state of Christians was flourishing and prosperous, when passages were open,

and the best of opportunities of correspondence were afforded, yet the setting out of these pretences did cause great oppositions and stirs; see∣ing the exercise of this Authority, when it had obtained most vigour, did produce so many grievances, so many complaints, so many courses to check and curb it, in Countries feeling the inconveniences and mis∣chiefs springing from it?

The want of the like in the first Ages is a good Argument, that the cause of them had not yet sprung up; Christendom could not have been so still, if there had been then so meddlesome a body in it, as the Pope now is.

The Roman Clergy in their Epistle to St. Cyprian told him,* 1.741 that because of the difficulty of things and times, they could not constitute a Bishop who might moderate things immediately belonging to them in their own precincts: how much more in that state of things would a Bishop there be sit to moderate things over all the World; when (as Rigaltius truly noteth) the Church being then oppres∣sed with various vexations the communication of Pro∣vinces between themselves was difficult and unfrequent.* 1.742

Wherefore Bellarmine himself doth confess, that in those times, before the Nicene Synod the authori∣ty of the Pope was not a little hindred, so that because of continual persecutions he could not freely exer∣cise it.

The Church therefore could so long subsist without the use of such Au∣thority, by the vigilance of Governours over their Flocks, and the friend∣ly correspondence of neighbour Churches: And if he would let it alone, it might do so still.

That could be no Divine Institution, which had no vigour in the first and best times; but an Innovation raised by Ambition.

VII. The Ancients, when occasion did require, did maintain their equality of Office and Authority particularly in respect to the Roman Bi∣shops; not onely interpretatively by practice, but directly and formally in express terms asserting it.

Thus when Felicissimus and his Complices, being rejected by St. Cy∣prian did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius for his communion and countenance, St. Cyprian affirmed that to be an irregular and unjust course; subjoining, Except to a few desperate and wicked persons,* 1.743 the authority of the Bishops constitu∣ted in Africk, who have already judged of them, do seem less; that is, inferiour to any other Authority, particularly to that of Rome, unto which they had recourse; what other meaning could he have? doth not his Argument require this meaning?

Another instance is that of the Fathers of the An∣tiochene Synod, * 1.744 (being 97 Bishops) the which St. Hilary calleth a Synod of Saints congregated, (the Decrees whereof the Catholick Church did admit in∣to its Code, and the Canons whereof Popes have called Venerable) these in their Epistle to Pope Julius, complaining of his demeanour in the case of Athanasius▪ did flatly assert to themselves an equality with him; They did not (as Sozomen reciteth

out of their Epistle) therefore think it equal,* 1.745 that they should be thought inferiours, because they had not so big and numerous a Church.

That Pope himself testifieth the same in his Epistle to them, extant in the second Apology of Athanasius;* 1.746 If, saith he, ye do truly conceive the honour of Bishops to be equal, and the same; and ye do not, as ye write, judge of Bishops according to the magnitude of Cities; which assertion of theirs so flatly thwarting Papal Supremacy he doth not at all confute, yea not so much as contradict; and therefore reasonably may be interpreted to yield consent thereto;* 1.747 the rule, He that holdeth his peace seemeth to consent, never holding better than in this case, when his copyhold was so nearly touched; indeed he had been very blameable to wave such an occasion of defending so important a Truth; or in letting so pestilent an Errour to pass without correction or reproof.

After the Pope had climbed higher than at that time (upon the lad∣ders of dissention and disorders in the Church) yet he was reproved by Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople for preferring himself before his Bre∣thren;* 1.748 as we may collect from those words of a zealous Pope, We desire not to be placed above others (as you say) so much as to have fellowship holy and well-pleasing to God with all the faithfull.

That Pope Gregory I. did not hold himself superiour to other Bishops, many sayings of his do infer;* 1.749 for in this he placeth the fault of the Bi∣shop of Constantinople, which he so often and so severely reprehendeth, that he did prefer himself before and extoll himself above other Bishops.

And would he directly assume that to himself, which he chargeth on another, although onely following his position by consequence?

And when Eulogius the Bishop of Alexandria had complementally said, sicut jussistis, As you commanded; He doth thus express his resentment; That word of command I desire you let me not hear; because I know who I am,* 1.750 and who you are; by place ye are my brethren, in goodness fathers; I did not therefore command, but what seem'd profitable, I hin∣ted to you.

That many such Instances may not be alledged out of Antiquity, the reason is, because the ancient Popes did not understand this Power to be∣long to them, and therefore gave no occasion for Bishops to maintain their honour; or were more just, prudent and modest than to take so much upon them as their Successours did, upon frivolous pretences.

VIII. The style used by the primitive Bishops in their applications to the Roman Bishop doth signify, that they did not apprehend him their Sovereign; but their equal.

* 1.751Brother, Collegue, Fellow-bishop are the terms which St. Cyprian doth use in speaking about the Roman Bishops, his contemporaries, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus; and in his Epistles to the three last of them; nor doth he ever use any other, importing higher respect due to them; as indeed his practice demonstrateth he did not apprehend any

other due; or that he did take them for his Superiours in Office.* 1.752 Know now brother, was the compellation of Dionysius (Bishop of Alexandria) to Pope Stephanus. The Synod of Antioch, which rejected Paulus Sa∣mosatenus, inscribeth its Epistle to Dionysius (then Bishop of Rome) and Maximus,* 1.753 and all our Fellow-ministers through the world.

The old Synod of Arles directeth their Epistle to Signiour Sylvester, their brother. Athanasius saith, These things may suffice,* 1.754 which have been written by our beloved and Fellow-minister Damasus Bishop of great Rome. Mar∣cellus inscribed to Pope Julius, to his Most blessed Fellow-minister. So Cyril spake of Pope Celestine I.* 1.755 Our brother and Fellow-minister the Bishop of Rome. So St. Basil and his Fellow-bishops of the East did inscribe their Epistle, To the beloved of God and our most holy brethren and Fellow-ministers the unanimous Bishops through Italy and France. In this style do the Fathers of Sardica salute Pope Julius; those of Constantinople Pope Damasus;* 1.756 those of Ephesus Pope Celestine I. our brother and Fellow-minister Celestine; those of Carthage Pope Celestine I. in the very same terms wherein St. Austin doth salute Maximinus, a Donatist Bishop. Signiour my beloved and most ho∣noured brother. The Oriental Bishops Eustathius, Theophilus and Silvanus did inscribe their Remon∣strance to Pope Liberius, To Signiour our brother and Fellow-minister Liberius.* 1.757 So John of Antioch to Nestorius writeth to my Master. The Synod of Il∣lyricum call Elpidius, Our seniour and Fellow-minister.

In which Instances and some others of later date we may observe that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Dominus was then (as it is now) barely a term of civility, being then usually given to any person of quality, or to whom they would express common respect; so that St. Chrysostome in his Epi∣stles commonly doth give it not onely to meaner Bishops, but even to Priests; and St. Austin doth thus salute even Dona∣tist Bishops; reflecting thereon thus,* 1.758 Since therefore by charity I serve you in this Office of writing letters to you, I do not improperly call you Master, for the sake of our one true Master who has commanded us so to doe. —my most honour'd Master. —now therefore ha∣ving with me my most honour'd Signiour and most re∣verend Presbyter, &c. —my most honour'd Master Asyncritus the elder.

Pope Celestine himself did salute the Ephesine Fa∣thers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, masters, brethren.* 1.759 Even in the VI. Council, Thomas Bishop of Constantinople did inscribe according to the old style, to Pope Vitalianus,* 1.760 his brother and Fellow-minister.

The French Bishops had good reason to expostulate with Pope Nicho∣las I. You may know, that we are not,* 1.761 as you boast and brag, your Clerks; whom, if pride would suffer, you ought to acknowledge for your brethren and Fellow-bishops.

Such are the terms and titles, which primitive integrity when they meant to speak most kindly and respectfully did allow to the Pope, be∣ing the same which all Bishops did give to one another; (as may be seen in all solemn addresses, and reports concerning them:) which is an Ar∣gument sufficiently plain, that Bishops in those times did not take them∣selves to be the Pope's Subjects, or his inferiours in Office; but his fel∣lows and mates, co-ordinate in rank.

Were not these improper terms for an ordinary Gentleman, or Noble∣man to accost his Prince in? yet hardly is there such a distance between any Prince and his Peers, as there is between a modern Pope and other Bishops.

It would now be taken for a great arrogance and sawciness, for an un∣derling Bishop to address to the Pope in such language, or to speak of him in that manner; which is a sign that the World is altered in its no∣tion of him, and that he beareth a higher conceit of himself than his primitive Ancestours did. Now nothing but Beatissimus Pater, most Bles∣sed Father, and Dominus noster Papa, our Lord the Pope, in the highest sense will satisfy him.

Now a Pope in a General Synod, in a solemn Oration, could be told to his face,* 1.762 that the most Holy Senate of Cardinals had chosen a Brother into a Father, a Collegue into a Lord. Verily so it is now, but not so anciently.

In the same ancient times the style of the Roman Bishops writing to other Bishops was the same; he calling them Brethren and Fellow-ministers.

So did Cornelius write to Fabius of Antioch, belo∣ved brother;* 1.763 so did he call all other Bishops, —be it known to all our Fellow-bishops and brethren. So Julius to the Oriental Bishops, To our beloved bre∣thren. So Liberius to the Macedonian Bishops, To our beloved brethren and Fellow-ministers: and to the Oriental Bishops,* 1.764 To our brethren and Fellow-bishops. So Damasus to the Bishops of Illyricum. So Leo himself frequently in his Epistles. So Pope Ce∣lestine calleth John of Antioch,* 1.765 Most honoured bro∣ther; to Cyril and to Nestorius himself, Beloved bro∣ther;* 1.766 to the Fathers of Ephesus, Signiours brethren. Pope Gelasius to the Bishops of Dardania,* 1.767 Your bro∣therhood.* 1.768 St. Gregory to Cyriacus, Our brother and Fellow-priest, Cyriacus.

If it be said the Popes did write so then out of condescension, or hu∣mility and modesty; it may be replied, that if really there was such a difference as is now pretended, it may seem rather affectation, and inde∣cency or mockery: for it would have more become the Pope to main∣tain the majesty and authority of his place, by appellations apt to cherish their reverence, than to collogue with them in terms void of reality; or signifying that equality which he did not mean.

* 1.769But Bellarmine hath found out one instance (which he maketh much of) of Pope Damasus, who writing (not as he alledgeth, to the Fathers of Constantinople, * 1.770 but) to certain Eastern Bishops, calleth them most honoured sons. That whole Epistle I do fear to be foisted into Theodoret;

for it cometh in abruptly; and doth not much become such a man: and if it be supposed genuine, I should suspect some corruption in the place; for why, if he writ to Bishops, should he use a style so unsutable to those times, and so different from that of his Predecessours, and Suc∣cessours? why should there be such a disparity between his own style now and at other times?* 1.771 for writing to the Bishops of Illyricum he cal∣leth them beloved brethren; why then is he so inconstant and partial, as to yield these Oriental Bishops less respect? wherefore perhaps 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was thrust in for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· or perhaps the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was intruded, and he did write to Lay-men; † 1.772 those who governed the East, who well might be called most honoured sons; otherwise the Epithet doth not seem well to sute; but however, a single example of arrogance or stateliness, (or of what shall I call it?) is not to be set against so many modest and mannerly ones?

In fine, that this salutation doth not always imply Superiority, we may be assured by that inscription of Alexander,* 1.773 Bishop of Thessalonice, to Athanasius of Alexandria, To my beloved Son and unanimous Collegue Athanasius.

IX. The ground of that eminence, which the Roman Bishop did ob∣tain in the Church, so as in order to precede other Bishops, doth shake this pretence.

The Church of Rome was indeed allowed to be the principal Church,* 1.774 as St. Cyprian calleth it; but why? was it preferred by Divine Instituti∣on? no surely, Christianity did not make Laws of that nature, or con∣stitute differences of places. Was it in regard to the succession of St. Pe∣ter? no; that was a slim upstart device; that did not hold in Antioch; nor in other Apostolical Churches.

But it was for a more substantial reason; the very same, on which the dignity and preeminency of other Churches was founded; that is, the dignity, magnitude, opulency, opportunity of that City in which the Bishop of Rome did preside; together with the consequent numerous∣ness, quality and wealth of his flock; which gave him many great ad∣vantages above other his Fellow-bishops: It was (saith Rigaltius) cal∣led by St. Cyprian the principal Church,* 1.775 because constituted in the principal City.

That Church in the very times of severest perse∣cutions by the providence of God (as Pope Cornelius said in his Epistle to Fabius) had a rich and plenti∣full number,* 1.776 with a most great and innumerable peo∣ple; so that he reckoneth forty four Presbyters,* 1.777 seven Deacons (in imitation of the number in the Acts,) seven Sub-deacons, forty two Acoluthi, fifty two others of the inferiour Clergy, and above fifteen hundred Alms-people.

To that Church there must needs have been a great resort of Christi∣ans, going to the seat of the Empire in pursuit of business; as in propor∣tion there was to each other Metropolis; according to that Canon of the Antiochene Synod,* 1.778 which or∣dered, that the Bishop of each Metropolis should take care of the whole Province, because all that had busi∣ness did resort to the Metropolis.

That Church was most able to yield help and succour to them who needed it; and accordingly did use to doe it; according to that of Dionysius (Bishop of Corinth) in his Epistle to Bi∣shop Soter of Rome;* 1.779 This (saith he) is your cu∣stome from the beginning, in divers ways to doe good to the brethren and to send supplies to many Churches in every city, so refreshing the poverty of those who want—

Whence it is no wonder, that the Head of that Church did get most reputation, and the privilege of precedence without competition.

To this Church (said Irenaeus) it is necessary that every Church (that is,* 1.780 the faithfull who are all about) should resort, because of its more powerfull principality; what is meant by that resort, will be easie to him, who considereth how men here are wont to go up to Lon∣don, drawn thither by interests of Trade, Law, &c. What he did understand by more powerfull principali∣ty the words themselves do signifie,* 1.781 which exactly do agree to the Power and Grandure of the Imperial City; but do not well sute to the authority of a Church; especially then when no Church did appear to have either Principality or Puissance. And that sense may clearly be evinced by the context, wherein it doth appear, that St. Irenaeus doth not alledge the judicial Authority of the Roman Church, but its credible Testimony, which thereby became more con∣siderable, because Christians commonly had occasions of recourse to it.

Such a reason of precedence St. Cyprian giveth in another case,* 1.782 Because (saith he) Rome for its magni∣tude ought to precede Carthage.

For this reason a Pagan Historian did observe the Roman Bishop had a greater authority (that is,* 1.783 a greater interest and reputation than other Bishops.

This reason Theodoret doth assign in his Epistle to Pope Leo, wherein he doth highly complement and cajole him; for this city (saith he) is the greatest,* 1.784 and the most splendid, and presiding over the world; and flowing with multitude of people; and which moreover hath produced the Empire now governing—

This is the sole ground upon which the greatest of all ancient Sy∣nods, that of Chalcedon, did affirm the Papal eminency to be founded; for to the throne (say they) of ancient Rome be∣cause that was the royal city,* 1.785 the Fathers reasonably conferred the privileges: the fountain of Papal e∣minence was in their judgment not any divine In∣stitution, not the Authority of Saint Peter deriving it self to his Suc∣cessours; but the concession of the Fathers, who were moved to grant it upon account that Rome was the Imperial City.

To the same purpose the Empress Placidia in her Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith,* 1.786 It becometh us to preserve to this city (the which is mistress of all lands) a reverence in all things.

This reason had indeed in it much of equity, of decency, of conve∣niency; it was equal that he should have the preference and more than

common respect, who was thence enabled and engaged to do most ser∣vice to Religion. It was decent, that out of conformity to the State, and in respect to the Imperial Court and Senate, the Pastour of that place should be graced with repute; it was convenient, that he who re∣sided in the centre of all business, and had the greatest influence upon affairs, who was the Emperour's chief Counsellour for direction and Instrument for execution of Ecclesiastical affairs, should not be put be∣hind others.

Hence did the Fathers of the Second General Sy∣nod advance the Bishop of Constantinople to the next privileges of honour after the Bishop of Rome,* 1.787 be∣cause it was new Rome, and a Seat of the Empire.

And the Fathers of Chalcedon assigned equal pri∣vileges to the most Holy See of Rome,* 1.788 with good rea∣son (say they) judging, that the city, which was honoured with the Royalty and Senate, and which (otherwise) did enjoy equal privileges with the ancient Royal Rome, should likewise in Ecclesiastical affairs be magnified as it, being second after it.

Indeed upon this score the Church of Constantinople is said to have aspired to the supreme Principality,* 1.789 when it had the advantage over old Rome, the Empire being extinguished there; and sometimes was sty∣led the Head of all Churches.

It is also natural and can hardly be otherwise, but that the Bishop of a chief City, finding himself to exceed in wealth, in power, in advan∣tages of friendships, dependencies, &c.) should not affect to raise him∣self above the level: it is an ambition, that easily will seise on the most moderate, and otherwise religious minds. Pope Leo objected it to Anato∣lius, and Pope Gregory to John (from his austere life called the Faster.)

Upon the like account it was, that the Bishops of other Cities did mount to a preeminency, Metropolitane, Primatical, Patriarchal.

Thence it was that the Bishop of Alexandria before Constantine's time, did acquire the honour of second place to Rome; because that City, be∣ing head of a most rich and populous Nation, did in magnitude and opulency (as Gregory Nazianzene saith) approach next to Rome,* 1.790 so as hardly to yield the next place to it.

Upon that account also did Antioch get the next place; as being the

most large, flourishing, commanding City of the East; the which (as Josephus saith) for bigness and for other advantages had without contro∣versie the third place in all the world subject to the Romans;* 1.791 and the which * 1.792 St. Chrysostome calleth the head of all cities seated in the East.

Saint Basil seemeth to call the Church thereof the principal in the world; for what (saith he) can be more opportune to the Churches over the world than the Church of Antioch?* 1.793 the which if it should happen to be redu∣ced to concord, nothing would hinder, but that as a sound head it would supply health to the whole body.

Upon the same account the Bishop of Carthage did obtain the privi∣lege to be standing Primate of his Province (although other Primacies there were not fixed to places, but followed Seniority) and a kind of Patriarch over all the African Provinces.

Hence did Caesarea, as exceeding in temporal advantages, and being the Political Metropolis of Palestine, o'ertop Jerusalem, that most anci∣ent, noble and venerable City, the source of our Religion.

It was indeed the general Rule and practice to conform the privileges of Ecclesiastical dignity in a proportion convenient to those of the secu∣lar Government; as the Synod of Antioch in express terms did ordain; the ninth Canon whereof runneth thus; The Bishops in every Province ought to know that the Bishop pre∣siding in the Metropolis doth undertake the care of all the Province;* 1.794 because all that have business do meet together in the Metropolis; whence it hath been ordained that he should precede in honour, and that the Bishops should doe nothing extraordinary without him; according to a more ancient Canon holding from our Fathers (that is, according to the 34th. Canon of the Apostles.)

* 1.795It is true, that the Fathers do sometimes mention the Church of Rome being founded by the two great Apostles, or the succession of the Roman Bishop to them in Pastoral charge, as a special ornament of that Church, and a congruous ground of respect to that Bishop, where∣by they did honour the memory of Saint Peter: but even some of those, who did acknowledge this, did not avow it as a sufficient ground of pre∣eminence, none did admit it for an argument of authoritative Superiority.

* 1.796St. Cyprian did call the Roman See the chair of Saint Peter, and the principal Church; yet he disclaimed any authority of the Roman Bishops above his brethren.

Firmilian did take notice, that Pope Stephanus did glory in the place of his Bishoprick,* 1.797 and con∣tend that he held the succession of Peter; yet did not he think himself thereby obliged to submit to his authority, or follow his judgment; but sharply did reprehend him as a favourer of Hereticks, an au∣thour of Schisms, and one who had cut himself off from the communion of his brethren.

The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did confess, that in writings all did willingly honour the Roman Church,* 1.798 as having been from the beginning the School of the Apostles, and the Metropolis of Religi∣on; although yet from the East the instructours of the Christian Doctrine did go and reside there; but from hence they desired not to be deemed inferiours; be∣cause they did not exceed in the greatness and nume∣rousness of their Church. They allowed some regard (though faintly and with reservation) to the Roman Church upon account of their Aposto∣lical foundation; they implied a stronger ground of pretence from the grandeur of that City; yet did not they therefore grant themselves to be inferiours; at least as to any substantial Privilege, importing Autho∣rity.

If by Divine right, upon account of his succession to Saint Peter, he had such preeminence, why are the other causes reckoned, as if they could add any thing to God's Institution, or as if that did need humane confirmation? The pretence to that surely was weak, which did need corroboration, and to be propp'd by worldly considerations.

Indeed, whereas the Apostles did found many Churches, exercising Apostolical authority over them (eminently containing the Episcopal) why in conscience should one claim privileges on that score rather than, or above the rest?

Why should the See of Antioch,* 1.799 that most ancient and truly Aposto∣lical Church, where the Christian name began, where Saint Peter at first (as they say) did sit Bishop for seven years, be postponed to Alex∣andria?

Especially why should the Church of Jerusalem, the Seat of our Lord himself,* 1.800 the mother of all Churches, the fountain of Christian Doctrine, the first Consistory of the Apostles, enobled by so ma∣ny glorious performances (by the Life, Preaching, Miracles, Death, Bu∣rial, Resurrection, Ascension of our Saviour; by the first preaching of the Apostles, the effusion of the Holy Spirit, the Conversion of so ma∣ny people, and Constitution of the first Church, and Celebration of the first Synods) upon these considerations not obtain preeminence to other Churches, but in honour be cast behind divers others;* 1.801 and as to Power be subjected to Caesarea, the Metropolis of Palestine?

The true reason of this even Baronius himself did see and acknowledge;* 1.802 for that (saith he) the An∣cients observ'd no other rule in instituting the Ecclesi∣astical Sees, than the division of Provinces, and the Prerogative before established by the Romans, there are very many examples.

Of which examples, that of Rome is the most obvious and notable; and what he so generally asserteth may be so applied thereto, as to void all other grounds of its preeminence.

X. The truth is, all Ecclesiastical presidencies and subordinations, or dependencies of some Bishops on others in administration of spiritual affairs were introduced merely by humane Ordinance, and established by Law or Custome, upon prudential accounts, according to the exigency of things: Hence the Prerogatives of other Sees did proceed; and hereto whatever Dignity, Privilege, or Authority the Pope with equity might at any time claim, is to be imputed.

To clear which point, we will search the matter nearer the quick; propounding some observations concerning the ancient forms of Disci∣pline, and considering what interest the Pope had therein.

At first each Church was settled apart under its own Bishop and Pres∣byters; so as independently and separately to manage its own concern∣ments; each was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, governed by its own head, and had its own Laws. Every Bishop as a Prince in his own Church, did act freely according to his will and discretion, with the advice of his Ecclesiastical Senate, and * 1.803 with the consent of his people (the which he did use to consult) without being con∣trollable by any other, or accountable to any, farther than his obligation to uphold the verity of Christian professi∣on, and to maintain fraternal commu∣nion in charity and peace with neigh∣bouring Churches did require, in which regard if he were notably peccant, he was liable to be disclaimed by them, as no good Christian, and rejected from communion, together with his Church, if it did adhere to him in his misde∣meanours. This may be collected from the remainders of State in the times of St. Cyprian.

But because little, disjointed and incoherent Bodies were like dust apt to be dissipated by every wind of exter∣nal assault,* 1.804 or intestine faction; and peaceable union could hardly be retai∣ned without some ligature of disci∣pline; and Churches could not mu∣tually support and defend each other without some method of entercourse and rule of confederacy, engaging them:* 1.805 Therefore for many good pur∣poses (for upholding and advancing the common interests of Christianity, for protection and support of each Church from inbred disorders and dis∣sentions;* 1.806 for preserving the integri∣ty of the faith, for securing the con∣cord of divers Churches, for provi∣ding fit Pastours to each Church, and correcting such as were scandalously

bad * 1.807 or unfaithfull) it was soon found needfull, that divers Churches should be combined and linked to∣gether in some regular form of Discipline; † 1.808 that if any Church did want a Bishop, the neighbour Bi∣shops might step in to approve and ordain a fit one; ‖ 1.809 that if any Bishop did notoriously swerve from the Christian rule, the others might interpose to correct or void him; that if any errour, or schism did peep up in any Church, the joint con∣currence of divers Bishops might avail to stop its progress, and to quench it; by convenient means of instruction, reprehension and censure; that if any Church were oppressed by persecution, by indigency, by faction; the others might be engaged to afford effectual succour and relief: for such ends it was needfull, that Bishops in certain precincts should con∣vene, with intent to deliberate and resolve about the best expedients to compass them; And that the manner of such proceeding,* 1.810 (to avoid un∣certain distraction, confusion, arbitrariness, dissatisfaction and mutinous opposition) should be settled in an ordinary course; according to rules known and allowed by all.

In defining such precincts it was most natural, most easie, most com∣modious to follow the divisions of Territory, or Jurisdiction already established in the Civil State; that the Spiritual administrations being in such circumstances aptly conformed to the Secular might go on more smoothly and expeditely, the wheels of one not clashing with the other; according to the judgment of the two great Synods, that of Chalcedon, and the Trullane;* 1.811 which did ordain, that if by Royal authority any city be or should hereafter be re-established, the order of the chur∣ches shall be according to the civil and publick form.

Whereas therefore in each Nation or Province subject to one Political Jurisdiction there was a Metropolis or Head-city,* 1.812 to which the greatest resort was for dispensation of Justice, and dispatch of principal Affairs emergent in that Province; it was also most convenient, that also the determination of Ecclesiastical matters should be affixed thereto; especi∣ally considering that usually those places were opportunely seated; that many persons upon other occasions did meet there; that the Churches in those Cities did exceed the rest in number, in opulency, in ability and op∣portunity to promote the common interest in all kinds of advantages.

Moreover because in all Societies and Confedera∣cies of men for ordering publick affairs,* 1.813 (for the settling things in motion, for effectual dispatch, for preventing endless dissentions and confusions both in resolving upon and executing things) it is needfull that one person should be authorized to preside among the rest, unto whom the power and care should be entrusted to convoke Assemblies in fit season, to propose matters for consultation, to moderate the debates and proceedings, to declare the result, and to see that what is agreed upon may be duly executed; Such a charge then naturally would devolve it self upon the Prelate of the Metropolis, as being suppo∣sed constantly present on the place; as being at home in his own seat of presidence, and receiving the rest under his wing; as incontestably

surpassing others in all advantages answerable to the secular advantages of his City; for that it was unseemly and hard, if he at home should be postponed in dignity to others repairing thither; for that also common∣ly he was in a manner the spiritual Father of the rest, (Religion being first planted in great Cities and thence propagated to others) so that the reverence and dependence on Colonies to the mother City was due from other Churches to his See.

Wherefore by consent of all Churches, grounded on such obvious rea∣son of things, the presidency in each Province was assigned to the Bi∣shop of the Metropolis, who was called the first Bishop, the Metropoli∣tane, (in some places the * 1.814 Primate, the Archbi∣shop, the Patriarch, the Pope) of the Province. The Apostolical Canons call him the first Bishop (which sheweth the Antiquity of this Institution:* 1.815) the A∣frican Synods did appoint that name to him as most modest, and calling him Primate in that sense; o∣ther ancient Synods style him the Metropolite; and to the Metropolites of the principal Cities they gave the Title of Archbishop. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria peculiarly were called Popes; although that name was sometimes deferred to any other Bishop.

During this state of things the whole Church did consist of so many Provinces, being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, independent on each other in Ecclesiasti∣cal administrations; each reserving to it self the constitution of Bishops, the convocation of Synods, the enacting of Canons, the decision of Causes, the definition of Questions; yet so that each Province did hold peacefull and amicable correspondence with others; upon the like terms as before each 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Episcopal precinct did hold intercourse with its neighbours.

And whoever in any Province did not comply with or submit to the Orders and Determinations resolved upon in those Assemblies,* 1.816 was dee∣med a schismatical, contentious and contumelious person; with good reason, because he did thwart a Discipline plainly conducible to publick good; because declining such judgments he plainly shewed that he would admit none, (there not being any fairer way of determining things than by common advice and agreement of Pastours) because he did in effect refuse all good terms of communion and peace.

Thus I conceive the Metropolitical governance was introduced, by humane prudence following considerations of publick necessity or uti∣lity: There are indeed some, who think it was instituted by the Apostles; but their Arguments do not seem convincing, and such a constitution doth not (as I take it) well sute to the state of their times, and the course they took in founding Churches.

Into such a Chanel, through all parts of Christendom (though with some petty differences in the methods and measures of acting) had Ecclesiasti∣cal administrations fallen of themselves; plain community of reason, and imitation insensibly propagating that course; and therein it ran for a good time, before it was by general consent and solemn sanction established.

The whole Church then was a Body consisting of several confederati∣ons of Bishops, acting in behalf of their Churches under their respective Metropolitanes,* 1.817 who did ma∣nage the common affairs in each Province; convo∣king Synods at stated times and upon emergent oc∣casions;

in them deciding Causes and Controversies incident, relating to faith or practice;* 1.818 framing Rules serviceable to common Edification, and decent uni∣formity in God's service; quashing Heresies and Schisms; declaring truths impugned or questioned; maintaining the harmony of commu∣nion and concord with other Provinces adjacent or remote.

Such was the state of the Church, unto which the Apostolical Ca∣nons and Constitutions do refer, answerable to the times in which they were framed; and which we may discern in the practice of ancient Synods.

Such it did continue, when the great Synod of Nice was celebrated, which by its authority (presumed to represent the authority of all Bishops in the World,* 1.819 who were summoned thereto) backed by the Imperial Autho∣rity and Power, did confirm those Orders, as they found them standing by more general custome, and received Rules in most Provinces;* 1.820 reducing them into more ••••••orm practice; so that what before stood upon reason, customary usage, particular consent, by so august sanction did become universal Law; and did ob∣tain so great veneration, as by some to be conceived everlastingly and immutably obligatory; according to those maximes of Pope Leo.

It is here farther observable, that whereas divers Provinces did hold communion and entercourse; so that upon occasion they did (by their formed Letters) render to one another an account of their proceedings, being of great moment, especially of those which concerned the general state of Christianity, and common faith; calling, when need was, for assistence one of other to resolve points of faith, or to settle order and peace; there was in so doing a special respect given to the Metropolites of great Cities: and to prevent dissensions, which naturally ambition doth prompt men to, grounded upon degrees of respect, an Order was fixed among them, according to which in subscriptions of Letters, in accidental congresses, and the like occasions, some should precede others; (that distinction being chiefly and commonly grounded on the greatness, splendour, opulency of Cities; or following the secular dignity of them:) whence Rome had the first place, Alexandria the second, An∣tioch the third, Hierusalem the fourth, &c.

Afterward,* 1.821 Constantine having introduced a new partition of the Em∣pire, whereby divers Provinces were combined together into one Territo∣ry, under the regiment of a Vicar, or a Lieutenant of a Praefectus-prae∣terio, which Territory was called a Diocese; the Ecclesiastical state was adapted in conformity thereto; new Ecclesiastical Systems,* 1.822 and a new sort of spiritual Heads thence springing up; so that in each Diocese, consisting of divers Provinces an Ecclesiastical Exarch (otherwise sometimes called a Primate, sometimes a Diocesan, sometimes a Patriarch) was constituted, answera∣ble to the Civil Exarch of a Diocese; who by such constitution did obtain a like Authority over the Metropolitanes of Provinces, as they had in their Province over the Bishops of Cities; so that it ap∣pertained to them to call together the Synods of the

whole Diocese, to preside in them, and in them to dispatch the principal affairs concerning that pre∣cinct, to ordain Metropolitanes, to confirm the Or∣dinations of Bishops, to decide Causes and Contro∣versies between Bishops upon appeal from Provincial Synods.

Some conceive the Synod of Nice did establish it; but that can hardly well be; for that Synod was held about the time of that division, (after that Constantine was setled in a peacefull enjoyment of the Empire) and scarce could take notice of so fresh a change in the State;* 1.823 that doth not pretend to innovate, but pro∣fesseth in its sanctions specially to regard ancient custome, saving to the Churches their privileges of which they were possessed; that onely mentioneth Provinces, and representeth the Metropolitanes in them as the chief Governours Ecclesiastical then be∣ing; that constituteth a peremptory decision of weighty causes in Pro∣vincial Synods, which is inconsistent with the Diocesan Authority; that taketh no notice of Constantinople, the ••rincipal Dio∣cese in the East,* 1.824 as seat of the Empire; (and the Sy∣nod of Antioch, insisting in the footsteps of the Ni∣cene, doth touch onely Metropolitanes (Can. 19.) and the Synod of Laodicea doth onely suppose that Order.) In fine, that Synod is not recorded by any old Historian to have framed such an alteration; which indeed was so considerable, that Eusebius who was present there could not well have passed it over in silence.

Of this opinion was the Synod of Carthage in their Epistle to Pope Ce∣lestine I. who understood no jurisdiction but that of Metropolitanes to be constituted in the Nicene Synod.

Some think the Fathers of the Second General Synod did introduce it, seeing it expedient that Ecclesiastical administrations should correspond to the Political; for they did innovate somewhat in the form of Govern∣ment; they do expresly use the new word Diocese, according to the ci∣vil sense, as distinct from a Province; they do distinctly name the par∣ticular Dioceses of the Oriental Empire, as they stood in the civil esta∣blishment;* 1.825 they do prescribe to the Bishops in each Diocese to act uni∣tedly there, not skipping over the bounds of it; they order a kind of appeal to the Synod of the Diocese, prohibiting other appeals: The Hi∣storians expresly do report of them, that they did distinguish and distri∣bute Dioceses, that they did constitute Patriarchs, that they did prohibit that any of one Diocese should intrude upon another.

But if we shall attently search and scan passages, we may perhaps find reason to judge, that this form did soon after the Synod of Nice creep in without any solemn appointment by spontaneous assumption and sub∣mission, accommodating things to the Political course; the great Bishops (who by the amplification of their City in power, wealth and concourse of people were advanced in reputation and interest) assuming such au∣thority to themselves; and the lesser Bishops easily complying; And of this we have some Arguments.* 1.826 Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem being deposed and extruded by Acacius Metropolitan of Palestine, did appeal to a grea∣ter Judicatory; being the first (as Socrates noteth) who ever did use that course; because, it seemeth,* 1.827 there was no greater in being till about that time; which was some years before the Synod of Constan∣tinople; in which there is a mention of a greater Sy∣nod of the Diocese —

There was a convention of Bishops of the Pontick Diocese at Tyana;* 1.828 (distinguished from the Asian Bishops) whereof Eusebius of Caesarea is reckoned in the first place, as President; in the time of Valens.

Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople is said by the Synod of Chalcedon to have presided in the Synod of Constantinople.* 1.829

A good Argument is drawn from the very Canon of the Synod of Constantinople it self;* 1.830 which doth speak concerning Bishops over Dioceses as already constituted, or extant; not instituting that Order of Bishops, but supposing it, and together with an implicit confirmation regulating practice according to it, by prohibiting Bishops to leap over the bounds of their Diocese, so as to meddle in the affairs of other Dio∣ceses; and by ordering appeals to the Synod of a Diocese.

Of Authority gained by such assumption, and concession without law, there might be produced divers instances.

As particularly that the See of Constantinople did assume to it self Or∣dination and other acts of Jurisdiction, in three Dioceses, before any such power was granted to it by any Synodical Decree; the which to have done divers instances shew; some whereof are alledged in the Synod of Chalcedon;* 1.831 as St. Chryso∣stome, of whom it is there said, That going into Asia he deposed fifteen Bishops, and consecrated others in their room.

He also deposed Gerontius Bishop of Nicomedia,* 1.832 belonging to the Dio∣cese of Pontus.

Whence the Fathers of Chalcedon did aver,* 1.833 That they had in a Synod confirmed the ancient custome which the Holy Church of God in Constantinople had, to ordain Metropolitanes in the Asian, Pontic and Thracian Dioceses.

The which custome, (consistent with reason, and becoming the dig∣nity of the Empire,* 1.834 and gratefull to the Court) that great Synod did establish, although the Roman Church out of jealousie did contest and protest against it.

But the most pertinent instances are those of the Roman, Alexandrine and Antiochene Churches having by degrees assumed to themselves such

power over divers Provinces; in imitation of which Churches the other Diocesan Bishops may well be thought to have enlarged their Jurisdiction.

This form of government is intimated in the Sy∣nod of Ephesus;* 1.835 by those words in which Dioceses and Provinces are distinguished; and the same shall be observed in all Dioceses and all Provinces every were.

However that this form of Discipline was perfectly setled in the times of the Fourth General Synod is evident by two no∣table Canons thereof,* 1.836 wherein it is decreed, that if any Bishop have a controversie with his Metropolitan of his Province, he shall resort to and be judged by the Exarch of the Diocese, or by the See of Constantinople.

This was a great privilege conferred on the Bishop of Constantinople; the which perhaps did ground (to be sure it did make way for) the plea of that Bishop to the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch, or Vniversal Bishop, which Pope Gregory did so exagitate; and indeed it soundeth so fairly toward it, that the Pope hath nothing comparable to it to alledge in fa∣vour of his pretences; this being the Decree of the greatest Synod that ever was held among the Ancients, where all the Patriarchs did concur in making these Decrees; which Pope Gregory did reverence as one of the Gospels.— If any ancient Synod did ever constitute any thing like to Vniversal Monarchy, it was this; wherein a final determination of greatest Causes was granted to the See of Constantinople, without any ex∣ception or reservation: I mean as to semblance, and the sound of words; for as to the true sense I do indeed conceive that the Canon did onely re∣late to causes emergent in the Eastern parts; and probably it did onely respect the three Dioceses (of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace) which were immediately subjected to his Patriarchal Jurisdiction.

* 1.837Pope Nicholas I. doth very jocularly expound this Canon; affirming that by the Primate of the Diocese is understood the Pope (Diocese being put by a notable figure for Dioceses) and that an appeal is to be made to the Bishop of Constantinople, onely by permission, in case the Party will be content therewith.

We may note, that some Provincial Churches were by ancient custome exempted from dependence on any Primacy or Patriarchate.

Such an one the Cyprian Church was adjudged to be in the Ephesine Synod; wherein the privileges of such Churches were confirmed against the invasion of greater Churches; and to that pur∣pose this general Law enacted,* 1.838 Let the same be ob∣serv'd in all Dioceses and Provinces every where — that none of the Bishops most beloved of God invade another Province which did not formerly belong to him or his Predecessours; and if any one have invaded one, and violently seiz'd it, that he restore it.

Such a Church was that of Britain anciently, before Austin did in∣troduce the Papal Authority here, against that Canon: as by divers learned Pens hath been shewed.

Such was the Church of Africk, as by their Canons against transma∣rine appeals, and about all other matters doth appear.

It is supposed, by some,* 1.839 that Discipline was scrued yet one peg high∣er, by setting up the Order of Patriarchs higher than Primates, or Dio∣cesan Exarchs; but I find no ground of this supposal except in one case; that is, of the Bishop of Constantinople being set above the Bishops of Ephe∣sus, Caesarea and Heraclea, which were the Primates of the three Dioceses.

It is a notable fib, which Pope Nicholas II. tel∣leth, as Gratian citeth him;* 1.840 That the Church of Rome instituted all Patriarchal Supremacies, all Me∣tropolitan Primacies, Episcopal Sees, all Ecclesiastical Orders and Dignities whatsoever.

Now things standing thus in Christendom, we may, concerning the interest of the Roman Bishop, in reference to them, observe,

1. In all these transactions about modelling the spiritual Discipline, there was no Canon established any peculiar Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome, onely the

2. Synod of Nice did suppose that he by custome did enjoy some Autho∣rity within certain precincts of the West, like to that which it did confirm to the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, and the Countries adjacent thereto.

3. The Synods of Constantinople did allow him honourary privileges or precedence before all other Bishops,* 1.841 assigning the next place after him to the Bishop of Constantinople.

4. In other privileges the Synod of Chalcedon did equall the See of Con∣stantinople to the Roman.* 1.842

5. The Canons of the two First and Fourth General Synods, ordering all affairs to be dispatched, and causes to be determined in Metropolitan or Dio∣cesan Synods, do exclude the Roman Bishop from meddling in those concerns.

6. The Popes (out of a humour natural to them, to like nothing but what they did themselves, and which served their Interests) did not re∣lish those Canons, although enacted by Synods which themselves admit∣ted for Oecumenical: That subscription of some Bi∣shops made above sixty years since as you boast,* 1.843 does no whit favour your persuasion: a subscription never transmitted to the knowledge of the Apostolick See by your Predecessours, which from its very beginning be∣ing weak, and long since ruinous, you endeavour now too late and unprofitably to revive.

So doth Pope Leo I. treat the Second Great Sy∣nod, writing to Anatolius:* 1.844 and Gregory speaking of the same says, That the Roman Church has not the acts of that Synod, nor receiv'd its Canons.

7. Wherefore in the West they did obtain no effect, so as to establish Diocesan Primacies there.

The Bishops of Cities, which were Heads of Dioceses,* 1.845 either did not know of these Canons (which is probable, because Rome did smother the notice of them:) or were hindred from using them; the Pope having so winded himself in and got such hold among them, as he would not let go.

8. It indeed turned to a great advantage of the Pope, in carrying on his Encroachments, and enlarging his worldly Interests, that the We∣stern Churches did not, as the Eastern, conform themselves to the Poli∣tical frame in embracing Diocesan Primacies; which would have enga∣ged and enabled them better to protect the Liberties of their Churches from Papal Invasions.* 1.846

9. For hence for want of a better, the Pope did claim to himself a Pa∣triarchal authority over the Western Churches; pretending a right of calling to Synods, of meddling in Ordinations, of determining Causes by appeal to him; of dictating Laws and Rules to them, against the old rights of Metropolitans, and the later Constitutions for Primacies.

Of this we have an Instance in St. Gregory; where he alledging an Imperial Constitution importing that in case a Clergy-man should appeal from his Metropolitan, the cause should be referred to the Archbishop and Patriarch of that Diocese, who judging according to the Canons and Laws should give an end thereto; doth consequentially assume an appeal from a Bishop to himself,* 1.847 adjoy∣ning, If against these things it be said, that the Bi∣shop had neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch, it is to be said, that this cause was to be heard and decided by the Apostolical See, which is the head of all Churches.

10. Having got such advantage, and as to extent stretched his Autho∣rity beyond the bounds of his sub-urbicarian precincts,* 1.848 he did also intend it in quality far beyond the privileges by any Ecclesiastical Law granted to Patriarchs; or claimed or exercised by any other Patriarch; till at length by degrees he had advanced it to an exorbitant omnipotency, and thereby utterly enslaved the Western Churches.

The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch or Primate to call a Synod of the Bishops in his Diocese, and with them to determine Ecclesiastical Affairs by majority of suffrages; but he doth not doe so, but setting him∣self down in his Chair with a few of his Courtiers about him, doth make Decrees and Dictates, to which he pretendeth all must submit.

The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch to ordain Metropolitans duly elected in their Dioceses; leaving Bishops to be ordained by the Metro∣politans in their Provincial Synods; but he will meddle in the Ordina∣tion of every Bishop, suffering none to be constituted without his con∣firmation, for which he must soundly pay.

The ancient Order did allow a Patriarch, with the advice and consent of his Synod to make Canons for the well ordering his Diocese; but he sendeth about his Decretal Letters, composed by an infallible Secretary, which he pretendeth must have the force of Laws, equal to the highest Decrees of the whole Church.

The ancient Order did suppose Bishops by their Ordination sufficient∣ly obliged to render unto their Patriarch due observance, according to the Canons, he being liable to be judged in a Synod for the transgression of his duty; but he forceth all Bishops to take the most slavish oaths of obedience to him that can be imagined.

The ancient Order did appoint that Bishops accused for offences should be judged in their Provinces; or upon appeal from them in Pa∣triarchal Synods: but he receiveth appeals at the first hand, and deter∣mineth

them in his Court, without calling such a Synod in an age for any such purpose.

The ancient Patriarchs did order all things, as became good Subjects, with leave and under submission to the Emperour, who as he pleased did interpose his confirmation of their Sanctions: but this man preten∣deth to decree what he pleaseth without the leave, and against the will of Princes.

Wherefore he is not a Patriarch of the Western Churches, (for that he acteth according to no Patriarchal Rule) but a certain kind of Sove∣reign Lord, or a tyrannical Oppressour of them.

11. In all the transactions for modelling the Church there never was allowed to the Pope any dominion over his Fellow-patriarchs,* 1.849 or of those great Primates who had assumed that name to themselves; among whom indeed, for the dignity of his City, he had obtained a priority of honour or place; but never had any power over them setled by a title of Law, or by clear and uncontested practice.

Insomuch, that if any of them had erred in Faith, or offended in Prac∣tice, it was requisite to call a General Synod to judge them; as in the cases of Athanasius, of Gregory Nazianzene and Maximus, of Theophilus and St. Chrysostome, of Nestorius and of Dioscorus— is evident.

12. Indeed all the Oriental Churches did keep themselves pretty free from his encroachments, although, when he had swollen so big in the West, he sometimes did take occasion to attempt on their Liberty; which they sometimes did warily decline, sometimes stoutly did oppose.

But as to the main,* 1.850 those flourishing Churches constantly did maintain a distinct administration from the Western Churches, under their own Patriarchs and Synods, not suffering him to interlope in prejudice to their Liberty.

They without his leave or notice did call and celebrate Synods (where∣of all the first great Synods are instances) their Ordinations were not confirmed or touched by him; Appeals were not (with publick regard or allowance) thence made to him in causes great or little, but they de∣cided them among themselves: they quashed Heresies springing up a∣mong them, as the Second General Synod the Macedonians, Theophilus the Origenists, &c. Little in any case had his Worship to doe with them or they with him, beyond what was needfull to maintain general com∣munion and correspondence with him; which they commonly, as piety obliged, were willing to doe.

And sometimes, when a pert Pope, upon some incidental advantage of differences risen among them, would be more busie than they deemed convenient in tampering with their affairs, they did rap his fingers: so Victor, so Stephanus, so Julius and Liberius of old did feel to their smart; so afterward Damasus and other Popes in the case of Flavianus; Innocent in the case of St. Chrysostome; Felix and his Successours in the case of Acacius did find little regard had to their interposals.

So things proceeded, till at length a final rupture was made between them, and they would not suffer him at all to meddle with their affairs.

Before I proceed any farther I shall briefly draw some Corollaries from this Historical account which I have given of the original and growth of Metropolitical, Primatical and Patriarchal Jurisdiction.

1. Patriarchs are an humane Institution.

2. As they were erected by the power and prudence of men, so they may be dissolved by the same.

3. They were erected by the leave and confirmation of Princes; and by the same they may be dejected, if great reason do appear.

4. The Patriarchate of the Pope beyond his own Province or Diocese doth not subsist upon any Canon of a General Synod.

5. He can therefore claim no such power otherwise than upon his in∣vasion or assumption.

6. The Primates and Metropolitans of the Western Church cannot be supposed otherwise than by force or out of fear to have submitted to such an authority as he doth usurp.

7. It is not really a Patriarchal Power (like to that which was gran∣ted by the Canons, and Princes) but another sort of power which the Pope doth exercise.

8. The most rightfull Patriarch, holding false Doctrine, or imposing unjust Laws, or tyrannically abusing his power may and ought to be re∣jected from communion.

9. Such a Patriarch is to be judged by a free Synod, if it may be had.

10. If such a Synod cannot be had by consent of Princes, each Church may free it self from the mischiefs induced by his perverse doc∣trine or practice.

11. No Ecclesiastical Power can interpose in the management of any affairs within the Territory of any Prince without his concession.

12. By the Laws of God and according to ancient Practice Princes may model the bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, erect Bishopricks, enlarge, diminish, or transfer them as they please.

13. Wherefore each Prince (having Supreme Power in his own Do∣minions, and equal to what the Emperour had in his) may exclude any foreign Prelate from Jurisdiction in his Territories.

14. It is expedient for peace and publick good that he should doe thus.

15. Such Prelate, according to the rules of Christianity, ought to be content with his doing so.

16. Any Prelate, exercising power in the Dominion of any Prince, is eatenus, his Subject: as the Popes and all Bishops were to the Roman Emperours.

17. Those joints of Ecclesiastical Discipline, established in the Roman Empire by the confirmation of Emperours, were (as to necessary conti∣nuance) dissolved by the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

18. The power of the Pope in the Territories of any Prince did sub∣sist by his authority and favour.

19. By the same reason as Princes have curbed the exorbitancy of Pa∣pal power in some cases (of entertaining Legats, making Appeals, dis∣posing of Benefices, &c.) by the same they might exclude it.

20. The practice of Christianity doth not depend upon the subsistence of such a form instituted by man.

Having shewed at large that this Universal Sovereignty and Jurisdic∣tion of the Bishop of Rome over the Christian Church hath no real Foun∣dation either in Scripture or elsewhere, it will be requisite to shew by what ways and means so groundless a claim and pretence should gain belief and submission to it,* 1.851 from so considerable a part of Christendom; and that from so very slender roots (from slight beginnings and the slimmest pretences

one can well imagin) this bulk of exorbitant power did grow, the vast∣est that ever man on earth did attain, or did ever aim at, will be the less wonderfull, if we do consider the many causes which did concur and contribute thereto; some whereof are proposed in the following Observations.

1. Eminency of any kind (in wealth, in honour, in reputation, in might, in place, or mere order of dignity,) doth easily pass into ad∣vantages of real power and command over those who are inferiour in those respects, and have any dealings or common transactions with such Superiours.

For to persons endowed with such eminency by voluntary deference the conduct of affairs is wont to be allowed; none presuming to stand in competition with them, every one rather yielding place to them than to their equals.

The same conduct of things, upon the same accounts, and by rea∣son of their possession, doth continue fast in their hands, so long as they do retain such advantages.

Then from a custom of managing things doth spring up an opinion or a pretence of right thereto; they are apt to assume a title, and others ready to allow it.

Men naturally do admire such things, and so are apt to defer extraor∣dinary respect to the possessours of them.

Advantages of wealth and might are not onely instruments to attain, but incentives spurring men to affect the getting authority over their poorer and weaker neighbours: for men will not be content with bare eminency, but will desire real power and sway, so as to obtain their wills over others, and not to be crossed by any. Pope Leo had no reason to wonder,* 1.852 that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople was not content with dry honour. Men are apt to think their honour is precarious, and stan∣deth on an uncertain foundation, if it be not supported with real power; and therefore they will not be satisfied to let their advantages lie dead, which are so easily improveable to power, by inveigling some, and sca∣ring or constraining others to bear their yoke: and they are able to be∣nefit and gratifie some, and thereby render them willing to submit, those afterwards become serviceable to bring others under, who are disaffec∣ted or refractory.

So the Bishops of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, at first had onely privileges of honour; but afterward they soon hooked in power.

Now the Roman Bishops from the beginning were eminent above all other Bishops in all kinds of advantages.

He was seated in the Imperial City, the place of general resort; thence obvious to all eyes,* 1.853 and his name sounding in all mouths. He had a most nu∣merous, opulent, splendid flock and Clergy. He had the greatest income (from liberal oblations) to dis∣pose of. He lived in greatest state and lustre.* 1.854 He had oportunities to assist others in their business, and to relieve them in their wants. He necessarily thence did obtain great respect and veneration. Hence in all common affairs, the conduct and presidence were naturally devolved on him, without contest.

No wonder then, that after some time the Pope did arrive to some pitch of authority over poor Christians, especially those who lay nearest

to him; improving his eminency into power, and his pastoral charge into a kind of Empire; according to that observati∣on of Socrates,* 1.855 that long before his time the Roman Episcopacy had advanced it self beyond the Priest∣hood into a Potentacy.

* 1.856And the like he observeth to have happened in the Church of Alex∣andria, upon the like grounds, or by imitation of such a pattern.

2. Any small power is apt to grow and spread it self; a spark of it soon will expand it self into a flame:* 1.857 it is very like to the grain of mu∣stard seed, which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Encroaching (as Plutarch saith) is an innate disease of Potentacies.* 1.858 Whoever hath any pittance of it, will be improving his stock, having tasted the sweetness of having his will (which ex∣tremely gratifieth the nature of man) he will not be satisfied without having more; he will take himself to be straitned by any bounds, and will strive to free himself of all restraints.

Any pretence will serve to ground attempts of enlarging power, and none will be balked. For Power is bold, enterpri∣zing,* 1.859 restless: it always watcheth, or often findeth, never passeth opportunities of dilating it self. Eve∣ry accession doth beget farther advantages to ampli∣fie it;* 1.860 * 1.861 as its stock groweth, so it with ease propor∣tionably doth encrease; being ever out at use. As it groweth, so its strength to maintain and enlarge it self doth grow; it gaining more wealth, more friends, more associates and dependents.

None can resist or obstruct its growth without danger and manifold disadvantages; for as its adherents are deemed loyal and faithfull, so its opposers are branded with the imputations of rebellion, contumacy, dis∣loyalty; and not succeeding in their resistence they will be undone.

None ever doth enterprise more than to stop its careir; so that it sel∣dom loseth by opposition; and it ever gaineth by composition. If it be checked at one time, or in one place, it will, like the Sea, at an∣other season, in another point, break in. If it is sometimes overthrown in a Battel, it is seldom conquered in the War.

It is always on its march forward, and gaineth ground; for one en∣croachment doth countenance the next, and is alledged for a precedent to authorize or justifie it. It seldom moveth backward; for every Successour thinketh he may justly enjoy what his Predecessour did gain, or which is transmitted into his possession; so that there hardly can ever be any restitution of ill-gotten power.

Thus have many absolute Kingdoms grown; the first Chief was a Leader of Volunteers; from thence he grew to be a Prince with stated Privileges; after he became a Monarch invested with high Prerogatives; in fine he creepeth forward to be a Grand Seigniour usurping absolute do∣minion: so did Augustus Caesar first onely assume the style of Prince of the Senate, demeaning himself modestly as such; but he soon drew to himself the administration of all things; and upon that foundation his Successours very suddenly did erect a boundless power. If you trace the foot-steps of most Empires to the beginning you may perceive the like.

So the Pope when he had got a little power, continually did swell it. The puny pretence of the succeeding Saint Peter, and the name of the Apostolical See; the precedence by reason of the Imperial City; the ho∣norary Privileges allowed him by Councils; the Authority deferred to him by one Synod of revising the Causes of Bishops; the counte∣nance given to him in repressing some Heresies, he did improve to con∣stitute himself Sovereign Lord of the Church.

3. Spiritual power especially is of a growing nature, and more espe∣cially that which deriveth from Divine Institution; for it hath a great awe upon the hearts and consciences of men; which engageth them to a firm and constant adherence. It useth the most subtile arms, which it hath always ready, which needeth no time or cost to furnish, which cannot be extorted from its hand; so that it can never be disarmed. And its weapons make strong impression, because it proposeth the most effectual encouragements to its abettours, and discouragements to its adversaries; alluring the one with promises of God's favour and eternal happiness, terrifying the other with menaces of vengeance from heaven and endless misery; the which do ever quell religious, superstitious, weak people; and often daunt men of knowledge and courage.

It is presumed unchangeable and unextinguishable by any humane power; and thence is not (as all other power) subject to revolutions. Hence like Achilles it is hardly vincible, because almost immortal. If it be sometime rebuffed or impaired; it soon will recover greater strength and vigour.

The Popes derive their Authority from Divine Institution;* 1.862 and their weapons always are sentences of Scripture; they pretend to dispense re∣mission of sins; and promise heaven to their abettours. They excom∣municate, curse and damn the opposers of their designs.

They pretend they never can lose any power that ever did belong to their See: they are always stiff,* 1.863 and they never recede or give back. The privileges of the Roman Church can sustain no detriment.

4. Power is easily attained and augmented upon occasion of dissen∣tions. Each faction usually doth make it self a Head, the chief in strength and reputation which it can find inclinable to favour it; and that Head it will strive to magnifie, that he may be the abler to pro∣mote its cause; and if the cause doth prosper he is rewarded with ac∣cession of Privileges and Authority: Especially those who were op∣pressed, and find relief by his means, do become zealously active for his aggrandisement.

Thus usually in civil broils the Captain of the prevalent Party grow∣eth a Prince, or is crowned with great Privileges (as Caesar, Octavian, Cromwell, &c.)

So upon occasion of the Arian faction, and the oppression of Athana∣sius, Marcellus, Paulus and other Bishops, the Pope who by their appli∣cation to him had occasion to head the Catholick Party did grow in power; for thereupon the Sardican Synod did decree to him that Pri∣vilege, which he infinitely enhanced, and which became the main en∣gin of rearing himself so high.

And by his interposal in the dissensions raised by the Nestorians, the Pelagians, the Eutychians, the Acatians, the Monothelites, the Image-worshippers, and Image-breakers, &c. his authority was advanced; for

he adhering in those causes to the prevailing Party, was by them extol∣led, obtaining both reputation and sway.

5. All power is attended by dependencies of persons sheltred under it, and by it enjoying subordinate advantages; the which proportionably do grow by its encrease.

Such persons therefore will ever be inciting their Chief and Patron to amplifie his power; and in aiding him to compass it, they will be ve∣ry industriously, resolutely and steadily active; their own interest mo∣ving them thereto.

Wherefore their mouths will ever be open in crying him up, their heads will be busie in contriving ways to further his interests, their care and pains will be employed in accomplishing his designs; they with their utmost strength will contend in his defence against all oppositions.

Thus the Roman Clergy first, then the Bishops of Italy, then all the Clergy of the West became engaged to support, to fortifie, to enlarge the Papal authority; they all sharing with him in domination over the Laity; and enjoying wealth, credit, support, privileges and immunities thereby. Some of them especially were ever putting him on higher pretences, and furthering him by all means in his acquist and mainte∣nance of them.

6. Hence if a Potentate himself should have no ambition, nor much ability to improve his power; yet it would of it self grow, he need onely be passive therein; the interest of his partisans would effect it; so that often power doth no less thrive under sluggish and weak Poten∣tates, especially if they are void of goodness, than under the most active and able: Let the Ministers alone to drive on their interest.

7. Even persons otherwise just and good do seldom scruple to aug∣ment their power by undue encroachment, or at least to uphold the u∣surpations of their foregoers; for even such are apt to favour their own pretences, and afraid of incurring censure and blame, if they should part with any thing left them by their Predecessours. They apprehend themselves to owe a dearness to their place, engaging them to tender its own weal and prosperity, in promoting which they suppose themselves not to act for their own private interest; and that it is not out of ambi∣tion or avarice, but out of a regard to the grandeur of their Office that they stickle and bustle; and that in so doing they imitate Saint Paul who did magnifie his office. They are encouraged hereto by the applause of men, especially of those who are allied with them in interest, and who converse with them; who take it for a Maxime, Boni Principis est am∣pliare imperium: The extenders of Empire are admired and commen∣ded however they doe it, although with cruel Wars, or by any unjust means.

Hence usually the worthiest men in the world's eye are greatest en∣largers of power; and such men bringing appearances of vertue, ability, reputation to aid their endeavours, do most easily compass designs of this nature, finding less obstruction to their attempts; for men are not so apt to suspect their integrity, or to charge them with ambition and avarice; and the few, who discern their aims and consequences of things, are overborn by the number of those, who are favourably conceited and inclined toward them.

Thus Julius I. Damasus I. Innocent I. Gregory I. and the like Popes, whom History representeth as laudable persons, did yet confer to the

advancement of Papal grandeur. But they who did most advance that interest, as Pope Leo I. Gelasius I. Pope Nicholas I. Pope Gregory VII. in the esteem of true zelots pass for the best Popes. Hence the distinction between a good Man, a good Prince, a good Pope.* 1.864

8. Men of an inferiour condition are apt to express themselves highly in commendation of those who are in a superiour rank, especially upon occasion of address and intercourse; which commendations are liable to be interpreted for acknowledgments or attestations of right, and thence do sometimes prove means of creating it.

Of the generality of men it is truly said, that it doth fondly serve fame,* 1.865 and is stonn'd with titles and ima∣ges; readily ascribing to Superiours whatever they claim, without scanning the grounds of their title. Simple and weak men out of abjectedness or fear are wont to crouch, and submit to any thing upon any terms. Wise men do not love brangling, nor will expose their quiet and safety without great reason; thence be∣ing inclinable to comply with greater persons. Bad men out of design to procure advantages or impunity are prone to flatter and gloze with them. Good men out of due reverence to them, and in hope of fair usage from them, are ready to complement them, or treat them with the most respectfull terms. Those who are obliged to them will not spare to extoll them; paying the easie return of good words for good deeds.

Thus all men conspire to exalt power; the which snatcheth all good words as true, and construeth them to the most favourable sense; and alledgeth them as verdicts and arguments of unquestionable right. So are the complements or terms of respect used by Hierome, Austin, The∣odoret, and divers others toward Popes, drawn into Argument for Papal Authority; whenas the actions of such Fathers, and their dis∣courses upon other occasions do manifest their serious judgment to have been directly contrary to his pretences: wherefore the Emperour of Constantinople in the Florentine Synod had good reason to decline such sayings * 1.866 for arguments; for if (saith he) any of the Saints doth in an E∣pistle honour the Pope, shall he take that as importing privileges?

9. Good men commonly (out of charitable simplicity, meekness, modesty and humility, love of peace, and aversness from contention) are apt to yield to the encroachments of those who any-wise do excell them; and when such men do yield, others are ready to follow their example. Bad men have little interest to resist, and no heart to stand for publick good; but rather strike in presently, taking advantage by their compliance to drive a good market for themselves. Hence so many of all sorts in all times did comply with Popes, or did not obstruct them; suffering them without great obstacle to raise their power.

10. If in such cases a few wise men do apprehend the consequences of things, yet they can doe little to prevent them. They seldom have the courage with sufficient zeal to bustle against encroachments; fearing to be overborn by its stream, to lose their labour, and vainly to suffer by it. If they offer at resistence, it is usually faint and moderate: where∣as power doth act vigorously, and push it self forward with mighty vi∣olence; so that it is not onely difficult to check it, but dangerous to oppose it.

Ambiguity of words (as it causeth many de∣bates,* 1.867 so) yieldeth much advantage to the foun∣dation and amplification of power: for whatever is said of it, will be interpreted in favour of it, and will afford colour to its pretences. Words innocently or carelesly used are by interpretation extended to signifie great matters, or what you please. For instance,

The word Bishop may import any kind of superintendency or inspec∣tion; hence Saint Peter came to be reckoned Bishop of Rome, because in virtue of his Apostolical Office he had inspection over that Church founded by him, and might exercise some Episcopal acts.

* 1.868The word Head doth signifie any kind of eminency, the word Prince any priority, the word to preside any kind of superiority or preeminence; hence some Fathers attributing those names to Saint Peter, they are in∣terpreted to have thought him Sovereign in power over the Apostles. And because some did give like terms to the Pope, they infer his Supe∣riority in power over all Bishops; notwithstanding such Fathers did ex∣press a contrary judgment.

The word Successour may import any derivation of power; hence be∣cause Saint Peter is said to have founded the Church of Rome, and to have ordained the first Bishop there, the Pope is called his Successour.

The word Authority doth often import any kind of influence upon the opinions or actions of men (grounded upon eminence of place, worth,* 1.869 reputation, or any such advantage.) Hence because the Pope of old sometimes was desired to interpose his authority, they will understand him to have had right to command or judge in such cases; although authority is sometimes opposed to com∣mand, as where Livy saith, that Evander did hold those places by authority rather than by command; and Tacitus of the German Princes saith, They are heard rather according to their authority of persuading, than power of commanding. The word Judge (saith Ca∣nus) is frequently used to signifie no more than I do think or conceive; whereby he doth excuse divers Popes from having decreed a notable errour (for Alexander III. says of them, that they judged that after a matrimony contracted, not consummated; another may be valid, that being dissolved.) Yet if the Pope is said to have judged so or so in any case, it is alledged for a certain argument of proper Jurisdiction.

11. There is a strange inchantment in words; which being (although with no great colour of reason) assumed, do work on the fancies of men, especially of the weaker sort. Of these power doth ever arrogate to it self such as are most operative, by their force sustaining and extending it self.

So divers prevalent Factions did assume to themselves the name of Ca∣tholick; and the Roman Church particularly hath appropriated that word to it self, even so as to commit a Bull, implying Rome and the Universe to be the same place; and the perpetual canting of this Term hath been one of its most effectual charms to weak people. I am a Catholick, that is, an Vniversal, therefore all I hold is true, this is their great Argument.

The words Successour of Peter, Apostolick See, Prima Sedes, have been strongly urged for Arguments of Papal Authority; the which have be∣yond their true force (for indeed they signifie nothing) had a strange efficacy upon men of understanding and wisedom.

12. The Pope's power was much amplified by the importunity of persons condemned or extruded from their places, whether upon just accounts,* 1.870 or wrongfully and by faction; for they finding no o∣ther more hopefull place of refuge and redress, did often apply to him: for what will not men doe, whither will not they go in straits?

Thus did Marcion go to Rome, and sue for admission to communion there. So Fortunatus and Felicissimus in St. Cyprian,* 1.871 being condemned in Africk did fly to Rome for shelter, of which absurdity St. Cyprian doth so complain. So likewise Martianus and Basilides, in St. Cyprian,* 1.872 being outed of their Sees for having lapsed from the Christian profession did fly to Stephen for succour, to be restored. So Maximus (the Cynick) went to Rome, to get a confirmation of his election at Constantinople. So Marcellus, being rejected for Heterodoxy, went thither to get attestation to his Orthodoxy (of which St. Basil complaineth.) So Apiarius, being condemned in Africk for his crimes, did appeal to Rome.

And on the other side,* 1.873 Athanasius being with great partiality condem∣ned by the Synod of Tyre, Paulus and other Bishops being extruded from their Sees for Orthodoxy; St. Chrysostome being condemned and expel∣led by Theophilus and his complices;* 1.874 Flavianus being deposed by Diosco∣rus, and the Ephesine Synod; Theodoret being condemned by the same, —did cry out for help from Rome. Chelidonius, Bishop of Resanon, be∣ing deposed by Hilarius of Arles, (for crimes) did fly to Pope Leo. Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, being extruded from his See by Pho∣tius, did complain to the Pope.

13. All Princes are forward to heap honour on the Bishop of their Imperial City; it seeming a disgrace to themselves, that so near a relati∣on be an inferiour to any other: who is as it were their Spiritual Pa∣stour, who is usually by their special favour advanced. The City it self and the Court will be restless in assisting him to climb.

Thus did the Bishop of Constantinople arise to that high pitch of ho∣nour, and to be Second Patriarch, who at first was a mean Suffragan to the Bishop of Heraclea; this by the Synods of Constantinople and Chal∣cedon is assigned for the reason of his advancement.* 1.875 And how ready the Emperours were to promote the dignity of that Bishop, we see by ma∣ny of their Edicts to that purpose; as particularly that of Leo.

So, for the honour of their City, the Emperours usually did favour the Pope, assisting him in the furtherance of his designs, and exten∣ding his Privileges by their Edicts at home, and Letters to the Eastern Emperours, recommending their affairs.

So in the Synod of Chalcedon we have the Letters of Valen∣tinian, together with those of Placidia and of Eudoxia the Em∣presses to Theodosius, in behalf of Pope Leo, for retractation of the Ephesine Synod; wherein they do express themselves enga∣ged to maintain the honour of the Roman See; Seeing that (saith Placidia,* 1.876 Mother of Theodosi∣us) it becometh us in all things to preserve the

honour and dignity of this chief City, which is the Mistress of all others.

* 1.877So Pope Nicholas confesseth, that the Emperours had extolled the Roman See with divers privileges, had enriched it with gifts, had en∣larged it with benefits (or benefices,) &c.

14. The Popes had the advantage of being ready at hand to suggest what they pleased to the Court, and thereby to procure his Edicts (di∣rected or dictated by themselves) in their favour, for extending their power, or repressing any opposition made to their encroachments.

Baronius observeth that the Bishops of Constantinople did use this ad∣vantage for their ends; for thus he reflecteth on the Edict of the Em∣perour Leo in favour of that See:* 1.878 These things Leo; but questionless conceived in the words of Acacius, swelling with pride.

And no less unquestionably did the Popes conceive words for the Em∣perour in countenance of their Authority.* 1.879

Such was the Edict of Valentinian in favour of Leo against Hilarius Bishop of Arles, * 1.880 (in an unjust cause as Binius confesseth) who con∣tested his Authority to undo what was done in a Gallicane Synod. And we may thank Baronius himself for this Observati∣on,* 1.881 By this, Reader, thou understandest, that when the Emperours ordained Laws concerning Religion, they did it by transcribing and enacting the Laws of the Church upon the admonition of the Holy Bi∣shops requiring them to doe their duty. It was a no∣table Edict, which Pope Hilarius alledgeth, It was also decreed by the Laws of Christian Princes,* 1.882 that whatsoever the Bishop of the Apostolick See should upon examination pronounce concerning Churches and their Governours, &c. should with reverence be received and strictly ob∣served, &c.

Such Edicts by crafty suggestions being at opportune times from easie and unwary Princes procured, did hold, not being easily rever∣sed: and the Power which the Pope once had obtained by them, he would never part with;* 1.883 fortifying it by higher pretences of Divine im∣mutable right.

The Emperour Gratian, having gotten the World under him, did or∣der the Churches to those who would communicate with Pope Dama∣sus. This and the like countenances did bring credit and authority to the Roman See.

15. It is therefore no wonder, that Popes being seated in the Metro∣polis of the Western Empire (the head of all the Roman State) should find interest sufficient to make themselves by degrees what they would be; for they not onely surpassing the Provincial Bishops in wealth and repute, but having power in Court, who dared to pull a feather with them, or to withstand their encroachments? What wise man would not rather bear much, than contest upon such disadvantages, and without probable grounds of success?

16. Princes who favoured them with such concessions and abetted their undertakings, did not foresee what such encrease of power in time would arise to; or suspect the prejudice thence done to Imperial Authority. They little thought that in virtue thereof Popes would check, and mate Princes; or would claim superiority over them; for the Popes at that time did behave and express themselves with modesty and respect to Em∣perours.

17. Power once rooted doth find seasons and favourable junctures for its growth; the which it will be intent to embrace.

The confusions of things, the eruptions of Barbarians, the straits of Emperours, the contentions of Princes, &c. did all turn to account for him; and in confusion of things he did snatch what he could to himself.

The declination and infirmity of the Roman Empire gave him oppor∣tunity to strengthen his interests, either by closing with it, so as to gain somewhat by its concession; or by opposing it, so as to head a Faction against it. As he often had opportunity to promote the designs of Em∣perours and Princes, so those did return to him encrease of Authority; so they trucked and bartered together. For when Princes were in straits, or did need assistence (from his reputation at home) to the furtherance of their designs, or support of their interest in Italy, they were content to honour him, and grant what he desired: as in the case of Acacius, which had caused so long a breach, the Emperour to engage Pope Hor∣misdas, did consent to his will. And at the Florentine Synod, the Em∣perour did bow to the Pope's terms, in hopes to get his assistence against the Turks.

When the Eastern Emperours, by his means chiefly, were driven out of Italy,* 1.884 he snatched a good part of it to himself, and set up for a Tempo∣ral Prince.

When Princes did clash, he by yielding countenance to one side, would be sure to make a good market for himself: for this pretended Successour to the Fisherman, was really skilled to angle in troubled Waters.

They have been the incendiaries of Christendom, the kindlers and fo∣menters of War. And would often stir up Wars,* 1.885 and inclining to the stronger part, would share with the Conquerour; as when he stirr'd up Charles against the Lombards. They would, upon spiritual pretence, be interposing in all affairs.

He did oblige Princes by abetting their Cause when it was unjust or weak; his spiritual Authority satisfying their Conscience: whence he was sure to receive good acknowledgment and recompence.* 1.886 As when he did allow Pepin's usurpation.

He pretended to dispose of Kingdoms, and to constitute Princes; re∣serving obeisance to himself.* 1.887 Gregory VII. granted to Robert Guislard Naples and Sicily beneficiario jure.* 1.888 Innocent II. gave to Roger the title of King.

There is scarce any Kingdom in Europe which he hath not claimed the Sovereignty of, by some pretence or other. Princes sometime for quiet sake have desired the Pope's consent and allowance of things apper∣taining

of right to themselves, whence the Pope took advantage to claim an original right of disposing such things.

The proceeding of the Pope upon occasion of Wars is remarkable; when he did enter League with a Prince to side with him in a War against another, he did covenant to prosecute the Enemy with Spiritual Arms (that is, with Excommunications and Interdicts) engaging his Confederates to use Temporal Arms. So making Ecclesiastical Cen∣sures tools of Interest.

When Princes were in difficulties, (by the mutinous disposition of Princes, the emulation of Antagonists) he would, as served his interest, interpose; hooking in some advantage to himself.

In the tumults against our King John, he struck in, and would have drawn the Kingdom to himself.

He would watch opportunity to quarrel with Princes, upon pretence they did intrench on his Spiritual Power: as about the point of the in∣vestiture of Bishops, and receiving homage from them.

• Gregory VII. did excommunicate Henry III. (Anno 1076.)
• Calixtus II.— Henry IV. (Anno 1120.)
• Adrian IV. — Frederick. (Anno 1160.)
• Celestinus III. — Henry V. (Anno 1195.)
• Innocent III.— Otho (Anno 1219.)
• Honorius III. and Gregory IX.— Frederick II. (Anno 1220.)
• Innocent IV. in the Ludg. Conc. 1245.)

18. The ignorance of times did him great service; for then all the little Learning which was, being in his Clients and Factours, they could instill what they pleased into the credulous People. Then his Dictates would pass for infallible Oracles, and his Decrees for inviolable Laws: whence his veneration was exceedingly encreased.

19. He was forward to support factious Church∣men against Princes,* 1.889 upon pretence of spiritual In∣terest and Liberty. And usually by his importuni∣ty and arts getting the better in such contests, he thereby did much strengthen his Authority.

20. He making himself the Head of all the Clergy, and carrying himself as its Protectour and Patron, did ingage thereby innumerable most able heads, tongues and pens; who were devoted to maintain whatever he did, and had little else to doe.

21. So great a Party he cherished with exorbitant Liberties, suffering none to rule over them or touch them beside himself.

22. He did found divers Militias and bands of spiritual Janisaries, to be Combatants for his Interests; who depending immediately upon him, subsisting by his Charters, enjoying exemptions by his authority from other Jurisdictions, being sworn to a special obeisance of him, were en∣tirely at his devotion, ready with all their might to advance his Inte∣rests, and to maintain all the pretences of their Patron and Benefactour.

These had great sway among the People, upon account of their reli∣gious guises and pretences to extraordinary heights of sanctimony, auste∣rity, contempt of the World. And learning being mostly confined to them, they were the chief Teachers and Guides of Christendom; so that no wonder, if he did challenge and could maintain any thing by their influence.

They did cry up his Power as superiour to all others. They did at∣tribute to him titles strangely high, Vice-god, Spouse of the Church, &c. strange attributes of Omnipotency, Infallibility, &c.

23. Whereas Wealth is a great sinew of Power, he did invent divers ways of drawing great store thereof to himself.* 1.890

By how many tricks did he proll money from all parts of Christen∣dom? as by

Dispensations for Marriage within degrees prohibited, or at uncanoni∣cal times, —for Vows and Oaths; for observance of Fasts and Absti∣nences; for Pluralities and incompatible Benefices, Non-residences, &c.

Indulgences, and Pardons, and freeing Souls from the pains of Pur∣gatory.

Reservations, and provisions of Benefices, not bestowed gratís.* 1.891

Consecrated Presents; Agnus Dei's, Swords, Roses, &c.

Confirmations of Bishops; ‖ 1.892 sending Palls.

Appeals to his Court.

Tributes of Peter-pence, Annates,* 1.893 Tithes— introduced upon occa∣sion of Holy Wars, and continued.

Playing fast and loose, tying knots, and undoing them for gain.

Sending Legates to drein places of money.

Commutations of Penance for money.

Inviting to Pilgrimage at Rome.

Hooking in Legacies. What a mass of Trea∣sure did all this come to?* 1.894 what a Trade did he drive?

24. He did indeed easily by the help of his mercenary Divines trans∣form most Points of Divinity in accommodation to his interests of Power, Reputation and Gain.

25. Any pretence, how slender soever, will in time get some validi∣ty; being fortified by the consent of divers Authours, and a current of sutable practice.

Any story serving the designs of a Party, will get credit by being often told, especially by Writers bearing a semblance of gravity; whereof di∣vers will never be wanting to abet a flourishing Party.

26. The Histories of some Ages were composed onely by the Popes Clients, Friars and Monks, and such People; which therefore are partial to him, addicted to his interests, and under awe of him.

For a long time none dared open his mouth to question any of his pre∣tences, or reprehend his practices, without being called Heretick, and treated as such.

27. Whereas the Pope had two sorts of Opposites to subdue, temporal Princes and Bishops; his business being to o'ertop Princes, and to enslave all Bishops; or to invade and usurp the rights of both; he used the help of each to compass his designs on the other; by the Authority of Princes oppressing Bishops, and by the assistence of Bishops mating Princes.

28. When any body would not doe as he would have them,* 1.895 he did incessantly clamour or whine, that Saint Peter was injured.

29. The forgery of the Decretal Epistles (wherein the ancient Popes are made expresly to speak and act according to some of his highest pre∣tences, devised long after their times, and which they never thought of, good men) did hugely conduce to his purpose; authorising his en∣croachments by the suffrage of ancient Doctrine and Practice: a great part of his Canon-law is extracted out of these, and grounded on them.

The Donation of Constantine, fictitious Acts of Councils, and the like counterfeit stuff did help thereto; the which were soon embraced, as we see in Pope Gregory II.—

* 1.896As also Legends, Fables of Miracles, and all such deceivableness of un∣righteousness.

30. Popes were so cunning as to form grants, and impute that to Pri∣vileges derived from them, which Princes did enjoy by right or custome.

31. Synods of Bishops called by him at opportune seasons, consisting of his Votaries or Slaves.* 1.897 None dared therein to whisper any thing to the prejudice of his Authority. He carried whatever he pleased to pro∣pose, without check or contradiction. Who dared to question any thing done by such numbers of Pastours styling themselves the Representative of Christendome?

32. The having hampered all the Clergy with strict Oaths of univer∣sal obedience to him (beginning about the times of Pope Gregory VII.) did greatly assure his power.

33. When intolerable oppressions and exactions did constrain Princes to struggle with him, if he could not utterly prevail, things were brought to composition; whereby he was to be sure for that time a gainer, and gained establishment in some Points, leaving the rest to be got afterward in more favourable junctures.

Witness the Concordates between

• Henry II. and P. Alex. III. Anno 1172.
• Edw. III. and P. Greg. XI. Anno 1373.
• Henry V. and P. Mart. V. Anno 1418.

34. When Princes were fain to curb their exorbitances by Pragmati∣cal Sanctions, they were restless till they had got those Sanctions revoked. And when they found weak Princes, or any Prince in circumstances ad∣vantaging their design, they did obtain their end. So Pope Leo X. got Lewis XI. to repeal the Pragmatical Sanctions of his Ancestours.

35. The power he did assume to absolve men from Oaths and Vows, to dispence with prohibited Marriages, &c. did not onely bring much grist to his Mill; but did enable him highly to oblige divers persons (especially great ones) to himself. For to him they owed the quiet of their Conscience from scruples. To him they owed the satisfaction of their desires, and legitimation of their issue, and title to their pos∣sessions.

36. So the device of Indulgences did greatly raise the veneration of him; for who would not adore him, that could loose his bands, and free his Soul from long and grievous pains?—

SUPPOSITION VI. The next Supposition is this, That in Fact the Roman Bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this Sovereign Power.

THIS is a Question of Fact which will best be decided by a par∣ticular consideration of the several Branches of Sovereign Pow∣er, that so we may examine the more distinctly whether in all Ages the Popes have enjoyed and exercised them, or not.

And if we survey the particular Branches of Sovereignty, we shall find that the Pope hath no just title to them, in reason, by valid Law, or according to ancient practice, whence each of them doth yield a good argument against his pretences.

1. If the Pope were Sovereign of the Church, he would have power to convocate its supreme Councils and Judicatories; and would con∣stantly have exercised it.

This power therefore the Pope doth claim; and indeed did pretend to it a long time since,* 1.898 before they could obtain to exercise it: It is ma∣nifestly apparent (saith Pope Leo X. with approba∣tion of his Laterane Synod) that the Roman Bishop for the time being (as who hath authority over all Councils) hath alone the full right and power of in∣dicting, translating and dissolving Councils: and, long before him, To the Apostolical authority (said Pope Adrian I.) by our Lord's command, and by the merits of Saint Peter, and by the decrees of the Ho∣ly Canons and of the Venerable Fathers, a right and special power of convocating Synods hath many-wise been committed; and, yet before him, The autho∣rity (saith Pope Pelagius II.) of convocating Synods hath been delivered to the Apostolical See by the sin∣gular privilege of Saint Peter.

But it is manifest, that the Pope cannot pretend to this power by virtue of any old Ecclesiastical Canon; none such being extant or pro∣duced by him: Nor can he alledge any ancient custome; there having been no General Synod before Constantine: and as to the practice from that time, it is very clear, that for some Ages the Popes did not assume or exercise such a power, and that it was not taken for their due. No∣thing can be more evident, and it were extreme impudence to deny that the Emperours at their pleasure, and by their authority did con∣gregate all the first General Synods; for so the oldest Historians in most express terms do report, so those Princes in their Edicts did aver, so the Synods themselves did declare. The most just and pious Empe∣rours, who did bear greatest love to the Clergy, and had much respect for the Pope, did call them without scruple; it was deemed their right to doe it, none did remonstrate against their practice,

the Fathers in each Synod did refer thereto, with allowance, and com∣monly with applause; Popes themselves did not contest their right, yea commonly did petition them to exercise it.

These things are so clear and so obvious, that it is almost vain to prove them; I shall therefore but touch them.

In general Socrates doth thus attest to the an∣cient practice;* 1.899 We (saith he) do continually in∣clude the Emperours in our history, because upon them, ever since they became Christians, Ecclesiastical af∣fairs have depended, and the greatest Synods have been and are made by their appointment: and Ju∣stinian in his prefatory type to the Fifth General Council beginneth thus:* 1.900 It hath been ever the care of Pious and Orthodox Emperours by the assem∣bling of the most religious Bishops to cut off Heresies, as they did spring up, and by the right faith sincerely preached to keep the Holy Church of God in peace: and to doe this was so proper to the Emperours: that when Ruffin did affirm Saint Hilary to have been excommunica∣ted in a Synod, Saint Hierome to confute him, did ask; tell me, What Emperour did command this Synod to be congregated; implying it to be illegal or impossible that a Sy∣nod should be congregated without the Imperial command.* 1.901

* 1.902Particularly Eusebius saith of the first Christian Emperour, that as a common Bishop appointed by God he did summon Synods of God's Ministers; so did he command a great number of Bishops to meet at Arles, (for decision of the Donatists cause;) so did he also command the Bishops from all quarters to meet at Tyre for examination of the affairs con∣cerning Athanasius; and that he did convocate the great Synod of Nice (the first and most re∣nowned of all General Synods) all the Historians do agree, he did himself affirm, the Fathers thereof in their Synodical remonstrances did avow; as we shall hereafter, in remarking on the passages of that Synod shew.

The same course did his Son Constantius follow, without impedi∣ment; for although he was a favourer of the Arian Party, yet did the Catholick Bishops readily at his call assemble in the great Synods of * 1.903 Sardica, of † 1.904 Ariminum, of ‖ 1.905 Seleucia, of * 1.906 Sirmium, of † 1.907 Milan, &c. Which he out of a great zeal to compose dissentions among the Bishops did convocate.

After him the Emperour Valentinian, understan∣ding of dissensions about divine matters to com∣pose them,* 1.908 did indict a Synod in Illyricum.

A while after, for settlement of the Christian State (which had been greatly disturbed by the Persecution of Julian and of Valens, and by divers Factions,) Theodosius I. did command (saith Theodoret) the Bishops of his Empire to be assembled together at Constantinople;* 1.909 the which meeting ac∣cordingly did make the Second General Synod; in the congregation of which the Pope had so lit∣tle to doe, that Baronius saith,* 1.910 it was celebrated against his will.

Afterwards, when Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, affecting to seem wiser than others in explaining the mystery of Christ's Incarna∣tion, had raised a jangle to the disturbance of the Church, for removing it,* 1.911 the Emperour Theodo∣sius II. did by his edict command the Bishops to meet at Ephesus; who there did celebrate the Third General Council:* 1.912 in the beginning of each Acti∣on it is affirmed, that the Synod was convocated by the Imperial decree; the Synod it self doth often profess it; the Pope's own Legate doth acknowledge it;* 1.913 and so doth Cyril the President thereof.

The same Emperour, upon occasion of Eutyches being condemned at Constantinople, and the stirs thence arising, did indict the Second General Synod of Ephesus, (which proved abortive by the miscari∣ages of Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) as appeareth by his Imperial Letters to Dioscorus, and the other Bishops, sum∣moning them to that Synod:* 1.914 — We have decreed that the most holy Bishops meeting together, &c. Af∣ter the same manner the other most reverend Bishops were written to, to come to the Synod. And as Pope Leo doth confess; calling it the council of Bishops which you (Theodosius) commanded to be held at Ephesus.

The next General Synod of Chalcedon was convo∣cated by the authority of the Emperour Marcian;* 1.915 as is expressed in the beginning of each Action,* 1.916 as the Emperour declareth, as the Synod it self in the front of its definition doth avow; the holy, great and Oecumenical Synod, gather'd together by the grace of God and the command of our most dread Empe∣rours, &c. has determin'd as follows.

* 1.917The Fifth General Synod was also congregated by the authority of Justinian I. and the Emperour's Letter authorizing it,* 1.918 beginneth (as we saw before) with an Assertion (backed with a particular enumeration) that all former great Synods were called by the same power: the Fathers themselves do say, that they had come together ac∣cording to the will of God,* 1.919 and the command of the most pious Emperour. So little had the Pope to doe in it, that, as Baronius himself telleth us, it was con∣gregated against his will, or with his resistence.

The Sixth General Synod at Constantinople was also indicted by the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus; as doth appear by his Letters, as is intimated at the entrance of each Action, as the Synod doth acknow∣ledge, as Pope Leo II. (in whose time it was concluded) doth affirm. The Synod in its definition, as also in its Epistle to Pope Agatho doth inscribe it self The Holy and Oecumenical Synod,* 1.920 congregated by the grace of God, and the altogether religious Sanction of the most pi∣ous, and most faithfull great Emperour Constantine; and, in their definition they say, By this doctrine of peace dictated by God, our most gracious Emperour through the divine wisedom being guided, as a defen∣der of the true faith, and an enemy to the false, ha∣ving gather'd us together in this holy and Oecu∣menical Synod, has united the whole frame of the Church, &c. In its acclamatory Oration to the Emperour it saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.921 &c. Act. 18. p. 271. We all acquiescing in your most sacred commands; both the most holy Presi∣dent of (Rome) the most ancient and Apostolical city, and we the least, &c.

These are all the great Synods, which posterity with clear consent did admit as General; for the next two have been disclaimed by great Churches (the Seventh by most of the Western Churches, the Eighth by the Eastern) so that even ‖ 1.922 divers Popes after them did not reckon them for general Councils; and all the rest have been onely Assemblies of Western Bishops, celebrated after the breach between the Oriental and Occidental Churches.

Yet even that Second Synod of Nice, which is called the Se∣venth Synod, doth avow it self to have convened by the Emperour's com∣mand;* 1.923 and in the front of each Action, as also of their Synodical defi∣nition, the same style is retained.

Hitherto it is evident, that all General Synods were convocated by the Imperial authority; and about this matter divers things are observable.

It is observable in how peremptory a manner the Emperours did require the Bishops to convene at the time and place appointed by

them. Constantine in his Letter indicting the Sy∣nod of Tyre hath these words;* 1.924 If any one presu∣ming to violate our command and sense, &c.

Theodosius II. summoneth the Bishops to the Ephesine Synod in these terms;* 1.925 We taking a great deal of care about these things will not suffer any one if he be absent to go unpunish'd; nor shall he find excuse either with God or us, who presently without delay does not by the time set, appear in the place appointed.

In like terms did he call them to the Second Ephesine Synod; If a∣ny one shall chuse to neglect meeting in a Synod so necessary and gratefull to God,* 1.926 and by the set time do not with all diligence appear in the place appointed, he shall find no excuse, &c.

Marcian thus indicteth the Synod of Nice (after by him translated to Chalcedon) It properly seemeth good to our clemency that an holy Synod meet in the city of Nice, in the Province of Bithynia.* 1.927

Again we may observe, that in the Imperial Edicts or Epistles where∣by Councils effectually were convened, there is nothing signified con∣cerning the Pope's having any authority to call them; it is not as by licence from the Pope's Holiness, but in their own Name and Authority they Act: which were very strange if the Popes had any plea then commonly approved for such a power.

As commonly Emperours did call Synods by the suggestion of other Bishops* 1.928, so again, there be divers instances of Popes applying themselves to the Emperours with petitions to indict Synods; wherein sometimes they prevailed, sometimes they were disappointed: so Pope Liberius did request of Constantius to indict a Synod for deci∣ding the cause of Athanasius; Ecclesiastical judg∣ments (said he,* 1.929 as Theodoret reports) should be made with great equity; wherefore if it please your piety, command a Judicatory to be constituted; and in his Epistle to Hosius, produced by Baronius, he saith, Many Bishops out of Italy met together,* 1.930 who together with me had beseecht the most Religious Em∣perour, that he would command, as he had thought fit, the Council of Aquileia to meet.

So Pope Damasus, having a desire that a General Synod should be celebrated in Italy for repressing Heresies and Factions then in the Church, did obtain the Imperial Letters for that purpose directed to the Eastern Bishops; as they in their Epistle to the Western Bishops do intimate:* 1.931 But because ex∣pressing a brotherly affection toward us, ye have cal∣led us as your own members by the most pious Empe∣rour's Letters to that Synod which by the will of God ye are gathering at Rome.

* 1.932It is a wonder that Bellarmine should have the confidence to al∣ledge this passage for himself.

So again Pope Innocent I. being desirous to restore Saint Chrysostome, did (as Sozomen telleth us) send five Bishops and two Priests of the Ro∣man Church to Honorius and to Arcadius the Empe∣rour,* 1.933 requesting a Synod, with the time and the place thereof; in which attempt he suffered a repulse; for the Courtiers of Arcadius did repell those A∣gents, as troubling another government, which was beyond their bounds, or wherein the Pope had no∣thing to doe, that they knew of.

* 1.934So also Pope Leo I. (whom no Pope could well exceed in zeal to maintain the Privileges, and advance the eminence of his See) did in these terms request Theodosius to indict a Synod; whence if your piety shall vouchsafe consent to our suggestion and supplication, that you would command an Episco∣pal Council to be held in Italy; soon, God aiding, may all scandals be cut off: upon this occasion the Emperour did appoint a Council (not in Italy according to the Pope's desire, but) at Ephesus; the which not succeeding well,* 1.935 Pope Leo again did address to Theodosius in these words, All the Churches of our parts, all Bishops with groans and tears do supplicate your Grace, that you would command a General Synod to be celebrated within Italy; to which request (al∣though back'd with the desire of the Western Em∣perour) Theodosius would by no means consent;* 1.936 for, as Leontius reporteth, when Valentinian being importuned by Pope Leo, did write to Theodosius II. that he would procure another Synod to be held for examining whether Dioscorus had judged rightly or no, Theodosius did write back to him saying, I shall make no other Synod.

The same Pope did again of the same Emperour petition for a Synod to examin the cause of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople: Let your cle∣mency (saith he) be pleased to grant an Vniversal Council to be held in Italy; as with me the Synod, which for this cause did meet at Rome, doth request: Thus did that Pope continually harp upon one string to get a General Synod to be celebrated at his own doors; but never could obtain his purpose, the Emperour being stiff in refusing it.

The same Pope, with better success, (as * 1.937 to the thing, though not as to the place) did request of the Emperour Marcian a Synod; for he (con∣curring in opinion that it was needfull) did (saith Liberatus) at the petition of the Pope and the Roman Princes command a General Council to be congregated at Nice.

Now, if the Pope had himself a known right to convocate Synods, what needed all this application, or this supplication to the Emperours? would not the Pope have endeavoured to exercise his Authority? would he not have clamoured or whined at any interruption thereof? would so spiritfull and sturdy a Pope as Leo * 1.938 have begged that to be done by another, which he had authority to doe of himself, when he did appre∣hend so great necessity for it, and was so much provoked thereto? would he not at least have remonstrated against the injury therein done to him by Theodosius?

All that this daring Pope could adventure at, was to wind in a pre∣tence that the Synod of Chalcedon was congregated by his consent; for, it hath been the pleasure (of whom I pray) that a General Council should be congregated,* 1.939 both by the command of the Christian Princes, and with the con∣sent of the Apostolick See, saith he very cunningly; yet not so cunningly, but that any other Bishop might have said the same for his See.

This power indeed upon many just accounts peculiarly doth belong to Princes: It suteth to the dignity of their state, it appertaineth to their duty, they are most able to discharge it. They are the Guardians of publick tranquillity, which constantly is endangered, which common∣ly is violated by dissensions in religious matters; (whence we must pray for them,* 1.940 that by their care we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,) they alone can authorize their Subjects to take such Journeys, or to meet in such Assemblies; they alone can well cause the expences needfull for holding Synods to de exacted and defrayed; they alone can protect them, can maintain Order and Peace in them, can procure Observance to their Determinations; they alone have a Sword to constrain resty and refractory persons (and in no cases are men so apt to be such as in debates about these matters) to convene, to confer peaceably, to agree, to observe what is settled: They,* 1.941 as nursing Fathers of the Church, as Ministers of God's Kingdom, as encouragers of good works; as the Stewards of God, entrusted with the great Talents of Power, Dignity, Wealth, enabling them to serve God, are obliged to cause Bishops in such cases to perform their duty; according to the ex∣ample of good Princes in Holy Scripture, who are commended for pro∣ceedings of this nature; for so King Josias did convocate a General Sy∣nod of the Church in his time, then (saith the Text) the King sent,* 1.942 and gathered together all the Elders of Judah and Jerusalem; In this Synod he presided, standing in his place; and making a covenant before the Lord; its Resolutions he confirmed, causing all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to that Covenant; and he took care of their Exe∣cution, making all present in Israel effectually to serve the Lord their God.

So also did King Hezekiah gather the Priests and Levites together,* 1.943 did warn, did command them to doe their duty, and reform things in the Church: My Sons (said he) be not now negligent, for the Lord hath cho∣sen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that ye should minister unto him, and burn incense.

Beside them none other can have reasonable pretence to such a Power, or can well be deemed able to manage it: so great an Authority can∣not be exercised upon the Subjects of any Prince without eclipsing his

Majesty, infringing his natural right, and endangering his State. He that at his pleasure can summon all Christian Pastours, and make them trot about, and hold them when he will, is in effect Emperour, or in a fair way to make himself so. It is not fit therefore that any other per∣son should have all the Governours of the Church at his beck, so as to draw them from remote places whither he pleaseth; to put them on long and chargeable Journeys; to detain them from their charge; to set them on what deliberations and debates he thinketh good. It is not reasonable that any one without the leave of Princes should autho∣rize so great conventions of men, having such interest and sway; it is not safe, that any one should have such dependencies on him, by which he may be tempted to clash with Princes, and withdraw his Sub∣jects from their due obedience. Neither can any success be well ex∣pected from the use of such Authority by any, who hath not Power, by which he can force Bishops to convene, to resolve, to obey; whence we see that Constantine, who was a Prince so gentle and friendly to the Clergy, was put to threaten those Bishops, who would absent them∣selves from the Synod indicted by him at Tyre; and Theodosius (also a very mild and religious Prince) did the like in his summoning the two Ephesine Sy∣nods.* 1.944 We likewise may observe, that when the Pope and Western Bishops, in a Synodical Epistle, did invite those of the East to a great Synod indicted at Rome,* 1.945 these did refuse the journey, alledging that it would be to no good purpose; so also when the Western Bishops did call those of the East,* 1.946 for re∣solving the difference between Flavianus and Pau∣linus, both pretending to be Bishops of Antioch, what effect had their summons? and so will they always or often be ready to say, who are called at the pleasure of those who want force to constrain them; so that such Authority in unarmed hands (and God keep Arms out of a Pope's hands) will be onely a source of discords.

Either the Pope is a Subject, as he was in the first times, and then it were too great a presumption for him to claim such a power over his fellow-Subjects in prejudice to his Sovereign; (nor indeed did he pre∣sume so far, untill he had in a manner shaken off subjection to the Em∣perour) or he is not a Subject; and then it is not reasonable that he should have such power in the Territories of another Prince.

The whole business of General Synods, was an expedient for Peace, contrived by Emperours, and so to be regulated by their order. Hence even in times and places where the Pope was most reverenced, yet Princes were jealous of suffering the Pope to exer∣cise such a power over the Bishops their Subjects;* 1.947 and to obviate it, did command all Bishops not to stir out of their Territories without licence; par∣ticularly our own Nation,* 1.948 in the Council at Cla∣rendon, where it was decreed, that they should not go out of the Kingdom without the King's leave.

To some things above said, a passage may be objected which occur∣reth in the acclamation of the Sixth Synod to the Emperour Constantine

Pogonatus; wherein 'tis said, that Constantine and Sylvester did collect the Synod of Nice,* 1.949 Theodosi∣us I. and Damasus (together with Gregory and Necta∣rius) the Synod of Constantinople; Theodosius II. with Celestine and Cyril the Ephesine Synod, and so of the rest: To which I answer, that the Fa∣thers mean onely for the Honour of those Prelates to signifie, that they in their places and ways did concur and co-operate to the celebration of those Synods; otherwise we might as to matter of Fact and History contest the accurateness of their relation; and 'tis observable, that they joyn other great Bishops then flourishing, with the Popes; so that if their suffrage prove any thing, it proveth more than our Adversaries would have, viz. that all great Bishops and Patriarchs have a power or right to convocate Synods.

As for passages alledged by our Adversaries, that no Synod could be called, or Ecclesiastical Law enacted, without consent of the Pope, they are no-wise pertinent to this question; for we do not deny that the Pope had a right to sit in every General Synod; and e∣very other Patriarch at least had no less; as all reason and practice do shew;* 1.950 and as they of the Seventh Synod do suppose, arguing the Synod of Constantinople, which condemned the Worship of Images, to be no General Council, because it had not the Pope's co-operation, nor the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs. Syncellus the Patriarch of Jerusalem's Legate in the Eighth Synod, says, for this reason did the Holy Spirit set up Patriarchs in the World, that they might suppress Scandals arising in the Church of God: And Photius is in the same Synod told that the judgment past a∣gainst him was most equal and impartial, as pro∣ceeding not from one but all the four Patri∣archs.

That a General Synod doth not need a Pope to call it, or preside in it, appeareth by what the Synods of Pisa and Constance define,* 1.951 for provision in time of Schisms.

II. It inseparably doth belong to Sovereigns in the General as∣semblies of their States to preside, and moderate affairs; proposing what they judge fit to be consulted or debated; stopping what seemeth unfit to be moved; keeping proceedings within order and rule, and steering them to a good issue; checking disorders and ir∣regularities, which the distemper or indiscretion of any persons may create in deliberations or disputes.

This privilege therefore the Pope doth claim; not allowing a∣ny General Council to be legitimate, wherein he in person, or by his Legates, doth not preside and sway. All Ca∣tholicks, says Bellarmine,* 1.952 teach this to be the chief Pontif's proper Office, that either in person or by his Legate he preside, and as a chief Judge mode∣rate all.

But for this prerogative no express Grant from God, no ancient Canon of the Church, no certain Custom can be produced.

Nor doth ancient practice favour the Pope's claim to such a Prerogative, it appearing that he did not exercise it in the first General Synods.

* 1.953Saint Peter himself did not preside in the Apostolical Synod at Jeru∣salem, where he was present; but rather Saint James, as we before have shewed.

In all the first Synods, convocated by Emperours, they did either themselves in person, or by honourable persons authorized by them, in effect preside, governing the proceedings.

In the Synod of Nice Constantine was the chief Manager, Dire∣cter, and Moderatour of the Transactions; and under him other chief Bishops did preside;* 1.954 but that the Pope's Legates had any considera∣rable influence or sway there doth by no evidence appear; as we shall hereafter out of History declare.

In the Synod of Sardica, (which in design was a General Coun∣cil, but in effect did not prove so, being divided by a Schism in∣to two great parts) Hosius Bishop of Corduba did preside, (or by reason of his age and venerable worth) had the first place assigned to him, and bore the Office of Proloquutor; so the Synod it self doth imply; All we Bishops (say they in their Catholick Epistle) meeting together,* 1.955 and especial∣ly the most ancient Hosius, who for his age, and for his confession, and for that he hath undergone so much pains, is worthy all reverence; so Athanasius expresly doth call him; The holy Synod (saith he) the Proloquutor of which was the great Hosius, pre∣sently sent to them, &c. The Canons of the Sy∣nod intimate the same, wherein he proposeth matters, and asketh the pleasure of the Synod; the same is confirmed by the subscriptions of their General Epistle; wherein he is set before Pope Julius himself. (Hosius from Spain, Julius of Rome, by the Presbyters Archidamus, and Philoxenus.) In this all Ecclesiastical Histories do agree; none spea∣king of the Pope's presiding there by his Legates.

* 1.956In the Second General Synod at Constantinople the Pope had plainly no stroke; the Oriental Bishops alone did there resolve on matters, being headed by their Patriarchs; (of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) as Sozomen saith; being guided by Nectarius and Saint Gregory Nazianzene, as the Council of Chalcedon in its Epistle to the Emperour doth aver.

* 1.957In the third General Synod at Ephesus, Cyril Bishop of Alexan∣dria did preside; as Pope Leo himself doth testifie; he is called the Head of it, in the Acts.

We may note,* 1.958 that the Bishop of the place where the Synod is held, did bear a kind of presidency in all Synods; so did Saint James Bishop of Jerusalem in the First Synod, as St. Chrysostome noteth; so did Protogenes at Sardica, and Nectarius at Constantinople, and Memnon in this of Ephesus. —

It is true, that according to the Acts of that Synod, and the re∣ports of divers Historians, Pope Celestine (according to a new poli∣tick device of Popes) did authorize Cyril to represent his person, and act as his Proctour in those affairs; assigning to him (as he saith) jointly both the authority of his throne (that is, his right of vo∣ting) and the order of his place (the first place in sitting;) but it is not consequent thence, that Cyril upon that sole account did pre∣side in the Synod. He thereby had the dispo∣sal of one so considerable suffrage,* 1.959 or a legal con∣currence of the Pope with him in his actings; He thereby might pretend to the first place of sitting and subscribing (which kind of advanta∣ges it appeareth that some Bishops had in Sy∣nods by the virtue of the like substitution in the place of others) but he thence could have no authoritative Presidency; for that the Pope himself could by no delegation impart, having himself no ti∣tle thereto, warranted by any Law, or by any Precedent; that de∣pended on the Emperour's will, or on the Election of the Fathers, or on a tacit regard to personal eminence in comparison to others present: This distinction Evagrius seemeth to in∣timate, when he saith, that the divine Cyril did administer it,* 1.960 and the place of Celestine (where a word seemeth to have fallen out) and Zona∣ras more plainly doth express; saying, that Cy∣ril Pope of Alexandria did preside over the Ortho∣dox Fathers,* 1.961 and also did hold the place of Ce∣lestine: and Photius; Cyril did supply the seat, and the person of Celestine. If any latter Histori∣ons do confound these things, we are not o∣bliged to comply with their ignorance or mi∣stake.

Indeed as to Presidency there we may observe,* 1.962 that sometime it is attributed to Cyril alone, as being the first Bishop present, and bearing a great sway; sometimes to Pope Celestine, as being in representation present, and being the first Bishop of the Church in Order; sometimes to both Cyril and Celestine; sometimes to Cy∣ril and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, who as being very active, and having great influence on the proceedings, are styled the Presi∣dents and Rulers of the Synod. The which sheweth, that Presiden∣cy was a lax thing, and no peculiarity in right or usage annexed to the Pope; nor did altogether depend on his grant or represen∣tation, to which Memnon had no title.

* 1.963The Pope himself and his Legats are divers times in the Acts said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to sit together with the Bishops; which confidence doth not well comport with his special right to Presidency.

Yea it is observable, that the Oriental Bishops, which with John of Antioch did oppose the Cyrillian Party in that Synod, did charge on Cyril, that he, (as if he lived in a time of Anar∣chy) did proceed to all irregularity;* 1.964 and that, snatch∣ing to himself the Authority, which neither was gi∣ven him by the Canons, nor by the Emperours Sancti∣ons, did rush on to all kind of disorder, and unlawful∣ness; whence it is evident, that in the judgment of those Bishops, (among whom * 1.965 were divers worthy and excellent persons) the Pope had no right to any authoritative Presidency.

This word Presidency indeed hath an ambiguity, apt to impose on those, who do not observe it; for it may be taken for a pri∣vilege of Precedence, or for Authority to govern things; the first kind of presidence the Pope without dispute, when present at a Synod,* 1.966 would have had a∣mong the Bishops (as being the Bishop of the first See, as the Sixth Synod calleth him; and the first of Priests, as Justinian called him) and in his ab∣sence his Legates might take up his Chair (for in General Synods each See had its Chair assigned to it, according to its order of dignity by custom.) And according to this sense the Patriarchs, and chief Metropolitans are also often (singly or conjunctly) said to pre∣side: as sitting in one of the first Chairs.

But the other kind of Presidency was (as those Bishops in their complaint against Cyril do imply, and as we shall See in practice) disposed by the Emperour, as he saw reason; although usually it was conferred on him, who among those present, in dignity did precede the rest: this is that authority, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Syrian Bishops complained against Cyril for assuming to himself, without the Emperour's warrant; and whereof we have a notable Instance in the next General Synod at Ephesus. For,

In the Second Ephesine Synod, (which in design was a General Synod, lawfully convened, for a publick cause of determining truth, and settling peace in the Church; but which by some miscarriages proved abortive:) although the Pope had his Legates there,* 1.967 yet by the Emperour's order Di∣oscorus Bishop of Alexandria did preside, We (said Theodosius in his Epistle to him) do also commit to thy godliness the authority, and the preeminency of all things appertaining to the Synod now assembled; and in the Synod of Chalcedon it is said of him, that he had received the authority of all affairs, and of judgment; and Pope Leo I. in this Epistle to the Emperour saith, that Dioscorus did challenge to him∣self the principal place; (insinuating a complaint,

that Dioscorus should be preferred before him, although not openly contesting his right.)

The Emperour had indeed some reason not to commit the Pre∣sidency to Pope Leo, because he was looked upon as prejudiced in the cause, having declared in favour of Flavianus, against Eutyches; whence Eutyches declined his Legate's interessing in the judgment of his cause, saying,* 1.968 they were suspected to him, because they were entertained by Flavianus with great regard. And Dioscorus, being Bishop of the next See, was taken for more indifferent, and other∣wise a person (however afterward it proved) of much integrity and moderation; He did (saith the Emperour) shine, by the grace of God, both in honesty of life,* 1.969 and orthodoxy of faith; and Theodoret himself, before those differences arose, doth say of him, that he was by common fame reported a man adorned with many other kinds of vertue, and that especially he was celebrated for his moderation of mind.

It is true, that the Legates of Pope Leo did take in dudgeon this preferment of Dioscorus; and (if we may give credence to Liberatus) would not sit down in the Synod,* 1.970 because the presession was not given to their Holy See; and afterwards in the Synod of Chalcedon the Pope's Legate Paschasinus (together with other Bishops) did complain,* 1.971 that Diosco∣rus was preferred before the Bishop of Constanti∣nople; but notwithstanding those ineffectual mu∣tinies, the Emperour's will did take place, and according thereto Dioscorus had, (although he did not use it so wisely and justly as he should) the chief managery of things.

It is to be observed, that to other chief Bishops the Presidency in that Synod is also ascribed, by virtue of the Emperour's appoint∣ment; Let the most reverend Bishops (say the Imperial Commissaries in the Synod of Chalcedon) to whom the authoritative management of affairs was by the Royal Sovereignty granted,* 1.972 speak why the Epistle of the most Holy Archbishop Leo was not read: and,* 1.973 You (say they again) to whom the pow∣er of judging was given; and of Dioscorus, Juvenalis (Bishop of Jerusalem) Thalassius (of Caesarea) Euse∣bius (of Ancyra) Eustathius (of Beristus) Basilius (of Selencia) it is by the same Commissioners said that they had recieved the authority, and did govern the Synod which was then; and Elpidius, the Empe∣rour's Agent in the Ephesine Synod it self did ex∣presly style them Presidents; and Pope Leo himself calleth them Presidents and Primates of the Synod.

Whence it appeareth, that at that time, according to common opinion and practice, authoritative Presidency was not affixed to the Roman Chair.* 1.974

In the Synod of Chalcedon Pope Leo did in∣deed assume to himself a kind of Presidency by

his Legates; and no wonder that a man of a stout and ardent Spirit (impregnated with high conceits of his See,* 1.975 and resolved with all his might to advance its interests, as his Legates themselves did in effect declare to the world) should doe so; having so favourable a time, by the misbehaviour of Dioscorus and his adherents; against whom the Clergy of Constantinople, and other Fathers of the Synod being incensed were ready to comply with Leo (who had been the Champion and Patron of their Cause) in allowing him extraordinary respect, and whatever advantages he could pretend to.

Yet in effect the Emperour by his Commissioners did preside there; they propounding and allowing matters to be discussed;* 1.976 moderating debates by their interlocution and driving them to an issue, maintain∣ing order and quiet in proceedings; performing those things, which the Pope's Legates at Trent, or otherwhere in the height of his power did undertake.

To them supplicatory addresses were made for succour and redress by persons needing it; (as for instance) Com∣mand (said Eusebius of Dorylaeum) that my suppli∣cations may be read.* 1.977

Of them leave is requested for time to deliberate; Command (saith Atticus in behalf of other Bishops) that respite be given,* 1.978 so that within a few days, with a calm mind, and undisturbed reason, those things may be formed which shall be pleasing to God and the Holy Fa∣thers.

Accordingly, they order the time for consul∣tation;* 1.979 Let (said they) the hearing be deferred for five days, that in the mean time your Ho∣liness may meet at the house of the most Holy Archbishop Anatolius, and deliberate in common a∣bout the faith, that the doubtfull may be instructed.

They were acknowledged Judges; and had thanks given them for the issue by persons concerned; I (said Eu∣nomius Bishop of Nicomedia) do thank your Ho∣nour for your right judgment.* 1.980 And in the cause between Stephanus and Bassianus concerning their title to the Bishoprick of Ephesus;* 1.981 they having declared their sense, the Holy Synod cryed, this is right judgment; Christ hath decided the case, God judgeth by you: And in the result, upon their de∣claring their opinion; the whole Synod exclaimed, This is a right judgment, this is a pious order.

When the Bishops, transported with eagerness and passion, did tumultuously clamour, they gravely did check them,* 1.982 saying, These vulgar exclamations nei∣ther become Bishops, nor shall advantage the par∣ties.

In the great contest about the privileges of the Constantinopolitan See, they did arbitrate and decide the matter,* 1.983 even against the sense and endeavours of the Pope's

Legates;* 1.984 the whole Synod concurring with them in these acclamations; this is a right sentence, we all say these things, these things please us all, things are duely ordered; let 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things ordered be held.

The Pope's Legates themselves did avow this authority in them; for, If (said Paschasinus,* 1.985 in the case of the Egyptian Bishops) your authority doth command, and ye injoin that somewhat of huma∣nity be granted to them, &c.

And in another case, If, said the Bishops,* 1.986 sup∣plying the place of the Apostolical See, your Ho∣nours do command, we have an information to sug∣gest.

Neither is the Presidency of these Roman Legates expressed in the Conciliar Acts; but they are barely said * 1.987 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to concur) and † 1.988 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to sit together) with the other Fathers; and according∣ly although they sometimes talked high, yet it is not observable that they did much there; their Presidency was nothing like that at Trent, and in other like Papal Synods. It may be noted, that the Emperour's Deputies are always named in the first place, at the en∣trance of the Acts, before the Pope's Legates, so that they who di∣rected the Notaries were not Popish. In effect the Emperour was President, though not as a Judge of Spiritual matters, yet as an Or∣derer of the Conciliar transactions; as the Sy∣nod doth report it to Leo; the faithfull Empe∣rours (said they) did preside,* 1.989 (or govern it) for good order sake.

In the Fifth General Synod, Pope Vigilius indeed was moved to be present, and (in his way) to preside; but he out of state or policy declined it; wherefore the Patriarch of Constan∣tinople was the Ecclesiastical President,* 1.990 as in the beginning of every Collation doth appear; whence clearly we may infer that the Pope's Presidency is no-wise necessary to the being of a General Council.

In the Sixth General Synod the Emperour in each Act is expesly said to preside,* 1.991 in person or by his Deputies; although P. Agatho had his Le∣gates there.

In the Synod of Constance sometimes the Cardinal of Cambray, sometimes of Hostia did preside (by order of the Synod it self) and sometime the King of the Ro∣mans did supply that place;* 1.992 so little essential was the Pope's Presidency to a Council deemed even then, when Papal authority had mounted to so high a pitch.

Nor is there good reason why the Pope should have this privilege, or why this Prerogative should be affixed to any one See; so that (if there be cause; as if the Pope be unfit, or less fit; if Princes, or the Church cannot confide in him; if he be suspected of preju∣dice or partiality; if he be party in causes or controversies to be decided; if he do himself need correction) Princes may not assign,

or the Church with allowance of Princes may not chuse any other President, more proper in their judgment for that charge; in such cases the publick welfare of Church and State is to be regarded.

Were an Erroneous Pope (as Vigilius or H••••orius) fit to govern a Council, gathered to consult about defining Truth in the matter of their Errour?

Where a Lewd Pope (as Alexander VI, John XII, Paul III, innu∣merable such, scandalously vitious) worthy to preside in a Synod convocated to prescribe strict Laws of Reformation?

Were a Furious, Pugnacious Pope (as Julius II —) apt to mo∣derate an Assembly drawn together for settlement of Peace?

Were a Pope engaged in Schism (as many have been) a proper Moderatour of a Council, designed to suppress Schism?

Were a Gregory VII, or an Innocent IV, or a Boniface VIII, an al∣lowable manager any where of Controversies about the Papal Au∣thority?

Were now indeed any Pope fit to preside in any Council, wherein the Reformation of the Church is concerned, it being notorious that Popes as such do most need Reformation, that they are the great obstructours of it, that all Christendom hath a long time a Con∣troversie with them for their detaining it in bondage?

In this and many other cases we may reject their Presidency, as implying iniquity; according to the Rule of an old Pope; I would know of them where they would have that judgment they pretend,* 1.993 examin'd, what by themselves, that the same may be adversaries, witnesses and judges? to such judgment as this even humane affairs are not to be trusted, much less the integrity of the divine Law.

It is not reasonable that any person should have such a Preroga∣tive which would be an engine of mischief: for thereby (bearing sway in general Assemblies of Bishops) he would be enabled and irresi∣stibly tempted to domineer over the world, to abuse Princes, and dis∣turb States; to oppress and enslave the Church; to obstruct all Re∣formation;* 1.994 to enact Laws; to promote and establish Errours ser∣viceable to his Interest: the which effects of such power exercised by him in the Synod of Trent, and in divers other of the later Gene∣ral Synods, experience hath declared.

III. If the Pope were Sovereign of the Church, the Legislative power wholly or in part would belong to him; so far at least, that no Synod, or Ecclesiastical Consistory could without his consent determine or prescribe any thing; His approbation would be re∣quired to give life and validity to their Decrees; He should at least have a negative, so that nothing might pass against his will: This is a most essential ingredient of Sovereignty; and is therefore claim∣ed by the Pope, who long hath pretended that no Decrees of Sy∣nods are valid without his consent, and confirmation.

But the Decrees made by the Holy Popes of the chief See of the Roman Church,* 1.995 by whose authority and sancti∣on all Synods and holy Councils are strengthened and e∣stablished, why do you say, that you do not receive and observe them?

Lastly,* 1.996 as you know nothing is accounted valid or to be receiv'd in universal Councils but what the See of Saint Peter has approv'd: so on the other side whatever she alone has rejected, that onely is re∣jected.

We never read of any Synod that was valid,* 1.997 unless it were confirm'd by the Apostolick authority.

We trust no true Christian is now ignorant that no See is above all the rest more oblig'd to observe the Constitution of each Council which the consent of the universal Church hath approv'd, than the prime See which by its authority confirms every Synod, and by continued moderating preserves them according to its principality, &c.

But this pretence, as it hath no ground in the Divine Law, or in any old Canon, or in primi∣tive Custom; so it doth cross the sentiments and practice of Antiquity; for that in ancient Synods divers things were ordained without the Pope's consent, divers things against his pleasure.

What particular or formal confirmation did Saint Peter yield to the Assembly at Jerusalem?

That in some of the first General Synods he was not apprehen∣ded to have any negative voice, is by the very tenour and air of things, or by the little regard expressed toward him, sufficiently clear. There is not in the Synodical Epistles of Nice, or of Sardica any mention of his confirmation.

Interpretatively all those Decrees may be supposed to pass with∣out his consent, which do thwart these pretences; for if these are now good, then of old they were known and admitted for such; and being such we cannot suppose the Pope willingly to have con∣sented in derogation to them.

Wherefore the Nicene Canons establishing Ecclesiastical admini∣strations without regard to him, and in authority equalling other Metropolitans with him, may be supposed to pass without his consent.

The Canons of the Second General Council, and of all others confirming those;* 1.998 as also the Canons of all Synods, which advanced the See of Constantinople, his Rival for Authority, above its former state, first to a proximity in Order, then to an equality of Privileges with the See of Rome, may, as plainly contrary to his interest and spirit, be supposed to pass without his consent; And so divers Popes have affirmed; if we may believe Pope Leo, (as I suppose) the Canons of the Second Council were not transmitted to Rome; they did therefore pass, and obtain in practice of the Catholick Church, without its consent or knowledge. Pope Gregory I. saith, that the Roman Church did not admit them,* 1.999 wherein it plainly discorded with the Catholick Church, which with all reverence did receive and hold them; and in despight to the Canon of that

Synod, advancing the Royal City to that emi∣nency,* 1.1000 Pope Gelasius I. would not admit it for so much as a Metropolitan See; O proud insolency, O contentious frowardness, O rebellious contu∣macy against the Catholick Church and its peace! (Such was the humour of that See, to allow nothing which did not sute with the interest of its Ambi∣tion.)

But farther, divers Synodical Decrees did pass expresly against the Pope's mind and will: I pass over those at Tyre, at Antioch, at Arimi∣num, at Constantinople, in divers places of the East (the which do yet evince that commonly there was no such Opinion entertained of this privilege belonging to the Pope) and shall instance onely in Ge∣neral Synods.

* 1.1001In the Synod of Chalcedon equal privileges were assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople, as the Bishop of Rome had; this with a ge∣neral concurrence was decreed and subscribed; although the Pope's Le∣gates did earnestly resist, clamour and protest against it; The Imperi∣al Commissioners, and all the Bishops not understanding, or not al∣lowing the Pope's negative voice.

And whereas Pope Leo (moved with a jealousie, that he who thus had obtained an equal rank with him, should aspire to get above him) did fiercely dispute,* 1.1002 exclaim, inveigh, menace against this Order, striving to defeat it, pretending to annull it, labouring to depress the Bishop of Constantinople from that degree, which both himself, and his Legates in the Synod had acknowledged due to him: In which endea∣vour divers of his Successours did imitate him;* 1.1003 Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, said, I have willingly subscrib'd, because I have read this Canon to the most holy Pope of Rome, the Clergy of Constantinople be∣ing present, and he receiv'd it.

Yet could not he or they accomplish their design; the veneration of that Synod and consent of Christendom overbearing their oppositi∣on; the Bishop of Constantinople sitting in all the succeeding General Synods in the second place, without any contrast; so that at length Popes were fain to acquiesce in the Bishop of Constantinople's possession of the second place in dignity among the Patriarchs.

* 1.1004In the Fifth General Synod Pope Vigilius did make a Constitution, in most express terms prohibiting the condemnation of the three Chapters (as they are called) and the anathematization of persons deceas∣ed in peace of the Church; We dare not our selves, says he, condemn Theodorus, neither do we yield to have him condemn'd by any other: and in the same Constitution he orders and decrees, That nothing be said or done by any to the injury or discredit of Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, a man most approv'd in the Synod of Chalcedon; and the same, says he, have the Decrees of the Apostolical See determined, that no man

pass a new judgment upon persons dead, but leave them as death found them. Lastly by that Constitution he specially provides that (as he had before said) nothing might be derogated from persons dying in the peace and communion of the universal Church, by his condemning that perverse opinion.

Yet did the Synod (in smart terms reflecting on the Pope,* 1.1005 and giving him the lie, not regarding his opinion or authority) decree, that persons deceased were liable to be anathematized; they did anathematize Theodorus, they did expresly condemn each of the Chapters; they threatned deposition or excommunication on who∣ever should oppose their Constitutions; * 1.1006 they anathematize who∣ever doth not anathematize Theodorus.

But Pope Vigilius did refuse to approve their Doctrine and Sen∣tence; and therefore (which was the case of many other Bishops,* 1.1007 * 1.1008 as Baronius himself doth confess and argue) was driven into ba∣nishment; wherein he did expire.

Yet posterity hath embraced this Synod as a legitimate and valid General Synod; and the Popes following did profess the highest reverence thereto,* 1.1009 equally with the preceding General Synods: so little necessary is the Pope's consent or concurrence to the validity of Synodical definitions.

Upon this Baronius hath an admirable reflexi∣on: Here stay (saith he) O Reader,* 1.1010 and consider the matter attently (Ay, do so I pray) That it is no new thing, that some Synod, in which the Pope was not even present by his Legates, but did op∣pose it, should yet obtain the title of an Oecumeni∣cal Synod; whenas afterward the Pope's will did come in, that it should obtain such a title.

So in the opinion of this Doctour, the Pope can easily change the nature of things, and make that become a General Synod which once was none; yea which, as it was held,* 1.1011 did not deserve the name of any Synod at all. O the virtue of Papal Magick! or rather O the Impudence of Papal Advocates!

The Canons of the sixth General Council, exhibited by the Trullane (or Quinisext) Synod clearly and expresly do condemn several Doc∣trines and Practices of Rome;* 1.1012 I ask whether the Pope did confirm them? they will to be sure, as they are con∣cerned to do,* 1.1013 answer No: and indeed Pope Ser∣gius, as Anastasius in his Life reporteth, did refuse them; yet did they pass for legitimate in the whole Church; for in their general Synod (the second Nicene) with∣out contradiction, one of them is alledged (out of the very ori∣ginal paper, wherein the Fathers had subscri∣bed) as a Canon of the Holy General Sixth Sy∣nod;* 1.1014 and avowed for such by the Patriarch Ta∣rasius,* 1.1015 both in way of argument of defence and of profession in his Synodical Epistle to the Pa∣triarchs;* 1.1016 (where he saith, that together with the divine doctrines of the Sixth Synod he doth also embrace the Canons enacted by it;) of which Epistle Pope Adrian in his Answer thereto doth recite a part containing those words, and * 1.1017 * 1.1018 ap∣plaud it for Orthodox; signifying no offence at his embracing the Trullane Canons. And all those 102 Canons are again avowed by the Synod in their Antithesis to the Synod of Constantinople. In fine,* 1.1019 if we believe Anastasius, Pope John VII. did being timorous out of humane frailty direct these Canons, without amendment, by two Metropolites, to the Emperour, that is he did admit them so as they stand.

But it may be instanced that divers Synods have asked the Popes consent for ratification of their Decrees and Acts.

So the Fathers of the Second General Synod, having in an Epis∣stle to Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops, declared what Consti∣tutions they had made,* 1.1020 in the close speak thus—In which things, being legally and canonically settled by us, we do exhort your reverence to acquiesce out of spiritual charity and fear of the Lord—

So the Synod of Chalcedon did, with much respect, ask from Pope Leo the confirmation of its Sanctions. That you may know how that we have done nothing for favour or out of spite,* 1.1021 but as guided by the divine directi∣on, we have made known to you the force of all that has been done, for your concurrence and for the con∣firmation and approbation of the things done.

Of the Fifth Synod Pope Leo II. saith, — that he agrees to what was determin'd in it,* 1.1022 and con∣firms it with the authority of the Blessed Saint Peter.

To these allegations we reply, That it was indeed the manner of all Synods, (for notification of things, and promulgation of their Orders; for demonstration and maintenance of concord, for adding weight and authority to their determinations, for engaging all Bishops to a willing complyance in observing them, for attestation to the common interest of all Bishops in the Christian truth, and in the

governance and edification of the Church) having framed Decrees concerning the publick State, to demand in fairest terms the con∣sent to them of all Catholick Bishops, who were absent from them, to be attested by their subscription.

So did Constantine recommend the Nicene Decrees to all Bishops,* 1.1023 undertaking that they would assent to them.

So (more expresly) the Synod of Sardica, in their Epistle to all Bi∣shops of the Catholick Church; Do ye also, our brethren and fellow-ministers, the more use diligence,* 1.1024 as being present in spirit with our Synod, to yield consent by your subscription, that concord may be pre∣served every where by all the fellow-ministers.

So did Pope Liberius request of the Emperour Constantius, that the faith delivered at Nice might be confirmed by the subscription of all Bishops.

So did Athanasius procure a Synod at Alexandria to confirm the Decrees at Sardica, and in Palestine concerning him.

So the Macedonian Bishops are said to have authorized their Agents to ratifie the faith of Consubstantiality.* 1.1025

Many such Instances occur in story, by which it may appear, that the Decrees of Synods concerning Faith, or concerning any matters of common interest were presented to all Bishops, and their consent requested or required; because,* 1.1026 say the Roman Clergy in Saint Cyprian, a decree cannot be firm which has not the consent of many.

Whence it is no wonder, if any Synods did thus proceed toward so eminent a Bishop as was he of Rome, that they should endeavour to give him satisfaction; that they should desire to receive satisfaction from him of his conspiring with them in Faith, of his willingness to comply in observing good Rules of Discipline; that (as every vote had force,* 1.1027 so) the suffrage of one in so great dignity and reputation might adjoin some regard to their judgment.

The Pope's confirmation of Synods, what was it in effect, but a declaration of his approbation and assent, the which did confirm by addition of Suffrage; as those who were pre∣sent by their Vote,* 1.1028 and those who were absent by their Subscription are said to confirm the Decrees of Councils; every such consent being supposed to en∣crease the authority; whence the number of Bishops is sometimes reckoned according to the subscriptions of Bi∣shops absent;* 1.1029 as the Council of Sardica is some∣times related to consist of three hundred Bi∣shops, although not two hundred were present, the rest concur∣ring by subscription to its definitions.* 1.1030

Other Bishops in yielding their suffrage, do express it by I con∣firm, I define, I decree.]

But the effectual confirmation of Synods, which gave them the force of Laws, was in other hands, and depended on the Imperial Sanction.

* 1.1031So Justinian affirmeth generally: All these things at diverse times following, our above-named predecessours of pious memory, corroborated and confirm'd by their Laws what each Council had determin'd, and expell'd those Hereticks who attempted to resist the definitions of the aforesaid four Councils and disturb the Churches.

So particularly Constantine (as Athanasius himself reporteth) did by Law confirm the decrees of the great Synod of Nice;* 1.1032 and Eusebius assureth the same; He (saith he) did ratifie the decrees of the Synod by his authority; His Letters are extant, which he sent about the world exhorting and requiring all to con∣form to the constitutions of that Synod.

So Theodosius did confirm the Decrees of the Second General Synod;* 1.1033 adding (saith Sozomen) his confirmatory suffrage to their decree; the which he did at the supplication of the Fathers,* 1.1034 addressed to him in these terms; We therefore do beseech your Grace, that by your pious Edict the sentence of the Synod may be authorized; that as by the letters of convocation you did honour the assembly, so you would also confirm the result of things decreed.

The third General Synod was also confirm∣ed by Theodosius II. as Justinian telleth us;* 1.1035 The above-named Theodosius of pious memory, maintain∣ing what had been so justly determined against Nesto∣rius and his impiety, made his condemnation valid.

And this Emperour asserted this privilege to himself, as of right and custom belonging to him; writing to the Synod in these words;* 1.1036 for all things, so as may please God, without contentiousness and with truth being examined ought so to be established by our religiousness.

The other abortive Synod at Ephesus was also confirmed by The∣odosius Junior, as Dioscorus in his defence alledged in these words, which shew the manner of practice in this case; We then indeed did judge the things,* 1.1037 which were judged; the whole Synod did accord with us, and gave verdict by their own votes, and subscribed; and they were referred to the most religious Empe∣rour Theodosius of happy memory; and he did by a general Law confirm all things judged by the Holy and Oecumenical Synod.

So also did the Emperour Marcian confirm the Synod of Chalcedon;

as himself telleth us in his Royal Edict:* 1.1038 We (saith He) having by the sacred Edict of our serenity con∣firmed the Holy Synod, did warn all to cease from disputes about religion: with which Pope Leo sig∣nifieth his compliance in these terms;* 1.1039 But because by all means your piety and most religious will must be obeyed, I have willingly approv'd the Synodical Constitutions about confirming the Catholick faith and condemning hereticks, which pleased me.

Justinian did with a witness confirm the Fifth Synod, punishing with banishment all who would not submit to its determinations.

In the Sixth Synod the Fathers did request the Emperour, accord∣ing to custom, to confirm its definitions, in these very words;* 1.1040 To what we have determined set your Seal, your royal ratification by writing, and confir∣mation of them all by your sacred edicts and holy con∣stitutions according to custom.

We beg that by your sacred signing of it you would give force to what we have defined and subscribed.* 1.1041

We intreat the power of our Lord guided by God's wisedom to confirm, for the great strength and security of the orthodox faith, the copies of our determina∣tion read in the hearing of your most serene Majes∣ty, and subscribed by us, that they may be delive∣red to the five Patriarchal Sees with your pious con∣firmation.

Accordingly he did confirm that Synod by his Edict;* 1.1042 All these things being thus ordered by this Sixth Holy and Oecumenical Synod; We decree, that none whosoever trouble himself farther about this faith, or advance any new inventions about it.

So he told Pope Leo II. in his Epistle to him;* 1.1043 This divine and venerable determination the Holy Synod has made, to which we also have subscribed, and confirmed it by our Religious Edicts, exhorting all our people who have any Love for Christ, to fol∣low the faith there written.

Pope Leo tells his name-sake Leo the Empe∣rour,* 1.1044 That he must always remember that the Impe∣rial power was given him not onely to rule the world, but more especially to protect the Church.

So by long prescription, commencing with the first General Sy∣nod, did the Emperour enjoy this Prerogative; and with good rea∣son, He having an unquestionable warrant and obligation to pro∣mote the welfare of the Church, designed by those Conventions; He being the Guardian of Concord among his Subjects, and protectour of their Liberties, which might be nearly concerned in Conciliar pro∣ceedings; the power of enacting Laws being an incommunicable branch of Sovereign Majesty; He alone having power committed to him, able to enforce the observance of Decrees, without which they would in effect signifie little.

Because also commonly the Decrees of Synods did in a manner

retrench some part of the Royal Prerogative, translating or imparting to others Causes before appropriate to his Jurisdiction (as in the case of appeals, and of prohibiting addresses to Court, ordered in the Sar∣dican and other Synods; of exempting Clergymen from secular Ju∣risdiction, from taxes and common burthens, &c.) which ought not to be done without his licence and authority.

So that the Oriental Bishops had good reason to tell the Emperour,* 1.1045 that it was impossible with∣out his authority to order the matters under conside∣ration with good law and order.

It is no-wise reasonable, that any other should have this power, it being inconsistent with publick peace that in one State there should be two Legislative powers; which might clash the one with the o∣ther, the one enacting Sanctions prejudicial to the interest and will of the other: wherefore the Pope being then a Citizen of Rome, and a Subject to the Emperour, could not have a Legislative power, or a negative Vote in Synods, but that wholly did belong to the Impe∣rial authority.

But it is opposed, that some Synods have been declared invalid for want of the Pope's con∣firmation;* 1.1046 for to the Decrees of the Synod at A∣riminum it was excepted, that they were null, because the Bishop of Rome did not consent to them: There could not (say the Roman Synod in Theodoret) be any prejudice from the number of those assembled in Ariminum,* 1.1047 it being plain, that neither the Roman Bishop, whose suffrage ought first to have been received, nor Vicentius, who for so many years did hold his Episcopacy blameless, nor others agreeing to such things. To which exception I answer, that

1. That which is alledged against the Synod of Ariminum, is not the defect of the Pope's confirmation subsequent, but of his consent and concurrence before it, or in it; * 1.1048 which is very reasonable, because he had a right to be present, and to concur in all such Assemblies, especially being so eminent a Bishop.

2. The same exception every Bishop might alledge, all having a like right and common interest to Vote in those Assemblies.

3. Accordingly the dissent of other Bishops, particularly of those eminent in dignity or merit, is also alledged in exception; which had been needless, if his alone dissent had been of so very peculiar force.

4. The Emperour, and many other Bishops did not know of any peculiar necessity of his confirmation.

Again it may be objected, that Popes have voided the Decrees of General Synods; as did Pope Leo the Decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon, concerning the Privileges of the Constantinopolitan See, in these blunt words: But the agreements of Bishops re∣pugnant to the Holy Canons made at Nice,* 1.1049 your faith and piety joyning with us, we make void, and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Saint Peter, by a ge∣neral determination we disanull; and in his Epistle

to those of that Synod,* 1.1050 For however vain conceit may arm it self with extorted compliances, and think its wilfulness sufficiently strengthened with the name of Councils: yet whatever is contrary to the Canons of the above-nam'd fathers will be weak and void. Lastly in his Epistle to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, he says, He has such a reverence for the Nicene Canons,* 1.1051 that he will not permit or endure that what those ho∣ly fathers have determined be by any novelty vio∣lated.

This behaviour of Pope Leo (although applau∣ded and imitated by some of his Successours) I doubt not to except against in behalf of the Sy∣nod, that it was disorderly,* 1.1052 factious and arro∣gant; (proceeding indeed from ambition and jea∣lousie) the leading act of high presumption in this kind, and one of the seeds of that exorbitant ambition, which did at length overwhelm the dignity and liberty of the Christian Republick: Yet for some∣what qualifying the business it is observable, that he did ground his repugnancy and pretended annulling of that Decree (or of Decrees concerning Discipline) not so much upon his authority to cross Ge∣neral Synods, as upon the inviolable firmness and everlasting obligation of the Nicene Canons; the which he (although against the reason of things, and rules of Government) did presume no Synod could abrogate or alter. In fine, this opposition of his did prove ineffec∣tual by the sense and practice of the Church, maintaining its ground against his pretence.

It is an unreasonable thing, that the opinion or humour of one man (no wiser or better commonly than others) should be preferred before the common agreement of his brethren, being of the same Office and Order with him; so that he should be able to overthrow and frustrate the result of their meetings and consultations, when it did not square to his conceit or interest; especially seeing there is not the least appearance of any right he hath to such a Privilege, grounded in Holy Scripture, Tradition or Custom; for seeing that Scripture hath not a syllable about General Synods, seeing that no Rule about them is extant in any of the first Fathers till after 300 years, seeing there was not one such Council celebrated till after that time, seeing in none of the First General Synods any such Canon was framed in favour of that Bishop, what ground of right could the Pope have to prescribe unto them, or thwart their proceedings? Far more reason there is, (in conformity to all former Rules and Prac∣tice) that he should yield to all his Brethren, than that all his Bre∣thren should submit to him: and this we see to have been the judg∣ment of the Church, declared by its Practice in the cases before touched.

IV. It is indeed a proper endowment of an absolute Sovereignty, immediately and immutably constituted by God, with no terms or rules limiting it, that its will declared in way of Precept, Pro∣clamations, concerning the Sanction of Laws, the Abrogation of them, the Dispensation with them, should be observed.

This Privilege therefore in a high strein the Pope challengeth to himself; asserting to his Decrees and Sentences the force and obliga∣tion of Laws; so that the body of that Canon Law, whereby he pretendeth to govern the Church, doth in greatest part consist of Papal Edicts, or Decretal Epistles, imitating the Rescripts of Empe∣rours, and bearing the same force.

In Gratian we have these Aphorisms from Popes concerning this their Privilege.

No person ought to have either the will or the power to transgress the precepts of the Apostolick See.* 1.1053

* 1.1054—Those things which by the Apostolick See have at several times been written for the Catholick faith, for sound doctrines, for the various and manifold exi∣gency of the Church and the manners of the faith∣full, how much rather ought they to be preferr'd in all honour, and by all men altogether, upon all occasions whatsoever to be reverently received?

* 1.1055Those Decretal Epistles which most holy Popes have at divers times given out from the City of Rome upon their being consulted with by divers Bi∣shops, we decree that they be received with venera∣tion.

* 1.1056If ye have not the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome, ye are to be accused of neglect and carelesness; but if ye have them, yet observe them not; ye are to be chidden and rebuk'd for your temerity.

All the Sanctions of the Apostolick See are so to be understood, as if confirm'd by the voice of Saint Peter himself.

Because the Roman Church, over which by the will of Christ we do preside, is proposed for a mirrour and example; whatsoever it doth determine, what∣soever that doth appoint is perpetually and irrefraga∣bly to be observed by all men.

We who according to the plenitude of our power have a right to dispense above Law or right.

This See —that which it might doe by its sole authority, it is often pleased to define by consent of its Priests.

But this power he doth assume and exercise merely upon Usurpa∣tion, and unwarrantably; having no ground for it in original right or ancient practice.

* 1.1057Originally the Church hath no other General Law-giver beside our one Lord and one Law-giver.

As to practice we may observe

1. Anciently (before the First General Synod) the Church had no other Laws, beside the Divine Laws; or those * 1.1058 which were derived from the Apostles by Traditional custom; or those which each Church

did enact for it self in Provincial Synods; or which were propagated from one Church to another by imitation and compliance; or which in like manner were framed and setled.

Whence according to different Traditions, or different reasons and circumstances of things, several Churches did vary in points of Order and Discipline.

The Pope then could not impose his Traditions, Laws, or Customs upon any Church; if he did attempt it, he was liable to suffer a re∣pulse; as is notorious in the case, when Pope Victor would (although rather as a Doctour than as a Law-giver) have reduced the Churches of Asia to conform with the Roman in the time of celebrating Easter; wherein he found not onely stout resistence, but sharp reproof.

In St. Cyprian's time every Bishop had a free power according to his discretion to govern his Church; and it was deemed a tyranni∣cal enterprise for one to prescribe to another, or to require obedience from his Collegues; as otherwhere by many clear allegations out of that Holy man we have shewed.* 1.1059 For none of us (saith he) makes himself a Bishop of Bishops, or by a tyrannical terrour compels his Collegues to a necessity of obedience; since every Bishop according to the li∣cence of his own liberty and power hath his own free∣dom, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.

If any new Law were then introduced, or Rule determined for com∣mon practice, it was done by the general agreement of Bishops or of a preponderant multitude among them, to whom the rest out of modesty and peaceableness did yield complyance; according to that saying of the Roman Clergy to Saint Cyprian (upon occasion of the debate concerning the manner of admitting lap∣sed persons to communion) that Decree cannot be valid,* 1.1060 that hath not the consent of the major part.

The whole validity of such Laws or Rules did indeed wholly stand upon presumption of such consent; whereby the common liberty and interest was secured.

2. After that by the Emperours Conversion the Church enjoying secular protection and encouragement, did reduce it self as into a clo∣ser union and freer communication of parts, so into a greater uniformity of practice;* 1.1061 especially by means of great Synods, wherein (the Gover∣nours and Representatives of all Churches being called unto them and presumed to concur in them) were ordained Sanctions, taken to oblige all. The Pope had indeed a greater stroke than formerly, as having the first place in order,* 1.1062 or privilege of ho∣nour in Ecclesiastical Assemblies, where he did concur; yet had no casting Vote, or real advantage above others; all things passing by majority of Vote: This is supposed as notorious in the Acts of the Fifth Council:* 1.1063 This (say they) is a thing to be granted, that in Councils we must not regard the interlocution of one or two, but those things which are commonly defined by all, or by the most.

So also in the Fifth Council, George Bishop of Constantinople saith,* 1.1064 that seeing every where the Coun∣cil of the multitude, or of the most doth prevail, it is necessary to anathematize the persons before menti∣oned.

3. Metropolitan Bishops in their Provinces had far more power, and more surely grounded, than the Pope had in the whole Church (for the Metropolitans had an unquestioned authority, settled by cus∣tome, and confirmed by Synodical Decrees) yet had not they a negative voice in Synodical debates:* 1.1065 for it is decreed in the Nicene Sy∣nod, that in the designation of Bishops (which was the principal af∣fair in Ecclesiastical administrations) plurality of votes should prevail.

It is indeed there said, that none should be ordained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without the opinion of the Metropolitan; but that doth not import a ne∣gative voice in him, but that the transaction should not pass in his absence, or without his knowledge, advice and suffrage: for so the Apostolical Canon (to which the Nicene Fathers there did allude and refer,* 1.1066 meaning to interpret it) doth appoint, that the Metropolitan should doe nothing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without the opinion of all, that is without suffrage of the most, concluding all; (for surely that Canon doth not give to each one a negative voice) And so the Synod of Antioch, (held soon after that of Nice, which therefore knew best the sense of the Nicene Fathers,* 1.1067 and how the custome went) doth interpret it, decreeing, that a Bishop should not be ordained without a Synod, and the presence of the Metropolitan of the Province; in which Synod yet they determine,* 1.1068 that plurality of votes should carry it; no peculiar advantage in the case being granted to the Metropolitan.

Seeing therefore Provincial Synods were more ancient than Gene∣ral, and gave pattern to them; if we did grant the same privilege to the Pope in General Synods, as the Metropolitans had in Provincial (which yet we cannot do with any good reason or ground) yet could not the Pope thence pretend to an authority of making Laws by himself.

4. It was then a passable opinion, that He as one was in reason obliged to yield to the common judgment of his Collegues and Bre∣thren; as the Emperour Constantius told Pope Li∣berius,* 1.1069 that the Vote of the plurality of Bishops ought to prevail.

5. When Pope Julius did seem to cross a rule of the Church, by communicating with persons condemned by Sy∣nods,* 1.1070 the Fathers of Antioch did smartly recrimi∣nate against him, shewing that they were not to receive Canons from him.

6. So far was the Pope from prescribing Laws to others, that he was looked upon as subject to the Laws of the Church no less than others:* 1.1071 as the Antiochene Fathers did suppose, complaining to Pope Julius of his transgressing the Canons; the which charge he

doth not repell by pretending exemption,* 1.1072 but by declaring that he had not offended against the Canons, and retorting the accusation against themselves; as the African Fathers supposed,* 1.1073 when they told Pope Celestine, that he could not admit persons to communion, which had been excom∣municated by them, that being contrary to a Decree of the Nicene Synod;* 1.1074 as the Roman Church supposed it self, when it told Marcian that they could not receive him without leave of his Father who had rejected him. This the whole tenour of Ecclesiastical Canons sheweth, they running in a general style, never excepting the Pope from the Laws prescribed to other Bishops.

7. The privilege of dispensing with Laws had then been a strange hearing,* 1.1075 when the Pope could in no case dispense with himself for infringing them, without bringing clamour and censure upon him.

8. It had indeed been a vain thing for Synods with so much trouble and solemnity to assemble, if the Pope without them could have fra∣med Laws, or could with a puff of his mouth have blown away the results of them by dispensation.

9. Even in the growth of Papal Dominion,* 1.1076 and after that the Seeds of Roman ambition had sprouted forth to a great bulk, yet had not Popes the heart or face openly to challenge power over the universal Canons, or exemption from them; but pretended to be the chief ob∣servers, guardians, defenders, and executours of them; or of the Rights and Privileges of Churches established by them; for while any foot∣steps of ancient liberty, simplicity and integrety did remain, a claim of paramount or lawless Authority would have been very ridiculous and very odious.* 1.1077 Pope Zo∣simus I. denieth that he could alter the Privileges of Churches.

10. If they did talk more highly,* 1.1078 requiring observance to their Con∣stitutions, it was either in their own precinct, or in the Provinces where they had a more immediate jurisdiction,* 1.1079 or in some corners of the West, where they had obtained more sway; and in some cases, wherein their words were backed with other inducements to obedience; for the Popes were commonly wise in their generations, accommodating their discourse to the state of times and places.

11. It is also to be observed, that often the Popes are supposed to speak and constitute things by their own authori∣ty, which indeed were done by Synods,* 1.1080 consisting of Western Bishops more closely adhering to that See, in regard to those Regions; the Decrees of which Synods were binding in those places, not so much by virtue of Papal authority, as proceed∣ing from the consent of their own Bishops: how

ready soever He were to assume all to himself, pretending those De∣crees as precepts of the Apostolical See.

Whence all the Acts of modern Popes are invalid, and do not oblige, seeing they do not act in Synod; but onely of their own Head, or with the advice of a few Partizans about them, men linked in com∣mon interest with them to domineer over the Church.

12. Yet even in the Western Countries, in later times, their Decrees have been contested, when they did seem plainly to clash with the old Canons, or much to derogate from the Liberties of Churches; nor have there wanted learned Persons in most times, who so far as they durst, have expressed their dislike of this Usurpation.

For although the Bishop of Rome be more venerable than the rest that are in the world,* 1.1081 upon account of the dignity of the Apostolical See, yet it is not law∣full for him in any case to transgress the order of Ca∣nonical governance; for as every Bishop who is of the Orthodox Church, and the Spouse of his own See, doth intirely represent the Person of our Saviour; so generally no Bishop ought pragmatically to act any thing in anothers Diocese.

13. In the times of Pope Nicolas I. the Greeks did not admit the Roman Decrees;* 1.1082 so that Pope in an Epistle to Photius complains that he did not receive the Decrees of the Popes whenas yet they ordained nothing but what the Natural,* 1.1083 what the Mo∣saical, and what the Law of Grace required.* 1.1084 And in another Epistle he expostulates with him for saying that they neither had nor did observe the De∣crees made by the Holy Popes of the Prime See of the Roman Church.

14. That which greatly did advance the Papal Jurisdiction, and in∣troduced his Usurpation of obtruding new Decrees on the Church, was the venting of the forged Decretal Epistles under the name of Old Popes;* 1.1085 which when the Pope did alledge for authorizing his practices, the French Bishops,* 1.1086 endeavouring to assert their Privilege, did alledge that they were not contained in the whole body of their Canons.

15. The power of enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching extoriour Discipline did of old belong to the Emperour. And it was reasonable that it should; because old Laws might not conveni∣ently sute with the present state of things and the publick welfare; be∣cause new Laws might cond••ce to the good of Church and State, the care of which is incumbent on him; because the Prince is bound to use his power and authority to promote God's Service, the best way of do∣ing which may be by framing Orders conducible thereto.

Accordingly the Emperours did enact divers Laws concerning Eccle∣siastical matters, which we see extant in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian.

These things (saith the Council of Arles) we have decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour,* 1.1087 desiring his clemency that if any thing be defective it may be supplied by his prudence, if any thing be un∣reasonable it may be corrected by his judgment, if any thing be reasonably ordered it may by his help, the Divine Grace assisting, be perfected.

We may observe, that Popes did allow the validity of Imperial Laws. Pope Gregory I. doth alledge divers Laws of divers Emperours concern∣ing Ecclesiastical affairs as authentick and obligatory Rules of prac∣tice.* 1.1088

16. Divers Churches had particular rights of independency upon all power without themselves.

Such as the Church of Cyprus in the Ephesine Synod did claim and obtain the confirmation of.

Such was the ancient Church of Britain, before Austin came into England.

The Welch Bishops are consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids,* 1.1089 and he himself in like manner is ordained by others who are as it were his Suffragans, professing no manner subjection to any other Church.

V. Sovereign power, immediately by it self when it pleaseth, doth exercise all parts of Jurisdiction, setting it self in the Tribunal; or medi∣ately doth execute it by others, as its Officers or Commissioners.

Wherefore now the Pope doth claim and exercise Universal Jurisdic∣tion over all the Clergy;* 1.1090 requiring of them engagements of strict sub∣mission and obedience to him; demanding that all causes of weight be referred to him;* 1.1091 citing them to his bar, examining and deciding their causes; condemning, suspending, deposing, censuring them, or acquitting, absolving, restoring them, as he seeth cause, or findeth in his heart; He doth encourage people to accuse their pastours to him, in case any doth infringe his Laws and Orders.

But (in general) that originally or anciently the Pope had no such right appropriate to him may appear by arguments, by cross instances, by the insufficiency of all pleas, and examples alledged in favour of this claim. For,

1. Originally there was not at all among Christians any Jurisdiction like to that which is exercised in Civil Governments, and which now the papal Court doth execute. For this our Saviour did prohibit, and Saint Peter forbad the Presbyters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.1092 And St. Chrysostome affirmeth the Episcopal power not to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.1093 And Ecclesiastical Hi∣story doth inform us, that such a Jurisdiction was lately introduced in the Church, as by other great Bishops, so especially by the Bishop of Rome:* 1.1094 For (saith Socrates) from that time the Episcopacy of Alexandria, beyond the Sacerdotal Order did assume a domineering power in affairs.

The which kind of power the Roman Bishops had long before assumed; for, (saith he) the Episcopacy of Rome, in like manner as that of Alexandria,* 1.1095 had already a great while agoe gone before in a domineering power beyond that of the Priesthood.

At first the Episcopal power did onely consist in Paternal admoniti∣on, and correption of offenders, exhorting and persuading them to a∣mendment; and in case they contumaciously did persist in disorderly behaviour, bringing them before the Congrega∣tion,* 1.1096 and the cause being there heard and proved, with its consent imposing such penance or correc∣tion on them as seemed needfull for the publick good, or their particular benefit: All things (saith St. Cyprian) shall be examin'd you being present and judging. And (elsewhere) according to your divine suffrages; according to your pleasure.

2. Originally no one Bishop had any Jurisdiction over another, or authority to judge his actions; as St. Cyprian (who well knew the cur∣rent judgment and practice of his age) in many places doth affirm: who particularly doth reflect on the Roman Bishop, for presuming to censure his brethren,* 1.1097 who dis∣sented from him: Let us all (saith he) expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who onely hath power to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of what we doe.

3. Even the community of Bishops did not otherwise take notice of, or intermeddle with the proceedings of any Bishop in his precinct and charge; except when his demeanour did concern the general state of the Church, intrenching upon the common faith, or publick order and peace.

In other cases for one or more Bishops to meddle with the procee∣dings of their brother, was taken for an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a pragmati∣cal intrusion upon anothers business; and an invasion of that Liberty which did belong to each Bishop, by the grant of our Lord, and the nature of his Office.

As by those passages of St. Cyprian, and the declaration of the Synod with him doth appear.

4. In cases needing decision for the publick good of the Church, the Law and custom of the Church, confirmed by the Nicene Synod, did order, that jurisdiction should be exercised, and all causes finally de∣termined in each Province;* 1.1098 so that no regard is had to the Pope, no exception in favour of him being expressed or implyed.

* 1.1099The which Constitution, if we believe Pope Leo himself, cannot in any case by any power be revoked or infringed.

That is most expresly confirmed by the Synod of Antioch, in the Code of the Universal Church, If any Bishop accused of certain crimes shall be condemned by all the Bishops in the Province,* 1.1100 and all shall unanimously vote against him, he shall not be judged again by others; but the unanimous sentence of the Bishops of the Province shall remain valid.

Here is no consideration or exception from the Pope.

5. Accordingly in practice, Synods without regard or recourse to the Pope, did judge Bishops upon offences charged against them.

6. The execution of those judgments was entrusted to Metropolitan Bishops; or had effect by the peoples consent; for it being declared that any Bishop had incurred condemnation, the people did presently desert him.

Every Bishop was obliged to confer his part to the execution;* 1.1101 as Pope Gelasius affirmeth.

7. If the Pope had such judicial power, seeing there were from the beginning so many occasions of exercising it, there would have been extant in History many clear instances of it, but few can be alledged; and those (as we shall see) impertinent, or insufficient.

8. Divers Synods (great and smaller) did make Sanctions contrary to this pretence of the Pope; appointing the decision of Causes to be terminated in each Diocese; and prohibiting appeals to him; which they would not have done if the Pope had originally, or according to common law and custom, a supreme judicial power.

9. The most favourable of ancient Synods to Papal interest, that of Sardica, did confer on the Pope a power, qualified in matter and man∣ner, of causing Episcopal causes to be revised; which sheweth that be∣fore he had no right in such cases; nor then had an absolute power.

10. The Pope's power of judging Bishops hath been of old disclai∣med as an illegal and upstart encroachment.

When the Pope first nibbled at this bait of ambition, St. Cyprian and his Bishops did reprehend him for it.

The Bishop of Constantinople denied that Pope Gelasius alone might condemn him;* 1.1102 according to the Canons— The Pope ranteth at it, and rea∣soneth against it; but hath no material argument or example for it, (concerning the Papal authori∣ty peculiarly) beside the Sardican Canon.

11. The Popes themselves have been judged for Misdemeanour, He∣resie, Schism; as hereafter we shall shew.

12. The Popes did execute some judgments,* 1.1103 onely by a right common to all Bishops; as Exe∣cutours of Synodical Decrees.

13. Other Bishops did pretend to Judicature, by Privilege: as Juve∣nalis. Bishop of Jerusalem did pretend that to him did belong the Judg∣ment of the Bishop of Antioch.* 1.1104

14. The Popes were subject to the Emperours; who when they plea∣sed did interpose to direct or qualifie all Jurisdic∣tion;* 1.1105 commanding the Popes themselves — wherefore the Popes were not Judges Sovereign, but subordinate.

Pope Gregory I. did refer the great Question a∣bout the title of Oecumenical Bishop to the judg∣ment of the Emperour Mauricius.* 1.1106

These things will more fully appear in the discussion of the particu∣lars concerning the chief Branches of Jurisdiction; more especially un∣der the Tenth Branch of Sovereignty.

They alledge that passage of Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius,* 1.1107 That the most blessed Bishop of Rome, to whom Antiquity hath given a Priesthood over all, hath a See and Power to judge both of Faith and Priests.

This was suggested by Pope Leo and his adherents to the young Em∣perour — but it signifieth no more, but that in the Judgment of Priests (as of Faith) he was to have his share; or at most to be a leading per∣son therein.

Theodosius (a mature, grave, pious Prince) did not regard that pretence of Leo,* 1.1108 nor the ap∣peal of Flavianus.

* 1.1109VI. To the Sovereign of any State belongeth the Choice, Constitu∣tion, Confirmation, Commissionating of all inferiour Magistrates; that none uncapable, unworthy, or unfit for Offices, or disaffected to the State, be entrusted with the management of Affairs.

Wherefore the Pope doth claim and exercise these Prerogatives so far as he can; pretending at least that no Bishop can be constituted without his designation, or his licence, and his confirmation of the no∣mination, collation or election.

* 1.1110And these Privileges by the great Advocates are upon highest terms asserted to him.

In this matter may be distinguished,

1. The Designation of the Person by Election or otherwise.

2. The Confirmation of that.

3. The Ordination or Consecration of him to his Office; the which conferreth on him his Character and Authority.

4. The Authority by which he acteth.

Into all these the Pope hath intruded himself, and he will have a finger in them.

1. He gladly would have drawn to himself the collation and dispo∣sal of all Benefices, challenging a general right to dispose of all at his pleasure;* 1.1111 but not having been able wholly to deprive Princes and Patrons of their Nominations, and Corporations of their E∣lection; yet he hath by Reservations, Provisions, Collations of Vacancies apud Sedem, * 1.1112 Resignati∣ons, Devolutions, and other such tricks extreme∣ly encroached on the rights of all, to the infinite vexation, damage and mischief of Christendom.

2. He pretendeth that no Bishop shall be ordained without his Li∣cence.

3. He obligeth the person Ordained to swear obedience to him.

4. He pretendeth that all Bishops are his Ministers and Deputies.

But no such Privileges have any foundation or warrant in Holy Scripture, in Ancient Doctrine, or in Primitive Usage: they are all Encroachments upon the original Rights and Liberties of the Church, derived from Ambition and Avarice; subsisting upon Usurpation, up∣held by Violence.

This will appear from a Survey of Ancient Rules and Practices con∣cerning this matter.

The first constitution after our Lord's decease of an Ecclesiastical per∣son was that of Matthias into the vacant Aposto∣late, or Bishoprick of Judas;* 1.1113 wherein (upon Saint Peter's motion) all the disciples present did by consent present two; out of whom God himself did elect one, by determining the lot to fall upon Matthias; so that this designation being partly humane, partly divine; so far as it was humane, it went by free elec∣tion of the whole fraternity; and Saint Peter, beside generally sugge∣sting the matter to be done, did assume nothing peculiar to himself.

The next constitution we meet with is that of Deacons to assist the Apostles and Elders in discharge of inferiour Offices; wherein the Apostles did commit the designation of the per∣sons to the multitude of the disciples,* 1.1114 who elected them; and presented them to the Apostles, who by prayer and laying on of hands did ordain them. Nor had Saint Peter in this action any particular stroke.

As to the Constitution of Bishops, in the first Apostolical times the course was this; The Apostles, and Apostolical persons (who were authorized by the Apostles to act with their power, and in their stead) did in Churches founded by them constitute Bishops, such as divine inspiration,* 1.1115 or their grace of discretion did guide them to; So did Saint John in Asia, setting those apart for the Clergy whom the Spirit had markt out.

This was not done without the consent of the Christian people,* 1.1116 as Clemens Romanus telleth us in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians: But he doth not acquaint us (although he were himself Bishop of Rome) that the Pope had any thing to doe in such Constitutions, or in confirmations of them; the whole Church (saith he) consenting; Why doth he not add, for his own sake, and the Pope confirming?

In the next times, when those extraordinary persons and faculties had expired, when usually the Churches planted were in situation somewhat incoherent and remote from each other, upon a vacancy the Clergy and people of each Church did elect its Bishop; in which action commonly the Clergy did propound and recommend a person, or per∣sons, and the people by their consent approve, or by their suffrages elect one;* 1.1117 a strict examination of his Life and Doctrine intervening: the which Order Tertullian briefly doth intimate in those words, The Presidents of the Church are certain El∣ders well approved, who have obtained that honour not by price, but by proof.

It may be enquired, how a Bishop then was Ordained, in case his City was very remote from any other Churches?

Did they send for Bishops from distant places to Ordain him? Or did the Presbyters of the place lay their hands on him? Or did he re∣ceive no other Ordination than that he had before of Presbyter? Or did he abide no Bishop till opportunity did yield Bishops to Ordain him? Or did providence order, that there should be no such solitary Chur∣ches? The ancient Commentatour, contemporary to St. Ambrose,* 1.1118 and bearing his name, did con∣ceive, that upon decease of a Bishop the elder of the Presbyters did succeed into his place. * 1.1119 Whence had he this, out of his invention and conjecture, or from some Tradition and History?

Afterward, when the Faith was diffused through many Provinces, that Churches grew thick and close, the general practice was this: The neighbour Bishops (being advertised of a vacancy or want of a Bishop) did convene at the place; then in the Congregation the Cler∣gy of the place did propound a person, yielding their attestation to his fitness for the charge; which the people hearing did give their suffra∣ges, accepting him, if no weighty cause was objected against him; or refusing him, if such cause did appear: Then upon such recommenda∣tion and acceptance, the Bishops present did adjoin their approbation and consent; then by their devotions, and solemn laying on of their hands, they did Ordain or Consecrate him to the Function.

Of this course most commonly practised in his time we have divers plain Testimonies in St. Cyprian, the best Authour extant concerning these matters of ancient Discipline: For which reason,* 1.1120 saith he, that from divine tradition and A∣postolical observation is to be observed and held; which also is with us, and almost through all Provin∣ces, kept; that for duely celebrating ordinations un∣to that people, for whom a Bishop is ordained, all the neighbour Bishops of the same (Province, or peo∣ple) should resort; and a Bishop should be chosen the people being present, which most fully knoweth the life of each one, and hath from his conversation a tho∣rough insight into his practice; the which we see done with you in the ordination of our Collegue Sabinus, that by the suffrage of all the fraternity, and by the judgment of all the Bishops, which had assembled in the presence, and had sent letters to you about him, the Bishoprick should be deferr'd to him.

Again, A people obedient to the Lord's commands, and fearing God, ought to separate it self from a wicked Bishop (such a notoriously wicked Bishop as those were of whom he treateth, who had renounced the Faith) and not to mingle it self with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest;* 1.1121 seeing es∣pecially that it hath a power either to chuse worthy Priests, or to refuse those who are unworthy; the which also we see to descend from divine authority that a Bishop should be chosen the people being pre∣sent, before the eyes of all; and that he who is

worth and fit should be approved by publick judgment and testimony.

Again,* 1.1122 when (saith he concerning himself) a Bishop is substituted in the place of one deceased, when he is peaceably chosen by the suffrage of all the people— and whom if according to the divine instruc∣tions the whole fraternity would obey, no man would move any thing against the College of Priests; none after the divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after the consent of the fellow-Bishop would make himself judge not indeed of the Bishop, but of God.

Again,* 1.1123 Cornelius was made Bishop by the judg∣ment of God and his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the Clergy, by the suffrage of the people being then present, and by the College of Priests, ancient and good men— and Cornelius being in the Catholick Church ordained by the judgment of God, and by the suffrage of the Clergy and people.

Again, When a Bishop is once made,* 1.1124 and is appro∣ved by the testimony and the judgment of his Col∣legues, and of the people—

The Authour of the Apostolical Constitutions thus in the person of Saint Peter very fully and clearly describeth the manner of Ordination of Bishops in his times:* 1.1125 After one of the chief Bishops present has thus prayed, the rest of the Priests with all the people shall say, Amen; and after the prayer, one of the Bishops shall deliver the Eucharist into the hands of the person ordained, and that morning he shall be plac'd by the rest of the Bishops in his Throne, all of them saluting him with a kiss in the Lord. Af∣ter the reading of the Law and Prophets, of our Epistles, the Acts and Go∣spel, he who is ordained shall salute the Church with these words, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all, Amen. And let all answer, And with thy spirit. After which words let him exhort the people.

Thus it was then, in a practice so obvious and observable, that a Pagan Emperour took good notice of it, and chose to imitate it in con∣stituting the Governours of Provinces, and other Officers; When (saith Lampridius of Alexander Sever••s) he would either give rulers to Provinces or make presidents,* 1.1126 or or∣dain procuratours, he set up their names, exhorting the people if they had any thing against them, to prove it by manifest evidence, if they could not make their accusation good they were to die for it, and he said 'twould be hard not to doe that in the choice of Governours of Provinces, to whom the lives and for∣tunes of men were entrusted, which the Christians and Jews did in setting up those who were to be or∣dained Priests.

Afterward in process of time, when (the gaps of distance being fil∣led up, and Christendom becoming one continued Body) Ecclesiastical Discipline was improved into a more complete shape, for Constitution of a Bishop, all the Bishops of a Province did convene, (or such as could

with convenience,* 1.1127 the others signifying their mind by writing) and having approved him who was recommended by the Clergy, and allowed by the people, they did ordain him; the Metropolitan of the Province ratifying what was done.

So the Nicene Synod, regarding the practice which had commonly obtained, did appoint with a qualification to be generally observed: It is most fit (say they) that a Bishop be constituted by all Bishops in the Province;* 1.1128 but if this be hard, either because of urgent necessity, or for the length of the way, then three of the body being gathered toge∣ther (those also who are absent conspiring in opinion, and yielding their consent in writing) let the Ordi∣nation be performed,* 1.1129 but let the ratification of what is done be assigned to the Metropolite in each Pro∣vince.

In this Canon (the which is followed by divers Canons of other Sy∣nods) there is no express mention concerning the interest of the Cler∣gy and people in election of the Bishops; but these things are onely passed over, as precedaneous to the Constitution or Ordination, about which onely the Fathers did intend to prescribe; supposing the electi∣on to proceed according to former usual practice.

That we ought thus to interpret the Canon, so that the Fathers did not intend to exclude the people from their choice, doth appear from their Synodical Epistle; wherein they Decree concerning Bishops con∣stituted by Meletius, who returning to communi∣on with the Church did live in any City,* 1.1130 that, If any Catholick Bishop should happen to die, then should those who were already received ascend into the honour of him deceased; in case they should ap∣pear worthy, and the people should chuse, the Bishop of Alexandria withall adding his suffrage to him, and his confirmation; the which words with suffi∣cient evidence do interpret the Canon not to concern the Election, but the Ordination of Bishops.

Thus the Fathers of the second General Synod plainly did interpret this Canon by their proceeding;* 1.1131 for they in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops, did assure him, that they in the Constitution of Bishops for the principal Ea∣stern Sees, had followed this Order of the Synod of Nice,* 1.1132 together with the ancient law of the Church; in agreement whereto they had ordained Necta∣rius Bishop of Constantinople; with common consent, under the eyes of the most religious Emperour Theodo∣sius, and of all the Clergy, the whole City adjoining also its suffrage;* 1.1133 and that for Antioch, the Bishops of the Province, and of the Eastern Diocese concur∣ring had canonically ordained Flavianus Bishop, the whole Church consenting as with one voice to honour the person.

* 1.1134Indeed the practice generally doth confirm this, the People every where continuing to elect their Bishop: So did the people of Alexan∣dria demand Athanasius for their Bishop. So Pope Julius did complain

that Gregory was intruded into the place of Atha∣nasius; not being required by the Presbyters,* 1.1135 not by the Bishops, not by the People. So Gregory Nazian∣zene describeth the Elections of Bishops in his times to be carried by the power of wealthy men,* 1.1136 and impetuousness of the people. So Austin intima∣teth the same in his Speech about designation of a Successour to himself, I know, says he,* 1.1137 that af∣ter the decease of Bishops the Churches are wont to be disturbed by ambitious and contentious men.* 1.1138 So the tumults at Antioch, in chusing a Bishop after Eu∣stathius; at Rome after Liberius; at Constantinople after Alexander; at Milain when St. Ambrose was chosen.

So Stephanus Bishop of Ephesus in justification of himself saith,* 1.1139 Me forty Bishops of Asia by the suf∣frage of the most noble and of the substantial Citizens, and of all the most reverend Clergy, and of all the rest of the whole City, did Ordain; and his Com∣petitour Bassianus, Me, with great constraint and violence, the people and the Clergy, and the Bishops did install—

In the Synod of Chalcedon, Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra, saith,* 1.1140 that the whole City of Gangra did come to him bringing their suffrages. Posidius tel∣leth us of St. Austin,* 1.1141 that in ordaining Priests and Clergymen he deemed the greater consent of Christi∣ans, and the custom of the Church was to be followed.

So Celestine the First: Let no Bishop be given them against their wills; let the consent and request of the Clergy, the people and the order be expected; and Pope Leo the First,* 1.1142 When there shall be an elec∣tion of a Bishop, let him be preferr'd who has the unanimous consent of the Clergy and people; so that if the votes be divided and part for another person, let him, by the judgment of the Metropolitan, be pre∣ferr'd whose merits and interest are greatest, onely that none may be ordained against their wills or with∣out their desire, lest the unwilling people contemn or hate a Bishop whom they never desired, and become less religious than they ought, because they could not have such a Bishop as they would. And in other of his Epistles,* 1.1143 There is no reason that they should be accounted Bishops, who were neither chosen by the Clergy, nor desired by the people, nor with the Me∣tropolitan's order consecrated by the Provincial Bi∣shops—

Certainly the desires of the Citizens,* 1.1144 and the testi∣monies of the people should have been expected, with the judgment of the honourable and the choice of the Clergy, which in the Ordinations of Priests use to be observ'd by those who know the rules of the Fathers—

When peaceably and with such concord as God loves,* 1.1145 he who is to be a teacher of peace is ordained by the agree∣ment of all— Let Priests who are to be ordained be required peaceably and quietly:* 1.1146 let the subscription of the Clergy, the testimony of the honourable, the consent of the order and people be observed; let him who is to preside over all be chosen by all. And Pope Nicholas I. Because we know the custom of your Royal City,* 1.1147 that none can arrive at the top of the highest Priestly power without the assent of the Ecclesiastical people and the Emperour's suffrage.

Now in all these proceedings it is most apparent that there was no regard had to the Pope, or any thought of him, out of his particular Territory; which he had as Metropolitan, (or afterward as Primate in some parts of the West.) No where else had he the least finger in the Constitution of a Bishop any where through the whole Church; no not of the least Clergy-man.

* 1.1148When by Saint Cyprian so largely and punctually the manner of Con∣stituting Bishops is declared; when the Nicene Canons and those of other Synods do so carefully prescribe about the Ordination of them; when so many reports concerning the Election of Bishops do occur in History, why is there not a tittle of mention concerning any special in∣terest of the Roman Bishops about them?

So true is that of Alb. Crantzius: There was no need then of Apostolical confirmation,* 1.1149 it was sufficient if the Election were approv'd by the Archbishop: now the Church of Rome has assum'd to her self the rights of all Churches.

We may by the way observe, that in the first times they had not so much as an absolute power of ordaining a Presbyter in the Church of his own City without leave of the Clergy and People; as may be inferred from that passage in Eusebius, where Pope Corne∣lius relateth that the Bishop who ordained Nova∣tus,* 1.1150 being hindred from doing it by all the Clergy and by many of the Laity, did request that it might be granted to him to ordain that one person; and he that so hardly could ordain one Priest in his own Church, what au∣thority could he have to constitute Bishops in all other Churches?

* 1.1151To all these Evidences of Fact our Adversaries do oppose some In∣stances of Popes meddling in the Constitution of Bishops; as, Pope Leo I, saith, that Anatolius did by the favour of his assent obtain the Bishoprick of Constantinople.* 1.1152 The same Pope is alledged as having confirmed Maxi∣mus of Antioch. The same doth write to the Bi∣shop of Thessalonica (his Vicar) that he should con∣firm the Elections of Bishops by his authority.* 1.1153 He also confirmed Donatus an African Bishop, — we will that Donatus preside over the Lord's flock upon condition that he remember to send us an account of his faith.* 1.1154 Also Gregory I. doth complain of it as of an inordinate Act,* 1.1155 that a Bishop of Salonae was

ordained without his knowledge. Pope Damasus did confirm the Ordination of Peter Alexandrinus; The Alexandrians (saith Sozomen) did render the Churches to Peter being returned from Rome,* 1.1156 with the Letters of Damasus, which confirmed both the Nicene Decrees, and his Ordination: But what, I pray, doth Confirmation here signifie but approbation; for did he otherwise con∣firm the Nicene Decrees? did they need other confirmation?

To the former Instances we answer, that being well considered they do much strengthen our Argument; in that they are so few, so late, so lame, so impertinent; for if the Pope had enjoyed a power of constitu∣ting Bishops, more instances of its exercise would have been produci∣ble; indeed it could not be but that History would have been full of them; the constitution of Bishops being a matter of continual use, and very remarkable. At least they might have found one Instance or o∣ther to alledge before the time of that busie Pope Leo; in whose time and by whose means Papal Authority began to overflow its banks. And those which they produce do no-wise reach home to the point; Ana∣tolius did obtain the Bishoprick of Constantinople by the help of the Emperour,* 1.1157 and by the assent of the Pope's favour: what then? Anatolius being put into that See in the room of Flavianus, by the influence of Dioscorus (whose Responsal he had been) and ha∣ving favoured the Eutychian Faction, Pope Leo might thence have had a fair colour to disavow him as uncapable of that Function and Dignity,* 1.1158 he being so obnoxious; both having such a flaw in his Ordination, and having been guilty of great faults, adherence to the party of Dioscorus, and ir∣regularly ordaining the Bishop of Antioch; but he out of regard to the Emperour's intervention did ac∣knowledge Anatolius for Bishop; this was the favourable assent, with which he upbraideth Anatolius, having displeased him; and what doth this signifie?

Again Pope Leo did not reject Maximus Bishop of Antioch from communion,* 1.1159 nor disclaimed his Ordination, although liable to exception: what then; is this a confirmation of him? No such mat∣ter; it was onely, which in such a vixonely Pope was a great favour, a forbearance to quarrel with him, as not duely ordained; which any other Bishop might have done. If a Pope had a flaw in his Ordination, another Bishop might refuse him.

Again Pope Leo did injoin the Bishop of Thessalonica to confirm Ordi∣nations: what is that to the purpose? It belonged to that Bishop, as a Metropolitan, by the Canons to confirm those in his Province, or as a Primate, to confirm those in his Diocese; It belonged to him as the Pope's Vicar in those Territories, to which the Pope had stretched his Jurisdiction, to execute the Pope's Orders; but what is this to Univer∣sal Authority? It is certain, that Illyricum was then in a more special manner subjected to the Pope's Jurisdiction, than any of the other Eastern Churches; what therefore he did there, cannot be drawn into conse∣quence as to other places.

The same may be said in answer to the complaint of Pope Gregory, and to any the like Instances.

Moreover, surreptitious, presumptuous, pragmatical intrusions, or usurpations of power do not suffice to found a right in this or any o∣ther case; to which purpose, and wholly to invalidate any such pleas, these Observations may be considered.

1. There do occur divers Instances of Bishops, who did meddle in Ordinations of other Bishops so as to bear great stroke in constituting them; who did not thereby pretend to Universal Jurisdiction; and it would be extremely ridiculous thence to infer they had any reasonable claim thereto.

Thus it was objected to Athanasius, that he presum'd to ordain in Cities which did not belong to him.* 1.1160 Eusebius of Constantinople did obtrude Eu∣sebius Emissenus to be Bishop of Alexandria. Eu∣stathius of Antioch did ordain Evagrius Bishop of Constantinople. Euzoius delivered unto Lucius the Bishoprick of Alexandria. Lucifer, a Sardinian Bishop, did ordain Paulinus Bishop of Antioch; they for a Salvo say, as the Pope's Legate, but upon what ground or testimony? why did not Historians tell us so much? The Pope had then been hissed at, if he had sent Legates about such errands; it was indeed out of presumption and pragmatical zeal to serve a party, then ordinary in persons addict∣ed to all parties, right and wrong; it not being then so expresly for∣bidden by the Canons as afterward.

Theognis and Theodorus did make Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople.* 1.1161 Theophilus of Alexan∣dria did ordain St. Chrysostome. The Egyptian Bishops surreptitiously did constitute Maximus, the Cynick Philosopher, Bishop of Constantinople. Acacius, (who had as little to doe there as the Pope) did thrust Eudoxius into the throne of Con∣stantinople. Meletius of Antioch did constitute St. Gregory Nazianzene to the charge of Constanti∣nople. Acacius and Patrophilus, extruding Maxi∣mus did in his room constitute Cyril Bishop of Jeru∣salem. Pope Leo doth complain of Anatolius, that against the Canonical rule he had assumed to himself the Ordination of the Bishop of Antioch.

2. To obviate these irregular and inconvenient proceedings, having crept in upon the dissensions in Faith and especially upon occasion of Gre∣gory Nazianzene being constituted Bishop of Constantinople by Meletius, and Maximus being thrust into the same See by the Egyptians (whose Par∣ty for a time the Roman Church did countenance) the second General Synod did ordain that no Bishop should intermeddle about Ordinations without the bounds of his own Diocese.

3. In pursuance of this Law, or upon the ground of it, the Pope was sometimes checked, when he presumed to make a sally beyond his bounds in this or the like cases.

As when Pope Innocent I. did send some Bishops to Constantinople for procuring a Synod to examine the cause of St. Chrysostome; those of Constantinople —did cause them to be dismissed with disgrace as molesting a government beyond their bounds.* 1.1162

4. Even in the Western parts, after that the Pope had wrigled him∣self into most Countries there, so as to obtain sway in their transactions, yet he in divers places did not meddle in Ordina∣tions; —we do not,* 1.1163 says Pope Leo I. arrogate to our selves a power of ordaining in your Provinces.

Even in some parts of Italy it self the Pope did not confirm Bishops till the times of Pope Nicholas I. as may be collected from the submis∣sion then of the Bishop of Ravenna to that condition,* 1.1164 that he should have no power to consecrate Bishops canonically elected in the Regio Flaminia, un∣less it were granted him by letters from the Apostolick See.

And it was not without great opposition and struggling that he got that power other-where than in his original precincts, or where the juncture of things did afford him special advantage.

5. If Examples would avail to determine Right, there are more, and more clear Instances of Emperours interposing in the Constitution of Bishops, than of Popes. As they had ground in Reason, and autho∣rity in Holy Scripture.* 1.1165 And Zadock the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar. Constantine did interpose at the designation of a Bishop at Antioch in the room of Eustathius.* 1.1166 Upon Gregory Nazianzene's recess from Constantinople, Theodosius (that excellent Emperour,* 1.1167 who would not have infringed right) did com∣mand the Bishops present to write in paper the names of those whom each did approve worthy to be ordained, and reserved to himself the choice of one; and ac∣cordingly they obeying, he out of all that were nominated did elect Nectarius. * 1.1168 Constantius did deliver the See of Constantinople to Eusebius Nicome∣diensis, ‖ 1.1169 Constantius was angry with Macedonius, because he was ordain'd without his licence. † 1.1170 He rejecting Eleusius and Sylvanus did order other to be substituted in their places. * 1.1171 When, before St. Am∣brose, the See of Milain was vacant, a Synod of Bishops there did intreat the Emperour to declare one. ‖ 1.1172 Flavianus said to the Emperour Theodosius, Give forsooth, O King, the See of Antioch to whom you shall think good. † 1.1173 The Emperour did call Nes∣torius from Antioch to the See of Constantinople; and he was (saith Vincentius Lir.) elected by the Emperour's judgment. The favour of Justinian did advance Menas to the See of Constantino••••••: and the same did prefer Eutychius thereto. He did put in Pope Vigilius—

In Spain the Kings had the Election of Bishops by the Decrees of the Council of Toledo.

That the Emperour Charles did use to confirm Bishops Pope John VIII. doth testifie, reproving the Archbishop of Vir∣dun,* 1.1174 for rejecting a Bishop, whom the Clergy and people of the City had chosen, and the Emperour Charles had confirmed by his consent.

When Macarius Bishop of Antioch for Monothe∣litism was deposed in the sixth Synod,* 1.1175 the Bishops under that throne did request the Presidents of the Synod to suggest another to the Emperour to be substituted in his room.

In Gratian there are divers passages wherein Popes declared, that they could not ordain Bishops to Churches, even in Italy, without the Emperour's leave and licence. As * 1.1176 indeed there are also in later times other Decrees (made by Popes of another kidney, or in other junctures of affairs) which forbid Princes to meddle in the elections of Bishops; as in the seventh Synod, and in the eighth Synod as they call it, upon oc∣casion of Photius being placed in the See of Con∣stantinople by the power of the Court. † 1.1177 And that of Pope Nicholas I. By which discordance in practice we may see the consistence and stability of Doctrine and Practice in the Roman Church.

The Emperours for a long time did enjoy the privilege of constituting or confirming the Popes: for, says Platina, in the Life of Pelagius II. ‖ 1.1178 no∣thing was then done by the Clergy in electing a Pope unless the Emperour approv'd the election. He did confirm P. Gregory I. and P. Agatho.

Pope Adrian with his whole Synod did deliver to Charles the Great the right and power of electing the Pope and ordaining the Apostolick See— He more∣over defined that Archbishops and Bishops in every Province should receive investiture from him; and that if a Bishop were not commended and invested by the King, he should be consecrated by none; and whoever should act against this Decree, him he did noose in the band of anathema.

* 1.1179The like privilege did Pope Leo VIII. attribute to the Emperour Otho I. We give him, says he, for ever power to ordain a successour and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See, and change Archbishops, &c. And Platina, in his Life, says, That being weary of the inconstancy of the Romans, he transferr'd all au∣thority to chuse a Pope from the Clergy and people of Rome to the Emperour.

Now I pray if this power of confirming Bishops do by Divine Insti∣tution belong to the Pope, how could he part with it, or transfer it on others? Is not this a plain renunciation in Popes of their Divine pre∣tence?

6. General Synods by an authority paramount have assumed to themselves the constitution and confirmation of Bishops.* 1.1180 So the Second General Synod did confirm the Ordination of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople,* 1.1181 and of Flavianus Bishop of Antioch, (this Ordination, say they, the Synod generally have admitted) although the Roman Church did not approve the Ordination of Necta∣rius, and for a long time after did oppose that of Flavianus. So the Fifth Synod it seemeth did confirm the Ordination of Theophanius Bishop of Antioch. So the Synod of Pisa did constitute Pope Alexander V. that of Constance Pope Martin V. that of Basil Pope Felix V.

7. All Catholick Bishops in old times might and commonly did con∣firm the Elections and Ordinations of Bishops, to the same effect as Popes may be pretended to have done; that is by signifying their ap∣probation, or satisfaction concerning the orthodoxy of their Faith, the attestation of their Manners, the legality of their Ordination, no cano∣nical Impediment; and consequently by admitting them to communi∣on of peace and charity, and correspondence in all good Offices, which they express by returning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in answer to their Syno∣dical— communicatory Letters.

Thus did St. Cyprian and all the Bishops of that Age confirm the Or∣dination of Pope Cornelius, being contested by No∣vatian; as St. Cyprian in terms doth affirm,* 1.1182 When the See of Saint Peter the Sacerdotal Chair was va∣cant, which by the will of God being occupied and by all our consents confirm'd, &c.— to confirm thy Or∣dination with a greater authority.

To which purpose, each Bishop did write Epistles to other Bishops (or at least to those of highest rank) acquainting them with his Ordination and enstallment, making a profession of his Faith, so as to satisfie them of his capacity of the Function.

8. But Bishops were complete Bishops before they did give such an account of themselves; so that it was not in the power of the Pope,* 1.1183 or of any others to reverse their Ordination; or dispossess them of their pla∣ces. There was no confirmation importing any such matter: this is plain; and one instance will serve to shew it; that of Pope Honorius,* 1.1184 and of Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, who speak of So∣phronius Patriarch of Jerusalem; that he was constituted Bishop before their knowledge, and receipt of his Synodical Letters.

9. If the designation of any Bishop should belong to the Pope, then especially that of Metropolitans, who are the chief Princes of the Church; but this anciently did not belong to him. In Africk the most ancient Bishop of the Province (without election) did succeed into that digni∣ty. Where the Metropoles were fixed, all the Bishops of the Province did convene, and with the consent of Clergy, persons of quality, and the commonalty did elect him * 1.1185. So was St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage elected. So Nectarius of Constantinople, Flavianus of Antioch, and Cyril of Jerusalem, as the Fathers of Constantinople tell us. So Stephanus and Bassianus rival Bishops of Ephesus

did pretend to have been chosen, as we saw be∣fore.

And for Confirmation, there did not need any, there is no mention of any; except that Confirmation of which we spake, a consequent approbation of them from all their fellow-Bishops, as having no excep∣tion against them, rendring them unworthy of communion. In the Synod of Chalcedon it was defined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal Privileges with the Bishop of Rome; yet it is expresly cautioned there,* 1.1186 that he shall not meddle in Ordination of Bishops in any Pro∣vince, that being left to the Metropolitan— For a good time,* 1.1187 even in the Western parts the Pope did not meddle with the Constitution of Metropo∣litans; leaving the Churches to enjoy their Li∣berties. Afterwards with all other Rights he snatched the Collation, Con∣firmation, &c. of Metropolitans.

VII. Sovereigns have a power to Censure and Correct all inferiour Magistrates in proportion to their Offences: and in case of great mis∣demeanour or of incapacity they can wholly discharge and remove them from their Office.

* 1.1188This Prerogative therefore He of Rome doth claim as most proper to himself, by Divine Sanction.

God Almighty alone can dissolve the spiritual marriage between a Bishop and his Church— Therefore those three things premi∣sed (the Confirmation,* 1.1189 Translation and Deposi∣tion of Bishops) are reserved to the Roman Bishop, not so much by Canonical Constitution, as by Divine Institution.

* 1.1190This power the Convention of Trent doth allow him; thwarting the ancient Laws, and betraying the Liberties of the Church thereby, and endan∣gering the Christian Doctrine to be inflected and corrupted to the advantage of Papal Interest.

* 1.1191But such a power anciently did not by any Rule, or Custom in a pe∣culiar manner belong to the Roman Bishop.

Premising what was generally touched about Jurisdiction: in refe∣rence to this Branch we remark.

1. The exercising of Judgment and Censure upon Bishops (when it was needfull for general good) was prescribed to be done by Synods; Provincial, or Patriarchal (Diocesan.) In them Causes were to be dis∣cussed, and Sentence pronounced against those who had deviated from saith, or committed misdemeanours. So it was appointed in the Sy∣nod of Nice;* 1.1192 as the African Synod (wherein St. Austin was one Bishop)

did observe, and urge in their Epistle to Pope Celestine; in those notable words, Whether they be Clergy of an inferiour degree, or whether they be Bishops, the Nicene decrees have most plainly com∣mitted them to the Metropolitans charge,* 1.1193 for they have most prudently and justly discerned that all mat∣ters whatsoever ought to be determined in the pla∣ces where they do first begin; and that the grace of the holy spirit would not be wanting to every particu∣lar Province. The same Law was enacted by the Synod of Antioch, by the Synods of Constantinople,* 1.1194 Chalcedon, &c.

Thus was Paulus Samosatenus for his errour against the Divinity of our Lord,* 1.1195 and for his scandalous demeanour deposed by the Synod of Antioch. Thus was Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (being accused of Sabellianism,* 1.1196 and of other faults) removed by a Synod of the same place; the which Sentence he quietly did bear. Thus another Eu∣stathius Bishop of Sebastia (for his uncouth garb,* 1.1197 and fond conceits against marriage) was discarded by the Synod of Gangra. Thus did a Synod of Constantinople abdicate Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra,* 1.1198 for hetero∣doxy in the point concerning our Lord's Divinity. For the like cause was Photinus Bishop of Sirmium deposed by a Synod there,* 1.1199 gathered by the Emperour's command. So was Athanasius tryed,* 1.1200 and condemned (al∣though unjustly as to the matter and cause) by the Synod of Tyre. So was St. Chrysostome (although most injuriously) deposed by a Synod at Constantinople.* 1.1201 So the Bishops at Antioch (according to the Emperour's order) deposed Stephanus Bishop of that place, for a wicked contrivance against the fame of Euphratas and Vincentius.

In all these Condemnations, Censures and Depositions of Bishops (whereof each was of high rank and great interest in the Church) the Bishop of Rome had no hand, nor so much as a little finger. All the proceedings did go on supposition of the Rule, and Laws, that such Judgments were to be passed by Synods.

St. Chrysostome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Deposed fifteen Bishops.* 1.1202

2. In some case a kind of deposing of Bishops was assumed by par∣ticular Bishops, as defenders of the Faith, and executours of Canons; their Deposition consisting in not allowing those to be Bishops, whom for erroneous Doctrine,* 1.1203 or disorderly Behaviour (notoriously incurred) they deemed incapable of the Office, presuming their places ipso facto void.

This Pope Gelasius I. proposed for a Rule,* 1.1204 That not onely a Metropolitan, but every other Bishop hath a Right to separate any persons or any place from the Catholick Communion, according to the Rule by which his heresie is already condemned.* 1.1205 And upon this ac∣count did the Popes for so long time quarrel with the See of Constantinople, because they did not ex∣punge Acacius from the roll of Bishops, who had communicated with Hereticks.* 1.1206 So did Saint Cy∣prian reject Marcianus Bishop of Arles for adhering to the Novatians.* 1.1207 So Athanasius was said to have

deposed Arian Bishops,* 1.1208 and substituted others in their places. So Acacius and his Complices deposed Macedonius and divers other Bishops. And the Bishops of those times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, facti∣ously applying a Rule taken for granted then,* 1.1209 de∣posed one another: So Maximus Bishop of Jerusa∣lem deposed Athanasius. So Eusebius of Nicome∣dia threatned to depose Alexander of Constantino∣ple, if he would not admit Arius to communion. * 1.1210 Acacius and his Complices did extrude Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem. † 1.1211 He also deposed and ex∣pelled Cyril of Jerusalem: * 1.1212 and deposed many other Bishops at Constantinople. ‖ 1.1213 Cyril deposed Nestorius, and Nestorius deposed Cyril, and Mem∣non. Cyril and Juvenalis deposed John of Antioch. * 1.1214 John of Antioch with his Bishops deposed Cyril and Memnon. † 1.1215 Yea after the Synod of Ephesus, John of Antioch, gathering together many Bishops did depose Cyril. Stephanus concerning Bassianus; Because he had entred into the Church with swords— therefore he was expelled out of it again by the holy Fathers, both by Leo of Rome the Imperial City, and by Flavianus; by the Bishop of Alexandria, and also by the Bishop of Antioch. Anatolius of Constan∣tinople did reject Timotheus of Alexandria. Aca∣cius Bishop of Constantinople did reject Petrus Fullo.

3. St. Cyprian doth assert the power of Censuring Bishops, upon need∣full and just occasion, to belong to all Bishops, for maintenance of com∣mon Faith, Discipline and Peace.

Therefore (saith he, writing to Pope Stephanus himself) dear brother,* 1.1216 the body of Bishops is copi∣ous, being coupled by the glue of concord, and the band of unity, that if any of our College shall attempt to frame a heresie, or to tear and spoil the flock of Christ, the rest may succour, and like usefull and mercifull shepherds may gather together the sheep of our Lord into the flock.

* 1.1217The like Doctrine is that of Pope Celestine I. in his Epistle to the Ephesine Synod.

* 1.1218In matter of Faith any Bishop might interpose Judgment— Theo∣philus did proceed to condemn the Origenists without regard to the Pope.

Epiphanius did demand satisfaction of John of Jerusalem.

4. This common right of Bishops in some cases is confirmed by the nature of such Censures, which consisted in disclaiming persons notori∣ously guilty of Heresie, Schism or Scandal; and in refusing to enter∣tain

communion with them; which every Bishop,* 1.1219 as entitled to the common Interests of Faith and Peace, might do.

5. Indeed in such a case every Christian had a right (yea an obligation) to desert his own Bishop.* 1.1220 So John of Hierusalem having given sus∣picion of Errour in Faith, * 1.1221 St. Epiphanius did write Letters to the Monks of Palestine not to communi∣cate with him, till they were satisfied of his Ortho∣doxy. Upon which account St. Hierome living in Palestine did decline communication with the Patriarch thereof; asking him if it were any where said to him or commanded that without satisfaction concerning his faith, they were bound to maintain com∣munion with him. So every Bishop, yea every Christian hath a kind of Universal Jurisdiction.

6. If any Pope did assume more than was allowed in this case by the Canons, or was common to other Bishops of his rank, it was an irre∣gularity and an usurpation. Nor would Examples, if any were produ∣cible, serve to justifie him; or to ground a right thereto, any more than the extravagant proceedings of other pragmatical and factious Bishops in the same kind (whereof so many instances can be alledged) can assert such a power to any Bishop.* 1.1222

7. When the Pope hath attempted in this kind,* 1.1223 his power hath been disavowed, as an illegal, upstart pretence.

8. Other Bishops have taken upon them, when they apprehended cause, to discard and depose Popes. So did the Oriental Faction at Sardica depose Pope Julius for transgressing, as they supposed,* 1.1224 the Laws of the Church, in fostering hereticks, and criminal persons condemned by Synods.* 1.1225 So did the Synod of Antioch threaten Deposition to the same Pope.* 1.1226 So did the Patriarch Dioscorus make shew to reject Pope Leo from communion. So did St. Hilary anathematize Pope Liberius.

9. Popes, when there was great occasion, and they had a great mind to exert their utmost power, have not yet presumed by themselves, without joint authority of Synods, to condemn Bi∣shops;* 1.1227 so Pope Julius did not presume to depose Eusebius of Nicomedia, his great Adversary, and so much obnoxious by his patronizing Arianism. Pope Innocent did not censure Theophilus and his Complices, who so irregu∣larly and wrongfully had extruded St. Chrysostome, although much dis∣pleased with them; but endeavoured to get a General Synod to doe the business. Pope Leo I. (though a man of spirit and animosity sufficient) would not, without assistence of a Synod attempt to judge Diosco∣rus, who had so highly provoked him, and given so much advan∣tage against him, by favouring Eutyches, and persecuting the Or∣thodox.

Indeed often we may presume that Popes would have deposed Bishops, if they had thought it regular, or if others commonly had received that opinion, so that they could have expected success in their attempting it.

But they many times were angry when their horns were short, and shewed their teeth when they could not bite.

10. What has been done in this kind by Popes jointly with others, or in Synods, (especially upon advantage, when the cause was just and plausible) is not to be ascribed to the authority of Popes as such. It might be done with their influence, not by their authority: so the Sy∣nod of Sardica (not Pope Julius) cashiered the enemies of Athanasius;* 1.1228 so the Synod of Chalcedon (not Pope Leo) deposed Dioscorus; so the Roman Synod (not Pope Celestine) checked Nestorius; and that of E∣phesus deposed him. The whole Western Synod (whereof he was Pre∣sident) had a great sway.

11. If Instances were Arguments of Right, there would be other pretenders to the Deposing power. Particular Bishops would have it, as we before shewed.

12. The People would have the power; for they have sometimes deposed popes themselves, with effect.

So of Pope Constantine Platina telleth us, at length he is deposed by the people of Rome,* 1.1229 being very much provoked by the indignity of the matter.

13. There are many Instances of Bishops being removed or deposed by the Imperial authority. This power was indeed necessarily annexed to the Imperial dignity; for all Bishops being Subjects of the Emperour, he could dispose of their persons, so as not to suffer them to continue in a place, or to put them from it, as they demeaned themselves, to his satisfaction or otherwise, in reference to publick utility. It is reasona∣ble, if they were disloyal or disobedient to him, that he should not suf∣fer them to be in places of such influence, whereby they might pervert the people to disaffection. It is fit that he should deprive them of tem∣poralties.

* 1.1230The example of Solomon deposing Abiathar.

Constantine M. * 1.1231 commanded Eusebius and Theogonius to depart out of the Cities over which they presided as Bishops.

* 1.1232Constantius deposed Paulus of Constantinople.

Constantius ejected all that would not subscribe to the Creed of Ari∣minum.

The Emperour Leo deposed Timotheus Aelurus,* 1.1233 for which Pope Leo did highly commend and thank him.

The Emperours discarded divers Popes.

Constantius banished Pope Liberius, and caused another to be put in his room.

Otho put out John the Twelfth.

Justinian deposed Pope Silverius, and banished Pope Vigilius.* 1.1234

Justinian banished Anastasius Bishop of Antioch,* 1.1235 extruded Anthimus of Constantinople, and Theodosius of Alexandria.

Neither indeed was any great Patriarch effectually deposed without their power or leave.

Flavianus was supported by Theodosius against the Pope.

Dioscorus subsisted by the power of Theodosius Junior.

The Deposition of Dioscorus in the Synod of Chalcedon was voted with a reserve of,* 1.1236 If it shall please our most sacred and pious Lord.

In effect the Emperours deposed all Bishops which were ordained beside their general Laws: as Justinian having prescribed conditions and qualifications concerning the Ordinations of Bishops, subjoineth, But if any Bishop be ordained without using our forementioned Constitution,* 1.1237 we command you that by all means he be removed from his Bisho∣prick.

14. The Instances alledged to prove the Pope's Authority in this case, are inconcludent and invalid.

They alledge the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles; concerning whom (for abetting Novatianism) St. Cyprian doth exhort Pope Stephanus,* 1.1238 that he would direct Letters to the Bishops of Gaul, and the people of Arles, that he being for his schismatical behaviour removed from communion, another should be substituted in his room.

The Epistle, grounding this Argument, is questioned by a great Critick; but I willingly admit it to be genuine, seeing it hath the style and spirit of St. Cyprian, and suteth his Age, and I see no cause why it should be forged; wherefore omitting that defence, I answer, that the whole matter being seriously weighed, doth make rather against the Pope's cause than for it; for if the Pope had the sole or Sovereign au∣thority of rejecting Bishops, why did the Gaulish Bishops refer the matter to St. Cyprian? why had Marcianus himself a recourse to him?

St. Cyprian doth not ascribe to the Pope any peculiar authority of Judgment or Censure, but a common one, which himself could exer∣cise, which all Bishops might exercise, It is (saith he) our part to provide and succour in such a case;* 1.1239 for therefore is the body of Priests so numerous, that —by joint endeavour they may suppress heresies and schisms.

The case being such, St. Cyprian earnestly doth move Pope Stepha∣nus to concur in exercise of Discipline on that Schismatick; and to prosecute effectually the business by his Letters; persuading his fellow-Bishops

in France, that they would not suffer Marci∣anus to insult over the College of Bishops;* 1.1240 (for to them it seemeth the transaction did immediately belong.)

To doe thus St. Cyprian implieth and prescribeth to be the Pope's spe∣cial duty, not onely out of regard to the common Interest, but for his particular concernment in the case;* 1.1241 that schism having been first advanced against his Predecessours.

* 1.1242St. Cyprian also (if we mark it) covertly doth tax the Pope of neg∣ligence, in not having soon enough joined with himself and the com∣munity of Bishops in censuring that Delinquent.

We may add, that the Church of Arles and Gaul, being near Italy, the Pope may be allowed to have some greater sway there, than other∣where in more distant places; so that St. Cyprian thought his Letters to quicken Discipline there, might be proper and particularly effectual.

These things being duly considered, what advantage can they draw from this Instance? doth it not rather prejudice their cause, and af∣ford a considerable objection against it?

We may observe, that the strength of their argumentation mainly consisteth in the words quibus abstento, the which (as the drift of the whole Epistle, and parallel expressions therein do shew) do signifie no more, than quibus efficiatur ut abstento, which may procure him to be excomunicated, not quae contineant abstentionem, which contain excom∣munication, as P. de Marca glosseth; although admitting that sense, it would not import much, seeing onely thereby the Pope would have signified his consent with other Bishops; wherefore de Marca hath no great cause to blame us,* 1.1243 that we do not deprehend any magnificent thing in this place for the dignity of the Papal See; indeed he hath, I must con∣fess, better eyes than I, who can see any such mighty things there for that purpose.

As for the substitution of another in the room of Marcianus, that was a consequent of the excommunication; and was to be the work of the Clergy and people of the place; for when by common judgment of Catholick Bishops any Bishop was rejected, the people did apply themselves to chuse another.

I adjoin the Resolution of a very learned writer of their communion, in these words,

In this case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles, if the right of excommunication did belong solely to the Bi∣shop of Rome,* 1.1244 wherefore did Faustinus Bishop of Lyons advertise Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who was so far distant, concerning those very things touching Marci∣anus, which both Faustinus himself, and other Bi∣shops of the same Province, had before sent word of to Stephen (Bishop of Rome) who lived nearest, being moreover of all Bishops the chief? It must either be said that this was done because of Stephen's negli∣gence; or what is more probable, according to the discipline then used in the Church, that all Bishops of neighbouring places, but especially those presiding over the most eminent Cities, should join their Coun∣sels for the welfare of the Church, and that Christian

Religion might not receive the least damage in any of its affairs whatsoever: Hence it was that in the case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles, the Bishop of Ly∣ons writ Letters to the Bishop of Rome and Carthage; and again, that the Bishop of Carthage, as being most remote, did write to the Bishop of Rome as being his brother and Collegue, who by reason of his propinquity might more easily know and judge of the whole matter.

The other Instances are of a later date (after the Synod of Nice) and therefore of not so great weight; yea their having none more an∣cient to produce, doth strongly make against the antiquity of this right; it being strange, that no memory should be of any deposed thereby for above three hundred years, but however such as they are, they do not reach home to the purpose.

They alledge Flavianus Bishop of Antioch deposed by Pope Damasus, as they affirm. But it is wonderfull they should have the face to men∣tion that Instance; the story in short being this, The great Flavianus (a most worthy and Ortho∣dox Prelate,* 1.1245 whom St. Chrysostome in his Statuary Orations doth so highly commend and celebrate) being substituted in the place of Meletius, by the Quire of Bishops;* 1.1246 a party did adhere to Paulinus; and after his decease they set up Evagrius, ordaining him (as Theodoret, who was best acquainted with passages on that side of Christendom, reporteth) against many Canons of the Church.

Yet with this party, the Roman Bishops, not willing to know any of these things,* 1.1247 (three of them in order, Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius) did con∣spire, instigating the Emperour against Flavianus, and reproaching him as supporter of a Tyrant against the Laws of Christ.

But the Emperour having called Flavianus to him, and received much satisfaction in his demeanour and discourse, did demand and set∣tle him in his place; The Emperour (saith Theo∣doret) wondring at his courage and his wisedom,* 1.1248 did command him to return home, and to feed the Church committed to him; at which proceeding when the Romans afterward did grumble, the Emperour gave them such reasons and advices that they complyed and did enter∣tain communion with Flavianus.

It is true, that upon their suggestions and clamours, the Emperour was moved at first to order that Flavianus should go to Rome, and give the Western Bishops satisfaction: but after that he understood the quality of his plea, he freed him of that trouble, and without their allowance settled him in his See.

Here is nothing of the Pope's deposing Flavianus; but of his embra∣cing in a Schism the side of a Competitour, it being in such a case needfull that the Pope or any other Bishop should chuse with whom he must communicate, and consequently must disclaim the other; in which choice the Pope had no good success; not deposing Flavianus, but vainly opposing him; wherefore this allegation is strangely imper∣tinent, and well may be turned against them.

Indeed in this Instance, we may see how fallible that See was in their judgment of things, how rash in taking parties and somenting discords;

how pertinacious in a bad cause, how peevish against the common sense of their brethren; (especially considering, that before this oppo∣sition of Flavianus the Fathers of Constantinople had in their Letter to Pope Damasus and the Occidental Bishops approved, and commended him to them; highly asserting the legitimateness of his Ordination;) In fine,* 1.1249 how little their authority did avail with wise and considerate persons, such as Theodosius M. was.

* 1.1250De Marca representeth the matter somewhat otherwise out of Socra∣tes; but take the matter as Socrates hath it and it signifieth no more, than that both Theophilus and Damasus would not entertain communion with Flavianus, as being uncapable of the Episcopal Order, for having violated his Oath and caused a division in the Church of Antioch: what is this to judicial Deposition? and how did Damasus more depose him than Theophilus, who upon the same dissatisfaction did in like manner forbear communion? whenas indeed a wiser and better man than either of them, St. Chrysostome, did hold communion with him, and did at length (saith Socrates, not agreeing with Theodoret) reconcile him to them both.

They alledge the Deposition of Nestorius. But who knoweth not, that he was for heretical Doctrine deposed in and by a General Synod? * 1.1251 Pope Celestine did indeed threa∣ten to withdraw his communion, if he did not re∣nounce his errour. But had not any other Bishop sufficient authority to desert a perverter of the Faith? † 1.1252 Did not his own Clergy doe the same, be∣ing commended by Pope Celestine for it? ‖ 1.1253 Did not Cyril in writing to Pope Celestine himself af∣firm, that he might before have declared, that he could not communicate with him? Did Nestorius admit the Pope's judgment? no, as the Papal Legates did complain, * 1.1254 He did not admit the constitution of the Apostolical Chair. Did the Pope's Sentence obtain effect? No, not any; for notwithstanding his threats, Nestorius did hold his place till the Synod; the Emperour did severe∣ly rebuke Cyril for his fierceness, (and implicitly the Pope) and did order that no change should be made, till the Synod should determine in the case; not regarding the Pope's judgment: So that this instance may well be retorted, or used to prove the insignificancy of Papal authority then.

They alledge also Dioscorus of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo: but the case is very like to that of Nestorius, and argueth the contrary to what they intend; He was, for his misdemeanours, and violent coun∣tenancing of heresie, solemnly in a General Synod accused, tried, con∣demned and deposed; the which had long before been done, if in the Pope, his professed and provoked Adversary, there had been sufficient power to effect it.

Bellarmine also alledgeth Pope Sixtus III. deposing Polychronius Bi∣shop of Jerusalem: But no such Polychronius is to be found in the Regi∣sters of Bishops then, or in the Histories of that busie time, between the two great Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon; and the Acts of Sixtus, upon which this allegation is grounded, have so many inconsistences, and smell so rank of forgery, that no conscionable nose could endure them; and any prudent man (as Binius himself confesseth) would assert them to be spurious.* 1.1255 Wherefore Baronius himself doth reject and despise them; who gladly would lose no advantage for his Master. Yet Pope Nicholas I. doth precede Bellarmine in citing this trash; no won∣der, that being the Pope, who did avouch the wares of Isidore Mer∣cator.

They alledge Timotheus the Usurper of Alexan∣dria deposed by Pope Damasus;* 1.1256 * 1.1257 and they have in∣deed the sound of words attesting to them; These are Heads upon which the B. Damasus deposed the Hereticks Apolinarius, Vitalius and Timotheus.

The truth is, that Apolinarius, with divers of his Disciples, in a great Synod at Rome, at which Petrus Bishop of Alexandria together with Damasus was present, was condemned and disavowed for heretical Doctrine;* 1.1258 whence Sozo∣men saith that the Apolinarian Heresie was by Da∣masus and Peter, at a Synod in Rome, voted to be excluded from the Catholick Church.

On which account if we conclude that the Pope had an authority to depose Bishops, we may by like reason infer that every Patriarch and Metropolitan had a power to doe the like; there being so many Instances of their having condemned and disclaimed Bishops supposedly guilty of heresie; as particularly John of Antioch, with his convention of Oriental Bishops, did pretend to depose Cyril and Memnon as guilty of the same Apolinarian heresie; alledging that to exscind them was the same thing as to settle Orthodoxy.* 1.1259 The which Deposition was at first admitted by the Emperour.

The next Instance is of Pope Agapetus (in Justinian's time,* 1.1260 for so deep into time is Bellarmine fain to dive for it) deposing Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople. But this Instance being scanned will also prove slender and lame. The case was this: Anthimus having deserted his charge at Trabisonde did creep into the See of Constantinople (a course then held irregular and repugnant to the Canons) and withall he had imbi∣bed the Eutychian heresie. Yet for his support he had wound himself into the favour of the Empress Theodora, * 1.1261 a countenancer of the Eu∣tychian Sect. Things standing thus, Pope Agapetus (as an Agent from Rome to crave succour against the Goths pressing and menacing the Ci∣ty) did arrive at Constantinople. Whereupon the Empress desired of him to salute and consort with Anthimus. But he, by petitions of the Monks,* 1.1262 &c. understanding how things stood, did refuse to doe so, except Anthimus would return to his own charge,

and profess the Orthodox doctrine.* 1.1263 Thereupon the Emperour joined with him to extrude Anthimus from Constantinople,* 1.1264 and to substitute Menas. He (say the Monks in their Libel of request to the Emperour) did justly thrust this Anthimus from the Episcopal Chair of this City; your Grace affording aid and force both to the Catholick faith, and the divine Canons.* 1.1265 The act of Agapetus was (accor∣ding to his share in the common Interest) to de∣clare Anthimus in his judgment uncapable of Ca∣tholick communion and of Episcopal Function by reason of his heretical Opinions, and his transgression of Ecclesiastical Orders; which moved Justinian effectually to de∣pose,* 1.1266 and extrude him; You (say they) fulfilling that which he justly and canonicaly did judge, and by your general edict confirming it; and forbidding that hereafter such things should be attempted— And Agapetus himself saith, * 1.1267 that it was done by the Apostolical authority and the assistence of the most faith∣full Emperours. The which proceeding was com∣pleted by Decree of the Synod under Menas, and that again was con∣firmed by the Imperial Sanction. Whence Evagrius reporting the story, doth say concerning Anthimus and Theodo∣sius of Alexandria,* 1.1268 that because they did cross the Emperour's commands, and did not admit the decrees of Chalcedon, they both were expelled from their Sees.

It seemeth by some passages in the Acts, that before Agapetus his intermedling, * 1.1269 the Monks and † 1.1270 Orthodox Bishops had condemned and rejected Anthimus; according to the common Interest, which they as∣sert all Christians to have in regard to the common Faith.

As for the substitution of Menas it was perfor∣med by the choice and suffrage of the Emperour,* 1.1271 the Clergy, Nobles, and People conspiring; the Pope onely (which another Bishop might have done) ordaining or consecrating him;* 1.1272 Then (saith Li∣beratus) the Pope by the Emperour's favour did or∣dain Menas Bishop, consecrating him with his hand.

* 1.1273And Agapetus did glory in this, as being the first Ordination made of an Eastern Bishop by the hands of a Pope:* 1.1274 And this (said the Pope) we conceive doth add to his dignity, because the Ea∣stern Church never since the time of the Apostle Peter did receive any Bishop besides him by the imposition of hands of those who sate in this our Chair.

If we compare the proceedings of Agapetus against Anthimus with those of Theophilus against St. Chrysostome; they are (except the cause and qualities of persons) in all main respects and circumstances so like, that the same reason, which would ground a pretence of Universal Jurisdiction to one, would infer the same to the other.

Baronius alledgeth Acacius Bishop of Constanti∣nople deposed by Pope Felix III.* 1.1275 But Pope Gelasius asserteth, that any Bishop might, in execution of the Canons, have disclaimed Acacius,* 1.1276 as a favou∣rer of Hereticks. And Acacius did not onely re∣fuse to submit to the Pope's Jurisdiction, but slighted it. And the Pope's act was but an attempt, not effectual; for Acacius dyed in possession of his See.

VIII. If Popes were Sovereigns of the Church, they could effectually, whenever they should see it just and fit, * 1.1277 absolve— restore any Bishop excommunicated from the Church, or deposed from his Office by Ec∣clesiastical Censure; for Relief of the Oppressed, or Clemency to the Distressed, are noble Flowers in every Sovereign Crown.

Wherefore the Pope doth assume this power, and reserveth it to himself as his special Prerogative; 'Tis says Ba∣ronius, a privilege of the Church of Rome onely,* 1.1278 that a Bishop deposed by a Synod, may without another Sy∣nod of a greater number be restor'd by the Pope; and Pope Gelasius I. says, That the See of Saint Peter the Apostle has a right of loosing whatever the Sen∣tences of other Bishops have bound— That the Apo∣stolick See, according to frequent ancient custome, had a power, no Synod preceding, to absolve those whom a Synod had unjustly condemned, and without a Coun∣cil to condemn those who deserv'd it.

It was an old pretence of Popes, that Bishops were not condemned, except the Pope did consent, renouncing communion with them. So Pope Vigilius saith of St. Chrysostome and Flavia∣nus, that although they were violently excluded,* 1.1279 yet were they not look'd upon as condemned, because the Bishops of Rome always inviolably kept communion with them.

And before him Pope Gelasius saith,* 1.1280 that the Pope by not consenting to the condemnation of Athana∣sius, Chrysostome, Flavianus, did absolve them.

But such a power of old did not belong to him. For,

1. There is not extant any ancient Canon of the Church, nor ap∣parent footsteps of custome allowing such a power to him.

2. Decrees of Synods (Provincial in the former times, and Diocesan afterwards) were inconsistent with, or repugnant to such a power, for judgments concerning Episcopal Causes were deemed irrevocable, and appointed to be so by Decrees of divers Synods; and consequently no power was reserved to the Pope of thwarting them by Restitution of any Bishop condemned in them.

3. The Apostolical Canons (which at least serve to prove or illustrate ancient Custome) and divers Synodical Decrees did prohibit entertaining com∣munion with any person condemned or rejected by canonical Judgment; without exception,* 1.1281 or

reservation of power of infringing or relaxing that Prohibition; and Pope Gelasius himself says, That he who had pollu∣ted himself by holding communion with a condemned person,* 1.1282 did partake of his condemnation.

4. Whence in elder times Popes were opposed and checked when they offered to receive Bishops rejected in particular Synods. So St. Cyprian declared the Restitution of Basilides by Pope Stephanus to be null.* 1.1283 So the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did reprehend Pope Julius for admitting Athanasius and Marcellus to communion, or avow∣ing them for Bishops, after their condemnation by Synods. And the Oriental Bishops of Sardica did excommunicate the same Pope for com∣municating with the same persons. Which Instances do shew, that the Pope was not then undoubtedly, or according to common opinion endowed with such a power.

But whereas they do alledge some Instances of such a power, I shall premise some general Considerations apt to clear the business, and then apply answers to the particular Allegations.

1. Restitution commonly doth signifie no more, than acknowledg∣ing a person (although rejected by undue Sentence) to be de jure wor∣thy of communion, and capable of the Episcopal Office; upon which may be consequent an Obligation to communicate with him, and to allow him his due Character; according to the Precept of Saint Paul, Follow righteousness,* 1.1284 faith, charity, peace with them that call upon the Lord with a pure heart.

This may be done, when any man notoriously is persecuted for the Truth and Righteousness. Or when the iniquity and malice of preten∣ded Judges are apparent, to the oppression of Innocence. Or when the Process is extremely irregular: as in the cases of Athanasius, of St. Chrysostome,— And this is not an act of Jurisdiction, but of Equity and Charity; incumbent on all Bishops; And there are promiscuous Instances of Bishops practising it. Thus Socrates saith,* 1.1285 that Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem did re∣store communion and dignity to Athanasius. And so Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, being reconciled and reduced to a good understanding of each other,* 1.1286 did restore to each other their Sees; rescinding the Censures, which in heat they had denounced each on other. Which sheweth that Restitution is not always taken for an act of Jurisdiction; wherein one is Superiour to another; for those persons were in rank and power co-ordinate.

2. Restitution sometime doth import no more than a considerable influence toward the effects of restoring a person to communion or Office; no judicial act being exercised about the case— The Emperour writing that Paulus and Athanasius should be restor'd to their Sees,* 1.1287 availed nothing— That was a Re∣stitution without effect.

Thus a Pope's avowing the Orthodoxy, or Innocence, or Worth of a person, after a due information about them, (by reason of the Pope's eminent rank in the Church, and the regard duely had to him) might sometimes much conduce to restore a person; and might obtain the name of Restitution, by an ordinary scheme of speech.

3. Sometimes persons said to be restored by Popes are also said to be restored by Synods, with regard to such instance or testimony of Popes

in their behalf. In which case the Judicial Restitution,* 1.1288 giving right of Recovery and completion thereto, was the act of the Synod.

4. When Cases were driven to a legal debate, Popes could not ef∣fectually resolve without a Synod, their single acts not being held suf∣ficiently valid. So notwithstanding the Declarations of Pope Julius in favour of Athanasius, for the effectual resolution of his case the great Synod of Sardica was convened. So whatever Pope Innocent I. did en∣deavour, he could not restore St. Chrysostome without a General Synod.

Nor could Pope Leo restore Flavianus, deposed in the Second Ephe∣sine Synod, without convocation of a General Synod, the which he did so often sue for to the Emperour Theodosius, for that purpose. Pope Simplicius affirmed, that Petrus Moggus having been by a common decree condemned as an adulterer (or Usurper of the Alexandrian See) could not with∣out a common Council be freed from condemnation.* 1.1289

5. Particular instances do not ascertain right to the Person, who as∣sumeth any power; for busie bodies often will exceed their bounds.

6. Emperours did sometimes restore Bishops. Constantine, as he did banish Eusebius of Nicomedia and others, so he did revoke and restore them; so says Socrates,* 1.1290 They were recall'd from banishment by the Emperour's com∣mand and receiv'd their Churches. Theodosius did assert to Flavianus his right, whereof the Popes did pretend to deprive him; which did amount to a Restitution (at least to the Romanists who do assert Flavianus to be deposed by the Popes.* 1.1291) Instantius and Priscillianus were by the rescript of the Empe∣rour Gratianus restored to their Churches. Justinian did order Pope Sil∣verius to be restored, in case he could prove his Innocence.

7. Commonly Restitution was not effectual without the Emperour's consent; whence Theodoret, although allowed by the great Synod, did acknowledge his Restitution especially due to the Emperour; as we shall see in reflecting on his case.

Now to the particular Instances produced for the Pope, we answer.

1. They pretend, that Pope Stephanus did restore Basilides and Mar∣tialis Spanish Bishops, who had been deposed; for which they quote St. Cyprian's Epistle, where he says, Basilides go∣ing to Rome, imposed upon our Collegue Stephen,* 1.1292 who lived a great way off and was ignorant of the truth of the matter; seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bi∣shoprick from which he had justly been deposed.

But we answer; The Pope did attempt such a Restitution by way of Influence and Testimony, not of Jurisdiction; wherefore the result of his act in St. Cyprian's judgment was null, and blameable; which could not be so deemed,* 1.1293 if he had acted as a Judge; for a favourable Sentence,

passed by just Authority,* 1.1294 is valid, and hardly lia∣ble to Censure. The Clergy of those places, not∣withstanding that pretended Restitution did con∣ceive those Bishops uncapable; and did request the judgment of St. Cyprian about it; which ar∣gueth the Pope's judgment not to have been per∣emptory and prevalent then in such cases. St. Cy∣prian denieth the Pope or any other person to have power of restoring in such a case; and ex∣horteth the Clergy to persist in declining the com∣munion of those Bishops. Well doth Rigaltius ask, why they should write to St. Cyprian if the judg∣ment of Stephanus was decisive; and he addeth that indeed, the Spaniards did appeal from the Ro∣man Bishop to him of Carthage. No wonder, see∣ing the Pope had no greater authority, and probably St. Cyprian had the fairer reputation for wisedom and goodness. Considering which things, what can they gain by this Instance? which indeed doth con∣siderably make against them.

2. They alledge the Restitution of Athanasius, and of others linked in cause with him, by Pope Julius. He, says Sozomen,* 1.1295 as having the care of all by reason of the dignity of his See, restored to each his own Church.

I answer, the Pope did not restore them judi∣cially,* 1.1296 but declaratively; that is, declaring his approbation of their right and innocence, did ad∣mit them to communion. Julius in his own De∣fence did alledge, that Athanasius was not legally rejected; so that without any prejudice to the Canons he might receive him; and the doing it upon this account, plainly did not require any Act of Judg∣ment.

Nay it was necessary to avow those Bishops, as suffering in the cause of the common Faith. Besides, the Pope's proceeding was taxed, and protested against as irregular; nor did he defend it by virtue of a gene∣ral power that he had judicially to rescind the acts of Synods. And lastly, the Restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops, had no com∣plete effect, till it was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica, backed by the Imperial authority; which in effect did restore them. This instance therefore is in many respects deficient as to their purpose.

* 1.12973. They produce Marcellus being restored by the same Pope Julius.

But that Instance, beside the forementioned defects, hath this, that the Pope was grievously mistaken in the case;* 1.1298 whence St. Basil much blameth him for his proceeding therein.

4. They cite the Restitution of Eustathius (Bishop of Sebastia) by Pope Liberius, out of an Epistle of St. Basil, where he says,* 1.1299 What the most blessed Bishop Liberius pro∣posed to him, and to what he consented we know not; onely that he brought a Letter to be restored, and up∣on shewing it to the Synod at Tyana was restored to his See.

I answer,* 1.1300 That Restitution was onely from an invalid Deposition by a Synod of Arians at Melitine; importing onely an acknow∣ledgment of him, upon approbation of his Faith professed by him at Rome; the which had such influence to the satisfaction of the Diocesan Synod at Tyana, that he was restored. Although indeed the Romans were abused by him, he not being sound in Faith;* 1.1301 for He now (saith Saint Basil) doth de∣stroy that faith, for which he was received—

5. They adjoin, that Theodoret was restored by Pope Leo I. for in the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon it is said,* 1.1302 that be did receive his place from the Bishop of Rome.

I answer, The act of Leo did consist in an approbation of the Faith, which Theodoret did profess to hold; and a re∣ception of him to communion thereupon;* 1.1303 which he might well do, seeing the ground of Theo∣doret's being disclaimed was a misprision, that he (having opposed Cyril's Writings, judged Orthodox) did err in Faith, consenting with Nestorius.

Theodoret's state before the Second Ephesine Synod,* 1.1304 is thus represented in the words of the Emperour, Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, whom we have before commanded to mind onely his own Church, we charge not to come to the Holy Synod, before the whole Synod being met, it shall seem good to them that he come and hear his part in it.

He was not perfectly deposed;* 1.1305 as others were who had others substituted in their places. He was deposed by the Ephesine Synod.* 1.1306

The Pope was indeed ready enough to assume the Patronage of so very learned and worthy a man, who in so very suppliant and respectfull a way had redressed to him for succour; for whom doth not courtship mollifie? And the majority of the Synod, (being inflamed against Dioscorus and the Eutychian Party) was ready enough to allow what the Pope did in favour of him. Yet a good part of the Synod (the Bishops of Egypt, of Palestine, of Illyricum) notwithstan∣ding the Pope's Restitution (that is, his approbation in order thereto) did stickle against his admission into the Synod; crying out, have pity on us, the faith is destroyed,* 1.1307 the Canons proscribe this man, cast him out, cast out Nestorius his Master. So that the Imperial Agents were fain to compromise the business, permitting him to sit in the Synod, as one whose case was dependent, but not in the notion of one absolutely restored:* 1.1308 Theo∣doret's presence shall prejudice no man, each one's right of impleading being reserved both to you and him.

He therefore was not entirely restored, till upon a clear and satis∣factory profession of his Faith he was acquitted by the judgment of the Synod. The effectual Restitution of him proceeded from the Emperour, who repealed the proceedings against him:* 1.1309 as himself doth acknowledge; All these things, says he, has the most just Emperour evacu∣ated — to these things he premised the redressing my injuries; and the Imperial Judges in the Sy∣nod of Chalcedon join the Emperour in the Re∣stitution — Let the most reverend Theodoret enter and bear his part in the Synod,* 1.1310 since the most holy Archbishop Leo, and sacred Emperour have re∣stored his Bishoprick to him. Hence it may appear that the Pope's Restitution of Theodoretus was onely opinionative, dough-baked, incomplete; so that it is but a slimme advantage, which their pretence can receive from it.

IX. It belongeth to Sovereigns to receive Appeals from all lower Judicatures, for the final determination of Causes; so that no part of his Subjects can obstruct resort to him, or prohibit his revision of any Judgment.

This Power therefore the Pope doth most stifly assert to himself. At the Synod of Florence, this was the first and great Branch of Au∣thority, which he did demand of the Greeks ex∣plicitely to avow:* 1.1311 — he will (said his three Cardinals to the Emperour) have all the Privi∣leges of his Church, and that Appeals be made to him. When Pope Alexander III. was advised not to receive an Appeal in Becket's Case, he replied in that profane allusi∣on,* 1.1312 This is my glory, which I will not give to ano∣ther. He hath been wont to encourage all Peo∣ple, even upon the slightest occasions, iter arripere (as the phrase is obvious in their Canon Law) to run with all haste to his Audience; Concerning Appeals for the smallest causes we would have you hold,* 1.1313 that the same deference is to be gi∣ven them for how slight a matter soever they be made, as if they were for a greater. See, if you please in Gratian's Decree, Caus. 2. quaest. 6. where many Papal Decrees (most indeed drawn out of the spurious Epistles of ancient Popes, but ratified by their Successours, and obtaining for current Law) are made for Appeals to the See of Rome.

It was indeed one of the most ancient encroachments, and that which did serve most to introduce the rest; inferring hence a title to an universal Jurisdiction: They are the Canons, says Pope Nicholas I. which will that all Appeals of the whole Church he brought to the examination of this See,* 1.1314 and have decreed that no appeal be made from it, and that thus she judge of the whole Church, but her self goes to be judged by none other; and the same Pope, in another of his Epistles,* 1.1315 says, The holy statutes and venerable decrees have com∣mitted

the causes of Bishops, as being weighty mat∣ters, to be determined by us — As the Synod has appointed and usage requires, let greater and diffi∣cult cases be always referred to the Apostolick See, says Pope Pelagius II. They are the canons which will have the appeals of the whole Church tryed by this See, saith Pope Gelasius I.

But this power is upon various accounts unreasonable, grievous and vexatious to the Church; as hath been deemed and upon divers occasions declared by the ancient Fathers, and grave persons in all times; upon accounts not onely blaming the horrible abuse of Ap∣peals, but implying the great mischiefs inseparably adherent to them.

The Synod of Basil thus excellently declared concerning them:* 1.1316 Hitherto many abuses of into∣lerable vexations have prevailed, whilst many have too often been called and cited from the most remote parts to the court of Rome, and that sometime for small and trifling matters, and with charges and trouble to be so wearied, that they sometime think it their best way to recede from their right, or buy off their trouble with great loss, rather than be at the cost of suing in so remote a Countrey.

Saint Bernard complaineth of the mischiefs of Appeals in his times in these words,* 1.1317 How long will you be deaf to the complaints of the whole World, or make as if you were so? why sleep you? when will the consideration of so great confusion and abuse in appeals awake in you? they are made without right or equity, without due order and against custome. Neither place, nor manner, nor time, nor cause, nor person are considered: they are every where made lightly and for the most part unjustly: with much more passionate language to the same purpose.

But in the Primitive Church the Pope had no such power.

1. Whereas in the first times many causes and differences did arise, wherein they who were condemned and worsted, would readily have resorted thither where they might have hoped for remedy, if Rome had been such a place of refuge, it would have been very famous for it; and we should find History full of such examples; whereas it is very silent about them.

2. The most ancient Customs and Canons of the Church are flatly repugnant to such a power, for they did order causes final∣ly to be decided in each Province.

So the Synod of Nice did Decree; as the African Fathers did al∣ledge, in defence of their refusal to allow appeals to the Pope:* 1.1318 The Nicene decrees (said they) most evidently did commit both Clergymen of infe∣riour degrees and Bishops to their Metropolitans.

So Theòph. — in his Epistle,* 1.1319 I suppose you are not ignorant what the Canons of the Nicene Council com∣mand, ordaining that a Bishop should judge no cause out of his own district.

3. Afterward when the Diocesan administration was introduced, the last resort was decreed to the Synods of them (or to the Primates in them) all other appeals being prohibited;* 1.1320 as dishonourable to the Bishops of the Diocese; reproaching the Canons, and subverting Ecclesiastical Order; To which Canon the Empe∣rour Justinian referred; For it is decreed by our Ancestours that against the Sentence of these Prelates there should be no Appeal. So Constantius told Pope Liberius — that those things which had a form of Judgment past on them could not be rescinded. This was the practice (at least in the Eastern parts of the Church) in the times of Justinian; as is evi∣dent by the Constitutions extant in the Code and in the Novels.

* 1.13214. In derogation to this pretence divers Provincial Synods expresly did prohibit all Ap∣peals from their decisions.

* 1.1322That of Milevis, — Let them appeal onely to African Councils or the Primates of Provinces; and he who shall think of appealing beyond Sea, let him be admitted into communion by none in Africk.

* 1.1323For if the Nicene Council took this care of the inferiour Clergy, how much more did they intend it should relate to Bishops also?

5. All persons were forbidden to entertain communion with Bishops condemned by any one Church, which is inconsistent with their be∣ing allowed relief at Rome.

6. This is evident in the case of Marcion, by the assertion of the Roman Church at that time.

7. When the Pope hath offered to receive Appeals, or to meddle in cases before decided, he hath found opposition and reproof. Thus when Felicissimus and Fortunatus,* 1.1324 having been censured and rejected from communion in Africk, did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius, with supplication to be admitted by him; Saint Cyprian maintaineth that fact to be irregular and unjust, and not to be countenanced, for divers reasons. Likewise, when Basilides and Martialis, being for their crimes deposed in Spain,* 1.1325 had recourse to Pope Stephanus for Restitu∣tion, the Clergy and People there had no regard to the judgment of the Pope; the which their resolution Saint Cyprian did commend and encourage.

When Athanasius, Marcellus, Paulus, &c. having been condemned by Synods, did apply themselves for relief to Pope Julius; the Orien∣tal Bishops did highly tax this course as irregular; disclaiming any power in him to receive them, or meddle in their cause. Nor could Pope Julius by any Law or Instance disprove their plea; Nor did the Pope assert to himself any peculiar authority to revise the Cause, or otherwise justifie his proceeding than by right common to all Bishops

of vindicating Right and Innocence, which were oppressed; and of asserting the Faith, for which they were persecuted. Indeed at first the Oriental Bishops were contented to refer the cause to Pope Ju∣lius as Arbitratour; which signifieth that he had no ordinary right; but afterward, either fearing their Cause or his Prejudice, they star∣ted, and stood to the canonicalness of the former decision.

The contest of the African Church with Pope Celestine, in the Cause of Apiarius is famous; and the Reasons which they assign for repelling that Appeal, are very notable and peremptory.

8. Divers of the Fathers alledge like reasons against Appeals.* 1.1326 Saint Cyprian alledgeth these:

1. Because there was an Ecclesiastical Law against them.

2. Because they contain iniquity; as prejudicing the right of each Bishop granted by Christ, in governing his flock.

3. Because the Clergy and People should not be engaged to run gadding about.

4. Because Causes might better be decided there, where witnesses of fact might easily be had.

5. Because there is every where a competent authority, equal to any that might be had otherwhere.

6. Because it did derogate from the gravity of Bishops to alter their Censure —

Pope Liberius desired of Constantius, that the Judgment of Athanasius might be made in Alexan∣dria for such reasons, because there the accused,* 1.1327 the accusers, and their defender were.

St. Chrysostome's Argument against Theophilus meddling in his case may be set against Rome as well as Alexandria.

9. St. Austin in matter of appeal, or rather of reference to candid Arbitration (more proper for Ecclesiastical causes) doth conjoin other Apostolical Churches with that of Rome; For the business, says he,* 1.1328 was not about Priests and Deacons or the inferiour Clergy, but the Collegues [Bishops,] who may reserve their cause entire for the judgment of their Collegues, especially those of the Apostolical Chur∣ches. He would not have said so, if he had appre∣hended that the Pope had a peculiar right of revising Judgments.

10. Pope Damasus or rather Pope Siricius) doth affirm himself incompetent to judge in a case, which had been afore determined by the Synod of Capua; —but,* 1.1329 says he, since the Synod of Capua has thus determined it, we perceive we cannot judge it.

11. Anciently there were no Appeals (properly so called or juris∣dictional) in the Church; they were, as Socrates telleth us, introdu∣ced by Cyril of Hierusalem; who first did appeal to a greater Judicature, against Ecclesiastical rule and custome. This is an Argument,* 1.1330 that about that time (a little before the great Synod of Constantinople) greater

Judicatories, or Diocesan Synods were established; whenas before Pro∣vincial Synods were the last resorts.

12. Upon many occasions Appeals were not made to the Pope as in all likelihood they would have been, if it had been supposed that a power of receiving them did belong to him. Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to the Emperour.* 1.1331 The Donatists did not appeal to the Pope, but to the Emperour. Their Cause was by the Empe∣rour referred not to the Pope singly (as it ought to have been,* 1.1332 and would have been by so just a Prince if it had been his right) but to him and other Judges as the Emperour's Commissioners. Athanasius did first appeal to the Emperour. St. Chrysostome did request the Pope's Succour, but he did not appeal to him as Judge; although he knew him favourably disposed, and the Cause sure in his hand; but he appealed to a Gene∣ral Council;* 1.1333 the which Innocent himself did con∣ceive necessary for decision of that Cause.

[There are in History innumerable Instances of Bishops being con∣demned and expelled from their Sees, but few of Appeals; which is a sign that was no approved remedy in common opinion.]

* 1.1334Eutyches did appeal to all the Patriarchs. Theodoret did intend to ap∣peal to all the Western Bishops.

13. Those very Canons of Sardica (the most unhappy that ever were made to the Church) which did introduce Appeals to the Pope, do yet upon divers accounts prejudice his claim to an original right; and do upon no account favour that use of them, to which (to the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical liberty and good discipline) they have been perver∣ted. For,

1. They do pretend to confer a Privilege on the Pope; which argueth that he before had no claim thereto.

2. They do qualifie and restrain that Privilege to certain Cases and Forms; which is a sign, that he had no power therein flowing from absolute Sovereignty; for it is strange, that they who did pretend and intend so much to favour him should clip his power.

3. It is not really a power which they grant of receiving Appeals in all Causes; but a power of constituting Judges, qualifyed according to certain conditions, to revise a special sort of causes concerning the Judg∣ment and Deposition of Bishops. Which considerations do subvert his pre∣tence to original and universal Jurisdiction upon Appeals.

14. Some Popes did challenge Jurisdiction upon Appeals, as given them by the Nicene Canons, meaning thereby those of Sardica; which sheweth they had no better plea, and therefore no original right. And otherwhere we shall consider, what validity those Canons may be allow∣ed to have.

15. The General Synod of Chalcedon (of higher authority than that of Sardica) derived Appeals, at least in the Eastern Churches, into ano∣ther chanel; namely to the Primate of each Diocese, or to the Patri∣arch of Constantinople. That this was the last resort doth appear,* 1.1335 from that otherwise they would have mentioned the Pope.

16. Appeals in cases of Faith, or general Discipline were indeed some∣times made to the consideration of the Pope; but not onely to him, but to all other Patriarchs and Primates, as concerned in the common main∣tenance of the common Faith, or Discipline. So did Eutyches appeal to the Patriarchs.* 1.1336

17. The Pope even in later times, even in the Western parts hath found rubs in his trade of Appeals. Consider the scuffle between Pope Ni∣cholas I. and Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes.

18. Christian States, to prevent the intolerable vexations and mis∣chiefs arising from this practice, have been constrained to make Laws against them. Particularly England.

In the Twelfth Age Pope Paschal II. complained of King Henry I.* 1.1337 That he deprived the oppressed of the benefit of appealing to the Apostolick See. It was one of King Henry I. Laws,* 1.1338 —none is permit∣ted to cry from thence, no judgment is thence brought to the Apostolick See. Foreign judgments we utterly remove. —there let the cause be tried where the crime was committed. It was one of the Grievan∣ces sent to Pope Innocent IV. That Englishmen were drawn out of the Kingdom by the Pope's authority, to have their causes heard.

Nor in after-times were Appeals by Law in any case permitted with∣out the King's leave; although sometimes by the facility of Princes, or difficulty of times, the Roman Court (ever importunate and vigilant for its profits) did obtain a relaxation or neglect of Laws inhibiting Ap∣peals.

19. There were Appeals from Popes to General Councils very fre∣quently. Vid. The Senate of Paris after the Concorda••s between Lewis XI. and Pope Leo X.

20. By many Laws and instances it appeareth, that Appellations have been made to the Emperours in the greatest Causes;* 1.1339 and that without Popes reclaiming or taking it in bad part. St. Paul did * 1.1340 appeal to Caesar. Paulus Samosatenus did appeal to Aurelianus. So the Donatists did ap∣peal to Constantine. † 1.1341 Athanasius to Constantine. The ‖ 1.1342 Egyptian Bishops to Constantine. * 1.1343 Priscillianus to Maximus. Idacius to Gratian. So that Canons were made to restrain Bishops from recourse ad Comita∣tum.

21. Whereas they do alledge Instances for Appeal, those well con∣sidered do prejudice their Cause; for they are few, in comparison to the occasions of them, that ever did arise; they are near all of them late, when Papal encroachments had grown; some of them are very impertinent to the cause; some of them may strongly be retorted against them; all of them are invalid.

If the Pope originally had such a right (known, unquestionable, prevalent) there might have been producible many, ancient, clear, proper, concluding Instances.

* 1.1344All that Bellarmine (after his own search, and that of his Predeces∣sours in Controversie) could muster, are these following; upon which we shall briefly reflect: (adding a few others, which may be alledged by them.)

* 1.1345He alledgeth Marcion, as appealing to the Pope.

The truth was, that Marcion for having corrup∣ted a Maid was by his own Father,* 1.1346 Bishop of Si∣nope, driven from the Church; whereupon he did thence fly to Rome, there begging admittance to communion, but none did grant it; at which he expostulating,* 1.1347 they replied, We cannot without the permission of thy honourable Father doe this; for there is one faith, and one concord; and we cannot cross thy Father our good fellow-Minister: this was the case and issue; and is it not strange this should be produced for an Ap∣peal, which was onely a supplication of a fugitive criminal to be admit∣ted to communion; and wherein is utterly disclaimed any power to thwart the Judgment of a particular Bishop or Judge, upon account of unity in common faith and peace? should the Pope return the same an∣swer to every Appellant, what would become of his Privilege? So that they must give us leave to retort this as a pregnant Instance against their pretence.

He alledgeth the forementioned address of Felicissimus and Fortunatus to Pope Cornelius;* 1.1348 the which was but a factious circumcursation of desperate wretches; the which, or any like it, St. Cyprian argueth the Pope in law and equity obliged not to regard; because a definitive Sentence was already passed on them by their proper Judges in Africk, from whom in conscience and reason there could be no Appeal. So Bellarmine would filtch from us one of our invincible Arguments against him.

* 1.1349He also alledgeth the case of Basilides; which also we before did shew to make against him; his application to the Pope being disavowed by St. Cyprian, and proving ineffectual.

These are all the Instances which the first three hundred years did af∣ford; so that all that time this great Privilege lay dormant.

* 1.1350He alledgeth the recourse of Athanasius to Pope Julius; but this was not properly to him as to a Judge, but as to a fellow-Bishop, a friend of truth and right, for his succour and countenance against persecutours of him,* 1.1351 chiefly for his Ortho∣doxy. The Pope did undertake to examine his Plea, partly as Arbitratour upon reference of both Parties; partly for his own concern to satisfie himself whether he might admit him to communion. And having heard and weighed things, the Pope denied that he was condemned in a legal way by competent Judges; and that therefore the pretended Sentence was null; and consequently he did not undertake the cause as upon Appeal. But whereas his pro∣ceeding did look like an exercise of Jurisdiction, derogatory to a Sy∣nodical resolution of the case, he was opposed by the Oriental Bishops, as usurping an undue power.* 1.1352 Unto which charge he doth not answer

directly by asserting to himself any such authority by Law or Custome; but otherwise excusing himself. In the issue, the Pope's Sentence was not peremptory; untill upon examining the merits of the cause it was approved for just as to matter by the Synod of Sar∣dica.* 1.1353 These things otherwhere we have largely shewed? and consequently this Instance is defi∣cient.

He alledgeth St. Chrysostome,* 1.1354 as appealing to Pope Innocent I. but if you reade his Epistles to that Pope, you will find no such matter; he doth onely complain,* 1.1355 and declare to him the iniquity of the process against him, not as to a Judge, but as to a friend and fellow-Bishop concerned, that such injurious and mischievous dealings should be stopped; requesting from him not judgment of his cause, but succour in procuring it by a General Synod;* 1.1356 to which indeed he did appeal, as Sozomen expresly telleth us; and as indeed he doth himself affirm. Ac∣cordingly Pope Innocent did not assume to himself the judgment of his cause, but did endeavour to procure a Synod for it, affirming it to be needfull; why so, if his own Judgment, according to his Privilege did suffice? why indeed did not Pope Innocent, (being well satisfied in the case, yea passionately touched with it) presently sum∣mon Theophilus and his adherents, undertaking the Trial? did Pope Nicholas I. proceed so in the case of Rhotaldus? why was he content onely to write Consolatory Let∣ters to him, and to his people;* 1.1357 not pretending to undertake the decision of his cause? If the Pope had been endowed with such a Privilege, it is morally impossible that it should not have shone forth clearly upon this occasion; it could hardly be that St. Chrysostome himself should not in plain terms avow it; that he should not formally apply to it as the most certain and easie way of finding relief; that he should not earnestly mind and urge the Pope to use his Privilege: why should he speak of that tedious and difficult way of a General Synod, when so short and easie a way was at hand? but the truth is, he did not know any such power the Pope had by himself. St. Chrysostome rather did conceive all such foreign Judicatures to be unreasonable and unjust; for the Argument which he darteth at Theophilus doth as well reach the Papal Jurisdiction upon Appeals; for It was (saith he) not congru∣ous, that an Egyptian should judge those in Thrace: why not an Egyptian as well as an Italian?* 1.1358 and If (saith he) this custome should prevail, and it be∣come lawfull for those who will to go into the Parishes of others, even from such distances, and to cast out whom any one pleaseth doing by their own authority what they please, know that all things will go to wreck— Why may not this be said of a Roman as well as of an Alexandrian?* 1.1359 St. Chrysostome also (we may observe) did not onely apply himself to the Pope, but to other Western Bishops; particu∣larly

to the Bishops of Milain and Aquileia; whom he called Beatissimi Domini: did appeal to them?

He alledgeth Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople appealing to Pope Leo:* 1.1360 but let us consider the sto∣ry. Flavianus for his Orthodoxy (or upon other accounts) very injuriously treated and oppressed by Dioscorus,* 1.1361 who was supported by the favour of the Imperial Court; having in his case no other remedy did appeal to the Pope; who alone among the Patriarchs had dissented from those procee∣dings. The Pope was himself involved in the cause, being of the same persuasion; having been no less affronted and hardly treated (consider∣ing their power, and that he was out of their reach) and condemned by the same Adversaries.

To him therefore as to the leading Bishop of Christendom, in the first place interested in defence of the common Faith, together with a Synod, not to him as sole Judge, did Flavianus appeal. He (saith Placidia in her Letter to Theodosius) did appeal to the Apostolick See,* 1.1362 and to all the Bishops of these parts; that is to the rest of Christendom, which were not engaged in the Party of Dioscorus; and to whom else could he have appealed?

Valentinian in his Epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith, that he did appeal according to the manner of Synods;* 1.1363 and whatever those words signifie, that could not be to the Pope as a single Judge; for be∣fore that time in whatever Synod was such an appeal made? what cu∣stome could there be favourable to such a pretence?

But what his Appeal did import is best interpretable by the procee∣ding consequent; which was not the Pope's assuming to himself the Judicature either immediately or by delegation of Judges, but endea∣vouring to procure a General Synod for it; the which endeavour doth appear in many Epistles to Theodosius and to his Sister Pulcheria, soli∣citing that such a Synod might be indicted by his order:* 1.1364 All the Bishops (saith Pope Leo) with sighs and tears do supplicate your Grace, that because our Agents did faithfully reclaim, and Bishop Flavianus did present them a libel of appeal, you would command a General Synod to be celebrated in Italy.

Dioscorus and his Party would scarce have been so silly as to condemn Flavianus, if they had known, (which, if it had been a case clear in law or obvious in practice, they could not but have known) that the Pope, who was deeply engaged in the same cause, had a power to reverse (and revenge) their proceedings. Nor would the good Emperour Theodosius so pertinaciously have maintained the proceedings of that Ephesine Sy∣nod, if he had deemed the Pope duly Sovereign Governour and Judge; or that a right of ultimate Decision upon Appeal did appertain to him. Nor had the Pope needed to have taken so much pains in procuring a Synod, if he could have judged without it. Nor would Pope Leo (a man of so much spirit and zeal for the dignity of his See (have been so wanting to the maintenance of his right, as not immediately to have proceeded unto Trial of the Cause, without precarious attendence for a Synod, if he thought his pretence to such Appeals as we now speak of, to have been good or plausible in the world at that time.

The next case is that of Theodoret. His words indeed, framed accor∣ding to his condition, needing the patronage of Pope Leo, being then high in reputation, do sound favourably; but we abstracting from the sound of words must regard the reason of things. His words are these,* 1.1365 I expect the suffrage of your Apostolick See, and beseech and earnestly entreat your holiness to succour me who appeal to your right and just Judicature.

He never had been particularly or personally judged, and there∣fore did not need to appeal as to a Judge; nor therefore is his ap∣plication to the Pope to be interpreted for such; but rather as to a cha∣ritable succourer of him in his distress,* 1.1366 by his countenance and endeavour to relieve him.

He onely was supposed erroneous in Faith,* 1.1367 and a perillous abettour of Nestorianism, because he had smartly contradicted Cyril; which pre∣judice did cause him to be prohibited from coming to the Synod of E∣phesus; and there in his absence to be denounced Heterodox.

His Appeal then to the Pope (having no other recourse in whom he did confide, finding him to concur with himself in opinion against Eutychianism) was no other than (as the word is often used in common speech, when we say,* 1.1368 I appeal to your judgment in this or that case) a referring it to the Pope's consideration, whether his Faith was sound and Orthodox; capacitating him to retain his Office: the which upon his explication and profession thereof (presented in terms of extraordinary respect and deference) the Pope did approve; thereby as a good Divine rather than as a formal Judge) acquitting him of Heterodoxy: the which approbation (in regard to the great opinion then had of the Pope's skill in those points, and to the favour he had ob∣tained by contesting against the Eutychians) did bear great sway in the Synod; so that, (although not without opposition of many, and not upon absolute terms) he was permitted to sit among the Fathers of Chalcedon.

Observations.

1. We do not reade of any formal Trial the Pope made of Theodoret's case; that he was cited, that his Accusers did appear, that his Cause was discussed: but onely a simple approbation of him.

2. We may observe, that Theodoret did write to Flavianus in like terms:* 1.1369 We entreat your holiness to fight in behalf of the faith which is assaulted, and to defend the Canons which are trampled under foot.

3. We may observe, that Theodoret expecting this favour of Pope Leo; and thence being moved to commend the Roman See to the height, and to reckon its special advantages, doth not yet mention his Supre∣macy of Power, or Universality of Jurisdiction: For those words, it befitteth you to be prime in all things, are onely general words relating to the advantages which he subjoineth;* 1.1370 of which he saith, for your throne is adorned with many advantages, in a florid enu∣meration whereof he passeth over that of peculiar Jurisdiction; he nameth the magnitude, splen∣dour, majesty and populousness of the City; the early faith praised by Saint Paul, the Sepulchres of the two great Apostles, and their decease there; but the Pope's being Universal Sovereign and Judge (which was the main advantage whereof that See could be capable) he doth not mention; why? because he was not aware thereof, else surely he would not have passed it in silence.

4. We may also observe, that whatever the opinion of Theodoret was now concerning the Pope's power, he not long before did hardly take him for such a Judge, when he did oppose Pope Celestine, concurring with Cyril, at the first Ephesine Synod. He then indeed looking on Pope Celestine as a prejudiced Adversary, did not write to him but to the other Bishops of the West, as we see by those words in his Epistle to Domnus;* 1.1371 And we have writ∣ten to the Bishops of the West about these things, to him of Milain, I say, to him of Aquileia and him of Ravenna, testifying, &c.

5. Yea we may observe, that Theodoret did intend with the Empe∣rour's leave to appeal or refer his cause to the whole body of Western Bishops, as himself doth express in those words to Anatolius,* 1.1372 I do pray your magnificence, that you would request this favour of our dread Sovereign, that I may have recourse to the West, and may be judged by the most religious and holy Bishops there.

Bellarmine farther doth alledge the appeal of Hadrianus Bishop of Thebes to Pope Gregory I. the which he received and asserted by excommunicating the Archbishop of Justiniana Prima,* 1.1373 for deposing Hadrianus without regard to that appeal. I answer,

1. The example is late, when the Popes had extended their power beyond the ancient and due limits: those Maxims had got in before the time of that worthy Pope; who thought he might use the power of which he found himself possessed.

2. It is impertinent, because the Bishop of Justiniana had then a spe∣cial dependence upon the Roman See; from whence an Universal Juris∣diction upon appeal cannot be inferred.

3. It might be an Usurpation; nor doth the opinion or practice of Pope Gregory suffice to determine a question of right, for good men are liable to prejudice, and its consequences.

To these Instances produced by Bellarmine, some add the Appeal of Eutyches to Pope Leo; to which it may be excepted, that if he did ap∣peal, it was not to the Pope solely, but to him with the other Patri∣archs;

so it is expresly said in the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod; His deposition being read,* 1.1374 he did appeal to the Holy Synod of the most Holy Bishop of Rome, and of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem, and of Thessalonica; the which is an argument, that he did not apprehend the right of receiving Appeals did solely or peculiarly belong to him of Rome.

Liberatus saith,* 1.1375 that Johannes Talaida went to Calendion Patriarch of Antioch, and taking of him intercessory Synodical Letters, appeal'd to Simplicius Bishop of Rome, as Saint Athanasius had done, and persuaded him to write in his behalf to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople.

In regard to any more Instances of this kind we might generally pro∣pose these following considerations.

1. It is no wonder, that any Bishop being condemned, especially in causes relating to Faith or common Interest, should have recourse to the Roman Bishop, or to any other Bishop of great authority for refuge or for relief; which they may hope to be procured by them by the influ∣ence of their reputation, and their power among their dependents.

2. Bad men, being deservedly corrected, will absurdly resort any whither with mouths full of clamour and calumny; if not with hope of relief, yet with design of revenge; as did Marcion, as did Felicissimus, as did Apiarius to the Pope.

3. Good men being abused will express some resentment, and com∣plain of their wrongs, where they may presume of a fair and favoura∣ble hearing: so did Athanasius, Flavianus, St. Chrysostome, Theodoret apply themselves to the same Bishops, flourishing in so great reputation and wealth.

So did the Monks of Egypt (Ammonius and Isidorus) from the perse∣cutions of Theophilus fly to the protection and succour of St. Chrysostome; which gave occasion to the troubles of that incomparable Personage; the which is so illustrious an instance, that the words of the Historian relating it deserve setting down.

They jointly did endeavour, that the trains against them might be examined by the Emperour as Judge,* 1.1376 and by the Bishop John; for they conceived that he having conscience of using a just freedom, would be a∣ble to succour them according to right: but he did receive the men applying to him courteously, and trea∣ted them respectfully, and did not hinder them from praying in the Church— He also writ to Theophilus to render communion to them, as being Orthodox; and if there were need of judging their case by law, that he would send whom they thought good to prosecute the cause.

If this had been to the Pope, it would have been alledged for an Ap∣peal; and it would have had as much colour as any Instance which they can produce.

4. And when men, either good or bad, do resort in this manner to great friends, it is no wonder if they accost them in highest terms of respect, and with exaggerations of their eminent advantages; so in∣ducing them to regard and favour their cause.

5. Neither is it strange, that great persons favourably should entertain those, who make such addresses to them, they always coming crouching in a suppliant posture, and with fair pretences; it being also natural to men to delight in seeing their power acknowledged; and it being a glorious thing to relieve the afflicted: for Eminence is wont to incline toward infirmity, and with a ready good will to take part with those who are under.* 1.1377 So when Basilides, when Marcellus, when Eustathius Sebastenus, when Maximus the Cynick, when Apiarius were con∣demned the Pope was hasty to engage for them; more liking their application to him than weighing their cause.

6. And when any person doth continue long in a flourishing estate, so that such addresses are frequently made to him, no wonder that an opinion of lawfull power to receive them, doth arise both in him and in others; so that of a voluntary Friend he become an authorized Protectour, a Patron, a Judge of such persons in such cases.

X. The Sovereign is fountain of all Jurisdiction; and all inferiour Magistrates derive their Authority from his warrant and Commission, acting as his Deputies or Ministers,* 1.1378 according to that intimation in St. Peter, —whether to the King as Supreme, or to Governours as sent by him.

Accordingly the Pope doth challenge this advantage to himself that he is the fountain of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; pretending all Episco∣pal power to be derived from him.

The rule of the Church (saith Bellarmine) is Monarchical;* 1.1379 therefore all authority is in one, and from him is derived to others; the which Aphorism he well proveth from the form of creating Bishops, as they call it,* 1.1380 We do provide such a Church with such a person; and we do prefer him to be Father and Pastour and Bishop of the said Church, commit∣ting to him the administration in temporals and spiri∣tuals in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Pope Pius II. in his Bull of Retractation, thus expresseth the sense of his See,* 1.1381 In the militant Church, which resembleth the triumphant, there is one moderatour and Judge of all, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, from whom, as from the Head, all power and authority is derived to the subject members; the which doth immediately flow into it from the Lord Christ.

A Congregation of Cardinals appointed by Pope Paulus III. speaking after the style and sentiments of that See, did say to him,* 1.1382 Your Holiness doth so bear the care of Christ's Church, that you have very many Ministers, by which you manage that care, these are all the Clergy, on whom the service of God is charged; espe∣cially Priests, and more especially Curates, and above all Bishops.

Durandus Bishop of Mande, according to the sense of his Age, saith,* 1.1383 The Pope is head of all Bi∣shops, from whom they as members from an head de∣scend, and of whose fulness all receive; whom he calls to a participation of his care, but admits not into the fulness of his power.

This pretence is seen in the ordinary Titles of Bishops, who style themselves Bishops of such a place,* 1.1384 By the grace of God and of the Apostolick See. O shame!

The men of the Tridentine Convention (those great betrayers of the Church to perpetual slavery, and Christian truth to the prevalency of falshood, till God pleaseth) do upon divers occasions, pretend to qua∣lifie and empower Bishops to perform important matters,* 1.1385 originally belonging to the Episcopal Function, as the Pope's Delegates.

But contrariwise according to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture, and the sense of the Primitive Church, the Bishops and Pastours of the Church do immediately receive their Authority and Commission from God; being onely his Ministers.

The Scripture calleth them the Ministers of God,* 1.1386 and of Christ (so Epaphras, so Timothy in regard to their Ecclesiastical function are named) the Stewards of God, the Servants of God, Fellow-servants of the Apostles.

The Scripture saith, that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to feed the Church of God, that God had given them, and constituted them in the Church; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, for the edifying of the body of Christ; that is, to all effects and purposes concerning their Office:* 1.1387 for the work of the Ministery comprizeth all the duty charged on them whether in way of Order or of Governance; as they now do precariously and groundlesly in reference to this case distinguish. And edifying the body doth import all the designed effects of their Office; particularly those which are consequent on the use of Jurisdiction; the which Saint Paul doth affirm was appointed for edi∣fication; * 1.1388 according (saith he) to the authority which God hath given me for edification, and not for destruction. They do † 1.1389 preside in the Lord. They allow no other Head but our Lord, ‖ 1.1390 from whom all the body, &c.

The Fathers clearly do express their Sentiments to be the same.

St. Ignatius saith, that the Bishop doth preside in the place of God; and that we must look upon him as our Lord himself (or as our Lord's Re∣presentative) that therefore we must be subject to him as unto Jesus Christ.

St. Cyprian affirmeth each Bishop to be constituted by the judgment of God, and of Christ;* 1.1391 and that in his Church he is for the present a Judge in the place of Christ: — and that our Lord Jesus Christ, one and alone hath a power both to prefer us to the government of his Church and to judge of our acting.

* 1.1392St. Basil, A Prelate is nothing else but one that sustaineth the person of Christ.

* 1.1393St. Chrysostome, We have received the commission of Ambassadours and come from God, for this is the dignity of the Episcopal Office.

* 1.1394It behoveth us all who by divine authority are constituted in the Priesthood to prevent, &c.

Wherefore the ancient Bishops did all of them take themselves to be Vicars of Christ, not of the Pope, and no less than the proudest Pope of them all; whence it was ordinary for them in their addresses and compellations to the Bishop of Rome, and in their speech about him to call him their Brother, their Collegue, their Fellow-minister; which had not been modest, or just, if they had been his Ministers or Shadows. Yea the Popes themselves, even the highest and haughtiest of them, who of any in old times did most stand on their presumed preeminence,* 1.1395 did yet vouchsafe to call other Bishops their Fellow-bishops and Fellow-ministers.

Those Bishops of France with good reason did complain of Pope Nicholas I. for calling them his Clerks;* 1.1396 whenas, if his pride had suffered him, he should have acknowledged them for his Brethren and Fellow-bishops.

In fine, the ancient Bishops did not alledge any Commission from the Pope to warrant their Ju∣risdiction,* 1.1397 but from God; If Moses his Chair were so venerable,* 1.1398 that what was said out of that ought therefore to be heard, how much more is Christ's Throne so? we succeed him, from that we speak, since Christ has committed to us the ministery of re∣conciliation.

* 1.1399That which is committed to the Priest, 'tis onely in God's power to give.

* 1.1400Since we also by the mercy of Christ our King and God were made Mini∣sters of the Gospel.

This is a modern dream born out of Ambition and Flattery, which never came into the head of any ancient Divine.

It is a ridiculous thing to imagine, that Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostome, Austin, &c. did take themselves for the Vicegerents or Ministers of the Popes; if they did, why did they not, so frequent oc∣casion being given them, in all their Volumes, ever acknowledge it? why cannot Bellarmine and his Complices after all their prolling shew

any passage in them importing any such acknowledgment; but are fain to infer it by far-fetched Sophisms, from Allegations plainly im∣pertinent, or frivolous?

The Popes indeed in the Fourth Century began to practise a fine trick, very serviceable to the enlargement of their power; which was to confer on certain Bishops, as occasion served, or for continuance, the title of their Vicar or Lieutenant; thereby pretending to impart Authority to them; whereby they were enabled for performance of divers things, which otherwise by their own Episcopal or Metropoliti∣cal power they could not perform. By which device they did engage such Bishops to such a dependence on them, whereby they did pro∣mote the Papal Authority in Provinces, to the oppression of the anci∣ent Rights and Liberties of Bishops and Synods; doing what they pleased under pretence of this vast power communicated to them; and for fear of being displaced, or out of affection to their favourer doing what might serve to advance the Papacy.

Thus did Pope Celestine constitute Cyril in his room.* 1.1401

Pope Leo appointed Anatolius of Constantinople.

Pope Felix Acacius of Constantinople.

Pope Hormisdas Epiphanius of Constantinople.* 1.1402

Pope Simplicius to Zeno Bishop of Seville, We thought it convenient that you should be held up by the vicariat authority of our See.* 1.1403

So did Siricius and his Successours constitute the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their Vicars in the Diocese of Illyricum, wherein being then a member of the Western Empire they had caught a special jurisdiction; to which Pope Leo did refer in those words, which sometimes are impertinently alledged with reference to all Bishops,* 1.1404 but concern onely Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica; We have entrusted thy Charity to be in our stead, so that thou art called into part of the solicitude, not into plenitude of the authority.

So did Pope Zozimus bestow a like pretence of Vicarious power upon the Bishop of Arles,* 1.1405 which city was the seat of the temporal Exarch in Gaule.

So to the Bishop of Justiniana prima in Bulgaria (or Dardania Europaea) the like privilege was granted [by procurement of the Emperour Justinian, native of that place.]

Afterwards temporary or occasional Vicars were appointed (such as Austin in England, Boniface in Germany—) who in virtue of that con∣cession did usurp a paramount authority; and by the exercise thereof did advance the Papal interest; depressing the authority of Metropoli∣tanes, and provincial Synods.

So at length Legates, upon occasion dispatched into all Countries of the West, came to doe there what they pleased, using that pretence to oppress and abuse both Clergy and people very intolerably.

Whence divers Countries were forced to make legal provisions for excluding such Legates, finding by much experience that their business was to rant and domineer in the Pope's name,* 1.1406 to suck money from the People, and to maintain luxurious pomp upon expence of the Countries where they came.

* 1.1407 Of this John XXII. doth sorely complain; and decrees that all people should admit his Legates, under pain of interdicts.

In England, Pope Paschal finds the same fault in his letter to King Henry I.* 1.1408 Nuncio's or letters from the Apostolick See, unless by your Majestie's command, are not thought worthy any admittance or reception within your jurisdiction: none complains thence, none appeals thence for judgment to the Apo∣stolick See.

The Pope observing what authority and reverence the Archbishops of Canterbury had in this Nation, whereby they might be able to check his attempts, did think good to constitute those Archbishops his Legates of course, (Legatos natos) that so they might seem to exercise their Ju∣risdiction by authority derived from him, and owing to him that mark of favour, or honour, with inlargement of power, might pay him more devotion and serve his interests.

* 1.1409Bellarmine doth from this practice prove the Pope's Sovereign power, but he might from thence better have domonstrated their great cunning. It might from such extraordinary designation of Vicegerents with far more reason be inferred, that ordinarily Bishops are not his Ministers.

XI. It is the privilege of a Sovereign, that he cannot be called to account, or judged, or deposed, or debarr'd communion, or any-wise censured and punished; for this implyeth a contradiction or confusion in degrees, subjecting the superiour to inferiours; this were making a river run backwards; this were to damm up the fountain of justice; to behead the State; to expose Majesty to contempt.

* 1.1410Wherefore the Pope doth pretend to this privilege, according to those Maxims in the Canon Law, drawn from the sayings of Popes (either forged or genuine, but all alike) obteining authority in their Court.

And according to what P. Adrian let the 8th Synod know, because, says he, the Apostolick Church of Rome stoops not to the judgment of lesser Churches.* 1.1411 They cite also three old Synods (of Sinuessa, of Rome under Pope Silvester, of Rome under Sixtus III.) but they are palpably spurious, and the learned among them confess it.

But antiquity was not of this mind; for it did suppose him no less obnoxious to judgment and correction than other Bishops, if he should notoriously deviate from the faith, or violate canonical discipline.

The Canons generally do oblige Bishops without exception to duty, and (upon defailance) to correction: why is not he excepted, if to be excused, or exempted?

It was not questioned of old, but that a Pope in case he should noto∣riously depart from the faith, or notably infringe discipline, might be

excommunicated; the attempting it upon divers occasions do shew their opinion, although it often had not effect because the cause was not just and plausible; the truth and equity of the case appearing to be on the Pope's side.

St. Isidore Pelusiota denieth of any Bishop's office that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an uncontrollable government.

In the times of Polycrates and Pope Victor the whole Eastern Church did forbear communion with the Pope. Firmilian told Pope Stephanus,* 1.1412 that by conceiting he might excommunicate all other Bishops, he had excommunicated himself. The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod did threaten to excommunicate and depose Pope Julius.* 1.1413 They did promise to Julius, peace and communion, if he did admit the deposition of those whom they had expel∣led, and the constitution of those whom they had or∣dained; but if he did resist their decrees, they de∣nounced the contrary.* 1.1414 The Oriental Bishops at Sar∣dica did excommunicate and depose him.* 1.1415 St. Hi∣lary did anathematize Pope Liberius, upon his defection to the Arians. * 1.1416 Dioscorus did attempt to excommunicate Pope Leo. † 1.1417 Acacius of Con∣stantinople renounced the communion of Pope Felix. ‖ 1.1418 Timotheus Aelurus cursed the Pope. * 1.1419 The African Bishops did Synodically excommuni∣cate Pope Vigilius. † 1.1420 Pope Anastasius was reject∣ed by his own Clergy. ‖ 1.1421 Pope Constantine by the people, and so was * 1.1422 Pope Leo VIII. † 1.1423 Divers Bishops of Italy and Illyricum did abstain from the Pope's communion for a long time, because they did admit the fifth Synod. ‖ 1.1424 Photius did excom∣municate and depose Pope Nicholas I. * 1.1425 Maurus Bishop of Ravenna did anathematize Pope Vitalia∣nus. † 1.1426 The Emperour Otho II. having with good advice laboured to reclaim Pope John XII. with∣out effect did indict a Council, calling together the Bishops of Italy, by the judgment of whom the life of that wicked man should be judged; and the issue was, that he was deposed. ‖ 1.1427 Pope Nicholas I. desired to be judged by the Emperour. The fifth Synod did in general terms condemn Pope Vigi∣lius, and the Emperour Justinian did banish him for not complying with the decrees of it. The sixth and seventh Ge∣neral Synods did anathematize Honorius by name; when he was dead, because his heresie was not before confuted; and they would have ser∣ved him so, if he had been alive. Divers Synods (that of Worms, of Papia, of Brescia, of Mentz, of Rome,* 1.1428 &c.) did reject Pope Gregory VII. Pope Adrian himself in the VIII. Synod (so called) did confess, that a Pope being found deviating from the faith might be judged, as Honori∣us was.* 1.1429 Gerbertus (afterward Pope Sylvester II.) did maintain that Popes might be held as Ethnicks and Publicans, if they did not hear the Church. The Synod of Constance did judge and depose three Popes.

The Synod of Basil did depose Pope Eugenius; affirming that The Catholick Church hath often cor∣rected and judged Popes when they either err'd from the faith,* 1.1430 or by their ill manners became notoriously scandalous to the Church.

* 1.1431The practice of Popes to give an account of their faith (when they entred upon their office) to the other Patriarchs and chief Bishops, appro∣ving themselves thereby worthy and capable of communion, doth imply them liable to judgment. Of the neglect of which practice Euphemius Bi∣shop of Constantinople did complain.* 1.1432

* 1.1433Of this we have for example the Synodical E∣pistles of Pope Gregory I.

XII. To the Sovereign in Ecclesiastical affairs it would belong to define and decide controversies in faith, discipline, moral practice; so that all were bound to admit his definitions, decisions, interpretati∣ons. He would be the supreme Interpreter of the divine law, and Judge of controversies. No point or question of moment should be decided without his cognizance. This he therefore doth pretend to; taking upon him to define points, and requiring from all submission to his determinations. Nor doth he allow any Synods to decide questions.

But the ancients did know no such thing. In case of Contentions, they had no recourse to his judgment; they did not stand to his opi∣nion, his authority did not avail to quash disputes. They had recourse to the Holy Scriptures, to Catholick Tradition, to reason, they dis∣puted and discussed points by dint of argument.

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Vincentius Lirinensis and others discoursing of the methods to resolve points of Controversie, did not reckon the Pope's authority for one. Divers of the Fathers did not scruple openly to dissent from the opinions of Popes; nor were they wondred at, or condemned for it.

* 1.1434So Saint Paul did withstand Saint Peter. So Polycarpus dissented from Pope Elutherius. So Polycrates from Pope Victor. So St. Cyprian from Pope Stephen. So Dionysius Alex. from Pope Stephen: all which persons were renowned for wisedom and piety in their times.

Highest Controversies were appeased by Synods out of the Holy Scripture, Catholick Tradition, the Analogy of faith, and common Reason, without regard to the Pope. Divers Synods in Africk and Asia defined the Point about rebaptization without the Pope's leave, and against his opinion. The Synod of Antioch condemned the doctrine of Paulus Samosatenus, without intervention of the Pope; before they gave him notice. In the Synod of Nice the Pope had very small stroke. The General Synod of Const. declared the Point of the Divinity of the H. Ghost against Macedonius, without the Pope; who did no more than after∣ward consent: This the Synod of Chalcedon in their compellation to the Emperour Marcian did observe. The Fathers met in Sardica to suppress the reliques of Arianism,* 1.1435 commu∣nicated their decrees to the Eastern Bishops; and they who here discovered the pestilence of Apolina∣rius, made known theirs to the Western.

The Synod of Africk defined against Pelagius, before their informing Pope Innocentius thereof; not seeking his judgment, but desiring his consent to that, which they were assured to be truth.

Divers Popes have been incapable of deciding Controversies, them∣selves having been erroneous in the questions controverted: as Pope Stephanus (in part,) Pope Liberius, P. Felix, P. Vigilius, P. Honori∣us, &c. And in our opinion all Popes for many ages.

It is observable how the Synod of Chalcedon in their allocution to the Emperour Marcian do excuse P. Leo for expoun∣ding the faith in his Epistle (the which it seems some did reprehend as a novell method disa∣greeable to the Canons;* 1.1436) Let not them (say they) object to us the Epistle of the marvellous Prelate of Rome, as obnoxious to imputation of novelty; but if it be not consonant to the Scriptures, let them confute it; or if it be not consentaneous to the Fathers who have preceded; or if it be not apt to confute the irreligious, &c.

It was not his judicial authority, which they did insist upon, to main∣tain his Epistle, but the orthodoxie and intrinsick usefulness of it to confute errours; upon which account they did embrace and confirm it by their suffrage.

XIII. If the Pope were a Sovereign of the Church as they make him, it were at least expedient that he should be infallible; for why other∣wise should he undertake confidently to pronounce in all cases, to define high and difficult Points, to impose his Dictates, and require assent from all? If he be fallible, it is very probable that often he doth ob∣trude errours upon us for matters of Faith and Practice.

Wherefore the true fast friends of Papal interest do assert him to be infallible, when he dictateth as Pope,* 1.1437 and setting himself into his Chair doth thence mean to instruct the whole Church. And the Pope there∣fore himself, who countenanceth them, may be presumed to be of that mind.

Pighius said bouncingly,* 1.1438 The judgment of the Apostolick See with a Council of domestick Priests, is far more certain than the judgment of an universal Council of the whole earth without the Pope.

This is the Syllogism we propose:

The Supreme Judge must be infallible,

The Pope is not infallible, Therefore.

The Major the Jesuits, Canonists and Courtiers are obliged to prove, it being their Assertion; and they do prove it very wisely and strongly.

The Minor is asserted by the French Doctours, and they do with clear evidence maintain it.

The Conclusion we leave them to infer who are concerned.

It is in effect Pope Gregory's Argumentation; No Bishop can be Universal Bishop, (or Universal Pastour and Judge of the Church) because no Bishop can be Infallible; for that the lapse of such a Pastour would throw down the Church into ruine, by errour and impiety. Therefore the Vniversal Church,* 1.1439 which God forbid, falls, when he falls who is call'd Vniversal.

—The state and order of our Lord's family will decay when that which is required in the body is not to be found in the head.

But that he is not infallible, much Experience and History do abun∣dantly shew.

The Ancients knew no such pretender to infallibility; otherwise they would have left disputing, and run to his Oracular Dictates for informa∣tion.* 1.1440 They would have onely asserted this point against Hereticks. We should have had Testimonies of it innumerable. It had been the most famous point of all.

I will not mention Pope Stephanus universally approving the Baptism of Hereticks against the Decrees of the Synod of Nice and other Sy∣nods. Nor Pope Liberius complying with Arianism. Nor Pope Innocent I. and his followers at least till Pope * 1.1441Gelasius first asserting the Communion of Infants for needfull. Nor Pope Vigilius dodging with the Fifth Synod. Nor Pope Honorius condemned by so many Councils and Popes for Monothelitism.* 1.1442 But surely Pope Leo and Pope Gelasius were strangely deceived, when they condemned Partaking in one kind. Pope Gregory was foully out, when he condemned the ‖ 1.1443 worship of Images; and when he so declaimeth against the title of Vniversal Bishop; and when he avowed himself a Subject to the Emperour Mauritius; and when he denied the Books of Maccabees to be Canonical; and when he asserted the perfection of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo II. was mistaken, when he did charge his infallible Predecessour Honorius of Monothelitism.* 1.1444 Pope Nicholas was a little decei∣ved when he determined the * 1.1445 attrition of Christ's Body. Pope Vrban II. was out, when he allowed it ‖ 1.1446 lawfull for good Catholicks to commit mur∣ther on Persons excommunicate.* 1.1447 Pope Innocent IV. erred, when he called Kings, The Pope's Slaves.

Surely those Popes did err, who confirmed the Synods of Constance and Basil; not excepting the determinations in favour of General Councils being Superiour to Popes.* 1.1448 All those Popes have devilishly erred, who have pretended to dispose of Kingdoms, to depose Princes: to absolve Subjects of their Oaths. Pope Adrian II. did not take the Pope to be infallible, when he said he might not be judged, excepting the case of Heresie; and thereby excuseth the Orientals for anathematizing Honorius, he being accused of Heresie.

There is one Heresie, of which, if all Histories do not lie grievously,* 1.1449 divers Popes have been guilty; a Heresie defined by divers Popes; the Heresie of Simony; How many such Hereticks have sate in that Chair? of which how many Popes are pro∣claimed guilty with a loud voice in History? The hand, says St. * 1.1450 Bernard, does all the Papal business, shew me a man in all this greatest City who would admit thee to be Pope without the mediation of a bribe? Yea how few for some Ages have been guiltless of this Heresie? I may be answered,

they were no Popes because their Election was null; but then the Church hath often and long been without a Head. Then numberless Acts have been void; and Creations of Cardinals have been null; and con∣sequently there hath not probably been any true Pope for a long time.

In the judgment of so many great Divines, which did constitute the Synod of Basil, many Popes (near all surely) have been Hereticks; who have followed or countenanced the opinion that Popes are superiour to General Councils; the which there is flatly declared Heresie. Pope Eugenius by name was there declared a pertinacious Heretick,* 1.1451 deviating from the faith—

It often happeneth that the Pope is not skilled in Divinity, as Pope Innocent X. was wont to profess concerning himself (to wave discourse about Theological points) he therefore cannot pronounce, in use of ordinary means, but onely by miracle, as Balaam's Ass. So Pope Innocent X. said, that the Vicar of Jesus Christ was not obliged to examine all things by dispute;* 1.1452 for that the truth of his decrees depended onely on divine Inspiration: what is this but downright Quakerism, Enthusiasm, Imposture?

Pope Clemens V. did not take himself to be infallible, when in his great Synod of Vienna, the question, whether beside remission of sin, also vertue were conferred to Infants, he resolved thus very honestly, —The second opinion,* 1.1453 which says that informing grace and vertues are in baptism conferred both upon infants and adult persons, we think fit with the consent of the holy council to be chosen; as being more probable, and more consonant and agreeable to the Divinity of the modern Doctours.

Which of the two Popes were in the right, Pope Nicholas IV. who decided that our Lord was so poor that he had right to nothing,* 1.1454 or Pope John XXII. who decla∣red this to be a Heresie, charging our Lord with injustice?

XIV. A Sovereign is in Dignity and Authority Superiour to any number of Subjects, however conjoined or congregated; as a Head is above all the Members however compacted; He is not Supreme, who is any-wise subject or inferiour to a Senate, or any Assembly in his Territory.

Therefore the Pope doth claim a Superiority over all Councils;* 1.1455 pretending that their determinations are invalid without his consent and confirmation; that he can rescind or make void their Decrees; that he can suspend their Consultations, and translate or dissolve them.

And Baronius reckons this as one errour in Hinc∣marus Bishop of Rhemes,* 1.1456 that he held as if the canons of councils were of greater authority in the Church of God than the decrees of Popes, which, says he, how absurd and unreasonable an opinion it is, &c.

* 1.1457That the authority of the Apostolick See in all Christian Ages has been preferred before the universal Church, both the canons of our predecessours and manifold tradition do confirm.

This is a question stiffly debated among Romanists; but the most (as Aeneas Sylvius, afterward Pope Pius II. did acutely observe) with good reason to adhere to the Pope's side, because the Pope disposeth of Benefices, but Councils give none.

But in truth anciently the Pope was not understood Superiour to Councils: for greater is the authority of the world than of one city,* 1.1458 says St. Hierome. He was but one Bishop, that had nothing to doe out of his precinct. He had but his Vote in them; He had the first Vote, as the Patriarch of Alexandria the second, of Antioch the third— but that or∣der neither gave to him or them any advantage, as to decision; but common consent, or the suffrages of the majority did prevail. He was conceived subject to the Canons no less than other Bishops. Coun∣cils did examine matters decreed by him, so as to follow or forsake them as they saw cause. The Popes themselves did profess great vene∣ration and observance of Conciliar Decrees. Pope Leo I. did oppose a Canon of the Synod of Chalcedon, (not pretending his Superiority to Councils, but the inviolability of the Nicene Canons) but it notwith∣standing that opposition did prevail.

Even in the dregs of times, when the Pope had clambred so high to the top of power, this Question in great nu∣merous Synods of Bishops was agitated,* 1.1459 and posi∣tively decided against him; both in Doctrine and practice.

* 1.1460The Synod of Basil affirmeth the matter of these Decrees to be a verity of the Christian faith, which whoever doth pertinaciously resist, is to be deemed a heretick— Those Fathers say that none of the skilfull did ever doubt of this truth, that the Pope in things belonging to faith, was subject to the judgment of the same General Councils. —that the Council has an authority immediately from Christ which the Pope is bound to obey. Those Synods were confirmed by Popes, without exception of those determina∣tions.

Great Churches, most famous Vniversities, a mighty store of learned Doctours of the Roman Communion have reverenced those Councils, and adhered to their Doctrine. Insomuch that the Cardinal of Lorrain did affirm him to be an Heretick in France, who did hold the contrary.

These things sufficiently demonstrate that the Pope cannot pretend to Supremacy by universal Tradition; and if he cannot prove it by that, how can he prove it? not surely by Scripture, nor by Decrees of ancient Synods, nor by any clear and convincing reason.

XV. The Sovereign of the Church is by all Christians to be acknowledged the chief Person in the world, inferiour and subject to none; above all commands; the greatest Emperour being his Sheep and Subject.

He therefore now doth pretend to be above all Princes.* 1.1461 Divers Popes have affirmed this Superiority. They are allowed and most fa∣voured by him, who teach this Doctrine. In their Missal he is pre∣ferred above all Kings, being prayed for before them.

But in the primitive times this was not held; for St. Paul requires every soul to be subject to the higher powers.* 1.1462 Then the Emperour was a∣vowed the first person, next to God; To whom, says Tertullian, they are second,* 1.1463 after whom they are first, before all and above all Gods. Why? &c. — we worship the Emperour as a man next to God, and less onely than God. And Optatus, — since there is none above the Emperour but God who made him. —while Donatus extolleth himself above the Emperour, he raises himself as it were above humani∣ty, and thinks himself to be God and not Man. For the King is the top and head of all things on earth. Then even * 1.1464 Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, all men whoever were subject to the Emperour. The Emperours did command them, † 1.1465 even the blessed Bishops and Patriarchs of old Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Theopolis and Jerusalem. Divers Popes did avow themselves subject to the Emperour.

XVI. The Confirmation of Magistrates, elected by others,* 1.1466 is a Branch of Supremacy which the Pope doth assume.

Baronius saith that this was the ancient custome; and that Pope Sim∣plicius did confirm the Election of Calendion Bishop of Antioch.

Meletius confirm'd the most holy Gregory in the Bishoprick of Constantinople.* 1.1467

But the truth is, that anciently Bishops being elected did onely give an account of their choice unto all other Bishops; especially to those of highest rank, desiring their approbation and friendship, for preservation of due communion, correspondence and peace. So the Synod of Antioch gave account to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria,* 1.1468 and all their Fellow-ministers through∣out the world, &c. of the election of Domnus after Paulus Samosatenus. So the Fathers of Constantinople acquainted Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops with the Constitution of Nectarius, Flavianus, &c.

This was not to request Confirmation, as if the Pope or other Bish∣ops could reject the Election if regular, but rather to assure whom they were to communicate with.* 1.1469 We have (say the Fathers of the Synod against Paulus Samosatenus) signified this (our chusing of Domnus into Paulus his room) that you may write to him and receive letters of communion from him— And St. Cyprian; * 1.1470 That you and our Collegues may know to whom they may write, and from whom they may receive letters.

Thus the Bishops of Rome themselves did acquaint other Bishops with their Election, their Faith, &c. So did Cornelius;* 1.1471 whom therefore

St. Cyprian asserteth as established by the consent and approbation of his Collegues;* 1.1472 When the place of Peter and the Sacerdotal Chair was void, which by God's will being occupied, and with all our con∣sents confirmed, &c. —and the testimony of our Fel∣low-bishops, the whole number of which all over the world unanimously consented.

The Emperour did confirm Bishops, as we see by that notable passage in the Synod of Chalcedon; where Bassianus, Bi∣shop of Ephesus,* 1.1473 pleading for himself saith, Our most religious Emperour knowing these things present∣ly ratified it, and by a memorial published it, confir∣ming the Bishoprick; afterwards he sent his rescript by Eustathius the Silentiary again confirming it.

XVII. It is a Privilege of Sovereigns to grant Privileges, Exemptions, Dispensations.

* 1.1474This he claimeth; but against the Laws of God and Rights of Bishops. Against the Decrees of Synods—against the sense of good men in all times.

XVIII. It is a Prerogative of Sovereign power, to Erect, Translate Spiritual Presidencies.

* 1.1475Wherefore this the Pope claimeth. Cum ex illo, &c.

But at first he had nothing to doe therein, except in his own Province or Diocese.

As Christianity did grow and enter into Cities, so the neighbour Bishops did ordain Bishops there.

Princes often, as they did endow, so they did erect Episcopal Sees, and did, as was sutable, change places.

Pope Paschal II. doth by complaining attest to this, writing to the Archbishop of Poland▪* 1.1476 What shall I say of the translations of Bishops, which among you are presumed to be made, not by Apostolick authority, but the King's command?

XIX. It is a great Prerogative of Sovereignty to impose Taxes on the Clergy or People.

Wherefore the Pope doth assume this; as for instance that Decree of Pope Innocent IV. in the First Synod of Lions; By the common consent of the Council we ordain that all the Clergy,* 1.1477 as well those who are under authority as the Prelates, pay for three years a twentieth part of their Ecclesiastical revenues towards the assistence of the holy Land, into the hands of those who shall be thereto appointed by the prudence of the Apostolick See. —and let all know that this they are bound faith∣fully to doe under pain of excommunication.

But Antiquity knew no such Impositions: when the Church, the Clergy, the Poor were maintained and relieved by voluntary Offerings, or Obventions.

Even the invidious splendour of the Roman Bishop was supported by the Oblations of Matrons, as Marcellinus observeth.* 1.1478

This is an encroachment upon the right of Princes, unto whom Clergy∣men are Subjects, and bound to render tribute to whom tribute be∣longeth.* 1.1479

SUPPOSITION VII. A farther grand Assertion of the Roman Party, is this, That the Papal Supremacy is indefectible, and unalte∣rable.

BUT good reasons may be assigned, why even supposing that the Pope had an Universal Sovereignty in virtue of his Succession to Saint Peter conferred on him, it is not assuredly consequent, that it must always, or doth now belong to him. For it might be settled on him not absolutely but upon conditions, the which failing his authority may expire. It might be God's will that it should onely continue for a time. And there are divers ways, whereby according to common rules of justice, he might be disseised thereof.

1. If God had positively declared his will concerning this Point, that such a Sovereignty was by him granted irrevocably and immutably, so that in no case it might be removed or altered, then indeed it must be admitted for such; but if no such declaration doth appear, then to assert it for such is to derogate from his power and providence; by exem∣ption of this case from it. It is the ordinary course of providence so to confer power of any kind or nature on men, as to reserve to himself the liberty of transferring it, qualifying it, extending or contracting it, abolishing it, according to his pleasure, in due seasons and exigencies of things. Whence no humane power can be supposed absolutely stable or immovably fixed in one person or place.

2. No power can have a higher source, or firmer ground, than that of the Civil Government hath, for all such power is from heaven, and in relation to that it is said, There is no power but from God, the powers that are, are ordained by God:* 1.1480 But yet such power is liable to various altera∣tions, and is like the Sea, having ebbs and flows, and ever changing its bounds either personal or local.

Any temporal Jurisdiction may be lost by those revolutions and vi∣cissitudes of things, to which all humane Constitutions are subject; and which are ordered by the will and providence of the most High,* 1.1481 who ruleth

in the Kingdom of men, appointing over it whom he pleaseth; putting down one and setting up another.

Adam by God's appointment was Sovereign of the world; and his first-born Successours derived the same power from him: yet in course of time that order hath been interrupted, and divers independent Sovereignties do take place.

Every Prince hath his authority from God, or by virtue of Divine Ordination within his own Territory; and according to God's Ordi∣nance the lawfull Successour hath a right to the same authority; yet by accidents such authority doth often fail totally or in part, changing its extent.

Why then may not any Spiritual power be liable to the same vicissi∣tudes? why may not a Prelate be degraded as well as a Prince? why may not the Pope, as well as the Emperour, lose all, or part of his Kingdom?

Why may not the Successour of Peter, no less than the Heir of Adam, suffer a defaileur of Jurisdiction?

That Spiritual Corporations, Persons and Places are subject to the same contingences with others, as there is like reason to suppose, so there are Examples to prove; God removed his Sanctuary from Shiloh, Go ye now unto my place,* 1.1482 which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at first, &c. He deserted Jerusalem. He removeth the Candlesticks. He placed Eli (of the Family of Ithamar) in the High-Priesthood, and dis∣placed his Race from it:* 1.1483 I said indeed (saith God) that thy house, and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever, but now the Lord saith Be it far from me, &c.

3 The reason and exigency of things might be sufficient ground for altering an Universal Jurisdiction; for when it should prove very inconvenient or hurtfull, God might order such an alteration to happen, and men be obliged to allow it.

As God first did institute one Universal Monarchy, but that form (upon the multiplication of mankind, and peopling of the earth) proving incommodious, providence gave way for its change, and the setting up of particular Governments; to which men are bound to submit; So God might institute a singular Presidency of the Church; but when the Church grew vastly extended, so that such a Government would not conveniently serve the whole, he might order a division, in which we should acquiesce.

4. It hath ever been deemed reasonable, and accordingly been prac∣tised, that the Church in its exteriour form and political administrations should be suted to the state of the world, and Constitution of worldly Governments; that there might be no clashing or disturbance from each to other.

Wherefore seeing the World is now settled under so many Civil Sovereignties, it is expedient that Ecclesiastical Discipline should be so modelled, as to comply with each of them.

And it his reasonable, that any pretence of Jurisdiction should veil to the publick good of the Church and the World.

That it should be necessary for the Church to retain the same form of policy or measure of power affixed to persons or places, can no-wise be demonstrated by sufficient proof, and it is not consistent with experience; which sheweth the Church to have subsisted with variations of that kind.

There hath in all times been found much reason or necessity to make alterations as well in the places and bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as of Secular Empire.

Wherefore Saint Peter's Monarchy, reason requiring, might be cantonized into divers spiritual Supremacies; and as other Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions have been chopp'd and chang'd, enlarged or diminished, removed and extinguished, so might that of the Roman Bishop. The Pope cannot retain power in any State against the will of the Prince: he is not bound to suffer correspondences with Foreigners, especially such who apparently have interests contrary to his honour and the good of his people.

5. Especially that might be done, if the continuance of such a Jurisdiction should prove abominably corrupt, or intolerably grievous to the Church.

6. That power is defectible which according to the nature and course of things doth sometime fail.

But the Papal Succession hath often been interrupted by contingencies (of Sedition, Schism, Intrusion, Simoniacal Election, Deposition, &c. as before shewed) and is often interrupted by Vacancies from the death of the Incumbents.

7. If leaving their dubious and false suppositions, (concerning Divine Institution, Succession to Saint Peter, &c.) we consider the truth of the case, and indeed the more grounded plea of the Pope, that Papal preeminence was obtained by the wealth and dignity of the Roman City, and by the collation or countenance of the Imperial authority; then by the defect of such advantages it may cease or be taken away: for when Rome hath ceased to be the Capital City, the Pope may cease to be Head of the Church. When the Civil powers, which have succeeded the Imperial, each in its respective Territory, are no less absolute than it, they may take it away, if they judge it fit; for whatever power was granted by humane Authority, by the same may be revoked; and what the Emperour could have done, each Sovereign power now may doe for it self.

An indefectible power cannot be settled by man; because there is no power ever extant at one time greater than there is at another; so that whatever power one may raise, the other may demolish; there being no bounds whereby the present time may bind all posterity.

However no humane Law can exempt any Constitution from the pro∣vidence of God; which at pleasure can dissolve whatever man hath fra∣med. And if the Pope were devested of all adventitious power, obtained by humane means, he would be left very bare; and hardly would take it worth his while to contend for Jurisdiction.

8. However or whencesoever the Pope had his Authority, yet it may be forfeited by defects and defaults incurred by him.

If the Pope doth encroach on the rights and liberties of others, usurping a lawless domination, beyond reason and measure, they may in their own defence be forced to reject him, and shake off his yoke.

If he will not be content to govern otherwise than by infringing the Sacred Laws, and trampling down the inviolable Privileges of the Churches, either granted by Christ, or established by the Sanctions of General Synods; he thereby depriveth himself of all Authority; be∣cause it cannot be admitted upon tolerable terms, without greater wrong

of many others (whose right out-weigheth his) and without great mischief to the Church, the good of which is to be preferred before his private advantage.

This was the Maxime of a great Pope, a great stickler for his own dignity; for when the Bishop of Constantinople was advanced by a Gene∣ral Synod above his ancient pitch of dignity, that Pope opposing him did say, that whoever doth af∣fect more than his due,* 1.1484 doth lose that which properly belonged to him; the which Rule if true in regard to another's case, may be applied to the Pope, for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

On such a supposition of the Papal encroach∣ment,* 1.1485 we may return his words upon him; It is too proud and immoderate a thing to stretch beyond ones bounds, and in contempt of antiquity, to be wil∣ling to invade other mens right, and to oppose the Primacies of so many Metropolitans, on purpose to ad∣vance the dignity of one.

* 1.1486For the privileges of Churches, being instituted by the Canons of the holy Fathers, and fixt by the Decrees of the venerable Synod of Nice, cannot be pluckt up by any wicked attempt, nor altered by any innovation.

* 1.1487Far be it from me, that I should in any Church infringe the Decrees of our Ancestours made in favour of my Fellow-priests; for I do my self injury, if I disturb the rights of my brethren.

The Pope surely (according to any ground of Scripture, or Traditi∣on, or ancient Law) hath no Title to greater Principality in the Church, than the Duke of Venice hath in that State; Now if the Duke of Venice in prejudice to the publick right and liberty, should at∣tempt to stretch his power to an absoluteness of command, or much beyond the bounds allowed him by the constitution of that Common-wealth, he would thereby surely forfeit his Supremacy, (such as it is) and afford cause to the State of rejecting him: the like occasion would the Pope give to the Church by the like demeanour.

9. The Pope by departing from the Doctrine and Practice of Saint Peter, would forfeit his Title of Successour to him; for in such a case no succession in place or in name could preserve it;* 1.1488 The Popes themselves had swerved and degene∣rated from the example of Peter.

* 1.1489They are not the Sons of the Saints, who hold the places of the Saints, but they that doe their works. (Which place is rased out of St. Hierome.)

* 1.1490They have not the inheritance of Peter, who have not the faith of Peter, which they tear asunder by ungodly division.

* 1.1491So Gregory Nazianzene saith of Athanasius, that he was Successour of Mark, no less in piety than pre∣sidency: the which we must suppose to be properly suc∣cession: otherwise the Mufti of Constantinople is Successour to St. Andrew, of St. Chrysostome, &c. the Mufti of Jerusalem to St. James.

If then the Bishop of Rome instead of teaching Christian Doctrine doth propagate Errours contrary to it; If instead of guiding into Truth and Godliness, he seduceth into Falshood and Impiety; If instead of declaring and pressing the Laws of God, he delivereth and imposeth Precepts opposite, prejudicial, destructive of God's Laws; If instead of promoting genuine Piety, he doth (in some instances) violently op∣pose it; If instead of maintaining true Religion, he doth pervert and corrupt it by bold Defalcations, by Superstitious additions, by Foul mixtures and alloys; If he coineth new Creeds, Articles of Faith, new Scriptures, new Sacraments, new Rules of Life, obtruding them on the Consciences of Christians; If he conformeth the Doctrines of Christianity to the Interests of his Pomp and Profit; making gain god∣liness; If he prescribe Vain, Profane, Superstitious ways of Worship, turning Devotion into Foppery and Pageantry; If instead of preserving Order and Peace, he fomenteth Discords and Factions in the Church; being a Make-bate and Incendiary among Christians; If he claimeth exorbitant Power, and exerciseth Oppression and tyrannical Domina∣tion over his Brethren; cursing and damning all that will not submit to his Dictates and Commands; If instead of be∣ing a Shepherd, he is a Wolf,* 1.1492 worrying and tear∣ing the Flock by cruel Persecution: He by such behaviour ipso facto depriveth himself of Authori∣ty and Office; He becometh thence no Guide or Pastour to any Christian; there doth in such case rest no obligation to hear or obey him; but rather to decline him, to discost from him, to reject and disclaim him.

This is the reason of the case, this the Holy Scripture doth prescribe, this is according to the Primitive Doctrine, Tradition and Practice of the Church. For,

10. In reason, the nature of any spiritual Office consisting in Instruc∣tion in Truth and Guidance in Vertue toward attainment of Salvation; if any man doth lead into pernicious Errour or Impiety, he thereby ceaseth to be capable of such Office: As a blind man, by being so, doth cease to be a Guide; and much more he, that declareth a will to seduce; for,* 1.1493 Who so blind as he that will not see?

No man can be bound to follow any one into the ditch:* 1.1494 or to obey any one in prejudice to his own Salvation; to die in his iniquity.* 1.1495 Seeing God saith in such a case, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In vain do they worship me,* 1.1496 teaching for Doctrines the Precepts of men.

They themselves do acknowledge that Hereticks cease to be Bishops;* 1.1497 and so to be Popes. Indeed they cease to be Christians; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such a one is subverted.

11. According to their Principles, the Pope hath the same relation to other Bishops and Pastours of the Church, which they have to their people; he being Pastour of Pastours: But if any Pastour should teach bad Doctrine, or prescribe bad Practice, his people may reject and disobey him; therefore in proportion, the Pastours may desert the Pope misguiding or misgoverning them. In such cases any Inferiour is exempted from obligation to comply with his Superiour, either truly or pretendedly such.

12. The case may be that we may not hold communion with the Pope, but may be obliged to shun him; in which case his Authority doth fail, and no man is subject to him.

13. This is the Doctrine of the Scripture. The High Priest and his fellows, under the Jewish Oeconomy, had no less Authority than any Pope can now pretend unto;* 1.1498 they did sit in the Chair of Moses, and therefore all their True Doctrines and Lawfull Directions the people were obliged to learn and observe; but their false Doctrines,* 1.1499 and impious Precepts they were bound to shun; and consequently to disclaim their Au∣thority so far as employed in urging such Doctrines and Precepts: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Let them alone, saith our Saviour,* 1.1500 they are blind leaders of the blind. Under the Christian dispensation, the matter is no less clear; our Lord commandeth us to beware of false Prophets;* 1.1501 and to see that no man deceive us; although he wear the cloathing of a Sheep, or come under the name of a Shepherd (coming in his name—).* 1.1502 Saint Paul informeth us, that if an Apostle, if an Angel from heaven doth preach beside the old Apostolical Doctrine (introducing any new Gospel, or a Divinity devised by himself) he is to be held accursed by us. He affirmeth, that even the Apostles them∣selves were not Lords of our faith,* 1.1503 nor might challenge any power in∣consistent with the maintenance of Christian Truth and Piety;* 1.1504 We (saith he) can doe nothing against the truth, but for the truth; the which an ancient Writer doth well apply to the Pope, saying,* 1.1505 that he could doe nothing against the truth more than any of his Fellow-priests could doe; which S. Paul did in practice shew, when he resisted Saint Peter, declining from the truth of the Gospel. He chargeth, that if any one doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, teach heterodoxies,* 1.1506 we should stand off from him; that, if any brother walketh disorderly, and not ac∣cording to Apostolical tradition,* 1.1507 we should withdraw from him; that if any one doth raise divisions and scandals beside the doctrine received from the Apo∣stles we should decline from him; that we are to re∣fuse any heretical person. He telleth us that grie∣vous Wolves should come into the Church,* 1.1508 not sparing the flock; that from among Christians there should arise men speaking perverse things,* 1.1509 to draw disciples after them; but no man surely ought to follow, but to shun them.

These Precepts and Admonitions are general, without any respect or exception of Persons great or small, Pastour or Lay-man: nay, they may in some respect more concern Bishops than others; for that they declining from truth, are more dangerous and contagious.

14. The Fathers (in reference to this case) do clearly accord, both in their Doctrine and Practice. St. Cyprian telleth us,* 1.1510 that a people obedient to the Lord's command∣ments, and fearing God, ought to separate it self from a sinfull Bishop, that is, from one guilty of such sins which unqualifie him for Christian Commu∣nion or Pastoral charge;* 1.1511 and Let not (addeth he) the common people flatter it self, as if it could be

free from the contagion of guilt, if it communicate with a sinfull Bishop; whose irreligious Doctrine or Practice doth render him uncapable of communion;* 1.1512 for how (saith he otherwhere) can they preside over integrity and continence, if corruptions and the teaching of vices do begin to proceed from them?

They who reject the commandment of God,* 1.1513 and labour to establish their own tradition, let them be strongly and stoutly refused and rejected by you.

St. Chrysostome, commenting on Saint Paul's words, If I or an Angel— saith,* 1.1514 that Saint Paul meaneth to shew, that dignity of persons is not to be regarded where truth is concerned; that, if one of the chief Angels from heaven should corrupt the Gospel, he were to be accursed; that, not onely if they shall speak things contrary, or overturn all, but if they preach any small matter beside the Apostolical doc∣trine, altering the least point whatever, they are lia∣ble to an anathema.

And other-where, very earnestly persuading his Audience to render due respect and obedience to there Bishop, he yet interposeth this excep∣tion, If he hath a perverse opinion, although he be an Angel do not obey him;* 1.1515 but if he teacheth right things, regard not his life but his words.

Ecclesiastical Judges as men are for the most part deceived.

For neither are Catholick Bishops to be assented to, if peradventure in any case they are mistaken, so as to hold any thing contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God.

If there be any Church which rejects the faith,* 1.1516 and does not hold the fundamentals of the Apostolical doc∣trine, it ought to be forsaken, lest it infect others with its heterodoxy.

If in such a case we must desert any Church, then the Roman; if any Church, then much more any Bishop, particularly him of Rome.

This hath been the Doctrine of divers Popes.

Which not onely the Apostolical Prelate,* 1.1517 but any other Bishop may doe, viz. discriminate and severe any men, and any place from the Catholick communion, ac∣cording to the rule of that fore-condemned heresie.

Faith is universal, common to all, and belongs not onely to Clergymen but also to Laicks, and even to all Christians.

Therefore the sheep which are committed to the cure of their Pastour, ought not to reprehend him, unless he swerve and go astray from the right faith.

15. That this was the current opinion, common practice doth shew, there being so many instances of those who rejected their Su∣periours, and withdrew from their communion, in case of their main∣taining errours, or of their disorderly behaviour; such practice ha∣ving

been approved by General and Great Synods as also by divers Popes.

When Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople did introduce new and strange Doctrine,* 1.1518 divers of his Presbyters did rebuke him, and withdraw communion from him; which proceeding is approved in the Ephesine Synod.

Particularly Charisius did assert this proceeding in those remarkable words presented to that same Synod; 'Tis the wish and desire of all well affected persons,* 1.1519 to give al∣ways all due honour and reverence especially to their spiritual Fathers and Teachers: but if it should so happen that they who ought to teach, should instill unto those who are set under them such things concerning the faith, as are offensive to the ears and hearts of all men, then of necessity the order must be inverted, and they who teach wrong Doctrine must be rebuked of those who are their inferi∣ours.

Pope Celestine I. in that case did commend the people of Constantinople,* 1.1520 deserting their Pastour; Happy flock (said he) to whom the Lord did afford to judge about its own Pasture.

St. Hierome did presume to write very briskly and smartly in reproof of John Bishop of Hierusalem, in whose Province he a simple Presbyter did reside.

* 1.1521Who makes a schism in the Church? we whose whole house in Bethlehem communicate with the Church, or thou, who either believest aright, and proudly concealest the truth, or art of a wrong belief, and really makest a breach in the Church? Art thou onely the Church? and is he who offendeth thee excluded from Christ?

* 1.1522Malchion, Presbyter of Antioch disputed against Paulus Samosatenus his Bishop.

Beatus Presbyter confuted his Bishop Elipandus of Toledo.

* 1.1523But if the Rectour swerve from the faith, he is to be reproved by those who are under him.

16. The case is the same of the Pope; for if other Bishops, who are reckoned Successours of the Apostles, and Vicars of Christ within their precinct; if other Patriarchs, who sit in Apostolical Sees, and par∣take of a like extensive Jurisdiction, by incurring heresie or schism, or committing notorious disorder and injustice, may be deprived of their Authority, so that their Subjects may be obliged to forsake them, then may the Pope lose his: for truth and piety are not affixed to the Chair

of Rome more than to any other; there is no ground of asserting any such Privilege either in Holy Scripture or in old Tradition; there can no promise be alledged for it, having any probable shew (that of Oravi pro te, being a ridiculous pretence) it cannot stand without a perpetual miracle; there is in fact no appearance of any such miracle; from the ordinary causes of great errour and impiety (that is, ambition, avarice, sloth, luxury) the Papal state is not exempt, yea apparently it is more subject to them than any other; all Ages have testified and complai∣ned thereof.

17. Most eminent persons have in such cases withdrawn communion from the Pope; as other-where we have shewed by divers Instances.

18. The Canon Law it self doth admit the Pope may be judged if he be a Heretick.* 1.1524— Because he that is to judge all persons is to be judged of none, except he be found to be gone astray from the faith.

The supposition doth imply the possibility, and therefore the case may be put that he is such, and then he doth (according to the more current Doctrine ancient and modern) cease to be a Bishop, yea a Christian; Hence no obedience is due to him; yea no communion is to be held with him.

19. This in fact was acknowledged by a great Pope, allowing the condemnation of Pope Honorius for good, because he was erroneous in point of Faith: for (saith he, in that which is called the Eighth Synod) although Honorius was anathe∣matized after his death by the Oriental Bishops,* 1.1525 it is yet well known, that he was accused for heresie; for which alone it is lawfull for inferiours to rise up against superiours.

Now that the Pope (or Papal succession) doth pervert the truth of Christian Doctrine, in contradiction to the Holy Scripture, and Pri∣mitive Tradition; that he doth subvert the practice of Christian piety in opposition to the Divine commands; that he teacheth falshoods, and maintaineth impieties, is notorious in many particulars, some whereof we shall touch.

We justly might charge him with all those extravagant Doctrines and Practices which the high flying Doctours do teach, and which the fierce Zealots upon occasion do act; for the whole succession of Popes of a long time hath most cherished and encouraged such folks, looking squintly on others, as not well affected to them; But we shall onely touch those new and noxious or dangerous positions, which great Sy∣nods, managed and confirmed by their Authority, have defined; or which they themselves have magisterially decreed; or which are gene∣rally practised by their influence or countenance.

It is manifest, that the Pope doth support and cherish as his special Favourites the Venters of wicked Errours; such as those who teach the Pope's infallibility, his power over temporal Princes, to cashier and depose them, to absolve subjects from their allegiance— the Doctrine of equivo∣cation, breach of faith with hereticks, &c. the which Doctrines are here∣tical, as inducing pernicious practice; whence whoever doth so much as communicate with the maintainers of them, according to the

principles of ancient Christianity, are guilty of the same crimes.

The Holy Scripture and Catholick Antiquity do teach and injoin us to worship and serve God alone,* 1.1526 our Creatour; forbidding us to worship a∣ny Creature, or Fellow-servant; even not Angels. For I who am a Creature will not endure to worship one like to me.

* 1.1527But the Pope and his Clients do teach and charge us to worship An∣gels, and dead men; yea even to venerate the reliques and dead bodies of the Saints.

* 1.1528The Holy Scripture teacheth us to judge nothing (about the present or future state of men, absolutely) before the time, untill the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of hearts, and then each man shall have praise of God.

But the Pope notoriously (in repugnance to those precepts, antici∣pating God's judgment, and arrogating to himself a knowledge requisite thereto) doth presume to determine the state of men, canonizing them, declaring them to be Saints, and proposing them to be worshipped; and on the other side, he damneth, curseth and censureth his Fellow-servants.

God in his Law doth command us not to bow down our selves unto any image, or worship the like∣ness of any thing in heaven,* 1.1529 or earth, or under the earth; the which Law (whether Moral or Posi∣tive) the Gospel doth ratifie and confirm,* 1.1530 charging us to keep our selves from idols, and to fly worshipping of idols, that is, to observe the Second Commandment;* 1.1531 the validity whereof the Fathers most ex∣presly assert; and divers of them were so strict in there opinion about it, that they deemed it unlawfull so much, as to make any Image.

But the Pope and his Adherents (in point-blank opposition to Divine Law, and Primitive Doctrine) doth require us to fall down before and to worship Images.* 1.1532 Moreover we decree that the Images of Saints be especially had and retain'd in Churches, and that due honour and veneration be imparted to them— so that by those Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and fall down, we adore Christ, and vene∣rate the Saints whose likeness they bear.

Neither is he satisfied to recommend and decree these unwarrantable venerations, but (with a horrible strange kind of uncharitableness and ferity) doth he anathematize those, who teach or think any thing opposite to his decrees concerning them;* 1.1533 so that if the ancient Fathers should live now, they would live under this curse.

* 1.1534The Holy Scripture, under condition of Repentance and amendment of life, upon recourse to God and trust in his Mercy, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, doth offer and promise Remission of sins, Accep∣tance with God, Justification and Salvation; this is the tenour of the

Evangelical Covenant; nor did the Primitive Church know other terms.

But the Pope doth preach another Doctrine, and requireth other terms as necessary for Remission of sins and Salvation; for he hath de∣creed the confession of all and each mortal sin, which a man by recol∣lection can remember, to a Priest, to be necessary thereto; anathema∣tizing all who shall say the contrary;* 1.1535 although the Fathers (particu∣larly St. Chrysostome frequently) have affirmed the contrary.

The which is plainly preaching another Gospel (forged by himself and his abettours) as offering Remission upon other terms than God hath prescribed; and denying it upon those which Christianity proposeth.

He teacheth that no sin is pardoned without absolution of a Priest.

He requireth satisfaction imposed by a Priest, besides repentance and new obedience, as necessary. Which is also another Gospel.* 1.1536

He dispenseth pardon of sin upon condition of performances unne∣cessary and insufficient;* 1.1537 such as undertaking Pilgrimages to the Shrines of Saints, Visiting Churches, making War upon Infidels or Hereticks, Con∣tributing money, Repeating Prayers, undergoing Corporal Penances, &c. Which is likewise to frame and publish another Gospel.

These Doctrines are highly presumptuous, and well may be reputed heretical.

God hath commanded that every soul should be subject to the higher powers temporal, as to God's Ministers; so as to obey their Laws,* 1.1538 to sub∣mit to their Judgments, to pay Tribute to them— And the Fathers expound this Law to the utmost extent and advantage. If every soul, then yours, if any attempt to except you, he goes about to deceive you.

But the Pope countermandeth,* 1.1539 and exempteth all Clergy-men from those duties, by his Canon Law; excommunicating Lay-Judges, who shall perform their Office in regard to them. Because indeed some Lay-persons constrain Ecclesiasticks, yea and Bishops themselves, to appear before them and to stand to their judgment, those that henceforth shall presume to doe so, we decree that they shall be separate from the communion of the faithfull.

The Scriptures do represent the King (or Temporal Sovereign) as Supreme over his Subjects,* 1.1540 to whom all are obliged to yield special respect and obedience: The Fathers yield him the same place, above all next to God; and subject to God alone: The ancient good Popes did acknowledge themselves Servants, and Subjects to the Emperour.

* 1.1541But later Popes, like the man of sin in Saint Paul, have advanced themselves above all Civil power; claiming to themselves a superemi∣nency not onely of Rank but of Power over all Christian Princes; even to depose them.* 1.1542 Christ has committed the rights both of terrestrial and celestial government to that blessed man who bears the keys of eternal life.

* 1.1543If the secular power be believers, God would have them subject to the Priests of the Church— Christian Emperours ought to submit, and not prefer the ex∣ecution of their Laws to the Rulers of the Church.

God by indispensable Law hath obliged us to retain our obedience to the King even Pagan; charging us under pain of damnation to be sub∣ject to him, and not to resist him—

But the Pope is ready upon occasion to discharge Subjects from that obligation, to absolve them from their solemn Oaths of Allegiance, to encourage Insurrection against him;* 1.1544 to prohibit obedience—We observing the Decrees of our holy Predecessours, by our Apostolical Authority absolve those from their Oath who were bound by their Fealty and Oath to excommunicated persons: and we forbid them by all means that they yield them no Allegiance, till they come and make satisfaction.

Thus doth he teach and prescribe Rebellion, Perjury— together with all the Murthers and Rapines consequent on them: which is a far greater Heresie, than if he should teach Adultery, Murther or Theft to be lawfull. For they are enjoined by no authority to perform the Allegiance which they have sworn to a Christian Prince,* 1.1545 who is an adversary to God and his Saints, and contemns their commands.

* 1.1546Not onely the Holy Scripture, but Common Sense doth shew it to be an enormous presumption to obtrude for the Inspirations, Oracles and Dictates of God, any writings or Propositions, which are not really such.

* 1.1547This the Pope doth notoriously, charging us to admit divers wri∣tings, (which the greatest part of learned men in all Ages have refused for such) as Sacred and Canonical; anathematizing all those who do not hold each of them for such.—Even as they are extant in a Tran∣slation, not very exact, and framed partly out of Hebrew, partly out

of Greek, upon divers accounts liable to mistake; as its Authour St. Hierome doth avow.

According to which Decree, all who consent with St. Hierome, St. Austin, St. Athanasius, &c. with common sense, with the Authour of the Second of Maccabees himself, must incur a curse— what can be more uncharitable, more unjust, more silly than such a Definition?

He pretendeth to Infallibility, or encourageth them who attribute it to him; which is a continual Enthusiasm and profane bold Im∣posture.

The Scripture doth avow a singular reverence due to it self, as containing the Oracles of God.—

But the Pope doth obtrude the Oral Traditions of his Church (divers of which evidently are new, dubious,* 1.1548 vain —) to be worshipped with equal reverence as the Holy Scripture. And also receives and venerates with the like pious respect and reverence the Traditions themselves—which have been preserved by continual succession in the Catholick Church.

Among which Traditions they reckon all the tricks and trumpery of their Mass-service; together with all their new notions about Purgatory, Extreme unction, &c. He also used several ceremonies,* 1.1549 as mystical benediction, lights, incensings, garments, and many other such things, from Apostolical discipline, and tradition.

The Scriptures affirm themselves to be written for common instruc∣tion, comfort, edification in all piety; they do therefore recommend themselves to be studyed and searched by all people;* 1.1550 as the best and surest means of attaining knowledge and finding truth. The fathers also do much exhort all people, (even women and girles) constantly to reade, and diligently to study the Scriptures.

But the Pope doth keep them from the people,* 1.1551 locked up in Languages not understood by them; prohibiting Translations of them to be made, or used— The Scripture teacheth, and common sense sheweth, and the Fathers do assert (nothing indeed more frequently or more plainly) that all necessary points of faith and good morality are with sufficient evidence couched in Holy Scrip∣ture, so that a man of God, or pious men may thence be perfectly furnished to every work;* 1.1552 But they contrary-wise blaspheme the Scriptures as obscure, dangerous, &c.

Common sense dictateth, that devotions should be performed with understanding and affection; and that consequently they should be in a known tongue: And Saint Paul expresly teacheth, that it is requisite for private and publick edification; from this Doctrine of Paul it appears,* 1.1553 that it is better for the edification of the Church, that publick prayers, which are said in the audience of the people, should be said in a tongue common to the Clergy and the people, than that they should be said in Latin.

All ancient Churches did accordingly practise; and most others do so, beside those which the Pope doth ride.

But the Pope will not have it so, requiring the publick Liturgy to be celebrated in an unknown tongue; and that most Christians shall say their devotions like Parrots. He anathematizeth those, who think the Mass should be celebrated in a vulgar tongue;* 1.1554 that is all those who are in their right wits, and think it fit to follow the practice of the anci∣ent Church.

The Holy Scripture teacheth us that there is but one Head of the Church; and the Fathers do avow no other (as we have otherwhere shewed.)

But the Pope assumeth to himself the headship of the Church,* 1.1555 affirming all power and authority to be derived from him into the subject members of the Church.

* 1.1556We decree that the Roman Pontife is the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church.

The Scripture declareth that God did institute marriage for remedy of incontinency and prevention of sin; forbidding the use of it to none,* 1.1557 who should think it need∣full or convenient for them;* 1.1558 reckoning the prohibition of it among heretical doctrines;* 1.1559 imply∣ing it to be imposing a snare upon men.* 1.1560

But the Pope and his Complices do prohibit it to whole Orders of men,* 1.1561 (Priests, &c.) engaging them into dangerous vows.

* 1.1562Our Lord forbiddeth any marriage lawfully contracted to be dissolved, otherwise than in case of adultery.

* 1.1563But the Pope commandeth Priests married to be divorced. And that marriages contracted by such persons should be dissolved.

He dissolveth matrimony agreed, by the pro∣fession of monkery of one of the espoused.* 1.1564 If any shall say, that matrimony confirmed, not consummate, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion of either party, let him be Anathema,

* 1.1565Our Saviour did institute and enjoin us (under pain of damnation, if we should wilfully transgress his order) to eat of his body, and drink of his bloud, in participation of the Holy Supper.

The Fathers did accordingly practise, with the whole Church, till late times.

But notwithstanding Christ's institution (as they express it) Papal Synods do prohibit all Laymen,* 1.1566 and Priests not celebrating to partake of Christ's bloud; so maiming and perverting our Lord's In∣stitution: † 1.1567 and yet they decline to drink the bloud of our redemption.

In defence of which practice, they confound body and bloud;* 1.1568 and under a curse would oblige us to believe▪ that one kind doth contain the other; or that a part doth contain the whole.

Whereas our Lord saith,* 1.1569 that whoso eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath eternal life, and consequently supposeth,* 1.1570 that bad men do not partake of his body and bloud; yet they con∣demn this assertion under a curse

The Holy Scripture, and the Fathers after it,* 1.1571 commonly do call the elements of the Eucharist, after consecration, bread and wine;* 1.1572 affirming them to retain their nature.

But the Popish Cabal anathematizeth those who say, that bread and wine do then remain.* 1.1573

If any shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remain —let him be Anathema.

The nature of the Lord's Supper doth imply communion and company;* 1.1574 but they forbid any man to say that a Priest may not communicate alone; so establishing the belief of non-sense, and con∣tradiction.

The Holy Scripture teacheth us, that our Lord hath departed, and is absent from us in body; untill that he shall come to judge, which is called his presence;* 1.1575 that heaven, whither he ascended, and where he sit∣teth at God's right hand, must hold him till the times of the restitution of all things.

But the Pope with his Lateran and Tridentine Complices draw him down from heaven, and make him corporally present every day, in numberless places here.

The Scripture teacheth us,* 1.1576 that our Lord is a man, perfectly like to us, in all things.

But the Pope and his adherents make him extremely different from us, as having a body at once present in innumerable places; insensi∣ble, &c. devested of the properties of our body; thereby destroying his humane nature, and in effect agreeing with Eutyches, Apollinarius, and other such pestilent Hereticks.

The Scripture representeth him born once for us; but they affirm him every day made by a Priest, uttering the words of consecration; as if that which before did exist, could be made; as if a man could make his Maker.

The Scripture teacheth, that our Lord was once offered for expiation of our sins;* 1.1577 but they pre∣tend every day to offer him up as a propitiatory Sacrifice.

These devices without other foundation, than a figurative expressi∣on (which they resolve to expound in a proper sense, although even in that very matter divers figurative expressions are used, as they can∣not but acknowledge) they with all violence and fierceness obtrude upon the belief as one of the most necessary and fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion.

* 1.1578The Scripture teacheth us humbly to acknowledge the rewards as∣signed by God to be gratuitous and free; and that we, after we have done all, must acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants.

But the Papists curse those who, although out of humility and mode∣sty, will not acknowledge the good works of justified persons to be truly meritorious;* 1.1579 deserving the encrease of grace, eternal life, and aug∣mentation of glory: so forcing us to use saucy words and phrases, if not impious in their sense.

The Scripture teacheth one Church diffused over the whole world; whereof each part is bound to maintain charity, peace and communi∣on with the rest, upon brotherly terms.

But the Romanists arrogate to themselves the name and privilege of the onely Church;* 1.1580 condemning all other Churches beside their own, and censuring all for Apostatical who do not adhere to them or submit to their yoke; Just like the Donatists, who said that the world had apo∣statized, excepting those who upon their own terms did communicate with them; onely the communion of Donatus remained the true Church.

The Holy Scripture biddeth us take care of persons pretending to extraordinary Inspirations; charging on the Holy Spirit their own conceits and devices.

Such have been their Synods, boldly fathering their Decrees on God's Spirit— And their Pope is infallible, by virtue of inspiration com∣municated to him, when he pleaseth to set himself right in his Chair. Whence we may take them for bodies of Enthusiasts and Fanaticks: the difference onely is, that other Enthusiasts pretend singly, they con∣junctly and by conspiracy. Others pretend it in their own direction and defence, these impose their dreams on the whole Church.

* 1.1581If they say that God hath promised his Spirit to his Church; it is true, but he hath no less plainly and frequently promised it to single Christians, who should seek it earnestly of him.

The ancient Fathers could in the Scriptures hardly discern more than two Sacraments or Mysterious Rites of our Religion, by positive Law and Institution of our Saviour to be practised.

But the Popes have devised others, and under uncharitable curses propound them to be profes∣sed for such;* 1.1582 affirming them to confer grace by the bare performance of them.

Every Clergy-man and Monk is bound by Pius IV. to profess there are just seven of them;* 1.1583 and the Tridentine Synod anathematizeth all those, who do say there are more or fewer; although the Ancients did never hit on that number.

But these our Sacraments both contain grace,* 1.1584 and also confer it upon those who worthily receive them.

They require men to believe under a curse that each of those were instituted of Christ, and con∣fer grace by the bare performance.

Particularly, they curse those,* 1.1585 who do not hold matrimony for a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, and conferring grace. What can be more ridiculous than to say, that marriage was instituted by Christ, or that it doth confer grace?

Yet with another anathema they prefer Virginity before it:* 1.1586 and why forsooth is not that another Sacrament? And then they must be comparing the worth of these Sacraments, condemning those hea∣vily, who may conceive them equal, as being Divine Institutions.

If any say that these seven Sacraments are so equal one to another,* 1.1587 that one is in no respect of more worth than another, let him be Anathema.

The first, as it seemeth, who reckoned the Sacraments to be seven, was Peter Lombard;* 1.1588 whom the Schoolmen did follow; and Pope Eugenius IV. followed them; and afterward the Trent men formed it into an Article back'd with an Anathema.

Upon which rash and peremptory Sentence touching all ancient Divines, we may note;

1. Is it not strange that an Article of Faith should be formed upon an ambiguous word, or a term of art, used with great variety?

2. Is it not strange to define a Point whereof it is most plain that the Fathers were ignorant, were in they never did agree or resolve any thing?

3. Yea whereof they speak variously.

4. Is it not odd and extravagant to damn or curse people for a point of so little consideration or certainty?

5. Is it not intolerable arrogance and presumption to define, nay indeed to make an Article of Faith,* 1.1589 without any manner of ground or colour of Authority either from Scripture or the Tradition of the ancient Fathers?

The Holy Scripture forbiddeth us to call any man Master upon earth,* 1.1590 or absolutely to subject our Faith to the dictates of any man; It teach∣eth us that the Apostles themselves are not Lords of our faith, so as to oblige us to believe their own inventions; It forbiddeth us to swallow whole the Doctrines and Precepts of men, without examination of them. It forbiddeth us to admit * 1.1591 various and strange doctrines.

But the Pope and Roman Church exact from us a submission to their Dictates, admitting them for true, without any farther enquiry or discussion, barely upon his Authority. They who are provided of any Benefices whatever, having cure of Souls,* 1.1592 let them promise and swear obedi∣ence to the Roman Church.

They require of us without doubt to believe, to profess, to assert innumerable Propositions, divers of them new and strange no-wise deducible from Scripture or Apostolical Tradition, the very terms of them being certainly unknown to the Primitive Church, devised by humane subtilty, curiosity, contentiousness — divers of them being (in all appearance, to the judgment of common sense) uncertain, ob∣scure and intricate; divers of them bold and fierce; divers of them frivolous and vain; divers of them palpably false. Namely all such Propositions, as have been taught by their Great Junto's, allowed by the Pope, especially that of Trent.

Moreover all other things delivered, defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils,* 1.1593 and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent, I undoubtedly receive and profess; and also all things contrary thereunto, and all heresies whatsoever con∣demned and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I in like manner do condemn, reject and anathematize— This is the true Catholick Faith, out of which there can be no Salvation.

This Usurpation upon the Consciences of Christians (none like whereto was ever known in the world) they prosecute with most un∣charitable censures; cursing and damning all who do not in heart and profession submit to him, obliging all their consorts to join therein, against all charity and prudence.

* 1.1594The Scripture enjoineth us to bear with those who are weak in faith, and err in doubtfull or disputable matters.

But the Popes with cruel uncharitableness, not onely do censure all that cannot assent to their devices, which they obtrude as Articles of Faith; but sorely persecute them with all sorts of punishments; even with death it self; a practice inconsistent with Christian meekness, with equity, with reason; and of which the Fathers have expressed the grea∣test detestation.

* 1.1595They have unwoven and altered all Theology from head to foot, and of Divine have made it So∣phistical.

The Pope with his pack of mercenary Clients at Trent, did indeed establish a Scholastical or Sophistical, rather than a Christian Theology; framing Points, devised by the idle wits of latter times, into Definitions, and peremptory Conclusions, back'd with Curses and Censures: con∣cerning which Conclusions it is evident

* 1.1596That the Apostles themselves would not be able to understand many of them.

That ancient Fathers did never think any thing about them.

That divers of them consist in application of artificial terms and phrases devised by humane subtilty.

That divers of them are in their own nature disputable; were be∣fore disputed by wise men, and will ever be disputed by those who freely use their judgment.

That there was no need of defining many of them.

That they blindly lay about them, condemning and cursing they

know not who, Fathers, Schoolmen, Divines, &c. who have expres∣ly affirmed points so damned by them.

That many Truths are uncharitably back'd with Curses, which disparageth them; (seeing a man may err pardonably —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in many things we offend all.

For instance; what need was there of defining,* 1.1597 what need of cursing those, who think concupiscence to be truly and properly sin, upon Saint Paul's Authority, calling it so?

That Adam presently upon his transgression did lose the sanctity and justice in which he was constituted.* 1.1598

What need of cursing those,* 1.1599 who say that men are justified by the sole remission of sins, according to Saint Paul's notion, and use of the word Justification?

What need of cursing those,* 1.1600 who say the grace of God by which we are justified, is onely the favour of God, whereas it is plain enough that God's grace there in Saint Paul, doth signifie nothing else, applied to that case.

Or that Faith is nothing else, but a reliance in God's mercy, remitting sins for Christ; seeing it is plain that Saint Paul doth by Faith chiefly mean the belief of that principal point of the Gospel.

Or that good works do not cause an encrease of justification;* 1.1601 seeing Saint Paul doth exclude justification by works; and it is a free work of God— uncapable of degrees.

Or that after remission of sin in justification, a guilt of paying temporal pain doth abide.

Or that a man cannot by his works merit encrease of grace, and glory,* 1.1602 and eternal life; seeing a man is not to be blamed, who doth dislike the use of so sawcy a word; the which divers good men have disclaimed.

What need of cursing those,* 1.1603 who do not take the Sacraments to be precisely Seven? or who conceive that some one of their seven may not be truly and properly a Sacrament; seeing the word Sacrament is ambigu∣ous, and by the Fathers applied to divers other things, and defined gene∣rally by St. Austin, Signum rei sacrae; and that before Peter Lombard ever did mention that number.

What need of damning those,* 1.1604 who do conceive the Sacraments equal in dignity?

What need of defining,* 1.1605 that Sacraments do confer grace ex opere ope∣rato; which is an obscure Scholastical phrase.

What need of cursing those who say, that a Character is not impressed in the soul of those who take Baptism, Confirmation, or Orders; seeing what this Character is (or this spiritual and indeleble mark) they do not themselves well understand or agree.

What need of cursing those, who do not think that the validity of Sacraments (and consequently the assurance of our being Christians) dependeth on the Intention of the Minister?

What need of cursing those,* 1.1606 who think that a Pastour of the Church

may change the Ceremonies of administring the Sacraments; seeing St. Cyprian often teacheth that every Pastour hath full authority in such cases within his own precinct?

* 1.1607What need of defining the Second Book of Maccabees to be Canonical, against the common opinion of the Fathers (most expresly of St. Austin himself) of the most learned in all Ages, of Pope Gelasius himself (in decret.* 1.1608) which the authour him∣self (calling his work an Epitome, and asking par∣don for his errours) disclaimeth? and which com∣mon sense therefore disclaimeth.

Their new Creed of Pius IV. containeth these novelties and hetero∣doxies. 1. Seven Sacraments. 2. Trent Doctrine of Justification and Original sin. 3. Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. 4. Transubstantiation. 5. Communicating under one kind. 6. Purgatory. 7. Invocation of Saints. 8. Veneration of Reliques. 9. Worship of Images. 10. The Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. 11. Swearing Obedience to the Pope. 12. Receiving the Decrees of all Synods and of Trent.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyrill. in Joh. 21.15. He was a very active and stirring man, exceedingly spurr'd on with much promptness and alacrity in doing and speaking.

  t

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Joh. Or. 12. (13.24.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysost. Tom. 5. Orat. 59.
• * 1.3

  Matt. 16.16.
• * 1.4

  Licèt caeteri Apostoli sciant, Petrus tamen respondet pro caeteris. Am••r. in Luc. lib. 6. cap. 9.
• * 1.5

  Joh. 1.42, 46. Matt. 26.63. Joh. 1.50. Matt. 14.33.
• * 1.6

  Joh. 6.69.
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Naz. Or. 34.
• * 1.8

  Matt. 14.28.
• * 1.9

  Joh. 18.10.
• * 1.10

  Matt. 26.33, 35. Joh. 13.37.
• * 1.11

  Matt. 16.22.
• * 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tom. 5. Or. 59.
• * 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mark 9.6. Luke 9.33.
• * 1.14

  Luke 24.12, 34. Joh. 20.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 15.5. And that he appeared to Cephas, after that to the twelve.
• * 1.15

  Acts 1.15.
• * 1.16

  Acts 15.7.
• * 1.17

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.18

  Aug. in Joh. Tract. 124.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 24. An extreme lover of Christ.

  Saepe diximus nimii ardoris, amorisque quàm maximi fuisse Petrum in Dominum. Hier. in Matt. 16.22.

  We have often said that Peter was transported with too much heat, and extraordinary great love of our Lord.

  Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Christi amore promptissimus, saepe unus respondet pro omnibus. August. Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. in Matt. 1.

  For Peter himself being first in the Order of the Apostles, and most prompt and forward in the Love of Christ, an∣swer'd oftentimes alone for all the rest.
• * 1.19

  1 Cor. 15.10. 2 Cor. 11.23.
• * 1.20

  2 Cor. 11.5. & 12.11.
• * 1.21

  Nec Paulus inferior Petro — cum primo quoque sacilè conferendus, & nulli secundus. Ambr. de Sp. S. 2.12.
• † 1.22

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Chrys. Tom. 5. Orat. 167.
• * 1.23

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Hist. 2.4.
• * 1.24

  Gal. 2,2, 6. Gal ••.9. 2 Cor. 11.5.12.11.
• * 1.25

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ath. disp. c. Arium, p. 122.
• * 1.26

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Act. 2.14.
• * 1.27

  Inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio. Hier. in Jovin. I. cap. 14.
• * 1.28

  Cyp. Ep. 73. de unit. Eccl. &c.
• * 1.29

  In typo unita∣tis— Aug. de Bapt. 3.17.
• * 1.30

  Petrus— na∣turâ unus ho∣mo erat, gra∣••iâ unus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ unus idémque primus Apostolus. Aug. in Joh. tract. 123.

  Peter was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by a more abundant grace one and the same prime Apostle.

  Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Christi amore promptissimus, saepe unus respondet pro omnibus. Aug. de verbis Dom. sup. Matt. 1. Serm. 13.

  For Peter himself being the first in the Order of the Apostles, the most forward in the love of Christ, he alone oft-times answers for all the rest.
• * 1.31

  [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theoph. in Matt. 10.]

  Luke 6.14. Matt. 4.18. Mark 1.16. Luke 5.3.
• * 1.32

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Epiph. haer. 51.

  Primus credidit, & Apostolatûs est Princeps. Hil. in Matt. Can. 7.

  Quem primum Dominus elegit. Cypr. Ep. 71.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. de Judicio Dei, Tom. 2. p. 268.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Modest. a∣pud Phot. Cod. 275. Clem. ad Jac.
• * 1.33

  Hier. in Jovin. 1.
• * 1.34

  Luke 4.38.5.7. Matt. 19.27.
• * 1.35

  Sed cur non Joannes electus est virgo? aetati delatum est, quia Petrus senior erat; nè adhuc adolescens & penè puer progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.
• * 1.36

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. haer. 51.

  Peter being the younger in age.
• * 1.37

  Hor. Ep. 1.19.
• * 1.38

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrys. in Acts 2.14.

  They yield unto him, &c.
• * 1.39

  Matt. 16.16. Matt. 17.1. Matt. 26.37.
• * 1.40

  John 13.6. 1 Cor. 15.5.
• * 1.41

  John 21.
• * 1.42

  Hil. in Matt. Can. 14. p. 566.

  Supereminentem beatae fidei suae con∣fessione gloriam promeruit. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. p. 121.

  Ideò quia solus profitetur (amorem su∣um John 21.) ex omnibus, omnibus an∣tefertur. Ambros. in Luc. cap. ult.
• * 1.43

  Matth. 10.2. Mark 3.17. Luke 6.14. Acts 1.13. John 21.2.
• * 1.44

  It was a reasonable demand, which was made to our Saviour, Tell us by what authority thou doest these things, or who is he that gave thee this authority? (Luke 20.2.) and the reasonableness, of it our Lord did often avow, decla∣ring that if by his doctrine and works he had not vouched the divinity of his authority, it had been no sin to disbe∣lieve or reject him, (John 5.31, 36.10.25, 37.15.22, 24.)
• * 1.45

  Credo etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset, si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non pos∣set. Aug. de pecc. mer. & rem. 2.36.
• * 1.46

  Nullum fundamentum, aut firmitatem possunt habere, quae nullis divinarum vo∣cum fulciuntur oraculis. Lact. 7.2.
• * 1.47

  Luke 1.1.—
• * 1.48

  Matth. 10.1.
• * 1.49

  Mark 9.50. John 13.34.15.12.17.21. John 13.14.
• * 1.50

  Si quis dix∣erit, illis ver∣bis, Hoc fa∣cite in meam commemora∣tionem, Christum non instituisse Apostolos Sacerdotes — anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 2.

  If any one shall say that in those words, Doe this in remembrance of me, Christ did not ordain his Apostles Priests— Let him be accursed.
• * 1.51

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Acts 1.2. John 20.21. Matt. 28.19. Luke 24.49. Mark 16.15.
• * 1.52

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 114.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 33.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 8. ubi suprá.

  We have heard Paul himself recko∣ning up powers or authorities, and pla∣cing the Apostolical in the highest place.
• * 1.53

  Eph. 4.11.
• † 1.54

  1 Cor. 12.28.
• * 1.55

  Luke 22.14. Luke 22.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.56

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. ad Corinth. I. p. 63. apud Clem. Alex. Strom. 6. p. 466.

  Let a man be faithfull, let him be powerfull in declaring knowledge, let him be wise in discovering reasons, let him be strenuous in works, by so much the more ought he to be humble-min∣ded, by how much the more he seems to be greater than others; and to seek the common benefit of all, and not of himself.
• * 1.57

  So doth St. Clemens interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, alluding to this place.
• † 1.58

  [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• * 1.59

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.60

  Luke 22.25, 26.
• * 1.61

  Mark 10.37. Matt. 20.25.
• * 1.62

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 5. Orat. 33.
• * 1.63

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrys. in Acts 1.26.

  Then the Government was not an honour, but a provident care of the governed, &c.
• * 1.64

  Matt. 20.26.
• * 1.65

  Mark 9.34. Luke 9.46. Matth. 18.1.
• * 1.66

  Mark 9.35.
• * 1.67

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Alex. Str. 5. (p. 409.)

  And to those familiar friends stri∣ving for the preeminence, he com∣mends equality together with simpli∣city, saying, that they ought to be∣come as little Children.
• * 1.68

  Matth. 23.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.69

  Chrys. in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Eph. Or. 11. Isid. Pel. Ep. 4.219.2.125. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 1 Pet. 5.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Eph. Orat. 11.
• * 1.70

  Ille enim nolentibus praeest, hic volen∣tibus. Hier. Ep. 3. ad Nepot.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrys. in Tit 1.7.

  He ought to rule them so as they may be willing to be ruled, &c.
• * 1.71

  1 Pet. 5.
• * 1.72

  Sed contenti sint honore suo; Patres se sciant esse non dominos— Hier. Ep. 62. (ad Theoph.) cap. 3.

  Amari parens, & episcopus debet, non timeri. Ibid. cap. 1.
• * 1.73

  Indè denique superintendis, sonante tibi Episcopi nomine non dominium, sed offici∣um. Bern. de Consid. 2.6.
• * 1.74

  Nulli hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae voluntatis & mandati infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire.
• * 1.75

  Sanctissimus Dominus noster. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 11. &c.
• * 1.76

  Si Papa suae, &c.

  Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6.
• * 1.77

  Concil. Lat. sub Leone X. Sess. 11. p. 133. (in Orat. Archiep. Patrac.)
• * 1.78

  Hâc itaque fiduciâ fretus, &c. Ex∣commun. Henrici R. in Concil. Rom. 3. sub Greg. 7. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 484.
• * 1.79

  Agite Apostolorum Sanctissimi Princi∣pes, &c. Plat. in Greg. VII.

  In Concil. Rom. 6. apud Bin. p. 491.
• * 1.80

  Et quamvìs Apostolis omnibus post re∣surrectionem suam parem potestatem tri∣buat & dicat, Sicut, &c. Cypr. de Vn. Eccl.

  2 Cor. 5.20. 1 Cor. 4.1. 2 Cor. 6.4.
• * 1.81

  Matt. 16.18. Apoc. 21.10, 14.
• * 1.82

  Eph. 2.20.
• * 1.83

  Ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.
• * 1.84

  1 Pet. 2.5. 1 Cor. 3.10.
• * 1.85

  Matt. 16.19.
• * 1.86

  Matt. 16.19. Matt. 18.18.
• * 1.87

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Phot. Cod. 280. p. 1600.

  Those, who by Succession from them (viz. the Apostles,) were endowed with Episcopal Authority, we be∣lieve to have the same Power of binding and loosing.
• * 1.88

  John 20.23.
• * 1.89

  Eph. 4.11. Act. 20.28.
• * 1.90

  1 Pet. 5.2.
• * 1.91

  2 Pet. 3.2.
• * 1.92

  Matt. 28.19.
• * 1.93

  Mark 16.15. Luke 24.47.
• * 1.94

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115.

  Tom. 5. Orat. 47. in 2 Cor. 11.28.
• * 1.95

  Luke 24.49. John 16.13.14.26. Luke 24.49. Mark 10.17. John 20.22. Act. 2.24.
• * 1.96

  Act. 15.28.
• * 1.97

  2 Cor. 12.11, 12.
• * 1.98

  Cui totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti, &c. Aug. Ep. 165.
• * 1.99

  Ergò si personam gerébant Ecclesiae, & sic eis hoc dictum est, tanquam ipsi Ecclesiae diceretur, pax Ecclesiae dimittit peccata, &c. Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 3.18.
• * 1.100

  Scimus quòd Petrus nihil plus potesta∣tis à Christo recepit aliis Apostolis; ni∣hil enim dictum est ad Petrum, quod aliis etiam dictum non est. — Ideò rectè dicimus omnes Apostolos esse aequales cum Petro in potestate. Card. Cus. de Conc. Cath. 2.13.
• * 1.101

  1 Pet. 5.1.—
• * 1.102

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2 Pet. 3.2.
• * 1.103

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Act. 1.
• * 1.104

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Act. 1.15.

  As being a man hot and earnest, and as entrusted with the flock by Christ, and as the fore-man of the company, he ever begins to speak.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— in Act. 1.26.

  Probably so it fell out by reason of the signal vertue of the man.
• * 1.105

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. de Sacerd. Or. 4.
• * 1.106

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Act. 1.16.

  Behold him doing all things by common consent; nothing authoritatively, nor imperiously.
• * 1.107

  Act. 1. Act. 1.15, 21. Act. 23.26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —
• * 1.108

  Act. 6.2.
• * 1.109

  V. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.110

  Act. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ver. 2. V. 2.
• * 1.111

  V. 4. V. 6.
• * 1.112

  V. 7.
• * 1.113

  Act. 15. V. 13— V. 14. v. 15.
• * 1.114

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. V. 19.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys.
• * 1.115

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. V. 22.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  Act. 16.4.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  Act. 21.25.
• * 1.116

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. (Tom. 5. Or. 59.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in ••c.

  For he had the Government com∣mitted to him— he was empowered.
• * 1.117

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hesych. apud Phot. Cod. 275.
• * 1.118

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. ibid.
• * 1.119

  Act. 10.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Act. 11.12. Act. 11.2.
• * 1.120

  Bell. de Pont. Rom. 4.3, 4, &c. Act. 11.18.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys.

  See how free he is from pride and vain-glory; see how he excuses him∣self, and thinks himself not worthy to have the honour of a Master.
• * 1.121

  Ità ut Petrus quoque timens ne culparetur ab ipsis. Iren. 3.12.

  N. In the matter at Antioch Saint Peter did comply with Saint James, and the Judaizers, which did not be∣seem such Authority.
• * 1.122

  Act. 8.14.
• * 1.123

  John 13.16.
• * 1.124

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 B.

  Act. 15.2.13.3.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. ad Cor. p. 69.

  Who among you is noble and generous? who has bowels of compassion? who is full of charity? Let him say, If for my sake there be sedition and strife, and divisions, I will depart and go whither you would have me, and doe what shall be enjoyned me by the multitude.
• * 1.125

  2 Cor. 13.10.10.8.12.21. 1 Cor. 4.2.
• * 1.126

  2 Thess. 3.14. 1 Cor. 7.25, 40. 1 Thess. 4.8.
• * 1.127

  1 Cor. 1.12.3.21.
• * 1.128

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Clem. ad Corinth. p. 61.
• * 1.129

  1 Cor. 3.5.
• * 1.130

  Falsum est quòd illi boni erant, excep∣tis eis qui dicebant, Ego autem Christi. Aug. Cont. Crescon. 1.27.
• * 1.131

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 13.4.2.16.6, 9. Gal. 2.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  2 Pet. 3.5.
• * 1.132

  1 Cor. 7.17.11.34.16.1.
• * 1.133

  Tit. 1.5.
• * 1.134

  Isid. Pel. 1 Thess. 2.7, 11. 1 Cor. 9.2. Act. 18.1.
• * 1.135

  1 Cor. 4.14, 15. Gal. 4.19.
• * 1.136

  Gal. 1.18.
• * 1.137

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.138

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Gal. 118.
• * 1.139

  2 Cor. 11.2••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in John 21.23.

  For seeing they were to take upon them the inspection and superintendency of all the world, it behoved them not any longer to be mixt or conjoyn'd together, for this had been a great loss and hinderance to the World.
• * 1.140

  1 Cor. 4.9. 2 Cor. 4.8.6.4.11.25. Matth. 24.9. Luke 21.12.
• * 1.141

  Eus. 3.1. Niceph. 2.38, 39, 40. Tertull. ad Jud. cap. 7.
• * 1.142

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. Seleuc. Or. 2.

  He that run his race through the whole Universe, and by his so eager running for the Faith made the World as it were too narrow for him.

  Col. 1.6, 23. Rom. 10.18.
• * 1.143

  Matt. 28.20. John 16.13.14.26.
• * 1.144

  2 Cor. 3.5. Rom. 15.15.
• * 1.145

  — à quo illi tanquam à capite, & imperatore' suo pendebant. Bellarm. de Pont. 1.16.
• * 1.146

  2 Cor. 12.11. Rom. 11.13.
• * 1.147

  Bell. 1.9, 14, 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gal. 1.1.
• * 1.148

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Act. 9.15.••2.21.
• * 1.149

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 1.1. 2 Cor. 1.1. Eph. 1.1. Colos. 1.1. 2 Tim. 1.1.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 15.10. Eph. 3.7. 1 Tim. 1.12. 2 Tim. 1.12.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Tim. 1.1. Rom. 1.5.
• * 1.150

  2 Cor. 12.12. Rom. 15.18, 19. 1 Cor. 2.4.
• * 1.151

  1 Cor. 9.1.—
• * 1.152

  1 Cor. 15.10. 2 Cor. 11.23.
• * 1.153

  Gal. 1.16, 17.
• * 1.154

  2 Cor. 13.10.10.8.
• * 1.155

  Gal. 2.9.
• * 1.156

  2 Cor. 12.16, 17. 2 Cor. 12.11.11.5. 1 Cor. 15.9. Eph. 3.8.
• * 1.157

  1 Cor. 15.10. Eph. 3.7.
• * 1.158

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  2 Cor. 11.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2 Cor. 12.11.1.16, 17.
• * 1.159

  Rom. 11.13.
• * 1.160

  Bell. de Pont. 1.11.
• * 1.161

  Gal. 2.2.
• * 1.162

  Gal. 2.6.
• * 1.163

  Gal. 2.12, 13, 14.
• * 1.164

  (Vid. P. Pelag. II. apud. Bin. Tom. 4. p. 308. in Epist. ad Eliam.)
• * 1.165

  V. 11.14.

  Nunquid ideò aut illa ejus sequenda sunt, quae meritò ejus Co-apostolus ejus facta redarguit. Gelas. I. de Anath. (apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 645.)
• * 1.166

  Apostolo Pau∣lo monstrante, & corrigente, Aug. c. Crescon. 1.32.2.32. Ep. 19. de Bap. c. Dor. 2.1, 2. correptus. cont. Don. 2.1. objurgavit. Ep. 8. —qui de minor•• causa conversationis ambiguae Petro ipsi non peperci••. Tert. 5.3. (contra Marc.) —who for a smaller matter of doubtfull conversation spared not Peter himself.

  Cùm la••detur etsa•• Pauli minimi Apostolorum sana ratio atque libertas, quòd Petrum Apostolorum primum adductum in ••••pocrisin▪ & non ••ectâ viâ in••eden••em ad veritatem Evangelii fidenter improbans, in faciem illi restitit, eúmque coram omnibus coràm obj••••gavit. Fac. Her. 8.6.

  Whereas the sound reason and freedom even of Paul the least of the Apostles, is commended, in that, when Peter the chief of the Apostles was carryed away with dissimulation, and walked not in a right way according to the truth of the Gospel▪ he ••oldly dislik'd, and withstood him to the face, and reprov'd him openly before all.
• * 1.167

  Hier. ad Aug. Epist. 11. in Prol. ad Gal.
• * 1.168

  Non sunt consentiendi, sed reprobandi, qui praelatos suos reprehendunt vel accu∣sant. Pelag. II. Ep. 2.
• * 1.169

  Bonis subditis sic praepositorum suorum mala displicent, ut tamen haec ab aliis occultent. Greg. M. Moral. 25.15.

  Admonendi sunt subditi, nè pr••posito∣rum suoru•• vitam temer•• judicent, siquid eos fortasse agere reprehensibiliter vi∣dent, &c. Greg. Past. part. 3. cap. ••. Admon. 5.
• * 1.170

  Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6.
• * 1.171

  Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Domi∣nus elegit, &c. Cypr. Ep. 71. (ad Quint.)
• † 1.172

  Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 2.2.
• * 1.173

  Quis enim hic est superbiae tumor, quae arrogantia animi, quae mentis inflatio ad cognitionem suos praepositos & Sacerdotes vocare? Cpr. Ep. 69.
• * 1.174

  Aug. c. Don. de Bap. 2.1, 2. Ep. 19.
• * 1.175

  Nam quis eo∣rum auderet Petro primo Apostolo, cui claves regni coelorum Do∣minus dedit, resistere, nisi alius talis, qui fiduciâ electionis suae, sciens se non imparem, constanter improbaret quod ille sine consilio fecerat? Ambr. in Gal. 2.9.

  Paulus Petrum reprehendit, quod non auderet, nisi se non imparem sciret. (Hieron. vel alius quis ad Gal. citatus à Grat. Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 33.)

  Paul reprehended Peter, which he would not have dared to doe, had he not known himself to be equal to him.
• * 1.176

  S. Cyril. c. Jul. lib. 9. (p. 325.) Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aug. Ep. 11. &c.
• * 1.177

  Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.178

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—

  So that 'tis no advantage to me, if▪ when Peter has confuted the charge, Paul appear to accuse his Fellow-apostle boldly and inconsiderately.
• * 1.179

  Gal. 1.12.
• * 1.180

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Gal. 1.1.
• * 1.181

  Baron. Anno 51. § 32 — 34, 35. &c.
• * 1.182

  Rom. 11.13.
• * 1.183

  Plena authoritas Petro in Judaismi praedicatione data dignoscitur, & Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione Gen∣tium invenitur. Ambros.

  There is discerned a full authority given to Peter of preaching to the Jews, and in Paul there is found a per∣fect power and authority of preaching to the Gentiles.
• * 1.184

  Gal. 1.6, 7.
• * 1.185

  2 Cor. 11.28.
• * 1.186

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. T. 5. Or. 59.
• * 1.187

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Gal. 2.8.
• * 1.188

  1 Cor. 12.28.
• * 1.189

  Eph. 4.11.
• * 1.190

  Matt. 4.21. Luke 5.10. Mark 3.17.
• * 1.191

  Matth. 17.1. 2 Pet. 1.16. Matt. 26.37. Mark 14.33. Matt. 20.20. Mark 10.35.
• * 1.192

  Mark 10.37.
• * 1.193

  John 13.2••.21. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.194

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hegesipp. apud Euseb. 3.20. They being dismiss and sent away to govern the Churches, as being both Witnesses, and also Kinsmen of our Lord.
• * 1.195

  Act. 12.••▪
• * 1.196

  Gal. 2.9. 2 Cor. 12.11.11.5.
• * 1.197

  Mark 3.17. Act. 1.13.
• * 1.198

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Matt. 17.1. Taking therefore the chief and principal. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. ib. Wherefore taketh he these onely with him? because these were the chief and principal above the others.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Naz. Or. 26.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (Ruffinus reddit Apostolorum Episcopum.) Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. 2.1.
• * 1.199

  Hoc erant utique & cateri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis.

  — quamvis Apostolis omnibus pos•• resurrectionem suam pare•••• potestatem tri∣••••at, ac dicat, &c. Cypr. de Vn. Eccl.
• * 1.200

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Gal. 2.8.
• * 1.201

  Chrys. in Gal. 1.8.
• * 1.202

  Vide Tert. de Praescr. cap. 20.
• * 1.203

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. Con. Eph. part. 1. p. 209. Peter and John were equal in honour one to another, as were also the Apostles and holy Disciples.

  Did Tertullian think Saint Paul inferiour to Saint Peter, when he said, It is well that Peter is even in martyrdom equalled to Paul? Bene quod Petrus Paulo & in martyrio adaequatur. Tert. de Praes. 24.
• * 1.204

  At dicis super Petrum fun∣datur Eccl••∣sia, licèt id ipsum alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & ex 〈◊〉〈◊〉 super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.

  But you will say, the Church is founded upon Peter, though the same thing in another place is affirmed of all the Apostles, and that, &c.
• * 1.205

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dionys. de Eccl. Hier. cap. 5.
• * 1.206

  Caeteri Aposto∣li cum Petro par consorti∣um honoris & potestatis ac∣ceperunt, qui etiam in toto orbe dispersi Evangelium praedicaverunt, quib••sque decedentibus successerum Episcopi, qui sunt constitu••i per totum m••ndum in sedibus Aposto••••••am. Isid. Hisp. de Off. 2.5.
• * 1.207

  Vbicunque fuerit Episco∣pus, sive Ro∣mae sive Eu∣gubii, &c. Hier. ad E∣vagr. Ep. 85. Clem. ad Co∣rinth.

  Iren. 3.12.3.1, 3.
• * 1.208

  Agitur de summa rei Christianae, &c. Bell. praef. ad lib. de Pontif. R.
• * 1.209

  Est enim reverà non simplex error, sed perniciosa haeresis negare B. Petri prima∣tum à Christo institutum. Bell. de Pont. R. 1.10.
• * 1.210

  2 Pet. 3.16.
• * 1.211

  Matt. 16.18. S. Romana Ecclesia nullis Synodicis con∣stitutis caete∣ris Ecclesiis praelata est, sed Evangelicâ voce Domini & salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit; Tu es Petrus (inquiens) &c. P. Ge∣las. 1. dist. 21. cap. 3.

  The Holy Church of Rome is not prefer'd before other Churches by any Synodical Decrees, but has obtain'd the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel, saying, Thou art Peter, &c.
• * 1.212

  Quorum verborum planus & obvius sensus est, ut intelligatur sub duabus me∣taphoris promissum Petro totius Ecclesiae principatum. Bell. de Pont. 1.10.
• * 1.213

  Tostat. in Matth. 16. qu. 67.
• * 1.214

  1 Cor. 3.11.
• * 1.215

  Scio me post∣ea saepissimè exposuisse, ut super hanc Pe∣tram intellige∣retur quem confessus est Petrus; harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat Lector. Aug. Retr. 1.21. Vide Aug. in Joh. tr. 124. de verb. Dom. in Matt. Serm. 13.

  Super hanc, inquit, Petram quam confessus es, aedificabe Ecclesiam meam. Aug. in Joh. tr. 124. & de Verb. Dom. in Matt. Serm. 13. (Tom. 10.)

  Super hanc Petram, id est, super me aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Ans. in Matt. 16.18.
• * 1.216

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chrys. in Matt. 16.18. —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Joh. 1.50.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 163.

  Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est. Hil. de Trin. 6.
• * 1.217

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ep. 77.
• * 1.218

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Orig. in Matt. 16. p. 275.
• * 1.219

  In vera fide persistite, & vitam ve∣stram in Petra Ecclesiae, hoc est in confessi∣one B. Petri Apostolorum Principis solidate. Greg. M. Ep. 3.33. Persist in the true Faith, and establish and fix your life upon the rock of the Church, that is, upon the confession of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles.

  Super ista confessione aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Felix III. Ep. 5. Vide Nic. I. Ep. 2, 6. Joh. VIII. Ep. 76.
• * 1.220

  Vnus pro omnibus loquens, & Ecclesiae voce respondens. Cypr. Ep. 55.

  One speaking for all, and answering in the name of the Church.

  Cui Ecclesiae figuram gerenti Dominus ait, Super hanc— Aug. Ep. 165.

  To whom, representing the whole Church, our Lord saith, Vpon this rock, &c.

  Petrus ex persona omnium Apostolorum profitetur. Hier. in loc. Peter professes in the person of all the Apostles.
• * 1.221

  Vide Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 27.40.70.71.73.69.
• * 1.222

  Luke 22.14.
• * 1.223

  Mark 9.34.
• * 1.224

  Matth. 18.1.
• * 1.225

  Matth. 20.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation.
• * 1.226

  Quare sunt fundamenta Apostoli & Prophetae, quia eorum auctoritas portat in∣firmitatem nostram. Aug. in Ps. 86.
• * 1.227

  In illis erant fundamenta, ibi primùm posita est fides Ecclesiae. Hier. in Ps. 86.
• * 1.228

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. in If. 2. p. 86••.
• * 1.229

  Petrus à Petra nomen adeptus est, quia primus meruit E••clesiam fidei firmitate fundare. Chrysol. Serm. 53.
• * 1.230

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; &c. Orig. in Matth. 16. p. 275.

  Eph. 2.20.

  Petra Christus est, qui donavit Aposto∣lis, ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur. Hier. in Amos. 9.12.

  Dicis super Petrum sundatur Ecclesia, licèt id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.
• * 1.231

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. in Isa. 2. p. 869.
• * 1.232

  Cypr. Ep. 71, & 73.
• * 1.233

  Dominus noster Episcopi honorem, & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens, dicit Pe∣tro, Ego tibi dico— Inde per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordina∣tio, & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ec∣clesia super Episcopos constituatur, & om∣nis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur. Cypr. Ep. 27. & de Vnit. Eccl.
• * 1.234

  Latuit aliquid Petrum aedificandae Ec∣clesiae Petram dictum. Tertull. de Praescr. cap. 22.
• * 1.235

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys.

  Peter first of all the Apostles preach∣ed Christ.
• * 1.236

  Petra dicit••r e•• quòd primus in natio∣r••bus fidei fundamenta posuerit. Ambr. de Sanctis Serm. 2.
• * 1.237

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. contra Eunom. lib. 2.

  Petra aedificandae Ecclesiae. Tertull. de praes. c. 22.
• * 1.238

  Sic enim exitus docet, in ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est per ipsum, &c. Tert. de pudic. cap. 21.
• * 1.239

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59.
• * 1.240

  Matth. 10.2.
• * 1.241

  John 6.69.
• * 1.242

  Loci non imme••or sui primatum egit; — primatum Confessionis, non honoris; Fidei, non ordinis. Ambr. de Incarn. cap. 4.
• * 1.243

  Per claves datos Petro intelligimus summam potestatem in omnem Ecclesiam. Bell. de Pont. 1.3.
• * 1.244

  Dixit Petro, dabo tibi claves, at non dixit, dabo tibi soli. Rigalt. in Epist. Firmil.
• * 1.245

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Orig. in Matt. 16. p. 275.
• * 1.246

  Quod Petro dicitur, Apo∣stolis dicitur. Ambr. in Psal. 38. What is said to Peter, is said to the Apostles.

  Licè•• id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant. Hier. in Jov. 1.14.

  Though the same thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles, and all receive the Keys of the King∣dom of Heaven.
• * 1.247

  Claves regni coelorum communicandas caeteris solus accepit. Opt. lib. 7.

  Communicandas caeteris dixit, qu••s ipse Christus communicaturus erat & caeteris. Rigalt. in Cypr. de Vn. Eccl.
• * 1.248

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theoph. in loc.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in praef. Evang. Joh.
• * 1.249

  Claves intel∣ligit verbum Dei, Evange∣lium Christi. Rigalt. in Cyp. Ep. 73.
• * 1.250

  Episcopi— quos constat esse vicario•• Christi, & clavigeros regni coelorum. Conc. Compend. apud. Bin. Tom. 6. p. 361.
• * 1.251

  Transivit qui∣dem in Apo∣stolos alios vis istius potestatis, sed non frustra ••ni commendatur quod omnibus intimetur. Petro ergò singulariter hoc cre∣ditur, quia cunctis Ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. Leo I. in Nat. Petri & Pauli. Serm. 2.

  The efficacy of this Power passed indeed upon all the Apostles; yet was it not in vain, that what was intima∣ted to all, was commended to one. Therefore this is committed singly to Peter, because Peter's pattern and ex∣ample is propounded to all the Governours of the Church.
• * 1.252

  In B. Petro claves regni coelorum cun∣cti suscepimus sacerdotes. Ambr. de dign. Sac. 1. Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum ac∣cepit, id est, potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata. Aug. tract. 124. in Joh. vide tract. 50.

  The Church which is founded upon Christ, received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. the power of binding and loosing Sins.

  In typo unitatis Petro Dominus dedit potestatem— Aug. de Bap. 3.17.

  Our Lord gave the power to Peter, as a type of Unity.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Phot. Cod. 280.

  Such Authority was given to the rest of the Apostles in the person of him who was the chief.

  Non sine causa inter omnes Apostolos Ecclesiae Catholicae personas sustinet Petrus; huic enim Ecclesiae claves regni coelorum datae sunt, cùm Petro datae sunt— Aug. de Ag. Chr. cap. 30. in Ps. 108.

  Not without cause does Peter among the rest of the Apostles sustain the Person of the Catholick Church; for to this Church are the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given, when they are given unto Peter.
• * 1.253

  August. supr. Matt. 18.18.
• * 1.254

  John 20.23.
• * 1.255

  Sic enim exitus docet, in ipso Ecclesia extruct•• est, id est, per ipsum; ipse cla∣vem imbuit; vide quam, Viri Israelitae auribus mandate quae dico, Jesum Na∣zerenum virum à Deo vobis destina∣tum, &c. Ipse denique primus in Christi Baptismo reseravit aditum coelestis reg∣ni, &c. Tert. de pud. 21.
• * 1.256

  Luke 5.10. Matth. 4.19.
• * 1.257

  Act. 20.28.
• * 1.258

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. in loc.

  Peter was ordained to the holy Apo∣stleship together with the rest of the Disciples.

  John 20.21.
• * 1.259

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. ib.
• * 1.260

  Paulus Apostolus boni Pastoris imple∣bat Officium; quando Christum praedica∣bat. Aug. in Joh. ••r. 47.

  Paul fulfilled the Office of a good Pastour, when he preached Christ.
• * 1.261

  Principes Disciplinae nostrae, & ••••••isti∣ani Dogmatis duces. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.
• * 1.262

  Matt. 10.6.9.36.
• * 1.263

  Matt. 28.19, 20.
• * 1.264

  Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus una∣nimi consensione pascatur. Cyp. de Vn. Eccl.
• * 1.265

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115.
• * 1.266

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. praef. comment. ad Joh.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in 1 Cor. 9.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in 2 Cor. 11.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 39.
• * 1.267

  Pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gre∣gem, & oves Christi universas pascimus. Cypr. Ep. 67. ad P. Steph.
• * 1.268

  Act. 20.28.
• * 1.269

  Quanto magìs debent usque ad mortem pro veritate certare, & usque ad san∣guinem adversus peccatum, quibus oves ipsas pascendus, hoc est docend••s regendasque committit. Aug. in Joh. tr. 123.

  How much more ought they to contend for the truth even unto death, and against sin even unto bloud, to whom he committeth his Sheep to be fed, that is, to be taught and governed.
• * 1.270

  Quas oves, & quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & cum eo nos suscepimus omnes. Ambr. de Sacerd. 2.
• * 1.271

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. de Sa∣cerd. 1.
• * 1.272

  Cùm dicitur Petro, ad omnes dicitur, Pasce oves mean. Aug. de Agone Christ. 30.
• * 1.273

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. Const. Mon. cap. 22.
• * 1.274

  Et quidem, fratres, quod Pastor est, dedit & membris suis; nam & Petrus Pastor, & Paulus Pastor, & caeteri Apostoli Pastores, & boni Episcopi Pastores. Aug. in Joh. tr. 47.

  And indeed, brethren, that which a Pastour is, he gave also to his members, for both Peter was a Pastour, and Paul a Pastour, and the rest of the Apostles were Pastours, and good Bishops are Pastours.
• * 1.275

  Vt ergo Pe∣trus quando ei dictum est, Tibi dabo cla∣ves, in figura personam gestabat Ecclesiae, sic & quando ei dictum est, Pusc•• oves meas, Ecclesiae quoque personam in figura gestabat. Aug. in Psal. 108.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Matt. 24. Or. 77.

  This was not spoken to those Priests onely, but to every one of us, who have the care even of a little Flock committed to us.
• * 1.276

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. ibid.
• * 1.277

  1 Pet. 5.2.
• * 1.278

  Act. 20.28.
• * 1.279

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Joh. 21.15.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in vers. 21.
• * 1.280

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. V. 23.
• * 1.281

  Respondeo, S. Petrum partim per se, partim per alios universum Dominicum gregem ut sibi imperatum erat pavisse.— Bell. de Pont. R. 1.16.
• * 1.282

  1 Cor. 4.1. &c. 2 Cor. 5.20.10.8. &c. Gal. 1.1. Tit. 1.3. &c.
• * 1.283

  P. Leo IX. Ep. 1. Ad ejusdem primatûs con∣firmationem, &c. Bell. 1.17.
• * 1.284

  Act. 9.32.
• * 1.285

  John 13.24.
• * 1.286

  Infinita futurorum mysteria continen∣tem. Hier.

  Containing infinite mysteries of fu∣ture things.
• * 1.287

  Joh. 20.4.
• * 1.288

  Petrus Apostolus est, & Johannes A∣postolus, maritus & Virgo; sed Petrus Apostolus tantùm, Johannes & Apostolus & Evangelista, & Propheta, &c. Hier. in Jovin. 1.14.

  Et ut brevi sormone multa comprehen∣dam, doceámque cujus privilegii sit Jo∣hannes, —imò in Johanne Virginitas; à Domino Virgine mater Virgo Virgini Discipulo commendatur. Hier. ibid.
• * 1.289

  Gal. 2.9.
• * 1.290

  1 Cor. 3.22. 1 Cor. 9.5.
• * 1.291

  Joh. 1.45.
• * 1.292

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Hist. 2.1.
• * 1.293

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Const. Apost. 8.33.
• * 1.294

  Chrysost. Tom. 5. Or. 59. Chrysost. in Joh. 21. Cyr. c. Jul. 9. (p. 325.) Aug. Ep. 11.19.
• * 1.295

  The truth is, the best Arguments of the Papists in other questions are some flourishes of Oratours, speaking hyper∣bollically and heedlesly.
• * 1.296

  Per excessum loqui. Bell. de Miss. 2.10. minùs proprìè. 3.4. benignâ expositione opus habere. de amiss. gr. 4.12. minùs cautè. de purg. 1.11.
• * 1.297

  Tort. Tort. p. 338.
• † 1.298

  Dall. de us. P. lib. 1. c. 6. p. 158. (& p. 314.)
• * 1.299

  Nunc enim in consortium in∣dividuae uni∣tatis assump∣tum id quod ipse erat vo∣luit nominari. P. Leo I. Ep. 89. Nihil à bonorum fonte Deo in quenquam sine Petri participatione transire. P. Leo de assumpt. suâ. Serm. 3.
• * 1.300

  Cic. de Nat. D. lib. 2. Cic. de clar. Orat.
• * 1.301

  Quem omnium judicio longè principem esse Civitatis videbat— Principem orbis terrae virum— Cic. pro domo sua.
• * 1.302

  Act. 24.5.
• * 1.303

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. Ep. 74.
• * 1.304

  Malo te ad sensum réi quàm ad sonum vocabuli exerceas. Tert. adv. Prax. cap. 3. I had rather you would apply your self to the sense of the thing, than to the sound of the word.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. Orat. 3. adv. Ar. (p. 373.)

  For words do not take away the nature of things, but the nature rather changes the words, and draws them to it self.
• * 1.305

  Euseb. Hist. 2.14.
• * 1.306

  Certè Petrus Apostolus pri∣mum mem∣brum S. & universalis Ecclesiae— sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Greg. I. Epist. 4.38.
• * 1.307

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  Jacobum Episcoporum Principem Sacer∣dotum Princeps orabat. Clem. Rec. 1.68.

  Apostolorum Episcopus. Ruf. Euseb. 2.11
• * 1.308

  It is likely that Ruffinus did call him so by mistaking that in the Apo∣stolical Constitutions.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apost. Const. 8.10.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 59.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Hesych. Presb. apud Phot. Cod. 275. (p. 1525.)
• * 1.309

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Hesych. apud Phot. Cod. 269.
• * 1.310

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrys. in Joh. 1.1.
• * 1.311

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Rom. 16.24.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in 1 Cor. 9.2.
• * 1.312

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.— He had the whole habi∣table World committed to his charge.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—

  He was the Teacher of the World, and had all the inhabitants of the Earth committed to his trust.
• * 1.313

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in Jud. Or. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in 1 Cor. Or. 22.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Tom. 7. p. 2.

  Did not God put into his hands the whole world?

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in 2 Tim. 2.1. He had the charge of the whole world.
• * 1.314

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. de Sacerd. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tom. 5. Orat. 33.

  Who then was better than all other men? who else but that Tent-maker, the Teacher of the world? — If therefore he receive a greater Crown than the Apostles, and none perhaps was equal to the Apostles, and yet he grea∣ter than they, it is manifest that he shall enjoy the highest honour and preeminence.
• * 1.315

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tom. 5. Or. 47.
• * 1.316

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tom. 6. Or. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2 Tim. 3.15.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ep. 146.

  The most wise, and best Architect or chief builder of the Churches.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Just. M. resp. ad Orthod. Qu. 119.

  The blessed Apostle, the Father of the Fathers.
• * 1.317

  Caput effec∣tus est Natio∣num; quia obtinuit totius Ecclesiae principatum, Greg. M. in 1 Reg. lib. 4. Videsis. Paulus Apostolorum Princeps. Ep. Sp▪ lat. in Lat. Syn. sub P. Jul. II. Sess. 1. p. 25.
• * 1.318

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyrill. Cat. 6.
• * 1.319

  Ecclesiarum Principes. Aug. de Sanct. 27.
• * 1.320

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Agatho. in 6 Syn. Act. 4. p. 35. P. Adrian. in 7 Syn. Act. 2. p. 554.
• * 1.321

  Nicol. Ep. 7. Plat. in Greg. VII. &c.
• * 1.322

  Beati Petrus & Paulus eminent inter Vniversos Apostolos, & peculiari quâ∣dam praerogativâ praecellunt; verùm inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est, puto enim illos aequales esse meritis, quìa aequales sunt passione, &c. Ambr. Serm. 66. Aug. de Sanct. 27. Max. Taur. Serm. 54.
• * 1.323

  Hae voces Ecclesiae, ex qua habuit om∣nis Ecclesia initium. Iren. 3.12.

  These are the words of the Church, from whence every Church had its be∣ginning.
• * 1.324

  Isa. 2.3. Luke 14.47. Ecclesia in Hierusalem fundata totius orbis Ecclesias seminavit. Hieron. in Is. 2. The Church founded in Jerusalem was the Seminary of the Churches throughout the whole world.

  Theod. 5.9. Vide Tert. de Praescr. cap. 20.
• * 1.325

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Or. 11.
• * 1.326

  After that he was seen of James, I sup∣pose to his Brother; for he is said to have ordained him, and made him the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. haer. 78.
• * 1.327

  Gal. 2.9.
• * 1.328

  Gal. 2.12.
• * 1.329

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Const. Ap. 8.10.
• * 1.330

  Privilegium personale Personam sequi∣tur, & cum Persona extinguitur. Reg. Iuris, 7. in Sexto.
• * 1.331

  Matt. 16.17. John 21.15, 16, 17.
• * 1.332

  Matt. 16.17▪
• * 1.333

  Joh. 21. 15—
• * 1.334

  Qualis es ever••ens atque commutan•• manifestam Domini intentionem personali∣ter hoc Petro conferentem? Tertull. de pud. 21.
• * 1.335

  Gal. 1.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Ibid.
• * 1.336

  Act. 1.21— 1 Cor. 9.1.15.8. Act. 22.14—
• * 1.337

  2 Cor. 12.12. Rom. 15.18—
• * 1.338

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Act. 8.18. De solis Apostolis legitur, quorum vicem tenent Epis∣copi, quod per manûs impositionem Spiritum S. dabant. P. Eugenius IV. in Instit. Arm.

  'Tis recorded of the Apostles alone, in whose room the Bishops succeed, that they gave the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.
• * 1.339

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Joh. 21.
• * 1.340

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyrill. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in Gen. 7.
• * 1.341

  Act. 15.28.
• * 1.342

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Rom. 1. Or. 1. Tom. 8. p. 114.
• * 1.343

  Quis nescit illum Aposto∣latû•• princi∣patum cuili∣bet Episcopa∣tui praeferen∣dum? Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 2.1. Episcopi nullam habent partem verae Apostolicae auctoritatis. Bell. 4.25.
• * 1.344

  The Apostles themselves do make the Apostolate a distinct Office from Pastours and Teachers, which are the standing Offices in the Church. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28.
• * 1.345

  Non succeditur propriè nisi praecedenti, at simul fuerunt in Ecclesia Apostoli & Episcopi— Bell. de Pont. R. 4.25.
• * 1.346

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. ad Corinth. 1. p. 54.
• * 1.347

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 57.
• * 1.348

  Singulis pastoribus portio gregis ad∣scripta est, quam regat unusquisque & gu∣bernet— Cypr. Ep. 55.
• * 1.349

  Praepositos, qui Apostolis vicariâ ordina∣tione succedunt ..... Ep. 69.42.75.

  Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & praepositos Dominus elegit. Ep. 65.

  Cathedra una super Petrum Domini vo∣ce fundata— Ep. 40. & Ep. 73. & de unit. Eccl.

  Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus. Ep. 5••.

  Episcopatus unus, cujus à singulis in so∣lidum pars tenetur. De unit. Eccl.

  Et Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus una∣nimi consentione pascatur. De unit. Eccl.

  Nam etsi Pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, & oves universas, &c. Epist. 67.

  For though we are many Pastours, yet we feed one flock, and all the sheep, &c.
• * 1.350

  Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, & ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus, eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes.

  The mind and meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest in sending his Apostles, and allowing the power given him of the Father to them alone, whose successours we are, governing the Church of God by the same power.
• * 1.351

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. de Sa∣cerd. 1.
• * 1.352

  Hier. ad Evagr.
• * 1.353

  Habemus annumerare eos, qui ab Apo∣stolis instituti sunt Episcopi, & successores eorum usque ad nos— Iren. 3.3.

  Proinde utique & caeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apo∣stolici seminis traduces habent. Tert. de Praes. 32.
• * 1.354

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. hist. 4.1. Primus is the fourth from the Apostles who was the Bishop of that place, or obtained the ministery there.
• * 1.355

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Clem Alex. apud Euseb. 3.23. Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit autorem. Tert. in Marc. 4.5. Tert. de Praescr. 32.
• * 1.356

  Vnitatem à Domino & per Apostolos nobis successoribus traditam. Cypr. Ep. 42.

  Adversarii nostri qui Apostolis successi∣mus. Firmi••l. in Cypr. Ep. 75.
• * 1.357

  — ab illis Ecclesiis, quae licèt nullum ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posterìores, quae deni∣que quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minùs Apostolicae de∣putantur, pro consanguinitate doctrinae. Tert. de Praescr. 32.
• * 1.358

  Hier. ad Evagr.
• * 1.359

  Bell. 4.25, &c.
• * 1.360

  1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11.
• * 1.361

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115.
• * 1.362

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Eph. 4.11.
• * 1.363

  Non erat ejus Officii in uno loco consi∣stere, sed quantum homini licuisset univer∣sum peragrare orbem, & nondum creden∣tes ad fidem perducere, credentes vero in fide penitus stabilire. Baron. Anno 58. §. 51.
• * 1.364

  Gal. 2.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.365

  Act. 18.2. Sueton. in Claud. 25. in Tib. 36.
• * 1.366

  Euseb. 3.3.
• * 1.367

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Petr. ad Jacob.
• * 1.368

  Scal. in Euseb. p. 189. Onuph. apud Bell. 2.6. Vales. in Euseb. 2.16.
• * 1.369

  Act. 11.2.15.7. Gal. 1.18.2.9. Gal. 2.11. 1 Pet. 5.13. 1 Cor. 1.12. Euseb. 2.25. 2 Pet. 3.2. 1 Pet. 1.1.
• * 1.370

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. haer. 27.
• * 1.371

  Coloss. 4.11.
• * 1.372

  2 Tim. 4.16.
• * 1.373

  2 Tim. 4.6. 2 Tim. 4.21.
• * 1.374

  Conc. Nic. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 3. Conc. Sard. Can. 11, 12. Conc. Trull. Can. 80.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. Apol. 1.

  Having read the Scriptures, you know how great an offence it is for a Bishop to forsake his Church, and to ne∣glect the Flocks of God.

  Oportet enim Episcop••s curis secularibus expeditos curam suorum agere populorum, nec Ecclesiis suis abesse diutiús. P. Pas∣chal II. Ep. 22.

  For Bishops ought to be disentangled from secular cares, and to take charge of their people, and not to be long absent from their Churches.
• * 1.375

  Praecipimus nè conductitiis ministris Ec∣clesiae committantur, & unaquaeque Ecclesia, cui facultas suppetit, proprium habeat Sacerdotem. Conc. Lat. 2. (sub Innoc. II.) Can. 10.

  We enjoyn that Churches be not committed to hired Ministers, but that every Church, that is of ability, have its proper Priest.

  Cum igitur Ecclesia ve•• Ecclesiasticum ministerium committi debuerit, talis ad hoc persona quaeratur, quae residere in loco, & curam ejus per seipsum valet exercere; quòd si aliter fuerit actum, & qui receperit, quod contra Sanctos Canones acce∣pit, amittat. Conc. ••at. 3. (sub Alexandro III.) Cap. 13.

  Therefore when a Church or the Ecclesiastical Ministry be to be committed to any man, let such a person be found out for this purpose, who can reside upon the place, and discharge the cure by himself: but if it prove otherwise, then let him who has received, lose that which he has taken contrary to the holy Canons.
• * 1.376

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. haer. 27.
• * 1.377

  Apost. Can. 14.
• * 1.378

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodor. Ep. 86.

  The great City of the Antiochians hath the throne of the great Saint Peter.
• * 1.379

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 5.6.
• * 1.380

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 726.
• * 1.381

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Alex. apud Athan. p. 727.
• * 1.382

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 765.
• * 1.383

  Syn. Nic. Can. 15. Syn. Chalc. Can. 5. Syn. Ant. Can. 21. Syn. Sard. Can. 1. Syn. Arel. Can. 22. Grat. Caus. 8. qu. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.384

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. sub. Menn. p. 9.
• * 1.385

  P. Jul. I. apud Athan. in Apolog. 2. p. 744.
• * 1.386

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 5.11.

  Those that pass from their own Churches to other Churches, we esteem so long excommunicate (or strangers from our communion) till such time as they return to the same Cities where they were first ordained.
• * 1.387

  Si quis Epi∣scopus, medio∣critate Civitatis suae despectâ, administrationem loci celebrioris ambierit, & ad majorem se plebem quacunque occasione transtulerit, non solìon à Cathedra quidem pellatur aliena, sed carebit & propriâ, &c. P. Leo I. Ep. 84. c. 4.

  If an Bishop, despising the meanness of his City, seeks for the administration of a more eminent place, and up∣on any occasion whatsoever transfers himself to a greater people, he shall not onely be driven out of another's See, but also lose his own, &c.
• * 1.388

  Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.61.
• * 1.389

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sozom. 7.7.
• * 1.390

  Illud praeterea commoneo di∣lectionem ve∣stram, nè pa∣tiamini aliquem contra Sta••uta majorum nostrorum de Civitate alia ad aliam transduci, & deserere plebem sibi commis∣sam, &c. P. Damasi Epist. apud Holsten. p. 41. & R. Marc. 5.21.

  Moreover this I advise you, that out of your charity you would not suffer any one, against the Decrees of our An∣cestours, to be removed from one City to another, and to forsake the people committed to his charge, &c.
• * 1.391

  Quis enim unquam audet dicere S. Pe∣trum Apostolorum Principem non benè egis∣se, quando mutavit sedem de Antiochia in Romam? Pelag. II. Ep. 1.
• * 1.392

  Contra Ecclesiasticam dispositionem, con∣tra Evangelicam legem, contra Institutio∣nis Catholicae unitatem— Cypr. Ep. 44. (ut & Ep. 46, 52, 55, 58.)
• * 1.393

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 4.15.
• * 1.394

  Syn. Nic. Can. 8.
• * 1.395

  Cornelius apud Euseb. 6.43. Cypr. Ep. 46. P. Innocentius, apud Sozom. 8.26. Opt. I. Cathedra una.
• * 1.396

  In remedium Schismatis. Hier.
• * 1.397

  —à gloriofis∣simis duobus Apostolis Pe∣tro & Paulo Romae fundae∣ta, & consti∣tuta Ecclesia. Iren. 3.3.3.1.
• * 1.398

  Haer. 27.
• * 1.399

  Act. 28.30.
• * 1.400

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iren. apud Euseb. 5.6.
• * 1.401

  Romanorum Ecclesiae Clementem à Pe∣tro ordinatum edit. Tert. de Praescr. 32.
• * 1.402

  Ex quìbus electum magnum plebique probatum, Hâc Cathedrâ, Petrus quâ sederat ipse, locatum Maxima Roma Linum primum considere jussit.
• * 1.403

  Tert. in Marc. 3.9.
• * 1.404

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Const. Apost. 7.46.
• * 1.405

  Euseb. 3.4, 13. Aug. Ep. 165. Epiph. Haer. 27. Opt. 2. Tertull. poem. in Marc. 3.9. Phot. Cod. 112. (p. 290.) N. Eusebius (3.2.) saith, that Linus did sit Bishop after the Martyrdom of Saint Peter, but this is not so probable, as that which the Authour of the Constitutions doth affirm, which reconci∣leth the dissonancies of Writers.
• * 1.406

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Inn. I. apud Soz. 8.26.
• * 1.407

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Ant. Can. 23.
• * 1.408

  Cùm post primum secundus esse non pos∣sit; quisquis post unum, qui solus esse de∣beat, non jam secundus ille, sed nullus est. Cypr. Ep. 52.
• * 1.409

  Theod. hist. 2.17.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.410

  Adhuc in cor∣pore posito be∣atae memoriae patre & Epi∣scopo meo sene Valerio Episcopus ordinatus sum, & sedi cum illo, quod concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, nec ipse sciebat. Aug. Ep. 110.

  While my Father and Bishop of blessed memory, old Valerius was yet living, I was ordained Bishop, and held the See with him: which I knew not, nor did he know, to be forbidden by the Council of Nice.
• * 1.411

  Ipse sublimavit Sedem, in qua etiam quiescere, & praesentem vitam finire dig∣natus est. Greg. I. Ep. 6.37. Innoc. I. Ep. 21. P. Nic. I. Ep. 9. p. 509. Grat. caus. 8. q. 1. cap. 1.

  He advanced that See, wherein he vouchsafed both to set up his rest, and also to end this present life.

  Bell. 2.12. § At verò—
• * 1.412

  Petrum Apostolum successisse in Episco∣patu Antiocheno alicul ex discipulis, quod est planè intolerandum. Bell. 2.6.
• * 1.413

  Quidam enim requirunt quo modo, cùm Linus & Cletus in urbe Roma ante Cle∣mentem hunc fuerint Episcopi, ipse Cle∣mens ad Jacobum Scribens, sibi dicat à Petro docendi Cathedram traditam, cu∣jus rei hanc accepimus esse rationem, quòd Linus & Cletus fuerunt quidem ante Cle∣mentem Episcopi in urbe Roma, sed super∣stite Petro; videlicet ut illi Episcopatûs curam gererent, ipse verò Apostolatûs im∣pleret Officium. Ruffin. in praef. ad Clem. Recogn.
• * 1.414

  Const. Apost. 7.46. Iren. 3.3. Tertull.
• * 1.415

  Fundantes igitur, & instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum ad∣ministrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt. Iren. 3.3.

  The Blessed Apostles therefore foun∣ding and instructing the Church deli∣vered the Episcopal power of ordering and governing the Church to Linus.
• * 1.416

  Euseb. 3.4, 13, 15. Iren. 3.3.
• * 1.417

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. 4.1.
• * 1.418

  Iren. 1.28.3.3, 4. Euseb. 4.10.
• * 1.419

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Chron. p. 7. Hist. 3.22.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pseud. Ignat. ad Ant.

  Euseb. counteth Annia••••s the first Bishop of Alexandria. 3.21.
• * 1.420

  Celebris mos est Apostolos pro potestate eorum ordinaria vel extraordinaria, Epi∣scopali vel Apostolica, Indiculis antistitum praefigere, aut ex iis eximere. Cotell. Not. p. 299.
• * 1.421

  Apostolicae Ecclesiae. Tert. de Praescr. 3••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 1.17.
• * 1.422

  2 Tim. 1.6. In Canonicis autem Scrip∣turis Ecclesi∣arum Catholicarum quamplurium auctoritatem sequatur, inter quos sanè illae sunt, quae Apostolicas sedes habere, & Epistolas accipere meruerunt. Aug. de doctr. Ch. 2.8.

  Let him follow the Authority of those many Catholick Churches in the Canonical Scriptures, among which surely are those which had the honour to have Apostolical Sees, and to receive Epistles from the Apostles.

  Proinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent. Tertull. de Praescr. 32.
• * 1.423

  Sed & quae est Ephesi Ec∣clesia à Paulo quidem fun∣data, Johanne autem permanente apud eos usque ad Trajani tempora, &c. Iren. 3.3.

  And also the Church of Ephesus which was founded by Saint Paul, Saint John continuing with them till the time of Trajan, &c.

  Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit auctorem. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apost. Const. 7.46.
• * 1.424

  Ab Apostolis in ea quae es•• Smyrnis Ec∣clesia constitutus Episcopus. Iren. 3.3. Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Johanne conlocatum. Tertull. de Praescr. 32. Euseb. 3.36.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. 3.36.
• * 1.425

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sozom. 4.25.
• * 1.426

  Tertull. de Praes. 36.
• * 1.427

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 379. & p. 284. Thou despisest this Apostolical Throne. —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Niceph. 2.39.

  Forasmuch as having appointed holy Stachys the first Bishop, in the Church which he first setled there.

  Non dedignetur regiam civitatem, quam Apostolicam non potest facere sedem— P. Leo I. Ep. 54.

  Let him not disdain the Royal City, which he cannot make an Apostolick See.
• * 1.428

  Memento quia Apostolicam sedem regis— Greg. M. Ep. 4.37. Remember you rule an Apostolick See.
• * 1.429

  Const. Apost. 7.46.
• * 1.430

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chal. Act. 11. 2 Tim. 1.6.

  From holy Timothy till now there have been seven and twenty Bishops, and all ordained at Ephesus.

  Johanne autem permanente apud eos, &c. Iren. 3.3.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. hist. 3.23.
• * 1.431

  Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit auctorem. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5.
• * 1.432

  Ann. Chr. 39. Baron. § 8. Act. 9.32. Act. 11.20. Denique pri∣mum Episcopum Antiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse accepimus, & Romam exinde translatum, quod Lucas penitus omisit. Hier. in Gal. 2.

  Lastly, we have received by tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, and from thence translated to Rome: which Luke has altogether omitted.
• * 1.433

  'Tis the distinction of a Pope. Rex Etruriae, & Rex in Etruria.
• * 1.434

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. 1.12.
• * 1.435

  Apost. Const. 6.12.6.14.2.55.7.46, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— 6.12. We the twelve Apostles together with James.
• * 1.436

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. 2.23.
• * 1.437

  Epiph. Haer. 78.
• * 1.438

  Grot. in Jac. 1.1. Hamm. dissert. Ignat. 4.3. Vales. in Euseb. 1.12. Blondel. in Epist. Clem. ad Jacob.

  Certum est non fuisse unum ex duode∣cim. Wal. Mess. p. 20.
• * 1.439

  Hierosolymitanam, quam primus Apo∣stolus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit. Aug. c. Cresc. 2.37.

  The Church of Jerusalem, which James the Apostle first governed by his Episcopal power.

  Gal. 1.19.
• * 1.440

  Act. 21.20.
• * 1.441

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. 2.23.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. Haer. 78.
• * 1.442

  Haec est una quae tenet & possidet om∣nem sponsi sui & Domini potestatem, in hac praesidemus, pro honore ejus & unitate pugnamus— Cypr. Ep. 73.
• * 1.443

  Aug. de Bapt. c. Don. 4.1.
• * 1.444

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. Epist. 69.
• * 1.445

  1 Tim. 3.5, 15. Act. 20.28. Eph. 4.12.
• * 1.446

  Collegium Sacerdotum. Cypr. Ep. 67.52.—

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apost. Const. 8.10.
• * 1.447

  Idcirco enim, frater carissime, copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum, concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut siquis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri, & quasi Pastores utiles & misericordes oves Domi∣ni in gregem colligant. Cypr. Ep. 67.
• * 1.448

  Cui rei nostrum est consulere, & sub∣venire, frater charissime, qui divinam clementiam cogitantes, & gubernandae Ecclesiae libram tenentes, &c. Ibid.
• * 1.449

  Omnes enim nos decet pro corpore totlus Ecclesiae, cujus per varias quasque provin∣cias membra digesta sunt, excu••are. Cler. Rom. apud Cypr. Ep. 30.
• * 1.450

  Ad Trinitatis instar, cujus una est at∣que individua potestas, unum esse per di∣versos Antistites Sacerdotium. P. Sym∣machus ad Aeonium Arelat.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Const. Apost. 6.14.

  Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, & ipsis solis potestatem à Petro sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus, eâ∣dem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernan∣tes. Conc. Carth. apud Cypr. p. 405.
• * 1.451

  Christus Dominus & Deus noster ad Patrem proficiscens, sponsam suam nobis commendavit— Ibid. p. 404.
• * 1.452

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. 7.27.
• * 1.453

  Cùm commu∣nis sit omni∣bus nobis, qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio, quamvis ipse in eo praemineas celsiore fastigio, sp••cula pastoralis— Aug. ad Bonif. contra duas Epist. Pelag. 1.1.
• * 1.454

  Hujus ergo rei gratiâ vo∣bis & nobis sancta com∣missa est Ec∣clesia, ut pro omnibus laboremus, & cunctis opem ferre non negligamus— P. Joh. I. Ep. 1. (ad Zachar.) apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 812.
• * 1.455

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Tom. 5. Or. 93.
• * 1.456

  A corpore nostri, & Sacerdotii consen∣sione discesserit— Cypr. Ep. 67.

  Qui se ab Ecclesiae vinculo, atque à Sa∣cerdotum Collegio separat—

  Cypr. Ep. 52.
• * 1.457

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. Epist. 56.
• * 1.458

  Neque enim aliunde Haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt Schismata, quàm in∣dè quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperetur, nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur. Cypr. Ep. 55.
• * 1.459

  Episcopus per∣sonam habet Christi & Vicarius Domini est. Ambr. in 1 Cor. 11. The Bishop sustains the Person of Christ, and is the Vicar of our Lord.
• * 1.460

  Cypr. Ep. 27.
• * 1.461

  Quod ex verbis Domini facilè intelligi potest, quibus B. Petro, cujus vicem Epi∣scopi gerunt, ait Quodcunque, &c.

  Capit. Caroli M. Lib. 5. cap. 163.

  Ego Constantini, vos Petri gladium ha∣betis in manibus.
• * 1.462

  Potestas ergò remittendorum peccatorum Apostolis data est, & Ecclesiis qu•••• illi à Christo missi constituerunt, & Episcopis qui eis ordinatione vicariâ succedunt. Fir∣mil. apud Cypr. Ep. 75.
• * 1.463

  Responde mihi ad Alexandrinum Epi∣scopum Palestina quid pertinet? Hier. ad Pammach. Ep. 61.15.
• * 1.464

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodor. 5.9.

  Mater Christiani nominis. Imper. Just. ad P. Hornisd. apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 794.

  The mother of the Christian name.
• * 1.465

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Nic. Can. 7.

  Ibi decernitur, ut Palestinae metropolis Caesarea sit. Hier. Ep. 61.15.

  'Tis there decreed that Caesarea should be the metropolis of Palestine.
• * 1.466

  Maluisti occupatis auribus molestion facere, quam debitum metropolitano tuo honorem reddere. Hier. ad Pammach. Ep. 61.15.
• * 1.467

  Hier. ad Galat. 2. P. Pelag. II. Ep. 1.
• * 1.468

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalced. Act. 7. p. 364.
• * 1.469

  Act. 11.26.
• * 1.470

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 5.9.
• * 1.471

  Vbi Imperator, ibi Roma.

  Where the Emperour is, there is Rome.
• * 1.472

  Apoc. 17.5.
• * 1.473

  Apoc. 17.6. Sic & Baby∣lon apud Joannem nostrum Romanae Vrbis figura est, proinde & magnae & regno superbae, & sanctorum debellatricis. Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. 9.

  So also Babylon in our Saint John is a type of the City of Rome, and therefore of a great, royal, and proud City, and a subduer of the Saints.
• * 1.474

  Bell. 2.12.
• * 1.475

  Potuisset Pe∣trus nullam sedem parti∣cularem sibi unquam eligere, sicut fecit primis quinque annis— Ibid. Peter might have chosen to himself no par∣ticular City, as he did the first five years.
• * 1.476

  Jubente Domino. 2.1.

  Deus ipse jussit Romae figi Apostolicam Petri sedem. 4.4.
• * 1.477

  Non est improbabile Dominum etiam a∣pertè jussisse, ut sedem suam Petrus ità figeret Romae, ut Romanus Episcopus ab∣solutè ei succederet. Bell. 2.12. § Et quoniam.
• * 1.478

  Quòd si per possibile Trevirensis elige∣retur pro Capite Ecclesiae. Habet enim Ecclesia potestatem liberam sibi de Capite providendi — Card. Cus. de Conc. Cath. 2.13—
• * 1.479

  Nam potuisset Petrus nullam sedem par∣ticularem sibi unquam eligere, sicut fecit primis quinque annis, & tunc moriente Petro, non Episcopus Ròmanus, neque An∣tiochenus successissèt sed is quem Ecclesia sibi elegisset. Bell. 2.12.
• * 1.480

  Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter Episcopos ha∣beantur, qui nec à Clericis sunt electi, nec à plebibus expetiti, nec à comprovincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio consecrati. P. Leo I. Ep. 92.

  No reason will admit, that they should be esteemed Bishops, who are neither chosen by the Clergy, nor desir'd by the People, nor consecrated by the Bishops of the same Province, with the consent of the Metropolitan.

  Nullus invitis detur Episcopus: Cleri, plebis, & ordinis consensus requiratur.— P. Celest. I. Ep. 2. Grat. dist. 61. cap. 13.

  Let there be no Bishop imposed on any against their wills: Let the consent of the Clergy and People, and his own Order be required.
• * 1.481

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Naz. Orat. 20. p. 335.
• * 1.482

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Naz. Or. 19. p. 211.
• * 1.483

  Damasus & Vrsinus supra humanum modum ad rapiendam Episcopalem sedem ardentes scissis studiis acerrim•• conflicta∣bantur— Am. Marcell. lib. 27.
• * 1.484

  Sozom. 6.23.
• * 1.485

  Neque ego ab uno ostentationem rerum considerans urbanarum, hujus rei cupi∣dos, &c. Id. Ibid.
• * 1.486

  Damasus II. — Pontificatum per vim occupat, nullo Cleri populique consensu; Adeo enim in••levera•• hic mos, ut jam cui∣que ambitioso liceret Petri sedem invadere. Plat. (p. 314.)

  Damasus II. inv••des the Popedome by force, without any consent of the Clergy and people; For so was it now grown into custom, that any ambitious man might invade Peter's Se••.

  Eò enim tum Pontificatus devenerat, ut qui plus largitione & ambitione, non dico sanctitate vita & doctrin•• valeret, is tantuminodo dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis & rejectis obtineret; quem morem utinam aliquando non retinuissent nostra tempora. Plat. in Silv.

  For the business of the Papacy was come to that pass, that whoever by bribery and ambition, I say not, by ho∣liness of life and learning, got the start of others, he alone obtained that degree of dignity, good men in the mean be∣ing depressed and rejected; which custom I would to God our times had not retained.

  Cùm jam eò devenissent Ecclesiastici, ut non coacti ut antea, sed sponte & largitionibus Pontificium munus obirent. Plat. in Steph. 6. Baron. Anno 112. § 8.

  Whenas now Ecclesiastical persons are come to that pass, that they execute the Papal Office, not being compelled unto it, as heretofore, but of their own accord, and by bribing for it.

  Videbat enim Imperator▪ eò licentiae factiosum quemque & potentem, quamvis ignobilem devenisse, ut corruptis suffragiis tantam dignitatem consequeretur, &c. Plat. in Clem. 2. (p. 313.)

  For the Emperour saw, that every factious and powerfull person, though base and ignoble, was grown to that height of licentiousness, that he obtained so great Dignity by corruption and buying of Suffrages.

  Omne Papale negotium manus agunt: quem dabis mihi de tota maxima Vrbe, qui te in Papam receperit, pretio seu spe pretii non interveniente? Be••n. de Consid. 4.2.

  The whole business of making a Pope is managed by gifts: whom can you shew me in all this great City, who took you into the Papacy, without being bribed and corrupted with reward, or at least with hope of it?
• * 1.487

  —co-Episcoporum testimonio, quorum numerus universus per totum mundum con∣cordi unanimitate consentit— Cypr. Ep. 52.
• * 1.488

  Cùm Fabiani locus, id est, cùm locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrum consensione. — Ibid.

  When Fabianus's place (i. e.) when the place of Peter, and the degree of the Sacerdotal Chair was vacant; which being obtained by the will of God, and all our consents. —
• * 1.489

  Satis erat ut tu te Episcopum factum Literis nunciares, &c. Cypr. Ep. 42.

  It was enough that you declar'd by Letters that you were made Bishop.
• * 1.490

  Episcopo semel facto, & Collegarum ac plebis testimonio & judicio comprobato— Cypr. Ep. 41.
• * 1.491

  Euseb.
• * 1.492

  Et licèt diversis temporibus diversi mo∣di super Electione Romanorum Pontificum observati sunt, prout necessitas, & utilitas Ecclesiae exposcebat— Conc. Bas. Sess. 37. p. 98. Vide Grat. dist. 63. per tot.
• * 1.493

  Nil enim tum à clero in eli∣gendo Pontifi∣ce actum erat, nisi ejus Electionem Imperator approbâsset. Plat. in Pelag. II.
• * 1.494

  Is autem, cùm Principis con∣sensus requi∣reretur, nun∣cios cum Li∣teris miserat, qui Mauritium obsecrarent, nè pateretur electionem Cleri & populi Romani ea in re valere. Plat. in Greg. M. Vid. Grat. dist. 63.—
• * 1.495

  Conc. Tom. 7. p. 182. Leo VIII.— Romanorum inconstantiam pertaesus Auctoritatem omnem eligendi Pontificis à Clero, Populóque Romano ad Imperatorem transtulit. Plat. in Leo VIII. (p. 291.)
• * 1.496

  Nusquam Cle∣ri eligentis, vel postea con∣sentientis aliqua mentio. Baron. Anno 112. § 8. Anno 131. § 1. There was nowhere any mention of the Clergy elec∣ting, or afterward consenting.
• * 1.497

  Grat. dist. 23. cap. 1. Plat. in Nic. II.
• * 1.498

  Propria perdit qui inde••ita concupiscit. P. Leo I. Ep. 54.
• * 1.499

  Vide Bern. Ep. 242, 243. Bell. 4.4.
• * 1.500

  —Inopem me copia fecit.
• * 1.501

  Baron. ad Ann. 112. § 8.
• * 1.502

  P. Greg. VII. Ep. 3.7. P. Jul. in Conc. Lat. Sess. 5. p. 57. Non solùm hujusmodi Electio vel assumptio eo ipso nulla existat—&c. Vide sup. § 12.

  Such an Election or assumption, let it not onely be upon that account void and null—
• * 1.503

  Vide quaeso quantum isti degenerave∣rint à majoribus suis; Illi enim utpote viri Sanctissimi Dignitatem ultrò oblatam contemnebant, orationi & Doctrinae Chri∣stianae vacantes; hi verò largitione & ambitione Pontificatum quaerentes, & adepti, posthabito divino cultu, &c. Plat. in Serg. 3. (p. 279.) Vid.—in Bened. IV. p. 277.

  See, I beseech you, how much they have degenerated from their Ancestours; For they as being very Holy men did contemn that Dignity when freely offered, giving themselves wholly to Prayer and the Doctrine of Christ; but these by bribery and ambition seek and obtain the Papacy.
• * 1.504

  Plat. in Joh. 10. (p. 275.) Pontifices ipsi à Petri vesti∣giis discesse∣rant. The Popes had swerv'd from the Examples of Peter. Possessor malae fidei ullo tempore non praescribit. Reg. ••ur. 2. in Sexto.

  He that has no right to the thing he possesses, cannot prescribe or plead any length of time to make his possession lawfull.
• * 1.505

  Nec vero simile sit, ut rem tam noces∣sariam ad Ecclesiae unitatem continen∣dam Christus Dominus Apostolis suis non revelârit. Melch. Can. 6.8.

  Neither is it likely that our Lord Christ would not have revealed to his Apostles a thing so necessary for pre∣serving the Unity of the Church.
• * 1.506

  Ad Firma∣mentum igi∣tur Coeli, hoc est Vniversa∣lis Ecclesiae, fecit Deus duo magna Luminaria, id est, du••s instituit Dignitates, quae sun•• Pontificalis auctoritas, & Regalis potestas; sed illa quae praeest diebus, id est, Spiritualibus, major est; quae verò Carnalibus, minor, &c. Innoc. III. in Decret. Greg. I. 33.6.

  For the Firmament therefore of Heaven, (i. e.) of the Universal Church, God made two great Lights, (i. e.) he ordained two Dignities or Powers, which are the Pontifical Authority, and the Regal Power; but that which rules the days, (i. e.) Spiritual matters, is the greater, but that which governs Carnal things, is ••he les∣ser, &c.
• * 1.507

  Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re, quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam Nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, licet si nos, sed omnino quod se∣quutus adjecit, si Angelus de coelo vo∣bis annunciaverit, praeterquam quod in Scripturis Legalibus ac Evangelicis ac∣cepistis, anathema sit. Aug. contr. Petil. 3.6.
• * 1.508

  Exod. 28.1.
• * 1.509

  Exod. 28.4.
• * 1.510

  Levit. 21.
• * 1.511

  P. Nic. I. Ep. 10. P. Leo. IX. Ep. 1. P. Greg. VII. Ep. 1.22.
• * 1.512

  1 Pet. 2.13— 17.
• * 1.513

  Eph. 3.11, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 12.28. Quarum lau∣dum & gloriae degenerem su∣isse, maximum crimen est. Cl. Rom. ad Cypr. Ep. 31.

  To degenerate from which praise and glory, is an exceeding great crime.
• * 1.514

  Rom. 1.8.
• * 1.515

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.516

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.517

  (Vid. Chrys. Theo. Hier.) Baron. Anno 58. § 46. &c. Rom. 1.7.1.8.16.19.
• * 1.518

  Tertull. de Cor. Mil. 3. Basil. de Sp. S. 27. Hier. advers. Lucif. 4.
• * 1.519

  Const. Apost. 7.41. (a full Creed, at Baptism.)
• * 1.520

  Conc. Lat. 4. cap. 5. Anno 1215.
• * 1.521

  —procedant∣que vehiculis insidentes, cir∣cumspectè ve∣stiti, epulas curantes pro∣fusas, adeò ut eorum convivia Regales superent mensas. Marcell. lib. 27. p. 338. They travel sitting in Chariots, curiously apparelled, procu∣ring profuse dainties, insomuch as their meals exceed the feasts of Kings.
• * 1.522

  Sentiunt enim Deum esse solum, in cujus solius potestate sunt, à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi, ante omnes & super omnes Deos. Quidni? cùm super omnes homines, qui utique vivunt, & mortuis antistant. Tertull. Apo∣log. c. 30.

  For they think it is God alone in whose power they are, next to whom they are the chief before all, and above all Gods. And why not? when they are above all men alive, and surpass the dead.
• ‖ 1.523

  Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo▪ secundum, & solo Deo minorem. Tertull. ad Scap. 2.
• * 1.524

  Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus quì fecit Imperatorem. Opt. lib. 3.
• † 1.525

  —dum se Donatus super Imperatorem extollit, jam quasi hominum excesserat modum, ut se ut Deum, non ho∣minem aestimaret. Id. ibid.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. p. 463.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrys. in Rom. ••3.1.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Chrys. suprá.

  Por he that is thus wrong'd has not his equal upon earth, for he is King, &c.
• † 1.526

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. ad Theod. in Conc. Eph. part. 1. cap. 3. p. 20.
• ‖ 1.527

  P. Greg. M. Ep. 2.62.

  Quia Sereniss. Domine ex illo jam tempore Dominus me∣us fuisti, quando adhuc Dominus omnium non eras— Ego quidem jussioni subjectus— Ibid.

  Ad hoc enim potestas Dominorum meorum pietati coelitus data est super omnes homines, &c. Ibid. Ego indignus fa∣mulus vester. Ib.

  Qui honori quoque Imperii vestri se per privatum voca∣bulum superponit. P. Greg. I. Ep. 4.32.
• * 1.528

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Greg. II. in Epist. 1. ad Leon. Isaur. apud Bin. Tom. 5. p. 502. As King and Head of Christians.
• * 1.529

  —una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. & Antistite nostro N. & Rege nostro N. & omnibus Orthodoxis, &c.

  Together with thy Servant our Pope N. and our Bishop N. and our King N. and all Orthodox, &c.
• * 1.530

  Fiat autem oratio pro dignitate Re∣gia post orationem factam pro Papa, quia potestas suprema Sacerdotalis excedit Re∣giam antiquitate, dignitate & utilita∣te, &c. Gab. Biel in Can. mis.

  Let prayer be made for the King af∣ter prayer made for the Pope, because the supreme Sacerdotal power exceeds the Kingly in antiquity, dignity and utility, &c.

  Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. P. Bonif. VIII. in Extrav. com. lib. 1. tit. 38.
• * 1.531

  At quamvis utcunque tolerabile sit, ut Principes seculares in Concilio sedeant an∣te alios Episcopos, tamen nullo modo con∣venit. ut ante ipsum summum Pontifi∣cem, &c. Bell. de Conc. 1.19.
• * 1.532

  Quapropter attendat clementia vestra, quantus fuerit erga sedis Apostolicae reve∣rentiam Antecessorum véstrorum, piorum duntaxat Imperatorum—amor, & studi∣um; qualiter eam diversis privilegiis ex∣tulerint, donis ditaverint, beneficiis am∣pliaverint; qualiter eam literis suis ho∣noraverint, ejus votis annuerint, &c. P. Nich. I. Epist. 8. ad Mich. Imp.
• * 1.533

  Apol. Bell. p. 202.
• * 1.534

  Const. Apost. 8.4, &c.
• * 1.535

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apost. Can. 34.
• * 1.536

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dionys. de Hier. Eccl. cap. 5.
• * 1.537

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Eccl. Hier. cap. 5.
• * 1.538

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Dionys. Ar. Ep. 8.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Max. Schol. Ib.
• * 1.539

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pseud. Ig∣nat. ad Smyr.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. id ad Trall.
• * 1.540

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. ad Corinth. Ep. 1 p. 58. Jun.

  For we see that you have removed some, who behaved themselves well in their Office, out of their ministry blamelesly discharged by them.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.541

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 2.
• * 1.542

  Si quis voluntati nostrae contraìre prae∣sumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Deì, ac Beatorum Petri & Pauli Apostoli se noverit incursurum: in such terms usu∣ally the Pope's Bulls do end.
• * 1.543

  Cypr. Ep. 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 54, 55, 57, 58, 67, 72.
• * 1.544

  Et quanquam sciam, frater charissime, pro mutua dilectione, quam debemus & exhibemus invicem nobis, florentissimo illic clero tecum praesidenti, &c. Ep. 55.

  And although I know, most dear brother, out of the mutual love and re∣spect, which we owe and yield one to another, &c.
• * 1.545

  Cùm de excessu boni viri Collegae mei, rumor apud nos incertus esset Collegae cha∣rissimi— Cypr. Ep. 4.
• * 1.546

  Quàm ex aequo, & civilis mentio Epi∣scopi Romani ab Episcopo Carthaginis a∣pud Clerum? Rigalt. Ibid.
• * 1.547

  Cypr. Ep. 46, 48.
• * 1.548

  Euseb. 6.43.
• * 1.549

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Liber. ad Ath. Tom. 1. p. 243.
• * 1.550

  Socr. 4.12.
• * 1.551

  Ep. 61, 69, 70, 74, 182.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 61.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.

  We beseech you to have a fellow-feeling of our distractions.

  If there be any comfort of love, any fellowship of the Spirit, any bowels and mercies, be ye moved with pity and commiseration to help us.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 69.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 70.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.

  Vid. Ep. 74. (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 74. (Ep. 293.)

  — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. — Ep. 48.
• * 1.552

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 74.
• * 1.553

  Quod servis Dei, & maxi∣mè Sacerdoti∣bus justis & pacificis con∣gruebat, fra∣ter charissime, miseramus nuper Collegas nostros Caldo∣nium & For∣tunatum, ut non tantùm persuasione literarum nostrarum, sed praesentia sua, & consilio omnium vestrum eniterentur, quan∣tum possent, & elaborarent, ut ad Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem scissi corporis membra componerent— Cypr. Ep. 42. ad Cornel. Pallad.

  As it becomed the Servants of God, especially righteous and peaceable Priests, most dear Brother, we lately sent our Collegues Caldonius and Fortunatus, that they might, not onely by the persuasion of our Letters, but also by their presence, and the advice of you all, endeavour to their utmost and strive to reduce the members of that divided Body to the Unity of the Catholick Church.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. Ep. 8.
• † 1.554

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 77.
• * 1.555

  Vid. Epist. 272, 273, 321, 325, 349.
• * 1.556

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. Ep. 10. ad Euseb. Samos. Ep.
• * 1.557

  — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.558

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.559

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Bas. Ep. 250.
• * 1.560

  Anast. ad Joh. Hier. apud Hier.
• * 1.561

  Tom. 7. Epist. 122.
• * 1.562

  Vid. Laun. Epist. 1.3.
• * 1.563

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.564

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.565

  — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  But as for us, we who are not con∣demned nor convicted, nor prov'd guilty, let us continually enjoy the be∣nefit of your Letters, and Love, and all other things as before.
• * 1.566

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.— Soz. 8.26.
• * 1.567

  Saepe igitur magno studio, & summâ attentione perquirens à quamplurimis sanc∣titate & doctrina praestantibus viris, &c. p. 316. (in edit. Balus.)
• * 1.568

  Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omni∣bus ferè retuli, quòd sive ego sive quis ali∣us vellet exurgentium haereticorum frau∣des deprehendere, laqueósque vitare, & in fide sana sanus atque integer perma∣nere, duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet; Primò scili∣cet, divinae legis Auctoritate, tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione. p. 317.
• * 1.569

  Diximus in superioribus hanc fuisse semper & esse hodie Catholicorum consue∣tudinem ut fidem veram duobus his mo∣dis adprobent; Primùm divini Canonis Auctoritate, deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione. p. 364.
• * 1.570

  His ferè compendiis utimur, quum de Evangelii fide adversus Haereticos expe∣dimur, defendentibus & temporum ordi∣nem posteritati falsariorum praescribentem, & Auctoritatem Ecclesiarum traditioni Apostolorum patrocinantem. Tertull. in Marc. 4.5.
• * 1.571

  Solemus haereticis compendii gratiâ de posteritate praescribere. Tertull. con∣tra Hermog. cap. 1.
• * 1.572

  The like discourse against Here∣ticks doth Clemens Alex. use Strom. 7. p. 549.
• * 1.573

  Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditio∣nem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per suc∣cessores Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custo∣ditur, provoc••mus— Iren. 3.2.
• * 1.574

  Constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolicas fuerit sa∣crosanctum; videamus quod lac à Paulo Corinthii hauserint; quid legant Philip∣penses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii; quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent; quibus Evangelium & Petrus & Paulus san∣guine quoque suo, signatum reliquerunt; habemus & Johannis alumnas Ecclesi∣as, &c. Adv. Marc. 4.5.
• * 1.575

  Constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus & originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum, id sine dubio tenentem quod Ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus à Deo suscepit; reliquam verò doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam, quae sapiat contra veritatem Ecclesiarum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei. Tert. de praescr. 21.
• * 1.576

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  Socr. 7.11.

  The Bishoprick of Rome is like to that of Alexandria, having now long agoe arrived to that height of Power above and beyond the Priesthood.
• * 1.577

  Conc. Nic. Can. 6. Conc. Const. Can. 2. Conc. Chalc. Can. 28.
• * 1.578

  1 Cor. 8.6.12.5. Eph. 4.5. Ezek. 37.22. Luke 1.33. 1 Tim. 6.15. Jam. 4.12. 1 Pet. 5.4.2.25. Heb. 13.20. Ezek. 34.23.
• * 1.579

  Joh. 10.16.11.14. Extrav. Com. lib. 1. tit. 8. cap. 1. Heb. 3.1. Heb. 9.7, 24.
• * 1.580

  Matth. 23.8, 9.
• * 1.581

  Quid ergò, frater charissime, in illo terribili examine venientis judicis dictu∣rus es, qui non solum Pater, sed etiam ge∣neralis Pater in Mundo vocari appetis? Greg. M. Epist. 4.38.
• * 1.582

  Eph. 2.20.
• * 1.583

  1 Pet. 2.4.
• * 1.584

  Heb. 3.6. Matt. 10.25. Eph. 4.4.2.16. Rom. 12.5. 1 Cor. 12.13. Eph. 1.22.4.15.5.23. Col. 1.18. Hos. 1.11. One Head.
• * 1.585

  Joh. 3.29. Eph. 5.23. 2 Cor. 11.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.586

  Sext. Decret. lib. 1. tit. 6. cap. 3.
• * 1.587

  Baron. A. 34. § 208.
• * 1.588

  Vid. Greg. I. Epist. lib. 4. Ep. 32, 34, 36, 38, 39. lib. 6. Ep. 24, 28, 30, 31. lib. 7. Epist. 70.
• * 1.589

  Tu quid Christo Vniversalis Ecclesiae capiti in extremi judicii dicturus exa∣mine, qui cuncta ejus Membra tibimet coneris Vniversalis appellatione supponere? quis rogo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo ni si ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui de∣spectis Angelorum Legionibus secum socia∣liter constitutis ad culmen conatus est sin∣gularitatis erumpere, ut & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus praeesse videretur: qui etiam dixit, In coelum conscendam, super astra coeli exaltabo solium meum — quid enim fratres tui omnes Vniversalis Ecclesiae Episcopi, nisi astra coeli sunt? quibus dum cupis temetipsum vocabulo ela∣tionis praeponere, eorúmque nomen tui com∣paratione calcare — Greg. Ep. 4.38.
• * 1.590

  Jactantiam sumpsit ità ut universa si∣bi tentet adscribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent, vid••licet Christo, per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare. Greg. M. Ep. 4.36.

  The same words we have in the E∣pistle of P. Pelagius (predecessour of St. Gregory) to the Bishops of Constan∣tinople (P. Pelagii Ep. 8.)
• * 1.591

  Ego autem fi∣denter dico, quia quisquis se V••••versa∣lem Sacerdo∣tem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. (Greg. I. lib. 6. Ep. 30.) Nec dispari superbiâ ad errorem ducitur; quia sicut perversus ille Deus videri vult super omnes homines; ità quisquis est, qui solus Sacerdos appellari appetit, super caeteros Sacerdotes se extollit. (ad Mauric. Aug.)
• * 1.592

  Vide P. Pelag. Ep. 3.
• * 1.593

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. M. de Jud. div. Tom. 2. p. 261.

  Totus Christus Caput & Corpus est; Caput unigenitus Dei Filius, & corpus ejus Ecclesiae, Sponsus & Sponsa, duo in carne una. Quicunque de ipso Capite ab Scripturis Sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia, &c. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 4. Vid. contra Petil. 3.42.

  Whole Christ is the Head and the Body; the Head the onely-begotten Son of God, and his Body the Church, the Bridegroom and the Spouse, two in one flesh. Whoever disagree about the Head it self from the Holy Scrip∣tures though they are found in all places, in which the Church is design'd, they are not in the Church, &c.

  It was unhappily expressed by Bellarmine — Ecclesia secluso etiam Christo unum Caput habere debet. De Pont. R. 1.9. §. Ac nè forté. The Church, even Christ himself being set aside, ought to have one Head.
• * 1.594

  Joh. 18.36. Phil. 3.20. Heb. 12.22.
• * 1.595

  Act. 20.28. Matt. 16.18. 1 Cor. 12.28.15.9. Gal. 1.13.
• * 1.596

  Matt. 28.20. Christus arbi∣tri•• & nutu ac praesentiâ suâ & praepo∣sitos ipsos, & Ecclesiam cum praepositis gubern••••. Cypr. Ep. 69. Christ by his own arbitrement and power and pre∣sence governs both the Bishops themselves, and the Church with the Bishops.
• * 1.597

  Joh. 18.36.
• * 1.598

  Eph. 4.4, 5. 2 Cor. 10.4.
• * 1.599

  Caput no∣strum, quod Christus est, ad hoc sua es∣se membra nos voluit, ut per compagem charitatis & fidei unum nos in se corpus efficeret. Greg. M. Ep. 7.111. Our Head, which is Christ, would therefore have us to be his members, that by the conjuction of charity and faith he might make us to be one body.
• * 1.600

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Eph. part. cap. 30.
• * 1.601

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Conc. sub Men. Act. 1. pag. 9.
• * 1.602

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Con. Eph. 1. Can. 8.
• * 1.603

  This was that which, about the same time the Fathers of the African. Synod do request P. Celestine to forbear; —nec permittere, ut sumosum mundi fa∣stum Christi Ecclesiae inducere videamur. Conc. Afr. ad P. Celest. 1.
• * 1.604

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 7.11.
• * 1.605

  Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive Thanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem & Sacerdotii; potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humi∣litas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Epis∣copum non facit; caeterùm omnes Apostolo∣rum Successores sunt. Hier. Ep. 85. (ad Evagr.)
• * 1.606

  Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe; Vbicunque, &c.
• * 1.607

  Illud appetunt unde omnibus digniores videantur. Gr. Ep. 4.34.

  Quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. Ep. 6.38.

  Super caeteros Sacerdotes se extollit. Ib.

  Cupis Episcoporum nomen tui compara∣tione calcare. Ep. 4.38.

  Cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris supponere. Ib.
• * 1.608

  (Invigiletur ergò ut omnibus co-Epis∣copis nostris & fratribus innotescat. P. Corn. apud Cyp. Ep. 48.)
• * 1.609

  Hic non tam optamus prae∣poni aliis, (sicut praedi∣cas) quàm cum fidelibus cunctis sanctum & Deo placitum habere consortium. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. (ad Euphem. Ep. CP.)

  Here we do not so much desire to be advanced above others, as together with all the faithfull to make up a consort holy and well-pleasing to God.
• * 1.610

  —Vobis sub∣trahitur, quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit praebetur. Greg. 7.30. (p. 451.) What is yielded to another more than reason requires, is taken from you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Eph. I. Can. 8. A thing that entrencheth upon the freedom of all others.
• * 1.611

  Apoc. 2. & 3. 1 Tim. 3.15. Matt. 18.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 1 Cor. 5.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Vid. v. 4.5. Apoc. 2.20. 1 Cor. 14.40. 1 Thess. 5.14. Rom. 14.19. 1 Cor. 6.1—
• * 1.612

  Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 5.2. 1 Tim. 3.15. Tit. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Apoc. 2, &c. Eph. 4.12. Heb. 13.17.
• * 1.613

  Dei & Apo∣stolicae sedis gratiâ. Vid. post. Superbum nimis est & immoderatum ultra fines proprios tendere, & antiquitate calcatâ alienum jus velle praeripere, atque ut unius crescat digni∣tas, tot Metropolitanorum impugnare primatus, &c. P. Leo I. Ep. 55.

  'Tis too proud and unreasonable a thing for one to stretch himself beyond his bounds, and maugre all antiquity to snatch away other mens right, and that the dignity of one may be enhanced, to oppose the primacies of so ma∣ny Metropolitans.
• * 1.614

  Sanctae Ecclesiae universali injuriam fa∣cit. Greg. I. Ep. 4.32.

  It does wrong to the Holy Catholick Church.

  Plebis Majestas. Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Corn. P.) p. 117.
• * 1.615

  Gal. 5.1.
• * 1.616

  Gal. 5.1. Coloss. 2.16, 18.
• * 1.617

  P. Leo I. Ep. 28.
• * 1.618

  2 Cor. 1.24.
• * 1.619

  1 Cor. 10.1••.7.12, 25, 40.
• * 1.620

  Gal. 1.8.
• * 1.621

  Nunc vero quoniam Canonicum non est quod recitas, ea libertate ad quam nos vocavit Dominus, ejus viri, cujus lau∣dem consequi non valeo, cujus multis lite∣ris Scripta mea non comparo, cujus ingeni∣um diligo, cujus ore dilector, cujus chari∣tatem miror, cujus martyrium veneror, hoc quod aliter sapuit non accipio. Aug. contr. Cresc. 2.32.
• * 1.622

  Rom. 13.1.
• * 1.623

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Const. Apost. 8.46.
• * 1.624

  Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacer∣dos qui est Episcopus. Tert. de Bapt. c. 17.
• * 1.625

  Licèt enim & Presbyteri faciant, ta∣men exordium Ministerii est à summo Sa∣cerdote. Ambr. de Sacr. 3.1. Suscepisti gubernacula summi Sacerdotii. Id. Ep. 5.
• * 1.626

  Apices & Principes omnium Sacerdotes. Opt. 1. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet. Hier. c. Lucif. 4. The safety of the Church depends upon the dignity of the High-priest.

  Ego dignus summo Sacerdotio decernebar. Id Ep. 99. (ad Asell.)

  In Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est Princeps Sacerdotum, & Propheta & Evangelista, & caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in ministerio fidelium. Ambros. in Eph. 4.11.

  In the Bishop there are all Orders, because he is the first Priest, (i. e.) the Prince of Priests, and Pro∣phet and Evangelist, and all other Offices of the Church, to be fulfilled in the ministery of the faithfull.
• * 1.627

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. supr. Pontifex princeps Sacerdotum est, quasi via sequentium; Ipse & summus Sacerdos, ipse & Pontifex maximus nuncupatur. Isid. Hisp. apud Grat. dist. 21. cap. 1.
• * 1.628

  Nam Presby∣teri, licèt sint Sacerdotes, pontificatûs tamen apicem non habent. P. Innoc. I. Ep. 1. (ad Decent.) —dum facilè imponuntur manus, dum negligenter summus Sacerdos eligitur. Id Ep. 12. (ad Aurel.)
• * 1.629

  Nè quis contra Patrum praecepta— ad summum Ecclesiae Sacerdotium aspirare praesumeret. P. Zoz. I. Ep. 1. (ad Hesych.)
• * 1.630

  Ideóque id quod tantùm facere Princi∣pibus Sacer∣dotum jussum est, quorum ••ypum Moses & Aaron te∣nuerunt, om∣nino decretum est, ut Chorepiscopi vel Presbyteri qui filiorum Aaron gestant figuram, arripere non praesumant. P. Leo. Ep. 88. Pontificatus apicem non habent. Ibid. Vid. Ep. 84. cap. 5.

  S. Hier. ad Evagr. Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumpt••s de veteri Testamento, Quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri & diaconi vendicant in Ecclesia. Or. 19. p. 309.
• * 1.631

  A Bishop called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apost. Const. 8.10, 12.

  Summus Christi Pontifex Augustinus. (Paulin. apud Aug. Ep. 36.) Aug. Ep. 35.

  Beatissimo Papae Augustino. Hieron. (Aug. Ep. 11, 13, 14, &c.)

  Optamus te beatiss. & gloriosissime Pa∣pa in Domino semper valere. Ep. 31.
• * 1.632

  Apud nos Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, apud eos Episcopus tertius est; habent enim primos de Pepusa Phrygiae Patriarchas, secundos quos appellant Ce∣nones; atque ità in tert••m, id est plenè ultimum locum Episcopi devolvuntur; quasi exindè ambitiosior religio fiat, si quod apud nos primum est, apud illos no∣vissimum sit. Hier. (ad Marcellam.) Ep. 54.
• * 1.633

  —actum est de Episcopatûs vigore, & de Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi, ac divina potestate. Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad P. Cornel.)

  Non iste ad Episcopatum subitò perve∣nit, sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, & in divinis administrationi∣bus Dominum saepe promeritus, ad Sacer∣dotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit. Cypr. Ep. 52.
• * 1.634

  The Africans had a particular care, that this Primacy should not degene∣rate into tyranny.
• * 1.635

  Conc. Ant. Can. 9. Vid. Apost. Can. 34. Conc. Carth. apud Cypr. Cod. Asr. Can. 39. Nestorius, Dioscorus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. 8.1.

  So Eusebius complaineth of the Bi∣shops in his time—

  So Isidor. Pelusiot. Ep. 20.125.4.219.
• * 1.636

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28.

  O that there were not at all any Presidency, or any preference in place, and tyrannical prerogative.
• * 1.637

  So Socrates of the Bishop (not one∣ly of Rome, but) Alexandria. lib. 7. cap. 11.

  So St. Chrysostome in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Ep. Orat. 11.

  So Greg. Naz. complained of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.638

  Psal. 2.8. Col. 1.23. Luke 24.47. Matt. 28.19.
• * 1.639

  Cùm tot susti∣nea••, & tanta negotia so∣lus, &c. Hor. Ep. 2.1.
• * 1.640

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Zos. Hist. 1. (p. 4. Steph.)
• * 1.641

  Felicioribus sic rebus hu∣manis ••mnia Regna parva essent, concordi vicinitate laetantia. Aug. de Civ. D. 4.15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arist. Pol. 7.4. There is a certain measure of greatness fit for Cities and Commonwealths, as well as for all other things, Living Creatures, Plants, Instruments, for every one of these hath its proper virtue and faculty, when it is neither very little, not yet exceeds in bigness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Ibid. For who would be a Captain of an excessive huge multitude, &c.
• * 1.642

  Suis & ipsa Roma viribus ruit. Hor. Ep. 16.

  —quae ab exiguis initiis creverit ut, jam magnitudine laboret sua. Liv. I.

  Ac nescio an satius fuerit populo Roma∣no Sicilia & Africa contentos fuisse, aut his etiam ipsis carere dominanti in Italia sua, quàm eo magnitudinis crescere, ut viribus suis conficeretur. Flor. 3.12.

  Tunc jam Roma subjugaverat Africam, subjugaverat Graciam, latéque etiam aliis partibus imperans tanquam seip∣sam ferre non valent, se sua quodammodo magnitudine fregerat. Aug. de Civ. D. 18.45. Tac. Hist. 2. p. 476.
• * 1.643

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dion. lib. 56. Tac. Ann. 1.

  He advised them to be content with what they had, and by no means to endeavour the enlargement of their Empire, for, said he, it will be hardly kept; and this he himself observ'd not in word onely, but in deed: for when he might have gotten more from the barbarous Nations, yet he would not.

  Ipsa nocet moles, utinam remeare liceret Ad veteres fines, & moenia pauperis Anci, &c. Clau. de bello Gildon.
• * 1.644

  The Synod of Basil doth well describe the duty of a Pope, but it is infinitely hard to practise it in any measure. (Conc. Bas. Sess. 23. p. 64. &c.—)
• * 1.645

  Exod. 18.18.
• * 1.646

  P. Alex. II. (Epist. ad Ger. Rhem.) Bin. p. 284.
• * 1.647

  2 Cor. 11.28.
• * 1.648

  Tanta me oc∣cupationum o∣nera depri∣munt, ut ad superna ani∣mus nullatenus erigatur, &c. Greg. I. lib. I. Ep. 7, 25, 5. Such a weight of employments presses me down, that my mind can by no means be rais'd to things above. Si administratio illius temporis Mare fuit, quid de praesenti Papatu dicendum erit? Calv. Inst. 4. c. 7.22. If the ordering of affairs in those times was a boundless Sea, what shall we say of the present Papacy?
• * 1.649

  Nunquid mi∣randum est de tam longin∣quis terris E∣piscopos tuos tibi narrare impune quod volunt? Aug. contra Crescon. 3.34. What marvel if the Bishops from so re∣mote Countries tell you what they please without check or Controll?
• * 1.650

  De lungas vi∣as luengas mentiras. Hispan. Prov. Syn. Basil. Sess. 31. p. 86.
• * 1.651

  Vid. Bernard. Ep. 178. de Consid.
• * 1.652

  Romam pergens Stephanum Collegam nostrum longè positum, & gestae rei, ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit; ut ex∣ambiret reponi se injustè in Episcopatum, de quo fuerat justè depositus. Cypr. Ep. 67.
• * 1.653

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Basil. Ep. 10.
• * 1.654

  Bas. Ep. 73.74.
• * 1.655

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.— Bas. Ep. 349.
• * 1.656

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.

  Some are altogether ignorant of what is here done, others that think they know them declare them unto us more contentiously than truly.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. 321. ad. Pet. Alex.

  He grieved us when he said that our godly brethren, Meletius and Eusebius were reckoned among the Arians.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Bas. Ep. 10.

  What help can we have from the pride of the Africans, who neither know the truth, no•• endure to learn it?
• * 1.657

  P. Zos. I. Ep. 3, & 4.
• * 1.658

  Deinde quòd inter tantam hominum multitudinem adeò pauci sunt Episcopi, & amplae singulorum Parochiae, ut in subjectis plebibus curam Episcopalis officii nullatenus exequi, aut ritè administrare valeant. P. Greg. VII. Ep. 2.73.

  And then because in so great a multitude of People there are so few Bishops, and every one's Diocese very large, that they are in no-wise able to execute or rightly perform the charge of the Episcopal office among the people over whom they are set.
• * 1.659

  Cypr. Ep. 55. (p. 116.)
• * 1.660

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Ep. 102. (ad P. Innoc. I.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

  For if this custome prevail, and if they that will may go to other mens Dioceses at so great a distance, and eject whom any man pleases, know that all will go to wrack, &c.
• * 1.661

  Decreta Nice∣na sive infe∣rioris gradus clericos, sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metrop••litanis apertissimè commiserunt; Prudentissimè enim justissiméque viderunt (providerunt) quaecunque nego∣tia in suis locis, ubi orsa sunt, finienda. Ep. Conc. Afric. ad P. Celest. I. (in fine Cod. Afric.) vel apud Dion. E••ig▪
• * 1.662

  Aut quomodo ipsum trans∣marinum ju∣dicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexûs, vel propter senectutis infirmitatem, vel multis allis impedimentis adduci non poterunt. Ibid.
• * 1.663

  Nè ergo (quod inter longin∣quas regiones accidere solet) in nimias dilationes tenderent veritatis examina— P. Leo I. Ep. 34.
• * 1.664

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 2.16.
• * 1.665

  Inoleverunt autem hacte∣nus intolera∣bilium vexationum abusus permulti, dum nimium frequenter à remotissimis etiam partibus ad Romanam curiam, & in∣terdum pro parvis & minutis rebus ac negotiis quamplurimi citari ac evocari consueverunt, &c. Vid. Conc. Bas. Sess. 31. (p. 86.)

  But hitherto very many intollerable vexatious abuses have prevailed, while too often men have been used to be cited and call'd out even from the remotest parts to the Court of Rome, and sometimes for slight and trivial businesses and occasions.
• * 1.666

  Vid. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 61. Privilegia istius sedis perpetua sunt, divinitùs ra∣dicata, atque plantata, impingi possunt, transferri non possunt; trahi possunt, evelli non possunt. P. Nic. I. ad Mich. Imp.

  The privileges of this See are perpetual, rooted and founded upon Divine Authority, they may be dash•• against, they cannot be removed, they may be drawn aside, they cannot be pluck'd up.
• * 1.667

  Vid. Concil. Bas. Sess. 31. p. 87.
• * 1.668

  Licèt Aposto∣lica praeroga∣tiva possimus de qualibet Ecclesia clericum ordinare. P. Steph. apud Grat. caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 20. Though by our Apostolical preroga∣tive we may ordain a Clergy-man of any Church.
• * 1.669

  Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 60. so they pre∣tend. Concil. Later. 4. (sub Innoc. 3.)
• * 1.670

  Sitque alie∣nus à divinis & Pontifica∣libus officiis, qui noluit praeceptis Apo∣stolicis obtem∣perare. Greg. IV. (dist. 19. cap. 5.) And let him have nothing at all to doe with Divine and Ponti∣fical Offices, who would not obey Apostolical Precepts.
• * 1.671

  Vid. Mat. Paris.

  Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, & Temporalem Authoritatem Spirituali subjici potestati. Bonif. VIII. Ex∣trav. Com. 1.8.1.

  But there must be a sword under a sword, and Temporal Authority subject to Spiritual.
• * 1.672

  — ches••a piu ufficio di Pon∣••efici aggiur∣gere con l'armi, & col sorgue de Christiani, &c. Guicc. l. 11. p. 858.
• * 1.673

  Quid hodie erant Episco∣pi, nisi um∣bra quaedam? quid plus eis restabat quàm baculus & mitra, &c. An. Sylv. de gestis Syn. Bas. lib. 1.

  What were Bishops now, but kind of shadows? what had they left more than a Staff and a Miter, &c.
• * 1.674

  Concil. Lat. 5. Sess. 11. p. 129. De omni Ec∣clesia jus ha∣bet judicandi. (P. Gelas. Grat. Caus. 9. qu. 3 cap. 18.)
• * 1.675

  Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare. Greg. decret. lib. 3. tit. 8. cap. 4.
• * 1.676

  Hujus culpa•• isthîc redar∣guere praesumit mortalium nullus. Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6. (Si Papa—) Neque cùiquam licere de ejus judicare judicio. Caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 10.
• * 1.677

  Cùm enim obedire Apo∣stolicae sedi su∣perbè contemnunt, sc••lus idololatriae, teste Samuele, incurrunt. Greg. VII. Ep. 4.2. Nulli f••s est vel velle, vel posse transgredi Apostolicae sedis praecepta. Greg. IV. apud Grat. dist. 19. cap. 5.

  No man may nor can transgress the commands of the Apostolick See.

  — Ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, perpetuò & irrefragabiliter observandum est. Ibid. cap. 4. (P. Steph.)

  — Whatever he decrees, whatever he ordains, must always and inviolably be observed by all.
• * 1.678

  Erronea, & haeresi proxi∣ma. Bell. de P. 4.2.
• * 1.679

  Si autem Papae erraret praecipiendo vi∣tia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtu∣tes mala••, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare. Bell. de Pont. 4.5.
• * 1.680

  Gal. 5.1.13. 1 Pet. 2.16.
• * 1.681

  Papa occupa∣vit omnia ju∣ra inferiorum Ecclesiarum, ità quòd inferiores Praelati sunt pro nihilo. Card. Zab. de Sch. Inn. VII. p. 560. The Pope hath invaded all the rights of inferiour Churches, so that all inferiour Prelates are nothing set by.
• * 1.682

  Ecclesia est mandra sive grex aut mul∣titudo jumentorum sive asinorum. Eccl. c. 47.

  Illí nos fraenant, nos lore alligant, nos stimulant, nobis jugum & onus imponunt. Ibid.
• * 1.683

  2 Cor. 2.17. 1 Tim. 6.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Supposing that gain is godliness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thess. 2.5. A cloke of Covetousness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eph. 4.4.
• * 1.684

  Pasce, id est regio more Impera. Ecce duos Gladios. — Oravi nè deficeret. — Feed (i. e.) rule as a King. Behold two Swords.
• * 1.685

  Vid. Sle••d. p. 673.
• * 1.686

  Sleid. lib. 4. p. 82. lib. 12. p. 322. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 24. Vid. Riv. in Castig. Nol. p. 525.
• * 1.687

  Cen••um gra∣vamina.
• * 1.688

  Vid. ipsum Greg. VII. Ep. 1.42.2.45.

  See the de∣scription of them in S. Bernard. in Cant. Serm. G••ioc••a••d. in Suppl.
• * 1.689

  Adv. Pelag. in Riv. Ca∣stig. N. cap. 8. Vid. Bernard. Convers. S. Paul. Serm. ••. p. 87.
• * 1.690

  —Nulla unquam mo∣nitione, nulla exhortatione induci jam largo tempore potuit, ut aliquam errorum emendationem Christo placentem, aut no••issimorum abusuu•• correctionem in Ecclesia Sancta Dei efficere satageret. Conc. Bas. Sess. 23. (p. 76.) Sess. 31. p. 89.

  He could never be brought in this long time by any advice or exhortation, seriously to set upon any amendment of errours or correction of the most gross abuses in the Holy Church of God.
• * 1.691

  Vid. Conc. Trid. p. 22.
• * 1.692

  It will cer∣tainly render him a Ty∣rant, accor∣ding to the definition of Aristotle, Pol. 4.10. Cui plus licet quàm par est, plus vult quàm licet. Vnde sicut languescente capite, reliquum postea corpus morbus invadat. Conc. Bas. Sess. 23. (p. 64.) Whence it comes to pass that if the Head be sick, the rest of the Body afterward grows diseased. Vid. Conc. Bas. p. 87. Conc. Const. p. 1110.
• * 1.693

  Vid. dist. 40. cap. 6. (hujus culpas, etsi.) Vid. Alv. Pelag. apud Riv. Cath. Orth. p. 141. Baron. Pope Marcellus II. doubted whether a Pope could be saved. Thuan. lib. 15. (p. 566.) From John VIII. to Leo IX. what a rabble of rake-hells and so••ts did sit in that Chair! Machiavel. Hist. lib. 16. p. 1271. Baron. Ann. 912. § 8.
• * 1.694

  Baron. Ann. 897. § 5. It was said of Vespasian, solus imperantium melior— so apt is power to corrupt men. Solus omnium ante se Principum in melius mutatus est. Tac. Hist. 1. (p. 451.)
• * 1.695

  How vain is that which P. Greg. VII. citeth out of P. Symmachus, B. Petrus perennem meritorum dotem cum haereditate innocentiae misit ad posteros. Greg. VII. Ep. 8.21.
• * 1.696

  Quòd Roma∣nus Pontifex, si canonicè fu∣erit ordinatus, meritis B. Petri indubitanter efficitur sanctus; was one of P. Greg. VII. his dictates. That the Roman Pontif, if canonically elected, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of Blessed Peter.
• * 1.697

  Sap. 1.5.
• * 1.698

  Vid. Guic∣ciard. Machiav. His. Fl. p. 19. Conc. Bas. (p. 65.)
• * 1.699

  —Cùm non ob religionem, & Dei cul∣tum appetere Pontificatum nostri Sacerdotes videantur, sed ut fratrum vel nepotum, vel familiarium ingluviem & ava∣ritiam expleant. Plat. in Joh. XVI. (p. 298.)

  Whereas our Priests seem to desire the Popedom, not for Religion and the worship of God, but that they may fill the ravening appetite and covetousness of their brethren or nephews, or familiars.
• * 1.700

  1 Tim. 2.1, 2.
• * 1.701

  Matt. 6.24.
• * 1.702

  Bell. 5.6. (p. 1415.)
• * 1.703

  Matth. 12.25.
• * 1.704

  P. Pasch. II. Ep. 7.
• * 1.705

  Vid. Mach. Hist. Flor. p. 18.— Impeti possunt humanis praesumptionibus quae divino sunt judicio constituta, vinci autem quorumlibet potestate non possunt. P. Gel. Ep. 8. Felix P. Ep. 1. (p. 597.)
• * 1.706

  Non enim vo∣lumus aut propter Prin∣cipum potenti∣am Ecclesia∣stic••m minui dignitatem, aut pro Eccle∣siastica dignitate Principum potentiam mutilari. P. Pasch. II. Ep. 28, & 29. For we will not that either the Eccle∣siastical dignity should be diminished, by reason of the Prince's power, or that the Prince's power should be curtail'd for the Ecclesiastical dignity.
• * 1.707

  In vain did S. Bernard, (de Consid. 1.) c••y, Quid fi∣nes alienos in∣vaditis? quid falcem vestram in alienam messam extenditis? Why do you invade other mens territories? why thrust you your sickle into other mens harvest?
• * 1.708

  Arietes furiosos. Bell. 5.7.
• * 1.709

  Vid. Tort. T. p. 216. Greg. VII. Ep. 1.7.112.13, 63.
• * 1.710

  Vid. Plat. de Bonif. VIII. p. 467. Jul. 2. Non sine sus∣picione, quod illorum tem∣porum Ponti∣fices, qui bella extinguere, discordias tollere debuissent, suscitarent ea potiùs atque nutrirent. Episc. Modrus. in Conc. Lat. V. Sess. 6. (p. 72.)
• * 1.711

  Not without suspicion, that the Popes of those times, who ought to have extinguished wars, and put an end to dissentions, did rather raise them up and cherish them.

  See Greg. VII. Ep. 4.2.8.21.
• * 1.712

  Vid. Concil. Lugd. p. 851.
• * 1.713

  Auctoritate Apostolica de fratrum no∣strorum consi∣lio declaramus illa juramenta praedicta fidelitatis existere & censeri debere. Clementin. lib. 2. Tit. 9. cap. unicum.

  We declare out of our Apostolical authority by the advice of our brethren that the foresaid oaths of fealty ought to be, and be so esteemed.
• * 1.714

  Thuan. lib. 1.
• * 1.715

  Abutente Chri∣stianorum Pa∣store Christia∣norum Princi∣pum viribus, ut privatae ambitioni, & suorum libidini inserviret. Thuan. lib. 1. p. 42. The Pastour of Christians abusing the power of Christian Princes that he might gratifie his private ambition, and the will and lust of his friends.
• * 1.716

  Observ.
• * 1.717

  Tort. T. p. 210.
• * 1.718

  P. Anast. calleth the Emperour Anast. Vicarium. Epist. (p. 670.)
• * 1.719

  Eccles. Leod. p. ••22.
• * 1.720

  Secundum mutationes temporum transferuntur etiam regna terrarum; unde etiam Ecclesiastica∣rum parochiarum fines in plerisque provinciis mutari expedit & transferri. P. Pasch. II. Ep. 19.
• * 1.721

  Vid. Bod. de Rep. 1.9. (p. 195.) Car les Prin∣ces Chrestien avoient presque tous opinion, que le Pape estoit absolvement seigneur sovereigne de tous les Roydumes dela Chrestiente. Bod. ibid. p. 196. Tort. Tort. p. 216, &c.— Greg. VII. Ep. 1.7.2.13. Alex. II. Ep. 8.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. de Jud. Dei, T. 2. p. 259.

  So great a dissonancy and jarring there is among men in the Church, while every one swerves from the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, and asserts certain conceits and rules of his own by his own authority, and had rather rule contrary to the Lord, than be rul'd by the Lord.
• * 1.722

  Necesse est, ut omnes fideles idem sentiant. Bell. 1.9. It is necessary that all the faithfull should be of the same opinion.
• * 1.723

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ath.
• * 1.724

  Nemini prae∣scribentes.
• * 1.725

  Manen••e concordiae vinculo, & perseve∣rante Catholicae Ecclesiae individuo Sacra∣mento, actum suum disponit & dirigit unusquisque Episcopus, rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus. Cypr. Ep. 52. (ad Antonianum.)
• * 1.726

  Caeterùm scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facilè mutare, sed salvo inter Col∣legas pacis & concordiae vinculo quaedam propria, quae apud se semel sint usurpata, retinere; qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cùm habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae li∣berum arbitrium unusquisque praepositus, rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. Cypr. Ep. 72. (ad Stephanum.)
• * 1.727

  Haec ad conscientiam tuam, frater cha∣rissime, & pro honore communi & pro sim∣plici dilectione pertulimus, &c.

  Consensu & auctoritate communi.
• * 1.728

  Nam cum stat••tum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter ac justum, ut unius∣cujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est cri∣men admissum, & singulis Pastoribus por∣tio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unus∣quisque & gubernet, rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus, oportet utique eos qui∣bus praesumus, non circumcursare, &c. Cypr. Epist. 55. (ad Cornelium.)
• * 1.729

  Haec tibi breviter pro nostra mediocrita∣te rescripsimus, frater charissime; nemini praescribentes, aut praejudicantes, quo minùs unusquisque Episcoporum quod putat faciat, habens arbitrii sui liberam potestatem. Cypr. Epist. 73. (ad Jubabaianum.)

  Quâ in parte nemini verecundia & mo∣destia nostra praejudicat, quo minùs unus∣quisque quod putat sentiat, & quod senserit faciat. Cypr. Epist. 76. (ad Magnum.)

  Nemini praescribentes, quo minùs statuat quod putat unusquisque Praepositus, actûs sui rationem Domino redditurus; secun∣dum quod Apostolus, &c. Ibid.
• * 1.730

  Superest ut de hac re singuli quid sen∣tiamus proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut à jure communionis aliquem si diver∣sum senserit amoventes; neque enim quis∣quam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcopo∣rum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adi∣git; quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro li∣centia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitri∣um proprium, támque judicari ab alio non possit, quàm nec ipse potest alterum judica∣re; sed expectemus universi judicium Do∣mini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & so∣lus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro judicandi. Cypr. in praef. Conc. Carthag.
• * 1.731

  Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 2.3, &c.
• * 1.732

  Habemus ergo quaerendi liberum arbi∣trium ipsius Cypriani nobis mitissimo & veracissimo sermone concessum. Lib. 3. cap. 3.

  Nunc si se audent superbae & tumidae cervices haereticorum adversus sanctam hu∣militatem hujus sententiae extollant. Lib. 2. cap. 3.

  Quid mansuetius, quid humilius? Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.733

  Quanquam benè sibi conscius animus, & Evangelicae disciplinae vigore subnixus, & verus sibi in d••cretis coelestibus testis effectus, soleat solo Deo judice esse conten∣tus, nec alterius aut laudes petere, aut accusationes perti••escere; tamen gemina∣tâ sunt laude condigni, qui cùm conscien∣tiam sciant Deo soli debere se judici, actus tamen suos desiderant etiam ab ipsi•• suis fratribus comprobari: quod ••e, frater Cypriane, facere non mirum est, qui pro tua verecundia, & ingenita industria con∣siliorum tuorum no•• non tam judices volu∣isti, quàm participes inveniri— Cler. Rom. ad Cypr. Ep. 31.
• * 1.734

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—. Syn. Ant. Can. 9.
• * 1.735

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sin. Chalced. Act. 1. p. 114.
• * 1.736

  Omnium nostrum mater communis sub Sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione. Ger∣vas. Dorob. (p. 1663.) apud Twisd. p. 72.
• * 1.737

  Vid. Epist. P. Celestini I. in Conc. Eph. Act. 2. (p. 324.)
• * 1.738

  Baron. An. 57. § 30. Psal. 45.16. Vbicunque fuerit Episco∣pus, sive Ro∣mae sive Eu∣gubii, &c. Hieron. ad Evagr. Ep. 85.
• * 1.739

  Omnibus in Christiana religione consti∣tutis scire convenit quale sit ministerium Episcoporum— quos constat esse Vicarios Christi, & Clavigeros Regni Coelorum, &c. Syn. Compend. Ann. Dom. 833. (apud Bin. Tom. 6. p. 361.)

  Nos omnes licèt indigni, Christi tamen Vicarii, & Apostolorum ipsius Successores. Syn. Meldens. Ann. D. 845. (apud Bin. Tom. 6. p. 402.)
• * 1.740

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Greg. Naz. Orat. 28.
• * 1.741

  Nobis, post excessum nobilissimae memo∣riae viri Fabiani, nondum est Episcopus propter rerum & temporum difficultatem constitutus, qui omnia ista moderetur— Cl. Rom. ad Cypr. Ep. 31.
• * 1.742

  Variis tunc Ecclesiâ vexationibus oppres∣sâ, difficilis & infrequens erat Provincia∣rum inter sese communicatio. Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 67.

  Verum enim est impeditam suisse eo tempore non parùm Pontificis auctorita∣tem— propter persecutiones continuas non potuisse Romanos Pontifices liberè exercere eam, quam à Christo acceperant auctori∣tatem, &c. Bell. de R. P. 2.17.
• * 1.743

  Nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis minor esse videtur auctoritas Episcopo∣rum in Africa constitutorum, qui jam de illis judicaverunt—
• * 1.744

  Fides quam exposuerunt qui affue∣runt Episcopi 97— Hilar. de Synodis. (p. 367.)

  Congregatam Sanctorum Synodum. Hi∣lar. ibid.

  Venerabiles Antiocheni Canones. P. Ni∣col. I. Ep. 9. (p. 519.)
• * 1.745

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 3.8.
• * 1.746

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Jul. I. apud Athan. in Apol. 2. (p. 744.)
• * 1.747

  Qui tacet con∣sentiri vide∣tur.
• * 1.748

  Hic non tam optamus praeponi aliis (sicut praedic••s) quàm cum fidelibus cunctis sanctum & Deo placitum habere consortium. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 1. (ad Eu∣phemium.)
• * 1.749

  —in elatione suâ Antichri∣stum praecur∣rit, quia su∣perbiendo se caeteris praepo∣nit. P. Greg. I. Ep. 6.30. Super caeteros Sacerdotes se extollit. ibid. Christi sibi student membra judicare. P. Greg. I. Ep. 4.36. Solus omnibus praeesse. id. Ep. 4.38. —quibus (Episcopis) cupis temetipsum vocabulo elationis praepo∣nere. ibid.
• * 1.750

  Quod verbum jussionis peto à meo au∣ditu removeri; quia scio quis sum, qui estis; loco enim mihi fratres estis, mori∣bus patres, non ergo jussi, sed quae utilia visa sunt, indicare curavi, &c. Greg. I. Ep. 7.30. (ad Eulog. Alex.)
• * 1.751

  Cypr. Ep. 4.41.58.67.68.45.49. &c.
• * 1.752

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,— Euseb. 7.5.
• * 1.753

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. 7.30.
• * 1.754

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. Epist. ad Afr. (p. 931.)
• * 1.755

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Marcell. ad P. Jul. Epiph. haer. 72.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Cyril. ad Nest. in Syn. Eph. p. 207.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. Ep. 69.

  Athanas. Apol. 2. (p. 761.756.)
• * 1.756

  Theod. 5.9.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Eph. p. 217.

  Domino dilectissimo & honoratissimo fratri.— Conc. Afr.

  Domino dilectissimo & honorabili fratri Maximino. Aug. Ep. 203.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Socr. 4.12.
• * 1.757

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Eph. p. 202.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 4.9.
• * 1.758

  Cùm ergò vel hoc ipso officio literarum per charitatem tibi serviam, non absurdè te Dominum voco, propter ••num & verum Dominum nostrum qui nobis ista praecepit. Aug. Ep. 103.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Ep. 26.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. Ep. 26.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 68. (71, 75, 77, 84, 91, &c.)
• * 1.759

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Gel. I. Epist. ad Syn. Eph. Act. 2. (p. 324.)
• * 1.760

  Conc. 6. Act. 13. p. 224.
• * 1.761

  Scias nos non tuos esse, ut te jactas & extollis, Clericos, quos ut fratres & Co∣episcopos recognoscere, si elatio permitteret, debueras. Ann. Franc. Pith. (Ann. 858.)
• * 1.762

  Verè divinâ providentiâ factum cen∣sendum est, quòd te sacerrimus iste Senatus— fratrem, & ità dixerim filium in patrem, Collegam in Dominum— elegerint, assumpserint, adoraverint. Balt. Delrio. in Conc. Later. ad Leonem X. Sess. 8. (p. 85.)
• * 1.763

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. 6.43.

  Omnibus Co-episcopis nostris & fra∣tribus innotescat. P. Corn. apud Cypr. Ep. 48.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. p. 739.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 4.12.
• * 1.764

  Fratribus & Co-episcopis. Hil. frag. p. 450.

  Soz. 6.23.
• * 1.765

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Eph. p. 196.
• * 1.766

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 179, 183.
• * 1.767

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 2. p. 324.
• * 1.768

  Fraternitas Vestra. P. Gelas. Ep. 12. Greg.— Epist. 6.24. Fratris & Con∣sacerdotis nostri Cyriaci.—
• * 1.769

  Bell. 2.14. Theod. 5.10.
• * 1.770

  Vales. in Theod. ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.771

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 6.23.
• † 1.772

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.773

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apud Athan. Apol. 2. p. 783.
• * 1.774

  Ecclesia prin∣cipalis. Cypr. Ep. 55.
• * 1.775

  Ecclesia principalis, id est in urbe prin∣cipali constituta. Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 55.
• * 1.776

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. 6.43.
• * 1.777

  Et quanquam sciam, frater, pro mutua dilectione quam debemus & exhibemus invicem nobis florentissimo illic Clero te∣cum praesidenti, & sanctissimae atque am∣plissimae plebi, legere te semper literas no∣stras —Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Corn.)
• * 1.778

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Ant. Can. 9.
• * 1.779

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Dionys. Corinth. apud Euseb. 4.23.
• * 1.780

  Ad hanc Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem conveni∣re Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt ubique fideles. Iren. 3.3.
• * 1.781

  (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I conjecture he said.)
• * 1.782

  Quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma praecedere. Cypr. Ep. 49.
• * 1.783

  Autoritate qua potiores aeternae urbis Episcopi. Amm. Marcell. lib. 15. (p. 47.)
• * 1.784

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Theod. Ep. 113.
• * 1.785

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. Can. 28.
• * 1.786

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Placid. in Syn. Chalc. p. 27.
• * 1.787

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Syn. Const. Can. 3.
• * 1.788

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Can. 28.
• * 1.789

  Sacrosanctam quoque hujus religiosissimae civitatis Ec∣clesiam, & matrem no∣strae pietatis, & Christianorum Orthodoxae religionis omnium, & ejusdem Regiae urbis sanctissimam sedem, &c. Imp. Leo. Cod. Lib. 1. Tit. 2. § 16.

  The Holy Church of this most religious city, the mother of our devotion, and of all orthodox Christians, and the most holy See of that imperial city.

  Bonifacius III. à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit, magnâ tamen contentione, ut sedes B. Petri. Apostoli, quae caput est omni∣um Ecclesiarum, ità & diceretur, & haberetur ab omnibus; quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendi∣care conabatur; faventibus interdum Principibus, affirmantibúsque eo loci primam sedem esse debere, ubi Imperii caput esset. Plat. in Bonif. III. (p. 161.)

  Boniface III. (though with a great deal of stir) obtained of the Emperour Phocas, that the See of Saint Peter the Apostle, which is the head of all Churches, should be so called and accounted by all; which dignity the Church of Constantinople did indeed endeavour to assert to it self, Princes sometime favouring them, and affir∣ming that there the chief See ought to be where the head of the Empire was.

  Phocas rogante Papâ Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum, quia Ecclesia Constantino∣politana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat. Anastas. in Bonif. III. Idem Sabellicus, Blondus, Laetus, &c. tradunt.

  Phocas at the entreaty of Pope Boniface appointed that the Roman See should be the head of all Churches, be∣cause the Church of Constantinople wrote her self the chief of all Churches.
• * 1.790

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Naz. Orat. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evag. 2.4. & passim.
• * 1.791

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Joseph. de Bello Jud. 3.3.
• * 1.792

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.793

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. Ep. 48. (ad Athanas.)
• * 1.794

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Ant. Can. 9. Syn. Chalc. 17.
• * 1.795

  Sedis Apostolicae primatum S. Petri meritum, (qui Princeps est Episcopalis coronae) Romanae dignitas Civitatis, sa∣crae etiam Synodi firmavit authoritas. Valentin. Nov. 24. in fin. Cod. Theod.
• * 1.796

  Cypr. Ep. 55.52.
• * 1.797

  Atque ego in hac parte justè indignor ad hanc tam apertam & manifestam Ste∣phani stultitiam, quod qui sic de Episco∣patûs sui loco gloriatur, & se successionem Petri tenere contendit—

  Stephanus qui per successionem Cathe∣dram Petri habere se praedicat— Firmil. apud Cypr. Ep. 75.
• * 1.798

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 3.8.
• * 1.799

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Ep. Synod. Const. The∣odoret. hist. l. 5. c. 9. p. 211. Quae quantumlibet à Petro ante Alexandrinam fuerat instituta, tamen quoniam prae∣fectura Alexandrina Augustalis dicta —longè praestabat Syriae praefecturae, &c. Baron. Ann. 39. § 10.
• * 1.800

  Epiph. Synod. Constant. ibid.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.801

  Optat. lib. 6. (p. 169.) Hier. Ep. 61. Conc. Nic. Can. 7.
• * 1.802

  Majores enim in instituendis sedibus Ecclesiarum non aliam iniisse rationem, quam secundum divisionem Provincia∣rum, & Praerogativas à Romanis anteà stabilitas, quàm plurima sunt exempla. Baron. Anno 39.10.
• * 1.803

  Cypr. Ep. 52.55.72.73.76.

  Omnis hic actus populo erat insinuandus. P. Corn. apud Cypr. Ep. 46.

  All this business was to have been imparted to the people.

  Secundum arbitrium quoque vestrum, & omnium no∣strum commune consilium — ea quae agenda sunt disponere. Cypr. Ep. 40. (Plebi Vniv.)

  To order what was to be done according to your judg∣ment, and the common advice of us all.

  Et limanda plenius ratio non solùm cum Collegis meis, sed & cum plebe ipsa universa. Cypr. Ep. 28.

  And the reason is more throughly to be examined not onely with my Collegues, but with the whole people.

  Praejudicare ego & soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. Ep. 18.

  I dare not therefore prejudge, nor assume to my self alone a matter which is common to all.
• * 1.804

  Hoc enim & verecundiae & disciplinae & vitae ipsi omni∣um nostrum convenit, ut Episcopi plures in unum conv••ni∣entes, praesente & stantium plebe, quibus & ipsis pro fi∣de & timore suo honor habendus est) disponere omnia consi∣lia communis religione possimus. Cypr. Ep. 14.

  For it becomes the modesty, the discipline, and the manner of our living, that many Bishops meeting toge∣ther, the people being also present, (to whom respect ought to be had for their faith and fear) we may order all things with the common advice.
• * 1.805

  —quoniam non pancorum, nec Ecclesiae unius aut unius Provinciae, sed totius orbis haec causa est—Cypr. Ep. 14.

  —because this is the concern not of a few men or one Church, or one Province, but of the whole world.
• * 1.806

  Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum— ut si quis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri— Cypr. Ep. 76.

  Therefore the Clergy is a large body — that if any one of our own society should vent an heresie, and attempt to rent and waste the flock of Christ, the rest might come in to their help.
• * 1.807

  Particularly in the dispensation of Church goods. Conc. Ant. Can. 25.
• † 1.808

  Nov. 137. cap. 4.123. cap. 10.
• ‖ 1.809

  Vid. Can. Apost. 38. (al. 30.) de Synodis.
• * 1.810

  (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Const. can. 2.)
• * 1.811

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Chalced. Can. 17. & Conc. Trull. Can. 38.
• * 1.812

  P. Anacl. dist. 99. cap. 1. P. Greg. VII. Ep. 6.35.
• * 1.813

  Ad hoc divinae dispensationis provisio gradus & diversos constituit ordines in se distinctos, ut dum reverentiam minores potioribus exhiberent, & potiores minori∣bus diligentiam impenderent, una concor∣diae fieret à diversitate contentio & rectè officiorum gereretur administratio singu∣lorum. Joh. VIII. Ep. 95.

  To this end divine providence hath appointed degrees and divers orders distinct from one another, that while the less reverence the greater, and the greater take care of the less, from this diversity there might arise one frame of concord, and all offices be daily ad∣ministred.
• * 1.814

  Primas Provinciae. Cod. Afr. Can. 19.
• * 1.815

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. Apost. 27.

  The Bishops of each Nation ought to know who is chief among them.

  Cod. Afr. Can. 39. Dist. 99. cap. 3.
• * 1.816

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Syn. Nic. Can. 18.
• * 1.817

  Can. Apost. 38. Tertull. de Jej. cap. 13. Syn. Nic. Can. 5.
• * 1.818

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Syn. Ant. Can. 20.
• * 1.819

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Synod. Constant. Theod. 5.9.
• * 1.820

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. 20.
• * 1.821

  Zos. lib. 2. p. 63. Sextus Ru∣fus, Brev.
• * 1.822

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 388.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. Orient. ad Rusum. in Syn. Eph. p. 396.

  Dist. 99. cap. 1, 2.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 2. (p. 211.)

  Ephesi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evag. 3.6.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Zon. ad 28. Can. Chalc.

  Novell. 137. cap. 5. & 123. cap. 10.

  P. Greg. I. Ep. 11, 56.

  Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, id est in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metro∣politanis, atque Episcopis. Isid. dist. 21. cap. 1.

  Dionysius Ex. translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pri∣matem. in Syn. Chalc. Can. 9, & 17.
• * 1.823

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Can. 18.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. 6.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Can. 7.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.824

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Syn. Laod. Can. 12.

  That Bishops should be constituted by the judgment of the Metropolitanes and the neighbouring Bishops.
• * 1.825

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Syn. Const. Can. 6.

  But if it so happen that the Bishops of any Province cannot rectify those things which are laid to the charge of a Bishop, they shall then go to a greater Synod of the Bishops of that Diocese, met together for that purpose.

  The Fathers of Constantinople in their Synodick Epistle distinguish the Province and Diocese of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Theod. 5.9.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 5.8.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodor. Epist. 86. (ad Flavianum.)

  For, says Theodoret, the Blessed Fathers meeting together in the Imperial City, distinguish'd Dioceses agreeably to what the Nicene Fathers had done, and allotted to every Diocese what belonged to it: on the contrary char∣ging that no one of one Diocese should encroach upon another.
• * 1.826

  Theod. 2.26. Soz. 4.25.
• * 1.827

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Socr. 2.40.
• * 1.828

  Sozom. 6.12.
• * 1.829

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (in prosphonetico ad Imper.)
• * 1.830

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Can. 2.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Can. 6.
• * 1.831

  Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. (p. 463.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 11. (p. 411.)
• * 1.832

  Sozom. 8.6.
• * 1.833

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. in Epist. ad P. Leonem.
• * 1.834

  Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. (p. 462—)
• * 1.835

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Eph. Can. 8.

  [There is mention of Dioceses in Strabo.]
• * 1.836

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Can. 19, & 17.
• * 1.837

  Quem autem Primatem Dioeceseos S. Synodus dixerit, prae∣ter Apostoli primi Vicari∣um, nullus penitus intelligitur— None can understand whom the Holy Synod should call Primate of a Diocese, except the Vicar of the prime Apostle.

  Tantundem valet dixisse Primatem Dioeceseos, quantum si perhibuisset Dioeceseon. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. (p. 507.) To say the Primate of a Diocese is as much as to say of Dioceses.
• * 1.838

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Conc. Eph. Can. 8.
• * 1.839

  Isid. dist. 2. cap. 1.
• * 1.840

  Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apices, sive Metropole••n Primatus, aut Episcopa∣tuum Cathedras, vel Ecclesiarum cujusli∣bet Ordinis Dignitates instituit Romana Ecclesia. P. Nich. II. Dist. 22. cap. 1.
• * 1.841

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. 3.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Syn. Ch. Act. 16.
• * 1.842

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.843

  Persuasioni enim tuae in nullo penitus suffragatur quorundam Episcoporum ante sexaginta, ut jactas, annos facta subscri∣ptio, nunquámque à praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Seais transmissa notitiam, cui ab initio sui caducae, dudúmque collapsae sera nunc & inutilia subjicere somenta vo∣luisti— P. Leo. Ep. 53. (ad Anatol.) Vid. Ep. 54, & 55, & 61.
• * 1.844

  Romana autem Ecclesia eosdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet, nec accepit. Greg. M. Ep. 6.31. (ad Eulog. Alex.)
• * 1.845

  N. A Roman Synod, Anno 378. consi∣sting of Ita∣lian Bishops did give the Pope such a privilege as the Synod of Constantinople did to the Bishop of that See. (Marc. de Primat. p. 103. ex app. Cod. Theodos. vide Baron.)

  But there is difference between a General Synod, and an Italian Synod: and what had an Italian Synod to prescribe to all the Provinces of the Roman Empire, or rather of the West? P. Greg. I. Ep. 7, 8.
• * 1.846

  Balusius thinketh, that Hilarius of Arles did pretend and offer at this Primatical power. apud Marc. 5.32. but P. Leo did mainly check and quash his attempt.
• * 1.847

  Contra haec si dictum fuerit, quia nec Metropolitam habuit, nec Patriarcham; dicendum est quia à Sede Apostolica, quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est, causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat. Greg. I. Ep. 11.56.
• * 1.848

  Ruffin. Hist. 1.6.
• * 1.849

  Isid. in dist. 21. cap. 1.
• * 1.850

  Vid. de Marc. lib. 7. cap. •• & 5.
• * 1.851

  De pusillo crescere. P. Leo. Ep. 55.
• * 1.852

  Quid illi sa∣tisfaciet, si••tantae urbi•• magnificentia & claritudo non sufficit? Leo Ep. 55.
• * 1.853

  Euseb. 6.43. (Anno 254.)

  Oblationibus matro∣narum ditati. Amm. Marc. l. 27. (p. 337.) Anno 367.

  Circumspectè vestiti. Amm. Marc. l. 27. (p. 337.) Anno 367.
• * 1.854

  Euseb.
• * 1.855

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 7.11.
• * 1.856

  Socr. 7.7.
• * 1.857

  Matt. 13.32.
• * 1.858

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plut. in Pyrrh.
• * 1.859

  Subrependi occasiones non praetermittit ambitio—P. Leo I. Ep. 62.
• * 1.860

  Faciliùs crescit dignitas quàm incipit. Sen. Ep. 101.
• * 1.861

  Primae dominandi spe•• in arduo; ubi sis ingressus, adsunt studia & ministri. Tacit. Ann. 4. (p. 143.)
• * 1.862

  Dist. 21. cap. 2, 3.
• * 1.863

  Privilegia Romanae Ecclesiae nullum possunt sustinere detrimentum— P. Nic. I. Ep. 36. (32 —)
• * 1.864

  Sixtus V.
• * 1.865

  —qui famae servit ineptus, Ac stupet in titulis & imaginibus— Hor.
• * 1.866

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Flor. Sess. 25. (p. 848.)
• * 1.867

  Ità de vocabulorum occasionibus pluri∣mùm quaestiones subornantur, sicut & de verborum in communionibus. Tertull. de Resur. Carn. 54.
• * 1.868

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. Apost. 34.
• * 1.869

  Quia duobus Episcopis, quorum eâ tem∣pestate summa authoritas erat, non illuse∣rat— Sulp. Sev. 2.63.

  Because he had not deluded the two Bishops who had the greatest authority in those times.

  Non mediocris authoritatis Episcopus Carthag. Aug. Epist. 162.

  The Bishop of Carthage was of no mean authority.

  —audiuntur authoritate suadendi po∣tiùs quàm jubendi potestate. Tac. de mor. Germ. (p. 640.)

  Evander—ea authoritate magìs quàm imperio retinebat loca. Liv. 1.

  Verbum Judico frequenter in ea signi∣ficatione usurpatur, ut idem sit quod sen∣tio seu opinor. Can. loc. 6. cap. 8. (comp. lib. 6.1.)
• * 1.870

  —ut ad Domini mei tanti Pontificis & piissimi Patris, omnium ad se confugi∣entium tutissimi defensoris ac protecto∣ris, &c. Rothaldi appell. (in P. Nich. I. Ep. 37. p. 563.)

  —my Lord so great a Pontif, and most pious a Father, the safe defender and protectour of all those that flee un∣to him for succour.
• * 1.871

  Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.872

  Epist. 55.
• * 1.873

  Calendion of Antioch, Li∣ber. cap. 18.
• * 1.874

  P. Leo, Ep. 89. Marc. 5.32. P. Nich. I. •• Ep. 38. (p. 564.) Rothaldus.
• * 1.875

  Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 2. cap. 16.
• * 1.876

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. (p. 27.)
• * 1.877

  Qualiter (Imperatores) eam diversis beneficiis ex∣tulerint, do∣nis ditaverint, beneficiis ampliaverint, qualiter illam, &c. P. Nic. I. Ep. 8. (p. 513.)

  —Romanus tempore prisco

  Pauper erat Praesul, Regali munere crevit, &c. Gunth. Lig. lib. 6.
• * 1.878

  Haec Leo, sed Acaci•• fastu tumentis proculdubio verbis concepta, & stylo super∣biae exarata. Baron. Ann. 473. § 4.
• * 1.879

  Apud Marc. 5.32.
• * 1.880

  Bin. ad P. Hil. Ep. 11. (p. 576.)
• * 1.881

  Ex his intelligis, Lector, cum de rebus sacris Imperatores leges sanxivere, id ip∣sum admonitione ss. Praesulum requirenti∣um eorum officium ex scriptis legibus sta∣tuisse. Baron. Ann. 458. § 4.
• * 1.882

  Christianorum quoque Principum lege decretum est, &c. P. Hilarius, Ep. 11. (p. 576.)
• * 1.883

  P. Nich. I. Ep. 36. Theod. 5.2.
• * 1.884

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—

  When the Oak is fallen every one gets some wood.
• * 1.885

  Anast. in Vit. Zach. P. Nich. I. Ep. 25.30, &c.

  Non sine su∣spicione, quod illorum temporum Pontifices, qui bella extinguere, discordias tollere debuissent, suscitarent ea potiùs atque nutrirent. Modruviensi•• Episc. in Conc. Lat. su•• Leone X. Sess. 6. (p. 72.)
• * 1.886

  Anno 752.
• * 1.887

  Anno 1060.
• * 1.888

  Anno 1139.
• * 1.889

  Anselme Anno 1109. Eadmer. Matt. Par.

  Becket Anno 1154. Eadmer. Matt. Par.
• * 1.890

  Pro pallio omninò aliquid dare prohibeo. Greg. I. Ep. 4.44.
• * 1.891

  Vendit plum∣bum pro auro. Taxa Came∣rariae—
• ‖ 1.892

  In the times of Henry I. the Bishop of York did pay 10000 l. Sterling for his Pall. Matt. Par. (p. 274.)
• * 1.893

  Peter-pence. Plat. p. 257.
• * 1.894

  Quantas nobis divitias peperit haec fa∣bula Christi?
• * 1.895

  Quando & Apostolica praeceptio ad injuriam B. Petri in illis partibus non observatur, & à te spernitur & violatur. P. Nich. I. Ep. 37.
• * 1.896

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2 Thess. 2.10. Twisd. p. 17. Non necessita∣tis, sed honoris causâ peto.
• * 1.897

  Extortis as∣sentationibus. P. Leo. Epist. (ad Syn. Chalc.)
• * 1.898

  Distinct. 17. Cùm etiam solum Rom. Pontificem pro tempore existentem, tanquam auctorita∣tem super omnia Concilia habentem, Con∣ciliorum indicendorum, transferendorum ac dissolvendorum plenum jus & potesta∣tem habere— manifestè constet. Con. La∣ter. Sess. 11. (p. 152) Ann.

  —Cui jussione Domini, & meritis B. Petri Apostoli, singularis congregandarum Synodorum authoritas, & Sanctorum Ca∣nonum ac Venerandorum Patrum decretis multipliciter privata tradita est potestas. P. Hadrian. I. apud Bin. Tom. 5. p. 565. (Ann. 785.)

  Cùm generalium Synodorum convocandi auctoritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri singu∣lari privilegio sit tradita— P. Pelag. II. Epist. 8. (Bin. Tom. 4. p. 476.) Ann. 587. qu. an haec Epistola sit Pelagii II?

  Negat Launoius.
• * 1.899

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 5. prooem.
• * 1.900

  Semper studium fuit Orthodoxis, & piis Imperatoribus, pro tempore exortas Haereses per congregationem religiosissimo∣rum Episcoporum amputare, & recta fide sincerè praedicata in pace Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam custodire— Justin. in Syn. 5. Collat. 1. (p. 209.) Graecé. p. 368. magìs Emphaticé.
• * 1.901

  Doce—quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari. Hier.
• * 1.902

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. de Vit. Const. I. 44.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. Hist. 10.5. Epist. ad Chrestum. Ad Arelatensium ci∣vitatem piissimi Imperatoris voluntate ad∣ducti, say the Fathers, in their Epistle to P. Sylvester himself.

  Vid. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 4. cap. 41, 42, 43. & Socr. 1.28.
• * 1.903

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodor. 2.4· Soz. 3.11. Socr. 2.16, 20. Athan. Tom. 1. p. 761. Hil. in fragm. p. Jubet ex toto orbe apud Sardicam Episcopos congregari. Sulp. 2.52.
• † 1.904

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Syn. Arim. Epist. ad Const. Socr. 2.37.
• ‖ 1.905

  Socr. 2.39. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ann. 381.
• * 1.906

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.99. Soz. 4.6.
• † 1.907

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 1.36. Soz. 4.9.
• * 1.908

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 4.7.
• * 1.909

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 7.7. Socr. 5.8.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 5.7.
• * 1.910

  Repugnante Damaso celebrata, &c. Baron. Ann. 553. § 224.
• * 1.911

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 7.34. Evagr. 1.3.
• * 1.912

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.913

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Eph. Act. 1. p. 291.

  The holy Synod assembled by the grace of God, according to the Decree of our most Religious Empe∣rours, &c.

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 297.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Act. 5. p. 347.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 404.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  Which Synod our most Christian and gracious Emperours appointed, saith Philip, the Pope's Legate. Act. 3. p. 330.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—

  To the holy Synod assembled by the grace of God, and the command of our Emperours, &c. So do Cyril and Memnon inscribe in their Epistle. Act. 4. p. 337.
• * 1.914

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. pars 1. p. 53.

  Episcopale concilium, quod haberi apud Ephesum praecepistis. P. Leo. I. Ep. 2••. (& 24.) ad Theod.
• * 1.915

  Ann. 451.
• * 1.916

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (Act. 6. p. 345.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 6.346.
• * 1.917

  Ann. 533.
• * 1.918

  Act. p. 368. Gr. p. 309. Lat.
• * 1.919

  Pro Dei voluntate, & jussione piissimi Imperatoris ad hanc vrbem convenimus Collat. 8.

  Vt quae resistente Romano Pontifice fuerit congregata. Baron. Ann. 553. § 219.
• * 1.920

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 18. p. 255. & p. 285. (in Epist. ad P. Agath.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 18. p. 256. in de∣finitione Synodica.
• * 1.921

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— P. Leo. II. in Epist. ad Constant. Imp. p. 305.
• ‖ 1.922

  P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 247. P. Nich. I. Ep. 7, 8, 10. P. Hadrian. II. Ep. 26.
• * 1.923

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 7. p. 831. Act. 1. p. 519. Act. 2. p. 551. Act. 3. p. 586. Act. 4. p. 609. Act. 5. p. 696. Act. 6. p. 722. Act. 7. p. 812. Defin. Synod. Act. 7. p. 817.
• * 1.924

  Euseb. de Vit. Const. 4.42. (Vid. in 5. p. 30.)
• * 1.925

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Jun. Ep. ad Cyril. Conc. Eph. par•• 1. p. 226
• * 1.926

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodos. in Ep. ad Diosc. in Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 53.
• * 1.927

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Epist. ad Episc. Syn. Chal. pars 1. p. 34.
• * 1.928

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evagr. 1.3.
• * 1.929

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 2.16.
• * 1.930

  Multi ex Italia Episcopi convenerunt, qui mecum religiosissimum Imperatorem fuerant deprecati, ut juberet, sicut ipsi placuerat, dudum concilium Aquileiense congregari. Baron. Ann. 353. § 19.
• * 1.931

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 5.9.
• * 1.932

  Bell. de Pont. R. 2.13.
• * 1.933

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 8.28.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.934

  Humiliter ac sapienter exposcite, ut pe∣titioni nostrae, quâ plenariam indici Sy∣nodum postulamus, clementissimus Impe∣rator dignetur annuere, (saith Pope Leo, to the Clergy and People of Constanti∣nople. Ep. 23)

  Vnde si pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere, ut intra Italiam haberi jubeatis Episcopale Concilium, citò auxiliante Deo poterunt omnia scandala resecari. P. Leo I. Ep. 9.
• * 1.935

  Omnes partium Ecclesiae nostrarum, omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus & lacrymis supplicant sacerdotes, ut gene∣ralem Synodum jubeatis intra Italiam ce∣lebrari. P. Leo. I. Ep. 42.
• * 1.936

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Leont. de Sect. Act. 4.
• * 1.937

  Sanctum clementiae vestrae studium, quo ad reparationem pacis Ecclesiasticae Synodum habere voluistis, adeò libenter ac∣cepi, ut quamvis eam fieri intra Italiam poposcissem, &c. Leo. Ep. 50.

  Poposceram quidem à gloriosissima cle∣mentia vestra, ut Synodum, quam pro re∣paranda Orientalis Ecclesiae pace à nobis etiam petitam necessariam judicâstis, ali∣quantisper differri ad tempus opportunius juberetis.— P. Leo. Ep. 43.44.50.

  Sed eo defuncto, cùm Martianus Imperii culmen fuisset adeptus, pro illa Papae & Principum Romanorum pe∣titione Vniversale Concilium in Nicea congregari jussit. Lib. Brev. cap. 13.
• * 1.938

  Fortissimus Leo. Liber. cap. 12.
• * 1.939

  — in causa fidei, propter quam Gene∣rale Concilium & ex praecepto Christia∣norum Principum, & ex consensu Aposto∣licae Sedis placuit congregari. Ep. 61.
• * 1.940

  1 Tim. 2.2▪
• * 1.941

  Isa. 49.23. Sap. 6.4. Rom. 13.3.
• * 1.942

  2 Chron. 34.29, &c.
• * 1.943

  2 Chron. 29.4, 15, 20, 21, &c. Vers. 11.
• * 1.944

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 7.42.
• * 1.945

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 5.8.
• * 1.946

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 7.11.

  Both they and Gratian the Emperour wrote, calling the Eastern Bishops into the West.
• * 1.947

  Philip of France. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 906. (Ann. 1302.)
• * 1.948

  Decretum est—non licere—exire Reg∣num absque licentia Regis. Conc. Clarend. vid. Matt. Par. Ann. 1164.
• * 1.949

  Syn. Sext. Act. 18. p. 272.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—
• * 1.950

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Anteac∣ta Syn. Nic. II. p. 518.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Syn. 7. Act. 6. p. 725.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. 8. Act. 1. p. 930.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 5. p. 945.
• * 1.951

  Sess. 39. (p. 1109.)
• * 1.952

  Catholici omnes id munus proprium esse docent summi Pontificis, ut per se, vel per Legatos praesideat, & tanquam su∣premus judex omnia moderetur. Bell. de Conc. 1.19.
• * 1.953

  Act. 15.
• * 1.954

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. 3.13.
• * 1.955

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Athan. Apol. 2. p. 761.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Athan. ad Solit. p. 819.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. — Soz. 12.13.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 2.15.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Syn. Chalc. ad Imp. Marc. p. 468.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. apud Athan. p. 767.
• * 1.956

  Baron. Ann. 553. § 224. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 7.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Chalc. in Epist. ad Imp. Marc. (pag. 469.)
• * 1.957

  Prioris Ephe∣sinae Synodi, cui sanctae memoriae. Cy∣rillus Episco∣pus tunc praesedit. P. Leo. I. Ep. 47. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Relat. Act. Eph. cap. 60.
• * 1.958

  Digress.
• * 1.959

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Celest. ad Cyril. Relat. cap. 16.

  N. Yet the Fathers in their Epistle to Pope Celestine do onely take notice of Arcadius, Projectus, and Philippus supplying his place. Act. p. 353.
• * 1.960

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evag. 1.4.
• * 1.961

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Zon. in Syn. Eph. Can. 1.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.962

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Chalc. Act. 4. p. 302.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cler. Const. in Syn. Eph. p. 418. Cui praefuit Cyrillus. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 173.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. desin. in Act. 5. p. 338. & Act. 4. p. 300.

  The Bishops of Isauria to the Emperour Leo say, that Cyril was partaker with Pope Celestine, &c. Dum B. Celestino incolumis Ecclesiae Romanorum particeps—Part. 3. Syn. Chalc. p. 522.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eph. Act. 4. p. 338. (p. 420. & 422.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 5. p. 347.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Relat. Syn. p. 406. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Relat. p. 411.
• * 1.963

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Relat. ad. Imp. p. 422. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Act. 2. p. 322. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 4. p. 340.
• * 1.964

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Relat. ad Imper. Act. Eph. p. 380.
• * 1.965

  The Bishops of Syria being then the most learned in the World; as John of Antioch doth imply. p. 377.
• * 1.966

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. 6. p. 285.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 297.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. justin. Cod. Tit. 1.
• * 1.967

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evag. 1.10.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 59.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chal. Act. 1. p. 160.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evag. 1.10.

  — Si is qui sibi locum principalem vin∣dicabat, Sacerdotalem moderationem custo∣dire voluisset — Leo I. Ep. 25, 26, &c.
• * 1.968

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 80.
• * 1.969

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ep. ad Diosc. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 59.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ep. 60.
• * 1.970

  Ecclesiae Romanae Diaconi, vice•• ha∣bentes P. Leonis assidere non passi sunt, eò quòd non data fuerit praesessio sanctae Sedi eorum. Liber cap. 12.
• * 1.971

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 62.
• * 1.972

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 65.
• * 1.973

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Ibid. p. 77.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. 2. p. 202. & Act. 4. p. 288. (Evag. 2.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Ibid. p. 70.

  Siquidem penè omnes, qui in consensum Praesidentium aut traducti fuerant, aut coacti. Leo. Ep. 51.

  Ibi Primates Synodi nec resistenti∣bus, &c. P. Leo. I. Ep.
• * 1.974

  In his fratribus—me Synodo vestrae fra∣teunitas existimet praesidere. P. Leo. I. E. 47.
• * 1.975

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Epist. ad Leon. p. 473.
• * 1.976

  Act. 1. p. 50. & p. 202. Act. 2. p. 211.
• * 1.977

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 1. p. 50.
• * 1.978

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 1. p. 219.
• * 1.979

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 4. p. 289.
• * 1.980

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 13. p. 420.
• * 1.981

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 12. p. 409.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ibid. p. 414.
• * 1.982

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 1. p. 55.
• * 1.983

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chal. ad Leon. Ep. p. 475.
• * 1.984

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 16. p. 464.
• * 1.985

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Act. 4. p. 315.
• * 1.986

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 16. p. 451.
• * 1.987

  Act. 5. Act. 7. Act. 8. p. 366. Act. 9. Act. 11. Act. 13.14.
• † 1.988

  Act. 3. (p. 230.)
• * 1.989

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Relat. Syn. ad Leon. 473.
• * 1.990

  Ideò petimus Praesident•• nobis vestrâ beatitudine, sub tranquillitate, & man∣suetudine Sacerdotali, sanctis propositis E∣vangeliis, communi tracta••••, &c. Coll. 1. p. 212. (& in Consti••. Vigil.)
• * 1.991

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.992

  Dominus Rom. Rex indutus vestibus Regalibus recessi•• de Sede sua solita, & transivit ad aliam Sedem positam in fronte Altaris, tanquam Praesidens pro tunc in Concilio. Syn. Const. Sess. 14. (p. 1044.)
• * 1.993

  Quaero tamen ab his, judicium quod praetendunt, ubinam possit agitari, an apud ipsos, ut iidem sint inimici, & te∣stes, & judices? Sed tali judicio nec hu∣mana debent committi negotia, nedum di∣vinae legis integritas. P. Gel. Ep. 4.
• * 1.994

  Nic. II. Lugd. Lat. IV. & V.
• * 1.995

  Decretalia autem, quae à sanctis Pon∣tificibus primae Sedis Romanae Ecclesiae sunt instituta, cujus auctoritate atque sanctione omnes Synodi, & sancta Concilia roborantur, & stabilitatem sumunt, cur vos non habere, vel observare dicitis? Papa Nic. I. Ep. 6. (ad Photium.)
• * 1.996

  Denique ut in universalibus Conciliis quid ratum vel quid prorsus acceptum, nisi quod Sedes B. Petri probavit (ut ipsi scitis) habetur; sicut è contrario quod ipsa sola reprobavit, hoc solummodo consistat hactenus reprobatum. P. Nich. I. Ep. 7.
• * 1.997

  —Nulla unquam Synodus rata legatur, quae Apostolicâ auctoritate non fuerit ful∣ta. P. Pelag. II. Ep. 8. (Dist. 17.)

  Confidimus quòd nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum, quod universalis Ecclesiae pro∣bavit assensus, non aliquam magìs exequi Sedem prae caeteris oportere, quàm primam; quae & unamquamque Synodum sua aucto∣ritate confirmat, & continuatâ modera∣tione custodit, pro suo scilicet principa∣tu, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.) vid. p. 647. tract. de Anath.

  God hath promised to bless particular Synods, Matt. 18.19.
• * 1.998

  Persuasioni tuae in nullo penitus suffra∣gatur, quorundam Episcoporum ante 60, ut jactas, annos, nunquámque à praedeces∣soribus tuis ad Apostolicae Sedis transmissa notitiam. — Leo. Epist. 53. (ad Anat.) Conc. Constant. Can. 3.

  Concil. Chalc. Can. 9, 17, 28. Syn. Trull. Can. 36.
• * 1.999

  Romana autem Ecclesia ••osdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet, nec accipit; in hoc autem eandem Synodum accepit quod est per eam contra Macedo∣nium definitum P. Greg. M. Ep. 6.31.
• * 1.1000

  The same Pope Leo I. doth affirm. Ep. 53.

  —ejus civitatis quae non solùm inter Sedes numeratur, sed nec inter Metropoli∣tanorum jura censetur, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.)
• * 1.1001

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (in fine Acto∣rum. p. 464.) Inde enim fra∣tres nostri, ab Apostolica Se∣de directi, qui vice meâ Synodo praesidebant, probabiliter atque constanter illicitis ausibus obstiterunt, apertè reclamantes, &c. Leo. I. Ep. 53, 54.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (Act. 16. p. 469. against P. Leo's assertion, that the consent was extorted.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say the Fathers to Pope Leo p. 475.) By a Synodical vote we have confirm'd this ancient custom.
• * 1.1002

  Ep. 53, 54, 55, 61, 62.
• * 1.1003

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. (p. 462.) supra.
• * 1.1004

  Eum (Theodo∣rum) nostrâ non audemus damnare sen∣tentiâ, sed nec ab alto quopi∣am condemna∣ri concedimus. Vig. Const. p. 186.

  Stat••imus at∣que decernimus nihil in in∣juriam atque obtrectatio∣nem probatis∣simi in Chal∣cedonensi Sy∣nodo viri, ho•• est Theodoreti Episcopi Cyri, sub taxatione nominis ejus à quoquam fieri vel proferri. Ibid.

  Idémque regulariter Apostolicae Sedis desiniunt constituta, nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judica∣re personis; sed in hoc relinqui, in quo unumquemque supremus dies invenit.—

  Hac praesentis Constitutionis dispositione quàm maximè providemus, nè (sicut suprà diximus) personis, quae in pace & communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt, sub hac damnati à nobis perversi dogmatis occasione aliquid derogetur. Ibid.
• * 1.1005

  Quoniam au∣tem post haec omnia impie∣tatis illius de∣fensoris inju∣riis contra creatorem su∣um dictis glo∣riantes dice∣bant non opor∣tere eum post mortem anathematizare— qui haec dicunt nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt, nec Apostolicarum pronunci∣ationum, nec paternarum traditionum. Coll. 8. p. 289.

  Condemnamus autem & anathematizamus unà cum omnibus aliis haereticis & Theodorum. Coll. 8. p. 291.

  Quod dicitur à quibusdam quòd in communicatione & pace, defunctus est Theodorus, mendacium est, & calumnia magìs adversus Ecclesiam. Coll. 5. p. 250.

  Si quis conatus fuerit contra haec quae piè disposuimus, vel tradere, vel docere vel scribere, siquidem Epis∣copus vel Clericus sit iste tanquam aliena à Sacerdotibus & statu Ecclesiastico faciens, denudabitur Episco∣patu vel Clericatu: si autem Monachus vel Laicus sit, anathematizabitur. Coll. 8. (p. 293.)
• * 1.1006

  Si quis defendit—& non anathematizat eum—anathema sit. Ibid.
• * 1.1007

  —contra ip∣sius (Pontificis Rom.) decreta ab ea (Synodo) pariter sen∣tentia dicta. Baron. Ann. 553. § 219. Non consentientes depositi in exilium missi sunt. Lib. cap. 24.
• * 1.1008

  Ba∣ron. Ann. 553. § 223.
• * 1.1009

  Greg. Ep. 1.24. Quintam quoque Sy∣nodum pariter veneror, &c. 1.24.

  Pelag. II. Ep. —

  Agatho. Syn. 6. Act. 4.

  Leo. Syn. 6. Act. 18.

  Hadrian. ad Nectar.
• * 1.1010

  Hîc siste, Lector, atque rem attentè con∣sidera; non esse hoc novum, ut aliqua Syno∣dus, cui nec per Legatos ipse Pontifex in∣terfuerit, sed adversatus fuerit, titulum tamen obtinuerit Oecumenicae; cùm postea ut hujusmodi titulum obtineret, Romani Pontificis voluntas accessit, Baron. Ann. 553. § 224.
• * 1.1011

  Si ad numeros omnes, &c. Plenè consenties ipsam non Oecumenicae tantùm, sed nec privatae Synodi mereri nomen. Id. Ann. 553. § 219.
• * 1.1012

  Can. 2, 7, 13, 36, 55, 58, 67.
• * 1.1013

  — in quibus diversa capitula Romanae Ecclesiae contraria scripta inerant.

  Anast. in Vit. Joh. VII.
• * 1.1014

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Nic. II. Act. 4. (631.)
• * 1.1015

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.1016

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 3. p. 592.
• * 1.1017

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. ib. (p. 363.)
• * 1.1018

  Act. 6. p. 732. (Dist. 16. cap. 5, &c.)
• * 1.1019

  Sed hic humana fragilitate timidus hos nequaquam tomos emendans per suprafatos Metropolitas direxit ad Principem. Anast. in Vit. Joh. VII.
• * 1.1020

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Theod. 5.9.
• * 1.1021

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. ad P. Leon. I. p. 476.
• * 1.1022

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Leo. II. Ep. (p. 306.)
• * 1.1023

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—de Vit. Const. 3.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. 3.19.
• * 1.1024

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Sard. Epist. apud Athan. in Apol. 2. p. 766.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 4.11.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 4.1.
• * 1.1025

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 4.12.
• * 1.1026

  —quoniam nec firmum decretum potest esse, quod non plurimorum videbitur ha∣bere consensum. Cler. Rom. apud Cyp. Ep. 31.
• * 1.1027

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. ad Leon. p. 476.
• * 1.1028

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.— Epist. Syn. Chalc. ad Leon. p. 475.
• * 1.1029

  Socr. 2.20. & Vales. Ann. ibid.
• * 1.1030

  Sententi•••• fratrum omnei sequimur, om∣nes confirmamus, omnes observandas esse decernimus. Conc. Rom. P. Hil. p. 579.
• * 1.1031

  His itaque om∣nibus per di∣versa tempora subsecutis, prae∣dicti piae re∣cordationis no∣stri Patres ea quae in uno∣quoque Concilio judicata sunt, legibus suis corroboraverunt, & confirmaverunt; & haereticos qui definitionibus praedictorum S. quatuor Conciliorum resistere, & Ecclesias conturbare conati sunt, expulerunt. Justin. in Conc. V. Coll. 1. (p. 210.)
• * 1.1032

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. apud. Theodor. 2.4.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.23.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. ibid. 3.20.
• * 1.1033

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 7.9.
• * 1.1034

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Praef. ad Can. Conc. Constant. (apud Bin. p. 660.)
• * 1.1035

  Sed praedictus piae recordationis Theodo∣sius vindicans ea, quae ità rectè contra Nestorium, & ejus impietatem fuerant judicata, fecit firmiter obtinere contra eum factam condemnationem. Justin. in Quinto Conc. Coll. 1.
• * 1.1036

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. Theod. ad Syn. Eph. in Actis Conc. p. 375.
• * 1.1037

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chal. Act. 1. p. 59.
• * 1.1038

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Chal. Part. 3.478.
• * 1.1039

  Quia verò omnibus modis obediendum est pietati vestrae, religiosissimaeque volun∣tati, Constitutionibus Synodalibus, quae mihi de confirmatione fidei Catholicae & haereticorum damnatione placuerunt, li∣bens adjeci sententiam meam. P. Leo. I. Ep. 59. (ad Mart. Aug.)
• * 1.1040

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. VI. Act. 18. p. 275.
• * 1.1041

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 283.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 284.
• * 1.1042

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sancimus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ibid. Edict. Const. p. 294.
• * 1.1043

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ibid. p. 298. & p. 302.
• * 1.1044

  Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non solùm ad mundi Regi∣men, sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam, &c. Leo M. Ep. 75.
• * 1.1045

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rel. Orient. ad Imp. Act. Syn. Eph. p. 372.
• * 1.1046

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 6.23.
• * 1.1047

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.— Theod. 2.22.
• * 1.1048

  P. Liberius being absent, detained from it by violence in banishment.
• * 1.1049

  Consensiones verò Episcoporum, Sancto∣rum Canonum apud Niciam conditorum regulis repugnantes, unitâ nobiscum ve∣strae fidei pietate, in irritum mittimus, & per authoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli ge∣nerali prorsus definitione cassamus. P. Leo. I. Ep. 55. (ad Pulcher. Aug.)
• * 1.1050

  Quantumlibet enim extortis assentatio∣nibus sese instruat vanitatis elatio, & ap∣petitus suos Conciliorum aestimet nomine roborandos, infirmum atque irritum erit, quicquid à praedictorum Patrum Canoni∣bus discrepârit. Ep. 61. (ad Syn. Chal∣ced.)
• * 1.1051

  Tanta apud me est Nicenorum Cano∣num reverentia, ut ea quae sunt à Sanctis Patribus constituta nec permiserim nec patiar aliquâ novitate violari. Leo. Ep. 62. (ad Max. Antioch.)
• * 1.1052

  P. Gelas. Ep. 13. (ad Episc. Dard.) p. 642. & in Tract. de Anathem. (pag. 647.)

  P. Pelag. II. Ep. 5. (ad Eliam. p. 474—.)

  Greg. M. Ep.
• * 1.1053

  Nulli fas est vel velle vel posse transgre∣di Apostolicae Sedis praecepta. P. Greg. IV. Dist. 19. c. 5.
• * 1.1054

  —Quanto potiùs quae ipsa (sedes Apo∣stolica) pro Catholica fide, profanis (l. pro sanis) dogmatibus, pro variis & multifa∣riis Ecclesiae necessitatibus & fidelium mo∣ribus diverso tempore scripsit, omni debent honore praeferri, & ab omnibus prorsus in quibuslibet opportunitatibus discretione vel dispensatione magistrâ reverenter as∣sumi? P. Nic. I. Epist. Dist. 19. c. 1.
• * 1.1055

  Decretales Epistolas, quas beatissimi Papae diversis temporibus ab urbe Roma pro diversorum Patrum consultatione de∣derunt, venerabiliter suscipiendas decer∣nimus. P. Gelas. I. (in decreto) lit. a Nic. P. Ep. 42. ad Epist. Galliae. Dist. 19. c. 1.
• * 1.1056

  Si decreta Romanorum Pontificum non habetis, de neglectu atque incuria est is arguendi; si verò habetis & non observa∣tis, de temeritate estis corripiendi & in∣crepandi. P. Nic. I. Ep. 6. ad Phot. Dist. 20. cap. 2.

  Sic omnes Apostolicae Sedis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam ipsius Divini Petri voce firmatae sunt. P. Agatho. Dist. 19. c. 2. Vid. Syn. VI. Act. 4. p. 35.

  Quia in speculum, & exemplum S. Ro∣mana Ecclesia, cui nos Christus praeesse vo∣luit, proposita est, ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, perpetuo & ir∣refragabiliter observandum est. P. Steph. (Dist. 19. cap. 3.) P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. de dispens. (p. 633.)

  Qui secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare. P. Inn. III. Decret. Greg. Lib. 3. tit. 8. c. 4.

  Sedes haec —quod singulari etiam au∣ctoritate perficere valet, multorum saepe sacerdotum decernit definire consensu. P. Nic. I. Ep. 18. (ad Carolum R.)

  Leo. I. Ep. 1. cap. 5. P. Hilarius in Conc. Rom. p. 578. Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 4. P. Urb. Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 6. P. Anas. ad Imp. Anast. P. Siric. Ep. 1. (p. 691.)
• * 1.1057

  Eph. 4.5. Jam. 4.12.
• * 1.1058

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Constan∣tinop. Can. 2.
• * 1.1059

  Neque enim quisquam nostrûm Episco∣pum se esse Episcoporum constituit, du•• ty∣rannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omn•• Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & pote∣statis suae arbitrium proprium; támque judicari ab alio non possit, quàm nec ipse potest alterum judicare. Cypr. in Conc. Carthag.
• * 1.1060

  Quoniam nec firmum Decretum potest esse, quòd non plurimorum videbitur ha∣buisse consensum. Cler. Rom. ad Cypr. (Epist. 31.)
• * 1.1061

  Idem enim omnes credimur operati, in quo deprehendimur eâdem omnes censurae & disciplinae consensione sociati. Cler. Rom. ad. Cypr. Ep. 31.
• * 1.1062

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1063

  Illo certè constituto, quòd in Conciliū non unius vel secundi interlocutionem at∣tendere oportet, sed haec quae communiter ab omnibus vel amplioribus definiuntur. Concil. 5. Collat. 6. p. 263.
• * 1.1064

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. VI. Syn. Act. 16. p. 249.
• * 1.1065

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Nic. Can. 6.
• * 1.1066

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apost. Can. 34.
• * 1.1067

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Ant. Can. 19.
• * 1.1068

  — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Nic. Can. 6.
• * 1.1069

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 2.16.
• * 1.1070

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.15.
• * 1.1071

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— P. Julii Epist. apud A∣thanas. in Apol. 2. p. 748.
• * 1.1072

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. p. 748.
• * 1.1073

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Epist. ad P. Celest. I.
• * 1.1074

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. Haer. 42.
• * 1.1075

  It was then a Maxime be∣coming the mouth of a Pope, Vni∣versae pacis tranquillitas non aliter poterit custodiri, nisi sua Canonibus reverentia intemerata servetur. P. Leo I. Ep. 62.

  The tranquillity of an universal peace cannot otherwise be kept, unless due reverence be paid to the Ca∣nons.
• * 1.1076

  P. Hil. Ep. 2. N. B. P. Innoc. I. Ep. 2.12. P. Hil. Ep. 4. P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 9. p. 634. Ep. 13. p. 639. De Anathem. p. 645.
• * 1.1077

  P. Zos. I. Ep. 7. (ad Episc. Vienn. & Narb.)

  Caus. 25. Qu. 1. cap. 7.
• * 1.1078

  P. Siric. Ep. 1.
• * 1.1079

  Leo M. Ep. 1. cap. 5. P. Ge∣las. Ep. 9.
• * 1.1080

  P. Siric. Ep. 4.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Eph. p. 332.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. VI. Act. 4. p. 60.

  N. The Pope did in those Councils ask the Placets. P. Hil. in Conc. R. (p. 578.)
• * 1.1081

  Licèt namque Pontifex Romanae Eccle∣siae ob dignitatem Apostolicae Sedis caeteris in orbe constitutis reverentior habeatur, non tamen ei licet transgredi in aliquo Canonici moderaminis tenorem; sicut enim unusquisque Orthodoxae Ecclesiae Pontifex ac Sponsus propriae Sedis uniformiter speci∣em gerit Salvatoris, ità generaliter nulli convenit quippiam in alterius procaciter patrare Episcopi Dioecesi. Glab. Rod. 2.4. Vid. Baron. Ann. 996. § 22, 23.
• * 1.1082

  Circa Ann. 860.
• * 1.1083

  Noli quia Decreta ipsorum non suscepe∣ris ampliùs asseverare, cùm ipsi nihil nisi quod Naturalis, quod Mosaica, necnon & Gratiae Lex jussit, instituant. P. Nic. I. Ep. 11. (ad Phot.)
• * 1.1084

  Decretalia autem, quae à Sanctis Pon∣tificibus Primae Sedis Romanae Ecclesiae sunt instituta, — cur vos non habere vel observare dicitis? Id. Ep. 6. (ad Phot.)
• * 1.1085

  Vidi Hin••m.
• * 1.1086

  Quanquam quidam ve∣strum scripse∣rint haud illa decretalia priscorum Pontificum in toto codicis Canonum corpore contineri descripta, &c. P. Nic. I. Ep. 42. (ad Galliae Episc.)
• * 1.1087

  Haec—Domino Imperatori praesentan∣da decrevimus, poscentes ejus clementiam ut siquid hic minus est, ejus prudentià sup∣pleatur, si quid secus quàm se ratio habet, ejus judicio emendetur; si quid rationa∣biliter taxatum est, ejus adjutorio divinâ opitulante clementiâ perficiatur. Conc. A∣rel. 4. c. 26. Ann. 813. (sub Carolo M.)
• * 1.1088

  P. Greg. I. Ep. 11.56.
• * 1.1089

  Episcop•• Walliae à Menevensi Antistite sunt consecrati, & ipse similiter ab aliis tanquam saffragane is est constitutus, nullâ penitus alii Ecclesiae facta professione vel subjectione. Girald. Cambr. Itin. 2.1.
• * 1.1090

  Bell. 2.18, 26.
• * 1.1091

  Per hoc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare— P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 4.

  Cunctos ipsè judicaturus à nemine est judicandus. Dist. 40. cap. 6.

  Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 45, &c.

  Sacra statuta & veneranda decreta Episcoporum causas, utpote majora negotia nostrae definiendas censurae mandârunt. P. Nic. I. Ep. 38.
• * 1.1092

  1 Pet. 5.
• * 1.1093

  Chrys. in 1 Tim. 3.1. in Eph. Orat. 11. Hier. Ep. 3. & Ep. 62. Isid. Pelus. Ep. 20.125.4.219.
• * 1.1094

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 7.7.
• * 1.1095

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 7.11.
• * 1.1096

  1 Cor. 5.4, 12. — 2 Cor. 2.6. —

  Examinabuntur singulae praesentibus, & judicantibus vobis. Cypr. Ep. 12. (fra∣tribus in plebe.)

  Secundùm vestra divina suffragia. Cypr. Ep. 40.

  Secundùm arbitrium quoque vestrum.

  Ibid. (Ep. 46.)

  Tertul. Apol. 39. ibidem—
• * 1.1097

  Expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus ha∣bet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ec∣clesiam suam gubernatione & de actu no∣stro judicandi. Cypr. in Conc. Carth.
• * 1.1098

  Can. 5.
• * 1.1099

  In venerabilis Concilii Nice∣ni contumelia saepe versatus, alienarum tibi Provinciarum jura temerariè rapuisti. P. Felix Acacio. apud Baron. Ann. 484. § 17.
• * 1.1100

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Ant. Ca. 16.
• * 1.1101

  Quod non so∣lùm praesuli Apostolico fa∣cere licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quoslibet & quemlibet locum, secundum regulam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Catho∣lica communione discernant. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4.
• * 1.1102

  Euphemium verò miror, si ignorantiam suam ipse non perspicit, qui dicit Acaci∣um ab uno non posse damnari — P. Ge∣las. I. Ep. 4.

  Nobis opponunt Canones — Ib.
• * 1.1103

  Quod non solùm praesuli Apostolico fa∣cere licet, &c. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4. (supr. in arg. 6.) Vid. Epist. 13.
• * 1.1104

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Eph. Act. 4. (p. 340.)
• * 1.1105

  Justin. Nov. 123. cap. 3. Jubemus Episc. Rom.
• * 1.1106

  — ut piissimus Dominus Mauritius ipsum illud negotium judicare dignaretur. Greg. Ep. 4.32.
• * 1.1107

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Act. S••n. Chalc. p. 25.
• * 1.1108

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Ibid. p. 28.
• * 1.1109

  Upon a Sove∣reign all Infe∣riour Magi∣strates depend.
• * 1.1110

  Bell. 4.24.
• * 1.1111

  Licèt Ecclesiarum, Personatuum, Dig∣nitatum, aliorúmque Beneficiorum Eccle∣siasticorum plenaria dispositio ad Roma∣num noscatur Pontificem pertinere, &c. Clem. IV. in Sexto. lib. 3. tit. 4. cap. 2. Vid. ib. c. 4.10.12.20.
• * 1.1112

  Ib. c. 14, &c.

  Although the plenary disposal of all Churches, Parsonages, Dignities and other Ecclesiastical Benefices be known to belong to the Pope of Rome, &c.
• * 1.1113

  Act. 1.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. V. 20.

  Vers. 15.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vers. 23.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vers. 24.
• * 1.1114

  Act. 6.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vers. 5.
• * 1.1115

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tit. 2.5.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 12.10.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. 3.23.
• * 1.1116

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem.

  Epist. p. 57.
• * 1.1117

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Tim. 3.10.

  Praesident probati quique seniores, ho∣norem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti. Tertull. Apol. 39.

  Plenâ diligentiâ, exploratione sincerâ. Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.1118

  Primùm Presbyteri Episcopi appella∣bantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succe∣deret, &c. Vid. Dist. 66. cap. 2.

  At first Presbyters were called Bishops that one departing the next might suc∣ceed him.
• * 1.1119

  In Eph. 4.11.
• * 1.1120

  Propter quod diligenter de traditione divina & Apostolica observatione obser∣vandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque & ferè per Provincias universas tenetur; ut ad ordinationes ritè celebran∣d••s, ad eam plebem cui praepositus ordi∣natur, Episcopi ejusdem proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente, quae singillòrum vitam plenissimè novit, & uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit; quod & apud vos factum videmus in Sa••ini Collegae nostri ordinatione, ut de universae frater∣nitatis suffragio, & de Episcoporum, qui in praesentia convenerant, quíque de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio Episcopatus ei deferetur. Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.1121

  Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis & Deum metuens à peccatore praeposito sepa∣rare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdo∣tis sacrificia miscere; quando ipsa maxi∣mè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi; quod & ipsum videmus de divina auctoritate descendere; ut Sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque idonens publico judicio ac testimonio com∣probetur— Cypr. Ep.
• * 1.1122

  Suffragio totius populi Cyprianus eligi∣tur. Optat. 1.

  Caeterùm quando Episcopus in locum de∣functi substituitur, quando populi uni∣versi suffragio in pace deligitur — Cui si secundum magisteria divina obtemperaret fraternitas universa, nemo adversum Sa∣cerdotum Collegium quidquam moveret; nemo post divinum judicium, post populi suffragium, post coepiscorum consensum, judicem se jam non Episcopi sed Dei face∣ret—Cypr. Ep. 55.
• * 1.1123

  Factus est autem Cornelius Episcopus de Dei, & Christi ejus judicio, de Cleri∣corum penè omnium testimonio, de plebis, quae tunc affuit, suffragio, & de Sacerdo∣tum antiquorum & bonorum virorum Col∣legio — Cypr. Ep. 52.

  Cornelio in Catholica Ecclesia de Dei judicio, & Cleri ac plebis suffragio ordi∣nato— Cypr. Ep. 67.
• * 1.1124

  Episcopo semel facto, & Collegarum ac plebis testimonio & judicio combrobato— Ep. 41. (ad Cornel.)
• * 1.1125

  Const. Apost. 8.4.

  Postquam haec erit precatus, &c.
• * 1.1126

  Vbi aliquos voluisset vel rectores Pro∣vinciis dare, vel praepositos facere, vel procuratores id est rationales ordinare, nomina eorum proponebat, hortans popu∣lum, ut siquid haberet criminis, probaret manifestis rebus; si non probâsset, subiret poenam capitis; dicebatque grave esse, quum id Christiani & Judaei facerent in praedicandis Sacerdotibus qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in Provinciarum Rectori∣bus, quibus & fortunae hominum commit∣terentur & capita. Lamprid. in Alex. Sev. cap. 45.
• * 1.1127

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Con∣stantinop. Theod. 5.9.
• * 1.1128

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Conc. Nic. Can. 4.
• * 1.1129

  Vid. Can. Apost. 1. Conc. Antioch. Can. 19. Conc. Laod. Can. 12. — Conc. Afr. Can. 13.
• * 1.1130

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 1.9. The∣od. 1.9.
• * 1.1131

  Theod. 5.9.
• * 1.1132

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1133

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1134

  Ath. Apol. 2. p. 726.
• * 1.1135

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ath. ibid. p. 749.
• * 1.1136

  Orat. 19. p. 310. Epist. 21.
• * 1.1137

  Scio post obitus Episcoporum per ambi∣tiosos aut contentiosos solere Ecclesias per∣turbari—Aug. Ep. 110.
• * 1.1138

  Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.59, 60. Socr. 1.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Sozom. 6.23. Marcell. lib. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Socr. 1.24. Soz. 3.4. Theod. 4.6.
• * 1.1139

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. p. 404.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.1140

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 16. p. 462.
• * 1.1141

  In ordinandis verò Sacerdotibus & Cle∣ricis consensum majorem Christianorum, & consuetudinem Ecclesiae sequendam esse arbitrabatur. Posid. in Aug. Vit. cap. 20.

  Nullus invitis detur Episcopus; Cleri, plebis, & ordinis consensum ac desiderium requiratur— Celest. I. Ep. 2.
• * 1.1142

  Cùm ergò de summi Sacerdotis electione tractabitur, ille omnibus praeponatur, quem Cleri plebísque consensus concorditer postu∣lârint; ità ut si in aliam fortè personam partium se vota deviserint, Metropolitani judicio is alteri praeferatur, qui majori∣bus & studiis juvatur & meritis, tan∣tùm ut nullus invitis, & non petentibus ordinetur; nè Civitas Episcopum non op∣tatum aut contemnat aut oderit, & fiat minùs religiosa quàm convenit, cui non licuit habere quem voluit. P. Leo I. Ep. 84. ad Anastas.
• * 1.1143

  Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter Episcopos ha∣beantur, qui nec à Clericis sunt electi, nec à plebibus expetiti, nec à Provincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio con∣secrati. P. Leo I. Ep. 92.
• * 1.1144

  Expectarentur certè vota Civium, testi∣monia populorum, quaereretur honoratorum arbitrium, electio Clericorum, quae in Sa∣cerdotum solent ordinationibus ab his qui nôrunt Patrum regulas custodiri. P. Leo Ep. 89. Dist. 63. cap. 27.
• * 1.1145

  Quum per pacem, & D••o placitam con∣cordiam consonis omniu•• studiis qui doc∣tor pacis futurus est 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ibid.
• * 1.1146

  Per pacem & quietem Sacerdotes qui praefuturi sunt postulentur; teneatur sub∣scriptio Clericorum, honoratorum testi∣monium, ordinis consensus & plebis; qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eli∣gatur. Ibid.
• * 1.1147

  P. Nich. I. Ep. 5. Quia consuetudi∣nem vestram novimus in Regia Vrbe, mi∣nimò apicem Archieraticae potestatis ali∣quem posse habere sine Ecclesiasticae plebis assensu, atque Imperiali suffragio—.

  P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 70. Dist. 62.
• * 1.1148

  Vid. P. Leo Ep. 84.101.107.
• * 1.1149

  Nihil tum opus erat Apostolicâ confir∣matione; satìs erat electionem ab Archie∣piscopo comprobari: nunc ad se omnium Ecclesiarum jura traxit Romana Ecclesia. Crantz. Metrop. 7.45.
• * 1.1150

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Cornel. apud Eus. 6.43.
• * 1.1151

  Bell 2.18.20.
• * 1.1152

  Satìs est quòd vestrae pietatis auxilio, & mei favoris assensu Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit. P. Leo Ep. 54.

  De Marc 3.14. § 1.
• * 1.1153

  Vt ordinationem ritè celebrandam tua quoque firmet authoritas. P. Leo Ep. 84. (ad Anastas.)
• * 1.1154

  Donatum—ità Dominico volumus gregi praesidere, ut libellum fidei suae ad nos me∣minerit dirigendum—P. Leo Ep. 87.
• * 1.1155

  Salonitanae Civitatis Episcopus ne ac re∣sponsali meo nesciente ordinatus est, & facta res est, quae sub nullis anterioribus principibus evenit. Greg. Ep. 4.34.
• * 1.1156

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sozom. 6.39.
• * 1.1157

  Nos enim vestrae fidei & interventionis habentes intuitum, cùm secundum suae con∣secrationis authores ejus initia titubarent, benigniores erga ipsum quàm justiores esse voluimus— P. Leo Ep. 55. (ad Martia∣num.)
• * 1.1158

  Decessore enim tuo B. memoriae Flavi∣ano propter defensionem Catholicae verita∣tis ejecto, non immeritò credebatur quòd ordinatores tui contra Sanctorum Cano∣num Constituta viderentur sui similem consecrâsse—Post illa itaque ordinationis tuae non inculpata principia—P. Leo Ep. 53. ad Anatol.

  Lib. cap. 12.
• * 1.1159

  Quod nos amore reparandae fidei, & pa∣cis studio retractare cessavimus. P. Leo Ep. 54. (ad Martian.)

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 10.
• * 1.1160

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 3.21.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 2.5.

  Socr. 4.14.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 4.21.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 3.6. Socr. 6.2.
• * 1.1161

  Soz. 2.6.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 6.2.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 7.9.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.13.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 7.2, 3.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.238.

  Post consecrationem Antiocheni Episco∣pi, quam tibimet contra Canonicam re∣gulam vendicâsti— P. Leo I. Epist. 53. (ad Anatol.)
• * 1.1162

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sozom. 8.28.
• * 1.1163

  Non enim nobis ordinationes vestrarum Provinciarum defendimus. P. Leo Ep. 89.
• * 1.1164

  — & ne ele∣ctos etiam Ca∣nonicè in Fla∣minia Episco∣pos consecran∣di facultatem haberet, nisi id sibi à Sede Apostolica literis concederetur. Plat. in P. Nichol. I.
• * 1.1165

  1 King. 2.35.
• * 1.1166

  Euseb. de Vit. Const. 3.59, 60.
• * 1.1167

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sozom. 7.8.
• * 1.1168

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sozom. 3.4.
• ‖ 1.1169

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 3.6.
• † 1.1170

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodor. 2.27.
• * 1.1171

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Theod. 4.7.
• ‖ 1.1172

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Theod. 5.23.
• † 1.1173

  Visum est Imperatoribus nullum or∣dinare de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia Pontificem—

  Nestorium quasi utilem ad docendum Constantinopolin Principes evocaverunt. Lib. Brev. 6. Socr. 7.29.

  Quem tanto Imperii judicio electum, tanto Sacerdotum studio prosecutum — Vinc. Lir. p. 330.

  Tunc Papa principis favore Menam pro eo (Anthimo) ordinavit Antistitem. Lib. cap. 21.

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evag. 4.38.

  Conc. Tolet. 12. cap. 6. apud Gr. Dist. 63. cap. 25.
• * 1.1174

  Quem Clerus & populus Civitatis eli∣gerat, praeque memoriae Carolus Imperator suo consensu firmaverat— P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 70.
• * 1.1175

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. VI. Act. 12. (p. 208.)
• * 1.1176

  Dist. 63. cap. 9. Greg. I. Ep. 4.15. cap. 15. cap. 16, 17, 18.

  P. Leo IV. & Steph.

  Distinc. 63. c. 6, 7. Distinc. 63. c. 1, 2.
• † 1.1177

  Ibid. cap. 4.

  [It is a notorious thing, that most Princes in the West, in Germany, France, England, did invest Bishops, till the time of Pope Gregory VII. when that boisterous man did raise so much stir in Christendom to dispossess them of that right; which they enioyed not one∣ly as Princes, but as Founders, Patrons, Benefactours, Protectours of Churches.]
• ‖ 1.1178

  Nihil à Clero in eligendo Pontifice actum erat nisi ejus electionem Imperator approbâsset. Plat. in Pelagio II. (p. 154.)

  Distinct. 63. Plat. p. 155.

  Vid. Joh. Diac. & Anastas.

  Dist. 63. cap. 21.

  Hadrianus autem Papa cum universa Synodo tradiderunt jus & potestatem eli∣gendi Pontificem, & ordinandi Apostoli∣cam Sedem — Insuper Archiepiscopos & Episcopos per singulas Provincias ab eo in∣vestituram accipere definivit; & nisi à Rege laudetur & investiatur Episcopus, à nemine consecretur; & quicunque con∣tra hoc decretum ageret, anathematis vinculo eum innodavit. Distinct. 63. cap. 22.
• * 1.1179

  Largimur in perpetuum facultatem successorem, atque summae Sedis Apostoli∣cae Pontificem ordinandi, ac per hoc Ar∣chiepiscopos seu Episcopos, &c. Distinc. 63. cap. 23.

  Qui statim Romanorum inconstantiae pertaesus authoritatem omnem eligendi Pontificis à Clero populóque Romano ad Imperatorem transtulit— Plat. in Leo. VIII. p. 291.
• * 1.1180

  Conc. Const. Sess. 40. Conc. Bas. Sess. 37. (p. 98.)
• * 1.1181

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — Theod. 5.9.
• * 1.1182

  Cùm locus Petri & gradus Cathedrae Sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrum consen∣sione firmato. Cypr. Ep. 52. (ad Anton.)

  Ad comprobandam ordinationem tuam factam auctoritate majore— Ep. 45. ad Corn.
• * 1.1183

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. VI. Act. 12.198.
• * 1.1184

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— P. Honor. Ib. p. 198.
• * 1.1185

  Metropolitano defuncto, cùm in lo∣cum ejus alius fuerit subrogandus, Pro∣vinciales Episcopi ad Civitatem Metro∣politanam convenire debebunt, ut omnium Clericorum atque omnium Civium volun∣tate discussâ ex Presbyteris ejusdem Eccle∣siae, vel ex Diaconibus optimus eligatur. P. Leo. Ep. 88.

  The Metropolitan being dead, when another is to be put in his place, the Provincial Bishops ought to meet in the Metropolitan City, that by the Votes of the whole Clergy and Citizens, out of the Priests or Deacons of the same Church, the fittest person may be chosen.
• * 1.1186

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Act. 16. p. 464.
• * 1.1187

  Vid. Concil. Aur. Can. 7. Apud de Marc. VI. 4. § 8.
• * 1.1188

  Vid. Gelas. Ep. 13. (p. 640.)
• * 1.1189

  Et ideò tria haec quae praemisimus non tam Constitutione Canonica, quàm Insti∣tutione Divinâ soli sunt Romano Ponti∣fici reservata. P. Innoc. III. in Gregor. Decret. Lib. 1. Tit. 7. cap. 2.
• * 1.1190

  Causae criminales graviores contra Epi∣scopos, etiam haeresis quod absit, quae depo∣sitione aut privatione dignae sunt, ab ipso tantùm summo Romano Pontifice cognos∣cantur, & terminentur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. cap. 5.
• * 1.1191

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Const. Ap. 8.28.

  A Bishop may depose any Clerk who deserves it, except he be a Bishop, whom to deprive, one Bishop alone is not sufficient.
• * 1.1192

  Syn. Nic. Can. 5.
• * 1.1193

  Decreta Nicena sive inferioris gradûs Clericos, sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metro∣politanis apertissimè commiserunt: pru∣dentissimè enim justissiméque viderunt quaecunque negotia in suis locis ubi orta sunt finienda; nec unicuique Provinciae gratiam S. Spiritûs defuturam. Syn. Afr. Ep. ad P. Celest. I.
• * 1.1194

  Syn. Ant. Can. 15.
• * 1.1195

  (Ann. 269.) Euseb. 7.30.
• * 1.1196

  Socr. 1.24.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 2.19.
• * 1.1197

  Socr. 2.43. Soz. 3.14.
• * 1.1198

  Socr. 1.36.
• * 1.1199

  Socr. 2.29.
• * 1.1200

  Socr. 1.28—
• * 1.1201

  Theod. 2.10.
• * 1.1202

  Act. 11. Syn. Chalc. p. 411. Haec § cum 4. jungenda.
• * 1.1203

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Celest. in Nest. Sent. Eph. Act. p. 195.
• * 1.1204

  Quod non solùm praesuli Apostolico face∣re licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quos∣libet & quemlibet locum secundum regu∣lam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Ca∣tholica communione discernant. Ep. 4.
• * 1.1205

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. sub Men. (p. 10.)
• * 1.1206

  Cypr. Ep. 67.
• * 1.1207

  Soz. 3.21.
• * 1.1208

  Socr. 2.42.
• * 1.1209

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.24.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 1.37.
• * 1.1210

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.38.
• † 1.1211

  Theod. 2.26.
• * 1.1212

  Sozom. 4.24.
• ‖ 1.1213

  Socr. 7.34.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.1214

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. Syn. Eph. p. 380.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 320.
• † 1.1215

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 7.34.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 11. (p. 405.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 406.

  Baron. Ann. 457. § 34.

  P. Felix III. Ep. 4.
• * 1.1216

  Idcircò enim, frater charissime, copio∣sum corpus est Sacerdotum, concordiae mu∣tuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copula∣tum, ut siquis ex Collegio nostro haeresin facere, & gregem Christi lacerare, & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri, & quasi pastores utiles & misericordes oves Dominicas in gregem colligant. Cypr. Ep. 67. (ad Steph.)
• * 1.1217

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— &c. Conc. Eph. Act. 2. p. 324.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 325.
• * 1.1218

  Vid. Hier. 67, & 78.
• * 1.1219

  Cypr. Ep. 67. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thalass. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 191.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Agapet. ad Petr. Hier. (p. 24.)
• * 1.1220

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Menas (Tom. 4. p. 10.)

  Plebs, &c. Cypr. Ep. 68.

  Deum metuens— Cypr. Ep. 68.

  Vid. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. (p. 506.)
• * 1.1221

  Cunctis monachis ab eodem Epiphanio scripta venerunt, ut absque satisfactione fidei nullus ei temerè communicaret. Hier. Ep. 61. (ad Pammach.) cap. 15.

  Alicubíne dictum, aut tibi alicubi man∣datum est, quòd sine satisfactione fidei communionem tuam subiremus? Ibid.

  Quòd tibi non communicemus, fidei est. Ibid. cap. 16.
• * 1.1222

  Theophilus, John of Anti∣och, Dioscorus.
• * 1.1223

  Novam legem, &c. Vid. de Conc. Sard.
• * 1.1224

  Soz. 3.11.
• * 1.1225

  Soz. 3.8.
• * 1.1226

  Evag. 2.4. Hilar. fragm.
• * 1.1227

  An qui in hominem Imperatorem pec∣câsse dicebatur, nullâ interveniente Synod•• dejici debuerunt? P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13.
• * 1.1228

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. ad Joh. Ant. Conc. Eph.— p. 197.332. Syn. p. 11, 60. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Const. Sacra. in Syn. VI. p. 11.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Ibid. p. 60.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. Eph. p. 332.

  Sit haec in te fixa damnatio à me, & ab his qui sub me constituti Episcopales Sedes gubernare noscuntur— P. Felix. ad Petrum Antioch. apud Baron. Ann. 483. § 68.
• * 1.1229

  Tandem à Se∣de dejicitur à populo Romano irâ & indignitate rei percito. Plat. p. 223. P. Leo VIII. p. 291. Anastasius. Plat. p. 131.
• * 1.1230

  1 King. 2.35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 1.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodor. 1.20.
• * 1.1231

  He threatned Athanasius to depose him —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 1.27. Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 778.
• * 1.1232

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.7 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.37.
• * 1.1233

  Evag. 2.11. Lib. cap. 15. P. Leo I. Epist. 99.
• * 1.1234

  Lib. cap. 22.
• * 1.1235

  Evag. 4.41. Evag. 4.11.
• * 1.1236

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 2. p. 202.
• * 1.1237

  Si quis autem citra memoratam obser∣vationem Episcopus ordinetur, jubemus hunc omnibus modis Episcopatu depelli. Justin. Novell. 123. cap. 1.
• * 1.1238

  Cypr. Ep. 67.

  Dirigantur in Provinciam & ad ple∣bem Arelate consistentem literae, quibus abstento Marciano alius in ejus locum substituatur—
• * 1.1239

  Cui rei nostrum est consulere, & subve∣nire—

  Idcircò copiosum est corpus Sacerdotum—

  Quando ipse est ab universis Sacerdoti∣bus judicatus—
• * 1.1240

  Facere te oportet plenissimas literas ad co-Episcopos nostros in Galliis constitutos, nè ultra Marcianum Collegio nostro insul∣tare patiantur.—
• * 1.1241

  Multo magìs tu—
• * 1.1242

  Quod nedum videatur à no∣bis abstentus.
• * 1.1243

  Marc. 7.1.6.
• * 1.1244

  In hac Marciani Episcopi Arelatensis causa si jus abstinendi sive excommuni∣candi competebat soli Episcopo Romano, cur Faustinus Episcopus Lugdunensis Cy∣priano Episcopo Carthaginiensi longè dissi∣to semel atque iterum significat ea de Mar∣ciano, quae jam utique ipse Faustinus & alii ejusdem Provinciae Episcopi nuncia∣v••rant Stephano proximiori, & omnium Episcoporum principi? Dicendum igitur factum id fuisse aut per negligentiam Ste∣phani; aut quod magìs videtur, per di∣sciplinam quae tunc in Ecclesia vigeba••, ut omnes quidem in circumpositis locis, sed praesertim Vrbium clarissimarum Episcopi in commune consulerent Ecclesiae, viderént∣que nè quid detrimenti res Christiana Ca∣tholica caperet. Itaque super isto Mar∣ciani Arelatensis facinore, Lugdunensem Episcopum ad Romanum & Carthaginien∣sem dedisse literas, istum verò ut remotis∣simum dedisse vicissim suas ad Romanum, ut fratrem & Collegam, qui in propinquo faciliùs posset de negotio & cognoscere & statuere. Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 67.
• * 1.1245

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Theod.
• * 1.1246

  Theod. 5.23. Socr. 5.15. Soz. 8.3.
• * 1.1247

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ib.
• * 1.1248

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ib.
• * 1.1249

  Theod. 5.9. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1250

  Socr. 5.15. Marc. 3.14. § 1.
• * 1.1251

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— P. Celest. ad Cyril. in Conc. Eph. Act. p. 281.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. Epist. ad Nest. p. 186.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (ad Joh. Ant. p. 196.)
• † 1.1252

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Ce∣lest. ad Clerum, &c. Const. Act. Eph. p. 190.
• ‖ 1.1253

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. Ep. ad Celest. Act. Eph. p. 177.
• * 1.1254

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Eph. Act. 3. p. 331.

  Vid. Theodos. 2. Epist. in Conc. Eph. p. 224, & 225.
• * 1.1255

  Baron. Ann. 433. § 38, 39. P. Nich. I. Epist. 8. (ad Mich.)
• * 1.1256

  Fac. Herm. p. 150.
• * 1.1257

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Orient. ad Rufum. apud Bin. p. 396.
• * 1.1258

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 6.25.
• * 1.1259

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Relat. O∣rient. ad Imp. in Act. Eph. p. 380. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. p. 385.
• * 1.1260

  Ann. 536. Vict. Tun.
• * 1.1261

  Evag. 4.10.
• * 1.1262

  Denique petentibus Principibus, ut An∣thimum Papa in salutatione & commu∣nicatione susciperet; ille fieri inquit posse, si se libello probaret orthodoxum, & ad Cathedram suam reverteretur. Lib. c. 21.
• * 1.1263

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Libell. Monach. p. 7.
• * 1.1264

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Ib.

  Et. Syn. decr. p. 43.

  Imper. Sanct. p. 128.
• * 1.1265

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synodi decr. p. 43.
• * 1.1266

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—
• * 1.1267

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 24.
• * 1.1268

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evag. 4.11.
• * 1.1269

  p. 10.
• † 1.1270

  p. 16.
• * 1.1271

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—
• * 1.1272

  Tunc Papa Principis favore Menam pro eo ordinavit Antistitem, consecrans eum manu suâ— Lib. cap. 21.
• * 1.1273

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Act. p. 24.
• * 1.1274

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— p. 24.
• * 1.1275

  Baron. Anno 484. § 19. Vid. P. Felic. III. Ep. 6. P. Gelas. Ep. 4.
• * 1.1276

  Ad cujus praecipuè vocatus examen vel venire vel mitter•• non curavit. Gelas. Ep. 13.
• * 1.1277

  when a Bishop was unjustly cen∣sured upon malice or mistake; — when he did repent of his errour or miscarriage— when the case would upon any account bear favour or Pity—
• * 1.1278

  Privilegium quidem solius Ecclesiae Ro∣manae esse reperitur, ut depositus à Synodo Episcopus absque alia Synodo majoris nu∣meri restitui possit per Romanum Pontifi∣cem. Baron. Ann. 449. § 127.

  Quorumlibet Sententiis ligata Pontifi∣cum Sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habet re∣solvendi. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 13.

  Sedes Apostolica frequenter more ma∣jorum, etiam sine ulla Synodo praecedente & absolvendi quos Synodus iniquè damna∣verat, & damnandi nullâ existente Synodo quos oportuit habuit facultatem— Ibid.
• * 1.1279

  —qui licèt violenter exclusi sunt, non tamen pro damnatis sunt habiti, eò quòd semper inviolatam eorum communionem Rom. Pontifices servaverant. P. Vigilius in Constit. Athan. &c.
• * 1.1280

  Quem (Joannem Chrys.) Sedes Apo∣stolica etiam sola, quia non consensit, ab∣solvit. P. Gelas. Ep. 13.
• * 1.1281

  Can. Apost. 10, 11, 12, 31. Conc. Nic. Can. 5. Sard. 16, 17. Cod. Afr. 9. Conc. Antioch. 6, 15. Evag. 2.4.
• * 1.1282

  Damnati hominis communione pollutus, damnationis ejus factus est particeps. P. Gelas. Ep. 13. (p. 640.)
• * 1.1283

  Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.1284

  2 Tim. 2.22.
• * 1.1285

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.24.
• * 1.1286

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 7.33.
• * 1.1287

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.20.
• * 1.1288

  Note, It is an ordinary style of Votes in Sy∣nods for the Restitution of a Bishop, I restore, Vid. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 165. That is, I give my Vote for his Restitution.
• * 1.1289

  Oportebat communi decreto damnatum tanquam adulterum communi concilio damnatione liberari. Lib. cap. 18.
• * 1.1290

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 1.14.

  Theod. 5.23.
• * 1.1291

  Rescriptum e∣liciunt, quo calcatis quae priùs decreta erant, restitui Ecclesiis jubebantur: hoc frèti Instantius & Priscillianus repetivere Hispanias. Sulp. Sev. 2.63. Revocari Romam Silverium jussit, & de literis illis judicium fieri, ut—si falsae fuissent probatae, restitueretur Sedi suae. Liberat. Breviar. cap. 22.
• * 1.1292

  Romam pergens Stephanum Collegam nostrum longè positum, & gestae rei ac ta∣citae veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exam∣biret reponi se injustè in Episcopatum, de quo fuerat justè depositus. Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.1293

  —quare etsi aliqui de Collegis nostris extiterunt, qui Deificam disciplinam neg∣ligendam putant—
• * 1.1294

  (Nec censurae congruit Sacerdotum mo∣bilis atque inconstantis animi levitate re∣prehendi. Cypr. Ep. 55.)

  —Episcopatum gerere, & Sacerdoti∣um Dei administrare non oportere.

  Desideràstis solicitudinem vestram vel solatio vel auxilio sententiae nostrae suble∣vari.

  Nec personam in ejusmodi rebus acci∣pere, aut aliquid cuiquam largiri potest humana indulgentia; ubi intercedit & legem tribuit divina praescriptio.

  —quantum possumus adhortamur, nè vos cum profanis & maculatis Sacerdoti∣bus communicatione sacrilegâ misceatis.

  Sed cur ad Cyprianum si potestas infi∣nita penes Romanum? Rigalt. ibid.

  —datis ad Cyprianum literis appella∣vere Carthaginiensem adversus Roma∣num. Id.
• * 1.1295

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 3.8.
• * 1.1296

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 3.8.

  Julii Epist. apud Ath. in Apol. 2.
• * 1.1297

  Socr. 1.36.
• * 1.1298

  Bas. Ep. 10.
• * 1.1299

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Bas. Ep. 74.
• * 1.1300

  Soz. 4.24.
• * 1.1301

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. ibid.
• * 1.1302

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Act. 1. p. 53.
• * 1.1303

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Syn. Chalc. Act. 8. p. 368.
• * 1.1304

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Imp. Theod. Epist. ad Diosc. in Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 53.
• * 1.1305

  Pro Theodoreto autem & Eusebio nullus ordinatus est. Liberat. 12.
• * 1.1306

  Vid. Con••. Chalc. part. 3. p. 490. Excludi verò ab Episcopatu, &c. in Im∣peratoris Theod. rescripto.
• * 1.1307

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 54.
• * 1.1308

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Ibid.
• * 1.1309

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Theod. Ep. 139. (ad Asperam.)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Ep. 138. (ad Anatol.)
• * 1.1310

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Act. 1. p. 53.
• * 1.1311

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Syn. Flor. Sess. 25. p. 846.
• * 1.1312

  Haec est gloria mea, quam alteri non dabo.
• * 1.1313

  De appellationibus pro minimis causis volumus te tenere, quòd eis pro quacunque levi causa fiant, non minus est, quàm si pro majoribus fierent, deferendum. Alex. III. Ep. ad Vigorn. Episc. in decret. Greg. lib. 2. tit. 28. cap. 11.

  Caus. 2. qu. 6. Caus. 3. qu. 6. Caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 16.
• * 1.1314

  Ipsi sunt Canones, qui appellationes to∣tius Ecclesiae ad hujus Sedis examen vo∣luere deferri; ab ipsa verò nusquam pror∣sus appellari debere sanxerunt; ac per hoc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare, ipsam ad nullius commeare judicium. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8.
• * 1.1315

  Sacra statuta, & veneranda decreta Episcoporum causas, utpote majora negotia nostrae definiendas censurae mandàrunt. P. Nich. I. Ep. 38.

  Majores vero & difficiles quaestiones (ut sancta Synodus statuit, & beata cousuetu∣do exigit) ad Sedem Apostolicam semper referantur. P. Pelag. II. Epist. 8.

  Ipsi sunt canones qui appellationes totius Ecclesiae ad hujus Sedis examen voluere deferri. P. Gelas. I. Ep. 4.
• * 1.1316

  Concil. Basil. Sess. 31. (p. 86.)

  Inoleverunt autem hactenus intolerabi∣lium vexationum abusus permulti, dum nimium frequenter à remotissimis etiam partibus ad Romanam Curiam, & inter∣dum pro parvis & minutis rebus ac negoti∣is quamplurimi citari, & evocari consue∣verunt, atque ità expensis & laboribus fa∣tigari, ut nonnunquam commodius arbi∣trentur juri suo cedere, aut vexationem suam gravi damno redimere, quàm in tam longinqua regione litium subire dis∣pendia, &c. Vid. Opr.
• * 1.1317

  Bern. de Consid. lib. 3. cap. 2.

  Quousque murmur universae terrae aut dissimulas, aut non advertis? — &c.
• * 1.1318

  Decreta Nicena sive inferioris gradûs Clericos sive Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commiserunt. Syn. Afr. in Ep. ad P. Celest.
• * 1.1319

  Arbitror te non ignorare quid praecipi∣ant Niceni Concilii Canones, sancientes Episcopum non judicare causam citra terminos suos— nam— Pallad. cap. 7.
• * 1.1320

  Note, That the Synod of Constantino∣ple (Can. 6.) mentioning Appeals to the Emperour, secular Judicatories, a Gene∣ral Synod, saith,

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Syn. Const. Can. 6.

  Concil. Constantinop. Can. 2, 6.

  Concil. Chalced. Can. 2, 17.

  Nam contra horum Antistitum Senten∣tias non esse locum Appellationi à majori∣bus nostris constitutum est. Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 4. cap. 29.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 11.16.

  Nov. 123. cap. 22.

  Cod. Lib. 1. tit. 4. § 29. Vid. Graec.
• * 1.1321

  Can. 12. Conc. Ant. Can. 15. Conc. Carth. Can. 31.
• * 1.1322

  Non provocent nisi ad Afri∣cana Concilia, vel ad Prima∣tes Provinci∣arum; ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo infra Africam in communionem suscipiatur. Conc. Milev. cap. 22. Conc. Afr. Can. 72.
• * 1.1323

  Nam si de in∣ferioribus Cle∣ricis in Conci∣lio Niceno hoc praecaverunt; quanto magìs de Episcopis voluit observari? Conc. Afr. Can. 105. (vel Epist.)
• * 1.1324

  Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Corneli∣um.)
• * 1.1325

  Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.1326

  Refer. ad § 7. Vid. Supr. O∣portet utique eos quibus prae∣sumus non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere, & testes sui criminis possint. Cypr. Ep. 55.
• * 1.1327

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Theod. 11.16.
• * 1.1328

  Neque enim de Presbyteris aut Diaco∣nis, aut inferioris ordinis Clericis, sed de Collegis agebatur qui possunt aliorum Col∣legarum judicio, praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum, causam suam integram re∣servare. Aug. Ep. 162.
• * 1.1329

  Sed cùm hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Ca∣puensis judicium— advertimus quòd à nobis judicandi forma competere non possit.
• * 1.1330

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.

  Being deposed he sent a libell of Appeal to them who deposed him, appealing to a greater Judicature.
• * 1.1331

  Illos verò ab Ecclesiastico judicio pro∣vocâss••, &c. Aug. Ep. 162.

  Ad Imperatorem appellaverunt. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 16.
• * 1.1332

  Quid quod nec ipse Vsurpavit; rogatus Imperator judices misit Episcopos qui cum ipso sederent, & de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent. Aug. Ep. 162.
• * 1.1333

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sozom. 8.26.
• * 1.1334

  Infrà. Infrà.
• * 1.1335

  Can. 9, 17.
• * 1.1336

  Baron. Ann. 865.— P. Nich. I. Ep. 37, &c. Vid. Matt. Pa∣ris. Ann. 1094. Statutes of Provisors, Premunire, &c.
• * 1.1337

  Vos oppressis Apostolicae Sedis appellatio∣nem subtrahitis. Eadm. p. 113.
• * 1.1338

  Nullus inde clamor, nullum inde judi∣cium ad Sedem Apostolicam destinantur. Eadm. p. 113.

  Peregrina judicia modis omnibus sub∣movemus. Henr. I. Leg. cap. 31.

  Ibi semper causa agatur, ubi crimen admittitur. Ibid.

  Quòd Anglici extra regnum in causis auctoritate Apostolicâ trahuntur. Matt. Paris. p. 699.10.
• * 1.1339

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rom. 13.1.
• * 1.1340

  Act. 25.

  Ad Imperatorem appellaverunt. Aug. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 16.
• † 1.1341

  Apol. 2. p. 804.
• ‖ 1.1342

  Ath. Apol. 2. p. 797, 798.
• * 1.1343

  Ad Principem provocavit. Sulp. Sev. 2.64. Sulp. Sev. 2.63. Conc. Ant. Can.

  P. de Marca 4.4.—
• * 1.1344

  Bell. 2.21.
• * 1.1345

  Ann. 142.
• * 1.1346

  Epiph. haer. 42.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1347

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1348

  Cypr. Ep. 55. Ann. 252.
• * 1.1349

  Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.1350

  Ann. 350.
• * 1.1351

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.20.
• * 1.1352

  Socr. 2.20.
• * 1.1353

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Athanasius & Paulus) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. 2.20.
• * 1.1354

  Tom. 7. Epist. 122, 123.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1355

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1356

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 8.17.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 5.34.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 8.26.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.1357

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theoph. Soz. 8.26.
• * 1.1358

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Epist. 122.
• * 1.1359

  Scripsimus ista & ad Venerium Medio∣lanensem, & ad Chromatium Aquilegien∣sem Episcopum. Pallad. cap. 2.
• * 1.1360

  Flavianus autem contra se prolatâ sen∣tentiâ per ejus legatos Sedem Apostolicam appellavit libello. Liber. cap. 12.
• * 1.1361

  Necessitate coactus fuit ità agere, eò quòd reliqui Patriarchae adessent— Marc. 7.7.
• * 1.1362

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Placidia.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1. p. 26.
• * 1.1363

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 25.
• * 1.1364

  Omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemi∣tibus & lachrymis supplicant Sacerdotes, ut quia & nostri fideliter reclamârunt, & eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit, generalem Synodum jube∣atis intra Italiam celebrari— P. Leo Epist. 25.
• * 1.1365

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ep. 113, (ad P. Leonem.)
• * 1.1366

  Vid. Ep. 112. ad Domnum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. 138.
• * 1.1367

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Epist. 145. Vid. Theod. Epist. supr. & Epist. 127, 129. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Ep. 138, 136.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. 113.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 118.
• * 1.1368

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1369

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The∣od. Epist. 86.
• * 1.1370

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ep. 116. (ad Renatum Presb.)

  That holy See has the principality o∣ver the Churches in all the world for many reasons; but especially because she continued free from the taint of heresie, and none otherwise minded ever sate in her, she having kept the Apostolick state always unmixt.
• * 1.1371

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Epist. 112.
• * 1.1372

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Ep. 119. (ad Anatol.)
• * 1.1373

  Greg. lib. 2. Indict. 11. Ep. 6.
• * 1.1374

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. Chalc. Act. 1.
• * 1.1375

  Ingressus est ad Calendionem Antioche∣num Patriarcham, & sumptis ab eo inter∣cessionis Synodicis Literis Romanum Pon∣tificem Simplicium appellavit, sicut B. fe∣cerat Athanasius, & suasit scribere pro se Acacio Constantinopolitano Episcopo — Liber. cap. 18. Baron. Ann. 483. § 1.
• * 1.1376

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. 8.13.
• * 1.1377

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Naz. Orat. 23.
• * 1.1378

  1 Pet. 2.13.
• * 1.1379

  Regimen Ecclesiae est Monarchicum, er∣go omnis auctoritas est in uno, & ab illo in alios derivatur. Bell. 4.24.
• * 1.1380

  Providemus Ecclesiae tali de tali Per∣sona, & praeficimus eum in Patrem, & Pastorem & Episcopum ejusdem Ecclesiae, committentes ei administrationem in tem∣poralibus & spiritualibus; in nomine, &c. Ibid.
• * 1.1381

  In Ecclesia militanti, quae instar tri∣umphantis habet, unus est omnium mode∣rator & arbiter Jesu Christi vicarius, à quo tanquam capite omnis in subjecta membra potestas & authoritas derivatur, quae à Christo Domino sine medio in ipsum influit. P. Pius II. in Bull. Retract.
• * 1.1382

  Sanctitas vestra ità gerit curam Ec∣clesiae Christi, ut Ministros plurimos ha∣beat, per quos curam exerceat; hi autem sunt Clerici omnes, quibus mandatus est cultus Dei; Presbyteri praesertim, & maximè Curati, & prae omnibus Epi∣scopi— apud Cham. de Pont. Oecum. 10, 13.
• * 1.1383

  Summus Pontifex caput est omnium Pontificum, â quo illi tanquam à capite membra descendunt, & de cujus plenitu∣dine omnes accipiunt quos ipse vocat in partem solicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis. Durand. Mimat. Offic. 2.1.17.
• * 1.1384

  N. Dei & Apostolicae Sedis gratiâ Episcopus Colon—
• * 1.1385

  This was an expedient. Vid. Concil.
• * 1.1386

  Col. 1.7.4.7. 1 Thess. 3.2. 1 Tim. 4.6. Tit. 1.7. 2 Tim. 2.24. Act. 20.28. Naz. Or. 30. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.29.
• * 1.1387

  Ordo confertur à Deo immediatè, ju∣risdictio mediatè. Bell. 4.25.
• * 1.1388

  2 Cor. 10.8.13.10.
• † 1.1389

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Thess. 5.12.
• ‖ 1.1390

  Eph. 4.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ign. ad Mag∣nes.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ign. ad Eph. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ign. ad Trall.
• * 1.1391

  De Dei & Christi ejus judicio. Cypr. Ep. 52. & a∣libi saepe. Vnus in Ec∣clesia ad tem∣pus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex, vice Christi. Cypr. Ep. 55. Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro judicandi. Cypr. in Con. Carthag.
• * 1.1392

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Baf. Const. Mon. cap. 22.
• * 1.1393

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Coloss. Orat. 3.
• * 1.1394

  Oportere nos omnes, qui Deo auctor•• sumu•• in Sa∣cerd••r•••• constituti illius certaminibus ob••iate, &c. Anatol. in Syn. Chalc. p. 512.
• * 1.1395

  Leo Ep. 84.
• * 1.1396

  Seièsque nos non tuos esse ne ••e jactas & extollis Clericos, quos ut fratres & Co-episcopos recognoscere si elatio permit∣teret, debueras. Ann. Pith.
• * 1.1397

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— S. Chrys. sup.
• * 1.1398

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Coloss. Orat. 3.
• * 1.1399

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrys. in Joh. Orat. 83.
• * 1.1400

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (l. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Flavian. in Chalc. Act. 1. p. 4.
• * 1.1401

  Evagr. Act. Eph. p. 134.
• * 1.1402

  Act. Conc. sub Menna p. 70.
• * 1.1403

  Congruum duximus vicariâ Sedis nostra te auctoritate fulciri. Baron. An. 482. § 46.
• * 1.1404

  Vices enim nostr•• ità tuae credidimus charitati, ut in partem sis voca•••••• soli••i∣tudinis, non in plenitudinem potestati••. P. Leo. Ep. 84. (ad Anastas. Thessal.)
• * 1.1405

  P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 93.
• * 1.1406

  P. Pasch. II. Epist. apud Eadm. p. 113, &c.
• * 1.1407

  Extrav. commun. 1.1. (p. 310.)

  Occulti inimici regni. Matt. Par. p. 524.
• * 1.1408

  Sedis Apostolicae nuncii vel literae prae∣ter jussum Regiae Majestatis nullam in po∣testate tua susceptionem aut aditum pro∣merentur, nullus inde clamor, nullum ju∣dicium ad sedem Apostolicam destinan∣tur— P. Pasch. II. Eadm. p. 113.
• * 1.1409

  Bell. 2.10.
• * 1.1410

  Bell. 2.26. de Conc. 2.17. Grat. Dist. 40. cap. 6. Dist. 21. cap. 7. Caus. 9. qu. 3. cap. 10.— Extrav. comm. lib. 1. tit. 8. cap. 1. P. Leo. IX. Ep. 1. cap. 10.— 17. P. Nich. 1. Ep. 8. (p. 504.) P. Joh. VIII. Ep. 75. (p. 31.) P. Gelas. Ep. 4. (p. 625, 626.) Ep. 13. (p. 640.) P. Greg. VII. Ep. 8. Ep. 21.
• * 1.1411

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. Adrian. in Syn. VIII. Act. 7. pag. 963.
• * 1.1412

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. haer. 70. Audianorum.

  Dum enim putas omnes abs te abstine∣ri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti. Firm. apud Cypr. Ep.
• * 1.1413

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sozom. 3.8.
• * 1.1414

  Sozom. 3.11.
• * 1.1415

  Anathema tibi, Papa Liberi. Hil. fragm.
• * 1.1416

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evag. 2.4.
• † 1.1417

  Niceph. 16.17. Baron. Ann. 484. § 35.
• ‖ 1.1418

  Baron. A. 457. § 25.
• * 1.1419

  Africani Antistites Vigilium Rom. Episc. damnatorem Capitulorum Synoda∣liter à Catholica communione, reservato ei poenitentiae loco, recludunt. (l. exclu∣dunt) Vict. Tun. post Cons. Basilii V. C. Ann. 10.
• † 1.1420

  Plat. p. 131. & Dist. 19. cap. 21, 22.
• ‖ 1.1421

  Plat. p. 223.
• * 1.1422

  Plat. p. 291.
• † 1.1423

  P. Pelag. II. Ep. 3.13.
• ‖ 1.1424

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vit. Ignatii Patr. apud Bin. p. 892. Ba∣ron. Ann. 863—
• * 1.1425

  Baron. Ann. 669. § 2.

  —Communi totius Sancti Concilii consensu depositus. Luitprand. 6.6.
• † 1.1426

  —Concilium indicit, convocatis E∣piscopis Italiae, quorum judicio vita sce∣leratissimi hominis dijudicaretur. Plat. in Joh. 13. (pro XII.) vid. Baron. Ann. 960. & Binium.
• ‖ 1.1427

  Grat. Caus. 2. qu. 7. cap. 41.
• * 1.1428

  Ann. 1076. Vid. Baron. Ann. 1033. § 3.
• * 1.1429

  Baron. Ann. 992. § 44.— Conc. Bas. Sess. 38. (p. 101.)
• * 1.1430

  Ecclesia Catholica saepenumerò summos Pontifices sive à fide delirantes, sive pravis moribus notoriè Ecclesiam scanda∣lizantes correxit, & judicavit.— Conc. Bas. Sess. 12.
• * 1.1431

  Mos est Romanae Ecclesiae sacerdoti no∣viter constituto formam fidei suae ad san∣ctas Ecclesias praerogare. P. Gelas. 1. Ep. 1. ad Laur.
• * 1.1432

  Gelas. Ep. 9. Baron. Ann. 492. § 10.
• * 1.1433

  Vid. tract. de Vnit. Eccl.
• * 1.1434

  Gall. 2.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1435

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Chal∣ced. ad Marc. Orat. p. 468.
• * 1.1436

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. Syn. Chalc. p. 465.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —
• * 1.1437

  Bell. lib. 4.
• * 1.1438

  Longè certius est unius Apostolicae Sedis cum Concilio domesticorum Sacerdotum judicium, quàm sine Pontifice judicium universalis Concilii totius Orbis terrarum. Pighius de Hier. lib. 6.
• * 1.1439

  Vniversa ergò Ecclesia, quod absit, à statu suo corruit, quando is qui vocatur Vniversalis cadit. Greg. M. Epist. 4.32. Totius familiae Domini status & ordo nu∣tabit, si quod requiritur in corpore, non inveniatur in capite. P. Leo. Ep. 87.
• * 1.1440

  In nullo aliter sapere quàm res se habet angelica per∣fectio est. Aug· de Bapt. c. Don. 2.5. Not to think of a thing otherwise than tis, is an angelical perfection.
• * 1.1441

  P. Gelas. I. Ep. 9. p. 636.
• * 1.1442

  De Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 12.
• ‖ 1.1443

  Greg. Ep. 7.110. Ep. 2.62. Ep. 4.32, 36.38.6.30. In Job. lib. 19. cap. 13. In Job. lib. 18. cap. 14.
• * 1.1444

  If many Popes had been writers, we should have had more errours to charge them with.
• * 1.1445

  Grat. de Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 42.
• ‖ 1.1446

  Grat. Caus. 23. qu. 5. cap. 47.
• * 1.1447

  Mancipia Papae. Matt. Paris. Anno 1253.
• * 1.1448

  Joh. 22. Ger∣son. Serm. in Pasch. occam. Celestinus— Alph. à Ca∣stro. Haer. 1.4. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 994.
• * 1.1449

  P. Greg. VII. Ep. lib. 3.7. Simoniaca haeresis.

  P. Jul. II. Conc. Lat. Sess. 5. (p. 57.)

  Idem electus non Apostolicus, sed Apo∣staticus, & tanquam haeresiarcha, &c. Ibid. Tract. 4. § 12. & § 16.

  Decernimus, quòd—sed etiam contra dictum sic electum vel assumptum à Simo∣niaca labe opponi & excipi possit sicut de vera & indubitata haeresi—
• * 1.1450

  Omne Papale negotium manus agunt; quem dabis mihi de tota maxima Vrbe, qui te in Papam receperit pretio non in∣••ercedente? Bern. de Consid. 4.2.
• * 1.1451

  A fide devius, pertinax haereticus— Concil. Basil. Sess. 34. p. 96. & p. 107.
• * 1.1452

  Le Pape respondit, che le Vicaire de J. C. ne estoit point oblige d'examiner toutes choses par la dispute; que la verite de ses decrets dependoit seulement de l'Inspirati∣on divine. Memor. Hist. de 5. Propos.
• * 1.1453

  — Opinionem secundam, quae dicit tam parvulis quàm adultis conferri in bap∣tismo informantem gratiam & virtutes, tanquam probabiliorem ac Doctorum mo∣dernorum Theologiae magìs consonam & concordem sacro approbante Concilio dux∣imus eligendam. Clem. in Tit. 1.
• * 1.1454

  Bell. 4.14. (p. 1318.) Confer Sext. lib. 5. tit. 12. cap. 3. Extrav. Joh. XXII. tit. 14. cap. 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.1455

  Bellarm. de Concil. 2.15.
• * 1.1456

  Planè significat majoris esse auctorita∣tis in Ecclesia Dei Canones Conciliorum decretis Pontificum: haec quàm sint absur∣da & ab omni ratione penitus aliena, &c. Baron. ad Ann. 992. § 56.

  Concil. Later. V. Sess. 11. p. 152. Th. Cajet. Orat. in Conc. Lat. p. 36.
• * 1.1457

  Apostolicae verò Sedis auctoritas, quod cunctis seculis Christianis Ecclesiae praelata sit universae, & canonum serie paternorum, & multiplici traditione firmatur. P. Ge∣las. I. Ep. 8. (O impudentiam!)
• * 1.1458

  Ma••or est auctoritas orbis quàm urbis. Hier. ad Evag.
• * 1.1459

  Concil. Const. Sess. 4. (p. 1003.) Concil. Bas. Sess. 2. & Sess. 33.
• * 1.1460

  Veritas Catholicae fidei, cui pertinaci∣ter repugnans est censendus haereticus. Concil. Bas. Sess. 33.

  Nec unquam aliquis peritorum dubita∣vit summum Pontificem in his quae fidem concernunt judicio eorundem Conciliorum universalium esse subjectum. Conc. Basil. decret. p. 117.

  Concilium habet potestatem immediatè à Christo, cui Papa obedire tenetur— Conc. Bas. Sess. 38. p. 101.
• * 1.1461

  As in Israel Saul was the Head. 1 Sam. 15.17.
• * 1.1462

  Rom. 13.1.
• * 1.1463

  — •• quo sunt secundi, post quem pri∣mi ante omnes, & super omnes Deos; quidni? cùm super omnes homines, qui utique vivunt. Tertull. Apol. cap. 30.

  Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 2.

  Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi so∣lus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem. Opt. 3. Vid. Tr. 5. § 14.

  Dum se Donatus super Imperatorem ex∣tollit, jam quasi hominum excesserat mo∣dum ut se ut Deum non hominem aestima∣ret. Id. Ibid.—

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 463.
• * 1.1464

  Chrys. in Rom. 13.1.
• † 1.1465

  Jubemus igitur beatissimos Episco∣pos & Patriarchas hoc est senioris Romae, & Constantinopoleos, & Alexandriae, & Theopoleos & Hierosolymorum. Justinian. Novel. 123. cap. 3. P. Greg. M. Ep. 2.62. Supra in praef. § 4. Tract. 5. § 14.
• * 1.1466

  Vid. § 5. Dist. 63. c. 4. P. Nic. I. Ep. Ann. 482. § 1.
• * 1.1467

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. 5.8.
• * 1.1468

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Euseb. 7.30.
• * 1.1469

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Ibid.
• * 1.1470

  Vt scires tu, & Collegae nostri quibus scribere, & literas mutuò à quibus vos accipere oporteret— Cypr. Ep. 55. (ad Cornel.)
• * 1.1471

  Vid. P. Greg. Tract. de V∣nit. Eccl.
• * 1.1472

  Cum locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae Sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrûm consen∣sione firmato— Cypr. Ep. 52.

  —& Co-episcoporum testimonio, quo∣rum numerus universus per totum mun∣dum concordi unanimitate consensit. Ibid.
• * 1.1473

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. (p. 404.)
• * 1.1474

  Vid. Bern.
• * 1.1475

  P. Innoc. III. in Greg. decr. li. 1. tit. 7. c. 1.—&c.
• * 1.1476

  Quid super Episcoporum translationi∣bus loquar, quae apud vos non auctoritate Apostolicâ, sed nutu Regis praesumuntur? P. Pasch. II. Ep. 6. Praeter authoritatem nostram Episcoporum translationes praesumitis— Eadm. p. 115.
• * 1.1477

  Caeterùm ex communi Concilii appro∣batione statuimus, ut omnes omnino Cle∣rici, tam subditi quàm praelati, vigesi∣mam Ecclestarum proventuum usque ad triennium conferant in subsidium terrae sanctae, per manus eorum, qui ad hoc A∣postolicâ fuerint providentiâ ordinati. —sciántque se omnes ad hoc fideliter ob∣servandum per excommunicationis sen∣tentiam obligatos. Lugdun. Concil. 1. (Anno 1245)
• * 1.1478

  Vt ditentur Oblationibus Matronarum. Marcell. 27. Vid. Const. Apost. 2.25. Nam qui constituerunt vel fundârunt sanctissimas Ecclesias pro sua salute & communis Reipublicae, reliquerunt illis substantias, ut per eas debeant sacrae liturgiae fieri, & ut in illis à ministrantibus piis Clericis Deus colatur. Cod. Lib. 1. Tit. 3. § 42.
• * 1.1479

  Rom. 13.7.
• * 1.1480

  Joh. 19.11. Rom. 13.1—
• * 1.1481

  Dan. 5.21. Psal. 75.7.
• * 1.1482

  Jer. 7.12. Jer. 7.14. Apoc. 2.5.
• * 1.1483

  1 Sam. 2.30. 1 King. 2.27.
• * 1.1484

  Propria pordit, qui indebita concu∣piscit. P. Leo I. Ep. 54.
• * 1.1485

  Superbum nimis est & immoderatum ultra fines proprios tendere, & antiquita∣te calcatâ alienum jus velle praeripere; utque unius crescat dignitas, tot Metropo∣litanorum impugnare primatus — P. Leo I. Ep. 55.
• * 1.1486

  Privilegia enim Ecclesiarum, sancto∣rum Patrum Canonibus instituta, & ve∣nerabilis Nicenae Synodi fixa Decretis, nullâ possunt improbitate convelli, nullâ novitate mutari. Ibid.
• * 1.1487

  Absit hoc à me, ut Statuta Majorum Con-sacerdotibus meis in qualibet Ecclesiâ infringam, quia mihi injuriam facio, si fratrum meorum jura perturbo. Greg. I. Epist. 2.37.
• * 1.1488

  Pontifices ipsi à Petri vestigiis discesse∣rant. Plat. in Joh. 10. (p. 275.)
• * 1.1489

  Non Sanctorum Filii sunt, qui tenent l••ca Sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum— Hieron. ad Heliod. apud Grat. Dist. 40. cap. 2.
• * 1.1490

  Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Pe∣tri fidem non habent, quam impiâ divi∣sione discerpunt. Ambr. de Poen. 1.6.
• * 1.1491

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Greg. Naz. Or. 21.
• * 1.1492

  Non facit Ecclesiastica dignitas Chri∣stianum. Hier.

  Ecclesiastical dignity makes not a Christian.

  Non omnes Episcopi Episcopi sunt. Id.

  All Bishops are not Bishops.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. Const. Ap. 8.2.

  They with them are scouts or spies, not Overseers or Bishops.
• * 1.1493

  Luk. 6.39. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;
• * 1.1494

  Matt. 15.14.
• * 1.1495

  Ezek. 3.18.
• * 1.1496

  Matt. 15.9.
• * 1.1497

  Bell. de P. R. 2.30. (p. 1083.)
• * 1.1498

  Matt. 23.2. Matt. 15.6.
• * 1.1499

  Matt. 16.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vers. 12.

  Beware and take heed of the leaven— of the doctrine.
• * 1.1500

  Matt. 15.14.
• * 1.1501

  Matt. 7.15.
• * 1.1502

  Matt. 24.4. Gal. 1.8, 9.
• * 1.1503

  2 Cor. 1.24.
• * 1.1504

  2 Cor. 13.7, 8.
• * 1.1505

  Nec aliquid contra veritatem, sed pro veritate, plus suis Con-sacerdotibus potest. Fac. Hermian. 2.6.

  Gal. 2.11, 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1506

  1 Tim. 6.3, 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1507

  2 Thess. 3.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—

  Rom. 16.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1508

  Tit. 3.10. Act. 20.29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1509

  Act. 20▪ 30.
• * 1.1510

  Plebs obsequens praecepti•• Dominicis & Deum metuens à peccatore praeposito sepa∣rare se debet. Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.1511

  Nec sibi plebs blandiatur, quasi immu∣nis esse à contagio delicti possit cum Sacer∣dote peccatore communicans. Ibid.
• * 1.1512

  Quomodo enim possunt integritati & continentiae praeesse, si ex ipsis incipiant corruptelae & vitiorum magisteria proce∣dere? Cyp. Ep. 62.
• * 1.1513

  Qui mandatum Dei rejiciunt, & tra∣ditionem suam statuere conantur, fortiter à vobis & firmiter respuantur. Cypr. Ep. 40. (p. 73.)
• * 1.1514

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Gal. 1.9.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. 1.8.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.1515

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in 2 Tim. Orat. 2.

  Ecclesiastici Judices ut homines ple∣runque falluntur — Aug. c. Cresc. 2.21.

  Quia nec Catholicis Episcopis consenti∣endum est, sicubi fortè falluntur, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 con∣tra Canonicas Dei Scriptur••s aliquid sen∣tiant. August. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 10.
• * 1.1516

  Si qua est Ecclesia, quae fidem resp••••at, nec Apostolicae praedicationis fundamenta possideat, nè quam l••bem perfidia possit asperg••re deserenda est. Ambr. in Luc. 9. (p. 85.)
• * 1.1517

  Quod non solùm Praesuli Apostolico fa∣cere licet, sed cuicunque Pontifici, ut quoslibet & quemlibe•• locum, secundum regulam haereseos ipsius ante damnatae, à Catholica communione discernant. P. Ge∣las. I. Ep. 4.

  Fides universalis est, omnium commu∣nis est, non solùm ad Clericos, verùm etiam ad Laicos, & ad omnes omni•••• pertinet Christianos. P. Nich. I. Ep. 8. p. 506.

  Oves ergò quae pastori suo commissae fue∣rint, ••um nec reprebendere, nisi à recta fide exorbitaverit, debent— P. Joh. I. Ep. 1. (apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 812.)
• * 1.1518

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Conc. Eph. part. I. p. 220.
• * 1.1519

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cha∣ris. in Conc. Eph. Act. 6. p. 358.
• * 1.1520

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ce∣l••st. I. in Conc. Eph. p. 190.
• * 1.1521

  Quis scindit Ecclesiam? nos quorum omnis domus in Bethlehem in Ecclesia communicat; an tu qui aut benè credis, & superbè de fide taces, aut malè & verè scindis Ecclesiam?— An tu solus Ecclesia es; & qui to offenderit à Christo excluditur? Hier. Ep. 61. cap. 16. Ep. 62.
• * 1.1522

  Malchion di∣sertissimus Antiochenae Ecclesiae Pres∣byter, adversus Paulum Samosatenum, qui Antiochenae Ecclesiae Episcopus dogma Artemonis instaurârat disputa∣vit. Hieron. in Catal.
• * 1.1523

  Quòd si à fide exorbitaverit Rector, tunc arguendus erit à subditis. Isid. Hisp. de Offic. 3.39. Vid. Thomam Aq. in 4. Dist. 19. Art. 2.
• * 1.1524

  Quia cunctos ipse judicatu∣rus à nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur à fide devius. Gra. dist. 40. cap. 6. Vid. P. Innoc. III. apud Laun. contra Baron.—
• * 1.1525

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Syn. VIII. Act. 7. p. 963.
• * 1.1526

  Matt. 4.10. Apoc. 19.10.22.9. Col. 2.18. Rom. 1.25.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. apud Sozom. 6.16.
• * 1.1527

  Similiter & Sanctos una cum Christo regnantes ve∣nerandos at∣que invocandos esse.— atque horum reliquias esse venerandas. Pii IV. Profess. fid. Bonum atque utile esse eos in∣vocare— Sanctorum quoque corpora— à fidelibus veneranda esse. Conc. Trid.
• * 1.1528

  1 Cor. 4.5. Rom. 14.4.
• * 1.1529

  Exod. 20.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—
• * 1.1530

  1 Joh. 5.21. 1 Cor. 10.14, 7.
• * 1.1531

  Clem. Alex. Tertull.
• * 1.1532

  Imagines porrò— Sanctorum in Tem∣plis praesertim habendas, & retinendas, císque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam— ità ut per Imagines, quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, Christum ad∣oremus, & Sanctos quorum illae similitu∣dinem gerunt, veneremur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25.
• * 1.1533

  Siquis autem his decretis con••raria do∣cuerit, aut senserit, anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25.
• * 1.1534

  Ezek. 18. Luk. 15. Rom. 10.9. Mark 1.15.
• * 1.1535

  Si quis dixe∣rit in Sacra∣mento poeni∣tentiae ad re∣missionem pec∣catorum necessarium non esse jure divino confiteri omnia & singula peccata mortalia, quorum memoria cum de∣bita & diligenti praemeditatione habeatur— anathema sit. Sess. 14. de Poen. Can. 7.

  If any one shall say, that in the Sacrament of Penance, it is not necessary by divine right to confess all and singular mortal sins, the remembrance whereof may be had by due and diligent premeditation— let him be anathema.
• * 1.1536

  Si quis nega∣verit ad inte∣gram & per∣fectam peccatorum remissionem requiri—contritionem, confessionem & satisfactionem. Sess. 14. Can. 4.

  If any shall deny that contrition, confession and satisfaction, is required to the entire and perfect remission of sin.
• * 1.1537

  Et qui Hiero∣solymam pro∣ficiscuntur, & ad Christia∣nam gentem defendendam, & tyranni∣dem infideli∣um debellandum efficaciter. auxilium praebuerint, quorum peccatorum remissionem concedimus— Conc. Lat. 1. Can. 11.

  And whoever go to Jerusalem and powerfully afford help to defend Christian people, and to subdue the ty∣ranny of Infidels, to them we grant forgiveness of their sins—
• * 1.1538

  Rom. 13.1. — Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Chrys. Si omnis & vestra— si quis tentat excipere, conatur decipere. Bern. Ep. 42.
• * 1.1539

  Lex Canonica simpliciter eos eximit. Bell. de Cler. cap. 1. Sanè quia La∣ici quidam Ecclesiastica•• personas & ip∣sos etiam E∣piscopos suo judicio stare compellunt, eos qui de caetero id praesumpserint, à communione fidelium decernimus se∣gregandos. Conc. Lat. III. Can. 14. Con. Lat. II. Can. 15. Steph. VI. Ep. 1. (Tom. 1. p. 130.) Nichol. 1. Ep. 8. (Tom. 6. p. 513.)
• * 1.1540

  Tertull. Opt. Cyrill. &c. alibi. Greg. Ep. 2.62. Agatho, &c.
• * 1.1541

  2 Thess. 2.4.
• * 1.1542

  Christus beato aeternae vitae Clavigero ter∣reni simul & coelestis Impe∣rii jura com∣misit. P. Nich. II. apud Grat. dist. 22. cap. 1. Greg. VII. Ep. 8.21. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 3.
• * 1.1543

  Seculi potesta∣tes si fideles sunt, Deus Ec∣clesiae Sacerdo∣tibus voluit esse subjectas— Imperatores Christiani subdere debent executiones suas Ecclesiasticis praesulibus, non praeferre. P. Joh. VIII. apud Grat. dist. 96. cap. 11.
• * 1.1544

  Nos sanctorum Praedecesso∣rum nostro∣rum Statuta tenentes, eos qui excommu∣nicatis Fideli∣tate aut Sa∣cramento constricti sunt, Apostolicâ auctoritate à Sacramento absolvimus; & nè eis Fidelitatem observent omni∣bus modis prohibemus, quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. Greg. VII. in Syn. Rom. Grat. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 4.
• * 1.1545

  Fidelitatem enim quam Christiano Principi ju∣rârunt, Deo ejúsque Sanctis adversanti, eorum praecepta calcanti, nullà cohibentur auctoritate persolvere— P. Urb. II. apud Grat. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 5.
• * 1.1546

  Ezek. 13.3, &c.
• * 1.1547

  S••quis autem libros ipsos in∣tegros cum suis partibus, prout in Ec∣clesia Catholi∣ca legi consue∣verunt, & in veteri vulgata Latina Editi∣one habentur, pro Sacris & Canonicis non susceperit— anathema sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 4.

  But if any shall not receive for Sacred and Canonical, those whole Books with the parts of them, according as they have been wont to be read in the Catholick Church, and are had in the old vulgar Latin Edition; let him be Anathema.
• * 1.1548

  —nec non traditiones ipsas—con∣tinuâ succes∣sione in Eccle∣sia Catholica conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit, & veneratur. Syn. Trid. Sess. 4.
• * 1.1549

  Caeremonias item adhibuit, ut mysticas be∣nedictiones, lumina, thy∣miamata, vestes, aliáque id genus multaex Apostolica disciplina & traditione—Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 5.11. de sacrif. Miss.
• * 1.1550

  2 Tim. 3.15.—Rom. 15.4. 1 Cor. 9.10.10.11. 2 Pet. 1.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Joh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. Psal. 119.— Hier. ad Laet. Epitaph. Paul. Vit. Hi∣lar.— Chrys. in Colos. Or. 9. Aug. Serm. 55. de temp.
• * 1.1551

  N. P. Pius IV. did authorize certain rules for prohibition and permission of books; in which it is permitted to Bi∣shops to grant a faculty of reading the Scriptures translated—but to this rule there is added an observation, that this power was taken from Bishops by command of the Roman Vniversal Inquisition. Ind. Lib. prohib. à Clem. VIII.
• * 1.1552

  2 Tim. 3.17.
• * 1.1553

  1 Cor. 14.14.—Ex hac Pauli doctri∣na habetur, quòd melius est ad Ecclesiae aedificationem orationes publicas, quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici linguâ communi Clericis & populo, quàm dici Latiné. Cajet. in 1 Cor. 14.
• * 1.1554

  —aut linguâ tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere— anathema sit.

  Sess. 22. Can. 9.
• * 1.1555

  A quo tanquam Capite omnis in subjec∣ta membra potest••s & authoritas derive∣tur. P. Pius II. in Bull. Retract.
• * 1.1556

  Definimus Romanum Pontificem — verum Christi Vicarium, totiúsqùe Eccle∣siae caput— Defin. Syn. Flor.
• * 1.1557

  Matt. 19.11.
• * 1.1558

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;— 1 Cor. 9.5.
• * 1.1559

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Tim. 4.3.
• * 1.1560

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Cor. 7.35.
• * 1.1561

  Vid. Tom. 7. Conc. p. 465. Syn. Trid. Sess. 24. de matr. Can. 9.
• * 1.1562

  Matt. 5.32.19.7. 1 Cor. 7.10.
• * 1.1563

  Contracta quoque matrimonia ab hu∣jusmodi personis disjungi— Conc. Lat. I. cap. 21. Lat. II.

  Trid. Sess. 24. Can. 9.—
• * 1.1564

  Si quis dixerit matrimonium ratum, non consummatum, per solennem religio∣nis professionem alterius conjugum non di∣rimi, anathema sit. Sess. 24. Can. 6.
• * 1.1565

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Matt. 26.27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Joh. 6.53.
• * 1.1566

  Non obstante. Conc. Const. Sess. 13.

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 8. & Can. 3. Sess. 21. cap. 4. & Can. 3.
• † 1.1567

  This P. Leo I. condemneth. De Quadr. Serm. 4. (p. 38.) Sanguinem re∣demptionis nostrae haurire declinant.— P. Gelasius calleth the division of the Sa∣crament a grand Sacrilege. Gratian. in De Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 12.
• * 1.1568

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 3. Sess. 13. Can. 3.
• * 1.1569

  Joh. 6.54.
• * 1.1570

  Si quis dixerit tantum in usu, &c.

  Trid. Conc. Sess. 13. cap. 8. & Can. 4. —
• * 1.1571

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 11.26.
• * 1.1572

  Theod. Gelas.—
• * 1.1573

  Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucha∣ristiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis & vini— anathema sit. Trid. Conc. de Euch. Sess. 13. Can. 2.
• * 1.1574

  Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus sacer∣dos solus sacramentaliter communicat, il∣licitas esse, anathema sit.

  Sess. 22. de sacr. Miss. Can. 8. Sess. 13. Can. 8.
• * 1.1575

  2 Cor. 5.6.— Act. 2.33. Col. 3.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heb. 10.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.— Act. 3.21.
• * 1.1576

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heb. 2.17.
• * 1.1577

  Heb. 9.26.10.10, 12, 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1578

  Eph. 2.8, 9. Tit. 3.5. Rom. 3.24. Luk. 17.10.
• * 1.1579

  Sess. 6. de Ju∣stif. Can. 32.
• * 1.1580

  Orbis terra∣••um Apostata∣vit, & sola re∣mansit Donati Communio. Aug. de Vnit. 12.— 1 Joh. 4.1. Jer. 29.8.—
• * 1.1581

  Luk. 11.13. Jam. 1.5. 1 Joh. 2.27. Heb. 8.11. Rom. 8.9. Act. 5.32. Aug. Doctr. Christ. Ep. ad Jen.
• * 1.1582

  Si Sacramenta essent pauciora, magna impietas fuisset, & superstitio, &c. Bell. de Sacr. 2.25. If the Sacraments were fewer there would have been great im∣piety and superstition, &c.
• * 1.1583

  Profiteor quoque septem esse propriè & verè Sacramenta. Bulla Pii IV.

  Si quis dixerit— esse plura vel pau∣ciora quàm septem— anathema sit. Syn. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1.
• * 1.1584

  Haec verò nostra & continent gratiam, & ipsam dignè suscipientibus conferunt. P. Eug. in Instr. Arm.

  Si quis dixerit per ipsa novae legis Sa∣cramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam— anathema sit. Ibid. Can. 8.
• * 1.1585

  Si quis dixerit matrimonium non esse verè ac propriè unum ex septem legis Evangelicae Sacramentis, à Christo Do∣mino institutum— neque gratiam con∣ferre, anathema sit. Sess. 24. Can. 1.
• * 1.1586

  Sess. 24. Can. 10.
• * 1.1587

  Si quis dixerit haec septem Sacramenta ità esse inter s•• paria, ut nullâ ration•• aliud sit alio dignius, anathema si••. Sess. 7. Can. 3.
• * 1.1588

  Novae legis septem sunt Sacramenta, &c. P. Eug. in Instr. Arm.

  Bellarmine could find none before him. Vid. de Sacram. 2.25.
• * 1.1589

  Multa di••un∣tur à veteri∣bus Sacramen∣ta praeter ista septem. Bell. de Sacr. 2.24. Many things are by the Ancients called Sacraments besides these seven.
• * 1.1590

  Matt. 23.8. 2 Cor. 1.24. 1 Thess. 5.21. Col. 2.8. Matt. 15.9.
• * 1.1591

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heb. 13.9.
• * 1.1592

  Provisi de be∣neficiis qui∣buscunque cu∣ram anima∣rum habentibus— in Romanae Ecclesiae obedientiam spondeant ac jurent. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. cap. 12. de Ref. —n••c non veram obedientiam summo Pontifici spondeant & profiteantur. Sess. 25. cap. 2. de Ref.
• * 1.1593

  Caetera item omnia à Sacris Canonibus & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipuè à Sacrosancta Tridentina Synod•• tradita, definita, & declarata, indubitanter reci∣pio atque profiteor; simúlque contraria omnia, atque haereses quascunque ab Ec∣clesia damnatas & rejectas & anathema∣tizatas ego pariter damno, respuo & a∣nathematizo. P. Pii IV. profess. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nulla salus esse potest. Ibid.
• * 1.1594

  Rom. 14.1.15.1, 7.
• * 1.1595

  Totam Theologiam à capite usque ad calcem retexuerunt, & ex divina Sophi∣sticam fecerunt. Erasm. praef. ad Hieron.
• * 1.1596

  Formaliter justos. Sess. 6. Can. 10. Ex opere ope∣rato. Sess. 7. Can. 8. Character. Sess. 7. Can. 9.
• * 1.1597

  Sess. 5. Can. 5. Rom. 7.
• * 1.1598

  Cùm manda∣tum Dei in pa∣radiso fuisset transgressus, statim sanctitatem & justitiam in qua constitutus fuerat amisisse. Ibid. Can. 1.
• * 1.1599

  Sess. 6. Can. 11.—
• * 1.1600

  Sess. 6. Can. 11. Aut etiam gratiam qua justificamur esse tantùm favorem Dei. Sess. 6. Can. 12.
• * 1.1601

  Sess. 6. Can. 24. Non autem ip∣sius augendae causam. — Vt nullus re∣maneat reatus poenae tempo∣ralis exolven∣dae— Sess. 6. Can. 30. Sess. 14. de poenit. Can. 15.
• * 1.1602

  Sess. 6. Can. 32.
• * 1.1603

  De Sacramen∣tis.

  Si quis dixe∣rit— esse plura vel pauciora quàm septem. Sess. 7. Can. 1.
• * 1.1604

  Sess. 7. Can. 3.
• * 1.1605

  Sess. 7. Can. 8. Non imprimi characterem in anima. Sess. 7. Can. 9. Hoc est signum quoddam spi∣rituale, & in∣delebile. Ibid. Sess. 7. Can. 11.
• * 1.1606

  Sess. 7. Can. 13.
• * 1.1607

  Sess. 4.
• * 1.1608

  Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus Vt quisque linguâ nequior. Solvunt ligàntque quaestionum vinculà Per Syllogismos plectiles. — Prudent. in Apotheos.